-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Visual Downgrade In Next-Gen Tech Demos Going From PC To Consoles?
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
Yeah I just got the memo. Sounds good.
cobragt4001
Banned
Yep, with expensive games and play services, console players will be paying more than they realize. I bought BF4 on gmg for 37 bucks
Viewed at it's native resolution of 1080p, it still looks awesome even blown up. Obviously looks much better in motion what with all the smoke, reflections, lighting and post processing. Bare in mind these will have been down sampled, but are from a pre-alpha build.
My point is not that Killzone is the bee's knee's and nothing will top it. My point is simply that despite so many of the PC enthusiasts knocking the next gen console hardware, even at launch we are seeing stuff that we've not seen in games yet (crazy draw distances and detail in massive city scapes, huge draw distances with more stuff going on in the background in racing game tracks, real time dynamic global illumination in a racing game etc) partly due to the hardware. And these are launch games, what will be the very worst of what the consoles have to offer. So far based on launch, the future outlook looks very good indeed.
You can get a 760 for 250
And? Also you were talking about 670.
Out of all three next-gen competitors, the PS4 is aggressively priced. I agree on PS+ thought, that is a premium service just like XBL gold.
cobragt4001
Banned
I can't wait for DICE to release 2143, that would be a better comparsion to SF than BF4 on pc or C3 on pc lol
Dictator93
Member
You conveniently ignored my post on the previous page direct at you...
Convenient.
Also.. it is disinenguous to use Bullshots or downsampled bullshots to prove some point about how some game will look and run on hardware. Otherwise... nextgen bullshots really do not look better than Gears of War III bullshots.
You do realize that these are bullshots, right?
Rendered at 4k with max AA, then downsampled to 1080p.
Rendering at 1080p with todays deferred AA doesn't yield close to those results.
Raitosaito
Member
Thuway lives his tag
cobragt4001
Banned
Only reason I mentioned the 760 is it's close to a 670 in raw performance. When I got my second 670 I paid 330 thanks to a newegg sale and a mir and I got a free game
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Sounds like you might blow a load, alexandros. A lot of the games shown weren't running on PCs with console specs, either.
SneakyStephan
Banned
You mean ps4 buyers justifying their preorders, right? Trying to appease themselves by pretending they are high end machines, trying to justify paying 60 euros for a game and rationalising paying 50 euros a year to play online.
(all things I cannot justify or rationalise, as console owner since the 1980s)
I don't have to jusfify spending 60 euros on an am2+ motherboard and 100 on a 3core phenom II 4 years ago, nor on spending 150 on a hd6870 in 2011 and refusing to upgrade my gpu until nvidia and amd offer a significant upgrade at an appropriate price/performance again (so probably the 9xxx series or the 8xx nvidia series in 5 months to a year)
Anyhow I'm bailing from this thread, few of the recurring trolls probably about to get banned and I don't want to get caught in the crossfire by engaging any of them.
I agree with you. Crysis 3 maxed out running at 30fps looks better than KZ SF and Infamous SS running at 30 fps and every other game that will ever be put on next gen console. A few of us were just mistaken after seeing gameplay demonstration at e3 in person that it looked more next gen than crysis 3. Very convenient right?
Ok yea I get what you were saying now after your edit. Fair enough. But still, bringing out those pictures in a discussion about "who's got the best graphics" is a bit like bringing guns to a knife fight. Keep the downsampled bullshots out, and we can all play nice.
Dictator93
Member
Wow that literally has nothing to do with what I said. And your sarcasm with every post is edging on being purposefully insulting for no reason.
My quote:
Am I talking about it being better than C3? Am i talking about it not being next gen looking? Did I say that no matter what C3 looks better?
What the hell are you going on about?
Only reason I mentioned the 760 is it's close to a 670 in raw performance. When I got my second 670 I paid 330 thanks to a newegg sale and a mir and I got a free game
70 bucks more and you have a PS4
This discussion has long since had any reasoning going on in it. No the PS4 doesn't magically bend the rules of nature. Yes the console exclusive devs usually put out artistically better games than you see on PC due to closed box limitations and sturdy assistance from the console developer and the other devs under its umbrella.
Metalmurphy
Member
That one is pretty easy to rationalize.
http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PlayStation-Plus-Year-One-Free-Games.png
http://i.imgur.com/9L97fKm.jpg
Also, I have never paid 60 euros for a PS3 game. Ever. Max I ever paid was 40.
Did you conveniently forget my initial post on this thread
It was only at the laughable assertion that any of these launch games looked much worse than Crysis 3 that I had to but in and ridicule. Now what the hell are you on about. It is obvious gifs give a good enough indication but are not completely representative which is why I did not bother to respond with a similar comment as yours to your Crysis 3 gifs.
Ok yea I get what you were saying now after your edit. Fair enough. But still, bringing out those pictures in a discussion about "who's got the best graphics" is a bit like bringing guns to a knife fight. Keep the downsampled bullshots out, and we can all play nice.
The eventual screenshots that people take of Killzone SF will be better than the stuff Guerrilla has put out. You can quote me on that. GG suck at releasing screenshots. Same thing with KZ2 and KZ3 as well, irrespective of super sampling etc. Or maybe it's just because the game's always get polished visually before release, and the screens are from older builds, who knows.
Case in point, find me press released shots of Killzone 2/3 that look as good as these?
What horrible reasoning there nib. I think we all know the new KZ will deliver the visual goods, but you are just reaching nutty levels of logic here. Maybe calculate a graph based on Guerrilla PR shots and how the final game will look like and then we can recreate them and get hired by Guerrilla!
And for the love of god, quote your pics.
And for the love of god, quote your pics.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
Supersampling/bullshotting also isn't one of these things that we can just discard, as if it only improves aliasing so can be easily ignored somehow. The problem with supersampled images/bullshots is that it does a lot more than just remove some jaggies - based on our experience with it, it also improves texture quality greatly thanks to more filtering.
Supersampling will make an entire image pop due to more detail being crammed into every pixel. This is why we have the PC bullshot thread, so that people can view images of the same games they've been playing for years and still go "aopkjsaifjsdhf" at them. Not much has changed except the resolution. That's the power of good image quality - it makes old hat look shit hot.
Which part, that GG take bad screens? Or that these consoles will put out really impressive visuals not just at launch, but post launch and beyond?
Hmm... I don't see your argument really. So because people have found nicer angles and vistas in Killzone 2/3 than the devs, the huge increases in IQ found in the Killzone SF shots doesn't matter? Doesn't make sense to me. I think the screenshots of Killzone SF you find showcase some very nice stuff, but when we're talking graphics we are talking things like shading quality, amount of detail and IQ. Cheating in one of those areas doesn't make it a fair comparison.The eventual screenshots that people take of Killzone SF will be better than the stuff Guerrilla has put out. You can quote me on that. GG suck at releasing screenshots. Same thing with KZ2 and KZ3 as well, irrespective of super sampling etc. Or maybe it's just because the game's always get polished visually before release, and the screens are from older builds, who knows.
Case in point, find me press released shots of Killzone 2/3 that look as good as these?
[/IMG]
Dictator93
Member
No i did not conveniently forget that post. I was not even mentioning it. I was not even directing my comment at it. There was no reason for me to... I was merely responding to your tone in the post from which I quoted you in, among other things.
And the reason why I frown upon gifs for comparisons is when they are used for image quality and framerate discussions. Namely.. what my whole deal and discussion in this thread has been about.
My gifs posted do not make claims about the games in question concerning image quality. They are just to show the particle systems in the game and how they look as a response to how a similar particle showcase from Infamous was shown. Someone said that the infamous particles were un-matched... and then I just posted some stuff which I thought matched it (recorded them myself too).
Obviously infamous is an openworld game and must make trade offs to achieve that design... but is it not safe to say that it is not the OMGWTFBBQ BEST LOOKING GAME in all history fiy ou look at it interms of shading, lod, IQ, framerate, and texture/geometry detail?
velociraptor
Junior Member
I don't think IQ should be a significant issue this generation, especially as all games will likely be 1080p. Slap some AA and you're golden.
That wasn't my point. It was that irrespective of the down sampled IQ, many actual direct captures of the game will still end up looking better because the scene or shot overall looks more impressive than anything GG have put out, because the IQ is still clean enough in the real thing despite not being super sampled.
GG takes bad screens = some sort of valid reasoning for projecting to future games and their graphics. Full stop nutty logic.
And gamers always 1up developers if both are using legit screens.
But thats not how it works for me. If you show me a much "better" screenshot later on with much lower IQ (which will be the case) I will say:
"Oh thats a nicer view, but the IQ is way lower". I wont say "Screw the IQ, that vista is just so nice".
velociraptor
Junior Member
I suspect he is suggesting that you don't need to have supersampled 4k resolutions to achieve a game which produces good image quality.
Lion Heart
Banned
That looks absolutely sick, not only in terms of graphics but the design/architecture of the city and the whole Berlin wall thing, its really intriguing.
Yep, with expensive games and play services, console players will be paying more than they realize. I bought BF4 on gmg for 37 bucks
Good for you, I bought BF4 on PS4 for 39 too, as well as Watch Dogs KZ, The Order, Infamous etc.
What the hell are you talking about? That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The subject about screens is a completely unrelated one and nothing to do with predicting future visuals of future games.
It was in response to him saying the screens I posted of Killzone SF are not indicative of what the game will look like because they are super sampled. To which my response is true, the game will never be that clean, but will probably look better in the actual screens people eventually take because of other reasons.
There's no failed logic in that. That is what is most likely to end up happening.
Correct. But how about when in a thread when we are discussing graphics quality, let's not use screenshots which have obviously cheated and does not represent the final product? It doesn't matter what kinds of cool locations and explosions you will find later in the game, it won't have that IQ and thus won't look that good, from a pure graphical standpoint. From an artistic standpoint, yes, but we aren't talking about that.
We said the same thing going into this gen with 720p. As scenes get more geometrically complex, the need to increase resolution and AA will need to go up as well. It's why something like the God of War Collection or any hd collection running at just 720p looks super clean with no aliasing, while Uncharted 3 running at the same resolution is a jaggy mess.
There's no logic in that. Just assumptions and hopes.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I don't know about that. I played Crysis 3 only at 1080p and it looked like the best thing since sliced bread. I only used 2xSMAA too.
For 1080p sets, 1080p is more than adequate.
This isn't like this generation where the gulf between bullshots and ingame was huge. That gap has closed now. Those KZSF bullshots you have there? The actual game pretty much looks like that.
Like I said, quote me on it. It is a logical assumption and one that is historically accurate with respect to GG. Remember, the key selling point of the screens I posted is not the AA IQ, it is the draw distance, amount of geometry, overall detail, lighting etc. If people take screens of those same scenes upon launch, only with improved visuals (no longer pre-alpha), with better textures and at better angles etc, they will look better irrespective of not being super sampled. Chances are the AA solution they use in the final game will still be a very good one, and being 1080p further improves that. Already based on the gameplay video's we've seen, it is a very clean looking game.
Yeah this kind of scenario is a possible one. Just not something I would ever base arguments or reasoning on. It just produces messy discussion.
No it doesn't. I claim the exact opposite actually. Now when textures are more detailed, there are more details in the background, and the characters have more detailed models; the IQ matters more than ever. Grainy AA and low IQ didn't matter in Halo 1 because there wasn't much there to smudge up or grain up. But for me, playing Crysis 3 with just 2xSMAA and 1080p become a sparkling (cause of aliasing) mess of tiny details popping around.
Well yes, many console games will look better than current PC games, I would be concerned if graphics stopped advancing =P
However if these console games are ported over to the PC, it will look better there regardless of the optimization for consoles. DX11 has only been underutilized because lower end PCs and current Gen consoles have held things back. Now that we'll have newer architecture in both consoles, support will improve tremendously and that will benefit the PC just as much. Actually I'd say that support has already improved the last couple years in preparation for the coming generation.
This is similar to what we saw with multi-core CPUs this Gen. Dual core CPUs were available when the 360 launched, but it took the launch of a new multi-core generation to push support because it became a necessity to get the desired performance. This benefitted the PC side as well.
Then don't base it on it. Base it on the gameplay we've already seen. Remember I only posted those screens to show how it looks in 1080p compared to 3040p or whatever it was. Textures and geometry look much worse super magnified for obvious reasons. It wasn't my way of showing off how good the game accurately looks. I actually think the screens do the actual (gameplay) visuals a disservice. Even if they are down sampled.
For that you can just watch the 1080p gameplay vids which will be a much better indicator, though still not perfect due to all the compression which in itself brings a loss of detail. But I believe Blim has some pretty high bit rate vids of the original reveal trailer which would help to rectify that somewhat.
TBF just the native res for next-gen console games is a huge fucking boom. Console gamers are used to playing in muddy IQ and horrible performance. A mere 1080p 30fps experience will blow their pants off.
I try my hardest not to
Yea it might start looking fairly close to whats been advertised as final ingame quality for 8 years
Having seen Infamous footage at e3 it is one of the cleanest games out there. There is no issue with the IQ. No one here is saying OMFG it is the greatest thing ever!! I just said it looks better than Crysis 3 and decidedly feels next gen. It will prob look poor in a couple of years down the line when compared to other PC games that will going forward take advantage of the console spec jump to raise the bar on pc after having been constrained till now by current gen consoles.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Looks fine to me.
Of course when you nitpick and scrutinise individual screenshots you may find it isn't what you perceive to be picture perfect, but when playing in motion, I had absolutely no problems.
Yea it might start looking fairly close to whats been advertised as final ingame quality for 8 years
Exactly. I'm ecstatic about some devs actually using performance as a selling point too. Never in my wild dreams did I see that coming after this gen of sub 30fps games...
I have a gaming PC but tbh isn't it a bit boring to spend all that money just to play console games at high res?mdont you want something that'll take real advantage of the power of your GPUs to do new things?
Personally I'm looking forward to some of the new techniques that will come from having much more power available on consoles. They will also be available for PC of course. A rising tide lifts all boats etc.
Personally I'm looking forward to some of the new techniques that will come from having much more power available on consoles. They will also be available for PC of course. A rising tide lifts all boats etc.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Crysis 3 4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUd9o81rdUA
You need 3 Titans to run it at this resolution at 30fps.
Yeah, I think I'll take 1080p 50-60fps at 2xSMAA instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUd9o81rdUA
You need 3 Titans to run it at this resolution at 30fps.
Yeah, I think I'll take 1080p 50-60fps at 2xSMAA instead.