I haven't played the first one but if it looked very good on my 13" laptop screen via a compressed YouTube video then sure as hell it woulda looked gorgeous on my 77" OLED CX. So DS2 looking even better means the game will have gorgeous graphics, and remember Kojima said we aint seen nothing yet the guy is going batshit crazy with graphics on this game. Honestly the trailer looked fire I have no idea how people were not impressed by it especially with all the mediocre looking games we have been getting lately.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Graphical Fidelity I Expect This Gen
- Thread starter ResetEraVetVIP
- Start date
Lethal01
Member
Again it's really not, nothing is really being said here, It's really nothing more than how every video game ever put "amazing visual" on the box. Jeff Keighley said Star wars graphics are "impressive"
Again, nothing is really being said here, "it's like trying to start a discussion because the developer said they Updated their engine from the version they used 5 years again there aren't really saying anything about it. "Improved lighting", "improved models" "improved textures" is the vaguest thing you can say.
Oh I respect wanting to do that, I'm just saying don't be surprised when you have to ask people to engage with your post that doesn't actually have even a smidge of worthwile info to discuss.
Honestly though, good effort. keep it up
TheRedRiders
Member
I didn't really ask anyone if you read properly, but then again I was already questioning your reading comprehension based off your initial reply.
There's plenty of low quality discussions which have taken place on this thread which don't "actually have even a smidge of worthwile info to discuss", and plenty more on other threads, perhaps busy yourself with those.
Regardless we're derailing this thread with this pointless argument, so I won't reply again.
Lethal01
Member
Yep, doesn't mean we gotta attempt to discuss everytime a dev says something as vague as "we improved our game, it's looking really good"
Outside the sections I mentioned it looked mostly the same to my eyes. DS1 looking better than most cross-gen games is still a sad sad fact. Kojima says alot of things and Fanning gushing over the quality of a project she has worked on or the new tech involved is par for the course with actors.
Last edited:
Lumpyoatmeal
Member
That gif was made by this freak right here, this m’fer sees everything.
People under this tweet are saying this is fake but it isn’t it’s just the caption is misleading:
Here is the full video for context:
As he mentioned, this is how the metaverse should look like in the future if the big corps actually put in the work for it. And this is what I believe graphics will look like maybe in a decade or so.
Here is the full video for context:
As he mentioned, this is how the metaverse should look like in the future if the big corps actually put in the work for it. And this is what I believe graphics will look like maybe in a decade or so.
Last edited:
It's funny how launch PS5 titles remain the best looking PS5 titles so far eg Ratchet and Clank, Demon Souls. All other games look like PS4 ports.Two years from now:
P.S I was called chicken little on this forum and told im always overreacting after every underwhelming Sony and MS conference. I called this two years ago when I looked at the fact that all the Sony and MS games were cross gen and there was nothing on the horizon. Well, here we are in 2023 and our next gen only games look worse than last gen games.
Not impressed personally. Looks like a PS4.5 game.I think this game looks so fucking good, I am not even joking.
I took around 100 screenshots when playing this. The game is a looker. Maybe more artistically so, rather than technically but assets and volumetric surely do not feel last gen.
And looks so much better with HDR on a tv.
my ps5 shots
aries_71
Junior Member
I noticed exactly the same with Guardians. That title is capable of doing 1440p/60fps on my PC with a Nvidia 2060Super, with raytracing effects. PS5/XSX were supposed to be at 2070/80 level, though Guardians has to drop to 1080p with fewer effects. What gives? Performance wise this generation is a letdown.
Last edited:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
My biggest gripe with Forspoken on ps5 is the image quality and blurry foliage. PC looks much cleaner
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Still hoping some guys with tech knowledge can give insight into why these consoles have struggled so much to hit 2070/2080 levels of performance in so many cross gen and last gen games that have received upgrades .
Take any game with a ps5 upgrade, PC's with 2070/2070 ( even sometimes 2060's) ran those games with much better settings two years ago when those cards were new on the scene ...
Is it CPU/memory bandwidth related?
Schmendrick
Member
PS4.5 is already too generous imho. The lightning is atrocious.
AO seems nonexistent in many cases, shadow rendering distance is laughable, the bright areas are basically just bloom at 500%, indirect lightning is just permaglow-everything.....
We've had lots of ps4 games doing this much better. Side by side with something like RDR2 this game looks older, not newer....
Last edited:
This. I swear some people have Cross-Gen Stolkholm Syndrome.
H . R . 2
Member
it's hilarious that most 'next-gen' titles are not even able to hold a candle to most games last-gen
makes one wonder why !?
most 3rd party games last-gen were at times, as beautiful if not better, than most 1st party games
for example, take FF15, AC:U or the Division or any other good-looking game last-gen, stellar visuals but their successors don't even look half as good? why??
were there financial constraints? No!
were later titles in any way more complex? NO!
did they migrate to a different engine? No!
did the entire engine department quit at the same time? I don't think so
the tech was already there, but as soon as the current-gen started,
we saw a huge decline in graphics and innovation [physics, animations, destruction (GOD BF what became of you?)], particularly among these 3rd party titles.
as if they were relieved that now that they had more power available to them, they no longer had to try so hard
I used to defend them because COVID and scalpers did postpone the current gen
but after 3 years, there's no excuse for a current-gen only title to look worse than its predecessor, if not next-gen
so like Slimy, I personally cannot narrow the reasons down to anything but
- complacency
- Companies' insistence on using terrible outdated/ underdeveloped engines
- forced release dates and rushed developments
- uneven allocation of resources to meet the expectations of too many people
- forced parity across all platforms
- Companies' lower standards and wrong policies [in favour of cash grabs]
- addiction to F2Ps: lower graphics, terrible music, 60fps needed for competitive gameplay, horrendous updates, etc. things that gamers/ devs are imposing on single-player games too
- studio's attitude of 'release first, fix later',
- Cross-gen development, gamepasses, and GaaS titles
- Some gamers' unrealistic expectations, as a result of the mindset of " my console is a PC and knows no compromises and it should run everything at 60fps/native 4K even without a proper DLSS-like solution regardless of what the game would actually benefit from; devs are scared to not meet gamers' expectations! they are stretched too thin and no longer have the decision-making liberty and the creative freedom that independent devs have because they have become slaves to companies whose policies are determined by sales figures and player surveys. we claim games are art and devs are artists! but we rarely give them the freedom to express themselves however they wish to. it's like telling a conductor to compose and perform at a certain pace and in a style that is to your particular liking
Last edited:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
I read
I think most console gamers don't think our consoles are as good as a high end PC. I think it's that we had years of experience with what ps4/pro/xbox one/x to know what those machines were capable of and now we have a new generation where we know these consoles are at least twice as powerful as the midgen upgrades (plus having a capable CPU for the first time since the launch of 360/ps3 + SSD's) and therefore our expectations are not being met.
Maybe these consoles are powerful compared to ps4 pro/xb1x but at the same time not good enough to keep up with the latest rendering tech. Maybe there's a bottleneck in both consoles? I don't know. This is a strange time for gaming. These consoles are below the minimum specs necessary to run Gotham Knights at 1080p/60. Maybe Sony and MS cheaped out a bit on hardware and just a bit more memory bandwidth wouldve been a game changer?
It's probably a little bit of everything you listed. I do think Publishers have seen the record sales and realized they just don't need to focus on graphics anymore. I think that's the biggest factor here. Games are costing more money to make, inflation I'd hitting everyone's bottom line, and there's this annoying shift to focus on "services". Cross gen and the Series S are a factor too and the consoles needed to be better.
I read through your whole post and I believe the first 9 points you made can be condensed to one: developer/publisher greed. The Last point I'm confused about. Is it our expectations being too high and therefore devs are afraid to put in their best effort or is it publishers limiting their creative freedom?
I think most console gamers don't think our consoles are as good as a high end PC. I think it's that we had years of experience with what ps4/pro/xbox one/x to know what those machines were capable of and now we have a new generation where we know these consoles are at least twice as powerful as the midgen upgrades (plus having a capable CPU for the first time since the launch of 360/ps3 + SSD's) and therefore our expectations are not being met.
Maybe these consoles are powerful compared to ps4 pro/xb1x but at the same time not good enough to keep up with the latest rendering tech. Maybe there's a bottleneck in both consoles? I don't know. This is a strange time for gaming. These consoles are below the minimum specs necessary to run Gotham Knights at 1080p/60. Maybe Sony and MS cheaped out a bit on hardware and just a bit more memory bandwidth wouldve been a game changer?
It's probably a little bit of everything you listed. I do think Publishers have seen the record sales and realized they just don't need to focus on graphics anymore. I think that's the biggest factor here. Games are costing more money to make, inflation I'd hitting everyone's bottom line, and there's this annoying shift to focus on "services". Cross gen and the Series S are a factor too and the consoles needed to be better.
H . R . 2
Member
but the question is, does it actually look next-gen? because so far it has disappointed
Last edited:
MidGenRefresh
Member
I'll tell you in a week. I don't trust these soviet cunts. Must see it with my own 2 eyes running natively on my screen.
GymWolf
Member
So...you are impressed.
It never looked THAT good to me to make me doubt it was real (in term of graphic not if the game was real or not) except for the very first trailer.
MidGenRefresh
Member
It looks better than it has any right to. I'm not sold on the art style, it has this plastic, dream-like vibe to it.
GymWolf
Member
I think the artstyle is what does the heavy lifting tbh.
SlimySnake
The Contrarian
Not to mention PS2 quality animations.....
It's good to see devs use it for gameplay but i dont know why an AAA studio has to completely phone in graphics in order to do that.
MidGenRefresh
Member
I'm not saying no. I would just prefer a darker tone. But I understand why they went with what they went with in the context of the world they're trying to build.
GymWolf
Member
The game should be pretty dark from what i know, they are gonna play hard with the contrast between the introduction with the sun and the funny robots and fucked up shit that happened when the robots rioted.
Man don’t get me started on Animations. It has always been an area of interest for me on par or even more than Graphics being a sports gamer you know.
It is one of my main gripes with videogames, I talked about this on this very thread a while back. Animations just irk me everytime I look at them we are years away from having human-like animations this area in particular is very complicated to get right and the tech isn’t there yet.
leo-j
Member
Part of the reason I expect this gen to be longer than normal (ps3 era length) is because the market leader is the switch (ps3.5/wii u power) and because most games released are ps4 era games up scaled for the hardware ( kinda ps4 pro native versions) . Ratchet and Clank and Demon’s souls are still a tier above everything else this gen tbh.
H . R . 2
Member
I believe Souls-likes are to blame: "why improve the animations when those "PS2" ones seem to have sufficed? "
DS and ER won many awards without anyone uttering a word of criticism about their animations
why is the jank acceptable in such games? by normalising lower quality animations as "an inherent feature" of the game they are holding the industry back
I love From but let's be honest, even my favourite From game, Bloodborne, has awful animations, still much better than those of the DS series
but still not even remotely comparable to what is being done by the rest of the industry
Shadow of the Colossus was released 18 years ago and it still has better animations
[ The Surge was the only exception that I know of ]
ever since I saw this "in-game"
trailer16 years ago I have always wanted a main character with such smooth and life-like animationsI think we are getting there even if not every studio is contributing to the cause
Last edited:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Yeah ...that also supports the theory of why publishers/developers are failing to advance graphics this generation. They see Nintendo's success and are realizing they don't NEED to push graphics like they used to. They will still make money hand over fist!
SlimySnake
The Contrarian
Forspoken is PS3.5 at best. Ive seen PS4 games that look better so by definition it is sub PS4.True. I think God Of War PS4 looks better.
One of the fugliest games ive ever seen. FFXV looks better.
Interactive animation is scraping the limits of technology and manpower at all times. It might seem like such a basic and simple thing to you but nobody is saying 'well this game got away with it so let's not bother trying'
Rdr2 tried to lean into seamless, realistic animations and people still don't shut up about how unresponsive it was. There is no holy grail. The better animations get, the worse the game feels to control - that's a fact. You see someone in real life move and then realize why they're doing it. In a game you have to decide to do it, press the button, then start the process of watching the character respond to that decision in a way that looks human but also makes you feel like you aren't waiting a full second to see the button press play out. The better the animation the more 'input lag'.
too many people called the animation in rdr2 bad. I don't believe most people know what they want, or at least the knock on effects of what they call for.
And your example is prerendered, you might as well share a pixar movie. It's got nothing to do with games.
Last edited:
ProtoByte
Member
I'm looking at Jedi Survivor and not seeing anything next-gen about it.
Textures are passable, but that's it. Particle effects don't look improved at all from the first game. Environments still look static, NPC counts and scale aren't anything the previous game didn't do. Animation is abysmal all around. Animation blending looks non-existent, but the individual movements look jagged and awkward as shit too. Gotham Knights did a better job, and that's saying something.
Nah, TLOU2, Uncharted4/LL and Spider-Man/Miles Morales all prove this to be totally wrong. If anything, high quality animation sells the visuals and improves gameplay if implemented correctly. Rockstar just sucks with gameplay.
Last edited:
It's a balance that's scraping the limits of tech and manpower. Rdr2 swung too far for you - but do you have any idea how complex the systems are in naughty dog games to tell how close you are to objects to make the character react to them? Other devs aren't deciding to not do that out of laziness, it's because they can't gaurantee 20mil sales.
I'll rescind my 'the better animations get the worse they feel comment' - I was thinking about a very specific thing and most people won't agree. Personally I don't feel like a character turning 180degrees in 5ms is good animation but that's a taste thing and I like things grounded, purely my opinion. The other points are still valid though.
Last edited:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
I agree with most of what you just said. Like the guy saying how bad Souls games animation is I was thinking the same that he needs to realize that a character action game to some degree needs less in the way of extraneous animation to be super responsive.
As far as Rdr2, I know what you're saying its animation is fantastic, but it's problems with responsiveness are both a result of those long and detailed animations and input lag (especially on console which is why it's BULLshit that Rockstar hasn't patched it for 60 fps on the next gen consoles). Input lag is input lag, it had nothing to do with animation. It's literally the time from when you press a button until the start up of the characters animation. Rdr2 doesn't have a lag problem compared to other games (though i think it could be improved), it has a responsiveness problem at 30 fps though.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
I think Jedi Survivor not significantly improving its animation is inexcusable. That was the biggest weak point with the first game. Talk about phoning it in.
This article seems like damage control. Poor damage control at that. I never would've expected Jedi Survivor to be this small an improvement over the first, coming from such a capable and seemingly passionate studio. Weird times we're experiencing in gaming I tell ya.
But then again i checked out the comment section of the IGN flgameplay reveal video and low and behold most people were there praising its visuals, with the occasional complaint about animation.
This is the thing. Gamers have the lowest standards right now.
PeteBull
Member
Games on rtx 4090 wont look as good in ps6/xbox series next generation in 2027-2030 lol
For comparision, rtx 4090 is almost 4x stronger in rasterisation(so non rt) perf wise vs rx6700xt, gpu that dwarfs in any aspect both ps5 and xsx gpu's. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700-xt.c3695
Last edited:
Lethal01
Member
I agree for more stylized games, they have looked great since the snes generation afterall, there are PS1 games that I still find prettier than Horizon. However when a game strives for realism and fails it gets ugly.
Schmendrick
Member
Weird flex to post something like that in a "graphical fidelity" thread though
.You´re not wrong per se, it`s just like u stumbled into a S&M Darkroom and asked for tapwater.
Last edited:
Lethal01
Member
This thread is "to discuss future graphics" it doesn't say you have to discuss how much you want more hardware power.Weird flex to post something like that in a "graphical fidelity" thread though
You´re not wrong per se, it`s just like u stumbled into a S&M Darkroom and asked for tapwater.
GymWolf
Member
Also the irony of not caring for graphic when the major reason why remasters exist is the graphic/performance overhaul...Weird flex to post something like that in a "graphical fidelity" thread though
You´re not wrong per se, it`s just like u stumbled into a S&M Darkroom and asked for tapwater.
Nintendo can't do "ultimate graphic", it is not a matter of chosing one or the others when your console is an ultra outdated tablet...
You can bet your ass that if switch was as powerfull as a ps5 nobody would have been happy with this metroid prime remaster, let's not kid ourselves here...
Last edited:
Lethal01
Member
I like they style of it and one like how it looks even if it were a ps5 exclusive.
You all have valid points but I will reiterate what I said some pages back regarding this topic. RDR2 to me has the most realistic animations and I love them. Some people might think they are clunky and too heavy but I find them realistic. There is a couple reasons why people might dislike them: Firstly, people have gotten used to super fluid animations that break the laws of physics so any game that attempts to create realistic animations are met with criticism and calls of being "clunky" and feeling like a "chore". Secondly, we still do not have the tech to simulate real life animations in games yet. The human anatomy is very complex made up of limbs, bones, flesh, weight, mass etc. that dictate how we move, maneuver, turn and so on so forth. The tech is not there to create life-like animations whilst also feeling fluid and responsive. And then you have 30fps as Feel said which makes the game feel even more clunky. If RDR2 had a 60fps mode, the game woulda felt much more fluid.
I know a lot about this topic cuz believe it or not this has been my main topic of interest in the videogame sphere, above anything else including graphics and been discussing this non-stop with others since forever. Being someone who plays sports games more than anything else this has always been a topic I have kept a very close eye on. You guys can imagine my frustrations with current sports games and their lack of realistic animations. I swear players in FIFA do not sprint they skate, they literally skate, no proper foot-planting, inertia/momentum, locomotion, acceleration/deceleration, weight/momentum, none of that exist in FIFA or any sports games for the matter. Some games like NBA2K have it better but still nowhere near close to real life. Sports games are aiming for fluidity at the expense of realism. In FIFA, in order to achieve fluidity they eliminated a lot of in-between animations to make the game more responsive. Those extra touches that we take in real life in order to take the next step, those are eliminated. At least with other games animations do not matter as much as in sport games which are literally all about running/moving/maneuvering etc.
Last edited:
H . R . 2
Member
I think all From games have sold well enough to allow for some animation R&D
the least they could do is maybe avoid the same repetitive and stiff animations.
TLOU 2 is just as responsive as the ER [if not more] while being vastly more complex, so that excuse is not justified.
As for its budget, Elden Ring alone has sold almost '20mil copies' so I don't think it is unrealistic to expect them to improve their IMO outdated animation system and their obsolete engine.
most From games ran at 20-30fps on PS4, so there goes responsiveness
besides,
I heard somewhere that From now have Sony's technical and financial support, on top of their own earnings
a game like ER should be praised for what it has achieved, but the lack of any criticism regarding the obvious shortcomings of From's games sends the industry a kind of subliminal message
that "we don't need to try as much because we still sell just as many copies", if not many times more, in comparison with some similar games
as for RDR2, I am glad somebody brought up the matter of responsiveness so that I don't have to..so THAT!
I am proud of R*, ND and even some indie studios for having managed to remain consistently innovative throughout the years for the sake and the good of the industry
Nintendo has always been a separate thing and [IMO] has rarely had any impact on how, say, Sony develops its games. Sony's motto has always been "we should be either the first or the best".
but you might be right when it comes to other publishers and studios
I was ridiculed for saying the same thing.
absolutely correct, sir
Last edited:
Yeah we talking late PS6 if that!
I believe Souls-likes are to blame: "why improve the animations when those "PS2" ones seem to have sufficed? "
DS and ER won many awards without anyone uttering a word of criticism about their animations
why is the jank acceptable in such games? by normalising lower quality animations as "an inherent feature" of the game they are holding the industry back
I love From but let's be honest, even my favourite From game, Bloodborne, has awful animations, still much better than those of the DS series
but still not even remotely comparable to what is being done by the rest of the industry
Shadow of the Colossus was released 18 years ago and it still has better animations
[ The Surge was the only exception that I know of ]
ever since I saw this "in-game"
I think we are getting there even if not every studio is contributing to the cause
You have some valid points there, HR2. Animations not just enhance the gameplay experience but they also enhance the graphical aspect of the game as well. You can have the prettiest game of all time but if it moves so robotically then all that shine will vanish leaving the game looking like a PS2 game. To me, animations are even more important than graphics and it should be.
That trailer looks fire, I don't even think we have games today that run animations-wise like that. Too bad it's a CGI though. I still remember trailers of old futbol games, the animations on those are still unmatched today in real-time.
H . R . 2
Member
exactly, look at all those beautiful UE5 demos with janky [souls-like] animations. completely immersion-breaking despite looking phenomenal at times.
one might argue that From games do not strive for realism and are heavily stylised but that still does not excuse the jank.
similar stylised games have managed to achieve the same level of success without having horrendous framerate issues and terrible, repetitive animations that ruin responsiveness [the case with all From's games]
Ghost of Tsushima has smooth animations while being more responsive than ER at 30fps, as well as having 10 times as much visual fidelity
as for the trailer, yes it IS CGI but that kind of astonishing quality of the main character's animations back then was, and I believe, still is unrivaled for a CGI game trailer.
Last edited: