Playstation 4

[Snake Plissken]

The Last of Us > Beyond Two Souls in terms of graphics. I'm not really impressed as much with the trailers as I was for TLOU. Although, it might be different in the final build.

 

[darthviper107]

I do think with certain games the developers seem like they'd rather make a movie. Heavy Rain and Beyond are like that.

When I'm trying to come up with game ideas I try to remember that there needs to be a reason why it needs to be interactive and not just a movie. I actually do enjoy games that are just good graphics and cinematics, because I like the idea of something like that being rendered in real-time. But it still needs to be an actual game.

 

[Snake Plissken]

It has it's own genre and fanbase. If you don't like it you can always pass on it. Heavy Rain was more than a movie, it was for the most part on the fly decision making which gave you one of over a dozen endings.

Games nowadays give you the same mundane ending over and over.

 

[jye4ever]

The problem with the old hardware was always the memory bottleneck. I do believe we've seen the best of what the PS3 can do. Naughty Dog and Guerrilla have milked that thing for all she's got.

you sound like scotty from star trek.

Two very different games so it's hard to judge. I think if we could see The Last of Us running at a really high resolution, it could be the best looking game to date. Having said that, BF3 maxed out is really incredible looking. Not just the graphics themselves, but the size and scope of it with all the physics going. Awesome.

you hit the nail on the head, scope more important than just graphics

 

[darthviper107]

I'll still get Beyond, but I think games should remember that they are games. I don't want them all to become puzzle games or anything like that, but most games are built off the simple game of "can you hit the target" and have gone insane from that.

 

[Snake Plissken]

At least Quantic Dream is breaking up the monotony that games have become.

 

[snappahead]

I'll still get Beyond, but I think games should remember that they are games. I don't want them all to become puzzle games or anything like that, but most games are built off the simple game of "can you hit the target" and have gone insane from that.

I understand your point, but there's room for different genres and Beyond is a unique type of genre as well. I don't care for them, but it's good that they exist and gives us options.

 

[snappahead]

you sound like scotty from star trek.



you hit the nail on the head, scope more important than just graphics

That's a quote from Naughty Dog. "We're givin'er all she's got!"

 

[BadMoon]

I'll still get Beyond, but I think games should remember that they are games. I don't want them all to become puzzle games or anything like that, but most games are built off the simple game of "can you hit the target" and have gone insane from that.

Some of my favorite games in the past were the old Sierra quest games. The ones where you had to type and not just click. They required thought and I enjoyed sitting with my Dad for hours trying to figure things out.

The problem with games today is they require very little thought. That was the down fall of the RE franchise and I think Capcom hopefully learned their lesson.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Some of my favorite games in the past were the old Sierra quest games. The ones where you had to type and not just click. They required thought and I enjoyed sitting with my Dad for hours trying to figure things out.

The problem with games today is they require very little thought. That was the down fall of the RE franchise and I think Capcom hopefully learned their lesson.

What they have said for RE7 is the same exact thing they said for RE6. "Returning to it's horror roots." I doubt it 100% they learned anything.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

I doubt any of tha tablet features will be compaitible with mine.i'm still on iPad 1

 

[potato]

I've played BF3 on Ultra, the only thing impressive is the lighting effects & higher resolution, the game itself is not really that good looking if you look at the vehicles etc. Just like a muscle man on steroids.

I'm currently playing Uncharted 3, if you don't look at the resolution, AA & low resolution sprites/objects/textures, the game looks quite pleasant, and the way they manipulate the lights to mask the ugly stuff can be considered a technique to make games look better, so i'm guessing Last Of Us would look something similar but better than UC3?

I mean most of the best looking PS3 games are PS3 exclusives like MGS4, Heavy Rain, GT5, Uncharted 3, Killzone 2 & 3, Siren. Thats why i said exclusive's the game changer in the next gen war.

Is The Last of Us considered the best looking PS3 game,?

I never seen BF3 on PC with ultra graphics turned on, was that better than The Last of Us?

 

[potato]

Heavy Rain & Beyond are from same game developers, the same folks who did Fahrenheit, which was one of the earliest QWERT type 3D games with multiple choices. It was a new thing back then, all they did was improve the formula & new story & put it on the new system. It's more like interactive movie which i don't see a problem. But obviously it's not an action based game. Pace is slow, lots of talking, less fighting, more decision making. Older examples are those point & click 2D games, which reminds me of Blade Runner & Clock Tower.

People buy it like they would a good movie. Just many people are too lazy to replay the game over and over just to get different endings because for most part the story/game's the same so it's like re-watching the same movie over and over just to watch the alternate endings. Too much or too little is never good. Nowadays people just play the game once and watch em on Youtube.

I think that having totally different stage for different decision made would make the game more replayable, or play from different angle/character.

I do think with certain games the developers seem like they'd rather make a movie. Heavy Rain and Beyond are like that.

When I'm trying to come up with game ideas I try to remember that there needs to be a reason why it needs to be interactive and not just a movie. I actually do enjoy games that are just good graphics and cinematics, because I like the idea of something like that being rendered in real-time. But it still needs to be an actual game.

 

[potato]

All those expensive mo-cap doesn't guarantee the outcome would be good. Many games with crappie cutscenes uses mo-cap & facial animations, but just look awful & cheap.

One thing for sure, up to date still no developers capable of making natural looking bre@sts. Heavy rain had some of those but they look so fake.

It will certainly push mo-cap and facial animations like never before. I'm not terribly impressive with these games as I can't help but see them as interactive cut scenes, but graphically, it's hard to argue with them.

 

[jye4ever]

Gamescom: Battlefield 4's Graphics Lacking on PS4
First next-gen demo raises concerns.
August 23, 2013

by Scott Lowe

With the arrival of PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, EA and DICE have promised to bring the Battlefield PC experience to consoles, including massive scale maps, 64 player matches, and 60 frames-per-second gameplay. But up until now, all of the demos we've seen of Battlefield 4 have been running on supercharged PCs, producing jaw-dropping, unsurprisingly gorgeous results. This week at Gamescom, however, I had an opportunity to play Battlefield 4 on a PlayStation 4 development system, and the resulting experience has me worried.

In spite of EA and DICE's emphasis on narrowing the gap between consoles and PC, this week's PS4 demo did not include a full 64-player match or the franchise's beloved vehicular combat. Instead, attendees were treated to a local 16-player match of Domination mode, which limited the play area to a small segment of the game's freshly minted Paracel Storm map. While certainly a demonstration of how the game can be scaled down to satisfy players' need for object-based infantry combat, it's hardly living up to the promise of the "true" Battlefield experience's arrival on consoles.

But what's more concerning is how the game looks.

From the moment I sat down, I was surprisingly underwhelmed by the visuals. Instead of the crisp, detailed textures I've encountered this week on the PC version or other next-gen shooter titles, Battlefield 4 on PS4 looked soft and muddled. Wall textures looked half-finished, lacking some of the smaller material nuances or 3D variation. Environmental destruction was more extensive than Battlefield 3 and explosions would send larger chunks of buildings into the air, but once again, the particles looked dull. Weapon models looked great at the hip, but as soon as I raised them to look down the iron sights or scopes, imperfections became apparent.

Another contributing factor was resolution. While EA and DICE have not confirmed what resolution the game will run at on next-gen consoles, for the purposes of this demo, it was running at a resolution higher than 720p, but not 1080p. Though the difference between the two formats may not be recognizable to more casual players, after spending the week checking out games running natively at 1080p, it was readily apparent to me.

As uninspiring as my demo was visually, it's also important to remember that we are still months away from Battlefield 4's release. It's clearly a work in progress. And most importantly, the game itself is still very much a blast to play. But if today's demonstration is any indication, DICE's commitment to supporting 64-player games and maintaining a solid 60 FPS on next-gen consoles could very well come at the cost of visual fidelity, and as a franchise renowned for its state-of-the-art graphics, it's an unexpected compromise.

 

[snappahead]

Hmm..interesting. I can only assume the finished game will be a different story.

 

[Centurion]

It would be detrimental for DICE to release the game in that state. If their emphasis is truly to narrow the gap between PC and the PS4, they will continue to tweak the game until launch or delay it.

 

[potato]

I have a 7870, I know how much power it has, even BF3 it has problem running max, let alone getting 60FPS, so even with all the tweaks if BF4 is really what they say it is it would be really hard to achieve even 30FPS if they really want to make it look closer to PC version.

The only way to close the gap is reduce the graphics on PC version so they look more like consoles.

Consoles not meant to bring ground breaking graphic performance anyway. Unless they utilize special algorithm to mask the weakness on consoles like Naughty Dogs did but it would add up all the cost.

It would be detrimental for DICE to release the game in that state. If their emphasis is truly to narrow the gap between PC and the PS4, they will continue to tweak the game until launch or delay it.

 

[darthviper107]

Naughty Dog doesn't have an special algorithm, it's all about testing with the console and optimization. If BF4 were first designed for consoles and then moved to PC you would need a graphics card that's higher than the equivalent console GPU to run it at the same level since things aren't as optimized for PC. Otherwise, PC owners would have been able to stop upgrading their graphics card years ago.

 

[potato]

They don't but they mask some of the ugly visuals with lighting & contrast, also when the character move you can see very thin bright lines around the character to remove the jaggyness while moving.

Naughty Dog doesn't have an special algorithm, it's all about testing with the console and optimization. If BF4 were first designed for consoles and then moved to PC you would need a graphics card that's higher than the equivalent console GPU to run it at the same level since things aren't as optimized for PC. Otherwise, PC owners would have been able to stop upgrading their graphics card years ago.