You can.TLOU PS4. Also, Uncharted Collection (Especially the 2nd Uncharted game, it looks like current gen game most of the time. All 3 run at 60fps also.)
-
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.
NX Gamer - Top 5 Best Graphics in Games 2015
- Thread starter drotahorror
- Start date
Backfoggen
Banned
I think UC4 and Quantum Break are almost guaranteed to make next years top 5.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
The Witcher 3 on a high end PC is my top pick. Incredible.
Fredrik
Member
Driveclub halves the framerate to get better graphics for the genre, not worth the praise in my opinion, but I definitely never thought I'd see an open-world game looking like The Witcher 3 on consoles this generation, comparing it too any other open-world game from last gen will make you say wow for sure.
Multiplatform console games are often/sometimes using settings lower than the lowest possible on PC. Console warriors tend to push the reassuring idea that beside framerate and resolution, games are essentially the same on PC and consoles.
lukeskymac
Member
I'll never understand this. We've only seen the initial teaser video and screenshot, and later some off-screen beta stuff that looks nowhere near as good as the reveal, (to me) proving it was bull.
The stuff we've seen so far is absolutely nothing special. Just a sparse grassy map with plenty of fog to mask draw distance.
Halves framerate compared to what? Forza Horizon 2 is 30fps too, you know.
Candidates:
Doom
UC4
Quantum Break
FF15
Ratchet & Clank
The Division
Mirror's Edge Catalyst
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Gears of War 4
Mafia III
Mass Effect: Andromeda
Paragon
Squadron 42
Horizon: Zero Dawn
and probably more...
drotahorror
Member
PC's will be the place to go for higher framerate and IQ. PS4 still has the best looking games I've seen. The Order and Driveclub. Battlefront is the king on PC imo.
Halves compared to what? Games like Forza Horizon, Need for Speed, GRID, DRIFT, SHIFT etc were all 30fps, and most not open world either. Comparing to those games it's a staggering difference in visuals. Same when comparing direct sequels, like InFamous Second Son with InFamous 2, or Killzone Shadowfall with Killzone 3.
His call for #1 is correct. The Order is a technical *and* aesthetic masterwork. The Order and Battlefront could be compared as a carefully storyboarded film controlled by a master cinematographer, versus pointing a high quality GoPro at the Star Wars universe, guerrilla film-making style.
Both are stellar for their own particular aims, but I think the difference comes down to if you see the objective as rendering as closely to real life as possible, or as achieving the greatest aesthetic qualities of movies. For me, copying film's ability to create hyperreal images makes for the higher achievement in The Order, but that doesn't impugn Battlefront's artlessness.
Both are stellar for their own particular aims, but I think the difference comes down to if you see the objective as rendering as closely to real life as possible, or as achieving the greatest aesthetic qualities of movies. For me, copying film's ability to create hyperreal images makes for the higher achievement in The Order, but that doesn't impugn Battlefront's artlessness.
No need for that horrid attitude, Rex. No one is saying that at all, please re-read the thread.
Resolution and frame-rates bring a level of visual clarity that enhance the visual experience. IT might not enhance it much for you personally, fair enough ,but claiming it isn't a part of graphical presentation is just false.
It's worth it, Driveclub looks excellent and I wouldn't trade it's visuals for a higher frame rate. Same goes for The Order 1886. Sure, higher frame rate would be great, but not at the expense of the graphics.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
These threads never fail. So much goal post moving, and technical mumbo jumbo that is meaningless, since this judges what it displayed on screen, not cause, "open world this vs. half frame rate that, and if it was on this it would have more per seconds", etc..
It is like we need separate categories for graphics now...
Best Open World Graphics
Best 60fps Racing Graphics
Best 30fps Racing Graphics
Best "33%" black bar Graphics
Best "with pop-in" Graphics
Best "with some dips in framerate" Graphics
Best "quad graphics card maxed down sampled from NASA" Graphics
It is like we need separate categories for graphics now...
Best Open World Graphics
Best 60fps Racing Graphics
Best 30fps Racing Graphics
Best "33%" black bar Graphics
Best "with pop-in" Graphics
Best "with some dips in framerate" Graphics
Best "quad graphics card maxed down sampled from NASA" Graphics
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
I think they are talking more about textures and geometry.
Was insulting people really necessary? Makes you sound salty. Just saying.
Corvo Jensen
Banned
haven't played until dawn and rise of the tomb raider, but yea, arkham knight, battlefront and the order are absolutely stunning in the graphics department. might have included witcher 3 as well if you're including the pc version, or bloodborne just for its mindbogglingly amazing art direction.
Canis lupus
Member
The Order will not be topped for a long time, not even UC4 imo.
I feel as though you rushed to make the point without thinking it through.
Some people consider resolution and frame rates to be part of the eye candy, therefore a game that decides to squeeze in other effects at the expense of these things could be seen to have lesser overall visual quality despite having some truly impressive technical aspects.
These are all relevant aspects to discuss, especially as these things are hugely subjective and not everyone holds the same criteria.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Not saying Witcher 3 shouldn't be on here, but Until Dawn looks great. Until Dawn's only problem is it's kind of lifeless eyes and odd facial expressions or angles at times momentarily triggering uncanny valley and not doing the performances justice... Malek Rami being the worst offender. More money, confidence and not shifting to PS4 part-way through development will probably remedy that on a sequel.
Other than that... the lighting, small sets having design/details, character design and modeling etc - everything was great. It's small areas and QTE game design let them do a lot with what they had.
The Order looked ridiculously good.
Other than that... the lighting, small sets having design/details, character design and modeling etc - everything was great. It's small areas and QTE game design let them do a lot with what they had.
The Order looked ridiculously good.
The Order is simply heads and shoulders above anything else that's ever been done using real time visuals. Yes even in PC land (unless you're talking about some crazy high end system thing running a tech demo of some kind).
It is pre-rendered CGI cut scene quality, and a very high quality well made pre-rendered CGI cutscene at that. The framerate never EVER dips. Yeah it's 30 but with the great motion blur etc it looks like a film. It looks like I'm watching a bluray. Talking about playing The Witcher 3 in 4K or something, yeah I'm sure it looks fantastic... but it still looks like a game. If you know what I mean..? It's like The Hobbit in 48fps looks super smooth for a film, and looks quite cool because of it, but it's not the best looking film ever made because of that.
I don't think anyone thought The Order reveal trailer truly was running real time on PS4, even I was dubious and thought there must be a catch, that it's a con somehow. But nope, they actually did it. It's a stratospheric improvement in visual quality from last gen, I don't see how it can be argued. Higher quality visuals in terms of assets, lighting, artistic direction than anything on PC. Just cos PC has the brute force doesn't mean people are using it correctly.
It is pre-rendered CGI cut scene quality, and a very high quality well made pre-rendered CGI cutscene at that. The framerate never EVER dips. Yeah it's 30 but with the great motion blur etc it looks like a film. It looks like I'm watching a bluray. Talking about playing The Witcher 3 in 4K or something, yeah I'm sure it looks fantastic... but it still looks like a game. If you know what I mean..? It's like The Hobbit in 48fps looks super smooth for a film, and looks quite cool because of it, but it's not the best looking film ever made because of that.
I don't think anyone thought The Order reveal trailer truly was running real time on PS4, even I was dubious and thought there must be a catch, that it's a con somehow. But nope, they actually did it. It's a stratospheric improvement in visual quality from last gen, I don't see how it can be argued. Higher quality visuals in terms of assets, lighting, artistic direction than anything on PC. Just cos PC has the brute force doesn't mean people are using it correctly.
Peterthumpa
Member
Because they probably aren't. Agreed with resolution, although The Order has a really good AA implementation and doesn't look jaggied or blurry.
Now, to say that we are able to see more effects and better graphics at a higher framerate? Not so sure about that. I haven't seem a single person that told me that The Hobbit looked better, SFX-wise, at 48 FPS than the standard 24 FPS. Sorry, but I'm definitely sure you're the minority here concerning that, although as you've said, this is really subjective.
But for me, I'm damn sure that 60 FPS provides a better gameplay experience, not better graphics.
On consoles I agree. But RaT showed The Order at 60fps on a PC during last SIGGRAPH, so it's a matter of time their next title releases with PC in mind and it will probably blow everything.
Jawbreaker
Member
But you can indeed disable the film grain if you don't like it. There's an option.
It doesn't work like that, especially with consoles. Lowering the framerate to 30fps may reduce overall visual smoothness, but it also allows for double the resources to be put towards other graphical improvements, which imo generally make far more of a difference to the overall aesthetics than the frame rate itself.
Possumowner
Member
Gotta agree with no.1.Not the best game,but oh boy does it look nice.
It does work like that though, the lower frame rate loses clarity in motion. You simply cannot see the details as clearly in motion as you can at 60 as you literally have half the frames.
Of course, it's entirely valid to suggest the visual boost 60fps gives isn't as important to you as other effects.
Well, when a game loses clarity in motion due to a lower frame-rate making the game muddier I don't see how it can be denied.
Might not matter to you, but that objectively happens in comparison to a game running at 60fps. You lose clarity, meaning you can't see the details while in motion, which is a lose to visual fidelity.
I don't think I am. I made a thread regarding it once and there were more people there agreeing with the idea than those against it. Of course, that's one thread, but from what I've seen in every discussion surrounding this the sides are pretty equal.
I honestly can't see how you could deny 60fps offers better visuals than 30 when, objectively, you lose detail in motion at 30 and 60+ you can see /every/ detail.
I'd get that it's not important to you if that were your argument.
SillyEskimo
Member
Nice list. The Order is a pretty easy pick for #1, but the rest of the list is great too.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Reordered list for best looking human faces:
1. Until Dawn
2. The Order 1886
3. Rise of the Tomb Raider
4. Batman Arkham Knight
5. Star Wars Battlefront
It's hard to place RotTR because so many of the NPC's look much worse than Lara. Batman has deliberately more stylised faces but they still look a bit awkward to me.
There's another four lead-quality characters, too.
1. Until Dawn
2. The Order 1886
3. Rise of the Tomb Raider
4. Batman Arkham Knight
5. Star Wars Battlefront
It's hard to place RotTR because so many of the NPC's look much worse than Lara. Batman has deliberately more stylised faces but they still look a bit awkward to me.
There's another four lead-quality characters, too.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No mate, lol. I did not rush at all. Some if this technical goal post moving are reserved for head to head tech threads. When this is judging picture fidelity and what you are seeing as the end result, I cringe when I see, "but open world though" or "black bars tho".
Come on.
Fredrik
Member
For the racing genre I think GT7 will be the first game that shows how big the generational leap from last gen really is, it'll be 60fps and 1080p and probably still much better looking than the last gen racers.
Sure, the "open world" thing, that's silly. We're taking the games as visual experiences disregarding the rest.
Resolution and frame-rate /are/ a part of the visual quality though, and your post derided the discussion surrounding these things which was a little thoughtless imo.
?? This isn't objective at all. Plenty of games have their animations built and timed for 30fps in mind - you can't see "more" details that never existed by running it at double the framerate. This is the kind of madness that gets people to interpolate movies shot on 35mm to 240hz because they think it provides a better viewing experience..
It has already been beaten to death by the photorealism of Star Wars Battlefront.
It's a simple test to make.
Load a game up on PC, keep all graphical settings the same but use a limiter to switch between 30 and 60 fps.
Now move, and watch the backgrounds and textures and particle effects.
At 30fps they will be nowhere near as clear as at 60, and you will not be able to make out as precise detail while you move. This is a fact, whether or not this is important to you is another thing entirely.
This still doesn't make any sense. Run the game at 1 FPS, you'll never miss anything. See the PC Screenshot Thread for evidence.
I'm not sure how to explain it any clearer, but it does make perfect sense. Plenty of people understand it just fine.
Your example is absurd.
It's not even a website, just a random youtube "graphics comparisons and analysis" channel that neogaf likes for some reason.
Peterthumpa
Member
I get what you mean and sometimes I could almost agree with it. Almost.
But take Batman Arkham Knight, for example. Played it locked at 30 FPS on PC at approximately 1600p, and tried the same, at 1080p, at 60 FPS. Besides the game feeling very, very smooth at 30 (something that really depends on the game), I'm definitely sure it looked better at the higher resolution since it killed most of the shader aliasing.
So, while I see where you're going, I can't agree that you should apply this thought universally.
Garrett Hawke
Member
Glad to see Arkham Knight on the list but I personally would've placed it only below the order. Despite not featuring the same tech as the other contenders on that list it looks like a CG movie and has great performance to boot.
Also TW3 is a good looking game but nowhere near anything else on that list, it's very uneven.
Also TW3 is a good looking game but nowhere near anything else on that list, it's very uneven.
drotahorror
Member
I agree with 60fps looking more crisp and clear than games at 30fps. I don't agree that 60fps games on PC look better than The Order or Driveclub though. There is definitely something a little grainy and blurry about 30fps games though.
We don't need to look to 60fps titles to show the difference in any sort of graphical jump between this gen and the last. We can already compare 30fps titles from last gen, and when we do the differences are already staggering, even when considering the jump in resolution from 720p to 1080p, and the fact that we're comparing late cycle last gen games with first cycle current gen one's.
Grid 2 (360) versus Driveclub (PS4).
InFamous 2 (PS3) vs InFamous Second Son (PS4).
Great post. I was going to respond with something similar.
60fps has plenty of advantages, but more detail is not an objective quality as you stated - and the point I took umbrage with. Like I said, it doesn't magically create more detail than existed in the first place. You can make the case that more frames -clarifies- a detail, but this isn't a 100%, all-of-the-time thing. See for example a game like Dark Souls 1 on the PC, which had its animations designed and keyed for a 30fps cap, where 60fps unveils artificial-looking exaggerations that are obscured by a lower framerate (it also changes the way the animations interact with the environment, breaking cohesion at times and reducing the overall image impact that animation while seeing the game in motion is meant to have).
Similar to running retro games at 240p, there is a degree of intentionality in framerate/resolution decisions that blanket statements about either tend to ignore.
The Artisan
Member
This NX has been around long before that one. And it's just a code name, anyway. I doubt NX will stay NX.
I'm not sure why you're having difficulty understanding this.
It doesn't create more detail, but 30fps in motion is a loss to clarity in comparison to 60. You have half the frames, and you will be able to see much less precise detail in motion.
And it isn't just about the animations, but the environment you're moving through. The textures on the wall, floor, etc...
At 60, you can make out every tiny detail in the texture as you move, at 30 you can't do this as you have half the frame rate and you lose a lot of clarity. As I said before, you can make the simple test and see it for yourself. It will be obvious when you do.
Read the thread I linked, plenty of people agree and perhaps someone there will word it in a way you understand.