Yes, a great deal better....
Agreed, people always come into tech threads talking about laptop cpu's and such, but look at what devs are accomplishing when they've not even began to put GPU COMPUTE into full use.
If AK looked rough in spots on the PS4, with it's high quality assets and dense detail and had much better rain effects and such even over the PC version (for the longest while), I don't know what to say to you, Witcher 3 is an inconsistent mess on consoles on quality of presets alone, notwithstanding it's questionable framerate even after the latest patch (far less before). Witcher 3 just does not belong on that list, even the PC version at max. Texturework is not impresseive, animations leave a lot to be desired and it's lighting is a far cry from MGSV, if an open world deserves to be on that list it's the phantom pain.
Driveclub did not halve it's framerate as opposed to every other arcade racer in the last ten years on consoles. In any case we're talking about visual detail and fidelity as opposed to the fraps OSD indicating that we are running at locked 60. 1886 and DC are two of the best looking games at 30fps which also control fluidly. One has the best sense of speed in an arcade racer and (the order)...is one of the most responsive TPS I've ever played irrespective of they not being 60fps......
Thank you.....
Is this some type of condescending remark aimed at discrediting a well renowned tech guy who works in the industry? So if I make up some two-bit website in a couple of minutes in webstudio, pay the cheap fee to get a domain and host it, then I'd be more credible? Such remarks are always very strange to read.
In any case, this was Nxgamer's take on what he's seen for the year. I agree for the most part, but I would not have Battlefront as high nor would I have ROTR in the top 5. ROTR is too inconsistent with it's presentation.
ROTR: Questionable textures everywhere, bad IQ, tressfx only on Lara, better facial animation on lara. Videos for effects in scenes. Technically it made some strides over the prior version of the engine but it's way behind the technical curve and the consistency shown in many other releases for that year.
Battlefront: Everytime I see this game, I can see why some persons would be impressed but I can also see immediately why it's not all that impressive from a technical standpoint.... it's akin to games like the older RE's and Fear Effects on the PS1 with their pre-rendered backgrounds, not that this is what's happening here tit for tat, but photogrammetry would be that modern day compromise that attempts to give us realistic looking areas/textures at the expense of intricate and more importantly varied detail. The pop-in and lod issues are glaring, gun models are not impressive, animation is nothing to write home about and character models are nothing to write home about either, outside of their suits.
I'm sure it looks great at 4k the first couple of times you run it, but then you realize there's very little effort in any one map, no nuanced detail, brown canyons are just browns stretched out, same is the case for the forest area or the lava area. it's just a long repeated photo realistic texture for the most part. As for the people praising the 60fps, it's no wonder this game does 60fps on very modest hardware, it may look the part at times at high resolutions, but it's no technical windforce, it's not doing anything really demanding in contrast to it's peers on that list.
As for my take;
I believe 1886 wins hands down, AK should be second, UD third.....