What is the PC's "Uncharted 4?"

Don't let the title fool you - I am first and foremost a PC gamer. But somehow, by magic, Uncharted 4's visual fidelity is the closest to a perfect recreation of life I've seen, even above most of the big AAA titles available on PC. You can watch it and actually forget it's a not a movie. I do value gameplay over graphics, but this thread is purely about visuals.

The Witcher 3's characters and lighting are stylized to a storybook aesthetic, with sharp-cornered, noodley hair models.

Grand Theft Auto 5's characters aren't very lifelike, and the graphics are definitely starting to show its age.

Rise of the Tomb Raider's lighting and cinematography is amazing, but the skin textures, expecially on females, look very plasticy unless zoomed in super close.

Quantum Break and the Battlefield games look very much like it's in the uncanny valley to me

Calls of Dooty games have been a mix of quality and blah smushed into one package

Shadow of Mordor is also stylized, similar to The Witcher 3.

Crysis 1, 2, 3, are great looking, but still off in many areas.

Black Desert has obnoxious pop in.

And upcoming games like Mafia III are still continuing the trend of making character hands huge, among other things, resulting in incorrect anatomy.

And so on and so on. The only reason I am making this thread, is to ask you guys: Is there any PC game available right now that matches Uncharted 4's visuals in terms of being such an accurate reproduction of this world as we know it?

I do apologize if I sound so picky, but I have a very sensitive eye that can notice the tiny flaws in almost anything. It doesn't detract from my enjoyment of games, but it is very rare that I can point to a game I'm playing and say, "looks like real life, huh?"

I'll be awaiting your responses. ^^;

If you're talking about realism then games like Project Cars obliterate Uncharted.

e.g, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jc51w_VCzE

in terms of visuals probably Star Citizen

in terms of gameplay,action,story,characters,setup nothing

i can only imagine how the game would look running on a high end PC....

"Uncharted 4's visuals in terms of being such an accurate reproduction of this world as we know it?"

Huh? The character graphics aren't that realistic anyway. Crysis 3 had better facial textures.

I played UC4 for a few hours already and yes, the visuals are great, but they are definitely flawed. The graphics are not as realistic as you make them out to be. Naughty Dog is one of the best studios in the world. Imagine what they could pull off if they were not limited by the PS4's hardware. Imagine UC4 on PC without the shitty 30fps that currently plagues it. Now that would be something. I would say that Rise of the Tomb Raider definitely compares well with UC4. Lara's character model looks very good and the environments look great. Ryse: Son of Rome can look pretty damn amazing at times too.

You mean an equivalent for a game that runs at an unplayable 30fps? The game looks graphically great, but I don't even like playing at 60fps, let alone 30.

uncharted 4? that's what you think as the best gfx?

...

Haven't really played UC4 yet but knowing ND, they have put everything they got for it.

have not played uncharted 4,. don't have to play it to disagree.

crysis. I don't what areas are off, but UC4 can't compare to that 2007 game unlike UC4 you can also edit the crysis config files to make the game even more graphically intensive / realistic.

witcher 3. people do actually have strands of hair, and the game takes place in a medieval / dark ages setting that isn't anymore storybook than the treasure locales drake is exploring.

I don't think there is any game on PC or otherwise with character models that stack up to UC4's. They are pretty nuts.

for environments/lighting effects, I'd say The Division, ROTR and Battlefront are on par or in some cases more impressive than UC4's. I still think Division has the most technically impressive visuals this year given how its open world and has a lot of dynamic effects going on with the lighting and weather whereas ND can use tricks like pre-baked shadows since the environments are more static to make things look nice while keeping things running smoothly.

@napo_sp: You tried really really hard to find the worst screenshots you could, eh?

I literally just played UC 4 and although there aren't huge steps taken forward in terms of gameplay or design, graphically it is an absolute knock out. I can't really fault it. The environments are pristine and character design and animation is second to none. I have played Crysis and it's sequels, 2 of them on the PC and even though they look great, UC4 looks more natural. Less metallic, if that makes sense. And The Witcher 3 is obviously stylised, great to look at but UC4 is better.

Now I know a lot of PC nerds will say "but but my pc doth do extra gfx 7000 pre monster super turbo grafixxxxxz" but it's not just about the power under the hood but how well it can be used. Take a look at something like God of War 2 on the PS2, it was still comparable to early PS3 titles. UC4 is comparable or better to stronger hardware because the platform it was built on was handled better.

Ryse is pretty sexy...

I actually have Skyrim modded to look far better, but mine is one of a kind. Each model, texture, parallax file, etc in my game was selected individually by comparing the individual textures, models, parallax files, etc from nearly every texture, model, parallax, or visual improvement mod to the individual textures, models, parallax layers, etc of nearly every other other mod of the same type. This was all done a couple of years ago, so there may very well be even better looking, individual files to compare to mine to. I may do that when I replace my motherboard, but it looks plenty good enough as it is.

This false belief that if game is was being developed on the PC the graphics would be X times better is remarkable. Is it convenient to pretend that PC games are not also limited by hardware penetration?

There are plenty of third party games that release on console and PC and look better on PC. So, it doesn't have to be specifically developed for PC to be better. Imagine if UC4 was released as a multi-plat and the talent at Naughty Dog was allowed to go nuts on the PC version. It would be incredible. We would be able to scale the game according to our hardware and we would not have to suffer 30fps.

Is there a developer that has released a game on the PC and went "nuts" with what they can do on the PC? Nope. This idea that there would be some magical jump is a lie. Can you get better resolution? Yes. Better framerate? Yes. Better textures? Maybe. It is has never been cost effective to cater for high end systems. They make up the smallest market share of gaming as a whole.

Have you never played Crysis? That game was so far ahead of the consoles, it is not even funny. Even Crysis 3 which was a multi-plat, was much better on PC vs. 360.

How boring. The same generic fallback that has become irrelevant but is forced to be relevant. Crysis is not a benchmark and hasn't been for a long time. Crysis was sported as not being possible on the Xbox 360 by the Crytek and they later released it on the same system that was impossible. This does not negate PC gaming not offering a magical leap to console gaming because devs for PC games are still limited by the hardware penetration on PC which is not high end systems. Devs don't go "nuts" because they are developing on the PC and neither are they more constraint because they're on a console. Its a perpetual lie that the internet keeps spitting.

Uncharted 4 looks amazing; what's even more impressive is they're able to make it look like that on such limited hardware.

Wonder why they keep doing exclusives, this shit is getting old. Not often I am envious of consoles but once a year or so there is an exclusive I wish came to all platforms.

PC doesn't have an UC4. Playing UC4 is like watching money burn on screen. No PC publishers like taking risks on uber big-budget Hollywood blockbuster-type games like Uncharted.

We got TR Rise which is lower than Uncharted 4(for graphics) from the video I've seen of the game. I mean at least we got Rise which is not bad at all.

Ryse has some good looking character models and environment here and there but aside from that it's pretty unspectacular in the graphical department.

Even if the devs are limited by PC hardware penetration, evenwith that limit PC games generally look better on PC because of the higher everything (resolution, framerate, textures, etc etc). No internet lie there.

@napo_sp: lol Tomb Raider is a joke, the screenshot you shown is within a cutscene, rise of the tomb raider might look impressive at the beginning but as you progress throughout the game it is actually pretty bland...

Crysis 3 has better graphics than uncharted 4 but all in all uncharted 4 is one of the best games ever made and is certainly the absolute best for consoles.

@GhostHawk196: How is Rise of the Tomb Raider a joke?

@BassMan: Again, the screenshots you showed here are either cutscenes or the beginning of the game which amounts to a total of about 15% or less of the game. If we're speaking visually impressive only, games like Crysis, The Witcher 3, and Uncharted 4 look spectacular throughout the entire game, not just the start.

I'm not denying how good tomb raider looks... At the very beginning. The game fails to look this impressive past that point...

Couple that with bland characters, boring storyline and a few shitty set pieces.

@GhostHawk196: I disagree. I think RotTR looks impressive all the way through. I don't like to post screens later in games because I don't want to spoil things for anybody. Sure, not every area is super amazing, but Uncharted games have less than stellar areas too. I feel the beginning of UC4 so far is probably the worst in the series. I like the character development, but the actual gameplay and level design is sorely lacking. I just made it to Scotland and it looks like things are going to start picking up.

Strange, I mentioned that in my original post but you missed the point I was making.

I have to disagree with your assertion of ROTR. That game is stellar and was able to maintain the look throughout the experience. Yes the story and characters were not likeable; at least to me, but the game maintain its visual fidelity. The last parts may not have been visually interesting to you but to say it transition to be bland is a stretch.

@Pedro: Fair enough

Apologies. What's the point you're making then?

That a game simply being developed for the PC does not cause a significant leap in graphics due to the possibility of users having more powerful hardware. Developers for PC games don't design their games around high end systems.

No, but normally if the PC is one of the platforms, most developers do tend to push the PC version a bit more than the others. On top of that, PC being more powerful in every feature makes the PC version look and perform better.

What WOULD be wonderful is if they developed games for the PC first, pushing as much as the general hardware would allow, and then port to consoles toning down when needed. It just makes more sense to me that way.

It would not make a difference because most PC gamers don't have highend systems so designing a game for a minority would be a waste of resources. Most of the "perks" for PC is simply texture quality, resolution and framerate. Which are great perks and are things that don't require additional game development resources. The exceptions would be Nvidia or AMD sponsored features.

the best looking part of the game is in the second half when you are climbing a tower during a thunderstorm. It looks great all the way through.

They don't have to design for high-end systems.

Even a good mid-level PC will have better performance and visuals than consoles, because of the things you mentioned.

And you still manage to miss the point.

I got your point. You're basically saying that it's not worthwhile for developers to push the graphics on the PC version too far up cause the majority of PC gamers don't have high-end PCs.

That is only part of the point. The other portion is that a game being made for the PC does not automatically allow developers make leaps and bonds over that of consoles because of this. All of this was in response to if Naught Dog was developing on the PC they would go nuts with the availability of power but there is no real world example of this and that is mainly due to the prior point. This rolls into another observation that consoles sets the new standard for graphics for gaming across the board. With consoles setting the standard it allows for developers to provide visuals at least on the level and specifications of consoles. Which is a win for everyone.

I think if Naughty Dog had the elevated power of a PC they could create games with a lot more going on at once (open world, more interaction etc etc).

As for "With consoles setting the standard it allows for developers to provide visuals at least on the level and specifications of consoles. Which is a win for everyone." Not really a win for PC gamers because we always have to cater to the lower denominator. (lower resolution ports, games locked at 30fps, bad ports, etc etc).

A perfect world would be where a developer creates a game that adapts/caters to each platform. So the game on console would run at the standard setting the consoles allow, but when you put it on PC it the game would push as high as the hardware allows it to. Now THAT'S a win for everyone.

I don't quite understand this animosity to console gaming from PC gamers. Your first point is negated by what has been discussed previously and reworded in several ways. This elevation of power would not have change the way a game like Uncharted 4 was made. They simply made a Uncharted game following the Uncharted gameplay mechanics which unfortunately have not evolved even though they have access to hardware that is at least 6 times stronger. This idea of a game being design with PC in mind is going to change the course of initial design in a dramatic way because of the possibility of some gamers having stronger system is a myth. There is no real world examples of this. The reality has been quite to the contrary.

PC gaming has benefited from each modern console iteration. Consoles have set the new recommended standard for games. The vast majority of PC exclusive games do not require strong systems and can run on hardware weaker than consoles. The advantage of PC is rooted more in the input options rather than the power of the system. The best looking games on PC are multi-platform games, this clearly indicates that PC exclusive games are not pushing the arbitrary PC system even when consoles are not in the picture.

Your last statement is further proof that even when developers are given the opportunity to co-develop on the PC they still don't push as high as the "hardware" allows for the same reason mentioned earlier. Hardware on the PC is non specific and arbitrary. There is not set standard of what the max is but consoles aid in setting the new minimum and even then people still bitch about the specs being too high.

All of this is to say that developers are not being more held back by developing on consoles vs on the PC and that developing on PC would not break this non-existent wall. Secondly catering for smallest minority of gamers is not a sound business strategy.

Star Citizen facial animations

Yes they are.

I understand they do so because that's where the meat of the market is, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to go.

If I have a Ferrari, why should I use a go-kart engine in it? PC Gamers should be able to enjoy titles at the level of hardware they are capable of, not at the level of console hardware. Simples.

@wis3boi said:

Star Citizen facial animations

Whats your point? The game is out but there are released games equal to better facial animation than this uncanny valley you are showing me.

And how is it the wrong way to go?

Your comparison between a between console and PC with a ferrari and a go kart is stupid. Consoles are not holding back PC gaming. You are literally making that crap up. Its that "Simples".

@BassMan: Why does everyone keep mentioning Crysis 3 in all this? Sure we can't go much further in definition but Uncharted 4's animation, better rounded character models and environments perform circles over anything last gen. Sure Crysis 3 looked phenomenal at it its time but to say that it's better than anything on new consoles is just ridiculous.

I haven't played UC4, but from what I've seen, I would put it in the same boat with RoTTR and Ryse.

Also, yes if a developer decided to lock in on set hardware and ignore hardware diversity we could see awesome stuff, but I doubt a dev will revolve around a i7 and a 980 ti.

So you think that PC gamers getting titles with framerates locked at 30fps, or resolution locks, or no advanced settings, or no SLI support, or no multi-monitor support etc etc is the right way to go?

You can believe what you want to believe, but these things happen because developers have to cater to consoles, it really is that simple. Call it holding PC gaming back, or catering to lower denominator, or catering to the mass market or whatever, but it's happening and it's real.

@ShepardCommandr: The story wasn't that great. Plenty of PC games beat the story and have better gameplay. Seriously? What's praise-worthy of the same gameplay you've seen three times already? Nothing much at all.