Final Fantasy XV vs Witcher 3 Graphics (Rematch)

@lostrib: Those who say it's not close are delusional and some of those shots are accused of being prerendered and there not .

I don't see the point in comparing these two games. Apart from both being RPGs, there's nothing similar. One's trying to achieve an 'animeish' look while the other's pushing to be 'realistic'. Bad thread.

LOL. If you can't tell which one is better looking you have a problem.......it's fairly obvious from the technical point of view. Artistically? that's up for debate.

@walloftruth: That's ground Zero though, MGS5 looks better then GZ to me.

The textures and assets look better in Witcher 3, while the filtering and shading look better in FFXV. It's too soon to tell though. We'll have to wait until both are complete (Witcher 3 seems much closer to completion than FFXV, so far). I suspect the end result, graphics wise, will probably look like this:

Witcher 3 (PC) > FFXV (consoles) > Witcher 3 (consoles)

They both look great to me, but I'm more interested in FF15 and this coming from someone who thought the last good final fantasy was part 10. With that being said we are going to find out what the new generation of consoles can really do once they stop worrying about last gen ports. Halo 5, Uncharted 4, FFVX, DOOM4, Bloodborne, Witcher 3,GT7, Quantum Break, and start citizen will all look incredible.

Both are gorgeous looking games to play on.

Nah....it's only getting praise over Witcher 3 because 900pStation fails to run Witcher 3 at high settings or at 1080p and FFXV is not yet announced for PC.

Would bump all these FFXV threads when it will release on PC and 900pStation version looks like a shit version. Get ready for DC already, you will need it.

Both of these look very good indeed. Final Fantasy has to win me over again after the calamity of the XIII trilogy but it looks like they are going to give it their damndest. However, The Witcher series has gone from strength to strength and it's going to be immense.

Why you compare Witcher 3 to JRPG final fantasy?

A better comparsion would be Final fantasy vs barbie the island princess.

Why you don't go away

@zeeshanhaider: The PC should get FFXV about the time the PS5 comes out so keep begging scrub. And if the X1 is at 900p high settings I'm sure the PS4 will top that now go crawl under your bridge troll.

@walloftruth: The Fox engine was designed for next gen consoles, it does alot of things well I think you may be surprised. Not to mention its 1080p 60fps on PS4.

Yeah consololes high = lowest setting on PC with sub 30 FPS gameplay.

Fact Witcher 3 blows FFXV out of the water and sony drones know that. You are seeing the preemptive DC from cows in case another game fais to hit the 1080p mark on tehir precious 900pStation with 2010 technology.

Yup, just like we are getting Phantom Pain on the release of PS5. By the way, I don't doubt that you would need at least PS5 to run Witcher 3 at high settings without it turning into a slideshow. After all the 900pStation couldn't even run Metro 2033 from 2010 with max settings. :D

P.S. Keep praying that FFXV won't miss the 1080p mark. ;)

@zeeshanhaider: Already said to be on high settings read the dev interviews but it's ok we know you don't do that. And Metro LL on PS4 kicks the Shit out of Metro 2033 on its highest settings so go get bent troll.

we know you only have tablet that's why you didn't see Metro 2033 on Pc. Don't worry we have threads on SW already on it where your fellow cows are doing DC over it. Don't tell me you didn't know about there existence. :D

Yes, the high settings with several features turned off and they just forgot to mention that on the PC the settings are called high, very high and Ultra. :P

the-witcher-3-current-gen-consoles-equivalent-to-pc-high-ultra-settings-the-peak-in-games

Looks like you are must making shit up again. The console version is one step blow the PC's max settings and the Ultra settings adds a total of 3 things.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-metro-last-light-face-off

"Our opinion is that the idea of the 2033 Redux being nerfed holds little water once you take a look at the advantages brought to the table - over and above the revamped and much improved gameplay we've previously covered. From a technological perspective, the enhancements in the Redux are legion: there are higher resolution textures and greater texture variety. Depth of field is massively improved with superior transitions between near and far objects. Field of view has been tweaked for the better, while general shading has also been improved.

These elements apply as much to the console versions"

You smell that? Its called ownage. This is the part where you do one of two things. You either dont respond which you usually do after i own your ass. Or you just deny the facts in front of you. Either way stay butthurt troll. Sad a $400 prebuilt box has you this Salty.

If you compare both redux versions the console version still lack all the settings the PC version has.

While I think a lot of the stuff added for 2033 in redux are improved I think some parts look worse like the models.

Metro Last light redux looks worse than the original on PC though. The redux version of last light has way too much bloom that it's ugly.

Come back when your PS4 can run Metro Last Light at these settings.

@RyviusARC:

The Redux version is a mix of high and ultra settings. But thats not what he said. He said the Console version couldnt match 2010 metro 2033 which is absolute bullshit. The character models blow Metro 2033 out of the water in LL even on the PS4. Not to mention the devs said there would be no problem matching all the assets to its highest settings on consoles but they choose to go for a locked 60fps. Which is far beyond what that game was doing on 2010 hardware.

LMAO the fact you said Metro 2033 char models are more impressive pretty much destroyed any creadablity you had left.

http://www.redcoatreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/khan-comp.png

Well the original game engine Metro 2033 ran on was not as well optimized as the Last Light game engine so it was more demanding for similar features.

I preferred the models original models for 2033. The redux models for 2033 look weird.

I didn't mean the metro 2033 models were technically better I meant that they fit better in the game and that the redux models usually looked out of place.

Ah you owned my ass just like you owned my ass in the past. I'm sure you bookmarked the threads where you did that. If you forget the threads just ping me and I'll point you to the posts where you 'OWNED MY ASS'. :D

Now let's get to your ownage, shall we?

You pasted the headline of the interview but not the interview it self? Please tell me where did he say that the Witcher 3 on consoles runs at High_Ultra settings on PC?

Speaking with Eurogamer, executive producer John Mamais confirmed that the PC Version of The Witcher 3 will look way better than its console counterpart (on Ultra settings). Mamais described the The Witcher 3’s ultra settings as ‘the peak in games’, and has detailed the features that will be implemented.

According to Mamais, the game’s Ultra settings will bring better tessellation, more physics, more post-processing and more realistic fur. We know for a fact that the realistic fur will be enabled via Nvidia’s PhysX suite, so it will be interesting to see whether AMD users will be able to enjoy such a feature.

Mamais also claimed that the console version is equivalent to the high settings of the PC version. Not only that, but the game will be running at 900p/30fps on current-gen consoles (though the team would love to hit 1080p on both PS4 and Xbox One).

Credit

Even in the original interview he didn't confirm anything about the 1080p or Ultra settings. So yeah, on PC the settings are called high, very high and Ultra with consololes = lowest settings on PC with subs 30 FPS gameplay and even less graphical features.

Now to Mtero 2033. You did a good job, with selective copy pasting. Let's see what the DF really has to say about the cut off features.

Could it really be the case that Redux on PC is inferior to the original version? Well, what is clear is that 4A has turned off incidental features where the performance overhead did not justify the improvements in the visuals - a good example are the split-second shadows generated by muzzle flash from the view-weapon, which have been removed.Some volumetric lights are absent, while others are handled differently in the Redux (light shafts, for example). Part of the reason this article was delayed was because we heard from Deep Silver on Monday last week that last-minute tweaks to the PC version were being implemented. In the event, this took the form of a couple of inserted volumetric lights that actually seem to look a little at odds with the rest of the game.

Our opinion is that the idea of the 2033 Redux being nerfed holds little water once you take a look at the advantages brought to the table - over and above the revamped and much improved gameplay we've previously covered. From a technological perspective, the enhancements in the Redux are legion: there are higher resolution textures and greater texture variety. Depth of field is massively improved with superior transitions between near and far objects. Field of view has been tweaked for the better, while general shading has also been improved.

These elements apply as much to the console versions. However, PC gets an additional layer of features not found in the Xbox One or PS4 games: motion blur is included, which sees a boost over the older version (where artefacts on the effect were commonplace) while tessellation has been significantly improved. We've previously discussed how 4A has imported improved characters across from Metro Last Light, but it's also the case that many objects and pieces of scenery in the environments are replaced with different models, too. Specular elements in the visual make-up - the shiny bits, if you will - are enormously improved over the original game and stand apart from the console Redux too (where it seems only the view weapon gets the upgrade). Combine all of that with the gameplay enhancements, and the efforts 4A has made generally to harmonise Metro 2033 with its technologically more advanced sequel, and we have an outstanding piece of software.

Source

Now tell me why do you do that? Anyway, bookmark this thread too. You clearly 'OWNED ME' in this thread too. :P

LOL what? How so? Metro LL had so much more detail in the char models and enviorment. Matter of fact when Playing it on the PS4 I was shocked how much better Metro LL looked then Metro 2033.

Regardless I was just proving Zeeinhnader was full of shit.

Well for example, the doctor around 0:51 looks better in the original compared to redux.

Also the model at 1:40 looks better in original compared to redux.

By looks better I mean aesthetically.

I liked the darker look of the original compared to the redux version which looks a bit too bright in some areas.

And of course the Redux version of Last Light is just plain bad with it's overuse of bloom.

Moving the Goal post? You said the orginal metro 2033 looked better then the console version . Which is complete bullshit as shown in the article. Some how muzzle flash and a few volumetric lights beat , better textures, better shaders, better DOF, and better LOD. LMAO really bro? You honestly want to argue that the 2010 version looks better then whats on consoles now? I never said it looked better then the PC redux version on its max settings but the difference is quite small and considering the console version runs at 1080p and a locked 60fps its far beyond what the orignal was doing in both visuals and performance.

As for the Witcher 3 you just randomly made shit up again. Show me the link where High is the lowest PC setting? You cant because you are full of shit yet again. I said the console version would run at the settings below Ultra . And that the pc version would featre three things which I was right. Hair physics, improved tesselation and standard image quality advantages. As I said you did exactly what I thought you would do and just ignored the facts in front of you.

http://www.gamepur.com/news/13421-witcher-3-dev-comments-pc-vs-ps4xone-port-differences-wont-be-huge-theyre-b.html

Oh and Witcher 3 looking way better on PC?

Well, The Witcher 1 was a very core PC game, and you could see the hardcore-ness in it. In The Witcher 2, we moved away from that a bit, but it still had those elements. The only issue was we didn’t have the resources to do two platforms at the same time, but if you look at how we did the Xbox 360 version, it was one of the best Xbox 360 games and it was really squeezing the machine to the limit. So what we’re looking to do with The Witcher 3 is to push each of the platforms to their limits. For PC, which in theory is infinitely scalable, you’ll be able to get more, but you have to invest. On the consoles, the difference will not be huge because they’re actually brand new PCs. So I think gamers on each platform will get an extremely good experience and they should be very satisfied with the quality."

LOL enjoy that next gen fur.

Accusing me of moving the goal post? Let's see my original argument.

And I'm right PS4 don't run Metro 2033 as is without making cuts just like every PS4 game. Even 4A games had to cut the performance heavy features to port it. They could have left it, if the PS4 is powerful enough for it. You don't need to cut it.

Oh you know I was trolling about Witcher 3 settings, don't act like you think I'm serious. The original argument was about the FFXV vs Witcher 3. The point still stands that none of us knows about the actual Witcher 3 console settings. Neither me nor you. I could very well be right. 'High' is very ambiguous word right now and couldn't be taken into literal sense. Don't you agree?

@walloftruth said:

You can stop pretending to be an idiot.

1. I don't hate this game, matter of fact I love it and it's my most wanted game next to GTA V PC.

2. My comment wasn't even anti consoles/pro PC... I picked MSGV out of the list because unlike FFXV and Bloodborn, MSGV is a cross-gen game and it shows but look for yourself.

3. Like you can see on the picture, the X1 and PS4 versions don't look a generation better, they look like a upprezzed Xbox game on PC. The most noticeable improvements on X1/PS4 are higher resolution, better AA, better AF, higher res textures, higher res shadow maps, better LOD and some other minor things.

4. Just because I'm a hermit doesn't mean I'm a blind fanboy. I have a PS4 and FFXV, Bloodborne, UC4 and Drive Club are a day1 purchase for me.

To be fair, I think it`s incredible what they managed to do with that 2005-6 hardware. The game still looks great to me on PS3-360.

I didn't know a tablet CPU and max 570 from 2010 is considered a brand new PC. LOL Yeah, they are going to say well the consoles have shit ancient hardware so our game will look like shit compared to PC. I'm sure their marketing team will gladly have them say that.

@zeeshanhaider: Metro 2033 ran like Shit on 2010 hardware, if they wanted it to run like that they could have left those same features on the PS4 and just released the game. But the optimization on the title was so shitty they called it the Redux and Re released it because nobody wants to run a game at 30fps for muzzle flash. My point stands overall the console version looks better then the 2010 original and DF agrees. It also runs at 1080p with not one drop below 60fps.

As for the Witcher 3 settings we have already seen a live demo on the X1( At E3 that was confirmed to be the X1 version). We saw no massive loss in quality and just about every current gen console game mixes high and Ultra settings.

@zeeshanhaider: A PS4 smokes a 570 in every conceivable way.

in tune with high detailed environment nd setting

Dont care which one has better graphics, both are gonna be amazing...well as long as XV is better than 13 it's a winner in my book. TW3 is already look like it will be my goty for 2015 unless Zelda Wii U comes out.

It's stupid to compare the two directly. The Witcher 3 scenes are pics from actual game footage. SOME of those FF15 pics seem to be gameplay (the pics with the poor temporary AA), but some of them are obvious CG renderings (ie the ones that look supersampled). Aesthetically the Witcher 3 looks far better imo; more color, richer environments, and more moody lighting. The FF15 art style is just goofy--a weird blend of realism with fantasy, and a 1950s Americana-roadtrip vibe made even weirder by the disgustingly emo character design. It's too contrasting for its own good. Technically the Witcher 2 is also doing more, with its dense foliage and such, whereas FF15's environments--while big--are also far more barren.

As for which will be the better game....well, I don't see how anyone could seriously believe FF15 will likely be better after that horseshit Lightning Returns game.

@scottpsfan14 said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

@AM-Gamer said:

The hate for FFXV visuals is hilarious. And its solely because it's not on PC.

Nah....it's only getting praise over Witcher 3 because 900pStation fails to run Witcher 3 at high settings or at 1080p and FFXV is not yet announced for PC.

Would bump all these FFXV threads when it will release on PC and 900pStation version looks like a shit version. Get ready for DC already, you will need it.

The Xbox One already is running TW3 at 900p. They are aiming for 1080p.

I'm going to buy you a PS4 for christmas and let you in on the deal. Those next gen visuals are bound to blow your mind son!

Yeah consololes high = lowest setting on PC with sub 30 FPS gameplay.

Fact Witcher 3 blows FFXV out of the water and sony drones know that. You are seeing the preemptive DC from cows in case another game fais to hit the 1080p mark on tehir precious 900pStation with 2010 technology.

The lies and FUD you spread on SW really shouldn't be allowed. Your whole persona is stupid as hell lol. You lie, get things blatantly wrong, white knight Crytek every corner, and personally insult/troll people. What is your purpose here?

Okay, what is it that is wrong with your whole slew of things you say on here? Well for a start, nearly everything you say is grasping or conjured up. Like "Crysis 2/Metro 2033 from 2010 is better graphics than any future PS4 title that will ever be released". What is wrong with that statement? Well, for a start, a GTX 560 (through DirectX11), runs Crysis 2 1080p 25-30fps at max settings. That card is quite a bit slower than an Xbox One. So I'd say XB1 would get a stable 1080p 30fps with that game. That's before single spec optimizations.

Also, it is clear that you hate cows more than lems. So you took great pleasure in saying that Ryse is visually the best next gen title out based on a DF articles vauge statement. That's all well and good since I happen to agree. And it was pretty easy for you to agree since you have a 10 foot Crytek rod rived up your bum. Now, some of the praises it got was the sheer amount of detail and some of the best lighting ever seen in real time graphics. The PBR in the materials and lighting model was far beyond any 360 port. Fact. But there was one major problem for you, the game wasn't on PC. So since Crytek are your gods, you decided to hype Crysis 3 with out dated assets, level design and lighting model as the graphics king that PS4 will never able to produce. And that was based on what exactly? An out dated real time GI reused from Crysis 2 that took way too much GPU power than it should? You realize that Keplar/GCN GPU's have more efficient and just as good results with real time GI? Cryengine will be using more efficient GI in future titles for sure. So you say a 360 port with uprezzed textures and lighting, oh and PADM beats Ryse. But you didn't stop there. You tried to justify the polygon counts also being higher and asset detail being higher.

Hmmm yeah.. no.

Another thing that makes me laugh is how you always pride yourself for being this factual person who knows his stuff and who always backs up what he says. So when you back up your statement about Ryse vs Infamous graphics, and wether Crysis 3 was beyond what PS4 will ever do, you used the following article with the following quotes.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ryse-son-of-rome

"All of which begs the question: could these new consoles run Crysis 3? Ryse delivers the full suite of CryEngine features with excellent image quality and it's still just a launch title. Given the experience of working on such a product, we have little doubt that Crytek could produce a Crysis Trilogy of sorts for next-generation consoles with few compromises"

The bolded (a very vague statement), is what you used as "proof" that Crysis 3 was beyond what PS4 could ever do. Note that you only used PS4 since your vendetta clearly lies with cows and PlayStation.

Now how about I combat this logic of yours with another DF article just released..

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-hands-on-with-ryse-pc

"Putting the York forest stage alongside Crysis 3's jungles reveals an enormous jump in overall visual quality - a true leap forward in lighting, detail and anti-aliasing."

That's the same DF you used to make your far more vauge statement about Crysis 3 coming to consoles. The fact is, Crysis 3 on PC is an inefficient, and inconsistent game graphically with more post processing effects than a swiss army knife and out of place blocky polygons all over the place, with facial animation rivaling that of Metro games (in other words, god awful). Since it is 2005 GPU base assets and game art of course. On the other hand from the same article..

"On a base level, what truly impresses with Ryse is how unlike a traditional 3D video game it looks - hard, geometric edges are hard to discern in the overall presentation (and stick out like a sore thumb when they do), while the traditional lower-poly squared-off curves are seemingly entirely absent. Materials are lit masterfully with what we would rank as the most natural, consistent examples of physically based lighting we've seen in the current-next-gen gaming era."

Again with the lighting. Physically based. More natural. But in your eyes, the more GPU power it takes, the better it is regardless of it looking less convincing or realistic/accurate.

So now then. I do realize that you are a troll. So all of this Crysis 3 white knighting could have been you holding off until a next gen title releases on PC. Once you're playing Ryse on PC yourself, I imagine you are more than happy to admit that it is simply a more detailed game than Crysis 3. It's next gen. And looks even better at higher resolutions on PC. But still uses the same lighting and assets as the Xbox One version. And it was a launch title. I bet it's like finding out the world is round for you. Thinking cross-gen 360 ports could compete with next gen titles. I don't know what to tell you zeeshanhaider.

Neither do I spread FUD nor lies. Just that I expose cows lies. Go and get angry at Sony for giving you a crappy hardware instead of a SLI 690 you were hoping for.

Funny you jusy keep on posting the same shit cherry picked out of context posts yet couldn't prove how a fucking a fucking 900pStation game is technically better than your so called 360 ports. Yeah, sony hyping with the 10 more polygons is the way to go since they know everyyother thing has already been done on PC.

LOL consoles. Funny how devs keep on saying console optimization and things yet Metro 2033 had to nerf in order to port to 'NEXT-GEN' and Capcom targeted 570 for the PS4 specs. Did I miss anything? Oh yes....Watch Dogs is also 900p on 900pStation. I wonder why. It has last gen assets, the 900pStation shouldn't have problem running it at 4K@60FPS. Oh I forgot......the lazy devs excuse again. Silly me.

Oh and by the way, DF statement wasn't vague in anyway, shape or form. It was clear as day. Only idiots (cows) have trouble accepting it. And you keep on shouting PBR. Do you even know what PBR is? The performance penalty imposed by PBR is not as higher as you think compare to the other real time effects. The only thing it wasn't fully implemented in Crysis 3 is because your pathetic 360/ps3 couldn't do that and the entire rendering pipeline would have to be reworked in order for it to make it work on PC. Not that the PBR it self is too costly to implement. Just that devs were cutting down on development time. So, learn a thing or two about PBR before lecturing me about it.

And yes, I do hate cows much more than lems. I thought that was obvious. But cows are the ones to blame for it. They are ones saying crap about PC before the launch of 900pStation and hyping it up like crazy not the lems. Go and serach the forums for the numerous KZ killzowned Crysis 3 therads. There's another reason why I target 900pStation sinnce its the most powerful console. If it sucks that means the 792pBox sucks automatically.

And oh, before you accuse me of white knighting Ryse. Search the forums or ask around, before the release of Ryse and its DF analysis, I was of the opinion that KZ:SF is graphically better than Ryse but after the DF article I just used Ryse to for ownage since it was an X1 exclusive - something cows hates more and also because after that I switched from Crysis 3 > PS4 to Crysis 2 > PS4 since I considered, Crysis 2 to be better technically than Ryse.

And yeah, stop cherry picking and spamming the same pic again and again. I can do even worse for 900pStation exclusives which exposes the absolute lies from the devs e.g. every light source being an area light.

Sorry, Metro 2033 like every 900pStation game has features removed in order to appear like it is on 900pStation. With 900pStation you either get shadows or real time lighting or 1080p or 30 fps etc. The point is you never get the complete package. For every one shiny feature, devs have to cut two others to make it on the 900pStation. FACT.

Your opinion is crap about Witcher 3 settings and you have no prove that it looks like that on PC with max settings as I already rpoved in my earlier post. The consooles could very likely get the 900p version with sub 30 FPS gameplay with settings even lower than the lowest setting of the PC version.

Remain jelly.

Capcom disagrees, and between you and Capcom I trust Capcom much more. Wipe your tears now.

@zeeshanhaider: WoW you are in meltdown mode already. Metro 2033 has the majority of the Ultra presets enabled on consoles, it also does it at 60 fps and 1080p . DF already proved that so stay butthurt.

And what opinion do I have on the Witcher 3? It looked on the same level as the pc version only a butthurt fanatic would disagree. And show me a link where Capcom said a 570 equals a PS4. A 570 can't touch a PS4 in most benchmarks, keep on trolling.

this is by far the stupidest thread I've seen so far

Both look good. But witched 2 on xbox 360 was so choppy I couldn't even play it.

TW3 looks better.

Witcher seems to have a lot better eniviorements. As for character models it's hard to compare. Those in FFXV seem to look better, but at the same time far less detailed. I guess anime style makes it easier to make nice looking character models.

@scottpsfan14 said:

I never said PBR was a demanding feature. I'm just saying the fact is, PBR is becoming the new standard. It also adds massive realism to lighting and materials. And I know exactly why Crysis 3 doesn't implament it. Because it's a 360 port. Which was what I have been saying lol. Crysis 3 has an outdated pipeline and game art. Since of course, PBR is to do with materials as well as lighting model. You can downplay PBR, but the fact is, no PC game had gotten it regardless of the fact that it could have been done on PC since shader model 5 GPU's were released in 2010. That's part of last gen holding PC back for years. Isn't it frustrating that such a leap in lighting has been availble to PC gamers for years, yet no developer was willing to make a game for PC implamenting it? Yet consoles got them day one. That's because AAA game development revolves around consoles.

I'm not what you would call a cow since I appreciate games on any platform if they play good, look good etc. And I agree that Crysis 3 and even Crysis 2 look great today. I was downplaying them and used a cherrypicked screen to show you that they did have to cut big corners in the game content detail for the last gen consoles. Every gun model, character model, building, misc object has the same geometry density on PC Crysis 3 as console Crysis 3. There is no fundamental change to the game itself. But hey, the lighting is lovely and nearly every light source casts a shadow indeed. Of course that's down to the GI in place. But new and improved methods of real time GI are already in place in the latest build of CryEngine. That take up less GPU recourses.

At the end of the day, Crysis 3 was so demanding because Crytek simply wanted people to think they had the new Crysis 1. But in fact, most of what made Crysis 1 so impressive back in 2007 was the open nature, living breathing world and physics while having photorealistic graphics (for the time). Crysis 3 literally was a console centric generic FPS with lovely tech added. Part of a games impressiveness is the scale and things that affect your experience.

But another point about the polygon detail in these next gen games. This is taken from my PC with a GTX 560. Vanishing of Ethan Carter shots.. (runs 1080p 45-60fps on the card)

This is on UE3. It isn't using any ground breaking real time GI, but it's game art and asset detail is fucking insane. Click these links below to see some of the actual assets in the game.

https://p3d.in/8WBRQ

https://p3d.in/xtwH3

https://p3d.in/N2NdT

This game doesn't excel in on screen visual effects, but it still manages to give the most convincing and most detailed world seen in games yet.

So imagine what Crytek will do once they are able to make a game for next gen only while catering for PC's more so than Ryse did.

First, AAA development revolves around multiplatform. development development not consoles. The devs want to target as wide an audience as they can, or are you telling me all the devs have already abandon PS3/360 since the announcement of current-gen?

Secondly, I'm talking about the technical graphics here. If you have any proof about any 900pStation game having better technical graphics than Crysis 2 then talk about it. I'm not here to discuss the subjective art and looks.

So, I stand corrected, 900pStation couldn't even run Metro 2033 - a 2010 game on max setting without graphical features being sacrificed as I proved in post number 76. And I stand corrected about Witcher 3 as well and proved how you twisted the words and lying about Witcher 3 in the same post.

You can call me in meltdown mode, butthurt whatever but everyone with an ounce of brain and a positive IQ can see you lost the argument as always and are now trying to escape from it. I hope you bookmarked this thread already?

I have provided the links about Capcom equating 570 to the 900pStation countless times as well as posting the links to the benchmarks. It's not my problem that cause you so much pain n the ass that you keep on forgetting and keep on asking me about the same thing. Use the forum's serach function or google it, dumb dumb.

who cares about girly jrpgs when you have manly man geralt in witcher 3

omg im transforming (still witcher>ff)