Next gen graphics where?

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@IgGy621985 said:

A question for you guys: were you blown away with the PS4 launch titles' graphics?

Probably not. I mean, it's almost always like that with the launch of the new gaming system.

It will take years until we get Unreal Engine 5 presentation graphics in games.

Again someone talking out their a**.

The only reason the old consoles had graphics drastically better at the end of the generation vs launch was because they were custom architecture that took developers years to understand and make use off... i.e. The cell, the PS4 and PS5 are both X86 its why developers have been saying so easy to developer for meaning they can push the console to 100% from the get go.

PS4 reveal:

End of life game release:

Cool. And that's one game. I'm not bashing PS5. My point is, people should be realistic because launch games rarely show that generation leap.

@Gatygun said:

@IgGy621985 said:

@Gatygun said:

@IgGy621985 said:

A question for you guys: were you blown away with the PS4 launch titles' graphics?

Probably not. I mean, it's almost always like that with the launch of the new gaming system.

It will take years until we get Unreal Engine 5 presentation graphics in games.

Lol dude, that killzone game looking amazing also unity was a dam good looker far out of the PS3 realm.

Eh, not sure about Killzone. Imho, it looked average. Unity looked pretty good, yes.

Nothing they showcased at the event looks like something that can't be done currently already.

Why didn't they, then?

Honestly and that other game infamous clearly was a jump forwards in visuals from the Ps3.

The PS4 was also maxed out day one performance wise really, it was even to weak to push witcher 3 and unity to stable performance and had to drop resolutions. The same will happen with the PS5, thing is nothing but a mid gen pc at best when it launches.

Yeah, I saw that gif gazillion times before. That scene was impressive, but the rest of the (playable) game looked average at best.

I'm pretty sure the games will look amazing on PS5, but probably not at launch.

Couldn't agree more Grey_ eyed_ Elf next gen looks barely different. The PS5 reveal was extremely disappointing in terms of graphics all that hype for nothing no wow factor at all.

@IgGy621985 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@IgGy621985 said:

A question for you guys: were you blown away with the PS4 launch titles' graphics?

Probably not. I mean, it's almost always like that with the launch of the new gaming system.

It will take years until we get Unreal Engine 5 presentation graphics in games.

Again someone talking out their a**.

The only reason the old consoles had graphics drastically better at the end of the generation vs launch was because they were custom architecture that took developers years to understand and make use off... i.e. The cell, the PS4 and PS5 are both X86 its why developers have been saying so easy to developer for meaning they can push the console to 100% from the get go.

PS4 reveal:

End of life game release:

Cool. And that's one game. I'm not bashing PS5. My point is, people should be realistic because launch games rarely show that generation leap.

Jesus you clearly aren't listening to what not just I have said about it being X86 and the developers saying its easy to develop for from the get go for PS4/X1 and the coming consoles.

They max out hardware now from the get go.

All your going to get from future games new engines.

The days of games looking drastically better from day one to end of life are over, and its not just one game:

BF4 and Killzone were both launch tittles... There is no drastic difference in graphics from those games compared to shooters that are out today for the console.

PS4 was tapped out day 1.

HDR makes a bigger difference to image quality than 4K... Its incredible when its done right.

Yeah but I heard it depends largely on a game by game basis.

I'm glad they (coalition of different game companies) are working towards a standard.

Its why I said "when its done right".

That said your getting a OLED, so even when they don't do it right your going to have your mind blown.

Did you get the CX?... C9?.. B9?... Not much of a difference between them all from image quality I heard and the HDR capabilities aren't different at all from them all.

I have been using mine with a PC hooked up to it, HDR works a LOT better now on PC than it did before... Forza 7 and Horizon 4 look incredible as does Gears of War 5.

Yeah that's why I bought it: OLED tech and Gsync tech.

4K is nice and all, but not the main reason why I bought it.

You also play a lot of SDR games on it?

The upcoming Ratchet looked pretty damned impressive, just sayin.

Of course I do and the black levels of the OLED make those games look incredible.

There's a saying with OLED image quality it makes content look HDR even without it being HDR... HDR is just the cherry on the cake.

HDR is overrated.

Literally everyone who has a QLED FALD or OLED TV right now looking at your comment:

HDR is the biggest change we have had to display technology in the last two decades.

What TV do you have?

LG OLED 2016 and 2019. 😐

Then you are straight up talking s***.

What do you mean overrated?...

4K is overrated... Because I can't tell the difference between it and 1440P on my 65" BUT HDR?... Are you blind?... When its native HDR content it looks noticeably better than non HDR content.

Native HDR content is a generational leap in video quality.

It being overrated means you have either no eyes or are just talking straight jibberish, then again I have seen you post completely contradictory things here.

That was 2016... Native HDR video is now standard for new releases.

The hyped around HDR is overstated. The difference is also overstated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my eyes because not only is my vision above average I work almost daily with HDR content.

What do you do?...

As a photographer and a movie enthusiast, HDR makes a substantial difference to the final image from the dynamic range to the contrast and black levels to a image. It being overrated is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

HDR can add a depth to a image not possible on SDR, it can bring forward detail in shadows while keeping the dark area's dark while simultaneously having extremely bright highlights in the same scene... In those scene's that have that its a night and day difference.

I will agree to disagree with you on this one, but I know a lot of people in my industry who have been shooting wedding's and event's for years who are now transitioning to filming in HDR and they all say the same thing just like TV reviewers and cinema enthusiast have that HDR is the best thing to happen to video since DVD and I fully agree.

The law of diminishing returns. RT is the next thing to become mainstream in gaming and imo it is a large leap since lighting has often been the thing letting down games the most.

When RT and HDR are incorporated well together we will begin seeing some seriously impressive stuff.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: BFV looks significantly better than BF4. At least on PC anyway. BF is shit on consoles.

I agree, I still haven’t seen anything that has the “wow,” factor.

I am game developer and assistant professor for Digital Animation and Game Design. HDR adds the depth, clarity and values that SDR cannot but I was disappointed by the results after all the hype. I am almost obligated to work primarily with HDR content because of the industry and I enjoy what HDR has to offer but the claims of it being substantially different feels like its overstating. Probably I was expecting more based on the hype. I wouldn't downgrade to SDR in the same manner I wouldn't give up my 4K screens even though I find 4K to also be overrated.

@Pedro: Well I have no comment, as I know when people master and grade footage in HDR is usually for a nit value that current TV's can't hit.

So maybe your opinion will change once we start to see TV's capable of producing the HDR values these movies and games are mastered for.

To me if I can see a difference that is noticeable then its not overrated.

Like 60FPS vs 30FPS if I can see the difference then I can't go back... So if I see native HDR content and then have to back to watch the same show without HDR its the same difference to me as 60 vs 30FPS, its something noticeable that if I have the choice I will not go back from.

I guess this is where we differ. Being able to discern the differences doesn't equate to substantially better, thus the reason for my overrated label. That doesn't equate to it being bad or nonexistent just that I think more value is being given to it than it deserves.

This is a significant jump in graphics for you?...

Its better, but nowhere close to "significant".

I mean even BF3 Single player nothing in BFV looks "SIGNIFICANTLY" better than this:

But it is substantially better.

If people can pick apart graphics from X1 vs PS4 on the same game then HDR vs SDR is a substantial difference.

Same as the user above who said BF4 vs BF5 is substantial and the constant users saying PS4 launch games vs end of life games are substantially different.

The level of contraction from gamer's is laughable.

HDR when its done right looks incredible and gives you a image not possible on SDR TV's.

I notice a bigger difference watching a movie in HDR than I do playing a game on medium settings vs Ultra.

Looking at the lighting and water in the case of Horizon they look far better in the sequel.

I also see lots of Raytracing in Ratchet and Clank and from a gameplay perspective the dimensional shifts couldn't be done on current gen. So I'd disagree. Lol and I don't know anyone who expected 8k games lmao!

I think people had completly unreallistic expectations for 9th gen visuals.

As i always have said, we already got to a point where games look amazing. Many games shown yesterday had details probably not possible on current gen consoles (ray tracing reflexions, insane amount of particles, the fast scenery transitions in R&C, the sea waves in HZD2, etc), but those are improvements the most untrained eyes will not even notice. It's called diminishing returns.

The only thing that cannot be done on current gen is Ray Tracing.

ACTUALLY.

Ray Tracing CAN be done on any GPU... Just might be at 5-10FPS 540P.

From a technical standpoint the only thing not possible on current generation is what Sony plan's on doing with the NVME as cache because current consoles are running on HDD's.

Hasn't it always been like this at the start of every gen? It usually takes a couple of years for the developers to get used to the new system architecture.

That's precisely what I am trying to point out.

The level of power needed to get REAL ray tracing and graphics better than current generation will require GPU's 2x the power of PS5 and XSX.

These console gamers are just back peddling now, they were so convnced that a 36 CU GPU would give them 4K/60FPS and graphics not possible on current generation hardware... And now out of 20 games shown only 2 are 60FPS and they are trying to convince use that this:

Is a generational leap from this:

Its hilarious to watch them.

Literally a month ago I was telling people what will happen 4K/30 with little to no difference in visual quality from current games apart from a splattering or ray traced features not a full blown ray traced game.

For the 5th time no.

It was only that way when the consoles had custom hardware and architechure that developers didn't know how to develop games for them.

Since X86 was adopted developers have been able to use 100% of the power of the console from the get go.

IT's literally what the developers are telling you in the videos for the PS4 launch and PS5 and is the reason why Infamous Second Son and Spider man which are 4 years apart look almost identical visually.

The difference is pretty apparent. I'm not sure what people think Ratchet & Clank on PS4 looks like but, it isn't *this* good.

(direct: https://gamespot1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/789/7891440/3682739-5976007151-jO8VY.jpg)

https://www.gamersyde.com/video_stray_trailer-44953_en.html

https://www.gamersyde.com/video_pragmata_announcement_trailer-44952_en.html

https://www.gamersyde.com/video__4k_trailer-44950_en.html

https://www.gamersyde.com/video_deathloop_welcome_to_blackreef_gameplay_reveal_trailer-44951_en.html

Yeah, me too. From what i'm seeing from other posters I guess I should expect potatoe level graphics for every game.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: That's not exactly what i said. I think next gen details are literally everywhere in those games, they are just not as obvious as some people would have expected. A good example is in the new Ratchet & Clank trailer, a sequence of constantly changing scenery to promote SSD's capabilities to upload completly different assets without loadings. And we still don't know how will most of those games perform.

No matter how more powerful these consoles could have been, most people would not see a big jump. It's a mix of games already looking great on current gen platforms, with the fact limitations are more related to talent and budget than anything else.

@ezekiel43: Much appreciated

@PAL360:

Talent, budget, time and honestly the developers intent... Ratchet and Clank are a great example, the game was designed literally around rifts to show off the NVME for a normal developer the benefits of that NVME isn't going to impact their game design one bit because they have no use for it.

Same as Ray Tracing if the developer targets 60FPS the ray tracing will be almost no existent.

I just want to see new games and that is what the PS5 reveal showed and unfortunately for them the two games(Kera and little devil inside) I am interested in are also on PC so no launch PS5 for me.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: Yeah, Kena looked very impressive, like a playable Pixar/Disney movie. This is the first wave of games anyway, so i believe with time devs will manage to implement (or fake) some form of ray tracing, while also improving framerates. We already have so many 60fps games on current gen platforms, that i can only see it getting more popular, not the other way around.

Those disappointed in HDR, get a better set. OLEDs are so dim they hardly do it justice.

Graphics became a solved problem like 10 years ago. Next-gen jumps will no longer be about graphics.

Well fake Ray Tracing is exactly what UE5 has and that ran at 1440/30FPS.

Dynamic lighting systems whether its ray traced or not is expensive on the GPU.

As someone who has both a 65" B9 OLED with a 600 nits 10% window vs a 55" Q8FN with a 1288 nit 10% window... The above is false the 2x Peak brightness difference on paper is noticeable butits not 2x better not even close, infact the OLED black levels make a bigger impact to the HDR image.

Why do you think the B9 won best HDR TV on a TV review site that does more comprehensive testing than any other site out their?...

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/hdr-gaming

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-features/hdr

Peak brightness is one side of the spectrum the black levels and local dimming make a bigger impact on HDR its why Samsung isn't going to make anymore LCD TV's going forward and are working on Qauntom Dot OLED panels.

A 600-700 Nit OLED beats out anything QLED has to offer and when it comes to OLED's that hit 1000 nits like the Sony and Panasonic monsters out their its just no contest.

@Pedro I agree with you that both 4K and HDR are overrated. When separated they don't do THAT much. I remember all the claims about HDR being "a game-changer" with some going as far as saying it was the most important jump in visuals since the transition from 2D to 3D. Needless to say I was incredibly underwhelmed when I saw it in action. Not because it wasn't good but I came in with expectations and they weren't even met halfway.

Same for 4K which can look pretty damn good but 1080p still looks OK. Not great mind you but passable.

However, combining both. Getting a 4K image + calibrated HDR does make a substantial difference that I appreciate immensely. Almost half as big as the difference that was touted that either of them provides.

The combination of the two is quite nice. 😁

I agree, after playing games like Sims4 and Days Gone, which both have really long or awkward load times, I'm excited to have no or minimal loading screens. I'm more hyped for that than a big graphical leap.

The games look great but i can see why a lot of people are disappointed at the same time.

I think a combination of diminishing returns (really starting to bite) and the mid gen upgrades have hurt the PS5 and XSX (the XSX isnt going to look that much better).

MS and sony really really should not have done the mid gen upgrades. they should have waited (the pro and X1X both seem to be commercial flops anyway). it was a silly thing to do.

but at the end of the day some great looking games there.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: True, but we should look at the sum of the parts. UE5 was a showcase of many fearuree. I don't think actual games will need to handle hundreds of statues with billions of triangles, etc, to look impressive. Well, at least i'm in the optimistic side. I prefer to believe performance will have a big role in 9th gen games.

The one game that really stood out for me was R&C. Not necessarily for graphics alone, but also in terms of loading speed. How fast these different dimensions loaded was pretty cool.

The rest looked cool but not really outstanding yet. But it's a good start I suppose.

What really stood out to me was the sheer variety on games. Oh, and the PS5 design. Much thinner than most expected. Very bold design.

LMAO at cows who were downplaying dynamic lighting for 8 years on PC vs PS4 are not trying to claim it a generational leap between PS4 and PS5.

This is what I expected for at least one game for next gen.

Instead of this looks current gen RE8 isn't cross gen.