Next gen visuals vs 2011's visuals

the shot has visible compression, probly not taken with a capture card. in any game some areas are going to be less visually impressive. the screens i posted are much higher quality.

The lighting in Crysis 2 is still miles above anything on consoles, though. The lighting in KZSF may "look" good to you, that's completely subjective. Crysis 2's lighting is objectively and factually more advanced in every way. Read their Light Propagation Volumes whitepaper. It discusses how they did real-time GI on modern hardware.

Not to mention that in order to get that look, the resolution on Shadowfall had to be dropped in multiplayer. Not only that, but the PS4 can't even maintain a stable frame rate in single player. It varies between 30-60 FPS depending on the situation...they released a patch post-release to give gamers the option to lock it to 30 FPS.

Fucking 30 FPS. On a AAA PS4 game. Welcome to next gen. Don't even get me started on Killzone's extreme motion blur for "smoothness" - more like to hide the terrible frame rate, Sony.

sounds like virtually every pc title to feature even somewhat modern graphics

Watch Dogs solely does not represent the performance of all PC games.

black flag, watch dogs, crysis 3, far cry 3, metro series, COD ghosts, daylight, blacklist, tomb raider, the forest, project cars, total war rome 2, bf4. plz enlighten me on all the graphically modern game sim apparently forgetting that just breeze along steadily at 60+ fps.

No problem with any of those! Next?

then u dont have a problem with killzones 30 to 60 fps either, since in all those titles its basically the same thing. unless you lower lots of graphic settings or spend over a thousand on gpus alone.

Prove it.

techpowerup.com

computerbase.de

gamegpu.ru

pcgameshardware.de

empower yourself and learn something. im sure you can figure out how to get around the language barrier.

Prove it.

I find it odd that KZSF runs at so low fps, the campaign even drops slightly below 30 on rare occasions. The game has unimpressive scale and draw distance (backdrops are not draw distance), even the lod distance of the playable areas is pretty aggressive, pre baked lightmaps everywhere, no tessellation, mediocre textures (by pc standards). Character models are great though. I really believed that it was a 1080p 60fps game when I first saw it.

As for next-gen vs BF3, there are only one game(BF4) so far that does what BF3 does in terms of open environments together with 64 multiplayer mayhem. How does the ps4 version of BF4 stack up to BF3 max settings? BF4 has larger maps, more detailed environments and more destruction and so on but I'm not sure the ps4 version has better textures, lod distance compared to BF3 PC and BF4 only runs at 900p 40-60fps on ps4. But as a launch game, BF4 is not representative of what the ps4 can produce in a multiplayer environment, time will tell.

Of course will games with less scale and less things going on at the same time beat BF3 PC in several aspects, it would be really tragic otherwise.

a Corsair 500W 80Plus PSU will catch fire running a 250W PC?

PS4 and X1 games are a generation leap, but only for console players

on PC where there is no generation, significantly better visuals started to apear in 2011 in bf3 and crysis 2

in the case of bf3 it required a gtx 580 in 2011 or 7870 in 2014 and this graphical power is above PS4 so it should be no surprise that 2011 games look better (when maxed out) than next gen console games

but system wars is not a place for reason, its a place for blind fonboylism