Will Uncharted 4 make Sony "Graphics King"?

no gaming platform can run a halfed-ass broken game like Batman AK except PC ....

The comparison between the 2 are nice but I see RoTR showing at least better then ever but that still doesn't change the fact that this new one [also from the last Tomb Raider] is trying sooo hard to be Uncharted wannabe from what we saw E3 Trailer at MS press conference and I wasn't impress at all. I'll wait for the reviews if this game is worth buying but then again, I might be too busy with Fallout 4.

They've been graphics king all gen so far. This wouldn't be a ground breaking realisation.

Which one Sony or ND ?

It's hilarious the sudden interest for Tomb Raider within the Xbox community, I guarantee you that if it wasn't timed then you wouldn't hear about it at all.

Running it on a PC would be very cool to see exactly how far they could push it.

@davem1992 who cares? PS4 players will get to play both. No biggi. :)

Oh I know, doesn't make the sudden "TR IS THE BEST SERIES EVER, WE ALL WANT IT NOW" any less pathetic.

You mean console graphics king? You should see games this gen on PC Ultra.

Actually my hype started when TR 2013 came out and how awesome it was....who wouldn't be excited for the follow up? Timed or not.

I'm quite looking forward to Tomb Raider when it hits PC, will be good to see it running on Ultra, 1440p and 60+ fps

I don't know if it can take The Order's console graphics king crown... That's a tall order.

The Order "cheats" though.

Uncharted 4's levels are vastly more open and much more dynamic in all forms, from destruction, to environmental interaction. TO1886 is extremely static.

It also uses tons of blur and darkness to hide the lack of detail it really has

Even with all the "cheats", if we're judging both based purely on the visual quality of the end result, I'd have to give the edge to 1886.

@Jag85: Thing is, visual quality isn't all that matters. It's has simple has a game with static lighting vs dynamic.

I'm not saying either is "graphics king", but other elements do matter.

Crysis 1, iconic for it's graphics, didn't just do so. For it's time C1 delivered unmatched fidelity in a large open maps, that where also destructable and interactable. it's why Crysis was Crysis. Not just it's gfx.

Star Wars Battlefront on PC at maximum settings looks better than any game in existence.

Judging the way Hermits and Lems are already butthurt about it I say yes it will.

Both 1886 and U4 use static global illumination, rather than dynamic global illumination (although there aren't any released console games that do that yet). Other than that, U4's lighting doesn't really look that much more dynamic than 1886 to me.

However, I agree that it would be more technically impressive to create a wider interactive environment with a high visual quality than a limited one with an even higher visual quality. But I was mainly referring to just pure visual quality, rather than other technical aspects.

True about Crysis. That game was in a league of its own last gen, graphics wise.

The Order should be wiped out from gaming history and this is coming from a PS4 only owner. the director needs to be burned on a stake

"We're right because everyone else is proving us wrong!"

lol, How many times do we have to hear this non-argument every gen from Cows.

Nothing compares to it at the moment. It makes a lot of games look very dated.

@RoboCopISJesus: DF never claimed anything was king. That's something you dumb trolls do in SW.

Again most console settings are equal to high not medium settings so enough with your hyperbole bullshit.

Dude, it's 2015... not 1886.

I think the only clear thing you can say with consoles is that they have lower settings. It's pretty difficult to pin where exactly they fall as it is different every multiplat.

What most people don't realize is it's so ridiculously subjective that there's no real king. Arkham Knight is the best looking game ever imo and UC4 looks terrible to me. I own a ps4 but Arkham Knight annihilates UC4 in every way. Better art design, better character, better graphics, open world/non linear.

There are parts in Arkham Knight that look real, when the rain is dripping on the batsuit and Batman is overlooking Gotham, oowee it is amazing.

and it makes a lot of hermits very very insecure to the point where they are constantly comparing all PC's best looking games against it, a sign that they are impressed and bashing the hell out of it is the only thing that can make them feel better.

Lol lems are jumping behind PC like they are standing in rush hour traffic and PC is the side walk.

UC4 is a threat to a lot of system warriors peace of mind.

It will look and play great. That's just the way it is.

We've heard this shit before. With UC1-3, GoW, Drive Club, The Order, Infamous, Killzone....It never ends. Guess who comes out on top, and why all gamers laugh at Sony Fanboys?

Lie to yourselves all you want, but circle jerking won't finally give you the graphics king, just like it hasn't for 2 gens now. Several upcomming games look better, on PC that is.

DF directly stated it's only the best console graphics.

It's ok, just fire up that Star Citizen demo with terrible animation and wonky physics and marvel at all the sterile environment and the empty spaces if your PC is even good enough to make if look like dev videos.

One thing for sure, though X1 doesn't have a single title that is even close graphically. Look how uglier TR2013 was compared to the ps4's version, expect the same ugliness. X1 version of the new TR will look like a 360 title compared to pc so im not sure why people even mention this game.

Also kinda funny how NO ONE EVER mentions Halo 5 as X1's graphics king lol even lems know the game looks like a pile of hot poop.

@kinectthedots

Star Citizen, Unreal Tournmanet, Doom4 Ultra, Deus Ex Ultra, Battlefront Ultra, possibly TombRaider ultra, and if you want to take into account scale, TotalWarHammer.

It's okay, theres always PS5. Third tries a charm right? Two gens now, lying about graphics. It must sting.

And that says alot with the type of fanboyism lems have claiming Halo 3 looked equal or better than Killzone 2 last gen.

Well I guessIi could just fire up UC4 too... hang on a second... it's not out yet. Dang!

Cows are much worse when it comes to this. How many times have you guys wrongly claimed gfx king since UC1?

Oh thats right, every single time.

at least Sony systems have graphics kings, something an MS system haven't seen since Gears 1 in 2006.

LMAO, you just won the Internets.

Uncharted 4 will have great graphics. Anyone that says otherwise is full of shit.

Uncharted 4 having great graphics or other games having great graphics doesn't take away from each other. The gamers win, at least those not taking the insanely great graphics we have these days for granted.

Tear?

I don't konw why it should make you hermits so mad honestly. You guys have the best hardware and get to play our console cross over multiplat games at GOD settings. Why is it so irritating for console players to use the term?

You do know it was ALWAYS a console argument to begin with do you not? It goes back to the NES vs Genesis wars.

I don't know how or where PC fans thought they were included in the graphics king debate but it's silly because it's a generational console war thing. Consoles are set hardware boxes and PCs are not, it's simple as that. You PC gamers just recently started piggy backing on something that was never meant for you.

Don't be so insecure. PC can run many times more demanding games, in higher resolution and higher frames than Uncharted 4, embrace that forever victory over consoles. Most times when the phrase "graphics king" is used, it's only in reference to consoles...lol but UC4 migh actually be the best looking game when it released, just not running at high end PC benchmarks.

Ryse?

I think there is some merit to that, but there was a debate between that and Infamous Second Son at the time. The winner wasn't clear cut but between Ryse and Infamous Second Son what do you think?

Keep dreaming.

I think Ryse overall was more visually stunning in terms of technology and engine capabilities, Infamous was a looker too but not so much in the environmental aspects, more in relation to visual effects or the way they were used.

Both good looking games no doubt, but I think Ryse was the overall better looking game.

So, when assessing visual impressiveness of these two games, the graphical fidelity is the most important thing for you?

Also what "engine capabilities" are you referring to in Ryse? I am not sure if you are praising what was done in the game, or the engine itself because the engine capabilities alone aren't a boon for Ryse unless Ryse itself demonstrated them.

I never played Ryse myself, is it worth picking up for £8 on g2a?

If you want to torture yourself, why invest money into it? Ryse=Godzilla no one should buy it even for $2.