Woah Uncharted 4 looks...average

m3dude1, gpuking, m3boarder1, giovella, gpuking (and probably AM-Gamer too) are all different alts of same person. They've been made to agree with one another. You are wasting your time with trolls. That's why I barely read walls of text from some of well known trolls here and keep my reply as short as possible because I don't even like to have discussion with frauds.

I am getting this feeling that Tormentoes and Kinectthedots are also same person, because of the way they blame everyone of being "Lemming hiding behind PC". I rarely read first two lines of their walls of text. No one has enough time to read posts of mentally unstable fanboys. Minor fun, downplaying and trolling is fine, but these guys take it way too seriously.

@AM-Gamer: /shrug,

I'll wait, take as long as you want. Tbh I've never seen you post evidence or proof to support any of your conjecture, I seriously doubt this time will be any different. I was just letting @wizard know not to expect much from you.

@Cloud_imperium: You are hillarous, a rabid bunch of trolls who think because half the forum disagreed with you we are all the same person.

@GarGx1: I have posted proof all you do is make up an imaginary argument and claims that I never stated.

You argued in another thread that console settings were mostly low/medium. I proved you wrong with links and then said I made the claims the PS4 is more capable then a high end PC? I never claimed that but that doesn't mean the PS4 isn't capable of having arguably the best looking game around. If the game came to PC it would look better as it could take the same assets and increase res/framerate as the hardware is more powerful. But me claiming the PS4 is more capable hardware is an imaginary lie you came up with yet again.

@AM-Gamer:

Ok, I don't really care what profiles you have. My accusation of your lying was in our previous TW3 argument in which you believed that the PS4 copy was accurately described as high settings, and claimed that there wasn't tessellation in the PC game, as well as misrepresenting much of the information from DF to describe the PS4's texture filtering settings. I assumed that you had read the entire article as you were using it to represent your case, and knew full well the missing features in the console version that you denied being present on the PC. You also claimed that The Order was better without the filters. I have not seen any screenshots or videos of such a thing, and am starting to think it's not possible and you were lying.

I'm not DCing until you prove:

A.) This statement - "The orders assets are identical at all times." Which is completely idiotic. We have LoD in games for a reason. I already proved this false with my highlights. The distant assets are not very good. I've been re-watching the cut scenes they don't have the same detail as the actual game play. The transitions noticeably downgrade, I didn't find anything on the subject in the DF article to confirm or deny my assumption. DF did mention, small downgrades, and sketchy AA implementation, as well as poor texture filtering, confirming some of my previous points.

B.) That The Order 1886 holds up to or is superior to the highest tier of PC gaming, to back up your claims that Ready at Dawn makes the "graphics kings".

"And yes The Order holds up with anything. Watch HD gameplay videos or HD gifs it looks outstanding..."

- This includes lighting, textures, morphology, and detail. Not just character detail.

Showing me meaningless polygon counts, close ups, or bullshots isn't going to help you. I'm not sidetracking your every meaningless argument or claim, it's a waste of my time.

You are a fool my only alter was eltormo and because i forgot this account email,getting my posting is real easy because of the grammer errors,i can't hide them and give me away.

You don't like reading wall of text because you get destroy like i did to your hypocrite argument about how sacrificing everything for 60FPS in Halo was great,but for Uncharted it wasn't even that ND didn't sacrifice half of what Halo 5 did,the damn game look last gen and you DEFEND It.

As soon as you saw ND sacrifice resolution for frame you went into full attack mode,and jumped to single player..lol

And you are piss because i quoted you directly with evidence of how ok you were with downgrades,and you even use your self and claim to lower settings to achieve 60FPS basically is a complete destruction of your so call hermit image which i have been questioning for quite a long time,since you defen the xbox one regurlarly for quite some time now,but when is PS4 lol you enter full attack mode..lol

He is a hypocrite lemm hiding behind a hermit suit already proven by me,is not the first time i call him out i have being doing so for quite some time..lol

Same old crap from raging Sony drone. It's not our fault if UC4 is downgraded. Go get some sleep.

@AM-Gamer:

Says the guy, who is known for epic meltdowns.

Wow are you seriously this delusional?

You mean this thread where you posted a link some highly compressed postage stamp sized images on twitter to counter my full sized screen shots taken on my own PC, clearly showing the difference between PC Ultra and the settings Digital Foundry claimed were PS4's PC equivalent? Yeah you really owned my ass there. /roll

Once again, there you go claiming that the only difference between PC and PS4 is res and frame rates, you seriously couldn't be anymore wrong if you tried.

WTF...Hahhaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Not only Uncharted 4 look better than Ryse is open world compare to Ryse which is built like a corridor shooter,you have a patch small in size where you can't explore at alll,you are confined to pathways the game is 900p vs Uncharted 1080p single player and Ryse drops to the 17 FPS something i am sure Uncharted 4 will not do.

Not only Uncharted look way better and your screen mean total crap specially that low quality screen grab from Uncharted 4,hell Infamous already eat Ryse to and was 1080p as well with more than 30FPS tons of particle open worlds huge explotions something Ryse totally miss.

Ryse is built like a fighting game were most of the detail is concentrated into a single area,and even so Uncharted which target a bigger one look better runs better i am sure and runs at higher resolution to,hell Ryse runs on 7770 at 1080p when on xbox one doesn't even run at 1080p hell even low PC setting have sharper textures than the XBO version.

The XBO chip is a 7790 cutdown,the PS4 a 7870 cut down.

The PS4 is stronger than a 7850.

@mjorh said:

@wizard said:

You're kidding right? That's just comical! Instead of inserting conjecture, refute the points I am making, or make comparisons.

Majority of them haven't.

About Photomode, had seen some shots of Driveclub and was like "wow man this game is gorgeous" , two weeks ago for the first time i checked it out on my friend's PS4 and oh man ... it was not even close ! i mean the cars were awesome but other than that the game was shitty .. no draw distance , no high-quality textures , nothing ... it was horrible.... Just like how they adapt themselves to 30fps , they get used to such graphics (nothing is wrong with that tho, they enjoy and that's what matters). You can't expect much.

Hahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..

NIce one Driveclub has no CG models and you get on photomode is what you get in game,the game does have a great draw distance,has high quality textures,has animals,has dynamic weather which put to shame several racers even on PC.

If you think Driveclub was horrible get a damn laser surgery fast you have problem or maybe you are as crazy as that wizard dude you just quote who keep posting bad screen of The Order trying to downplay the game visuals,now if you tell me the game suck ok i agree with that,but visually speaking The Order is one great looking game so is Driveclub pretending other wise just show how pathetic some people are and how they will say any shit to downplay something they don't like,you can quote me downplaying Ryse gameplay and but you can't quote me saying it look like shit that would be a butthurt lie,much like driveclub looking bad is a butthurt lie.

Don't say im lying when you are lying yet again. My claim is that was closer to medium/High then Low/Medium I proved that to be true. The tesselation in the PC version is due strictly to hairworks and water( the console version also has tesselation in the water). When you mentioned tessellation I thought you were talking about environmental detail such as the environment( Ground, bricks, dirt etc. You had a misleading argument and couldn't wait to call me a liar and when I proved W3 on consoles is closer to Medium/High then Low/Medium you went on some argument about res and framerate lol. So for a liar I sure seem to be able to send you into DC mode. Regardless lets carry on.

A:The orders assets are identical at all times

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/05/29/the-order-1886-nothing-pre-rendered-in-latest-video-more-info-shared-on-temporal-anti-aliasing/

"there’s nothing pre-rendered” in the video, which means that everything is handled by the game’s engine in real-time." Didn't you respond to GPU kings thread about the 100k poly models being rendered on seperate PC's? Hmmm doesn't appear so.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ps4-exclusive-the-order-1886-promises-no-disconnect-between-cinematics-and-gameplay/1100-6417814/

"With the PS4 we're able to have this seamless transition between cinematics and gameplay and not lose anything at all between the two," Weerasuriya said. "More often than not a lot of games have a tendency to do pre-rendered cinematics and moving to gameplay and suddenly it's not really the same thing. It's close, but it's not quite there. For us, there is no disconnect between the two. What you see is what you get."

Oh wow? So much for that transition downgrade

http://postimg.org/image/l39x8bs4t/full/ This pic speaks for itself which shoots down the argument about higher quality faces during cut-scenes that you had in a different post.

Your argument about the transition downgrade has been debunked and your only proof is badly compressed videos and badly compressed screenshots to say otherwise. Anyone who's played the game knows the LOD transitions on the character models is non existent same with the environment. Distant details may not holding up as well would have nothing to do with transitional details because they often use an aggressive DOF effect much like you get when you watch movie. Again this is shit you know when you PLAY the game.

B: The order 1886 holds up to or is Superior to the highest tier of PC gaming. Well in Some areas is better then just about any pc games I will list the following.

1. Character models which we proved were of equal assets and are "CURRENTLY" the best in the industry. Yes I know it won't hold this title forever.

2. Textures which have probably the most realistic material textures I have ever seen. Tile, Wood. Cloth metal and the way light reacts to the following materials is absolutely unmatched.

From DigitalFoundry

"The game's renderer is built from the ground up with physically-based rendering in mind and the systems developed for creating assets have produced some of the most realistic results we've experienced to date."

Hmm seems like im not the only one that thinks this.

Your argument about poor AF is noted and it is probably the weakest part of the game I admit. But to discount all other things it does well is nothing more then pure bias.

Oh and to address your comment about The Order looking better without filters? Its really up to personal taste. And yes you have seen plenty of pictures with different filters because that's what the photo mode does. That's all it does which allows you to remove the film grain which many people do in the photo mode. Here is more info on that since apparently I am lying again.

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2015/04/13/order-1886-gets-powerful-photo-mode-new-update/

As shown in the video, we’ve added the ability for you to play the game with your selected Color Grading. Want to see what The Order: 1886 feels like if you play through it in high-contrast, gritty, black & white? Since The Order: 1886 is completely rendered in real-time with no pre-rendered frames, you’re able to play in a customised look from beginning to end. If at any time you want to change Color Grading styles during gameplay, simply enter Photo Mode and make your adjustment. You can also reset the option if you wish to play the game as it was originally intended.

Regardless I look forward to watching you deny every fact presented in front of you and spin this out of control... Have a good day.

PS. Its not letting me link so just copy and paste.

@tormentos: I'm talking about Ryse on PC at 1080p/1440p. Better textures, higher res shadows, higher resolution, better AA, better texture filtering among other things.

Uncharted isn't a corridor shooter I suppose?

@tormentos: Photo mode adds a lot of post-processing effects to improve the picture, that's a fact (atleast in this case which i saw it myself)

And i was ready to blown away by the graphics , but it was such a disappointment.... Hell even NFS Rivals on PC looks better

The photo mode in driveclub actually diminishes some detail.

Its funny how this average looking game (which we all know is significantly better looking in the campaign/30fps) is better looking anything out or announced on the Bone.

It's always entertaining to see AM-Gamer get wrecked with facts.

Inb4 he says he didn't get wrecked and calls me delusional/fanboy.

@phantomfire335: Perhaps you missed the 5 links I posted. But your a blind cheerleader so I don't care.

That's a new one. :)

@phantomfire335: but it's a true one :)

@AM-Gamer:

Don't say im lying when you are lying yet again. My claim is that was closer to medium/High then Low/Medium I proved that to be true. The tesselation in the PC version is due strictly to hairworks and water( the console version also has tesselation in the water). When you mentioned tessellation I thought you were talking about environmental detail such as the environment( Ground, bricks, dirt etc. You had a misleading argument and couldn't wait to call me a liar and when I proved W3 on consoles is closer to Medium/High then Low/Medium you went on some argument about res and framerate lol. So for a liar I sure seem to be able to send you into DC mode. Regardless lets carry on.

We're not revisiting that thread. I stomped you with .ini file evidence and Digital foundry till the point you didn't respond. It's medium/low unless 1.10 drastically changed the game. Get over it. Moving on.

A:The orders assets are identical at all times

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/05/29/the-order-1886-nothing-pre-rendered-in-latest-video-more-info-shared-on-temporal-anti-aliasing/

"there’s nothing pre-rendered” in the video, which means that everything is handled by the game’s engine in real-time." Didn't you respond to GPU kings thread about the 100k poly models being rendered on seperate PC's? Hmmm doesn't appear so.

How does that relate to what I said about cut scenes? Assests in cutscenes are not the same as IN GAMEPLAY. Thus you have not proved your statement, but instead redirected mine. I already told you that I wasn't specifically mentioning The Order in response to gpukings post on the topic of pre-rendered E3 demos. As said here:

Did I ever mention pre-rendered cut scenes in that context? If your talking about what I said to gpuking - "100k+ polygons in cut scenes maybe. "Rendered in engine" = PC's make all of those bullshots most devs show at E3, you know that right?" - That was a general statement and not directed at The Order specifically.

My statement was in no way incorrect, "Rendered in engine" means just that. Do you read my posts or do you just skim and respond? This is a straw man argument. I'm not addressing this point again, I've already made it several times and you avoid confronting it directly.

In the future when you try to interject statements into my argument actually quote me please. I afford you that courtesy. Or better yet, honestly represent my points.

"With the PS4 we're able to have this seamless transition between cinematics and gameplay and not lose anything at all between the two," Weerasuriya said. "More often than not a lot of games have a tendency to do pre-rendered cinematics and moving to gameplay and suddenly it's not really the same thing. It's close, but it's not quite there. For us, there is no disconnect between the two. What you see is what you get."

I hate to be "that guy" but...evidence.

You have a quote by the developer stated before release compared to all of the actual footage on the internet as well as my personal witness of the game. Maybe its a Dev trying to you know, sell his game? Console dev's insist that low framerates are "cinematic" why should I believe this one quote?

Is Ready at Dawn honest about the graphics? From DF:

"Ready at Dawn has previously noted that it is using 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) which, at 1920x800, is more demanding on the GPU than a full HD framebuffer using post-process AA. We've expressed some doubts as to whether the final game is using MSAA and having combed through our captures of the full game, the jury's still out. While extremely clean for the most part, we noticed some particularly fine details exhibiting minor sub-pixel breakup that seems uncharacteristic of MSAA."

Sure, it's conjecture, but combined with this, personal witness, and all the qualitative evidence in the internet compared to your obscure quote from a developer of the game trying to market their game, you're going to need to do better than that.

Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPE3kPWO7Pg

This video (ironically named) clearly shows the jerk transition between gameplay and cutscene. More smoke and mirrors, from a game that is nothing but. Why would the scene quickly transition POV instead of seamlessly entering into gameplay if this was true?

With all of the recent scandals you really think that developers are honest about graphics? A simple google search shows tons of conjecture about The Order's downgrades, but since it is just that, I'll leave it alone. Digital Foundry speaks for themselves.

DF Again on The Order's downgrades:

"That said, the physics simulation isn't as robust as we were first lead to believe - as revealed during a presentation at Gamescom 2013, Ready at Dawn targeted a more complex soft body and destruction physics engine at some point, which promised fully destructible environments and materials. The example of a crate splintering realistically as a nearby grenade explodes, for instance, does not appear within the final game."

You're link is broken, or I can't access it. "Connection refused" can you please post the picture manually? (It was on your face detail argument).

You have failed to validate your statement. Even assuming that the cutscenes and game play have the same fidlelity (all qualitative evidence pointing to them not), you still have to prove that asset quality is the similar across the game at every LoD. The fact that this game has visible LoD's at all actually disproves your statement which was ridiculous to begin with. Not even the greatest of scale PC games forgo noticable LoD's. It simply isn't possible yet, or hasn't been done.

From DigitalFoundry

"The game's renderer is built from the ground up with physically-based rendering in mind and the systems developed for creating assets have produced some of the most realistic results we've experienced to date."

You are the only one who thinks that The Order outclasses PC. Also from DF:

"The Order: 1886 features some of the best image quality you'll find on console at the moment."

"Your argument about poor AF is noted and it is probably the weakest part of the game I admit. But to discount all other things it does well is nothing more then pure bias."

So why even try and claim that distant assets are the same as they are in cut scenes and that character models are the same throughout no matter? You just defeated half of your own argument with this statement! Texture Filtering is part of asset quality, whether it is distance or scene.

There is no empirical evidence about polygon count as far as I know, so neither of us can properly address it.

Oh and to address your comment about The Order looking better without filters? Its really up to personal taste. And yes you have seen plenty of pictures with different filters because that's what the photo mode does. That's all it does which allows you to remove the film grain which many people do in the photo mode. Here is more info on that since apparently I am lying again.

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2015/04/13/order-1886-gets-powerful-photo-mode-new-update/

As shown in the video, we’ve added the ability for you to play the game with your selected Color Grading. Want to see what The Order: 1886 feels like if you play through it in high-contrast, gritty, black & white? Since The Order: 1886 is completely rendered in real-time with no pre-rendered frames, you’re able to play in a customised look from beginning to end. If at any time you want to change Color Grading styles during gameplay, simply enter Photo Mode and make your adjustment. You can also reset the option if you wish to play the game as it was originally intended.

You're trying to tell me this was all an opinion?

"You can take the film grain off now in the photo mode. No assets are hidden matter of fact it arguably looks better when they don't use those techniques and just let the assets shine. Its resolution drop insist of black bars but the image being rendered is equivalent to 1080p. From a technical perspective the character models, texture detail is second to none. Some of the material based textures are stunning."

No, you were wrong about the resolution (it's 800p), you were wrong about the PP, and you were wrong about the textures and texture filtering which by extent means you are also wrong about the static asset quality.

You also failed to address any of my points on The Order lacking volumetric sky lighting, static lighting, and true bokeh DoF. Any "graphics king" should have these features that were available to PC gamers since 2011.

On the topic of bokeh DoF, in game, I did notice some on the cut scene for Episode III, another subtle difference between it and game play which you claim those graphics to be the same because frankly, "the developer said so" argument.

Sorry for all the bold, but I don't think you were reading my statements carefully. But go ahead, say I'm having a meltdown or something, personal attacks tend to backfire.

I posted a link to the DF article where they compared each setting and outside of shadow LOD and NPC count everything was at either high or medium. You just danced around the subject and ignored the fact that your low medium claim was absolute BS.

@wizard

You are really dumb aren't you? Non of my shots are bullshots, the game blends 4xmsaa and post aa in perfect harmony plus on top of post effects it makes for a highly robust iq. Crysis 3 looks like last gen turds from, well last gen in comparison, It really has no place for a graphics king any more, move on man. The Order is unequivocally the new king along with Until Dawn perhaps.

@gpuking:

Post with HUD, or they're bullshots. Say what you want about Crysis 3, but at least 90% of the picture isn't smeared with vasoline. Those bullshots don't even look good! If real life looked like that, I'd ditch my glasses for binoclulars. Ready at Dawn games are the king of filters, I'll give you that.

Stomped me with evidence? You got wrecked. Your low medium claim was debunked plain and simple. If I didn't respond it was because you posted well after I did and I lost touch with the thread. We can revisit anytime and I can quickly stop your bullshit claim that TW3 is mostly low medium on consoles as you claimed which was A LIE! And yes 1.10 increased performance by about 5 to 10fps . My claim was never that the PS4 version looked better it was simply that it wasn't mostly low/medium.

So yes moving on... You have no evidence other then your blind opinion one that you formed in fact by a game that you have viewed on compressed youtube videos that you don't own. The AF argument doesn't refute my claim because the AF looks great in small areas. Its in larger areas where it starts to fall apart and the cutscenes are not rendered in large environments. The asset detail of distance objects wouldn't be comparable because large environments are never shown in the cut scenes. The cutscenes also uses aggressive DOF which I stated before which blurs out much of the backround. If you want to claim the game looks like crap be my guest but know that it looks bad at all times because the assets and tricks it uses are the same at all times. As the dev said "what you see is what you get" I personally thought it looked quite good minus some nagging flaws. As for your lighting argument that's not true as per DF.

"Volumetric lighting and fog are both used liberally to establish mood. We're uncertain how the team has tackled this problem but its implementation resembles the ray marching solution implemented in Lords of the Fallen. The Order: 1886 does not resort to a screen-space effect for light shafts that remain visible even when the source is occluded from view. This allows for more dramatic, larger volumetric effects that more realistically fill the environment."

That effect is in game and in cutscenes. So what exactly are you arguing? That distant textures don't match textures on the cutscenes? The distance textures are good as most games there is always going to be some loss in quality when you are looking at textures far away. Not a single game is going to blow there texture budget on distant objects. But at close up scenes and small areas(where pretty much all cutscenes take place) the assets are identical. The only argument you could make would be due to the mix of dynamic and prebaked lighting in which during cutscenes it is likely the prebaked lighting is carefully placed on characters for better effect. It doesn't change the fact that each texture and polygon is still there during actual gameplay. And as much as DF breaks everything apart it would be pretty apparent they would be quick to stay otherwise.

No I wasn't wrong about the resolution. Again im having a hard time figuring out why im wasting my time arguing with someone who doesn't know how 800p works. The image on TO1886 is equivalent to a 1080p image. The IMAGE ACTUALLY BEING RENDERED. Its 800p because it uses black bars to allow the image to be rendered. If they took the exact same IQ and got read of the black bars it would be 1080p. Do you understand that?

UC4 looks pretty amazing, the trailers were done in real time not just in engine, the single player game looks great. I do think ND has exceeded most other developers in some areas in their tech, particularly in models/animations. The MP looks... good enough. But I'm just not interested in that type of game. It doesn't look like that much fun.

@AM-Gamer:

Stomped me with evidence? You got wrecked. Your low medium claim was debunked plain and simple. If I didn't respond it was because you posted well after I did and I lost touch with the thread. We can revisit anytime and I can quickly stop your bullshit claim that TW3 is mostly low medium on consoles as you claimed which was A LIE! And yes 1.10 increased performance by about 5 to 10fps . My claim was never that the PS4 version looked better it was simply that it wasn't mostly low/medium.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. For the record, I'm glad they fixed the console version, it's a great game.

So yes moving on... You have no evidence other then your blind opinion one that you formed in fact by a game that you have viewed on compressed youtube videos that you don't own. The AF argument doesn't refute my claim because the AF looks great in small areas. Its in larger areas where it starts to fall apart and the cutscenes are not rendered in large environments.

I already addressed this, thank you for proving my point. So cut scenes fidelity of the game play but are only rendered in small areas? This sounds like either a massive coincidence or a contradiction.

"So because you love to insert claims into my posts that I don't otherwise make, let me clarify: In photo mode, the scene is not in motion so more power from the GPU can be used to refine the image (AA, AF etc.), that would otherwise not be available. Same thing in cut scenes, pre-rendered or not, the scene does not have to load as many assets as quickly (or not at all) as in game play meaning it can also do the same things. If you honestly think that this game uses the same face map resolutions in game play as in cut scenes then I don't know what to tell you."

The asset detail of distance objects wouldn't be comparable because large environments are never shown in the cut scenes. The cutscenes also uses aggressive DOF which I stated before which blurs out much of the backround.

And why would they do that huh? I already mentioned that in my last response.

On the topic of bokeh DoF, in game, I did notice some on the cut scene for Episode III, another subtle difference between it and game play which you claim those graphics to be the same because frankly, "the developer said so" argument.

I'm confused, you're supposed to be arguing against me right? These are all excuses for poor visual fidelity anyway, you ever hear PC players excusing the lack of AA or AF in our AAA games?

If you want to claim the game looks like crap be my guest but know that it looks bad at all times because the assets and tricks it uses are the same at all times.

Did I ever say it looks like crap? Vasoline inspired yes, but again stop inserting words into my mouth or quote me.

As the dev said "what you see is what you get" I personally thought it looked quite good minus some nagging flaws. As for your lighting argument that's not true as per DF. "Volumetric lighting and fog are both used liberally to establish mood. We're uncertain how the team has tackled this problem but its implementation resembles the ray marching solution implemented in Lords of the Fallen. The Order: 1886 does not resort to a screen-space effect for light shafts that remain visible even when the source is occluded from view. This allows for more dramatic, larger volumetric effects that more realistically fill the environment."

So they implement some visual effects for mood and sacrifice others? Still again, you are pushing an argument I never made. What I said:

You also failed to address any of my points on The Order lacking volumetric sky lighting, static lighting, and true bokeh DoF. Any "graphics king" should have these features that were available to PC gamers since 2011.

You should educate yourself on sky lighting. A game with large amounts of static lighting is not likely going to have these techniques, or heavy usage of ray tracing as shown by the highlight in blue of the screenshot I posted. It wasn't in that scene, and I can not find that feature in any technical analysis, so the game likely does not have it.

That effect is in game and in cutscenes. So what exactly are you arguing?

My original point was that the texture filtering in the game isn't very good, which you conceded. The cutscene argument follows:

But at close up scenes and small areas(where pretty much all cutscenes take place) the assets are identical.

So you are back pedaling on your previous statement:

The orders assets are identical at all times.

Which applies to the larger environments you claim are in game play, contradicting that these assets would be the same.

The only argument you could make would be due to the mix of dynamic and prebaked lighting in which during cutscenes it is likely the prebaked lighting is carefully placed on characters for better effect.

Which directly contradicts the quote you posted (two above and below) and any argument you formed from it in trying to refute my last post:

"With the PS4 we're able to have this seamless transition between cinematics and gameplay and not lose anything at all between the two," Weerasuriya said. "More often than not a lot of games have a tendency to do pre-rendered cinematics and moving to gameplay and suddenly it's not really the same thing. It's close, but it's not quite there. For us, there is no disconnect between the two. What you see is what you get."

It doesn't change the fact that each texture and polygon is still there during actual gameplay. And as much as DF breaks everything apart it would be pretty apparent they would be quick to stay otherwise.

Your texture argument is refuted by the poor AF, we went over this already. We can't discuss polygons as we have no data.

No I wasn't wrong about the resolution. Again im having a hard time figuring out why im wasting my time arguing with someone who doesn't know how 800p works. The image on TO1886 is equivalent to a 1080p image. The IMAGE ACTUALLY BEING RENDERED. Its 800p because it uses black bars to allow the image to be rendered. If they took the exact same IQ and got read of the black bars it would be 1080p. Do you understand that?

You are completely wrong. From dualshockers:

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/02/16/the-order-1886-169-1080p-vs-2-401-1920x800-video-and-screenshot-comparison-pixel-count-vs-art/

The order is rendered at 2:40:1 aspect ratio, if the image were rendered at 1080p it would be at 16:9 and the image would like quite different. You are trying to claim that the developers would try to use 26% more pixels for absolutely NO increase in visual fidelity by rendering information covered by those black bars. That's preposterous, the game is displayed at 1080p with the black bars making up 26% of the rendered pixels not covering them. That would be an asinine waste of processing power and a complete 180 of the console "do more with less" philosophy.

If that's not enough for you, a supposed twitter post from the dev, they claim to have used 4x MSAA instead of 1080p for superior IQ. I don't see why a dev would undersell their own game, so I think their telling the truth.

http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread.php/323984-The-Order-1886-runs-with-4xMSAA-1920x800-%28dev-1080p-no-AA-is-cheaper-but-we-want-IQ%29?s=645f5d91302e2ddf57d1124290cff98f

Again, you are wrong about lighting, texture filtering, and resolution. You are contradicting yourself on the cut scene argument, possibly your only un-debunked point (which isn't even helpful). The Order 1886 does not rival PC graphics.

then ask the mods to check it? you have no right to claim someone is an alt unless you have proof, that is what i'm implying. i find your posting very similar to GPUking, m3dude and the like. and just lol at you calling me a alt!

@wizard

It's called turning off the hud. You obviously never played the game, I'm calling you a liar as of now.

You're running out of excuses thus pre emptying all your damage controls here. It's alright man, maybe you will get a better looking pc game in another couple of years.

Your doing exactly what I thought you would do and you are spinning the argument into irrelevancy. Your argument was that the game looked nothing like during cutscenes and gameplay. I proved that to be wrong. The assets they use are the same. Its IQ never changes and if you want to argue AF and texture quality doesn't hold up on distant objects in comparison to the most detailed objects well this is like arguing the sky is blue. Every game is going to have to sacrifice textures somewhere as I said before( EVERY GAME WILL HAVE SOME UGLY TEXTURES) But lets get back to your basis of the argument. Do you not acknowledge that game play and the cut-scenes are of near identical quality? Do you not understand a game that uses a mix of dynamic and prebaked lighting meaning some scenes both in game and during cut scenes may look more impressive then others? Do you acknowledge that its same weakness you claim it has, or also in the cutscenes? My impression from you is that posting pictures from the cutscenes is cheating because its using higher assets. So if thats not your point then lets move on.

As for the 800p Im going to try to argue this with you one more time( I know you cant be this dense) If you have a 1080p image and you cut that image from the top and bottom. What is the platform actually rendering the game at? It would be 800p 1920x800. The game is not rendering anything with the black bars it is trying to provide identical IQ at the cost of screen real estate. Your argument is that 800p is blurry. No its not its actually the exact same IQ as 1080p it just sacrifices screen real estate to do this with the black bars. This is from the DF article yet again.

"Clean image quality is a key factor in delivering a strong filmic look and The Order: 1886 turns in a solid performance here. One of the first controversies surrounding the game is its 2.40:1 aspect ratio which renders fewer pixels while maintaining 1:1 pixel mapping on native 1080p displays. With its accompanying, rather heavy post-processing pipeline, there are compelling arguments that this approach doesn't produce results substantially better than sub-native titles like Ryse at 900p but, in motion, finer details are visible and fewer subpixel artefacts interfere with the image. The image is predominately soft, but more subtle sharp details still manage to shine through, creating a nice contrast. It may not be to everyones taste but The Order: 1886 features some of the best image quality you'll find on console at the moment"

Hmm now please explain to me how it could possibly look better then 900p at all? Or even attempt to? Because 900p is spread across the entire screen. The order cheats as giving you the IQ of 1080p by sacrificing screen real estate.

So I will go back to my original point the The Order doesn't only rival PC graphics it beats them in many areas mostly being superior character models and some of the most realistic textures around. You can blabber about the ugly textures here and there on distant objects and the lack of AF but ugly textures in the distance is also a fault of just about EVERY PC GAME. Your only argument is the AF and IQ settings. Which im sure if TO was on PC it could improve that as it can be far more powerful. It doesn't change the fact there is no game on PC that touches the character models or the realistic visuals in the environments. Some of its assets are simply unmatched by games and some of its Poor IQ settings doesn't change that.

Well dahh running on more powerful hardware sure but that is a pathetic argument since we can't see Uncharted 4 running on dual 980GTX.

Uncharted is not even close to how rise is,apparently you haven't play any right.? You can climb and explore soroundings unlike Ryse which you are confined to a very small path which you can't deviate from.

Uncharted using multi level design alone beat it by miles,let alone talking about actual sice in missions and what you can explore.

But i forgot it is you who claim Uncharted 4 look average i wonder compare to what,because it look better than anything on xbox one without problems.

Keep hyding on the so call downgrade pathetic lemm,fact is you were owned by me,and you have no business on any thread about visuals,you are ok with shitty visuals as long as they are on xbox one and 60FPS..

Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

You were expose and is killing you..lol

Again Cars don't have CG models in game and photo mode cars are the same,no amount of post process can change that cars in DC use 250k polygons that is close to Project Cars ultra setting on PC and PC destroy NFS which is totaly bland game.

You just called one of the best looking racers on any platform including PC horrible,so yeah it was a butthurt lie,when you try to lie about something that is so obvious it make you look like a terrible butthurt fanboy,again i may say Ryse suck ass but graphically i can't say that it is a great looking game.

The more you talk the more you kill your own argument.

The narrow approach to game design has at least allowed the team to unleash perhaps the most impressive example of real-time graphics on a console to date. The quality of the lighting and materials really helps build a beautifully realistic, almost tangible world for the player to experience.

DF closing comments the same DF you are selectively quoting..

""Most impressive example of real time graphics on console'"

This game is impressive and is only downplay by butthurt fanboys like you you just loss this one.

Him and Mjorh are the same butthurt fanboy,he did the same with Driveclub the poor fella doesnt know there is no Bullshots or CG on either Driveclub or The Order...hahahahaahaa

Damn both game look so good that lemms mistake in game screens with bullshots.

No I played all three Uncharted games and am currently playing the remasters now. Most levels are fairly small. Usually comparable to Ryse and feature almost nothing aside from Drake and the environment and a small amounts of enemies. They're also all riddled with invisible walls and inaccessible areas. I played the entire Uncharted collection and beat Ryse twice. I can assure you, it's almost impossible for me to tell which game features the bigger maps. They both have tiny maps. You can almost explore nothing in Uncharted...

I also said it looks average because of the multiplayer but most people say it will look better on single player and it's probably true considering I recall Uncharted 3 looked like dog piss in multiplayer.

@tormentos: Mentioned that "cars were awesome" , so no argument in that. The walls and streets are mediocre at best and trees are horrible as well as draw distance. Overall, Driveclub is awesome when it comes to cars , and THAT'S IT ! The more you talk the more you demonstrate your lack of knowledge and experience in graphics department. And i didn't say anything about Ryse, it can be considered as the best looking game of Xbox One and one of the best looking games on PC.

And this is just my opinion based on my observation, you should learn to take any comment with a grain of salt, I'm a PC Gamer and by default i have high expectations when it comes to graphics because i'm used to it. Was curious to see DC in action and it was a let down...not close to what i'd seen in shots, that's it.

And TC is right , UC4 multiplayer is average at best.

Sorry kid, but only one who is being owned here is you. I said it before and I'll say it again that yes I praised Halo 5 for targeting 60fps instead of 30fps and better graphics, but cows like you were the ones who were bashing Xbox One for not being 1080p capable and made countless resolution threads (FACT). And when someone called you for a game like Battlefront for not being 1080p, you always called some of the most talented devs "lazy" who don't know how to code and only ND know how to do that (FACT).

And when UC4 was finally announced to be 900p in multiplayer, your ass was owned and it was funny to point out that the thing that you guys hated the most ("Filthy 900p") was something that your precious UC4 was running on (FACT). But I though ND are Elite programmers and only others were lazy? So, what happened? I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding such a simple thing. But then again, you have no clear answer, and all you've done is twist facts, blame others and Damage Control your older posts. While the fact is YOU are the one who's hiding behind lies.

You've been exposed as a liar and a fake boy who doesn't even own a PS4, yet your pussy bleed every time when someone rubs truth in your face. It's fun to see you having a meltdown though. But unfortunately for you, repeating same crap again and again, won't change anything.

Bullshit...

The fact alone that you can clib into structures alone make Ucnharted a bigger game stages are bigger and have more freedom of movement quite easy.

It is impossible to tell by you because you are a blind lemming.

Call me when you can climb a wall in Ryse 2 or 3 stories high,run on rooftops slide in cables,hell Uncharted gameplay is more open than Gears and gears is more open than Ryse,hell i am not even saying from what it is being shown Uncharted 4 look to be way bigger in size compare to other Uncharted games which make the gap even bigger.

It look average online compare to what PC.? Because on consoles i find hard to find a better looking game,not even SWBF3 look better and is also 900p.

Hahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Uncharted 3 looking like dog piss online.? again compare to what lemming.?

@tormentos What you posted just reinforced my points. Extremely small levels in both games. It's literally impossible to tell which map is bigger. You're really posting this in the hopes of convincing anyone that Uncharted features large environments? Give it up. Both games are extremely linear and have invisible walls everywhere. You do have more freedom of movement in Uncharted but that doesn't mean its maps are larger. The fact you can slide, run or roll doesn't mean jack. Doesn't make the maps larger.

I beat Gears of War 1 and 2 and none of them is more opened than Ryse. Not even close. From the hospital through the rift worm all the way to the hollows Gears is literally a corridor shooter. It's far smaller in scale than Ryse. Haven't played 3 so maybe it's different. I also love how you hand pick a level from Uncharted 3 and literally take the first level of Ryse(running through the streets of Rome) which is the most narrow one. You probably never played Ryse so how the **** would you know how large it is?

Compared to Uncharted 3 offline? Compared to Halo 4, compared to TLOU, hell compared to most games released after 2011.

Star Wars Battlefront looks far better than Uncharted 4 multiplayer. Be serious.

Call me a lemming. You're a tool because I haven't owned a Microsoft system in 3 years and I'm talking about the PC version of Ryse.

If you had bothered playing Ryse you'd know there's an entire level with multiple sinking ships, a fight on the banks and then you have to climb up a tower(not in Uncharted fashion) multiple stories tall. I won't bother arguing with you about the size of Ryse. You've never played it.

The only thing it reinforce is the fact that should not be arguing graphics..Hahahahaaa

Uncharted is bigger is multi level and you still claim you can't barely tell them apart.hahahaa

I am not talking about rolling or running i am talking about being able to climb into buildings and fighting there and chosing to go down again,something Ryse doesn't allow you to do period.Uncharted levels are bigger and that was on a last gen system.lol

Well aparently you didn't play Gears at all,since gameplay is not restricted to a confined pathway all the time like Ryse is.

I don't have to play Ryse i can link to you each and every level of the game being play in Youtube and you can see how severly enclosed it is hel let me shut you up.

Incredibly detailed cities and huge, beautiful vistas with impressive draw distances lure you into thinking that this is a living, breathing world, but as soon as you try to venture off the beaten path to explore it, you're sent crashing back to reality. Sure, many games put up invisible walls in an effort to keep the narrative and action flowing, but Son of Rome does little to disguise its limitations. You can climb up a huge towering wall one moment, only to have the savior of the Roman Empire stopped dead in his tracks seconds later by a small plank of wood. It's simply maddening.

The Bad

Combat is shallow and repetitive

Lays the gore on so thick that a severed limb quickly becomes yawn-worthy

Often laughable script

Bland multiplayer modes

Tightly controlled paths stop you from exploring the beautiful scenery

This site own revview..lol

Find me that on Uncharted 3 gamespot review..lol

Uncharted 3 > Halo 4 online and ofline and unlike Halo 4 Uncharted 3 has some incredible physics and atention to detail,to the point were drake hair and cloth can get wet by standing near a stream of water,TLOU is a ND game was well and came after Uncharted 3 hanse why the visual upgrade.

Worse since we know PC can do better than console your comparison is even more stupid as i already point we don't know how Uncharted 4 would look on PC.

SWBF3 doesn't look better on PS4 than Uncharted 4 what the fu* are you smocking now.,?

And you are confied to that tower fool the level is design so you can climb it,outside of that you can't do shit climbing and Gamespot make it very clear how restrictive the game is.

@tormentos

So are you denying Uncharted(the entire series)is full of invisible walls and linear? You don't need a reviewer to tell you that. Both games feature small levels that can be beaten within minutes even for inexperienced players. Doesn't matter what a review say. That's an appeal to authority fallacy and a bad one at that because reviewers aren't experts or trained professionals. You're even more of a tool because you're actually asking me to find that on the Gamespot review...like wow. How more retarded can you get? Because the Gamespot review doesn't say it, it isn't true? Did they drop you on your head as a baby?

Also Gears of War not restricted to a beaten pathway are you joking me? The game is literally a corridor shooter and you cannot venture ANYWHERE else than on the predetermined path. Like nowhere else. There's no exploration in Ryse, Uncharted or Gears of War but Gears is by far the worst of the lot. The only kind of ''exploration'' you can do in these games is to find the dog tags in Gears, the treasures in Uncharted and the scrolls in Ryse. You'd know that but considering it seems you haven't played any, you don't.

The tower level was just to show that climbing structures doesn't mean jack. There are plenty levels in Ryse with multi-layered sections but it doesn't matter because just like in Uncharted it's linear and extremely restricted and features almost no exploration. Whoa you can climb and get to a vintage point!!! Incredible! GTFO troll and go play the games. We're done talking as you admittedly never played Ryse and probably not Gears(else you'd never say it's not restricted) and you hand-picked one Uncharted 3 level that didn't showcase anything.

Kindly **** off.

And Lol Halo 4 looks far better than Uncharted 3 multiplayer. Some people even argue it's the best looking game of last gen. It even won several awards for its graphics.

I also said Battlefront looks better than Uncharted 4 multiplayer which looks worse than Uncharted 4 single player. It's expected considering the multiplayer is 60fps at 900p.

No not at all but did you read gamespot review.? Their complain wasn't about invissible walls,is more about how they are implemented the problem,on Ryse they are pathetic the game is totally constricted you can't climb,and you can't explore for shit and that is the real problem.

And this is the most monumental proof of how stupid you are and butthurt so i find something which own your ass over and all of the sudden reviews are bad.lol

Is kind of pathetic you know considering that i already prove you can do things on Uncharted which you can't do on Ryse because how restictive the game is,you are confined most of the time to a small part period. The fact that you claim there is no exploration in Uncharted prove how blind and stupid the fact that you are defending Ryse which is hands down one of the worse offenders whent it comes to how restrictive it is says it all.

But but but Gears is the worse offender..lol

Pathetic.

I just owned your sorry ass but but but gamespot doesn't matter reviews don't matter,only my noob pathetic opinion is what matter.lol

No dude it doesn't online or offline,it doesn't beat Ucnharted let alone TLOU for best looking game.

You are a pathetic fanboy which failed at downplaying Uncharted visuals.

Indeed, the team's art design still shines through brightly, and this build is likely to improve even further by release. As it is, this jungle map is filled with conifer leaves that bend and flinch around the character's legs, backed by some on-point lighting and effects. The layering of foliage detail is very impressive, and PS4 is clearly pushing this aspect harder than previous Uncharted games - especially in multiplayer. The ground is packed with detail, and elsewhere we see atmospheric effects like trees blowing in the wind, and pollen particles floating in the air. It adds a sense of liveliness to the map, even when the action slows down for a spell.

As with the solo gameplay shown at the PlayStation Experience event in 2014, we again see bounce lighting in use across each surface and plant, suggesting a form of global illumination is in play. Naughty Dog's HDR implementation produces some nice results too, and it often goes hand-in-hand with the full volumetric light shafts that stream from the mountainside. Even when the sun is occluded by objects, these light volumes fill the screen-space realistically.

Shadow quality isn't its strongest suit however. Though reasonable for a 60fps multiplayer game, there are some obvious cases of dithering across shadow edges, and shadow pop-in is visible beneath plants as we run through thickets. But on the whole, the visual setup still impresses even at this stage. There are even cases of physics-based interaction, meaning chip damage takes effect on ruinous structures. Much like the single-player game, not all forms of cover are safe. We did see some minor glitching with a destructible wall in this pre-alpha, causing the middle portion to break, while its top layer remained suspended mid-air. But again, this is par for course for the multiplayer mode's first ever showing.

Crucially the visuals still shine; from the sheer volume of particle effects (including explosions, smoke clouds, and debris) to the lighting model instated across the jungle map. As things stand, Naughty Dog has chosen its trade-off well, radically improving frame-rate while retaining many of the graphical features of the single-player game. It's a fine sample of what to expect in the upcoming beta, and we look forward to bringing you more in-depth coverage there as soon as we can.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-uncharted-4-multiplayer-hands-on

So while you call it average looking DF call it impressive and highly how even with the tradeoff ND was able to keep many of the single player graphical feeatures.lol

Your thread just backfire dude.

@tormentos:

This is a PC vs Console argument, so saying its the most impressive game on console just flips your argument upside down. Learn english, learn how to debate, or just leave this thread. You cows are grasping at very thin straws. You clearly have never seen 4k gaming, high resolution textures, or super sampling or you wouldn't be spouting your BS. No credible person in the industry believes that a slightly beefed 7850 and a tablet CPU can compete with the best of PC's. Stop while you have some dignity. I already said that both UC4 and The Order were good looking games.

Edit: Nevermind UC4 MP looks pretty bad. Watched the actual video.

Lord have mercy for what I'm about to do.

It doesn't matter you mongrel. They both have small maps and are largely linear and restricted. You're basically arguing about the tallest midget. Gamespot review doesn't matter and is invalid for this argument. Not only is it an appeal to authority fallacy with a source that has no authority on the matter but the fact Ryse is restricted doesn't mean Uncharted 3 isn't. Oh and it's not ''all of a sudden''. I couldn't care less about Gamespot reviews. Show me Kingdoms of Amalur, Dark Souls or Bloodborne. They all have unarguably a larger scale than Ryse. Uncharted maps are around the same size and it's damn near impossible to tell which has the bigger maps. Feel free to calculate the map size for yourself. It'll be hard considering you don't have the games.

You're also even more of a tool for posting a Gears of War 3 vid largely similar to the damn level I showed you from Ryse. You know, that large level with ships sinking and the fight in the tower? Gears of War, Uncharted and Ryse all have a thing in common, they are all linear and restrict player's discovery and exploration.

Exploration in Uncharted are you shitting me? Have you ever played the game to find a secret area or a remote house you had never seen? Have you ever wondered so far you lost track of your objective? Fallout has exploration, Zelda has exploration. Uncharted 3 doesn't have any kind of exploration. If climbing a damned wall that on your way to your objective is exploration than good for you but that makes you even more of an idiot.

You didn't own anyone because the videos you posted simply reinforced the fact that none of the games mentioned(Gears of War, Ryse and Uncharted) have enough scale over the other to be considered a cut above. They're all in bottom-tier when it comes down to player freedom.

You can't command a squad of legionaries in Uncharted. Does that suddenly mean Ryse has more freedom? You can't use catapults and ballistae to take down walls in Uncharted, does it make a difference? No because what the player can and cannot do has no bearing on the size and scale of the environment. You could pretty much only walk and climb in Daggerfall but the map was probably dozens if not hundreds of times larger than anything in Ryse, Uncharted or Gears.

And I'm a fanboy of what exactly lol?

I also don't give a damn about that review. I have the game. I beat it. I beat all three Uncharted games, Ryse and the first two Gears of War games. You haven't played jack and you admitted to never playing Ryse so what sense in there in arguing when you have no idea what the game looks like or how large the scale is? The game is roughly 8hrs long. Go watch all the levels from beginning to the end then come back to argue. For now you're just an ignorant troll.

I'm through with you. There is nothing to discuss.

Also if you like reviews and appealing to authority so much you should probably take in account Halo 4 has won graphics awards and was released in 2012. It looks a million times better than the atrocious Uncharted 3 multiplayer.

I'm done. You're an idiot. Have a nice day.

@Cloud_imperium: oh really?

And this the problem since you get tear a new one you begin to downplay sources just because you have SHIT to back you up but your biased ass opinion which is 100% worthless to me and most people here to.

Fact is Ryse is more restrictve to the point were reviews slam it for it,but some how is only your opinion that matter so gamespot and Digital Foundry opinion doesn't matter just yours.lol Worse Uncharted 4 has being confirm to have bigger open areas than previous uncharted games which make your argument even less relevant.

You are the tool who can't seem to see how on your you can barely move a few feets from where you are to the side on the gears video i showed you the space was much bigger,basicaly by this point you are on total denial lemming,much like you were when you make a thread stating Uncharted look average..lol

The video i post reinforce the fact that you are a blind lemm another alter ego of some butthurt lemm here,who downplays the PS4 because its games are pathetic did you make a thread about Halo 5 abysmal graphics,.? Hahahaaha no i don't think so.

Commanding a squad mean shit when you are CONFINED to a small pathway were you can't even jump over a crate,and that is the problem you are losing your time defeneding Ryse is basically the worse offender when it comes to restrictive gameplay,and reviews notice that yet you can't Uncharted has never being as restrictive and has wider range of gameplay because it has multi level gaming in mind.

The only thing you play is being a fanboy,considering you HAVE not play Uncharted i say yr argument is totally shit after all you can get how enclosed Ryse is by just watching a video,i don't NEED to PLAY it is not like the gameplay becomes bigger by playing it your self fool.

First were did Halo 4 won best graphics IGN.? Second what does that even have to do with having the best graphics on last gen.? Halo came on 2012 Uncharted 3 on 2011,nd TLOU on 2013 so your argument mean total shit.

You make a thread about Uncharted 4 graphics looking average yet you don't do that for Halo 5 which graphics do look abysmal and sad,but i guess Halo 5 graphics are ok,much of you fanboys are pathetic i could care less how much you think Uncharted 4 graphics average,it doesn't and considering certain series just release with pathetic graphics,effects,resolution and pretty much everything having to do with visuals in a bad state and you say shit yeah it pretty much prove m point,you are as sad as cloudimperium..lol

Halo 5 has nothing to do with the discussion, why mention it?

You did and are still doing an appeal to authority fallacy. Prove Uncharted 3 has larger environments than Ryse then we'll talk. Bringing up reviews of people with no authority on the matter is irrelevant. I could make up my own and slam Uncharted 3 for it. Hell, I actually already complained and have seen multiple people complain about its restricted environment.

Halo 4 was widely considered one of the best looking last gen games. On-par with Uncharted 3 and some even considered it better looking. It beat games from 2012 for an award and Uncharted 3 multiplayer looked way, way worse than its single player. What credibility do you have when you say its multiplayer side beats Halo? Single player you'd have an argument. Also why are you laughing at IGN as a source? Are you now handpicking which site is valid and which isn't?

As said before you have nothing intelligent to say or add. Unsurprising considering all you do is watch Youtube videos instead of playing the games.

Now shut up and go hide in a corner troll. You have nothing other than calling people ''lemmings'' and you sound like a raving idiot.

Edit: Lol, check my PSN trophies and then go claim I didn't play Uncharted. Cretin.

Easy it has pathetic graphics yet some how you don't make a thread about it,no you go and make a thread about a game DF call impressive even while being 900p online which Ryse also isonline and offline..lol

I aready did and posted videos what i can't to is change opinion of blind fanboys.

One of the best looking games doesn't imply the BEST,so again Halo winning graphics on 2012 is irrelevant that doesn't prove it is the best looking one last gen and i am not even sure on 2012 considering i didn't see the majority of sites giving taht award to halo.

This is ultra pathetic coming from the dude who make an Uncharted look abverage tread.? Hahahaahaa

Having a PS3 doesn't stop you from beaing a lemm pathetic fanboy,now STFU and make a Halo 5 look like garbage thread since you know you are so bother with graphics that you find Uncharted 4 average...lol

A game receiving an award a year before the gen ended does make it one of the best looking games. Graphics go forward, not backwards. Games from 2012 generally look better than games from 2011 and the years before. A game being considered the best looking of 2012 is unarguably better looking than the majority of games released before it. By default it makes it one of the best looking last gen games as the next gen started the very next year. It also undoubtedly looks significantly better than a multiplayer version of game from 2011.

I disagree with your videos? See I can do that too. It's inconclusive which game has the larger environments. You wouldn't see me arguing if you had posted videos of games like Fallout or hell even Ratchet and Clank. Even if I agree that Uncharted has larger environments it's still ultimately irrelevant because the scale is too way too small and not notable enough to give it praise over Ryse for it.

I own a PS3, a PS4 and a PSTV. Haven't owned an Xbox system since mid 2012 or early 2013. Seems like you're projecting your issues at me. You're the fanboy here.

Halo 5 does look pretty damn bad but again, nobody ever claimed it to be any sort of graphical juggernaut. Uncharted 4 was heralded as the next best thing graphically and I'm left unimpressed so far.

Bullshit Halo 4 winning best graphics on 2012 has nothing to do with past games on the system,or future games like Beyond 2 Souls or TLOU which also look better,is about that particular year period.

Bullshit almost all games release on 2012 on PS3 for not saying all look worse than Uncharted 3,hell Killzone 2 look better than Halo Reach which came after it,and many other games before it.

No that is pathetic what prove is that on 2012 there wasn't a game better looking on 2012 not counting games that came before is about games release on 2012 so nice spin lemming it doesn't work that way.

Sure you do you also find Uncharted 4 average looking while DF claim is impressive,and you didn't do a thread for a game that did look average at best Halo 5,so your visuals standards are really mess up you just wanted to downplay Uncharted and you look stupid for it as your thread backfire..lol

No it is very clear you just call a great looking game average,so yeah it is you.

lol So you are arguing Halo 4 is one of the best looking games,which is make by 343,but now you want to hide on the fact that no one hyped Halo 5 graphics wait is that you Cloud_imerium.? Hahahahaa

pathetic dude Halo 5 look like crap Uncharted look great and you are butthurt..lol

I'll lay it down for you so you can understand.

Fact 2012 happened after 2011.

Fact 2012 is more technologically advanced than 2011.

Fact most games released in 2012 look better than most games released in 2011 and the years before.

Fact Halo 4 is considered one of the best if not the best looking game from 2012 on consoles.

Fact Halo 4 looks better than almost every game released prior to it.

Fact Halo 4 came in 2012, one year before 2013 the year the new gen started.

It doesn't mean Halo 4 looks better than every games released before it but it does mean it looks better than the vast majority of them.

Digital Foundry finds it impressive, I find it average. How is Digital Foundry relevant?

You can't write for shit. You can't make a constructive or relevant argument. Your debating skills are shit. You commit a fallacy after the other. Your points don't even make sense and you bring up things that have NOTHING to do with what we are talking. Why the hell are we talking about Halo 5 or 343? We were talking about Ryse and Uncharted 4 but you derailed the whole thing because you keep bringing up shit that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You have to make points that support your argument. Halo 5 graphics have nothing to do with Ryse and Uncharted 4. The fact that I didn't make a thread about Halo 5 graphics(maybe because there were half a dozen already) has nothing to do with Ryse and Uncharted 4. Yes Halo 5 looks bad. When did I argue otherwise and more importantly what has this got to do with the thread? WTF are you on man?

You have to be trolling to be this illiterate and illogical.

Let me lay down this for you.

Killzone 2 came on 2009,in 2010 how many games beat it graphically.?

Fact the very best looking games are hardly beat by most games the next year.

Again Killzone 2 piss all over Halo Reach which came after.

Again 2012 imply just that which game of the ones coming in 2012 look better is not about which look best until 2012,so stop making shitty ass excuses to justify your pathetic argument.

Is relevant because is a tech site which compare graphics every day,you on the other hand are a pathetic fanboy who want to downplay Uncharted.

Hahahahaa this coming from a alter account.? Hahahaaa

Make a thread about Halo 5 looking average and maybe you will not look this stupid when you downplay a great looking game graphically it make you look like a desperate butthurt fanboy,fact is COMPARE to what is Uncharted 4 average.? Hahahahaa

No Halo 5 graphics have to do with you being a butthurt lemm,so stop your buffoonery you are not convincing anyone with that silly argument about Uncharted looking average..hahahaa

How many games beat Killzone 2 graphically? Crysis 2, Halo 4, Metro 2033 and Last Light, Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4...want me to go on? And would you look at that, almost all of these games were released AFTER Killzone 2. Killzone 2 looked great compared to games released prior to it. Since it was released, plenty of games trounce it graphically and it's not exactly impressive these days.

Again, are you arguing most games from 2011 and before look better than Halo 4? Or are you nitpicking a couple of games that look better? You also must not forget Uncharted 3 multiplayer doesn't look anywhere near as good as its single player. How would you know that though? You never bothered playing it. There's definitely an argument for Uncharted 3 single player looking better than Halo 4. There's no argument for Uncharted 3 multiplayer looking better than Halo 4. We're talking about the multiplayer and it seems you've never grasped that. Anyway this whole thing is boring now. Can't be bothered to educate an illiterate child.