@scottpsfan14 said:

@miiiiv said:

Cows should stop bringing up KZSF in any discussion about graphics. The game has great character models and animations, that's about it, the environments still have lots of blocky edges and it has some really poor lod distance even though it only renders relatively small playable areas and the inability to not even render these pretty small areas with proper lod distance is striking. Everything that is slightly far away but still in rock throwing distance is either a blurry or covered in fog.

Not saying it doesn't look good overall because it does, but it has some major drawbacks in lod and draw distance which should be taken into consideration. Not having several of light sources that cast shadows at the same time is not a big deal though, most other games don't have that either.

What you don't seem to grasp is that KZSF assets are far beyond Crysis 3's. Far bigger polygon budget. You probably haven't got the game and all your opinions are based on conjecture.

You just don't come across assets that blocky in KZSF no matter how hard you try and find them. And if you do, they are little rocks and smaller details. Any rocks of that size in KZ are far more detailed than that. Also, the texture map is far worse on Crysis 3 rocks. As for draw distance in PS4 games..

It isn't ground breaking on Infamous sure, but the fact is that 11 million polygons per frame are being rendered at any given time on the game. That's a very geometrically dense game.

What you don't seem to grasp is that KZSF's assets aren't far beyond, or even beyond Crysis 3's, because really you just don't know, unless you want to tell us that you've been working for GG all this time. Just with every game, there are good and bad assets. You also don't understand that Crytek can drop the poly count on an asset with little work. There are no next gen or last gen assets, there are only assets. Do you really think the devs are like, "let's put a next gen asset here, and a last gen one here, because this level has too many poly's as it is."

And if that's true, which it isn't, and that's a fact, then GG must have been like, "well.. lets use last gen lighting ie. baked in GI, because the PS4 can't handle realtime"

See, it doesn't go one way and not the other, you're going on assumptions for one thing and discounting the other because it doesn't fit your bias. If you believe that Crysis 3 has last gen assets, then you should also believe that KZ has last gen lighting, because baked in GI, is not the future, and the flat texture grounds in KZ, that's last gen too, and they aren't using tessellation which is why certain surfaces look bad in KZ.

Crysis 3 also must have a higher polygon budget on pc, because it's using tessellation on every plant, and the water, and it has a solution for the trees.

Another thing, though this doesn't involve you, but earlier I mentioned that SW:BF looked better then just about anything, yet M3dude, said it wouldn't look like that, because it was in-engine, rather then in game, but isn't the exact same case as Uncharted 4 ?

All i'm seeing is a lot of hypocrisy..

@miiiiv - you might want to weigh in here.

Nothing beats this..

Maybe they should get back to us when they can actually get an fps with real GI, until then it's just embarrassing how delusional they are. Not to mention the in engine star wars gameplay looked as good as Uncharted, but who knows if it will actually look like that, because it's "in-engine" just like um.. UC4

Well it said it was in engine, just like UC4, so i'm guessing you're just a hypocrite ? Or harboring a delusional bias

You might want to get your eyes check. Are you honestly going to tell me Infamous looks more real then BF4 to you ?

Totally forgot about Star Wars Battlefront

Yeah, that's an incorrect statement.. BF4 on consoles is a mix of high and medium from what I heard, while pc is ultra. And the PS4 isn't even 1080p right ?

Don't tell me you think Infamous compares to BF4's graphics on pc ?

Comparison:

_________-

@scottpsfan14 said:

@NFJSupreme said:

@krisroe_213 said:

@NFJSupreme:

Here's something outside that Photo Mode

@R4gn4r0k said:

I don't know man. I'll reserve judgement on SS till I get the game but these screen shots you guys are posting from actual gameplay are not really that impressive. SS looks great don't get me wrong but this whole "no other game touches it" stuff is complete BS.

WD has a more realistic art style. Sucker Punch went with a 'comic book' art style according to them. So that is something to consider. They also kept the Infamous 2 water shader which looks completely out of place. So don't expect to see water like WD in ISS lol. They are to different games with different focus points, which is something you must consider. If, talking by a technical stand point, then Infamous really does kill WD. So much more going on. Read DF analysis of it and they say, while there are problems such as LOD pop in at times, the game is raising the bar for open world games of it's kind. Perhaps when Watch Dogs 2 gets released on PS4/XB1/PC only, we will see similar enhancements in geometry complexity and detail. But when it comes down to it, it's what the end user likes the look of.

Suppose your assumptions are right. Aren't you discounting the fact that advanced assets don't make a next gen game ? Just as you were trying to say about Crysis, but in regards to the lighting. Wouldn't that apply to the fact that Infamous falls behind in the engine effects, and especially the water ? Same for KZ, while KZ may be good in the asset department, it's using last gen lighting, foliage, etc...

I recognized the name too, he was a big name leading up to BF3. With him behind SW:BF, I know the pc version is going to be spectacular.

@scottpsfan14 : Infamous looks really good, it doesn't blow me away, but it's better then WD in it's current state, I'm interested to see WD's once the rest of the E3 effects are found/"turned" back on. He's adding the fog, and lens flare back in next.

@scottpsfan14 : They said they were already basically using PBR in Crysis 3, I know you saw the link to that earlier in the thread. Of course we can get closer to CGI, but he didn't say anything about assets, like you are implying he did. Lighting is the biggest step towards realism. You can take a car asset out of battlefield 4, give it lifelike textures, realtime reflections and ray traced lighting, and it will look real. I know this because I did the same thing with assets in CE3. Getting the right textures, and getting the lighting right, so that the car looked real.

Cevat Yerli also said he thought Crysis 3 would be the best looking game on the market for 3 years like Crysis was, he must have though Crysis 3 looked better than Ryse, because he clearly knew about it, and even implied that in the interview.

Again, I don't disagree that UC4 and possibly the Order, beat Crysis 3. Those are both very impressive. I'm just saying based off my experience working in graphics engine's, and working with a lot of assets and textures, and especially lighting, Crysis 3 is still ahead of current PS4 games. Not UC4 though, ND did a damn good job on that. It should also be mentioned that sometimes, no matter what's running behind the scenes, one game just looks better, that could be because less is going on, but it doesn't change the fact that one clearly looks better/more real. I see this case with a game like BF4, it's not crazy impressive in SP or anything, but their lighting just works so well for the realistic look. BF4 has scenes that look almost photorealistic at times.