Support NeoGAF

[JareBear: Remastered]

Resolution and frames don't really create this stark contrast in visuals between the versions. I don't play on PC but I've seen enough high quality comparisons to know

Isn't it kinda hard to really know unless you play try the different versions yourself? I think you'd be surprised. There are clear visual differences even between One X versions pushing significantly higher amounts of pixels than the Pro version of games.

And it goes beyond resolution, this gen. Many times this gen it was the difference between low/medium/some high settings on console vs Ultra settings on PC. Especially with draw distance sliders and whatnot, though maybe that is something that consoles can maintain a lead in, or at least stay neck and neck, with PC games due to their SSDs and whatnot (specifically talking asset streaming, draw distance, LOD, not saying the SSD alone will make a texture look better)

 

[martino]

Resolution and frames don't really create this stark contrast in visuals between the versions. I don't play on PC but I've seen enough high quality comparisons to know

you lack what twice+ the framerate bring for effects (especially temporal ones) , the animation, and low latency.

 

[GymWolf]

while the face and skin look mazing, facial hair looks off and clothing isnt great in that shot

Facials hairs are pretty good, the screenshot is blurry.

Deacon has probably one of the most realistic jngame faces of this gen, better than nate in unchy4 where he lose a lot of details compared to cutscenes.

Deacon is the same exact face both ingame and cutscene, the problem with days gone is that the only incredible faces are just deacon, boozer the others are acceptable to good to maybe great but not on the level of the 2 protagonist.

Horizon is the game with the best overall quality among ALL characters present in the game, no open world game come close, some tertiary character with 10 lines in horizon have on par or better faces and details compared to some secondary and primary character in many other ooen world games.

Sadie, a primary\secondary character with a shitton of screentime, main missions, lines etc.

Petra, a tertiary character with 50 lines and 1 dedicated sidemission

Micah bell, one of the main villain, same as sadie, a lot of screentime etc.

A guy with maybe a sidequest in horizon

Maybe they look a bit more realistic in rdr2 but is more a design choice, in terms of skin and other details we are pretty close if not on par.

 

[phil_t98]

Facials hairs are pretty good, the screenshot is blurry.

Deacon has probably one of the most realistic jngame faces of this gen, better than nate in unchy4 where he lose a lot of details compared to cutscenes.

Deacon is the same exact face both ingame and cutscene, the problem with days gone is that the only incredible faces are just deacon, boozer the others are acceptable to good to maybe great but not on the level of the 2 protagonist.

Horizon is the game with the best overall quality among ALL characters present in the game, no open world game come close, some tertiary character with 10 lines in horizon have on par or better faces and details compared to some secondary and primary character in many other ooen world games.

Sadie, a primary\secondary character with a shitton of screentime, main missions, lines etc.

Petra, a tertiary character with 50 lines and 1 dedicated sidemission

Micah bell, one of the main villain, same as sadie, a lot of screentime etc.

A guy with maybe a sidequest in horizon

Maybe they look a bit more realistic in rdr2 but is more a design choice, in terms of skin and other details we are pretty close if not on par.

well if you read what I said ,in that pic the skin looks amazing but the facial hair looks off as does the clothing. you replied with a LOL , now you say the the screen shot was blurry. you can't LOL something somebody comments on that you post then say it was blurry. I want dissing the game at all. was commenting on how the screen shot was

Edit it wasn't you who posted original screen shot but my point stands

 

[Killer Sakoman]

ITT:

He didn't bring any news. He is speculating.

 

[GymWolf]

well if you read what I said ,in that pic the skin looks amazing but the facial hair looks off as does the clothing. you replied with a LOL , now you say the the screen shot was blurry. you can't LOL something somebody comments on that you post then say it was blurry. I want dissing the game at all. was commenting on how the screen shot was

Edit it wasn't you who posted original screen shot but my point stands

i never responded with a lol, maybe you are mistaking guy.

i only said that the screen was blurry, i played almost 100 hours of that game, i know everything about the graphics.

you are right about what he is wearing, some parts are clearly more detailed than others.

 

[phil_t98]

i never responded with a lol, maybe you are mistaking guy.

I edited my post

 

[GymWolf]

I edited my post

i still never responded with a lol, i perfectly understand your critique, in that screen the beard looks mediocre.

this is what i said:

Facials hairs are pretty good, the screenshot is blurry.

Deacon has probably one of the most realistic jngame faces of this gen, better than nate in unchy4 where he lose a lot of details compared to cutscenes.

Deacon is the same exact face both ingame and cutscene, the problem with days gone is that the only incredible faces are just deacon and boozer, the others are acceptable to good to maybe great but not on the level of the 2 protagonist.


this is how the beard looks (and the screen is still a little bit blurry, he looks even better in game)

 

[phil_t98]

i still never responded with a lol.

this is what i said:

Facials hairs are pretty good, the screenshot is blurry.

Deacon has probably one of the most realistic jngame faces of this gen, better than nate in unchy4 where he lose a lot of details compared to cutscenes.

Deacon is the same exact face both ingame and cutscene, the problem with days gone is that the only incredible faces are just deacon, boozer the others are acceptable to good to maybe great but not on the level of the 2 protagonist.

yes I said in my edit it wasn't you who posted it, the person who LOL'd my point stands with them

 

[VFXVeteran]

If you're arguing Tomb Raider, Zelda BOTW, have better animation than UC4, Spiderman, TLOU2 you're either fucking with us or you really have a problem with Sony. You are constantly downplaying any Sony studios game, and you even have the nerve to prop up Tomb Raider and Zelda for the animation (and character models)?

How come you're not impressed how good animation blending in Uncharted 4 is, to the point where you have complex animations that don't slow down the gameplay like they do in RDR2? Because that's what RDR2 does, it puts everything on hold basically.

I don't know whats up with you, but it's very weird to see a vfx artist always and constantly downplaying Sony games. Visual artists tend to be very impressed by these games (God of War, Spiderman, Uncharted). Something ain't right there, considering how widely renowned they are in the industry for being at the frontier (along with Rockstar for example), yet every time I read your posts you're always swimming against that current.

I'm not an artist. I'm a graphics software engineer.

I don't look at me downplaying Sony games. I look at me being realistic with Sony games. I think every Sony fan assumes you are bashing their game if you don't agree that it's the best. That's ridiculous but here we are.

I have played every single PS game that you mention there and I don't see it's superiority with other 3rd party games. From an objective point of view of course. When you compare technologies, there are other games that may do something better. No one game is superior to all others.

Zelda:BoTW has some amazing animations and the gameplay is one of the best I've played. I can sit and dissect all the games but that would be a waste of time.

 

[Hobbygaming]

If you're arguing Tomb Raider, Zelda BOTW, have better animation than UC4, Spiderman, TLOU2 you're either fucking with us or you really have a problem with Sony. You are constantly downplaying any Sony studios game, and you even have the nerve to prop up Tomb Raider and Zelda for the animation (and character models)?

How come you're not impressed how good animation blending in Uncharted 4 is, to the point where you have complex animations that don't slow down the gameplay like they do in RDR2? Because that's what RDR2 does, it puts everything on hold basically.

I don't know whats up with you, but it's very weird to see a vfx artist always and constantly downplaying Sony games. Visual artists tend to be very impressed by these games (God of War, Spiderman, Uncharted). Something ain't right there, considering how widely renowned they are in the industry for being at the frontier (along with Rockstar for example), yet every time I read your posts you're always swimming against that current.




Sounds more like an excuse man. It's not even up for debate, if you got enough money and it's a game available on PC, that's where it will look the best.

Is RDR2 the best looking game on the PS4? Maybe. But are there other multiplats like RDR2? Seems to me that there's a trend of Sony putting numbers in that TOP 10 best looking games on their platform.

You hit the nail on the nose. How is one impressed with Assassin's Creed, Zelda, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order and others visually and animation wise but not impressed with TLOU 2, Uncharted 4, Spider-man, GoW, Ghost of Tsushima, Days Gone, etc

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

You hit the nail on the nose. How is one impressed with Assassin's Creed, Zelda, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order and others visually and animation wise but not impressed with TLOU 2, Uncharted 4, Spider-man, GoW, Ghost of Tsushima, Days Gone, etc

I feel like you would make a decent point if you didn't always mention games that aren't released yet. Nobody here has played TLOU2 or Ghost of Tsushima. We have barely seen anything of Ghost. What have seen DOES seem to look INCREDIBLE, but I mean, maybe wait for it to actually come out before deciding anything?

 

[DoctaThompson]

You hit the nail on the nose. How is one impressed with Assassin's Creed, Zelda, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order and others visually and animation wise but not impressed with TLOU 2, Uncharted 4, Spider-man, GoW, Ghost of Tsushima, Days Gone, etc

Animations actually look smooth, seamless animations at stable framerates. 20ish fps <<<< 100fps. Imagine your vision at sub 30fps, and going to a basketball match or UFC fight. You'll miss a huge amount of action. Look at some of the jerky animations in UC2 for instance. Nathan should not teleport to the enemy, then his hands flip flop, to npc being dead. Not taking anything away from those games, but just think for a second how framerate directly goes hand in hand with animations.

 

[Killer Sakoman]

Gravity and Bloodborne are first party titles? I think the samurai game you link to illustrates my point. Which Ratchet & Clank game is that? looks almost no different than the 2007 game Tools of Destruction.

Well, can you reply to him with picture of the mighty xbox one games

 

[Hobbygaming]

I feel like you would make a decent point if you didn't always mention games that aren't released yet. Nobody here has played TLOU2 or Ghost of Tsushima. We have barely seen anything of Ghost. What have seen DOES seem to look INCREDIBLE, but I mean, maybe wait for it to actually come out before deciding anything?

We know what we're getting with TLOU 2 graphically it's the best looking game judging from the recent trailer, Ghost of Tsushima looks amazing but we do have to see more of it

At the same time, Sucker Punch always makes gorgeous games

 

[DoctaThompson]

We know what we're getting with TLOU 2 graphically it's the best looking game judging from the recent trailer, Ghost of Tsushima looks amazing but we do have to see more of it

At the same time, Sucker Punch always makes gorgeous games

*Best looking game on ps4 in your opinion*

Can you be honest with me, if that game was Xbox exclusive, would you still say it's the best looking game? I would really love to know, as it seems your more emotionally tied to the Sony relationship, than being objective and comparing other games, objectively.

Second question, if this game releases on PC, would it still be the best looking game? I feel like it wouldn't be on your list, if it were on other hardware. Funny how people can change up when tables turn, or when turn tables spin.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Animations actually look smooth, seamless animations at stable framerates. 20ish fps <<<< 100fps. Imagine your vision at sub 30fps, and going to a basketball match or UFC fight. You'll miss a huge amount of action. Look at some of the jerky animations in UC2 for instance. Nathan should not teleport to the enemy, then his hands flip flop, to npc being dead. Not taking anything away from those games, but just think for a second how framerate directly goes hand in hand with animations.

The framerates in Sony games are often stable with Days Gone being the exception only in certain areas

 

[DoctaThompson]

The framerates in Sony games are often stable with Days Gone being the exception only in certain areas

Doesn't matter if it's stable or not. Animations look better with higher framerate, or you will lose plenty of data, only refreshing the final output, every other frame.






30fps shouldn't even be a thing this current gen. 60fps should have been the absolute minimum, and higher than that is highly preferred.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

It's weird how much of this thread is dedicated to how RDR 2 looks on PC... how many people are getting full advantage of that?

What does it take to run Red Dead Redemption 2 PC at 60fps?

Red Dead Redemption 2 on PC has some issues - fixable issues - but they shouldn't distract too much from the scale of t…

www.eurogamer.net

"Across the board, framerates above and beyond 60fps are possible at 1080p, but don’t expect ultra-smooth high refresh rate gaming on anything other than the very best Nvidia Turing graphics cards – such as the RTX 2080 Super and RTX 2080 Ti.

The 1440p club is even more elusive. At this resolution even the latest 16-series mainstream cards fall a little short of 60fps. An RTX 2060 Super will net you acceptable frame times, although its bitter rival, the AMD RX 5700, manages just a few frames more.

Ramping up to 4K is a privilege enjoyed only by graphics card royalty. Red Dead Redemption demands serious silicon to reach 60fps at 4K, and even the RTX 2080 Super struggles to get there despite its power and price tag. The RTX 2080 Ti is the only option for 4K in Red Dead Redemption 2 – at least without drastically dropping graphics settings."

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC performance analysis: easily hit 60fps with your graphics card

Saddle up your best horse because it's going to be a bumpy ride

www.pcgamesn.com

People need to stop acting like anyone not willing to drop serious cash is enjoying RDR 2 at some level beyond consoles.

 

[GymWolf]

I'm not an artist. I'm a graphics software engineer.

I don't look at me downplaying Sony games. I look at me being realistic with Sony games. I think every Sony fan assumes you are bashing their game if you don't agree that it's the best. That's ridiculous but here we are.

I have played every single PS game that you mention there and I don't see it's superiority with other 3rd party games. From an objective point of view of course. When you compare technologies, there are other games that may do something better. No one game is superior to all others.

Zelda:BoTW has some amazing animations and the gameplay is one of the best I've played. I can sit and dissect all the games but that would be a waste of time.

botw animation are pretty gamey and unremarkable most of the times tbh, they are not even near to stuff like uncharted or other sony\third party games

this is darksiders 3

bloodborne


sekiro


mhw


gow


nier ASSomata


unchy4
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd....654/381C10E4A0ABD2158B0E3C599E5A20205A7DFA92/

and i can continue until tomorrow with other games, and almost all of them shits on botw animations while still having fast and gamey responsive movement and combat (even without the rallenty in some of these gifs), and i not even posted some heavyweight like spiderman, tlou2 etc.

maybe zelda has SOME good animations but still nothing near the level of the best animations during this or even last gen.
one of the few pretty funny animation in botw is when link fall or get hit and the ragdoll kicks in, still a little bit exagerated and ridicolous.

but i'm sure you are gonna find a way to argue about this too, so like you said, a waste of time on my part


edit: fuuuuuck why the gif posted from twitter don't work? you can check them by clicking on the tweet.

 

[DoctaThompson]

It's weird how much of this thread is dedicated to how RDR 2 looks on PC... how many people are getting full advantage of that?

What does it take to run Red Dead Redemption 2 PC at 60fps?

Red Dead Redemption 2 on PC has some issues - fixable issues - but they shouldn't distract too much from the scale of t…

www.eurogamer.net

"Across the board, framerates above and beyond 60fps are possible at 1080p, but don’t expect ultra-smooth high refresh rate gaming on anything other than the very best Nvidia Turing graphics cards – such as the RTX 2080 Super and RTX 2080 Ti.

The 1440p club is even more elusive. At this resolution even the latest 16-series mainstream cards fall a little short of 60fps. An RTX 2060 Super will net you acceptable frame times, although its bitter rival, the AMD RX 5700, manages just a few frames more.

Ramping up to 4K is a privilege enjoyed only by graphics card royalty. Red Dead Redemption demands serious silicon to reach 60fps at 4K, and even the RTX 2080 Super struggles to get there despite its power and price tag. The RTX 2080 Ti is the only option for 4K in Red Dead Redemption 2 – at least without drastically dropping graphics settings."

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC performance analysis: easily hit 60fps with your graphics card

Saddle up your best horse because it's going to be a bumpy ride

www.pcgamesn.com

People need to stop acting like anyone not willing to drop serious cash is enjoying RDR 2 at some level beyond consoles.

Anything above sub 30fps is better than console version. I'm not sure why people are eluding that simple fact. You can get a 2060 for the same price as a base ps4, and play games with a much better experience than ps4 pro or series x. And have similar raytracing to next gen consoles.

Also console and pc don't run at same settings, or anywhere near it. Consoles exhibit some graphical settings that are lower than the lowest setting you can have on PC. In other words 4k on pc =\= 4k on consoles.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Anything above sub 30fps is better than console version. I'm not sure why people are eluding that simple fact. You can get a 2060 for the same price as a base ps4, and play games with a much better experience than ps4 pro or series x. And have similar raytracing to next gen consoles.

Also console and pc don't run at same settings, or anywhere near it. Consoles exhibit some graphical settings that are lower than the lowest setting you can have on PC. In other words 4k on pc =\= 4k on consoles.

They also said some settings are high, some are medium, some are a mix of high and medium. There are people who would prefer a consistent 30 FPS with good frame pacing to a few extra bells and whistles but the inability to hit a consistent framerate with consistent frame pacing. Also, only listing the card price (and that card is on the low end) isn't telling the entire story, how expensive were the machines they used to get these benchmarks besides the price of the card? I guess if you already have an i7 8700k just getting a 300 dollar card can work (even the motherboard they're using is 200, the SSD, power supply, liquid cooling, and monitor all come out around as much as well) but regardless of when you bought the parts you're still talking far more money to play this game better than a Series X than it would cost you to get a Series X, and that's keeping in mind Series X has no trouble with framerate/frame pacing at 4K which the card you mentioned isn't doing amazing at.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

They also said some settings are high, some are medium, some are a mix of high and medium. There are people who would prefer a consistent 30 FPS with good frame pacing to a few extra bells and whistles but the inability to hit a consistent framerate with consistent frame pacing. Also, only listing the card price (and that card is on the low end) isn't telling the entire story, how expensive were the machines they used to get these benchmarks besides the price of the card? I guess if you already have an i7 8700k just getting a 300 dollar card can work (even the motherboard they're using is 200, the SSD, power supply, liquid cooling, and monitor all come out around as much as well) but regardless of when you bought the parts you're still talking far more money to play this game better than a Series X than it would cost you to get a Series X, and that's keeping in mind Series X has no trouble with framerate/frame pacing at 4K which the card you mentioned isn't doing amazing at.

I have a side question/off topic question:

I was told that frame pacing is more of a software (game side) issue than hardware issue, is this true? Someone was saying that BB's framepacing issues had nothing to do with PS4 hardware and just needed a simple coding patch or something like that

 

[Explosive Zombie]

I have a side question/off topic question:

I was told that frame pacing is more of a software (game side) issue than hardware issue, is this true? Someone was saying that BB's framepacing issues had nothing to do with PS4 hardware and just needed a simple coding patch or something like that

With PC your hardware can improve frame pacing, but to a certain extent it's the software's fault you need different hardware. From Software are pretty notorious for not getting frame pacing, the PS4 can handle better frame pacing than BB has, if it ever got a proper pro patch it could also handle better framerates in general, but From aren't the best technical devs, as much as some of us love their creations. PC gamers can work around frame pacing issues, console gamers can't.

 

[VFXVeteran]

botw animation are pretty gamey and unremarkable most of the times tbh, they are not even near to stuff like uncharted or other sony\third party games

this is darksiders 3

bloodborne


sekiro


mhw


gow


nier ASSomata


unchy4
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd....654/381C10E4A0ABD2158B0E3C599E5A20205A7DFA92/

and i can continue until tomorrow with other games, and almost all of them shits on botw animations while still having fast and gamey responsive movement and combat (even without the rallenty in some of these gifs), and i not even posted some heavyweight like spiderman, tlou2 etc.

maybe zelda has SOME good animations but still nothing near the level of the best animations during this or even last gen.
one of the few pretty funny animation in botw is when link fall or get hit and the ragdoll kicks in, still a little bit exagerated and ridicolous.

but i'm sure you are gonna find a way to argue about this too, so like you said, a waste of time on my part


edit: fuuuuuck why the gif posted from twitter don't work? you can check them by clicking on the tweet.

And here we are getting into the wall of screenshots - gifs, etc..

You can't convince me of leaning your way on this topic when it's completely subjective.

We are always getting into this round robin argument that people are trying to convince others with just showing screenshots. That will never work in a discussion. We are talking about OBJECTIVE facts! And not a single one of you has come up with one. So really shouldn't be having this argument.

 

[Killer Sakoman]

Simply taking the first comparison found on YouTube, check this out. This is comparing console to console footage of the game. (Not taking into consideration of the graphical features enabled, framerate, or even the resolution of the pc version)

Art style is totally differently. RDR2 is generally superior from both art and asset quality. RDR2 also benefits from much bigger development budget. Also DG is UE4

 

[GymWolf]

And here we are getting into the wall of screenshots - gifs, etc..

You can't convince me of leaning your way on this topic when it's completely subjective.

We are always getting into this round robin argument that people are trying to convince others with just showing screenshots. That will never work in a discussion. We are talking about OBJECTIVE facts! And not a single one of you has come up with one. So really shouldn't be having this argument.

dude are you seriously saying that we can't judge animations from an objective stand point of view?

watch days gone melee combat and watch tlou1-2 melee combat, you can't really say who is the better one?

you can't say who has the better animations between rdr2 and tomb raider reebot?

you can't tell who has the better animations between surge saga and bloodborne?

well ok then.

 

[VFXVeteran]

dude are you seriously saying that we can't judge animations from an objective stand point of view?

watch days gone melee combat and watch tlou1 melee combat, you can't really say who is the better one?

you can't say who has the better animations between rdr2 and tomb raider reebot?

you can't tell who has the better animations between surge saga and bloodborne?

well ok then.

No you can't without stating the argument is subjective opinion. Animations have styles just like art and textures have style. Most games key the animation and do mocap. There really is no "winner" in that case. It's a production choice.

 

[DoctaThompson]

They also said some settings are high, some are medium, some are a mix of high and medium. There are people who would prefer a consistent 30 FPS with good frame pacing to a few extra bells and whistles but the inability to hit a consistent framerate with consistent frame pacing. Also, only listing the card price (and that card is on the low end) isn't telling the entire story, how expensive were the machines they used to get these benchmarks besides the price of the card? I guess if you already have an i7 8700k just getting a 300 dollar card can work (even the motherboard they're using is 200, the SSD, power supply, liquid cooling, and monitor all come out around as much as well) but regardless of when you bought the parts you're still talking far more money to play this game better than a Series X than it would cost you to get a Series X, and that's keeping in mind Series X has no trouble with framerate/frame pacing at 4K which the card you mentioned isn't doing amazing at.

And some settings on console are lower than lowest setting on PC. It's funny you say the 2060 is a low end card, as it replaced the gtx 1060, which is STILL more powerful than the Xbox 1 X and ps4 pro. That low end card is a complete beast to any console gamer.

You don't need that cpu, motherboard, especially liquid cooling which is completely optional, etc. There are people with low end cpu's and motherboards that still get double the framerate of consoles in rdr2 or any other game. Stable framerates too. By the way, don't you need a tv or monitor to game on console as well? Before you say you already have a tv... I hope you realize you can use the tv as your display as well on pc. Did you take into account of the price differences of games between pc and console? Or the price of 7 years of Xbox live, compared to free online gaming?

Why do you keep bringing up frame pacing, as if consoles exhibit it the same or less than pc? Can you provide receipts for series x at NATIVE 4k, without dynamic resolution or checkerboard rendering? If you have any or articles straight from the horses mouth, I would be very interested in watching/reading.

And last of all, why even bring up price in the first place? This is about next gen gaming visuals. Once you can't argue consoles visuals being better, you resort to throwing out the timeless phrase, "well how many own a pc with xxx, gpu or cpu?". Then you go to the classic "well consoles cost this much, and pc requires you to get a job and buy it yourself"

 

[GymWolf]

No you can't without stating the argument is subjective opinion. Animations have styles just like art and textures have style. Most games key the animation and do mocap. There really is no "winner" in that case. It's a production choice.

you can see the clunkiness in days gone melee animation compared to tlou melee animations with both eyes closed and they both try to achieve the same exact type of melee combat, come the fuck on dude...

there is a reason why critics and people over the internet wet their pants for some games animations compared to others, animations are perfectly judgeable in quality, variety, weight etc, same for facial animations and really any type of animations.

production choice? so devs volountarily choose to make clunkier or badly connected animations by choice?

i mean AC games have more money and manpower than from software but their combat animations are jerky and lowest quality compared to latest from games, they choose to have worst animations because reasons?


it doesn't sound right...

 

[Explosive Zombie]

And some settings on console are lower than lowest setting on PC. It's funny you say the 2060 is a low end card, as it replaced the gtx 1060, which is STILL more powerful than the Xbox 1 X and ps4 pro. That low end card is a complete beast to any console gamer.

You don't need that cpu, motherboard, especially liquid cooling which is completely optional, etc. There are people with low end cpu's and motherboards that still get double the framerate of consoles in rdr2 or any other game. Stable framerates too. By the way, don't you need a tv or monitor to game on console as well? Before you say you already have a tv... I hope you realize you can use the tv as your display as well on pc. Did you take into account of the price differences of games between pc and console? Or the price of 7 years of Xbox live, compared to free online gaming?

Why do you keep bringing up frame pacing, as if consoles exhibit it the same or less than pc? Can you provide receipts for series x at NATIVE 4k, without dynamic resolution or checkerboard rendering? If you have any or articles straight from the horses mouth, I would be very interested in watching/reading.

And last of all, why even bring up price in the first place? This is about next gen gaming visuals. Once you can't argue consoles visuals being better, you resort to throwing out the timeless phrase, "well how many own a pc with xxx, gpu or cpu?". Then you go to the classic "well consoles cost this much, and pc requires you to get a job and buy it yourself"

Wait, is your argument really that the rig used to attain the benchmarks isn't important, that you can hit those benchmarks with any rig and the graphics card alone is the decider? Because that's laughable. Price difference on RDR 2? It's 60 on PC. Series X and Pro were analyzed by Digital Foundry as well as others and their frame pacing is considered good for the game.

How is price not a factor? For most people the cost is absolutely a factor especially if they can barely eek out better performance than console with all they've spent. Personally, I'm big on PC gaming but I have no reservations about admitting to the price I hit to be able to play the games well and that even with all I've spent I wouldn't get very good performance out of RDR 2 and might even prefer console performance for it as it's more stable.

 

[DoctaThompson]

Wait, is your argument really that the rig used to attain the benchmarks isn't important, that you can hit those benchmarks with any rig and the graphics card alone is the decider? Because that's laughable. Price difference on RDR 2? It's 60 on PC. Series X and Pro were analyzed by Digital Foundry as well as others and their frame pacing is considered good for the game.

How is price not a factor? For most people the cost is absolutely a factor especially if they can barely eek out better performance than console with all they've spent. Personally, I'm big on PC gaming but I have no reservations about admitting to the price I hit to be able to play the games well and that even with all I've spent I wouldn't get very good performance out of RDR 2 and might even prefer console performance for it as it's more stable.

If you want to get native 4k60fps, you'll need to spend more money than if you wanted to play 1080p60fps. Which is why I said you don't need that cpu, pricier motherboard, etc, in order to play double the framerate of consoles. I can easily find RDR2 muuuuch cheaper than 60 lol. That's a good joke.

Price wasn't a factor in this thread. OP was speculating about next gen visuals, not the price of hardware. There's several threads for price speculation on next gen consoles, AMD and Nvidia gpu's or AMD/Intel cpu's. If you want the fastest car, you won't be going to the dealership with Ford pinto money.

 

[Thirty7ven]

If you want to get native 4k60fps, you'll need to spend more money than if you wanted to play 1080p60fps. Which is why I said you don't need that cpu, pricier motherboard, etc, in order to play double the framerate of consoles. I can easily find RDR2 muuuuch cheaper than 60 lol. That's a good joke.

Price wasn't a factor in this thread. OP was speculating about next gen visuals, not the price of hardware. There's several threads for price speculation on next gen consoles, AMD and Nvidia gpu's or AMD/Intel cpu's. If you want the fastest car, you won't be going to the dealership with Ford pinto money.

The thing is, the OP was talking about baseline for next gen and how cross gen can impact how good these games will look.

The comparison isn’t console vs pc, it’s Assassins Creed Black Flag vs Unity.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

If you want to get native 4k60fps, you'll need to spend more money than if you wanted to play 1080p60fps. Which is why I said you don't need that cpu, pricier motherboard, etc, in order to play double the framerate of consoles. I can easily find RDR2 muuuuch cheaper than 60 lol. That's a good joke.

Price wasn't a factor in this thread. OP was speculating about next gen visuals, not the price of hardware. There's several threads for price speculation on next gen consoles, AMD and Nvidia gpu's or AMD/Intel cpu's. If you want the fastest car, you won't be going to the dealership with Ford pinto money.

"Our GPU test rig has been used as usual sporting a Core i9-9900K overclocked to 5 GHz and 16GB of DDR4-3400 memory. The latest AMD and Nvidia drivers have been used, testing at 1080p, 1440p and 4K. "

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC Graphics Benchmark

Launched on PC a year after it debuted on consoles, Red Dead Redemption 2 is still a big release that deserves a detailed benchmark analysis, much like...

www.techspot.com

1660Ti is the lowest card to double console performance and it costs around 300 bucks, considering it hit that benchmark on a rig running an i9900K and 16GB of DDR4-3400, you're looking at at least 900 dollars to hit 60FPS at 1080p.

This thread wasn't about PC so it's already been derailed and the problem with the PC derailment is of course, PRICE. If price wasn't an issue why would a console ever be an option beyond exclusivity?

 

[DoctaThompson]

"Our GPU test rig has been used as usual sporting a Core i9-9900K overclocked to 5 GHz and 16GB of DDR4-3400 memory. The latest AMD and Nvidia drivers have been used, testing at 1080p, 1440p and 4K. "

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC Graphics Benchmark

Launched on PC a year after it debuted on consoles, Red Dead Redemption 2 is still a big release that deserves a detailed benchmark analysis, much like...

www.techspot.com

1660Ti is the lowest card to double console performance and it costs around 300 bucks, considering it hit that benchmark on a rig running an i9900K and 16GB of DDR4-3400, you're looking at at least 900 dollars to hit 60FPS at 1080p.

This thread wasn't about PC so it's already been derailed and the problem with the PC derailment is of course, PRICE. If price wasn't an issue why would a console ever be an option beyond exclusivity?

To get the game maxed out, sure. But to still look better than consoles @60fps, you can get it much cheaper than that. Ryzen 3200g, GTX 1060, and 8gb of ram. 60 fps.

Do you want affordable graphics, or do you want the absolute best? Take a wild guess which will cost more? If you want good visuals, you can go either way. If you want the absolute best, bleeding edge visuals and experience, pc is the only option. I'm going to drop this though, as I've proven your quote wrong, and it'll only continue to detail this thread.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

From the article you're pulling fro:m: "Getting 1080p / 60 fps on a GTX 1060 card is only possible on the highest performance / lowest graphics preset of the automatic tool, which still maintains TAA anti-aliasing, Ambient Occlusion, Water Quality and decent shadows for this GPU. The good news is that the 6GB of VRAM allows for a manual adjustment of the Textures to Ultra. " - This is worth noting for context because the Series X/Pro versions are not on all lowest graphics presets, sure some settings are lower than the lowest but plenty of others are medium, high and mixes of medium/high. So you're still not giving the average console gamer an amazing value proposition, stuff like having ultra textures certainly mitigates it but this is a weird hill to die on considering RDR 2 is among the more demanding games on PC. It's always better to provide links for context, btw.

"A GTX 1060 is the bare minimum for 1080p/60 fps on Red Dead Redemption 2, and auto performance settings are decent-looking at that level. A GTX 1080 gets you an important increase in visual fidelity and 60 fps at 1440p, but it is not powerful enough for 4K play.

At the entry-level, a GTX 1050 can achieve 30 fps, but the game doesn't look spectacular. An integrated Vega 11 can do 720p/30 fps on the lowest possible settings. This GPU is not supported, so it requires manual setting tweaking, as well as dealing with minor technical issues."

Red Dead Redemption 2: How it Plays on Different Graphics Cards

Tested on everything from integrated graphics to high-end graphics cards.

www.tomshardware.com

I think even if someone bought all the components used getting to 1080p/60fps costs more than simply buying a console. If we're going to bring PC gaming into the argument the value proposition has to be considered and not ignored.

 

[D.Final]

It's weird how much of this thread is dedicated to how RDR 2 looks on PC... how many people are getting full advantage of that?

What does it take to run Red Dead Redemption 2 PC at 60fps?

Red Dead Redemption 2 on PC has some issues - fixable issues - but they shouldn't distract too much from the scale of t…

www.eurogamer.net

"Across the board, framerates above and beyond 60fps are possible at 1080p, but don’t expect ultra-smooth high refresh rate gaming on anything other than the very best Nvidia Turing graphics cards – such as the RTX 2080 Super and RTX 2080 Ti.

The 1440p club is even more elusive. At this resolution even the latest 16-series mainstream cards fall a little short of 60fps. An RTX 2060 Super will net you acceptable frame times, although its bitter rival, the AMD RX 5700, manages just a few frames more.

Ramping up to 4K is a privilege enjoyed only by graphics card royalty. Red Dead Redemption demands serious silicon to reach 60fps at 4K, and even the RTX 2080 Super struggles to get there despite its power and price tag. The RTX 2080 Ti is the only option for 4K in Red Dead Redemption 2 – at least without drastically dropping graphics settings."

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC performance analysis: easily hit 60fps with your graphics card

Saddle up your best horse because it's going to be a bumpy ride

www.pcgamesn.com

People need to stop acting like anyone not willing to drop serious cash is enjoying RDR 2 at some level beyond consoles.

True

 

[bitbydeath]

Please stop with these photomode screenshots. Sheesh! Take the screenshots while in gameplay - PLEASE!!! You can't compare photomode to the actual gameplay. You don't get that kind of fidelity when moving your character around.

Here you go.

Ground textures and lighting and definitely far better in Days Gone. (RDR2 has the bloom issues that plagued last gen games and the ground textures speak for themselves given the vast detail in Days Gone)

The main character in RDR2 looks cartoony where as Days Gone has gone for a realistic approach so I guess it depends on your preference. I prefer Days Gone.

Days Gone also makes a more realistic forest but you could put that down to location but nowhere in the game does RDR2 have dense forestry.

Same goes for indoor shots, there are very few in RDR2 compared to Days Gone.

Lighting again in Days Gone is impeccable and doesn't have the bloom issues RDR2 has.
The image overall is also far cleaner in Days Gone where as RDR2 has some vaseline issues.
Again it also suffers from being cartoony and the textures are also a gen behind Days Gone.

I could go on with more screenshot comparisons but you should get the idea.
It is far harder to find decent screenshots of RDR2 than it is Days Gone.
Days Gone is incredibly consistent with its graphics in comparison.

 

[Shmunter]

People often ignore Assassins Creed Unity. The amount of detail, the crowd’s, the lifelike materials. All in the series are downgrades from there.

 

[Hobbygaming]

People often ignore Assassins Creed Unity. The amount of detail, the crowd’s, the lifelike materials. All in the series are downgrades from there.

I loved the lighting in Unity

 

[VFXVeteran]

Here you go.

Ground textures and lighting and definitely far better in Days Gone. (RDR2 has the bloom issues that plagued last gen games and the ground textures speak for themselves given the vast detail in Days Gone)

The main character in RDR2 looks cartoony where as Days Gone has gone for a realistic approach so I guess it depends on your preference. I prefer Days Gone.

Days Gone also makes a more realistic forest but you could put that down to location but nowhere in the game does RDR2 have dense forestry.

Same goes for indoor shots, there are very few in RDR2 compared to Days Gone.

Lighting again in Days Gone is impeccable and doesn't have the bloom issues RDR2 has.
The image overall is also far cleaner in Days Gone where as RDR2 has some vaseline issues.
Again it also suffers from being cartoony and the textures are also a gen behind Days Gone.

I could go on with more screenshot comparisons but you should get the idea.
It is far harder to find decent screenshots of RDR2 than it is Days Gone.
Days Gone is incredibly consistent with its graphics in comparison.

Every single posted screenshot from the PS4 ends up being 100x better than watching the game in person in front of the TV. I've given up on judging screenshots that are doctored in such a way as to give the impression of a clean image. Most are scaled down (like the ones above - 4k scaled to 1,768px × 995px)) and you can't see the aliasing that takes place (or the low resolution textures seen). I have bought every last one of the PS4 exclusives and have played those games (except Days Gone). The screenshots don't represent what you actually see that's why I never judge a game with a screenshot thread. It's useless.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

I thought Days Gone looked fantastic, I also think RDR 2 looks fantastic.

 

[Craig of War]

So will AC Valhalla run in 60fps or also 30fps on PS5

 

[Dee_Dee]

So will AC Valhalla run in 60fps or also 30fps on PS5

Series X is the stronger console so PS5 shouldn’t exceed

 

[Clintizzle]

So will AC Valhalla run in 60fps or also 30fps on PS5

100% sure it will be 30fps

 

[bitbydeath]

Every single posted screenshot from the PS4 ends up being 100x better than watching the game in person in front of the TV. I've given up on judging screenshots that are doctored in such a way as to give the impression of a clean image. Most are scaled down (like the ones above - 4k scaled to 1,768px × 995px)) and you can't see the aliasing that takes place (or the low resolution textures seen). I have bought every last one of the PS4 exclusives and have played those games (except Days Gone). The screenshots don't represent what you actually see that's why I never judge a game with a screenshot thread. It's useless.

If I get a chance later I’ll take a photo of my TV playing the game.

It really looks that good.

 

[DoctaThompson]

So will AC Valhalla run in 60fps or also 30fps on PS5

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

So it looks about as good as PS4, except for PS4 version’s problems with looking good? This doesn’t make sense.

I'm sorry, but visually the game looks about the same in ps4 minus the image quality issues of the pro which are absent from the one x and base ps4.

i keep bringing Shadow of the Tomb Raider up, I was shocked at how amazing that game looked on my computer, I mean really mind blowing, it’s just incredible, but I have a feeling it looks like nothing special on console so nobody really thinks of it the way they should

you be the judge

You can't convince me of leaning your way on this topic when it's completely subjective.

We are always getting into this round robin argument that people are trying to convince others with just showing screenshots. That will never work in a discussion. We are talking about OBJECTIVE facts! And not a single one of you has come up with one. So really shouldn't be having this argument.

We can say that the ridiculous rag doll animation deaths in botw are nowhere near other games with more realistic death animations. Though I do not often pay attention to those.

The screenshots don't represent what you actually see that's why I never judge a game with a screenshot thread. It's useless.

Maybe you have a 150 inch screen and sit two feet away from it. But otherwise on a normal 65 inch tv, a good 4 to 5 feet away the ps4 image is quite clean in the vast majority of games.

This is not ps2 nor ps3, with questionable image quality.

edit: There are even some gaming sites that have direct feed footage from the ps4 and it looks clean and very good.

edit 2:An example of not only very good looking graphics but exceedingly clean image


an image of god of war, despite what the pc elitist would say, I was in the pc screenshot thread and this screen could easily hold a candle to the best stuff there.

 

[D.Final]

Welp

 

[EDMIX]

The mental gymnastics here.

You have Sony saying, hey you 100 million playstation owners, we are ending support this year, but we still have a few 1st party exclusives for you (that we will likely re-release on the PS5 as a remaster).

You have MS saying, all of our 1st party exclusives are going to continue to support Xbox One, & Xbox One S until the end of 2021. we are not abandoning you, and all your games will get upgrades if you move to the new console

I could modify your statement with a few minor changes like so:

MS is ending the year with a massive showing of AAA force that scales up from the old to the new hardware. MS is saying ,here you go Xbox gamers, enjoy Halo Infinite, and all the other 1st party games we are releasing along side the new Series X. They are very much showing that they start this new generation with a bang, and they are ending the previous generation with one.

Nah, I disagree.

MS is holding back its own damn next gen system to make up for a failed generation. So they are making AAA games for XONE, that they SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING IN THE FUCKING FIRST PLACE SINCE THIS GEN STARTED!


XONE gamers are simply getting what they are owed, but its at the cost of next gen titles by MS for the first few years.

Why should Series X owners be punished with ports cause MS failed generation with XONE? Thanks for buying Series X, now here is a "series" of ports? smh.

So a fine line walked from showing the last year of a system with AAA exclusives and holding back a new system cause a publisher failed....

I'm 100% fine with Sony supporting PS4 this year with several massive AAA titles, some being completely new IP, but understand I'm fine with that because PS5 is actually FUCKING GETTING EXCLUSIVE SUPPORT! Not some "here is a series of PS4 games ported to PS5" etc. So MS already failed this gen bud, they are now going to punish Series X owners for their failures by just making ports....

At this point they might as well just go 3rd party if they want software sales that badly. How many here are really looking to buy a new system to play last gen ports man? smh. Might as well just keep XBONE X and wait a few years until they actually start to support Series X with exclusive content. Series X is literally sounding worst then XBONE at launch, at least that damn system HAD CONTENT YOU COULD ONLY FIND on it by MS to even support the purchase.