Is "while moving the camera" a new random requirement I missed? These are all 100% gameplay screenshots of TLOU2 on PS4Pro:
TAA practically erases precious pixel data when you move the camera. It's not a requirement or anything, its just a personal thing I've personally knowledgable about whereas most people are not. The user specifically attacks Cyberpunk's graphics on the merit that graphics go shit once he moves the camera, which I gave answer that happens to every game. TLOU2 is not an exclusion, and your static screenshots don't prove anything
Here's a comparison for you to understand;
When you stand still for the "cool super looking shot", the game looks super clean and sharp. Once you move the camera, it degrades itself heavily. that is all there is to it. all that detailed and super cool looking foliage gets mushy, blurry, and clumped together due to TAA. that happens to rdr 2, cyberpunk and tlou2 and any other game that TAA is fully used.
I'm not saying TLOU2 looks bad or Cyberpunk looks super great. I just answered to that user that "graphics going shit once you move the camera!!" is a meta among all games. The user saying that "static" Cyberpunk shots holds no merit, and I answered to him. There's no point bringing TLOU2 static shots in this argument.
I just say that if you're to criticise Cyberpunk's image quality going bad in movement, then you have to do the same for others if you're going to compare. As you can see, RDR2's graphics go to shit at 1440p the second you move the camera. Yet no one mentions anything about it.
It is also hard to capture a moving screenshot on console with motion blur enabled. So I'm not asking anyone screenshots at all.
My post was not aimed as an attack for tlou2 or anything. it was just a defence in favor of cyberpunk. i also do not claim it looks better orr worse than tlou2, i dont intend to draw comparisons