The graphical leap between 2009 and 2019 has been absolutely massive. Do you think this is the correct direction...

The graphical leap between 2009 and 2019 has been absolutely massive. Do you think this is the correct direction, or would you like to see some other things favored over graphics?

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3 6.5.jpg (3824x4320, 1.97M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1o-ojTM6tCE
youtube.com/watch?v=u3ktiewcLpo
youtube.com/watch?v=MGyaR2sSBkA
youtube.com/watch?v=dbh-7nwa7k8
schnittberichte.com/www/SBs/2601599/sw55.jpg
youtube.com/watch?v=9owTAISsvwk
youtube.com/watch?v=-usL12t4sPM
youtube.com/watch?v=RSNgX1kcEAQ
gamepilgrimage.com/sites/default/files/SystemSpecs/PS2/HowFarHaveWeGot.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Can we get a non-photo mode bullshot of Spider-Man on PS4 so we can make an actual comparison?

I have to quote an industry user from another thread, his post was so good:

>Hey all, actual game dev here (32yr-old and 3D character artist) with a bit of info for anyone interested...

>From a technical and creative standpoint, there actually has been massive leaps forward in just last 5 years, let alone the last decade. BUT a lot of that is stuff the average layman or gamers may not necessarily pick up on or even be aware of. There is a metric shit-load of stuff that is going on under the hood that wasn't even remotely possible a decade ago when it comes to materials, lighting, animation rigging/bones, optimization, raw rendering power, etc. Even the very tools and processes we artists use on a daily basis now didn't even exist 10 years ago (a particular example being the Substance Designer/Painter software packages). The move from low rez textures with a single 'specular' map and a super basic 'normal' map to today's full physically-based rendering (PBR) is arguably as big of a technical jump as sprite-art-to-polygons were. We are able to simulate the real world and real human movement in truly amazing ways that make games that are only a few years old look suddenly dated. I'm regularly blown away by what some of my colleagues are developing internally to simulate our reality. This also has a really neat knock-on effect for even particularly stylized games like Overwatch, Fortnite, and Breath of the Wild. Those tend to borrow aspects of that bleeding-edge tech to push their own boundaries in stylization and epic looking set pieces.

>However, the flip side is that although there are gobs of awesome tech going on behind the scenes that make your games look better than ever, the honest truth is that as we come closer to simulate reality, the smaller the noticeable visuals jumps will be. You can't really go "beyond" realism without basically just making Star Trek holograms...and we're obviously not quite there yet.

Attached: 2009 vs 2018 graphics.jpg (1258x763, 475K)

Pretty bad comparison considering Spider-Man 3 was a fucking rush-job, it looked like shit and played kinda shit and was a massive disappointment coming from Spider-Man 2.

>The graphical leap between 2009 and 2019 has been absolutely massive.
What did he mean by this?

That's not photo mode.
I'm sure you can see for yourself

>That's not photo mode.
It literally is.

i think graphical fidelity is neat but it in no way makes up for art design, gameplay, and frame rate. i'd prefer devs focus on making games as smooth to play as possible over cool lighting.

call of duty black ops 4 (2018) only looks marginally better than Modern Warfare 2 (2009).

>Gameplay is virtually unchanged.

What did they mean by this???

Attached: bbfghdf.jpg (550x780, 60K)

Graphics from 1989 to 1999 and 1999 to 2009 were way more impressive and noticeable than 2009 to 2019. Theres been hardly any leap whatsoever.

you're being baited

That's completely wrong.

Are you fucking retarded?

>1999 game
now compare this to assassins creed 2

Attached: sshock2 1999.jpg (1024x768, 104K)

I know I'm asking for too much, but Kassandra is really the only character that looks like this during actual gameplay and not in conversations.

Everybody else int he game still looks like the left picture, which makes the photo mode kind of a pain if you're looking to get more than one subject in the frame

Ah yes, that's why Witcher 3 on Switch looks so much better than PC, right, because shitty inferior console hardware propels technology forward!

Oh yes, the high quality PC exclusives such as the graphical miracle, Autochess, truly show consoles how it's done!!

Resident Evil 7 here straight up looks like real life. RE Engine is our way to photorealism.

Attached: Resident Evil 7 vs Amnesia.jpg (2048x2304, 744K)

Spiderman is such a stupid fucking example, because Spiderman PS4 is a massive budget AAA game, while the PS3 games were small, movie tie ins with no fucking budget whatsoever. The scope of these are incomparable.

SS2 unironically looks nice. I very much like how "clean and sharp" old games look.

Keep crying peasant and let us know when you reach 90's tier frame rates.

It's almost like the entire thread is retarded bait.

>Autochess good
>Spider-Man bad

Horror games have always been a benchmark for visual fidelity, Silent Hill 2/3 etc are almost 20 years old.

Every AAA game released today looks much better than any AAA game released in 2009, keep crying.

isn't that the same retard who spammed this image on another thread?

>Using a literal mobile game as a benchmark for PC
That's almost as retarded as comparing a budget shovelware spider-man game to a massive AAA budget PS4 title.

Safe to say you're as retarded now as you were in 2009.

yeah, pic related real life or video game?

Attached: 3131d.png (1920x1080, 3.07M)

>different time of day
nice bullshot.

chromatic aberrations and film grain contribute to your perception of realism, if you deactivate it you'd see the real face of the re engine
not that i'm complaining

You're in so much denial, holy shit. You boomers are pathetic.

its your own opinion that it looks nice but thats not the point
we talk objectively about graphics in games
if you compare game from 1999 to game from 2009 you see HUGE fucking difference and if you compare game from 2009 to 2019 its not that impressive
to be honest todays graphics is all about filters and shit and not actual graphic itself

the same can be said for asscreed 2. main char moddels have always been more detailed than npc's

You should really see an eye doctor.

>if you compare game from 2009 to 2019 its not that impressive
Yes it is. The difference here is massive.

have a (you) slut, i know you want it zoomer, now back to fornite.

Attached: 1534581980662.jpg (3960x1183, 1.5M)

it was a joke. dont take meme chatrooms so seriously user

nothing could play on those settings back in 2013, retard

RDR2 was really the signal for me that the new generation is here

based retard

The only "massive" graphical leap that happened in the last few decades was from 1998 to 2002.

>Those shitty materials
>Those shitty reflections
Yeah that's gonna be a yikes from me.

Attached: Crew2.jpg (3840x2160, 807K)

I honestly believe that graphics have hit a point where they're good enough 90% of the time.
I'd much rather developers focus on making a playable game, that runs smoothly, than try and cram more graphical features into something.

Crysis still looks better than 99,9% of games released in this decade, kill yourselves.

>nothing could play on those settings back in 2013, retard
PC's could, consoles couldn't. Cry harder.

Compare a horror game from 2002 to Resident Evil 7.

>Le bald crysis man meme

lmao, you're retarded. SLI is and will always be a thing but so were powerful cards.
Your stockholm ass wouldn't know.

It doesn't. Crysis hasn't looked impressive in many years.

>Crysis still looks better than 99,9% of games released in this decade
No it fucking doesn't the models are terrible and the textures are garbage

>crew 2
you mean that death game who nobody care about it anymore ?

Attached: 1538941768755.jpg (2160x3840, 2.93M)

Don't you know, the PS5 is getting super futuristic SSD's, bet you wish you had those on PC on a decade ago.

>caring about graphix

cool thread, KID.

thanks for proving my point, retard lmao

see

It has more players than Forza Horizon Bong so hardly dead.

Not a big difference at all.

I'd rather see literally fucking anything favoured over graphics.

Graphics and marketing is whats pulling down gaming. Elder Scrolls is the perfect example, ever since Daggerfall there have been less and less features in the game with each instalment.

>That's not photo mode.
OH NONONONONONO

>me and my zoomers crew
yeah, that's why the price is down 70/80% after 1 year and has a free demo, because is sell, have a (you)

Attached: 1562138465482.jpg (1080x1079, 168K)

Ladies and gentlemen: A blind boomer.

Worst case scenario is that muh graphics is driven into the ground to the point that tech catches up with reality, and devs are forced to spend time on other shit because there's nothing more to improve.

???

Attached: Jack Baker vs 2002.jpg (1080x1154, 300K)

Not impressed
Note: I hate the "game" that GT has become. I just think the photo mode is impossibly good.

Attached: GranTurismoSport-11.jpg (1280x720, 656K)

People literally got Forza Bong for a $1 retard, it may as well go F2P at this point.

Yeah, older games usually had very clean visuals along with real anti-aliasing. Modern game engines strive for photo realism which is a terrible goal.
Many old games at 1080p with 8x AA literally look better than tons of modern games because they were actually rendered properly, modern games at 1080p look like shit in comparison due to lack of proper AA methods and "cinematic" bullshit.

A good example of a nice looking older game is Half-Life 2. Crank up the AA and turn things to the max and it's really quite nice to look at.

What says about filters and shit is accurate, true, and fucking sad.
We have objectively better poly counts and texture resolution, and in some cases better lighting, but it's mostly all blurry looking trash. You have hideous LOD distances, disgusting DOF and motion blur enabled by default, and after all kinds of tweaking you're stuck with games that don't even have proper anti-aliasing in 2019. It's ridiculous.

This could look great with modern poly counts, a higher resolution, and some AA. All things that should be possible on modern hardware but instead we're chasing post-processing goals rather than intrinsic quality in rendering.

Nice cherrypicked image faggot.

Man what the fuck is wrong with you boomers? You literally spout bullshit.

What did he mean by this?

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3 2.jpg (1160x1314, 503K)

>Comparing console games
-squinting costanza man photo-

Yeah, we should compare high quality PC exclusives such as Team Fortress 2 and Autochess.

Nice picks, retard.

K, picked a more accurate pic for you.

cant some one explain to me the secret wars suit doesnt look like the symbiote suit?

Soulless
vs
Soul

No one denies that but the difference isnt that drastic is the point.

It is.

I'd rather have good games instead of pretty games.

But ps4 spider man is a well funded and made game. Ps3's spider man is just garbage that was made for quick bux. Better comparison would be arkham asylum.

It really isn't. Compare gta 3 to gta 4 and then gta 4 to gta 5. The leap in the former is huge whereas in the latter it's relatively marginal.

GTA 5 is 6 years old. RDR2 is a better comparison.

>Meanwhile on PC in 2008....
Consoles are such a joke, speaking of I heard you were getting SSD's soon, something PC's have had since the fucking 90's kek.

Attached: GTAIV.jpg (1920x1080, 1.03M)

Unpopular opinion: Call of Duty 4 unironically had the best graphics of any CoD title, including the remaster.

Lighting in particular was superior to its successor titles.

Attached: Call of Duty 4 Force Recon.jpg (1917x1141, 765K)

That wouldn't be a fair comparison since rdr2 came out in the end of ps4's life cycle. And it's easier to make barren deserts look impressive than cities with skyscrapers.

Cool. Now show it in motion.

No one in 2008 had hardware that could run GTA 4 with icenhancer.

>the "ill stick to one platform" autist
top kekkeroni

Attached: ChallemupheHEEEEHEEEHEEE.gif (280x210, 1.48M)

But PC can emulate all the platforms

That's unpopular because because, based purely on graphic numbers, it's factually incorrect

It can't emulate PS4.

>Man what the fuck is wrong with you boomers? You literally spout bullshit.
If by bullshit you mean facts and accurate information, you're right. We spew that often and kids don't like it.
Here's Half-Life 2 on today's hardware. This game is from 2004, which was nearly 15 years ago. Perhaps it came out when you were still in diapers?

Many modern games are photo realistic, assuming the photo is coming from a cellphone and not a proper camera. That's not a good thing. Clean and nice looking is a better goal and older games unintentionally had this because they couldn't go throwing ridiculous amounts of ugly effects over everything and rely on low quality real-time lighting to do their jobs for them. Older game devs had to have more actual artistic talent to make something look nice, and the good ones from that era age well or can be modded to have higher resolution assets.

Modern games can look better the problem is many of them simply don't because of incompetence and current trends. The tech and hardware is there, but many don't use it right.

Attached: half-life 2 in 2019.jpg (3840x2160, 3.03M)

I'm not just talking about platforms from 2005 and back

This

Give it a few years.

Why would I buy an overpriced underpowered shitbox for 1 game?

>The graphical leap between 2009 and 2019 has been absolutely massive
What a fucking joke

If by few you mean 10, sure.

Sure thing you stupid boomer.

One reason why I just can't understand zoomers feeling nostalgia for a decade old games. There has been practically no progress made between 2007+ and today, graphically or otherwise.

In the 90s we moved from 2D to 3D, from sprites to models and textures and games went from looking like a windows screensaver to something that actually resembled places. I had to start my PC with a boot disk to have enough memory for some games, I had to manually load drivers and configure your sound card. Today I'm doing the exact thing I've been doing for 15 years. Games look the same, play the same and feel the same.

Fucking based.
It's not like there are any good games to play on pisstation or shitbox anyway.

>Games look the same
>There has been practically no progress made between 2007+ and today, graphically or otherwise
That's literally not fucking true you mentally ill shitter.

(You)
(You)
(You)

Are you actually blind or what?

(You)

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (900x904, 122K)

And that release still looks miles ahead anything made in 2009.

you shouldn't, but when it's a multitude of games, like with the PS4 and switch, you defnitely should stop being a poorfag and buy one.

I don't care about shiny graphics. I think games from the 00s tend to be more aesthetically appropriate because they're designed to put clarity first, due to the limitations of low resolution displays. I think that prioritizing clarity now that we've moved beyond 480i is still a good thing because that directly contributes to playability. I'd much rather play a game with ~2005 graphics and more effort put into everything else.

>Hey all, actual game dev here

Attached: ahnanbabdvasdv.jpg (189x267, 27K)

As a 3D modeler and texture artist it pains me seeing all you retards claim there wasn't a big leap between current gen and last gen.

>this is what the future looks like

Attached: 1559684031213.jpg (600x766, 137K)

>grampa boomer slowly losing his eyesight
haha nice. you deserve it, for ruining our economy.

Attached: elfLOL.gif (500x281, 860K)

Crysis came out in 2007 and looks way better

No it doesn't. The models are terrible and the textures are garbage.

>One reason why I just can't understand zoomers feeling nostalgia for a decade old games. There has been practically no progress made between 2007+ and today, graphically or otherwise.
Most people don’t feel nostalgia for tech itself, but the experiences they had with it. If someone was in high school in 2007 and played Halo 3 splitscreen with friends back then, it means that now they’re in career life and feel nostalgia for those easy-going years where they could just play Halo with their friends with no adult problems interfering. It really doesn’t matter if tech advances or not, nostalgia is felt in relation to changes in the person’s life itself.

"Worse" graphics almost always have more soul. Kill yourselves graphicsfags.

Do you actually, unironically believe this? This place is a fucking shithole.

>'I was born in the wrong time' nerd
no, you'd have been even more of an outcast without being able to connect to other dweebs through loser groups like Yea Forums over the world wide web

I mean, the engine improved in terms of scale and what developers could do with it, but every CoD game just looks a lot uglier than the first Modern Warfare. Lighting in particular went downhill.

Attached: Cod4_map_district.jpg (1280x720, 193K)

Feeling nostalgia for something like Halo is like feeling nostalgic about eating shit. Anyone that retarded would deserve to be killed off for their shit taste.

Is this a joke?

Gears of war 3 and Gears of War 4 would be a good comparison.

youtube.com/watch?v=1o-ojTM6tCE

I'm sorry if facts hurts you

Looks really good, but Spider-Man on PS4 looks a bit better. Still impressive though.

kys dumb zoom zoom underage faggot

i've seen a chiron irl and instantly spotted that was a video game. would have worked better if you didnt choose something with a weird ass.

You can stop baiting.

Facts aren't bait

Attached: 1535729727135.jpg (1664x1150, 290K)

Spidey has made a web inside your head without payment, hasn't he?

did you really just pick the worst looking game from 2009?

>I think games from the 00s tend to be more aesthetically appropriate because they're designed to put clarity first, due to the limitations of low resolution displays. I think that prioritizing clarity now that we've moved beyond 480i is still a good thing because that directly contributes to playability. I'd much rather play a game with ~2005 graphics and more effort put into everything else.
Yup.
Clarity is important. This is a major reason why modern games often look "bad". Games are interactive media, not movies. We need to see what we're doing and post-process effects that get in the way of it are nothing but distracting and ugly. The important thing to acknowledge here is that all of these effects are not CGI film quality and are in no way comparable to them at all. They're nowhere close. As a result most of this shit isn't aesthetically pleasing and detracts from the overall experience more than it adds.

One of the most popular games right now is Fortnite and it has clean visuals. Perhaps we'll see this become a trend in graphics some time soon.

Doesn't bother me at all. I've posted evidence Spider-Man looks like shit and you keep replying

>are not CGI film quality

Attached: Spider-Man Game vs Movie.jpg (2480x1772, 1.5M)

user is clearly talking about the post process effects here, not model/texture/lighting quality. The grain effect on the left is shit.

This is retarded.

Cope harder.

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 Great Graphics 8.png (1920x1080, 3.11M)

In gameplay it looks like a PS3 game

Nope.

Standing still, flattering angle. The stuff I posted shows that it's lifeless. The downgrade was terrible so I don't get why you're using SM of all fucking games

Are these people just trolls or are they serious?

Stop shitposting. Spider-Man on PS4 looks better than whatever shit you think looks good.

They're trolls.

Oh no dude they made less puddles literally 0/10 unplayable. Now where did I put my glasses?

You're a fucking retard. Never post here again.

Attached: 1555391477850.gif (500x375, 1.61M)

You said 2009 so I could use plenty of other games but a game from 2007 still looks superior. SM isn't even an impressive looking game. If you had used the new AC as an example I would agree with you but you didn't. You used a game that was downgraded and limited to PS4 hardware which wasn't impressive when it came out, let alone in 2018

Attached: 1562239039299.webm (1262x514, 844K)

Fuck off shitposter.

*WHIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRR* N-NO, NOT MY PRECIOUS GRAPHICS, HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN BROS?!?

Attached: gta.jpg (1920x2167, 1.68M)

So this is... the power... of 2009...

Attached: Spider-Man_PS4_vs_Assassin's_Creed_2.jpg (1920x2172, 767K)

OHNONONO STOP POSTING FACTS, IT HURTS MY FEEEEELINGS

AC2 is a very good example of a game whose graphics have aged far worse than one would think. I played it first on release, and remembered that it was a very good-looking game, but when I played it last year, the colors and lighting looked suprisingly flat, the distant LoD models are blocky and character models look kinda like wax dolls. Especially the LoD issues stick out, more modern games have spoiled us with very high quality distant level of detail, making most sandbox games from the last decade look kinda nasty on that part.

Oblivion is obviously an even stronger example of that, but it came out years earlier and it was also a forerunner in regards of having distant LoD in an open-world game in the first place, so it would seem pointless to bash it for its lack of distant models for lots of stuff and blurry textures for distant lands.

If it was up to me, I would have everyone feeling ”nostalgia” for Halo 3 shot dead.

>SM isn't even an impressive looking game
Yes it is.

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 Great Graphics.png (1920x1080, 3.54M)

holy fuck SM3 looked like that? Everything's better when you are a kid

Attached: 1515245584536.gif (500x373, 46K)

You're counting teenage years as ''kid'' right?

Attached: 1532151677833.jpg (585x464, 56K)

is this supposed to be impressive? lol it's not even 4K

Some things never change

Attached: 1d4.png (548x398, 249K)

>graphics advanced
>physics interaction is now bare minimum
I fucking hate this

Attached: _82.png (216x216, 104K)

Game features dynamic resolution that renders the title at up to 4K.

not for long

youtube.com/watch?v=u3ktiewcLpo

yeah early teens
give up user there are plenty of zoomers to go around. You cant fight it

Attached: 324566.jpg (604x604, 35K)

Too bad the games are shit

>consoles

>up to

Attached: a6bd5172452730877a6adc84c0b6dcaf.jpg (400x386, 23K)

>physics interaction is now bare minimum
But that's fucking wrong.

>asshurt PCocks

>fear vs bioshock infinite.webm

turn down your FoV, retard

>using ps4 console to talk about graphics

Attached: 1554874098972.jpg (1218x1015, 212K)

Bioshock Infinite is fucking 6 years old.

>SINGLE PLATFORM KEKS

He does actually have an ingame screenshot, GT uses real life locations photos and puts the car into the scene

I've told people this sort of shit multiple times and they just call me wrong, he's right about PBR, most people seem to be blind to it but it's made an immense difference for visuals in games, most people aren't even aware what differences it makes and what games use it, basically all Nintendo games use it, even ones that are heavily stylized like Breath of the Wild, it isn't limited to reality, it's just a set of rendering principles that mimic how lighting works in real life, but more importantly they allow you to express a wide range of different materials quite easily, biggest differences are that artists can make wood or metals look like metals without having to involve more technical staff and it allows materials to look the way they are supposed to under a vast array of different lighting conditions.

I cant remember the last time I played an AAA game where you could stack props or pick up shit from the ground
sure we have fancy ragdoll animations but thats as far as it goes

You're a fucking retard.
Consoles were ALWAYS more popular than PC gaming.
PC gaming has never been accessible and has always been an expensive niche.
It's bigger now than it ever was because of shit like Steam gaining traction.
If it weren't for Steam I doubt there'd even be 1/10th of the PC player base.
Shit most normies stopped using desktops like 10-15 years ago and switched to laptops, half of those people probably only have a smart phone now because theres barely any point in a computer if it's not for work or videogames.

>The graphical leap between 2009 and 2019 has been absolutely massive.
Not really desu

Wrong.

nice me-
>released march 2013

Attached: magi.png (950x526, 352K)

I'd say so

Attached: 28fb96f2-04f7-4ff2-a729-4049ce2e52c6_Thumbnail.png (754x424, 549K)

These replies are all bait right?

No, we funpost in earnest.

That's not even slightly true, the materials in Crysis look like shit compared to most modern games, and even the poly counts are significantly lower, the game for it's time may have been impressive, but it doesn't hold a candle to most modern games, even Switch ones have better materials, and lighting effects compared to that archaic title.

Attached: 20190704_135700.png (163x166, 52K)

Fortnite unironically looks good.

Attached: Fortnite graphics.jpg (1200x675, 168K)

you're comparing 2006 to 2013 hardware, asswipe
2006 and 2009 are way different, and 2013 is closer to your start point(2009) than end point(2019)
you are a retard

okay user

Do graphics matter when every single game released on or after 2007 are objectively 100% pure shit made for casual-shit eaters? If you willingly want to play that shit, you deserve to be killed off.

Boomer... just die.

hahahahahah fuck i'm not even trying to mock you but shit, your unadulterated hatred towards current games made me chuckle

Sadly aiming to recreate real life can only lead to failure, as no matter how good you are ou will never be able to reproduce reality. The issue, though, isn't simply the graphic quality, but the designs. Many of this games try to be more realistic both in presentation and characters, armors, enemies and such.
That's why stilized, cartoony or "over the top" games are more easily remembered.

With a bit of luck companies and games will focus on making thins feel realistic rather than look or be realistic.

>4 years
>no better looking game ever since
youtube.com/watch?v=MGyaR2sSBkA

graphics havent changed much since 2012, just like CPUs and RAM havent gotten any bigger, better, faster or stronger since then. We're still stuck sub-4 or 5ghz waiting for quantum computing to be realistic outside of a lab and RAM will always suck because of Samsung's monopoly.

>graphics havent changed much since 2012
Wrong.

>That framerate stutter

Attached: Gohan disappointed.jpg (512x384, 28K)

>That's not even slightly true
It's okay, kid. When you grow up to be a big boy you'll be able to buy a PC and experience real 4K gaming for the first time. Until then keep buying those PS4 exclusives and pay for online.

This is largely because Fortnite does not rely on real-time lighting. The models and world appear to be mostly self lit according to the textures with some real-time lighting added on top, giving mostly consistent illumination across the scene with enough dynamic lighting and real-time shading to be aesthetically pleasing.

This is why the dark bits in the tree on the right aren't black, the black parts are self-lit to maybe 1/2 or 2/3 and the brighter parts are the same with the added lighting. Many modern games don't let the models/objects/maps illuminate themselves and rely 100% on real-time lighting and it looks bad almost all the time.

No it fucking doesn't.

This.
>be kid in the 90's
>every 12 months PCs are literally twice as fast as the previous year
>graphics increasing every year by leaps and bounds
>fast forward to 2010's
>lazy devs want to do absolute minimum effort and cut corners
>indie games are all Unity engine shit that looks like a facebook game
>somehow normies are jizzing themselves over the graphics

Attached: 1557458386863.jpg (768x762, 79K)

I wouldn't say it improved that much because while the models are better the animations and facial expressions are pretty alike. Hell I'd say they are on the same level in cutscenes.
Modern AAA games rely a lot of just a lot of polys and motion capture, which doesn't make it as impactful as it could be.

It does.

>>graphics havent changed much since 2012
What stage of retardation are you on?

Attached: cristian-marius-buliarca-bloodfly-1.jpg (1920x1195, 431K)

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Fucking boomers, you can't die fast enough.

Fuck graphics, improve the fucking AI already

If you think RE7 look "like real life" in the sense that a single image is indistinguishable from a real photo then you are an actual retard.

Can you faggots stop making me want to replay Spiderman. I've got enough on my backlog as it is.

>thinking console exclusives dosen't look better than PC games
>being asshurt PCock.

Look at the difference 95 and 2005.
That was fucking warp speed by comparison. So many strives made in gaming and in so many different games too, it's like we all moved forward in leaps and bounds.

We went from Doom 2 to Half Life 2 in ten fucking years.

Attached: 1440169188384.png (274x242, 5K)

what is your true face user?

>Thinks cucksoles have good graphics

lol

Attached: MONSTER HUNTER_ WORLD(167589) 6_30_2019 2_43_12 AM.jpg (3840x2160, 2.11M)

I actually prefer playing in a 2D environment to a 3D one. These days 3D games feel like they require more energy than they're worth even if they're not hard games. I dunno what it is but a difficult 2D game feels more relaxing than an easy 3D one.

1990 to 2000 was a far larger leap, and 2000 to 2010 was even bigger. 2009 to 2019 isn't nearly as big in comparison to those.

I still remember being blown away by the water in HL2. Still looks good.

>thinking console exclusives dosen't look better than PC games
They don't.

>indie games are all Unity engine shit that looks like a facebook game
This is the most depressing thing about modern day gaming.
There are loads of interesting games that unfortunately run on Unity and run like shit and look like shit. They gobble up 16GB of RAM (to the point of having to use the pagefile, or crashing) like it's nothing while looking worse than almost all good 2007 PC games.

Also it's 2019 and many games today (unity or not) don't have a FOV slider or an in-game accessible console that lets you adjust it to your liking.
It's an absolute fucking joke... on us. We're the victims.

That's just an asset rendered outside the game. What is your point?

>graphics haven't improved in 9 years

Attached: nier-9.jpg (1280x720, 366K)

>consolefags talking about graphics ITT
Lmfao you fags don't even have resolution options.

Attached: 1561831232293.png (842x1206, 348K)

ps3 was 13 years ago

Cope

There have been games with great graphics made on Unity.

>The graphical leap between 2009 and 2019 has been absolutely massive

Yeah no. Crysis 1.

youtube.com/watch?v=dbh-7nwa7k8

Someone post the crysis picture

>There have been games with great graphics made on Unity.
Name a few?
99% of them look like absolute shit.

>outside the game
kek

Attached: yte4p1bw02c5.png (1920x1080, 2.46M)

What is more annoying is so many console players seem to prioritize graphics over everything else.....they're console players.

Then again maybe it's because what you can see is the easiest thing to understand and appreciate improvements in. Nobody seems to give much of a shit about AI in games these days, we're still impressed by the AI in F.E.A.R (which was just scripting, yes, we know) and that game is nearly fifteen years old.

Attached: 1466407260984.jpg (722x1011, 235K)

Crysis looks like absolute shit.

Cope

*tips fedora*

Yes, very impressive, you are very intelligent.

Cope more, consolefag.

>this is good graphics for PC cucks
My god.
Yes they do, no PC games impressed me even close to RDR2. Why so mad?

The PS3 and 360 were designed and built with weird ass semi proprietary mid 00's technology, something that zoomers just can't seem to understand
What these consoles were able to achieve was incredible, especially in the late years
No matter what whack ass devs say, there wasn't nearly as much innovation between the 7th and 8th gens compared to 6th and 7th

>Crysis 1
Nostalgia is a helluva drug

Attached: 20170201151425_1.jpg (2560x1440, 800K)

Just like Spiderman PS4!

Attached: Crysis2.jpg (430x320, 41K)

Crysis looks like absolute shit. This is coming from a PC player. Battlefront for example rapes it easily.

>ohnononono the absolute STATE

How do you respond without sounding mad?

Attached: 1527857353546[1].jpg (640x782, 44K)

>just lots of leaves and grass
>who cares that every interior and character model looks like garbage
Lol

Attached: 1uyne.jpg (1600x1000, 624K)

Yeah, I love playing my Crane simulator at 4k. Such amazing visuals.

It doesn't hold up 12 years later. The difference is still pathetically small, considering it's 12 fucking years. Compare Crysis to any game from fucking '95 and there's a world of difference.

Crysis came out in 2006 you dumb ignorant gorilla monkey gaystation consolefag sony shit eater SNOY SNOY SNOY ONIONS LOL ONIONS

I had to save this as a jpeg twice in mspaint for the image to fit the 4chins 4MB limit, so if it looks like shit, blame Yea Forums. just google crysis 1 4k screenshots. fuck you
this btw.

Attached: spiderman 3 for ps3 lower quality.jpg (3840x1800, 3.44M)

Those trees are fucking disgusting.
Turn on some anti-aliasing for fucks sake.

>that textures
Why PCunts think it looks good?

That looks horrible.

Thought you might say some shit like that

Attached: GTS_LakeMaggiore03_PS4_E32017.png (1920x1080, 2.28M)

Everybody knows the jump from Gen 5 to Gen 6 was the biggest, and that the jump from Gen 7 to 8 was bigger than 6 to 7

Also Spider Man PS4 60 FPS when

closer to 14

So you wanna nitpick?

Here Spiderman PS4.

Attached: PS4.png (933x594, 315K)

And you Google Spider-Man PS4 4K screenshots.

>anti aliasing
>in crysis 1
>without breaking half the other graphical effects

Fucking cutting edge 4K graphics right here.

Attached: Cutting edge.jpg (1920x1080, 188K)

Wrong

Nice reflections, garbage ambient occlusion.

Yes, that does look better than Crysis. Much much much better in fact.

she looks about 2ft 7 in this screenshot

Hell no.

PS3 was arguably a miracle. A fucking monster miracle that nobody in their right mind would develop for.

It had the best CPU on the market when it came out. Even beating cuting edge shit from intel.

The problem? I had a shit GPU and absolutely no memory what so ever. Mostly because 1/3 of the cost was the BD drive.

>nitpick
Bruh

Attached: 1395673248352.jpg (1920x1200, 496K)

Will any game ever surpass Spider-Man on a technical level?

I mean name another single other game that uses static, low resolution, basic bitch tier reflection maps released in the last 20+ years.

Attached: 4THEPLAYERS.png (1910x1014, 2.35M)

>2009

Attached: 1552120349175.png (2048x1152, 3.71M)

Why are his legs so short?

Make graphics gameplay again.

Attached: 5910b6d2ae653a0037611114.png (300x433, 242K)

Honestly almost all games just use environment maps and SSR. They hide it better though.

It had as much memory as the 360, the problems were:
>split between CPU and GPU
>too slow
>OS was too greedy

Tell me user why do you lie to us?
Who beat you as a kid?

Attached: firefox_2019-07-04_14-36-51.jpg (1920x1080, 342K)

EfT

Still looks way better than SM

Wow, impressive.

Attached: Horrible.png (797x523, 889K)

A-hem.

Attached: Spider-Man.jpg (1920x1080, 191K)

No it fucking doesn't. Please tell me, are you baiting or not? I can't believe you are actually this dumb.

No it hasnt been massive ur an idiot

>lie
>post screenshot where game looks like shit too
No one beat me user, learn what reverse projecting is.

Yikes.

Attached: 1533352841576.png (250x186, 49K)

Wrong.

they dont. they're pretty damn obvious in watch dogs 2 and gta v didnt have ssr and was just using lowres planar reflections for water/mirrors/garage floors and cubemaps for puddles/windows/cars.

Why not compare them to actual good looking games from 2009, like God of War 3 and Mirror's Edge?

Dude GPUs at the time of their release came with double their system memory just on the GPU.

GeForce 7800 GTX
Radeon 1800 XT

All came with 512 MB GDDR3 and costs under 500$

Getting 4GB in 2006 wasn't anything special I should know I had 4GB of DDR2 in 2006. Sadly my GPU was a Radeon 1600 Pro but hell that had 256 MB of ram!

>this is good graphics for PCretins
Why they even talk about graphics?

Attached: Crysis_1.png (1920x1080, 3.15M)

>still 30 FPS
>still under 1080p
>still on console
based cognitive dissonance

>literally the price of the console

Unlike consoles we have something called "settings" it's used to vary between graphical settings so you can adjust your game to your PCs hardware.

>still under 1080p
That's not the case though.

lol

Attached: sh.jpg (3840x2160, 1.05M)

4k is a meme

You can spend your days looking at low setting PC games all day but that won't change the fact that PC games look better than console games.

IMAGINE

this is the worst part about playing on console desu I don't care about all this fancy post processing wank I just want a high framerate

So you can make crysis look even worse?

>that denial
Name at least 2 games released this year that look better than RDR2.
So Crysis must look even worse on 2088 hardware because those are high settings.

Literally ran anything in 1080p at 60 in 2006!

Fucking PS3 shat itself half of the time running games at almost 480p.

I remember asking my mom to trade her the old 720p LCD she had for my new 1080P LCD because Deamon's Souls looked so much better on the 720p TV.

Planar reflections and dynamic environment maps are very expensive and only useful for specific cases. You can only have a handful on screen at a time even with a generous rendering budget. Static environment maps and SSR are the general specular solution until everyone moves to some kind of ray tracing.

>I'm projecting give me attention

no shit it'll outperform a console when it's one part and not a whole system

Why don't they make 1000$ consoles. Fucking anyone in America can earn 10$ an hour. Who the fuck can't you fuckwits afford consoles more expensive than 400$ ?!

fucking christ, spiderman2 on ps2 looked better than bottom pic

Screen space effects are shit.
I'm glad raytracing is killing them all.

When do we get a New York sized city with every building being enterable and shit without loading screens

>America is majority of the world
Retard confirmed

what's the point in buying a $1000 when you're still fucked over with mandatory graphics settings

>1999
>Playing Quake 3 at 1920x1440 at 200+ FPS on PC
>2019
>Playing Red Dead Redemption 2 at upscaled "1440p" silky smooth 15 fps

Consoles were a fucking mistake.

Wtf is that thing and where are it's eyes?

Nice uh...textures. Man this game looks like shit.

H4 still looks better desu

your not showing any of the buggos there user.
that's also a showcase screenshot.

I like this game.

Attached: 1558229760110.webm (960x540, 2.87M)

>purposefully comparing it to a very low res image
you dumb fucking cunt

Wasn't Q3A hard capped to 125 FPS?

I like how Silent Hill 3 character models from 2003 looks better than Crysis on "Ultra" which high end PC from 2007 couldn't run.

The only massive graphical leaps i ever experienced was from the 4th to the 5th console gen and from the 4th to the 6th. After that everything has just been tiny increments that don't matter in the grand scheme of things compared to a art design and animation.

Attached: Sky City Tokyo.webm (700x392, 2.93M)

>15 fps
Wrong.
Quake 3 looks like shit on ultra compared to RDR 2 even on Xbox One.

i meant the 5th to the 6th, fuck!

Don't pretend like Assassin's Creed is even comparable.

I grew out of my stalker phase a long time ago

That would still look much better if done on today's graphics.

>muh realism

he's not wrong

wait until consoles make SSD standard then you're really gonna see some shit

I will always consider fans of RDR2 absolutely retarded because they think the game is realistic because characters get killed off in unsatisfying ways that don't even have a purpose and Arthur picks up beans one can at a time. You can say you like the story or the atmosphere or even the fucking combat and I wouldn't blink an eye, but don't pretend the game with ghost trains and magic cowboy slow-mo vision is realistic because your character picks up salted offal one jar at a time at has to slow down before he stops jogging.

Attached: 1558722461682.gif (290x198, 993K)

platitudes upon platitudes, blah blah blah, more shit pulled out of your own ass
newsflash, pseudointellectual faggot: games that go for a realistic look do just fine sales-wise and are easily remembered

>when you're still fucked over with mandatory graphics settings
This is unironically why I abandoned console gaming and never looked back, back in like 2008.

I can't stand motion blur (which can be turned off on consoles too sometimes) but the main thing I can't stand is running at autistic resolutions. Basically if a game doesn't run well at 1080p with the settings the devs think it should run at, I don't want the "solution" to be dropping it to 1280x720. That's bullshit. Instead, in every single case, literally all the time, I want to lower other settings but we're not given the option. Basically run the game at the native res of the display or GTFO my sight.

PC gaming lets you do this, and in rare cases where it doesn't, you at least have the option of running it in windowed mode or running it in a letterboxed window by adjusting the output and scaling method (to scaling:none) at the GPU for the autistic games that REEE themselves into crashing or not working when upping the resolution beyond 720p or 900p or something dumb.

If it's 720p@60 stable vs 1080p@30 FPS, of course I'd rather have the blurry but smooth 720p but in most cases it's more like a difference between 720p with shadows on "medium" vs 1080p with shadows on "high" both running at 30 FPS. It's all around a pretty sad state for consoles.

I honestly like the appeal of consoles and genuinely want one to be good but they're all just a middle finger to the end user. Remember Microsoft's baby, Titanfall, didn't even run at a standard resolution and they just made one up. 792p.

Resolution is a meme. A movie on DVD at 480p is still more realistic than any video game at 4k.

There's only two differences between these screenshots: Textures and Reflections. The amount of polygons being utilized between these models are remarkably quite similar; despite the NINE years gap.

>using a game from 2007
>a game that doesn't even use PBR
come on now

Attached: 20181204134634_1.jpg (3840x2160, 1.05M)

No, not really. The biggest difference is lighting.
Realistic games are terrible anyways. Games with a distinct visual style don't look like shit a gen later.
Plus, the most important part of a game has always been gameplay, which has distinctly gotten worse than before.

Yes, yes really.

>only two differences
>amount of polygons being utilized between these models are remarkably quite similar
confirmed has no clue what he's talking about

I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if realistic graphics die out in a decade when they reach the point where they're almost incredibly realistic but they cost so much to put in games and they freak people out with the uncanny valley feeling they'd give off. Besides, stylized graphics are always more beloved than "realistic" graphics. Put 10 people in a room and show them Journey or Abzu and then show them RDR2 or Days Gone or whatever game is being touted as the newest benchmark in realistic graphics, they're all gonna end up thinking Journey or Abzu are prettier.

Attached: 1548377956807.gif (455x335, 163K)

But it does not need it to look good, that's the point. It's a pretty good example of what you can achieve with just art design and crisp looking visuals instead of engine clutter.

Attached: Way of the Ninja.webm (900x506, 2.85M)

There's a difference between rendering and capturing.

>this year
Why this year? I can go back farther.

Attached: 1538605713736.png (1280x720, 1.34M)

That is only proving me right.
And that still doesn't change my point of gameplay > graphics regardless.
I would rather still have FF7 graphics and good gameplay or hyper realism and an "experience"
And shit like Okami, Wind Waker, etc look better than anything in those comparisons and will still look good even 20 years from now.

Is the top supposed to be impressive? Because that's PC graphics several years ago.

Hitman 2 looks so good. The atmosphere in this picture is something I need more of.

Attached: Hitman 2 4.jpg (2560x1440, 399K)

>Resolution is a meme.
It's not.
Native resolution is important. It's the difference between "razor" sharp visuals and ugly blurry shit. Font rendering alone is a night and day difference between native resolution and scaled resolution.

>A movie on DVD at 480p is still more realistic than any video game at 4k.
That's because one is real footage with some editing and effects overlayed, and the other is real-time rendered using low poly assets and fast render techniques.
This has noting to do with resolution user. You're comparing movies to a game, if you're comparing resolutions look at DVD vs Bluray.

DVD is shit tier garbage btw.
Just saying. 480p isn't real, almost all DVDs are interlaced and use anamorphic resolutions. A high bitrate 360p encode from a bluray source is going to be superior to DVD in every way assuming there's no source material changes (like with some "remasters" that go out of their way to fuck the color balance up and cropping and stuff).
For example... here's different versions of a star wars movie.
schnittberichte.com/www/SBs/2601599/sw55.jpg

The format for BR only allows for quality improvements over DVD but the studios can still fuck shit up.

>PC graphics several years ago
Game names?

>he thinks a pc with a graphics power of 10+ tflops is incapable of producing visuals that a console with 1.5 tflops can

>slap a bunch of filters on game
>turn AA up to retard vaseline level
>put it on console
>10/10 gotyay
Presto

I love how crisp everything looks in hitman

Game names, user?

Fully generalized photorealistic rendering will end up cheaper than current production pipelines. Drag in some 3d scanned assets from the 2029 unity store and you automatically have a good scene. The uncanny valley doesn't exist either. It's something made up before realistic 3d rendering existed.

youtube.com/watch?v=9owTAISsvwk

Too bad those technologies are being used extremely half-assed.
Realistic graphics age like milk and the level of detail is extremely inconsistent. Launch modern graphically impressive AAA, go the opposite direction from objective marker and look at some rock and you'll see a piece of soap that would've looked embarrassing even in 1999.
I want games like Doom 3 that use technology to achieve actually unique look. Its level of detail is pretty shitty by now, but holy shit, that fucking lighting made the game real work of art.
Also, on a side note, I wonder how many time will pass until cell-shaded games will stop look like absolute ugly garbage.

Attached: 1520620064213.png (479x437, 196K)

>he thinks a pc with a graphics power of 10+ tflops is incapable of producing visuals that a console with 1.5 tflops can

>The uncanny valley doesn't exist either.
Video unrelated I assume.

Attached: 1518443336536.jpg (445x503, 111K)

I want names of games that look better on PC than Spider-Man PS4 looks in OP's pic.

>turn AA up to retard vaseline level
AA doesn't have any vaseline effect. What you don't seem to understand is they're not turning AA up, they're simply blurring everything. There's no AA to begin with. Just because NVIDIA is retarded and thinks FXAA is a legitimate form of anti-aliasing doesn't make it true. Nor do all the game devs using it in menus with "Anti-aliasing: Yes/No". They've all fallen off the path and don't know what's what anymore.

Super sampling and MSAA (along with derivatives of this) are the only true forms of AA. The rest (CMAA, TSSAA, FXAA, SMAA) are mis-labaled as AA when they're just shitty post-processing that smears everything in an attempt to reduce jaggies - not even actual aliasing. It's a big joke. TSSAA especially. TSSAA is unusable in FPS shooters because it leaves after images and adds distracting artifacts of its own far worse than jaggies and aliasing ever were.

...

Yes, but mainly in screenshots.

am I going insane or is that thread filled with reddit niggers and no one calling them out?

Sorry, why are we pretending Spider-man PS4 isn't one of the greatest looking video games of all time? Is it cope?

You can be a "IT'S A MOVIE FILM!!" all you want, but to say it isn't stunning is just a lie.

Attached: 0i6ly6mqm9h21.jpg (2160x3840, 607K)

Wrong.

>Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Fucking boomers, you can't die fast enough.
You cant argue with fucking numbers dude, it's not a matter of opinion

The problem is, people haven't actually played it. It's easier to just say "it's shit" then actually play it.

Attached: 26l3dek78b621.jpg (1920x1080, 101K)

There's a real discussion to be had instead of shitposting. The big budget console show pieces tend to be high budget cinematic monsters and there's no market for a PC exclusive that only 10% of people have a card fast enough to run. At this point art budget is more important for making a good screenshot than raw power. Expensive graphical effects are more useful for keeping the visuals consistent under difficult rendering conditions. That will only change when breakthrough techniques are cheap enough to run everywhere. The other important thing to remember is that even the most impressive video games could never be mistaken for real life. There are a lot of visual gains left until they are realistic.

Nothing in that frame is different except for lighting. You're looking at boxes in both cases.

I love how you can literally, at any point in the game, pause, zoom in, and see with every, and all 50+ suits, the very threading on Spider-man's suit, and people will still say "console"

Do pclads realize that consoles have evolved, or? Is it that they just don't know?

Attached: 8t6xmlqrtww21.jpg (1080x1920, 1.68M)

FUCK OFF ALREADY YOU BOOMER FUCKS.

Problem is, people have actually played it and they know that it only looks good on screenshots. In the actual game texture pop in is horrible and the picture only becomes good once you stand still for like 3 seconds.

We're like 30, user. We'll die about the same time you do considering that we have a healthier boomer lifestyle.

Attached: 1557763272722.webm (1280x720, 2.98M)

No no, screenshots have gotten much better compared to the actual gameplay when comparing 2009 and current day.

Clock speed doubled nearly every year until the mid 2000s where we've roughly settled around 3-4ghz and been there ever since
you can't argue with this, it's just a fact

Yet games look 100 times better than they did in 2005.

That sounds like cope, user.

Attached: 41m59ihr16521.jpg (1080x1920, 189K)

Looks cool, has the depth of a puddle on Mars.

opinion, not a fact, its not even something you can quantify, the difference between Wolf3D and Quake is much more dramatic than the difference between PS3 and PS4 games

More like that sounds like I'm playing through the game right now. Honestly it looks very blurry most of the time. Maybe it's great on the ps4 pro, but I'm not buying that shit

I wanted to see for myself what this looks like ingame and this is the first video I clicked on. It's honestly very disappointing. Not a good looking scene.

Attached: Untitled-1.jpg (2560x1440, 1.12M)

>no reply
Uhhh consolefags?

I just want a high and stable frame rate baseline. For all I care we could still be at PS2 level graphic if that's what it takes.

Attached: 1431409154180.jpg (1920x1080, 358K)

>youtube
Reminds me of that RDR2 picture kek

I don't buy it, sorry user.

Attached: hcabhjj7gug21.jpg (1021x1788, 165K)

>consolecusks need to post photomode images to try and prove a point
kek

>Game looks so good that PC lard thinks it's photomode

Damn...

Yep, that's cope.

Does anybody else realize how much silly you sound by saying "pictures don't count" ????? That looks like GENIUNE cope posting.

Attached: 1536948579590.jpg (1080x1920, 148K)

Why don't pictures count? I don't understand. How do you want to show the game off?

Are you retards retarded?
Top is photo mode on PS4 that literally stops the fucking game to max all graphics and make everything look good in the screenshot.
Fucking obviously it's not gonna look like that in a gameplay video on youtube.

Attached: 1542595201240.webm (896x504, 3M)

Well, photo mode in games usually removes things like level of detail and ups the resolution at the cost of framerate (which doesn't matter considering you're taking a picture and not playing)

What is funny is how at the start of the gen people said graphics barely moved forward. Now with ps5 coming, people are predicting the same.

Best games have the worst graphics
t. truefacts.com

I have the game, it does look close to OP's pic.

The only good thing that will come from this ultrarealism bullshit is that we will reach one point were graphical improvements will be so small that most AAA won't be able to use it as an excuse to sell their game and will have to try something different

look again, this is not real life

Attached: Forza Horizon 4 3_14_2019 7_16_11 PM.jpg (3840x2160, 2.73M)

Why are we pretending it doesn't look as good in motion? Is it just a falseflag? or? This game, is the ONLY ps4 exclusive, that, funny enough, IS A TRUE VIDEO GAME. I love how Yea Forums screams so much about the movie shit sony puts out, but hidden with it, Spider-man, of all games, is the most "video game" they've put out, and genuinely deserving of praise

Attached: spidey2.webm (650x366, 2.83M)

Attached: spidey5.webm (1280x720, 2.74M)

>consoles

Attached: 1291046487910.gif (263x356, 460K)

>using call of rehash to make your argument
what did he mean by this????

Attached: 1561975447993.png (851x849, 982K)

>That's not photo mode.

then were the fuck is the hud

Nier looked like shit even when it came out

Watch the squirrel made of 50 triangles clipping through that guy's feet.
youtube.com/watch?v=-usL12t4sPM

i want to murder you and your friends in the worst way imaginable, no one can exist with such a shit taste

>cinematic capeshit
>TRUE VIDEO GAME

okay snoy

photo modes and gameplay aren't the exact same, photo modes add layers of detail that aren't present in regular gameplay.

Seethe.

go back

See and

>pretending

dios mio

I can't wait for Rocksteady's next game. Their Arkham trilogy was phenomenal, though the dev time for Knight could have easily been a year longer to wrap the game up properly.

I think they should go for a bit more engaging and challenging gameplay this time around. The Batman games are certainly great for popularity among normies, but I think their games being quite easy is the reason they're not really getting the kind of following studios like From Software or CDPR have. Most people don't even seem to know about the studio behind the Arkham games.

those flowers look like fucking garbage

See

>I was only pretending to be retarded

I wasted my time

Game looks great in some spots but it really falls apart in shadowed areas. This looks like a random area in fallout 4 with the saturation cranked.

Attached: Untitled-1.jpg (2560x1440, 847K)

please dont tell me THIS is what got all that praise, holy shit

kek

My spidey senses are tingling, that spiderman looks OUT OF PLACE!

delete this

Hitchcock was right in a lot of things BUT not in the realism thing.

Kill yourself, brainless zoomer faggot.

so this is the power of snoy

grill looks terrible obvious reflection is dogshit

Left: Soul
Right: Soulesss shitty game full of historical revisions.

Attached: slut.webm (960x540, 2.55M)

looks like shit

Attached: rr4.jpg (1620x1080, 252K)

this but unironically

I took a screenshot of my gameplay. The colors in the game look better than in the screenshot, and I'm not sure why. In the screenshot they are a lot more washed out.

Attached: D-ozhV4XoAEU2SH.jpg (1920x1080, 248K)

What’s supposed to be so irritating about this post that everyone complains about it? Isn’t it obvious that nostalgia usually comes from experiences instead of products, tech or places?

This
only thing that people are seeing is the graphics that there console can do render now, graphic as such has been around on pc for some time.

I hope my phone camera does a better job showing it.

Attached: IMG_20190704_171930.jpg (4032x3024, 1.71M)

>obvious gaslighting is obvious
pc niggers always boast about the power of their rigs only to play shit like cs and obscure snes jrpgs.

ota noi tarrat pois

Is that really the new one or are you trolling me with a screenshot of some old spider man game? It looks like a PS3 game.

S-selvä...

Like I said, the colors are very different in the screenshot, and I don't know why.

It's been a massive leap down. I don't care about graphics, so I don't care if they continue to downgrade them or not. I just want good gameplay, which no game has anymore.

The voice alone compared to how she looks makes that uncanny valley.

The bottom looks better.

if you're referring to epic battle fantasy because of the thread yesterday than kill yourself. That game is better than any sony exclusive.

>Yea Forums
>crysis

Attached: kenan.gif (240x266, 3.86M)

yikes

Attached: 5646333456.png (358x408, 228K)

>I'm gonna assume you own a ps4, therefore I win.
kys niggerlover

it's 2019 and you retards are still playing at 30fps

literally a third worlder tier gimp. Get with the times.

>1080p

Attached: Forza Horizon 4 3_14_2019 8_27_54 PM.jpg (3840x2160, 3.87M)

You know what’s also massive? Your average AAA game that isn’t a FPS multiplayer shooter with a linear campaign takes on average 5 years to make. That number will only increase and the next generation is going to have a bigger drought period than ps4/zone because Xbox and sony will blow their load in the first year.

more resolution doesn't equal to better fidelity in some cases

Attached: 2018 N24.jpg (1620x1080, 111K)

Raimi suit best suit

High fidelity lighting, same dead world.

Spider-Man PS4's world is alive though. Lots of NPCs walking around.

I think it does hold true sometimes. There's a style of painting called hyper realism where the aim is produce images that can barely be told apart from a photograph, and they require huge amounts of time, effort, and skill to pull off - but ultimately the final painting is extremely dull because it just looks like somebody snapped a photo. It's something you look at for five seconds, think 'wow that's impressive' and then it never ever crosses your mind again, while art that obviously isn't real sticks around for far longer.

Graphics can still get a little better especially when it comes to draw distances.

Interactivity, physics and AI should be more important though.

Attached: smol pener gato.jpg (980x995, 123K)

but the thing is hyperrealism is supposed to be dull

Oooofff

Using the bullshot mode where they use real life photos doesn't make GTS look good either.

Attached: Gran Turismo®SPORT_20180428163910.jpg (1920x1080, 325K)

funfact: the N24 pic was made from a replay, so technically isn't a real life pic with Gran Turismo cars

This. A game may have good graphics but if they have zero to none interaction and the physics are shit it will be a garbage game.
Compare GTA 5 and GTA 4 for example, while GTA 4 was graphically inferior it had much more interaction and 10 times better physics

neckbeards are absolutely COPING

Attached: 1449449712465.png (978x972, 397K)

Spider-Man is a very beautiful game and deserves 60fps.

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 screenshot 3.jpg (1200x675, 156K)

In replay mode it looks like this
youtube.com/watch?v=RSNgX1kcEAQ

why lie?

Why would you want to spend thousands of hours just to intentionally create something that will be met with extreme indifference? Is it some bizarre sort of artistic equivalent of 'I was just pretending to be retarded'?

Attached: 1512562592859.png (412x393, 51K)

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

>Interactivity, physics and AI should be more important though.
This still hasn't been improved since like duke 3d.

It's very impressive on the TV, shame the colors get fucked when taking screenshots using the share button.

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 screenshot 4.jpg (1200x675, 199K)

Attached: Marvel's Spider-Man_20180910002227.png (1920x1080, 2.94M)

Spider Man 3 was already a bad looking game
Here is a good looking 2007 game

Attached: 1410383899247.jpg (1920x1080, 519K)

You have to be blind and ignorant to reject that.
Compare...hell, fucking Wolfenstein New Order to New Colossus, the difference is night and day, the in game cutscenes look like the prerendered cutscenes from the original.

>that reflection
this is why we need raytracing

>he doesn't know about the photo mode in replays
do you even play the game?

Wear your own horse blinders fuckface.

You could max Crysis 3 on single GPU's back in 2013 easily

you didnt mention the photomode in your post.
and in that case, the photomode from gt is not representative of the gameplay, at all. the game graphics are fucking trash.

You don't play many current gen games do you?

Attached: Marvel's Spider-Man_20180910002423.png (1920x1080, 3.7M)

See

Attached: spider-man-1132722.jpg (655x368, 145K)

Why is the 2009 pic the remake?

Why are you comparing a PS2 game to RE7?

When I took this screenshot, it was because it hit me that if Far Cry 2 were made today, this is what it would look like.

Attached: MetroExodus_2019_03_31_18_21_36_712.png (1920x1080, 3.06M)

Video unrelated

No it's not, Spidey is like 1500p, it's not dynamic

nice low settings

Attached: rtx on3.jpg (3840x2160, 1.3M)

That's what the devs themselves said though. I googled it.

LOD bugs are god's gift to man.

Attached: rome ii zoom glitch.jpg (766x470, 48K)

Fun fact: Over 50% of PS2 games ran at 60 fps
Compared to below 25% on PS3, and below 10% on PS4

Your screenshot is literally identical.
The scenery in Exodus was weirdly inconsistent when it came ot natural formations.

Attached: MetroExodus_2019_04_01_00_19_30_823.png (1920x1080, 3.96M)

Well this was Halo 3 on Consoles in 2007

Attached: 1397275542136.jpg (1152x640, 249K)

wrong

Attached: rtx on.jpg (3840x2160, 1.52M)

You're wrong.
gamepilgrimage.com/sites/default/files/SystemSpecs/PS2/HowFarHaveWeGot.pdf
>framerate: 60% were running at 30/25 or less

Right. Idiot.

Attached: MetroExodus_2019_04_01_00_20_28_795.png (1920x1080, 3.46M)

Eye candy for the masses. Meanwhile actually good games are becoming very rare.

It's absolutely the right direction, for cashing in on the NPCs. For gamers that have been around since day 1 it's disgusting. You won't ever have the feel again, playing Soldier of Fortune. You won't get the adreline rush UT99 gave you. Say bye to 1000s of costum maps and mods. It's time for Fortnite and movie games.

Do you not understand what LOD is user?

Of course when you pause & zoom in, it switches to a very high res texture

>rtx = off

Attached: mehix.png (1035x813, 1.56M)

Why are so many modern games blurry? It's on purpose or it's because consoles are shit?

where the fuck is wtc one?!

both

Not graphics reduction per se, but I'd rather see lower res textures/lower poly models but with more advanced effects and physics

You must be intentionally retarded.

Attached: MetroExodus_2019_03_31_11_54_38_456.png (1920x1080, 3.5M)

They aren't. Screenshot taking methods are just bad.

check digital foundry
sony also claim games like uncharted 4 are 4k when it's 1440p

my textures arent that low
also nice aliasing

TAA makes them blurry

Instead of actual AA devs now use TAA which blurs more than fxaa

Yea Forums sucks at screenshots desu

The salty snoygger ladies and gentlemen

This man is right.

No he isn't.

came here to post this.

also OP is cherry picking. ps4 spiderman is among the best looking ps4 games which is not the case with ps3 version, it looked liked shit even back then.

Framerate.
1080p/60FPS should be the minimum acceptable performance for any console game.

You're right, I just booted up and checked, I was on high, not Ultra.
I forgot that Metro had the worst fucking graphics options menu in the world and saddles you with fucking presets and a couple modifiers.

wtf i love f4 now

Attached: 1553170942089.jpg (1920x1080, 734K)

That's not even an argument. It's assassins creed and though it's based around historical settings does not make it a historical game.

Horrible thread

It is time to accept that in the last 5-7 years graphics barely advanced outside the rtx reflection gimmick
Compare and pic related

Attached: rendition1.img.jpg (1920x1080, 344K)

This. The change from 2D to 3D will always be the most mindblowing thing that I experienced. Going from A Link to the Past in 92 to Ocarina of Time in 98 was almost something unthinkable. Fast forward, we get bigger games and prettier graphics but so far there's nothing that brought that extreme wow factor like 2D to 3D. However, I had the opportunity to play Alien Isolation in VR and I'm pretty sure that it'll be the next big thing in gaming, even though it's more of a gimmick nowadays

:)

rude

Attached: 20190120132526_1.jpg (3840x2160, 1.11M)

If Fallout 4 has one thing going for it, it's really nice lighting during the day. It's just a shame the city doesn't ever look as nice.

Attached: Fallout4_2018_07_19_17_34_13_767.png (1920x1080, 3.21M)

it's pretty good game with a shit ton of mods now.

Attached: 1554026239894.jpg (1920x1080, 760K)

Bethesda games are so fucking ugly

>The graphical leap between 2009 and 2019 has been absolutely massive.
No it hasn't. You can point to one thing and then ignore the rest but it isn't that huge.

The actual trend is that graphical leaps in decades continues to rapidly decline. Similarly the leaps in hardware also continue to decline. With chips it's that the amount of hours needed to design and manufacture smaller and better chips goes up. With graphics it's both the increased complexity and a ceiling of photorealism. The graphical advances continue asymptotically.

From a few colors and big blocks on the screen to full 16-bit graphics was a massive development.

From 8-bit 2d pixel graphics to full 3D polygons with multiple factors in resolution growth and from 256 colors to 16 million colors was a massive advancement.

From very primitive blocky 3D models to high poly 3D models with shaders and post processing was a huge development.

From high poly models with shaders to high poly models with a few more shaders, eh it's an improvement.

At this stage they're just incrementally tweaking stuff to make improvements here and there but there are no huge leaps.

He meant that
>Graphics from 1989 to 1999 and 1999 to 2009 were way more impressive and noticeable than 2009 to 2019. Theres been hardly any leap whatsoever
You tosser.

Attached: 4 Decades of Spider-Man.jpg (1198x2922, 780K)

The issue I have with a lot of modding is that people completely change the look of Fallout 4. It doesn't really need more than a little saturation and contrast to pop better.
Hell Fallout 76 for all its faults did this and, even during its shitty launch, managed to look banger at times.

Attached: Fallout76_2018_11_22_23_45_54_275.png (1920x1080, 1.98M)

Huge leaps for you

That 2009 -> 2019 does look like a huge leap to me.

There's no sense arguing with him user.
For years I've seen people trivialize advancements in graphical fidelity, the average individual has no grasp of reality here. They still look back on Crysis and call it amazing even now, when even fucking Far Cry 4 looks better.

I like a more "gloomy" look, I think the f4 engine shat the bed in terms of how colorful it is.

Attached: 1534718248004.jpg (1920x1080, 470K)

I miss the Green tint to be honest.
I loved Human Revolutions amber hue, I love it when a game commits to an aesthetic so hard it makes things pop with a filter. Directors Cut is such a mess in comparison.

The car looks real, the unrealistic looking ground was a giveaway.

are you going to post those screenshots from modded Crysis otherwise?