PS4 isn't even as powerful as a Core I3/Geforce 750ti PC.

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for venekor
Venekor

177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGf4SVWEw2g

Doesn't any one else find it sad how under powered these consoles are? Really the first generation that has been like this, they're not even competing with PC hardware that you can put together for the same price as a console. We're having ARM chips approaching the power of these consoles, even beating them when it comes to CPU power. With the X1 chip from Nvidia pushing out 1 Tflop, surely in 2 years we'll see tablets become more powerful than these consoles.

To me that has to mean the early end of this generation and a whole shift in what a console actually means. Surely Sony and Microsoft are going to follow a more iPad like route where they upgrade the hardware at least every two years? With the consoles using a standard x86 architecture now, it is more possible than ever as they can come out with more powerful hardware and everything would still work.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a HP increase in the Xbox one Slim at the very least.

Avatar image for haruko
Haruko

571

Forum Posts

136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

#2  Edited By Haruko

Upgrading early for either company is brand suicide. Just look at the Genesis Sega CD 32X debacle. We're stuck with the consoles for at least another 5-6 years and hell remember how early 360 and ps3 games looked compared to they do now? As developers will get used to the consoles games will look better sun rise sun set.

Avatar image for hayt
Hayt

1837

Forum Posts

548

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@haruko said:

remember how early 360 and ps3 games looked compared to they do now? As developers will get used to the consoles games will look better sun rise sun set.

I also remember the part where the acceptable frame-rates and resolutions got worse and worse as a result.

Avatar image for mcfart
Mcfart

2064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@hayt said:
@haruko said:

remember how early 360 and ps3 games looked compared to they do now? As developers will get used to the consoles games will look better sun rise sun set.

I also remember the part where the acceptable frame-rates and resolutions got worse and worse as a result.

Halo 4 looks a hell of a lot better then Halo 3, and both are 30fps.

Avatar image for joe423
Joe423

278

Forum Posts

107

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

@haruko: Was the not due to the difficulty of the hardware requiring a longer period of getting to grips with it? The consoles now are x86 and basically PCs, the devs know how to push this architecture already, unlike the cell for instance.

Avatar image for rongalaxy
RonGalaxy

4937

Forum Posts

48

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

The difference is that consoles are closed systems that developers can better optimize for. PC can look better, but that's only thought brute force power, not good optimization. Just look at the last of us on ps3. Imagine that game to be a multiplatform release. Do you think it would have run well on a PC built with 7 year old components, the age of the ps3 at the time of its release? Very doubtful. Consoles still have their benefits

Avatar image for mcfart
Mcfart

2064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#7  Edited By Mcfart

@joe423 said:

@haruko: Was the not due to the difficulty of the hardware requiring a longer period of getting to grips with it? The consoles now are x86 and basically PCs, the devs know how to push this architecture already, unlike the cell for instance.

True, but they still have their SDKS that will be understood by devs as they work with them, and MS and Sony will improve them. Furthermore, I'm sure by the end of their lifespans there will be AC games that look better (and run better) then Unity.

Avatar image for chaser324
chaser324

9415

Forum Posts

14945

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 15

#8  Edited By chaser324  Moderator

@joe423: You still have to factor in an adjustment period for the new platforms' SDKs which will require rewriting a lot of basic game engine code as well as reworking a lot of your workflow and dev tools. Also, the simple fact is that PCs allow you to get away with writing sloppy code to a much greater degree than consoles.

Avatar image for bladededge
BladedEdge

1434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By BladedEdge

The issue is a fairly simple one I think, and comes from the same place that "omg these season pass/nickle and diming in games is awful!" Inflation.

Consoles cost 400 or 500$ period. Anymore and they don't sell. Just as games must cost 60 dollars and no more...

Only the prices I am quoting are, surprise, 5, 10, 15 , and 20 years ago. Consumer expectation of what these things should cost has not changed..but how much does 50$ get you in food, gas, clothes and etc these days compared to 2005? 1995? 1985?

So..of course the console is underpowered. Its completely inevitable in the same way that, indeed, as the budget it takes to make AAA games meet graphical standards keep increasing, but since the price we will pay for those games isn't, we will see more scummy dlc.

Avatar image for uhtaree
uhtaree

959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By uhtaree

As a PC person for the most part, I'm just starting to feel the pangs of hunger for 4K right now, seeing people talk about playing the Witcher at resolutions higher than 1080p. Merely trying to play a 4K video the other day chugged what I thought was a still capable PC. Building a PC that can do games at 4K/playable framerate feels like something I would like to do in the next couple years. A couple years after that it will be a no brainer to do that in PC and 4K TVs will be widespread so it will feel like time for new consoles for sure.

Avatar image for adequatelyprepared
AdequatelyPrepared

2522

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bladededge: I remember watching a doco on marketing, and one episode was focussed on tech, particularly Sony and the PS3. Essentially, Sony lost money on each PS3 it sold after the major price cut, and instead gained money through two things: Blu-ray sales, and PS3 game sales, of which from both it got a small cut. And that's the current standard. Simple fact is that the consumer market is used to buying consoles at a certain price point, and going significantly beyond that is business suicide.

Anyway OP, I have no idea where you expect this thread to go. Consoles still have their place in video games. Not everyone wants to build a PC, and not everyone wants to fiddle with a PC if a game goes wrong, even though to you and me, both PC players, it may seem like a simple fix. Most just enjoy the convenience.

If there's anything that's actually bad about the new consoles, it's that more than ever before developers are trying to achieve high graphical fidelity at the expense of framerate and general playability.

Avatar image for joe423
Joe423

278

Forum Posts

107

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

@chaser324: Even with that I'd be surprised if games 6 years in look noticably better than games from 2015-16. The consoles right now are relatively weaker to the current tech standard compared to the consoles of last generation.

Avatar image for hells
Hells

109

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Its not really sad. You get what you pay for, if you want to at minimum play most current games and basic media playback-- get a console. If you want to do more and are willing to spend $600 or more, get a PC. The main difference is convenience (consoles) vs. customization (PC).

In terms of game quality, its ultimately up to the developers to work with the system specs given to them to make the most enjoyable game they are able to. And if they are able to make gaming experiences that scale well from low to high end machines then more power to them.

Though once cloud gaming is vastly improved and utilized, local system specs will be less important and internet connection speeds will be more important...

Avatar image for dave_tacitus
Dave_Tacitus

2541

Forum Posts

19

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

I don't think the PS3/360 were any better, comparatively. What's made things more noticeable is the rise of Steam and prominence of PC gaming in general.

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

It really doesn't matter because the millions of people that buy them around the world and don't frequent gaming or hardware forums will think they're good enough.

Avatar image for atwa
Atwa

1692

Forum Posts

150

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 10

I wish developers accepted what the hardware was instead of trying to make everything look prettier than what it can handle. It seems every major game that is released on consoles these days have framerate problems. I think its unacceptable. Frame rate should be most important since it affects playability the most, most games can't even hold a solid 30.

Avatar image for deactivated-64bc6edfbd9ee
deactivated-64bc6edfbd9ee

827

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@atwa: but then everyone complains about graphics and 1080p/60fps. Ya can't win.

Avatar image for bradbrains
BradBrains

2277

Forum Posts

583

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@humanity said:

It really doesn't matter because the millions of people that buy them around the world and don't frequent gaming or hardware forums will think they're good enough.

I but them and frequent gaming forums and I dont think its bad. I love love the convenience of consoles

totally agree with @rongalaxy. its the optimization that is the difference between a pc and a console of same specs.

and for me for the price I pay and the ease of not having to worry about the opimization myself I find consoles a better experience for me personally.

I also think people are starting to obsess way too much over numbers and slight framerate differences as a bigger deal than they actually are. to each their own I guess.

Avatar image for jesus_phish
Jesus_Phish

4118

Forum Posts

3307

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By Jesus_Phish

@bradbrains said:

I also think people are starting to obsess way too much over numbers and slight framerate differences as a bigger deal than they actually are. to each their own I guess.

God yes this. I hear more from people about framerates and p's than I do about if the game is actually any good or not.

I play games on PC, PS4 and Vita, hell even some tablet games. I play the games I think are fun and enjoyable. I don't play games to look at a frame rate counter.

Avatar image for teddie
Teddie

2222

Forum Posts

20

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By Teddie

I think you will find there is a very small amount of people who care, and an even smaller amount who know what "Core I3/Geforce 750ti PC" even means, letalone the power/price differences between it and a console.

Avatar image for snakeitachi
snakeitachi

214

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By snakeitachi

MGSV is 1080p 60 fps, and I think its better looking than Witcher 3. Either the fox engine is crazy optimisable, or the PS4 is.

Avatar image for excast
excast

1392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I care less about slight upgrades in resolution or framerate than I do if a console is affordable and reliable. When I buy a game on a console I have a good idea it's going to work respectably without a need for some $500 video card upgrade. And as games like The Last of Us showed last generation, you can get a lot of underpowered hardware if you know what you are doing and put the time in.

Avatar image for artisanbreads
ArtisanBreads

9107

Forum Posts

154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#25  Edited By ArtisanBreads

Yeah I haven't bought a console yet and that's crazy to think about given my track record (I am someone who has owned almost all the major consoles in recent memory by the end of the console generation). There hasn't been a game that's made me and my PC is still kicking ass for the most part. It runs better than these consoles do and I have what most would consider like midrange specs and outdated (I have an i5 and a 670). I was actually close to getting a console just cause but instead I upgraded my graphics card to a lower level one for $150 and like I say that's still doing super well with current games.

@rongalaxy said:

Just look at the last of us on ps3. Imagine that game to be a multiplatform release. Do you think it would have run well on a PC built with 7 year old components, the age of the ps3 at the time of its release? Very doubtful. Consoles still have their benefits

Except they would have made it for newer PC components and it would've looked better than what was on PS3. Not really a relevant point.

Avatar image for mcfart
Mcfart

2064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#26  Edited By Mcfart

MGSV is 1080p 60 fps, and I think its better looking than Witcher 3. Either the fox engine is crazy optimisable, or the PS4 is.

Witcher 3 doesn't look very good, even on PC.

Avatar image for bradbrains
BradBrains

2277

Forum Posts

583

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@excast said:

I care less about slight upgrades in resolution or framerate than I do if a console is affordable and reliable. When I buy a game on a console I have a good idea it's going to work respectably without a need for some $500 video card upgrade. And as games like The Last of Us showed last generation, you can get a lot of underpowered hardware if you know what you are doing and put the time in.

great point. also there is usually a good chance youll be able to play the newest games for quite a few years without an upgrade which ads piece of mind. I have 3 jobs. not a lot of time. I enjoy the simplicity of not having to worry about that stuff.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d9e9473c7960
deactivated-5d9e9473c7960

343

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mcfart said:
@snakeitachi said:

MGSV is 1080p 60 fps, and I think its better looking than Witcher 3. Either the fox engine is crazy optimisable, or the PS4 is.

Witcher 3 doesn't look very good, even on PC.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for cactusapple
Cactusapple

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Just look at it this way: Those of us that own midrange-higher PCs are already playing our games on the PS5/Xbtwo. We do a lot of gaming, that's why we forked out the extra £$£ at the outset and now enjoy gaming libraries in the hundreds or even thousands for far less the cost the console equivalent would've cost. We're already happy. Those of us that own consoles only play games as an occasional hobby and aren't all that bothered. Those that own both, please hire me I could use the extra disposable income, and I'd love to play the last of us.

Avatar image for bradbrains
BradBrains

2277

Forum Posts

583

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By BradBrains

Just look at it this way: Those of us that own midrange-higher PCs are already playing our games on the PS5/Xbtwo. We do a lot of gaming, that's why we forked out the extra £$£ at the outset and now enjoy gaming libraries in the hundreds or even thousands for far less the cost the console equivalent would've cost. We're already happy. Those of us that own consoles only play games as an occasional hobby and aren't all that bothered. Those that own both, please hire me I could use the extra disposable income, and I'd love to play the last of us.

I think thats a bit of a broad generalization. I play games quite a bit and follow the industry closely. I play almost all my games on consoles and have very little want for a gaming pc.

its just personally preference on what you want for games.

consoles have the tv friendly atmosphere, its affordable and doesn't requite any customization while consoles have the option to upgrade and tweak the way you want it. you can be a hardcore gamer and only play on consoles just like you can be a casual gamer and own a high end pc.

Avatar image for htr10
htr10

1395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By htr10

Oh shit, here we go! It's on! Console vs PC war! Console vs PC war's on everybody! It's going down! Shit is going down!

Well, at least after this thread definitely decides the matter we can all stop talking about it. We all have that to look forward to at least.

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

@humanity said:

It really doesn't matter because the millions of people that buy them around the world and don't frequent gaming or hardware forums will think they're good enough.

I but them and frequent gaming forums and I dont think its bad. I love love the convenience of consoles

totally agree with @rongalaxy. its the optimization that is the difference between a pc and a console of same specs.

and for me for the price I pay and the ease of not having to worry about the opimization myself I find consoles a better experience for me personally.

I also think people are starting to obsess way too much over numbers and slight framerate differences as a bigger deal than they actually are. to each their own I guess.

Sure I agree completely. I always tell people that the tradeoff you're making with consoles is graphical fidelity for ease of use. When you buy a $400 console right now you are getting a guarantee that every game that comes out for your platform in the next 6 years will run and look the best it possibly can while maintaining a steady framerate. You will also never have to troubleshoot anything yourself. It's a really good deal if you ask me. PC's have beautiful success stories, like the Witcher 3 which runs and looks wonderfully on my now modest system, and there are just awful horror stories of things not working, crashing, not starting up.. You could even have a monstrous PC and if the developer didn't optimize their game properly it will still run poorly on your system. Those are all headaches that quite frankly I don't need in my life.

Playing Witcher 3 on my PC is great. I love the fact that the load times are all quite literally 2-3 seconds long because of my SSD. That said, when I played Bloodborne and the textures were worse, the load times were longer and the framerate was lower, you know I still had the same amount of fun. Would I like Bloodborne to look better? Of course, but at the end of the day it didn't really matter because I was having fun playing the game.

Avatar image for jesus_phish
Jesus_Phish

4118

Forum Posts

3307

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@htr10: At least until Batman comes out.

Avatar image for grtkbrandon
grtkbrandon

178

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

As a PC person for the most part, I'm just starting to feel the pangs of hunger for 4K right now, seeing people talk about playing the Witcher at resolutions higher than 1080p. Merely trying to play a 4K video the other day chugged what I thought was a still capable PC. Building a PC that can do games at 4K/playable framerate feels like something I would like to do in the next couple years. A couple years after that it will be a no brainer to do that in PC and 4K TVs will be widespread so it will feel like time for new consoles for sure.

Ultrawide is a game changer for me. I went back and forth between trying to choose between 4K and a 1440 ultrawide and in the end it jus

@mcfart said:
@snakeitachi said:

MGSV is 1080p 60 fps, and I think its better looking than Witcher 3. Either the fox engine is crazy optimisable, or the PS4 is.

Witcher 3 doesn't look very good, even on PC.

No Caption Provided

Yeah, this guy should do himself a favor and check out some screenshots on NeoGAF. Check it out.

Avatar image for giantlizardking
GiantLizardKing

1144

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The main bottle neck for Witcher 3 is graphics processing power and the 750ti is no slouch.

Avatar image for nodima
Nodima

3878

Forum Posts

24

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By Nodima

I'm going to be honest, I've never been able to tell the difference from video to video or clip to clip with these types of things and this was no different. Looks great on all three, looks the same on all three, whatever oh well. I don't even know what Core I3/GeForce 750ti means though.

Avatar image for shagge
ShaggE

9562

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#37  Edited By ShaggE

Honestly, I paid $400 and got about $400 worth of hardware (probably more... not going to price every little component). The games look good, play good, I'm happy. Doesn't hurt that I haven't had a gaming rig in a few years, but games look good enough on all platforms right now that I'm content with them looking like they do now or only incrementally better for the foreseeable future.

Not saying I don't wish the parts were a bit more future-proof, of course. But I'm more than willing to trade some extra visual oomph for the convenience of a console. (and no, it's not out of ignorance or being a dirty, filthy casual. I paid my dues as a PC gamer for many years. My Steam library gets much use. I just like games for being games, I don't care about sheer horsepower like I used to)

Avatar image for deactivated-58ca104190dca
deactivated-58ca104190dca

324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@nodima said:

I'm going to be honest, I've never been able to tell the difference from video to video or clip to clip with these types of things and this was no different. Looks great on all three, looks the same on all three, whatever oh well. I don't even know what Core I3/GeForce 750ti means though.

They tried to mimic the settings of the PS4 on the PC so they should all look the same except for the frame rate, the point of the video was to show you can get comparable/better results from a budget PC.

Avatar image for toastman
ToastMan

211

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By ToastMan

@nodima: I know what you mean, but I think that in this specific case all three looking the same was the point. It was made to show that you can get PS4 level quality on a budget PC.

EDIT: Too Slow! :(

Avatar image for ejc93
ejc93

210

Forum Posts

170

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Making an expensive, powerful console didn't exactly endear Sony to people last generation.

It's a lose-lose situation for consoles.

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
monkeyking1969

9095

Forum Posts

1241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 18

Oh, how very sad, that a $400 console cannot do what a $500 PC can do...or really $600 unless you plan to steal the OS. And, I guess you need virus protection too, and well a keyboard and mouse in that bundle - so closer to $675 to $700.

So yeah, at that point you get a PC that plays a many PC games just above what a PS4 can do even 2x or 3x better...but of course for The Witcher that is only on medium setting without antialiasing so even you PC buddies will laugh at you for you crumby $700 PC.

So yes, how ironically sad, that a incredibly low maintenance device, that plays games really well at TV resolutions is sold for $400.

Avatar image for rongalaxy
RonGalaxy

4937

Forum Posts

48

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#42  Edited By RonGalaxy

@artisanbreads: my point remains. Even in the scenario where modern PCs are taken into account, the game would still look really good on ps3 and never in a million years run on PC hardware the same age/power as ps3 hardware.

Here's another example. In 4 years you'll be able to play most modern games on a ps4 (excluding exclusives) and people with the specs mentioned in the op won't, at least not as well.

Avatar image for colourful_hippie
colourful_hippie

6335

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#43  Edited By colourful_hippie

@hayt said:
@haruko said:

remember how early 360 and ps3 games looked compared to they do now? As developers will get used to the consoles games will look better sun rise sun set.

I also remember the part where the acceptable frame-rates and resolutions got worse and worse as a result.

Except that many of the games coming out earlier in the new gen cycle are also not running as good as they should be. I wonder for how much longer can people keep repeating "devs just need to get used to new hardware" when we're almost 3 years into the cycle now.

The upside though on consoles being underpowered is that I don't have to upgrade my PC nearly as much as I would have had to last gen but on the downside games could be looking even better on PC if consoles weren't holding back all the graphical fidelity pushes that devs could really do

Avatar image for artisanbreads
ArtisanBreads

9107

Forum Posts

154

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#44  Edited By ArtisanBreads

@rongalaxy said:

Here's another example. In 4 years you'll be able to play most modern games on a ps4 (excluding exclusives) and people with the specs mentioned in the op won't, at least not as well.

I don't think that's going to be the case at all. The points you are making just aren't relevant to reality, is all. I don't build my PC to PS3 specs or PS4 specs. It's already more powerful and it will continue to be more powerful.

Naughty Dog works some magic because they are great, but if they worked on PC games we'd see them do super well with those.

Avatar image for tuxfool
tuxfool

688

Forum Posts

28

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_misery said:
@mcfart said:
@snakeitachi said:

MGSV is 1080p 60 fps, and I think its better looking than Witcher 3. Either the fox engine is crazy optimisable, or the PS4 is.

Witcher 3 doesn't look very good, even on PC.

No Caption Provided

Yeah, this guy should do himself a favor and check out some screenshots on NeoGAF. Check it out.

Yeah. I know looks are an opinion, and opinions can't be wrong, but people saying it doesn't look good are just plain wrong.

Avatar image for grtkbrandon
grtkbrandon

178

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46  Edited By grtkbrandon

@tuxfool said:
@grtkbrandon said:
@mr_misery said:
@mcfart said:
@snakeitachi said:

MGSV is 1080p 60 fps, and I think its better looking than Witcher 3. Either the fox engine is crazy optimisable, or the PS4 is.

Witcher 3 doesn't look very good, even on PC.

No Caption Provided

Yeah, this guy should do himself a favor and check out some screenshots on NeoGAF. Check it out.

Yeah. I know looks are an opinion, and opinions can't be wrong, but people saying it doesn't look good are just plain wrong.

"Opinions can't be wrong" is a fallacy. Opinions built on lies, misinformation, etc can all be very wrong.

Avatar image for asilentprotagonist
ASilentProtagonist

738

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@tuxfool said:
@grtkbrandon said:
@mr_misery said:
@mcfart said:
@snakeitachi said:

MGSV is 1080p 60 fps, and I think its better looking than Witcher 3. Either the fox engine is crazy optimisable, or the PS4 is.

Witcher 3 doesn't look very good, even on PC.

No Caption Provided

Yeah, this guy should do himself a favor and check out some screenshots on NeoGAF. Check it out.

Yeah. I know looks are an opinion, and opinions can't be wrong, but people saying it doesn't look good are just plain wrong.

Agreed, The Witcher 3 looks really good even though I think some of the lighting effects are way overdone. I do agree with "Snakeitachi" that MGSV looks better. Unbelievable how good it looks, and that it runs at 60fps on PS4. Fox Engine is crazy impressive.

Avatar image for big_jon
big_jon

6533

Forum Posts

2539

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 18

@venekor: What's more sad is that these sorts of threads still exist. Who cares, play games, they still look and play great.

Avatar image for tuxfool
tuxfool

688

Forum Posts

28

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@asilentprotagonist: "looks" is entirely subjective but MGSV isn't pushing nearly as much detail onto the screen as W3.

There isn't any magic here. it achieves 60 fps on the ps4 by culling lights, reflections, geometry and foliage very aggressively. I'd say the barren landscape works well in context with the technical requirements of the game.

Avatar image for asilentprotagonist
ASilentProtagonist

738

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@tuxfool said:

@asilentprotagonist: "looks" is entirely subjective but MGSV isn't pushing nearly as much detail onto the screen as W3.

There isn't any magic here. it achieves 60 fps on the ps4 by culling lights, reflections, geometry and foliage very aggressively. I'd say the barren landscape works well in context with the technical requirements of the game.

You seen the Jungle gameplay bro? The shadows are the best I've seen. I'd rather them cut out long distance detail for 60 fps any day. But I see what you're saying. I think it's more detailed too. Character models outshine Witcher 3 I just feel they look more life like/detailed.