Naughty Dog won't push UC4 to 60fps if it means compromises in gameplay.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DriedMangoes said:
I'll take 1080p/30 if it means there is going to be unreal visuals during gameplay.
Click to expand...

If you want unreal visuals, then you are gaming on the wrong devices. You must enter the PC zone......

starseeker said:
Unless Halo 5 uses the cloud to enhance , (while I assume not, as I never heard of it), I cannot see how it can compete with UC4 in terms of visuals at when it is 60fps. MP no question, must be 60fps.
Click to expand...

MS mentioned in a twitter last year that Halo 5 was going to be 1080p. So at 1080p and 60fps...and based on how awesome Halo 4 looked, Halo 5 could indeed be a graphics victor.
 
Kvally said:
If you want unreal visuals, then you are gaming on the wrong devices. You must enter the PC zone......



MS mentioned in a twitter last year that Halo 5 was going to be 1080p. So at 1080p and 60fps...and based on how awesome Halo 4 looked, Halo 5 could indeed be a graphics victor.
Click to expand...

No money to keep upgrading my PC... will settle for one of the best developers in the business right now in Naughty Dogs where every end product is a graphical masterpiece for its time.
 
what in the mother bleep does halo have to do with uncharted? both are different type of games with different things going on and different level structures. I swear to god you mofo's got to turn every f***ing thread into a VS thread.

On topic I'm fine with 30 FPS was fine on the other uncharted games will be fine this time.
 
VFX_Veteran said:
No spin at all..

What makes you think they'll get 60fps when their max right now is 37fps with the assets they have? The only way I see it to 60fps is if they downgrade the graphics. And it's not like the demo was the best looking game we've seen on PS4 in order to warrant scaling back to get the 60fps.
Click to expand...
spinning already

kills ya to give console power credit eh
 
Kvally said:
If you want unreal visuals, then you are gaming on the wrong devices. You must enter the PC zone......



MS mentioned in a twitter last year that Halo 5 was going to be 1080p. So at 1080p and 60fps...and based on how awesome Halo 4 looked, Halo 5 could indeed be a graphics victor.
Click to expand...
nope just the 60fps part man
 
VaLLiancE said:
spinning already

kills ya to give console power credit eh
Click to expand...

Console power? Why should I give credit when it's power is subpar for what most videogamers expected (i.e. 1080p/60fps for most games that have come out)? We still haven't achieved FF:Agnus, SW1313, Infiltrator level graphics (remember those discussions) yet. The Order will be the first. X1 beat PS4 to the punch already with Ryse.
 
VFX_Veteran said:
Console power? Why should I give credit when it's power is subpar for what most videogamers expected (i.e. 1080p/60fps for most games that have come out)? We still haven't achieved FF:Agnus, SW1313, Infiltrator level graphics (remember those discussions) yet. The Order will be the first. X1 beat PS4 to the punch already with Ryse.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, I find infamous SS more impressive, not only for overall visuals but it's also running at a higher resolution and frame rate.

As far as UC4, I'd rather they went visuals first and as long as the frame rate is 30 or above I'm fine with it.
 
JinCA said:
I have to disagree, I find infamous SS more impressive, not only for overall visuals but it's also running at a higher resolution and frame rate.
Click to expand...

Overall visuals? Like what? I can name a buttload of things in that CryEngine 3 that is used in Ryse compared to the 2-3 things that ISS implements. Also I didn't know that resolution and framerate factor into what we actually see on the screen. For every *gameplay* frame in ISS, I can find a frame in Ryse that exceeds it.
 
VFX_Veteran said:
Overall visuals? Like what? I can name a buttload of things in that CryEngine 3 that is used in Ryse compared to the 2-3 things that ISS implements. Also I didn't know that resolution and framerate factor into what we actually see on the screen. For every *gameplay* frame in ISS, I can find a frame in Ryse that exceeds it.
Click to expand...

When I see infamous I'm every bit as impressed if not more so than I am with Ryse, the fact that infamous is open world and runs at a higher frame rate and higher resolution all while having more going on at once impresses me. If you don't agree that's fine but Ryse is a bit overrated IMO, don't get me wrong it looks very good but it also has very little going on at any one time and most of it seems to be very limiting as far as traversal.
 
JinCA said:
When I see infamous I'm every bit as impressed if not more so than I am with Ryse, the fact that infamous is open world and runs at a higher frame rate and higher resolution all while having more going on at once impresses me. If you don't agree that's fine but Ryse is a bit overrated IMO, don't get me wrong it looks very good but it also has very little going on at any one time and most of it seems to be very limiting as far as traversal.
Click to expand...

This is actually a huge stretch, Ryse impressed me in several scenes with a lot of highly detailed AI.
 
Even if this game was rendered on the Playstation 7 of the future teleported back to the year 2015, the developer would still complain "We can't tone down the quantum ray-tracing. It'll take away from the experience. If only we had a more powerful console that could do 60fps." At least no one can lose to Ubisoft and their 20fps games. I still wish for 60fps for Uncharted if possible over a solid 30fps.
 
JinCA said:
When I see infamous I'm every bit as impressed if not more so than I am with Ryse, the fact that infamous is open world and runs at a higher frame rate and higher resolution all while having more going on at once impresses me. If you don't agree that's fine but Ryse is a bit overrated IMO, don't get me wrong it looks very good but it also has very little going on at any one time and most of it seems to be very limiting as far as traversal.
Click to expand...

If you are going to rate a game's graphics based on what's going on in the scene, then by default, all non-open world games don't have a hope of being graphics king. Watch Dogs has even more going on than ISS but few would say it looks better. AC:Unity has a lot going on and it destroys ISS in all aspects.. but yet many dismiss AC:Unity because of frame rate.

It sounds more like giving excuses to fit one's argument rather than looking at the game with unbiased eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frozpot
JinCA said:
I have to disagree, I find infamous SS more impressive, not only for overall visuals but it's also running at a higher resolution and frame rate.

As far as UC4, I'd rather they went visuals first and as long as the frame rate is 30 or above I'm fine with it.
Click to expand...
He never even played Ryse on Xbox One I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't play ISS.
he has been on a PS4 hardware trolling mission since getting told off @ neogaf for doing it.
No matter how good a console game looks he will be there to diss it and say the PC is better.
 
JinCA said:
When I see infamous I'm every bit as impressed if not more so than I am with Ryse, the fact that infamous is open world and runs at a higher frame rate and higher resolution all while having more going on at once impresses me. If you don't agree that's fine but Ryse is a bit overrated IMO, don't get me wrong it looks very good but it also has very little going on at any one time and most of it seems to be very limiting as far as traversal.
Click to expand...
ISS makes better use of colors and doesn't look as soft/blurry and has way better physics/special effects but Ryse is IMO a tad bit better overall.
 
VaLLiancE said:
He never even played Ryse on Xbox One I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't play ISS.
he has been on a PS4 hardware trolling mission since getting told off @ neogaf for doing it.
No matter how good a console game looks he will be there to diss it and say the PC is better.
Click to expand...

This conversation isn't PC vs. PS4. It's about validating whether an open-world game is always going to have a leg up on a SP non-open world game.
 
VFX_Veteran said:
If you are going to rate a game's graphics based on what's going on in the scene, then by default, all non-open world games don't have a hope of being graphics king. Watch Dogs has even more going on than ISS but few would say it looks better. AC:Unity has a lot going on and it destroys ISS in all aspects.. but yet many dismiss AC:Unity because of frame rate.

It sounds more like giving excuses to fit one's argument rather than looking at the game with unbiased eyes.
Click to expand...

Unity has awful pop in on the NPC's and is also nowhere near as clean graphically, it is an impressive looking game overall though no doubt about it, it def looks better than most people give it credit for. The fact that it moves much slower overall than infamous and has nothing going on for the most part but a bunch of NPC's standing around kind of makes what's it's doing less impressive than infamous IMO. I also wouldn't say it looks better than infamous, that's just my opinion though, obviously if you want think so that's up to you.

I also didn't say infamous only looks better than Ryse because it's open world either, to me it matches if not beats Ryse graphically all while being open world, if you disagree that's totally fine.
 
Last edited:
JinCA said:
Unity has awful pop in on the NPC's and is also nowhere near as clean graphically, it is an impressive looking game overall though no doubt about it, it def looks better than most people give it credit for. The fact that it moves much slower overall than infamous and has nothing going on for the most part but a bunch of NPC's standing around kind of makes what's it's doing less impressive than infamous IMO. I also wouldn't say it looks better than infamous, that's just my opinion though, obviously if you want think so that's up to you.
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning these worlds that have nothing going on in them but fail to show me where ISS does. It's a dead world in ISS too. In fact, there are very little people walking around, no destruction on most objects, and no buildings that you can enter (except the ones that are story driven). I've just gotten the power to absorb neon lights and I have yet to find anything driving me to continue playing. I'm constantly getting phone messages to show up here or there and basically kill enemies from checkpoint to checkpoint.
 
VFX_Veteran said:
You keep mentioning these worlds that have nothing going on in them but fail to show me where ISS does. It's a dead world in ISS too. In fact, there are very little people walking around, no destruction on most objects, and no buildings that you can enter (except the ones that are story driven). I've just gotten the power to absorb neon lights and I have yet to find anything driving me to continue playing. I'm constantly getting phone messages to show up here or there and basically kill enemies from checkpoint to checkpoint.
Click to expand...

Just the traversal and power abilities and effects, explosions show that there can be many things happening at once in the game. Unity, no explosions at will, no flying, no lightspeed running, just normal mechanics.
 
DriedMangoes said:
Just the traversal and power abilities and effects, explosions show that there can be many things happening at once in the game. Unity, no explosions at will, no flying, no lightspeed running, just normal mechanics.
Click to expand...

Unity has way more animation cycles going on in the game -- Deslan seems very stiff and "floaty" when jumping, climbing, or walking. The world has interiors that are traversable therefore way more objects to render on-screen. Arno and his enemies has more animations and context animations than Deslan (he can kill from any angle). He has different weapons with various FX, there is lots of water, dynamic weather FX, and a s*** load of variety in level design. The AI in Unity at least does things that pertain to daily living (i.e. people kiss, fight, dance, drink, argue, etc..).. in ISS, they all just walk around, stand, or drive cars.
 
VFX_Veteran said:
Unity has way more animation cycles going on in the game -- Deslan seems very stiff and "floaty" when jumping, climbing, or walking. The world has interiors that are traversable therefore way more objects to render on-screen. Arno and his enemies has more animations and context animations than Deslan (he can kill from any angle). He has different weapons with various FX, there is lots of water, dynamic weather FX, and a s*** load of variety in level design. The AI in Unity at least does things that pertain to daily living (i.e. people kiss, fight, dance, drink, argue, etc..).. in ISS, they all just walk around, stand, or drive cars.
Click to expand...

Infamous has 1080p, 35 FPS avg for second son, 40 FPS for First Light, modified SMAA resulting in one of the more impressive AA methods used in next-gen games today, good AF, physically-based rendered lighting system resulting in more natural/realistic lighting, mix of realtime screen-space reflections and cube maps, advanced particle system - engine capable of breaking down and throwing around tens of thousands of particles at any time, alpha effects rendered at full resolution and in large volume with complete shadowing which is typically very demanding, even so with all of these effects, engine is capable of staying above 30 FPS most of the time.

Based on resolution and FPS alone, you can see why maybe Unity may have more AI effects in-game but visually, Infamous SS and First Light are top notch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back