Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2023] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]

[function]

Did you play the game on the consoles and did you play past the intro level? If you did either of those things, i don't know how you can call it "elite" in terms of visual presentation. Nothing about it was elite. When you can combine it with the unsteady performance, its hard to see how it can it can be considered elite.... Maybe my experience is soured by my dislike of the game but, I did not find the games graphical package(visuals + art direction + performance) to be anything special.

He didn't say it was elite; he suggested that if you literally couldn't play the game because it looked so bad that perhaps you could only play "the most elite of elite games in terms of visual presentation".

Gears 4 and 5 were for the most part great looking games IMO.

 

[BitByte]

He didn't say it was elite; he suggested that if you literally couldn't play the game because it looked so bad that perhaps you could only play "the most elite of elite games in terms of visual presentation".

Gears 4 and 5 were for the most part great looking games IMO.

Yea, that’s my misunderstanding. I wouldn’t say that I only play the most elite games. It’s just that a game must have something about it that was worth sticking around for… In the case of fallen order, it had nothing worth sticking around for…

This is a bit off-topic but I feel like with most games, you can tell where it’s flaws if you watch the gameplay closely and what is/isn’t being shown. Like for example with starfield, I ranted on here about the mediocrity of its visuals when it was announced that it would be running at 30fps. At the time, a lot of people were saying that it’s to be expected because of it scope and etc. Now the reviews are out and we know it’s most certainly not justified. It’s the giant facade I expected. The “planets” are procedurally generated small maps with invisible borders and it appears that there’s no actually travelling between planets. A lot of quests are just copied and pasted and procedurally placed like for like in different “planets”. The whole thing is just a giant UI menu facade with cumbersome loading screens.

Somehow a game made by 7 people at hello games to run on ps4/xb1 is technically more impressive than a game made by a whole studio with a purported budget of $400 million. Embarrassing….

 

[JPT]

Somehow a game made by 7 people at hello games to run on ps4/xb1 is technically more impressive than a game made by a whole studio with a purported budget of $400 million. Embarrassing….

But are they really the same type of games? I mean are they trying you give you the same type of game experience? Can you compare them if they are not, especially in regards to their approach on how they technically try to deliver a game?

 

[Karamazov]

No man's sky is more of a free exploring crafting game.
Starfield is an RPG in space.
The setting is the same, but they are different games.

 

[BitByte]

But are they really the same type of games? I mean are they trying you give you the same type of game experience? Can you compare them if they are not, especially in regards to their approach on how they technically try to deliver a game?

I mean they pretty much are? You could argue that Starfield is way more story heavy but other than that, their mechanics are quite similar? Most of the things you do in starfield can be done in NMS at an equivalent level or better. Btw, here's starfields pc performance. For a game that looks this average, it's quite bad....

 

[see colon]

I mean they pretty much are?

How many NPCs are in No Man's Sky? I'm not being cheeky, I haven't played it since launcher when there were effectively none, and I know they added some in patches.

 

[cwjs]

How many NPCs are in No Man's Sky? I'm not being cheeky, I haven't played it since launcher when there were effectively none, and I know they added some in patches.

Starfield's content is certainly less challenging graphically than cyberpunk, which runs a lot better on current gen consoles and looks an awful lot better on high end. I don't think anybody outside of this forum and console warriors cares that bethesda didn't make the most graphically cutting edge game ever though.

(Aside from this particular fact though I still think you're delusional bitbyte -- jfo looks pretty good in most areas by last gen standards, Gears 4 looks pretty good today.)

 

[see colon]

Starfield's content is certainly less challenging graphically than cyberpunk, which runs a lot better on current gen consoles and looks an awful lot better on high end.

Yeah, I think that's true. Cyberpunk's main weakness in terms of visuals are it's heavy reuse of assets and it's inconsistent visual design. Some assets look great, others less so. And it isn't uncommon to see multiple of the same NPC walking around. Also, all of the laptops and radios look the same. I can't really judge Starfield's assets in the same way until I play it a bunch. But Cyberpunk definitely has more flash that Starfield.

 

[Dural]

Gears 4 & 5 are fantastic looking games and the Hivebusters DLC is even better looking. I can't wait to see what The Coalition can do with UE5.

 

[BitByte]

Starfield's content is certainly less challenging graphically than cyberpunk, which runs a lot better on current gen consoles and looks an awful lot better on high end. I don't think anybody outside of this forum and console warriors cares that bethesda didn't make the most graphically cutting edge game ever though.

(Aside from this particular fact though I still think you're delusional bitbyte -- jfo looks pretty good in most areas by last gen standards, Gears 4 looks pretty good today.)

Umm when did i say gears 4 looks bad? Quote me please..... The issue with starfield is not the visuals as we all know Bethesda is mostly incompetent. The issue is the performance. 4060 at 1080po native, not 60 fps? 6700xt at 1080p native, not 60fps? Both these gpus perform way better in more demanding games so it's certainly a skill issue with Bethesda.

 

[cwjs]

Umm when did i say gears 4 looks bad? Quote me please..... The issue with starfield is not the visuals as we all know Bethesda is mostly incompetent. The issue is the performance. 4060 at 1080po native, not 60 fps? 6700xt at 1080p native, barely 60fps? Both these gpus perform way better in more demanding games so it's certainly a skill issue with Bethesda.

Sorry, this post was techuse, not you:

This list is absurd TBH. A bunch of very visually mediocre games that also perform poorly.

I consider you delusional for the jfo comment, but I'll retract the part about gears!

 

[iroboto]

No man's sky is more of a free exploring crafting game.
Starfield is an RPG in space.
The setting is the same, but they are different games.

Space sandbox versus RPG.

reviewer scores seems to reflect this heavily. RPG sites are rating it near perfect. Mainstream and non rpg sites we see some lower scores there with less emphasis on the rpg elements because they’re looking for something more

 

[cwjs]

I consider you delusional for the jfo comment, but I'll retract the part about gears!

Clarifying a bit more: I think FF7R and Gears 4/5 are like, generation-defining great looking games -- straightforward higher resolution versions still look amazing by current gen standards. But several other games on the list look just fine or even very good by last gen standards -- jfo, hellblade, arguably tekken.

 

[Seanspeed]

Did you play the game on the consoles and did you play past the intro level? If you did either of those things, i don't know how you can call it "elite" in terms of visual presentation. Nothing about it was elite. When you can combine it with the unsteady performance, its hard to see how it can it can be considered elite.... Maybe my experience is soured by my dislike of the game but, I did not find the games graphical package(visuals + art direction + performance) to be anything special.

I played the game from start to finish on PC at 1080p. So lower than PS4 Pro resolution.

I didn't say the game was elite looking, dont think you understood that comment at all. But I did say it was a very nice looking game and was undeniably technically accomplished. Definitely one of the better looking games from last generation.

I mean, I dont like arguments from authority normally, but on something I cant exactly 'prove' with facts, I still think Digital Foundry being very impressed with the visuals helps get across that even people with discerning eyes and higher standards would agree with me here:

 

[techuse]

Clarifying a bit more: I think FF7R and Gears 4/5 are like, generation-defining great looking games -- straightforward higher resolution versions still look amazing by current gen standards. But several other games on the list look just fine or even very good by last gen standards -- jfo, hellblade, arguably tekken.

Ill just pick Gears 4 to illustrate my views as extrapolating on every title individually would be too much. Gears 4 released in 2016. So did Battlefield One, Uncharted 4, Doom, The Division, Ratchet and Clank among others. Gears 4 did not hold up to those titles when it comes to visuals and performance.

 

[function]

Ill just pick Gears 4 to illustrate my views as extrapolating on every title individually would be too much. Gears 4 released in 2016. So did Battlefield One, Uncharted 4, Doom, The Division, Ratchet and Clank among others. Gears 4 did not hold up to those titles when it comes to visuals and performance.

Is there a technical component to why you think this?

 

[techuse]

Is there a technical component to why you think this?

Geometry complexity, lighting, materials, animation etc. are noticeably worse. Perception wise at least.

 

[troyan]

With Starfield and UE5 the time has come when software is so bad that modern GPUs like Ampere and Lovelace cant be fully used. More and more it is obviously that unoptimized software is holding GPUs back. A 4090 has over 4x the compute performance of a 6900XT and yet it is only 55% faster. At the same time when you fully use a 4090 there is >5x more performance possible (Cyberpunk Pathtracing).

 

[iroboto]

With Starfield and UE5 the time has come when software is so bad that modern GPUs like Ampere and Lovelace cant be fully used. More and more it is obviously that unoptimized software is holding GPUs back. A 4090 has over 4x the compute performance of a 6900XT and yet it is only 55% faster. At the same time when you fully use a 4090 there is >5x more performance possible (Cyberpunk Pathtracing).

what if every game going forward does this however? Is the population of AAA software poorly optimized, or are developers just taking hardware to task now. I would likely think the latter.

 

[Dampf]

With Starfield and UE5 the time has come when software is so bad that modern GPUs like Ampere and Lovelace cant be fully used. More and more it is obviously that unoptimized software is holding GPUs back. A 4090 has over 4x the compute performance of a 6900XT and yet it is only 55% faster. At the same time when you fully use a 4090 there is >5x more performance possible (Cyberpunk Pathtracing).

You mention Cyberpunk Path Tracing all the time but I think that comparison is very flawed. Cyberpunk has significantly, and I repeat, significantly lower geometric density than UE5 games using Nanite everywhere you look. It's not even close. Which also means there's more intersection tests to calculate against geometry with UE5. The technique used in Cyberpunk may be a lot more demanding and more sophisticated compared to what Lumen does but at the same time, there's also significantly less geometry to trace against.

I agree in regards to Starfield however, it doesn't look that good to justify that low performance.