Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2021]

Not many are in for the RT game here, it seems. In special if its limited to just upscaled-reflections.

 

totaly agree (beside magics from Insomniac), I'm now playing Metro Exodus enhanced, some said it was one of best looking game? good joke, will not rant about it as I have good fun playing it but its just typical example that rt render time could definitly be much better spend

 

Wasn't it literally free in this game because performance is higher than the none enhanced version?

Also, not wanting to get into a lengthy argument about the benefits of RT, but even without the blinkers of "it's only good if a Sony exclusive studio does it" you'd have to be blind not to see the huge benefits RT brings to Lego Builders.

 

first time hear it but if true then I change my statement, source ? (hard to belive as it drops resoluton to 1080p on xsx and even lower on ps5 rarely but still) didn't want to comment your later statement but if you don't understant I will wrote it literaly, its not that its sony studio its that ratchet looks great with and without rt

 

I thought performance was better than the non-enhanced version with ray tracing enabled.

 

Yes I believe so, but since there is more RT in the enhanced version than the non enhanced version with RT, and yet it's still faster, I'd consider that a free upgrade.

 

Ratchet looks amazing and IMO not becouse of rt but becouse of everything else. Rt is just good addition. You named metro ee I stopped playing this game after one day. Biggest problem is super aggressive pop in, you just walk and whole tree apears from nowhere. I don’t know some people may like like it but To me it just looks horrible. There is no amount rt that will make this good. I am happy that epic went different way with lots of geometry no popins or horizon for that matter. This makes overall presentation a lot better while rt just add some extra polish with incredible performance price tag. There are other areas in games I wish devs would focus to fix before crawling in that rabbit hole.

 

Great that it was a free upgrade. Some of us purchased it after the enhanced edition came out, because of the hype.

But honestly, it's not a good game. AAA this is not. I couldn't tollerate more than a few hours of it. What they pulled off with the RTGI is really wonderful and some scenes look quite nice (when there's a mix of light types illuminating the scene). Unfortunately all of the other techniques aren't great, the materials are lacking and the facial rendering looks weird.

You make the comment that people think "it's only good if a Sony exclusive studio does it", but I switched from playing between R&C and Metro and I think we actually really should consider the fact that the Sony studios are in some cases creating experiences that are far superior to any third parties.

They're taking a lot of slack on this forum, but I don't see any other games comparing with what they're putting out. I'm happy that they're moving games to PC because more will be able to appreciate them.

 

Absolutely not. Their up there, but every gen i have to say what 3rd parties come with do impress as much or more so. MS exclusives arent any less ’superior’ either.
If your not into 30/40% watching instead of playing, ie cinematic experiences, then theres 200% no talk of superiority (whatever you mean with that anyways….)

Superior gaming on PS….. lel

 

All a matter of taste, I find Metro: Exodus to be the far superior game with much better gameplay. But then again I'm not that much into platformers and I like post apocalyptic themes. Saying that R&C is far superior just because you (and others) like it dismisses the fact that for many people R&C looks great but isn't a great playing experience. Which is not saying that it isn't a great example of a 3D platformer type of game, but that we just don't like those types of games.

Just like you couldn't tolerate more than a few hours of Metro: Exodus, I couldn't tolerate more than a few minutes of R&C. I tried it out in person just to see it without video compression, but it's certainly not a game that I'd want to play.

If we're just talking about art-style, I could go either way. I like the art-style of both. I find things to like and things not to like with both WRT to rendering tech as well. R&C is certainly the more polished graphically, but that doesn't discount what they were able to do with Metro: Exodus (a 2 year old game with the only next gen thing being uniform RT lighting).

Regards,
SB

 

Yeah i have the same thoughts, while r&c does look sublime, its also lacking in many areas that are quite important these days, like the lighting. They just used alot of attention to detail and artwork.

 

Have you played them both? I also like post apocalyptic themes. Metro doesn't scratch that itch, nor is the gameplay very good. The shooting is between poor and okay and the rest of the game is listening to (just bad) NPC dialogue and searching about for the action to progress the game. The technology is obviously decent and I'd like to see these guys move onto some different, maybe engine specific developments.

I'm also not into platformers, but I have to say that these games are on completely different scales of quality.

 

Yeah, like I said I couldn't play R&C for more than a few minutes, it's just not for me. That said, it's a really polished and well executed game in that genre.

I've finished Metro: Exodus and really enjoyed it. I've also finished the previous 2 games in the series multiple times. I do have to say I don't like the semi-open world nature of Metro: Exodus as much as the more linear progression in the previous 2 games though. The story doesn't feel as tight or compelling, nor does the atmosphere feel as desperate and claustrophobic.

Regards,
SB

 

Fair enough, each to their own I suppose.

 

Metro's a great game, but going back to your first post, I do think its surprising nobody comments on how AA (at best) the art is. Clearly a very talented team, there are lots of stunning compositions and great assets, but this is not a game with an AAA style budget to make everything super realistic and polished visually. I guess it's priced in to everyone familiar with the developer at this point, but in these silly arguments over whether 'rt is worth it' i feel like some people assume the relatively bad geometry has something to do with the tech.

That said, playing ratchet now (finally got a ps5), and I'm kinda shocked its held up as a big technical exemplar. It looks great, because all sony first party games look great, and particular things blow me away (the enemy detail, that motion blur, the cutscene fur shader) but its incredibly easy to find the seams in the relatively last gen lighting.

Over half my time on the second level ('sargasso') was off the beaten path areas looking at non-reflective water and flat shaded rocks that looked like somebody forgot to bake the lighting. Not just measuring this against RT either -- good froxel gi systems like in Demons Souls, non-rt Control, or even Quantum Break look a generation ahead of the bad cases in ratchet. Edit: Although i will say the fact that it runs at a locked 40fps makes it look and play incredible.

(also, catching up on a lot of old games discussed here, but I'm totally shocked i never saw discussion of the (froxel?) directional occlusion and gi in demons souls... everybody talks about the middling amount of geometry but nobody talks about the incredible soft shadows and lighting in dark areas. Really hope they give a gdc talk or technical breakdown of their new engine someday)

 

vrs tier 2 on xsx

 

looks good, DLSS is king though. Not sure how much AF is a factor there.
We're comparing low AF with VRS, vs low AF no VRS, vs high AF with DLSS.

ehh, wish the consoles had higher AF and lower resolution once again.

but overall pretty good.

 

Zoomed out you can hardly notice a difference at all.

 

Great looking game, looking forward to a console video