Star Wars: Jedi Survivor [PS5, XBSX|S, PC]

God of War Ragnarok on a PS4 looks better than this ground up PS5 game. I don't think offering it up as a comparison serves your argument.


PS4 pro footage but there is hardly much difference on a base PS4. This is the only high quality footage I could find of the old gen version.
 
God of War Ragnarok on a PS4 looks better than this ground up PS5 game. I don't think offering it up as a comparison serves your argument.


PS4 pro footage but there is hardly much difference on a base PS4. This is the only high quality footage I could find of the old gen version.

No it doesn't, of course it doesn't, not technically.

Artistically, Ragnarok is a materpiece, but we're not looking at art. In sheer technical terms Ragnarok's foliage is incredibly low poly; the vistas peter out to super low quality assets, the near ground is relatively bereft of detail in comparison; and Survivor has some stunning indirect dynamic indirect lighting and great shadows that beat out Raganarok hands down on top of it's vastly improved geometric detail near to far.

sabrina-echouafni-fallenpillar1tm.jpg

melissa-cardona-alf-eastbluffsvista-final.jpg

kat-tamburello-grotto-trail-05.jpg


Now does Ragnarok look better anyway despite being obviously at a technical disadvantage? Sure, I can buy that argument 100%. But the question isn't "which looks better" but "what's next gen?". Technically, Jedi Survivor is very, very much next gen. Super (tessellated?) ground detail, very high poly assets from the foliage into the distance, nearby volumetric clouds just being flung at you, next get all the way. But! A technical showcase is not an artistic showcase, the two shouldn't necessarily equate.

2023-02-08.png
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't, of course it doesn't, not technically.

Artistically, Ragnarok is a materpiece, but we're not looking at art. In sheer technical terms Ragnarok's foliage is incredibly low poly; the vistas peter out to super low quality assets, the near ground is relatively bereft of detail in comparison; and Survivor has some stunning indirect dynamic indirect lighting and great shadows that beat out Raganarok hands down on top of it's vastly improved geometric detail near to far.

sabrina-echouafni-fallenpillar1tm.jpg

melissa-cardona-alf-eastbluffsvista-final.jpg

kat-tamburello-grotto-trail-05.jpg


Now does Ragnarok look better anyway despite being obviously at a technical disadvantage? Sure, I can buy that argument 100%. But the question isn't "which looks better" but "what's next gen?". Technically, Jedi Survivor is very, very much next gen. Super (tessellated?) ground detail, very high poly assets from the foliage into the distance, nearby volumetric clouds just being flung at you, next get all the way. But! A technical showcase is not an artistic showcase, the two shouldn't necessarily equate.

View attachment 8278

And it pop out immediately at least for me when I saw the first footage.
 
Visually I think this suffers in the same way as the first. The clearly defined gameplay routes/climbable bits etc can make areas look desperately videogame-y at times, regardless of the fidelity of assets. It's more stand out in the natural environments, breaking the feel of a natural place.

Given the type of game it is, guess that's the trade off. I can't articulate why I found it more jaring in Fallen Order than other titles.
 
The only area you could argue GoW looks better is the main character and specifically its animation. That level of animation really makes the presentation level feel quite high quality overall.

And subjectively, even the art style of Jedi Survivor appeals to me more. I just think the environments are a lot more scenic.

But yes, I'd agree it's not as much of a leap technically as I was hoping. It still looks good and straddles that line between last gen and next gen, but it's definitely not gonna hold up against some of the more impressive next gen games we'll get(I'd say even Plague Tale Requiem already looks better).

And I'd also agree that UE5 has already somewhat spoiled us. I just went and rewatched some footage of the Matrix demo and that already doesn't look quite as impressive to me as it once did, which demonstrates how much my standards have changed.
 
Visually I think this suffers in the same way as the first. The clearly defined gameplay routes/climbable bits etc can make areas look desperately videogame-y at times, regardless of the fidelity of assets. It's more stand out in the natural environments, breaking the feel of a natural place.

Given the type of game it is, guess that's the trade off. I can't articulate why I found it more jaring in Fallen Order than other titles.
It is distinct corridors amidst corridors.
It is jarring especially in seemingly vast open spaces.
It makes no realistic sense the environment would be naturally formed that way.
Other games like GoW or the new Tomb Raider series (although TR games suffer similarly to a much lesser extend), hide the corridors a lot better.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the game a lot, but it looks and feels videogame-y.
My hope for the new one was, better animation, but it doesn't look like I'm getting my wishes. (gonna play it either way) :p
 
What is taking up all that space? I didn't play the first game, was it also a large install size? If so was it a massive game?
 
Back
Top