pezus said:
brendude13 said:
pezus said:
Gilgamesh said:
Zim said:
Yes the UE4 shots are MILES better. Also you conveniently skipped the most impressive picture but chose the absolute best shots you could find of PS3 games (one of which isn't even in game).
The particle effects around the eyes in the third shot are the type of thing having to be pre-rendered cutscenes now. Likewise that first shot has so much detail.
|
I agreed in the OP that UE4 is better, my post was about how it's not a huge increase to the next gen comparing it with the PS3 games.
|
Let's put it this way:
PC games already look miles better than PS3 games
+
Those UE4 shots look miles better than any PC game
_______________
= ???
|
I disagree, I'm starting to think even Crysis (Warhead) looks mediocre. I have yet to play Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 but other than the 1080p / 60fps combination (which sometimes isn't even possible to achieve without a £1000 rig), there isn't that much of a difference, it's similar to the PS2 and Xbox difference. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2's console counterparts look almost as good.
Those UE4 shots are stunning though, everything is crisp and vibrant and those particle effects are second to none, I don't think the differences are huge, but it's still significantly better looking and will probably look even better at E3. I would love to see a real next gen game running on this engine, or one just as good looking. I wonder how much effort it takes to produce a game with graphics like this though.
|
The resolution, shadows, anti-aliasing, vsync, smoother framerates all jacked up. BF3 on PS3 doesn't look close to the PC version honestly. I am always disappointed when I play PS3 games now, they look a bit blurry and jaggy after playing so many PC games.
|
It was you! You are saying that about PS3 games right, that they look blurry and jagged? (not a mess, admittedly)
I did find the example I meant though, it was this one: (don't know how to quote twice in the same post, sorry)
