Trumpstyle said:
Oh wow look at those advanced graphics effects. Dude I played Doom through 2 times on my PC and 5 times on my ps4 pro, the game doesn't beat battlefield 3 and Crysis 3, so no it's not a next-gen graphics it's last gen graphics. It barely beats mass effect 3 on my pc. Depth of field, bokeh and motion blur is not positive it's a negative. I rather just play 60fps and no blurs. About temporal supersampling, it's good and bad, aliasing is almost gone but the side effects of a much softer image combined with color degration, I rather have SMAA or MSAA, but we all got different opinions. 1440p with 2xSMAA give the best image/performance combo in my opinion. You can't compare Fast RMX to halo 4, it's a car game. I don't play car games but from my experience they usually have much worse graphics than it seems, they just give an illusion of good graphics. I can't find the polygons count on fast RMX to compare with Horizon motorsport 4, likely cause they are low. About halo 4 vs doom portable, I made my analysis, Halo 4 has better graphics, better resolution and better frame-rate. |
What you personally think looks better is one thing; we all have our personal preferences when it comes to art direction.
But the only objective measure of graphics is technology, and the facts simply do not support your case. Switch is objectively more graphically capable than the Xbox 360. It has a GPU a decade more advanced, 6 times as much RAM, and its games show this as they use more modern and advanced rendering methods.
Personally, I think Muramasa The Demon Blade and Kirby's Epic Yarn on Wii look better than Horizon Zero Dawn, because I prefer the aesthetic style of the former. But Horizon is still technologically superior. Likewise, Doom on Switch is technologically superior to Halo 4 whether you prefer the look of its visual techniques or not.








