By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - CD Projekt Red Give First Glimpse of Next-Gen RPG Graphics

SwansVanTerif on 02 February 2013
zero129 said:
SwansVanTerif said:
Haha, yeah, pretty sure I'm not talking about Dragon Age.

Everything. I feel the exact opposite of you.

Some people also think a game like, for example Saints Row 3, is better than Saints Row 2 in every way, but they are wrong ... in every way.

Hahahahaha ok lulz i get you, your just one of them people that likes going against the graind so to speak (forgive my spelling im drunk atm lulz xD)

Hehe, not really. I just think that a lot of what people thinks makes modern games good, actually makes them worse. I also do not care about graphics anymore. They are fine to me now, does not need to get better, so that makes any graphical update worthless to me, unless it's an artistic upgrade. Realism does not float my boat when it comes to games :)



Around the Network
Barozi on 02 February 2013
bananaking21 said:
Barozi said:
The pic looks nice but there is definitely some untapped power left for next gen. Looks good but not impressive good.
Someone remember that next gen video from that small (I think East European) developer ? I can't find it unfortunately but that looked really good.


Also the difference between X and Final Fantasy XIII really isn't that big. Obviously FFXIII is much more linear but we have seen similar visuals from the not as linear FFXIII-2 and the open world Versus XIII.


as i said in other posts this is still work in progress. and if this becomes the standard of games then this is a good jump, just look at call of duty then take a look at this, there is a big leap

I bet they're aiming for 30FPS on consoles so the Call of Duty comparison is kinda pointless, since CoD could already look much better than it does if they didn't want to keep the 60FPS.



bananaking21 on 02 February 2013
Barozi said:
bananaking21 said:
Barozi said:
The pic looks nice but there is definitely some untapped power left for next gen. Looks good but not impressive good.
Someone remember that next gen video from that small (I think East European) developer ? I can't find it unfortunately but that looked really good.


Also the difference between X and Final Fantasy XIII really isn't that big. Obviously FFXIII is much more linear but we have seen similar visuals from the not as linear FFXIII-2 and the open world Versus XIII.


as i said in other posts this is still work in progress. and if this becomes the standard of games then this is a good jump, just look at call of duty then take a look at this, there is a big leap

I bet they're aiming for 30FPS on consoles so the Call of Duty comparison is kinda pointless, since CoD could already look much better than it does if they didn't want to keep the 60FPS.

call of duty can look better if they actually bother and try make it look better, 60FPS is no excuse. just look at rage, 60 FPS looks great. its to early to assume how much frames they are going to target. but i would agree and guess 30FPS since it runs smoothly enough and they can make things look better



Barozi on 02 February 2013
bananaking21 said:
Barozi said:

I bet they're aiming for 30FPS on consoles so the Call of Duty comparison is kinda pointless, since CoD could already look much better than it does if they didn't want to keep the 60FPS.

call of duty can look better if they actually bother and try make it look better, 60FPS is no excuse. just look at rage, 60 FPS looks great. its to early to assume how much frames they are going to target. but i would agree and guess 30FPS since it runs smoothly enough and they can make things look better

On the other hand Rage doesn't use any kind of AA and has a multiplayer limit of 4 players, so again it's not really fair to compare these games.
I played Rage and know that the majority of missions happen in smaller corridor areas, which is technically not very impressive.

Treyarch/Infinity Ward constantly upgrade the engine. Compare World at War with Black Ops 2 and the difference is quite big. The fact that Black Ops 2 can't even sustain 60FPS in the campaign on several occasions is proof enough that they are trying to make it look better. A considerable upgrade on PS360 is just not possible.

60FPS is an excuse as it takes huge amount of power.
Besides Blops 2 already looks great:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4930439
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4900125
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4904418
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4886379


This is not a case of lazy developers, the consoles are just too weak to show the beautiness of CoD (and sustain 60FPS at the same time).



freebs2 on 02 February 2013

It doesn't look next/gen at all to me but still I can't really tell anything from that small picture.



Around the Network
bananaking21 on 02 February 2013
Barozi said:
bananaking21 said:
Barozi said:

I bet they're aiming for 30FPS on consoles so the Call of Duty comparison is kinda pointless, since CoD could already look much better than it does if they didn't want to keep the 60FPS.

call of duty can look better if they actually bother and try make it look better, 60FPS is no excuse. just look at rage, 60 FPS looks great. its to early to assume how much frames they are going to target. but i would agree and guess 30FPS since it runs smoothly enough and they can make things look better

On the other hand Rage doesn't use any kind of AA and has a multiplayer limit of 4 players, so again it's not really fair to compare these games.
I played Rage and know that the majority of missions happen in smaller corridor areas, which is technically not very impressive.

Treyarch/Infinity Ward constantly upgrade the engine. Compare World at War with Black Ops 2 and the difference is quite big. The fact that Black Ops 2 can't even sustain 60FPS in the campaign on several occasions is proof enough that they are trying to make it look better. A considerable upgrade on PS360 is just not possible.

60FPS is an excuse as it takes huge amount of power.
Besides Blops 2 already looks great:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4930439
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4900125
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4904418
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4886379


This is not a case of lazy developers, the consoles are just too weak to show the beautiness of CoD (and sustain 60FPS at the same time).

those are PC screen shots. have you played the ps3 version? honestly its something to laugh at. and your helping my point, current gen consoles cant do graphics like that. people seem to not understand that generations dont apply to pc, graphics on pc get better and better every year, there are no generations. 

@ bolded, i completely agree, thats why when seeing this screenshot it shows that there will be a a good leap when it comes to power for next gen PS and xbox. the limits on the 360/ps3 have been reached for quite some time



Barozi on 02 February 2013
bananaking21 said:
Barozi said:

On the other hand Rage doesn't use any kind of AA and has a multiplayer limit of 4 players, so again it's not really fair to compare these games.
I played Rage and know that the majority of missions happen in smaller corridor areas, which is technically not very impressive.

Treyarch/Infinity Ward constantly upgrade the engine. Compare World at War with Black Ops 2 and the difference is quite big. The fact that Black Ops 2 can't even sustain 60FPS in the campaign on several occasions is proof enough that they are trying to make it look better. A considerable upgrade on PS360 is just not possible.

60FPS is an excuse as it takes huge amount of power.
Besides Blops 2 already looks great:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4930439
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4900125
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4904418
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4886379


This is not a case of lazy developers, the consoles are just too weak to show the beautiness of CoD (and sustain 60FPS at the same time).

those are PC screen shots. have you played the ps3 version? honestly its something to laugh at. and your helping my point, current gen consoles cant do graphics like that. people seem to not understand that generations dont apply to pc, graphics on pc get better and better every year, there are no generations. 

@ bolded, i completely agree, thats why when seeing this screenshot it shows that there will be a a good leap when it comes to power for next gen PS and xbox. the limits on the 360/ps3 have been reached for quite some time

You said the CoD developers didn't bother to make it look better, which I "proved" to be wrong since the PC version looks far superior. They are restricted on consoles because they want to keep the game at 60FPS and that's a valid excuse, since this needs a lot of power which then cannot be used to improve resolution, AA, shadows or lighting.

You compared this screenshot (the possible new standard) to Call of Duty, which just makes no sense at all, since they are not comparable because 60FPS is not "standard" for HD games. Why not compare this to a 30FPS game like Halo 4, GoW3 or Red Dead Redemption ? Because then the "jump" wouldn't look nearly as big.



teigaga on 02 February 2013
zero129 said:
teigaga said:
Soriku said:

Can't tell if it's a low res/compressed shot or what but that looks like crap. Skyrim with mods looks a lot more impressive (still compressed shots):

Has anyone seen this mod in motion? If not then it doesn't count lol

I have. Add me on steam and look at some of my in game screens mcdgray129

Sorry I don't have a steam account, I have a midrange laptop that I'd rather not play games on, but a youtube link (If there is one) would be more then welcome! ^_^



Mummelmann on 02 February 2013

CD Projekt, one of the only developers that has me excited for the future of gaming and RPG's right now.



NobleTeam360 on 02 February 2013

Wonder if they will put The Witcher 3 on PS4.