Totally agree with everything you said.  And I'm sure that if Ryse were ported to the PS4, it would probably look a ton sharper and have faster loading times.  It's just a scenario where we can't do a direct comparison.  And based on what we saw at E3, the bar is about to be raised!  

A graphical duel between Ryse and inFamous is kinda like basing the PS3 vs. 360 on Gears of War vs Resistance.  They both look good but nowhere near what either console will be able to produce down the line.

Yes indeed. The Order: 1886 already makes them look dated by comparison.

Check the thread in my sig btw if you want to know how its turning out gameplay wise.

Nope, I own a PS4 and Infamous. Infamous does not look nearly as good as Ryse.

The problem with this review is that you apparently could not find a single negative thing or anything that you didn`t like so much. Why just 8.5/10 if there is no critique at all in the review. Why not a 10/10 because apparently there was nothing that you disliked....

A review without critique at all is not a review but advertisement.

I disagree whole hardheartedly Ryse had better local visuals (as is expect from a linear game), but overall i was a lot more impressed by inFamous then Ryse. Each to their own i suppose though ^^

On a side note, I wonder what inFamous would have looked like if it ran at 900p/28-32fps/SMAA 1TX rather than 1080p/30-40fps/SMAA 2TX. I'd much rather the image quality, but it would be interesting none the less.

I also own a PS4, and y friend owns an X1 and I've seen him playing Ryse. Ryse just doesn't hold up in terms of graphics compared to Infamous: Second Son.

Where Ryse focusses on brilliant textures and character models Infamous: Second Son shows its brilliance in the lighting and particle effects. It all depends on which one of these aspects of graphics you deem more important.

But Infamous: Second Son has sharper image quality due to a higher resolution that gives it the edge.

If Ryse ran at the same performance level as inFamous i'd argue it was a draw (it's such a back and forth between them that it becomes more a contest of preference), but it's pretty obvious Ryse could have done with some more time in the oven for optimization... Having a lower frame rate than inFamous while also running at a much lower resolution (resource wise) and with worse AA? Ouch.

I didn't see any performance issues in Ryse when my friend was playing it. Neither did I notice the worse AA.

Its clear then that ISS wins by a landslide in terms of graphics. Better textures and character models cannot alone overcome better lighting, draw distances, particle effects, anti-aliasing and higher resolution and framerate.

Guess I gave Ryse too much credit :P.

I really miss Selnor......

I didn't say Ryse had performance issues :p Just that its overall performances was worse than infamous's despite the different resolution/AA.

As i said, i believe it's a matter of opinion. Overall i'd probably give the edge to inFamous because of the particle effects (they were glorious), but it's not an edge big enough to stop people's personal preference making the final call.

My point was that while being arguably equal in regards to in-game visuals (the game itself), infamous is on average displaying 60% to 70% more pixels than Ryse every second (900p/28-32fps/SMAA 1TX vs 1080p/30-40fps/SMAA 2TX). That's why i see infamous as the much bigger achievement. It manages to rival a game running so far beneath it, i can't help but be impressed

I'm essentially agreeing with you that infamous is much more impressive, we just seem to have slightly different reasons why