Wow... people are literally comparing a Wet Night and Dry Day portraits...

For consoles, it looks pretty good so far. I'm not really seeing anything earth shattering here, though.

It's not about lightning, the difference in quality is clearly visible. and yet again, neither correspond to the actual ingame graphics.

Does look like a PS3 game slightly higher res TBH. Funny thing is Sony always shows off Uncharted and the final game looks worse. Uncharted 2 & 3 looked worse than what was shown at E3.

its gonna be awhile before anyones impressed with graphics we were spoiled with last gen

i agree though the new UC4 gameplay we saw didnt look graphically impressive to me but believe me when you break it down it is technically impressive and vastly superior to the last gen UCs and it was pre alpha


the problem here is the leap for this gen isnt gonna be as impressive as last gen b/c last gen we entered the HD world aswell as the 16x9 world everyone was gaming on small square 4x3 tvs in SD resolution when games like uncharted DF, COD4, gears, came out early last gen there was a mass difference to what weve been seeing prior

also most of the games that released early last gen and last gen in general where running on new graphical engines what we are seeing release this year and next are still running on those engines thats why your getting all these "looks like last gen game rezd up"

I just watched the uncompressed version on my TV and damn does it look good. The stream really did the initial viewing a disservice. I'm incredibly impressed and there is still a lot of time until the game releases. There will definitely be more improvements.

I rather a game impress me with it's gameplay or story. People tend to focus on graphics too much. It's nice to have but not a must.

Graphics have never impressed me. A game is only as good as its gameplay/story. The "best" looking games like Crysis 3, etc. still look like shit. Until I get an absolute ultra photo realistic open world game, I will remain unimpressed by graphics. They've never mattered to me, so it's always been funny watching console/PC gamers fight about it

you guys also gotta upgrade your tvs noticed lot of people are still gaming on LCDs when u pan the camera in a game on a LCD even ever so slightly it blurs the image and all the 1080p high rez textures and fine detail are gone and ur gonna be panning the camera and moving the character 90% of the time

theres nothing really to compare your LCD on how it should look unless you kept ur old CRTs or...

plasma is your other option but there kinda out of the market now and many have flocked away from them b/c of the issues they had with burn in ect

the other tech that i believe came out just a few yrs ago is and its what my current TV has is impulse motion blur correction its kinda like a crt it flickers the led backlight on the lcd so you dont see that moment when the lcd pixel changes which gives you the blur its also is gamer friendly unlike all the BS with 120 240hrz by not adding lag and additional frames which cause artifacts

It will look way better in person on a live system and complete.

Twitch is even worse than Youtube (which is absolutely horrible) in terms of examining graphical quality.

Seriously, unless you have a terrible display for gaming, the quality of Youtube/Twitch is utter and complete trash.

Try this : pick your favorite game for graphics that you own, console or PC, and then compare your live experience to online trailers/playthroughs.

It affects even last-gen systems, but hurts PC/PS4/X1 the most by far. Resolution is affected by artifacting, color palette is diminished which introduces things like banding and crushing, and compression algorithms tend to both blur AND add blockiness to details. And fast motion? Forget about it. It trashes things that move quickly the worst.

TLDR : Direct-feed uncompressed raw video or live feed is the only way to know how good/bad the graphics actually are.