Well, I won't be playing that game until I get a ps5. Not even 720p on Xbox. Ouch.

576p in 2024 on a TV. That's criminal and it can't even keep a stable frame rate. That's worse than playing games that dip to 360p on switch in handheld mode. At least those impossible ports on Switch have no frame pacing. Desperate for Money, this crowd even at the cost of an unacceptably compromised product barely fit for consumption.

In defense of the port...  a ps4 is similar to a 7850 while the ps5 is close to a 6700xt..  that is 500-600% difference.  Porting just comes with massive sacrifices.  Personally, I would not take the sacrifices, but for those who are stuck a generation behind, let us be fair gaming is expensive, this is a better than nothing alternative. 

Just my 2 cents, I think this port represents what to expect of the S2 for third party, giant pass for me.  But others it is better than nothing.   

As one of the ones still left behind, I can't take these sacrifices and if I didn't know or was a casual on Xbox one I'd be disappointed especially on my 50 inch TV. Damn. I have a PRO so I get what, 900p or something but still really disappointing, I'd be able to play it but I'll wait for the PS5 version on deep sale and even then the PS5 quality mode has frame pacing and the performance mode has the worst FSR I've ever seen. Perhaps I'll skip this one entirely on second thought. 

I think the reality is game engines are outpacing GPUs, which is why I think people claiming "diminishing returns" are crazy.  Huge graphical jumps are there, but finding hardware to run these new game engines is terribly difficult.  There are a number of games that my 4090 can't even run maxed out.  RT is still in it's infancy as well.  

Final Fantasy XVI has no RT but can't be run at stable 60 fps in native 4K maxed out on RTX 4090

True, granted I think that is mostly because Square can't make a proper game engine.  They need to embrace Unreal.  

Dimishing returns is an objective reality though. It's not saying graphical leaps are dead, they're simply less apparent and require more energy to achieve.

If you look at polycount or texture quality, doubling or quadroupling already high values doesn't make a huge world of a difference to the eye at a reasonable distance. 

For over a decade we've been gaming with machines that are already capable of representing real life objectives convincingly with modern techniques. There is only so many polys and pixels you need to convincingly render most assets in a game. You don't need raytraycing to make water look like water for example. 

Expensive rendering FX like Ray-traycing can create  huge differences but they can also go entirely unnoticed or even appear worse. The amount of resources they pull do not reflect a consistent difference in-game they make vs the leap we saw in prior gens with simple improvements in pre-baked GI and realistic texture shaders etc. At a certain point our brains do not know what is the more realistic lightning versus what is the nicer lighting. In the bottom image, I genuinely thought the right was the current gen version at a glance because the lighting is more dramatic and ominous. Alas left is PS5, right is PS4....

Meanwhile if we were doing a PS2 vs PS3 comparison... No amount of additional Polygons, texture resolution or fancy lighting is going to give us the size of leaps we saw in the past where games had much more headroom in terms of reflecting what we perceive to be reality. Now that we see every vein, and muscle in Kratos' build, there's only so much further we can go. 

I just disagree with the "less apparent" part.  The graphic jumps are stark, blatant and immediately obvious.  And RT makes water looks miles better with very life like reflections.  Not too mention performance in 120 fps is blatantly superior to 60 fps. 

The jumps are without a doubt there and they are noticeable, it just requires expensive hardware.  

Anybody who can't see the difference between ps4 and ps5 either has a low quality panel or needs to see an eye doctor.  

Edit

Also judging RT based on the ps5 is a huge mistake.  RT on consoles is hot garbage and does not even remotely demonstrate the massive gains.  

Oh I didn't mean this version is in the same ballpark as the PS5/XBS version, it's not, I meant "if Switch 2 ports from PS5 are in the same ballpark as this, I'd be satisfied."

I can totally understand how this might not be good enough for folks that value top shelf graphics, that's fair enough. As someone who still thinks well made Switch games can look nice, and who frequently plays on retro consoles, this level of fidelity doesn't bother me. 

Heck, it's probable the Switch 2 may actually fare a bit better than this, given it's likely to have certain advantages over last gen machines, much like Switch 1 had some significant advantages over PS3/360.