News, PS4

The Dark Sorcerer PS4 Tech Demo Used Only 4 GB of GDDR5 RAM, 1 Million Polygons Just for the Set

by on June 23, 2013 1:49 PM 126

Remember “Old Man Face” from the reveal conference of the PS4 that a lot of people mocked as unimpressive or irrelevant? It has since become a full fledged tech demo that impressed everyone at E3, causing many of those that mocked Quantic Dream to simply eat crow.

Fact is, though, that we didn’t know very much about the technicalities behind the demo, until now.

A rather noisy shakycam video from E3 by Youtube user TheAireaidLord shows (between other things) Quantic Dream QA Manager Gavin Niebel as he explains quite a few behind-the-scenes details to the crowd watching the demo. What we learn from the explanation possibly makes it even more impressive, and gives us hopes to see even better in the future.

The demo, that has absolutely no pre-rendering, post production or video inserts, represents only the first iteration of Quantic Dream’s development cycle for the PS4, and while it runs between 30 and 90 fps (the frame rate wasn’t optimized yet), it does so at native 1080p resolution, textures included. The developer still didn’t have access to full PS4 development tools, so they had to make do with the same PS3 development pipeline used for Beyond: Two Souls “shoving in a bunch of high-fidelity assets”.

The set alone is made of a whopping one million triangles, and the volumetric lighting is completely dynamic between “movie” conditions and “studio” conditions. It can be switched at will within a single frame. The most impressive part? It only uses four of the eight gigabytes of GDRR5 RAM under the hood of the PS4.

Maurice the Goblin is made by 70,000 triangles, 40 different shaders, 150 Megabytes of texture data, and can be defined a CG-quality model despite running in real time. He has 388 different bones in his “body”.

If you haven’t seen the tech demo yet, you can find it just below, alongside the shakycam video itself. If yous skip to 16:50 you can see Niebel switching between lighting conditions at will.

As I said in a previous piece, one thing is for sure: those that laughed and sneered at the “old man face” during the PS4′s unveiling presentation owe Quantic Dream a big apology.


Thanks Arai for the tip.

Join the Discussion

  • IsolatoR

    well lets see the same details and graphics in actual AAA games…then Ill be impressed.

    • JoeShmo

      Why not be impressed now?

      People like you act like implacable spoiled children.

      • Michael Clanton

        He is right, tech demos fool people, do you not remember the ps3 tech demos? real time gaming, real time playing, will tell how good ps4 games will be, will tell if the online is better and more stable, if they have improved the updating of games and the console, or is it all talk…blind loyalty gets people no where but sounding liek a fanboy.

        • NamelessTed

          Just to point out, Quantic Dream has a reputation for having their games look even better than their tech demos. Heavy Rain was absolutely better look than the tech demo they released a few years before the actual game released. Also, Beyond: Two Souls looks even more impressive than Heavy Rain.

          If this is the demo that they were able to throw together without actually having the PS4 dev tools and having almost no time to optimize it then you should expect either the same or even greater level of visual fidelity at a constant 60FPS by the time they release a game. Though it might be a solid 3 years before we actually see something from them.

          • Dakan45

            Just no, its ignorant to think that.

            60 fps? On what? a small room of graphics?

        • Cristiano Ronaldo

          Did you even watch the PS3 tech demos? Especially the ones of Quantic Dream?
          We are already beyond that level. Quantic Dream is known to even surpass the quality of their tech demos in their actual games…

        • WhoMeNoYou

          The E3 PS3 tech demos where not tech demos, it was all pre-rendered videos. Sony had lied and so it became this big controversy.

        • Dakan45

          Still waiting for the ps2 reallistic hair physics, sony lies.

        • Midstr8

          Tech demo’s show technological advances that will be used in games, it only fool people who are to ignorant to understand what they are watching,and for what its purpose is.

      • Frostiken

        Because it’s a sham? PCs have been capable of this for years. Funny tech demo videos that took the entire system and months of effort are not games. But console gamers won’t let that get in their way. I’m sure half of them are already calling this ‘Game of the year’.

        • Giuseppe Nelva

          Now now, there aren’t many PCs out there “capable of this for years” that cost 400 bucks.

          Always have to look at things in perspective.

          • Dakan45

            You also gotta keep in mind you dont have to buy a pc,you canjust upgrade it and not pay all at once but give money each month to shop you bought the upgrades.

            So building a pc for 400 is not needed.

          • Midstr8

            Keep in mind that I’ve been upgrading GPU’s since 1995 up until today, Do you really want to discus how much money I’ve spent on PC parts since then? ALSO how many PC’s I had to replace, because the mother board didn’t support the updated Ram slots, or PCI or AGP port needed for The GPU’s? Or the USB or Sata technology?

            Its funny that only newer Generation of kids that happen to start gaming on PC when everything is much cheaper, and already out performs older Consoles such as PS3, Is lead to believe that PC is and has always been better than consoles. And upgrading PC parts has always been inexpensive and a charm… No it haven’t.

            I’m a long supporter of PC’s but you kids need to stop with this BS thinking you know how Computer technology work, just because you own a Year 2010 PC or GPU or later.

            What gives you the right to think you know any better than a console gamer, I bet most console gamers have been gaming since PS1 or even Snes or n64, and have had expereince with More PC’s than most of you.

            PC gamers who argue about consoles most like just got decent PC 2-3 years ago or less. SO end the BULLSHIT this is pretty much the same for nearly 90% of you ignorant PC gamers.

          • Dakan45

            I dont know where to start with this bs.

            Why did you upgrade? its optional.

            if you dont want to play on better graphics, just play on consoles nuff said.

            “ALSO how many PC’s I had to replace, because the mother board didn’t support the updated Ram slots”

            Sure in 8 years which is around 2 console generations you got to change mobos.

            “hat PC is and has always been better than consoles. And upgrading PC
            parts has always been inexpensive and a charm… No it haven’t.’

            Yes it has, even quake 2 and other games looked better on pc and even back then you could upgrade cheaply but there wasnt as deep coverage as it is now, so you were getting screwed with bad choices.

            “but you kids need to stop with this BS thinking you know how Computer
            technology work, just because you own a Year 2010 PC or GPU or later.”

            I started gaming on 90s.

            Pick a game, pick the console version the pc version looks better, from quake to moh to far cry.

            “What gives you the right to think you know any better than a console
            gamer, I bet most console gamers have been gaming since PS1 or even Snes
            or n64, and have had expereince with More PC’s than most of you.’

            LOL

            First of all console gamers are clueless stupid morons who hype consoles without knowing crap Oh look my prebuild crapbox is better than yours.

            Also sorry to break this to you but people who playes on ps1 and n64 dont play on current systems, why? First too old for playing games and second, those consoles had gameplay, now games are just interactive experiancies, they take no skill, have no innovation, just good visuals.

            “PC gamers who argue about consoles most like just got decent PC 2-3
            years ago or less. SO end the BULLSHIT this is pretty much the same for
            nearly 90% of you ignorant PC gamers.’

            5 year old pc. better than the 7 year old consoles.

            NUff said consoles suck.

          • Midstr8

            Thanks for writing a brick wall of text just to confirm my whole argument.

            “5 year old PC. better than the 7 year old consoles”

            There are no 5 year old PC’s running today’s 2013 console games. But there are 1 year old GPU’s that still struggle to run the 7 year old console games on high settings.

            You’re a 2008 gamer, you’re probably only 15 -16 I can tell by your lack of computer literacy.

          • Midstr8

            “Let me check, my 5 year old pc runs games on high-very high. Console games run on low-medium with 1280x720p and barelly 30 fps”

            Prove it show me your PC specs and then upload a video of you running Crysis 3 on high settings, then compare that video to Crysis 3 on PS3 or Xbox 360

            “Keep in mind Crysis blew away consoles in 2007.”

            There was no PC capable of running that game at 60 FPS at a reasonable price, 60 FPS was first achieve on a PC in 2008 which goes by the name of Falcon Northwest Mach V. Sold for $8,028
            3.79GHz Intel Core i7 965 Extreme Edition.
            • An Intel X58 chipset.
            • 12GB of 1,066MHz DDR3 SDRAM.
            • 2 x 1GB ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2
            • 1TB 7,200RPM Hitachi hard drive.
            • 80GB Intel X-25M solid-state drive.

            “Sooooo yeah i am praising that a 6-7 year old pc still has more power than a 6-7 year old console and runs games better. This so called “next gen” doesn’t look any different.”

            You may be right, but some what wrong, Only way 6-7 year old PC beat the 7-8 year old console was with upgraded hardware. But Console game look better than they did at release, And those PC’s from back then can’t run today’s PC games with high settings either.

            “No its not, far from it, most consoletards think that its the same thing with higher framerate. You heard it, the last of us looks better than any pc game. How about not even as good as multiplats?Yup sounds right.”

            It’s still common sense regualdess if someone lacks it or not.

            “AS IF games run constantly on 30 fps on consoles, nope not even cod runs on 60 fps at all times. Infact far cry 3 has framerate dips to 24fps.”

            Killzone SF and Destiny has been confirmed to run at a steady 30 FPS on PS4, Stop talking about Ps3, PS4 is just around the corner.

            “Also a game that doesn’t not have any graphical improvments like say DMC runs at 200 fps”

            Duh it has no graphical improvements, and it runs a 200FPS on higher end cards and lower FPS on lower end cards. Nice fail

            “it at 60fps. Why would its the most graphically impressive game. ”

            That’s not the highest setting for Crysis 3 and it still don’t reach 60fps on today’s top end $1200PC Video cards, at 1080p . And its the biggest reason why PC users shouldn’t expect a PS4 to achieve 60 FPS in every game.

            Because All of the PS4 games are more graphical than Crysis 3, Not just visually but technically. You have no idea what effects is being displayed in the Ps4 games, which aren’t present in Crysis 3.

            “Nothing looks better than it, nothing “next gen” anyway, like crytek said it will take a while for next gen consoles to reach crysis 3 visuals.On the other hand the console version runs at lower than the lowest settings and has no AA at subhd resolution and small fov to render less.”

            This tech demo does. So does some Ps4 games, I feel that the only thing Crysis 3 has going for it is the main character model. There are MMORPG games that look better than Crysis 3 on the computer.

            Crysis 3 Is not running perfect on a $1200 GPU, why should it run remotely close on 2006-7 hardware, Its not the lowest of lowest setting, Only thing that the console version dosnt do is texture and lighting effects, most effects which wasn’t introduced until the use of directx 11. Your logic fails horribly.

            “Needless to point out that after the updates and new drivers it runs better. Especially after that bottleneck setting was found and patched. ”

            Even with the bottleneck settings found and patch ( Bullshit btw) It still doesn’t run well on Current PC hardware ( unless you have an SLI set up) even then you get frame dips and barely runs at 60 unless you using a $1200 GPU. which still dips.

            ‘No, nothing on next gen consoles looks better than pc versions of the most impressive games and hardly anything was actually shown on next gen consoles? Most games run on high end pcs in E3 like the E3 before it. Hell when watchdogs was shown in ps4 reveal was on a pc.”

            That’s highly inaccurate, now you’re just being delusional ,all the PS4 games ran on PS4 prototype hardware and Use 50% ram. Which isn’t needed. Only so much is being used because of no need for texture compression. ( your right about watch dogs btw) but the PS4 has been shown at e3 to to be equally impressive. Without the use of a $3,000 PC. Which is what the demo PC cost at the time…

            ‘Whats wrong? Are the next gen consoles so powerfull that they had to show off the games on pcs?”

            Whats wrong with you PC gamers are you that afraid that a Console could be more powerful than your PC that you must bash and post your BS in every PS4 video comments section?

            Btw don’t blame console gamers for Microsoft E3 strategy.

            “So yeah consoles ARE horrible.”

            So are PC’s since consoles use PC technology as well -_- with your logic everything that isn’t a GTX 4X SLI Titian is horrible and outdated, Since nothing on the consumer market can match that,but it has already been done.

            “As was this before it was fully revealed you freaking moron.”

            Now you want to revert to name calling,Which is the first sign of defeat and frustration.

            But that’s point, both were heads, but Sony delivered a larger scale demonstration, we have yet to see Nvidia’s.

            ‘Infiltrator demo, nuff said, a ps4 trying to run the infiltrator demo and it will be explode. Hell it run the urneal engine demo far worse than the pc version.’

            You are very uneducated, Unreal Demo used the new I7′s with 16gb of ram with a Gtx 680 ( SLI) Unreal PS4 elemental demo used 4 core 1.6 processor with 4GB of Ram…
            And the only difference in quality comparison was the advance lighting which the PC version used (which will not be used in games do to being to hard on system resources) and Physx for far more particle effects than the ps4 version,

            Which now The PS4 has support for, which can be seen active in the game Wareframe on Ps4. Also the PS4 version of the demo had higher resolution texture. Plus gave us a second half of the scene which wasn’t made for the PC version which looked very good might I add. On a slim down Ps4 dev kit… that EPIC only had 3 weeks with…

            “Infiltrator demo.”

            Although Infiltrator demo is impressive, it is still just a cut-scene which isn’t in a game.Ps3 Games has had some amazing cut-scenes as well, You can only imagine what the Newer PS4 game cut scenes will look like. Uncharted games. And btw infiltrator demo dosn’t look like this. Show me some facial Mocap in the infiltrator demo.

            “How about no? Never has a console achieved high end pc visuals more like mid range pcs. Pick any game, compare the console Medal of honor games with the pc medal of honor games. Compared COD2 that looked better than the x360 version when it was released on pc and the ps2 version looked like crap. Check far cry and the xbox versions. The pc version looked better. Check doom 3 on pc and compare it with consoles. Check crysis in 2007 and compare it with consoles. Consoles have NEVER looked as good as a high end pc.”

            Check your bottom post you contradicted your self.” For the first time pcs are singificantly more powerfully than the “next gen consoles””

            PS4 and Xbox will display the same game visuals as The Gtx Titian.Just as a Geforce 250 displays the same visuals as a Geforce Titian. Or any other direct x 11 Video card.

            “For the first time pcs are singificantly more powerfully than the “next gen consoles” that havent even come out yet and with same architecture it means pcs wont have trouble running games, it will be piss easy for decent pcs to run next gen games.”

            Wrong again, PC and Console architecture is different Only thing that’s the same is that it supports x86 and x64 instruction set, but the inner architecture is completely different. Do es PC’s use the same ram as the GPU do for the system Ram? NO unless its shared but then that is CPU rendering and not GPU rendering. Which is 1/24 as fast as the GPU.

            “Thats like lying that a game looks amazing on consoles when it runs at barelly 30 fps with 1280x720p. No not every game runs at 60 fps, dont expect any “next gen” game to do so on new consoles either.”

            Fps has nothing to do with how a game looks visually, that’s like saying oh wow that CGI movie looks horrible it only runs at 24 FPS.

            “They dont, pc hardware is endless all the compromises are coming from consoles. Eg bioshock infinite had small linear maps in order to use streaming and erase resources in order to save up ram. Pc games do not need to make compromises in map size to fit on ram. Eg crysis 1 or arma 3. Colonial marines had to remove alot of effects and make maps smaller and remove objects in order to fit on ps3. On pc? Its not patched and looks just as good as the E3 demo.”

            Rage, Infamous Assassin’s creed 1/2Prototype Fallout 3 Oblivion, these are open world games btw, there are many more. Biosock 3 was not meant to be open world,
            PC do make compromises if it didn’t there wouldn’t be a need for any new game engines, or a reason to produce a new GPU!

            “That says you are a pauperstaion clown.”

            And can’t win an debate against me like that. More sign of defeat.

            “PS4 is not achieving steady fps with no framerate dips and it NEVER will and its architecture is pc architecture…”

            I think I already responded to that PC and PS4 archecture is very different. ”
            http://www.vg247.com/2013/02/25/killzone-shadow-fall-demo-runs-at-30fps-digital-foundry-tests-suggest/
            There are other video’s as well.

            “Sony lies and overhypes, always did, always will and you foolish pauperstation fanboys fall for it.”

            No you PC kids take what a Sony spoke persons say, much too seriously and ride with it for years. And you are the only ones that are disappointed, or angry when it hasn’t affected Sony supporters at all, maybe Son’y supports realized it was impossible, but you PC Trolls was to dumb to catch on. So you try to bring up what Sony said, in an attempt to win an argument but in the end you look very stupid.

            “Ha? When did that came from? You have no clue how games actually run on a ps4, you have no clue whever the game was designed for ps4 or not, you have no clue how it ultimatley perfoms and the fact you believe amd says all there is to it. WHO? amd, the company that sold powerfull cpus at a low price and when they were compared to INFERIOR yet more expensive intel cpus, they got their ass kicked all over the floor.”

            Yeah and that’s why AMD is dominating Intel in the APU scene? and give decent performance with less expensive PC parts.

            “So excuse me for not believing the ps4 is as powerfull as amd want you to believe also excuse me for not beleiving APU actually works well and excuse me for not being a clueles moron like you are.”

            At this point you have clearly accepted your defeat. And

            You’re too childish to hold a decent argument, once again you reverted to name calling that’s not how you win an argument, I conclude that you are just a useless teen with not even the slightest incite on Computer technology. You get all your information from trolls who act and think exactly the same way you do.

            Do us all a favor and stay off on Playstation videos, and avoid the comment sections, If you don’t like it don’t buy it… If you are disappointed its your fault, but I believe you are jealous or you will be buying a PS4 in the future because you have a strong interest in it just like the the rest of the PC trolls. Who comment on Ps4 video’s.

            Goodbye

          • Midstr8

            Good thing you deleted 75% of your previous BS comments, Should deleted all of it. Because you lost.

        • James

          That’s the stupidest…! How do you exist? You know its funny, the other day, I say a post by a guy that was like, “ha, stupid Sony fanboys praising GDDR5 when we PC gamers have been gaming with it for years!”, regardless of the fact that they literally don’t make consumer PCs with GDDR5 RAM, let alone MOST PC gamers. I think you and him would be the best of friends. I have a gaming PC, I have beautiful games, they definitely look better than console games, but not by much. This demo definitely looks way better than any PC game on the market, and PCs CLEARLY haven’t been “capable of this for years.”, or else PC games would look this good. I’m playing through Last of Us right now, and even that looks better than the majority of PC games. I get the feeling that PC gamers always have to chime in bullshit like this because they can’t stand the idea that they spent $2000 when they could have spent $400 and need to justify their expenditure.

          • duplissi

            Well hardware equivalent to what is in the ps4 has been available to pc gamers for about 3 years now. the exception is the amount and that it is unified. now that will make a difference, just not what people think.

            that tech demo is almost certainly capable on PC’s. However it would be limited to the ones that either have dual gpus with 4-6gb of gddr5 total or the gtx titan which has 6gb.

          • Dakan45

            Not true, why do you think that? PS4 has one ram pool, pcs have too, or you think tech demos dont use system ram at all?

            If more than 6gb was needed, they would make it. Sadly it is NOT needed, ram does not equal gpu power, ps the cpu on ps4 is weak anyway.

          • duplissi

            Sorry if I didnt make it clear, I was trying to point out that aside from the shared ram you could have built yourself a pc with equal specs to the ps4 for a few years now. I was in no way referring to needing the power of a dual gpu or titan to run it! lol.

          • Dakan45

            Am not talking about power but ram. Say a game needs 3gb on console, thats not all video ram but cpu and shared ram as well.

          • Midstr8

            The PC architecture doesn’t work in the same way as the PS4 architecture, PC needs more to do what the Ps4 is able to do with less.

          • duplissi

            Actually the architecture will be almost the same this time around, the difference resides in how the developers have access to the hardware. With the ps4 there are no hoops to go through (Like the slow direct x api for instance) and the developers can write more low level code that will interface directly with the hardware and not an api. This method is supposedly multiple times more efficient than working through and api.

          • Midstr8

            PC- Like Architecture. But I agree with your comment.

          • Midstr8

            There isn’t a hardware equivalent to a ps4, it hasn’t been made yet. Secondly the architecture is totally different from PC architecture. No PC has Has 8GB GDDR 5 on a single Chip

            Even the audio processor is on the same chip, the ps4 also has separate processor, that never affects the main processor when things are downloading in the back ground. So its 8core APU with a separate processor that’s made for back ground task.

          • hurdur

            I’d like to point out that GDDR5 has been used in pc gpu’s since 2008 (the radeon 4870 series being the first)
            I know because I bought one
            so “…when we PC gamers have been gaming with it for years!” is in fact accurate

            also, this tech demo was made on a dev kit (meaning a pc with similar specs as the ps4) a while back btw, so yes, pc’s have been capable of this for a while, considering the ps4 gpu is comparable to a midclass amd 7870

            I know people are going to say stuff like “well the gpu in the ps3 is only comparable to a geforce 7900 series gpu and look how great those games look”
            and you’d be right, you’d be absolutely right :p
            in fact I agree that the last of us looks amazing and I love playing it
            it is however a fact that things like this are possible on pc aswell, the only reason it doesn’t happen is because very very few developpers are willing to go pc only
            an example of someone who is willing to do it is CDProjekt red (the witcher 2, even though it also came out on xbox afterwards, it was first a pc exclusive)
            the witcher 3, which is also coming out on the next gen consoles, looks only a bit better than the witcher 2 maxed out on a pc, and that game has been out for years
            so yes, if developpers were willing to take the time they could make games that blow anything on both current gen and next gen consoles out of the water
            and considering next gen console architecture is so similar to pc’s this generation, I think we’ll be seeing a lot of that real soon
            especially since the next generation of desktop gpu’s is set to launch around the ps4 and xbone release

            that said, I’ll still be getting a ps4 on release date and game on both that and my pc, but you’re deluding yourself if you think that anything you’ve seen on console isn’t possible on pc

          • Dakan45

            no just no just no crysis 3 looks better and this is a TECH DEMO, you wanna see a tech demo? Check the nvidia infiltrator demo and yea GDDR5 is ram, ram for APU systems. GDDR5 s fast for gpu. not so fast for cpu. Pcs arleady have 8gb of ram but games are x32 and use only 3.25gb of ram. Eve the super duper 4.600 nvidia card has only 6gb becasue you dont need more.

            Consoles games like to chime bullshit like 2000 when with a 1000 pc you are running on a system better than ps4.

            So yeah you dont know what you are talking about, dont forget that consoles are sold at a aloss and instead of buying a 1000 pc as you say, you can just spend those 400 to upgrade your current pc and surpass ps4. Whats that? you cant upgrade consoles? Too bad, whats that? You cant play old games on new consoles? Too bad again. Whats that? its still expensive for you? Most shops allow you to pay each month instead of all at once, if you pay 20 bucks a month for 6 months, you dont need to buy all the hardware at once.

          • Greg Smith

            After reading all your posts here, I can no longer take you seriously about anything you have to say simply because you do not know how to spell or type proper sentences. Just, wow. It’s obvious you haven’t a single clue about what you’re saying either. You can choose to reply or not but I won’t be around to hear whatever drivel you can come up with.

          • Dakan45

            I make typos and the grammar nazi which i NEVER talked to, is giving me lectures on not being able to take me seriously because of grammar mistakes despite what i say is correct.

            You wont be around eh?

            Ill just keep replying you then, till you get your troll face out of your ass adn face the music.

          • Dylan

            you sir, are and idiot, pc games look 100 times better than console, look at bf3 from xbox to pc and tell me there is a minimal difference. And PC’s are very capable of doing this but you fail to realize that consoles are holding PC’s back with their low hardware specs. Everything is being ported from consoles to PC forcing PC tech to stay stagnant. And saying the TLOU looks better than majority of pc games is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Yea 720p and sub 30 fps looks better than a PC, Yea right! let alone there is no AA on the ps3 causing tons of jaggies and hiccups

          • Midstr8

            yes 2013 PC gpu’s 16x as powerful as Ps3 and Xbox 360, so why wouldn’t it look better on those?

            Consoles don’t hold PC back, Please explain to me why cry engine 3 was made for 2006 consoles but crysis 3 needs a GTX 680-780 SLI to run 60fps at ultra settings?

            Computer Architecture holds computer game development back, because computers aren’t really meant for gaming, they meant to multitask, and do general purpose task, there for most of the power is spent else where.

            PC games don’t get optimized, you just replace the GPU to get better performance. Its true, you don’t get a consistent frame rate unless you lock the game frame rate at a certain number on faster Hardware. Even then you get Frame dips. PC games frame rate is like riding a roller coaster.

            This Demo is a good example of how console don’t hold back PC game development, If the technology is capable of better graphics it will have better graphics on the hardware.

            This demo uses A (PS3) game engine, Same as Beyond 2 souls, for (ps3) But this is how the game engine looks on (PS4) compared to have the game engine looks on PS3. So no consoles don’t hold PC games back. The PC technology its self is the only thing that holds it back.

          • Dakan45

            Omg give it a rest you clueless moron.

          • YnotNDalton

            gddr5 is on most graphics cards.. not in the system so your right and wrong at the same time

        • caBooOm

          last time i check THE LAST OF US looks way better then most of games running on 1500+PC .. tho ps3 s 7 years old #fact

          • Dakan45

            AAHAHAHAH OAHAHHAH AOHAOAH

            NO, the last of us looks like a mediocre game by pc standards running at a awful resolution and with desperate need for antialising. Infact if you put tomb raider in medium settigns with 1280x720p it looks like the last of us.

            The last of us textures and lighting are mediocre by pc standards.

            To even think that crysis 3 and metro last light look worse than the last of us is riddiculus.

            But i forgot, you dont know that so i will say it again.

            BF3 ON CONSOLES= LOW PC SETTINGS
            MAX PAYNE 3 ON CONSOLE=LOW PC SETTINGS
            FAR CRY 3 ON CONSOLES=MEDIUM SETTNS WITH TERRIBLE FRAMERATE DROPS
            METROL LAST LIGHT AND CRYSIS 3 ON CONOSLES=LOWER THAN THE LOWEST PC SETTINGS.

            Hell crysis 2 had inferior graphics than the first by going to consoles.

            You dont get “optimization” from ancient consoles, you just ran games on subpar settings and have not played them on pc to see the freaking diffirence.

          • Matthew Bryant

            Tomb Raider doesn’t look even remotely as good as the Last of Us. What a bunch of nonsense. Yes, there are games that look considerably better than the Last of Us on PCs, but there are no 7 years old PCs that can touch the Last of Us. You’re arguing that a 7 year old console should compete with current PCs and that’s just beyond stupid. The fact is that the Last of Us competes with PC games from about 3-4 years ago, and that’s pretty amazing given the age of the PS3. You can pretend that consoles are useless if you own a gaming PC, but that’s just sheer stupidity.

            There are many people who prefer consoles over PCs for completely legitimate reasons. I have a 2 year old son and a 6 month old daughter. Do you really think PC gaming is easy for me? No. Not even close. I can hold my daughter and a game controller on the couch, but making that work on a PC even with a game controller is much more difficult and inconvenient. I have both a gaming PC and a console, I rarely use the PC for gaming. It’s very difficult unless my kids are asleep. People who travel obviously prefer game consoles over PCs. Not to mention the ridiculous price difference. To get a PC that can play the games you listed at max settings you’d need to spend $600-$700, and the PS4 is easily capable of a PC that costs that amount of money. Crysis 3 is the exception, that PC would cost about $1500 or more.

            Furthermore, who cares? You like the PC? Good for you. Play your PC. Nobody cares. Are you so insecure with your decision that you need to convince others that they shouldn’t play consoles? It’s just immature and pathetic. Grow up.

          • Dakan45

            Tomb raider does look as good as the last of us on pc. Again you play games on consoles at low settings, you cant see the MASSIVE diffirence on pc. hell even mw2 on pc looked better than the overpraised uncharted 2. I still remember how gamespot gave the best graphics award on mgs4 when far cry 2 was around. Made no sense, wake up you are being fooled, its all paid.

            “but there are no 7 years old PCs that can touch the Last of Us”

            Crysis, in 2007, nuff said.

            “The fact is that the Last of Us competes with PC games from about 3-4
            years ago, and that’s pretty amazing given the age of the PS3.’

            No it doesnt compete for crap. 3-4 year old pc games not only looked better but they actualy looked worse than crysis. If you compare it with games like stalker, ofcourse the last of us looks better.

            But thats like pickign the best pc around and having it run doom and the ps3 running killzone 3 and claiming the ps3 is better.

            Speaking of which, killzone 3 is an impressive game that comes closer to pc expriance than any other console game. Far far better looking than the last of us with actually good textures and lighting.

            So like i said, you ae biased and easilly fooled.

            ” You can pretend that consoles are useless if you own a gaming PC, but that’s just sheer stupidity.”

            They are weak crapboxes with limitations. Nuffsaid.

          • Midstr8

            2006 year hardware holding is own against PC’s equipped with 4.2 ghz 4- 8 core processors, 16gb DDR3 ram and 2-6 GB of GDDR5 ram.

            Running the same games, but only looks a little bit better. Showing the same details in character models, using the same assets. PC only having more memory for better AA and higher resolution,and texture while everything looks almost exactly the same at the the same resolution on both the 2006 console and PC.

            I’d say those old consoles have done very well. And the PC graphics aren’t significantly better. Only more memory to enhance the already present graphics on the older hardware.

            Once again the same with previous PC GPU’s.

            I’m not saying PC games are not capable, but when you look at the basics, its the same game on both console and PC, only PC Looks better, because of technological advancements.

          • Dakan45

            “2006 year hardware holding is own against PC’s equipped with 4.2 ghz 4- 8
            core processors, 16gb DDR3 ram and 2-6 GB of GDDR5 ram”

            Ok so you basicly saying

            A pc with all that runs doom and a ps3 runs killzone 3

            Which is better? the ps3?

            FACEPALM.

            Let me say it again.

            YOU ARE PLAYING ON LOW-MEDIUM SETTINGS, ALL HIGH END GRAPHICALLY IMPRESSIVE GAMES RUN ON PC, YOU ARE PLAYING WITH NO AA AT 720P WHILE PCS PLAY AT 1080P

            So no it doesnt “hold on its own” You are running games on low settings.

            “but only looks a little bit better.

            Low settings.

            “Showing the same details”

            low settings

            “using the same assets

            low settings= same assets as utlra high textures made for pc with new effects?

            “while everything looks almost exactly the same at the the same resolution on both the 2006 console and PC.

            Nope games run on low medium, pc has high-very high settings.

            “And the PC graphics aren’t significantly better.”

            Then you are blind.

          • Matthew Bryant

            You’ve been playing the wrong PC games then. There’s a lot of differences other than just AA, resolution, and textures. You’re forgetting lighting, shadowing, LOD, particle effects, occlusion, etc. I’ll agree that consoles have done well for their age, but to pretend that PC games don’t look far better than console games is delusional. They do. Consoles do have their advantages, but graphics is not one of them, not later in the generation anyway.

          • Midstr8

            Thanks for the comment, But no i haven’t forgot about those I didn’t feel the need to have to address every last detail. BtW are you saying that console games don’t have lighting, shadowing, LOD, particle effects, ambient occlusion, reflections, refraction, etc?
            All elements that require the use of memory which was part of my argument. And you also forgot that I said many of the games look the same at the same resolution.

          • Matthew Bryant

            Tomb Raider on the PC? Sure, to a degree. The engine in the Last of Us is far superior to the engine on the PC in many aspects. If Last of Us was on PC it would easily best Tomb Raider in the visual department. Why are you comparing PC graphics to the PS3? Such a useless comparison that means absolutely nothing. Also, I own a gaming PC, a PS3, and a Wii for my children. If I choose to buy a game for a PC I can easily do that. I have a toddler and an infant. I play most of my games on the PS3. Playing PC games with kids is much more difficult, and honestly impossible at times. You think consoles are useless? Good for you. They aren’t useless to me. Different strokes. Get over yourself.

            Also, Crysis unmodded does not look better than the Last of Us. Try again.

          • Dakan45

            Lets get one thing clear, naughty dog lighting sucks, it bugged me since the first uncharted game and a whole lot more in uncharted 2, the lighting is horrible the characters dont seem to blend into the enviroment. Now the last of us runs on an old system thus has tons of low qualtiy textures and low draw distance the low resolution and high polycount make the game look rough and it needs Antialising desperatly.

            “Why are you comparing PC graphics to the PS3? Such a useless comparison that means absolutely nothing.”

            Sure its not like it meant anythign in 2007 when crysis destroyed everything in a console, same case here, you want to buy a cheap console to play games on? GOOD but dont think even for a second that pcs arent ALREADY far more powerfull with better visuals.

            As for crysis

            http://img.techpowerup.org/080708/crysis64%202008-07-08%2016-01-55-32.jpg

            http://img.techpowerup.org/101114/crysis%202010-11-14%2016-58-32-65.png

            http://cloojq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pMTfGuK9YM43mhKc1RTlZmrmzk67Hv6yVhu1SinmZHXrDBmTymdCqOwixsNS8aYVqMiHnLZt9rI2rPOif1JQgHMpUyIrXVXCa/crysis%202010-05-04%2004-04-20-37.jpg

            http://meta.filesmelt.com/downloader.php?file=crysis_2011-07-25_18-17-04-41.png

            http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss20/elbatcho/games%20screens/Crysis_2010_06_24_00_21_20_479-1.jpg

            All those are ingame and unmoded. Superior lighting, superior textures, superior resolution superior dra distance and something called physicst that allows you to cut down those trees and then cut them again in little tiny pieces. All 2007 tech.

          • Midstr8

            I’ve read all the post and most of you PC gamers lack computer literacy, you want to praise PC because it the year 2013 and PC has the advantage of using more to date technology compared to 7-8 year old Systems?

            It’s common sense that last gen console Games will be low to mid settings,If the same game is on the PC. It’s the same thing with Computer technology.

            Now lets also take in consideration that none of these games seem to run at a consistent 60 FPS on high settings, On today’s High end GPU’s. But yet you complain about 7-8 year old consoles.

            I posted a chart for you and every other ignorant angry PC user that likes to spend all your time on Ps4 (console) topics and spread your Computer illiterate none sense, how about we point out the weakness in Todays Newer and more expensive Computer set ups.

            Also, Why do you always venture back to 7-8 years ago to try to win an argument, Here’s news for you, Next Gen consoles have been showed and the games are equaly impressive, some even more impressive than a majority of the games that we’ve seen on PC to date.

            Point is the best looking games has been showed for Next Gen consoles first, has also been shown to run on the Next Gen consoles first. So your argument about consoles being horrible has been thrown completely out the window.

            Now about this demo, No PC’s haven’t been able to do this for years, Nvidia, just showed their face time demo this year. And that’s just a talking head with shaders and lights applied. Don’t dare bring up the 2007 head demo, there was no animation, the skin shaders were actually different, and there was only one light source.

            This Tech demo for PS4 uses the same technology as the 2007 demo, and the 2013 Face demo that runs on the GTX Titian, But this demo has been showed wider scale, Nothing on PC has been showed like this. Absolutely nothing, that runs in real time.

            So please give it up, you all sound angry about Nextgen consoles because you can’t justify all the money spent on upgrades compared to the price of the next gen consoles, and the specs that you think are to low for PC standards that achieve high end PC visuals for a much lower price.

            SO get over it. Now stop! lying about your 60 FPS on ultra settings, Stop lying about PC’s not having to make any compromises in games. Stop lying to your self. PS4 is achieving steady FPS with no Frame dips in very highly detailed games at 30 FPS,that should say something about this new architecture.

            It should say that Computer architecture isn’t great for games, Computers games dont get optimized they just Make more powerful hardware! similar to your statement (“You don’t get “optimization” from ancient consoles, you just ran games on subpar settings”)

            Everyone is hyped about the Ps4 architecture and the performance gain it has over PC’s even though it is lower spec. You all should be freaking happy, because Future PC’s will be built this way,meaning better Hardware to run Highly detial games, at much better performance. Its a win for console gamers and Computer Gamers.

          • Dakan45

            “You want to praise PC because it the year 2013 and PC has the advantage
            of using more to date technology compared to 7-8 year old Systems?”

            Let me check, my 5 year old pc runs games on high-very high. Console games run on low-medium with 1280x720p and barelly 30 fps

            Keep in mind crysis blew away consoles in 2007.

            Sooooo yeah i am praising that a 6-7 year old pc still has more power than a 6-7 year old console and runs games better. This so called “next gen” doesnt look any diffirent.

            “It’s common sense that last gen console Games will be low to mid settings,If the same game is on the PC.”

            No its not, far from it, most consoletards think that its the same thing with higher framerate. You heard it, the last of us looks better than any pc game. How about not even as good as multiplats?

            Yup sounds right.

            ” that none of these games seem to run at a consistent 60 FPS on high
            settings, On today’s High end GPU’s. But yet you complain about 7-8 year
            old consoles.”

            AS IF games run constantly on 30 fps on consoles, nope not even cod runs on 60 fps at all times. Infact far cry 3 has framerate dips to 24fps.

            Also a game that doesnt not have any graphical improvments like say DMC runs at 200 fps

            http://www.cvgworld.com/2013/01/14/devil-may-cry-on-pc-runs-at-200-fps-benchmark/

            “I posted a chart for you and every other ignorant angry PC user that
            likes to spend all your time on Ps4 (console) topics and spread your
            Computer illiterate none sense, how about we point out the weakness in
            Todays Newer and more expensive Computer set ups.”

            No what you just show there is that crysis 3 doesnt scale very well on SMAA and you dont run it at 60fps. Why would its the most graphically impressive game. Nothing looks better than it, nothing “next gen” anyway, like crytek said it will take a while for next gen consoles to reach crysis 3 visuals.On the other hand the console version runs at lower than the lowest settings and has no AA at subhd resolution and small fov to render less.

            Needless to point out that after the updates and new drivers it runs better. Especially after that bottleneck setting was found and patched.

            “Why do you always venture back to 7-8 years ago to try to win an
            argument, Here’s news for you, Next Gen consoles have been showed and
            the games are equaly impressive, some even more impressive than a
            majority of the games that we’ve seen on PC to date.”

            Because consoletards think pcs are expensive and that games are the same on pc and consoles that trash the last of us doesnt look any better than medicore, like running a multiplat on low medium settings at a horrible resolution with no AA.

            No, nothing on next gen consoles looks better than pc versions of the most impressive games and hardly anything was actually shown on next gen consoles? Most games run on high end pcs in E3 like the E3 before it. Hell when watchdogs was shown in ps4 reveal was on a pc.

            Whats wrong? Are the next gen consoles so powerfull that they had to show off the games on pcs?

            So yeah consoles ARE horrible.

            “Nvidia, just showed their face time demo this year. And that’s just a talking head with shaders and lights applied”

            As was this before it was fully revealed you freaking moron.

            Infiltrator demo, nuff said, a ps4 trying to run the infiltrator demo and it will be explode. Hell it run the urneal engine demo far worse than the pc version.

            “Nothing on PC has been showed like this. Absolutely nothing, that runs in real time.

            Infiltrator demo.

            “So please give it up, you all sound angry about Nextgen consoles because
            you can’t justify all the money spent on upgrades compared to the price
            of the next gen consoles, and the specs that you think are to low for
            PC standards that achieve high end PC visuals for a much lower price.”

            BAAHHAHHA wheredid you come up with this crap you clueless consoeltard?

            Money you spent on upgrades? 5 year old pc, the time to upgrade is now. 5 years is a console generation but apparently this console generation lasted for 7 years due to the costs. Higher price? Ofcourse when you buy a prebuilt crapbox that is sold at a loss, you will pay less. But on pc you dont need to buy a new one, you can just upgrade. Can you play ps3 games on your ps4? Too bad, i can play every pc game released since the dawn of time. No need for new system, just upgrade once in every 4-5 years IF you want better graphics, if not, you can keep using it.

            “achieve high end PC visuals for a much lower price.”

            How about no? Never has a console achieved high end pc visuals more like mid range pcs. Pick any game, compare the console Medal of honor games with the pc medal of honor games. Compared COD2 that looked better than the x360 version when it was released on pc and the ps2 version looked like crap. Check far cry and the xbox versions. The pc version looked better. Check doom 3 on pc and compare it with consoles. Check crysis in 2007 and compare it with consoles. Consoles have NEVER looked as good as a high end pc.

            Infact check this

            http://abload.de/img/consoles7hrum.jpg

            For the first time pcs are singificantly more powerfully than the “next gen consoles” that havent even come out yet and with same architecture it means pcs wont have trouble running games, it will be piss easy for decent pcs to run next gen games.

            “SO get over it. Now stop! lying about your 60 FPS on ultra settings,

            Thats like lying that a game looks amazing on consoles when it runs at barelly 30 fps with 1280x720p. No not every game runs at 60 fps, dont expect any “next gen” game to do so on new consoles either.

            “Stop lying about PC’s not having to make any compromises in games.

            They dont, pc hardware is endless all the compromises are coming from consoles. Eg bioshock infinite had small linear maps in order to use streaming and erase resources in order to save up ram. Pc games do not need to make compromises in map size to fit on ram. Eg crysis 1 or arma 3. Colonial marines had to remove alot of effects and make maps smaller and remove objects in order to fit on ps3. On pc? Its not patched and looks just as good as the E3 demo.

            “Stop lying to your self. PS4 is achieving steady FPS with no Frame dips
            in very highly detailed games at 30 FPS,that should say something about
            this new architecture.”

            That says you are a pauperstaion clown.

            PS4 is not achieving steady fps with no framerate dips and it NEVER will and its architecture is pc architecture, no one will use “the precious GDDR5 speed” that is nothing impressive since it is used on pcs since 2008

            Imagine what will come on pc hardware in 1-2 years. Ps4 is behind now. Like i said most games run on pcs not consoles so why you think that the ps4 is a monster system? Wait you dont know know that sony lies?

            You forgot the bullocks about “da power of da core” that flopped incredibly or how “ps2 is so powerfull that if terrorists get their hands on them, they would make weapons of mass destructiom”

            Or need i point out

            http://turboimg.com/p/qik1369514669f.jpg

            Sony lies and overhypes, always did, always will and you foolish pauperstation fanboys fall for it.

            “It should say that Computer architecture isn’t great for games,”

            Ha? When did that came from? You have no clue how games actually run on a ps4, you have no clue whever the game was designed for ps4 or not, you have no clue how it ultimatley perfoms and the fact you believe amd says all there is to it. WHO? amd, the company that sold powerfull cpus at a low price and when they were compared to INFERIOR yet more expensive intel cpus, they got their ass kicked all over the floor.

            So excuse me for not believing the ps4 is as powerfull as amd want you to believe also excuse me for not beleiving APU actually works well and excuse me for not being a clueles moron like you are.

            Take a look at wiiu, it got alot of praise, when it came out everyone was like “well we are not gonna work on it” So how about we leave the PR hype and wait till the actual system comes out?

            “Computers games dont get optimized”

            No they dont, now with the same x86 architecture, they will, they will simply port the pc version to ps4 and downgrade the graphics accordingly. You speak of optimization, but you have no notion of what it is, OFCOURSE if you make a game for one type of specific kind of hardware it will run better than millions of diffirent pc customizations with diffirent ram speed and cpus and gpus not to mention drivers.

            This is how console “optimization is done” They play the game, when the framerate gets low, they remove objects, effects and lower texture quality in that specific area. So you are not really “running” the game, more like someone checked the game and when it lost framerate, they lowered the graphics in that specific section of the game. Yet fc3 and other titles dip in framerate at times, so much for that i suposse.

            My statement is true, even when ps4/xbone multiplats are out pc will run it at higher settnigs. THIEF 4 a game that ACTUALLY run on ps4 hardware has said that it will be on 30 fps and that the pc version will have better graphics. No matter how you see it pcs will always have better graphics, if you dont care about that and mods or higher framerate, buy a console. Nuff said.

            “Everyone is hyped about the Ps4 architecture and the performance gain it has over PC’s even though it is lower spec”

            Lets see and you know that because????? Right, ps4 hardware are a weak 8 core cpu by amd, meaning its even weaker and it has threaded cores not actual TRUE 8 cores. Also the videocard is supbar and guess what? BF4 run on a pc not a ps4. Ps4 is basicly a mid range pc and runs games just about that. Does any of those games look as good as crysis 3? Nope, then why do you think it will run crysis 3 better?

            “because of teh awesomez optimization”

            Yeah like “da power of da core” you fanboys jkept going on ps3 era.

            But ill give you a better example, crysis 1 did not use quad cores, only dual cores. So you could have a quad core but if it was not designed to use it, it didnt. Cysis 3 is not designed to utilize super fast ram to render faster or recycle resources. so it wont actually run better because its not designed to do it.

            Will next gen games utilize ps4 advantages? Surelly, but not right at the start. If the xbone is as inferior as they say, then i highly doubt that every developer will rush to utilize ps4 advantages and leave xbone to die right of the bat, so you will essentially be playing games that are not optimized for the ps4 either.

            “Future PC’s will be built this way,

            No they wont. AMD can “innovate” as much as they want but benchmarks have shown their APUS are crap so pcs wont change. Besides GDDR5 is from 2008 and its good for video render while DDR3 is faster for cpu calculations, last time i checked the memory controllers on x86 archtecture are on cpus, soooo yeah, ps4 is missing alot of cpu usage due to that movie, so it HAD to use GDDR5 in order to utilize them properly for the GPU and make the ram future proof so we wont be in this situation again in the future and have to render smalll rooms with streaming techniques and recycle resources…kinda like killzone shadowfall does. Cpu wise though the ps4 is weak and it shows.

          • Dylan

            Yea 720p and sub 30 fps looks better than a PC, Yea right! let alone
            there is no AA on the ps3 causing tons of jaggies and hiccups

        • Matthew Bryant

          Years is incredibly misleading. If you mean 2 years, I’d agree with you, but it would be ridiculously expensive to buy that computer. If you mean 5 years? No. You’re wrong. Not even close. When you say years it implies more than a few, and that’s, without a doubt, a lie.

        • Midstr8

          Actually PC hasn’t be able to do this for years, the only thing that can achieve this type of graphics and fidelity is the Geforce Titain, This technology has only been seen running in real time, during the Nvidia face works demo, at CDC 2013. Which is said to only be achievable with a GTX Titian, and it uses 60% processing power, just to render a single animated head, so i don’t even believe the Titain can run a whole scene like this. at 30-90 fps.

          Crysis 3 looks good, with texture and a decent looking main character model, but the detail isn’t really on this lvl, and Crysis 3 hasn’t been here for years either. and only the top of the line Gpu’s of today in SLI can do that game justice.

      • bigevilworldwide

        At least it’s most likely running off of actual PS4 hardware….Unlike most of The Bone’s games which were mostly all running on High end PCs using Windows 7 and Nvidia cards, even though The Bone uses AMD

        • James Carney

          God why won’t this rumor just die. It was ONE game (Lococycle) and the dev has said repeatedly that it was their choice to show it on a PC because they didn’t have enough work done on the XB1 port. There are dozens of pictures of games running on physical XB1 prototypes as well as dev kits and multiple devs have said their games were on dev kits not high end PCs. There are plenty of reasons to be pissed at Microsoft, we don’t need to spread false information for that purpose.

          • WhoMeNoYou

            There is a story with Battlefield 4 and Dead Rising 3, along with a couple of journalists noting that some games were crashing to a Windows 7 OS desktop as noted in the Digital Foundry article.

            So it was not only LocoCycle.

          • B_Boss

            I thought there were corroborated reports of BF4 running on XB1 devkits from Gamespot (I believe Eurogamer) and EA themselves (who knows these days eh lol?)

          • Dakan45

            You are wrong, ton of games run on xbox and giantbomb said, dont freak out, all ps4 game i saw run on pcs.

          • WhoMeNoYou

            In the same Digital Foundry Article you can see where developers spoke about all PS3 demos running on Dev-Kits. All developers are called by name and the company they work for, you can also go read that on IGN. I pre-ordered an Xbox One lets hope the games at least come close to what they showed and that it wasn’t just all smoke and mirrors but if Aliens: Colonial Marines has taught us anything is that everything is a possibility.

          • Dakan45

            Dev kits are most pcs on console specifications, rather actual consoles called “dev kits” as they want you to believe.

            You think colonial marines was bad? Check bioshock infintie E3 2011 demo, NOTHING of what you see in there was in the actual game.

          • WhoMeNoYou

            I forgot about that one, The game is still good. I didn’t finish it yet playing it on PC kind of got lost in all the games that I’m playing right now, trying to finish The Last of Us and still didn’t even finish Halo 4 or Gear of War Judgement or god of war ascension.

          • Dakan45

            I had to take breaks that lasted for weeks to finish bioshock infintie, after awhile its the same thing. Go to arena shaped location, kill samey enemies and loot coins in a linear corridor. Upgrade on vending machines, continue on yet another arena gunfight. Feels like i am playing borderlands but its more borring and repettive with less sense of achievement or progression since you dont actually upgarde your character and fight stronger enemies. I also thought the game was still good, but the more i played it, the more i kept removing points. It was a 8.5 the first 3 hours, then it was the same thing for 8 hours and the rating dropped to a 7.0 then after the game scores enough hours to justify itself as a 60 bucks, game, it just throws an ending to you, no bossfight or raiding a foftress, it just ends, the came could have ended at any part ofthe game, since like i said there is no feel of actual progress of actually going somewhere. The ending was pretty much a middle finger to the player, telling you that everything you did was pointless and you achieved nothing, like creed 3 and mass effect 3 ending.

          • WhoMeNoYou

            But all games are go here kill bad guys go on to next room and repeat, they may do it in very different ways but they all do it they just sometimes add a puzzle or some exploration in between. I try to always take my time while I play always play on hard and also not for to many hours cause then they bored me and so I’ll stop playing. I still didn’t finish Mass Effect 3, I’m always thinking that I’m going to get around to it. In between Ps3 and Xbox there is just to many games I need to finish I think that maybe it’s just not going to happen before the new systems come out but I’m ok with that.

          • Dakan45

            No they are not. They have pacing and variety. Diffirent objectives. Infinite has the same objective from start to finish, its like playing borderlands. Same enemies, same guns. No sense of advancement.

          • WhoMeNoYou

            They May Change what you do in that room like Push a Button, pull a lever, Solve a puzzle but you move into an area and you fight or shoot the bad guys until boss battle. Yes! pacing is key but they all pretty much do the same thing.

          • Dakan45

            exactly, bioshock infinite is the same, go into area, kill bad guys loot money, upgrade and repeat. Just keep playing it, you will see its the same thing forever and ever.

          • Midstr8

            Its not a rumor you can even see Battlefield 4 running on a windows PC, during the game demo, there is clear a back space OSD during game play… Also, During the ryse game, it crashed to a windows 7 PC screen. You can’t damage control this, no matter how much you wish to not believe it, its all true.

            A XBOX One Dev kit is not a core I7 with 16GB of ram, with a Geforce 780. Xbox One uses all AMD Hardware, so please stop being dumb.

        • FartyPants

          So was SONY

          • Ricardo J Varona

            Untrue. A lot of sony developers came forward saying that they were using actual PS4s or PS4 devkits to run the games. There was a whole big deal made about it so chill with the rumors.

    • Manoj Varughese

      Since we were assured it was a tech demo rendered for the engine by none other than Quantic Dream, just get prepared to be amazed.

    • Midstr8

      Have you payed attention to Quantic Dreams tech demo’s over the years? They always achieve better graphics in their games.

      • Dakan45

        They are not actual games though, just cutscense with limited interaction.

  • Steven R

    Nice i was sitting in the front during this recording. video doesn’t do it justice. Bad ass demo looks amazing in person. Can’t wait to see what game they are working on.

  • Kaiser

    Looks good but this is just a tech demo that showing a small environment whit scripted camera and lacks of dynamic physics ,AI , … i think quantum break real time and in game footage looks better than everything on E3.

    • Doc B

      Clueless

    • TheGrimReaper

      I’m sorry, could you point me to the in game footage of quantum break?
      cause at e3, that was just a fuckin cutscene, and it didnt even ran on an xbox one!

      • Cristiano Ronaldo

        IT did run in-engine in realtime… remedy said it several times…
        And I dont know if you live in the past but cut scenes usally run in-engine too these days… with the same graphical quality as the gameplay..

        • Matthew Bryant

          Cut scenes are very rarely the same graphic quality as the gameplay, and if they are it’s because the developers are being lazy generally. When gameplay isn’t a concern it’s far easier to increase graphic quality. Gameplay will not look like that. Hopefully the game isn’t coming out anytime soon, because the fact they showed no gameplay should be a red flag if it is. I could care less, Microsoft more than turned me off to the XBox One a while ago. I’m not going to buy your product if you spend 2 months trying to hide the details from the public. It’s sketchy as hell.

          • D0N0

            In fact, if the cut scenes are not the same graphic quality as the gameplay, since the PS3/XBox360 release, there are 3 possibilities :
            - Either the gameplay is running on a different style than the cut scenes. (For example, It’s a RTS game, of real-time rendering a scene just to see the a couple people speaking together would be a waste of resources.)
            - Or the development team never reached their goal with the engine. Meaning they were aiming for the quality shown in the cut scenes, but could only reach the actual gameplay quality.
            - The cut scenes were made outside of the developer’s team. For example, every cutscenes done in Deux Ex : Human evolution were done by Square Enix, while the gameplay was done by Eidos Montreal.

            Actually, in the field of video games development, whenever a cut scenes is looking better than the actual gameplay, this is considered as flaw in the conception or a limitation of resources. Whenever any cut scenes looks as good as during the gameplay, it’s actually well thought as it allow the game to have a constant visual synchronization.

            If a director accept that a project which is supposedly rendered in real-time in high detail accept to make uses of cut scenes, it means that he doesn’t trust his team to make it thought with the deadlines. For those who ignore it, it’s a lot lighter to actually produce things in real-time instead of producing the “same” quality in cut scenes. Cut scenes are pure HDD eater as you need to remember that the quality of the videos and sound need to be top-notch like a movie on a DVD/Bluray. Today, it’s not rare that a game with cut scenes have close to 25-50% of the HDD space it required used by the cut scenes themselves.
            The heavy down side of real-time rendering scenes is that those takes between 3x and 15x more time to make than a pre-rendered cut scene. (Since it needs to run inside the engine, it’s a hell of a death sentence for the programmers as well as the animators/texturer/soundmasters and everyone working on the assets. They got a “limit” in details and they have to reach the closer they can to that limit without taking any risks of ever reaching it.)

            You’re right at understanding that the gameplay will not be like what have been shown. If you ever played any games from Quanticdream, you would know what kind of game they make are somewhat closer to the fusion of a movie and a simple mechanism game instead of the usual action RPG. This might change in the future, but still they have deep root as such.

        • Thomas McBrearty

          In-engine mean’s nothing, Assassin’s Creed 3′s cinematic in-engine was drop-dead stunning, better in-fact…but it wasn’t game-play.

          • Midstr8

            Sorry but the detail in this Tech demo, such as Shaders, textures and character models, high rez shadows and Physx such as particle effects, are completely absent, in the Assassin’s Creed 3 cut-scenes. Maybe you should watch this video and then Check out your Assassin 3 again… It looks like Ps3, and this tech demo for ps4 looks like movie with real actors ( when the devil pops up, for 2 seconds I believe he’s real). OR a better comparison , Diablo 3 CGI,

    • Thomas McBrearty

      The most impressive thing I’ve ever seen…and someone like ‘You’ has to put their foot in the door.

      Do me a favour, find a tech-demo with the same quality as this. Thanks :)

      • Midstr8

        There isn’t one, that’s why PC trolls are angry.

        • Dakan45

          Infiltrator from nvidia. Hell crysis 3 could render al lthis and be playable.

          Angry about what? a scripted room? Please make a game with those graphics and gameplay like uncharted or killzone then we talk about “next gen”

          Dont kid yourself this is trash compared to pc.

          • YnotNDalton

            no its really not… i’m an avid pc gamer as well as console and this is the best real time i’ve ever saw

          • Dakan45

            You cant be serious.

          • D0N0

            Your blindness and ignorance is blessed.

            Your own example : the Infiltrator tech Demo from Nvidia : is a purely scripted real-time rendered scene. There’s absolutely no game play shown with it. It’s literally a “from point A to point Z” sequence.

            That is without considering the budget placed into both tech demo :
            - Infiltrator was produced for the sole purpose of selling both the technical quality of an engine and the quality of some hardware. Considering this, it wouldn’t be surprised if the budget used to make that insane (I agree on that) real-time rendering was actually close to that of a real game just to produce those couple of minutes of real-time rendering scenes. That real-time rendering scene was made especially to show how “far” the engine can reach. It’s like the “car which max speed won’t be reach for the next 10 years”. Why? Because, to produce a whole game with the same amount of work input in the Infiltrator real-time rendered scene would cost too much to produce. Wouldn’t be surprise is we were counting close to 1 or 2 Billions. (From my guess with how much money were input in Unreal engines and Nvidia promotional previous products, I would guess that there were close to 100 millions overall thrown in the Infiltrator tech demo.)

            - The Dark Sorcerer tech demo was made for the purpose of selling future games made by a specific company (Quanticdream) and since they are really skilled, they received some assistance (but still not complete) from Sony to showcase their work on the PS4. That tech demo might have reach a couple of million to produce, but clearly never reached as much as for the other tech demo. Why? Simply because it doesn’t worth it. They reached what they could in the time they had with the tools they had their hands on. Unlike the Unreal 4 tech demo which have a close-to-unlimited budget, they had a limit not to be breached.

            The amount of hours and the amount of manpower input in both are not the same.

            The PS4 is less “powerfull” than a PC by nature, but a PC is a clogged system by its own nature. That’s the reason why even a 8Go RAM + 1Go VRAM PC can’t run a game as well as a PS3/XBox 360 without lowering some settings even if those 2 consoles only have something like a total of 512MB in memory.

            The reason is the same as why arcades games couldn’t be put into console before so much time : like with arcades, console are built to render real-time stuff based on how engines are “speaking”, while a PC is made to run based on an OS, which translate with “drivers” and communicate between components in a clogged way. What takes 100MB of RAM and 100 of VRAM to render on a console require 4x more on a PC just because that PC run many other things (useless for the real-time rendering) at the same time. (It’s also the same as why a system running on Microsoft OS uses more memory than as system run on an Apple OS. The Apple products are made to run in a specific way close to how a console runs, but still can get clogged by many background applications and drivers)

      • Dakan45

        Infiltrator from nvidia. Hell crysis 3 could render al lthis and be playable.

    • Midstr8

      Yet none of you complain when ever Nvidia makes their very limited tech demo’s on their powerful new GPU’s. It’s a tech demo its made to show which type of new elements and code can be used to achieve things in real time that will be used in games, (most likely scaled down, but however still used) in future games, which often couldn’t be achieved in real time before the demonstration.

      Quntum break is pretty much a cut scene just like this demo, and we have no idea if it was actually real time on Xbox 1. Some one was holding a controller during stage but there was no user interaction… they said in engine, but im not sure if it was on xbox one or a Geforce Titain, because it looks like Titain face works… Developer Demo. on a large scale, just like this is PS4 Old Man head demo, on a Larger scale…

  • FaggitShit

    yeah….cool…its a tech demo….its a fu@king CUTSCENE,,,,, who freaking cares
    killzone shadowfall at least was gameplay and it only used 4gb too……..
    so fu@king what……
    What amount of that terrible ipad cpu was left, what amount of that poor a$$ laptop gpu was left
    the new consoles will be maxed day one! bf4 on ps4 is only 720p at 30 frames…..wow….what power/s

    • Giuseppe Nelva

      You sound mad.

      • mazty

        But his username conveys a person of a calm and collected nature…

    • pc sucks

      Except they have said it runs at 60fps and 1080p… on ps4. Weird…. guess you must have been wrong. Its ok it happens

      • Dakan45

        From what i ehard its one of the two, not both either 1080p 30 fps or 720p 60fps, either way E3 was on pc, dont expect on consoles to look that good.Inferior graphics on the so called next gen.

        • Midstr8

          If the Devs choose they can have games running at 1080p 60fps. They can simply make a game look good with out all the bells and whistles, similar to current PC games,that look great but aren’t all the technical.

          • Dakan45

            Sure sure 1080p which is not even actual 108op but native resolutiion and framerate that goes below 60 fps all the time.

            LIke you bash pc gamers for Stil bf4 will have better graphics on pc. Reallize already this “next gen” is afreaking joke and ps4 is the least crap so far and it wont blow you away like last gen.

          • YnotNDalton

            your mistaken man… ps4 will rival pc graphics in a year or so and ya i build pcs.. build my gaming pc that i’m on now.. software optimized for the hardware.. and ya buy a graphics card with that much gddr5 and see how much it’ll cost you

          • Dakan45

            You are mistaken, ps4 is a midrange pc. Obviously games wont be super duper demanding so games will more or less look the same on pc and ps4 but pc will have some extra AA options and DX11 effects or the ability to set draw distance and other things higher settigns. No those things wont be optimized and they wont be necessary, but that doesnt change the fact pcs will be able to run the game at higher than 1080p and 60 fps with MSAA instead of FXAA.

            Does it need it? Nope, but neither did people think that higher than 720p and 30 fps are needed, yet they are what we looking forward now.

            You can buy a quadro that costs 5.000$ still it wont have as much ram as ps4, The GDDR5 is just ram. Not dedicated to GPU. Ps4 will NEVER use all that ram for GPU. The cpu will use it too along with the OS.

            ps ddr3 is faster for cpu calculation.

    • heavenshitman1

      I saw the BF4 teaser trailer, hmm yeah, not sure if it interested me anyways that much, another contemporary shooter… Visual fidelity isn’t making games any much better these days. Devs just need to be more creative.
      As for this actual PS4 vid, yeah, I was skipping through it too, firstly it is only just a tech demo, not relevant to games much (like the tech demo’s of PS3), also of interest is that PS4 Blu-ray media has no extra capacity over PS3, so to up the RAM 8 fold and have the same media storage almost suggests games will be limiting in length. But I suppose PS4 games are gonna be compressed and have installs on the hard drive. Ppl are gonna need back up harddrives

    • YnotNDalton

      cutscenes are pre rendered man.. this is running real time

  • Nintendo Fan 4 Lif3

    Cool!

  • haohmaru

    Native 1080p resolution!? maybe

    Actual 1080p? No…

    The demo was scoped between two black bars and effective pixel count is about 1920×830.

  • Yun-Hsiang Hu

    What!? This is too unbelievable for me. Just for 4GB of DDR5.

    I cannot image the power of 8GB DDR5.

    • Dakan45

      Well, shadowfallt used 4.8gb and not 3gb, that was just for video. This is a tech demo, so it mostly uses video. It ios not suprisingy at all that it uses that much. It looks CGI but not photoreallistic. Thats pretty much how pixar movies are made years now.

      However this is NOT game, its a room with graphics, no ai, no gameplay, no physics no scripts no big levels or entitities like weapons and enemis and items. If this was a game it would use far more ram. If killzone shadowfall was not a streaming based fps that has corridors and erases resources that you live behind to bring new ones and save ram, it would use alot more. To make games like far cry 3 or bf3 mp or the first bioshock, there will be alot of ram usage. So the ram is propably to make it futureproof and avoid running on low ram like we do now, so you gotta save memory by streaming.

      • Mitesh Ghanekar

        haters will keep on hating, at 1st, the old mans the only thing that is rendered, no background, now a proper scene is created and they whine about it being only a cutscene

        • Dakan45

          It is a cutscene not a game, had this being a whole game, it would take alot more resources, what is so hard to freaking understand?

          How the freaking hell you think diablo 3 and plateside 2 cutscenes were made?

          • Midstr8

            The point is , that the first demo only showed a head, People made the same argument, “If it had more it wouldn’t look that good, or wouldn’t be able to run”…

            Now this is a whole scene with multiple effects, physics and character rigging, animation, shaders,multi direction light with High rez textures (no compression) Multiple characters with nearly 1 million polygons, each with almost as many polygons as the entire set.

            And you and many other still complain ( ignorance if you ask me)

            In order to make this into an open world game it would be easy, just lower the polygon count, you only need 60k polygons to maintain the lvl of detail show in on these characters before you start to notice they start looking worst. (Killzone SF models use 40k polygons)

            That will give you room to have 16x more characters for each character in this demo, meaning you would have room for 48 more characters on screen.

            At one point i counted 11 characters which each had close to 1million polygons. SO you can have 183 detailed characters on screen at the same time. still with room left to add to add bigger world… With out a drop in Frame rate. Because that is still in the guide lines of the amount of detail which is still being rendered on the screen.

            Diablo 3 cut scenes are CGI, Pre-rendered so are “Planetside 2″ meaning they used multiple computers, a few hours a or minutes to render a single frame, then stitched back together to make it run at 24 Fps for Movie play back….

            CGI renders take months to complete and this demo only took 3 weeks from start to finish. SO Please don’t compare CGI to real time. This demo is clearly impressive if you understand the technicalities behind it.

          • Dakan45

            OMG both nvidia and quantic dream initially showed a head. Nvidia’s head was 100 times better.

            Now that is a full scene. check infiltrator demo by nvidia nuff said.

            “And you and many other still complain ( ignorance if you ask me)”

            its a room of scripted cutscene, not a game, so yeah you are ignorant.

            Quantic dream games are basicly that, a room with scripted camera angles and no actual player control, you just press a bunch of button, no ai scripts, no physics no weapon or other object entities. Look at heavy rain and beyond two souls on ps3, any actual GAMES with those graphics? Nope didnt think so.

            “In order to make this into an open world game it would be easy, just
            lower the polygon count, you only need 60k polygons to maintain the lvl
            of detail show in on these characters before you start to notice they
            start looking worst. (Killzone SF models use 40k polygons)”

            FACEPALM. You have no idea how this works.

            “At one point i counted 11 characters which each had close to 1million polygons.”

            Guess what? Creed 3 is packed in characters on screen, but how it does it? It doesnt, it uses instances, instead of making individual ai characters it makes a vitrual copy with a reffrence point on the original, all those characters are basicly visual clones of other characters, not seperate entities but i forgot you dont know crap about how those things work.

            “Diablo 3 cut scenes are CGI, Pre-rendered’

            This aint pixar in the 90s, you dont need a farm of pcs to make pre renderd cutscenes.

            Current pcs are powerfull enough to make those visuals for the purpuse of a video, not for an actual level though, its a static camera angle with nothing around it and basic animations scripts with effects on them.

            That being said, infiltrator demo AGAIN.

          • Midstr8

            Infiltrator scripted.

          • Midstr8

            You pose as being smart but everything you say I easily prove wrong.

            Go download 3d max or Maya, or Poser or zbrush or Daz 3d, make a large scene and hit the render button, now tell me how long it takes to render a single frame. You don’t know a rats butt about computers you are a complete dumb ass.

            PIxar 90′s? Pixar used a render farm to render Cars 2 2011, the render farm used 24,000 CPU cores. and each freaking frame took 7 hours. Do your research stop trying to sound smart, you’re stupid end of story.

            How about go get an education. FullSail.edu is a good place to start

          • Dakan45

            “You pose as being smart but everything you say I easily prove wrong.”

            Yes thats exactly what i did.

            If you knew about how 3d applications work, you would also understand the meaning of the word “instance” but as we already established you are a retard, so kindly gtfo.

          • Midstr8

            The point is , that the first demo only showed a head, People made the same argument, “If it had more it wouldn’t look that good, or wouldn’t be able to run”…

            Now this is a whole scene with multiple effects, physics and character rigging, animation, shaders,multi direction light with High rez textures (no compression) Multiple characters with nearly 1 million polygons, each with almost as many polygons as the entire set.

            And you and many other still complain ( ignorance if you ask me)

            In order to make this into an open world game it would be easy, just lower the polygon count, you only need 60k polygons to maintain the lvl of detail show in on these characters before you start to notice they start looking worst. (Killzone SF models use 40k polygons)

            That will give you room to have 16x more characters for each character in this demo, meaning you would have room for 48 more characters on screen.

            At one point i counted 11 characters which each had close to 1million polygons. SO you can have 183 detailed characters on screen at the same time. still with room left to add to add bigger world… With out a drop in Frame rate. Because that is still in the guide lines of the amount of detail which is still being rendered on the screen.

            Diablo 3 cut scenes are CGI, Pre-rendered so are “Planetside 2″ meaning they used multiple computers, a few hours a or minutes to render a single frame, then stitched back together to make it run at 24 Fps for Movie play back….

            CGI renders take months to complete and this demo only took 3 weeks from start to finish. SO Please don’t compare CGI to real time. This demo is clearly impressive if you understand the technicalities behind it.

          • YnotNDalton

            THIS^^

          • YnotNDalton

            this is running in real time.. cutscenes are pre rendered idiot

          • Dakan45

            Cutscenes are prerendered?

            Ok did crysis 3 have prerendendred curscenes? Did far cry 3 had pre rendered cutscenes?

            Also i dont know how smart you think you are but this aint the 90s anymore. You can get visuals like diablo 3 and planetside 2 without having to render each frame one after the other.

            Inflitrator nvidia demo says hi.

      • Midstr8

        Pixar movies uses a render farm, 12,500 CPU Cores Were Required to Render Cars 2. Its great that you compare this tech demo to a supercomputer rendering engine, Pixar movies dont look photoreallistic either, so how is that valid.

        Farcry 3 and Bf3 didn’t require more than 1GB of video ram, so your whole argument is useless.

        The only reason Killzone SF uses so much ram is because of 4kx4k textures, the highest texture setting possible. And also its not using texture compression, if it used texture compression it could compress down to only using 1gb of video ram. But since the PS4 isn’t limited to texture size there’s no need to spend time in that area.

        • Dakan45

          “Farcry 3 and Bf3 didn’t require more than 1GB of video ram, so your whole argument is useless.

          Actualy the useless here is you, what the freaking hell was that even suposse to mean?

          What are you trying to say by that kid?

          “The only reason Killzone SF uses so much ram is because of 4kx4k textures,”

          Doubtfull, BF4 also has textures at 4k but the chances that the actual game will are quite few same case with killzone.

          “But since the PS4 isn’t limited to texture size there’s no need to spend time in that area.”

          Sure that is exactly why it streams resources through corridor level design and scripted moments. Next gen consoles same crappy console methods.

  • PantherCrane

    This can definitely be done on the XBO!

  • caBooOm

    why u no port BTS to ps4

  • vickybat

    @ PantherCrane

    You’re forgetting the PS4 has a much beefier GPU. It has the upper hand in overall graphical fidelity.

  • Nintendo Fan 4 Lif3

    If only this was an actual game in development.

    • Midstr8

      This isn’t but there is a game on the way that will use this technology, and most likely look better than this, because there is so much room for improvements.

  • JustANormalGuy

    *sniffity sniff* I can smell butthurt PC angered virgins crying in the comments section and resorting to fanboyism to make themselves feel better…hah you PC sadists really take gaming a bit too seriously no? No wonder you fellas are never even touched by a girl… :)

    Anyways dear PC virgin elitists I would like to say best of luck in trying to convince yourself that Quantic Dream is lying about everything to make yourself feel better! :D….must be pinching on your selfish virgin PC fanboy butts to see a great tech demo on a console hm?..*sigh*…How sad and downgraded can ya guys get..can’t even stand to see people outside of your platform happy,comprehending the scope of what a dev did on a console?…

    Such losers you fellas are….sad…sad loners…please do search for a *real* girlfriend :))))

  • JustANormalGuy

    Oh and one last thing sweet PC virgins….playing on your PC doesn’t automatically make you a superior human being than anyone who doesn’t own a PC :)…and also just because a game isn’t available on your precious platform…it doesn’t automatically mean they are doomed to fail :)))))))))….

    I know you guys don’t have much friends,are anti-social,lead a sad life and feel the need to show off by telling people how great your PC is and how pathetic of a scum they are…as that is the only thing in which you’re relatively *superior*(pfff xD) at but still…just saying…try to enjoy with people,don’t take a certain flaw out of a platform you don’t like and magnify it ten folds and um..well treat people with kindness rather than cruelty..you’ll be surprised at how easy it is :DDDDDDDDDDD….

    Okay okay one last thing I swear am not gonna say much now…I’m typing a bit too much no? :o..hmm…on a side note..I really wouldn’t be surprised if a PC virg-..I mean eltist…said that Pinball looks better than Last Of Us.. xD :)

  • JustANormalGuy

    I love to see pc fanvirgins cry and whine behind their screens and getting serious for something as trivial as gaming xDD..meanwhile I just grab some popcorn and take the words of fanboys with a grain of salt! :)…At least these losers make me laugh xD

  • YnotNDalton

    This is incredible that its running in real time… this is as good as cg pixar movies.. this is the future of gaming.. the damn man could be mistaken as a real actor if you didn’t know better

  • Justin Alon

    i would think games with this much polygons will start to appear next year or atleast 700,000 to 800,000 pologons will appeat nexy year.

Win Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare for a Console of your Choice from DualShockers! in DualShockers' Contests on LockerDome

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus