The difference is big but not as big as PS2 vs PS3 graphics...
for some reason I think in the next 5 - 10 years, graphics(visually) are gonna get to a point that there wouldn't be any room for improvements. They are going to look like real life and after that there's nothing else to improve... you know what I mean ?
@Hydrolex: your opinion is very relative! at the end of PS2 everybody said the same cause at that time not many could imagine what a console upgrade would bring.
There will ALWAYS be room for improvement, from AI, motion capture, graphics, physics... all this is extremely difficult to integrate in a game cause no game nails all these aspects at once. Games will never play or feel like real life, there will always be a limiting factor.
yes but I said +++Visually++++ ! did you even read ?
it's obvious, one day, there will be no more room for VISUAL improvements, visuals are gonna look close to real life... maybe 5 years ? maybe 50 years ? it will come for sure
It will be a LONG time before we reach the limit of graphics. Think of something like Avatar, or more recently, The Avengers (look up what is done with CG in the movie, it's unreal...all of New York in that last battle is CG). It will be a LONG time before even the most powerful super-computers can run a game that looks like those in real-time, much less a very powerful PC, and even less so, consoles.
What people need to remember is that the PS2 was one of the weakest systems of it's generation and the PS3 was the most powerful. When the 360 was first shown most people were disappointed with the graphical jump from the original Xbox. It wasn't until GoW and GRAW that people started seeing a big leap.
The DC was the weakest but even then you're right about the Xbox-to-Xbox360 initial gap, especially when you compared the ports they got (there was only a 4-year difference between the consoles).
The disappointment was tremendous but no one really expected much from the 360 then anyway (all hopes were on the PS3). It wasn't until Gears of War on 2006 that people realized the 360 was truly ahead of the Xbox.
You know whats crazy? people are saying the "Textures" for KZ:SF aren't high res enough...but to those people, I say F U, High Res textures can wait, what's more important are character models in general, and the way things move, if you look at the actual character models in the gameplay and screenshots that have been shown, they have a pretty ridiculously high polly count, they look fleshed out, and the way people move and stuff is just as important, lets put it this way...if you have a robot that looks like a human (skin and shit) but has robot features and moves like a robot, you say "Oh thats a robot" but, if you see a robot that looks like a robot, all smooth edges nice design, and moves like a human, you're most likely going to say "is that a person in a robot costume?" and I think that's a huge factor, high res textures aren't everything, I think more emphasis should be put on characters polly count and physical clothing pieces, not wasting up memory on super high res textures that you can only see close up and even then you really aren't going to see anyway because you'll be too busy doing something.
They probably disagreed with you because you want early development PS4 games to be compared to last life cycle games on the PS3,which is not reasonable.
Didn't give you a disagree btw & I'm gonna give you a +bubble. :)
If ur a console player you should know the CPU they are using from AMD is quite low end. People keep saying 8 CORES OW MY GOD. To be fair 4 cores is plenty enough and if you will remember the PS3 had an 8 core cell processor
the ps3 had 8 SPE not cores. SPE are closer to threads then cores. Do some re-search its sad just how many people still get that wrong. It was 1 core with 8 SPE(advanced threads)
I think is fair plus the difference is huge, you can tell this games have a different feeling into them, a more realistic lighting and visuals are on a whole new level of tech.
I'm still waiting to play Killzone 2 E3 2005 CGI tech demo in a REAL game, REALTIME.
The games battle sequences are far better than KZ:SF. Look at the movement and close quarters, looks just awesome. If PS4 cannot do that in realtime then the Leap from current gen to next gen is not a massive leap at all. I don't see crysis 3 on PC look that good.
I just spent $100 on a brand-new PS3 game that looks worse than any of the launch titles.
It's all about developer competence and willingness to work. Hell, there are still some PS2 games that look better than analagous PS3 games. FFXII to FFXIII, for example. Rogue Galaxy to NNK, for example.
But also this is showing what the initial games will look like, the later comparisons would not show much as it took a long time to reach that level of development. This comparison most useful as you can take changes from these two videos then apply that on top of Killzone 3 for instance.
Here's a screenshot comparison I put together of PS3 and PS4 games from the same studios: http://imgur.com/a/DHAaa Note that I included Star Wars 1313 which has not been confirmed for PS4 and is rumored to be delayed.
ps4 graphics are better and improved but not jaw dropping,main reason is that consoles are budget friendly gaming devices..anyway graphics aren't most important part in games
Well if games like Crysis 3 maxed out on high end PC doesn't look leaps and bounds ahead of console version then i doubt next gen console will. PC is better but not leap we seen from SNES to N64/ PS2 to PS3.
These games shown were done on early ps4 dev kit, killzone ,deep down and infamous 3 atleast, still 8 months developing time left. Try dl 1080p trailers and watch them on your tv,you will see the diffirence new gen brings.
I guess it is just me but I really find it dumb to compare graphics from a current gen console (PS3) to a future gen console (PS4). That's like saying, "Hey let's compare a fruit salad to a fruit salad with extra pineapple slices".
Well you can, I just don't see the point. We all know the PS4 is gonna kick ass in the graphics department. Why compare it to an inferior product. That is all I am saying.
You compare PS3 to PS4 to see how far the graphical leap of technology is. Its obviously superior but the question is.. Is the Leap "HUGE" as seen in previous generations.
please name one pc game (set at 720p) that looks better than: heavy rain, killzone3, god of war3, uncharted3, the last of us, beyond...
But yes, most pc games do look better than their console versions, because the games are mostly multi-platform and have not been optimized for the consoles only. Games which did get optimized look a generation leap better than most of the multi-platform games.
example : now that tomraider is out and looks to allmost reach the level of the very old uncharted3, another game hops on along "the last of us" and ups the game.
You should compare launch titles of the PS4 with the latest games on PS3, that's a fair comparison and shows the difference between what we have now and what we'll have by the end of the year. You might as well be comparing PS4 launch titles with PS1 launch titles.
"You should compare launch titles of the PS4 with the latest games on PS3, that's a fair comparison"
Current PS3 games look way better than early PS3 games. It's not a fair comparison because everyone knows, as developers become more familiar with new hardware they're working with, game visuals will begin to improve and newer titles will look much better than launch titles. Compare Resistance 1 to Resistance 3 for an example.
"shows the difference between what we have now and what we'll have by the end of the year"
That comment didn't make too much sense. We have no idea what PS4 games will look like at the end of next year.
"You might as well be comparing PS4 launch titles with PS1 launch titles"
That made even less sense. That comment alone was enough to get a disagree from me. So there you have it lol.
Killzone 2's trailer was GCI (not a tech demo) and the actual game wasn't even a launch title, it come out more then 2 years after the ps3. The equivelent ps4 title would something coming out in late 2015/early2016.... theres point comparing it to Shadow Fall, which is a DAY 1, launch title.
I agree with Tei777. KZ Shadow Fall is actual gameplay... the killzone demo shown at PS3 reveal was CGI rendering.
the comparison should be Shadow Fall against Killzone 2... and the comparison should be between 1080p videos and/or screenshots of the game. The difference will be even more noticeable when comparing at full resolution.
The biggest improvement for me is if we can start getting more games at 60 fps. There were precious few this gen, Cod aside, and it does make a difference.
Will the vastly improved memory help that or is it something else that deals with frames per second?
To people saying the pics and videos of ps4 games are not looking impressive,a youtube video can't show all the detail and resolution. Watch a game which you currently can buy right now on youtube and play it. Notice major differences....(framerate, resolution, details in textures, etc)
cause all the Nintendo articles on n4g arent filled with walls of nintendo hate right? but when you see 1 comment that isnt pro sony its trolling...
I see the logic
was the resistance demo for the ps3 was not cgi and it wasnt pre rendered? or am I missing something. or is pointing out the stated and proven truths considered trolling now in 2013?
I want the PS4 I just hope and this is a long shot but I hope Quantum Dream releases Kiara on PS4. I know it was a tech demo but I just can't get that game out of my head.
A lot of people seem disappointed with the graphical leap. but remember as we go on, the jump will seem like less and less as we get closer to photo realism.
The big difference I noticed immediately was the draw distance, the sheer amount going on on screen, the wider colour pallet. Obviously were seeing more polys too, but what really brings a scene to life is things moving, things going on at all scales and distances.
It just looks more real, more polished. and this is early stuff. We are definitely still going to get those wow moments like we did this gen.
Heres hoping the next elder scrolls works better on the ps4. thats the kind of game that will shine on this system.
Deep Down is going too be my first RPG on an console.That game looks amazingly fun.Too be that close with an dragon only with an sword is going too be lovely.
The KZ:SF v KZ2 CGI video is the best example of what next-gen should bring. Too see KZ:SF running better in real-time is awesome. Yes the CGI video is infamous bc people said it couldn't be done on an console. Now comes the PS4 and we see something even more unrealistic.
Also they picked the wrong game too compare inFamous:SS with. I personally think the only game should have been inFamous 2. Also Watch Dogs should have been on the list against GTA4. GT5 vs Drive Club would been great...
Too think Sony haven't even released all of their launch title for the PS4 is crazy. Agent,MAG 2,8 Days,WWE exclusive,BF4,Socom 6 and probably some surprises.
Seriously too have this type of hype pre E3 is uncommon for me. Also hopefully the Stealth genre makes an comback...
ps2 to ps3 was weak because all this generation brought was normal maps to cover low poly stuff with high res textures. But now theres more then enough power to have high polys as well as highres textures which is a huger upgrade no illusion of detail it can be done now.
IMO, this person should have compared the best visually appealing ps3 games to the ps4 tech demos. Either way, there is a noticeable jump between the ps3 and ps4 in terms of graphics. I'm still not blown away though. Need more games and examples...
it makes you realize that really at the end of the day it's ALL about the games , graphics and services is a plus but games is what will sell the console . Always .
is not possible to achieve ( 60fps ) @ 4k with AA. All i can say is ( 30fps are ONLY ) a style choice . you really think that with a 8gb ( probably 7,5gb ) of integrated video frame buffer for render only @ 2k resolution have this limitations ?.
Don't made suppositions based on a similar PC architecture that ps4 have because this is ( completely wrong ) first because PC have a huge limitations about north bridge and south bridge chipsets in fact, the available ( raw ) amount of memory bandwidth ) is 5 gb/s higher than the PS4 ( with a cpu i7 4xxx and gtx690 titan ) but ... vram and system ram are not unified and system actually are normal DDR3 and vram are GDDR5. cpu and gpu don't have a integrated bus / die and the communications bus from and to cpu and from and to gpu drammatically reduces the available ( usable ) memory bandwidth from 191gb/s ( theoretical peak ) to about 92 - 100 ( maxiimum . and ... PC architecture loss another small portion of available/usable memory bandwidth for ( overhead ) operations , in fact, all losed bandwidth is for communication of various processors and device like ( cpu in/out , gpu in/out , memory write / read / in / out ). Cpu in a PC architecture are limited by the general purpose ( kernel ) generally a Windows NT kernel based . Microsoft dosen't allow to access to low level kernel programming functions ( another limitations ) .. not to mention middleware like directx and bios . pc have 2 block for RAM and actually on PC GDDR5 for system memory dosen't exist and cpu don't have access to a very low latency memory like GDDR5 "GDDR5 are 4x low latency compared to ddr3 1.9x compared to ddr4"
Console are ( completely different ) and in case of sony no kernel limits ... no middleware (if you want ). integrated ( in place ) memory cntroller on die with cpu and gpgpu ( gpgpu ) this atchitecture allow no overhead because the ram available are ( integrated and GDDR5 for both cpu and gpu) and this memory are accessible @the same time from cpu and gpu. the total memory bandwidth of 176 gb/s are the real bandwidth available to developers ( not a raw peak measurements ) but the most important part is the Available rendering power of 2TeraFlops and are x86-64 GPGPU Based.
obviously the best results are from first party just because third party developer uses a middleware like unreal engine to develop because they have to develop for "multi platform release" and no way to optimize a middleware only for a dedicated console.
A conclusion would be: to achieve a 60fps rock solid @ 1080P Native resolution for shadowfall are necessary 4gb of rendering ram and circa 120GB/s system bandwidth ( on a dedicated architecture like console) a very great code optimization for texture compression/loading and very high "but very pricey" engine code optimization for vectorial calculations=Framedrops on specified areas.
but is possible and in 2 years ( if the developer want ) all game are possible on 60fps @ 1080p native resolutions.
Just a PC hardware enthusiast with quad SLI 690 titan and dual xeon with 64gb of ram and 2x vertex3 raid0.. trust me.. this console are a beast. Obviously PS4 don't make miracles like walking on the water or make people super heroes.. but this architecture are amazing... the best architecture i have seen in 20 years of consoles / hardware.
Now - "It feels very tense with victory on a knife edge. The game looks great and you don’t feel overwhelmed as you might in some of the Axis & Allies ga... | Promoted post
0°
30°
20°
20°
Ad 
40°
anyway, the difference is huge! i throw my wallet violently at the screen everytime i see a PS4 news :)
for some reason I think in the next 5 - 10 years, graphics(visually) are gonna get to a point that there wouldn't be any room for improvements. They are going to look like real life and after that there's nothing else to improve... you know what I mean ?
this is not a really accurate comparison
Those PS3 games in the comparison footage came out a long time after when the PS3 was release
but the PS4 games, are just FRESH, newly developed... keep in mind in 3 4 years and they are gonna even look better
There will ALWAYS be room for improvement, from AI, motion capture, graphics, physics... all this is extremely difficult to integrate in a game cause no game nails all these aspects at once. Games will never play or feel like real life, there will always be a limiting factor.
it's obvious, one day, there will be no more room for VISUAL improvements, visuals are gonna look close to real life... maybe 5 years ? maybe 50 years ? it will come for sure
It is rumoured that Killzone:SF is only using a quarter of the PS4's power.
With that in mind it could actually be a far bigger jump than PS2 > PS3.
What do you do when you see porn o_O
I want to be your screen...and then take your wallet! :-D
On topic, the difference between KZ3 and KZSF in terms of graphical fidelity is huge! And KZ3 is among the best looking console game to date!
http://img688.imageshack.us...
Even then when comparing a late titles from previous gens to a launch title like KZSF, the latter still smokes them completely.
http://img856.imageshack.us...
@Hydrolex
Maybe it's in the eye of the beholder, but to me the difference clearly is PS2 to PS3.
The DC was the weakest but even then you're right about the Xbox-to-Xbox360 initial gap, especially when you compared the ports they got (there was only a 4-year difference between the consoles).
Half-Life 2 on Xbox and Xbox360:
http://image.com.com/gamesp...
http://files.myopera.com/Sw...
The disappointment was tremendous but no one really expected much from the 360 then anyway (all hopes were on the PS3). It wasn't until Gears of War on 2006 that people realized the 360 was truly ahead of the Xbox.
Didn't give you a disagree btw & I'm gonna give you a +bubble. :)
or any PS4 game?
I think is fair plus the difference is huge, you can tell this games have a different feeling into them, a more realistic lighting and visuals are on a whole new level of tech.
Wonder if the new killzone will be a huge leap in frames per second?
The games battle sequences are far better than KZ:SF. Look at the movement and close quarters, looks just awesome. If PS4 cannot do that in realtime then the Leap from current gen to next gen is not a massive leap at all. I don't see crysis 3 on PC look that good.
better than KZ:SF"
because it's cinematic.. Duh.. Troll harder..
I just spent $100 on a brand-new PS3 game that looks worse than any of the launch titles.
It's all about developer competence and willingness to work. Hell, there are still some PS2 games that look better than analagous PS3 games. FFXII to FFXIII, for example. Rogue Galaxy to NNK, for example.
http://imgur.com/a/DHAaa
Note that I included Star Wars 1313 which has not been confirmed for PS4 and is rumored to be delayed.
Try dl 1080p trailers and watch them on your tv,you will see the diffirence new gen brings.
By the way, ad hominem attacks don't make you sound intelligent.
....Probably NOT.
the system will have to do more then just look pretty!
especially when ps3 and 360 graphics today are very nice.. I own a PC and yes PC games do look better but not by much
heavy rain, killzone3, god of war3, uncharted3, the last of us, beyond...
But yes, most pc games do look better than their console versions, because the games are mostly multi-platform and have not been optimized for the consoles only.
Games which did get optimized look a generation leap better than most of the multi-platform games.
example : now that tomraider is out and looks to allmost reach the level of the very old uncharted3, another game hops on along "the last of us" and ups the game.
"You should compare launch titles of the PS4 with the latest games on PS3, that's a fair comparison"
Current PS3 games look way better than early PS3 games. It's not a fair comparison because everyone knows, as developers become more familiar with new hardware they're working with, game visuals will begin to improve and newer titles will look much better than launch titles. Compare Resistance 1 to Resistance 3 for an example.
"shows the difference between what we have now and what we'll have by the end of the year"
That comment didn't make too much sense. We have no idea what PS4 games will look like at the end of next year.
"You might as well be comparing PS4 launch titles with PS1 launch titles"
That made even less sense. That comment alone was enough to get a disagree from me. So there you have it lol.
the comparison should be Shadow Fall against Killzone 2... and the comparison should be between 1080p videos and/or screenshots of the game. The difference will be even more noticeable when comparing at full resolution.
Will the vastly improved memory help that or is it something else that deals with frames per second?
the face demo was the only thing worth doing. comparing ps3 cgi.... to "real time ps4"
cause all the Nintendo articles on n4g arent filled with walls of nintendo hate right?
but when you see 1 comment that isnt pro sony its trolling...
I see the logic
was the resistance demo for the ps3 was not cgi and it wasnt pre rendered? or am I missing something. or is pointing out the stated and proven truths considered trolling now in 2013?
A lot of people seem disappointed with the graphical leap. but remember as we go on, the jump will seem like less and less as we get closer to photo realism.
The big difference I noticed immediately was the draw distance, the sheer amount going on on screen, the wider colour pallet. Obviously were seeing more polys too, but what really brings a scene to life is things moving, things going on at all scales and distances.
It just looks more real, more polished. and this is early stuff. We are definitely still going to get those wow moments like we did this gen.
Heres hoping the next elder scrolls works better on the ps4. thats the kind of game that will shine on this system.
Also they picked the wrong game too compare inFamous:SS with. I personally think the only game should have been inFamous 2. Also Watch Dogs should have been on the list against GTA4. GT5 vs Drive Club would been great...
Too think Sony haven't even released all of their launch title for the PS4 is crazy. Agent,MAG 2,8 Days,WWE exclusive,BF4,Socom 6 and probably some surprises.
Seriously too have this type of hype pre E3 is uncommon for me. Also hopefully the Stealth genre makes an comback...
The thing hasnt even been released yet.
Infact we dont even know what a ps4 looks like and there are already grapic comparisons LOLLLZZZ.
sometimes i wonder why people waste time doing stuff like this.
is not possible to achieve ( 60fps ) @ 4k with AA. All i can say is ( 30fps are ONLY ) a style choice . you really think that with a 8gb ( probably 7,5gb ) of integrated video frame buffer for render only @ 2k resolution have this limitations ?.
Don't made suppositions based on a similar PC architecture that ps4 have because this is ( completely wrong ) first because PC have a huge limitations about north bridge and south bridge chipsets in fact, the available ( raw ) amount of memory bandwidth ) is 5 gb/s higher than the PS4 ( with a cpu i7 4xxx and gtx690 titan ) but ... vram and system ram are not unified and system actually are normal DDR3 and vram are GDDR5. cpu and gpu don't have a integrated bus / die and the communications bus from and to cpu and from and to gpu drammatically reduces the available ( usable ) memory bandwidth from 191gb/s ( theoretical peak ) to about 92 - 100 ( maxiimum . and ... PC architecture loss another small portion of available/usable memory bandwidth for ( overhead ) operations , in fact, all losed bandwidth is for communication of various processors and device like ( cpu in/out , gpu in/out , memory write / read / in / out ). Cpu in a PC architecture are limited by the general purpose ( kernel ) generally a Windows NT kernel based . Microsoft dosen't allow to access to low level kernel programming functions ( another limitations ) .. not to mention middleware like directx and bios . pc have 2 block for RAM and actually on PC GDDR5 for system memory dosen't exist and cpu don't have access to a very low latency memory like GDDR5 "GDDR5 are 4x low latency compared to ddr3 1.9x compared to ddr4"
Console are ( completely different ) and in case of sony no kernel limits ... no middleware (if you want ). integrated ( in place ) memory cntroller on die with cpu and gpgpu ( gpgpu ) this atchitecture allow no overhead because the ram available are ( integrated and GDDR5 for both cpu and gpu) and this memory are accessible @the same time from cpu and gpu. the total memory bandwidth of 176 gb/s are the real bandwidth available to developers ( not a raw peak measurements ) but the most important part is the Available rendering power of 2TeraFlops and are x86-64 GPGPU Based.
obviously the best results are from first party just because third party developer uses a middleware like unreal engine to develop because they have to develop for "multi platform release" and no way to optimize a middleware only for a dedicated console.
A conclusion would be: to achieve a 60fps rock solid @ 1080P Native resolution for shadowfall are necessary 4gb of rendering ram and circa 120GB/s system bandwidth ( on a dedicated architecture like console) a very great code optimization for texture compression/loading and very high "but very pricey" engine code optimization for vectorial calculations=Framedrops on specified areas.
but is possible and in 2 years ( if the developer want ) all game are possible on 60fps @ 1080p native resolutions.
Just a PC hardware enthusiast with quad SLI 690 titan and dual xeon with 64gb of ram and 2x vertex3 raid0.. trust me.. this console are a beast. Obviously PS4 don't make miracles like walking on the water or make people super heroes.. but this architecture are amazing... the best architecture i have seen in 20 years of consoles / hardware.
Haha Fair enough pal, Guess the comments section got carried away with it's self lol.