Gameranx compares a few of the launch titles for the PS3 and PS4.
These games and demos you compared are veery early stages ps3 development, should be later comparisons like killzone 3 vs killzone:SF
i'm not sure you got the point! anyway, the difference is huge! i throw my wallet violently at the screen everytime i see a PS4 news :)
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 ?
oh yea also 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
@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
@hydrolex, 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.
abzdine's so cute
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.
@ abzdine 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!
That's not a good comparison at all. A launch title like Resistance should be compared to a launch titles like Killzone SF. 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.
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.
@Mac 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.
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.
I might have missed the point chill out with the disagrees guys dam
lol they are slaying you with dislikes over this
LoL... sorry, I couldn't resist clicking "Disagree" again. At least you have the ____ to come back and say "oops". I'll ++ you bubs for that.
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. :)
well shouldnt you compare early development games with early development games?
Your missing the point completely
I know! Dam calm down
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)
and KZSF is not in early stages? 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.
Killzone 2 pre rendered owned killzone 4. Wonder if the new killzone will be a huge leap in frames per second?
lol KZ2 looked like killzone 1 compared to SF
well its a comparison and its early in ps4 cycle so there gonna show early footage of ps3...
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.
"The games battle sequences are far better than KZ:SF" because it's cinematic.. Duh.. Troll harder..
...Er, that's meaningless. 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.
Wow, I see a huge difference.