There's a lot to be said for an extremely entertaining, diverse, and well-paced shooter with addictive multiplayer. But where's all that next-level sh**?
It's 3 year old hardware that can only produce better framerates with marginally improved graphics compared to the PS3. Improving visuals visibly requires a geometric increase in GPU power like a PC that is 150x as powerful as a PS3 unlike the PS4 which is maybe 10x as powerful as the PS3.
Awwwww, someone butthurt? Its alright guy things will be fine. Maybe someday you can post facts.....roflamo
I love those "150x more powerful than the PS3" PCs that hardly anyone ever owns until consoles catch-up to the tech. I also love it when 99.9% of the games made won't need that overblown power until when, you guessed it, when consoles catch up.
While the 150x claim is highly exaggerated, the fact remains that just about any gaming PC with any i5 or i7 CPU and a discrete graphics card will be faster than the PS4. Right now you can get an AMD HD7850 2gb card for $109 @ Newegg which has the same flops as the PS4, but will outperform it due to having dedicated GDDR5 that's not shared. And performance only goes up from there. I believe the new GTX 780ti is either 3x or 4x the flops of a PS4.
@AndrewLB, only problem is no games will get made to use that power until consoles are close to matching it making any boasting from the PC side more or less irrelevant.
@andrewLB The ps4 is shivering in fear...... well, enjoy reading those specs ;-)
I watched my bro play it last night and the graphics looked freaking great. Also, your rant was really uneducated and actually kind of adorable.
lol ...."adorable." so true..and perfect word for his bs baby rant, lol.
It's cute when the elitists, get all worried and defensive isnt't it. They all have these super powerhouse computers which go to waste trolling PS4 articles haha! :D
"Baby rant" made my day :D
Please show me a PC 150 x more pwerful than a PS3 Ps3 pushed 1.8 TFLOPS A Radeon R9 290X pushes 5.6 TFLOPS.
I know right? if only reality worked that way rofl.
There is more to visual capablities than just flops. Also a PC can have up to 4 single GPU video cards at once, the Geforce Titan is 4.5Tflops x 4 is 18Tflops. Then there is the power from the CPU and the Ram which current PCs can pack up to 128GB of, i think there are actually a couple boards that support 256GB already. Regardless, his numbers are a bit off. The PS4 is 8x the power of a PS3 The best possible quad sli PC is around 40-50x the power of a PS3. although with DDR4, Stacked DRAM, Re-Ram & Mantle coming out within the next year or so, that number will quickly jump to probably 200x. Now all we need is developers that are willing to actually spend the time and money to code a game that takes advantage of it.
@Dasteru If anyone thinks that more than 5% have a Quad SLI(a Quad SLI titans for that matter) then they are soooooooooooo delusional. These $4000 dollars PCs are just for the hardcore PC elites that like to brag about how much useless power they have compared to other cheap PCs that are ACTUALLY optimized for the next 5 years unlike the aww-so-powerful god like PCs that will get outdated fast when new technology is presented to the table. <--- I learned this the hard way while having some great advice from a PC elite friend(who isn't shallow or close-minded as many PC elites out there). Bottom line is .. PC is "better" for the right price,not to mention in the long run,a PC investment will save you more money,since PC games are sold cheaper and have much more discounts than console games. But you have to save up for that glorious gaming PC,on the other hand for a $400 dollars PS4,that's a steal(for the console itself not including the long run while buying games and subscriptions etc etc) and of course consoles have DAMN GREAT exclusives that you won't find on the PC library of games,which is why gamers tend to always have a gaming PC AND a console of choice.
@Studio-YaMi: Never said more than 5% of people had that kind of rig, matter of fact i would guess it is more like 0.001%, the point was simply that it is possible to build a system of that power. Also yes i know no games take advatage of it, hence the "Now all we need is developers that are willing to actually spend the time and money to code a game that takes advantage of it." Didn't disagree with you btw.
PS3 was 430 gflops, making the GTX 780ti 15x more powerful.
@AndrewLB: 230 http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Seriously though, all the pixel crunching power really doesn't matter if we don't have exclusive PC only games that push the hardware to the brink. The last great looking game that utilized a lot of CPU and GPU power was Crysis 3... And that's about it.
@ Dasteru RSX pushes 176 GFLOPS Cell pushes 230 GFLOPS Grand total of 406 GFLOPS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... " Cell CPU achieves a theoretical maximum of 230.4 GFLOPS" http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... "Floating Point Operations: 176 GFLOPS" And no pc is 150 times as powerful as Ps3 yet rofl. 200X performance within the coming year... I want what you are smoking son because going from 40-50 times the power to 200 a jump of 4x power judging by moores law takes 3-4 years granted that the chip isnt cutting down on power consumption and physical size as well. If what you say does happen we will need 4000Watts powersupplies by 2016 (guesstimation). So I think 200X power of Ps3 is happening about 5 years from now.
@RevXM: For starters, Moore's law expired a few years ago, it was never intended to be a permanent rule, as a matter of fact it was never a "rule" to begin with, it was an observation of current trends. Second, we are on the edge a substantial generational leap in computing power with the technologies i listed, Mantle alone has the potential to easily give a 2x increase on its own. Then you have stacked DRAM, DDR4 and possibly even Re-Ram which also has the potential to provide huge gains. A 4x leap is perfectly reasonable.
The game looks remarkably good, actually, when you see it in person. Besides, I always find this kind of talk funny. Last gen was WAY out of it's league for years. To say games are similar, doesn't make a good case. It's like a guy killing himself to lift up a barbell and then a bodybuilder comes along and lifts it easily and then you say that since they both lifted the same weight, the second guy isn't stronger and isn't capable of more. GTA V is a great example. I love that game and played the hell out of it, but was it even 720p? Probably sub 720, scaled up. The framerate danced around 20, way too often, also. Just taking a game like GTA V and running it at 1080p/60fps would already make it a "next gen" game imo and before the end of this console cycle, way better games will be made.
Ahh yes! The great and mighty PC Race! The only platform where EVERYONE has so much money, they can all run Crysis 3 on super duper ultra settings in 8K with like 120FPS on 100" triple monitors!
Only improved graphics lmfao you are pathetic
So a high-end PC is 140x more powerful then the PS4, yet the graphics for 99% of PC games are hardly any better. And that 1% like Crysis 3, still ain't THAT big of a difference. Why? techical power differences on paper varies GREATLY to real-world difference (what you see on screen) which are much much much smaller. Seems like butt hurt PC fanboys getting angry since PS4 graphics are 'close enough/good enough' (which is true) therefore PC's once 'better graphics' argument is no longer valid anymore, making their platform even less and less appealing now. Also considering all those 'PC games' can already be played on consoles. Cries :*( Oh well theres always DoTa, League of Legends lol
serious case of superiority/inferiority complex confirmed. Now go on, go to the next console article and keep going strong... your elite race needs you!
by your standards you wont see that next gen "sh**" even next gen. so did you give it an 8 as a previous gen title, or what? cause that next gen "sh**" is Here, bro.
"But Not Exactly 'Next-Gen'" I hear people say this, but I still don't know what it means... what exactly do you think when a new generation comes? People will start triple wielding, since man has advanced to that point as every gun fires off fully defined bullets (like in Wanted) at 120,000 frames per milisecond and the online will feature 1,000,000 vs 1,000,000 player multiplayer in battlefields the size of helghan with dynamic elements, real time action all while shooting recharge beams into your dualshock 4 to prevent it from ever dying outside of your system being destroyed via a black hole, since it's the only force strong enough to destroy a next gen system? Anyway, go play Killzone 1 if you really feel that way. Outside of graphics and fine tuning, the series isn't that different from a game that released two generations ago. Most of the upgrades were simply visual, which is most of what the next generation will offer.
I don't consider any console next-gen when it can't run ALL games at 1080p/60. It's been the standard for years and by the time PS5 is released, they'll finally get full-HD and the rest of gaming will be on 4k.
must be a pc gamer too bad im not it's the first time ive seen 1080p native. so for me it's definately next gen.
Gives it an 8.0 and says great but not exactly next gen. This is the problem with journalism these days. This game is the best next gen app out there right now when it comes to FPS, better than COD and BF by far
COD? Yeah. Battlefield? Naw. Shadowfall has been getting a lot of mixed reviews.
I agree it's not on par with Battlefield 4,but it's damn close. On consoles at least,Killzone:shadow fall looks amazing compared to battlefield 4,even the PC version of battlefield 4 isn't that much better than killzone:shadow fall,maybe 35-40% better. Unless of course you're gonna throw in 4K res @120FPS,then that would be a major difference in visuals and smoothness.
I don't know man, i kinda agree with Chrissx here. BF4 Feels so Rushed its not even funny. Its like BF3 with Pretty water texture. I'm a bit disappointed with BF4 because i'm a fan of the series.
At least Killzone works for the most part. BF4 spent a couple of weeks as a crashing, glitchy pile of dogcrap, at least on PC. I'm not sure how it's faring on PS4, but I was hearing largely the same from a friend.
I wouldn't read too much into reviews, although they are journalists they all have different taste in games, how else do you explain a 9.5 review for KZSF and a 5 rating from another site. Just try it for yourself, I would give it an 8.5, a good game but nothing really amazing about it IMO.
Killzone shine in it's graphics. BF4 shines in it's gameplay. Both are awesome in their own way. I dunno why people insist on choosing . I will enjoy both in 29th :P
It is an amazing game graphically, just getting into the story of it so far. Was somewhat getting distracted by the MP part of the game, and loving how easy it is to just get right into. As for the mixed reviews, IGN for example pretty much said COD's story was passable at best, and BF4 had good set pieces. while for KZ:SF it was basically saying the pacing was off on it story wise. The real meat of the 3 games is the MP, and seeing as reviews popped up before anyone was even getting into that for KZ... Also nice to note is GG taking fan feedback for 24 player death matches into consideration so quickly.
I would love to agree, there are many gamers that aren't journalists that refer to games as being "not exactly next gen". However, being "last generation" and being "next generation" shouldn't absolutely destroy the score either. There is no reason why Killzone SF should go from a 10/10 (for sake of argument) on the PlayStation 3 to a sub 8/10 because it's on the PlayStation 4. It's arbitrary and illogical. If every game was graded off elements like this, then there would be no point in reviews. You could nitpick some games, like the latest mario's and explain how if they dropped the hd graphics, 3d models, simplified the story, removed the cutscenes, and more, then these games could have came out in the NES or SNES era. Even though most people aren't going to care if the game could work last gen or last last gen or even last last gen if you made enough changes. They just care if the game in question is good and worth their hard earned money.
I agree. Review aren't meant to be opinion peaces. They are meant to be informational. Is the game broken? Does it has a campaign mode and how long is it? Are the visuals on par or better than other games? Does it have multiplayer or co-op? etc etc etc... This whole opinion BS doesn't tell me much, especially now days when fanboysm is so deep in this industry's media.
Reviewers expecting new experiences should stick to indie titles. AAA titles cost so much to develop now that they can't afford to take many risks. When they do though, they often become my favourite games. TLOU being the most recent example.
Yeah, a character driven, post apocalyptic action game made by Naughty Dog. Such a risky venture.
Yea wasn't very risky in terms of the story they chose, but it was a bit risky that Sony's biggest studio decided to make a brand new IP opposed to a UC sequel which the franchise has had success. But we all know how that risk turned out...
Please tell me what is next gen cause if KZ:SF is not next gen then I don't know what is.
Shadow fall will be my first ps4 title when it finally comes out on the 29th here in the UK, and I have had about an hour of hands on time with the game. This to me seems like a perfectly sound review, the issues that he is raising are all of the small-mid tier details that a lot of games on ps3 and 360 failed to successfully achieve themselves. I can say I've played 4 games that cinematically had me fully invested in the story, and after playing one like that everything else that doesn't achieve it seems lacking in effort. These games are Tomb Raider, Uncharted series, TLOU and L.A Noire. The acting in KZ can at times be a little stiff and the animations don't fit with what you'd expect from a 'next gen' title
Just because it is on next-gen hardware doesn't mean gameplay is going to be 'next-gen'. Something revolutionary Obviously graphically it is, but gameplay is nothing different. To be honest, it reminds me a lot of Crysis 3. All graphics but average gameplay. Was never a fan of KZ gameplay.
Why do Fanboys try to downplay exclusives of rival consoles? Who cares, we all know PS will have great exclusives and Xone will have amazing ones too whether you choose to believe that or not, just enjoy whichever console you get and quit trying to discourage people from buying the product. But on topic, this game is solid, i'd rate it an 8.5, still has some issues but is the best KZ game thus far. The guns are an absolute blast to use.
Meh it's quite a pretty game and it's a good opportunity to flex the DS4, so it's still my choice PS4 launch game even if it is same old same old.
I will never understand reviewers logic. In the case the review is ok, but to be honest give me one launch system that has ever exceeded everyone's expectations in what a new generation of gaming will be. Consoles have a transitioning period in which developers must make crossplatform titles in order to please the masses. I suppose Sony could wait 2 years more to provide developers more time to perfect the launch titles, but then everyone would complain about that.
Funny, because this is the most 'next gen' game I've ever played on a console.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.