PS4 and Xbox 720 graphics - this is what gamers can expect (video)

With next gen systems rumored to be using AMD based GPUs, a look at what gamers can expect right out of the gate.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Dylila2446d ago (Edited 2446d ago )

i think next gen games will surpass crysis 2 and crysis 3 on ultra settings especially the games like killzone 4 or uncharted 4

classic2002446d ago

Lol I find it hilarious pc gamers think console graphics next gen will look like crysis or battlefield. I remember when half life 2 and fear was classified as next gen standard and microsoft and sony showed gears, killzone, motor storm and resistance.

then every pc gamer was like OooKK, then after 3 years they start back their whole I am superior non sense.

stu8882446d ago

I could not agree more! The original Gears of War IMO had better graphics than Half Life 2, FEAR and the original Far Cry all on PC.

PS4 and 720 will have much better graphics than Crysis 2 and 3 without a doubt. And easily better graphics than Battlefield 3. If they don't then there is a problem - they can't be 'next gen'.

Peppino72446d ago

When they finally utilize 4k Res, and it will happen eventually, you'll see the potential of games. For now it'll be a good jump but the real beauty will be in the 4k. Check out the YouTube vids of it. Especially if they can get a decent fps.

grailly2446d ago

Consoles also had the "pc is dead" phase, I guess it evens out. Both are annoying though.

UnholyLight2446d ago

The beauty of console gaming. It's always evolving as devs learn more and more tricks and push out game updates and system updates.

That's why this gen has lasted so much longer IMO. It's nice, no need to try and upgrade my console just to play a game like what tends to happen with PC gamers that just have a more standard PC for gaming.

MarkusMcNugen2446d ago (Edited 2446d ago )

@Classic200 and stu888

Just to clarify for you two...

Half-Life 2 Release date: November 14, 2004
F.E.A.R. Release date: October 18, 2005
Far Cry Release date: March 23, 2004

Killzone Release date: November 2, 2004
Gears of War Release date: November 7, 2006
MotorStorm Release date: December 14, 2006
Resistance: Fall of Man Release date: November 11, 2006

A year or two in game development can make a huge difference in graphics. So it's quite hilarious you all chose games that were released two years after Half-Life 2 and Far Cry to illustrate your point with the exception of Killzone. Which was a PS2 game... if you think a PS2 game looks better than Half-Life 2, you should probably go get an eye exam.

I love my consoles but my PC has always had better graphics than any console. It was true back then, and it is true now. Ill give that they have different art styles with are cool, but you cant compare console graphics to PC graphics. One example that still proves my point today, 8x AA.

Thats true of any system. I too like not having to upgrade my console, but Ill tell you now that my current PC was built in November 2008 and hasnt had a single upgrade since then. It can still run all games with the exception of DirectX11 only games, and it still runs almost all games on high settings. Dont underestimate the power of doing research and making a good build. ;)

sobekflakmonkey2446d ago (Edited 2446d ago )


I think he meant Killzone 2, which actually had a way later release date, but still at this point, PC gaming has the edge, I think the next gen of consoles will be superior, or at least the PS4 will be, considering what I've been hearing about the next Xbox.

Something a lot of PC gamers dont understand (and what a lot of Console gamers understand) is that developers working on the same tech for years enables them to optimize and create better looking games which pc gamers say isn't even possible to begin with, we've seen it with a lot of PS3 exclusives so far, i.e Uncharted series, Last of us, Killzone 2&3, Heavy Rain, God of War, Gran Turismo 5, these games have achieved graphical quality that of a high end PC, and quite frankly the only reason you would deny that is because you have not played them or you choose to ignore it, so yes, I think with next gen, as long as they can pull off better AA and full 1080p games, we should have games on consoles that look just as good if not better than PC's, simply due to the fact that the devs are building games for one setup and one setup only.

joab7772446d ago

Also, u cant use tech straight up to determine the product of consoles. They build the machines to get the most out of the tech. Also, games are built to its strengths. We wont see next gen potential for awhile though so this may be clsoe to initial releases. Look at how graphics have evolved with the same specs in this gen alone. And what about when 4k emerges.

CyrusLemont2446d ago

Consoles have a larger maket to target and attain revenue from. Therefore developers will obviously be creating games on the limitations of that hardware. Not the PC or Gtx 680 or whatever. So it comes to the point where games will reach a graphical limit on PC hardware as well because these consoles games are not optimized for high end cards. If you want to see next gen, play The Witcher 2 on PC at max, which was created for PC then ported to 360. Expect the jump to be somewhere near there. You've also forgotten to mention the sub-par hd rendering those games have to have to create a steady frame rate of only 30 if that lol. PC gaming can give you 60FPS in 3D, which is mind blowing. The way I see it is all 3 markets gain something good out of this. Consoles will see prettier graphics with larger environments due to new graphics card, more ram, larger disc size. And PC will also benefit because the lowest norm for graphics will be greater now, boosting the graphics quality of PC games up again. It slowed down quite a bit due to the ever growing limitations of consoles this generation.

I hope that all makes sense, you get what I'm saying haha. I'm not too fussed over all of this, I'm just trying to point out certain things. All I want is a third Batman game and a bloody platformer sequel to Banjo Kazooie :(

sobekflakmonkey2446d ago (Edited 2446d ago )

To the person above me, I've played the witcher 2 on pc with max settings, its not that amazing, sorry, I have a gaming PC, and I've been spending most of my time on my rig rather than consoles lately due to lack of games on consoles as of recent, and yeah, I can max that game out and run it perfectly fine, and it is in no way an amazing looking game, it is a good looking game, but nowhere near next gen.

LocutusEstBorg2446d ago

Better effects != higher quality. The rendering quality, image sharpness and texture sharpness will always be shit on consoles.

ChickeyCantor2445d ago

Half life 2 was "next-gen" not just in terms of visuals. The A.I. and Story telling were above most games.

steve30x2445d ago

Whats Ironic is Console gamers bashing on PC games saying how much Console games look better but as soon as a PC gamer says their PC games look better the Disagree monsters come out to play and console gamers go all superior on the PC gamer. Console gamers are just as bad as PC gamers at the mine is far superior to yours.

john15872443d ago

@sobekflakmonkey Are you crazy?? If you see some frame rate videos of uncharted 3, it runs at 30 fps with some drops to even 20-22 fps thats horrible, I have played uncharted 3 because i like the game but graphics and fps compared to a game like far cry 3 ultra running at 60 fps it really sucks

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2443d ago
aceitman2446d ago

I think the last of us is pushing some good graphics that can be close to this , so I feel that the 1st party developers for sony will hit this out the ball park , anything naughtydog does is unbelievable graphic wise from crash bandicoot to the last of us.

FarCryLover1822446d ago

No doubt they could. But PC tech will get way better after a while than the new systems, but with consoles, developers know everything about them and that everyone has the same thing. Then can exploit that by better optimization and whatnot.

For example: Crysis 3 on xbox or ps3. If I had a PC with 512MB of ram and the rest of the innards that these current consoles have, it would just not run!!

Gildarts2446d ago

Lol at people who think nextgen games will look like that. Nextgen will at least be capable of running that "Lava king" UE4 tech demo. AT LEAST
remember how gears used to be a tech demo? Now it looks like crap compared to Halo 4 and Uncharted 3

solar2446d ago

Ugh. No one seems to understand the cpu's in the new PS and Xbox are based off terrible architecture. Dont get your hopes up too high mates

bluedash3r2446d ago

i know right it said 1.6 ghz..? my laptop has 2.20..and thats below a normal speed of 3 ghz..3 ghz is a standard for gaming

Sharingan_no_Kakashi2446d ago

This will probably be the norm though, for 3rd party devs. Sony's first party and a few others will do better.

Qrphe2446d ago

That's never the case, even when consoles have very powerful CPUs. Let us just look at resolutions (the higher the higher the setting).

PS1: 320x240 PC(1994): 640x480
PS2: 640x480 PC(2000): 1024x768
PS3: 1280x720 PC(2006): 1600x1200
PS4: 1920x1080 PC(2013): 2560x1600

That's not to say K4/U4 will end up looking better than Crysis (I've no idea what type of effects they'll try to push, besides look at Oblivion and TLoU, they're both designed around 2006 hardware).

peowpeow2446d ago

2006 would be 1920x1080

ZoyosJD2446d ago

4x increase...2.56x increase(4 years)
3x increase...2.44x increase(6 years)
2.25x increase...2.13x increase(7 years min)

Stop trying to create a correlation where there is none. Your completely ignoring too many variables just comparing resolution.

Take any 2006 PC that can even run Crysis 2, let alone 3, then take a look at its 2006 price tag. Performance per price, PS3 outdoes it 3x over for sure; same thing every generation.

That means expect a $500 PS4 to perform on par with a $1500 PC at at launch. Something like a an Intel Haswell core i7 and a Nvidia Geforce Titan set up.

There is a reason why PC gamers shut up for the first three years each generation; that's how long it takes before PC hardware that surpasses consoles become reasonably priced.

You can always get more from PC, just a matter of how soon you are willing to fork over for how much more power.

EL1TE2446d ago


Except PCs aren't just to play games and listen to some music and videos.

Let the Steam box come out then you can complain about PCs price.

Mrmagnumman3572446d ago

Part 1

Well, for starters, Crysis 2 isn't the best game to show. BF3 would be a better choice(single player), the "enlighten" GI it uses for it's lighting is the best GI to date, it uses pre computed reflector surfaces that can be dynamically changed, the only problem is that it doesn't take into account dynamic objects, on the other hand Enlighten can handle any amount of contributing light sources, while CE3's Light propagating volumes only uses the sun. BF3 has better shaders, much higher poly character models, better textures, but Crysis 2 has higher poly vegetation, and more tessellation. When it comes down to it, BF3 is the closest game to photo-realism, again, I am speaking about its single player, not it's multiplayer, which has 64 people, and massive maps, which means the graphics suffer because of it. But the single player is amazing, the character models and lighting are outstanding. Also, this is coming from a CE3 modder. I love CE3, but FB2 is the one engine I would use over it.

Here is a comparison of C2 and BF3

More BF3 pics PC Ultra, taken by me - this one has FXAA mod

The pc is still capable of much more. When you take modding into account, the pc's possibilities are only limited by your video card.

Take this video here, from a small dev team, this looks borderline photo realistic -

Anyone can do this, if you are willing to take the time to learn, and get experience, here is the game I am making, I have made this on my own, now I have a team working on it, which means this is going to get even better, and it already looks pretty realistic, take a look at these photos

Mrmagnumman3572446d ago

part 2

What I am saying, is that next gen consoles won't reach the level of graphics in that Titanic video, and they won't start with Crysis 3 graphics either. A game that will max out Crysis 3 will cost 300$. Keeping in mind that consoles will use the newest line of graphics cards, this means that they will need a GTX 670 to max out Crysis 3, considering that they are probably going for a price around 400$ for the entire console, that means a card this good is highly unlikely, and something like a GTX 650 TI is much more realistic, and it will barely run the C3 beta. Times have changed, and high end graphics cards are too expensive and too big to work for a 400$ console, in addition, they require 600W power supply's, I just can't see next gen consoles reaching current pc graphics.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2443d ago
2446d ago Replies(3)
bunt-custardly2446d ago (Edited 2446d ago )

I believe a lot of folks are perhaps expecting too much to begin with. Avatar like CGI and photo realism just too examples that aren't going to happen. As a starting point though, the video demonstrates quite a leap over current consoles.

Years down the line and with first party developers we'll see bigger improvements that go beyond today's PCs. Although PCs will evolve also. The lowest standard will shift and that's a good thing right now.

@Marcus Fenix - "Not amazing developers" you need to expand on this because the way I see it is they produce quality over quantity if that's what you're getting at.

ShadesMoolah2446d ago

Yeah, current PC games should give a good indication of what to expect visually from the next-gen launch line-up. As with current gen, things should get much better with years.

RaidensRising2446d ago

Not the best Ive seen but still not bad. I expect four years for next gen to show its trtrue potential. The games now are leaps and bounds above the launch games.

Show all comments (75)
The story is too old to be commented.