I'll just leave this here

I'll just leave this here.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Kl_wN50HXjQ
youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3_beBwsZ0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Top: Color
>Bottom: Grimdark gray and gray
Okay?

Thanks user. I needed a good look at two distinct lo-fi art styles that both look good in their respective contexts.

>shadow of the colossus
>that pic
You know the original ran in 512x448 with an average framerate around 15fps?

First is cartoony and the other is realistic.

Holy shit, SoC has better texture work and AA than BOTW.

No, no it doesn't. That pic is from emulated SotC so it's a completely unfair comparison.
That being said I played SotC with a friend on his hi-end rig and fuck that game can be gorgeous

seeing one great distinct art style put next to another great distinct art style has actually made me appreciate breath of the wild even more. it looks gorgeous but in it's own way. thanks OP

Don't worry, CEMU will eventually fix BotW

Try again, they both look like shit

I'm not a pre-order nintendrone but user you're comparing two very different cell shading/techniques.

Ocarina of time 3D looks way better than BOTW, im still amazed how bad this game looks

Seriously, anybody who says breath of wild looks good is a retard. It looks like they pissed in a tub of vaseline and smeared it all over a ps2 game with the contrast and brightness turned too high.

Which begs the question. Why put in all that effort for something your players were never able to see? We see this with just about every 3D game being emulated at 4k. The amount of hidden texture detail and geometry just pops out all over the place. Why bother putting in all that work when it's just going to be played at 640x480 anyway?

The last generation that didn't do this was the N64/PS1. Even at 4k it's still a blurry mess. But PS2 and GC (probably Xbox too if we could emulate it) all have massive gains by upping native resolution.

>Comparing two very different cell shading/techniques
You don't know what you're talking about. Neither shot has cellshading

>Bottom 10FPS unplayable shit

That's actually standard industry practice. You build the game way better then it can handle and then downgrade where needed until it runs correctly. Lately companies show this shit off though and then we get all the bullshot garbage going around.

Very good question but somewhat incorrect. It's less that there is hidden texture detail or effects for the majority of games and more that the emulator itself is using techniques to scale up existing assets. How beautiful games then look can be attributed to the emulator.
Obviously as you would be right to assume this is not always the case. Dark Souls on PC is a fantastic example of what you're talking about. I can't give you an answer as to why but my guess would simply be the artists originally wanting that detail in place but being held back by console or technical limitations.
Makes you wonder what current gen games will look like emulated in 10-20 years time.

You are autistic

So? The top is 15 fps desperation.

I remember that 15.
I wasnt that concerned with fps back then but fuck me were the slowdown annoying as hell.

>uses words like "great","distinct","appreciate","gorgeous", and phrases like "in it's own way", to describe mundane and typical video games
>I'm the one that's autistic

oh man

Golden era of everyone's life where technical details don't exist and you played through it unless it was really severe.
Take me back. Please

>It's less that there is hidden texture detail or effects for the majority of games and more that the emulator itself is using techniques to scale up existing assets.

No he's right. It's the first one.

The resolution of a lot of textures is higher than what will likely be displayed on screen running on real hardware.

>Top rock solid silky smooth 22fps

Man the volumetric light in Zelda is so nice looking.

It does, but SOTC overall looks 10 times worse.

>Top: Color, smooth models, relatively up to date graphics
>Bottom: Grey, out-dated PS2 graphics
Are you saying that the bottom is better than top? Cuz anyone can see that top looks better. And this is coming from somebody who thinks Shadow of the Colossus is one of the best games of that generation.

He's pointing out that graphical fidelity in a 2017 aaa game is worse than a 2004 aa game. Obviously he was not referring to the colors. Are you a retarded person? [Spoiler]yes

Top is a game with plenty of colours
bottom is a slightly interactive movie in black n white

>You don't know what you're talking about. Neither shot has cellshading
BOTW has cel-shading though.

Wait why the hell is wolf link in BoTW is this the TP timeline?

golden era because 60fps was the norm on the PS2

:^)

Perfect Dark had an average fps of 10. Those were different times desu - just having a console first-person shooter was considered a novelty. On the PC we still had 60 fps.

>volumetric lighting
indeed

>SOTC looks 10 times worse
Because of the ground clutter, lack of shadows and lighting. With them the fps would have been like 5 or something.

do you even know what cel shading is?

It's hard to believe how much I used to tolerate an extremely low framerate.

I remember playing Oblivion on my pc when it came out.

I played on medium when I should've been playing on the lowest settings.

Thinking back it had to be below 10 fps frequently when out in the wilderness but I managed to play like that for many hours.

I couldn't do that today.

you believe in pic related aswell right ?

The one on the right could use some work, it was less cel-shaded than that.

It's like they have a different art direction or something.

Top
>fully interactive world with a distinct arstyle
Bottom
>dull, empty and static world running on an emulator

Your point?

>PS2
>60fps
It was a great console but it had potato hardware. It had, by far, the worst-looking ports out of all the consoles. Just check out how SA looks on it:

youtube.com/watch?v=Kl_wN50HXjQ

Hold the fuck up
why is wolf link there
its some amiibo shit isnt it

Are you really so desperate to make people not excited for this game?
I'm very sorry, but most people are very excited for this game and there's nothing you can do to change their minds.

>realistic

>Top:Shit textures
>Bottom: Quality textures for the time

>Perfect Dark had an average fps of 10.

Maybe in 4 player split screen with all simulants.

It was more like 20, not that that doesn't also suck balls. But you have to understand 10 is literally unplayable.

Yep, just pay a little bit extra and you too can use Link Wolf! once a day...

Top: Good lighting, shading, physics, draw distance, models
Bottom: Opposite of the top

That's either the HD remaster of SotC or an emulated version of it. the PS2 SotC looks like wet dogshit.

Middle is committing to a real style and WW HD is just confused and probably the result of adding extra effects for the sake of being on newer hardware.

>can't even use spoiler tags
yea, we can clearly see who is retarded here

The shading is horrible, the shadows look blocky due to their low resolution, the textures on the walls are a blurry mess.

Can't wait to blow up BotW on PC and make it actually look better.

Same assets so it doesn't even matter.

No it's actually really good, volumetric light for such a weak console is fantastic and it's got other good effects. Haven't looked at the shadows though.

>He's pointing out that graphical fidelity in a 2017 aaa game is worse than a 2004 aa game.
If he's trying to point that out then he's dumb as fuck.

So are you.

Sonyggers are all about graphics - But not having the best graphics (PC). If you have the best graphics, that's bad for some reason. You have to have the 2nd or 3rd best graphics every generation. That's what being a Sonygger is all about.

That's why rational people just disregard Sony as a whole. They haven't had games in 2 generations, and having the 2nd best graphics obviously isn't the priority for most people. Most people want the most and best games, and / or the best graphics.

It would be like if I said, I want to play lots of games, but I don't want to play too many games, so I'm gonna get an Xbox One to limit my selection a bit, because getting a Wii U or a PC would be bad for some weird, undefinable, twisted, cult-like reason.

>It's good for how weak it is!
The point is that it shouldn't be that weak!

Shadow of the Colossus PS4 Remake WHEN!?

The PS3 Remaster is 720p 60fps desu, i want a definitive version of this masterpiece

Skip to 16:00
youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3_beBwsZ0

He does an in-depth fps comparison for everything, including cutscenes.

>Same assets so it doesn't even matter.
Yes it does. It's either an emulated version with better graphics on a PC or the PS3 remaster.

It's not the 2004 version of the game like the OP picture implies.

You're in the wrong thread, consolewar retard.

>60fps
30. Just emulate it, the FPS is uncapped.

>Yes it does.
It doesn't because the assets are the same, just a very slight resolution bump in that image.

>Comparing 2004, 2013, and 2015 version of the games proves that the PS2 has Potato Graphics

Wow, I totally wouldn't expect that as technology/Hardware advances throughout the years that graphics will get batter.

>b-but it's just a different art style!
So you basically agree that art style is the main difference between those 2005 and 2017 games, and not graphical fidelity since they are roughly on the same level?

>just a very slight resolution bump in that image.
very slight

I don't think you understand how much of a difference a bump from sub 600 FPS to 720p or 1080p is.

I also don't think you know how resolution works. I bet you think 900p to 1080p is a "slight bump" as well?

the left actually looks more like WWHD

:)

Zelda runs 30FPS rock solid

Stay mad, Sonyggers

>remaster screenshot

AHAHAHAH getting desperate there

>Pay for addon
>can only use him once a day
>if he dies you cannot bring him back until literally the next real life day
whos idea was this? its terrible

Neither is 60fps or 1080p. That's SOTC HD which is 720p at 30fps compared to whatever the PS2 version was at which isn't that much lower than 720p. Both look pretty damn blurry.

I think 1080p is a low resolution so already we know I appreciate gains better than you do, favoring the(yes) slight bump of 1080p over 900p. I won't play games at either of those resolutions unless I'm absolutely forced to.

Agreed.

>Wolf Link
>is a companion
>2 links

Okay.

First off, OP's image isn't how the PS2 ran the game
SoTC has a literal empy world and ran at 15fps originally while BoTW has a fully interactive world
Only Sup Forums to make

but user, the switch doesnt need to be powerful, it actually has good exclusive games. im ok with them removing features like voice chat, internet browser, miiverse, because its a home console for playing games. New IPs like ARMS will be a runaway hit and there is already talk in the competitive scene about adding it to EVO for tournaments.The less features mean they are only focused on hardcore gaming experiences, that sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me

It's the op that is claiming otherwise, everyone here knows that the ps2 was a piece of shit hardware wise, even at the time it launched

to make this retarded comparison*

>First off, OP's image isn't how the PS2 ran the game
yes it is

>BoTW has a fully interactive world
It's also an empty world with a few trees you can cut down.

That's not 512x448

Except it has towns, dungeons and a lot more shit. Stop shitposting

meant for

>Except it has towns, dungeons and a lot more shit. Stop shitposting

Why did you even reply to that troll?

wew, 2017 and we have finally an open world game with towns, dungeons and trees. what a time to be alive.

>Neither is 60fps or 1080p. That's SOTC HD
How do you know that? The game could be running off of an emulator on PC, which can run the game at 1080p and 60FPS. Even if it was the PS3 HD version, that doesn't help your case. 720p has WAY more pixel density than

>it actually has good exclusive games.

Like 1,2, Switch to another console?

>Top: Color
>Bottom: Grimdark gray and gay
am i right nintenbros xddd

>favoring the(yes) slight bump of 1080p over 900p
1080p has 30% more pixels than 900p you fucking retarded monkey. That's not a slight bump at all. Holy shit you just outed yourself.

Nice goal post moving you massive faggot

It's the biggest and most alive game world ever Sonygger

Sent from my Sony Xperia

>New IPs like ARMS will be a runaway hit and there is already talk in the competitive scene about adding it to EVO for tournaments.

Before anyone has played it. You should leave and go to wherever children talk about this.

anything less than 200% is a joke, lets face it

>difference between 1080p and 900p
>slight bump

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

because they had the model laying around and they're too lazy to make any new ones as seen from the game's lack of content.

>being this mad

>How do you know that?
Because I know the specs of the PS3 port and that image isn't from an emulator. 720p is still a low as fuck resolution, the PS2 game barely looks worse it's just a bit more pixelated.

Repeating yourself won't help your case.

30% more of Not A Lot t isn't amazing you fucking mong.

yea shadow will still be better 5 years later

>Top
>Colorful
>High texture quality
>Nice shadow quality

>Bottom
>No color
>Low texture quality
>Almost no shadows used

I guess..... That's it?

Who else remembers another Zelda game before BotW?

Let's just go to
>Hurpaderp, PS4 and Xbawks can't do Crysis at 60fps
and get it over with.

>Top: Jump up an down, blast out the kids who weigh less than you
>Bottom: Get molested by the clergy

>he thinks 600k pixels is fucking anything
Holy fuck you console plebs are disgusting.

As a soon-to-be Harvard student, I can safely say that the top image looks like trash, especially compared to the bottom image. Despite this, I'm buying a Switch, and I haven't bought a Sony console since PS2. I can admit this because I'm not a anti-intellectual drone, I mean, I am going to Harvard, after all.