1: DLSS/upscalers and frame gen have become a crutch for lazy developers who in the past would have optimized the s*** out of their games. 2:The obsession with ray tracing which adds little to graphics but absolutely cripples performance and ultimately leaves less headroom for more detailed graphics. 3: Far too many cross-gen game in this era. There's actually very few 'curent gen' games.
Making a game raytracing only speeds up development time by a lot. And gives far better visuals. We've had raytracing since the rtx 2000 series, it's about time games moved to raytracing required and end baked goods. It would surely help in Starfield.
@@UmmerFarooq-wx4yo No lower end hardware to support it at an acceptable frame rate for more action oriented games. Even at 1080 hitting a stable 60fps isn't possible for anything less than 4-500 dollars. 60 is about the minimum accepted now by most gamers who play games which require reaction speed. Can add in upscale and frame gen to get it there, but that introduces input lag which isn't ideal for fast paced games. Meanwhile minimum ray tracing requirements are going up. The 2000 series was 2019 and state of the art ray tracing in games from that era aren't even the base minimum in anything shipped today. Then we have path tracing, which is a true quantitative jump forward in ray tracing. The problem with that, even the 4090 requires some tradeoffs for it. Every time someone says this all I think is if they are going to buy my new computer. Are they going to pay for the development of an entirely new console generation which could handle it, and the massive loss all those units would have to be sold at to be able to handle absolutely no baked in lighting. It's a wonderful dream at least 5 years out. Probably closer to a decade. The new Indiana Jones is by all accounts good game. People took one look at requires RT and did not buy it. The average consomer does not like RT. They don't have $1000+ cards. They take one look at every game they've tried with it and just turn it off. The most used graphics cards are a 3060 and a 4060. Together they make up about 6-8% of the total Steam hardware survey. Add in laptop versions of the 3060 and 4060 and it's closer to 10-12% for all of Steam users. The majority are lower than that in hardware specs, less than the laptop versions of those cards. We are a long way out from this ray tracing utopia.
A game like monster hunter should've aimed for higher fps instead of graphical fidelity. From whats been shown, it doesn't look that much better than world graphically speaking, yet its requirements are way higher than world.
thing that pisses me off about ray traced reflections is that they rather keep the 4k reflections than make the glass destructible, when destructible glass has been some of the most fun things in gaming since it was possible.
And this is why Nintendo is important to the industry. They have always maintained the purest of game design concepts without relying on cutting-edge tech and forces third-party developers to be innovative with limited hardware. To Nintendo, it's "what magic can we produce with this hardware" versus "what magic can the hardware do for us?"
That's one of the things about Frame Gen thats almost self contradictory. Below 60fps, the the tech tends to be pretty bad and its only at higher framerates when you're less impacted by shimmering, ghosting, motion artifacts and input delay. But if you're getting to the point where you’re natively running at 90fps, why not just stick to that framerate instead of introducing fake frames that will add more input delay?
I play Stalker 2 right now and on one side its awesome to have lots of high poly models around that just look great. But the lighting in this game can be hit n miss. Your own flashlight doesnt cast shadows, the lighting looks very unstable, flickers and leaks alot. I would prefer a simpler lighting system that just looks good. What suprised me most is that you cant run a native picture as its dithered and blurry, you have to enable TAA or DLSS to get a usable image which is just lazy optimization... I also dont need RayTracing, it steals 30% FPS but gives little back, in dark areas you cant see anything in Cyberpunk. If I can I run native 1440p, most times upscaler create a worse picture. As you said, graphics peaked with last gen, games like Uncharted 4 or TLOU2 remain benchmarks in Looks vs. FPS :)
@fvallo Yes I had to tweak the settings alot to get anacceptable picture quality, iam running 1440p with DLSS On DLAA. But as said, the lighting and reflection seem to be a broken mess sometimes...
I rather play a game without ray traying than give up 60% of my performance. Looks better? Maybe. Sure as hell does not look "I will cripple my performance for this" better. I still hate frame gen more. If we did not have it, publishers could not just write under the system reqs that it runs on 60fps, they would have to delay the game until devs can optimize it, or take the shit for the game that can barely run at 30 fps. Frame generation ruined optimization.
This is the ages of 1080p gaming shines, is the prime of 1080p native gaming and a lil bit the 2k !!!!! the guys who is dreaming 4k and 8k they should sleep and wake up to the next century !!!! but i agree !!! dlss and fsr is like the nitro on your car !!! they just boost extra your car and nothing else !!! for me 1080p its more than enough to enjoy what ive seen and i dont give a shit about anything more than that !! the only thing i want is on 1080p gaming pc to play everything up to 120mhz and ubsolutelly 1080p monitor with a great and crisp image at 24-27 inch !!!
the only game I understand why it is heavy as it is is Starfield...because of the persistence of itens thing...every item is interactable...And I remember since Skyrim that that interactivity is heavy as hell on the processor...the rest makes no sense at all...look indiana jones for example, why is it that heavy? why couldnt they add an option without ray tracing...really annoying...
I doubt the developers who are really putting in the hours making these games are the ones deciding how much time they can spend on optimizing 😢 very clear example with Star Wars Jedi survivor
When play older ps4 game like dying light 1 and the witcher 3, i see it very ugly and not detail at all, the leap between ps4 and ps5 is huge, in my opinion. I agree with the TAA though, i often have to find mods to disable TAA and use FXAA.
You picked two gaems that aren't particularly good looking games. Try Uncharted 4, Red Dead Redemption 2, God of War, Batman:Arkham Knight and tell which PS5 games are a huge leap of those?
@@Railssob_Kaetson1 All 4 games you just mention are very low poly and very little detail, even the texture when i zoom in appear low resolution. The shadow in all those game also low resolution, god of war 4 even lacking ambient occlusion which make it looks flat. Those game have good art direction which will look good in a glance and generally beautiful but when spent time playing and see all the detail carefully its not even beautiful. (Not that it prevent me to play those game though).
@gamegame6089 All those games are universally acclaimed for the quality of their graphics but hey, some spastic on the Internet thinks he knows better🙄
@gamegame6089 One of the very best looking games ever made and you're moaning about rocks 🤦♂️ By the way, you conveniently forgot to mention games look better in the PS5. Come on, now we've established you're an idiot I would love to hear about these game. I could do with a giggle babe.
Do we even want photorealistic graphics? Because at least for me it's not even important, seriously some ps3/360 games like sleeping dogs or even assassin's creed still look very good in the majority of their aspects.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I upgraded my car and it looks fantastic but my engine barely runs. Yes, endgame reached.
1: DLSS/upscalers and frame gen have become a crutch for lazy developers who in the past would have optimized the s*** out of their games.
2:The obsession with ray tracing which adds little to graphics but absolutely cripples performance and ultimately leaves less headroom for more detailed graphics.
3: Far too many cross-gen game in this era. There's actually very few 'curent gen' games.
Making a game raytracing only speeds up development time by a lot. And gives far better visuals. We've had raytracing since the rtx 2000 series, it's about time games moved to raytracing required and end baked goods. It would surely help in Starfield.
@@UmmerFarooq-wx4yo No lower end hardware to support it at an acceptable frame rate for more action oriented games. Even at 1080 hitting a stable 60fps isn't possible for anything less than 4-500 dollars. 60 is about the minimum accepted now by most gamers who play games which require reaction speed. Can add in upscale and frame gen to get it there, but that introduces input lag which isn't ideal for fast paced games. Meanwhile minimum ray tracing requirements are going up. The 2000 series was 2019 and state of the art ray tracing in games from that era aren't even the base minimum in anything shipped today. Then we have path tracing, which is a true quantitative jump forward in ray tracing. The problem with that, even the 4090 requires some tradeoffs for it.
Every time someone says this all I think is if they are going to buy my new computer. Are they going to pay for the development of an entirely new console generation which could handle it, and the massive loss all those units would have to be sold at to be able to handle absolutely no baked in lighting. It's a wonderful dream at least 5 years out. Probably closer to a decade. The new Indiana Jones is by all accounts good game. People took one look at requires RT and did not buy it. The average consomer does not like RT. They don't have $1000+ cards. They take one look at every game they've tried with it and just turn it off. The most used graphics cards are a 3060 and a 4060. Together they make up about 6-8% of the total Steam hardware survey. Add in laptop versions of the 3060 and 4060 and it's closer to 10-12% for all of Steam users. The majority are lower than that in hardware specs, less than the laptop versions of those cards. We are a long way out from this ray tracing utopia.
@@UmmerFarooq-wx4yo4090 can barely hold 60fps in wukong at 1080p,wtf are you talking about,rt is useless trash at least until 2030
A game like monster hunter should've aimed for higher fps instead of graphical fidelity. From whats been shown, it doesn't look that much better than world graphically speaking, yet its requirements are way higher than world.
I commend embark studios so much for making the finals probably the best optimized UE5 game ever 😂
thing that pisses me off about ray traced reflections is that they rather keep the 4k reflections than make the glass destructible, when destructible glass has been some of the most fun things in gaming since it was possible.
Great video, I was shocked when I saw the view count!
Thanks :)
And this is why Nintendo is important to the industry. They have always maintained the purest of game design concepts without relying on cutting-edge tech and forces third-party developers to be innovative with limited hardware.
To Nintendo, it's "what magic can we produce with this hardware" versus "what magic can the hardware do for us?"
As if 90+ fps is not enough that people want to enable frame gen and introduce latency into the equation 8:30
That's one of the things about Frame Gen thats almost self contradictory.
Below 60fps, the the tech tends to be pretty bad and its only at higher framerates when you're less impacted by shimmering, ghosting, motion artifacts and input delay. But if you're getting to the point where you’re natively running at 90fps, why not just stick to that framerate instead of introducing fake frames that will add more input delay?
System requirements in games nowadays can be seen as reasonable...if you can afford what they're asking 🤷♂
I play Stalker 2 right now and on one side its awesome to have lots of high poly models around that just look great. But the lighting in this game can be hit n miss. Your own flashlight doesnt cast shadows, the lighting looks very unstable, flickers and leaks alot. I would prefer a simpler lighting system that just looks good. What suprised me most is that you cant run a native picture as its dithered and blurry, you have to enable TAA or DLSS to get a usable image which is just lazy optimization...
I also dont need RayTracing, it steals 30% FPS but gives little back, in dark areas you cant see anything in Cyberpunk. If I can I run native 1440p, most times upscaler create a worse picture.
As you said, graphics peaked with last gen, games like Uncharted 4 or TLOU2 remain benchmarks in Looks vs. FPS :)
Sstalker two looks ugly af,blurry mess
@fvallo Yes I had to tweak the settings alot to get anacceptable picture quality, iam running 1440p with DLSS On DLAA. But as said, the lighting and reflection seem to be a broken mess sometimes...
Played some PS1 then jumped back to PS5…..feels all new again
unreal engine 4 and 5 games does not even looks good to me, they looks horrible
I rather play a game without ray traying than give up 60% of my performance.
Looks better? Maybe. Sure as hell does not look "I will cripple my performance for this" better.
I still hate frame gen more.
If we did not have it, publishers could not just write under the system reqs that it runs on 60fps, they would have to delay the game until devs can optimize it, or take the shit for the game that can barely run at 30 fps.
Frame generation ruined optimization.
This is the ages of 1080p gaming shines, is the prime of 1080p native gaming and a lil bit the 2k !!!!! the guys who is dreaming 4k and 8k they should sleep and wake up to the next century !!!! but i agree !!! dlss and fsr is like the nitro on your car !!! they just boost extra your car and nothing else !!! for me 1080p its more than enough to enjoy what ive seen and i dont give a shit about anything more than that !! the only thing i want is on 1080p gaming pc to play everything up to 120mhz and ubsolutelly 1080p monitor with a great and crisp image at 24-27 inch !!!
the only game I understand why it is heavy as it is is Starfield...because of the persistence of itens thing...every item is interactable...And I remember since Skyrim that that interactivity is heavy as hell on the processor...the rest makes no sense at all...look indiana jones for example, why is it that heavy? why couldnt they add an option without ray tracing...really annoying...
Bullsht,every item pick-up is like 25y old,starfield is ugly af
The game devs are incapable babies.
I doubt the developers who are really putting in the hours making these games are the ones deciding how much time they can spend on optimizing 😢 very clear example with Star Wars Jedi survivor
When play older ps4 game like dying light 1 and the witcher 3, i see it very ugly and not detail at all, the leap between ps4 and ps5 is huge, in my opinion. I agree with the TAA though, i often have to find mods to disable TAA and use FXAA.
You picked two gaems that aren't particularly good looking games.
Try Uncharted 4, Red Dead Redemption 2, God of War, Batman:Arkham Knight and tell which PS5 games are a huge leap of those?
@@Railssob_Kaetson1 All 4 games you just mention are very low poly and very little detail, even the texture when i zoom in appear low resolution. The shadow in all those game also low resolution, god of war 4 even lacking ambient occlusion which make it looks flat. Those game have good art direction which will look good in a glance and generally beautiful but when spent time playing and see all the detail carefully its not even beautiful. (Not that it prevent me to play those game though).
@@Railssob_Kaetson1 Red dead 2's rocks quality are hilariously ugly, most rock are just smooth mesh with low res texture slap in.
@gamegame6089 All those games are universally acclaimed for the quality of their graphics but hey, some spastic on the Internet thinks he knows better🙄
@gamegame6089 One of the very best looking games ever made and you're moaning about rocks 🤦♂️
By the way, you conveniently forgot to mention games look better in the PS5.
Come on, now we've established you're an idiot I would love to hear about these game.
I could do with a giggle babe.
Do we even want photorealistic graphics? Because at least for me it's not even important, seriously some ps3/360 games like sleeping dogs or even assassin's creed still look very good in the majority of their aspects.
Compare RDR2 to Starfield. You will see why Starfield is superior in game play.
,🤡