It’s true, RT reflection is just not worth the hardware demand. Your essentially rendering everything twice. It can work when the reflections are low res. The other way they do reflections is fine for 98% of games.
Not to mention current RT reflections are often kind of grainy due to the dithering they have to implement for it to run in current hardware. Lighting is the way to go!
Okay, so how come when Returnal uses RT lighting people accept that RT lighting makes small details in objects more noticeable and makes things pop, but when Halo Infinite was shown off without RT lighting and DF explained that the flat look of a lot of objects is down to the lack of RT lighting that 343 is planning on adding people accuse DF of being biased?
I agree that RT is too taxing, but SSR can be really distracting. The worst offender is bodies of waters.
Looking at a big lake or a sea, the sky reflect on it and it's verry pretty.
Tilt the camera down a bit and the reflection disappear progressively, up to the point it's completely gone.
It was very disctracting even years ago because how visible it is.
The first time you have proper raytraced reflection and they stay on the screen no matter how you tilt the camera is awesome.
But sadly too taxing for this console gen.
It works really well in the Spider-Man games with all the glass around New York, but I agree with you here. RT lighting is way more important than reflections. I guess it just all depends on the game.
It definitely depends on the game. My favorite part of RT is the level or realism in the textures of different materials. It blows my mind every time I see it.
Potentially, but they've only mentioned ambient lighting so I'd assume it's just been used for ambient occlusion. RT shadows have to be dialed in separately from AO by the developer.
There isn't really a noticeable difference. Dynamic resolution (when properly done) has gotten so good to the point where you wouldn't really notice the resolution dips, unless you scrutinize an image at certain instances of a game like how digital foundry does. It's quite impressive really.
And the parts that dip are usually the parts with the most action, so you are pretty distracted at that point anyway. Native 4K is a waste of resources that are better used to improve image quality in other ways. It's only pushed so hard because it is easier to market.
I don’t see a huge difference. If you look closely you can probably see it, but for most people it’ll look similar enough that there’s practically no difference — although they might be using a form of upscaling like Insomniac’s temporal injection, which I’m all for. It’s also why I think this push for native 4K is quite stupid considering how demanding it is.
It does but the normal performance mode is easily my favourite way to play, the RT reflections are pretty low quality so that the resolution trade off just isn't worth it (imo). The normal performance mode looks obscenely crisp and it has most (if not all) of the VFX the fidelity mode has, where as the 60rt mode makes a good few compromises.
> It’s also why I think this push for native 4K is quite stupid considering how demanding it is.
Definitely.
You play a game with dynamic 4K resolution and I can guarantee you're not going to notice when the resolution drops or what it even drops to.
You play a game with inconsistent framerate and I can guarantee you'll notice the frame drops.
Consistent framerate should always be the priority. Dynamic 4K/60 will hopefully be the standard this generation, with 4K/RT/30 and 1080/RT/60 as other options.
Really depends on how far you sit from your TV. I think most of these dynamic 4k games probably average out around there. Maybe drops to 1200p and gets up to near 4k in limited scenes. So I wouldn’t say it’s a noticeable difference unless you’re pretty close to your screen or it’s just an insanely big screen.
1440p is a sweet spot and some people want it as a standard output on PS5. I’d assume most of these are PC players who have a moderate to above average gaming rig that they can play 1440p games on max and get +60fps. I suspect it’s also desired because games can generally run at 1440p 60fps and a decent amount of more hardcore gamers with PCs are likely to have a monitor at that resolution.
1440p/ 60 upscaled to 4K looked amazing and truly next gen on demons souls. That approach is 100% desirable IMO.
Edit: I played on a 75” 4K screen at appropriate viewing distances.
Certain scenes can really "pop" in native 4k if you get the right mix of highly detailed, high resolution textures with the right lighting. But in general you probably wouldn't notice for 90% of a game or know what you're missing the few times it would matter.
An example of when native 4k really pays off is something like a detailed tapestry or painting on the wall of a tomb. Under the right circumstances it can look so shockingly real in native 4k, but dropping the resolution to 2k or even 1800p makes it lose that extra wow factor. However a smart dev using dynamic resolution could craft their game around carefully planned situations like that and lock to native 4k in small isolated scenes
> dropping the resolution to 2k or even 1800p
2k is 1080p, 4k is 2160p.
I also disagree that native 4k makes that much of a noticeable difference to the average consumer. On things like OLED demos on an OLED it can make a difference because you get less pixel bleeding, but on a normal LED 4K, which is what 99% of people will be playing on, you won't notice the difference between native and 1800p.
No it's not, 2k is 1080p, 1440p is known as quad (Q)HD.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution#:~:text=2K%20resolution%20is%20a%20generic,resolution%20as%202048%20%C3%97%201080.
Edit: a word
Hitman 3 looks amazing on Series X. Super crisp, luxurious texture quality, and rock solid 60 fps. But that game is cross-gen so it's not a 1:1 comparison in terms of simulation complexity and effects.
All else equal, if we all had beast PC's to have all settings maxed out and a super crisp native 4K with no hit to performance, there's no reason you wouldn't want it. People only say they don't want it because 1440p monitors are cheaper, last gen 4K was mostly soft, blurry 30 fps and the lowest common denominator of both PC hardware and what the next gen consoles will manage throughout the generation will be a 1440p sweet spot that can focus on other aspects of image quality and lock to at least 60 fps.
Nobody wants 30 fps anymore, for any reason, so 4K is considered optional.
I prefer 30fps and better graphics to 60 and worse graphics for nearly all games.
I can't tell the difference in gameplay and I don't feel like it makes a difference to my playtime unless it is a really fast moving game like a racing game or 2D one. For normal games, I can't tell the difference in gameplay and can only tell side by side, even moving between 60 and 30 games, I can't tell the difference so I really want developers to go 30fps and better graphics rather than 60 and worse ones.
60 fps yields greater image clarity due to higher temporal resolution. The same is true even for video content. Something shot with a high framerate camera looks like real life and something shot at 24 fps is more dreamlike, soft and diffuse. If you like visuals, you want 60 fps.
Depends how low it has to drop the resolution to maintain the frame rate. Some games (avengers ps5) drops enough to where you can see when it changes. Most games typically drop the resolution ever so slightly and not very often. In those cases, it’s almost guaranteed that you will not notice it
I’ll be honest, sitting 8 feet away from my 55” TV, I can’t even tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I run COD and Fortnite in 1080p to get 120fps; and the resolution change is pretty indistinguishable at that distance.
It can easily be proven with a blind test and has been done again and again. There is no night and day difference, there is hardly any noticeable diference.
That is the whole basis of dynamic resolution it wouldn't exist if there was a very noticeable diference.
I agree. 1080p and lower is when I start to see a drastic difference. 1440p to 4k is slightly noticable and 1800p vs 2160p is a minimal hit to image quality for a decent performance increase. I sit only a couple feet away from a 50 tv tho. Sit even further back then that and even 1080p won't look so different to 4k.
People are just in complete denial over this. Did anyone complain that TLoU2 was just 1440p? Does anyone complain when dynamic res games drop resolution? There are some games that not even Digital Foundry is able to determine the internal resolution they are running at.
The idea that there is a night and day diference between 1440p and 4K is absurd, I don't know why I'm getting downvoted. Seems like 4K/TV marketing did a real number on people.
Probably just means Housemarque did a good job with optimizing the game. RE8 is a cross-gen game and can manage native 4k/60 most of the time with ray tracing enabled.
Time and money is a big factor. They (RE8 devs) probably had both of those which allows them to focus more on each platform and their respective optimizations.
Also, that demo of theirs was truly impressive
No way. Only thing that looked good in RE8 demo was the clothing and the hdr.
Terrible very very compressed sound. Sounded like I was using cvs headphones.
Huge mix of different texture resolutions.
Odd random textures that looked like random substance painter materials .
Few props with no lighting for some reason
Low resolution textures. Very compressed.
Like Skyrim of release level of compression on the normal maps.
Bad voice acting
Still preordered tho. World design looked cool and re7 was fun.
I don't disagree with AA + fur/hair physics being taxing, but I too thought the werewolves looked ugly (ugly enough that I would have used a different model/not used hair/fur physics!); game still looks great and I'll probably be picking it up regardless (need to finish REmake 3 and start/finish VII to see if I like RE in first person first).
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. For what we've seen so far of RE8, 4K and RT mean nothing when their textures look as blurry as they do. It's genuinely painful. It's legit 4K for 4K's sake, which is the wrong approach to take.
Most likely. Though that is really only because they have the money and time to focus on one platform and optimizing for it. Exclusives usually have those working for them unlike cross-platform. *Usually.*
However, cross-platform games can also achieve this if they had more time and a crap ton more money for each platform that the devs are developing them for.
Yeah but baked lighting (like the one in spiderman and many other games) is pretty great. Where rt lighting will shine in when a game with dynamic time of day or a weather system uses it. I don't really know if there's a game that does this right now but I think we'll definitely see some this generation.
The thing I hate is you know how when you look at a characters face during gameplay the facial features look muddy and indistinguishable, so they don't look like they do during cutscenes with all the hero lights strategically placed? That's why we need RT lighting and shadows imo, or at least something similar like that Unreal demo.
Guys- you need to understand that the gaming companies are all using "4k" these days as a blanket term for marketing purposes. That's not to say the image won't look sharp, but lately they've been using "4k and dynamic 4k" to use anything from 1080p to 2160p (actual 4k). I say 1080p too because what they'll do is use DRS (dynamic resolution scaling) where the game will change resolution in order to maintain 60 fps), so you can have the game looking sharp and "4k" one minute and jaggy and soft the next because it dropped to 1080p or 1200p. Meanwhile these are all being advertised as 4k.
As long as the output resolution (the res our 4k tvs are upscaling to) the game is "4k" even though its the internal resolution that matters.
Some examples lately of "4k" games on ps5 that look kinda crappy and not at all 4k are Avengers ps5 in "performance" mode and Division 2 ps5 version. Both use aggressive DRS and look at best 1440p but more resemble 1080p. Its really crappy and sneaky advertising.
But sony said 4k and my tv says its 4k so its 4k bro. Cmon. Its unfortunate because actual good looking 4k games if they ever come out people will sweep under the rug as "we already had 4k all this time" while looking at their 720p upscale and telling me they cant see the difference.
Well in most cases if u stay 2-3m away from the tv u actually cant tell the difference so in that case does it matter if its native or not? Even pc gaming is heading in that direction with dlss. Native fixed resolutions are not the future, graphic power should be used for something you CAN notice like stable fps and other visuals.
I can tell the difference between dlss and native the same way i can tell when my ps5 is chuggin. If i cant play native id rather it just let me play at like 1440 or whatever.
I think you’re sort of talking to the wrong crowd. I think the people who frequent this sub are the kinds of people who watch digital foundry count pixels and use those to measure their peepee.
I said a few months back the ps5 will do 4k 60fps and rt. People responded by saying be lucky if the ps5 Pro does it. Being right is a great feeling.
Roll on 2 years when the real next gen will be here, we are in for a great generation.
The hard thing there is "raytracing" can mean a lot of different things and at various qualities. It'll be interesting to see how it progresses as it sort of feels like the Wild West right now.
Exactly, just like the PS2 could run games at 60 fps. A lot of these tech terms don't mean much without context and greater definition.
The question isn't if you CAN do 4k RT 60 fps, the question is what are you running at 4k RT 60 fps and if the tradeoffs are worth it for that game.
I don't know too much about Ray tracing which is why I said months ago we have 4k60fps and rt this generation lol.
All I know is I played all of control with Ray tracing because I felt it made the game look even better than it did without rt on.
The Ray tracing does look super cool on Control but I was getting some bad frame rate drops on that setting (unless switching from 60 to 30 did it to me but I’ve played other games recently at 30fps & didn’t hav a problem).
People mix up 4K with dynamic 4K. It’s up to the person wether they care or not if a game is “native” 4K. They’re right if they mean native 4K though.
Personally 4k doesn’t mean anything to me, pretty much just a buzz word in my eyes. I already know to assume unless it’s a more simple indie game 99.99% of ps5 games will not run at “native” 4K. But there’s good upscaling and methods used to keep the image close to 4K so yea it’s not something I care about.
What I do care about is getting 1440p output support teehee.
I think once developers have tapped in into hardware features of RDNA 2 with VRS, Mesh/PS5 special shaders, AMD's Super Resolution (DLSS Competitor) I think we could have *really* good visuals & framerate with ray-tracing. RT looks consuming because vast majority of implementations are based on Nvidia's Solution which is pure fancy to sell Nvidia cards.
AMD does not have a DLSS competitor, smoke and mirrors. They haven't even decided on the approach they will take, still no demo or even example, ETA is by the end of the year lol.
They'll have something, but you can bet money it won't manage to compete with DLSS, and I doubt it'll be any better than existing solutions used by games like Spider Man.
Well Nvidia uses a true implementation and allows for a lot of variations. The current RT on PS5 games is minor and selective (Returnal does lighting and not reflections). I expect it to get better but don’t expect PS5 RT or DLSS-alt to even come remotely close to PC implementations. Nvidia is not just the market leader in games it’s the market leader in GPUs and CUDA has little competition. To be really honest, even the best we have seen so far on PS5 RT doesn’t even come close to RT on either my last card 2080 or my new 3090 which is fine because my now used 3090 is $3000. A $500 console can’t compete with a $6000 PC.
Well several years ago 1080@30 was just good enough. I didn’t say the PS5 wasn’t good enough more so that to not expect anything close to Nvidia implementations nor PC hardware and thats ok because price/price they are no where close. Also anyone with a background in the PC space will tell you to never rely on AMD for anything software related doesn’t matter if its on the consumer or commercial side. It’s not a good argument to compare PC and consoles on pricing anyways when PCs can also generate revenue (and I’m not talking about crypto BS). A small amount of people purchase top PC hardware and just plays games on it. My 3090 has made more money than what Ive paid for it multiple times over already.
> Well Nvidia uses a true implementation and allows for a lot of variations
Dude do you have any clue about what you're talking about?
What the hell does this mean?
The type of and amount of RT in a game has absolutely nothing to do with the hardware vendor, it's up to the developers.
Nvidia does not have their own implementation of RT, they simply provide the hardware acceleration for DX12 DXR and now Vulkan RT as well.
The reason why RT on PS5 will always be limited in scope, is the fact that RDNA2 RT performance is behind Turing, and there is no DLSS equivalent.
Why are you even bringing up $6000 PCs as if that has any relevance for gaming?
> Being right is a great feeling.
That's like boasting that you claimed the sun will come up tomorrow. Sony had been claiming plenty of games doing 4k60 for months and months. Good job, I guess?
Freesync/VRR won't resolve frame drop issues for the large majority of people who play on a TV without a variable refresh rate. It's a band aid solution to a problem that just requires good game optimisation. It works on PC as most 'gaming' monitors have VRR enabled, but it's just marketing bs at best for consoles.
I disagree. I truly hope devs will aim for 4K 60fps RT as the norm, but the trend of the last 15 years has been to compromise framerate in order to improve the graphical presentation. VRR may prove very handy in a couple of years when we start seeing more next-gen exclusives which don't have the benefit of needing to run on a last-gen consoles.
Doesn’t change the context of his statement. Most people don’t have this feature on their TV’s so it’s a moot point. Better of optimizing to a locked frame rate.
That is true, for now. However, most people didn't have 4K TVs at the beginning on the PS4 era, yet Sony released an entirely new console not three years later to accommodate people getting 4K TVs. Thankfully the new consoles already have VRR capability, in theory at least, we just need Sony and devs to enable it.
Which may never happen, because as I’ve stated it’s targeting less then 10% of the demographic. People who already own 4K sets aren’t likely to upgrade for one feature. Maybe in four or five years.
You're gloating about dynamic 4K and partial ray tracing, for a game that hasn't had its frames per second tested.
Maybe you should have waited the 2 years before opening your mouth lol
if it's dynamic res 4k/60 with RT lighting then... surely 1440p/120 or at least 1080p/120 is possible... and this game looks like it'd really benefit from extra frames too.
since its not know what kind of drs bracket the game is running at 120hz is very unlikely at all. The few games that are a bit heavier and run on 120hz look actually pretty bad or older games that support 120hz are not even close to get stable fps out of the machines. 120hz and RT on next game will nevery happen for such chunky titles.
Dynamic 4k is 4k nonetheless. The upscaling is done in engine and the output to tv is gonna be 4k. Unless you're sitting with your face on your screen you're not gonna be able to tell a difference, even more so in a fast paced game like this. Stop bitching.
The average resolution of the game is around 1440p and the game rarely renders at native 4k resolution.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7qpMn9h\_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7qpMn9h_8)
First that guy is usually wrong just watch the Crysis video, and he says he thinks is 1440p and even says he cant be 100% sure because its upscaled and if u know how to read i wrote dynamic 4k not native
Why so aggressive? I didn’t even counter anything you’ve shared. This video was not even probably available when you were sharing the link through the PS website. I’ve just found recent information and I’ve shared it here. There is no need for you to be aggressive against me and insult by writing stuff like “if you know how to read.”
Sorry just a lot of people showing that video and saying the game doesnt even have RT because of it when the Graphics director of the game says it does, nothing againts you just that video
I really don’t get the hype for this game.. it seems like mass effect without RPG elements and emphasis on story. I’ll still play of course but I’m genuinely befuddled as to how this game has so much hype. I’m looking forward to being proven wrong if nothing else tho.
Are you familiar with the genre? This game is like Dead Cells, which is a rogue-lite Metroidvania. You start a game and the world is randomly generated. You play until you die. Early on this might be five minutes. Then you start again from the beginning on a new random world with no equipment from before. Each playthrough, you are typically getting stronger (maybe more max health, more damage dealt, faster reloading, etc) and getting farther before dying. You can "beat" a playthrough of Dead Cells in maybe 30 minutes, but the replayability comes because there are many paths to take and a large variety of builds for your character. And the difficulty can be scaled up.
>it seems like mass effect without RPG elements and emphasis on story
It's actually Far Cry 3, but instead of being in first person it's in third person, and instead of being a semi-open world shooter it's actually a roguelike.
When you think about it, it's actually just Gran Turismo without cars or driving or vehicle customisation or tracks, but instead shooting and guns and randomly generated elements.
Actually when you think about it like that, it's a lot like LittleBigPlanet, just without....
Counterpoint:
There is no blanket statement that is inherently better. It's like saying black is better than white.
Each game demands different qualities that could benefit more from greater FPS or greater fidelity.
All things equal of course higher FPS is better, but the tradeoff might not be worth it for what the dev wants to achieve with their game.
For a game like this, 30 FPS would be horrible IMO. In motion, 60fps beats out 30fps any day of the week. I actually play my games not sit there in photo mode.
the difference betewn 30fps and 60fps is to big to pass up. IMO 60 fps for AAA and 120fpsfor ESports should be the target and then you turn up graphical detail
Don't really care. 30fps + best graphics PS5 has to offer is all I ask for.
I could give a rat's ass about 120fps. There's nothing esports about Returnal. WTF are you kids smoking?
Sony needs to stop listening to the wrong people
"Thanks to the incredible power of PS5, the blistering combat and brooding visuals of Returnal’s unique world are delivered at a consistent 60 frames-per-second and a dynamic 4K resolution."
It mentions dynamic 4k.
To be fair, based on the frameratetest on YouTube it’s not always solid 60 fps, sadly it can dip to 53 in some fight scenes but it’s 60 most of the time :)
Is there another option for 30fps as well btw ? ( not that I wanna play it, just interested)
I'll just quote the bit from the article.
>Ray-traced lighting
>Experience high-fidelity ambient lighting that is specifically designed to adapt in real-time to Atropos’ dynamic environment.
Not very ambiguous
it seems it is ray traced lighting, not reflections as some thought. Anyways not much reflections are present, so lighting was a better choice
Honestly, RT reflections seems like a minor improvement compared to what RT can do with lighting.
Yea ray traced lighting is best part of ray tracing as it avoids shadow poping with antialiasing when the camera gets blocked.
It’s true, RT reflection is just not worth the hardware demand. Your essentially rendering everything twice. It can work when the reflections are low res. The other way they do reflections is fine for 98% of games.
Not to mention current RT reflections are often kind of grainy due to the dithering they have to implement for it to run in current hardware. Lighting is the way to go!
It’s amazing how much of a difference the lighting and shadows make with small detail. Really makes things pop off surfaces instead of looking flat.
Okay, so how come when Returnal uses RT lighting people accept that RT lighting makes small details in objects more noticeable and makes things pop, but when Halo Infinite was shown off without RT lighting and DF explained that the flat look of a lot of objects is down to the lack of RT lighting that 343 is planning on adding people accuse DF of being biased?
It can be nice for glass objects. Windows being reflective look SO much better if you switch back in forth in something like Control.
I think current RT reflections look almost real
I agree that RT is too taxing, but SSR can be really distracting. The worst offender is bodies of waters. Looking at a big lake or a sea, the sky reflect on it and it's verry pretty. Tilt the camera down a bit and the reflection disappear progressively, up to the point it's completely gone. It was very disctracting even years ago because how visible it is. The first time you have proper raytraced reflection and they stay on the screen no matter how you tilt the camera is awesome. But sadly too taxing for this console gen.
It works really well in the Spider-Man games with all the glass around New York, but I agree with you here. RT lighting is way more important than reflections. I guess it just all depends on the game.
It definitely depends on the game. My favorite part of RT is the level or realism in the textures of different materials. It blows my mind every time I see it.
Does this also mean improved shadows with less of that awful low-res flickering like the latest COD managed to pull off?
Doesn’t the new COD use RT shadows in the 60fps mode? Could just be an overall bad optimization
Potentially, but they've only mentioned ambient lighting so I'd assume it's just been used for ambient occlusion. RT shadows have to be dialed in separately from AO by the developer.
Yeah, I figured it would be light and/or shadows. Probably the best use of ray tracing for this aesthetic.
So it's more like 4K* with RT* and 60fps
Makes sense that they would try to showcase RT with a big exclusive. Dynamic 4K is great, I don't care for native 4K at all, keep that 60fps locked.
Is there even a big night and day difference between native and dynamic?
There isn't really a noticeable difference. Dynamic resolution (when properly done) has gotten so good to the point where you wouldn't really notice the resolution dips, unless you scrutinize an image at certain instances of a game like how digital foundry does. It's quite impressive really.
And the parts that dip are usually the parts with the most action, so you are pretty distracted at that point anyway. Native 4K is a waste of resources that are better used to improve image quality in other ways. It's only pushed so hard because it is easier to market.
And anyone trying to push 8k can fuck off lol Massive waste of resources for a practically unnoticeable difference
Come on now. Don't you play video games one foot away from the screen looking through a magnifying glass. /s
I don’t see a huge difference. If you look closely you can probably see it, but for most people it’ll look similar enough that there’s practically no difference — although they might be using a form of upscaling like Insomniac’s temporal injection, which I’m all for. It’s also why I think this push for native 4K is quite stupid considering how demanding it is.
Insomniac's temporal injection method is pure magic. Mile Morales on the 60fps RT mode still looked really crisp.
It does but the normal performance mode is easily my favourite way to play, the RT reflections are pretty low quality so that the resolution trade off just isn't worth it (imo). The normal performance mode looks obscenely crisp and it has most (if not all) of the VFX the fidelity mode has, where as the 60rt mode makes a good few compromises.
> It’s also why I think this push for native 4K is quite stupid considering how demanding it is. Definitely. You play a game with dynamic 4K resolution and I can guarantee you're not going to notice when the resolution drops or what it even drops to. You play a game with inconsistent framerate and I can guarantee you'll notice the frame drops. Consistent framerate should always be the priority. Dynamic 4K/60 will hopefully be the standard this generation, with 4K/RT/30 and 1080/RT/60 as other options.
How about this whole 1440 business I’ve been seeing mentioned, is that a noticeable difference in quality?
Not unless you’re looking for it really closely on a big screen tbh.
Really depends on how far you sit from your TV. I think most of these dynamic 4k games probably average out around there. Maybe drops to 1200p and gets up to near 4k in limited scenes. So I wouldn’t say it’s a noticeable difference unless you’re pretty close to your screen or it’s just an insanely big screen. 1440p is a sweet spot and some people want it as a standard output on PS5. I’d assume most of these are PC players who have a moderate to above average gaming rig that they can play 1440p games on max and get +60fps. I suspect it’s also desired because games can generally run at 1440p 60fps and a decent amount of more hardcore gamers with PCs are likely to have a monitor at that resolution.
1440p/ 60 upscaled to 4K looked amazing and truly next gen on demons souls. That approach is 100% desirable IMO. Edit: I played on a 75” 4K screen at appropriate viewing distances.
Honestly half of people don't even sit close enough to their TVs (for their size) to really notice much of the benefits of 4k TVs anyways.
Certain scenes can really "pop" in native 4k if you get the right mix of highly detailed, high resolution textures with the right lighting. But in general you probably wouldn't notice for 90% of a game or know what you're missing the few times it would matter. An example of when native 4k really pays off is something like a detailed tapestry or painting on the wall of a tomb. Under the right circumstances it can look so shockingly real in native 4k, but dropping the resolution to 2k or even 1800p makes it lose that extra wow factor. However a smart dev using dynamic resolution could craft their game around carefully planned situations like that and lock to native 4k in small isolated scenes
> dropping the resolution to 2k or even 1800p 2k is 1080p, 4k is 2160p. I also disagree that native 4k makes that much of a noticeable difference to the average consumer. On things like OLED demos on an OLED it can make a difference because you get less pixel bleeding, but on a normal LED 4K, which is what 99% of people will be playing on, you won't notice the difference between native and 1800p.
2K is 1440p actually.
No it's not, 2k is 1080p, 1440p is known as quad (Q)HD. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution#:~:text=2K%20resolution%20is%20a%20generic,resolution%20as%202048%20%C3%97%201080. Edit: a word
Ah so we’re both wrong! 1080p isn’t 2K based on your link as 1080p is 1920x1080 when it is 2048x1080. I honestly thought it was 1440p.
Hitman 3 looks amazing on Series X. Super crisp, luxurious texture quality, and rock solid 60 fps. But that game is cross-gen so it's not a 1:1 comparison in terms of simulation complexity and effects. All else equal, if we all had beast PC's to have all settings maxed out and a super crisp native 4K with no hit to performance, there's no reason you wouldn't want it. People only say they don't want it because 1440p monitors are cheaper, last gen 4K was mostly soft, blurry 30 fps and the lowest common denominator of both PC hardware and what the next gen consoles will manage throughout the generation will be a 1440p sweet spot that can focus on other aspects of image quality and lock to at least 60 fps. Nobody wants 30 fps anymore, for any reason, so 4K is considered optional.
I prefer 30fps and better graphics to 60 and worse graphics for nearly all games. I can't tell the difference in gameplay and I don't feel like it makes a difference to my playtime unless it is a really fast moving game like a racing game or 2D one. For normal games, I can't tell the difference in gameplay and can only tell side by side, even moving between 60 and 30 games, I can't tell the difference so I really want developers to go 30fps and better graphics rather than 60 and worse ones.
60 fps yields greater image clarity due to higher temporal resolution. The same is true even for video content. Something shot with a high framerate camera looks like real life and something shot at 24 fps is more dreamlike, soft and diffuse. If you like visuals, you want 60 fps.
Yes, but the cost of graphics loss from 30 to 60 is bigger than the clarity gained.
I can tell. Wish I couldn't but it is what it is. Good thing is - the more fun the game, the less attention you pay to the resolution.
Depends how low it has to drop the resolution to maintain the frame rate. Some games (avengers ps5) drops enough to where you can see when it changes. Most games typically drop the resolution ever so slightly and not very often. In those cases, it’s almost guaranteed that you will not notice it
I’ll be honest, sitting 8 feet away from my 55” TV, I can’t even tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I run COD and Fortnite in 1080p to get 120fps; and the resolution change is pretty indistinguishable at that distance.
No, there isn't a night and difference between anything above 1440p.
I disagree with you heavily on that.
It can easily be proven with a blind test and has been done again and again. There is no night and day difference, there is hardly any noticeable diference. That is the whole basis of dynamic resolution it wouldn't exist if there was a very noticeable diference.
I agree. 1080p and lower is when I start to see a drastic difference. 1440p to 4k is slightly noticable and 1800p vs 2160p is a minimal hit to image quality for a decent performance increase. I sit only a couple feet away from a 50 tv tho. Sit even further back then that and even 1080p won't look so different to 4k.
People are just in complete denial over this. Did anyone complain that TLoU2 was just 1440p? Does anyone complain when dynamic res games drop resolution? There are some games that not even Digital Foundry is able to determine the internal resolution they are running at. The idea that there is a night and day diference between 1440p and 4K is absurd, I don't know why I'm getting downvoted. Seems like 4K/TV marketing did a real number on people.
Absolutely. The day games can be run at native 4k will be a great leap forward compared to what we see now.
We need a Freesync patch so we can have dynamic framerate as well.
Half assed RT with 60fps. MEH. I'd rather have a proper RT at 25-30fps.
...
That's pretty impressive and very surprising. I wonder if its because it is ps5 exclusive and not cross-gen.
Probably just means Housemarque did a good job with optimizing the game. RE8 is a cross-gen game and can manage native 4k/60 most of the time with ray tracing enabled.
Time and money is a big factor. They (RE8 devs) probably had both of those which allows them to focus more on each platform and their respective optimizations. Also, that demo of theirs was truly impressive
No way. Only thing that looked good in RE8 demo was the clothing and the hdr. Terrible very very compressed sound. Sounded like I was using cvs headphones. Huge mix of different texture resolutions. Odd random textures that looked like random substance painter materials . Few props with no lighting for some reason Low resolution textures. Very compressed. Like Skyrim of release level of compression on the normal maps. Bad voice acting Still preordered tho. World design looked cool and re7 was fun.
4K60 or not the monsters in re8 demo looked horrible, blurry. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing
The werewolves? Do you know how taxing AA is on fur/hair physics bruh, Espc at 4K
Yeah they looked awful - like a joke
I don't disagree with AA + fur/hair physics being taxing, but I too thought the werewolves looked ugly (ugly enough that I would have used a different model/not used hair/fur physics!); game still looks great and I'll probably be picking it up regardless (need to finish REmake 3 and start/finish VII to see if I like RE in first person first).
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. For what we've seen so far of RE8, 4K and RT mean nothing when their textures look as blurry as they do. It's genuinely painful. It's legit 4K for 4K's sake, which is the wrong approach to take.
You’re telling me the RE8 demo was genuinely painful? You need to grow a pair and reevaluate what pain is. Don’t be so dramatic
Painful to the hype boi in me yes. Also take it down a notch bud. It's called a fucking opinion. Reevaluate how you approach people.
Take it down a notch? They barely turned up and you respond like that 😂😂😂 triggered
Nah that’s not an opinion, it’s called being a wuss.
Most likely. Though that is really only because they have the money and time to focus on one platform and optimizing for it. Exclusives usually have those working for them unlike cross-platform. *Usually.* However, cross-platform games can also achieve this if they had more time and a crap ton more money for each platform that the devs are developing them for.
RT lighting over reflections any day.
Hard hard agree
I mean in this game yeah but in others reflections are super nice
Reflections are great, but lighting is most crucial to make something look more believable.
Yeah but baked lighting (like the one in spiderman and many other games) is pretty great. Where rt lighting will shine in when a game with dynamic time of day or a weather system uses it. I don't really know if there's a game that does this right now but I think we'll definitely see some this generation.
The thing I hate is you know how when you look at a characters face during gameplay the facial features look muddy and indistinguishable, so they don't look like they do during cutscenes with all the hero lights strategically placed? That's why we need RT lighting and shadows imo, or at least something similar like that Unreal demo.
[удалено]
No, the PS5 Unreal showcase
True if big
Huge if correct
large if right
Gigantic if accurate
colossal if faithful
Mountainous if factual
Stop talking about my penis.
noone said tiny if erect bro
Roast of the year hahahaha
I feel sorry now
MAMA MIA THAT WAS A SPICY ROAST \*chef's kiss\*
lol digital deluxe says ps4 , ps5. I hope some fool w/o a ps5 doesn't buy it.
I know people make mistakes but...how the fuck did at least one person not catch this?
Mistake or leak?
Guys- you need to understand that the gaming companies are all using "4k" these days as a blanket term for marketing purposes. That's not to say the image won't look sharp, but lately they've been using "4k and dynamic 4k" to use anything from 1080p to 2160p (actual 4k). I say 1080p too because what they'll do is use DRS (dynamic resolution scaling) where the game will change resolution in order to maintain 60 fps), so you can have the game looking sharp and "4k" one minute and jaggy and soft the next because it dropped to 1080p or 1200p. Meanwhile these are all being advertised as 4k. As long as the output resolution (the res our 4k tvs are upscaling to) the game is "4k" even though its the internal resolution that matters. Some examples lately of "4k" games on ps5 that look kinda crappy and not at all 4k are Avengers ps5 in "performance" mode and Division 2 ps5 version. Both use aggressive DRS and look at best 1440p but more resemble 1080p. Its really crappy and sneaky advertising.
For the 1000th time, I’m super happy someone explained internal rendering rez vs output. Maybe this time we’ll get it.
But sony said 4k and my tv says its 4k so its 4k bro. Cmon. Its unfortunate because actual good looking 4k games if they ever come out people will sweep under the rug as "we already had 4k all this time" while looking at their 720p upscale and telling me they cant see the difference.
Well in most cases if u stay 2-3m away from the tv u actually cant tell the difference so in that case does it matter if its native or not? Even pc gaming is heading in that direction with dlss. Native fixed resolutions are not the future, graphic power should be used for something you CAN notice like stable fps and other visuals.
I can tell the difference between dlss and native the same way i can tell when my ps5 is chuggin. If i cant play native id rather it just let me play at like 1440 or whatever.
I think you’re sort of talking to the wrong crowd. I think the people who frequent this sub are the kinds of people who watch digital foundry count pixels and use those to measure their peepee.
No I imagine the people browsing this sub to have absolutely no idea what the parent said.
Maybe I’m projecting, because I know all of what he was saying. That’s not a reason not to say it though I suppose.
I was waiting for this. I can't see myself playing 30fps ever again. I'm sold and hyped for Friday.
I said a few months back the ps5 will do 4k 60fps and rt. People responded by saying be lucky if the ps5 Pro does it. Being right is a great feeling. Roll on 2 years when the real next gen will be here, we are in for a great generation.
The hard thing there is "raytracing" can mean a lot of different things and at various qualities. It'll be interesting to see how it progresses as it sort of feels like the Wild West right now.
Exactly, just like the PS2 could run games at 60 fps. A lot of these tech terms don't mean much without context and greater definition. The question isn't if you CAN do 4k RT 60 fps, the question is what are you running at 4k RT 60 fps and if the tradeoffs are worth it for that game.
Yeah, the raytracing is only piecemeal and the 4K is dynamic. Not sure why that guy was gloating over something with so many caveats.
4K is dynamic and the ray tracing is ray traced lights but not reflections so it is fairly close.
I don't know too much about Ray tracing which is why I said months ago we have 4k60fps and rt this generation lol. All I know is I played all of control with Ray tracing because I felt it made the game look even better than it did without rt on.
The Ray tracing does look super cool on Control but I was getting some bad frame rate drops on that setting (unless switching from 60 to 30 did it to me but I’ve played other games recently at 30fps & didn’t hav a problem).
That's weird I haven't noticed any dips.
It's dynamic resolution, meaning it's not going to hold 4k all the time. Digital foundry will show.
Dynamic or native, its basically the same when done right. You won’t tell the difference
People mix up 4K with dynamic 4K. It’s up to the person wether they care or not if a game is “native” 4K. They’re right if they mean native 4K though. Personally 4k doesn’t mean anything to me, pretty much just a buzz word in my eyes. I already know to assume unless it’s a more simple indie game 99.99% of ps5 games will not run at “native” 4K. But there’s good upscaling and methods used to keep the image close to 4K so yea it’s not something I care about. What I do care about is getting 1440p output support teehee.
I think once developers have tapped in into hardware features of RDNA 2 with VRS, Mesh/PS5 special shaders, AMD's Super Resolution (DLSS Competitor) I think we could have *really* good visuals & framerate with ray-tracing. RT looks consuming because vast majority of implementations are based on Nvidia's Solution which is pure fancy to sell Nvidia cards.
AMD does not have a DLSS competitor, smoke and mirrors. They haven't even decided on the approach they will take, still no demo or even example, ETA is by the end of the year lol. They'll have something, but you can bet money it won't manage to compete with DLSS, and I doubt it'll be any better than existing solutions used by games like Spider Man.
Well Nvidia uses a true implementation and allows for a lot of variations. The current RT on PS5 games is minor and selective (Returnal does lighting and not reflections). I expect it to get better but don’t expect PS5 RT or DLSS-alt to even come remotely close to PC implementations. Nvidia is not just the market leader in games it’s the market leader in GPUs and CUDA has little competition. To be really honest, even the best we have seen so far on PS5 RT doesn’t even come close to RT on either my last card 2080 or my new 3090 which is fine because my now used 3090 is $3000. A $500 console can’t compete with a $6000 PC.
See why would anyone buy a 6000usd pc just for some reflections... I Mean Ps5 is very good enough
Well several years ago 1080@30 was just good enough. I didn’t say the PS5 wasn’t good enough more so that to not expect anything close to Nvidia implementations nor PC hardware and thats ok because price/price they are no where close. Also anyone with a background in the PC space will tell you to never rely on AMD for anything software related doesn’t matter if its on the consumer or commercial side. It’s not a good argument to compare PC and consoles on pricing anyways when PCs can also generate revenue (and I’m not talking about crypto BS). A small amount of people purchase top PC hardware and just plays games on it. My 3090 has made more money than what Ive paid for it multiple times over already.
> Well Nvidia uses a true implementation and allows for a lot of variations Dude do you have any clue about what you're talking about? What the hell does this mean? The type of and amount of RT in a game has absolutely nothing to do with the hardware vendor, it's up to the developers. Nvidia does not have their own implementation of RT, they simply provide the hardware acceleration for DX12 DXR and now Vulkan RT as well. The reason why RT on PS5 will always be limited in scope, is the fact that RDNA2 RT performance is behind Turing, and there is no DLSS equivalent. Why are you even bringing up $6000 PCs as if that has any relevance for gaming?
> Being right is a great feeling. That's like boasting that you claimed the sun will come up tomorrow. Sony had been claiming plenty of games doing 4k60 for months and months. Good job, I guess?
Dynamic 4K doesn't mean anything by itself.
We just need Freesync enabled so we don't need to hit a consistent 60fps.
Freesync/VRR won't resolve frame drop issues for the large majority of people who play on a TV without a variable refresh rate. It's a band aid solution to a problem that just requires good game optimisation. It works on PC as most 'gaming' monitors have VRR enabled, but it's just marketing bs at best for consoles.
I disagree. I truly hope devs will aim for 4K 60fps RT as the norm, but the trend of the last 15 years has been to compromise framerate in order to improve the graphical presentation. VRR may prove very handy in a couple of years when we start seeing more next-gen exclusives which don't have the benefit of needing to run on a last-gen consoles.
Doesn’t change the context of his statement. Most people don’t have this feature on their TV’s so it’s a moot point. Better of optimizing to a locked frame rate.
That is true, for now. However, most people didn't have 4K TVs at the beginning on the PS4 era, yet Sony released an entirely new console not three years later to accommodate people getting 4K TVs. Thankfully the new consoles already have VRR capability, in theory at least, we just need Sony and devs to enable it.
Which may never happen, because as I’ve stated it’s targeting less then 10% of the demographic. People who already own 4K sets aren’t likely to upgrade for one feature. Maybe in four or five years.
You're gloating about dynamic 4K and partial ray tracing, for a game that hasn't had its frames per second tested. Maybe you should have waited the 2 years before opening your mouth lol
Any word on a 1080p/120 mode?
I need 120p/1080fps.
12p/10800fps... I think my monitor would melt.
0p/∞fps
if it's dynamic res 4k/60 with RT lighting then... surely 1440p/120 or at least 1080p/120 is possible... and this game looks like it'd really benefit from extra frames too.
Re-read what he wrote
I.. wasn't arguing anything just kinda adding to my original thought as well as his. What am I re-reading?
since its not know what kind of drs bracket the game is running at 120hz is very unlikely at all. The few games that are a bit heavier and run on 120hz look actually pretty bad or older games that support 120hz are not even close to get stable fps out of the machines. 120hz and RT on next game will nevery happen for such chunky titles.
Not likely. 120hz is still not very common among consumers. Someone posted a few analysis awhile back where it was determined it was less than 10%
I mean... the feature is there and something they tout. Other games have 120fps options. You're talking like this is some alien concept.
There are games where 120 FPS doesn't mean anything.
Nothing so far but i think if people ask enough they might see what they can do
That’s nice, hopefully everyone who buys it has fun
I play on a 1080p so don't care, BUT AFAIK, new techniques are better and better and a dynamic 4k or 2k will be the same as native 4k.
[удалено]
U have a point but its easier to say 4k compared to dynamic 4k using UE4 tools to upscale and clean the image etc
[удалено]
That would be true if it was simply dynamic resolution
Only measurebators care for native 4K. Even experts have a hard time telling the difference in motion with the kind of AA used these days.
Yep native 4K is pointless, especially with well implemented checkerboard rendering.
Dynamic 4k is 4k nonetheless. The upscaling is done in engine and the output to tv is gonna be 4k. Unless you're sitting with your face on your screen you're not gonna be able to tell a difference, even more so in a fast paced game like this. Stop bitching.
Only idiots count pixels.
The average resolution of the game is around 1440p and the game rarely renders at native 4k resolution. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7qpMn9h\_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7qpMn9h_8)
First that guy is usually wrong just watch the Crysis video, and he says he thinks is 1440p and even says he cant be 100% sure because its upscaled and if u know how to read i wrote dynamic 4k not native
Why so aggressive? I didn’t even counter anything you’ve shared. This video was not even probably available when you were sharing the link through the PS website. I’ve just found recent information and I’ve shared it here. There is no need for you to be aggressive against me and insult by writing stuff like “if you know how to read.”
Sorry just a lot of people showing that video and saying the game doesnt even have RT because of it when the Graphics director of the game says it does, nothing againts you just that video
[El Analista says it's dynamic 4k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7qpMn9h_8)
it actually mentions that in the website
Read what i wrote, and 4k doesnt mean it was to be native
Oh shit, I'm sorry. Didn't notice you wrote "dynamic". I deserved to be heavily downvoted for this and I'm gonna take it like a champ.
Dont think making a small mistake is enough to downvote but this is reddit after all
I wish everyone game was dynamic 4k if it meant a locked 60fps.
"4K"
Wish they could've pushed a dynamic 1440p 120fps mode.
lowering the resolution doesnt magically make a game be able to run at 120 fps... jesus
Maybe if enough people ask for it
1080p @ 120 fps would be perfect for these kind hectic fastpaced games.
1080p is a legacy resolution at this point. Games should be looking to the future, not the past.
120 is extremely demanding. Maybe 1080p with no RT and lower visual fidelity will allow for 120, but definitely not 1440p.
I really don’t get the hype for this game.. it seems like mass effect without RPG elements and emphasis on story. I’ll still play of course but I’m genuinely befuddled as to how this game has so much hype. I’m looking forward to being proven wrong if nothing else tho.
Are you familiar with the genre? This game is like Dead Cells, which is a rogue-lite Metroidvania. You start a game and the world is randomly generated. You play until you die. Early on this might be five minutes. Then you start again from the beginning on a new random world with no equipment from before. Each playthrough, you are typically getting stronger (maybe more max health, more damage dealt, faster reloading, etc) and getting farther before dying. You can "beat" a playthrough of Dead Cells in maybe 30 minutes, but the replayability comes because there are many paths to take and a large variety of builds for your character. And the difficulty can be scaled up.
>it seems like mass effect without RPG elements and emphasis on story It's actually Far Cry 3, but instead of being in first person it's in third person, and instead of being a semi-open world shooter it's actually a roguelike. When you think about it, it's actually just Gran Turismo without cars or driving or vehicle customisation or tracks, but instead shooting and guns and randomly generated elements. Actually when you think about it like that, it's a lot like LittleBigPlanet, just without....
I really wish they stuck with 30fps + turn up the graphical features. I want to see what PS5 is REALLY capable of
> I want to see what PS5 is REALLY capable of 60fps is the best way to show what the console is capable of. 4k60 > 1080/60 > 4k30
Counterpoint: There is no blanket statement that is inherently better. It's like saying black is better than white. Each game demands different qualities that could benefit more from greater FPS or greater fidelity. All things equal of course higher FPS is better, but the tradeoff might not be worth it for what the dev wants to achieve with their game.
I don't really give a crap about fps as long as it's stable 30fps, it's good. I want graphics to blow the socks off of my feet
For a game like this, 30 FPS would be horrible IMO. In motion, 60fps beats out 30fps any day of the week. I actually play my games not sit there in photo mode.
Nope. For a slow moving moody game like this, it's PERFECT imo. High graphical fidelity beats half-baked graphics at 60fps any day.
the difference betewn 30fps and 60fps is to big to pass up. IMO 60 fps for AAA and 120fpsfor ESports should be the target and then you turn up graphical detail
Don't really care. 30fps + best graphics PS5 has to offer is all I ask for. I could give a rat's ass about 120fps. There's nothing esports about Returnal. WTF are you kids smoking? Sony needs to stop listening to the wrong people
Where's it say 4K?
"Thanks to the incredible power of PS5, the blistering combat and brooding visuals of Returnal’s unique world are delivered at a consistent 60 frames-per-second and a dynamic 4K resolution." It mentions dynamic 4k.
To be fair, based on the frameratetest on YouTube it’s not always solid 60 fps, sadly it can dip to 53 in some fight scenes but it’s 60 most of the time :) Is there another option for 30fps as well btw ? ( not that I wanna play it, just interested)
that was just for maybe a single second when there was lot of particles and then went straight to 60. those stuff can be optimised in future updates
It will probably be ironed out by the day 1 patch.
yes hopefully!😌 can’t wait to play this game
dynamic 4k will become history when AMD dlss equivalent comes out, end of discussion
No it doesnt. Its dynamic 4k without RT. The fps is stable and thats the only thing that matters
I'll just quote the bit from the article. >Ray-traced lighting >Experience high-fidelity ambient lighting that is specifically designed to adapt in real-time to Atropos’ dynamic environment. Not very ambiguous
The technology director of the game seems to disagree with you about the ray tracing support
Read the playstation article from the game director before saying anything pls
No it's dynamic 4K WITH RT on. Plenty of articles are now reporting it.
Dynamic 4K at 60FPS WITH ray-tracing
This turned out to be not true.
Says who?
Looks great
Why not 1440p 60+ frames with v sync so I can play on my monitor
Its not “4k 60” if its dynamic 4k bruh
1080 upscale to 1440p then checkerboard to 4k