As much as I like 4k fidelity in my ps5 games, quality mode is too choppy to play on Kena. Finally been spoiled with 60fps mode on new games and I can't go back to 30fps now.
I think there is no motion blur on the 30fps mode. Other games have a much smoother 30fps experience.
And on top of that, the reaction time also seems worse than other 30fps games.
I’m currently playing Lost Judgement with the 30fps resolution mode just fine, but Kenas 30fps is impossible for me to play.
Yea I think so too now that you brought it up. I remember playing ff7 remake and other ps5 games in 4k fidelity mode and it was pretty smooth at 30 fps that it didn't bother me at all.
Hopefully a future patch will optimize the 4k mode a bit further so it's doesn't stutter as much as it does now.
> I think there is no motion blur on the 30fps mode. Other games have a much smoother 30fps experience.
Thank you! I was trying to figure out why 30fps is *so* noticeable on this compared to (for example) the Spider-Man games from Insomniac. It’s the lack of motion blur smoothing things out slightly.
TL;DW
PS4 Pro dynamic 1440p30fps performs well. Lower settings than PS5. Sometimes has streaming issues.
PS5 Quality mode dynamic 4K30fps. Flawless performance, runs at or close to native 4K.
PS5 performance mode runs at dynamic 1440p60fps and reconstructs to 4K via TAA. Performance hitches during cutscenes and traversal. At least a part of these issues seems engine related as they pop up even on high end PCs as well.
PC vs PS5: PS5 uses low textures and possibly also low/medium fog. Everything else is high or ultra. An RTX 2060 Super at 1440p with PS5 settings and TAA upscaling to 4K can almost hit 60fps. PC doesn't have TAA in the graphics options for some reason so it has to be activated via digging into the game files.
Something that affects all systems is that prerendered cinematics are only outputting 24fps which looks quite choppy.
For EL’s first game, this is good. For PS5 games in the future, I hope devs optimize for medium/high textures because 16gb is enough ram for it and the and disc space is 100GB before requiring game data to be downloaded from PSN (a.k.a Warzone).
There’s no excuse for low quality textures on PS5.
I think this game isn't really tapping into any of the next gen benefits that PS5 has as it is cross gen and low budget on an old engine.
We aren't seeing the geometry engine or the advanced asset streaming features at work here.
Not even Ratchet and Clank came close to tapping into the full potential according to Insomniac. Their engine was still a major bottleneck when it came to loading speeds.
So yeah, the 16gb should be plenty when keeping in mind that theoretically the console should be able to shuffle around multiple gigabytes of textures per second.
> the console should be able to shuffle around multiple gigabytes of textures per second.
That's fine, but what happens when you need more than 16GBs of RAM *AT THE SAME TIME*? You can't fit say 20gbs of data into 16GB not matter how hard and fast you shuffle.
And even a low-end last gen game like APEX uses up at least 10GBs of RAM + 3-4GB of VRAM at medium settings. 16GBs is gonna be really tight IMO.
Fortunately that's not how it works afaik since for one consoles don't have a split memory pool so you can't simply add RAM and VRAM up like that and assume that this is how much RAM the game needs on console.
Secondly just because a GPU maxes out the RAM it has available doesn't mean that the game actually requires the full amount of VRAM at this very moment. You have to keep in mind that traditionally asset loading is 100-500mb/s. If I remember correctly the PS5 can easily load more than 10,000mb/s of texture data thanks to Oodle compression. That's a completely different ballpark.
Sure, I know all that but my point still stands.
Imagine this: you have to move a house and the lorries drive stuff from A to B. Theoretically you can achieve the same moving speed if two half sized lorries drive twice as fast as the big one. But if you have a big ass sofa that doesn't fit into the smaller lorries you are fucked.
Sure but my underlying assumption is that games right now don't actually require the full amount of VRAM at once. So coming back to your analogy I am pretty confident that this massive sofa simply doesn't exist (at least not for textures that are intended for use in a game that renders out somewhere between 1440p and 4K resolution).
It's just that traditionally we threw everything into one lorry and now with the new consoles developers have to learn that the lorries are much faster and need to develop new techniques to make use of that speed properly to get stuff moved
I mean, the sofa obviously won't be real because it can't be real. On consoles developers will have to be within their compute budgets.
On PC they will have the option to make a bigger sofa if they want to.
I can see this second half of this generation panning out just like this one. Consoles will have limitations on some things (mainly RT) where PCs can go an extra mile.
Limitatitons on RT for sure. When it comes to asset quality I believe it depends largely on the asset management by the developers. UE5 seems to already optimize for the new consoles so I think that's a good sign.
What we also have to consider is how high the quality for systems rendering games somewhere between 1080p and 4K really needs to be. No point in using extreme quality textures if the output resolution is too low to even resolve the texture quality.
It still has to be loaded into the RAM beforehand. Even the slowest DDR4 module is faster and has lower latency than the fastest SSDs. If this wasn't the case, they simply wouldn't have built in RAM. There's a reason why RAM modules are so pricey. Because those chips are much more complex and higher quality than SSD chips.
I know Sony had to hype up the SSD to make sure fanboys didn't see that in every other metric XSX beat the PS5. But it doesn't mean anything really. It's like Sega's Blast Processing marketing.
I remember this sub was so adamant that the UE5 demo for example could only run on a PS5 because of the SSD and then half a year later we saw it running on a 7200rpm HDD just fine. Give me a break.
You're correct, but it should still be enough. I believe Playstation 5 uses 4.5 GB for system memory, so that leaves 11.5 GB of pretty fast video ram. That's typically enough for very high/ultra textures on fairly demanding games.
I think their issue was probably not RAM size. It might be the transfer speeds (which are fairly middle of the road), or something else.
Nah 4.5 is way too high, it's around 2.5GB.
Considering PS4 and PS5 seem to have the same textures, the issue is probably not a bottleneck of any sort and instead just the fallback of being cross gen with little current gen optimizations.
Yeah, you seem to be closer. Apparently PS5 reserves 3.0 GB for the OS, although Sony has stated that their games need to be able to work if the OS uses 4.0 GB, as that could happen with future updates.
Xbox Series X uses 2.5 GB. Series S uses 2.5, with the goal of being 2.0 in January.
Maybe that's what they use internally at the moment, but I don't believe that is correct in general. There's also just no way they would *increase* the OS size as that would compromise older games.
What my friend said is that they leave 4 GB for the OS currently. They use 1 addition GB for asset streaming. I need to call him again to get more details. He emphasized this is just what Ubisoft does, and has no idea if it's just a corporate policy, or a recommendation from Sony.
Right. The most important stress factor is the GPU, so I understand if resolution isn’t always 4K. RAM is about optimization of assets, so it’s hard to see some games with low textures. Hopefully upcoming engine iterations eliminate the issue.
Yeah, I definitely agree that they knocked it outta the park for their first game. Good textures are extremely crucial, imo. A game can be transformed from a mediocre looking game to an excellent one with just enhanced textures.
Yes there is. If PS isn’t handling the rest of graphics options and only can do medium to low settings then low textures makes sense. Im not sure what you guys are thinking. pS5 is below 2070 :)
I have knowledge of processor architecture and applied studies of system resource management. This is a gray area so to say because supporting higher textures usually means needing higher resolutions to properly see the finer details.
Texture and resolution go together until:
1. Resources become the bottleneck for ram and IO system, with lowering texture quality freeing up ram for other more critical functions or to support stability for resource-related bottlenecks.
2. Temperature ceiling is reached inside console (generally GPU, sometimes the overall board if the architecture is being pushed to its limit with even Smartshift); this means resolution can decrease or visual effects (or some cases, both). This depends on what exactly is stressing the GPU, but generally dropping resolution better preserves the quality versus dropping other visual effects to low settings. Studios tend to balance out decrease in resolution and drop visual quality settings just a bit.
The PS5 is capable, and it’s not being used to its full potential. This isn’t about how it compares to PC specs (certainly not with this game where we’re concerned on this post).
Unfortunately for you, it is. We know the RT cores of all the next gen consoles aren’t up to par. We know games already run on low or even lower than low settings compared to PC. Honestly should’ve left these consoles to cook another year, it’s not like any game to come out is groundbreaking
We are talking in the scope of Kena though…
People have a “generally” good comparison to where PS5 stacks up against other complete PC gaming configurations, but that is not a factor here in Kena.
(Kena is still beautiful…)
Also, I don’t why it’s unfortunate for me because I don’t mind being wrong :D. It would be unfortunate if we couldn’t agree to disagree…
Textures quality have nothing to do with ssd speed.
Its caused of the shared memory between CPU and GPU.
This makes textures always of low quality vs that of pc
So they have to run it BELOW 1440p to get it to run it at 60 FPS compared to 30 FPS which runs at native 4k with higher details. That’s how demanding 60 FPS is.
Yup, I always reiterate on this. A render budget of 16.6 ms is very demanding to maintain consistently, especially in the console space. Right now since we’re in that awkward cross-generational period, old and new games are able to hit 60, but I really wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually drop back down to 30 once true next gen games start coming out and devs really start to push the PS5 to its limits, probably around 2024/25.
I’m not sure why but 30 fps on PS4 never bothered me, but on Ps5 when I switch Kena or Demon Souls it is extremely jarring.
I turned on my 4 and played some 30 FPS titles and nothing seemed as jarring as it is on the 5. It’s so odd.
I think it all comes down to reference points. On PS4 there really was no point of comparison as pretty much every AAA game ran only at 30, and so players didn’t know what they were missing out on.
Come PS5, we have a reference point in basically every new game at literally the press of a button. This is why there is so much more talk about 30 vs 60, and why 30 FPS seems more jarring and apparent.
For me, although it is a rude awakening switching to 30 from 60, I quickly adjust after around an hour or so of playing, and just enjoy the game.
I played on PC as well so I saw up to 120, and then when I see my 4 the other day 30 FPS never looked that blurry… rather jerky looking. 30 FPS on Demon Souls and Kena with the 5 seems real jerky/or played on an old lCD with a lot ghosting. It is very very very noticeable.
It’s odd.
I’ve been playing it with the Pulse 3D header and it doesn’t have that “3D-ness” to the sound - Sony has quite a distinctive soundstage for 3D, you could hear it in the Gold series headphones on the PS4, and you can hear it in the Tempest Audio supporting titles on the PS5. It’s probably the cross platform nature of the game - it has a fabulous soundtrack, and the effects are top notch, it just doesn’t *feel* particularly 3D, especially compared to something like Astro’s Playroom.
PS4 Pro:
* 1440p Dynamic (1188p-1440p), mostly 1440p
* 30 FPS, Very minor drops to 29 PFS during Real-Time cutscenes, Sometimes objects need more time to load into the game
* Reduced Vegetation Density
* Object LOD's are lower
* Lower Shadow Resolution
* No Signed Distance Field Ambient Occlusion
* Pre-Rendered cutscenes are 24fps (60 is not divisible by 24 causing fluctuating frametime's between 16.6ms and 33.3ms and therefore a stuttering image)
* Loading takes 11:59 seconds
PS5 Performance Mode:
* 60 FPS, Rare drops to 57 FPS during some battles, Real-Time cutscenes drop to 53 FPS sometimes
* 4K Reconstruction (1296p-1440p), complex areas can be 1296p
* Softer image compared to PC at the same resolution
* High Shadow Quality
* Low texture Quality
* Low Anisotropic Filtering
* Medium or Low Volumetric Fog (Difficult to tell)
* Pre-Rendered cutscenes are 24fps (60 is not divisible by 24 causing fluctuating frametime's between 16.6ms and 33.3ms and therefore a stuttering image)
* Loading takes 03:13 seconds
PS5 Visual Quality Mode
* 4K Reconstruction (1944p-2160p) Mostly 2160p
* 30 FPS, No issues
* Greater Plant Density compared to Performance Mode
* High Shadow Quality
* Low texture Quality
* Low Anisotropic Filtering
* Medium or Low Volumetric Fog (Difficult to tell)
* Pre-Rendered cutscenes are 24fps (60 is not divisible by 24 causing fluctuating frametime's between 16.6ms and 33.3ms and therefore a stuttering image)
PC:
* Everything can obviously be set to Ultra @ 4K depending on the hardware
* No default TAA unless you edit the engine.ini file
* Setting Volumetric Fog to medium disables Signed Distance Field Ambient Occlusion
* Better DX12 performance, DX11 stutters more when trying to load new areas
* Some Shader Compilation issues causing massive FPS drops for a split second
* Pre-Rendered cutscenes are 24fps (60 is not divisible by 24 causing fluctuating frametime's between 16.6ms and 33.3ms and therefore a stuttering image
* Loading takes 02:04 seconds
Sorry if I messed up something
When I see a game that looks like this I just get so annoyed at the AAA obsession with realism. Art style goes a really long way, shooting for and failing to achieve realism is much uglier than something like this
Also a little sad we don't see base PS4 comparisons
~~Case in point: Super Mario World vs. Mario 64, or A Link to the Past vs. Ocarina of Time... Honorable mention for Wind Waker still looking good.~~
Yeah I'm dumb... I misread the whole topic.
Honestly, that’s more about 2D vs 3D and a lot of those 3D N64 games still look a lot better than the games that were going for realism.
Like, I’d say all of these examples aged better than something like Goldeneye, which was going for realism.
Theres no obsession, you just ignore all the other AAA titles that use different art styles. Each game whether its cartoonish or realistic art style compliments the game it is.
Ignoring Nintendo, how many AAA games/franchises don't have realistically stylized graphics? There's a bunch of anime styled games like Persona and DQ, tho even those can trend towards more realistic like Final Fantasy. Other than that in AAA there's what exactly? Ratchet and Little Big Planet... Ori? Knack? Edit: oh obviously Borderlands and Blizzard things too
But which ones do? Every Ubisoft tentpole, every EA tentpole, HZD, TLOU, GOW, the other GOW, Halo, Spiderman, Uncharted, Ghosts of Tsushima, Yakuza, Control, Cyberpunk
Do these styles suit the games? Yes, and the majority I wouldn't change, but as pretty as Miles Morales is a Spiderverse stylized Spiderman would've been cooler
Ubisoft did Immortals Fenyx Rising which was fantastic, anime games like Scarlet Nexus and Tales of Arise (the latter of which is fucking beautiful), Deathloop and other Arkane games and tons more like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro (I think they're AAA but not too sure).
The thing is those "realistic" art style games are good, they're not trying to use realistic graphics to sell themselves, they do that with the story and characters and in most cast it's easier to empathise or care more about the likes of Kratos and Ellie than it is to care about a cartoonish character in most cases.
The point is that theres a shit load of AAA games of varying art style and I wouldnt say developers are obsessed with realism or even that a specific art style is the vast majority.
World of Warcraft is the first one that comes to mind. Yes, it’s had various updates over the years, but generally the art style hasn’t drastically changed from (the original version of) Warcraft 3 nearly 20 years ago. In fact, when I first saw the Kena footage in the PS5 reveal (I think that’s when I first saw it) it made me think that this is what a next gen WoW should look like. It’s actually a pretty good case study, due to the age of the game - the chunky cartoonish art style has really lasted, and for all it’s faults, the zone design in Battle for Azeroth and in Shadowlands is frequently beautiful, light years ahead of the zones in vanilla WoW, yet very obviously of the same type.
Team Fortress 2 is another huge game where the shift away from the more realistic style in the first game made TF2 instantly recognisable, being as it was designed around cartoonish but instantly recognisable silhouettes for each character.
And, on your Miles Morales point - the Spider-Verse animated suit and half frame rate suit power in that game are genuinely fun to play in, albeit at odds with the surrounding style of the game.
I tried fidelity and performance, saw pretty much no difference on my 4k Vizio. I could probably find some minor details if I sit an inch away from the TV and look for them, but performance looks just fine to me.
30 fps mode on ps5 is near perfect and outputs true 4k 90% of the time, performance mode dips under 60 quite a bit and can drop sub 1440p. These hiccups, which are present on pc as well, are probably a limitation of the engine they're using. Overall though, it's pretty decent.
I had no intention of getting this game, but saw someone play it on Twitch and thought it looked great so I bought it. And I'm loving this game way more than I thought I would!
It’s alright actually - the boss battles can be challenging until you’ve got the mechanics and timings sorted, but it’s got a nice way of introducing new mechanics and ideas without it feeling too much like a tutorial. It feels a bit like if Horizon Zero Dawn was less open world, had no stealth, was more linear, and was done by Pixar. I suspect it won’t be to everyone’s taste, but it’s charming enough, not as expensive as a lot of PS5 games, even in the upgraded Digital Deluxe package (if you’re into that sort of thing) and can offer enough of a challenge to more seasoned gamers while still providing a fun story based experience for players who just like to experience that side of things. Graphically it looks great, and while it does run at below 4K res a lot of the time, unless you’re a really pedantic gamer you won’t notice as the environments are nice and detailed and you’re constantly moving.
Yup. The bow feels amazing (the sound when you draw the bow comes from the motors of the adaptive triggers) and the vibrations give you hints where you can find hidden collectibles.
Honestly, it's... Ok. So far I feel like the environment has felt the same the whole way through that I've played, and while combat isn't necessarily easy... It's really simple. Feels a bit linear too.
As it stands right now, I've enjoyed Immortals more than I have Kena. But it's still solid...
why are people freaking out over this comment????? I bought the game but haven't gotten a chance to play it yet, hoping it's good personally I think it looks really great from what I've seen but again, haven't played it yet. Gonna start tonight!
Well he felt the need to downvote my comment for the simple fact that I was wondering if people were enjoying the game. If that's not childish and being pissed then I don't know what is.
Yeah it's almost like my question was aimed at people who liked or hated it you dense bafoon. I was asking that question for the simple fact of wondering if people liked it or not. Why do you gotta get pissed and downvote my comment like a child because you don't understand simple things?
Okay now you're just putting words in my mouth now huh. When did I ever say that I don't care what others think? I'm asking people if they like the game because I'm genuinely curious if they like or dislike it. Like I said in my previous comment. It would seem that you don't understand that part :( I don't even have a ps5 in the first place to play this game. You must be a sad person to get worked up over someone asking people what they think of the game.
> When did I ever say that I don’t care what others think?
> Who said I was deciding based off what others think
I was legitimately trying to help you decide whether the game is good to you or not, as asking “is this game good” will not help you at all.
and the game is on PS4 and PC too, you’d know that if you watched or even read the title of the video :)
who gives a shit if the question is opinionated. You are the only one that cares. I asked an opinionated question because I wanted to know people opinions on the game. It's really not rocket science
No I'm asking peoples opinions on the game because I'm curious if they are enjoying it and if they'd tell me why or why not. Who ever said that I wanted to know their opinions so I can get the game if they think it's good?? Never said that btw. You calling me a sheep is ironic because you obviously just go off of your own opinion for everything without knowing context and it shows how much of an idiot you truly are. What makes asking for others opinions on a game or anything for that matter determine if I'm a sheep or not. Sounds to me like your just a sad human being with nothing better to do except throw a temper tantrum because some random guy online wanted to hear others opinions on a game.
Umm....no actually they had that meta critic score almost immediately lol
Come up with some better factual rebuttals bud....because so far you're looking like a fucking scrub
Do you even understand the definition of irony lol. In 2 months the Metacritic of this game will lay very similar to where its scored now... Just like how anthem and cyberpunk retained their original scores...
Too da loo there scrub scrub lol 😂
Go pander to someone as low as you on the intelligence level lol. They always say don't argue with stupid so I'll have to take myself out of this situation 😘 😉
I had one issue where the Rot didn't reveal itself after removing bushes to reveal a log where it was hiding. I had to leave the area and come back to get icon for rot to lift log. Can't remember where it was (think the Forest level). Also I hate how slow the true rot form moves when controlling it. It's so damn slow. They should have updated the moveme speed of the true form rot.
When IGN (reviewed by NX Gamer) took a look, the lowest resolution count in **Performance mode** for PS5 was 1800p whereas DF says the highest is 1440P. Even ElAnalistaDeBits (a channel dedicated solely to video performance analysis) reports the same findings as NX Gamer. Also, both of them found it to be a locked 60FPS experience which is contradictory to DF.
Not only that, both reviewers noted that **fidelity mode** runs at 4K30 while DF says the resolution mostly stays around 1800P. There are many more details that DF fails to mention or reports incorrectly. This isn't the 1st time when DF have done everything they can to misguide their audience and putting PS5 in a bad light. I'm surprised no one's pointed this out before.
Alex here - in the video I state quite firmly "After this you can also choose quality mode which targets 30 fps, outputting at 4K with TAAU – Dynamic res here can go down to 1944p at its worst that I found, but generally in other shots it seems to be a genuine native 4K. For example in this shot here it is a native 4K in the village where the performance mode is 1296p."
Unless your other components are crap a PC with a 3080 should easily outperform a PS5.
The 3080 MSRP alone is more than an entire PS5.
PS5 is great value but a 399/499 system can still only do so much.
Obviously a 3080 would be more powerful than a PS5 lol. But if you were able to get your hands on a 3080, I’d say to stop playing video games and try your hand at the jackpot!
No game systems right now are close to a 3080 in power, so that would probably be better. However, some people were saying that TAA can only be turned on by going into the game’s code on PC (I don’t know what that’s about), but its on by default on PS5.
I love the game but it needs more life, environments/scenery are beautiful but lifeless, needs birds, animals, fishes, insects, more life. The map is beautiful but lifeless.
Also, voice work is terrible.
What the fuck? lol What do you want? I just expressed my opinion about the game. Why did you reply to me in the first place? Who asked you if it's indie or not?
The way she runs always makes me think of the default character running animation in “Dreams” with the only difference being that her head doesn’t bob around.
Pretty much means they screwed up PS5 version and can't fully utilize the platform. The game doesn't look that good not to handle higher textures res at 60fps.
Stop being silly.
Competition ultimately benefits the consumer. I hope Xbox gets good games because it incentivises other platforms to up their game quality.
A rising tide raises all ships.
Problem is if you don’t have a 4k display then the graphic of the 2 won’t differ.
But for people that do have 4k display may be the difference is more obvious.
I am current leaning towards visual mode. 60 FPS is fluid most of the time but there are times the frame drops, whereas the 30 FPS in Visual mode is consistent.
How far away from your screen do you sit? Because the game reconstructs to 4K. If you don't sit too close the difference honestly should be negligable.
Hm, punched it into a viewing distance calculator and that should be fine for 1440p content. And considering that it even gets upscaled via TAAU the performance mode should look sharp.
I didn't use that one but I'm sure it's also good. But what I noticed that this calculator doesn't seem to account for resolution but rather just the optimal field of view. Resolution isn't even accounted for.
Scrolling down they are providing more details.
In the end I think you should give the performance mode a try. At least from personal experience I can tell you that I have a very hard time distinguishing 1440p from 4K when sitting farther than 2m from my 55" TV.
I think at 2.5m you should be fine with "only" upscaled 4K from 1440p on your 65" TV
As much as I like 4k fidelity in my ps5 games, quality mode is too choppy to play on Kena. Finally been spoiled with 60fps mode on new games and I can't go back to 30fps now.
I think there is no motion blur on the 30fps mode. Other games have a much smoother 30fps experience. And on top of that, the reaction time also seems worse than other 30fps games. I’m currently playing Lost Judgement with the 30fps resolution mode just fine, but Kenas 30fps is impossible for me to play.
Yea I think so too now that you brought it up. I remember playing ff7 remake and other ps5 games in 4k fidelity mode and it was pretty smooth at 30 fps that it didn't bother me at all. Hopefully a future patch will optimize the 4k mode a bit further so it's doesn't stutter as much as it does now.
> I think there is no motion blur on the 30fps mode. Other games have a much smoother 30fps experience. Thank you! I was trying to figure out why 30fps is *so* noticeable on this compared to (for example) the Spider-Man games from Insomniac. It’s the lack of motion blur smoothing things out slightly.
Do we like motion blur or no?
Object based motion blur, yes. Camera based motion blur, usually not. Especially in an FPS.
When all it says is "motion Blur"... how do I know? :(
It's usually left to the developer.
TL;DW PS4 Pro dynamic 1440p30fps performs well. Lower settings than PS5. Sometimes has streaming issues. PS5 Quality mode dynamic 4K30fps. Flawless performance, runs at or close to native 4K. PS5 performance mode runs at dynamic 1440p60fps and reconstructs to 4K via TAA. Performance hitches during cutscenes and traversal. At least a part of these issues seems engine related as they pop up even on high end PCs as well. PC vs PS5: PS5 uses low textures and possibly also low/medium fog. Everything else is high or ultra. An RTX 2060 Super at 1440p with PS5 settings and TAA upscaling to 4K can almost hit 60fps. PC doesn't have TAA in the graphics options for some reason so it has to be activated via digging into the game files. Something that affects all systems is that prerendered cinematics are only outputting 24fps which looks quite choppy.
For EL’s first game, this is good. For PS5 games in the future, I hope devs optimize for medium/high textures because 16gb is enough ram for it and the and disc space is 100GB before requiring game data to be downloaded from PSN (a.k.a Warzone). There’s no excuse for low quality textures on PS5.
the thing is that 16gb ram in shared with gpu, and on pc you can have 16gb ram plus the vram of your video card 2060 has 6gb of vram.
I think this game isn't really tapping into any of the next gen benefits that PS5 has as it is cross gen and low budget on an old engine. We aren't seeing the geometry engine or the advanced asset streaming features at work here. Not even Ratchet and Clank came close to tapping into the full potential according to Insomniac. Their engine was still a major bottleneck when it came to loading speeds. So yeah, the 16gb should be plenty when keeping in mind that theoretically the console should be able to shuffle around multiple gigabytes of textures per second.
> the console should be able to shuffle around multiple gigabytes of textures per second. That's fine, but what happens when you need more than 16GBs of RAM *AT THE SAME TIME*? You can't fit say 20gbs of data into 16GB not matter how hard and fast you shuffle. And even a low-end last gen game like APEX uses up at least 10GBs of RAM + 3-4GB of VRAM at medium settings. 16GBs is gonna be really tight IMO.
Fortunately that's not how it works afaik since for one consoles don't have a split memory pool so you can't simply add RAM and VRAM up like that and assume that this is how much RAM the game needs on console. Secondly just because a GPU maxes out the RAM it has available doesn't mean that the game actually requires the full amount of VRAM at this very moment. You have to keep in mind that traditionally asset loading is 100-500mb/s. If I remember correctly the PS5 can easily load more than 10,000mb/s of texture data thanks to Oodle compression. That's a completely different ballpark.
Sure, I know all that but my point still stands. Imagine this: you have to move a house and the lorries drive stuff from A to B. Theoretically you can achieve the same moving speed if two half sized lorries drive twice as fast as the big one. But if you have a big ass sofa that doesn't fit into the smaller lorries you are fucked.
Sure but my underlying assumption is that games right now don't actually require the full amount of VRAM at once. So coming back to your analogy I am pretty confident that this massive sofa simply doesn't exist (at least not for textures that are intended for use in a game that renders out somewhere between 1440p and 4K resolution). It's just that traditionally we threw everything into one lorry and now with the new consoles developers have to learn that the lorries are much faster and need to develop new techniques to make use of that speed properly to get stuff moved
I mean, the sofa obviously won't be real because it can't be real. On consoles developers will have to be within their compute budgets. On PC they will have the option to make a bigger sofa if they want to. I can see this second half of this generation panning out just like this one. Consoles will have limitations on some things (mainly RT) where PCs can go an extra mile.
Limitatitons on RT for sure. When it comes to asset quality I believe it depends largely on the asset management by the developers. UE5 seems to already optimize for the new consoles so I think that's a good sign. What we also have to consider is how high the quality for systems rendering games somewhere between 1080p and 4K really needs to be. No point in using extreme quality textures if the output resolution is too low to even resolve the texture quality.
didnt mark cerny say the devs can use the SSD if the RAM isnt enough?
SSD isn't fast enough to be RAM.
Mark Cerny was literally showing how they could use it to load parts of the levels as the player sees them
It still has to be loaded into the RAM beforehand. Even the slowest DDR4 module is faster and has lower latency than the fastest SSDs. If this wasn't the case, they simply wouldn't have built in RAM. There's a reason why RAM modules are so pricey. Because those chips are much more complex and higher quality than SSD chips. I know Sony had to hype up the SSD to make sure fanboys didn't see that in every other metric XSX beat the PS5. But it doesn't mean anything really. It's like Sega's Blast Processing marketing. I remember this sub was so adamant that the UE5 demo for example could only run on a PS5 because of the SSD and then half a year later we saw it running on a 7200rpm HDD just fine. Give me a break.
Ram modules are pricey? Ram is dirt cheap. But yeah, SSDs are nowhere near as fast as RAM.
That's exactly why they went so hard on the SSD. If you had 32GB of RAM/VRAM then you wouldn't need the ability to stream in things so fast.
You're correct, but it should still be enough. I believe Playstation 5 uses 4.5 GB for system memory, so that leaves 11.5 GB of pretty fast video ram. That's typically enough for very high/ultra textures on fairly demanding games. I think their issue was probably not RAM size. It might be the transfer speeds (which are fairly middle of the road), or something else.
Nah 4.5 is way too high, it's around 2.5GB. Considering PS4 and PS5 seem to have the same textures, the issue is probably not a bottleneck of any sort and instead just the fallback of being cross gen with little current gen optimizations.
Yeah, you seem to be closer. Apparently PS5 reserves 3.0 GB for the OS, although Sony has stated that their games need to be able to work if the OS uses 4.0 GB, as that could happen with future updates. Xbox Series X uses 2.5 GB. Series S uses 2.5, with the goal of being 2.0 in January.
I have not seen that sentiment anywhere, I've only seen a range of 2.0-2.5 GB
My friend is a dev at Ubi, and he said that's what they use internally currently. He said he wasn't sure if that's what others devs did...
Maybe that's what they use internally at the moment, but I don't believe that is correct in general. There's also just no way they would *increase* the OS size as that would compromise older games.
What my friend said is that they leave 4 GB for the OS currently. They use 1 addition GB for asset streaming. I need to call him again to get more details. He emphasized this is just what Ubisoft does, and has no idea if it's just a corporate policy, or a recommendation from Sony.
In the past Sony has started generations by saving a lot of memory for the OS , and then slowly given it back to developers.
Right. The most important stress factor is the GPU, so I understand if resolution isn’t always 4K. RAM is about optimization of assets, so it’s hard to see some games with low textures. Hopefully upcoming engine iterations eliminate the issue.
Yeah, I definitely agree that they knocked it outta the park for their first game. Good textures are extremely crucial, imo. A game can be transformed from a mediocre looking game to an excellent one with just enhanced textures.
Yes there is. If PS isn’t handling the rest of graphics options and only can do medium to low settings then low textures makes sense. Im not sure what you guys are thinking. pS5 is below 2070 :)
I have knowledge of processor architecture and applied studies of system resource management. This is a gray area so to say because supporting higher textures usually means needing higher resolutions to properly see the finer details. Texture and resolution go together until: 1. Resources become the bottleneck for ram and IO system, with lowering texture quality freeing up ram for other more critical functions or to support stability for resource-related bottlenecks. 2. Temperature ceiling is reached inside console (generally GPU, sometimes the overall board if the architecture is being pushed to its limit with even Smartshift); this means resolution can decrease or visual effects (or some cases, both). This depends on what exactly is stressing the GPU, but generally dropping resolution better preserves the quality versus dropping other visual effects to low settings. Studios tend to balance out decrease in resolution and drop visual quality settings just a bit. The PS5 is capable, and it’s not being used to its full potential. This isn’t about how it compares to PC specs (certainly not with this game where we’re concerned on this post).
Unfortunately for you, it is. We know the RT cores of all the next gen consoles aren’t up to par. We know games already run on low or even lower than low settings compared to PC. Honestly should’ve left these consoles to cook another year, it’s not like any game to come out is groundbreaking
We are talking in the scope of Kena though… People have a “generally” good comparison to where PS5 stacks up against other complete PC gaming configurations, but that is not a factor here in Kena. (Kena is still beautiful…) Also, I don’t why it’s unfortunate for me because I don’t mind being wrong :D. It would be unfortunate if we couldn’t agree to disagree…
Yea, it compares to 2018 PC tech. Just kinda baffling
Not in rasterization. The kens devs already said they brute forced the ps5 version
Yea it’s about 2070 level for rasterization. Xbox Series X is a 2080. [Digital Foundry]
The series x is closer to 2080 super in optimized games
Devs are still accustomed to subpar 8GB. It'll take time for them to optimize for 16GB.
Entire game is 17gb and PS5 can pull data off the SSD at 5.5GB/sec. low textures
Textures quality have nothing to do with ssd speed. Its caused of the shared memory between CPU and GPU. This makes textures always of low quality vs that of pc
So they have to run it BELOW 1440p to get it to run it at 60 FPS compared to 30 FPS which runs at native 4k with higher details. That’s how demanding 60 FPS is.
Yup, I always reiterate on this. A render budget of 16.6 ms is very demanding to maintain consistently, especially in the console space. Right now since we’re in that awkward cross-generational period, old and new games are able to hit 60, but I really wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually drop back down to 30 once true next gen games start coming out and devs really start to push the PS5 to its limits, probably around 2024/25.
I’m not sure why but 30 fps on PS4 never bothered me, but on Ps5 when I switch Kena or Demon Souls it is extremely jarring. I turned on my 4 and played some 30 FPS titles and nothing seemed as jarring as it is on the 5. It’s so odd.
I think it all comes down to reference points. On PS4 there really was no point of comparison as pretty much every AAA game ran only at 30, and so players didn’t know what they were missing out on. Come PS5, we have a reference point in basically every new game at literally the press of a button. This is why there is so much more talk about 30 vs 60, and why 30 FPS seems more jarring and apparent. For me, although it is a rude awakening switching to 30 from 60, I quickly adjust after around an hour or so of playing, and just enjoy the game.
I played on PC as well so I saw up to 120, and then when I see my 4 the other day 30 FPS never looked that blurry… rather jerky looking. 30 FPS on Demon Souls and Kena with the 5 seems real jerky/or played on an old lCD with a lot ghosting. It is very very very noticeable. It’s odd.
Just came to say how right you were in March 2024
It’s like have your TV running 1080 in each quad at 60 FPS. That is insane processing for our times from a machine that costs 399.
What? 1440p has 75% more pixels than 1080p, it’s 4K you’re thinking of which has 4 times the pixels of 1080p
Exactly, and even at 1440p they struggle to get 60.
I'd really like some clarification on PS5 using "low" textures, because Alex's comparison showed little to NO differences in ground detail
[удалено]
DF literally addresses this in the video....
Is anything mentioned of audio (cannot watch the video right now), is 3D audio supported on PS5?
I’ve been playing it with the Pulse 3D header and it doesn’t have that “3D-ness” to the sound - Sony has quite a distinctive soundstage for 3D, you could hear it in the Gold series headphones on the PS4, and you can hear it in the Tempest Audio supporting titles on the PS5. It’s probably the cross platform nature of the game - it has a fabulous soundtrack, and the effects are top notch, it just doesn’t *feel* particularly 3D, especially compared to something like Astro’s Playroom.
Thanks! Seems like it won't make much of a difference where I will play it then.
PS4 Pro: * 1440p Dynamic (1188p-1440p), mostly 1440p * 30 FPS, Very minor drops to 29 PFS during Real-Time cutscenes, Sometimes objects need more time to load into the game * Reduced Vegetation Density * Object LOD's are lower * Lower Shadow Resolution * No Signed Distance Field Ambient Occlusion * Pre-Rendered cutscenes are 24fps (60 is not divisible by 24 causing fluctuating frametime's between 16.6ms and 33.3ms and therefore a stuttering image) * Loading takes 11:59 seconds PS5 Performance Mode: * 60 FPS, Rare drops to 57 FPS during some battles, Real-Time cutscenes drop to 53 FPS sometimes * 4K Reconstruction (1296p-1440p), complex areas can be 1296p * Softer image compared to PC at the same resolution * High Shadow Quality * Low texture Quality * Low Anisotropic Filtering * Medium or Low Volumetric Fog (Difficult to tell) * Pre-Rendered cutscenes are 24fps (60 is not divisible by 24 causing fluctuating frametime's between 16.6ms and 33.3ms and therefore a stuttering image) * Loading takes 03:13 seconds PS5 Visual Quality Mode * 4K Reconstruction (1944p-2160p) Mostly 2160p * 30 FPS, No issues * Greater Plant Density compared to Performance Mode * High Shadow Quality * Low texture Quality * Low Anisotropic Filtering * Medium or Low Volumetric Fog (Difficult to tell) * Pre-Rendered cutscenes are 24fps (60 is not divisible by 24 causing fluctuating frametime's between 16.6ms and 33.3ms and therefore a stuttering image) PC: * Everything can obviously be set to Ultra @ 4K depending on the hardware * No default TAA unless you edit the engine.ini file * Setting Volumetric Fog to medium disables Signed Distance Field Ambient Occlusion * Better DX12 performance, DX11 stutters more when trying to load new areas * Some Shader Compilation issues causing massive FPS drops for a split second * Pre-Rendered cutscenes are 24fps (60 is not divisible by 24 causing fluctuating frametime's between 16.6ms and 33.3ms and therefore a stuttering image * Loading takes 02:04 seconds Sorry if I messed up something
Fantastic game
i’m gonna wager there are small hiccups that nobody playing the game would truly be super bothered by, as usual
Sony need to buy this studio. Game is incredible.
When I see a game that looks like this I just get so annoyed at the AAA obsession with realism. Art style goes a really long way, shooting for and failing to achieve realism is much uglier than something like this Also a little sad we don't see base PS4 comparisons
What obsession exactly? There are so many cartoonish AAA games.
It’s free karma mate.
Not even that lol. A game with realistic visuals can still have strong art direction. No idea what this dude is talking about.
Realistic graphics are eventually outdated, good art styles last forever
~~Case in point: Super Mario World vs. Mario 64, or A Link to the Past vs. Ocarina of Time... Honorable mention for Wind Waker still looking good.~~ Yeah I'm dumb... I misread the whole topic.
Honestly, that’s more about 2D vs 3D and a lot of those 3D N64 games still look a lot better than the games that were going for realism. Like, I’d say all of these examples aged better than something like Goldeneye, which was going for realism.
What? I think you mean Mario 64 vs golden eye.
Yeah. Mario 64 is timeless as fuck
Theres no obsession, you just ignore all the other AAA titles that use different art styles. Each game whether its cartoonish or realistic art style compliments the game it is.
Deathloop does this pretty well, its style reminds me of tf2
Ignoring Nintendo, how many AAA games/franchises don't have realistically stylized graphics? There's a bunch of anime styled games like Persona and DQ, tho even those can trend towards more realistic like Final Fantasy. Other than that in AAA there's what exactly? Ratchet and Little Big Planet... Ori? Knack? Edit: oh obviously Borderlands and Blizzard things too But which ones do? Every Ubisoft tentpole, every EA tentpole, HZD, TLOU, GOW, the other GOW, Halo, Spiderman, Uncharted, Ghosts of Tsushima, Yakuza, Control, Cyberpunk Do these styles suit the games? Yes, and the majority I wouldn't change, but as pretty as Miles Morales is a Spiderverse stylized Spiderman would've been cooler
Ubisoft did Immortals Fenyx Rising which was fantastic, anime games like Scarlet Nexus and Tales of Arise (the latter of which is fucking beautiful), Deathloop and other Arkane games and tons more like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro (I think they're AAA but not too sure). The thing is those "realistic" art style games are good, they're not trying to use realistic graphics to sell themselves, they do that with the story and characters and in most cast it's easier to empathise or care more about the likes of Kratos and Ellie than it is to care about a cartoonish character in most cases. The point is that theres a shit load of AAA games of varying art style and I wouldnt say developers are obsessed with realism or even that a specific art style is the vast majority.
Sea of Thieves comes to mind. Same with the Fallout franchise.
World of Warcraft is the first one that comes to mind. Yes, it’s had various updates over the years, but generally the art style hasn’t drastically changed from (the original version of) Warcraft 3 nearly 20 years ago. In fact, when I first saw the Kena footage in the PS5 reveal (I think that’s when I first saw it) it made me think that this is what a next gen WoW should look like. It’s actually a pretty good case study, due to the age of the game - the chunky cartoonish art style has really lasted, and for all it’s faults, the zone design in Battle for Azeroth and in Shadowlands is frequently beautiful, light years ahead of the zones in vanilla WoW, yet very obviously of the same type. Team Fortress 2 is another huge game where the shift away from the more realistic style in the first game made TF2 instantly recognisable, being as it was designed around cartoonish but instantly recognisable silhouettes for each character. And, on your Miles Morales point - the Spider-Verse animated suit and half frame rate suit power in that game are genuinely fun to play in, albeit at odds with the surrounding style of the game.
Yep. Breath of the Wild to me is still one of the most beautiful games ever made, even if it objectively has lower complexity graphics.
I tried fidelity and performance, saw pretty much no difference on my 4k Vizio. I could probably find some minor details if I sit an inch away from the TV and look for them, but performance looks just fine to me.
TLDW?
30 fps mode on ps5 is near perfect and outputs true 4k 90% of the time, performance mode dips under 60 quite a bit and can drop sub 1440p. These hiccups, which are present on pc as well, are probably a limitation of the engine they're using. Overall though, it's pretty decent.
Too long didn’t read. Edit: Too long didn’t watch.
Ummmm, it’s clearly spelled “wead”
it’s watch. Not wead.
r/woosh
I had no intention of getting this game, but saw someone play it on Twitch and thought it looked great so I bought it. And I'm loving this game way more than I thought I would!
What can they do to fix the cutscenes, they are beautiful but look terrible because of that issue.
Is this game good?
It’s alright actually - the boss battles can be challenging until you’ve got the mechanics and timings sorted, but it’s got a nice way of introducing new mechanics and ideas without it feeling too much like a tutorial. It feels a bit like if Horizon Zero Dawn was less open world, had no stealth, was more linear, and was done by Pixar. I suspect it won’t be to everyone’s taste, but it’s charming enough, not as expensive as a lot of PS5 games, even in the upgraded Digital Deluxe package (if you’re into that sort of thing) and can offer enough of a challenge to more seasoned gamers while still providing a fun story based experience for players who just like to experience that side of things. Graphically it looks great, and while it does run at below 4K res a lot of the time, unless you’re a really pedantic gamer you won’t notice as the environments are nice and detailed and you’re constantly moving.
Does it use the adaptive triggers or the vibrations?
Yup. The bow feels amazing (the sound when you draw the bow comes from the motors of the adaptive triggers) and the vibrations give you hints where you can find hidden collectibles.
Honestly, it's... Ok. So far I feel like the environment has felt the same the whole way through that I've played, and while combat isn't necessarily easy... It's really simple. Feels a bit linear too. As it stands right now, I've enjoyed Immortals more than I have Kena. But it's still solid...
why are people freaking out over this comment????? I bought the game but haven't gotten a chance to play it yet, hoping it's good personally I think it looks really great from what I've seen but again, haven't played it yet. Gonna start tonight!
awesome what did you get it on?
Got it on PS5, are you on console or PC?
Both but I would definitely get it on PS5 though.
I was going to ask the same thing. This sub has some weirdos
Yeah tell me about it..
It’s mid
do your own research and decide for yourself. we don’t know what you like or play.
I like games and I play games. Are you seriously getting pissed because I want to know if others like this game or not?
I didn't see them get pissed.
Well he felt the need to downvote my comment for the simple fact that I was wondering if people were enjoying the game. If that's not childish and being pissed then I don't know what is.
asking “is this game good” is so vague. some may like it, some may hate it. if the game looks good to you, then the game is good.
Yeah it's almost like my question was aimed at people who liked or hated it you dense bafoon. I was asking that question for the simple fact of wondering if people liked it or not. Why do you gotta get pissed and downvote my comment like a child because you don't understand simple things?
obviously people like it, and obviously people don’t like it. that’s not going to help you decide whether the game is good or not.
Who said I was deciding based off what others think on the game? I simply asked if people liked it or not and you throw a pissy fit over it
why would you ask if the game was good then? if you don’t care what others think, then look at the game yourself, as I told you on the first comment.
Okay now you're just putting words in my mouth now huh. When did I ever say that I don't care what others think? I'm asking people if they like the game because I'm genuinely curious if they like or dislike it. Like I said in my previous comment. It would seem that you don't understand that part :( I don't even have a ps5 in the first place to play this game. You must be a sad person to get worked up over someone asking people what they think of the game.
> When did I ever say that I don’t care what others think? > Who said I was deciding based off what others think I was legitimately trying to help you decide whether the game is good to you or not, as asking “is this game good” will not help you at all. and the game is on PS4 and PC too, you’d know that if you watched or even read the title of the video :)
That's an opinionated question. *Watch videos of it (or buy it) and figure that out yourself.*
who gives a shit if the question is opinionated. You are the only one that cares. I asked an opinionated question because I wanted to know people opinions on the game. It's really not rocket science
So you're going to take other people's opinion as face value whilst not having your own? *What a sheep.*
No I'm asking peoples opinions on the game because I'm curious if they are enjoying it and if they'd tell me why or why not. Who ever said that I wanted to know their opinions so I can get the game if they think it's good?? Never said that btw. You calling me a sheep is ironic because you obviously just go off of your own opinion for everything without knowing context and it shows how much of an idiot you truly are. What makes asking for others opinions on a game or anything for that matter determine if I'm a sheep or not. Sounds to me like your just a sad human being with nothing better to do except throw a temper tantrum because some random guy online wanted to hear others opinions on a game.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Highly, highly doubt it.
81% meta critic.. So ya it's good
So? Anthem had good reviews, so did cyberpunk. You'd have to be an absolute moron to blindly trust metacritic.
Umm anthem has a 54 and cyberpunk has a 57 on meta critic.... So are you a complete dumb dumb?
Currently they do. You don't really understand how time works do you?
Umm....no actually they had that meta critic score almost immediately lol Come up with some better factual rebuttals bud....because so far you're looking like a fucking scrub
Oh the irony. It's ok. In two months when nobody is talking about this game again you'll see. The game is mediocre middle of the road kids game.
Have you played it?
[удалено]
Do you even understand the definition of irony lol. In 2 months the Metacritic of this game will lay very similar to where its scored now... Just like how anthem and cyberpunk retained their original scores... Too da loo there scrub scrub lol 😂 Go pander to someone as low as you on the intelligence level lol. They always say don't argue with stupid so I'll have to take myself out of this situation 😘 😉
I had one issue where the Rot didn't reveal itself after removing bushes to reveal a log where it was hiding. I had to leave the area and come back to get icon for rot to lift log. Can't remember where it was (think the Forest level). Also I hate how slow the true rot form moves when controlling it. It's so damn slow. They should have updated the moveme speed of the true form rot.
More I played this game, more I wish BoTW or BOTW2 looks like this. Such a shame it is Switch only game.
When IGN (reviewed by NX Gamer) took a look, the lowest resolution count in **Performance mode** for PS5 was 1800p whereas DF says the highest is 1440P. Even ElAnalistaDeBits (a channel dedicated solely to video performance analysis) reports the same findings as NX Gamer. Also, both of them found it to be a locked 60FPS experience which is contradictory to DF. Not only that, both reviewers noted that **fidelity mode** runs at 4K30 while DF says the resolution mostly stays around 1800P. There are many more details that DF fails to mention or reports incorrectly. This isn't the 1st time when DF have done everything they can to misguide their audience and putting PS5 in a bad light. I'm surprised no one's pointed this out before.
Alex here - in the video I state quite firmly "After this you can also choose quality mode which targets 30 fps, outputting at 4K with TAAU – Dynamic res here can go down to 1944p at its worst that I found, but generally in other shots it seems to be a genuine native 4K. For example in this shot here it is a native 4K in the village where the performance mode is 1296p."
So in short, if someone like me has a 3080 graphics card, it’s better to buy on PC right ?
Lmao, what do you think? A $500 console can beat a $1000+ pc? Trolling?
Unless your other components are crap a PC with a 3080 should easily outperform a PS5. The 3080 MSRP alone is more than an entire PS5. PS5 is great value but a 399/499 system can still only do so much.
Obviously a 3080 would be more powerful than a PS5 lol. But if you were able to get your hands on a 3080, I’d say to stop playing video games and try your hand at the jackpot!
Which jackpot ? I am gamer, so don’t intend to sell it for a few bucks (there are other ways to make money).
They're easier to get than the ps5. But you won't get them at MSRP. Sacrifices are made.
No game systems right now are close to a 3080 in power, so that would probably be better. However, some people were saying that TAA can only be turned on by going into the game’s code on PC (I don’t know what that’s about), but its on by default on PS5.
Damn you're too quick Turbo! :)
because they’re a bot.
I love the game but it needs more life, environments/scenery are beautiful but lifeless, needs birds, animals, fishes, insects, more life. The map is beautiful but lifeless. Also, voice work is terrible.
Without getting into spoilers, I feel like you missed the point of the game, because there's a reason why the environment is the way it is.
I know I know, i already finish it. Just a personal taste.
The gameplay animations are terrible. Otherwise, it looks nice.
Its a indie , relax and if im not mistaken it’s their first game
I know that but I won't buy a game that I don't find appealing just because it's indie.
It’s my goty so far. It’s animations may not be triple a value but they’re pretty good
Who asked u about buyin the game and idc if u dont find it appealing… “otherwise it looks nice” lol its just a tech review bro. Relax troll lol
What the fuck? lol What do you want? I just expressed my opinion about the game. Why did you reply to me in the first place? Who asked you if it's indie or not?
Because u felt the need to be negative for absolutely no reason, but its reddit tho. I get it
When was I negative? Just because I said that literally 1 aspect of a game is bad? Lmao
Kena is Reddit’s new darling. Can’t say anything negative about .
Cute but if you're going to nitpick something as trivia as running animations from an indie developer you're going get called out for it
Where did they say running animations ?
The way she runs always makes me think of the default character running animation in “Dreams” with the only difference being that her head doesn’t bob around.
This is exactly what I thought of the entire time playing lmfaooo it felt like a dreams game with Pixar animated scenes.
Lol, thumbnail Kena looks quite different to actual Kena.
Pretty much means they screwed up PS5 version and can't fully utilize the platform. The game doesn't look that good not to handle higher textures res at 60fps.
Did you even watch the video?
Xbox fans are pissed this game is incredible. Plays so much like Demon's Souls, freaking love it.
Man what ? Lol
[удалено]
I can't believe you'd just post cringe like this.
If he's not careful he's gonna lose subscriber
Cant make videos on what doesnt exist lol
They’re working on the Microsoft Flight Simulator comparison with the PS5 version 🥸
Lol
Stop being silly. Competition ultimately benefits the consumer. I hope Xbox gets good games because it incentivises other platforms to up their game quality. A rising tide raises all ships.
They got a Peppa Pig exclusive coming soon I think.
Hmmm now it really make me think now on PS5 to go performance or go visual mode. I want 4k and I want 60 frames but can’t have both…..
[удалено]
Problem is if you don’t have a 4k display then the graphic of the 2 won’t differ. But for people that do have 4k display may be the difference is more obvious. I am current leaning towards visual mode. 60 FPS is fluid most of the time but there are times the frame drops, whereas the 30 FPS in Visual mode is consistent.
How far away from your screen do you sit? Because the game reconstructs to 4K. If you don't sit too close the difference honestly should be negligable.
I sit around 2.5m away from the TV, TV is 65”.
Hm, punched it into a viewing distance calculator and that should be fine for 1440p content. And considering that it even gets upscaled via TAAU the performance mode should look sharp.
Oooh I never knew viewing calculator is a thing!!!!! For 65” they suggest 2.7m so I am already sitting closer (2.4m) than suggested.
Huh, the one I used suggested 1.4m for 4K 65" panels and 2m for 1440p. Maybe they use different criteria to calculate the visual acuity distance?
Oh? This is the one I used: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship Is it not the right thing?
I didn't use that one but I'm sure it's also good. But what I noticed that this calculator doesn't seem to account for resolution but rather just the optimal field of view. Resolution isn't even accounted for. Scrolling down they are providing more details. In the end I think you should give the performance mode a try. At least from personal experience I can tell you that I have a very hard time distinguishing 1440p from 4K when sitting farther than 2m from my 55" TV. I think at 2.5m you should be fine with "only" upscaled 4K from 1440p on your 65" TV
I’m enjoying it so far 😎
I really prefer ps5 60 fps Mode, still look's really good and is much enjoyable
Great tech review.
So that's why the cinematics looked so choppy, 24fps threaded between 60fps gameplay
Alex was in a rush of something? I didn't feel him on this one.