-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
RDR 2 is already ahead visually of the Next-Gen games that will come out in the next 3-4 years.
- Thread starter Alfen Dave
- Start date
- Opinion
Airbus Jr
Banned
Last edited:
Evilms
Banned
Cyberpunk 2077 can't even compete with GTA III in terms of physics, AI... how can it beat RDR2 ?
alucard0712_rus
Gold Member
Not with this textures.
Also RT really helps CP2077 to look more "next-gen". But RDR2 is one of the best looking games for sure.
Also RT really helps CP2077 to look more "next-gen". But RDR2 is one of the best looking games for sure.
vewn
Member
Because this thread is about visuals...?
Looks like some of the RT effects are disabled in this video (obvious SSR artifacts)
The pop-in and LOD transitions are just really annoying in Cyberpunk while RDR2 has a much more consistent presentation.
Cyberpunk looks absolutely great in some areas and mediocre in others (super low res background assets, mediocre hair rendering, mediocre animations)
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
I noticed the buildings too, they kinda look like in Ridge Racer from ages ago.
Masterbrew
Member
Did they ever fix HDR?
Redefine07
Member
GARBAGE , next.
Airbus Jr
Banned
Buthurt people playing CP77 on ps4/xbox one spotted
Oh i see Bloodborne avatar in you
You should see Yahrnam city graphics compared to that cyberpunk mansion video to see how dogshit it is
Last edited:
Self
Member
So janky animations, janky physics and janky behaving NPC don't count as visuals? You sure have a strange set of eyes mate.
Rikkori
Member
I don't like the video you chose though, it's way oversharpened. Imo you can see the strengths of RDR2 best with St Denis at night. The biggest problems for RDR 2 are definitely textures & overall geometric detail. That's what brings it back to firmly being a PS4/X1 title rather than fooling me into thinking it's anything next-gen. That the game is very subdued in HDR as well, is also kind of a bummer. Lastly if reshade didn't work for removing the mandatory vignette they enforce I'd shit all over RDR 2, that's a trash choice that ruins the image and would overshadow whatever good work they did on the game graphically. Yes, I'm that anal about it.
Last edited:
MarlboroRed
Member
Reflections are a bit overblown and the framerate is whacky in the video, but yeah. There is no other game that looks this well rounded on the market right now. Cyberpunk comes close, but doesnt feel nearly as organic.
VN1X
Banned
What a stupid thread.
Sometimes I wonder if the vocal minority on GAF are either trolls or pitiful edgelords (or maybe both)?
Games in 4 years will continue to look better and by the time we reach the lifecycle of these consoles back when Red Dead 2 came out, games will blow that out of the water too.
Sometimes I wonder if the vocal minority on GAF are either trolls or pitiful edgelords (or maybe both)?
Games in 4 years will continue to look better and by the time we reach the lifecycle of these consoles back when Red Dead 2 came out, games will blow that out of the water too.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Absolutely. I know death stranding has less characters but the cutsceness are rendered real time just as rdr2 and yet the characters in death stranding look lifelike.
Imo best graphics of last gen at least when it comes to characters
SPOILER for die hardman face in Death stranding: My old ps4 slim screenshot. not even pc 4k
The Hamburglar
Banned
250 million dollar budget helps
Airbus Jr
Banned
Not anymore
After Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 CD ProjectRed got this
Dont get me wrong...Rockstar game have amazing details...
But the gameplay mechanics and world interaction are become really shallow there ( compared to Cyberpunk 77 )
Last edited:
BlueXImpulse
Banned
All that matters is what it looks like at the end, your every day gamer doesn't look for rtx they but they know what looks good and what looks not good.
ClosBSAS
Member
Ya...the avg gamer has no fucking clue whats good or bad. They give hades goty, the think last of us is the second coming of christ. Rtx is next gen shit if done right and should not be ignored, avg gamer or not. Rdr2 is empty, big ass world with nothing. It excels in its story telling. Cyberpunk excels at both.
Last edited:
spartan30gr
Member
I whait the next gen remaster version ,for this bad boy on next gen consoles
To play it again from the scratch
To play it again from the scratch
Rickyiez
Member
Definitely agreed on that! Death stranding terrains looks higher res and sharper too.Absolutely. I know death stranding has less characters but the cutsceness are rendered real time just as rdr2 and yet the characters in death stranding look lifelike.
Imo best graphics of last gen at least when it comes to characters
SPOILER for die hardman face in Death stranding: My old ps4 slim screenshot. not even pc 4k
Not to mention the clothings and fabric in RDR2 looks like plastic.
Visually ahead for 3-4 years my ass. The Unreal 5 tech demo looks 100x times more impressive
Miles708
Member
I love how the car goes full throttle in some segments, and the engine sound goes higher and higher, without the car going any faster.
Last edited:
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
it was a good looking game when it came out but what a ridiculous thing to say. it's already 2 years old and isn't holding up well. i played it on PC.
PleaseDontBanMe
Banned
Assassins Creed Unity still looks next gen to me
Radical_3d
Member
So, if I update my disc version it looks worse? Do I miss something vital with the updates? If it’s improved stability my PS5 should be ok with that.
Moriah20
Member
Cyberpunk is technically more impressive (geometry, density, RT) but I still think RDR 2 has it beat in terms of the overall package. My main disappointed with CP77 has to be the LoD system - playing on a RTX 3080, near max settings the game just has pretty horrible pop in, curiously even more noticable in the country side areas than the city (but also pretty bad there). RDR 2's LoD system is truly incredible. Sure, horses aren't as fast as cars and scenery is "easier" to render than gigantic cities, but... all of that doesn't really matter when looking at the end result. Even on consoles, the draw& detail distance of RDR 2 is fucking incredible.
Also, I think RDR 2 hides its flaws much better than CP77 thanks to the fact that the game is mainly played in 3rd person. Weirdly, it almost feels like CP77 at one point was meant to be 3rd person with some of the rough assets that are in the game.
This is from a cutscene from a side mission, and generally the scene looks awesome - but then that food... jesus christ.
Also, I think RDR 2 hides its flaws much better than CP77 thanks to the fact that the game is mainly played in 3rd person. Weirdly, it almost feels like CP77 at one point was meant to be 3rd person with some of the rough assets that are in the game.
This is from a cutscene from a side mission, and generally the scene looks awesome - but then that food... jesus christ.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
The most impressive game ever made.
Pre-downgrades (LOD, light sources, AO), version 1.00 still looks mindblowing on every console.
All In-Game, PS4Pro:
i never knew about any downgrades in the patch , any screens to compare the dif between the the unpatched and patched version graphics?
yurinka
Member
No, in many areas there are other games that look better. TLOU2, Miles Morales, Demon's Souls, Cybepunk, Tsushima... all of them have things where they are better (lighting, characters models and animations, environment specific stuff like foliage and so on, raytracing reflections....) than RDR2. But it's true Rockstar games like RDR2 or GTA have a budget (at least in worker count and years developing only that game) way higher than the other ones, which results on more content, size and detail than most games.
And well, looking at the UE5 demo the next gen only stuff that we'll start to see at the end of 2021 or early 2022 on next gen specific engines will be miles ahead. I bet the first two games we'll see using this kind of technology will be God of War Raknarok and Horizon 2.
But it's on the tech and artistic side. In terms of gameplay it's too long, too slow and boring for me. I think I never have been able to complete a Rockstar game. I think they (and everyone else) should chop their games to make the main story ~15-25h long and add ~20-30h of secondary and extra content. This would help to shorten dev times, avoid the skyrocketing budget increase of every generation while prices not increasing even with inflation, and to reduce crunch.
And well, looking at the UE5 demo the next gen only stuff that we'll start to see at the end of 2021 or early 2022 on next gen specific engines will be miles ahead. I bet the first two games we'll see using this kind of technology will be God of War Raknarok and Horizon 2.
But it's on the tech and artistic side. In terms of gameplay it's too long, too slow and boring for me. I think I never have been able to complete a Rockstar game. I think they (and everyone else) should chop their games to make the main story ~15-25h long and add ~20-30h of secondary and extra content. This would help to shorten dev times, avoid the skyrocketing budget increase of every generation while prices not increasing even with inflation, and to reduce crunch.
Last edited:
triplestation
Member
my spidey senses are telling me RDR 1 is going to be released under the treatment of RDR 2
Vick
Member
I’ll just quote myself:
LOD and light sources no (the last one even carried over the PC version), they claimed they fixed the AO but in current version it's still massively inferior (aka less aggressive) than version 1.00.
Here 47 pages with all the info you need.
v1.00 advantages?
What things are good to do with a vanilla Red Dead Redemption 2 disc that has no patches on it? There's the gold glitch from Limpany. Is there anything else good or bad worth poking around for on a v1.00 game install?gtaforums.com
The game just looks much worse updated, not nearly as impressive and cohesive to the point there might be something else at play.
Biggest downsides of 1.00 were a frame-rate not as stable as it is now and a Pro which literally sounded like an hairdryer. Issues solved if you own a PS5, but you will still miss people wearing pajamas in camps.
GametimeUK
Member
This tree on Uncharted 3 has yet to be topped in terms of graphics. Naughty Dog are just next level.
Genx3
Member
That's fine as long as the gameplay stays true to RDR1 which was sublime.
Genx3
Member
Corridor shooter vs Open world game.This tree on Uncharted 3 has yet to be topped in terms of graphics. Naughty Dog are just next level.
Big difference in what you can do when you can finely control what the player can see vs an open world.
Genx3
Member
WTF am I reading? sorry but no RDR2's world is not static.
Vick
Member
Not sure if true, however U3 still looks absolutely incredible at times.This tree on Uncharted 3 has yet to be topped in terms of graphics. Naughty Dog are just next level.
And after 9 years still features what's by far the best sand ever seen in a game, with individual grains falling into Drake's footsteps.
drotahorror
Member
Last edited:
zkorejo
Member
When it comes to the world itself, Rockstar is a class apart. They add in so many small details into the world that it feels very lifelike. Like for example in gta v when you aim your gun at a npc in car they can react in many different ways. Unpredictable, kind of like real life. In Cyberpunk, they all act the same way. It's little details like that that makes Rockstars world so much more immersive. The driving, the planes the height of the sky, the horses in red dead, the npc animations, there are so many things they get right.
I personally think it's comparing apples to oranges since both companies focus on so different things, but since op mentioned cdpr, I have to say Rockstar's game world are more immersive and interactive than CDPR games. But Witcher and Cyberpunk excels at storytelling and rpg like freedom that Rockstar doesn't focus on. CDPR are masters of storytelling, dialogue options, branching storylines, consequences to actions, character depth and they create great world's.
But since the thread is about the visuals. I'd call it a tie. Both do beautiful world's but for me the winning point goes to the one with more immersion and attention to detail.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Its a static world. None of the environments can be destroyed or altered, the world doesn't change around you based on anything other than the game time moving forward and generating coded changes in the form of some new buildings and progress, etc. They add in scripted events here and there to feel random, give you the sense of a dynamic world but in reality, its a sterile world, its just a cut above others.
Compare the world of RDR2 to something like Far Cry 2 or Crysis, etc.
Halo is Back
Member
RDR2 is not only one of the best looking but also one of the best games I have ever had the pleasure of playing. All Rockstar has to do now is make main mission less restrictive. 9/10 game easily.
MarlboroRed
Member
Turn off all of the HUD as well. You can simply press down on the d-pad to get a glimpse of objectives, status effects and so on if you have to.
The game benefits a lot when you're eyes aren't glued to the minimap.
Especially in densely populated areas such as St. Denis it becomes incredibly immersive. It's a one of a kind experience really.