PS4 GAME ARE ALL ULTRA

[sohail14]

what is graphics settings in ps4?any resolution all game  handle all ultra settings?

[SPG]

probably medium low? if it's running anything at ultra the frame rate would be terrible, resolution is low, or it's a shitty port to pc

[Guest lilbman]

The base PS4 is awful. I honestly can't go back to playing console from PC.  The graphical fidelity makes me wince.

[RadiatingLight]

Most likely low

medium if you're lucky.

[CatCloud]

Depends on the games but for the most part medium or low.

[Sauron]

It varies from game to game, they try to strike a balance between performance and graphics (in my opinion whenever they go below 60fps they're doing it wrong). In new titles it's probably low settings.

[DocSwag]

Depends on the game. I think usually it's like low to medium ish, and at 900p

[RadiatingLight]

I also wouldn't be surprised if it was lower than the lowest on PC specially for console.

 

also, remember that stuff like watch dogs had to be downgraded for consoles.

[sohail14]

what about think uncharted lost legasy and horizon zero? better than pc?

[Mira Yurizaki]

I'd say it's more like medium vs. high depending on the game and when it came out:

 

 

 

 

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

Medium to high, actually.

[Godlygamer23]

5 minutes ago, sohail14 said:

what about think uncharted lost legasy and horizon zero? better than pc?

You can't compare those titles to PC as they are not available on the platform. They are PS4 exclusives and any comparisons are ultimately irrelevant. All you're doing is comparing what developers have done with the hardware, not the hardware itself. With games being made for a particular platform, it tends to highlight what the platform is capable of as it was designed for THAT particular system.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, sohail14 said:

horizon zero and uncharted lost legasy graphics better than all pc games

No. At best they could be equal in terms of quality, but not better.

[sohail14]

all are say ps4 game was real pc is waste the graphics are awsome, like horizon and uncharted

[RadiatingLight]

12 minutes ago, sohail14 said:

all are say ps4 game was real pc is waste the graphics are awsome 

 

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

It varies from game to game, they try to strike a balance between performance and graphics (in my opinion whenever they go below 60fps they're doing it wrong). In new titles it's probably low settings.

I remember a developer saying that if you're getting 60 frames a second, you're not pushing visual fidelity enough.

 

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I remember a developer saying that if you're getting 60 frames a second, you're not pushing visual fidelity enough.

They also said that 30FPS makes it more cinematic and that resolution is just a number. They'll say anything to brainwash some people into thinking it's for any other reason than the console's hardware being crap and sony caring more about what looks good in a screenshot rather than what actually plays well

[Zodiark1593]

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

They also said that 30FPS makes it more cinematic and that resolution is just a number. They'll say anything to brainwash some people into thinking it's for any other reason than the console's hardware being crap and sony caring more about what looks good in a screenshot rather than what actually plays well

In a console, where the hardware cannot change (and for some reason, there is still no graphics config options), there is a bit of a balancing act of sorts. Targeting 30 fps gives each frame literally double the render time vs targeting 60 fps. For a console of a set performance, the advantages of doing so should be extremely obvious.

 

Of course, there are developers that look to 60 fps in their games and believe the graphical tradeoffs to be worth it to achieve their goals, though each frame has only half the time to render as in a 30 fps title. 

 

Arguably, fluctuating framerate does a good job at breaking immersion and points to performance issues rather than an intentional framerate target.

[ARikozuM]

I'm going to be "that guy" and say "does it actually matter?". If you're playing a game, you're likely playing to have fun. Resolution and frame-rate are irrelevant if you're bouncing from 100 to 30Hz or the other way. Getting a balance in performance would be much better in my mind vs just pushing one or the other. 

[Sauron]

49 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

In a console, where the hardware cannot change (and for some reason, there is still no graphics config options), there is a bit of a balancing act of sorts. Targeting 30 fps gives each frame literally double the render time vs targeting 60 fps. For a console of a set performance, the advantages of doing so should be extremely obvious.

 

Of course, there are developers that look to 60 fps in their games and believe the graphical tradeoffs to be worth it to achieve their goals, though each frame has only half the time to render as in a 30 fps title. 

 

Arguably, fluctuating framerate does a good job at breaking immersion and points to performance issues rather than an intentional framerate target.

Of course, once you're below 60 you might as well go straight to 30 and buff the graphics (unless your machine and screen support adaptive sync), but ideally that should not happen. They should target 60 and lower graphical effects, even resolution if necessary - framerate is the most impactful thing when it comes to actually playing the game (with a few exceptions). Of course it doesn't make for the best marketing.

[Mira Yurizaki]

58 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Of course, once you're below 60 you might as well go straight to 30 and buff the graphics (unless your machine and screen support adaptive sync), but ideally that should not happen. They should target 60 and lower graphical effects, even resolution if necessary - framerate is the most impactful thing when it comes to actually playing the game (with a few exceptions). Of course it doesn't make for the best marketing.

I'm sure I'll enjoy Final Fantasy XV 10000% times better once it runs at 120 FPS on my PC than when I played it on my PS4.

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I'm sure I'll enjoy Final Fantasy XV 10000% times better once it runs at 120 FPS on my PC than when I played it on my PS4.

The jump from 30 to 60 is much more noticeable than from 60 to 120, and as I said there are a few exceptions where the game isn't as affected as others.

[Stefan Payne]

On 27.8.2017 at 9:10 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

No. At best they could be equal in terms of quality, but not better.

Maybe but does it matter if you can't play it at all?!
Especially Horizon Zero Dawn is a really awesome game, you should try it too.

 

And for the Hardware:
PS4 Pro has a Polaris like GPU (+ a couple of VEGA Fatures) with a low clocked 8 core CPU.

So it's not that bad. You need at least a graphics card wich costs more than the console to just compete with it...

[Stefan Payne]

On 27.8.2017 at 9:09 PM, Godlygamer23 said:

With games being made for a particular platform, it tends to highlight what the platform is capable of as it was designed for THAT particular system.

Yes and that's what the Low(er) Level APIs like DX12 and Vulkan are for, to bring the PC closer to the consoles. If there wasn't some manufacturers trying to sabotage that, including their proprietary crap, we would see PS4 like graphics on PS4 like Hardware.

 

But right now you have to throw much more hardware at the problem to be roughly equal to the PS4 hardware...

And a PS4 is just a Pitcairn with two 4 core Jaguars - like a low clocked Zen - at around 1,6GHz... 

 

That some games might run a bit better on a 4GHz CPU that alone cost more than the console (non pro) with a graphics card that cost at least twice as much, should be obvious, shoudn't it?!

 

And remember that there are NO PS4 PRO Exclusive games yet. So much of the performance of the PS4 can not be used though a bit can be. And there still is the Boost mode...

 

And for entertainment, a Horizon Zero Dawn pic:

 

That's in Quality mode on PS4 PRO...

[Kawaii Koneko]

On 8/27/2017 at 5:02 PM, Sauron said:

Of course, once you're below 60 you might as well go straight to 30 and buff the graphics (unless your machine and screen support adaptive sync), but ideally that should not happen. They should target 60 and lower graphical effects, even resolution if necessary - framerate is the most impactful thing when it comes to actually playing the game (with a few exceptions). Of course it doesn't make for the best marketing.

To be honest, while 60 fps is nice, playing at 30 doesn't really bother me. In fact, I generally crank my graphics as high as I can at the expense of fps. As long as I don't drop below 30 fps, I'm pretty happy. I'd rather have the game look as sharp as possible.

it isn't that I don't notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps. 60 fps does feel more "fluid" but it doesn't take my brain long to adjust to a lower fps. That isn't to say that I don't want a high fps which is one of the reasons I want to upgrade my current GPU setup, but it just isn't as big of a deal to me as it is some other people.