Wouldn’t exactly call it impressive. It’s nice they included temporary tech. It is to be expected if you release a game in 2023. What weighs more I’d argue is what they left out. No improved textures, 720p UI still, no 60FPS - not even on a console that is 10 times stronger than what we had back then.
It’s especially sad if you think about that they already have the whole map of RDR1 recreated in RDR2. It feels like half of the work was already done and they just had to pull through and port the missions. Instead we got the exact game from 10 years ago.
Especially when we know it runs without any major issues apart from audio desync at higher frame rates in Xenia.
There’s some really minor details with animation that would require some patching to get best results but nothing too difficult and even if you left them in only wonks like me would really notice.
And audio desync is probably only because of the emulation accuracy but even if it’s an inherent problem with the code it can be fixed relatively trivially.
In case anyone didn’t want to open the article, the feature is improved image quality due to AMD’s FSR2 on PlayStation being used over 2x MSAA on Xbox.
There’s also a slightly different gamma on PlayStation, combined with the different anti-alliasing it results in cleaner looking frames. The article has side by side comparisons as well.
I don’t really understand the purpose of showing FSR2 vs FXAA/MSAA with still frames… FSR2 struggles most with motion and thin/dense high-contrast areas, none of which are showcased in the screenshots, so of course FSR2 is going to look better.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
Unless it’s an expansion to rdr 2 that I can access in the post-game with some filler missions to tie the two together then I’m not interested
Only 30 fps.
Holy shit, that’s not worth the price at all!
I can’t really see the difference in the pics they show.
Wouldn’t exactly call it impressive. It’s nice they included temporary tech. It is to be expected if you release a game in 2023. What weighs more I’d argue is what they left out. No improved textures, 720p UI still, no 60FPS - not even on a console that is 10 times stronger than what we had back then.
It’s especially sad if you think about that they already have the whole map of RDR1 recreated in RDR2. It feels like half of the work was already done and they just had to pull through and port the missions. Instead we got the exact game from 10 years ago.
RDR was a classic, but 30fps on a PS3 era game running on PS5 is an absolute piss-take.
Especially when we know it runs without any major issues apart from audio desync at higher frame rates in Xenia.
There’s some really minor details with animation that would require some patching to get best results but nothing too difficult and even if you left them in only wonks like me would really notice.
And audio desync is probably only because of the emulation accuracy but even if it’s an inherent problem with the code it can be fixed relatively trivially.
In case anyone didn’t want to open the article, the feature is improved image quality due to AMD’s FSR2 on PlayStation being used over 2x MSAA on Xbox.
There’s also a slightly different gamma on PlayStation, combined with the different anti-alliasing it results in cleaner looking frames. The article has side by side comparisons as well.
I don’t really understand the purpose of showing FSR2 vs FXAA/MSAA with still frames… FSR2 struggles most with motion and thin/dense high-contrast areas, none of which are showcased in the screenshots, so of course FSR2 is going to look better.