What went wrong?

>having eyes and not falling for the console meme makes you a "contrarian"
Fuck off snoyboy.

Most of the games shown at that series x conference were crossgen titles. You're not gonna see anything all that impressive for another 3 or so years.

well one is an actual game and the other is walking around in the woods slapping your cock against trees doing fucking nothing, so take a wild fucking guess what the difference is
this shit is "hire this man" tier

Attached: 1541441694730.jpg (388x438, 12.54K)

the ground looks better than most high spec games because it has actual organic texture rather than just a high res image stretched over it

Nigger are you fucking serious? In both your image and the video you linked it's blatantly obvious how little detail there is in the ground model. It's practically flat, no deformation at all.

MICROSOFT

you guys just cant comprehend how much effort and autism went into this

>graphics

it's always been the same for you snoys

another game ruined by heavy motion blur. i can barely stand to watch this.

Attached: 1531349853084.png (500x500, 131.63K)

Show random people that image and they will say it looks good, you are a contrarian

That is a fact

i'm going to have to assume you're blind user.

white people genetics everyone

>muh random people
First of all they'll point out how the foliage looks plastic and second of all random people would be impressed by interiors with prebaked lighting because they don't understand how easy it is to make things "look good" when you do the hardest part in advance.

im not white

>a still in a racing game
ok dude

Series X, not S.

>microsoft has a game
>ps4 has some bullshot simulator that doesn't even look good

so nothing changes

What went wrong is that you stupid niggers still can't tell the difference between graphics and artstyle.

the foliage looks like it's made of plastic but at least it looks like it's actually made of real materials because it's a sculpted object not the cardboard shit most games use

whats the difference

>cardboard shit most games use
If by "most games" you mean "most games from 2009". Games have been using modelled foliage for a decade and physically based rendering for at least the last 5 years. It's not impressing anyone.

Wait what? Dreams just looks like sophmore's first blender render graphics. Its the exact opposite of timeless

I showed it to 7 people, they all asked why the leaves look like little baloons

>Actual game running at 4K60FPS
>Screenshot of a game where the most frames you would get is 10

>One is a game that is fun
>Other is literally just a static scene that is also very limited and has no gameplay or interactivity
SNOY, HIRE THIS MAN!

compare the two pictures and try to repeat that statement

silly user
don't you know that new hardware isn't to allow for better graphics but instead it's to allow developers to be lazy and rely on the hardware to pick up the slack of their ever slipping and lazier coding/art?
There's a reason we don't have games that look better than Crysis yet despite many iterations of newer, more powerful hardware.

>Angrily defending the dreams animation
I thought fanboys were just shitposters, not real morons

stop being contrarian user

i don't own dreams or care about it. just think it's funny that people ITT are denying what's in front of their eyes, presumably because they're consolefags

The bottom looks like one of those bowling alley strike animations.
The top looks like a shitty jpeg compressed racing game attempting to make the screenshot look bad

A lot of people in Dreams set the graphic filters all the way to 10 for some reason. Motion blur, chromatic aberration, film grain, bloom, etc. This is why only people who have taste should be allowed to make games.

Looks like shit

The artstyle is how the graphics are painted, the graphics look different depending on how many polygons there are.
People like to talk shit on BOTW for trash graphics, but the graphics aren't bad, it's the artstyle they went with.

Whats infront of their eyes is a bad screenshot of one game and then an even worse screenshot that either shitposters or fanboys are trying to say is somehow advanced graphics, when it looks like its from the original toy story.

>still image vs. motion at high speed
OK Zoomer.

This is the power of Dreams!

Attached: x1080.jpg (1920x1080, 307.99K)

So basically a small af area with nothing to do? Just whip out the SDK.

Attached: book-of-the-dead-2.jpg (3840x2160, 780.14K)

>compare these blurry over-compressed jpegs.
I don't even see what the foliage looks like in Dirt 5 because I can't even see any foliage and I can barely see anything over the motion blur and aggressive jpeg compression.

But Dirt Rally 2.0, a game that I can actually play definitely has better looking foliage than Dreams, even if you're usually meant to speed past it at 150 kph.

This is an actual impressive graphics demo. But scope and performance are also important if used in a game, and bullshots like this give no info. Dont fall for lies

Is unlimited detail graphics fainally real?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 135.64K)

It looks so blurry and low res mostly because of the shitty ps4 capture card, every game will look like that even if it doesn't have motion blur.

who let dobson in

Book of the Dead is a "game" tho, walking sim with a story.

Cool then yea. If it works it works. I wasnt speaking to that game specifically, just the common "LOOK AT THIS PHOTOREALISTIC RENDER" scam people pull

Series S? One S? Are you ok OP?

>implying details are going to get better while most people still think 1080p is just fine in 2020

Attached: 1227939489914.jpg (312x353, 82.52K)

Next gen graphics are irrelevant you dumb fuck, what matters is the scale of games in the future and not the graphics you console tards obsess over.
You might start seeing games on a galactic scale with the new SSDs and CPUs, all with no hidden loading screens.
streamable.com/f12m8y

Attached: ktbcnhpdqix41.jpg (1913x988, 160.76K)

That's the problem. They made their name so shitty that nobody can remember it

>But Dirt Rally 2.0, a game that I can actually play definitely has better looking foliage than Dreams
it doesn't have better looking foliage than the dreams demo in the pic. dreams doesn't 'have foliage', it's a tool you can use to make foliage. in this particular case some guy has gone superhard on crafting a scene with foliage, earth, water and an overcast sky, and it's a lot richer and more three dimensional than what you see in that racing game. the obvious counter argument is that it's a tiny scene with fixed lighting, no interactivity and slow performance. but for some reason you aren't making that argument, you're trying to see the above picture looks better, which is just a wilful denial of reality.

Just call it sexbox

when will we get high res voxel games
pls

More a CPU limitation than graphics cards.

I already said the lighting is the only thing that "looks good" because it's baked in.
The foliage looks plasticky and bad, a problem almost all modern games avoid by using various foliage generator libraries together with high tesselation to add extra model detail.
Modern engines are all a huge patchwork of third party libraries anyway. And on consoles you aggressively LOD it so you only see detailed foliage when you're very close to it.

WHEN