The Last Of Us Part 1 On PC Is A Graphical Masterclass | MMORPG.com

System

The Last Of Us Part 1 On PC Is A Graphical Masterclass | MMORPG.com

Shank loves The Last Of Us, and while the PS5 version of Part 1 is a console showcase, the PC version looked to be even visually better. Shank himself had to give it a whirl and came away quite impressed.

Read the full story here

OG_Solareus

....

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

OldKingLog

templarga said:

Did Naughty Dog pay for this article? Not to sound rude, and I mean no disrespect, but this article seems completely out of place when thousands of players could not run the game. I am well above minimum and close to recommended settings and it took shaders longer to load than it did for me to be able to play. Steam even got rid of the time limit of refunds due to the fact it took more than 2 hour in many cases for players to even play the game.

Just read the Steam reviews and see the posts from Naughty Dog themselves.

I understand that the graphics are great and I would probably feel the same way if I could have played it. But to not even mention the issues thousands are having with it, seems disingenuous to me at best and sounds like a commercial at worst.

You just need to tell your computer to "git gud."

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

ashiru_1978

From what I've seen on Steam reviews, people are saying the game runs like ass.

Ryukan

Graphical masterpiece...perhaps. Optimization and performance masterpiece...not a chance.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Neoyoshi

April Fools was on the 1st, not the 6th.

Good joke though.

Iselin

It is definitely gorgeous on PC. Outstanding!

If this were a review, you'd have a case for giving Pooma shit for not mentioning the performance issues and crashes and using the default gamergate "paid review!" conspiracy theory, but it isn't a review, it's an article about how gorgeous it looks on PC.

And he ain't wrong.

Jaguaratron1

LMAO, shill much?

"We cant say anything bad about this guys, how can we frame it? I know, it looks pretty, lets call it a tech analysis!!!"

Pher0cious

When the game works.

Graphics? Yes.
Motion Captured Animations? Yes.
Voice Acting? Yes.
Story? Meh.
Raising the bar on attention to detail artistic wise and cinematography? Yes.

Gameplay? Repetitive.

There ain't much to gameplay. Very few enemy types. Combat is the same repetitiveness every encounter.

People praised this because it was a good interactive story telling experience.

Mediocre game.

ItsThatGuy

A graphical masterpiece and technical failure.

hoenens1

Graphics.. amazing!!! Performnce... POO!

Theocritus

Pher0cious said:

When the game works.

Graphics? Yes.
Motion Captured Animations? Yes.
Voice Acting? Yes.
Story? Meh.
Raising the bar on attention to detail artistic wise and cinematography? Yes.

Gameplay? Repetitive.

There ain't much to gameplay. Very few enemy types. Combat is the same repetitiveness every encounter.

People praised this because it was a good interactive story telling experience.

Mediocre game.

So its the prototype graphics>gameplay game? I watched an hour or two of it and meh..... not my thing.....I had heard so much about it, but really the story did nothing for me.

Vrika

Theocritus said:

Pher0cious said:

When the game works.

Graphics? Yes.
Motion Captured Animations? Yes.
Voice Acting? Yes.
Story? Meh.
Raising the bar on attention to detail artistic wise and cinematography? Yes.

Gameplay? Repetitive.

There ain't much to gameplay. Very few enemy types. Combat is the same repetitiveness every encounter.

People praised this because it was a good interactive story telling experience.

Mediocre game.

So its the prototype graphics>gameplay game? I watched an hour or two of it and meh..... not my thing.....I had heard so much about it, but really the story did nothing for me.

No. For consoles it was a game with excellent story and also decent gameplay. For example PS3 version has Metacritic score of 95 and user score of 9.2.

It would be excellent game if it didn't have technical problems.

Iselin

Vrika said:

Theocritus said:

Pher0cious said:

When the game works.

Graphics? Yes.
Motion Captured Animations? Yes.
Voice Acting? Yes.
Story? Meh.
Raising the bar on attention to detail artistic wise and cinematography? Yes.

Gameplay? Repetitive.

There ain't much to gameplay. Very few enemy types. Combat is the same repetitiveness every encounter.

People praised this because it was a good interactive story telling experience.

Mediocre game.

So its the prototype graphics>gameplay game? I watched an hour or two of it and meh..... not my thing.....I had heard so much about it, but really the story did nothing for me.

No. For consoles it was a game with excellent story and also decent gameplay. For example PS3 version has Metacritic score of 95 and user score of 9.2.

It would be excellent game if it didn't have technical problems.

It's a story-heavy action adventure and there are many people who don't go for that type of game.

I originally played it on the PS3 years ago. It was also re-mastered for the PS4 but this is a whole new level of re-mastered graphics for the PC.

The story is outstanding - no comic book cheese here - and very cinematic which is why the HBO series is so faithful to it.  They changed a few things but a lot of the dialogue in the TV series is straight out of the game.

Splattr

"The Last of Us Part 1 leverages DLSS 2 version 3.1.2. The reconstruction here is sublime. When playing at my 4K output resolution with DLSS set to Quality (which means it’s reconstructing from an internal 1440p), the resulting image quality is superior to that of native 4K."

Is this even possible? I haven't done a bunch of in-depth reading on DLSS but this is the first time I have ever seen someone claim that an upscaled image is better than an image at native 4k resolution. That would mean that DLSS is better at guessing what a pixel should be than the original engine is at rendering the scene from the raw data?

OG_Solareus

Splattr said:

"The Last of Us Part 1 leverages DLSS 2 version 3.1.2. The reconstruction here is sublime. When playing at my 4K output resolution with DLSS set to Quality (which means it’s reconstructing from an internal 1440p), the resulting image quality is superior to that of native 4K."

Is this even possible? I haven't done a bunch of in-depth reading on DLSS but this is the first time I have ever seen someone claim that an upscaled image is better than an image at native 4k resolution. That would mean that DLSS is better at guessing what a pixel should be than the original engine is at rendering the scene from the raw data?

I object your honor, a review or analysis should never be dependant on one technology for a product that can run under various technology.

If reviews here or articles on "technolgy per product is set upon another products properietary technology, that the base product itself is not the article.

Splattr

OG_Solareus said:

Splattr said:

"The Last of Us Part 1 leverages DLSS 2 version 3.1.2. The reconstruction here is sublime. When playing at my 4K output resolution with DLSS set to Quality (which means it’s reconstructing from an internal 1440p), the resulting image quality is superior to that of native 4K."



Is this even possible? I haven't done a bunch of in-depth reading on DLSS but this is the first time I have ever seen someone claim that an upscaled image is better than an image at native 4k resolution. That would mean that DLSS is better at guessing what a pixel should be than the original engine is at rendering the scene from the raw data?

I object your honor, a review or analysis should never be dependant on one technology for a product that can run under various technology.

If reviews here or articles on "technolgy per product is set upon another products properietary technology, that the base product itself is not the article.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to clarify that I was actually looking for a real answer. Please go back to the kids table so a grownup like the OP or Quizzical can answer the question.

Iselin

Splattr said:

OG_Solareus said:

Splattr said:

"The Last of Us Part 1 leverages DLSS 2 version 3.1.2. The reconstruction here is sublime. When playing at my 4K output resolution with DLSS set to Quality (which means it’s reconstructing from an internal 1440p), the resulting image quality is superior to that of native 4K."



Is this even possible? I haven't done a bunch of in-depth reading on DLSS but this is the first time I have ever seen someone claim that an upscaled image is better than an image at native 4k resolution. That would mean that DLSS is better at guessing what a pixel should be than the original engine is at rendering the scene from the raw data?

I object your honor, a review or analysis should never be dependant on one technology for a product that can run under various technology.

If reviews here or articles on "technolgy per product is set upon another products properietary technology, that the base product itself is not the article.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to clarify that I was actually looking for a real answer. Please go back to the kids table so a grownup like the OP or Quizzical can answer the question.

Well, I'm not Quiz or Pooma but I have done enough post-processing of digital photos to know it's very possible to make something look much better than the "original", especially since in digital photography the original is itself already a form of post-processing the binary RAW data using algorithms that are themselves just a form of digital filter - same kind of thing that post-processing filters and tweaks do.

However, I concede that making something look better than the original is not something I have ever associated with upscaling so I share your doubts.

I have experience with only DLSS 2 and although I think it's an outstanding tech I have never seen with my own eyes any examples of processing images with DLSS making things better. Almost indistinguishable from native res? Sure, I have seen that but pixel peepers I have watched do comparisons can always find the deficiencies.

Maybe hyperbole?

Splattr

Iselin said:

Splattr said:

OG_Solareus said:

Splattr said:

"The Last of Us Part 1 leverages DLSS 2 version 3.1.2. The reconstruction here is sublime. When playing at my 4K output resolution with DLSS set to Quality (which means it’s reconstructing from an internal 1440p), the resulting image quality is superior to that of native 4K."





Is this even possible? I haven't done a bunch of in-depth reading on DLSS but this is the first time I have ever seen someone claim that an upscaled image is better than an image at native 4k resolution. That would mean that DLSS is better at guessing what a pixel should be than the original engine is at rendering the scene from the raw data?

I object your honor, a review or analysis should never be dependant on one technology for a product that can run under various technology.

If reviews here or articles on "technolgy per product is set upon another products properietary technology, that the base product itself is not the article.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to clarify that I was actually looking for a real answer. Please go back to the kids table so a grownup like the OP or Quizzical can answer the question.

Well, I'm not Quiz or Pooma but I have done enough post-processing of digital photos to know it's very possible to make something look much better than the "original", especially since in digital photography the original is itself already a form of post-processing the binary RAW data using algorithms that are themselves just a form of digital filter - same kind of thing that post-processing filters and tweaks do.

However, I concede that making something look better than the original is not something I have ever associated with upscaling so I share your doubts.

I have experience with only DLSS 2 and although I think it's an outstanding tech I have never seen with my own eyes any examples of processing images with DLSS making things better. Almost indistinguishable from native res? Sure, I have seen that but pixel peepers I have watched do comparisons can always find the deficiencies.

Maybe hyperbole?

Knowing Poorna's love for video fidelity, I doubt it was hyperbole. The dude goes gaga over this shit, which also makes the accusations of him being a shill so damn hilarious. He's done several of this type of breakdown and he's always pointing out things I never even noticed.

I do see (pun intended) how post-processing can improve an original image. That takes time, though, and the whole premise of DLSS is taking shortcuts to speed up frame rendering, right?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Eldrach

Well - DLSS fills in jagged edges based on AI rendering. It’s been shown that objects in the distance, where the original image is lacking detail - is also processed by the dlss upscaling, making them look sharper than on the original image. For pixels closer and in more focus - dlss will sharpen and edge fill, but still look «softer» than the original 4k image. The reason Poorna isn’t experiencing the jittering and general poor performance is that the DLSS 3 frame generation is done directly by the gpu to the video output, meaning 50% of the frames doesn’t have to strain any other component in your system. It kinda feels like magic in action

Vrika

Splattr said:

Iselin said:

Splattr said:

OG_Solareus said:

Splattr said:

"The Last of Us Part 1 leverages DLSS 2 version 3.1.2. The reconstruction here is sublime. When playing at my 4K output resolution with DLSS set to Quality (which means it’s reconstructing from an internal 1440p), the resulting image quality is superior to that of native 4K."





Is this even possible? I haven't done a bunch of in-depth reading on DLSS but this is the first time I have ever seen someone claim that an upscaled image is better than an image at native 4k resolution. That would mean that DLSS is better at guessing what a pixel should be than the original engine is at rendering the scene from the raw data?

I object your honor, a review or analysis should never be dependant on one technology for a product that can run under various technology.

If reviews here or articles on "technolgy per product is set upon another products properietary technology, that the base product itself is not the article.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to clarify that I was actually looking for a real answer. Please go back to the kids table so a grownup like the OP or Quizzical can answer the question.

Well, I'm not Quiz or Pooma but I have done enough post-processing of digital photos to know it's very possible to make something look much better than the "original", especially since in digital photography the original is itself already a form of post-processing the binary RAW data using algorithms that are themselves just a form of digital filter - same kind of thing that post-processing filters and tweaks do.

However, I concede that making something look better than the original is not something I have ever associated with upscaling so I share your doubts.

I have experience with only DLSS 2 and although I think it's an outstanding tech I have never seen with my own eyes any examples of processing images with DLSS making things better. Almost indistinguishable from native res? Sure, I have seen that but pixel peepers I have watched do comparisons can always find the deficiencies.

Maybe hyperbole?

Knowing Poorna's love for video fidelity, I doubt it was hyperbole. The dude goes gaga over this shit, which also makes the accusations of him being a shill so damn hilarious. He's done several of this type of breakdown and he's always pointing out things I never even noticed.

I do see (pun intended) how post-processing can improve an original image. That takes time, though, and the whole premise of DLSS is taking shortcuts to speed up frame rendering, right?

In theory tech like DLSS can be better than native resolution if it does anti-aliasing well enough: Pixels on your screen are fixed sizes and stay at fixed locations, and when displaying 3D world your screen's pixels almost never match 1:1 with pixels drawn by devs to the game's textures.

The game needs to solve a lot of situations where pixel in your screen (that can only be one color at a time) should show parts of different colored pixels on the game's textures. At its best DLSS may look even better than native resolution because it's very good at solving those situations.

OG_Solareus

Splattr said:

OG_Solareus said:

Splattr said:

"The Last of Us Part 1 leverages DLSS 2 version 3.1.2. The reconstruction here is sublime. When playing at my 4K output resolution with DLSS set to Quality (which means it’s reconstructing from an internal 1440p), the resulting image quality is superior to that of native 4K."



Is this even possible? I haven't done a bunch of in-depth reading on DLSS but this is the first time I have ever seen someone claim that an upscaled image is better than an image at native 4k resolution. That would mean that DLSS is better at guessing what a pixel should be than the original engine is at rendering the scene from the raw data?

I object your honor, a review or analysis should never be dependant on one technology for a product that can run under various technology.

If reviews here or articles on "technolgy per product is set upon another products properietary technology, that the base product itself is not the article.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to clarify that I was actually looking for a real answer. Please go back to the kids table so a grownup like the OP or Quizzical can answer the question.

I have a bachelor's degree in science for interactive media. The fact that DLSS is being praised for "fixing" a game is kind of an odd way of praising the game.

I've taught myself 3d design, web design and multimedia creation using MAcromedia FLash, Firewoks, Photoshop, blenderAfter Effects and hold a license for Trapcode post processing suite.

Coming at me like that is really tacky and distasteful specially from a writer of the website. It's actually against rules here.

I stand by my words. Using 3rd party proprietary software to some how make a port seem like a work of art is laughable.

Apology, I didn't see it was a question, thought you where saying it looks better.