›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

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

SystemSystem Member UncommonPosts: 12,599
edited April 2023 in News & Features Discussion

imageThe 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


«1

Comments

  • OG_SolareusOG_Solareus Member RarePosts: 1,041
    edited April 2023
    ....
    OldKingLogBlowfeld81DekahnNeoyoshiRyukanAsmodeuXPher0ciousLTBK
    F2P or DIE !
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited April 2023
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • OldKingLogOldKingLog Member RarePosts: 601
    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][Deleted User] Posts: 927
    edited April 2023
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    Sometimes we need fantasy to survive reality 
    https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
    Beyond the shadows there's always light
  • ashiru_1978ashiru_1978 Member RarePosts: 818
    From what I've seen on Steam reviews, people are saying the game runs like ass.
    NeoyoshiSarladirtyside
  • RyukanRyukan Member UncommonPosts: 858
    Graphical masterpiece...perhaps. Optimization and performance masterpiece...not a chance.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • NeoyoshiNeoyoshi Member RarePosts: 1,489
    edited April 2023
    April Fools was on the 1st, not the 6th.

    Good joke though.

    image
    dirtyside


    Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
    Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
    Fishing in RL since 1992
    Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    edited April 2023
    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.
    lotrloreSplattr
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • Jaguaratron1Jaguaratron1 Member UncommonPosts: 299
    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!!!"
  • Pher0ciousPher0cious Member RarePosts: 529
    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.
    ('''\( ',.:.,' )/''')
  • ItsThatGuyItsThatGuy Member UncommonPosts: 30
    A graphical masterpiece and technical failure.

    dirtyside
  • hoenens1hoenens1 Member UncommonPosts: 321
    Graphics.. amazing!!! Performnce... POO!
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member LegendaryPosts: 10,014
    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.
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,990
    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
     
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    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.
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • SplattrSplattr Member RarePosts: 577
    "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?
    Slapshot1188
  • OG_SolareusOG_Solareus Member RarePosts: 1,041
    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.
    F2P or DIE !
  • SplattrSplattr Member RarePosts: 577

    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
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    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?
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • SplattrSplattr Member RarePosts: 577

    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][Deleted User] Posts: 1,043
    edited April 2023
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • EldrachEldrach Member RarePosts: 465
    edited April 2023
    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
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,990
    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_SolareusOG_Solareus Member RarePosts: 1,041
    edited April 2023
    Splattr 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.
    F2P or DIE !
Sign In or Register to comment.