Soul Reaver wasn't the best looking PC game of 1999. I notice you didn't decide to pick Quake III for comparison.
I didn't mention Quake III because this wasn't about which format had the best multiplatform version of the game, in fact the only reason I even mentioned Soul Reaver is for the fact that PC simply doesn't get the "best" version even though there's available superior hardware.
The point is that for every superior version/port of a game thats available on pc, there is one also on console to comtrast it. This has been true for nearly every generation and it's just one of the reasons why pc can't and never will kill off consoles (regardless of trolls who claim "consoles will never die because idiots will keep buying them).
Another reason is because the way the ecosystem works, engine/graphical evolution only pushes towards new console generational releases, that alone says alot. Yet pc gamers tend to claim that consoles are holding back pc from excelling in this area, ironic huh? We should get nVidia and ATi (or amd now) to make less gpu's and better drivers so developers won't be afraid to gamble making better games on pc but then pc's would become a console lol
That's just marketing bull**** because of weak hardware. Cinema used to use 24fps anyway? So aiming at 30fps doesn't make any sense. And the history of frames per second in Cinema is down to cost and what they can get away with without causing people's brains to hurt and for them to not see fluid motion. In video games that thresh hold is higher than 24, and it's certainly not 30. Also they forget that cinema has frame processing that smooths the 24fps experience that video games cannot have.
So it's an absolute lie to change the "aim" so that fidelity means something else. In truth fidelity is to realism, and higher the frames the better, although you do get diminishing returns. I can definitely feel the difference between 60 and 144hz
Not really... For example; A camera that features 60fps video capture is quite pointless unless you are shooting in slo-motion. 24fps/30fps is natural. This very same variable applies to cinematic gaming when a developer opts to vreate a cinematic game where storytelling and natural animation is needed, maybe you'll argue this if you're a fighter pilot who trains 12 hours a day in a 300fps simulation, and that's where games that run at higher than 60fps come in, such as first person shooters like Quake and Unreal Tournament where animation doesn't matter but response time does.
There is a PS4 exclusive that runs at 24fps, The Order 1886, to name one was a disappointment but that shame had nothing to do with 24fps with th framerate but rather the limited environment and interaction and very short game play it offered. Visually, like Detroit, it offers some very nice graphics and detailed textures which I still have yet to see Xbox One X and pc to match.
I think that's why first party development teams set their aim to games at a much earlier stage. Now in console exclusives, it tends to be 30fps for the single player campaign and then 60fps for the mulitplayer. I don't think most people realize a game is running at 30fps when it's designed to in engine and animations are tuned for it. It is possible to have buttery smooth animation at 30fps, if anything last generation proved that. I have played some games on pc though, that were made to be played in 60fps and woulf hurt my eyes and make me nauseated when playing them in 30fps, it's definitely noticable but that's where the development process and engine use differ. In no world is 30fps better but perhaps developers can be masterful trick our brains into thinking 30fps is as smooth (it's happened).
As far as inferior hardware, well, they rolled with ancient laptop gpu's/apu's equal to a 1050ti and they're doing rather well with what they have I'd say.
I don't think you understand what that is.
I understand exactly what it is but again, this isn't about stylization, that wasn't even remotely what I wasn't talking about.
On draw distance that's different priorities. Playable areas? Uncharted games are linear. Ryse had more fidelity than Crysis 3 on consoles. More reflection shaders doesn't even mean anything. Detail in general is just vague and also bollocks. Better texture mapping is artistry which I've tried to explain to you before.
Then why mention all the games you did in one as the same? Far Cry 5, Shadow Of The Tomb Raider, and whatever else you compared to the Sony exclusives I mentioned...
No. And I think we've thoroughly established your bias towards aliasing, higher contrast, and unrealistic lighting. **** is it more detailed. WTF are you talking about.
Hmmm.. When did I mention aliasing, unrealistic and higher contrast? You compared the games I mentioned to newer games and now that I posted the video comparison links, it just sounds as if you're making excuses and trying to claim I don't know what I'm talking about. Simple as that really.
Keep in mind, Steam and GoG are my main platforms and I only really use my PS4 when a new exclusive (that I want comes out). I wouldn't say that counts me towards being biased for console at all. Additionally, I enjoy my pc games much more, but again, just wanted to give credit where it was due.
Uncharted 4 still surpasses Shadow Of The Tomb Raider at any rate, on any stance. The video proves that, if you want I guess you can try to excuse it by remedying the loss with implying Uncharted 4 cuts alot of corners, though as the othe video I linked you to states that Shdaow Of The Raider is the real corner cutter here. Uncharted 4 doesn't hate it's mistakes and bad textures, why are we punishing consoles for that when the developers deserve praise for it?