Support NeoGAF

[Banjo64]

Can anyone with Flight Sim tell me if Cedar Point in Ohio is accurately mapped?

 

[Chiggs]

Also the physics are all wrong on Flight Sim, it's not even realistic....

Flight Sim is not a static target; it's constantly being updated (visuals, handling, landscapes/landmarks, etc).

• You're posting a video that is 6 months old, on a plane that was known to have issues at the time.
• Planes handle differently in the game; they're not all the same, so your physics comment is not accurate.
• There are different control settings in Flight Sim, from beginner to advanced, with AI assist being a feature that can be toggled on/off, with occasionally interesting results.

Honestly, I don't think you're really familiar with Flight Sim, because some of things you're saying...

In terms of bugs, should I trash Ratchet and Clank because of the "how'd they miss that" 120hz panel/HDR bug?

And from the YouTube comments section, from one pilot to another:

Don't like a way a plan handles, then swap it out for another. Also, what controller was he using?

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Horizon doesn't have more stuff on screen compared to ratchet, the game still has to run on a shitty jaguar so you can forget more than 5-8 dinobot on screen at the same time (and not all big, some small, some medium and maybe a big one).

Ratchet has a lot of shit on screen in many areas.

But yeah, as a realistic looking games lover, i prefer horizon 2 graphic overall, but ratchet crush him in some aspects.

Horizon as in Forza series.

 

[SlimySnake]

Not when it comes to physics though. I would expect a flight simulator from 2021 to have accuarate water landing physics and overall interaction with water, crashes, etc. But hey, if it's about static visuals, looks as great as a postcard, but games are more than still pictures.

Fair enough, but again we could level the same criticisms at GT Sports. Fancy graphics, absolutely no destruction. 2D trees. Bad rain compared to DriveClub. etc.

That's why I said they need to be viewed with a different lens.

But these games have their own strength. The lighting for one. No one could compete with GT's lighting. Now, the honors go to Flight Sim. Their volumetric cloud tech is in a league of its own. Their draw distance as well. I am playing Ratchet right now and I get my mind blown every time I login to play. Blizar Prime is the best looking level ever made. But flight sim is doing some insane weather simulations that other more traditional games wont even touch. There is a reason why its impossible to have this game run at native 4k 60 fps even with a 3090. It's very physics driven. It is using the latest visual techniques like Dynamic Global Illumination to literally light your plane from the city lights thousands of feet below on the ground. To dismiss this game as pictures is bizarre because if it was that easy to take google map pictures, every game would be using pictures.

In fact, Resistance 2 did do that and it looked like shit.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

Can anyone with Flight Sim tell me if Cedar Point in Ohio is accurately mapped?

I'm gonna assume yes. My shit town in Nova Scotia is.

 

[Hugare]

Flight Sim might look "better"

But looking like real life is so ... boring

And its not like I'm a Sony fanboy or anything. If Gran Turismo comes out looking like real life, I would still think that it looks boring. Impressive, but boring.

Thats why photographers love the "golden hour". Or bunch of them overuse photoshop filters and etc.
Heck, even in Instagram everyone use filters to take photos.

Stylized games are the best. Thats why ND never goes for realism in their games. Its always a little stylized.

Real life can look awesome sometimes, but certainly not all the time. Same goes for Flight Sim.

 

[SlimySnake]

Horizon doesn't have more stuff on screen compared to ratchet, the game still has to run on a shitty jaguar so you can forget more than 5-8 dinobot on screen at the same time (and not all big, some small, some medium and maybe a big one).

Ratchet has a lot of shit on screen in many areas.

But yeah, as a realistic looking games lover, i prefer horizon 2 graphic overall, but ratchet crush him in some aspects.

Not gonna lie. Playing Ratchet the first night straight up depressed me. There was so much going on and such a high level of fidelity that my mind was struggling to keep up. Then my mind went straight to the horizon gameplay reveal and I realized just how empty and lifeless it felt to the cities in Ratchet. The cost of being cross gen is so apparent after playing Ratchet.

They did a great job faking the destruction, selling the character model upgrades with hero lighting and other enhancements like their water tech, but you cant fake having extra enemies on screen, more wildlife, insane amount of NPCs, and a massive skybox full of cars flying around. Those aspects will be held back by last gen unless they design the PS5 version separately with its own gameplay balance which they wont.

 

[dr guildo]

That's not how you spell Cyberpunk 2077.

Spoiler

You can see Ratchet in that reflexion if you look closely :

 

[kuncol02]

Not when it comes to physics though. I would expect a flight simulator from 2021 to have accuarate water landing physics and overall interaction with water, crashes, etc. But hey, if it's about static visuals, looks as great as a postcard, but games are more than still pictures.

There are no crashes in FS since 2001. You can guess why.
There is glimpse of world before:

 

[DeepEnigma]

You can see Ratchet in that reflexion if you look closely :

I really need a Pixar5! STAT!

 

[staticshock]

That's what I was thinking. Flight Sim is great in the air but buildings and stuff up close aren't that great.

Indeed, an achievement is not one that looks great part of the time. It’s about having consistency and polish throughout.

Again check my post and watch the world update videos.

Well this is not true or you're trying to say something else. But in Ratchet a lot more is happing on screen then in FS or even Horizon. While FS is heavy, most of the time there is nothing happening on your screen with all kinds of particle effects, explosions etc. Horizon comes close to Ratchet when it comes to "much more going on screen", but Ratchet would be more demanding with all these effects, particles, explosions enemies and RT on top of it.

You have proven to not be knowledgeable about what you are talking about.

The fully physically based volumetric cloud alone is more impressive and power demanding than any of the little sparkles and smokes in R&C.
This is the most realistic and physically based cloud rendering in gaming and its not even close.
What does R&*C has? a static picture skybox from the 90s. Like WTF?

Then the dynamic global illumination is also the best in gaming, the game literally looks like real life. Compared to your static baked lighting in R&C. There's literally no comparison.
Then you have the physically based and simulated weather system, rain, hurricane, tornados, all physical accurate. The best and most accurate weather system in game.
Nothing like that exists in R&C.

How about the water? Seriously, the water in FS looks realistic in air and up close and is physically accurate. One of THE best in gaming if not the best.
The water in R&C is probably one of the worst in Gaming. Then you have fully volumetric fog which is also non existent in R&C.
Literally FS has the BEST graphical feature in gaming in almost ALL CATEGORIES. Its not even close.

Like its not a fair comparison. FS has best in class graphical features in almost all categories IN GAMING.

How about we do this. Go to UE5

1) Turn off lumen / Turn off Distance Fields / Delete everything (Start from blank map).
2) Record your FPS (notice its 120 FPS+ depending on your pc rig)
3) Turn on Lumen Dynamic GI (Detail Tracing, Final Gather = 4, Reflection = 4).
4) Add a skylight
5) Add sky atmosphere
6) Add a movable directional light and hook it up to the sky atmosphere so you can move it with Ctrl+ L
7) Add exponential Height fog
8) add their Fully Volumetric Cloud and fill the entire sky.
9) Turn on their fully Volumetric fog and fill the entire environment.
10) Create a landscape and add their physically based water and crank up the tessalations and settings.
11) Record your FPS.
12) Make a note how your FPS is below 30 and that's with no static meshes at all. Virtually nothing other than VFX.

Now let's replicate R&C setup

1) Turn off everything.
2) Enable static lighting
3) Record your FPS
4) Create a sphere to act as a sky dome and apply a sky material to it with a static sky texture.
5) Add a sky light
6) Add a static/stationary directional light
7) Build static lighting
8) Create a particle explosion similar to R&C (this is easy to make and there are similar explosion available for free from Epic Games library).
9) Spawn those particle
10) Record your FPS.

Notice how your FPS is virtually unaffected by the particles and the R&C tech stack.
You went from 120 FPS to maybe 100-105 FPS with the R&C setup.

(Most videos are Before world & sim updates)

CLOUD TIMELAPSE - This get ridiculous at 1:53




Fully Dynamic GI



WATER FROM ABOVE


WATER ON THE GROUND



WEATHER

 

[John Wick]

Nice looking game but being massively overated by sonygaf.

Yes I have it with my PS5 plugged into an OLED TV

Massively overrated in what way?

 

[sainraja]

Why are people comparing Ratchet with Flight Simulator? or even Forza Horizon? Insomniac Games weren't making a flying simulator and they weren't making a racing game either.

 

[Greggy]

Flight Sim is more CPU intensive.

I wonder what that CPU is doing. We've just been told how everything is so basic and the engine barely has anything to do.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Spoiler

You can see Ratchet in that reflexion if you look closely :

Did you take those?

Whoever took those screens did a great job.

 

[Darius87]

can we stop comparing R&C with FS because it doesn't make any sense and makes comparisson subjective at least compare R&C to a game which has any art style in it.
now is art vs no art.

 

[MasterCornholio]

can we stop comparing R&C with FS because it doesn't make any sense and makes comparisson subjective at least compare R&C to a game which has any art style in it.
now is art vs no art.

Kena would be a good choice. But it's not a big budget title so some things won't compare well.

 

[Bryank75]

Again check my post and watch the world update videos.



You have proven to not be knowledgeable about what you are talking about.

The fully physically based volumetric cloud alone is more impressive and power demanding than any of the little sparkles in R&C. This is the most realistic cloud in gaming and its not even close.
What does R&*C has? static picture skybox from the 90s. Like WTF?
Then the dynamic global illumination is also the best in gaming, the game literally looks like real life. Compared to your static baked lighting in R&C.
There's literally no comparison.
Then you have the physically based and simulated weather system, rain, hurricane, tornados, all physical accurate. The best and most accurate weather system in game.
Nothing like that exists in R&C.
Then about the water? Seriously, the water in FS looks realistic in air and up close and is physically accurate. One of THE best in gaming if not the best.
The water in R&C is probably one of the worst in Game.
Then you have fully volumetric fog another non existent in R&C.
Literally FS has the BEST in almost ALL CATEGORIES. Its not even close.

Like its not a fair comparison. FS has best in class graphical features in almost all categories.

How about we do this. Go to UE5

1) Turn off lumen / Turn off Distance Fields / Delete everything (Start from blank map).
2) Record your FPS (notice its 120 FPS+ depending on your pc rig)
3) Turn on Lumen Dynamic GI (Detail Tracing, Final Gather = 4, Reflection = 4).
4) Add a skylight
5) Add sky atmosphere
6) Add a movable directional light and hook it up to the sky atmosphere so you can move it with Ctrl+ L
7) Add exponential Height fog
4) add their Fully Volumetric Cloud and fill the entire sky.
5) Turn on their fully Volumetric fog and fill the entire environment.
6) Create a landscape and add their physically based water and crank up the tessalations and settings.
7) Record your FPS.
8) Make a note how your FPS is below 30 and that's with no static meshes at all. Virtually nothing other than VFX.

Now let's replicate R&C setup

1) Turn off everything.
2) Enable static lighting
3) Record your FPS
4) Create a sphere to act as a sky dome and apply a sky material to it with a static sky texture.
5) Add a sky light
6) Add a static/stationary directional light
7) Build static lighting
8) Create a particle explosion similar to R&C (this is easy to make and there are similar explosion available for free from Epic Games library).
9) Spawn those particle
10) Record your FPS.

Notice how your FPS is virtually unaffected by the particles and the R&C tech stack.
You went from 120 FPS to maybe 100-105 FPS with the R&C setup.


CLOUD TIMELAPSE (Before world & sim updates)




Fully Dynamic GI



WATER FROM ABOVE


WATER ON THE GROUND



WEATHER

The technical demands and all of that is pretty irrelevant.

The title says 'best looking'.... FS isn't even in the same artistic league as R&C. The colors and imagery is dull in FS and cloud patterns may be impressive to you and looking at landmarks from a great distance.... but doing it in reality is an option and will always trump FS.

R&C is an orgasmic explosion of color, imagination and excitement that puts FS to shame with it's collage of imagery and bombastic setpieces. You can't just go outside and see something similar to it....

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Spoiler

You can see Ratchet in that reflexion if you look closely :

Absolutely incredible! And some people are still trying to make FlightSim happen lol. So much denial. What's next, Euro Truck?

 

[Danknugz]

lol probably. I downloaded the game again the other day, after not playing for months, and my town in the UK looked consifderably better. I dont know if Bing maps had been updated, or the AI tech, but it ws noticeably better.
I think its going to be like this for years to come, thats what the devs said anyway.

Thanks I’ll have to go back and check

 

[John Wick]

And erm, how big are the areas in ratchet compared with Forza!?

Why does Forza load the whole area into memory? Like that has anything to do with it.

 

[Sevenfold]

I, for one, welcome consoles back to the graphics argument.

 

[Magnific0giganticus]

There are no crashes in the game because the devs already said it wont be a good look having tons of Youtube vids of planes crashing into buildings.
As for landing on water, thre are water planes you can land on water, just not 747's lol.

The water physics are awful still. And you can land 747s on water in real life. I guess they don't care about realism to that extent, but it would be great to to able to recreate emergency desperate landings of that sort. And about crashing, that seems like a lame excuse. There's plenty of other things a plan can crash into besides buildings, but oh well...

 

[GymWolf]

Horizon as in Forza series.

So an even worse example?!

How is a racing game more full of geometry and stuff on screen compared to this?!

 

[Magnific0giganticus]

Fair enough, but again we could level the same criticisms at GT Sports. Fancy graphics, absolutely no destruction. 2D trees. Bad rain compared to DriveClub. etc.

That's why I said they need to be viewed with a different lens.

But these games have their own strength. The lighting for one. No one could compete with GT's lighting. Now, the honors go to Flight Sim. Their volumetric cloud tech is in a league of its own. Their draw distance as well. I am playing Ratchet right now and I get my mind blown every time I login to play. Blizar Prime is the best looking level ever made. But flight sim is doing some insane weather simulations that other more traditional games wont even touch. There is a reason why its impossible to have this game run at native 4k 60 fps even with a 3090. It's very physics driven. It is using the latest visual techniques like Dynamic Global Illumination to literally light your plane from the city lights thousands of feet below on the ground. To dismiss this game as pictures is bizarre because if it was that easy to take google map pictures, every game would be using pictures.

In fact, Resistance 2 did do that and it looked like shit.

It's not even fair to compare FS to a racing game let alone pretty much any other game that isn't a fishing or simple puzzle game lol. I mean, in FS barely anything happens, you basically do 3 things: take off, fly and land...

 

[abacab driver]

I remember when the Hellblade 2 in-engine teaser dropped.
No ray tracing in it (and running at sub 30fps).
People claimed it looked way too good/realistic to be in-engine.

Then the Unreal Engine 5 Lumen demo dropped.
Its Dynamic lighting, coupled with photogrametry resulted in near convincing photorealism..running at 30fps in a linear environment.
People said: "Wow..why waste power on raytracing when you can use proper dynamic lighting and get visuals like this?"

Fast forward to the Forza Horizon 5 gameplay demo.
It's dynamic lighting coupled with photogrametry results in near convincing photorealism..running at 60fps in an enormous open world environment.
People are now saying: "But where's the ray tracing?"

 

[The_Observer]

It is the best looking game and the only game existing for the foreseeable future that you can genuinely call nextgen. There are many incredible looking games, but there is no other game that not only looks but also feels nextgen. Rift Apart in its current form, without serious downgrades and gameplay changes just couldn’t exist on lastgen, that‘s a fact. I hope we don’t have to wait too much for a similar game, but it seems we will, unfortunately. Regardless, this is the kind of game for which one buys a nextgen system, and nothing can change this fact.

 

[Omnipunctual Godot]

They need to fix parts of the swamp map. Some of the outer water areas literally look unfinished.

 

[GymWolf]

Not gonna lie. Playing Ratchet the first night straight up depressed me. There was so much going on and such a high level of fidelity that my mind was struggling to keep up. Then my mind went straight to the horizon gameplay reveal and I realized just how empty and lifeless it felt to the cities in Ratchet. The cost of being cross gen is so apparent after playing Ratchet.

They did a great job faking the destruction, selling the character model upgrades with hero lighting and other enhancements like their water tech, but you cant fake having extra enemies on screen, more wildlife, insane amount of NPCs, and a massive skybox full of cars flying around. Those aspects will be held back by last gen unless they design the PS5 version separately with its own gameplay balance which they wont.

2 things:

You can't have that type of city with a fuckload of stuff on screen in horizon, it is still a post apocalyptic game, but yeah, i don't expect a big upgrade compared to horizon 1 when it comes to stuff on screen at the same time, we can forget multiple tallnecks or hundreds of npc in the big cities etc.


Destruction is the same as horizon 1, enhanced during set pieces and limited to rocks, trees and plants in the open world,so yeah they don't have much merit tbh but it's not their fault, it's jaguar fault.

 

[Snake29]

Again check my post and watch the world update videos.



You have proven to not be knowledgeable about what you are talking about.

The fully physically based volumetric cloud alone is more impressive and power demanding than any of the little sparkles and smokes in R&C.
This is the most realistic and physically based cloud rendering in gaming and its not even close.
What does R&*C has? a static picture skybox from the 90s. Like WTF?

Then the dynamic global illumination is also the best in gaming, the game literally looks like real life. Compared to your static baked lighting in R&C. There's literally no comparison.
Then you have the physically based and simulated weather system, rain, hurricane, tornados, all physical accurate. The best and most accurate weather system in game.
Nothing like that exists in R&C.

How about the water? Seriously, the water in FS looks realistic in air and up close and is physically accurate. One of THE best in gaming if not the best.
The water in R&C is probably one of the worst in Gaming. Then you have fully volumetric fog which is also non existent in R&C.
Literally FS has the BEST graphical feature in gaming in almost ALL CATEGORIES. Its not even close.

Like its not a fair comparison. FS has best in class graphical features in almost all categories IN GAMING.

How about we do this. Go to UE5

1) Turn off lumen / Turn off Distance Fields / Delete everything (Start from blank map).
2) Record your FPS (notice its 120 FPS+ depending on your pc rig)
3) Turn on Lumen Dynamic GI (Detail Tracing, Final Gather = 4, Reflection = 4).
4) Add a skylight
5) Add sky atmosphere
6) Add a movable directional light and hook it up to the sky atmosphere so you can move it with Ctrl+ L
7) Add exponential Height fog
8) add their Fully Volumetric Cloud and fill the entire sky.
9) Turn on their fully Volumetric fog and fill the entire environment.
10) Create a landscape and add their physically based water and crank up the tessalations and settings.
11) Record your FPS.
12) Make a note how your FPS is below 30 and that's with no static meshes at all. Virtually nothing other than VFX.

Now let's replicate R&C setup

1) Turn off everything.
2) Enable static lighting
3) Record your FPS
4) Create a sphere to act as a sky dome and apply a sky material to it with a static sky texture.
5) Add a sky light
6) Add a static/stationary directional light
7) Build static lighting
8) Create a particle explosion similar to R&C (this is easy to make and there are similar explosion available for free from Epic Games library).
9) Spawn those particle
10) Record your FPS.

Notice how your FPS is virtually unaffected by the particles and the R&C tech stack.
You went from 120 FPS to maybe 100-105 FPS with the R&C setup.

(Most videos are Before world & sim updates)

CLOUD TIMELAPSE - This get ridiculous at 1:53




Fully Dynamic GI



WATER FROM ABOVE


WATER ON THE GROUND



WEATHER

So what are you trying to prove? You talk about the underlying tech. Yes then naming all kinds of buzzwords makes everything impressive. If we breakdown R&C tech then it also sounds impressive.

 

[Excess]

I haven't said a word for weeks, but the hype for this Mario-esque children's game comes off as forced.

 

[GymWolf]

I really need a Pixar5! STAT!

The photography topic for this game on reeeee is full of this stuff, their art school diploma is finally put on good use.

 

[staticshock]

I think they just focused on some very few major spots, was tempted to fly over my house but that looks generic as fuck.



And where is Gulf of Oman there?

Its coming. They are dealing with the whole world not just some corridor or barren open desert or space station with last gen rocks as asteroids.
Going from the before and after. That location is going to look just like that picture when they finally get to it.
The next world update coming this month is Nordics Europe.

 

[staticshock]

So what are you trying to prove? You talk about the underlying tech. Yes then naming all kinds of buzzwords makes everything impressive. If we breakdown R&C tech then it also sounds impressive.

Huh? seriously stop while you are ahead. Those ain't buzz words.

 

[BigLee74]

That’s a hard label to attach to a game with R+C’s artistic style. Cartoony is always easier to make good looking, as geometry can get away with being less detailed, and textures much more simplistic and with lower resolutions.

So yes it looks great, and technically is probably doing a LOT, but best ever?

RDR2 is still the only game that has made me go ‘wow’ in recent years.

In the interest of fairness, I say this as a guy who has never played R+C, and likely never will. IMO, it’s a game themed for the younger audience and not my type of thing at all.

 

[Snake29]

Huh? seriously stop while you are ahead. Those ain't buzz words.

We don’t need to breakdown something to make a argument. People trying way to hard to push FS lol.

 

[GymWolf]

Which side? I didn't realize bread had different sides honestly. Unless it's an end piece.

He is american, they don't spread butter on bread, they use bagels.

 

[cireza]

Meh.

Pretty much any King of Fighters game from the Neo Geo days looks better than this.

 

[staticshock]

So an even worse example?!

How is a racing game more full of geometry and stuff on screen compared to this?!

Wait you do realize that having the same set of characters being repeated with different colors that are each around 1,000 triangles and simplistic environment buildings with tiny triangle count is in no comparison to having 20,30, 40 etc cars with each having hundreds of thousands of triangles?

 

[ViolentP]

Furries are immediately disqualified.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Anyone with a PS5 digital edition able to comment on the console?
What is operating sound like? Fan noise?
Does it ramp up the fans during intense games?
Or is it quiet running PS4 games at higher resolutions?

I have yet to ear a significant noise come out of it under heavy stress (I play FF VII re and TLoU 2 these days).

If you don't use discs it's the best thing ever made.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Wait you do realize that having the same set of characters being repeated with different colors that are each around 1,000 triangles and simplistic environment buildings with tiny triangle count is in no comparison to having 20,30, 40 etc cars with each having hundreds of thousands of triangles?

You must be in the wrong thread, or are responding to something about a PS1 game.

EDIT: Seriously, cars are much more static than characters with limbs, sometimes air, etc. Also, the forest environments in R & C are much more convincing:

FH 5:

I mean they don't even look like they are from the same generation.

 

[SlimySnake]

I haven't said a word for weeks, but the hype for this Mario-esque children's game comes off as forced.

Not a fan of kiddie games or ratchet but this game is something special.

 

[GymWolf]

Wait you do realize that having the same set of characters being repeated with different colors that are each around 1,000 triangles and simplistic environment buildings with tiny triangle count is in no comparison to having 20,30, 40 etc cars with each having hundreds of thousands of triangles?

I think you are vastly understimating ratchet here but i 'm not a forza players so i only know what i can see in the trailers and the maps are usually big but not really full of stuff, but you have a point with the cars.

Still, 1000 triangles/polygons for ratchet side character seems like a big underestimation, did you played the game and zoomed on those characters?!

 

[SafeOrAlone]

What will look better, Ratchet and Clank or the next God of War?

 

[R6Rider]

I haven't said a word for weeks, but the hype for this Mario-esque children's game comes off as forced.

 

[staticshock]

You must be in the wrong thread, or are responding to something about a PS1 game.

EDIT: Seriously, cars are much more static than characters with limbs, sometimes air, etc.

That literally doesn't matter. Most of you people have no clue how any of this works.
This is the problem, You people need to start using unreal engine and start understanding how a game engine actually works.

Also, the forest environments in R & C are much more convincing:I mean they don't even look like they are from the same generation.

No it doesn't. R&C is an empty wasteland with simplistic static meshes and lower resolution texture.

Its not even close, from the water to the rocks to the foliage, to the density of trees, to the fully time of day dynamic GI, to the lighting, to the weather, to the dozens of cars with hundreds of thousands of triangles, to the buildings with ridiculous detail, to the volumetric fog, to the fact that its open world and not some corridor linear game.
I'm not even discussing FH5. But its not even close.

 

[MasterCornholio]

What will look better, Ratchet and Clank or the next God of War?

I think Ratchet will look better in some ways due to not being cross gen. GoW2 will still look very good though.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

So an even worse example?!

How is a racing game more full of geometry and stuff on screen compared to this?!

Can you travel to all of those places in the BACKGROUND? In Forza you can go any and everywhere essentially. Not just static lighting, static weather, etc. Those shots look good, but it's still about art style vs art style. Technically wise, Forza takes the cake.

 

[Turk1993]

You must be in the wrong thread, or are responding to something about a PS1 game.

EDIT: Seriously, cars are much more static than characters with limbs, sometimes air, etc. Also, the forest environments in R & C are much more convincing:

FH 5:

I mean they don't even look like they are from the same generation.

You guys are very good at cherry picking lol, one game is a open world game with 24H tod and dynamic weather that aims for realistic look while the other is a game with static lighting and static weather that goes for the pixar look. Don't get me wrong R&C is the best looking animated looking game ever but its not the best looking game overal.