I don't care what kind of tech UC3 uses, it's one of the best games I've ever seen.
What will next gen graphics look like?
- Thread starter Shadow of the BEAST
- Start date
panama chief
Member
christ!!! i need to replay this on my 1080p monitor. i dont think my tv is doing the game justice. nor are my colors that deep on my TV. awesome scene by the way.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
Anyways, I posted this in the CE3 Titanic thread but it's more appropriate here.
This is some of the stuff Square-Enix has planned for next gen:
http://www.youtube.com/user/traktamente
None of that has been seen in either this gen nor on high-end PC games, so for those expecting a big change, be assured it will happen.
This is some of the stuff Square-Enix has planned for next gen:
http://www.youtube.com/user/traktamente
None of that has been seen in either this gen nor on high-end PC games, so for those expecting a big change, be assured it will happen.
Who cares what kind of technique is being used, it looks easily comparable to what's seen in the Witcher 2 regardless of what kind of tech is being used.
Which is imho the biggest downside of the tech. At some parts the faces clearly lack a certain "depth".
Your entire face gets bugged in LAN. There are no "eyes" in LAN, it's an entire piece of video that covers the whole face.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
No, it isn't. One has clearly detailed patterns that occupy the whole texture, the other simply tiles a bump map. If you can't notice those differences maybe you shouldn't be arguing about graphics
Sorry gotta call bullshit on that one brotha. Im replaying MGS4 now and I've replayed this game 10 maybe 15 times and each and every time there is something that is different or I did not see last time around. Especially in chapter 2, I just found a freaking underground tunnel I knew nothing about! But since were talking about graphics I must say that after seeing what Sony's first party did this gen and what they continue to do, I have no doubts that their games will once again be showcases for their new hardware and set standards in graphics.
For what it's worth, I DON'T like that since it is very blurry, quite dark in places, and it seems hard for me to even figure out what's going on. It makes me think of a shakycam movie fight scene where you can't follow the actors or something.
Chuck Norris
Banned
What, we're arguing Uncharted 3 versus Witcher 2 now?
Lol come on.
Lol come on.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
bingo
Sure witcher 2 looks great and better then uncharted 3, but uncharted 3 does look really good considering its running on a ps3 and not a high end pc.
Agreed. I'd be very disappointed if next gen graphics are like PC BF3 at 1080p.
I think I was comparing farcry and kameo, in which I'd prefer far cry, but sure, lets do farcry vs pd0. I can't say that one "smokes the shit" out of the other (or even anything close to that) but pd0 does seem to have an edge judging by those videos. Although FC holds its own.
Doom 3 on the other hand(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBYoXZROy3Y&feature=fvsr) looks amazing for its time and judging only by the youtube videos, looks significantly better than pd0.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
i think we definitely will, mid gen at the latest
fact is that even the first generation console games of next gen are gunna smoke the witcher 2, bf3 because each of those games were held back by a need to port to consoles and because console games have the really big budgets.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
lol @ people who are describing what tech is used to make the game look good as if it is a negative point...goddamn lol
Warm Machine
Member
And this is why we made sure Chuck Greene never smiles.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
the lighting and textures in pd0 over farcry seals it for me personally but im gunna let this rest.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Thanks for that.
For all the platforms.
No, it isn't. One has clearly detailed patterns that occupy the whole texture, the other simply tiles a bump map. If you can't notice those differences maybe you shouldn't be arguing about graphics
*sigh*
again, you're using the tech at hand as a measuring stick when in reality it doesn't mater what kind of tech is being used as long as it looks great. Bump map or whatever, its obviously that ND or GG was using this apparent non-proper technique to help create/convey vivid looking "textures", and for all intents and purposes IMO they succeeded with flying colors.
And because hardware is never pushed to its real limits on PCs. It's fair to assume next gen console graphics would look significantly better than current PC ones even if powered by current PC hardware.
Chuck Norris
Banned
I don't think it looks better at all. But that's just me.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
crysis is very bland, metro has a very disjointed look graphically (shiny cloth, odd faces, lots of reused assets etc.)
finding either gow or uncharted more impressive is reasonable. personally i think mirrors edge pc > battlefield 3 > gow > uncharted > metro > crysis in terms of realistic graphics.
ive played and beaten (with the exception of crysis because its boring) all of them maxed, im equal parts pc and console gamer. im not heavily invested in pc gaming culture nor a champion of the consoles. it's a fair neutral unbiased opinion
You don't understand our point.No, it isn't. One has clearly detailed patterns that occupy the whole texture, the other simply tiles a bump map. If you can't notice those differences maybe you shouldn't be arguing about graphics
I don't care if the technique used isn't as physically demanding, if it looks good, it looks good
This is just like when people call out Uncharted's amazing views of a big landscape and say "That's just an image, those buildings a mile away aren't actually renders!"
Guess what? I don't care, it looks amazing.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Umad bro? Graphically Uncharted 3 is pretty awesome.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
expecting a jump like that will lead to a let down.
there's dimishing returns on how we perceive objects. A polygon count that goes from 1000 - 10000 is much easier to notice then a polygon count that goes from 100k-500k. It's why the push for non-realism is ramping up so much by developers.
there's dimishing returns on how we perceive objects. A polygon count that goes from 1000 - 10000 is much easier to notice then a polygon count that goes from 100k-500k. It's why the push for non-realism is ramping up so much by developers.
New interpolation technology will allow for "fake" framerates in the same sense as full screen blur allows fake AA and upscaling gives us "1080P."
That is to say, it will be a generation of internal resolutions near 720P, internal framerates under 30, no AA/AF, and the most visceral, intense, cinematic jelly-on-screen effects we've ever seen.
That is to say, it will be a generation of internal resolutions near 720P, internal framerates under 30, no AA/AF, and the most visceral, intense, cinematic jelly-on-screen effects we've ever seen.
Also, PS2 to PS3 was a huge jump. Xbox to Xbox360, PS3 should be more close to what we should be expecting.
As a PC gamer this sounds good. Basically console games will be doing the best they can do with the technology sacrificing resolution and so on, gaining in other areas, while we on the PC will be able to get the resolution as high as we want.
Personally I think we will see many games with 1080P resolution in the next generation on consoles as it will probably be easy to achieve both that and good graphics, and possibly cheaper than a game that looks so good that can only run bellow that. So we will get both higher resolution and better looking games.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Sorry for the double quote but those local reflections are to die for.
This is the kind of generational leap I'm expecting:
From this:
To this:
Anything below that will be a disappointment.
Drinking coolaid as always my friend?
I am going to tell you the real limitation of next gen: Money.
We will be at a point where it's truly the budget that will let your game look better or not. Mark my words. See ya in a couple of years. And I really hope that the average budget will give something like Uncharted 2. I even fear it mighht not be realistic --- unless videogames sales suddendly double out of the blue.
Phonomezer
Banned
RDR and Skyrim are both far more graphically impressive than Uncharted 3 or Gears of War 3 to me.
That's the 360 version
Ps2
PS3
That's the 360 version
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
i think im judging on realism and aesthetic appeal because honestly crysis was very realistic looking, the bland and repetitive environments just kinda sucked the fun out of the visual quality though. kinda raises in an interesting quesiton: if a game consists of one very realistic tree high poly, does that make it the best looking game ever?
revised list and title, games were both awesome aesthetically and realistic graphically:
mirrors edge pc > bf3 > gow > uncharted > metro > crysis
it ended up being mostly the same but i added in bf3
In addition, the economies of scale on graphics development, plus the business and consumer interest shift from raw graphical horsepower to i/o technologies, media ecosystems, and more casual gaming, means that there could be less emphasis on graphical development than ever before. Other than these little skirmishes about graphics on gaming communities, who gives a shit about raw graphics output anymore? The prettiest games certainly don't sell the most, and what people are talking about even here on various platforms are perks and achievements and steam sales and "social" gaming.
Should be an interesting "generation".
Bland, really? Did you even get to the part where you enter the Alien's ship? And just because Crysis's forest levels were realistic does not make it bland. The forest was an awesome setting for firefights.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
While sounding menacing at first, this might lead to a generation of innovative gaming experiences as opposed to the copy culture that this generation has propagated.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
If you don't care why are you whining? I simply corrected a BAD comparison. I never said detail maps are bad, just that they're not the same as hi-res textures. If you're hurt by that revelation, well, too bad.
Keep quoting it, more people need to see those videos xD
Didn't we already have this in "the force unleashed 2"? Why isn't anyone else using it?
Dark Octave
Banned
Should show a video next time. Can't get much off of a screen shot besides bland visuals.
they'd look much worse, consoles atleast give you a floor.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
didnt get to the alien ship, ironically i heard that's the low point. who knows maybe itd change my mind if it could have kept my interest that long.
but when trying to objectively argue which games look better, artistic tastes aside, i think qualities such as diverse, detailed environments and overall graphical consistency are objectively good things to grade graphics on in addition to the tech and engine.
Agent Ironside
Member
Of course I do. For Skyrim I have everything on ultra settings with FXAA. BF3 SP (not MP) I have everything max including 4xMSAA. With a few exceptions, I generally have no issues running on max settings or at least close to (minus AA every now and then). Also if "AA" is a huge part of what really sets apart PC and console visuals, something is definitely wrong. Now granted for "max" settings I surely don't go full blown retard with 16x AA, but the point is, you can definitely tell consoles are holding back PC's more than ever this generation, especially with the visual quality not being that far apart.
I don't think they are pointing out the tech as a negative point, just that it's not as impressive as the other tech it's being compared to.
PD0 and Farcry are in no way comparable. One is a corridor shooter that uses waaay too much parallax mapping, while the other is more wide open.
It's not that it's a "non-proper" technique, it's a shortcut to overcome a drawback. Plenty games use detail maps, but they also use textures with a decent resolution as well.
Also, if we're talking about graphics next gen, tech (including the type of tech used) should be front and center of the discussion IMO. It's unavoidable really. When you know what things are, and how to spot them, things stick out to you like a turd in a punch bowl. =p I guess in this respect, ignorance is bliss.
Similar threads
- Poll