Support NeoGAF

[KKRT00]

The Game is designed as a 30fps. So the movement and all did look awkward at 60fps.

There is no such thing as 'optimized for 30fps'.

Seriously launch any 30fps console game on PC and lock them in 30 fps and then 60 fps and see the difference.

No they are not, if you make simpler games that is.

There are examples of games running at 1080p/60fps on current gen consoles, and they are nice.

What's true is that both RSX and Xenos are too weak to have the most detailed current gen games running at 1080p/60fps.

Same thing will happen next gen.

Same thing has always happened on every platform an it will never change unless we create a machine so powerful that it doesn't have to make any compromises no matter what, something that may never happen or would take so long none of us will ever see it.

We are not talking about simple games.

And it wont happen next gen, because GPUs will be at least 5 times powerful and better designed. I can agree that some game will have some resolution drops or will be rendered in 33ms, but it wont be under 1280x1080 probably. Also on next gen GPUs difference in 720p vs 1080p wont be so noticeable as this gen in terms of performance.


--
And guys stop with those 3x580 Samaritan Demo, it was unoptimized and used heavy deferred MSAA.
It wont require that much power and it doesnt need to work in 60fps on consoles.

 

[dgrdsv]

That is exactly what to expect from next gen. IMO

This is a tech demo for GeForce 6800. PS3's RSX is two generations above that. You might want to check your expectations.

 

[UrbanRats]

I wish.. I wish.

Photorealistic 8

GTA4 can get pretty impressive.

 

[mxgt]

WTF is this shit?

Dude you are a joke, and your link is a real gem too.

Am I missing something here? what exactly is wrong about his post?

Anyone who prefers 30fps to 60 is actually insane.

 

[UrbanRats]

WTF is this shit?

Dude you are a joke, and your link is a real gem too.

What? The only reason to prefer a lower FPS rate is for very narrow and specific artistic reasons (stop motion animation) otherwise there's no question: 60fps > 30fps.

 

[strata8]

Lighting and shaders make such a huge difference to the visuals. Something like Fallout 3 could look incredible next-gen if it actually had a decent lighting system.

 

[Madrical]

Playing BF3 and Skyrim on both PC and console in the last month have shown me how badly the consoles are dated now, especially with BF3... it honestly looks like an entirely different game at times. Screenshots just do not do it justice, when you play BF3 on ultra at a smooth frame rate it looks AMAZING. Playing it on 360, the jaggies are incredibly bad, the textures are poor and the framerate is shoddy.

All I want from my next-gen consoles is 60FPS @ 1080p with enough AA to remove the jaggies. But that's not gonna happen

 

[Kadey]

I'd be happy with something a little better than Crysis but running at 60fps constant.

It doesn't matter how much better graphics are going to be if the damn games are barely hitting the 30fps mark. Framerate drops and freezes should be nonexistent period.

 

[Enkidu]

i'm going to be sick. leave the vaseline filter to cheap porno please

Ignore the blur, the only purpose of that demo is to show of the tesselation, which is very impressive. Although it's definitely overdone at points.

 

[brain_stew]

I'm expecting around a 2 teraflop GPU next generation (hopefully with 4GB of RAM if the right density modules are availabl in time, they should be) so I doubt many will be disappointed as that's will still be an ~8x leap all around.

If most developers go the direction they did this time and focus on cutting edge technology above basic image quality and frame rate, then I don't think we'll be too far away from the Samaritan demo, just it'll run at an unstable 30fps without msaa or the perfect texture filtering, complete with lower resolution shadow maps and all rendered at 720p with lower resolution off screen buffers. In fairness anyone that has played around with Epic's DX11 demos or the terrible ingame examples (like Batman) will testify to how poorly optimized the implementation currently is on PC.

Certainly I expect assets of that sort of complexity; with full tessellation and dynamic displacement maps to be the norm next generation.

 

[mxgt]

I just read through the entire thread, the amounts of stupid is melting my brain.

Did I really see those Witcher 2 comparison pictures? someone tell me I didn't see them

 

[brain_stew]

I'd be happy with something a little better than Crysis but running at 60fps constant.

It doesn't matter how much better graphics are going to be if the damn games are barely hitting the 30fps mark. Framerate drops and freezes should be nonexistent period.

If you value higher framerates then you'll have to continue gaming on the PC as I'm sure you already do. This won't change.

 

[EatChildren]

I wonder how close we're getting to the point where leaps in processing power struggle to offer an obvious difference in image quality perceived by average Joe, or better put, when a lot of the effects produced by raw processing power can be 'faked' on weaker systems, the untrained eye struggling to tell the two apart.

To see people suggest that Battlefield 3 doesn't look significantly better than the console release, or that The Witcher 2 isn't leaps and bounds better looking than basically everything on consoles, makes me wonder if a lot of next gen games simply wont blow many people away due to how desensitised they've become due to the highly optimised and artistically polished games of this generation.

 

[Reuenthal]

I wonder how close we're getting to the point where leaps in processing power struggle to offer an obvious difference in image quality perceived by average Joe, or better put, when a lot of the effects produced by raw processing power can be 'faked' on weaker systems, the untrained eye struggling to tell the two apart.

To see people suggest that Battlefield 3 doesn't look significantly better than the console release, or that The Witcher 2 isn't leaps and bounds better looking than basically everything on consoles, makes me wonder if a lot of next gen games simply wont blow many people away due to how desensitised they've become due to the highly optimised and artistically polished games of this generation.

Well, they are comparing those games with Uncharted 3, maybe God of War 3 and Battlefield 3 from consoles. Even though these are console games, there aren't that many console games which look as good. If the standards rise, we will get a considerable number of games who look better, and even games that look better than that. So if some console games are found to look absolutely amazing today, by some, a much bigger number will be found in the future.

 

[Mohonky]

No it didn't, and far-cry came out in early 2004. Hl2, Doom3 and Far Cry all stood toe to toe with the launch titles.

Are you kidding?

Kameo was utterly amazing, none of those games even came close to it when it was released. PGR3 despite not being 720p was also amazing.

PC's usually don't take long to catch up to the consoles but then we are talking high end PC's. The current best looking titles on PC will be the bottom rung of what the next gen consoles can do.

PC's will of course catch up and out do them rather quickly but to suggest top end PC's right now will be about what next gen consoles can do is ludicrous, it's never ever happen in the past where PC's could run rings around a console, don't see why it would change any time soon.

 

[Reuenthal]

We don't even have a top end PC game. Maybe GTA4 with those mods can be classified such, though I am not sure.

 

[Chittagong]

I wonder how close we're getting to the point where leaps in processing power struggle to offer an obvious difference in image quality perceived by average Joe, or better put, when a lot of the effects produced by raw processing power can be 'faked' on weaker systems, the untrained eye struggling to tell the two apart.

To see people suggest that Battlefield 3 doesn't look significantly better than the console release, or that The Witcher 2 isn't leaps and bounds better looking than basically everything on consoles, makes me wonder if a lot of next gen games simply wont blow many people away due to how desensitised they've become due to the highly optimised and artistically polished games of this generation.

What will basically happen is that devs put in a couple of visual gimmicks that force people to notice it's 'next gen'. At the beginning of this gen it was bloom, DoF blur, shaders and lots of shit flying around. Kameo ans Perfect Dark Zero were poster girls of that.

Next gen, probably exaggerrated lighting, tesselated rocks, true reflections.

 

[NBtoaster]

What will basically happen is that devs put in a couple of visual gimmicks that force people to notice it's 'next gen'. At the beginning of this gen it was bloom, DoF blur, shaders and lots of shit flying around. Kameo ans Perfect Dark Zero were poster girls of that.

Next gen, probably exaggerrated lighting, tesselated rocks, true reflections.

Tesselation looks bad in most tacked on implementations today, hate to see what it looks like when everyone jumps on :\

 

[Xun]

Are you kidding?

Kameo was utterly amazing, none of those games even came close to it when it was released. PGR3 despite not being 720p was also amazing.

PC's usually don't take long to catch up to the consoles but then we are talking high end PC's. The current best looking titles on PC will be the bottom rung of what the next gen consoles can do.

PC's will of course catch up and out do them rather quickly but to suggest top end PC's right now will be about what next gen consoles can do is ludicrous, it's never ever happen in the past where PC's could run rings around a console, don't see why it would change any time soon.

I hope so, because I'm not impressed at all by most games in this thread.

 

[mxgt]

Are you kidding?

Kameo was utterly amazing, none of those games even came close to it when it was released. PGR3 despite not being 720p was also amazing.

PC's usually don't take long to catch up to the consoles but then we are talking high end PC's. The current best looking titles on PC will be the bottom rung of what the next gen consoles can do.

PC's will of course catch up and out do them rather quickly but to suggest top end PC's right now will be about what next gen consoles can do is ludicrous, it's never ever happen in the past where PC's could run rings around a console, don't see why it would change any time soon.

Hardware tech is advancing fast. Current top end PC's are so far ahead capability wise it's going to be hard for consoles to catch up if you price them reasonably.

 

[mugwhump]

Like good-looking current-gen games.

Good enough for me.

 

[EatChildren]

Tesselation looks bad in most tacked on implementations today, hate to see what it looks like when everyone jumps on :\

Key word 'tacked on'. In 99% of cases tessellated assets in current games are assets that were never built for tessellation. Assuming next generation platforms handle tessellation well, games will ideally be built with this in mind, rather than simply tacked on to existing assets.

 

[thuway]

In 2/3 years there will be better/cheaper alternatives that require less power and produce less heat, and I personally think the days of selling consoles at a big loss are over - nintendos success with the wii has played a part in MS/Sonys decisions with regards to current gen ( focus/heavy investments on family and casual market with the kinect and move ) and surely this will be true with the next set of consoles aswell. Which is just another reason why we won't be seeing "avatar" ( lol begin with toy story at least ) graphics on the upcoming consoles.

If the rumours about MS bundling kinect with the nextbox are true then I'm positive the leap from 360 to 720 won't be as huge as say ps2 to ps3.

You hate gaming :-/.

 

[thuway]

I wonder how close we're getting to the point where leaps in processing power struggle to offer an obvious difference in image quality perceived by average Joe, or better put, when a lot of the effects produced by raw processing power can be 'faked' on weaker systems, the untrained eye struggling to tell the two apart.

To see people suggest that Battlefield 3 doesn't look significantly better than the console release, or that The Witcher 2 isn't leaps and bounds better looking than basically everything on consoles, makes me wonder if a lot of next gen games simply wont blow many people away due to how desensitised they've become due to the highly optimised and artistically polished games of this generation.

Hence, why I believe it would be advantageous for both MS and Sony to wait a few years. People overestimate the casual market. The hardcore will always be there.

 

[Corky]

You hate gaming :-/.

Pardon?

 

[Mohonky]

Hardware tech is advancing fast. Current top end PC's are so far ahead capability wise it's going to be hard for consoles to catch up if you price them reasonably.

It's always that way though. When the consoles first launched, we were still just getting the awesomeness of DX9 in games like Far Cry.

Don't forget though, how many pissy problems have we had with PC games lately? Luckily for me, Rage ran fine, didn't for a lot of people. Arkham City is a joke for DX11. Had to make no end of tweaks to The Witcher 2.

I game on my PC now more than any other system because the consoles are simply too old and in terms of multiplatform they just blow the consoles away, but they still don't really take full advantage of the hardware available either due to them having to code for multiple configurations.

To be honest though, when developers focus on 1 specific platform on console, like Gears 3 and UC3, they still look bloody good. PC hardware may have the brute force but unless developers are using it it's not much use. We're also seeing the next gen engines from developers now, BF3's Frostbite 3, Rage iD Tech 5, the tech demo from Unreal's Unreal 4. That'll all be staple stuff for next gen consoles, but high end for PC's right now.

 

[Red]

Are you kidding?

Kameo was utterly amazing, none of those games even came close to it when it was released. PGR3 despite not being 720p was also amazing.

PC's usually don't take long to catch up to the consoles but then we are talking high end PC's. The current best looking titles on PC will be the bottom rung of what the next gen consoles can do.

PC's will of course catch up and out do them rather quickly but to suggest top end PC's right now will be about what next gen consoles can do is ludicrous, it's never ever happen in the past where PC's could run rings around a console, don't see why it would change any time soon.

Go back and play Kameo. Post some screens. It uses color well, but it's not a terribly impressive game today. It's very flat and blocky, most environments look poor.

HL2 holds up much better.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

Go back and play Kameo. Post some screens. It uses color well, but it's not a terribly impressive game today. It's very flat and blocky, most environments look poor.

HL2 holds up much better.

Hl2 is a much better looking game. Kameo is downright ugly.

But kameo looks more technically evolved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUge9wsmRhM

 

[Izayoi]

I hope so, because I'm not impressed at all by most games in this thread.

So all games just look like shit to you? What's been posted is literally the pinnacle of videogame graphics. If you're not impressed by them gaming must be a rather drab and visually unexciting experience for you.

 

[Red]

So all games just look like shit to you? What's been posted is literally the pinnacle of videogame graphics. If you're not impressed by them gaming must be a rather drab and visually unexciting experience for you.

Some people prefer artistic uniqueness over technical strength.

I have a weird crush on pixel art for example.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I want adventure games to look like this.

Then:

 

[amdnv]

Key word 'tacked on'. In 99% of cases tessellated assets in current games are assets that were never built for tessellation.

That's the problem really. The next step will be for tesselation to replace normal mapping, which will give the models more depth.
And then the ultimate step will be to do away with tesselation and just use the multi-million poly models directly. However, this isn't common yet even in film, so it's a long time off.

Killzone 3 on PS3 with 2005 hardware:

Doom 3 could have handled a big 2D background matte painting if it wanted to. There is nothing technologically impressive in that Killzone screenshot other than the water. And even that could have been done in a game like Doom 3 because it's a pre-animated mesh with nice shaders. Water splashes are 2D alpha sprites.

 

[jax (old)]

That's the problem really. The next step will be for tesselation to replace normal mapping, which will give the models more depth.
And then the ultimate step will be to do away with tesselation and just use the multi-million poly models directly. However, this isn't common yet even in film, so it's a long time off.


Doom 3 could have handled a big 2D background matte painting if it wanted to. There is nothing technologically impressive in that Killzone screenshot other than the water. And even that could have been done in a game like Doom 3 because it's a pre-animated mesh with nice shaders. Water splashes are 2D alpha sprites.

nothing impressive? That looks like fucking art. *and I'm a kz3 hater.

 

[Jburton]

I see these PC demos as representative of an approximation of what to expect of next gen consoles. we may however still be stuck at 720p (hopefully at least it will be literal 720p and not up-scaled 664p or some other bullshit)

These are all extremely underwhelming and way off the mark.

 

[Pranay]

Killzone 2 and 3 looks awesome. a lot of stuff are going on the background as well. Screenshots dont do justice to that game.

 

[Corky]

These are all extremely underwhelming and way off the mark.

They're showcasing things like dynamic hair and tessellation.

 

[dgrdsv]

These are all extremely underwhelming and way off the mark.

Such opinions just show how much of you guys are confusing rendering technologies with art and style which you personally consider to be good.

 

[EatChildren]

Such opinions just show how much of you guys are confusing rendering technologies with art and style which you personally consider to be good.

This, but I don't think that should discredit the perception that "X looks better than Y", even if Y happens to be using more advanced technology. After all, technology is only one side of of the coin that is visual presentation. Art is just as important, and the best looking games unite both.

But with an eye for tech you can still see and appreciate the better visual technology in demos like this. The Unity demo is overflowing with tessellation and geometry that does laps around what you see on consoles. In fact, I'm expecting a lot of early next generation titles too look quite similar; everything tessellated to fuck even when it doesn't need to be.

 

[KageMaru]

nothing impressive? That looks like fucking art. *and I'm a kz3 hater.

It's impressive, but the shortcuts are apparent (at least to me) and it's the art itself that carries beautiful games this gen more than anything else. Maybe that's why it looks like art to you. =p

 

[Haunted]

Such opinions just show how much of you guys are confusing rendering technologies with art and style which you personally consider to be good.

That's what I was about to say.

These shots are about the underlying technology.

I wonder how close we're getting to the point where leaps in processing power struggle to offer an obvious difference in image quality perceived by average Joe, or better put, when a lot of the effects produced by raw processing power can be 'faked' on weaker systems, the untrained eye struggling to tell the two apart.

To see people suggest that Battlefield 3 doesn't look significantly better than the console release, or that The Witcher 2 isn't leaps and bounds better looking than basically everything on consoles, makes me wonder if a lot of next gen games simply wont blow many people away due to how desensitised they've become due to the highly optimised and artistically polished games of this generation.

That's definitely a valid concern. Why bother with technological advances if many in the audience can't actually tell whether the effects are faked or real.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

That's definitely a valid concern. Why bother with technological advances if many in the audience can't actually tell whether the effects are faked or real.

Ignorance is bliss.

Just step the game up in therms of stuff happening in front of you - playable in real time.
Think about the collapsing building in U2 - just make a Game where a whole city crumbles under your feet etc.

Or god of war 3`s assets being part of an open world game.

 

[Tengen]

A lot of people seem to forget that the jump from 720p to 1080p is fairly costly. These days you can almost max Crysis with an 4850 on 720p, but it still requires a beefy system to max it on 1080p.

The launch games will probably look comparable to what PC gaming has to offer now in 1080p, but will be slightly better thanks to the new fancy tricks that a new generation brings.

 

[jax (old)]

It's impressive, but the shortcuts are apparent (at least to me) and it's the art itself that carries beautiful games this gen more than anything else. Maybe that's why it looks like art to you. =p

who cares if "the shortcuts are apparent" if the damn thing looks great.

this thread is about what next gen graphics looks like and if it can better that, and we will - great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve7NK3IvcrE

a bit OT but was watching this. I love it! lol. gotta replay me some GOWIII.

 

[KageMaru]

A lot of people seem to forget that the jump from 720p to 1080p is fairly costly. These days you can almost max Crysis with an 4850 on 720p, but it still requires a beefy system to max it on 1080p.

The launch games will probably look comparable to what PC gaming has to offer now in 1080p, but will be slightly better thanks to the new fancy tricks that a new generation brings.

Judging what I've seen on gaf, all devs need to do is make a bunch of strictly linear games, throw in some scripted scenes, deferred lighting, and call it a day to look impressive. =p

Edit:

who cares if "the shortcuts are apparent" if the damn thing looks great.

this thread is about what next gen graphics looks like and if it can better that, and we will - great.

Never said it doesn't look good, was just pointing out how someone can think it's not that impressive.

Shortcuts taken this gen are relevant to the thread since they should not be necessary next gen.

As it was mentioned just before, people here are mixing up artistic preference for technical accomplishment (and getting rather defensive in the process).

 

[jax (old)]

As it was mentioned just before, people here are mixing up artistic preference for technical accomplishment (and getting rather defensive in the process).

doesn't matter what the technical accomplishment is. if it looks good, it looks good.

Too Human had UE3 esque tech and it looks like shit. And their marvel game also looke like shit.

 

[Corky]

doesn't matter what the technical accomplishment is. if it looks good, it looks good.

Too Human had UE3 esque tech and it looks like shit. And their marvel game also looke like shit.

I think you're totally mixing together technical brilliance and artistic brilliance. Which ends up being debated on a subjective level - i.e banging head against a brick wall. Whereas technical achievements can be regarded through an objective lens.

You might think that this is the ugliest "game"/"player model" there was but it is the underlying tech that is impressive and not necessarily its artistic integrity.

 

[Ovid]

Doom 3 max 2004 settings

Condemned Xbox 360 max 2005 settings

I can't believe Doom 3 was that long ago.

Anyways, looking back, those graphics do not look good at all.

I guess I'd be saying the same thing five years from now with BF3.

 

[KageMaru]

doesn't matter what the technical accomplishment is. if it looks good, it looks good.

Too Human had UE3 esque tech and it looks like shit. And their marvel game also looke like shit.

"who cares", "doesn't matter", and "fanboy" is all I've gotten from you in this thread. You should really try to be a bit more open minded than that, especially since I never argued to what did or did not look good.

I'm also not sure what SK's games has anything to do with the discussion at hand, it's not like their games were impressive tech-wise anyways IMO.

 

[sublimit]

I want them to look like this:

 

[jax (old)]

"who cares", "doesn't matter", and "fanboy" is all I've gotten from you in this thread. You should really try to be a bit more open minded than that, especially since I never argued to what did or did not look good.

I'm also not sure what SK's games has anything to do with the discussion at hand, it's not like their games were impressive tech-wise anyways IMO.

those phrases taken out of context read poorly. why don't you trawl out all my posts if you're going to do "catchphrase" to make it clearer what I was responding to?