It's a webm video of Far Cry 4. You might as well install the plugin, it's more or less mandatory on gaf..
if you use chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...aaggachnbhepejjhfacpldjflffl?utm_source=gmail
Assassin's Creed Unity -- The graphics "leap" we've all been waiting for.
- Thread starter VFX_Veteran
- Start date
It's a webm video of Far Cry 4. You might as well install the plugin, it's more or less mandatory on gaf..
if you use chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...aaggachnbhepejjhfacpldjflffl?utm_source=gmail
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Crysis is still a damn good looking game, but Far Cry 3 and 4 easily surpass it in terms of wildlife and jungles and such.
VFX_Veteran
Banned
Ah.. I'm using IE.
Caayn
Member
What do you mean mandatory? I simply ignore webms most of the time. The plug-in for Opera didn't work when I tried it and I'm not going to use a different browser just for that.
Edit: Didn't someone found a way, somewhile ago, to show a Gif instead of a webm when webm is not supported by the browser?
FYI I think that FC4 stuttering is to do with bitmap in the options or something like that.
CyberPunked
Member
On a technical level, Far Cry 4 is far superior than Crysis. It looks better too. I think you're thinking of Crysis' graphics being better than they were.
DemonCleaner
Member
you really should go back and play crysis again and see how absurd your statement is.
DemonCleaner
Member
man, just last week i played FC 4 for the first hour and afterwards gone back for a quick one in FC 3 maxed and the difference is enormous. don't let your memory trick you on those things. and don't judge a games graphics unless you played it.
The water or the transition between the water and the ground doesn't feel right.
AnyoneInCherno
Member
I love Crysis 1 as much as the next guy, but it looks nowhere near as good as Far Cry 4.
Can you be more specific? In what technical level Far Cry 4 is far superior to Crysis? Because I think it's completely false talk of technical level here.
Farcry 4 uses a physically based renderer, Crysis does not. This automatically means Farcry 4 has better lighting. It also has GI and it's real time, Crysis has no GI at all. Crysis was the first game to use SSAO so the implementation is extremely rough, FC4 uses HBAO+ on PC and something close to that on consoles. The world is much bigger, the draw distance is much higher too, vegetation is considerably more denser and the vegetation animation is far superior too. There's also a fire propagation system in place. Better shadows, better character models, better textures, better materials. One of the most persistent smoke and fog effects seen in games, something which Crysis lacks, also higher quality explosions. All in all superior alpha effects. The post processing is superior too, only thing Farcry 4 pares back on is the object motion blur, Crysis is very liberal with it while Farcry 4 isn't.
It's been 7 years since Crysis 1 came out, rendering tech has progressed considerably since then with more refinements and invention of new techniques. It'd be wrong to claim Crysis 1 was superior to Farcry 4 technically. Crysis 1 is ancient tech now.
Tongue in cheek.
On a technical level Far Cry is superior in that it uses Deferred Rendering (and even supports MSAA) without visible sacrifice. Yes it has PBR, but that is more of a change in shader math than any real technical feature (although it's not trivial to implement, not saying that). For most of the open world sun-only gameplay it is probably the more expensive solution, but since FC4 needs some more lights it's right to say it's the better solution overall.
Far Cry does use all the stuff that over the years successors of Crysis 1 (and others) introduced and are now state of the art, like SMAA, Screen Space Reflections, Screen Space Subsurface Scattering etc.
Other things that Far Cry does better: has bokeh DOF.
Has working AA for alpha textures (Crysis had some early edge AA, but did not help too much with the palm leaves).
HDAO and the stuff Nvidia is pushing like better godrays etc. are neat and also better than Crysis' counterpart. More info and overall comparison pictures for graphics details in FC4 are here: http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/far-cry-4-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide
What is relatively unique in Far Cry is the fur rendering which i haven't seen in other games plus the fire propagation as said.
Unique is the precomputed global illumination solution, though it should be noted that Crysis also has precomputed ambient occlusion.
Crysis has POM on almost all ground textures, a thing that I have not seen from Far Cry 4 at all.
Crysis has detail textures (secondary small tiling details) on basically all materials, Far Cry 4 does not (big thing)
Crysis has subsurface scattering with translucency maps for human bodies and ice, something new games are returning to in combination with the screen space solution.
The water in Crysis obviously looks a million times better but only when comparing Crysis Ocean with the lakes in FC4. Crysis lakes had no real time reflections.
I have no idea what the creators were thinking in Fc4 though... ?!
http://a.pomf.se/vebzuz.webm
This video posted... holy shit. This looks like a 2005 tech demo. Water is really shitty here. Like a plastic plane. wtf.
To the guy which said he remembers Crysis to be better looking. For some parts this is definitely true, subjectively. The webms posted do not look very good in my eyes, this is more appealing (maybe a bit nostalgia lol)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ViG_uWeUEk
And the ingame models of characters ... i don't know i find it hard to argue that they are in general better than in Crysis 1. Of course Crysis 1 only had a few of those overall but yeah...
everyone who played Crysis will acknowledge that character quality during ingame cinematics and gameplay is not really lower on major characters than that.
On the other hand I'd argue that this simply looks worse and here we also have a major character during the first seconds of Far Cry 4.
So for some parts Crysis definitely holds up. But overall the flatness of the world in terms of colors is really a problem in many other areas. Far Cry 4 is much more consistent. It has undeniably more colorfull palettes and the shading is never as flat.
Far Cry 4 is definitely better in terms of amount of features and efficiency as well as visual impact of these features. It is clearly technically superior, but the difference is not as big as 7 years would suggest.
Dictator93
Member
"Ancient" on some levels yes, but Crysis 1 still is doing a lot of stuff that modern games do not do altogether. For example, a lot of modern games do not even use ObMB, and if they do, it is not all the time or sparsely.
If you add up all the effects and what they do, Crysis 1 still seems up there wit 2013-2014 releases in a number of ways. Yes it does not have PBR, but does that mean all the materials in the game are shit? No.
Far Cry 4 is a great looking game, but it has some graphical concessions that confuse me. For example, I have no idea why they don't have SSR at all (it would make the water look great)... much like AC U.
The step sounds don't match with the motion, it's turning me off.
lolInfamous isn't next gen and colorful particles are there just to mask that fact
Last of us is only pretty because it's on rails (same with the order)
BF4 xbone has sharper textures then on ps4
BF4 SP superior to KZ SP
Etc etc...
That's just how VFX rolls, he goes to ridiculous lengths to discredit ps4 games and then says that you missed the point when you correct him and that he works in the industry. The bias is strong in this one
Name me a few other effects apart from object motion blur, because for everything it does there are one or more that it doesn't.
We had games in 1998 (outcast for example) using voxels and interactive water animation which many games still lack, but the shaders for those are infinitely more complex these days even if they don't have the interactivity. Poor and unrelated example I know, but what I am saying is that some things get dropped because they are not a priority, while other areas get improved for example a lot of games even today don't use object motion blur or FFT for water. Another example that would be more related would be a 360 game like Perect Dark Zero which had object motion blur and parallax mapping but it had poor everything else. The games that came later lacked these two features but were better in every other area and more technologically advanced easily. In fact I think we have more games on PS360 using object blur than we do on PS4/Bone today which just makes me thing it was not a priority for the developers since if they wanted to they'd have put it in the game at the expense of something else. Also the per object blur we usually see these days is HDR correct which is not what you had in Crysis 1. I just think it comes down to what the devs prioritise. SSR in FC4 and Unity though is one thing that puzzles me since it's not resource intensive at all.
Another couple of examples, Farcry 2 had tree regeneration and you could break a lot of trees. This simply got removed in the sequels because it was not a priority. Farcry 4 on PC uses tessellated sun shafts but the PS4/Bone versions do not even use 2D post processed sun shafts (it's such a cheap effect) when countless PS360 games used it including Farcry 2 and Farcry 3. But yet despite lacking these Farcry 4 is considerably more advanced than Farcry 2 and a decent step up from Farcry 3.
Crysis 1 was very ahead of it's time but a lot of rendering tech it used was in its infancy and hence did not have the best implementation of it example, for example the POM or the SSAO. The game also has very flat lighting compared to modern standards, especially indoors. It is perhaps the most important game in the past 10 years as far as rendering tech goes simply because of how many new features it introduced and it serves as the basis of a lot of tech that is used today but it has been surpassed in every area today and there are games that do all of what Crysis 1 did as far as checklist goes and do it better (Crysis 3 being one, Shadowfall , Infamous and Unity being other).
Dictator93
Member
Voxels? Wrinklemaps (just starting to show up in games again)? Tesselated water surface (software in the first game)? Volumetric lighting (the level the core shows this off)? Procedural destruction (the trees break procedurally, not pre broken)? Crysis 1 uses Voxels for all overhanging geometry and caves. Something which basically no other AAA game series did (even the sequels!).
It obviously has obvious shortcomings.The flat lighting you are talking about is primarily for unlit shadowed areas, such as indoor areas without the lights on. But pretty much all games, even those with GI, fail in that setting. Otherwise, the global ambient term on top of the SSAO looks still pretty darn great.
Ok, all of that is true, what was I thinking. But it brings me to the point that it was the most important game technically of the past decade. But some of the things obviously didn't get picked up as it was never a priority for them while others did and were improved upon considerably. Farcry 2 did procedural destruction for trees too though along with regeneration. Although I do hate the SSAO in Crysis 1, I think it's one of the ugly ones because of how obvious and harsh the halos are, but I give it a bit of credit for being the first game to do it.
Also, I am very puzzled by what the developers were thought of when they decided on the water in Farcry 4. It looks a million times better in Farcry 3.
Fried Food
Banned
looks like FC1 or FC3. Looks like a last gen PC game.
Dictator93
Member
Yeah, the SSAO in Crysis 1 is definitely not the best anymore. It looks pretty ugly in some scenes. But luckily! We have xzeros shaders and HBAO injection, which to my knowledge change the SSAO. I have to find my Crysis 1 copy again though to try that out.
---------------------------------
I would imagine the water in Far Cry 4 is using water volumes and not the global ocean water. Which in Dunia and all Cryengine iterations, is a different shader.
Much like how the rivers and streams in Far Cry 3 look uglier than the ocean on average.
Other than that, I have no idea.
EDIT: Let's dream about a Crysis 1 remake on the latest Cryengine.
Where does FC1 look like that?
Nah it looks like early PS1 game.
Actually, it seems to have SSR on water, but pretty limited:
https://www.flickr.com/photo.gne?short=pSR8uY [there was screenshots here, but its not working right now, strange]
But yeah, i cant understand lack of SSR in Unity either. I could understand lack of them in console builds considering how it runs without them, but for PC version there is no excuse.
God fucking damn!
--
SSR is very resource intensive.
Not really, it depends from many factors but generally is a pretty cheap technique, it's a bit tricky to get it to looks good though.
SSR are too view dependends for some games, you'll need to blend that with cubemap reflections and it's not always the best choice for everything.
I don't trust Crytek to not fuck up the gameplay somehow.
Its pretty much as much resource intensive as Bokeh as far as post effects go. I cant think of more resource intensive post-effect than SSR really.
I don't think so, in fact one guy who was working on Prey 2 before it got cancelled had a version of it running on PS360.
This developer who worked on AC4 claims
http://bartwronski.com/2014/01/25/the-future-of-screenspace-reflections/
It's certainly no where near as expensive as bokeh, something like pixel correct per object motion blur is far more costly than SSR. It can be done in Dx9 using a pixel shader based implementation, in DX11 or equivalent it uses a ray trace based implementation that uses the G buffer, and hence pretty good fit for games that are deferred rendered.
He even did a presentation about it:
http://bartwronski.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/ac4_gdc_nomovies.pptx
It cost 2ms on both PS4 and Xbone.
http://crytek.com/download/Sousa_Graphics_Gems_CryENGINE3.pdf
Crytek's Bokeh, the most advanced bokeh in business, cost around 1.5ms on Xbone.
Crytek did SSR on some wet floors and on water in Crysis 3 on past gens.
But full SSR is not cheap. You can easily check fps drop in Crysis 2 or Crysis 3 when You enable SSR.
Its pretty much a reason why still do it at half res.
From AMD's Ruby presentation
Pakoe
Member
That's 2ms for worst case scene with full reflectivity, it says that on an average scene it is around 1ms, which is alright when you have a render budget of 33 ms. I guess there will be even faster implementations in the future like how it happened with another screen space effect ie. SSAO which was expensive at first but the cost went down as better implementation came about.
I mean didn't we have 60FPS game like Wolfenstein, BF4 and COD Ghost use it (Advanced Warfare did something weird and different as discussed in one of the previous topics with you)
EDIT: Also correct me if I am wrong but neither AC4 or Unity are fully deferred rendered games. Like wise for Crysis 2 which just uses deferred lighting.
BF 4 doesnt have SSR. The new one, Hardline is using it though, but dunno if it will 60fps in SP.
Yeah 2ms for the most demanding scene, which in many other games, like Killzone, Infamous or Ryse where there are a lot of metal surfaces is practically always. And thats for half res and pretty crappy tech.
Yeah 2ms for the most demanding scene, which in many other games, like Killzone, Infamous or Ryse where there are a lot of metal surfaces is practically always. And thats for half res and pretty crappy tech.
That's just how VFX rolls, he goes to ridiculous lengths to discredit ps4 games and then says that you missed the point when you correct him and that he works in the industry. The bias is strong in this one
This shit posting is pissing me off. At least he usually doesn't go on a full ad-hominem assault just because someone has a different opinion.. Many of us discuss and disagreed with VFX on a daily basis without making it personal, I'm sure it should be possible for other people as well. So what if your precious PS4 is being critiqued, that's what we have these forums for no? It's difficult to discuss anything PS4 related around here, because if you as much as hint at something not being absolutely perfect, you can be sure you're going to be put through a flogging like no other.
ANYWAY... I disagree with Crysis being close to FC4. I'm a big fan of Crysis, and the suggestion of a remake is something I support with a 1000%, but it doesn't look as good as it did. It really does look a bit outdated now, FC4 looks far better.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Technically it is a bit of a monster for its time and even today but the end result doesn't look as good as most current gen games, you really should go back and play it again
Infamous isn't next gen and colorful particles are there just to mask that fact
Last of us is only pretty because it's on rails (same with the order)
BF4 xbone has sharper textures then on ps4
BF4 SP superior to KZ SP
Etc etc...
That's just how VFX rolls, he goes to ridiculous lengths to discredit ps4 games and then says that you missed the point when you correct him and that he works in the industry. The bias is strong in this one
Well, this explains a lot.
Caayn
Member
Ah yes. My apologies.
Ingueferroque
Banned
Foliage still doesn't react? Didn't it do that in Far Cry 2?
It does, the player's just running too fast for it to be noticed. It reacts to both players and vehicles while you wade through them and also when you have an explosion or a helicopter near them...about the same level as Farcry 2. Farcry 3 removed most of it though.
VFX_Veteran
Banned
Crysis 1 had a lot of tech involved into it's engine... that's not debatable. However, I don't count number of features implemented as a means to justify it's beauty. FC3/4 look so much better on screen than stock Crysis 1 even if they are using less features (for whatever reason).
Also, in regards to SSR not being implemented in AC:U. The developer of AC4 describes how much of a nuisance it is to implement. I'm sure that's the reason. If it's scene specific, it's not really worth the milliseconds in rendering. Who wants to tweak every room and location in AC:U's big world just for correct SSR? IMO SSR has a long way to go and may end up just getting dumped. I don't like the fact that devs use an approximate "roughness"-to-blur relationship (which isn't physically plausible) in order to get blurred reflections. I also think it's flaws are too numerous to be very practical. The developer was right that most materials aren't metal, but the flipside to that is almost every material does have indirect specular (even if the roughness is approaching a diffuse reflector). Plastics, and outer coating on rubber/wood/fabric, etc.. all have it to some degree.
A few things though: I really think the way going forward in solving some of these methods is by switching to volumes (i.e. 3D raster voxels) and then projecting back to screen space. The faster we can get to pure ray-tracing and away from screenspace techniques, the better. No the hardware isn't there yet, but Nvidia, Sony, AMD, etc.. aren't just satisfied with a pure 2d rasterizer hardware. As bandwidth increases, and number of cores increase, we should start to see small-scale ray-marching (or ray-tracing within a volume) on some of these techniques until we hit hardware that can do full ray-tracing. I was impressed with the ray-marching of light volumes in Lords of the Fallen.
That light coming through that stained glass window and carrying the colors along with it in the volume and actually illuminating geometry that intersects it is probably the most impressive single graphical feature I've seen this year. Not even AC:U can boast this feature. The fact that it's completely ray-marched and can be viewed from any angle and is, in fact, a light source impresses me. Alien:Isolation has a similar technique in it's game. Good stuff.
Also, in regards to SSR not being implemented in AC:U. The developer of AC4 describes how much of a nuisance it is to implement. I'm sure that's the reason. If it's scene specific, it's not really worth the milliseconds in rendering. Who wants to tweak every room and location in AC:U's big world just for correct SSR? IMO SSR has a long way to go and may end up just getting dumped. I don't like the fact that devs use an approximate "roughness"-to-blur relationship (which isn't physically plausible) in order to get blurred reflections. I also think it's flaws are too numerous to be very practical. The developer was right that most materials aren't metal, but the flipside to that is almost every material does have indirect specular (even if the roughness is approaching a diffuse reflector). Plastics, and outer coating on rubber/wood/fabric, etc.. all have it to some degree.
A few things though: I really think the way going forward in solving some of these methods is by switching to volumes (i.e. 3D raster voxels) and then projecting back to screen space. The faster we can get to pure ray-tracing and away from screenspace techniques, the better. No the hardware isn't there yet, but Nvidia, Sony, AMD, etc.. aren't just satisfied with a pure 2d rasterizer hardware. As bandwidth increases, and number of cores increase, we should start to see small-scale ray-marching (or ray-tracing within a volume) on some of these techniques until we hit hardware that can do full ray-tracing. I was impressed with the ray-marching of light volumes in Lords of the Fallen.
That light coming through that stained glass window and carrying the colors along with it in the volume and actually illuminating geometry that intersects it is probably the most impressive single graphical feature I've seen this year. Not even AC:U can boast this feature. The fact that it's completely ray-marched and can be viewed from any angle and is, in fact, a light source impresses me. Alien:Isolation has a similar technique in it's game. Good stuff.
Yeah, you should.
VFX seems to contradict himself a lot too. He claims to be only interested in the technical merits of games but his arguments in favor of ACU seem to boil down to art style since he claims that the fact that GI is baked in ACU doesn't make it any less impressive while discounting DC's full real time GI. He also regularly laments consoles inability to hit 60fps but has said Naughty Dog made a mistake in deciding to target 60 for Uncharted 4.
VFX_Veteran
Banned
I'm not only interested in the technical merits of games. Yes, I value them more than art, but that's a personal preference. Not a contradiction.
ACU does have baked GI, but I'd be a fool to consider that a big negative concerning it's looks just because it's not taxing the hardware as opposed to a full real-time solution would. DC does have it..and so does Alien.. doesn't make them look better.
I think you are mistaking me lamenting 60fps as doable for consoles for trying to convince console zealots that it's going to be the exception and not the norm. Just look at all the next-gen games that have come out so far.. all of them are targeting 30fps and some, barely hitting it in a consistent manner. Some games are being scaled way back in contrast to the PC ports and still not hitting a constant 30fps. Consoles just don't have the hardware to push 60fps with the visuals that devs are trying to do. And I stand by my comment, If ND is targeting 60fps @ 1080p, UC4 is going to look more like TLOU:Remastered and NOT AC:Unity. That's not a bad thing. But I do wish we'd keep things into perspective.
Oh really, which one?
Sometimes the surface can look a bit rigid with the patterns and what it is reflecting and look weird. Still lakes can do that irl too, though not as obvious in real life of course.
The water could be a lot better at times but can we slow down the crazy train already guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEMZmoSaAws
^ crysis
I think the water stuff is CPU dependent as well. I wish consoles CPUs were a bit more powerful.
DemonCleaner
Member
well thats quite something O_O
^Nvidia Turf Effects
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLVa0NOFdwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLVa0NOFdwM
Fried Food
Banned
does the PC version use this tech?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked