Support NeoGAF

[GameAddict411]

Please do yourself a favor and watch atleast the high quality video on gamersyde.
The Picture you quoted is nothing what the game actually looks like. Even in this thread there are tons of picture which show that the gameplay isn't that much different from the original reveal. And the quality of the cutscenes in the gameplay demo and E3 looks actually the same.

Even if it was 100% match, they promised 60fps with these visuals. So far it's 30fp with visuals looking less impressive. Explain how will they double the framerate while maintaining better visuals or at least to the level of the reveal trailer. I just can't see it. ND mixed some bullshit into it, but I am surprised at how much some people gloss over it, if it was another game this would have been a much bigger deal.

 

[BigTnaples]

Even if it was 100% match, they promised 60fps with these visuals. So far it's 30fp with visuals looking less impressive. Explain how will they double the framerate while maintaining better visuals or at least to the level of the reveal trailer. I just can't see it. ND mixed some bullshit into it, but I am surprised at how much some people gloss over it, if it was another game this would have been a much bigger deal.

It's a year away from release.

There aren't even death animations yet.


TLoU:R was running sub 30fps a couple months before launch.

Hell some games have been completly scrapped and remade in one year.


That said, I kind of expect UC4 to run at 30. Or maybe have a 30/60 option wih different fidelity like TLoU. ND has never under delivered on Graphics and technical prowess. This game will be no different.

 

[Takuan]

God, the never ending "downgrade" arguments.

Uncharted 4 looked amazing at PSX. How anyone could rationalize something different is beyond me.

What I saw at E3 was very impressive. What they showed at PSX wasn't the same leap and, to be fair, I didn't expect them to be able to deliver on that level anyway. There's a staler/blander quality to it that can certainly be attributed to differences in lighting, and maybe other things that are beyond my capability to describe. The cutscenes at the end are easily the most technically impressive parts of the PSX trailer, but I truly could not care less about how the game looks outside of gameplay; photo modes and replay modes are similarly worthless to me.

The game still looks good - absolutely among the best we've seen thus far - and it'll probably look better when it's done. It just doesn't look as impressive as the E3 trailer, and I can understand why people who were led to believe the reveal would be on the same level were disappointed.

Even if it was 100% match, they promised 60fps with these visuals

Did they actually promise this?

 

[R_Deckard]

Metro games (tesselated geometry)


Far Cry 3 and 4:


Thief 2014:



Heck even games like Doom 3 have really nice hand models... This game attracts all sort of hyperbole that seems to forget that other games and devs also have competent tech and art.

That far Cry 3 shot is a pre-rendered video BTW

 

[Dictator93]

That far Cry 3 shot is a pre-rendered video BTW

Its the same hand and arm model as in game. Just take a look at the hands and arms when you do a damage removal animation. Same thing.

Unfortunately not being at home, I cannot load up these games to take screenshots of hands and arms. So I am forced to stay with shitty google searches.

 

[Ishida]

Even if it was 100% match, they promised 60fps with these visuals. So far it's 30fp with visuals looking less impressive. Explain how will they double the framerate while maintaining better visuals or at least to the level of the reveal trailer. I just can't see it. ND mixed some bullshit into it, but I am surprised at how much some people gloss over it, if it was another game this would have been a much bigger deal.

Why do people keep spreading lies like this? They never promised anything. They said that they were targeting 60fps.

 

[Shadow_FFVI]

This is seriously some sorcery right here. Nate's hand is undeniably the best looking hand in video games.

Also, LOL @ at a few previous posts about the Gamersyde version being the way to fully appreciate the graphics. I said so myself earlier today but it's nice to see some people actually watching it instead of the crappy Youtube video. I'm pretty sure all those people screaming downgrade have been watching the heavily compressed stream or just love drive by trolling

BTW, where is DragonFart28 to prove that there was a massive downgrade? Seems to have admitted defeat.

That's why I was flabbergasted at the reactions here. I saw the gameplay live at the keynote and everything looked gorgeous. Then I saw the stream version and it was a night and day difference and started understanding the downgradeaton comments.

Anyway, Drake still has the ring, so it's safe to assume he is still with Elena for a change?

 

[Kaze2212]

Even if it was 100% match, they promised 60fps with these visuals. So far it's 30fp with visuals looking less impressive. Explain how will they double the framerate while maintaining better visuals or at least to the level of the reveal trailer. I just can't see it. ND mixed some bullshit into it, but I am surprised at how much some people gloss over it, if it was another game this would have been a much bigger deal.

Like someone in this thread already said the game is still probably a year away from release and is just in it's pre-alpha.

I wouldn't put 60fps past them but there is nothing atm indicating the game won't be 60fps at release. (Well I personally also doubt they will get that but if they do - my respects).

I don't know if it really didn't look as what they promised then I think the bitching would be insane. Also the gameplay looks very close to the cutscenes I don't see the problem? The detail in the character model of drake's brother in the gameplay cutscene looks the same as in the teaser... so I honestly don't where this downgrade is that should unleash an outrage if it wasn't uncharted?

 

[Servbot24]

Even if it was 100% match, they promised 60fps with these visuals. So far it's 30fp with visuals looking less impressive. Explain how will they double the framerate while maintaining better visuals or at least to the level of the reveal trailer. I just can't see it. ND mixed some bullshit into it, but I am surprised at how much some people gloss over it, if it was another game this would have been a much bigger deal.

They did not promise anything.

The game is still a work in progress.

Calm down.

I know that your precious delicate gamer feelings are at stake but I promise everything is going to work out.

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

Even if it was 100% match, they promised 60fps with these visuals. So far it's 30fp with visuals looking less impressive. Explain how will they double the framerate while maintaining better visuals or at least to the level of the reveal trailer. I just can't see it. ND mixed some bullshit into it, but I am surprised at how much some people gloss over it, if it was another game this would have been a much bigger deal.

Saving comments like these to serve crow when the game drops.

 

[Takuan]

60 FPS is a pipe dream and I don't understand why ND would even entertain the thought. There's no reason aside from blind faith to believe this is possible.

You'd think last gen was proof enough that 60 FPS cannot be achieved on consoles without compromising overall presentation, but it seems a good amount of people stay drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[Shin-Ra]

I think The Dark Sorcerer was running well above 30fps with two characters and super-high-quality assets on an early, unoptimised version of Quantic Dream's engine and that's a more comparable environment for the Uncharted 4 reveal.

 

[Dictator93]

I think The Dark Sorcerer was running well above 30fps with two characters and super-high-quality assets on an early, unoptimised version of Quantic Dream's engine and that's a more comparable environment for the Uncharted 4 reveal.

There is stuff like gameplay code, a dynamism of animation *not just the playing back of a video,* physics, etc... that make a real games performance almost incomparable to that of a QD graphical showcase.

 

[Shin-Ra]

There is stuff like gameplay code, a dynamism of animation *not just the playing back of a video,* physics, etc... that make a real games performance almost incomparable to that of a QD graphical showcase.

How does that apply to the Uncharted 4 reveal?

 

[lukeskymac]

Considering they ona technical level have textures and shaders which are basically the same (2K maps and some rudimentary sub surface scattering).. it is absurd t conclude that UC4s are that much better. It is not hyperbolic...

Maybe, I don't know, just maybe... tech isn't everything?

There's a reason ND are known as wizards despite not having more tech know-how than the likes of Crytek and by their own admission not being the optimization freaks people think they are.

There is stuff like gameplay code, a dynamism of animation *not just the playing back of a video,* physics, etc... that make a real games performance almost incomparable to that of a QD graphical showcase.

You mean just like Uncharted 4 realtime cutscenes? Like the teaser?

 

[Scrabble]

Ok, you are trying way too hard...

I'm trying too hard? Why people get so defensive over other people's opinions about video games I'll never understand. You're free to disagree with my opinion without saying I'm "trying too hard", or whatever the fuck that means. Ryse, Shadow Fall and certainly the Order 1886 in my eyes look better. COD Advanced Warfare also looks better than Uncharted 4, all while running at 60 fps. It's not hard to find games that at the very least are arguably in the ballpark as Uncharted 4, so how is my statement indicative of trying too hard?

 

[Kaze2212]

I'm trying too hard? Why people get so defensive over other people's opinions about video games I'll never understand. You're free to disagree with my opinion without saying I'm "trying too hard", or whatever the fuck that means. Ryse, Shadow Fall and certainly the Order 1886 in my eyes look better. COD Advanced Warfare also looks better than Uncharted 4, all while running at 60 fps. It's not hard to find games that at the very least are arguably in the ballpark as Uncharted 4, so how is my statement indicative of trying too hard?

Up until that point I could have seen your point. But then I couldn't take you seriously anymore I'm truly sorry.

 

[Dictator93]

How does that apply to the Uncharted 4 reveal?

Unless I am mistaken, he was referencing the DQ sorcerer demo as a reson why this game could and should be running at 60fps in the future. I was pointing out how comparing the performance of a controlled scene to that of a final game (with all its CPU stuff) isnt straight forward.

Maybe, I don't know, just maybe... tech isn't everything?

There's a reason ND are known as wizards despite not having more tech know-how than the likes of Crytek and by their own admission not being the optimization freaks people think they are.

This is what happens over and over again. I have made posts about it before even how this weird deflection happens.

When I criticize hyperbolic commentary regarding certain graphical touches, those on the defencse (defense?!) tend to then change the argument from tech to art.
"Well sure those games have the same level of technical compentency when loking at the hands (some even probably use better 4k hand textures)... but the reason why this looks better is because ND wanted to look better. Because of art."

Obviously you can have the opinion that it appears better to you, but turning a technical technical fact into questioning about artistic merit is just... ugh. Then everyone could just claim anything without backing it up.

So why then do these hands of Drake look soo much better than other game|s hands which also feature high res textures, super imposed dirt, and rudimentary skin shaders? TO me they look like good looking video game hands, the best? Meh, its a big wash. They definitely dont animate that believably when is holding that map.

You mean just like Uncharted 4 realtime cutscenes? Like the teaser?

It is still pretty in air whether that first teaser was rendered out in real time. The wording is ambiguous esepcially when you consider its performance and IQ.

 

[BigTnaples]

I'm trying too hard? Why people get so defensive over other people's opinions about video games I'll never understand. You're free to disagree with my opinion without saying I'm "trying too hard", or whatever the fuck that means. Ryse, Shadow Fall and certainly the Order 1886 in my eyes look better. COD Advanced Warfare also looks better than Uncharted 4, all while running at 60 fps. It's not hard to find games that at the very least are arguably in the ballpark as Uncharted 4, so how is my statement indicative of trying too hard?

This is completly nonsensical. I can say that CoD Ghosts looks better than Ryse. Doesn't make it any less asinine.

 

[Gamer345]

I love the downgrade comments based on early pre alpha footage even though it looked very close to the E3 footage, the skin pores, scars, all there. Both footage have big differences with light source, wetness, close up camera but its still worse people are claiming downgrade on very early footage

When 343 released Halo 5 beta at 720p, people claimed its early that 343 will definitely optimize it with the finished product, but when early footage is shown of UC4, suddenly thats the final footage and a downgrade

Its exactly the same is the DX12 improving XB1 performance yet people think Sony will sit back and not improve the PS4 with SDK

So yeah ND will just sit and not improve on what they are aiming for, which is 60fps and graphics that even look better than the E3 footage

 

[Scrabble]

Up until that point I could have seen your point. But then I couldn't take you seriously anymore I'm truly sorry.

What about Advanced Warfare makes you not take me seriously? That game is impressive as fuck from a visual standpoint.

This is completly nonsensical. I can say that CoD Ghosts looks better than Ryse. Doesn't make it any less asinine.

If someone said COD Ghosts looks better than Ryse you may have a point. The games I mentioned at the very least are arguably comparable to Uncharted 4. No one is arguing Uncharted 4 isn't a very good looking game, just that it's not head and shoulders above everything else like some here would like you to believe. So having an opinion that other games look better or at least in the same realm of Uncharted 4, should not warrant comments that I'm trying too hard or my opinion is asinine. Some of you people are insane with how quickly and easily you dismiss other opinions. I don't know why I even bother having discussions on the internet about games, it's just pointless sometimes.

 

[gamerMan]

What I saw at E3 was very impressive. What they showed at PSX wasn't the same leap and, to be fair, I didn't expect them to be able to deliver on that level anyway. There's a staler/blander quality to it that can certainly be attributed to differences in lighting, and maybe other things that are beyond my capability to describe.
The game still looks good - absolutely among the best we've seen thus far - and it'll probably look better when it's done. It just doesn't look as impressive as the E3 trailer, and I can understand why people who were led to believe the reveal would be on the same level were disappointed.

I completely agree with this. I could go into all the technical reasons why this is so but it is pretty easy to see. In the E3 teaser, Drake is lit by indirect bounce lighting cast from the moon. He is a part of the world. In the game play footage, Drake is not lit by bounce lighting. He looks like he is lit by ambient light with a directional component. This results in lighting on model that is either flat or too harsh similar to Last Of Us. Drake looks like he is pasted into the scene. To me it looks like even the cutscenes are just using directional ambient light with higher quality shadow maps. There is no bounce lighting that was present in the E3 teaser.

I think this is because Naughty Dog is using prebaked global illuminination in the form of lightmaps. The problem with this is that when you put the model into the game world, he sticks out since he is not really lit by the world. To create the illusion in gameplay, it looks like the shadow is computed separately based on some kind of occluding approximation. The shadow is also rendered at a very low resolution, but since it is rarely cast it is difficult to see.

This is why something looks off to some of us. One results of this is that there is no realistic shadowing on the model during gameplay that was present in the E3 trailer. Self-shadowing rarely occurs in the game. It has nothing to do with the time of the day since shadows are cast in the gameplay level but not on Drake. He just looks like he is not lit by the world but instead by a simple ambient component.

From the E3 teaser a lot of us expected "nextgen lighting and post processing effects" not precomputed lighting with directional ambient light. Still, Naughty Dog is giving us "nextgen" gameplay but I can see what some people are talking about.

 

[hesido]

I think the main disparity between two showings (reveal / gameplay) can be attributed to different lighting / time of day. However, making the reveal at 60fps was wrong. It led to a lot of confusion, hope and unwarranted excitement. They did not promise anything with the reveal, but it was a wrong decision IMHO. I'd rather have the reveal 30fps and the final product 60fps, then the other way around.

In the E3 teaser, Drake is lit by indirect bounce lighting cast from the moon.

Technically, moon's lighting is indeed bounce lighting as it bounces sun light, but practically for us it just acts as like a "night sun" as it is very far away, and can easily be mimicked with a directional light which UC's engine would have no problem with. When talking about bounce lighting, we should refer to bounce lighting "cast" from the ground and nearby objects, not the moon. It indeed comes handy in indirectly lit parts of your lit object. But probably you meant the same thing but "cast from the moon" points in the wrong direction, IMHO.

 

[R_Deckard]

I completely agree with this. I could go into all the technical reasons why this is so but it is pretty easy to see. In the E3 teaser, Drake is lit by indirect bounce lighting cast from the moon. He is a part of the world. In the game play footage, Drake is not lit by bounce lighting. He looks like he is lit by ambient light with a directional component. This results in lighting on model that is either flat or too harsh similar to Last Of Us. Drake looks like he is pasted into the scene. To me it looks like even the cutscenes are just using directional ambient light with higher quality shadow maps. There is no bounce lighting that was present in the E3 teaser.

I think this is because Naughty Dog is using prebaked global illuminination in the form of lightmaps. The problem with this is that when you put the model into the game world, he sticks out since he is not really lit by the world. To create the illusion in gameplay, it looks like the shadow is computed separately based on some kind of occluding approximation. The shadow is also rendered at a very low resolution, but since it is rarely cast it is difficult to see.

This is why something looks off to some of us. One results of this is that there is no realistic shadowing on the model during gameplay that was present in the E3 trailer. Self-shadowing rarely occurs in the game. It has nothing to do with the time of the day since shadows are cast in the gameplay level but not on Drake. He just looks like he is not lit by the world but instead by a simple ambient component.

From the E3 teaser a lot of us expected "nextgen lighting and post processing effects" not precomputed lighting with directional ambient light. Still, Naughty Dog is giving us "nextgen" gameplay but I can see what some people are talking about.

What is that exactly? No game uses true dynamic lighting, and it won't for years Ray tracing in realtime games at a useable level is not happening on this or any ones super pc at home. All games use hacks, cheats, methods to achieve this with baked/part fully or combos thereof.

Motion blur will all be added at the end along with any other post processing affects, the demo had screen and radial working just not per object stuff.

The e3 trailer was a tease for a game with an isolated shot, fixed multi-point lights, baked specular, shadows and the top quality shaders they could muster and yet In the new trailer they have improved some bits since then.

Aside the framerate drop (not a surprise for a slice of a demo made for the event) the realtime scenes all look pretty close in quality and texture/shader work for the required scene.

As many have said the game looks to still be aiming visually at 60fps with some cut backs and then maybe a 30 fps option with better shadows, draw distance etc. if they achieve the quality for cutscenes then expect 30 for those anyway as it matters little on non player controlled sequences.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Hold on.. someone mentioned that COD and Killzone look better than Uncharted 4?

Why is it that when people make absolutely insane batshit crazy statements, they run around throwing the opinion card? It's not some magical tool that automatically defends your statement unless it's applicable to an opinion. Graphics unless they're nearly identical, does not fit such narrative.

 

[lukeskymac]

When I criticize hyperbolic commentary regarding certain graphical touches, those on the defencse (defense?!) tend to then change the argument from tech to art.
"Well sure those games have the same level of technical compentency when loking at the hands (some even probably use better 4k hand textures)... but the reason why this looks better is because ND wanted to look better. Because of art."

You're essentially saying that the tech is all that matters. Excuse me if I disregard your opinion on this game's visuals from now on.

Let me clarify: your comments imply you deny the possibility of UC4's hands being better than, for instance, Far Cry 3, because the tech involved is the same.

 

[KKRT00]

You're essentially saying that the tech is all that matters. Excuse me if I disregard your opinion on this game's visuals from now on.

It matter when You are trying somehow objectively compare both games in terms of visuals. Art is too subjective to be relevant.

-------------

FPS games will always have the best hands in business, they are too close to the screen to not be:
http://i5.minus.com/ibEqQIwDLBhry.png
http://i3.minus.com/ibtwi2MEFTroYD.png
http://i2.minus.com/ilMTE5jywrj61.png

 

[lukeskymac]

It matter when You are trying somehow objectively compare both games in terms of visuals. Art is too subjective to be relevant.

No, it matters when you try to compare the tech. Don't be ridiculous. No one besides you and Dictator are trying to put it in objective terms.

Edit: Oh. It's Crysis. Why am I not surprised.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

It matter when You are trying somehow objectively compare both games in terms of visuals. Art is too subjective to be relevant.

-------------

FPS games will always have the best hands in business, they are too close to the screen to not be:
http://i5.minus.com/ibEqQIwDLBhry.png
http://i3.minus.com/ibtwi2MEFTroYD.png
http://i2.minus.com/ilMTE5jywrj61.png

My lord Crysis still looks so dang good. I don't think a gloved hand really counts though. Seems a lot easier to pull off.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

It matter when You are trying somehow objectively compare both games in terms of visuals. Art is too subjective to be relevant.

-------------

FPS games will always have the best hands in business, they are too close to the screen to not be:
http://i5.minus.com/ibEqQIwDLBhry.png
http://i3.minus.com/ibtwi2MEFTroYD.png
http://i2.minus.com/ilMTE5jywrj61.png

What? You can't compare that to a naked hand. It's much easier to simulate materials than it is to make hands look real. It's the reason Master Chief's face is covered most of the time.

Real-time rendered in game. This is not CGI or pre-render, which means all the shading features for skin, hair, eyes need to be written in code.

Using Disney Diffuse model, GGX Brdf model and Screen Space Subsurface.

Hair is using Kajiya-kay Brdf model.

Frank Tzeng did the sculpting and texturing for his face and arms.

Real-time rendered in game. This is not CGI or pre-render, built the fabric shader package for all the main characters and npc characters as well.

Using Disney Diffuse Model, recreated Brdf model just for the fabric, also added special cheap Sub-surface Scatter.

All the fabric details, stitches, small wrinkles, wear and tears were built in shader.

Colin Thomas did modeling and texturing part for the outfit.

 

[RoboPlato]

My lord Crysis still looks so dang good. I don't think a gloved hand really counts though. Seems a lot easier to pull off.

I can't really weigh in on this since I have a thing for fingerless gloves in FPS. Yes, I'm weird.

Drake's are certainly some of the best I've seen in a third person game.

 

[Scrabble]

Hold on.. someone mentioned that COD and Killzone look better than Uncharted 4?

Why is it that when people make absolutely insane batshit crazy statements, they run around throwing the opinion card? It's not some magical tool that automatically defends your statement unless it's applicable to an opinion. Graphics unless they're nearly identical, does not fit such narrative.

What the fuck about Uncharted 4 looks so impressive that the mere notion of other games looking better sends y'all in a fucking panic? Good god some of you are embarrassing. I have the gamersyde video downloaded on my pc, I've watched it at least five+ times and I fail to see what's so mind blowing that it garners such strong emotions among some of you. You seriously think Killzone isn't even worth having a conversation over on whether or not it's as impressive as Uncharted 4? The very fact ND has had to come out and defend its self, the sheer number of people who were disappointed, digital foundry questioning whether it's a big enough leap, etc should be enough of a hint that not everyone thinks it looks as mindblowingly amazing as you do. If this game didn't have the naughty dog label, I seriously wonder how many would honestly give a shit whether or not someone doesn't think it's the greatest looking game ever. And ya, I'm throwing the opinion card. Only on a gaming forum would the statement "they run around throwing the opinion card" not be absolutely laughed at by anyone in the real world. What other card am I supposed to throw other than my opinion? Tell me, what possible ulterior motive could I have to say Uncharted 4 isn't the most visually impressive game I've seen? As if i'm lying to myself or something that I don't find it to be the best looking game ever. But as usual, I can see discussion has no place on here. So carry on with your circle jerk fest and continue disowning and pushing away potentially any one who has the audacity to criticize Uncharted.

But what's most funny, is that I actually thought the demo was awesome. I know this may sound crazy, but it is possible to hold the opinion that the game looks impressive as hell, but still not the most visually impressive game ever. I know the internet has conditioned us to either view something as "oh my god it's the greatest thing ever" or "oh my god it looks fucking horrible", but opinions don't usually work like that.

 

[Dictator93]

gif barrage

Beyond the Gif barrage, is it so hard to imagine that some of the rendering stuff in those games could be better? You know.. naughty dog isnt the only company that is known for being good at tech....

I would not say KYSF looks better, but currently it appears to be doing more from technical standpoint. But then again, there is so much we do not know about in UC4.

You're essentially saying that the tech is all that matters. Excuse me if I disregard your opinion on this game's visuals from now on.

Let me clarify: your comments imply you deny the possibility of UC4's hands being better than, for instance, Far Cry 3, because the tech involved is the same.

No, I am saying that if you look at Far Cry3s hands up close, you realize they use wholly similar tech as well as being artistically similar. I mean, FPS games tend to have creepily detailed hands... the nature of the camera position necessitates taht.

 

[KKRT00]

What? You can't compare that to a naked hand. It's much easier to simulate materials than it is to make hands look real. It's the reason Master Chief's face is covered most of the time.

I'm not on desktop and wont be for a while, i would make some Ryse shots instead, but i just used what i had stored. I'm sorry that i dont have gallery from every game stored ...

FPS argument still stands.

 

[velociraptor]

What the fuck about Uncharted 4 looks so impressive that the mere notion of other games looking better sends y'all in a fucking panic? Good god some of you are embarrassing. I have the gamersyde video downloaded on my pc, I've watched it at least five+ times and I fail to see what's so mind blowing that it garners such strong emotions among some of you. You seriously think Killzone isn't even worth having a conversation over on whether or not it's as impressive as Uncharted 4? The very fact ND has had to come out and defend its self, the sheer number of people who were disappointed, digital foundry questioning whether it's a big enough leap, etc should be enough of a hint that not everyone thinks it looks as mindblowingly amazing as you do. If this game didn't have the naughty dog label, I seriously wonder how many would honestly give a shit whether or not someone doesn't think it's the greatest looking game ever. And ya, I'm throwing the opinion card. Only on a gaming forum would the statement "they run around throwing the opinion card" not be absolutely laughed at by anyone in the real world. What other card am I supposed to throw other than my opinion? Tell me, what possible ulterior motive could I have to say Uncharted 4 isn't the most visually impressive game I've seen? As if i'm lying to myself or something that I don't find it to be the best looking game ever. But as usual, I can see discussion has no place on here. So carry on with your circle jerk fest and continue disowning and pushing away potentially any one who has the audacity to criticize Uncharted.

But what's most funny, is that I actually thought the demo was awesome. I know this may sound crazy, but it is possible to hold the opinion that the game looks impressive as hell, but still not the most visually impressive game ever. I know the internet has conditioned us to either view something as "oh my god it's the greatest thing ever" or "oh my god it looks fucking horrible", but opinions don't usually work like that.

Haha - you're right though. There just doesn't seem to be that significant of a leap between Uncharted 4 and ND's previous games. It just does not scream next gen. Driveclub, Infamous, Killzone - they all had a wow factor. I too am not seeing it with the Uncharted 4 footage, until of course the cutscene kicks, which doesn't count. It's akin to suggesting Advanced Warfare has great graphics based on it's cutscenes - it honestly looks average in gameplay. It looks like a slightly prettier COD Ghosts.

 

[Primethius]

Haha - you're right though. There just doesn't seem to be that significant of a leap between Uncharted 4 and ND's previous games. It just does not scream next gen. Driveclub, Infamous, Killzone - they all had a wow factor. I too am not seeing it with the Uncharted 4 footage, until of course the cutscene kicks, which doesn't count. It's akin to suggesting Advanced Warfare has great graphics based on it's cutscenes - it honestly looks average in gameplay. It looks like a slightly prettier COD Ghosts.

I don't know man. There's a difference between suggesting other games look better and the notion that UC4 does not scream next-gen. The foliage, character model detail, IQ and scale are all pretty impressive.

 

[RoboPlato]

Haha - you're right though. There just doesn't seem to be that significant of a leap between Uncharted 4 and ND's previous games. It just does not scream next gen. Driveclub, Infamous, Killzone - they all had a wow factor. I too am not seeing it with the Uncharted 4 footage, until of course the cutscene kicks, which doesn't count. It's akin to suggesting Advanced Warfare has great graphics based on it's cutscenes - it honestly looks average in gameplay. It looks like a slightly prettier COD Ghosts.

The cutscenes in this are real time, just like many in AW. The only difference between gameplay and the real time cutscenes in AW is motion blur. Obviously models will have a higher level of detail when viewed up close but the game, console, and engine are still doing all the work. I don't even think the difference is that drastic in this footage, just closer in where you can appreciate the little details.

 

[Javin98]

Haha - you're right though. There just doesn't seem to be that significant of a leap between Uncharted 4 and ND's previous games. It just does not scream next gen. Driveclub, Infamous, Killzone - they all had a wow factor. I too am not seeing it with the Uncharted 4 footage, until of course the cutscene kicks, which doesn't count. It's akin to suggesting Advanced Warfare has great graphics based on it's cutscenes - it honestly looks average in gameplay. It looks like a slightly prettier COD Ghosts.

Wait, say what? Ok, everyone really has to watch the Gamersyde video before making nonsensical comments

 

[ProfessorMoran]

I think the main disparity between two showings (reveal / gameplay) can be attributed to different lighting / time of day. However, making the reveal at 60fps was wrong. It led to a lot of confusion, hope and unwarranted excitement. They did not promise anything with the reveal, but it was a wrong decision IMHO. I'd rather have the reveal 30fps and the final product 60fps, then the other way around.


Technically, moon's lighting is indeed bounce lighting as it bounces sun light, but practically for us it just acts as like a "night sun" as it is very far away, and can easily be mimicked with a directional light which UC's engine would have no problem with. When talking about bounce lighting, we should refer to bounce lighting "cast" from the ground and nearby objects, not the moon. It indeed comes handy in indirectly lit parts of your lit object. But probably you meant the same thing but "cast from the moon" points in the wrong direction, IMHO.

They already have bounce lighting in the cave, 1080p on a big screen makes a huge difference versus watching it either on my phone or even my laptop, a lot of fine details just aren't visible even watching it on a 17" screen, all the subtle details on each rock or the moss that actually looks a bit wet, or how when Drake threw the guy into a wall and he slumped over with his eyes rolled, all those little expressions...

 

[FStop7]

What the fuck about Uncharted 4 looks so impressive that the mere notion of other games looking better sends y'all in a fucking panic? Good god some of you are embarrassing. I have the gamersyde video downloaded on my pc, I've watched it at least five+ times and I fail to see what's so mind blowing that it garners such strong emotions among some of you. You seriously think Killzone isn't even worth having a conversation over on whether or not it's as impressive as Uncharted 4? The very fact ND has had to come out and defend its self, the sheer number of people who were disappointed, digital foundry questioning whether it's a big enough leap, etc should be enough of a hint that not everyone thinks it looks as mindblowingly amazing as you do. If this game didn't have the naughty dog label, I seriously wonder how many would honestly give a shit whether or not someone doesn't think it's the greatest looking game ever. And ya, I'm throwing the opinion card. Only on a gaming forum would the statement "they run around throwing the opinion card" not be absolutely laughed at by anyone in the real world. What other card am I supposed to throw other than my opinion? Tell me, what possible ulterior motive could I have to say Uncharted 4 isn't the most visually impressive game I've seen? As if i'm lying to myself or something that I don't find it to be the best looking game ever. But as usual, I can see discussion has no place on here. So carry on with your circle jerk fest and continue disowning and pushing away potentially any one who has the audacity to criticize Uncharted.

But what's most funny, is that I actually thought the demo was awesome. I know this may sound crazy, but it is possible to hold the opinion that the game looks impressive as hell, but still not the most visually impressive game ever. I know the internet has conditioned us to either view something as "oh my god it's the greatest thing ever" or "oh my god it looks fucking horrible", but opinions don't usually work like that.

You weren't here for the Uncharted 3 review thread, were you?

NOTHING brings out the console warriors like Uncharted.

 

[lukeskymac]

You weren't here for the Uncharted 3 review thread, were you?

NOTHING brings out the console warriors like Uncharted.

You weren't here for the Unchated 2 2009 E3 demo, were you?

NOTHING brings out the platform warriors like Uncharted.

 

[gamerMan]

What is that exactly?.

For me personally, I thought that the lighting in the E3 teaser looked comparable to CG-like lighting. I imagined we would be playing a game that looked like a CG. I would have liked to see Drake lit from other sources other than just ambient light like the E3 teaser footage. He doesn't appear to be lit by the gameworld.

I stress on its own Uncharted 4 looks amazing just not as stunning as the E3 teaser. Here is what it looks like:

I'm trying to imagine what I thought the lighting would look like during gameplay after seeing the E3 teaser. Although it looks horrible, I created this image of what I imagined the gameplay to look like. It's pretty ugly. The image in my head is a lot better than that. LOL!

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

So good and we are still a year out from it's full release. Go for Glory ND!

 

[Shin-Ra]

Drake's hair's the only part of his character model that I'm not super impressed by. The thinner sideburn areas already look great but the bushy top and back I feel they could probably refine.

 

[RoboPlato]

Drake's hair's the only part of his character model that I'm not super impressed by. The thinner sideburn areas already look great but the bushy top and back I feel they could probably refine.

It looked way better in the Drake presentation, more so than just better shaders, so I'm thinking they just toned that and a few other things down for sake of the the stage demo framerate.

 

[Superflat]

For me personally, I thought that the lighting in the E3 teaser looked comparable to CG-like lighting. I imagined we would be playing a game that looked like a CG. I would have liked to see Drake lit from other sources other than just ambient light like the E3 teaser footage. He doesn't appear to be lit by the gameworld.

I stress on its own Uncharted 4 looks amazing just not as stunning as the E3 teaser. Here is what it looks like:

I'm trying to imagine what I thought the lighting would look like during gameplay after seeing the E3 teaser. Although it looks horrible, I created this image of what I imagined the gameplay to look like. It's pretty ugly. The image in my head is a lot better than that. LOL!

I wasn't expecting what I was playing would look CG, but I expected the cutscenes to, which run in real time and aren't pre-rendered from my understanding. Cutscenes put 100% of the control to the creators so they can pull the most artful scene out as they can, which means throwing in additional lights and creating shadows in that might not be there in a full intractable level, at least not persistently.

The cutscene at the end of the demo isn't anything special; it's just two dudes talking in a jungle -- but it's presented really well and shows details up close in a way gameplay doesn't. During most of the gameplay, where the camera is placed at a default distance from the model, Drake's face (or rather the back of his head) is within the ballpark of 100x100 pixels out of the entire 1080x1920 screen.

I did wish that the level was lit more dramatically, but they start with a completely overcast area that goes into dawn, where any direct sunlight hits Drake horizontally. Neither are really "ideal" lighting conditions that will make a model look good, and I do think that the colors and lighting for most of the demo are a lot duller than they could look, just by changing the lighting and nothing else.

Since a bunch of pics used to represent UC4 are when Drake is put in flat lighting situations, I'll post some where I thought it showcased the model well during combat in certain conditions certain areas of the map.

And these are only when the camera is scripted to zoom in for a few seconds, allowing these details to come out.

Shot of Drake at a typical camera distance:

 

[Filben]

Drake's hair's the only part of his character model that I'm not super impressed by. The thinner sideburn areas already look great but the bushy top and back I feel they could probably refine.

Hair is what I'm not really impressed in the whole gaming industry. But it gets better and Nate's hair does look more natural than those wigs (e.g. DA:I) you see for decades.

 

[dl77]

Enters thread...

 

[R_Deckard]

Its the same hand and arm model as in game. Just take a look at the hands and arms when you do a damage removal animation. Same thing.


Unfortunately not being at home, I cannot load up these games to take screenshots of hands and arms. So I am forced to stay with shitty google searches.

That's a bullshot Ubi PR

This is actual PC game shot

Shader work on skin is not even close to the PR shot from the game.

Not saying that UC4 has this new "best hands ever" in a game but they are better than most games including many on your list

 

[KidJr]

As I think I've mentioned in other threads, it's not so much the shaders that make such a difference, those models (E3 and PSX) are extremely close to being identical. It's everything around him, the lighting (main problem imo) and geometry textures (looking slightly plastic at the moment).