Support NeoGAF

[-COOLIO-]

I just bought a $250 graphics card about a month ago (gtx560 ti) and am able to play bf3, skyrim and other maxed out at a high frame rate. Honestly, theres not that much of a difference between the consoles and my pc when i'm not "looking" for the differences. Sure the pc graphics are fantastic, but honestly, if thats the next gen leap...kind of disappointing.

i dont think ive explicitly said it yet but this is more or less how i feel too. it'd probably take something like 5 seconds to spot the difference between bf3 360 and pc at 720p but only 1 second to identify halo 360 over halo xbox.

 

[chrisisawesome]

What resolution are you playing in?

I play everything on ultra and 1080p (60fps), looks significantly better than consoles. As a matter of fact, I had the game running in what would amount to 740p for the first two months I owned it, and finally got it to run in 1080p, that alone was a big jump to me.

I was alternating between 1080p and 1680x1050 depending on if i'm on my pc monitor or my tv. I was running anywhere between 40-60 fps.
The textures definitely look better but its true, someone mentioned "diminishing returns" earlier, and I sadly have to agree that the graphics between something like bf3 on PC and gear3 or uncharted 3 was not astonishingly noticeable...

 

[-COOLIO-]

How do you get that impression when I specifically said this:



In reality it goes both ways. When you learn about it, you can appreciate accomplishments better, but the flaws or drawbacks also stick out more.

In the end it all comes down to if the topic interests you or not. If it doesn't then there's nothing wrong with not knowing what is what.

it sounds to me like you appreciate the technical savy more but the artistry of the graphics less as a result of learning the tech.

there's nothing wrong with learning about the tech, if anything itll help you land a job, but i think it's a mistake to think that it gives you a more refined sense of what actually looks good

 

[KageMaru]

it sounds to me like you appreciate the technical savy more but the artistry of the graphics less as a result of learning the tech.

there's nothing wrong with learning about the tech, if anything itll help you land a job, but i think it's a mistake to think that it gives you a more refined sense of what actually looks good

Art is subjective, tech (usually) is not. I think I appreciate both just fine =)

 

[daedalius]

Hopefully all faces will look like LAN in the future, nothing pulls me out of gaming quicker than a terrible face trying to look realistic.

Larger environments and better lighting would be on my list as well; better textures would be cool, but not something I'm going to jump out of my chair over.

Really like those UC/GoW3 shots.

I'd imagine an artist that wants a certain 'look' for an area will use as many 'tricks' as necessary to pull it off; why do they care as long as it looks good?

 

[-COOLIO-]

Not really because unless we have access to the main designers to tell us exactly what their target is, we can't say how close they got to it.


If people don't want to learn about tech, that's fine. But then if they start talking about tech they shouldn't complain when others start telling them they're wrong xD

-for those games in particular it's obvious

-learning tech is fine, talking tech is fine, but equating tech with something looking better is strange

 

[les papillons sexuels]

In reality it goes both ways. When you learn about it, you can appreciate accomplishments better, but the flaws or drawbacks also stick out more.

In the end it all comes down to if the topic interests you or not. If it doesn't then there's nothing wrong with not knowing what is what.

I disagree completely, all realtime graphics are based off of "tricks".

I actually appreciate games that do a better job of using these so called tricks then games that push higher resolution textures just to so they can say they have higher resolution texutes.

if you compare halo 1 and halo 2 it's hard to imagine that halo 2's mastercheif model uses less polygons.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Art is subjective, tech (usually) is not. I think I appreciate both just fine =)

art is less subjective when it comes to representing things realistically though. if a less technically demanding method produces a realistic result for less so that resources can be spent elsewhere, then i say kudos.

at the end of the day the cloth on the killzone dude looked pretty damn realistic regardless of the tech. that's what im getting at.

 

[KageMaru]

I disagree completely, all realtime graphics are based off of "tricks".

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I said otherwise because I agree with you here.

However I don't see other games having higher resolution textures just to say they have higher resolution textures, they do it because they can (obviously). Of course it's not possible with every game, due to demands varying from game to game, but I'm sure every developer would be happy to use higher resolution textures (assuming they are forced to use lower res) if they could.

Edit:

art is less subjective when it comes to representing things realistically though. if a less technically demanding method produces a realistic result for less so that resources can be spent elsewhere, then i say kudos.

at the end of the day the cloth on the killzone dude looked pretty damn realistic regardless of the tech. that's what im getting at.

I think my posts are being misunderstood here. I agree that smart use of resources are more important than pushing the system to it's knees just to say your using X effect. However in context of where KZ3 came into this discussion, it was stated the textures were comparable to the Witcher 2 pic, which they are not.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying the character models in KZ3 looks horrible. Just wanted to put that out there before I was misunderstood again. =p

 

[LOCK]

After reading this thread, I can make an easy conclusion...

...we are all going to be dissapointed somehow.

Oh wells, bring me that Zelda demo and I can die in peace.

 

[Reuenthal]

After reading this thread, I can make an easy conclusion...

...we are all going to be dissapointed somehow.

Oh wells, bring me that Zelda demo and I can die in peace.

How so? A lot of people have low expectations it seems so at least them I don't see them being disappointed.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I said otherwise because I agree with you here.

However I don't see other games having higher resolution textures just to say they have higher resolution textures, they do it because they can (obviously). Of course it's not possible with every game, due to demands varying from game to game, but I'm sure every developer would be happy to use higher resolution textures (assuming they are forced to use lower res).

you're putting emphasis on one technique over another when the ends does not justify the means.

A game that uses normal mapping over higher polygon counts is irrelevant if the effect is the same, even if higher polygon counts require more resources. You dislike the use of parrallax mapping in PD0, I assume you allso dislike they evolution of parrallax mapping that's used in crysis?

 

[Takuya]

They'll look better, no doubt (for some games at least). Hopefully they'll play better too, and with controllers.

 

[SapientWolf]

I was alternating between 1080p and 1680x1050 depending on if i'm on my pc monitor or my tv. I was running anywhere between 40-60 fps.
The textures definitely look better but its true, someone mentioned "diminishing returns" earlier, and I sadly have to agree that the graphics between something like bf3 on PC and gear3 or uncharted 3 was not astonishingly noticeable...

PC viewing angles are a lot larger. Gears or Uncharted would look really rough on a big PC monitor.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

-for those games in particular it's obvious

Or so you assume

-learning tech is fine, talking tech is fine, but equating tech with something looking better is strange

To each their own.

you're putting emphasis on one technique over another when the ends does not justify the means.

A game that uses normal mapping over higher polygon counts is irrelevant if the effect is the same, even if higher polygon counts require more resources. You dislike the use of parrallax mapping in PD0, I assume you allso dislike they evolution of parrallax mapping that's used in crysis?

Couldn't it be that he dislikes the POM in PD0 because it's too shiny? You assume too much.

 

[-COOLIO-]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I said otherwise because I agree with you here.

However I don't see other games having higher resolution textures just to say they have higher resolution textures, they do it because they can (obviously). Of course it's not possible with every game, due to demands varying from game to game, but I'm sure every developer would be happy to use higher resolution textures (assuming they are forced to use lower res) if they could.

Edit:



I think my posts are being misunderstood here. I agree that smart use of resources are more important than pushing the system to it's knees just to say your using X effect. However in context of where KZ3 came into this discussion, it was stated the textures were comparable to the Witcher 2 pic, which they are not.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying the character models in KZ3 looks horrible. Just wanted to put that out there before I was misunderstood again. =p

that makes things a bit clearer in the sense that it's unfair to compare them as textures, but simply comparing them graphically, or more simply as just pictures, the effect achieved is very similar, and so for the intents and purposes of the graphics they both achieve exactly the same thing. good looking clothes.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Couldn't it be that he dislikes the POM in PD0 because it's too shiny? You assume too much.

Wouldn't the over use of specularity in a game be a fault of art-direction, not of the technique?

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Wouldn't the over use of specularity in a game be a fault of art-direction?

Maybe the specular value was hard-coded. Happened in Doom 3.

"The engine has some flaws and limitations, though, that he admitted as a way of talking about what he's working on next. For instance, texture seams still appear on characters in places if you look closely enough at a model. More noticeable is the skin tone: human characters have a kind of plastic look about them. This is because there's only a simple specular highlight system in place -- that's the part of the engine that renders light hitting a surface. DOOM 3's basic system looks great on surfaces that are dull or plastic, but it's not good at rendering high-gloss surfaces such as polished, shining steel. "

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/doom-3/539049p1.html

that makes it a bit clearer in the sense that it's unfair to compare them as textures, but simply comparing them graphically, or more simply as just pictures, the effect achieved is very similar, and so for the intents and purposes of the graphics they both achieve exactly the same thing. good looking clothes.

Well, I guess then that REmake/RE0 still have the best graphics ever

 

[cheststrongwell]

I'm kind of worried about graphics getting too realistic. Not sure I would enjoy killing dudes that look photo realistic.

 

[scoobs]

I'm kind of worried about graphics getting too realistic. Not sure I would enjoy killing dudes that look photo realistic.

But what if you get +100 points and a killstreak reward?

 

[-COOLIO-]

Maybe the specular value was hard-coded. Happened in Doom 3.



Well, I guess then that REmake/RE0 still have the best graphics ever

goes back to that thing i was saying about the tree. is a game with a single amazing looking tree the best looking game ever?

the difference between a prerendered background and a full 3d world is a lot more stark than the cloth comparison in those two pics though.

and REmake is gorgeous.

 

[jett]

Are you proving his point?

More like unproving it, as there are no detail texture decals in those pictures. UC3 actually doesn't use them often unlike Kagemaru seems to imply, it actually uses them barely at all. The sand is the exception rather than the rule, because, well, it's sand. It's not hiding anything.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

I'm kind of worried about graphics getting too realistic. Not sure I would enjoy killing dudes that look photo realistic.

Methinks you're an outlier on this one, friend.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

goes back to that thing i was saying about the tree. is a game with a single amazing looking tree the best looking game ever?

We'd have to see the tree to tell

the difference between a prerendered background and a full 3d world is a lot more stark than the cloth comparison in those two pics though.

Who cares, it's about the looks, not the tech

 

[cheststrongwell]

Methinks you're an outlier on this one, friend.

Maybe if they use the guy that modeled for Max Payne it won't be so bad. Wouldn't mind shooting that face over and over.

 

[-COOLIO-]

We'd have to see the tree to tell


Who cares, it's about the looks, not the tech

the comparison before was apples and apples but this is apples and space shuttles. prerendered backgrounds dont achieve exactly the same thing as a full 3d world and i thiiiiiink you already know that

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I'm kind of worried about graphics getting too realistic. Not sure I would enjoy killing dudes that look photo realistic.

lots of games are trending away from realism. Many games are taking the "hero" art direction, DOTA 2, diablo 3, TOR.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

the comparison before was apples and apples this is apples and space shuttles. prerendered backgrounds dont achieve exactly the same thing as a full 3d world and i thiiiiiink you already know that

Of course, just like linear games don't achieve the same as open ended games. But that's tech talk, not "looks" talk, so it's irrelevant XD

 

[fin]

the comparison before was apples and apples but this is apples and space shuttles. prerendered backgrounds dont achieve exactly, or even close to the same thing as a full 3d world and i thiiiiiink you already know that

Yeah but as a picture it's getting the same thing across, nice background.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Yeah but as a picture it's getting the same thing across, nice background.

no one sees a 3d world as a background. in motion its completely different. durr.

Of course, just like linear games don't achieve the same as open ended games. But that's tech talk, not "looks" talk, so it's irrelevant XD

obviously youre not trying to start a fruitful convo, if you are i apologize but reread the stuff before and think critically.

 

[KageMaru]

you're putting emphasis on one technique over another when the ends does not justify the means.

A game that uses normal mapping over higher polygon counts is irrelevant if the effect is the same, even if higher polygon counts require more resources. You dislike the use of parrallax mapping in PD0, I assume you allso dislike they evolution of parrallax mapping that's used in crysis?

No I'm not putting emphasis on one technique over another.

I dislike the use of parallax mapping in PD0 since it's over done IMO and no I don't dislike the use of it in Crysis at all. IMO there are proper and improper ways to use certain techniques/effects.

Edit:

that makes things a bit clearer in the sense that it's unfair to compare them as textures, but simply comparing them graphically, or more simply as just pictures, the effect achieved is very similar, and so for the intents and purposes of the graphics they both achieve exactly the same thing. good looking clothes.

In reality this is just moving the goal post or twisting the previous discussion to better fit your opinion, but to each their own.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

no one sees a 3d world as a background. in motion its completely different. durr.

Why does it matter? The characters interact with the environment just like they do in any 3d world. And in any case, who cares. Just look at this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFhQrp5Bhhk

Best graphics ever.

obviously youre not trying to start a fruitful convo, if you are i apologize but reread the stuff before and think critically.

You're just trying to dismiss the argument because it's inconvenient to your position

 

[charsace]

Resolution, framerate and AA most certainly aren't free nor should they be overlooked in a comparison. A 720p 2-4xAA 30fps game might look similar to a 1080p (or higher), 16xAA, 60fps game when both are viewed as static images at 640p, but there's a pretty big difference in motion at the native resolutions.

The lower texture resolution of TW2 on consoles is pretty noticeable in close ups (dialogs/cut scenes).

If you really want to be fair, you'd upscale the console shots to 1080p, and then see if you can notice the difference, rather than use a horrendously compressed images.

Show me textures that look like that on the 360, and then we can talk.

I'm guessing that's Directx 11 and not 9? You can utilize bigger textures and normal maps in dx11 due to the better compression.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Why does it matter? The characters interact with the environment just like they do in any 3d world.

ahaha gg

 

[Medalion]

Why does it matter? The characters interact with the environment just like they do in any 3d world. And in any case, who cares. Just look at this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFhQrp5Bhhk

Best graphics ever.



You're just trying to dismiss the argument because it's inconvenient to your position

I recently gave REmake a try on Dolphin, while the character models looks great, the pre-rendered backgrounds need definite updating from their original gamecube resolution

 

[-COOLIO-]

No I'm not putting emphasis on one technique over another.

I dislike the use of parallax mapping in PD0 since it's over done IMO and no I don't dislike the use of it in Crysis at all. IMO there are proper and improper ways to use certain techniques/effects.

Edit:



In reality this is just moving the goal post or twisting the previous discussion to better fit your opinion, but to each their own.

it's really not, im boiling it down to comparing them as pictures because we're comparing textures/mapping. they both presumably look the same in motion as they do in that picture. at any random moment in the game you can take a snapshot of that guys arm and the witchers holster thing and compare them the same way.

to each their own, i guess we'll wrap it up. i enjoy these back and forths and i tip my hat

 

[fin]

A zoomed in screen shot, then quoted still has better textures than those PS3 shots.

The first 6-12 months the next gen games will have graphics like PCs do now. Eventually the graphics will get better as developers learn the hardware.

 

[KageMaru]

it's really not, im boiling it down to comparing them as pictures because we're comparing textures/mapping. they both presumably look the same in motion as they do in that picture. at any random moment in the game you can take a snapshot of that guys arm and the witchers holster thing and compare them the same way.

Yes I understand we are comparing textures and no they don't look the same in motion to me. One looks sharper than the other, it's that simple.

Edit:

Just saw your stealth edit and yeah, always enjoy learning the opinion of others. =)

 

[-COOLIO-]

Yes I understand we are comparing textures and no they don't look the same in motion to me. One looks sharper than the other, it's that simple.

if there's a difference between the two methods that's only detectable in motion that would have been some good ammo to bring up when people were comparing the two earlier. as far as people could see they had the same effect.

i tip my hat and curtsy

lol i edit often, a big part of debating is trying to get the wording just right which i think makes me a better conversationalist, so i edit compulsively

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

ahaha gg

There's occlusion, collision, shadows project on the environment, etc... Of course, the environment is physically static but we still have that in current gen games with their fully 3D worlds (Medal of Honor I'm looking at you).

 

[Red]

I'm guessing that's Directx 11 and not 9? You can utilize bigger textures and normal maps in dx11 due to the better compression.

TW2 is DX9 only.

 

[charsace]

TW2 is DX9 only.

So then all texture layers for characters in the game are most likely 2048*2. So that character probably has 4096*2 texture map, 2048*2 normal map, 2048*2 or 1024*2 specular map I'm guessing? Console games usually have something like 1024*2 texture map, 2048*2 normal map, 1024*2 specular.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

So then all texture layers for characters in the game are most likely 2048*2. So that character probably has 4096*2 texture map, 2048*2 normal map, 2048*2 or 1024*2 specular map I'm guessing? Console games usually have something like 1024*2 texture map, 2048*2 normal map, 1024*2 specular.

I've never looked, but I doubt they are even that size unless modded or a custom game engine.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

this thread is becomming rediculous. People keep posting pictures, but none of it is really meaningful because they don't actually describe how these shots impact what developers are going to do in the future.

I've posted this video once already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M04SMNkTx9E

this is a demo from march gdc 2011, it's from lionhead, and it's running on the 360 at 30pfs.

Why this video is relevant is because:
1 - it provides insight into what a first party studio is working on, a studio who has likely has knowledge on what the next xbox will use as hardware.
2 - it utilizes a type of rendering pipeline we havn't seen much of (mega-meshes http://miciwan.com/GDC2011/GDC2011_Mega_Meshes.pdf) which seems very similar to tessellation.
3 - it's about a year old, meaning it's relatively new, which means it's likely going to influence what lionhead uses for future endeavors.
4 - it's running on current hardware so we can assume that next generation hardware will provide a better result, even if it's only a change in memory we can assume better textures.

the cry engine tech demo and the samaritan tech demo are like more usefull as indicators for "next gen games" then current pc games. We don't know what kind of programming shifts might occur and how pipeplines might change. At the start of this generation, pc games weren't known for their multi-core use, something that console programming was a big factor in changing.

Interesting. This is what this thread was supposed to be about.

I think next gen graphics will look mostly completely different, since it will mostly use completely different techniques.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Much, much, much better than this imo.

None of those look all THAT impressive. There's so much overhead on PC very little of the superior power is taken advantage of. Next gen consoles wont have that problem.

I laugh at anyone saying Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 on PC do not look that impressive. What the fuck? Seriously? Best looking games yet and people don't think they look mind-blowing? Come on.

 

[charsace]

Tessellation does seem like it will be a big part of the next xbox at least. They are developing tech for it for first parties to use, UE demos featured it. I would imagine that first party xbox3 games use tessellation on characters and not just the terrain like first party 360 games have done.

 

[mrklaw]

I just bought a $250 graphics card about a month ago (gtx560 ti) and am able to play bf3, skyrim and other maxed out at a high frame rate. Honestly, theres not that much of a difference between the consoles and my pc when i'm not "looking" for the differences. Sure the pc graphics are fantastic, but honestly, if thats the next gen leap...kind of disappointing.

First, that's not what next gen will look like. A lot of PC games are just consoles assets running in high res. Next gen should have higher quality assets too. PCs are being held back by consoles being the lead platform right now.

Also, you may not appreciate the improvement immediately. People get used to 'better' very quickly, and it becomes normal. You only really notice the difference when you've been absorbed in that content for a while, then go back. I don't remember the awful quality of VHS anymore, I just remember enjoying watching movies. But if I went back my eyes would bleed.

 

[Twix]

Hopefully this will be what a standard good looking game looks like:

 

[Risk Breaker]

I'm being serious. At best it looks like The Witcher 1. I don't really see the reason to show that game of as an example of "look how great graphics look now! can you imagine the future!"

Ahahahaha, oh wow. What a gem.

 

[Anteater]

I just hope it will have good image quality (less jaggies, standard high resolution textures), good resolution and framerate.

I just want the game to play well without these 15fps slowdowns in a stupid snow storm or some bullshit.