Support NeoGAF

[Durante]

People repeatedly talk about how games like Witcher 2 use "last-gen" rendering techniques while games on new consoles will use something entirely different. I think if you believe that you're in for a nasty surprise. Unlike previous console generation transitions, there won't be a huge change in the fundamental way graphics are rendered for the next generation. Sure, there'll be tesselator/hull shaders, but that's a rather subtle thing.

Also, I fear for image quality on next-gen consoles. When I was young and naive I thought that IQ problems on consoles would be greatly reduced this generation, with 720p 4xAA as the minimum standard. Now it looks like even next-gen consoles may opt for some shitty post-processing AA (ML/FX/whatever) as the standard. Solid MSAA with alpha-to-coverage transparency multisampling is much preferable, and doesn't have all the caveats of a full-screen postprocessing solution.

 

[Lazy Jones]

Call me crazy, but I don't want 60 fps in all my games.

Me neither, I want 120 for my 120hz screen.

 

[AtomicShroom]

Doom 3 is such a terrible example... Sure, it looks really good, but it only does so because its structure design allows for it! Low-poly claustrophobical environments with little variety and no more than a select few enemies on screen at a time... No wonder it looked good! With such small rooms, the lighting/bump mapping/high res textures were through the roof and were the only thing that made the game shine...

It Perfect Dark Zero had a similar "small low-poly interior rooms" design, it would have looked infinitely better! Thankfully, they went for huge varied environments.

 

[AndyMoogle]

Call me crazy, but I don't want 60 fps in all my games.

You don't have to worry, because 60 fps will never be standard on consoles.

 

[Stallion Free]

Doom 3 is such a terrible example... Sure, it looks really good, but it only does so because its structure design allows for it! Low-poly claustrophobical environments with little variety and no more than a select few enemies on screen at a time... No wonder it looked good! With such small rooms, the lighting/bump mapping/high res textures were through the roof and were the only thing that made the game shine...

It Perfect Dark Zero had a similar "small low-poly interior rooms" design, it would have looked infinitely better! Thankfully, they went for huge varied environments.

It's called working within you engines limitations. Condemned does the same thing that Doom 3 does.

 

[InvincibleAgent]

Skyward Sword. ALL of them.

 

[Kccitystar]

Call me crazy, but I don't want 60 fps in all my games.

I am hoping you say this in the context of just having a handful of genres that can run at 60FPS.
Personally I think all sports/racing games = locked at 60FPS.
Everything else = locked 30, tops.

I mean with that though, you will ALWAYS have people testing the limits of the game, trying to achieve that slowdown effect by having lots of shit happen on the screen at once.

 

[KageMaru]

I'm pretty sure that on a technical level it wasn't any more impressive than Doom. They both heralded their lighting as being the best and they Condemned doesn't actually have anything that Doom doesn't as far as lighting tech goes (stencil shadows, dynamic shadowing).

But then Doom has higher resolution textures, higher resolutions, higher framerate, better anisotropic filtering, and better anti-aliasing.... all of those being technical aspects of gaming.

Love how defensive PC gamers get when people say console games have matched them.

People repeatedly talk about how games like Witcher 2 use "last-gen" rendering techniques while games on new consoles will use something entirely different. I think if you believe that you're in for a nasty surprise. Unlike previous console generation transitions, there won't be a huge change in the fundamental way graphics are rendered for the next generation. Sure, there'll be tesselator/hull shaders, but that's a rather subtle thing.

Also, I fear for image quality on next-gen consoles. When I was young and naive I thought that IQ problems on consoles would be greatly reduced this generation, with 720p 4xAA as the minimum standard. Now it looks like even next-gen consoles may opt for some shitty post-processing AA (ML/FX/whatever) as the standard. Solid MSAA with alpha-to-coverage transparency multisampling is much preferable, and doesn't have all the caveats of a full-screen postprocessing solution.

The advancements from DX9 to DX11 are pretty substantial IMO, we'll be seeing more than tesselation and hull shaders.

 

[angular graphics]

Doom 3 max 2004 settings

Condemned Xbox 360 max 2005 settings

More like Condemned:

It had some bloom and post-processing added to the F.E.A.R. engine, but overall it looked worse than the earlier released F.E.A.R. PC game.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

I'm pretty sure that on a technical level it wasn't any more impressive than Doom. They both heralded their lighting as being the best and they Condemned doesn't actually have anything that Doom doesn't as far as lighting tech goes (stencil shadows, dynamic shadowing).

But then Doom has higher resolution textures, higher resolutions, higher framerate, better anisotropic filtering, and better anti-aliasing.... all of those being technical aspects of gaming.

Quake 4 was a launch Xbox 360 game. Of course you will always be able to crank up the IQ on PC providing your budget allows it, that's another thing entirely. You can crank up AA, AF and resolution on the first Quake and run it at an impossible frame rate, that doesn't mean that it looks better than, say, Gears of War.

And speaking of The Witcher 2, we're getting a decent approximation of it on current gen consoles already (again, barring the worse IQ), next gen launch games should look even better.

 

[zoukka]

Seeing how the game is DX9 only, most of witcher 2's beauty lies in the art. It's entirely possible to game similarly impressive games at launch.

This makes even less sense. How can devs push out similar quality in art direction when they have to rush a game to launch? It's almost impossible.

 

[Always-honest]

More detailed textures, 720p 60fps or 1080p 30fps, better lighting, better shaders, post processing effects, etc, etc.
But for the love of god: IMPROVE ANTI ALIASSING

 

[KageMaru]

More like Condemned:

http://www.abload.de/img/condemned2010-03-0705-k6e5.jpg[img]
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/condemned2010-03-0705-158d.jpg[img]

It had some bloom and post-processing added to the F.E.A.R. engine, but overall it looked worse than the earlier released F.E.A.R. PC game.[/QUOTE]

Hey let's pick the worst pics imaginable to push our agenda!

People can find shit pictures and graphical flaws of any game.

[quote="zoukka, post: 32973303"]This makes even less sense. How can devs push out similar quality in art direction when they have to rush a game to launch? It's almost impossible.[/QUOTE]

I never said it would happen, the sheer size of a game like that would be unlikely at launch, I'm just saying it would be possible to pull of a game of those visuals. I'm only talking about the capabilities here, not the probability.

 

[amdnv]

And speaking of The Witcher 2, we're getting a decent approximation of it on current gen consoles already (again, barring the worse IQ)

Why on earth are people making this differentiation? How good a game looks depends massively on game resolution, texture resolution, shadowmap resolution, AA, draw distance and some other factors that are limited on consoles.
Is NTSC a "decent approximation" of 35mm film? It's an approximation, but not a decent one.

 

[Stallion Free]

Hey let's pick the worst pics imaginable to push our agenda!

People can find shit pictures and graphical flaws of any game.

Condemned is/was an ugly game.

 

[zoukka]

I never said it would happen, the sheer size of a game like that would be unlikely at launch, I'm just saying it would be possible to pull of a game of those visuals. I'm only talking about the capabilities here, not the probability.

Well we are speculating about how games will look when next gen hits.

 

[Kinyou]

Condemned is/was an ugly game.

You are/were an ugly game!

 

[Stallion Free]

You are/were an ugly game!

But I'm higher res than you are/were.

 

[KageMaru]

Condemned is/was an ugly game.

It had it's flaws, sure, but I don't agree it was an ugly game. Opinions are like assholes and all that jazz.

Well we are speculating about how games will look when next gen hits.

I thought we were talking about next gen in general, not just launch titles. If we're restricting ourselves to just launch games, then we shouldn't even be mentioning Witcher 2 since it's unlikely we'll see a game of that scope at launch.

 

[Haunted]

Not sure if I really like or really dislike this thread.

 

[MacBosse]

I always feel like a total dumbass when I enter these threads.

Screens from two different version of a game - I hardly see any difference. Gaf goes crazy over the awful awful oh god awful graphics. My standards must be so much lower ...

And people going "BF3 on 360 looks like a monkey took a dump on a 12 inch pc monitor". And here I was, naive as hell apparently, actually going "wow" so many times playing it myself.

Ah well, ignorance is bliss.

 

[jax (old)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EMcYJLgEyDQ

from the projectD thread. Its a good start. I kinda said wow.

 

[rvy]

Call me crazy, but I don't want 60 fps in all my games.

You're crazy. There is absolutely no reason to prefer 30fps over 60fps. "Cinematic-look" or "cinematic-feel" is a bullshit fallacy.

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Why on earth are people making this differentiation? How good a game looks depends massively on game resolution, texture resolution, shadowmap resolution, AA, draw distance and some other factors that are limited on consoles.
Is NTSC a "decent approximation" of 35mm film? It's an approximation, but not a decent one.

You're talking about two very different things here. Texture resolution, shadowmap resolution and draw distance are functions of the engine, i.e. the game using the engine. Rendering resolution, AA (well, not the post-processing methods that are gaining popularity), vertical sync and texture filtering depend primarily on the hardware running the game, and on PC you can even force the settings in hardware drivers (of course, consoles have fixed hardware so those settings are usually also fixed to maximize performance). That's why people make that differentiation - because it exists.

While anyone can tell the difference in visual quality between, say, Gears od War and EDF 2017, the difference in resolution, AA, texture filtering and so on is not readily apparent to most people and their perception of it depends on a number of factors (the size of the display, the distance between you and the display, how sensitive to jaggies or tearing you are and so on). From what we've seen of The Witcher 2 on Xbox 360, I bet you that if you put it on the same TV as the PC version, most people would say it's a decent approximation of the original, and some would probably even struggle to tell the difference.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Doom 3 on the other hand(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBYoXZROy3Y&feature=fvsr) looks amazing for its time and judging only by the youtube videos, looks significantly better than pd0.

I have played both games on the same tv and Doom 3 just isn't as detailed.

Don't get me wrong, the game holds up pretty well for its age but it's due to it being a fairly closed corridor shooter with barely any enemies on screen, darkness everywhere, solid shadows and normal mapping on top of really low poly character models.

There's a reason it ran so well back in the day.

Some people have mentioned that it took a lot of VRAM on Ultra quality but that's just because they were using uncompressed everything in that mode.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Doom 3 is such a terrible example... Sure, it looks really good, but it only does so because its structure design allows for it! Low-poly claustrophobical environments with little variety and no more than a select few enemies on screen at a time... No wonder it looked good! With such small rooms, the lighting/bump mapping/high res textures were through the roof and were the only thing that made the game shine...

It Perfect Dark Zero had a similar "small low-poly interior rooms" design, it would have looked infinitely better! Thankfully, they went for huge varied environments.

But that's exactly what the top graphical showcases are like this gen, at least according to this thread http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=451846 .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EMcYJLgEyDQ

from the projectD thread. Its a good start. I kinda said wow.

Even though it's a MMO it does indeed look great.

 

[KKRT00]

Also, I fear for image quality on next-gen consoles. When I was young and naive I thought that IQ problems on consoles would be greatly reduced this generation, with 720p 4xAA as the minimum standard. Now it looks like even next-gen consoles may opt for some shitty post-processing AA (ML/FX/whatever) as the standard. Solid MSAA with alpha-to-coverage transparency multisampling is much preferable, and doesn't have all the caveats of a full-screen postprocessing solution.

SMAA is better than MSAA, because it merges MSAA, TAA and postAA.
You have some discussion and developer insight here
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=55634&highlight=post+process&page=44

and official page here: http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/

 

[Eccocid]

oh Gaf is so naive sometimes. How can you believe with next gen hardware that every game will run at perfect frame and at 1080p?

You do realize they could achieve same thing on this gen hardware too. But developers are greedy and they always go beyond the system specs and have to lower some of the stuff i.e. resolution, AA etc.

It will be same on next gen. Games developed with high ambitions will use have poor frame rates, lack of proper AA etc etc..

 

[mckmas8808]

In that case, why are folks expecting the next generation of consoles to give us graphics about as good as the top tier PC games today? Uncharted 3 smokes Doom 3, it stands to reason that that while at launch the next round of consoles will look similar to say Battlefield 3 or The Witcher 2, they will eventually go far, far beyond that.

Dead Space 1 beats Doom 3 in my eyes. So I see no reason to believe that BF3 will be surpassed by next gen consoles by 2014.

 

[Jokab]

I am hoping you say this in the context of just having a handful of genres that can run at 60FPS.
Personally I think all sports/racing games = locked at 60FPS.
Everything else = locked 30, tops.

I mean with that though, you will ALWAYS have people testing the limits of the game, trying to achieve that slowdown effect by having lots of shit happen on the screen at once.

I say it in the context of that some games just look worse in 60 fps, to me. When I saw that footage of UC3 running at 60 fps I thought it looked terrible. Games like that (can't really tell you what this includes) should imo be locked at 30 fps. Like you say though, sports/racing games should definitely be 60 fps.

 

[KKRT00]

oh Gaf is so naive sometimes. How can you believe with next gen hardware that every game will run at perfect frame and at 1080p?

You do realize they could achieve same thing on this gen hardware too

No, they couldnt. RSX and Xenos are too weak for 1080p.
Also current gen GPUs, even weak ones, handles anisotropic filtering/MSAA/geometry/shadows/etc much better than console GPUs.

Dead Space 1 beats Doom 3 in my eyes. So I see no reason to believe that BF3 will be surpassed by next gen consoles by 2014.

Lol, You know, that no one is arguing about it? No one is arguing that mid/late gen console games looks better than 2005 PC exclusives, just that high end PC games were in pair with first gen console games.

When I saw that footage of UC3 running at 60 fps I thought it looked terrible. Games like that (can't really tell you what this includes) should imo be locked at 30 fps. Like you say though, sports/racing games should definitely be 60 fps.

What? How? It looks miles better.

 

[Zeliard]

So mystifying.

 

[RoboFu]

We have not even got out of the way of having mostly baked in shadows and lighting in most games. Real time shadows look like ass in the others. Sub 720 resolutions, no to little AA, and game FPS in the low 20s most of time and you guys want next gen to look like avatar or you are going to cry? really? :/

 

[Zaptruder]

The technology that drives the games will continue to grow and evolve... the developers this gen have done a good job of pushing the tech where it can go - but they'll very much need to wait for next-gen working machines (at the very least dev boxes) before they'll be able to properly push the boundaries again for the next set of machines - they'll need hard specs and devices to test again to see the strengths and weaknesses of the machine.

In terms of raw-processing power, next-gen machines will *not* exceed high end PCs of today. There is no doubt about that.

But what consoles bring to the table is a large unified market to aim technology towards. In the world of high-end realtime graphics, this market is absolutely essential for defraying development costs.

Without that stable unified market of Xbox/PS3/PC, there's little point in pushing tech in directions that next-gen machines won't be capable of going.

If developers start pushing tech one way now, only for the next gen consoles to have a set of strengths and weaknesses that are out of sync with the requirements of your engine, you get caught with your pants down - limiting yourself to the high-end PC market. Which admittedly isn't a terrible thing for us gamers - but for people trying to make money pushing the tech, it's not a great thing.

To put it another way - developers can only really start pushing the envelope of next-gen tech once next-gen tech is available to push the envelope on. Of course that will mean long development spool up times like we've seen this gen - but there's little doubt that many developers will be able to get games looking better towards the end of the console life cycle then what we're seeing at the high end of PC gaming today. But it also means that you should expect the initial set of next-gen console games to look... disappointing.

And for the love of god, don't trust the videos they release that accompany the initial announcement of the consoles. Those are CG visualizations of what they hope they'll be able to make their games look like in the years to come. Hopes predicated on just a little more information then what we have available in this thread.

 

[KageMaru]

No, they couldnt. RSX and Xenos are too weak for 1080p.
Also current gen GPUs, even weak ones, handles anisotropic filtering/MSAA/geometry/shadows/etc much better than console GPUs.

No, they are not too weak for 1080p, but they are too weak for 1080p with the current effects being thrown at today's games.

He's saying that people are being naive if they believe developers won't push for better visuals at the expense of resolution or frame rate, which is a very likely scenario. I'd just be happy if developers didn't go below 720p this time.

 

[RoboFu]

Screw graphics. Give me a 20 disk changer for all next gen consoles!

 

[herzogzwei1989]

This game looked mind blowing when first revealed but not any more...but the think i like most about it was how different it felt first person crossbow shooter in Beautiful universe...i really wish more developer try this

I disagree. I think it looks better than skyrim (not artistically tho) I mean technically speaking.

 

[Nora Kisaragi]

Next gen graphic's will look pretty much the same as current gen. Like, if you look at Halo Reach for the 360 and compare it to Halo 2 for the Xbox you'll go "Wow! The graphics are way better!". That sort of leap will not exist next gen. It'll only be marginally better, with more RAM and processing power.

Next gen graphics on consoles will probably not even look as good as what's currently available for PC. But what we can hope for is 32 player networking on LIVE, improved networking/disc speed reading from PS4, and for the Wii U to actually be competitive. In terms of graphical output, it won't be that much better than current gen, and something like this definitely isn't possible with 2GB of ram.

 

[herzogzwei1989]

The technology that drives the games will continue to grow and evolve... the developers this gen have done a good job of pushing the tech where it can go - but they'll very much need to wait for next-gen working machines (at the very least dev boxes) before they'll be able to properly push the boundaries again for the next set of machines - they'll need hard specs and devices to test again to see the strengths and weaknesses of the machine.

In terms of raw-processing power, next-gen machines will *not* exceed high end PCs of today. There is no doubt about that.

But what consoles bring to the table is a large unified market to aim technology towards. In the world of high-end realtime graphics, this market is absolutely essential for defraying development costs.

Without that stable unified market of Xbox/PS3/PC, there's little point in pushing tech in directions that next-gen machines won't be capable of going.

If developers start pushing tech one way now, only for the next gen consoles to have a set of strengths and weaknesses that are out of sync with the requirements of your engine, you get caught with your pants down - limiting yourself to the high-end PC market. Which admittedly isn't a terrible thing for us gamers - but for people trying to make money pushing the tech, it's not a great thing.

To put it another way - developers can only really start pushing the envelope of next-gen tech once next-gen tech is available to push the envelope on. Of course that will mean long development spool up times like we've seen this gen - but there's little doubt that many developers will be able to get games looking better towards the end of the console life cycle then what we're seeing at the high end of PC gaming today. But it also means that you should expect the initial set of next-gen console games to look... disappointing.

And for the love of god, don't trust the videos they release that accompany the initial announcement of the consoles. Those are CG visualizations of what they hope they'll be able to make their games look like in the years to come. Hopes predicated on just a little more information then what we have available in this thread.

wonderful post. bravo!

 

[paskowitz]

Its already here, its just stuck in photo mode.

 

[Shtof]

Next gen graphic's will look pretty much the same as current gen. Like, if you look at Halo Reach for the 360 and compare it to Halo 2 for the Xbox you'll go "Wow! The graphics are way better!". That sort of leap will not exist next gen. It'll only be marginally better, with more RAM and processing power.

Next gen graphics on consoles will probably not even look as good as what's currently available for PC. But what we can hope for is 32 player networking on LIVE, improved networking/disc speed reading from PS4, and for the Wii U to actually be competitive. In terms of graphical output, it won't be that much better than current gen, and something like this definitely isn't possible with 2GB of ram.

So you think the Samaritan tech demo was made just to bullshit us?

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

The question is who will utilize new techniques like we have seen before by different developers. Normal Mapping, HDR, etc were things we saw really come into fruition. I wonder if we will see anymore unique takes on graphics come into play?

 

[KageMaru]

Next gen graphic's will look pretty much the same as current gen. Like, if you look at Halo Reach for the 360 and compare it to Halo 2 for the Xbox you'll go "Wow! The graphics are way better!". That sort of leap will not exist next gen. It'll only be marginally better, with more RAM and processing power.

Next gen graphics on consoles will probably not even look as good as what's currently available for PC. But what we can hope for is 32 player networking on LIVE, improved networking/disc speed reading from PS4, and for the Wii U to actually be competitive. In terms of graphical output, it won't be that much better than current gen, and something like this definitely isn't possible with 2GB of ram.

I think we will say "wow the graphics are way better" next gen. I can see Halo 6 looking A LOT better than Reach. Same for Uncharted, Gears, KZ, etc.

Also that titanic demo may be possible with 2GB of memory, if the right techniques (like virtual texturing) are used.

 

[Nora Kisaragi]

And for the love of god, don't trust the videos they release that accompany the initial announcement of the consoles. Those are CG visualizations of what they hope they'll be able to make their games look like in the years to come. Hopes predicated on just a little more information then what we have available in this thread.

THIS. THIS THIS THIS.

Nintendo pulled this bullcrap with the Wii U, posting 360/ps3 footage when wii u was announced; i'm not trusting that again.

 

[Corky]

So you think the Samaritan tech demo was made just to bullshit us?

err no? It was made to show the rendering capabilities of the Unreal engine with 3 gtx 580s backing it up,

 

[Shtof]

err no? It was made to show the rendering capabilities of the Unreal engine with 3 gtx 580s backing it up,

Yeah, but honestly, that's a hell of a lot of work just to show off what a graphics card can do.

 

[RoboFu]

Yeah, but honestly, that's a hell of a lot of work just to show off what a graphics card can do.

Not when you are selling a $250,000 ( maybe more nowdays) game engine.

 

[Durante]

Yeah, but honestly, that's a hell of a lot of work just to show off what a graphics card can do.

It's to show off what the engine can do. Epic is an engine company.

 

[Stallion Free]

Not when you are selling a $250,000 ( maybe more nowdays) game engine.

Lol 250K is like what it cost to license the Quake 3 engine. I doubt licensing UE3 costs less than a million.

 

[Corky]

Lol 250K is like what it cost to license the Quake 3 engine. I doubt licensing UE3 costs less than a million.

UE2 had a price tag of around 750000 usd excluding royalty fees. IIRC.