[Nesh]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

If you're referring to the models during the game engine cutscenes then yes I would agree with you GOW3 models are superb. In-game not so much.

You are wrong because there are many real time interactive cut scenes where the model is zoomed automatically up close and his detail is still superb.

[antwan]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

If you're referring to the models during the game engine cutscenes then yes I would agree with you GOW3 models are superb. In-game not so much.

Sorry, same model



edit:

Originally Posted by Nesh

You are wrong because there are many real time interactive cut scenes where the model is zoomed automatically up close and his detail is still superb.

correct! You actually don't even have to enter a cutscene; in many areas you can just get real close to the camera and go like: "is this what Kutaragi intented?? "

[fearsomepirate]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Except that animation, camera motion, voice acting, yada yada, is exactly the same as in the console games. the PC is no worse off. COD, BF3, Batman, etc. aren't using cheap content on PC.

Then PC fans cry about the "consolization of PC games." What they want are the assets associated with AAA console budgets and the graphics associated with PC exclusives. There just aren't that many publishers who can sell enough PC-exclusives games to justify that level of production more than once in a blue moon.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by antwan

Sorry, same model



edit:


correct! You actually don't even have to enter a cutscene; in many areas you can just get real close to the camera and go like: "is this what Kutaragi intented?? "

The character movements and animation aren't really all that good though. (which was your issue with Witcher 2)

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by fearsomepirate

Then PC fans cry about the "consolization of PC games." What they want are the assets associated with AAA console budgets and the graphics associated with PC exclusives. There just aren't that many publishers who can sell enough PC-exclusives games to justify that level of production more than once in a blue moon.

I'd argue it's been more the PCification of consoles. FPSes and Unreal Engine games see their roots more in the PC than the console staples of platformers and kart racing.

Games are games. An interpretation of PC game or console game is in the eye if the beholder, unless the mechanics are obviously different (eg. mouse based strategy turned awkwardly into a thumbstick pointer strategy).

[Sigfried1977]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

The character movements and animation aren't really all that good though. (which was your issue with Witcher 2)

I'd they they are actually very good for the type of game GOW is. Some really nice touches there, like how Kratos actually twists his blades inside the flesh of a big creature to make it turn. It's not as loaded with contextual animations as something like Uncharted3 obviously, but that would more than likely have been very detrimental to its gameplay.

That said, I thing The Witcher 2 is actually animated rather nicely as well. The faces are a little stiff, but as far as Western RPGs go it's still about as good as they come.

[fearsomepirate]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I'd argue it's been more the PCification of consoles. FPSes and Unreal Engine games see their roots more in the PC than the console staples of platformers and kart racing.

The modern FPS owes just as much to Goldeneye as it does to Quake.

"Consolization" isn't about mouse vs. thumbsticks. Console games are designed around closed hardware, has a simple interface, and is often played from a fairly large viewing distance. So there are lots of little differences associated with those things that, when you add them up, can result in a pretty clear difference between a "PC game" and a "console game" when something is really tailored for the platform. Obviously, there's a lot of overlap, but I don't think PC gamers were imagining things when they said MW2 was more of a console game than a PC game.

[swym]

Originally Posted by lightarrow

Compare the early console games released in 05-06 & compare them to the best now on console.
They are not much better at all in 6yrs.

Hello lady!
Look at your old Chief

Now back to me

Now back at your old Chief

Now back to me


Sadly, he isn’t me. But if you give him a few years in cryo and some major engine overhaul - he could smell like me.

I'm on a Warthog!

[antwan]

offtopic: "I'm on a warhog, driving into bullshot land" ? :-0
If anything, Halo upgraded their 3dsmax render plugins!
edit: though, if they handed Halo to SOny Santa Monica then it would look like that in realtime!

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by antwan

offtopic: "I'm on a warhog, driving into bullshot land" ? :-0
If anything, Halo upgraded their 3dsmax render plugins!
edit: though, if they handed Halo to SOny Santa Monica then it would look like that in realtime!

You seem to be missing the point of the response to the quoted statement. If you can't see the difference between the two games (beyond just focusing on these screenshots to support ignorant statements, although how you missed the change in how they do lighting is beyond me), then you have some other more pressing issues. If you want more obvious examples in variation between early and current games, there's Gears 1 vs Gears 3, Bad Company vs Battlefield 3... and others. There are pretty big differences in asset quality and rendering, so it's a pretty daft statement for the OP to make.

[Billy Idol]

Originally Posted by joker454

What still totally confusess me even today is how console marketting "bullshots" are considered to look "too amazing" conpared to how the games actually look on console even though they are just the same game with more resolution and aa, but pc games which basically let you play current games at bullshot resolution/aa along with 60fps, improved shadows, texture filtering, ao, view distance, etc, etc, etc, are considered meh. I just don't get it.

The problem for me is the following: I game mostly on PC, typically everything on max at 1080p. But still...even with this, I do not consider this to be bullshot mode. There are still lot's of jaggies around. Of course, IQ is much better compared to console.

But at the end...there are still lots of flaws, still jaggies all over the place, still super low rez textures all over the place when walking close, still lot's of jagged razor like shadows, still lots of unpleasent explosions and effects, foliage and thin geometry...it is much improved to console games...but it is miles away from being bullshots at 60Hz...with all the available raw horsepower of PCs...the quality is indeed: meh!

I just bought ghost Recon Future Soldier and Spec Ops the line...with everything maxed at 1080p, graphcis are meh. Lots of shimmering, lots of jaggies and overall noisy image.

I hope for next gen consoles: focus on AA and shadow quality to deliver near film like quality in this regard. Get rid of the damn jaggies. I hope TXAA brings an improvement and will be adopted for next gen consoles...

[antwan]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

You seem to be missing the point of the response to the quoted statement. If you can't see the difference between the two games (beyond just focusing on these screenshots to support ignorant statements, although how you missed the change in how they do lighting is beyond me), then you have some other more pressing issues. If you want more obvious examples in variation between early and current games, there's Gears 1 vs Gears 3, Bad Company vs Battlefield 3... and others. There are pretty big differences in asset quality and rendering, so it's a pretty daft statement for the OP to make.

Nah, rather you miss my point.
He is comparing pre-rendered images which (to my understanding) don't even use in-game assets or realtime light renders.

edit: I agree that there is probably a big difference between Halo3 and Halo4 in game. Even though Halo4 probably uses LDR instead of HDR now, and had higher resolution and better AA methods, and what not. The assets certainly have changed and look a lot better now (even without polycount, just the art quality)

He could have also picked this Halo 3 image:

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Nesh

You are wrong because there are many real time interactive cut scenes where the model is zoomed automatically up close and his detail is still superb.

Really? I think his point stands. Looking at that, the model is obviously low poly. The art direction is decent, of course and can mask much of that. As is the blur filter that they use for AA in the game.

And I'm not even sure the animations are much better, if at all, than the aforementioned Witcher 2. Different? Yes. Better? Questionable.

And certainly the scale and detail of the surrounding scenery isn't even a contest. It's like saying 10% of this games graphics are better than 10% of that games graphics, hence the entire games graphics are better (just please ignore the other 90% of the graphics).

Regards,
SB

[nightshade]

Oh dear...are we still not over calling post process AA methods 'just a blur filter' ?
If anything GOW3's MLAA should be the last candidate for that, it's quite phenomenal both in terms of image clarity and edge smoothing. Ofcourse the artstyle helped quite a bit as you don't see a lot of sub pixel edges but in then end that's not what we are arguing about here.

His point was that GOW3's cutscene models are impressive while gameplay model isn't, when infact (as far as I know) they just so happen to be the exact same model.

[SteelOak]

Nah, rather you miss my point.
He is comparing pre-rendered images which (to my understanding) don't even use in-game assets or realtime light renders.

You just proved their point.

[mogwai]

Originally Posted by antwan

Most PC games are low budget; which means that they can often have good (unoptimized) graphics, but you will always see that the animation, the camera motion, voice acting plus other things like story or gameplay sort of destroy the overall illusion.
Witcher 2: case in point.
Run that game on 6 monitors at the same time. The animation would still look like something resembling a PS2 era game. Some animations even look like PS1 era games, running up stairs for example.

Stop chatting BS, pleaze:
http://youtu.be/3VcNiMgQGSo
http://youtu.be/1LJnR6E6sEU?t=46s

[Bigduo209]

Hmm... I wonder if this console gen would've been a bigger leap had we been stuck with SDTVs even now?

I mean the consoles were made with HD in mind, but I wonder how if the console manufacturers and many developers really understood the trade-offs between resolution, textures, physics, and frame-rate to make things work?

[swym]

Originally Posted by antwan

edit: though, if they handed Halo to SOny Santa Monica then it would look like that in realtime!
...
He is comparing pre-rendered images which (to my understanding) don't even use in-game assets or realtime light renders.
...
He could have also picked this Halo 3 image:

Pre-rendered images which don't even use in-game assets or realtime light renders!? We've practically seen the first Halo 4 image I put here in the stage demo in E3, plus if I recall correctly all of the Halo 4 footage was done in-engine according to 343.
And then on the other hand, you are actually putting here for comparison a screenshot which clearly states Halo 3 CG Trailer.Are you even aware that there was no such scene in the actual game? Or was your whole point to claim that Halo 4 footage looks like a pre-rendered CG movie and therefore it shouldn't be compared to regular game footage?

(Plus, I think you got it backwards: as far as I recall The Sony Santa Monica games are the ones with some cutscenes being pre-rendered. The Halo cutscenes, at least in the Bungie era, were done in realtime)

[antwan]

As for Halo, my memory was cloudy, for that I apologize. Some Xbox-only friends were showing me Halo footage back in the days, claiming it was realtime, that was with Halo 3. I even read it was realtime in a lot of places. But I guess I saw the CGI trailer instead of the supposed realtime trailer.

Btw, was this ever claimed as using lightning and effects representative of the realtime renderer?



I was looking up some posts on the internet comparing Halo3 realtime to trailers, and this is what people on the Halo fan forum had to say:
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.a...1-p=1#39653138

We all know that the Halo 3 announcement trailer looks far better than the actual game, but in my opinion, Reach looks a lot better and more realistic than the Halo 3 announcement trailer. Reach's graphics are far better than Halo 3's. But before you start saying that Reach's graphics won't look this good because look at how the Halo 3's graphics degraded. You have to remember that the Halo 3 announcement trailer came out nearly a year and a half before the actual game came out, while this new Reach trailer came out only 10 months before the games release. Also, Bungie claims that the Reach trailer is actually part of the opening cutscene of the game, so this could very well be what we're going to get when the game comes out.

Well, Halo 3 was pre-rendered, and the Halo Reach was not. What I find amazing is the Halo Reach graphics are par or higher than the PRERENDERED Halo 3 graphics.

So again, my memory may have been clouded by reading similar posts back in the day.

back ontopic:

Originally Posted by mogwai

Stop chatting BS, pleaze:
http://youtu.be/3VcNiMgQGSo
http://youtu.be/1LJnR6E6sEU?t=46s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VcNi...ature=youtu.be

the first link I click, within 7 seconds. You see Geralds' turning animation resembling early PS1 games, you just proved my point.

edit: don't get me wrong, a lot of aspects of the Witcher 2's graphics are really amazing and could not be done with the same detail/precision on any console ever released!