Do exclusive developers push visuals more than AAA developers?
- Thread starter VFX_Veteran
- Start date
- Status
VFX_Veteran
Regular
Prove me wrong? We can compare clips for clips.. Both have compression artifacts.. but be my guess.
Just Cause 3 doesn't have deforming rice bags, there.
But in all seriousness, both of them use Havok: http://www.dualshockers.com/2015/07...alo-5-fallout-4-and-more-will-use-havok-tech/
Similarities between the two will obviously arise. The thing we don't know yet is if the final code will have to suffer for it in terms of performance, as well as how extensively will physics be used in either game. Uncharted being linear might have large physics based puzzles that Just Cause can never have due to its open world nature, JC3 will most probably have more destruction and more things to explode because... That's Just Cause. I think it's better to wait for the games to come out before saying things like "JC3 has all the physics" or vice versa.
Just Cause 3 doesn't have deforming rice bags, there.
But in all seriousness, both of them use Havok: http://www.dualshockers.com/2015/07...alo-5-fallout-4-and-more-will-use-havok-tech/
Similarities between the two will obviously arise. The thing we don't know yet is if the final code will have to suffer for it in terms of performance, as well as how extensively will physics be used in either game. Uncharted being linear might have large physics based puzzles that Just Cause can never have due to its open world nature, JC3 will most probably have more destruction and more things to explode because... That's Just Cause. I think it's better to wait for the games to come out before saying things like "JC3 has all the physics" or vice versa.
Horizon use Havok too and have pretty good physics: tree and rock destruction by the thunderjaw, player collision with vegetation...
Last edited:
First second of the clip: legs of the main character clip one into another.
I don't think I want to discuss it, actually. JC3 graphics looks like PS3 game. The lighting is really, really bad.
I don't think JC3 looks that bad, i think it's more the compression (Twitch then Youtube... cringe worthy). I mean, even this off screen footage of the same demo looks better: http://www.gamersyde.com/hqstream_just_cause_3_e315_gameplay_2-34993_en.html
And I think you miss the point the question is what would be the best version between an exclusive version compared to the multiplatform version of each platform for Just Cause 3. We can go further if Star Citizen was multiplatform and not a PC exclusive with extra effort on high end PC feature, will it look like the same? I think the answer is simple.
It is not a checkbox war. Each people will find a game more impressive than other games even on a more powerful platform, because art direction is very important. And artist talent too, they need to do their best within limited ressources even on PC. Exclusive version of a game can tailor the asset using the strong point of the platform...
Last edited:
It's not bad, but last-gen. Checked all the quality videos on gamersyde and it's really "almost Last of Us" level of graphics. I.e. good-PS3-exclusive-game level indeed. But not more than that.
No this if Hyperbole!....
It looks visually in the same ball park as UC4 to me. It's clearly significantly less dense with detail - which is a major strength of UC4, but that's no doubt through necessity on account of it being significantly more open. On balance I'd say the two are broadly comparable.
Billy Idol
Legend
Sorry, I have to really disagree with you here. I know, subjective opinion and so on and everyone has its own personally opinion, but this really makes me scratching my head:
If an open world game such as JC3 is visually(!) in the same ballpark as a level based game like UC4, then you are indirectly stating that the UC4 devs are much less capable in comparison...and this does not do ND justice imo and is unfair. Furthermore, it just is not true.
They might be technically in the same ball park, but imo certainly not visually (just look at the running animation, just look at that).
Or any animation, really. Even the simple things
http://gfycat.com/SinfulSandyHammerheadbird
look when Drake is fighting to balance his body when going through the mud, they get all the little details right imo.
That's a weird way of looking at things, with that logic any game that has a bigger map to explore has by definition better visuals. And it ain't even close, No Man's Sky has the best visuals of all time. I am not so sure many people would agree with that, though.
If the whole map is viewable, doesn't that count for something? Hypothetical example - which game has better visuals : one with photorealistic rendering of a jungle that only renders one bush or tree at a time, or a simpler game that renders all the jungle in lush density even if with simple geometry? Being able to render the whole is part of the technical requirements of the engine, and an engine that can scale more and show more needs technical accomplishment to do that well.
or a game with fairly static tunnel and view point using various trickery to looks realistic (like FF 8 combining FMV with realtime 3d in spider robot chase scene)
Both are impressive for different reasons, No Man's Sky may not be incredibly detailed but the seer size of its universe makes it unique. But for me visuals is something that can be measured and compared, i believe that game visuals should be compared on how coherent the game world looks, when you have to look hard to say "Ha! There, that was a lod transition" or "There that's a low res shadow" then the game is doing something right. Looking at No Man's Sky you can spot lod transitions almost everywhere, and that's what they had to trade in order to achieve that mind boggling universe (it really is impressive!).
For me a game doesn't have to use cutting edge tech to be considered visually impressive though. Example, what the guys and gals at Ubisoft achieved with the UbiArt Framework engine is impressive! I mean can anyone look at Rayman Origins/Legends, Child of Light and Valiant Hearts and not be impressed? And you know why? Because the worlds they create are visually coherent, there are no items popping in everywhere, or if they are they are hidden carefully in order to keep you immersed. In Just Cause 3 and No Man's Sky i find myself trying to be immersed only to be waken up by a game element popping in 10 meters away from me or the legs of the main character clipping etc. And that's also what Naughty Dog get right in my opinion, they hide whatever pulls you out of the world they create carefully. On the other hand, it's very hard to convey that into technical terms, other than say that what they do just works for their game.
Or cuphead(in my point of view maybe the best 2D visual of all time) or unravel or LBP.
Last edited:
Yes I was including the scope of the world in that visual assessment. In fact I specifically stated that in the next sentence:
"It's clearly significantly less dense with detail - which is a major strength of UC4, but that's no doubt through necessity on account of it being significantly more open. On balance I'd say the two are broadly comparable."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
