Call of Duty: Ghost (Consoles)
- Thread starter Xenio
- Start date
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Oops my ipod messed up. Will post later
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, Graham really pointed out some of the worst spots of the trailer. Looks like they weren´t ready to show this stuff yet. At least Sub-d is making those spherical car´s geometry very round! haha.
But regarding the reflections, did you spot any evidence that they are done in screen-space instead old school second camera planar reflections?
But regarding the reflections, did you spot any evidence that they are done in screen-space instead old school second camera planar reflections?
Yup. There is no parallax shift. Check out how the legs of the office chair reflect, etc. Compare it to the windows behind, etc - everything lines up.
I admit the camera is *very* low, but you'd still expect some parallax in those cases.
[edit]
I guess I'm being so critical because this is the biggest franchise in the game industry. As a barometer for next gen it is worrying (more for the unimaginable crunch the development team must be going through than anything)
I get really tired of this kind of hyperbole.
There's an interview on the engine that has some people losing their shit, but really makes quite a bit of sense. Basically, the guy they were interviewing said they don't really spend any time adding/changing a feature if it doesn't have a significant effect on the gameplay and experience they're trying to achieve.Graham said:
Personally, I think this is a really smart approach. If something (like the mathematical accuracy of reflections on the floor) is only going to be even noticed by a tiny fraction of obsessive graphics geeks, it's not worth investing in when you're on a 2-year cycle. You have to prioritize. Not even COD is going to get a billion-dollar budget next-gen.
As for the gamma-space lighting, that makes sense given it's a cross-generation game. Fundamentally changing the lighting calculations like that is going to really slow down the process of converting assets from one level to another
Don't mind the tech talk - the game only manages to up the scale of the levels and geometry complexity compared to the X360 COD titles. But the looks - the lighting, the shading, the post effects - are basically the same. Which means it's general visuals are actually inferior to a lot of the 2nd and 3rd gen 30fps X360/PS3 titles, like the Uncharted sequels, Halo 4, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3 or Gears 3.
Another way to put it is that if you were to look at 320*200 thumbnails only, Ghosts wouldn't look that much different to MW2 or BLOPS1, and it wouldn't look as good as the above mentioned mature titles.
Another way to put it is that if you were to look at 320*200 thumbnails only, Ghosts wouldn't look that much different to MW2 or BLOPS1, and it wouldn't look as good as the above mentioned mature titles.
I was not being hyperbolic. The general look of the game, from what has been shown so far, is not much more impressive than most good looking 360 games. As many impressive rendering features might be behind it, the final output is not too different. This is of course the sum of the game being a lauch title, cross generational, 2 year production cycle, diminishing returns, early footage, 60fps and even the way the footage was presented, as I´m sure if they showed a playthrough, many more graphical qualities would had been more evident to the casual watcher then could have been perceived in their montage of quick 4 seconds clips of the game.
I'm not sure where to begin with this one:
Light is coming from all over the place, with no obvious source (is the moon green?) buildings are a weird mix of ultra bright blown out white and pitch black. And is it just me or are all the vehicles just a bunch of spheres?
Eh....and the pattern on the building where he is "standing on" is just a flat surface. It doesnt look like real geometry. Looks like old school normal map that brakes the effect on that angle
Of course I could be wrong
I'm all for that attitude but it doesn't fit with what they have presented. Graphics is a means to an end for gameplay readability and artistic expression / immersion.
Readability is crucial to good gameplay; being able to easily comprehend the structure of the word being presented to you. This is pretty much entirely down to lighting (primarily ambient light). It should be a number 1 priority.
Yet my impression is that they have focused on things like tessellation and bloom. I feel the readability of the first two pics I posted is staggeringly bad, which *will* have a significant negative effect on gameplay.
Yeah this all falls into artistic expression and immersion. So I agree - it's still important but shouldn't be put ahead of gameplay.
I'm not sure it does. My impression is BLOPs, etc, are doing things sensibly. It's weird.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Not to mention all the buildings outside have super low res bitmaps on them and nothing else.
I think the game was not in a state where they were ready to show it yet, but money matters and contracts between MS and Acti made sure it debuted on 21 st may, so they had to sound convincing with what they had. I still don't get why ANYONE in game insustry would tout 'fish moving out of the way' as next gen AI
! What is weird is that earlier CODs had such good looking sunlight at 60fps, while this one looks just weird and clunky. There's a lot of geometry, but that seems to be about it. Either they have incapable captain at the helm of this ship who is unable to get all aspects of a game's gfx to gel together for a good final frame or , like i said earlier, the game is just not ready to be shown.
You said "early 360 titles," not "good looking 360 games." Yeah, change your statement, and it's no longer hyperbole.
Judging by how often I get my ass kicked in Black Ops II, plenty of players have absolutely no problem comprehending the structure of the world.Graham said:
None of the prior COD games have linear-space lighting. Maybe go back and play them again. COD4 and BlOps1 look particularly bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently, Black Ops 1 apparently used gamma-correct shaders. So why doesn't the lighting look as realistic as Crysis or BF3? Is it because they're not using floating-point RGB HDR? Just bad artists?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, in then maybe gamma-space lighting isn't the issue with Ghosts. Does it appear that MW2 and MW3 are using gamma-space lighting, but BlOps1 & 2 are using linear-space lighting? AFAIK, the Treyarch and the IW versions of the engine have been separate since MW2/BlOps.
MW2 or 3 (I can't tell):
BlOps1:
BlOps2:
MW2 or 3 (I can't tell):
BlOps1:
BlOps2:
Last edited by a moderator:
Well you got me there. I should have said mid-gen 360 title, or something like that, as "early" does denote first or second year of a console´s cycle, which on the 360 didn´t look very impressive either, would be something like COD2, and comparing Ghost to that would be just crazy. I was thinking of MW2 and up. Those, definetely are pretty comparable to Ghost I think.
Yes, Ghosts looks like MW2 or MW3 with much higher-fidelity assets. Although TBH, just upgrading the resolution and AA/Aniso alone would be a significant visual improvement over what you get on the consoles. A lot of corners had to be cut to keep the game running at 60 fps.
Take that BlOps1 shot. I've got the exact same scene, minus actors, on my TV right now. The PS3 version runs at 540p, the shadow maps are lower res, and the low MIP levels/trilinear/whatever makes the ground texture look like crap just 8 feet away. It results in a scene that doesn't look nearly as good.
Ground textures really looked awful in BlOps1, FWIW.
Take that BlOps1 shot. I've got the exact same scene, minus actors, on my TV right now. The PS3 version runs at 540p, the shadow maps are lower res, and the low MIP levels/trilinear/whatever makes the ground texture look like crap just 8 feet away. It results in a scene that doesn't look nearly as good.
Ground textures really looked awful in BlOps1, FWIW.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Poll
