Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]

[Neb]

Determining how effective and successful each of the tricks and techniques has been is certainly a part of the tech discussion. It's not you, me, or someone else, it's the consensus of the masses that judges KZ2 techniques to be more impressive and effective in the end.

Thats true but there needs to be a bigger sample range. Atleast now a new video is out showing more maps thus more variation and bigger potential to make a fair comparision s in mp vs mp.

Also for those comparing faces and whatnot using cutscenes, most are pre-rendered videos for KZ3.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25750603&postcount=98

so, a lot of in-game cutscenes are now videos. There are several reasons for that: you have to load in less assets which are only used for those cutscenes (animation, speech, etc); less complexity in asset optimizing and scripting -> less potential bugs; much shorter load times. Disadvantage is that it takes way more disk space; you need to render both 2d and 3d versions separately, but hey, it still fits on a blu-ray.

I actually thought this sometime ago when people where speculating why there was 2 downloads one for 2D and one for 3D and gamesize.

Nice to see though Crytek keeping vids in C2 realtime like previous Crytek games. I guess this also puts more strain on streaming system and limits what they can do on consoles.

 

[betan]

Nice to see though Crytek keeping vids in C2 realtime like previous Crytek games. I guess this also puts more strain on streaming system and limits what they can do on consoles.

Why is it nice?
I'd think most sane people would prefer seamless transitions to loading screens.

 

[ct03]

Why is it nice?
I'd think most sane people would prefer seamless transitions to loading screens.

In Mass Effect 2 I hated the video cutscenes. They looked quite awful compared to the game itself, due to low res and bad compression.

Crysis 2 is a multi-platform title, so if the cutscenes WERE pre-rendered they wouldn't take advantage of 1080p at Blu-ray bitrates like Killzone probably will.

 

[betan]

In Mass Effect 2 I hated the video cutscenes. They looked quite awful compared to the game itself, due to low res and bad compression.

Crysis 2 is a multi-platform title, so if the cutscenes WERE pre-rendered they wouldn't take advantage of 1080p at Blu-ray bitrates like Killzone probably will.

why? I'm just trying to understand. Why wouldn't want to take advantage of Blu-ray on PS3?

 

[2real4tv]

In Mass Effect 2 I hated the video cutscenes. They looked quite awful compared to the game itself, due to low res and bad compression.

Crysis 2 is a multi-platform title, so if the cutscenes WERE pre-rendered they wouldn't take advantage of 1080p at Blu-ray bitrates like Killzone probably will.

Yeah but they are using in game assets(you can see clipping, dithered hair etc) so its very hard to tell to a untrained eye.

 

[BRiT]

why? I'm just trying to understand. Why wouldn't want to take advantage of Blu-ray on PS3?

Because it's an additional cost over what needs to be done for the other platforms?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

ME2 only used pre-rendered stuff for the space scenes, whenever you see characters it's in engine, real time.
And even those scenes were rendered in engine, but post processed in a compositing app (After Effects or Digital Fusion or Nuke) to add some effects.

 

[corduroygt]

Crysis 2 is a multi-platform title, so if the cutscenes WERE pre-rendered they wouldn't take advantage of 1080p at Blu-ray bitrates like Killzone probably will.

Why not? FF13 and Darksiders took advantage of Blu-ray in their cutscenes.

 

[joker454]

why? I'm just trying to understand. Why wouldn't want to take advantage of Blu-ray on PS3?

If the pre-rendered videos are there to mask loading then maxing out the blu-ray drive to load and play high resolution videos means game assets will take even longer to load. In other words, nice load masking pre rendered videos means longer load times to mask, so you have to find a balance. Or worded a second way, if your optical device is capable of reading at 40mb/sec and your videos require ~30mb/sec to just play, then your assets at best only have 10mb/sec left in which to load themselves while the video is playing back. If your videos though required 10mb/sec of bandwidth though then you are left with 30mb/sec of bandwidth to load game assets in the background, which lets you get back to the game sooner.

 

[steveOrino]

About Mass Effect 2, it has sometimes brilliant textures, mostly ok [or standard for a console game] and sometimes really ugly. The biggest problem of ME 2 is that it has too many good and bad textures in wrong places, that really break the visual consistency.

I agree

They spent most of their resource budget in the character graphics, noticeably in the face since its an area were most of the game's narration takes place.

Then you had the environment meshes and textures, these were very inconsistent in contrast with the character graphics. Some looked great others not so much. Really bad UV mapping can be found in many areas, most notable to me was the planet where you recruit Grunt.

That said, I still think they made the right choice considering the type of game they were making and more consideration when designing the environments would help narrow the difference.

 

[(((interference)))]

You do realize what you're saying here makes absolutely no sense right?

Sigh, I play a lot of Halo - I think I would know, in both Halo 3 and Reach theatre mode has clearly sharper IQ with less aliasing than gameplay. Please go and check for yourself or someone else check and tell me if I'm seeing things.

 

[ultragpu]

Also for those comparing faces and whatnot using cutscenes, most are pre-rendered videos for KZ3.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25750603&postcount=98

As far as I can see the ingame graphics of KZ3 matches exactly the same as its cutscenes or to a degree it's effectively indistinguishable, so I don't see the big fuss here.

 

[N_B]

Sigh, I play a lot of Halo - I think I would know, in both Halo 3 and Reach theatre mode has clearly sharper IQ with less aliasing than gameplay. Please go and check for yourself or someone else check and tell me if I'm seeing things.

Photos taken in the mode get something special, but the rest of it is the same as gameplay.

 

[Neb]

As far as I can see the ingame graphics of KZ3 matches exactly the same as its cutscenes or to a degree it's effectively indistinguishable, so I don't see the big fuss here.

Looks to me there are detail changes, lighting changes and also SSAO present that is not when playing. Shadow filtering/res also look purdier but it might be first cascade fooling me.

 

[(((interference)))]

Photos taken in the mode get something special, but the rest of it is the same as gameplay.

Actually, yeah kagemaru's right, sorry

I went back and had a look, can't think why I was sure it looked better in theatre mode.

But wow Reach really has quite good IQ despite just using TAA, a map like Anchor 9 is exceptionally clean looking,

Actually, I even went back and played High Ground on Halo 3 and the aliasing is not really that noticeable there either, the low geometry rocks and crappy gun models are more noticeable. Though I think this is partly because I have my set at 0 sharpness.

 

[2real4tv]

Looks to me there are detail changes, lighting changes and also SSAO present that is not when playing. Shadow filtering/res also look purdier but it might be first cascade fooling me.

I think the SSAO is there while playing but its very subtle, I might be wrong though.

 

[JB9861]

If the pre-rendered videos are there to mask loading then maxing out the blu-ray drive to load and play high resolution videos means game assets will take even longer to load.

Seems when I played the KZ3 SP demo yesterday there wasn't enough time on occassion for assets to load because the transitions were off. And I guess since I played U2 right before I booted up the demo it was a bit more jarring than it otherwise would've been.

 

[kagemaru]

Why is it nice?
I'd think most sane people would prefer seamless transitions to loading screens.

Personally I prefer real time cut-scenes even over pre-rendered using in-engine. I'm far more impressed when they run in real time even if the graphics have to be toned down a bit compared to pre-rendered.

Actually, yeah kagemaru's right, sorry

I went back and had a look, can't think why I was sure it looked better in theatre mode.

But wow Reach really has quite good IQ despite just using TAA, a map like Anchor 9 is exceptionally clean looking,

Actually, I even went back and played High Ground on Halo 3 and the aliasing is not really that noticeable there either, the low geometry rocks and crappy gun models are more noticeable. Though I think this is partly because I have my set at 0 sharpness.

Hey no worries, we all make mistakes. I too play Halo all the time, so I wasn't sure where you were getting this info from. Besides IIRC Bungie described how the theatre mode and photo mode worked shortly after Halo 3's release due to all the people asking why the pictures made in photo mode looked so clean compared to gameplay.

I agree that Reach has great IQ, one of the best looking shooters out there IMO. My only real issue is the ghosting which is not all too common but when I see it, it sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl to me.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Personally I prefer real time cut-scenes even over pre-rendered using in-engine. I'm far more impressed when they run in real time even if the graphics have to be toned down a bit compared to pre-rendered.

It really depends. If it's just a movie, then by all means use pre-recorded videos if it improves loading times or allows for more flexibility in story telling or whatever. Better yet: use breathtaking CGI like Blizzard or Square Enix if you have the money to spare. When I can't interact with them in any way shape or form I really don't give a fuck about what is happening in the background.

I do however like real-time cut-scenes when the graphical assets on display aren't a hundred percent pre-set. Having Sheva Alomar overact during cut-scenes in her skimpy tribal outfit is obviously a perfect case for real time cut-scenes. Almost as entertaining as Emanuelle and the Last Cannibals.

 

[betan]

If the pre-rendered videos are there to mask loading then maxing out the blu-ray drive to load and play high resolution videos means game assets will take even longer to load. In other words, nice load masking pre rendered videos means longer load times to mask, so you have to find a balance. Or worded a second way, if your optical device is capable of reading at 40mb/sec and your videos require ~30mb/sec to just play, then your assets at best only have 10mb/sec left in which to load themselves while the video is playing back. If your videos though required 10mb/sec of bandwidth though then you are left with 30mb/sec of bandwidth to load game assets in the background, which lets you get back to the game sooner.

What's your point? You can always add a skip option for those who prefer static loading screens.
More importantly though, cutscenes often require additional assets (higher res textures, or even completely different ones for a different location), so by using prerendered cutscenes you get rid off those additional loading as well.

The best way of course is that you start streaming post-cutscene data before the cutscene as seen in Uncharted games.

Personally I prefer real time cut-scenes even over pre-rendered using in-engine. I'm far more impressed when they run in real time even if the graphics have to be toned down a bit compared to pre-rendered.

While I respect your personal preference, not everyone plays games to be impressed by the software or hardware.