Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]

[joker454]

What's your point?

The point is that game asset loads are slower if you are hogging optical drive bandwidth for video streaming.

You can always add a skip option for those who prefer static loading screens.

Then you can be faced with long load screens like if someone cancels the cutscene right away. Worse case you display a static load screen too long and fail trc especially if the game was leveraging the cutscene to hide a long load. Best case it just all looks inelegant and not seamless.

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.

That usually tends to be more intensive post process effects, ie more processing load than asset load. Stuff like higherres maps, if any, are probably already loaded anyway because you need to be able to instantly translate from realtime play to realtime cutscene.

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

Not really as not every game can design itself around a streaming solution first and foremost.

 

[kagemaru]

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

Yeah I understand that and that's cool.

For me it goes beyond that though. There's something extra cool when the changes I've made in gameplay are reflected in the cut-scenes. It takes me out of the game if I change an outfit or something and it reverts back to default during the cut-scene.

 

[betan]

The point is that game asset loads are slower if you are hogging optical drive bandwidth for video streaming.

...while you are watching a cutscene instead of looking at a loading screen.
Also one can always stream video from blu-ray and assets from HDD.

Then you can be faced with long load screens like if someone cancels the cutscene right away. Worse case you display a static load screen too long and fail trc especially if the game was leveraging the cutscene to hide a long load. Best case it just all looks inelegant and not seamless.

How can this be worst than mandatory loading screen, for cutscene _and_ level assets.

That usually tends to be more intensive post process effects, ie more processing load than asset load. Stuff like higherres maps, if any, are probably already loaded anyway because you need to be able to instantly translate from realtime play to realtime cutscene.

Not sure how to respond. If highres maps are already loaded, it's loaded during the loading screen, which makes it longer. We are not talking about interlevel cutscenes, where your character sees a plane crash, or stops to chat with an NPC which are perfectly fine with realtime.

Not really as not every game can design itself around a streaming solution first and foremost.

A linear fps should be designed around a streaming solution.

Yeah I understand that and that's cool.

For me it goes beyond that though. There's something extra cool when the changes I've made in gameplay are reflected in the cut-scenes. It takes me out of the game if I change an outfit or something and it reverts back to default during the cut-scene.

That's very valid reasoning in general, but not for the typical shooter we are talking about.

edit: A lot of games that render realtime cutscenes ignore stuff like your character's weapon or position, which bugs me a lot more. Also IMO a realtime cutscene should display smooth camera transition from cutscene to gameplay ala GOWIII. If you don't do any of these, why bother? (excluding the case for character customisation of course)

 

[Silent_Buddha]

How can this be worst than mandatory loading screen, for cutscene _and_ level assets.

Presumably your cutscene is either [1] using assets from the level you just finished or [2] from the level you are about to start. In either case the assets are either already present or will be needed regardless.

A linear fps should be designed around a streaming solution.

Your opinion but as developers obviously don't do this for all games, it's obviously not applicable to all games for whatever reasons that guided their developement choices.

edit: A lot of games that render realtime cutscenes ignore stuff like your character's weapon or position, which bugs me a lot more. Also IMO a realtime cutscene should display smooth camera transition from cutscene to gameplay ala GOWIII. If you don't do any of these, why bother? (excluding the case for character customisation of course)

IMO - being able to reflect changes in your character or other characters clothing/equipment/surrounds based on choices you've made or gear you've equipped is the ONLY good reason for in engine cutscenes.

But, having pre-rendered video of in engine assets is the absolute WORST (IMO) possible situation for a game. You lose all the redeeming qualities of in engine rendered cutscenes, but gain NONE of the benefits of pre-rendered CGI cutscenes.

It's like a bastard video mode that is unsatisfying in the extreme that only exists to mask loading time. Note: this isn't targetted at any game or system. It encompasses all games on console or PC that do this. I absolutely hate and abhor it.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

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.

Just checked out the Gamersyde HD video of that, and some of the scenes, effects, and stuff is a whole lot more impressive than any video I've seen released for KZ3. In fact, the KZ3 developer released videos have been some of the worst when compared to other games. I'll have to see if someone I know has downloaded the KZ3 SP demo, there is one right?

I can't believe some people actually still try to hold up KZ2 as a graphical show piece. It was impressive for when it was released with the innovative uses of QAA to mask the insufficiently detailed graphics, but certainly hasn't aged very well. Going back and loading it up on a friend's PS3 certainly does it no favors. And I start to question why I actually thought it looked so good back then. That is until I start to think of the other games that were out at the time. Those character textures especially give the characters a PS2 feel even though the geometric complexity of the models themselves is far higher than anything on PS2.

Regards,
SB

 

[Neb]

Yeah theres a SP demo out.

Well theres some high quality captures for it to.

Spoiler

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1522422&postcount=1699

Heres from review code. Though note that several cutscenes are pre-rendered as per GG dev (full/demo).

http://www.play-mag.co.uk/general/killzone-3-720p-screenshot-blow-out-2/

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Well theres some high quality captures for it.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1522422&postcount=1699

Heres from review code. Though note that several cutscenes are pre-rendered as per GG dev (full/demo).

http://www.play-mag.co.uk/general/killzone-3-720p-screenshot-blow-out-2/

Then in motion well demo or wait for Gamersyde video.

OK, those look pretty good. A hell of an improvement overall on KZ2 at least. But this particular screen still looks horrible with a low res feel to it...

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9735/20110209144607.jpg

Maybe it's the lighting, but that looks god awful. The outdoor scenes on the other hand look quite a bit better. Although this outdoor one also looks pretty bad...

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5025/20110209145513.jpg

Those objects on the left just seem low res/low quality. And the smoke looks unconvincing are they still using low res for those?

Even in the play-mag screens though, ground textures go to crap quite often (http://www.play-mag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/KZ3-014.jpg ). And my god, the Aliasing is horrible. Have they improved AA in the final code (if it's different from the review code)? Then again it's MLAA so I shouldn't expect MSAA quality for all edges.

I can't wait til consoles have more video and system RAM to play with.

Regards,
SB

 

[Laa-Yosh]

GG is clearly pushing content on the engine that it struggles to handle, so the image quality is cut back a bit. However, the lessons learned from COD games and such are that the average customer won't bother about the slight IQ loss, but will notice that there's generally a lot more stuff going on.

 

[joker454]

We are not talking about interlevel cutscenes, where your character sees a plane crash, or stops to chat with an NPC which are perfectly fine with realtime.

Umm, so what are we talking about? I guess not cutscenes in general, so what type of cutscene are you referring to? Ones that apply only to fps games, or only in between level changes, or what? I was speaking generally, but sounds like you had a very specific case in mind.

 

[corduroygt]

GG is clearly pushing content on the engine that it struggles to handle, so the image quality is cut back a bit. However, the lessons learned from COD games and such are that the average customer won't bother about the slight IQ loss, but will notice that there's generally a lot more stuff going on.

I think they learned enough lessons from KZ2. The visual impact it made had more to do with amazing smoke and particle effects, light sources, sun shafts, etc compared to texture resolution. They improved the textures as much as they could while adding more effects and keeping the framerate at a stable 30fps. Very good choice of tradeoffs, I'd say.

 

[matthias]

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

I prefer cutscenes when they are rendered in realtime. Here are some reasons:
- Visual consistency. I find it distracting if gameplay and every cutscene looks different because they have 3 different mechanisms like in final fantasy 13. But maybe i'm in the minority.
- The cutscene can reflect my customized character i.e. custom armor, clothes or weapons.
- Some games (bad company) allow me to move the camera in cutscenes. This can intensify the immersion. Afterall we are talking about games and not movies.
- You have great engine tech. Show me, impress me. Video codecs are lame.

OK, those look pretty good. A hell of an improvement overall on KZ2 at least. But this particular screen still looks horrible with a low res feel to it...
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9735/20110209144607.jpg

its missing those awesome particle effects, explosions, lights = all that stuff that lets killzone shine. Just throw some grenades and shoot something and it will look good

 

[Barso]

As great as K3 looks and plays in the single player demo, I can't help but think halo reach looks better than this.
It has great direction in that there are some fantastic textures but so many terrible ones.
Why did Sony split the RAM in the PS3?

 

[kagemaru]

As great as K3 looks and plays in the single player demo, I can't help but think halo reach looks better than this.
It has great direction in that there are some fantastic textures but so many terrible ones.
Why did Sony split the RAM in the PS3?

You're joking right?

I have no issue if you're being serious, but I never thought I'd see anyone say they think Reach looks better than KZ3.

I think KZ and Halo are two different to really compare, but I will say that I think KZ2 may look better than KZ3 to me, at least by what I've seen of KZ3 so far. MLAA seems too clean for a planet that is supposed to be heavily polluted, QAA seemed to convey this a lot better, intentional or not due to the blur it adds.

 

[Nesh]

As great as K3 looks and plays in the single player demo, I can't help but think halo reach looks better than this.
It has great direction in that there are some fantastic textures but so many terrible ones.
Why did Sony split the RAM in the PS3?

I am playing Halo Reach right now after some k3 beta multiplayer session. Can you elaborate a bit more since I cant see what you are seeing?

 

[Rangers]

They're totally different beasts, but I can see someone preferring Reach's look to KZ's.

KZ is kind of hard on the eyes with so much going on, and a lot of it low res. OTOH Reach has a very soothing quality, with excellent IQ.

 

[Barso]

KZ3 does look great and I love what it does but everything appears to be low-res but with a high-res snow texture on it.
Nearly everywhere I look on halo reach has a great texture and with the theatre mode and more open environments, I think it looks the better game. Also the player models on reach look better and when you consider that the player is the same that is built when using the armoury and wearing your clan symbol it's pretty amazing.
K3 definately is a very big step above K2 but it just doen't amaze me the way halo reach does.
I really wish these 2 game engines were used in other games too.

 

[corduroygt]

KZ is kind of hard on the eyes with so much going on, and a lot of it low res. OTOH Reach has a very soothing quality, with excellent IQ.

What's low res? Textures for the most part clearly are not.

 

[Rangers]

Most of the effects? They're all quarter buffer.

 

[Neb]

Most of the effects? They're all quarter buffer.

Yeah it's blatantly obvious no mather playing or seeing videos/shots. Extremly low-res effects and while some dont stand out to much due to design those that have more detail on the particle textures like explosions and fire directly reminds about PS2 esque effect quality. Also since game uses MLAA and has cleaner and sharper IQ it stands out more than it would in KZ2 where the whole image was greatly blurred minimizing disparity.

 

[KKRT]

Oh come on, most games have low res alpha textures [mostly half-res].