As unflattering as the textures are in res6, I'd still trade that for the much superior deferred lighting and SSAO. The game immediately looks better than Res5 simply due to the new lighting model, the fire effects, the explosions are also much improved. They're pushing a lot more on screen this time and I'm just glad the game didn't dip to subHD category.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2012]
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Agree. The lighting model is most welcome. Especially the SSAO.
RE5 looks weird now without it. But I do miss the texture fidelity from RE5.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Too bad they got rid of the motion blur :/
I think the textures are RE5 level.
RE5 had fantastic motion blur, and the radial blur during an explosion was a nice touch too.
Also the DoF they use in RE6 when in cover is pretty damn crappy, I'm not asking for Bokeh but would've been good if they had somehting better or just removed it entirely considering it doesn't always kicks in when you are in cover.
RE5 had fantastic motion blur, and the radial blur during an explosion was a nice touch too.
Also the DoF they use in RE6 when in cover is pretty damn crappy, I'm not asking for Bokeh but would've been good if they had somehting better or just removed it entirely considering it doesn't always kicks in when you are in cover.
the SSAO they use must be very high quality, hard to spot those halo around objects, and not use under day light. They still got a lot of motion blur in cut scene. I think RE5 did a much better job to hide the horrible texture with their piss filter, everything just looks more consistence where RE6 looks horrible with the character standing right next to a low res texture.
I never knew the game was using SSAO, thought AO was simply baked into texture. Must surely be of very high quality then cause I never noticed artifacts.
I'm pretty sure it's still there, try a quick turn, reload and fire a shotgun, you should see it no problem.
I think you have found the real point, here. A lot of people claims how better are texture in RE5 compared RE6 but it's completely unfair, I don't remember anything of particularly better in RE5. Probably a smarter use of the filter, gave to a lot of people that impression.
I am part of a social program which helps people swear less, so I am against it. But in this case, I really have to say that RE5 had some textures that were sharp as a motherf-
On 360 you had a lot of texture aliasing because of it
Makes me wish I hadn't traded my 360 version for the PS3 gold edition (haven't even played with the move yet
)I am part of a social program which helps people swear less, so I am against it. But in this case, I really have to say that RE5 had some textures that were sharp as a motherf-
On 360 you had a lot of texture aliasing because of it
Makes me wish I hadn't traded my 360 version for the PS3 gold edition (haven't even played with the move yet
Nope,I remember they were equal to RE6, the texture aliasing was due to filtering it looked like negative LOD bias.
Beside I don't see much issue with the textures here in this game, they are easily in the upper bracket of console games...not Killzone/Gears/Uncharted level but not terrible either.
Btw are all the cutscenes in this game real time ?
Because some (maybe 1 or 2 cuts in some scenes) look too complex to be completely real time, but then I may very well be wrong.
For example this scene (potential Leon Chapter 4 end spoiler):
http://youtu.be/kkZfxnJkvbc?t=38m32s
Because some (maybe 1 or 2 cuts in some scenes) look too complex to be completely real time, but then I may very well be wrong.
For example this scene (potential Leon Chapter 4 end spoiler):
http://youtu.be/kkZfxnJkvbc?t=38m32s
Could be that it didn't use trilinear filtering due to the texture cache trashing, it's quite common on x360. (meaning filtering between mip levels, anisotropic component can still be used.)
Digital Foundry Face-Off: Dishonored
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dishonored-face-off
---------------------
PS3 wins?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dishonored-face-off
---------------------
PS3 wins?
That's a very big difference in filesize. It looks like they squeezed the 360 version in a single layer DVD for improved non-install performance, presumably at the expense of audio quality and some textures ... pity the DF article doesn't go into that difference this time (often they mention if it is better compression for video for instance)
Yes, looks like they had difficulties with the speed of the disc drives. The 360 version even recommends to install the game before playing: http://www.gamepur.com/news/9404-di...-requires-5gb-install-optimal-experience.html
While the PS3 version has a mandatory install even slightly larger than the whole game on the 360.
3.9 GBs versus 7.7? Why so small on XB360? They could surely shrink it just a bit. 7.7 GBs is right about the capacity of a 360 DVD, so why the difference?
Perhaps the data is mirrored on the 360 DVD in order to reach a certain level of read performance.
- Status
Similar threads
