Direct Feed Heavenly Sword Screens (E3 build).

Note to developers : Not only have you got to add HDR and bloom to the point everything's overexposed, so that people can actually see your game uses HDR, and be sure to add lots of colours rather than using muted palettes as seen in R:FoM, to prove you can handle lots of colours to be technically impressive - be sure both only to make epic games with loads of enemies at once to be really impressive, and use enormously deep parallax mapping to make it really evident, no matter how unrealistic that makes the bump sizes nor how much it jars with the wanted art-style.

If 'you can', not only 'you should', but 'you should to excess', otherwise people won't think you're half as impressive is those with bigger, brighter and more. Realistically sized cobbles and bricks with practical bevelling are not wanted in computer games!

(For the record, it bugs me about games when so much of the scenery is multiple sizes too large. Planks, cobbles, stones and bricks, are invariably oversized, seemingly just to make the textures visible and dramatic. Truth is in the majority of fantasy worlds with cobbled pathways, wagons would lose a wheel every 5 miles and pedestrians would be tripping up all over the place. I guess my protests are in the minority though.)

 

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to tell you.

It is expected and acceptable, to me, to have a lower level of details if your scale and scope is very large. It is not acceptable though to be confined and have low detail though. Its one or the other. Lair and Gundam of very are scope (and now that I've been shown) as does many parts of Heavenly Sword. Therefore a lower level of details is accepted. Its very easy.

You really should stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I "had" to start nit picking after 5 minutes. It is instead a natural habit that I have, after a few minutes of playing I'll start noticing things that bother me. This does not ruin the game, it simply stands out.

I do not have even start to nit pick of things I do not like about Heavenly Swords visual style but now that I've seen the scope of Heavenly Sword its textures and model detail are much more fitting and much more in place with what I'd expect and would enjoy.

If the detail shown in the arena does carry over to the very large scale battles then I'd certainly be confindent in saying that HS is one of the best looking and impressively graphics wise games I've seen.

 

Maybe it's because what you're saying doesn't really make much sense?

"If the detail shown in the arena does carry over to the very large scale battles then I'd certainly be confindent in saying that HS is one of the best looking and impressively graphics wise games I've seen."

You're simply going to forget all those complaints you made about these screenshots, as soon as there's a larger environment shown? (Excepting that many of these complaints could very well be down to the game still being in development) Those environments will still be there, alongside these larger encounters. I simply find this to be a contradiction... or is it that you have little preference for small scale games? I'd understand it if perhaps your gaming tastes are catered more in the large scale interaction genres.

The problem, my dear Skrying, is that you've come into this thread and pretty much argued your socks off out of ignorance. Most people here have an understanding of how a lot of other games look graphically right now for the PS3 and other systems, this early in development. These people are also aware of the large scale environments planned, and the general scope of the game. These people have appreciated that this is not only an unfinished product on show, but also one of the most impressive titles shown yet for next generation consoles.

Not only do you have unrealistic expectations for next generation games, but you've also shown a complete lack of awareness of the state this and most other games have been shown in. Perhaps I should entertain your comments that this game "look worse than many other PS3 games I've seen"? You've yet to show any kind of perspective or level of expectation in this thread other than [paraphrase]"I'll ignore the ugliness if its scale is large"[/paraphrase].

 

You proved me wrong, I'm done with this. You're still agruing with me when I agree with you. That makes no sense at all.

The flaws are still there, they just dont matter as much now. If you dont understand that then its your problem, not mine.

 

I think you are making some mistakes with your comparissons

Games dont differ in visual quality based on the "scope" only. They also differ for other reasons. like gameplay, animation, the style and genre of the game etc.

For example both Shadow of Colossus and Jak have massive areas to explore, and huge view distances.

Yet they differ in animation, framerate,AI, polygon counts,textures, lighting and physics.

I can pick out things I like/dislike in Shadow of Colossus not present in Jak or pick out things I like/dislike in Jack not present in Shadow of Colossus.

I agree that games with larger areas are more excused for imperfections such as lower poly counts, textures etc but I dont think Heavenly Sword lacks in general visual detail even if we suppose there are no massive areas. It has as it is more detail than Gundam, and most likely in other aspects such as AI,polygons, animation, physics as well as texture detail and lighting. Atleast thats how it looks to me. I dont think it falls to the category of unexcused visual flaws. Lets not forget other visual qualities this game has that are only noticable in motion.
In a footage I saw of this game she even threw a huge rocky mountain in that arena.


Because you have that bad habbit to nit pick a game it doesnt mean that game is visually flawed. As I said all games have certain imperfections. If that was a CGI render yes I would have agreed but its not.

 

You know, I think your entire debate is useless. His arguments are created to support his opinion, so of course they're weak and inconsistent. Thus defeating these arguments won't change his opinion.

 

I was hoping to understand the motivation behind his position a little better, but yes, noted. Chalk it up to yet another pointless argument on the internet that went nowhere. I hear there's a few of those...

P.s. Sorry for the mess, thread.

 

Thanks Mmmkay
regarding bloom, exposure, HDR, etc.. it's all about art direction, that stuff is not hard coded, it's parametrized and can be easily modified.

 

...perve j/k

 

Three points. Three being the number to be pointed. NOT two, lest I intend to procedd to three. And four is right out...

1) Hey I love pretty graphics. Graphics are accross the board looking better than ever and this game is up there near the top of a big pile of very good looking stuff. And further, I find the good graphics in this case an indicator of strong design. If I can't gush about it then I don't know what I can gush about.

Ninja Theorys presence here is has the undeniable effect of drawing more of my attention to their game and to be honest it gives me an appreciation of the work that I might otherwise neglect to do. Much like I neglected to appreciate Resistance before all the recent buzz. That said, their being around certainly doesn't make the game look any better than it does. You do see posts critisizing the game. They all happen to be of very polite tone, which I see as the extent of any ass-kissing or bias or whatever you want to call it.

2) Again, I am not contradicting your assertation of the flaws. I'm a bit of a blowhard and I tried to give a short, if pretentious, lesson in art appreciation. I was trying to explain the proper way to view a screenshot. (As per Crayon. hehe what a dick I am. So sorry, b3d.)

3) I see you just being picky and there's nothing wrong with that. You seem to have ended up on the bottom of a dogpile here but I that happens when you have a strong and different opinion. Just want to say that I understand where you're coming from. There's no argument on my part.

Okay and one question:
Just to get a better idea of where you're coming from What games are in your top three, graphicly right now?

Here's mine, in order:
FF13. MGS4. HS.

Gears might get in there I'f I could see some clear footage. There's just a schload of bullshots so it's hard to place.

 

Actually some AF wouldn't hurt.

 

Console or PC? In the end I dont care at all about consoles, I'll never own any of them besides possibly the Wii.

Games that I think the best of what I've seen, including PC and console would be: Crysis, MGS4 (half is in love, half hates, but that half in love is just amazingly in love), and Gears of War.

*Note: Even though I wont own a console, I still enjoy hearing about them and seeing what is new.

 

Either, but now that you bring it up I should point out taht I am woefully unaware of PC games. I've only seen a blurry youtub'd demonstration of Crysis and I haven't even seen Half Life 2e2. So that's obviously going to effect my short list.

 

true to an extent but it looks like with your bloom youre just taking the current screen + applying the filter to that

try this, use black texture + render just some of the objects into it, that u want to emphasize eg swords/fire/particles + then apply the bloom filter to that

visually im sure youll find this method superior + performance hit aint so bad

 

Interesting. I think Crysis in full detail changes everything, nothing I've seen, including the other games I listed, are near half of what Crysis is. At least IMO.

 

it's muhch more complex than that, it's a very subtle effect which also simulates lens artifacts , you have to see in it motion and not from a screenshot/small movie.
In those screens bloom is strong simply cause was parametrized that way,

We don't wanto to emphasize a single objects, just bright pixels

 

try it its a relatively simple thing to implement.
the problem with just using luminance for bloom is,
A/ everything gets it to some degree (even if its very little) + this washes out the scene
B/ u have the effect where things appear to glow eg ppl faces yet others that u want to dont eg a green light doesnt cause the luminance is not that high

 

Perv...? I think he speaks much sense!

 

the lightining of crysis is top-notch
but textures and models are not so great..
and the hardware requirment are heavy, in the demos the frame rate is 10-15 engine in old demos with SLI seutp and 15-20 with Dx-10 hardware

for the time that crysis will arrive, source and ue3 will be updated, and Halo3 global illumination engine will arrive within few months, I really don't know how the cryengine will perform, wait and see who will be the best engine around this time (in 2007 we'll see Fantasy Engine and White Engine too)