Do exclusive developers push visuals more than AAA developers?

[Clukos]

You really should stop to compare console games to games you play on your PC equipped with a Titan.

I siggest that you compare games on consoles abd only on consoles. Sure, Crysis 3 maxed looks fantastic on my PC..,but has nothing to do with the graphics of the console ports...

Exactly, comparing code that is being brute-forced on a PC equipped with hardware 4 times as powerful doesn't prove anything, if the question is between multi-platform and first party developers you have to examine what is their output in the same platform. It's like comparing lap times of a Nissan GT-R against a McLaren P1, that way you are only comparing the cars and not the drivers. What is the point?

 

[DrJay24]

OTOH there's something to be said for working towards just one hardware spec vs two.

I think this is the key. Everyone tweaking and tuning to one system, no stone left unturned. Of course talent and time plays a large part too.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

You really should stop to compare console games to games you play on your PC equipped with a Titan.

I suggest that you compare games on consoles and only on consoles. Sure, Crysis 3 maxed looks fantastic on my PC..,but has nothing to do with the graphics of the console ports...

Disagree. When you have PS4 fanboys stating that "this" game (based on Youtube videos with obvious compression artifacts) is the best looking game of any platform, one can't help but to include the fastest hardware to date.

I've looked over the UC4 videos several times. It all started last year with the UC4 reveal (fully cinematic with no gameplay footage) with people stating that the game would look like that. I strongly disagreed back then and was met with backlash from pretty much every PS4 owner. It doesn't take much to believe that while ND are excellent at their craft, they can't squeeze Titan X levels of graphics from a console that yields 1.8T worth of data/computation. No matter how much code you write to the metal. After the initial gameplay reveal, people backed away but still praised the game as being the best looking. It was then I realized that there is a significant bias towards ND in particular than any other exclusive studio.

RAD is an extremely talented crew and clearly is on the same level as putting beautiful visuals to the screen. I've played through The Order and it still looks (IMO) better than any UC4 gameplay. Yes, UC4 does have a lot of great niceties and yes, it has exposed the physics on a new level, but does it make the game "look" superior to other games? The textures on NPCs still need a lot of work, the lighting solution is still pretty much on par with average games that release, SSR are low res (like most games), no AO in shadows for all objects, etc.. These missing "features", I argue, do make a difference in visual quality.

Part of the reason The Order looks so awesome is because they saw the importance of ambient occlusion. We still have games today that don't tag *ALL* objects with computing AO -- which is an extremely important aspect of getting good lighting in games, yet, I'm only noticing Rocksteady use it heavily in Batman AK. Other studios may just paint it in (i.e. RAD). In UC4, it appears to be too expensive for all the movable objects, but that detracts from the overall realism of the rendered frame. Things like this can't just be exempt in judging whether a studio should be labeled "gods" by the community.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I strongly disagreed back then and was met with backlash from pretty much every PS4 owner.

Don't exaggerate, and don't make the discussion personal about proving yourself right. 1) Even if the majority of people who posted disagreed with you, that's only the PS4 owners who expressed an opinion. That doesn't mean every PS4 owner in the world disagreed with you. 2) The discussion should be held irrelevant of other threads and forums other than as reference material, on the merits of arguments presented here.

It was then I realized that there is a significant bias towards ND in particular than any other exclusive studio.

That's true of human preference. Who's the best director in the world? What's the best football team in the world? You can't begrudge people having enthusiasm for a particular anything. As long as these folk believing in ND's superiority aren't affecting real issues of significance, like someone's employability or a nation's economy, then it doesn't matter.

...but does it make the game "look" superior to other games? The textures on NPCs still need a lot of work, the lighting solution is still pretty much on par with average games that release, SSR are low res (like most games), no AO in shadows for all objects, etc.. These missing "features", I argue, do make a difference in visual quality.

Subjective, and ND aren't even going for a photorealistic art style so they aren't really comparable. The absence of a feature (to a certain quality) doesn't necessarily make UC4 inferior (and vice versa).

Part of the reason The Order looks so awesome is because they saw the importance of ambient occlusion...

I agree with that. I find the composition in the gameplay jarring at times. But if on aggregate UC4 is doing more (that impresses people) than one or two features, ND can claim to be superior. At the moment it sounds more like you dislike the artstyle of UC4 more than something like The Order and so it shouldn't be receiving the praise it's getting in your mind.

Ultimately the answer to the original question is likely a sprawling mess of subjective opinions, as people argue over whether art or tech is what matters most. And as such, the case can be made that the greatest 'dev' is the one that wins the most praise. Kinda like Minecraft being a great game than Dark Souls because, irrespective of technical merits and artistry, far more people like Minecraft than DS.

 

[NRP]

Well, this time around the console hardware (Bone/PS4) is nearly identical, so there shouldn't be much of an advantage to focusing on just one platform. I expect once devs get rolling on the current hardware games will look very similar.

 

[Billy Idol]

Disagree. When you have PS4 fanboys stating that "this" game (based on Youtube videos with obvious compression artifacts) is the best looking game of any platform, one can't help but to include the fastest hardware to date.

I followed your 'career' on GAF and I realise that you are still personally hurt about what was going on there. But this is B3D. Imo, no need to re-iterate the obvious that a Titan is much more powerful than all consoles combined. But this explains some of your posts where I had to scratch my head a bit...

 

[Jupiter]

You're comparing games fairly early in this generation; were there any third-party developers that had games look as good as Uncharted 2/3 on the PS3? At least I can't remember any. I was an Xbox guy last-gen and I remember being quite jealous of those games when I watched the videos.

Beyond: Two Souls, Remember Me, Crysis 2, Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3. TloU had the same fps issues like those Crysis games. But Crysis 2/3 had a lot more going on. More details, more foliage, bigger worlds, more and bigger explosions, more realistic lighting, more realtime shadows, better pseudo GI, more enemies, more destruction, more advanced facial tech etc. The pixelcount was the mainproblem. But technically it was a lot more advanced. Beyond: Two Souls had PBS. Like Remember Me.

 

[London Geezer]

I thought this was a thread, on the console forum, about exclusives versus third party games, on consoles. Namely the ps4 and the XOne.

I don't understand what PC and especially Titans have to do with it.

Boundaries, people! Learn!

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Don't exaggerate, and don't make the discussion personal about proving yourself right. 1) Even if the majority of people who posted disagreed with you, that's only the PS4 owners who expressed an opinion. That doesn't mean every PS4 owner in the world disagreed with you. 2) The discussion should be held irrelevant of other threads and forums other than as reference material, on the merits of arguments presented here.

Fair enough.

That's true of human preference. Who's the best director in the world? What's the best football team in the world? You can't begrudge people having enthusiasm for a particular anything. As long as these folk believing in ND's superiority aren't affecting real issues of significance, like someone's employability or a nation's economy, then it doesn't matter.

You are right. But there is something wrong when even X1 owners (who have differing opinions of what looks best) are ridiculed because they "see" their exclusive being the best.

Subjective, and ND aren't even going for a photorealistic art style so they aren't really comparable. The absence of a feature (to a certain quality) doesn't necessarily make UC4 inferior (and vice versa).

Every single game can be judged as subjective on how it looks. Where is the technical "merit" conversation in that? I can't argue it. I can, however, discuss the technical reasons *why* people exclusives are superior to AAA devs by comparing games. And most of them can't really put a finger on it. Which indicates bias IMO.

I agree with that. I find the composition in the gameplay jarring at times. But if on aggregate UC4 is doing more (that impresses people) than one or two features, ND can claim to be superior. At the moment it sounds more like you dislike the artstyle of UC4 more than something like The Order and so it shouldn't be receiving the praise it's getting in your mind.

Actually, I'm really trying to understand, on a technical level, what people see in making the comments "I don't know how they do it! They are on another level than any developer." Surely that is a slap in the face to developers who push the graphical boundaries even aside from ND. If you told me that the game Quantum Dreams is the best looking game ever. I'd actually have to really think and sort of understand where you are coming from given the tech behind that game and how awesome the technique is. But I see no such thing in any game to date TBH.

I love it when a certain studio tries something that comes close to the "better" approximation. The physics in UC4 definitely do that. But so do the shadows and AO in Batman AK, or the dynamic GI in Fable Legends or TTC. I mean no one company can do it all (yet).

Ultimately the answer to the original question is likely a sprawling mess of subjective opinions, as people argue over whether art or tech is what matters most. And as such, the case can be made that the greatest 'dev' is the one that wins the most praise. Kinda like Minecraft being a great game than Dark Souls because, irrespective of technical merits and artistry, far more people like Minecraft than DS.

Popularity contest isn't even in the cards as ND would win every time. But I believe one could argue graphics without the subjectivity involved. Digital Foundry does it all the time.. and this NXGamer guy tries to do it too (as well as this very board).

 

[VFX_Veteran]

I followed your 'career' on GAF and I realise that you are still personally hurt about what was going on there. But this is B3D. Imo, no need to re-iterate the obvious that a Titan is much more powerful than all consoles combined. But this explains some of your posts where I had to scratch my head a bit...

Wouldn't you be if you got banned because you challenged the hyperbolic comments on exclusive PS4 titles? I should be able to express my opinions without being considered a troll to a mod that happens to be one of the PS4 fanboys.

Sorry Shifty.. I had to reply.

 

[London Geezer]

You should also be able to give it a rest. Move on. Love wins.

 

[pjbliverpool]

There has been an argument put forward that exclusives will get bigger 1st party funded budgets, but I think that ignores the fact that (some) multiplatforms have potentially much larger audiences, thus much larger sales, thus can afford larger budgets.

There has been an argument put forward that because of the use of dedicated game engines, exclusives would have some kind of technical advantage, but I can't square that with the comparatively huge amounts of R&D that must go into big third party engines like CryEngine, Frostbite and UE4? Surely the time and money spent on developing those engines which can be sold for use in dozens of games dwarfs what can be spent on a single dedicated engine for a single game. And then add to that the cost savings to a third party studio of not having to develop it's own game engine - or being able to spread the cost of that development across multiple games. That's all money that can be poured back into art work and other graphical elements like animation.

There has been an argument put forward that exclusives will be more optimised than multiplatforms because they are targeted at a single platform. But given the extreme similarities between the XBO and PS4 (especially when running the former at 900p and the latter at 1080p), I don't really think that holds much water. Although targetting a single API probably does have some advantages in development effort. But then it all comes down to the size of your budget/development team. Do we know how the budget of UC4 compares to say Assassins Creed unity or the next GTA?

As to UC4 being the best looking game at E3. I don't think there's really any way for anyone to answer that without an element of bias but for me personally, while it did look spectacular, I really don't see why it would be considered obviously better looking that the likes of Battlefront, Need for Speed, Doom or Ghost Recon Wildlands.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Very good points.

 

[Davros]

Wouldnt exclusivity not matter because they know it wont last and will eventually end up on all platforms.
and a wise dev will develop with that in mind

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Wouldnt exclusivity not matter because they know it wont last and will eventually end up on all platforms.
and a wise dev will develop with that in mind

Not devs that are a subsidiary of Sony.

 

[iroboto]

The hardest thing about exclusives in general is that the game is designed intentionally for the hardware. It's more than just optimizing for 1 hardware platform, and investing all your effort to a single release. If put on your game designer hat you will probably see that combat sequences and camera angles are all designed specifically to get around any bottlenecks the scene could be experiencing. The level of customization of an exclusive goes deeper than render technology, it very much is a marriage in design, gameplay and technology, something that is afforded only by exclusive games.
So to answer the OP, not only do exclusive developers have the opportunity to maximize a single platform, but they can design around/redesign any areas where optimization still isn't enough to get to the performance standards that they want.

 

[HTupolev]

But I believe one could argue graphics without the subjectivity involved.

In what sense?

If you're simply describing what is or isn't being done, sure, you can speak objectively (aside from solipsistic objections, anyway).

When you start to deal in value judgements of "best" and "most impressive", though, you're adding an intrinsically subjective element to the discussion (and one in which perceived results tend to be of great relevance).

TloU had the same fps issues like those Crysis games.

Having played both TLoU and (some of) Crysis 3 on PS3? TLoU runs better and it's not even close. The former is a pretty usual case of slipping into the upper and mid 20s during intense sequences; the latter is frequently sputtering around the low 20s even when nothing is happening.

 

[Clukos]

You should also be able to give it a rest. Move on. Love wins.

Yeah, i knew this thread was some sort of personal vendetta. You should've known better than to oppose the pro-Sony side of Neogaf, pretty much ends in a ban 90% of the time
Also, judging by the downplaying of the Uncharted 4 demo you are doing in this thread and the U4 thread your situation must have been a bit tricky. If your argument is that "My PC can run better looking games than your consoles", it is a understandable reason for a ban imo. I've been playing games on PC for almost two decades, never understood the need to downplay anything else personally.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

The hardest thing about exclusives in general is that the game is designed intentionally for the hardware. It's more than just optimizing for 1 hardware platform, and investing all your effort to a single release. If put on your game designer hat you will probably see that combat sequences and camera angles are all designed specifically to get around any bottlenecks the scene could be experiencing. The level of customization of an exclusive goes deeper than render technology, it very much is a marriage in design, gameplay and technology, something that is afforded only by exclusive games.
So to answer the OP, not only do exclusive developers have the opportunity to maximize a single platform, but they can design around/redesign any areas where optimization still isn't enough to get to the performance standards that they want.

The hardware (however low you want to go without writing your own graphics driver) is still going to be the limiting factor when trying to make a game approach photorealism.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Yeah, i knew this thread was some sort of personal vendetta. You should've known better than to oppose the pro-Sony side of Neogaf, pretty much ends in a ban 90% of the time
Also, judging by the downplaying of the Uncharted 4 demo you are doing in this thread and the U4 thread your situation must have been a bit tricky. If your argument is that "My PC can run better looking games than your consoles", it is a understandable reason for a ban imo. I've been playing games on PC for almost two decades, never understood the need to downplay anything else personally.

I would not consider myself downplaying UC4. I've stated many times that I was impressed with the physics detail and the incredible animation. It's more of questioning the hyperbolic comments about the game's visuals. If we constantly come around to the fact that it's subjective.. then yea, useless arguing.