VFX_Veteran
Regular
Yes, basically.
Do exclusive developers push visuals more than AAA developers?
- Thread starter VFX_Veteran
- Start date
- Status
Yes, basically.
But it is, isn't it? You yourself said in this thread that you value correct use of AO, i for example value animation more than AO, therefore impressive animation may look more pleasing to me than nice use of AO, although i can still appreciate good use of the latter. Most of it is subjective, you might not like the art direction and art style of a specific game, to give an example, Uncharted (clean, not too many PP effects going on) vs the Order (heavy use of PP effects). And on the subject of AO, i believe AC:Unity on PC had some of the most impressive AO I've seen in a long time (horizon based if i recall correctly).
OK so if we're talking objectively, then which game are you directly comparing it to that would show superiority over UC4 visually? You seem to hold high esteem with ACU and Batman, well they aren't entirely comparable for the amount of resources they dedicate to different part of the engine. But character wise, Drake definitely looks above Arno and Batman, with the former uses SSS, SSS on hair, deformable muscle sim and possibly silhouette tessellation or just really high polys. Effects wise UC4 definitely takes this, better looking explosions, fire, mud, smoke and possibly snow. Physics goes to UC4 too since I've yet to see any game does so many breakable and moving objects affected by physics, Batman comes close tho. And yes physics and animation add to the visual presentation drastically, screenshot war is one thing, but in motion is another ballpark. The world of UC4 just feels more alive than The Order for example. And environment wise, UC4 has some of the best foliage in the business, that PSX demo showed a level of foliage density, texture res, foliage collision detection not seen in any open world game. I played TW3 on PS4 and watched the demo right afterwards, it made me appreciate how good UC4's foliage are. But yeah other games certainly do other things better but the amount of awe presented to me is not nearly at the same level.
Yeah, the animation feels so natural and lively, especially coming after TW3. It takes a lot more than just high res textures, uber aa, baked in lighting to impress me these days, the 2nd part of UC4 E3 demo to me is just so much more interesting, adrenaline pumping and engaging than any sterile rock, beach sim tech demos.
Billy Idol
Legend
Very good point!
And this even goes so far that devs develop new strategies, not needed on other platforms, that start new trends after showing its potential...e.g. MLAA in God of War 3, which kicked off the hole PPAA business across all platforms.
Rurouni
Veteran
So basically exclusive devs can utilize the hardware closer to the ideal utilization vs multiplatform devs. It doesn't necessarily make exclusive devs produce games with better visuals, but at least it gave exclusive devs more chance to push the hardware more than multiplatform devs.
Anyway, this isn't about the devs skill at all, but more about the opportunity to optimize for a single platform vs make it work for multiple platforms (which usually came with compromises).
To answer the question, I don't know if exclusive devs do push visuals more (because even the OP argument is subjective, thus making the argument going nowhere), but exclusive devs definitely got more opportunity to push the visual more against multiplatform devs. From what I see, exclusive devs do produce nicer visual (based from what I see not only in this gen, but previous gens), but that is just my subjective opinion.
Anyway, this isn't about the devs skill at all, but more about the opportunity to optimize for a single platform vs make it work for multiple platforms (which usually came with compromises).
To answer the question, I don't know if exclusive devs do push visuals more (because even the OP argument is subjective, thus making the argument going nowhere), but exclusive devs definitely got more opportunity to push the visual more against multiplatform devs. From what I see, exclusive devs do produce nicer visual (based from what I see not only in this gen, but previous gens), but that is just my subjective opinion.
I like iroboto's answer best.
And then...
The problem is: "better visuals" is subjective. I don't think people judge games based purely on visual. There's also gameplay, physics and other dynamic elements beyond framerate. I suspect they took a look at the whole package and derived some intuition about the game's presentation. And then there's the issue of "too much of something". Stuffing more technologies into a game doesn't necessarily produce better effects.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about what other people think. I often fall in the minority camp myself.
All else being equal, dev attitude and talent always count. With more opportunities to optimize, the "right" attitude and talent may count even more, assuming there's no surprise.
And then...
The problem is: "better visuals" is subjective. I don't think people judge games based purely on visual. There's also gameplay, physics and other dynamic elements beyond framerate. I suspect they took a look at the whole package and derived some intuition about the game's presentation. And then there's the issue of "too much of something". Stuffing more technologies into a game doesn't necessarily produce better effects.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about what other people think. I often fall in the minority camp myself.
All else being equal, dev attitude and talent always count. With more opportunities to optimize, the "right" attitude and talent may count even more, assuming there's no surprise.
Another problem with multi-platform development is parity between the two platforms, a perfect example for that is Destiny, can you really tell apart the two versions?
Now, we don't know if the game would've looked "better" in any way if it was a X1 or Ps4 exclusive but my guess is probably yes. Even if both platforms are similar their few differences are still a limiting factor for each other.
Now, we don't know if the game would've looked "better" in any way if it was a X1 or Ps4 exclusive but my guess is probably yes. Even if both platforms are similar their few differences are still a limiting factor for each other.
i might add that if a read someone claming that UC4 is the best looking game ever, he might be right. I someone claims crysis 3 is stil the best looking game, he might be right too, and if a Nintendo fan says MK8 is the best looking racing game ever, he'll be right, because to each his own. I prefere people being over enthusiastic and actually playing/enjoying games than people nitpicking everything and overanalyzing things.
Games must be good and fun first, impressive tech is just a bonus, and appreciable when there's a photo mode available
.
Games must be good and fun first, impressive tech is just a bonus, and appreciable when there's a photo mode available
.VFX_Veteran
Regular
Creed did use some really good AO, but it still wasn't on everything. I like animation too. But a lot of studios got animation down (AC being one of them).
If it was the case, every high budget movie would have success linearly dependent on the budget used, but they are not.
Entertainment titles do not work like that. You either have a team of heroes, that win, or you don't. No amount of money can give you them.
The only difference between AAA game and AAA movie is that you absolutely must have "hero" programmers alongside "hero" artists/game designers/etc.
When producing a move the tech side is not that important, and it comes from the frame-rate difference: to make a frame that renders in 1 hour vs one that renders in 30 ms you will need people on the whole another level of tech excellence.
That's why you ditch photo-realism. I would say that even Xbox1 hardware was already enough to make any type of game.
Current PS4 hardware is much more than enough.
The main problem with PC-centric people, that they are so into the "arms-race" that they always blame hardware for everything. Chill out, arms-race is stopping, CPUs have almost flattened out in the last 5 years, GPUs also have problems (fortunately most of them come from CPUs that are used in various places of the pipeline).
Hardware is not something you should ever blame, hardware is a given, a platform for everything. If used wisely it can create something that will be very hard, if possible, to replicate on any other hardware. And that's the main problem of multiplatform games: they do not have that luxury, the multiplatform developers must always think of more than one platform, or abstract both platforms into some set of features and target that.
VFX_Veteran
Regular
There is no one game that does all. That's my point. I've seen several games that do something better than the other.
With regards to your observations on UC4.
1) The SSS on Nate in gameplay isn't very good looking. I've already mentioned this in another thread. But neither is The Order. I like the approach that CDPR used -- basically don't use it.
2) There is no SSS on hair. That's backlighting and it's used extensively on W3 for foliage as well as a myriad of other games. Remember that neither Nate nor most games use actual hair primitives while in gameplay. They are just strips of geometry with alpha maps on them. No AO either.
3) Deformable muscle -- again not in gameplay.
4) Explosions and smoke definitely look the best in Batman AK (at least the PC version w/Gameworks) and SW:Battlefront.
5) Fire? That's all artistic preference since all of them use sprites. I happen to think even the fire in the Order (especially the lamps) look incredible. It's also not surprising that one of the main artists for RAD now works at ND. She is extremely talented.
6) Physics -- I'll give UC4 that. But that's what they said they would concentrate on and they nailed it. However, it's not that they extracted some secret sauce of the PS4 that only it can do. Which is another one of my points. If any other dev wanted to focus on that, they could as well. As you said, Batman AK comes close just not to the same extent.
7) Foliage -- Ryse/Crysis 3/FC still has the best looking foliage to me. But the collison detection was also mastered by CDPR which used it extensively for pretty much all of it's movable foliage too. Again, not something magical that only ND has done.
8) Animation -- UC4 has excellent use of pre-baked animation. Looks really well done. But more impressive (from a technical level) is the procedural animation of the zombies in Dying Light. It's just incredible how they are unaware of obstacles and they fall, stagger, try to get up, slip on surfaces, etc..Which I think is much harder to implement in a game engine.
9) Textures -- clearly ND sacrificed texture resolution in that demo. While everything else seemed to come together nicely, the sheer texture detail was lacking. Again attributing to the limitations of the hardware -- not the engine.
Lastly, you didn't mention Lighting -- which is extremely important. The Tomorrow Children, Alien:Isolation, and Fable Legends all has taken GI a step further from baked light probes (which UC still uses). Batman AK has incredible amount of AO and shadow maps. W3, Dying Light, FC3, DriveClub all use dynamic shadowing from TOD. AC:Unity has the best baked GI maps for interiors we've ever seen.
Last edited:
VFX_Veteran
Regular
Disagree here. You can't prove to me with any exclusive game that it shows graphical superiority over multiplatform game engines. 30fps is still just 30fps. ND changed their story from targeting 60fps down to 30fps very quickly. The hardware IS a limitation -- even in film.
My belief is that first party studios will always have an advantage just because they know the hardware better, they share code between first party studios and they also get instant support from Sony. You'd never expect a Ps4 exclusive to release without proper AF support for example, which many third party developers patch afterwards (DmC, Dying Light). There is also an abundance of multiplatform games performing poorly on both X1 and Ps4, which doesn't seem like a concern to you but it is to me, like i said technology should be used, but not to the point where the game is completely unplayable, it is a game after all. Also, the fact that no game will ever be the best at everything doesn't mean that the overall result can't be considered the "best". According to many people, including myself, UC4 is a new benchmark overall for Ps4, and i am also considering the clean 1080p30 presentation which is playable more than 6 months away from release.
Which is where people measure the whole package, typically without a detailed analysis and only a visceral response. If you want to take your breakdown as an example, award a score out of ten for each feature of UC4. Then try the same with some other games. See how the scores compare, and factor in personal weightings, and you may get an explanation that works for you (although the root issue here is human behaviour, not technical accomplishment of game developers!).
eg.
Game A ; Completely static photorealistic game. Every still looks like a photo
Pool Diva
1) SSS = 10
2) Animation 0
3) Particles 0
4) Lighting 10
Game B ; Cartoon shaded platformer in a wobbly land with super convincing animation including peoples faces
Wibbly's Wonderful World of Wobble
1) SSS = 0
2) Animation = 10
3) Particles = 10
4) Lighting = 0
Which is better? Both have a mean score of 5/10, so both are the same. But if someone loves photorealism, they might call Pool Diva the best looking game ever, while someone who prefers animation might call WWWW the best looking game ever. Throw in a third, all-round achiever
Game C ; generic shooter
COD 18
1) SSS = 7
2) Animation = 7
3) Particles = 7
4) Lighting = 7
Which is the best looking game? COD 18 scores the highest average, 7/10, competent in every field, but it'd be unlikely to excite its audience. I'd expect more excited responses to one of the titles with a stand-out quality. That's human nature.
Basically, when you hear someone talking about the best game/dev ever, there's little to argue. That's their view and it's a view quite possibly completely true to the person saying it. There is no argument or trying to point out they're wrong because the opinion comes from their emotional response, which may well include platform bias (and platform bias isn't a sin). May as well try and argue who's the most beautiful woman/man in the world. The solution here is to learn to be comfortable with other people's POV.
The only future for this discussion in this thread is if you and others provide breakdowns of game tech for specific titles to compare, in an attempt to determine if there's an 'objective' basis for people's preference to certain titles (is it overall feature quality score that matters, or highest score, and something else).
To avoid misunderstanding, when i say "they know the hardware better", i am talking about its limitations. First party studios receive help when optimizing from teams like the ICE programming team. Let's take as an example the TLOU remaster port (you can read more here if you didn't already http://www.swedishcoding.com/wp-con...izing_the_naughty_dog_engine_using_fibers.pdf)
Most third party publishers would call it a day and ship it like that (this is 3 months away from release)
Instead of optimizing specifically for the hardware and shipping it like this
If you have any example pointing towards the opposite feel free to post it.
Most third party publishers would call it a day and ship it like that (this is 3 months away from release)
Instead of optimizing specifically for the hardware and shipping it like this
If you have any example pointing towards the opposite feel free to post it.
I like that example, but I feel it should be accompanied with evidence that other devs wouldn't optimise with the same sorts of results. That's the kind of accusation that this thread seems there to challenge. Would any (every?) other dev with 2 months to release be happy to take their coders off optimisation and put them on....adding features? Why won't third parties optimise to the same level?
I'm not sure that's a good example for architecture-specific optimization. It's essentially just demonstrating pipelining to improve utilization (which usually comes at the cost of memory utilization and latency). The concept has been around forever and gets done to varying degrees on all manner of platforms. It's a big part of why a bunch of games running at identical framerates can experience differing input lag, for instance.
Last edited:
- Status