[Brick_top]
Newcomer
game with best graphic so far!
- Thread starter IGNDavid
- Start date
- Status
They're realistic from a photography POV. Well, DOF is. You don't notice DOF through the eye although it does exist as it's an optical phenomenum. Motion blur is very evident in the eye as well as on film. Their application in LBP simulates the view of a camera on the real-world - hence realistic. Model the scene out of real-world materials and take a photo, and they'll look similar.I know why these effects are used, I'm just pointing out why they're not all that realistic.
@ Joebloggs
Lighting (and shadowing) is what makes an object look solid or not. Shading determines whether it looks like a real material. Modelling determines whether an object looks like a real object or toy one. As the focus of LBP is the characters, they've gone all out to refined them to bring all the aspects together very well.
I also agree with you on Trusty Bell. As far as cartoon rendering goes (for which I'm a complete sucker. Make a game Cell-shaded and I'll be sure to check it out!) in the major pics it looks awesome, but the actual gameplay to me looks too similar to last-gen techniques in high-res. 'Shining Force Neo' and 'Rogue Galaxy' at 720p with suitably upped textures and models would be pretty comparable. I think Cell shading became so well implemented last gen, there's not a huge amount of progress that can be made other than fidelity. TB is definitely the best cartoon-look to date, but I think it's par-for-the-course and nothing beyond what I was expecting of next-gen Cell shading.
I´ve heard very much about LBP so I thought if the game is so good-looking can someone in here counter my Crysis screenie with LBP screenes that looks better?
This screenshot shows the ULTRA-realistic lightning, graphic that Crysis has:
In case you dont notice, the one to the right is Crysis and the one to the left is a real-life photo.
This screenshot shows the ULTRA-realistic lightning, graphic that Crysis has:
In case you dont notice, the one to the right is Crysis and the one to the left is a real-life photo.
The photo on the left looks strange, doesn't seem to be real-life photo...
It´s a real-life photo, just bad quality thats all. But i hope you see what I mean with realistic lightning and graphic.
In high-contrast scenes, sure. In low-light conditions with secondary illumination from the surrounds - realistic lighting - only LBP has that tech so far. And it was only obtainable because they chose a 2.5D game. It'll be very interesting how far realtime GI approximators go over this gen, but it's LBP that's introduced it.
It is fake GI.
Ike Turner
Veteran
Half Life 2 too...There are tons of techniques to "fake" it..
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I understand, it is a method to support an arbitrary number of lights, but that's all. No light transfer between objects, no occlusion, no soft shadows - nothing else.
And let's not turn it into a semantic argument either. 'Fake' to me means that it looks reasonably close to the technique it tries to approximate, and not that someone decided to call it like that.
I've never said that. As I finished in the above post
What LBP is doing is a rough approximation of how GI affect illumination a scene which actually fakes secondary illumination (GI) in a convincing way. Of course it's not the real thing (and I'd have thought you'd know me better than to think I'm seeing real movie GI going on here...) but it's the first game I know of to have a GI-type illumination system in place, rather than static lightmaps + direct illumination + shadow system + ambient cube-maps. It's moved illumination into the realtime calculation phase and away from the content-creation phase.
Eagle-Vision
Regular
As for GI realtime aproximations, you guys should check out this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB8Nu8_rsDM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB8Nu8_rsDM
Maybe it would be better to define what GI is, and isn't, and then define what LBP is actually doing and where it works and where it is broken. That would determine whether it is an accurate use of the term. As for "realtime GI" a number of games are trumpeting realtime GI and will be out before LBP and were already demoed.
Again, as I understand the Siggraph video, there's no secondary illumination at all, just a very large number of lights. The guy does mention adding a skylight too, but there is nothing that offline CG would define as GI or even as a subset of it.
None of the technologies in the presentation do any secondary illumination, by the way. The first method is a fast approximation of area lights and area shadows; the second, which is in the slides, is a very low frequency fake for ambient occlusion, and the third is a lighting approach that allows for an arbitrary number of lights with a fixed calculation overhead.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Precisely. To not consider all factors isn't a very "fair" or sensible way of comparing games for a question like this, unless all you really care about is style. The fact is that LBP achieves a great looking effect by sacrificing a hell of a lot. It would be the same as saying a game looks the best because it has 8xSSAA and 16xAF, when the game is just a phong shaded 3D version of Pong with no texturing. Or for that matter good lighting in the same scenario.
How do you know they are sacrificing a lot ?
/ half knowlege is definitly worse than ignorance.
Good point.
If LBP ends up being a typical open world game with it's current level graphics, I will retract anything bad I've ever said about it and would have to put it up as one of the best if not the best in the console realm.
(I still think the concept is a tough sell though)
Well you only have to look at the game to see its not fully 3d, has practically zero draw distance and there isn't a huge amount of "stuff" in a given scene.
Thats not to say that what its doing its not doing extremely well. Becasuse it clearly is, but its hardly the same as a detail packed 3d world with a free camera view and miles of draw distance is it?
They sacrifice scene depth and complexity for the lighting, constraining themselves to a 2.5D world. They're using a view-aligned 3D texture whith a 128*64*16 resolution, where 16 is for the scene's depth to keep the lighting fast enough. They could not do this with an FPS or TPS game or a flight simulator and so on.
It's in the very video presentation that's been linked here.
Not that it's a wrong compromise or anything...
- Status
Similar threads
