Ghost Recon 3: PC and Xbox 360 versions

[Acert93]

Article
http://pc.ign.com/articles/644/644886p1.html

Movies
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/736/736230/vids_1.html

Note from the Article:

When you're done viewing the trailer, check out our recent preview after seeing the PC version of the game at the German Games Convention. We're being told that there are some differences between the PC and Xbox 360 versions, though we haven't learned how big and what exactly those differences are, so keep that in mind as you read. Here's a little ditty from that article to whet your appetite:

Similarly

http://pc.ign.com/articles/643/643119p1.html

Before we start with the preview, it's important to note that while Ubisoft acknowledges that there will be similarities between its many Ghost Recon branded titles on different platforms, the company states that the PC version stands alone. It's a case of "this game and those console games." While we're not yet sure what the actual differences are, we've been told that Ghost Recon on PC will feature more depth and strategy over its console counterparts and so it's not fair to compare them. If that is the case, don't expect the PC version's advanced tactical map to play a big role on the other platforms.

On the movies page note the mix of CGI and "in game" footage. e.g. the "old" model is clearly used in some CGI shots. The second movie from the 10th of Aug has the old model and looks like CGI (although not insanely high quality).

So, those screen shots floating around... is that an early build? PC version? Xbox 360 version?

I guess we will find out soon!

Ps - based on the fact IGN played the PC version, these ingame shots almost surely are shots from the [early] PC build. Also, they were not very impressed and DID not the missing high quality models!

People in Ghost Recon use a combination of ragdoll physics and animation. The combination results in very fluid movement. To show this our presenter fired off his machinegun at a friendly soldier that was running across his path. When the bullets started flying the trooper immediately went into a half animated, half physics-driven roll to avoid the lead and debris.

In addition to helping it look good, that sort of dynamic improvisation should add a great amount of believability to Ghost Recon, though it's not exactly like the ultra polished mockups we saw so long ago... What happened to the cool people highlights, guys?

But of course, the game still looks great -- only the advanced HDR lighting effects seem a bit off balance. A line of buildings could look perfectly fine cooking under the brilliant Mexican sun, but the one in the middle might glow like a light bulb. It's almost as if the entire building had randomly turned into a bright bloom of light and it really doesn't make much sense, especially since the automatic eye adjust feature that is so cool about HDR lighting didn't seem to be on. This means meaning you can stare at the sunburst all day and it won't look like anything other than a sunburst.

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/736/736230/imgs_1.html

Based on the PC HDR shots and some of the really ugly FC HDR shots (not all, just the ones where the moon is 10x brighter than the sun!) does anyone get the feeling we are going to HATE HDR by the end of this generaiton?

 

[jvd]

Its my understanding that the xbox 360 version has co-op 4 player co-op to be exact while the pc version doesn't

Based on the PC HDR shots and some of the really ugly FC HDR shots (not all, just the ones where the moon is 10x brighter than the sun!) does anyone get the feeling we are going to HATE HDR by the end of this generaiton?

Na hdr is like any new effect. It gets shown off way to much at first but then it finds its place. By a year or so in i bet hdr will be used as it should . To increase visual apeal while not being obvious

 

[Acert93]

Call me a cynical. I voted in between.

PGR3, Gears of War, and Oblivion look CGI "quality" (if you don't look too close!) to me. Even Prey looks really nice IMO.

But there are too many games from decent devs--games like DoA4 from Team Ninja, Kameo/PDZ from Rare, Madden (which is missing a ton of quality rendering effects from the trailer)--are looking like beefed up last gen titles. Nice looking games, really crisp with AA, higher res, and betting lighting/shadowing and clearer textures. But they are missing the UMF! They still feel "flat" and lack the high poly look, the "I was once a 1million poly model in 3ds Max!" normal maps.

GR3 is reminding me a lot of CoD2. It looks nice, but the characters just don't have the super detailed GoW or Oblivion look. Maybe it is the lighting and shadowing, or the high quality texture filtering.

Again, call my cynical but render targets are always reason to pause.

• Same textures? Check (opps, but the ingame version is 1/10 the resolution!)
• Same models? Check (opps, same model reduced to 5k polys)
• Same animations? Check (opps, we did have to use more loops on the movements like walking though due to space limitations, transitions, and interactivity)
• Same physics? Check (opps, the gravity is the same setting... we hand tweaked the CGI... cannot really do it in game)
• Same particle effects? Check (opps, they were real time physics bodies being represented by a fluid dynamics similator in the background... but they look similar!)
• Same lighting? Check (opps, we had to cut down on some of the lights and some of the transistions from bright and darker areas that made it look so real and smooth)
• Same shadowing? Check (opps, they still have shadows, but we had to cut down on the penumbra and had to cut out the per pixel shadowing... oh, and we reduced our model from 1M polys to 5k, and the normal map was huge, was we cut it down by 90% for memory reasons)
• Same details? Check (opps, well mostly... the ground no longer buckles under the weight of your tank, the tracks are textures and not 3D models in the ground... we don't record impacts on individuals body parts so much of the CGI is pre-canned acting and not actual gameplay... but it feels the same... doesn't it?)

w00t render targets! This generation previews of next gen gameplay!

I think as a general rool people who do render targets are either 1. afraid to show what they have or 2. have been so rushed that the game engine/art assets are not complete enough to generate an actual demo, so they take what they have and use a VFX app to give an impression of their goals (impression being either as close to spec as possible, or just an exciting 3D movie that gets people pumped). And then there are the guys who generate a movie from the actual engine (even if that means taking a 5fps feed and compiling it in After effects)... but they are not exciting because that is akin to doing the game on a real engine . . . and there is no controversy in that!

 

[jvd]

well acert i picked option 3 also .

I think many pc devs are going to end up with games slightly better than the pc versions as most of the games are so close to completion and launch is so close they will just port it over .

Art is the expensive part and to create higher res normal maps with 3dc will cost money and many don't wnat to invest it .


I think games like kameo and pgr show off what the system can do .


With kameo if you watch the 10 min demo they showed from gc you will see how detailed everything looks but due to the nature of the game you are further away from the bump maps and detail than you would be in a fps . The lighting is top notch and the effects are great. Every bit a great showing from a launch title .

Then we have pgr 3 that was made from scratch for this platform and its pushing tons of high res normal maps and imploying every effect in the xbox 360s arsenal .

Aside from that in the launch titles everything else is mainly ports. Ports from the pc or ports from last gen .

I think we will see this with all 3 system launches

 

[Inane_Dork]

When they made reference to the "cool people highlights," I thought they meant the model outlines (green for friendly, red for foe). Maybe not.

I do know that if the render target is far better than the game will be, the HUD resolution is going to suck grandly.

 

[Acert93]

With kameo if you watch the 10 min demo they showed from gc you will see how detailed everything looks but due to the nature of the game you are further away from the bump maps and detail than you would be in a fps . The lighting is top notch and the effects are great. Every bit a great showing from a launch title .

Kameo does look GREAT.

My only knocks on it are 1. low poly models. Everywhere. They fit the theme, but there is no reason for the horse, for example, to have razor sharp edges! 2. Animation... the elves and orcs animated poorly.

And some levels seem to be better than others.

But then again this game went from GCN => Xbox => Xbox 360.

The fact it looks as good as it does is very very impressive. Rare did not just do a cheap quick port, they have put a LOT of hard work into it.

You are right, for a launch title it looks very good. Even the titles I bashed on look good (either PC upgrades OR significantly reworked console tiles). BUT they do lack the quality of the render targets... that was my only point

I think you are right about budgets. Not every dev has the time, money, or skill to make a killer looking game. We all know how rushed the launch timeframe is with a total of 3 months with final beta kits (and most of that time will be spent getting the game working, NOT testing new engine features that require reworking all the art!)

Not every dev is going to take 10s of thousands of pictures of cities for their game like PGR3. It just is not happening...

 

[jvd]

You are right, for a launch title it looks very good. Even the titles I bashed on look good (either PC upgrades OR significantly reworked console tiles). BUT they do lack the quality of the render targets... that was my only point

Yes they do but expect that from all the companys . SOme companys may miss them even more so than ms is .

However none of the games are out and really untill they are we shouldn't erally say if they miss them or not .

As I said end of sept / early october and we will have a good idea of what the finished products will look like

 

[mckmas8808]

well acert i picked option 3 also .

I think many pc devs are going to end up with games slightly better than the pc versions as most of the games are so close to completion and launch is so close they will just port it over .

Art is the expensive part and to create higher res normal maps with 3dc will cost money and many don't wnat to invest it .


I think games like kameo and pgr show off what the system can do .


With kameo if you watch the 10 min demo they showed from gc you will see how detailed everything looks but due to the nature of the game you are further away from the bump maps and detail than you would be in a fps . The lighting is top notch and the effects are great. Every bit a great showing from a launch title .

Then we have pgr 3 that was made from scratch for this platform and its pushing tons of high res normal maps and imploying every effect in the xbox 360s arsenal .

Aside from that in the launch titles everything else is mainly ports. Ports from the pc or ports from last gen .

I think we will see this with all 3 system launches

I also picked number 3. And I totally agree with this post. Kameo and PGR look super good. So far from what I have seen these games would get a 10 in my book.

 

[Brimstone]

How can you really compare a race car game to a first person shooter? Ghost Recon is going to have bleeding edge physics and animation. Lots of soldiers running around and explosions going off effecting the enviroment. Then add in squad based A.I. for all the soldiers running around.

The soldier you control can lean and slide on the ground. It has been hinted at that you might be able to kick down doors.


A game like PGR3 is going to tax system power in different ways than GR:AW.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Ooooo kick down doors!:. ... now that's next gen innovative gameplay requiring next gen powerful hardware for kickingdown doors physix !

 

[Confidence-Man]

IGN has a new trailer up (360). It's that CGI intro interspersed with realtime footage.

http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/736/736206/vids_1.html

 

[mckmas8808]

I wish the game looked like the CGI sequences. I would think about buying a X360 if that was the case.

 

[Brimstone]

That is a terrific screen shot. It really shows of how well light is interacting with materials.

Look at the gun, it appears metallic instead of the plastic gun look.

Camo battle dress uniform looks like it made from fabric.

The player model doesn't have the overall "shiny normal map look".

 

[Acert93]

A game like PGR3 is going to tax system power in different ways than GR:AW.

It is true that certain games will tax the system differently. A 1-on-1 fighter should look better than a vast MMO with hundreds of players on the screen at a time.

Where the arguement kind of falls flat is that PGR3 was not the only example, namely Gears of War. Gears of War has a very high quality look. The GOW cut scenes look as good as the GR3 renders. The shadowing, lighting, model detail/texturing/shadowing are all really clean and high quality, etc.

Maybe the difference is the GR3 render target used techniques that they were not going to be able emulate with realtime hacks and GOW has a mature/robust engine that can, or it is a time issue. But the bottom line is GOW and GR3 are both tactical shooters and GOW really puts those new screenshots to shame. To compare

http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/747/747891/img_2800045.html
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/747/747891/img_2800046.html
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/747/747891/img_2770817.html

That is a terrific screen shot. It really shows of how well light is interacting with materials.

The question is: is that a CGI or in game. Note the sun passes through the leaves. Compare the other pictures... the sun does NOT pass through the leaves in the ingame shot but it DOES in the render targets.

So is that a render target or realtime? And realtime, which system and what state? That appears to be the question!

IGN has a new trailer up (360). It's that CGI intro interspersed with realtime footage.

The problem with IGN is they mix their content, even put stuff in the wrong areas. The movie they received from the German show where the PC version was demoed, and indeed the two overviews are PC based. So I am curious what is the source of the footage.

Obviously a lot of it is CGI... but what of the others?

 

[Confidence-Man]

The question is: is that a CGI or in game. Note the sun passes through the leaves. Compare the other pictures... the sun does NOT pass through the leaves in the ingame shot but it DOES in the render targets.

What ingame shot are you looking at? There are shadows from the leaves in the realtime shots. You can see it in the gameplay demo from E3. The CGI is like leagues ahead of the realtime stuff.

And it shouldn't be too hard to tell the X360 version from the PC version, which looks somewhat worse (and isn't shown in 16:9). I don't think there's any video of it at all, but you can see some screenshots at PC IGN.

 

[Acert93]

What ingame shot are you looking at? There are shadows from the leaves in the realtime shots.

The light is not passing through the leaves like the E3 video:

CGI (?) from E3 & New Shots

You can see it in the gameplay demo from E3. The CGI is like leagues ahead of the realtime stuff.

The reports at the time (none official though) was that the gameplay video from E3 was a CGI. It had HDR and some other effects that were not possible on the Alpha Kits, so either it was CGI or it was on a 6800U SLI setup like GOW.

If the current sreenshots are from the 360 then it appears that the E3 video was a render target using ingame assets. There is a world of difference from what was shown at E3 and the new pics/movies.

 

[mckmas8808]

Maybe it's because the game is not finished yet.

 

[Confidence-Man]

The light is not passing through the leaves like the E3 video:

CGI (?) from E3 & New Shots

The reports at the time (none official though) was that the gameplay video from E3 was a CGI. It had HDR and some other effects that were not possible on the Alpha Kits, so either it was CGI or it was on a 6800U SLI setup like GOW.

If the current sreenshots are from the 360 then it appears that the E3 video was a render target using ingame assets. There is a world of difference from what was shown at E3 and the new pics/movies.

Alright, this is what was being demoed on the floor at E3, and looks basically the same as the realtime stuff they cut into the new trailer:

It's not the same as the first pic you showed (which was, I believe, a render target), but unlike the second picture the lighting/shadowing is turned on.

I don't remember anyone even alleging this was CGI. As far as it using HDR, the game could've been using the same techniques used to fake it on Xbox for all anyone knows (if it was even using any HDR). You don't think alpha kits were capable of producing those visuals?

 

[mckmas8808]

At the end of the day who really cares if it was CGI or not. We know that the game can look like it when it's finished right?

 

[Acert93]

Alright, this is what was being demoed on the floor at E3, and looks basically the same as the realtime stuff they cut into the new trailer:

It's not the same as the first pic you showed (which was, I believe, a render target), but unlike the second picture the lighting/shadowing is turned on.

I don't remember anyone even alleging this was CGI.

Interesting! We now have 3 shots of the exact same scene with varying levels of detail This could be an indication of

1. Render target => early build => more recent build; or
2. Render target => PC build => Xbox build (or vice versa)
3. Ingame engine output, full detail, low FPS recompiled => realtime build => more recent realtime build (i.e. following the path of Heavenly Sword)

With other games using render targets, the Alpha vs. Beta issue on the 360, and the fact devs are in a chrunk there are just a lot of issues that are making different games on the same completion time schedule look much different.

As far as it using HDR, the game could've been using the same techniques used to fake it on Xbox for all anyone knows (if it was even using any HDR). You don't think alpha kits were capable of producing those visuals?

HDR != Bloom. So correct, the Alpha kits could not do High Dynamic Range lighting. The X800 and 9800 lack FP16 blending.

At the end of the day who really cares if it was CGI or not.

Well, I care Looking at screen shots, trying to determine the techniques used, what stage of development, if it is realtime or CGI, etc... is what this forum is meant to do!

The fact we have 3 screenshots of the exact same scene and they all look different is interesting. It could mean multiple things. As a consumer I want to know if the media Ubi is showing is the same thing I will be playing.

We all know where you stand on these issues in general; but in general I think it is more than fair to analys the shots of games unreleased. Especially when they go from super high quality to sub-high end PC quality. Was Ubi just hyping their game with too high of expectations? Are the bad pics from the PC? Are these just signs of early builds as they work through finishing the code to run well on the Beta kits? What?

We have no answers from Ubi, but analysing their hype is valid. As you stated: If it looked like the render target you would get an Xbox 360. That was the goal of the video: to sell their game.

The question is was that video a fair representation of the end product. OBVIOUSLY it is a quality representation of the gameplay (oh those fearful words!) but if the game looks like the recent pics we can surely say that the E3 trailer was not representative of the end products graphics -- not by a long shot IMO. That last 10% between realtime and CGI is the most important.

Gears of War has that look. It would have passed for PS1 or bad PS2 CGI. The new GR3 shots really remind me of a higher rez Xbox title. My hope is the final product will end up like their demo footage from E3, but with no promises from them and the dissappointing footage I am not holding my breath.

We know that the game can look like it when it's finished right?

There is a difference between that the game "can look like" and what the game "will look like". I don't think the render target is too far out there based on a couple other games... but that does not mean Ubi is gonna attain that in a launch title.