GR3, video footage vs E3 compare pic
- Thread starter BTOA
- Start date
- Status
BTOA said:The point of the thread is to bash the people who bashed Sony for showing renders when MS and Ubisoft has done so too.
People should be pointing at Ubisoft for answers.
I was disappointed with these two new GR3 shots, when compared to what other screen shots were avaliable at IGN.
You're not dissapointed, you're delighted because you think you've found a way to attack Microsoft (who has nothing to do with this). Yet your argument is such a stretch. You're saying because the shot was on IGN it is automatically assumed to be a realtime in-game shot (in this case it probably was -- but I digress). So then should I expect Gears of War to look like this?
(I'll give you a hint: its concept art)
This was one of the only games from Xbox360's launch I was ever interested in, and it looks like they promised dreams at first. Like what Sony is promising.SanGreal said:
Fans like you are hypocrits when I have shown what MS/Ubisoft have done to catch the attention of gamers with these render screen shots. You can't accept the fact that MS/Ubisoft are as gulity as Sony for showing render targets.
The shots at IGN is what people all over the world have come to believe that what Ubisoft showed at E3 were those screen shots.
BTOA said:
First off, again, Microsoft has nothing to do with this.
Second, you have yet to show any evidence that the shot is anything but ingame.
Third, if you really want an example of unrealistic CG render targets on x360 look no further than NBA2k6. Unlike your sad GR3 example, you would actually have a case.
I think the point of the thread is obvous btoa . I tried to treat you with respect and responed to your claims in a civilized way . But you wont have any of that .
To prove ms lied to us you need to prove this
Ms told ubisoft to claim those press kit pics are xbox 360 shots
Then you need these
1) The hardware the footage was shot on . Was the non hdr shot from x800s ? were the hdr shots from a 6800ultra ? Was it on a 256 meg card and thats why it had less textures than the press kit ones ?
2) That what was shown and claimed to be x360 shots have not been achived on beta hardware
3) At the very least reasons why it can't be achived. Everyone who has claimed killzone is cgi has given many reasons why . Even one who is a cgi artist listed many reasons using his profession backround to strengthen his stand based on his own work experiance .
You haven't done anything .
You posted 2 pics and claim ms is hood winking us .
This is sadly what most of your posts consist of . The others are just jabs at ms . Actually of your posts I have yet to see a postive ms post .
To prove ms lied to us you need to prove this
Ms told ubisoft to claim those press kit pics are xbox 360 shots
Then you need these
1) The hardware the footage was shot on . Was the non hdr shot from x800s ? were the hdr shots from a 6800ultra ? Was it on a 256 meg card and thats why it had less textures than the press kit ones ?
2) That what was shown and claimed to be x360 shots have not been achived on beta hardware
3) At the very least reasons why it can't be achived. Everyone who has claimed killzone is cgi has given many reasons why . Even one who is a cgi artist listed many reasons using his profession backround to strengthen his stand based on his own work experiance .
You haven't done anything .
You posted 2 pics and claim ms is hood winking us .
This is sadly what most of your posts consist of . The others are just jabs at ms . Actually of your posts I have yet to see a postive ms post .
Confidence-Man
Newcomer
The first shot is from a target render, the second is from an incomplete build.
Last edited by a moderator:
only thing i know for sure, is that one of those pictures from the the first post looks better than the other. and that the newest shots released, look like ass.
im talking about these two new shots..
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/736/736206/img_2990079.html
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/736/736206/img_2990080.html
so something is obviously wrong.
im talking about these two new shots..
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/736/736206/img_2990079.html
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/736/736206/img_2990080.html
so something is obviously wrong.
at e3 it was CG, but dont you remember the latest demo when the guy was controlling the characters in realtime?SanGreal said:
ign.com said:
BTOA said:
Jesus Christ, it's not that big of a difference between the two shots anyway. GET A GRIP! They could obviously be from 2 different stages of development. But on the other hand, KZ3 and countless other PS3 "demos" were PROVEN to be pre-rendered. You're really grasping for straws on this one my friend.
The model in the xbox 360 shots don't have the shiny bumpmap/normal map look to them. The detail on the soldier firing a gun is incredible. Look at his arm and how light and shadow spreads across it. The soldier firing the gun has to be the most detailed screenshot I've ever seen.
(1) Just read the beginning of the thread... (going back over it as I already wrote my reply, so tweaking now!) first shot is from E3, second one (lower quality one) I have no clue. First time I have seen it.
(2) Quality issues
Lighting/shadowing lower quality
-General light intensity/contrast is more washed out (compare: tree trunks, tree shadow/sunbreak contrast, sunlight areas in beyond the plaza, etc)
-Highlights on players not as pronounced
-Tree shadows missing where light is passing through
-Tree underbrush not as dramatically self shadowed
Poly Count
-Mainly the prime charcter has a reduced/jagged look now, specifically the suite and helmet appear to have less detail (mainly because the high gadget suit has been swapped out with the borring stock suit the other guys are wearing)
Textures
-Wall texture is flat
Surely they are not running out of texture memory!
-Trees beyond plaza are washed out and colorless comparatively
-Characters missing a ton of detail. Note the backback, back of neck, helmet, etc...
Stuff that looked the same
-Tree poly count (not leaves) and textures look spot on
-Outside lighting, the characters to the left and right looks the same
-HUD the same (note the aliasing!)
-Exact same scene; poly count seems on par
It looks like the second image is missing substantial lighting effects (HDR/Bloom or was the first just a Globally Illuminated CGI?), and has a slew of textures missing. The scene is the same (less the main character is a different model as jvd noted), but the render quality is a lot lower.
Things that have me confused: The significant reduction in texture detail (compare games like PGR3 and GOW... with the increase from 256MB to 512MB memory there really is no excusve for a huge drop off), a big hit in quality in lighting/shadowing (low end PC lighting), and aliasing.
Is this a 360 alpha kit, beta kit, or PC version I don't know.
(3) For those wondering about the big hubub about CGI w/ ingame assets, the above pics are an example of what can happen. There may be other explainations (early builds with details reduced for bug fixing, PC version, Alpha kits, etc) BUT this is a prime example of how a CGI movie with in-game assets can look the same, yet at the same time SIGNIFICANTLY different.
Most people wont notice, but from a technical perspective the differences are HUGE.
Ironically a game like PGR3 which was admitted at the time to be a mix of CGI and real ingame footage seems to have been a more conservative approach to using CGI techniques that closely mimiced their ingame rendering quality. Using a render target is always risky business. The temptation is always to be more dramatic and add little things you cannot do in realtime.
(4) BTOA: This has nothing to do with MS. GR3 footage was provided by Ubi. MS demonstrated a lot of real game footage (i.e. they got bashed for showing a lot of incomplete software like PDZ, Kameo, Condemned, THAW, TWG, DOA4, etc). Obviously some companies did not have material ready and instead presented their render targets/CGI goals--and these titles were not "playable" (just like the only "playable" titles at the Sony booth, like LOD, UT2007, etc can be contrasted with the non-playable 'cinematics') BUT MS clearly did not request that every send them CGI. It is pretty clear they were showing real game footage (in a bad way!)
Sony specifically asked developers for game footage at 1080p @ 60fps and certain criteria. Based on what some devs have disclosed some was CGI and some was a mix of CGI/Realtime engines (compressed).
The difference?
MS NEVER denied showing any CGI. For example, Allard specifically said PGR3's demo movies had CGI.
Sony REFUDED TO ANSWER the question about CGI, instead insisting, "This is ingame".
And again, the freaking movie is from Ubi, not MS!
And again, Ubi never said it was realtime.
You have made this a "Bash MS" thread based on Ubi material that they have not made any claims about When Ubi claims that the first is realtime ingame footage (it was stated way back then a few days after E3 that it was indeed CGI!) we can talk.
Until then bashing MS based on a Ubi media release is trolling. Ubi never said it was realtime ingame footage (follow the threads here, it was known within a week of E3 that it was CGI).
As you stated, the goal of this thread is to troll => bash people who challenged the Sony footage. You are calling people names like hypocrits.
The problem is Ubi never made the same claims Sony did, and MS has nothing to do with this. Basically you have fabricated a situation with the excuse to bash PEOPLE. That is not proper forum behavior.
Btw, if you did not notice, Oblivion, PGR3, GOW, etc... have all shaped up to be of the highest quality, comparable to the GR3 CGI (which is lower quality CGI/ingame assets). So indeed the 360 is capable of making games of the quality found in the GR3 CGI.
Why the Ubi guys have no HDR, washed out colors, low texture quality, etc... is a question only they can answer.
(5) Obviously the new pics stink comparatively and look like a game that would run well on a low end PC.
The question is why does the game look like this when it is known that the 360 can do better lighting, texturing, etc. Overwhelmed dev, to ambitious goals for first gen game, rushed launch, bad tools, dev kit/PC grabs, early build pics, etc...
Obviously not every dev is going to get a game that looks like GOW or Oblivion but it does appear Ubi is having a hard time hitting their target render.
Which is interesting because Ubi is a solid (but not great) publisher. You look at some of the other target renders and look at their previous quality games and it does make you wonder.
Time, money, and great artists are important this gen. If you do not have the time/money/skill to impliment dozens of important graphic tricks/details into your engine it will not compare to the teams with 100 people and $20M budgets.
(2) Quality issues
Lighting/shadowing lower quality
-General light intensity/contrast is more washed out (compare: tree trunks, tree shadow/sunbreak contrast, sunlight areas in beyond the plaza, etc)
-Highlights on players not as pronounced
-Tree shadows missing where light is passing through
-Tree underbrush not as dramatically self shadowed
Poly Count
-Mainly the prime charcter has a reduced/jagged look now, specifically the suite and helmet appear to have less detail (mainly because the high gadget suit has been swapped out with the borring stock suit the other guys are wearing)
Textures
-Wall texture is flat
Surely they are not running out of texture memory!-Trees beyond plaza are washed out and colorless comparatively
-Characters missing a ton of detail. Note the backback, back of neck, helmet, etc...
Stuff that looked the same
-Tree poly count (not leaves) and textures look spot on
-Outside lighting, the characters to the left and right looks the same
-HUD the same (note the aliasing!)
-Exact same scene; poly count seems on par
It looks like the second image is missing substantial lighting effects (HDR/Bloom or was the first just a Globally Illuminated CGI?), and has a slew of textures missing. The scene is the same (less the main character is a different model as jvd noted), but the render quality is a lot lower.
Things that have me confused: The significant reduction in texture detail (compare games like PGR3 and GOW... with the increase from 256MB to 512MB memory there really is no excusve for a huge drop off), a big hit in quality in lighting/shadowing (low end PC lighting), and aliasing.
Is this a 360 alpha kit, beta kit, or PC version I don't know.
(3) For those wondering about the big hubub about CGI w/ ingame assets, the above pics are an example of what can happen. There may be other explainations (early builds with details reduced for bug fixing, PC version, Alpha kits, etc) BUT this is a prime example of how a CGI movie with in-game assets can look the same, yet at the same time SIGNIFICANTLY different.
Most people wont notice, but from a technical perspective the differences are HUGE.
Ironically a game like PGR3 which was admitted at the time to be a mix of CGI and real ingame footage seems to have been a more conservative approach to using CGI techniques that closely mimiced their ingame rendering quality. Using a render target is always risky business. The temptation is always to be more dramatic and add little things you cannot do in realtime.
(4) BTOA: This has nothing to do with MS. GR3 footage was provided by Ubi. MS demonstrated a lot of real game footage (i.e. they got bashed for showing a lot of incomplete software like PDZ, Kameo, Condemned, THAW, TWG, DOA4, etc). Obviously some companies did not have material ready and instead presented their render targets/CGI goals--and these titles were not "playable" (just like the only "playable" titles at the Sony booth, like LOD, UT2007, etc can be contrasted with the non-playable 'cinematics') BUT MS clearly did not request that every send them CGI. It is pretty clear they were showing real game footage (in a bad way!)
Sony specifically asked developers for game footage at 1080p @ 60fps and certain criteria. Based on what some devs have disclosed some was CGI and some was a mix of CGI/Realtime engines (compressed).
The difference?
MS NEVER denied showing any CGI. For example, Allard specifically said PGR3's demo movies had CGI.
Sony REFUDED TO ANSWER the question about CGI, instead insisting, "This is ingame".
And again, the freaking movie is from Ubi, not MS!
And again, Ubi never said it was realtime.
You have made this a "Bash MS" thread based on Ubi material that they have not made any claims about
When Ubi claims that the first is realtime ingame footage (it was stated way back then a few days after E3 that it was indeed CGI!) we can talk.Until then bashing MS based on a Ubi media release is trolling. Ubi never said it was realtime ingame footage (follow the threads here, it was known within a week of E3 that it was CGI).
As you stated, the goal of this thread is to troll => bash people who challenged the Sony footage. You are calling people names like hypocrits.
The problem is Ubi never made the same claims Sony did, and MS has nothing to do with this. Basically you have fabricated a situation with the excuse to bash PEOPLE. That is not proper forum behavior.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? How much realtime PS3 game footage on final PS3 hardware have you seen?
Btw, if you did not notice, Oblivion, PGR3, GOW, etc... have all shaped up to be of the highest quality, comparable to the GR3 CGI (which is lower quality CGI/ingame assets). So indeed the 360 is capable of making games of the quality found in the GR3 CGI.
Why the Ubi guys have no HDR, washed out colors, low texture quality, etc... is a question only they can answer.
(5) Obviously the new pics stink comparatively and look like a game that would run well on a low end PC.
The question is why does the game look like this when it is known that the 360 can do better lighting, texturing, etc. Overwhelmed dev, to ambitious goals for first gen game, rushed launch, bad tools, dev kit/PC grabs, early build pics, etc...
Obviously not every dev is going to get a game that looks like GOW or Oblivion but it does appear Ubi is having a hard time hitting their target render.
Which is interesting because Ubi is a solid (but not great) publisher. You look at some of the other target renders and look at their previous quality games and it does make you wonder.
Time, money, and great artists are important this gen. If you do not have the time/money/skill to impliment dozens of important graphic tricks/details into your engine it will not compare to the teams with 100 people and $20M budgets.
Acert93 said:
UBI whose Tom Clancy games sold great on X-Box and up until Halo 2 dominated X-Box LIVE, is now not a great publisher? UBI's teams produced some of the most spectacular graphics and gameplay on X-Box. There is no reason why they won't continue the trend with next-gen hardware. The Ghost Recon Franchise is one of UBI's crown jewels, it won't suffer from lack of budget.
Thread locked: for obvious flame baiting reasons
BTOA, GR is a UBI Soft game, what MS has to do with the video shown at E3? Can substanciate any claims saying that MS is involved in this trailer? No? So why bring MS in this mix...
You decided nonetheless to turn this thread into a meanigless finger pointing mess, though.
Consider this locked thread as a warning, dicusss thing politely and reasonably, in the future, without drawing far fetched and unsubstained conclusions about any marketing activities of the console manufacturer, if possible.
Oh, for the other posters, troll name calling is also un-called for. Please, use the report bad post button or PM a moderator. Do not post on the board just to call out someone's behavior, it just adds more noise to the forum.
BTOA, GR is a UBI Soft game, what MS has to do with the video shown at E3? Can substanciate any claims saying that MS is involved in this trailer? No? So why bring MS in this mix...
You decided nonetheless to turn this thread into a meanigless finger pointing mess, though.
Consider this locked thread as a warning, dicusss thing politely and reasonably, in the future, without drawing far fetched and unsubstained conclusions about any marketing activities of the console manufacturer, if possible.
Oh, for the other posters, troll name calling is also un-called for. Please, use the report bad post button or PM a moderator. Do not post on the board just to call out someone's behavior, it just adds more noise to the forum.
- Status
