Horizon Forbidden West [PS, PC]

  • Thread starter Deleted member 7537
  • Start date
I was only saying to my brother last night about the PS3 CGI stuff.

The Killzone CGI has aged pretty terribly visually but the original CGI Motorstorm trailer still holds up really well and we were talking about if we could get that quality on today's hardware.
Yeah Killzone visually aged badly, but what also stood out back then was how dynamic and alive the warzone was with all these animations, physics and NPCs acting with each other.
Motorstorm still looks brilliant. I wish we see it again with all the physics and mayhem achieved.
 
Yeah Killzone visually aged badly, but what also stood out back then was how dynamic and alive the warzone was with all these animations, physics and NPCs acting with each other.
Motorstorm still looks brilliant. I wish we see it again with all the physics and mayhem achieved.
Yes, that was the 'simulation' era.....well the first few years of that generation was.

I do wish and hope we get a massive increase in interactivity this generation.
 
Yeah Killzone's 2005 CGI trailer is outmatched by recent UE4/UE5 titles and even some Frostbite one. But I don't agree with the Motorstorm part, Forza Horizon 5 gets damn close the 2005 CGI trailer (except for the physics), what I cosnider more superior however, is the Pacific Rift trailer from 2012, it is superior visually to Forza, especially in regards to character details, physics, and GI.

 
Last edited:
that's the point, destruction and dust clouds alone in the motorstorm CGI would melt the new consoles trying to do it.
 
Last edited:
Damn, FH5 looks incredible. What racing games look better with that much visual detail?

I never said about any games looking better, I just think it's over hyped after all the fans boys raving about it, it has very obvious draw distance limitations and the same soupy texture problem Halo Infinite has.
 
Yeah Killzone's 2005 CGI trailer is outmatched by recent UE4/UE5 titles and even some Frostbite one.

Even by older Frostbite games

The ground is much more detailed and not 2d like. On my computer these scenes also look far better than on the heavily compressed video even if its only UHD. If this runs in 8K and above 60 fps you could use LOD0 for all assets and you would still have well over 100 fps in UHD.

In the old PlayStation 3 trailers I like the volumetric shape of the smoke. I would like to have more realtime fluid simulations and 3D smoke.
 
Last edited:
Even by older Frostbite games

The ground is much more detailed and not 2d like. On my computer these scenes also look far better than on the heavily compressed video even if its only UHD. If this runs in 8K and above 60 fps you could use LOD0 for all assets and you would still have well over 100 fps in UHD.

In the old PlayStation 3 trailers I like the volumetric shape of the smoke. I would like to have more realtime fluid simulations and 3D smoke.
Battlefront does not come close to the Motorstorm CGI trailer.

I also think the Killzone 2 CGI is still well ahead of currently available games . While you can isolate individual areas that have been exceeded such as the lack of proper GI and various lighting/shadow flaws, the overall rendering still somehow exhibits a sense of solidness that looks less gamey. The absolutely perfect animation also grounds the characters to the environment in a way not yet seen in real time animation.

 
Last edited:
The Killzone 2 trailer may be much more impressive than the PlayStation 3 game but I don't see where Killzone is particularly good or even far ahead of current games, except for the explosions and volumetric clouds. The environmental objects and character clothing are mostly reminiscent of PlayStation 3 times in terms of detail level and texture resolution. Not to mention that the materials do not seem to have PBS. Do the characters have SSS at all? The lighting is also outdated by a lot. The ground vehicle and the enemies behind the bridge do not even cast shadows during the daytime. Compare this with the most modern ray-traced phasical based lighting where area lights have an effect in indirect lit areas and create realistic soft shadows and lighting.

If you have the right tools and enought time animations such as these trailers can be achieved. Especially if you pack them into scenes with little freedom.
 
Last edited:
The Killzone 3 trailer may be much more impressive than the PlayStation 3 game but I don't see where Killzone is particularly good or even far ahead of current games, except for the explosions and volumetric clouds. The environmental objects and character clothing are mostly reminiscent of PlayStation 3 times in terms of detail level and texture resolution. Not to mention that the materials do not seem to have PBS. Do the characters have SSS at all? The lighting is also outdated by a lot. The ground vehicle and the enemies behind the bridge do not even cast shadows during the daytime. Compare this with the most modern ray-traced phasical based lighting where area lights have an effect in indirect lit areas and create realistic soft shadows and lighting.

If you have the right tools and enought time animations such as these trailers can be achieved. Especially if you pack them into scenes with little freedom.
Even with the lighting concessions the overall rendering still looks more believable to my eyes than any currently available game. Animation of that quality is not currently possible during actual gameplay.
 
It should be obvious to everyone, but somehow it needs to be reminded everytime we discuss old offline CGI vs. realtime gfx: The quality level of different aspects of rendering evolved at different pace/order between old offline rendets and contemporary real time ones. Different people will look at the same thing amd yet will come out with different conclusions as to which one is superior, because they focused on different things.

To go back to a classic example, 1990's Toy Story still is arguably higher polycount than any game because it tesselated its NURBs models each frame into subpixel geometry. Yet, its lighting and shading is inferior than any average modern game, because research on PBR materials, Light transport, HDR pipelines, etc were very primitive.

/obvious disclaimer.

I love rewatching the killzone 2 target render. It encapsulates very well what the ambitions of AAA devs were at the time. Coming off of Half Life 2, and other highly scripted but imersively cinematic titles like Medal of Honer or CoD (still WWII era) the holy grail was still the tight "roller coaster ride" model of game desing.

Paradoxically, it was also a time when there was a lot of interest in developing robust enough systems and simulations so that unexpected emergent scenarioz could come up. (soldier hanging from ledge, other body drops him, soldiers in flames running around causing further ravok, gunning down helicopter only for it to fall on the player himself - that last one ripped straight out of one of HL2's mid-development media demoz)

In short: Unapologetically linear level structures, small to medium sized arenas and many corridors in between, with a lot of scripted grandiose set-pieces. And some dynamic systems anf physics sprinckled on-top to add in variability within the "texture" of what happens.

Modern shooters tend to go more towards a FarCry3 type of design. Very open ended arena layout, and less emphasis on physics and system based animation/locomotions. The emergent gameplay comes from more high-level elements like spawning more/less units of enemies or player-support, different archetipes, special abilities, RPG ellements...

Its like, the past was concerned with making a movie that could be played like a game. And the present is concerned with making a game (filled with layer after layer of meta-games: RPG ability trees, looting, side-quests, base building, etc) that can hopefully look like a movie.

Both aproaches can lead to excellent master-pieces and formulaic boring filler, depending more on the talent and time the devs have to refine their title.

While we got bored of the old formula, I kind of miss some aspects of it that I wish modern devs would re-doscover: the love for trying to have physics and sim makibg every little thing more dynamic and unpredictable, for example... And at the same time, the FC3 style game design is also out of fashion now. I don't know what will succed it, if anything will, in the single player FPS space. I hope devs find a new paradigm before every single game becomes a souls-like. Blerg...
 
Gameplay seems refined a lot, played weeks ago but there is something which hurts a lot of my rationality around the world design. I mean people have to access to incredible weapons thanks to the machine but they hunt them with arrows and spears, it's pure idiocy
 
They use the weapons that fall from the machines, but these have not unlimited ammo, so these quickly become useless as they don't have what's needed to reload them.
It's not just that. I can understand the traps, but how the fuck an arrow or a spear can damage a giant metal machine? It's something my mind refuse to accept.
 
They equip their arrows with metal and explosive parts looted on the machines, and they aim at weak points otherwise they don't do much damage.
 
Back
Top