Madden NFL Football game looking amazing on PS3
- Thread starter McFly
- Start date
when i said that next generation would be less impressive compared to this generation i wasn't trying to say that "we've reached a point where graphics can't get any better". i'm saying that looking at waht we have right now, and what we know about next gen, there's not going to be the leap there was last gen. next gen *should* usher in high def gaming (>480p) as the norm and the use of cinematic framebuffer effects in pretty much every game (even if it's pointless). these are things we've already seen on xbox and ps2 today, while on ps1 we didn't even have perspective correction or texture filtering.
things are going to look noticibly nicer, just not the leap we saw last generation (or the generation before that). that's what i was saying when i compared dc->xbox, where you have a solid feature set in the dreamcast, but it's really the programable shaders that make the real difference in games on the xbox, not the polycount or texture quality. compare doa2 to doa3 and you'll see what i mean. yes doa3 has more complex environments, and slightly higher poly counts on the characters, but it's the bump mapping, reflections, overbrights from the sun, ect that set the game above graphicly. yet i still know people who couldn't tell the difference at first glance. show someone that shot of madden on ps1 and ps2 and they'll pick out the ps2 shot in a heartbeat.
things are going to look noticibly nicer, just not the leap we saw last generation (or the generation before that). that's what i was saying when i compared dc->xbox, where you have a solid feature set in the dreamcast, but it's really the programable shaders that make the real difference in games on the xbox, not the polycount or texture quality. compare doa2 to doa3 and you'll see what i mean. yes doa3 has more complex environments, and slightly higher poly counts on the characters, but it's the bump mapping, reflections, overbrights from the sun, ect that set the game above graphicly. yet i still know people who couldn't tell the difference at first glance. show someone that shot of madden on ps1 and ps2 and they'll pick out the ps2 shot in a heartbeat.
DOA2 & 3 are not exactly a generation apart.
People who will pick up the PS2 shot from Madden over the PS1 one will also obviously pick up the best shot of Madden on PS3 over the PS2 shot. We haven't quite reached THAT level of diminishing returns.
People who will pick up the PS2 shot from Madden over the PS1 one will also obviously pick up the best shot of Madden on PS3 over the PS2 shot. We haven't quite reached THAT level of diminishing returns.
and that's what i'm saying, there won't be the level of gain that we've come to expect from a generation in the past. it'll be more like a half generation overall. i think we'll be seeing the same stuff we're seeing right now, only with more polish. no really new features, just more clearity.
take the EA football render. if somone wanted to they could make a pretty decent representaion* of that in realtime (not full framerate, just rendered on the fly) by limiting ourselves to what we see in the picture (limiting characters onscreen to two, using a less detailed textures, ect). nothing in that render is above what we are seeing, feature wise, in todays hardware. it's just higher resolution, with more detailed shaders and textures. it's got DOF and some nice, subtle bumpmaping, and we've seen that today as well, just not everything at the same time with that level of detail. what i'm saying is that between ps1 and ps2 there were TONS of hardware features added, while between ps2 and ps3 we'll see much more of higher quality versions of what features we already have with just a few new ones.
*not 100% accurate to the image but pretty close by limiting the screen resolution, texture quality, not having to deal with any animation or physics (everything pre-baked), framerates well below 30fps, and taking into account only the limited scope of rendering only what we see in the render
take the EA football render. if somone wanted to they could make a pretty decent representaion* of that in realtime (not full framerate, just rendered on the fly) by limiting ourselves to what we see in the picture (limiting characters onscreen to two, using a less detailed textures, ect). nothing in that render is above what we are seeing, feature wise, in todays hardware. it's just higher resolution, with more detailed shaders and textures. it's got DOF and some nice, subtle bumpmaping, and we've seen that today as well, just not everything at the same time with that level of detail. what i'm saying is that between ps1 and ps2 there were TONS of hardware features added, while between ps2 and ps3 we'll see much more of higher quality versions of what features we already have with just a few new ones.
*not 100% accurate to the image but pretty close by limiting the screen resolution, texture quality, not having to deal with any animation or physics (everything pre-baked), framerates well below 30fps, and taking into account only the limited scope of rendering only what we see in the render
The difference from last gen to this gen was a big hop. The difference from this gen to next gen will be just as large. For anyone to think otherwise is fooling themselves. I take a look at Toy Story, Shrek, or any computer animated movie and see so much detail and life going on in those movies that current generation games pale in comparison. Thign will look much better, maybe the current generation games ocming in the two years will be able to compete with the first generation games on the next gen consoles. But even then I think those games will blow them out of the water. I'm not expecting a leap from PSX to Dreamcast/PS2, I'm expecting a leap from Playstation to Xbox.
I think the new console games will look fabulous. I have no concerns about how great they are going to look...
But here is my concern: Development.
It takes more time and money to make a quality game. It is nice to hear about 3D asset tools (kind of like stock photography) and stuff like Havok for physics, but I think we are going to see more and more of this stuff. This is where companies like EA have a leg up. They have a lot studios working on games so they can share stuff across the board if they choose to.
With the immense power of the PS3 and Xenon CPUs I really hope developers put them to use. We all talk about the graphics, but I think that is a wash. I love clean atmospheric graphics with great effects that blow my socks off--but I am at the point I could care less. I want better playing games. Graphics in games are really just a means to an end, not the ends themself. I know I speak blasphemy on the B3D forum
On the example of Madden. If EA kept the same graphics look but implimented a physics based animation system and retailored the game to play like real football I would be happy.
I am not going to be happy with pretty graphics and the same buggy gameplay. I do not play the games for the graphics, but for the game itself. The irony is that you can take the current Madden engine, stick high poly render-quality players on the field but if you keep the old, stiff, non-interactive motion capture animation it is not going to play better and it will only look a little better.
You make the play act and react fluidly to impacts it will make the game 10x better. Imagine a QB getting hit low from the backside and high from the front--imagine him crumpling and the ball popping out; imagine a large FB plowing over a DB trying to arm tackle; imagine real gange tackles with people pushing piles and bouncing off eachother realistically.
The next gen console CPUs will allow such interaction and not only do they make the games play better, they make them LOOK better. Animation is more important to a game than how characters and props look when not standing still. This is why HL2 is so popular. The world reacts to your input. The more games allow users to affect the gaming world and it reacts dynamically the more I will be happy Great visuals do not make a great game, they compliment a great game.
So.... do I get banned now for breaking party lines and wanting next gen developers to spend more time on physics and AI (the real strengths of the new consoles IMO) and less time on graphics? They can do both, but when push comes to shove graphics sell it seems so that always seems to be the emphasis.
And ultimately graphics is a much more well known quanity in how it affects the gameplay (it does not affect it), but it has a huge effect on sales. You add physics based animation to a football game and you have to retool and rebalance the ENTIRE GAME. This takes time, money, and runs the risk of taking years to resolve. It is safer, and cheaper, to stick with what works (even if it is broken). So I forsee Developers, who are strapped for time and cash, spending more time and effort and pretty graphics and only toying with advanced AI and Physics in a couple years from now, well, at least in Madden. Without Sega/TT breathing down their necks there is no need to rush things... I guess we will see if my guess is correct soon.
But here is my concern: Development.
It takes more time and money to make a quality game. It is nice to hear about 3D asset tools (kind of like stock photography) and stuff like Havok for physics, but I think we are going to see more and more of this stuff. This is where companies like EA have a leg up. They have a lot studios working on games so they can share stuff across the board if they choose to.
With the immense power of the PS3 and Xenon CPUs I really hope developers put them to use. We all talk about the graphics, but I think that is a wash. I love clean atmospheric graphics with great effects that blow my socks off--but I am at the point I could care less. I want better playing games. Graphics in games are really just a means to an end, not the ends themself. I know I speak blasphemy on the B3D forum
On the example of Madden. If EA kept the same graphics look but implimented a physics based animation system and retailored the game to play like real football I would be happy.
I am not going to be happy with pretty graphics and the same buggy gameplay. I do not play the games for the graphics, but for the game itself. The irony is that you can take the current Madden engine, stick high poly render-quality players on the field but if you keep the old, stiff, non-interactive motion capture animation it is not going to play better and it will only look a little better.
You make the play act and react fluidly to impacts it will make the game 10x better. Imagine a QB getting hit low from the backside and high from the front--imagine him crumpling and the ball popping out; imagine a large FB plowing over a DB trying to arm tackle; imagine real gange tackles with people pushing piles and bouncing off eachother realistically.
The next gen console CPUs will allow such interaction and not only do they make the games play better, they make them LOOK better. Animation is more important to a game than how characters and props look when not standing still. This is why HL2 is so popular. The world reacts to your input. The more games allow users to affect the gaming world and it reacts dynamically the more I will be happy
Great visuals do not make a great game, they compliment a great game.So.... do I get banned now for breaking party lines and wanting next gen developers to spend more time on physics and AI (the real strengths of the new consoles IMO) and less time on graphics? They can do both, but when push comes to shove graphics sell it seems so that always seems to be the emphasis.
And ultimately graphics is a much more well known quanity in how it affects the gameplay (it does not affect it), but it has a huge effect on sales. You add physics based animation to a football game and you have to retool and rebalance the ENTIRE GAME. This takes time, money, and runs the risk of taking years to resolve. It is safer, and cheaper, to stick with what works (even if it is broken). So I forsee Developers, who are strapped for time and cash, spending more time and effort and pretty graphics and only toying with advanced AI and Physics in a couple years from now, well, at least in Madden. Without Sega/TT breathing down their necks there is no need to rush things... I guess we will see if my guess is correct soon.
see colon said:
Well if u really believe that, that's fine.
In the end, we're not talking about if's and but's (although i wouldn't mind talking about butts). There is nothing released on the market that even comes close to that render. Not even in a million years could the Xbox do something like that in realtime in a Madden game.
You say "taking into account the limited scope of rendering only what we see" but that's not the point. Might as well pull out the Head Demos on Ps2 and DC. Totally useless.
End of the day, the people will compare Madden on Xbox with Madden on Xbox2 (or whatever). You know, the games you can acutally look at and buy.
Not even sure next gen consoles will render that kind of graphics in realtime, thinking about current gen consoles doing that is ridiculous.
Acert93,
I made a post just like this the other day. Like you, I think there's so much in which games should evolve, that doesn't regard 3D rendering, such as:
- AI
- Physics
- Character animation (specially facial movements and expressions)
- Detailed and rich environments (birds flying, plants being moved by the wind)
I think that many of these things are very CPU-consuming, so designers have to use them with care nowadays. I bet these next-gen consoles will be able to take some of these elements up a notch due to the much higher processing power.
I made a post just like this the other day. Like you, I think there's so much in which games should evolve, that doesn't regard 3D rendering, such as:
- AI
- Physics
- Character animation (specially facial movements and expressions)
- Detailed and rich environments (birds flying, plants being moved by the wind)
I think that many of these things are very CPU-consuming, so designers have to use them with care nowadays. I bet these next-gen consoles will be able to take some of these elements up a notch due to the much higher processing power.
Why would you get banned? This forum is primarily here to discuss the technical side of console hardware. Graphics are not th eonly thing that can be spoken about technically, it just happens to be one of the things that most people here understand. I would love a new discussion based on AI, physics, animation, sound, whatever, etc.
actualy, that s the point. what i'm saying is that there is nothing in that ea football render that we haven't seen in realtime on current generation hardware, we just haven't seen it all at once. there are games out there right now that have DOF, motion blur, reasonibly complex and convincing skin shaders, per pixel lighting, and reasonibly high polygon counts, just not all at once. and i specificly said the limited scope of what is seen in the render, not a game.
the heads demos are a fine example because i'm sure we will see something along those lines next generation (something just to show graphics capabilities). compare the heads to the best looking psx game or n64 game and there's a huge difference. compare the ea render (and this isn't even a fair comparison because it's not even realtime) to the best looking ps2 xbox or gc game and there's a difference, but it's not as large.
These promo Next-gen shots from EA - what's the point of them? What are EA trying to achieve? What they they stand to gain from lying to us?
If they speak the truth, these are WIPs that they're sharing giving us an idea what to expect, encouraging us to save up and shell out on those next-gen consoles and expand the market.
If they are diabolical falsehoods, EA will be under pressure to fulfill this promised visual quality and be the recipients of much criticism when they can't deliver the goods.
Sony and MS may well hype because they want the public to buy their console over their opponent's - "don't buy XB2; wait 6 months for PS3 as it'll be a googleplex times better!" But EA aren't competing in that fashion, unless their next Madden game isn't going to be out for 3 years and they want potential buyers to stave off buying the competition's Football game which looks inferior to these promo shots in the belief that EA's Madden will be much better.
So I asks all you 'non-believers', why do you think EA would deliberately release hokum screenshots and raise people's expectations to an unsatisfiable level?
If they speak the truth, these are WIPs that they're sharing giving us an idea what to expect, encouraging us to save up and shell out on those next-gen consoles and expand the market.
If they are diabolical falsehoods, EA will be under pressure to fulfill this promised visual quality and be the recipients of much criticism when they can't deliver the goods.
Sony and MS may well hype because they want the public to buy their console over their opponent's - "don't buy XB2; wait 6 months for PS3 as it'll be a googleplex times better!" But EA aren't competing in that fashion, unless their next Madden game isn't going to be out for 3 years and they want potential buyers to stave off buying the competition's Football game which looks inferior to these promo shots in the belief that EA's Madden will be much better.
So I asks all you 'non-believers', why do you think EA would deliberately release hokum screenshots and raise people's expectations to an unsatisfiable level?
I think that will indeed be the a major deciding factor to pull this upcoming generation along. We may indeed see diminishing returns graphically (but I'm not confident of that, considering just how many techniques they can use to enhance a scene), but extra horsepower will be able to deliver reality in the overall sense much better. People will look better, move more naturally, be affected by the world around them, act smarter...Sonic said:
There are way too many avenues of enhancement. We should never put all our eggs in one GPU.
Polarbear53
Newcomer
Well, I remember hearing that the massive program that weta digital used in the lord of the rings ran a few thousand A.I. instances on one server(i have no idea if it was real time or not). So next generation, I want to be in a FPS, walk out into a field with some nice bloom effects, have Unreal 3 level graphics, but have like 100 bad guys and like 20 good guys right there fighting. A battle of that size would make me go crazy! I can't wait for battles that big.
With halo 2, you only fight like 5 people at a time, and elite and 4 grunts, having a huge battle would make it so much better.
With halo 2, you only fight like 5 people at a time, and elite and 4 grunts, having a huge battle would make it so much better.
Argument for having physics sounds great on paper. However, will designers use computing resources and RAM for physics if it meant scaling back the graphics or having fewer objects (a few enemies vs. an army)?
Will the hardware be able to do graphics and physics?
Or perhaps designers will conclude graphics are more marketable than physics and thus, devote the design to getting the most dramatic visuals possible?
Especially if physics and other aspects of games compete for computing resources with graphics? Or for that matter, budget-wise, it makes more sense to devote human resources to graphics than physics, which seems like a new thing in gaming?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with much of what Acert said about physics in Madden. But I'm trying to look at how publishers may approach marketablity.
Will the hardware be able to do graphics and physics?
Or perhaps designers will conclude graphics are more marketable than physics and thus, devote the design to getting the most dramatic visuals possible?
Especially if physics and other aspects of games compete for computing resources with graphics? Or for that matter, budget-wise, it makes more sense to devote human resources to graphics than physics, which seems like a new thing in gaming?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with much of what Acert said about physics in Madden. But I'm trying to look at how publishers may approach marketablity.
That's not much of a question. I mean the answer is "yes" but it's always yes since they're a trade-off. Imagine the kind of complex model physics you could could do with untextured 100 polygon models.wco81 said:
Graphics are usually, of course, the prime consideration for most publishers, but particularly with multi-platform games, the graphics are apt to level off since they want to share art assets. Easy graphical enhancements are likely to get encorporated, but this is the area where hardware power discrepencies may shine. Which ones have extra pixel-pushing power and can toss more effects in? Which ones have CPU cycles to spare and can enhance the physics interaction, add more and more complex AI to the scene...?
Considering the overall complexities of next gen's machines, I think we'll have an interesting 5-6 years ahead of us.
We'll see what the developers make of it.wco81 said:
I agree 100%.
Imagine this: I am EA and I have to choose between the following choice...
(A) Stick with current game engine with upgrades (more mo-cap, better AI) and kick it into high gear with insane graphics. This way I can market a proven engine that many gamers like and are familiar with and spend most of our development time and money on the rendering engine so we can hit them with near-render quality graphics. Graphics is a known value and we have experience with SM 3.0 and such from the PC so the investment is a safe one with a high reward factor. High quality graphics look GREAT in Gaming Magazines and on Game Box Art. Most reviewers will be swept away with the graphics and demo units in gaming stores will wow consumers over quickly in the short time they play the game. Oh, and since there is no competition there is no baseline to compare the gameplay to. And since the Madden engine is good for casual gamers in general they are not losing out on much.
or
(B) I can plot a course to impliment an entirely new course with a physics driven animation system with advanced AI. The benefits are a game that, in motion, has no equal. Every hit has force and momentum. You get to feel the thrill of a RB with balance making sweet cuts and breaking tackles, a bruising FB crushing a DB, and the joy of ramming your 250lbs LB into a stationary QB from the blind side. Every pass, tip, move would just feel like the real deal. "If it is in the game, it is in the game". The draw back? Unlike graphics upgrade that is familiar ground from PC development, this is new territory. Look at the HL2 delays. Having physics is fun and looks great, but more often than not a miss than hit. Finding a way for animation to work with joints that are dynamically affected by the gaming world is a lot to ask (and a pileup may bring the system to its knees). So development may take a long time--we just do not know. The next step is tweaking it. This is starting at ground Zero. Instead of building on the same solid engine we are starting at scratch. New exploits, unbalances, etc... are going to take years to get right. And then there is the problem of making the game "familiar" to Madden players. Many gamers do not want to learn a NEW game, they want their FAMILIAR game. And while the animation system would make the game more real it will be a hard sell through screen shots. "We promise, it looks great in motion!" And while this would be the best path, we all know that game reviewers are going to eat us alive for every error and exploit--and human players are great at breaking a game. So without a known return and possible unforseen delays, a totally new "balance" and feel to the game, and the fact spending more time/money on animation may mean the graphics would not be quite as good if we spent almost all our time on the graphics engine, well, we would have to know this was an ace in the hole because we spent MILLIONS for the license--the point now is to sell as many copies as possible. With the new animation system do that or will a new graphics engine? Which has more risks?
Obviously option (A) is safer, easier to plan for and design, and will have a big impact with gamers. (B) Could be revolutionary, but could delay the games development, cost more than anticipated, and runs the risk of either a) making the game too unfamiliar or b) really messing up the gameplay and requiring YEARS to fine tune. (B) Is far to risky considering they paid big bucks to get an NFL exclusive. EA is not about revolutions but updating, patching, and slowly improving. With no competition and a need to make money the safe route is the only route.
We could hope that EA has set 3 or 4 programmers aside the last 3 years planning for this day so maybe they will surprise us. But I doubt it. It may be 2 or 3 years into the next gen before some of the big problems this gen get fixed in Madden. That actually follows the course the PS2 Madden took. It took a couple years before we got our features back and the game started taking on a new life of its own. Look at how long it took to get good Def changes.
Sega was really pushing EA the last couple years, I am sad to see that end.I am just hoping Sega makes a College FB game and really tries some new stuff and pushes the envolope. VC has shown a nack for trying new things so I really hope they take on College Football and try to really change the way we view football.
Iron Tiger
Regular
Some PS1 games had those framebuffer effects, though. I think Vagrant Story had DoF and motion blur, and Ridge Racer type 4 had motion blur in replays.see colon said:
It's a (very) popular but wrong belief that DoA3 had bumpmapping. A lot of people also thought the same about DoA2, and I have no idea why.see colon said:
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/099/099775p1.html?fromint=1
http://www.xboxbrawl.com/doa3.html
http://www.cgno.com/reviews/47.html
http://www.breakingwindows.com/new/2004/09/dead_or_alive_3.php
http://www.ntsc-uk.com/MainContent/Xbox/DeadOrAlive3/DeadOrAlive3.htm
every review site says it uses bump mapping, it looks like bump mapping to me (even some very EMBM looking reflective surfaces), and tecmo's own marketing claims it used bump mapping.
2 guys sitting on a couch in the DOA3 commercial said:
