Nice GOW/MGS4 Compare

[SGX-1]

Hehe very nice...

 

[Josh378]

Hehe very nice...

Someone put Snake's head on that GoW pic....

-Josh378

 

[zidane1strife]

Snake skin even creases, self-shadowed, realistically around his neck, and in his face when he moves his head (look at the bit around the time his cigarette's superb smoke's seen, and when he starts coughing). Adam's apple, tongue, what appears to be simulated facial muscles, it's quite out there, beyond anything outhere.

On the other hand, I just went to gearsofwar.com and saw the HD-trailer there, it's old but you can definitely see some of the fundamental shortcomings of epic's high-rez normal map, mostly low-poly models technique. When interacting with shadows, when the camera gets too close, and while moving, the real geometry complexity of the characters becomes apparent(look at the trailer and tell me it's not true. The normal mapped details looks textury in motion and not geometric, in many scenes. ). There are problems that arise out of using a static high-rez normal map around a character while animating, even in static pics, like the first pic look at the square thingies in the arms(elbow-joint) of the GoW character, the arms are clipping right through themselves. It's like a static statue that you break while moving allowing parts to go through themselves so as not to fragment it.

In sum:

Way better? Maybe in stills you can call it comparable, but I've just seen the high-rez vid from gearsofwar.com and you can easily tell it's not just the animation. The lighting on the characters themselves looks better in MGS4, the actual lvl of geometry on the GoW models becomes apparent when they move, when interacting with shadows and when they get close to the camera, and you can tell that most of it is just textury as it doesn't look properly 3d in that vid, outside of the face it looks like the rest of the body is low-poly and limbs are low-poly cylinders with some tacked on textures in motion, at least to me.

Anyone who sees these vids/trailers side by side will obviously notice it, you won't get away with it like with pic comparisons, and it's not just animations, framerate, Particle Effects, Polycounts, lighting, etc. Epic won't get away with using 4-5k poly bodies and tacking on Normal Maps, I've been complaining about UE3-epic models for quite a while now(ever since that engine was unveiled, prior to even knowing anything about GoW.), and I'll keep doing it till I see a vid where the characters impress me.

.

Actually, looking at GOW and MGs4 and not being able to tell wich one looks better only prooves that Epic is working with some sick Tech, because GOW is an Action game.

.

In stills only, anyone who sees both trailers side by side will notice the difference. Yes even the High-rez(seemingly direct feed) GoW trailer from the Gearsofwar site, against any of the decent-rez MGS4 trailers. As indicated it won't just be animation and model clipping.

 

[SGX-1]

Someone put Snake's head on that GoW pic....

-Josh378

Uh..yeah I know even before I read the Geriatrics of War.

Finally anyone who continues to compare model complexity between the two games just doesn't get the point.

 

[_phil_]

...and how the heck would you know? You've never developed anything with it.

you don't licence UE engines for top notch performance and efficiency.You pay for a complete (and somewhat ackward ) toolset ,and a completly WYSIWYG production pipeline.this is a trade off from the start.
(i've done stuff on UE since the first unreal,and most of the Cie i worked for did evaluations on most of the releases )

 

[Phil]

I hope you werent talking about me, i dont see how i pushed any of these rules.

I wasn't. It was more directed to those insulting others..

Artistic differences aside, i fail to see the big difference between those two pictures. High-poly characters, normal mapped details. Since perception is subjective (by its very definition) i take the "pretty clear" part back.

I still dont see the character complexity difference. At least, not to be "very far behind". It's like, i could say that texture-wise mgs4 is very far behind (look at the tank normalmaps - very bad), but i dont think it is. I think they both have their advantages and disadvantages, but neither is far behind the other. Is it really that difficult to accept an opinion that is not favoring one over the other?

I dont know about the framerate. It could be 60 or 30. No evidence yet for either. Not to mention, that the HD pictures you can find online are obviously scaled up from a 640 resolution.
(Honestly i'm hoping for a 60, but since mgs3, im not holding my breath)

Inspite of you yourself calling yourself a coder, I was really hoping you'd be able to tell us the details, which make you believe that GOW is not far behind. I've already mentioned on which side of the fence I'm standing - it's really a question of what's there in that GOW that makes you believe it's close.

As I said, if you ignore the animation, the framerate (which is quite evidently very smooth in the MGS trailer opposed to a very choppy GOW across all media shown until now) and the art-direction, it still boils down that the Snake character boosts a much higher model complexity. You don't see it? Watch the video.

Let me requote Titanio's post again:

I wouldn't completely disagree with this. Asides from what's been said elsewhere, I would have thought this was a more obvious and immediate point of contrast. Even if you want to compare stills, the complexity of the Snake model vs that of GoW are on totally different levels. GoW's character design is such that it hides complexity, in the traditional mould of character design. We don't want to model hair, so lets make him bald (and don't even consider convincing facial hair). We don't want to model the human form, the muscle (let alone animate it!) so let's clothe him in bulky armour that hides. If you take away the face, the model does not look clearly and unambiguously human - they look almost robotic outside of the faces, and that's clear in the (many) characters that are hiding faces with helmets. Kojima obviously is not concerned with technical (and other) expense with the Snake model, and that much is indeed evident in just stills alone. In fact he's being gratuitous, and almost taunting with that model, putting Snake in a skin-tight suit that hides little of the human complexity underneath.

You being a coder, surely I don't have to explain what makes the Snake model a much more complex and demanding one considering one is quite obviously showing muscles etc while the other is quite obviously not. (not to mention that the self-shadowing exdends to being rendered correctly over the bulks of the muscles depending on how he's standing and even the cigarette that obviously isn't part of his character model - in fact, it extends to over his gun as well). Care to point us what's comparable in GOW? Because no, I really don't see it.

The post-processing is pretty much standard now. MGS has it, GOW has it, everyone's doing it. Admittedly, we're doing narrow-scope comparison here. MGS is a killer as far as direction and animation goes, and the gow trailer had some very impressive, detailed shots of urban architecture. I'll repeat myself: i like both, personally i prefer MGS, but technically speaking i dont see the big difference.

The rest of the picture is, as i mentioned about a zillion times before, that mgs is a better trailer as a whole. Better animation, direction. Technically, i stand by my opinion, it's not better. If you're interested in details, ask away

Of course it is and yet, the point is, it's not just post-processing - it's post-processing + snake's very detailed and complex character model + the lighting + the shadowing + the framerate AND the animation which is all there at the same time that makes this the impressive thing it is. If you don't see the technical difference, you either are really stuck looking at static screenshots and compating square-inches (i.e. the tank texture in MGS4 if it makes you feel better) or I really got to question your ability as a coder to compare two games on a technical level based on the footage we have infront of us. If you don't see how one is obviously more demanding than the other, I really can't help you and we better leave this conversation because we obviously won't reach any sort of agreement.

In a last hope to extend this argument, how about you state what you believe to be better in GOW and what's there that is technically as demanding. Surely you as a coder should have no problems finding something in that GOW footage we have. And once we have that, we can start objectively fishing out what of that is present in the MGS4 trailer and what isn't, how complex and demanding it is etc. Is that a deal?

 

[RavenFox]

They are different games. MGS, japan games in general, like to show more cinematic closeups. MGS4 is still the best next gen demo. That is not to say it will not be match in years before its release. Team Kojima is good, Konami is japan 1st or 2nd largest third party, with Sony VIP treatment, their next gen assets is ahead of the rest atm.

On Snake hair, imo, is one of those this gen carried forward. You get the top strains flowing, yet the bulk of the crop is static as present.

Most of it is still held back by the bandana and eye hardware device.

Also great post Phil.

 

[Dot50Cal]

Someone put Snake's head on that GoW pic....

-Josh378

Neck is awful but its a rush rob lol.

 

[reptile]

Inspite of you yourself calling yourself a coder, I was really hoping you'd be able to tell us the details, which make you believe that GOW is not far behind. I've already mentioned on which side of the fence I'm standing - it's really a question of what's there in that GOW that makes you believe it's close.

While in your reply you're continously making fun of my comment being a coder, i only stated it to make it clear: im not an artist, so i can only do one thing when comparing stills: i can look at the two pictures in question, and tell if i can see a serious difference between them, detail wise. And i couldnt. And still cant. And im not buying the argument that they've designed their character just to make it work. (Heavy armor)

As I said, if you ignore the animation, the framerate (which is quite evidently very smooth in the MGS trailer opposed to a very choppy GOW across all media shown until now) and the art-direction, it still boils down that the Snake character boosts a much higher model complexity. You don't see it? Watch the video.

Re-read my post: i said it could be 30 or 60, and im hoping for a 60. It's not obvious from the video.

Let's talk about self shadowing, that is so often brought up: take a look at the realtime demonstration video. When they're moving the lights, you can see that the background shadows arent moving. While the shadowed character as a whole is impressive, the tech is not. Please understand, that "as a coder" i'm looking for technical details, but i also understand that it's the final product that counts. So if they manage to blend the static with the dynamic seamlessly, i'll be a happy player

Of course it is and yet, the point is, it's not just post-processing - it's post-processing + snake's very detailed and complex character model + the lighting + the shadowing + the framerate AND the animation which is all there at the same time that makes this the impressive thing it is.

Let me repeat myself again (done, like, in every post of mine here): i admire the direction, animation, detail, and the overall production quality of the trailer. It's just, programming and tech wise, im not seeing the big deal. No unified lighting, the dof is a bit halo'ed. Does it have to be perfect for me to like it? No.

If you don't see the technical difference, you either are really stuck looking at static screenshots and compating square-inches (i.e. the tank texture in MGS4 if it makes you feel better) or I really got to question your ability as a coder to compare two games on a technical level based on the footage we have infront of us.

Yeah, thanks. Since ive joined this thread, trying to express my opinion, bringing up technical points, ive been called a liar, and questioned as a coder. Nice place.

If you don't see how one is obviously more demanding than the other, I really can't help you and we better leave this conversation because we obviously won't reach any sort of agreement.

I agree.

 

[Phil]

While in your reply you're continously making fun of my comment being a coder, i only stated it to make it clear: im not an artist, so i can only do one thing when comparing stills: i can look at the two pictures in question, and tell if i can see a serious difference between them, detail wise. And i couldnt. And still cant. And im not buying the argument that they've designed their character just to make it work. (Heavy armor)

Well, I thought since you went through the effort of bringing up your profession, I was honestly just disappointed that you failed to add to the conversation in any meaningful way apart from implying the message "I think they're equal and my opinion as a coder is more worth and unbiassed than anyone not agreeing with it".

IMO that's not the fine way of joining a debate and if it wasn't ment that way, I sincerely appologise but that's the way I perceived your comment. In all honesty though, you still fail to really back up any of your claims with any evidence beyond the statement of your profession.

Re-read my post: i said it could be 30 or 60, and im hoping for a 60. It's not obvious from the video.

Even if we assume it's just 30, it still a whole lot more smooth than the choppy GOW footage we have in front of us. Do you disagree with this or find this irrelevant, then please state so, and why.

Let's talk about self shadowing, that is so often brought up: take a look at the realtime demonstration video. When they're moving the lights, you can see that the background shadows arent moving. While the shadowed character as a whole is impressive, the tech is not. Please understand, that "as a coder" i'm looking for technical details, but i also understand that it's the final product that counts. So if they manage to blend the static with the dynamic seamlessly, i'll be a happy player

Oh I agree with your observation no doubt. But you aren't really supporting your argument by picking out flaws in the MGS4 trailer. In fact, and I restate again, it's not the details per say that make the MGS4 trailer so impressive - it's the result of everything coming together as it is, from the shadowing to the textures and the detail across everything. You're entitled to your opinion that it's not "a big deal" - but that in itself is a very subjective claim that you're entitled to, but it doesn't back up your original statements in anyway that GOW and MGS4 are comparable. I just really fail to see what you're trying to achieve by picking out i.e. the shadowing and pointing out flaws in it. Yes, it's not from this world, it's still has flaws - but no one ever stated otherwise really.

Let me repeat myself again (done, like, in every post of mine here): i admire the direction, animation, detail, and the overall production quality of the trailer. It's just, programming and tech wise, im not seeing the big deal. No unified lighting, the dof is a bit halo'ed. Does it have to be perfect for me to like it? No.

Excellent, though no-one ever questioned your personal opinion if you liked the trailer or not - it's just not relevant to the discussion at hand. As I just said, you're free to think it's "not a big deal" - in fact, I don't think it is either, though that doesn't really back up your statement that GOW and MGS4 are comparable in anyway. That's is the topic after all and ultimately the answer we're waiting for.

Again:

In a last hope to extend this argument, how about you state what you believe to be better in GOW and what's there that is technically as demanding. Surely you as a coder should have no problems finding something in that GOW footage we have. And once we have that, we can start objectively fishing out what of that is present in the MGS4 trailer and what isn't, how complex and demanding it is etc. Is that a deal?

 

[wco81]

is this a joke? why people can't stop seeing UE3 like the second Coming ? it's not. it's middleware toolset.Not really efficient and general ,but an integrated production pipeline.

I thought I read it at this site after E3.

Not trying to start anything. If not Konami, didn't some other Japanese publisher/developer license it?

And after E3, there was a lot of buzz about UE3 because of GoW and other X360 games and the Unreal demo at the PS3 press conference.

 

[SubD]

I am kind of shocked by the reaction to this demo.

The people I work with and I have been running our best copy over and over again. We are down to frame by frame advances. This demo is simply staggering. The amount of technology is on a scale we've never seen before. Out of the blue all the stuff we are doing just got a whole lot less impressive.

The hair.
The muscle/eye lid/throat animation
The skin
I could spend an hour going through the stuff in the MGS4 demo.

I don't see what is supposed to be special about GoW. It looks very much like a current gen highend pc engine.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I love it how desperate some are getting here by finger pointing at statistic screenshots and ignoring the videos of both to get a point across.

But hey, if it makes you feel better about GOW, I guess cary on...

You know what I love, are some people can't get it through their brains that comparing a 8 minute MGS CINEMATIC to the Gears of Was GAMEPLAY is completely ridiculous.

If you want to compare graphics use SCREENSHOTS, because EPIC didn't spend 2 months creating a 9 minute TRAILER for TGS. Grasp That!

And when you do manage to grasp that concept, then you can begin comparing the graphics, and when you ACTUALLY start comparing the graphics, they are very very close.

 

[scooby_dooby]

For those trying to push GoW up to a comparison with this level - first, it's only an indication of the relative quality of MGS4 that you feel the need to so insistently try and convince yourself and others of this. Second, be aware that if and when games arrive on X360 that do actually look this good, you're going to have difficulty credibly arguing that they look better than GoW given your position here. But something tells me you'll be all too happy to see the differences then.

All IMO, of course.

No, it's simply a reaction to the exagerrations that everone is makign about the graphics of this video, and how it;s really getting out of hand.

Yuu are comparing basically a 9 minute movie, to an actual person playing in-game, and judging the overall experience/details in the two. Geez I wonder which will be better, the scripted cut-scene, or the realtime gameplay...

Like I've said twice already, just watch gamespot's video's of MGS2 TRAILER to the MGS GAMEPLAY, they are not even in the same ballpark. MGS2 was a first gen game on PS2 so it's a very valid comparison to the Trailer vs Finished Product.

But if you just want to ignore that, go ahead.

So until we get gameplay of MGS it's completely premature to start drawing comparisons to GOW's video which have been pretty much all in-game gameplay or short 5 second cut scenes.

What we can compare are screenshots! But you don't want to do that right?

 

[Phil]

You know what I love, are some people can't get it through their brains that comparing a 8 minute MGS CINEMATIC to the Gears of Was GAMEPLAY is completely ridiculous.

Is that your way of saying that the MGS CINEMATIC is indeed more impressive? If yes, then I take it we've solved the point of this thread (which btw; wasn't me or any MGS nut that started it, go figure...)

In anycase, what's ridiculous is you failing to recognise that the MGS trailer is real-time, it's running smoothly and if we take any track-record of Hideo Kojima into the equation, a perfect representation of what the game is going to look like. This cinematics aren't done with an engine that it just purely used for cinematics - it's the in-game engine, one that has been worked on and the one that's going to be used for the entire time while playing MGS. If you have evidence supporting the contrary, please link us to it, because if you don't, it ulimately renders your argument pointless because we have had 3 games in the past that prove otherwise and is unlikely to change.

Besides, what do you exactly think Kojima intended to say with "FPS - Forget Pre-Rendered Stuff"? This is very representative, it's better you deal with it.

What we can compare are screenshots! But you don't want to do that right?

I don't see why we should (read above). Comparing screenshots is as pathetic as comparing square-inches of a texture that doesn't look nice and concluding ANYTHING off it. Besides, there's no reason to: The trailer is perfectly representable of the in-game graphics (if you want, take the first 5 seconds of the MGS trailer) - there's no reason to act as if it isn't.

If it makes you feel better, we can compare the GOW in-game cinematics with that of the MGS trailer. Something tells me you don't really want to do that though... I wonder why?

 

[Titanio]

No, it's simply a reaction to the exagerrations that everone is makign about the graphics of this video, and how it;s really getting out of hand.

Yuu are comparing basically a 9 minute movie, to an actual person playing in-game, and judging the overall experience/details in the two. Geez I wonder which will be better, the scripted cut-scene, or the realtime gameplay...

Like I've said twice already, just watch gamespot's video's of MGS2 TRAILER to the MGS GAMEPLAY, they are not even in the same ballpark. MGS2 was a first gen game on PS2 so it's a very valid comparison to the Trailer vs Finished Product.

But if you just want to ignore that, go ahead.

The graphical quality from trailer to game..it was the same. Camera is different obviously, but the effects, the render quality, the general motion of the environment and so forth..that will all be the same. What do you think is going to change? They're going to take out the wind modelling? The dirt/dust modelling? The explosions? The smoke? Snake will animate like crap? What exactly?

And this is simply delaying an inevitable conclusion once the game does arrive.

What we can compare are screenshots! But you don't want to do that right?

Actually I did, earlier. Reread the thread. But it's of exceptionally limited value.

 

[reptile]

Well, I thought since you went through the effort of bringing up your profession, I was honestly just disappointed that you failed to add to the conversation in any meaningful way apart from implying the message "I think they're equal and my opinion as a coder is more worth and unbiassed than anyone not agreeing with it".

Uh, why do people always have to interpret things in the most hostile way possible?
My intention was to point out that being no graphic expert, i can only express my opinion based on observation of the two images. This is approximately the Nth time im saying it.

IMO that's not the fine way of joining a debate and if it wasn't ment that way, I sincerely appologise but that's the way I perceived your comment. In all honesty though, you still fail to really back up any of your claims with any evidence beyond the statement of your profession.

Okay, n+1th time: i think the two pictures are comparable. I don't see big differences. Saying that the gow pic doesnt have the "muscle" thing, is like saying the mgs one doesnt have the nice armor. If we had two pictures of the same game, on different platform, it could be objectively argued. Right now, they both look equally next-gen to me. Look, i can very well imagine that if you look at the pictures, you immediately see how bigger poly/more realisticly skinned/better shaded the mgs one is. Just try to understand, that there are people who dont. I happen to be one of them.

Even if we assume it's just 30, it still a whole lot more smooth than the choppy GOW footage we have in front of us. Do you disagree with this or find this irrelevant, then please state so, and why.

No, i never said the gow footage wasnt choppy at times. But it's not the dip-fest some people claim it to be, sometimes it jerks but not THAT bad. (I assume we're talking about the second version, which is a lot smoother than the first one shown.) It's blown out of proportion.

Oh I agree with your observation no doubt. But you aren't really supporting your argument by picking out flaws in the MGS4 trailer.

Well my initial "argument" (i prefer: opinion) was that the mgs4 trailer technically is not the second coming some people claim it to be, the shadow-thing is just part of the proof. And believe me, i WANTED to believe that it's more impressive than it really is.

In fact, and I restate again, it's not the details per say that make the MGS4 trailer so impressive - it's the result of everything coming together as it is, from the shadowing to the textures and the detail across everything.

If you re-read my previous post, i said exactly this. Almost word-by-word. This is called an impression, and that's why i'm saying that the two screenshots are displaying comparable ammount of detail.

You're entitled to your opinion that it's not "a big deal" - but that in itself is a very subjective claim that you're entitled to, but it doesn't back up your original statements in anyway that GOW and MGS4 are comparable. I just really fail to see what you're trying to achieve by picking out i.e. the shadowing and pointing out flaws in it. Yes, it's not from this world, it's still has flaws - but no one ever stated otherwise really.

I think we're talking about two different things. My original post was a reply to a post that stated it's very tiring to read sony-biased people carrying the mgs4 video around like a holy grail, like a final argument about platform-superiority. That's why i said, that while i personally was impressed with the video and its production values, the tech behind it is not THAT impressive. I backed this claim up with f.e. the shadowing, which is/was one of the main points of those who praise its techincal excellence. Please, don't read more into it, than there really is.

Excellent, though no-one ever questioned your personal opinion if you liked the trailer or not - it's just not relevant to the discussion at hand. As I just said, you're free to think it's "not a big deal" - in fact, I don't think it is either, though that doesn't really back up your statement that GOW and MGS4 are comparable in anyway. That's is the topic after all and ultimately the answer we're waiting for.

I think i pretty much answered all of these in the above paragraphs.

In a last hope to extend this argument, how about you state what you believe to be better in GOW and what's there that is technically as demanding. Surely you as a coder should have no problems finding something in that GOW footage we have. And once we have that, we can start objectively fishing out what of that is present in the MGS4 trailer and what isn't, how complex and demanding it is etc. Is that a deal?

I didnt say GOW was better. I said it wasnt worse. I have no problem having a good conversation/debate as long as i dont have to repeat myself n times.

 

[Phil]

One more quote:

Yuu are comparing basically a 9 minute movie, to an actual person playing in-game, and judging the overall experience/details in the two. Geez I wonder which will be better, the scripted cut-scene, or the realtime gameplay...

No one is comparing the experience - in fact, I think you're the only one continuously bringing it up. We stated pretty clearly what we're comparing - the whole picture from a technical / visual point of view. That excludes the art-directoin.

 

[_phil_]

I thought I read it at this site after E3.

Not trying to start anything. If not Konami, didn't some other Japanese publisher/developer license it?

And after E3, there was a lot of buzz about UE3 because of GoW and other X360 games and the Unreal demo at the PS3 press conference.

Outside namco on Frame city killer,i don't think. Looks like they started their game as on UE2 or 2.5 . licence.

 

[Phil]

reptile:

Okay, n+1th time: i think the two pictures are comparable. I don't see big differences. If we had two pictures of the same game, on different platform, it could be objectively argued. Right now, they both look equally next-gen to me. Look, i can very well imagine that if you look at the pictures, you immediately see how bigger poly/more realisticly skinned/better shaded the mgs one is. Just try to understand, that there are people who dont. I happen to be one of them.

I think the problem is quite obviously that you (and others) are comparing static "dead" screenshots while me and others are comparing the larger picture, namely all the footage that is available to form the most objective opinion at this given point.

While you think one can limit yourself to just comparing screenshots, it just doesn't work. If you look at the GOW picture for example, when you take into account the lighting and shadowing details that make the screen impressive, you're automatically assuming/imagining it all moves correctly and dynamically depending on where the character is standing from a light-source (and rightly so). After all, that's what makes comparing screenshots so interesting: looking at those fine details that are displayed in per-pixel accuracy and imagening how it moves accoarding to the light etc. It's not that impressive anymore once you know that what you're seeing on those screen is just a static texture that doesn't change at all. The same goes for any GOW and MGS screenshot - looking at the screenshots and you're automatically impressed because you know what is actually going on in that scene of that screenshot. So why not go all the way and compare what we're imagening into those screens anyway?

Besides, what you don't see in these screenshots is framerate, which is a very important factor when comparing two things on a technical level. The most beautiful screenshot in a game is useless if the final game playes like i.e. Myst. It'd also be a lot less exciting if you knew that half of the stuff is in a pre-rendered background. The point is, the devil is in the details and framerate is as tied to visuals as is the whole animation of characters, shadowing, wind-effects and even post-processing that you only see when it's in motion. On this level, GOW falls short on many levels and I really don't see the point in ignoring those just to be able to say "woah, in screenshots it looks good or equal". We don't play screenshots and when we are already comparing two games on a technical level, we should do it the right way factoring in everything we've got.

Saying that the gow pic doesnt have the "muscle" thing, is like saying the mgs one doesnt have the nice armor.

True, but there's a reason why the muscles being rendered is more impressive than the armor: as Titanio pointed out (I requoted further above), the muscles on snake change depending on how the character is standing etc. Even the self-shadowing extends correctly over the bulks that grow or flaten depending on how Snake is standing/sitting/moving. The armor is just a piece of hard-metal - something that doesn't change, move or even bend - it's just armor after all. It does look good, but it should be quite clear which of the two is the more demanding one. Especially you as a coder should be able to recognise this: just think about what needs to be calculated in order to simulate how the muscles move and the shadows are cast over it correctly. It's like comparing a character made out of a box compared to a character that's rendered into its finest details while both are casting shadows accoardingly. Which is more demanding? Casting the shadows over a static piece of surface or over dynamically bodyparts that move and change accoarding to the movement of the character?

While they do look comparable on a very basic level, one is quite obviously more technically impressive than the other. Hey, as you said, this is Beyond3d after all - isn't this the type of comparasment you are expecting?