Nice GOW/MGS4 Compare
- Thread starter onetimeposter
- Start date
SGX-1 said:
i don't think/believe UE3 is amazing at all.The tools are great.not the engine.
In fatc ,project offset is a way better engine :Unified shading ,hdr lightining ,full 64bits pipeline.UE3 is a mess ,a compilation of old stuff mixed with new stuff.And no global approach of the lightning (a next gen MUST)
Last edited by a moderator:
SGX-1 said:
no ,but MGS4 seems to have global lighting approach ,and have tonemapped HDR providing dynamic exposure.
I don't think it really competes ,even if you don't count framerate.GOW is built on the engine's strengh (dark ,small area ,heavy instancing ,direct lighting , high contrasts,and heavy on normal mapping).
Try to stress the lighting in ue3 like they do in MGS 4.I wouldn't trade tonemapping Hdr for anything from UE3.Light is living.
Last edited by a moderator:
mckmas8808
Legend
More screenshots of the video.
Talk about your self shadowing of a cig. And notice how the sweat cleans the dirt off of a dirty, sandy face of Snake. Wow that must be one of the things you don't see that Kojima was talking about.
Again self shadowing is key next-gen. I never knew self shadowing would even be noticable until know. I remember people complaining about DOA4 not having it. I see why now.
Talk about your self shadowing of a cig. And notice how the sweat cleans the dirt off of a dirty, sandy face of Snake. Wow that must be one of the things you don't see that Kojima was talking about.
Again self shadowing is key next-gen. I never knew self shadowing would even be noticable until know. I remember people complaining about DOA4 not having it. I see why now.
Well, it's up on the main site but it isn't high res 
http://www.konami.jp/gs/kojima_pro/japanese/mgs4_04.html
http://www.konami.jp/gs/kojima_pro/japanese/mgs4_04.html
mckmas8808 said:
This is the perfect example of people seeing things into the MGS4 trailer that aren't there. That there is a totally static piece of detail painted into the the textures, and it seems to be more like a scar from an old wound.
It's also a nice display of the irrationality of PS3 fans that SGX1 and scooby were talking about. There's no way to convince them of anything that wouldn't fit into their subjective world.
Gholbine said:
Who knows, what I find funny is when people like Quincy will invoke any possible argument to defend what is, in reality, Microsoft's inferior hardware, instead of just sitting back and demanding the same level of output from Microsoft for their money.
So, Why exactly is it that Sony can output these levels of graphic quality, but we've seen nothing that can match it on the XBox? The argument just isn't logical. Even if you assume the BS argument that one is a cut-scene and the other is gameplay... what's been preventing Microsoft or any of it's developers from releasing an analogous cut-scene?
What is it that allows Sony and it's developer's to create these presentations that are literally jaw-dropping, yet Microsoft can't?
The argument just isn't logical, even if we assume Microsoft is a retarded entity and was blind-sighted at E3 by Sony's presentation, what prevents them or any of their developers from playing the same game? Especially at TGS when you know Sony is coming.
It's easy to bash Sony's presentations as tech-demo's and brush-aside their quality as non-representative when nobody even remembers the Microsoft tech-demo's like the car-crashing physics demo or the Ruby demos. A pattern is kinda emerging...
_phil_ said:
The Unreal engine 3 has unified lighting. It's the shadowing term that can use depth maps, stencil shadow volumes or precalculated shadowing, but the lighting formula is the same for all surfaces.
HDR isn't possible without tone mapping as far as I know.
There is facial animation in GOW, I can't believe how you could say that there isn't...
Hair isn't there in MGS as specific hair rendering, it's only texture mapped polygons animated with bones.
All in all, the most impressive technical part in MGS4 has to be the self shadowing because it seems to use depth mapped shadows that are notoriously tricky to get right in a realtime enviroment. Depth map resolution is the main problem... However, note that the demo consisted of a cutscene, they knew where the lights, objects and cameras will be - so it was possible to manually finetune every shadow. That would not work in an interactive gameplay situation.
Look at the cigarette shadow on his chin. I thought more than I had noticed it.Laa-Yosh said:
Cliffy B showed a GoW trailer with a little cutscene where the marines get off of a helicopter. That little cutscene with only about 5 seconds of cutscene footage says the Xbox is pretty darn powerful. What you are demanding is a GoW cutscene that is 5 minutes long to prove that Xbox is powerful? So if Cliffy B showed a 30 minute cutscene of GoW using the same quality rendering you see from the helicopter scene, it would prove the Xbox is more powerful? Sorry but I don't follow your logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
First of that GOW cutscene was running at hmmm (12?) FPS.. Secondly it wasn't nearly as impressive cause the camera was hardly moving around at all.. Also the gameplay vids of GOW don't even come CLOSE to those cutscenes. Lastly there still seem to be an incredible 3 people here who cling on wishing the 360 games will be visually comparible to the PS3.. (somehow I think that's admirable)
Similar threads
- Sticky