[PS3] Uncharted 2

[patsu]

I noticed the treasure knife did not cast shadow (Damn you Kittonwy !). So the devs didn't go all the way out to cheat people. They probably crank up some parameters using the same engine and pre-render it like the first one. The cutscenes were partly hiding load time right ?

As for Marco Polo's treasure, I thought he brought capellini/noodle back from Asia ? What are his other legacy ?

 

[deepbrown]

NO THEY ARE NOT!!!!

I dont understand what happend on the console board recently, with every semi-impressive to very impressive game PS3, if something that is NOT realtime is shown, somebody allways argues how it is representative blah blah blah.

Seriously. Cutscenes in uncharted 1 looked beatuiful, much better than the actual game! Not that uncharted 1 looked bad in gameplay (beatiful game, and best game on the PS3 that i have played), but improved lighting and shadows does a big difference to immersion.

Anything that is prerendered and uses DIFFERENT RENDERING TECHNIQUES than whats done in the actual game is NOT representative of gameplay. If it was representative of gameplay they would have rendered it in realtime.

Oh and if uncharted 1 cutscenes had ran in realtime they would run at 5 fps to get the same IQ as they had in those cutscenes.

This is getting ridiculous, and it just happends with PS3 games. Nobody is trying to convince people that gears of war looks as good the cutscenes in gameplay (Even thought, they are actually rendered in realtime). But with PS3 games, its a whole different story. I dont understand why, and i dont understand why seemingly intelligent people go out of their way in arguing that BULLSHOTS, PRERENDERS etc are representative of gameplay. Of course its not representative, if it was representative we would get actual gameplay shots etc etc

Right Oste. Once again, you're being extremely rude. Do you want me to get comment directly from Naughty Dog to ask what framerate they could get the cutscenes running at? Because at the end of the day, MGS4 cutscenes are just as impressive, if not more so than Uncharted's and they run fully in real-time. Hell Heavenly Sword cutscenes are just as impressive (if not more so) and a hell of a lot of them run in real-time.

The cutscenes in Uncharted ARE completely representative of Uncharted gameplay, almost indistinguishable - APART FROM - lighting and shadowing. That's the only difference, don't try and argue any differently.

Do you want comment from ND? Because I can get it Oste. What do you want to ask them? Shoot. Because really, enough of your shouting.

Well ingame realtime cutscenes tend to look more impressive becouse of dramatic camera angles. Fixed camera path and predictable system load making it easier to put more "cream on the cake". Goes for most games.

Exactly. And in upclose parts they can use the engine just on the visuals. It happens time and time again - eg. Heavenly Sword faces are more impressive in cutscenes. It just so happens that Uncharted used the very same character models in gameplay, as in the cutscenes.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Right Oste. Once again, you're being extremely rude.

Its against this boards policy to discuss another person here, if you think im rude, deal with it in PM.

Do you want me to get comment directly from Naughty Dog to ask what framerate they could get the cutscenes running at?

Do you think i care what ND claims? They also first claimed the cutscenes where real time, they have no credibility. They will say whatever PR tells them to say.

Because at the end of the day, MGS4 cutscenes are just as impressive, if not more so than Uncharted's and they run fully in real-time.

Um, the most impressive MGS4 cutscenes are not realtime. We have been over this. So what? What is your point?

The cutscenes in Uncharted ARE completely representative of Uncharted gameplay, almost indistinguishable - APART FROM - lighting and shadowing. That's the only difference, don't try and argue any differently.

Lol. Do you not see your own logical fallacy in that sentence? Your contradicting yourself. First you say its representative, then you say lighting and shadowing is different. If lighting and shadow models are different, then they are not representative. Its not the same.

It just so happens that Uncharted used the very same character models in gameplay, as in the cutscenes.

Yes. And it just so happends that Uncharted cutscenes look better than Uncharted gameplay, because of better lighting and shadowing. Therefore, not representative. Atleast i see a clear difference between Cutscene visuals (and image quality) and gameplay. Maybe you dont. Maybe you need a bigger TV or better glasses or something.

Just as it just so happends that most bullshots are in game assets rendered with a gazillion AA and AF. Those bullshots are not representative of the gameplay either.

 

[el_rika]

edited, no point in keeping the off topic going

 

[Phil]

Less arguing semantics please. We get what the differences are. To Ostepop they might not be representative, for the rest (and probably majority of technically minded folks in here) it is.

What I'm seeing is good enough for me too. Lets remind ourselves that we're not posting on some kiddy forum here. No reason to go on and on.

Cheers

 

[ultragpu]

I still think we should wait till 14th Dec at least and maybe catch abit more gameplay before we kill each other? Hey, logically speaking the gameplays in the sequel should be as close to the cutscene than ever, assuming the engine has undergone a fair deal of improvments.

 

[psorcerer]

Its against this boards policy to discuss another person here, if you think im rude, deal with it in PM.

Do you think i care what ND claims? They also first claimed the cutscenes where real time, they have no credibility. They will say whatever PR tells them to say.

You contradict yourself here. It's very convenient to "not discuss persons" and then say "I do not care" yourself. As if anybody cares if you care or not.
I think we need to stick to the objective facts: it's indeed cut-scene, it indeed looks better than interactive gameplay just because technology works that way. It indeed uses the same assets as we can clearly deduct from the previous games of the same developer.
I think this concludes the story. All the references to the GeoW and other X360 stuff or "no credibility" sayings look like flame bait to me.

 

[deepbrown]

Its against this boards policy to discuss another person here, if you think im rude, deal with it in PM.



Do you think i care what ND claims? They also first claimed the cutscenes where real time, they have no credibility. They will say whatever PR tells them to say.



Um, the most impressive MGS4 cutscenes are not realtime. We have been over this. So what? What is your point?




Lol. Do you not see your own logical fallacy in that sentence? Your contradicting yourself. First you say its representative, then you say lighting and shadowing is different. If lighting and shadow models are different, then they are not representative. Its not the same.



Yes. And it just so happends that Uncharted cutscenes look better than Uncharted gameplay, because of better lighting and shadowing. Therefore, not representative. Atleast i see a clear difference between Cutscene visuals (and image quality) and gameplay. Maybe you dont. Maybe you need a bigger TV or better glasses or something.

Just as it just so happends that most bullshots are in game assets rendered with a gazillion AA and AF. Those bullshots are not representative of the gameplay either.

Ostepop, what most of us are saying is that it looks very similar - if not identical - in that you're going to find it hard to see any differences. That there's better shadowing to allow close-ups on characters and not have jagged shadows, is not something that's going to stand out as "wow that's CGI".

For that reason, the cutscenes are representative of the gameplay.

And if you think ND has lost all credibility, then well, I have little to say to you. Because if you don't want to hear answers to your questions directly from the developer, then why are you on a board talking about games made by them? Especially when their games are some of the most technically impressive games out.

No it looks better because it uses upgraded lighting and shadowing. Not because "technology works that way". You could easily use the same lighting and shadowing, and the cutscenes would indeed be very representative of gameplay

And so, you don't want to hear answers from the developers, but you want to use their comments that the improvements are better lighting and shadowing, as evidence to support your point? Do ND have credibility or not?

Would you even know that the cutscenes were using better lighting and shadowing unless they told you?

*Off-topic* And if you're rude to me on the open forums, then I will say you are being rude. It is you who were breaking the forum rules by being rude in the first place, not me.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I think we need to stick to the objective facts: it's indeed cut-scene, it indeed looks better than interactive gameplay just because technology works that way..

No it looks better because it uses upgraded lighting and shadowing. Not because "technology works that way". You could easily use the same lighting and shadowing, and the cutscenes would indeed be very representative of gameplay

 

[psorcerer]

No it looks better because it uses upgraded lighting and shadowing. Not because "technology works that way". You could easily use the same lighting and shadowing, and the cutscenes would indeed be very representative of gameplay

Ok, it's not what I meant, I think we can agree on: "the technology CAN work this way", e.g. you can make real-time cutscenes look much better than interactive scenes, just because you have much more resources this way.

 

[deepbrown]

Ok, it's not what I meant, I think we can agree on: "the technology CAN work this way", e.g. you can make real-time cutscenes look much better than interactive scenes, just because you have much more resources this way.

Exactly.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Ok, it's not what I meant, I think we can agree on: "the technology CAN work this way", e.g. you can make real-time cutscenes look much better than interactive scenes, just because you have much more resources this way.

Yes, but thats beside the point here. The discussion is about if the cutscenes are representative of gameplay.

Not if you can get better looking results from non interactive scenes vs interactive scenes in realtime. I totally agree on that part.

And it seems that the majority of people here thinks that cutscenes are representive of gameplay, even if they use different lighting and shadow models, or even if they are prerendered. Fine. I saw a clear difference between uncharted cutscenes and gameplay (if my memory serves me correct, cutscenes have much better image quality (AA\AF) and better lighting and shadow models), imo that qualifes as not being representative of gameplay, just like bullshots aren't gameplay either.

 

[catisfit]

Is it just me who remembers when the word "gameplay" meant how the game played and was nothing to do with graphics?!

 

[goonergaz]

wow, what's going on here...real playground stuff!

from a 'non techie' PoV I have to say that it's representative, just not 100% representative...it's using most of the game engine and assets and therefore representative (to an extent). If it used different textures or higher poly models then IMHO it would not me representative.

and I understand what psorcerer meant, he was simply saying that because there's less load in a cut-scene you can tweek some of the effects, clearly if ND are being truthful they could have tweeked more but decided not to to improve imersion (sp?)

 

[psorcerer]

Yes, but thats beside the point here. The discussion is about if the cutscenes are representative of gameplay.

Here's the definition of "represent" from MW:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/represent
I think you're using the meaning #9, correct me if I'm wrong.
But I also think that some of your opponents use meaning #3.

 

[tha_con]

Wow, this thread TANKED.

ZOMG TEH TEXTURES ARE BETTAR ON TEH CUTSCENES!!! FOOLERY!!

It doesn't matter, stop complaining/ arguing / trying to proove whatever ridiculous point you are trying to prove. If it looks better, great, if it looks the same, great. That changes nothing about Uncharted or Uncharted 2.

At the end of the day, this game will still look better than the majority of the games available on shelves. The rendering of a scene to hide load times is not really something worth discussion, as this is a thread about Uncharted 2, not it's technical merits, etc.

That said, I do not see large discrepencies between models and texture work from Cutscene to gameplay. THe only differences I notice are Animation and Lighting.

 

[Strange]

waiting for anyone with a mod hat to step in

where are they anyway?

Anyway, even though the first screens are out and very, very nice, I'd say that I need more images to pass on my judgement on the game.
Certainly enjoyed the first one, anticipating the second one.

I hope Naughty dog will learn a bit from insomniac and add in multi player.
8 player co-op with characters from Uncharted 1+2 with different characters representing different classes might be intersting.
Elena could yield a grenade launchers, Sully could yield machine guns, and Drake can yield handguns as their default weapons.

the big gripe I have with R2 would be a insane difficulty to finish with just two people.

In god we trust (actually I don't), all other bring data!

 

[SonComet]

Do you want comment from ND? Because I can get it Oste. What do you want to ask them? Shoot. Because really, enough of your shouting.

I'd actually be interested to know if the cut scenes from the first game could be rendered in real time on the PS3 with a with a completely stable 30fps like the pre-rendered ones are.

 

[el_rika]

I'd actually be interested to know if the cut scenes from the first game could be rendered in real time on the PS3 with a with a completely stable 30fps like the pre-rendered ones are.

If they could have, they would have.

 

[Weaste]

If they could have, they would have.

I think that you missed the "I think" off the start of your sentence there, because you seem to be making a statement of fact, when most likely you do not have a clue and are just guessing.

And @ Ostepop, either you agree that you can significantly up the rendering efects in a 100% scripted scene and have it run at 30fps, or you don't agree with that and you still believe it would run at 5fps. Which is it, because there is some very wild speculation going on in this thread whith no facts to back them up.