Did you look at the comparison pictures KKRT posted above? The difference is clearly obvious. Call it less sharp rather than more blurry if you prefer but the difference is there.
Ryse: Son of Rome [XO]
- Thread starter dragonelite
- Start date
Did you look at the comparison pictures KKRT posted above? The difference is clearly obvious. Call it less sharp rather than more blurry if you prefer but the difference is there.
Funny how the complaints about jaggies and pixel crawl in other games have shifted to "massive blurring" when a quality temporal morphological AA solution is applied...
Here's some advice...stick to your ugly current gen uprezzed 1080P games with no AA.
WTH are you on about? Is there even such a thing as a game with no AA on any current platform?
shredenvain
Regular
I think maybe some xbox one owners might seem a little defensive because of the constant barrage of attacks being thrown at the system. The B3D community is actually fairly unbiased and open minded towards all systems. If you havent been to other gaming forums since E3 or even the google xbox one news feed then you might not know that the X1 has been doomed to fail in the eyes of the internet.
It really is sad. Of course not everyone that owns a X1 only has said console. As far as Ryse goes it is visually amazing. I havent seen Killzone SF in person so I cant say that it is the best looking next gen game but I think it is safe to say it's one of the two best looking games on the next gen systems.
It really is sad. Of course not everyone that owns a X1 only has said console. As far as Ryse goes it is visually amazing. I havent seen Killzone SF in person so I cant say that it is the best looking next gen game but I think it is safe to say it's one of the two best looking games on the next gen systems.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
The sharp or not sharp stuff is just a very weak way to criticize this game graphically, or at the very least a distraction away from the more important end result, since there aren't many other ways that it can be criticized due to how incredible it looks. Unless people somehow haven't played it or seen this thing in person, they would know how little there is to complain about as far as graphics are concerned. In fact, the biggest possible complaint visually is the repeating enemy designs, but having to make launch, that's forgiveable, and it's one of the more obvious areas for improvement in what I hope is a sequel.
It doesn't probably look sharper on a television than in screenshots. It absolutely does look sharper, virtually night and day compared to what I've witnessed in screenshots for this game. Only this game's best bullshots that really bring out this game's details, can really do justice to how good it looks on a nice television. This game comes the closest I've ever witnessed to capturing the look of big budget cinema during actual gameplay. Cinematic is the look they were going for, and they succeeded. Beyond that, this is just one of those games where people know it isn't native 1080p, so then a placebo effect kicks in where people have to find something that they feel serves as evidence of the "compromise." But, really, when you look at this game visually and see that it's easily the most amazing looking console game out right now, with just amazing image quality and a rock solid antialiasing solution to back it up, I think it serves as a perfect example of the fact that resolution, though important, isn't always necessarily the silver bullet that people make it out to be. No one thing will guarantee how good or bad a game looks in the end. There's way too many factors and it's a balancing act, particularly when developing for a console. I think Crytek found the perfect balance, because I've personally never seen a more impressive looking game, on any platform, but then I'm sure a good bit of that comes down to loving the game's art style. Crytek's art department outdid themselves, and the graphics folks obviously gave them an engine for that work to shine on.
I would love to see what they can do with a follow-up. Also, this post isn't intended to criticize anyone in particular, just giving my view on this game graphically and simply using the latest post on the matter as a starting point. Direct feed screens don't do this game any justice. That much I'm certain of. You gotta see this thing playing out in front of you live.
It doesn't probably look sharper on a television than in screenshots. It absolutely does look sharper, virtually night and day compared to what I've witnessed in screenshots for this game. Only this game's best bullshots that really bring out this game's details, can really do justice to how good it looks on a nice television. This game comes the closest I've ever witnessed to capturing the look of big budget cinema during actual gameplay. Cinematic is the look they were going for, and they succeeded. Beyond that, this is just one of those games where people know it isn't native 1080p, so then a placebo effect kicks in where people have to find something that they feel serves as evidence of the "compromise." But, really, when you look at this game visually and see that it's easily the most amazing looking console game out right now, with just amazing image quality and a rock solid antialiasing solution to back it up, I think it serves as a perfect example of the fact that resolution, though important, isn't always necessarily the silver bullet that people make it out to be. No one thing will guarantee how good or bad a game looks in the end. There's way too many factors and it's a balancing act, particularly when developing for a console. I think Crytek found the perfect balance, because I've personally never seen a more impressive looking game, on any platform, but then I'm sure a good bit of that comes down to loving the game's art style. Crytek's art department outdid themselves, and the graphics folks obviously gave them an engine for that work to shine on.
I would love to see what they can do with a follow-up. Also, this post isn't intended to criticize anyone in particular, just giving my view on this game graphically and simply using the latest post on the matter as a starting point. Direct feed screens don't do this game any justice. That much I'm certain of. You gotta see this thing playing out in front of you live.
Last edited by a moderator:
shredenvain
Regular
I tried to explain that this game is not blurry over on the digital foundry thread.
Most people who dont own or havent played this game are under the impression that it has a constant blur from upscaling. Im sure all they are going by are compressed videos and screenshots. I know in theory that if you are playing the game at 1080p that the image has to suffer from some blur. Im sorry Ive played it at both 720p and 1080p and I dont see any noticable blur.
Most people who dont own or havent played this game are under the impression that it has a constant blur from upscaling. Im sure all they are going by are compressed videos and screenshots. I know in theory that if you are playing the game at 1080p that the image has to suffer from some blur. Im sorry Ive played it at both 720p and 1080p and I dont see any noticable blur.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
If this started from my post, then let me say that all shots have a constant blur to them. Whether its from their AA or upscaling, none are sure. That is the only blemish in an otherwise beautiful visual, so it was what I wanted removed from their next game. Nothing wrong there, is it? Crysis 2 also had this constant blur due to their AA technique, which was later removed from Crysis 3.
If anything i don't like is their colour pallete, sometihng which I mentioned when they showed it for the first time. These are not some "attacks" on the game, its just observations one makes and discusses.
Removing that blur will obviously make their next game even better, after all we all wait for Crytek's next visual feast with anticipation. I am waiting to see what Crysis 4 looks like and plays like. I would lke them to go the Far Cry 3 route in terms of game-design and if they don't, I will be there expressing it. That won't be an "attack" on the game, thats what forums are for.
If that blur is lessened on TV screens anyways then thats a win for everyone. They have such detailed character faces, obviously one wants to see them in max clarity.
If anything i don't like is their colour pallete, sometihng which I mentioned when they showed it for the first time. These are not some "attacks" on the game, its just observations one makes and discusses.
Removing that blur will obviously make their next game even better, after all we all wait for Crytek's next visual feast with anticipation. I am waiting to see what Crysis 4 looks like and plays like. I would lke them to go the Far Cry 3 route in terms of game-design and if they don't, I will be there expressing it. That won't be an "attack" on the game, thats what forums are for.
If that blur is lessened on TV screens anyways then thats a win for everyone. They have such detailed character faces, obviously one wants to see them in max clarity.
I didn't see what you are seeing... but ok.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
I suppose I can see how one might get that impression from the game's screens, but I don't feel what you and some others are noticing is something that in anyway impacts the game negatively when you're physically playing the game. There's no aspect of its graphical presentation that I feel suffers from a lack of clarity. Character faces and overall model detail, as well as the environments, are all quite clear. In just about every instance of playing this game, I was quite stunned by the amount of detail present on screen at any given moment. I don't recall ever really feeling that the games visual details were somehow being masked or obscured by anything untoward. It's precisely because the detail in the game is so amazing that you end up desiring more varied enemy designs. Over the course of the game, you really come to internalize every little detail on enemies. The context sensitive cuts and bruises that open on the enemies is a pretty nice touch, however. They even visibly bleed.
If removing the "blur," as it were, somehow means losing that incredibly atmospheric look that I feel is one of this game's most powerful visual assets, then I don't know if I would consider getting rid of that in a follow-up to be a step up. Losing that look in chapter 5, but particularly in a number of other instances that I can recall, would border on disastrous. It would almost singlehandedly destroy the artistic effectiveness of so many iconic moments during the game's campaign.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I recommend playing on Centurion.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
I second that, play it on Centurion. The perfect difficulty for this game.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Why would removing a blur on the whole image make it lose its atmosphere? The visuals, the clean AA will stay the same, and it would be clear ,like a movie. It will only get better. All those beautiful nuances will only look much better.
Every screen on the Neogaf screenshot thread also has the blur. All those screens are direct feeds. If it not noticeable while playing, thats great. Anyways those screens have compression and don't provide the same visual as someone playing on his TV. When Resistance 3 had that horrible blur to it, I was disappointed, as the game had beautiful art, but it was all blurred. Ryse's blur is much less and subtle, but for a person working in photoshop, Maya and Unity all day, it is something I can't overlook and would want to go away n their next game.
I think an argument can be made that a slightly softer image is preferable (not universally, but to some) provided that it isn't achieved through lowering resolution and thus increasing aliasing/shimmering/pixel crawl and losing very fine detail.
Ryse does a very good job of greatly reducing these disadvantages through the use of a reasonably high resolution and very good post process AA solution. But it's not perfect. At least not when viewed from say a 40 degree viewing angle. Ideally you'd want the super high resolution shots that KKRT posted on the previous page combined with some kind of post process AA that softens the image such as TXAA (if that's you're preference).
I did. The thing is that it looks better than that on my TV and it is quite up to the standards of the artwork. Perhaps not as crisp? Maybe... I wonder if the artwork doesn't have a grain filter at work there. In the game it just adds to the cinematic feel. It was a feature that I always disabled when playing the Mass Effect series.
Of course, I calibrated my TV, it took me like two months to find that sweet spot.
Ultragpu, regardless of how the game looks on your TV I'd wholeheartedly recommend you not to use Full RGB on a TV.
The artwork is quite clearly supersampled/downscaled from a vastly greater resolution than 900p so there's no way it looks like that running on your console. Not unless you're squinting at the screen or sitting way to far away to make out the difference between 4k and 900p. Realistically you're more likely just perceiving the direct feed screenshots to look worse than your gameplay because your viewing them at a larger viewing angle on the PC screen thus seeing a larger perceived image which reveals more of the images imperfections.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
Realistically, it can't possibly be the same, but I kinda do get what he means. The results while playing this thing for real are quite stunning.
Without a doubt though, this game in action looks much better than the direct feeds, and I don't feel it's a simple matter of the viewing angle or proximity to the screen. It's not really the first time I've gotten this impression, but static screens of this game don't do it justice, even in the best of cases, which I suppose makes sense since this is an interactive videogame rather than a slideshow.
Take these shots for example.
In every of the above screens, which are all quite impressive, the actual game being played looks much more vibrant, definitely more detailed. There's an element of this games look or presentation that is somehow being lost in these stills. As good as those screens look, they actually fall short of the game in action. It's a tough thing to explain, but when in doubt, trust your eyes, and something is missing. Ryse in stills looks more subdued and less visually "wow" than it looks while you're playing it.
Another example. This same location in the game looks WAYYYYY better than this screen implies. You would almost think the game is on two different platforms based on the below image.
If you upscale a completely antialiased image, it'll be the rough equivalent of applying a certain amount of blur to a higher res version of the same image. I'm sure there's some math to calculate the exact amount of blur, but let's just say that upscaling from native 900p to 1080p is pretty similar to applying a 0.x pixel gaussian blur to a native 1080p image.
So the people that feel a certain amount of blur are probably correct to some level. But it's very hard to compare the visual information in a Ryse image to a native 1080p image with lower quality antialiasing (or no AA at all). It's also hard to decide if it's better to have a lower res native image with less aliasing or a higher less native image with more aliasing. Especially as it also depends on viewing distance: people sitting further from the screen would find it harder to see the difference in resolution, but higher levels of aliasing are quite visible even from a great distance.
Then there's the pixel quality issue, is it better to have less pixels with more complex shading and AA, or more pixels with more aliasing and lower levels of lighting and shading? Another question that just can't be settled IMHO.
All in all the new consoles will offer more choices for developers in terms of more resolution vs. better quality, and we should all be happy to see this. Even though the obvious answer is, of course, to have both - but that's just not possible with limited resources...
So the people that feel a certain amount of blur are probably correct to some level. But it's very hard to compare the visual information in a Ryse image to a native 1080p image with lower quality antialiasing (or no AA at all). It's also hard to decide if it's better to have a lower res native image with less aliasing or a higher less native image with more aliasing. Especially as it also depends on viewing distance: people sitting further from the screen would find it harder to see the difference in resolution, but higher levels of aliasing are quite visible even from a great distance.
Then there's the pixel quality issue, is it better to have less pixels with more complex shading and AA, or more pixels with more aliasing and lower levels of lighting and shading? Another question that just can't be settled IMHO.
All in all the new consoles will offer more choices for developers in terms of more resolution vs. better quality, and we should all be happy to see this. Even though the obvious answer is, of course, to have both - but that's just not possible with limited resources...
Similar threads
