*spin-off* Ryse Trade-Offs

[baten]

the "before" looks better overall, but the light is better on the "after"

 

[Betanumerical]

Saw this posted on gaf a comparison before downgrade and after?
Seems to have some nice lighting and skin improvements.

Before:

After?

I find it strange that game at 900P can have such a lack of jaggies.

 

[dragonelite]

I find it strange that game at 900P can have such a lack of jaggies.

Maybe using SMAA(high)?

 

[RenegadeRocks]

We have to rewrite the meaning of downgrade.

This is a lesson in less is more AFAICT

ok. I just saw this on my twitter. Looks like it already being discussed here.
This was my response to Cevat:

Ummm...he is the main character in a TPS game, always near the screen, what LODs does he go thru? and why remove max detail ?

Why remove max possible detail if not performance issues? or is it just a remodel for the final game? I still don't get the LOD point, why not LODs if it means a more detailed character in close-ups?

 

[Scott_Arm]

The second one has some rain going on too. I think it looks better, but softer. Looking at the grab, has it been zoomed in, or is the soft image because of the resolution decrease? Either way, the new image looks better.

 

[Scott_Arm]

ok. I just saw this on my twitter. Looks like it already being discussed here.
This was my response to Cevat:


Why remove max possible detail if not performance issues? or is it just a remodel for the final game? I still don't get the LOD point, why not LODs if it means a more detailed character in close-ups?

They saw lower polys and improved shaders. If those two things are related, then there is your answer.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

They saw lower polys and improved shaders. If those two things are related, then there is your answer.

Exaclty, why is he bringing in the LODs into it ? You lowered the polys, got some performance into th eshaders and looked better. Good !

Ok, I get it. WIth higher poly Titus on screen, they weren't able to get the shading they wanted. So, now he is lower poly Titus always. So, no more LODs.

 

[dragonelite]

Exaclty, why is he bringing in the LODs into it ? You lowered the polys, got some performance into th eshaders and looked better. Good !

Ok, I get it. WIth higher poly Titus on screen, they weren't able to get the shading they wanted. So, now he is lower poly Titus always. So, no more LODs.

Maybe having only the 85k lod stabilized frame times better given how the execution moves zoom in and out?
Or at least the geometry processing.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Maybe having only the 85k lod stabilized frame times better given how the execution moves zoom in and out?
Or at least the geometry processing.

yeah, its a downgrade for performance. They must have found better performance from shaders and not much difference in looks with the downgrade in number of polys. Hence stuck with it and removed the super high poly version completely, in turn, removing any LODs switch too.

No News actually, normal game production.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Funny thing is people will call it a downgrade, where it's possibly an upgrade visually, or even works out the same but performance is better.
See lower number therefore that's all that count, without taking into account the other changes.

example: http://gearnuke.com/ryse-downgrade-officially-confirmed-crytek-ceo/

If I model a cube using 600 triangles, and then realise I can model the same cube in 12 triangles, is that a downgrade? No, it's an optimisation.

In some ways, humanity's invention of numbers has more to hamper understanding than aid it.
People prefer to look at numbers and perform primary-education level comparisons than look at actual results.

Edit: I'll add that for PR, developers should start pulling Scotty's. Lie about what they are doing in the beginning, and then reveal mass improvements. Claim a feature is dropped because it's too complicated for current hardware, and then show it added and claim you're developers are geniuses extracting more performance than the machines are physically capable of. Show the world low grade models, and then claim to have tapped the hidden, special power of the console when you reveal the high quality (originally intended) models.

 

[expletive]

If I model a cube using 600 triangles, and then realise I can model the same cube in 12 triangles, is that a downgrade? No, it's an optimisation.

In some ways, humanity's invention of numbers has more to hamper understanding than aid it.
People prefer to look at numbers and perform primary-education level comparisons than look at actual results.

Edit: I'll add that for PR, developers should start pulling Scotty's. Lie about what they are doing in the beginning, and then reveal mass improvements. Claim a feature is dropped because it's too complicated for current hardware, and then show it added and claim you're developers are geniuses extracting more performance than the machines are physically capable of. Show the world low grade models, and then claim to have tapped the hidden, special power of the console when you reveal the high quality (originally intended) models.

Don't lose all faith Shifty, the truth is that in this context a lot of people are not trying analyze and understand from neutral ground, they're wielding numbers as blunt force weapons (but i'm sure you realize this.)

From all aspects, especially the mainstream gamer sitting 10feet from their TV, it appears Crytek made the right decisions here. Less polys with more realistic lighting will show much better for everyone, I think.

 

[Cyan]

Saw this posted on gaf a comparison before downgrade and after?
Seems to have some nice lighting and skin improvements.

Before:

After?

Darn!! The "After" picture has a richer background, lights, rain, better sky...

But most of all, the skin Shaders look amazing. The game has improved a lot, it looks like CGI /characters/.

Day one buy for me since a long time ago.

The textures aren't as sharp but again, the shading is like 100x times better in the second screen and they don't look as lifeless as in the "before" screen where the textures seem to be glued to the image rather than being part of it.

 

[Gerry]

If I model a cube using 600 triangles, and then realise I can model the same cube in 12 triangles, is that a downgrade? No, it's an optimisation.....

Aren't you agreeing with Jay there Shifty?

 

[kots]

If I model a cube using 600 triangles, and then realise I can model the same cube in 12 triangles, is that a downgrade? No, it's an optimisation.

In some ways, humanity's invention of numbers has more to hamper understanding than aid it.
People prefer to look at numbers and perform primary-education level comparisons than look at actual results.

Well obviously Crytek saw some merit for using 150k at the beginning , all those polys were there for a reason .
If they kept the 150k and add better shading + no LODs yes , that is optimisation .
Now it's a trade off .

 

[Jay]

Well obviously Crytek saw some merit for using 150k at the beginning , all those polys were there for a reason .
If they kept the 150k and add better shading + no LODs yes , that is optimisation .
Now it's a trade off .

It's an optimisation based on what they saw as the development process went on.
You could argue that originally they balanced it wrong and the quality was worse.

Simple example, if a scene had 1 million triangles in it when they started development, but only half could be seen, so they got rid of the ones that could not be seen, is that an optimisation, or a downgrade?

The point is does it look better, worse, the same, or just different?
If it looks a lot worse then its a downgrade.
If it looks marginally worse then you may be able to argue it's a trade off.

I'm far from an expert when it comes to comparing things like this, but to me the after picture actually looks better.

 

[Cyan]

Well obviously Crytek saw some merit for using 150k at the beginning , all those polys were there for a reason .
If they kept the 150k and add better shading + no LODs yes , that is optimisation .
Now it's a trade off .

That's a different take. If you think about it I'd take 85k polygons with a single unchanged LOD all the time rather than 150k polygons and different LODs any time of the day -so the 150k polygons would be nice to have :/. (Forza 5 cars only have one LOD for instance)

I like how it looks now, it looks better overall imho. The Roman armours were made of steel and they look convincing on the CryEngine.

http://www.globaleffects.com/C_page...od/CompleteSuit/European/ArmorRoman570_hi.jpg

 

[Cyan]

It's an optimisation based on what they saw as the development process went on.
You could argue that originally they balanced it wrong and the quality was worse.

Simple example, if a scene had 1 million triangles in it when they started development, but only half could be seen, so they got rid of the ones that could not be seen, is that an optimisation, or a downgrade?

The point is does it look better, worse, the same, or just different?
If it looks a lot worse then its a downgrade.
If it looks marginally worse then you may be able to argue it's a trade off.

I'm far from an expert when it comes to comparing things like this, but to me the after picture actually looks better.

I think so. Sometimes I just think it is too good to be true indeed. I am not sure that image is running on Xbox One hardware.

It's CGI quality. The differences are staggering when you compare the "Before" screenshot to the After one.

The neck of the roman soldier by the right side looks just incredible overall, Marius' face.... their ears, noses, eyes, hair and the subtle shadows on the skin are quite up to the standards of a Disney movie. Honest.

 

[Tchock]

I suspect that "after" image is supersampled SMAA.

 

[kots]

I'm far from an expert when it comes to comparing things like this, but to me the after picture actually looks better.

I'm not certain about those pictures ... is the second one from a recent event ? The first picture is from E3 , ok ...

It's obvious the second pic have a lot more background detail , it's more "busy" , so that's a good thing . Also the face looks better ? Or maybe it's a lighting change ?
I miss the metalic sheen though and the textures are of lower quality .

 

[expletive]

I'm not certain about those pictures ... is the second one from a recent event ? The first picture is from E3 , ok ...

It's obvious the second pic have a lot more background detail , it's more "busy" , so that's a good thing . Also the face looks better ? Or maybe it's a lighting change ?
I miss the metalic sheen though and the textures are of lower quality .

I dont think they are, the lighting is darker in the 2nd presumably due to the rain so I think that's why there is less "shiny."