I know this is a very small screen but this is simply amazing:
http://i44.tinypic.com/dfzzhe.gif
http://i44.tinypic.com/dfzzhe.gif
*Spin-off Thread* Subjective Thread of Pushing Consoles (rename #1)
- Thread starter GuestLV
- Start date
- Status
I would argue that other factors have FAR more effect than graphical superiority could ever have. Historically, it has rarely been the case (I want to say never) where the technically most advanced console of a generation won out in terms of having the largest installed base. Otherwise systems like the Genesis, the Wii, and the PS2 wouldn't have won their respective generations (yes, I'm giving it to the Wii already).
Gears 2 is an exclusive title, and Epic Games had plenty of time and budget to "cover up" and tailor the game for the flaws and weakness of its specific platform.
I would argue that engines nowadays are pretty general in terms of graphical features anyway, and share many common shader effects and visual niceties. So in that sense, each game engine starts off pretty general in design goals, and then as development proceeds, heavy optimizations are made to eek out the most performance out of the particular platform it's targeting. Similar situation for the Unreal Engine 3.0, which I have no doubt that, by now, is extremely optimized and fine-tuned in terms of its low-level code for the XB360.
Besides, I doubt that Naughty Dog's engine for Uncharted, a game under a new, unknown IP that released only about a year into the lifespan of the PS3, is anymore optimized for the PS3 or pushes the limits of that system anymore than Gears 2/UE3 for the XB360 does. Remember, Gears 2 is a sequel, the second iteration of a AAA, high-budget and big-name exclusive for Microsoft's console; this is already Epic's 2nd-to-3rd outing for that system, so they've had plenty of experience with coding for it, and hence a lot of time to optimize their graphical systems to the utmost degree.
I think people were already drooling for the game on the basis of how visually spectacular it looked in every piece of video footage--not some inconsequential technical buzzword thrown out in a Dutch-language video that maybe a couple hundred fanboys on the internet happened to see about a month before the game releases.They haven't. Behind the dark artowork layer it really doesn't differ itself so much from other heavy titles for consoles. +/- for different tech but on averge...
I'm sure people would be drooling as much for other titles if the devs would trow out tech hype words to the fans in all directions. Ray-tracing anyone?
It's also arguably the best-looking visuals we've seen in this generation of consoles in a multiplayer mode. Multiplayer graphics rarely if ever reach the same level of graphical fidelity as the single player campaign; you and I both know that. For example, Call of Duty 4's texture detail and particle/environmental effects, as well as polygonal detail and prop elements in the gameworld, took a MAJOR dip in the multiplayer as compared to the equivalent single player maps on which those MP maps were based. This difference is easy to see when looking at an MP map, and comparing it to the equivalent SP level.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very true. But what about implementation?
Games may use a lot of common effects, but we can still observe several differences in their engine technologies. The way aspects such as lighting, shadows, textures, surfaces displacement and such could be done in very different ways. Use of scene depth, deferred/forward renderers and such varies. Tiling, tessellations and stream out compared to other methods. What aspects to accelerate on the CPU vs GPU.
A lot more than the bumpy shaders and global illumination 'of some description' is separating the likes of tech 5, UE3, Crystal Tools, CE2 and the recently discussed KZ2 engine.
Whilst I agree totally that Unreal Engine 3 will have a high level of optimization at this point, but it is still fundamentally that engine and there are many areas that could be pushed in whole new directions depending on what the ultimate goals are and how much time/focus there is, and of course people have their different philosophies. IMO I don't think Epic are spending development time solely on re-thinking algorithms and re-making fundamental engine features for 360, more about extending their current series and slowly but surely adding new features to their middleware.
AC has a consistent enough frame rate for me, it has speculars and even some more complex shaders at times (metal armor has reflectivity) and as I've said before the lighting is fully dynamic.
But the very definition of old tech means that it does not push the hardware, it does not make use of more advanced features.
Yes, that is the case IMHO.
The two cases are different, as Lair has a lot of trouble: it's not real 1080p, but 960*1080 with a multisample buffer trick, its framerate is unstable, its graphics are ugly, in short it fails as a game.
It has some advanced tech but it doesn't work well enough, like some 1000 HP drag race car that can't go in a straight line.
Graphics technology and even art are secondary in the end if we look past B3D forums. Halo3 has a very robust game and network engine as it seems, customizability, matchmaking and so on.
It still rules multiplayer gaming, it's getting close to 10 million units sold, so it seems they followed the right path. Let us see how well KZ2 is going to fare in sales and multiplayer longevity.
With all due respect to the programmers involved, Epic is way less competent as a console developer then Naughty Dog.
ND has produced one of the best engines on the PS2 for its Jak and Dexter series, streaming in huge levels from the DVD and making the PS2 look like it has twice the amount of RAM, not to mention the high quality of the artwork.
Epic on the other hand has never really been known for coding spectacles, what made their engines sell was that they had all the necessary features and very good content creation tools. I actually recall several cases where performance problems have popped up because of bad programming decisions and implementations.
And we all know UE3 has received a fair amount of criticism in the past 1-2 years. Even if Silicon Knights' game ended up pretty bad the entire court case has brought out a lot of rants from developers working with the engine.
So in short, I'm actually completely convinced that Naughty Dog is doing a far better job at maxing out the system then Epic.
reflectivity =masked cubemap.no big deal really.AC shaders are really very simple.
Geometry is hightly instanced.
Dynamic lighting is mostly one single parallel light with some ambient .Shadow splits are very agressive.
They have a complex handling of the crowd i give it that.
K2 is much more hardcore, not really tailored for the wider audience by most its design choices.Contrary to Halo franchise.
That might mean it won't have legs, but users can be suckered into buying a game because everyone else said it was great. Halo 3 is actually a case in point: it had great up-front numbers, but its legs weren't great, as opposed to CoD4, which sold okay up front and then kept on selling for months.
Good job you didn't put "never" as the Genesis got slaughtered by the SNES, 29m to 49m according to this wiki article.
You put Cell+RSX yet ignore Xenon+Xenos combo. Xenos having unified shader architecture and then some extra features (EDRAM etc) to overcome what RSX would have difficulties with.
zoekimball
Banned
Too bad those advantages that the 360 could have never come to fruition in platform exclusive games, as opposed to the combination of Cell+RSX, huh?
Yet 3rd party devs use the EDRAM and other strenghts of Xenos. If any first party dev would use it fully in the future (are there any left though?) then they could tap the "untapped potentials"!
zoekimball
Banned
But that is balanced out by the RSX using the Cell's dedicated memory thanks to the fast data stream. It's basically a 1:1 situation.
I can't say how much more untapped potential there is in either PS3 (after KZ2/Uncharted2) or 360 (after Gears2), but I really doubt there is much. I heard that talk about KZ2 using 60% at most of each SPU, but then I find it rather doubtful that another 39% will make much of a difference, except for two or three more light sources that wouldn't really be needed.
About MS's first party division, all they have according to me that could even remotely exceed Gears 2's graphics is Remedy who are working on Alan Wake.
From Sony SM I was disappointed with what I've seen from GoWIII, but you never know. It could turn out to exceed KZ2, Uncharted 2 and MGS4 in the end, if they use their resources well. Insomniac have proven to me that they can't do much more with their latest games, which isn't bad considering Resistance 2 looks pretty darn good, but I think people (me included) were just expecting more.
There's Rare. There's something of a consensus that their tech is solid but their art terrible.
This thread is degenerating extraordinarily rapidly, isn't it...
I love how we can say Cell improved visuals by "40%" compared to just RSX and clearly XCPU couldn't do the same, nevermind the extraordinary difference in technology and capability between RSX & Xenos and Cell & XCPU. It's a ridiculous discussion.
It's time this whole thread gets closed down, it's starting to read like GAF.
I've never considered computing power or numbers to be the most important factor in the capabilities of a system and the final output it will produce. It depends a lot more on the creativity in, and implementations of software technology with respect to the architecture.
This doesn't even have to be a ''360 vs Killzone 2'' quibble either, but more importantly what the console is capable of in its own right compared to what we're seeing.
You mean their games are colorful and therefore terrible art wise. But if they where in 16 different shades of black and grey they would be good art wise right?
You mean their games are colorful and therefore terrible art wise. But if they where in 16 different shades of black and grey they would be good art wise right?
I have no idea, I can't judge tech either. But though people on this forum say Viva Pinata is more impressive technically than Gears of War, very very few people pick the former over the latter graphically. To me that suggests that they're doing something wrong.
- Status