Dead Space 2 & 3 are pretty interesting in that there is only one "cameraman". For cinematic moments, the camera moves fluidly as opposed to instantly cutting to different angles of the same scene. There are obvious level design quirks to achieve it (room-by-room design), but it makes for a neat single-play session.
Technical Game Engine Comparisons: non-subjective *OffTopic Cleanup Spawn*
- Thread starter Jupiter
- Start date
- Status
Right. Moreover i played to Dead Space 2 on PC, but i didn't notice it at that time. So, i know where Santa Monica got this idea now.
However, there are several elevators in Dead Space 2 where you're confined in a very small place for a long time. DS3 probably used the same trick.
I don't have God of War yet but i don't think they used this kind of trick in the game.
Still very impressive, especially for that time.
1. How the size of an in-game object being being somehow makes it impressive.
2. So what? Already in the thread it was mentioned that GoW is filled with transition areas to help with streaming.
3. Easier to optimize. The video of SSM says nothing about that.
1) Because larger objects usually need more polygons. I already gave an example with the Thunderjaw seen in HZD.
2) I don't care. It doesn't change the fact that very few games are able to do what God of War does. For instance, Uncharted 4 used some pre rendered video to hide the loading times.
3) They said it very clearly : almost impossible. It means what it means.
1) Characters that are close to the screen also require a lot of polygons.
2) Hiding streaming through transition zones is nothing special.
3) What about it is "almost impossible"? Sounds like pure PR speak.
1) But their max lod should still be lower than the max lod of larger objects. It's pretty easy to understand... do you really think that random NPCs on HZD have as much as 500k polygons ? It's obvious that the Decima engine is far more stressed when there are thunderjaws on screen. Not to mention managing LOD also takes ressources.
2) Once again, i don't care. If that was so easy, we should see much more games doing what God of War does. For instance, Ryse is as linear as you could ever imagine, yet Cryteck used a lot of pre rendered cutscenes to hide the loading times. But it's so easy... yeah, that's why most other games fail to do that, even the linear ones...
3) You have no arguments. Case closed.
Last edited:
I gotta say watching the World Serpent, the Big Dragon and that Fallen Giant in God of War during gameplay is absolutely the pinnacle of real time game graphics, nothing tops it. the sheet amount of detail, effects, animation and scale is off the chart. Wish I could post some screens but don't wanna spoil people.
1) Is the world serpent a random NPC? No.
2) Different devs use different solutions. Duh.
3) The fact that you want to shut down the discussion shows clearly who is the one with no arguments. SSM's video is all about the workflow of filming the cutscenes. Completely unrelated to technological feasibility.
1) And ?
2) Yeah and some solutions are more elegant than others. That's why some games are more impressive than others.
3) They clearly talk about their production pipeline in the video.
Last edited:
1) Really?
2) This counts as intelligent technical discussion for you guys?
3) Whatever.
2) This counts as intelligent technical discussion for you guys?
3) Whatever.
Wildlands uses real 3d polygon grass which as far as I know the only other game which use something similar is Final Fantasy XV on the PC (TurfFX). This also allows it to be pressed down very precisely (one could see footprints) and every blade of grass with this technique can cast a shadow. Video about that:
Wildlands screensot where most is 3d polygon grass.
Pictures from AC: Origins (not maxed out). While both using the AnvilNext engine it looks more gamey than Wildlands in my opinion. Compared to the other surroundings/times of day it feels a bit more realistic at night and in a desert scenario (liking IrfanView for automated compressing).
Wildlands screensot where most is 3d polygon grass.
Pictures from AC: Origins (not maxed out). While both using the AnvilNext engine it looks more gamey than Wildlands in my opinion. Compared to the other surroundings/times of day it feels a bit more realistic at night and in a desert scenario (liking IrfanView for automated compressing).
Last edited:
You should show a complete scenery to get an idea
1) Your example doesn't apply because the world serpent isn't a random NPC.
2) Loading screens > contrived environments to hide loading.
3) Nothing about what was "almost impossible".
Fanboys gonna fanboy.I noticed that a discussion of a PS4 game + OCASM brings devastation
This is not the same. CryEngine grass works more like this with some kind of simple capsules.
non NVidia grass - reaction by X-RAY-89, auf Flickr
MeanwhileTurfFX is this where it is precisely matched to the geometry:
NVidia Grass - reaction by X-RAY-89, auf Flickr
Maybe I'll make video...
non NVidia grass - reaction by X-RAY-89, auf FlickrMeanwhileTurfFX is this where it is precisely matched to the geometry:
NVidia Grass - reaction by X-RAY-89, auf FlickrMaybe I'll make video...
Last edited:
@Jupiter your above video's contradict what you're saying
the Uncharted 4 thing uses proper 3d polygon grass, the Wildlands video's show it uses standard quads for the grass as used by 99% of games for at least a decade
I done some proper 3d grass stuff a long time ago. (from a 2001 gf2mx 200, literally 1000 of times slower than a gpu in a standard xbox one of ps4 )
the Uncharted 4 thing uses proper 3d polygon grass, the Wildlands video's show it uses standard quads for the grass as used by 99% of games for at least a decade
I done some proper 3d grass stuff a long time ago. (from a 2001 gf2mx 200, literally 1000 of times slower than a gpu in a standard xbox one of ps4 )
Last edited:
I won't reply to the other points since that doesn't' have any interest.
Anyway, i don't understand your point... it doesn't change anything : larger objects = more polygons.
Edit : as for the one shot thing being easy : https://segmentnext.com/2017/09/29/god-of-war-midgard-serpent/
This is what happens when people argue against obvious things...
Last edited:
@Jupiter your above video's contradict what you're saying
the Uncharted 4 thing uses proper 3d polygon grass, the Wildlands video's show it uses standard quads for the grass as used by 99% of games for at least a decade
I done some proper 3d grass stuff a long time ago. (from a 2001 gf2mx 200, literally 1000 of times slower than a gpu in a standard xbox one of ps4 )
Including Crysis 3 most grass in videogames is like this (simplified):
In TurfFX, every blade of grass is a single object.
On the other hand the Uncharted and Crysis 3 video were about physics.
This is the same as in Crysis 3
Last edited:
I've seen that before. In motion, as well. And I don't like it, even though I concede that it's a good technical advancement towards realistic grass, I don't doubt that.MeanwhileTurfFX is this where it is precisely matched to the geometry:
I don't like it because it looks like objects are on top of a kind of... grass cushion, so to speak. It doesn't look like grass is effectively pushed down to ground level, it feels like a big cushion made of grass where only the top parts of the blades are deformed, so the result is astoundingly plain despite all that geometry or whatever.
I mean, why so much emphasis in individual blades if the final result is that?
I just wanted to say that. I'm not addressing any comparison between any games.
perhaps it is but check out ghost recon with turfFX its certainly not using multiple bones for the grass animation
- Status