Technical Game Engine Comparisons: non-subjective *OffTopic Cleanup Spawn*

Status
Not open for further replies.
OCASM said:
I think turfFX is just more dense than the CryEngine implementation..


Just empty PR talk and more of you taking my words out of context.

Just to recap:
Large characters are nothing new. Using a lot of polygons in a mostly environment is nothing special.
"Hiding" loading in transition zones is nothing special.
Making single-shot cutscenes in videogames is nothing special.

Bonus:


Also, my favorite single-shot cutscene in a game:

Click to expand...
To be honest I dont understand your ranting. It is not about doing something "new".
Its how you handle all the various elements that counts.
For example handling huge characters with which your own playable character interacts with and is displayed in relation to that larger character is not a simple matter of just having a scaled up model to look bigger.
You have to be very good on your design so that everything scales in a way that large and small objects do not compromise their detail in each scene and in a way that scale is perfectly understood. Camera use is HUGELY important, how you handle LODs are HUGELY important as the camera zooms in and out of the larger character with your own character next to it, lighting is HUGELY important, even animation and physics etc
The example in the video you provided for LAIR, although it displays large characters, there are many things wrong with it to the point that although in terms of models one appears larger than the other, the larger model does not convey properly its detail and scale and the small looks like a miniature object next to normal sized objects (which are supposed to be enormous). It is an example of how you SHOULDNT do it. GoW (as well as 3) excels in how it handles larger and smaller elements in a scene.

Also GoW excels in the "single shot" element in that, it has done it masterfully for the whole duration of the game.
 
Last edited:
After seeing God of War it also has many "low quality" assets that are more angular than in Wildlands and the lighting sometimes doesn't look good as it was the case with some areas in Uncharted as well. Horizon is consistent and has the better assets. In Horizon enemies with millions of polygons move freely (non scripted) through the area. I even found the polygon degree of Horizon better than the textures of the creatures which is unusual for metall.
 
Last edited:
Reminder: This is not for subjective discussion. This is for technical discussions.
 
OCASM said:
Being more open than The Order now means open world :LOL:
Click to expand...

No, it means this :

godofwar_201804212257yppll.png

Jupiter said:
Horizon is consistent and has the better assets. In Horizon enemies with millions of polygons move freely (non scripted) through the area. I even found the polygon degree of Horizon better than the textures of the creatures which is unusual for metall.
Click to expand...

Millions of polygons ? No, the largest poly count for animals is 550k.
 
Last edited:
Nesh said:
To be honest I dont understand your ranting. It is not about doing something "new".
Its how you handle all the various elements that counts.
For example handling huge characters with which your own playable character interacts with and is displayed in relation to that larger character is not a simple matter of just having a scaled up model to look bigger.
You have to be very good on your design so that everything scales in a way that large and small objects do not compromise their detail in each scene and in a way that scale is perfectly understood. Camera use is HUGELY important, how you handle LODs are HUGELY important as the camera zooms in and out of the larger character with your own character next to it, lighting is HUGELY important, even animation and physics etc
The example in the video you provided for LAIR, although it displays large characters, there are many things wrong with it to the point that although in terms of models one appears larger than the other, the larger model does not convey properly its detail and scale and the small looks like a miniature object next to normal sized objects (which are supposed to be enormous). It is an example of how you SHOULDNT do it. GoW (as well as 3) excels in how it handles larger and smaller elements in a scene.

Also GoW excels in the "single shot" element in that, it has done it masterfully for the whole duration of the game.
Click to expand...
His argument was merely "it's big therefore it's impressive".

Lair is a flight game. Obviously perspective is different from a grounded game.

I'm sure GoW has very good cutscene direction but I still want somebody to explain how single shot cutscenes are technologically impressive in a videogame.

Recop said:
No, it means this :

godofwar_201804212257yppll.png
Click to expand...
Nice non-traversable background.
 
The volumetric lighting and fog really do add an extra dimension or depth compared to the standard 2d hack seen in Gears 4.
Gears 4
Gears-of-War-4-10_7_2016-1_46_54-PM.jpg

GoW
godofwar_2018042022437soln.png

Gears
gears-of-war-4-screen-space-shadow-quality-001-ultra.png

GoW
godofwar_201804202236gsq2q.png


Character illumination is much superior in GoW due to better lighting, material shaders and general asset quality.
gears-of-war-4-shadow-quality-005-ultra.png

godofwar_2018042602123vqu5.png

cutscene
gearsofwar4-james.png

godofwar_201804260043haohw.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Recop said:
The background is constituted by actual areas of the game where you can go without any loading times... indeed, it is not The Order...
Click to expand...

Maybe what I read was the triangle number. Either way the creatures I saw were very dense and complex in polygon degree. There are bigger creatures like Tallnecks and sometimes two big creatures in one scene.

In GoW one meets the huge opponents and creatures in the levels which were set up for this purpose. However, the lighting of the main character in GoW seems to be mostly constant and good.
 
Last edited:
OCASM said:
His argument was merely "it's big therefore it's impressive".
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure "big" contains everything that makes it impressive.


I'm sure GoW has very good cutscene direction but I still want somebody to explain how single shot cutscenes are technologically impressive in a videogame.
.
Click to expand...
It is not just the cut scene direction. It is everything.
You can experience the game from beginning to end without a single loading screen. It manages to retain the same level of quality in and out of cut scenes without visible LOD transitions. Even in Uncharted 4, the sections where cut scenes and gameplay transition seamlessly there is some noticeable change in character detail and lighting. GoW sure uses walking areas that gives time for the areas to be loaded, which is a nice trick (its impossible to load the whole game anyways so everything is essentially a trick in every game) but overall they have done a pretty impressive job in hiding loading of assets and quite possibly using streaming. I am sure that required lots of complex planning and game design choices to allow such an impressive seamless experience.
I think GoW did it better than anyone else
 
Please do not inline large images, instead use links to them if you need images to explain what you wrote. This is not a picture thread. This is a technical discussion thread.
 
Recop said:
The background is constituted by actual areas of the game where you can go without any loading times... indeed, it is not The Order...
Click to expand...
Sure, it's like BotW where you can climb all those mountains :LOL:

Nesh said:
I am pretty sure "big" contains everything that makes it impressive.


It is not just the cut scene direction. It is everything.
You can experience the game from beginning to end without a single loading screen. It manages to retain the same level of quality in and out of cut scenes without visible LOD transitions. Even in Uncharted 4, the sections where cut scenes and gameplay transition seamlessly there is some noticeable change in character detail and lighting. GoW sure uses walking areas that gives time for the areas to be loaded, which is a nice trick (its impossible to load the whole game anyways so everything is essentially a trick in every game) but overall they have done a pretty impressive job in hiding loading of assets and quite possibly using streaming. I am sure that required lots of complex planning and game design choices to allow such an impressive seamless experience.
I think GoW did it better than anyone else
Click to expand...
1) Not really.
2) "GoW sure uses walking areas that gives time for the areas to be loaded, which is a nice trick" there's your loading screens. Any open world where you can go from one corner of the map to its opposite with no loading screens or staging areas in between is much more impressive.
 
BRiT said:
Please do not inline large images, instead use links to them if you need images to explain what you wrote. This is not a picture thread. This is a technical discussion thread.
Click to expand...
:yep2:
Any particular point of interest in a screenshot can be cropped out in an image editor.
 
OCASM said:
1) Not really.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure he saw big enemies in other games
2) "GoW sure uses walking areas that gives time for the areas to be loaded, which is a nice trick" there's your loading screens. Any open world where you can go from one corner of the map to its opposite with no loading screens or staging areas in between is much more impressive.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
You only decided to quote that part for your convenience did you?
 
Recop said:
It's like saying that you will judge a car on its engineering and not it's actual performances on road.

Also, precisely, better engineering translates in better performances on road...

Exactly. Good graphics, assuming they are not in detriment of gameplay, mean that you took the most balanced decisions at each stage of the development and that you very good at optimization.

Only very talented developers can do this.
Click to expand...

I understand that in many cases the graphics is often equated with the engine. However, the graphics system is only part of an engine. Even this part is not completely responsible for what can bee seen on a screen. Depending on the engine more or less of the graphics code is not part of the engine but of the game. The quality of an engine depends on more than the ability to take beautiful pictures. A lesson many studios have already paid with the fact that they have worked on an avoidably great engine to then release a mediocre game. Often with the consequence that it was the last game of the affected studio.

We can certainly agree on that the many developers made beautiful games. For me, however, this says only a small part about the quality of the engine. The quality of the engine only shows itself in what others are able to do with what effort. Multiplayer games are also more complicated because many things working very well in a single player environment but they are suffering from heavy load in multiplayer where they need to work on making it more robust and stable under expected server loads.
 
Last edited:
Jupiter said:
I understand that in many cases the graphics is often equated with the engine. However, the graphics system is only part of an engine. Even this part is not completely responsible for what can bee seen on a screen. Depending on the engine more or less of the graphics code is not part of the engine but of the game. The quality of an engine depends on more than the ability to take beautiful pictures.
Click to expand...

Of course, that's why you need to make balanced choices to meet your goals : gameplay ambitions + visual standards.

And in my opinion, God of War brilliantly succeed at both.

Also, if you're not impressed by what you see on screen, then you already failed, not matter what your engine is doing under the hood. You don't need to explain why your game is impressive, people should see it naturally.

Otherwise, it means that your choices weren't balanced. If you need to explain, then it's because it's not obvious. Something carefully crafted is obvious for everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top