The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*

How does it fare if you compare to other UE3/UE3.5 powered games for respective console?
 
Well PS3 using lower resolution buffer for explosions & a few other is not surprising but I never expected a this big hit in quality. I don't know of any other UE2.5 game on PS3 other than Bioshock 1 & Splinter Cell Double Agent, and both looked considerably worse on PS3.
 
Well PS3 using lower resolution buffer for explosions & a few other is not surprising but I never expected a this big hit in quality. I don't know of any other UE2.5 game on PS3 other than Bioshock 1 & Splinter Cell Double Agent, and both looked considerably worse on PS3.
I think depends how much lower is the low buffer. Here it's really terrible , probably ue engine not allows great optimizations on the ps3, the complete absence of MSAA in any ps3 ue3 game seems an another typical lack. I hope the ue3 will be abandoned soon after the cryengine 3 out. On the ps3 shows too limits.
 
I think depends how much lower is the low buffer. Here it's really terrible , probably ue engine not allows great optimizations on the ps3, the complete absence of MSAA in any ps3 ue3 game seems an another typical lack. I hope the ue3 will be abandoned soon after the cryengine 3 out. On the ps3 shows too limits.
Its UE2.5 with bioshock :p
 
*OT Snip*

A question about the DF Bioshock to face off...it says:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bioshock2-face-off-article?page=2

BioShock 2 employs the same trick with its transparencies (without the MSAA). A massive amount of the game's alpha textures are rendered with a quarter-resolution buffer, which is fine, except for one problem: these aren't on-screen for a split second, they are there a lot of the time. All of the water, particles and fire effects in BioShock 2 are rendered in this way, meaning that depending on the scene, some or even all of the screen is being generated at quarter-HD resolutions.

I'm wondering how is it that you determine the exact size of the transparenices? Couldn't it be any fraction?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can somebody explain about the water in BioShock? The Uncharted games have some of the best water on consoles...but 2K couldn't get the high-res water on PS3. Why?
 
Can somebody explain about the water in BioShock? The Uncharted games have some of the best water on consoles...but 2K couldn't get the high-res water on PS3. Why?


They use normal maps for the surface... guess they couldn't afford the memory.
 
OK. And Naughty Dog don't have trouble because?
Because Uncharted not a FPS game
Do they use the same method or different?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bioshock2-face-off-article?page=2
The big visual differentiator between the two games comes down to the handling of transparent "alpha" textures. These eat up bandwidth and fill-rate on the consoles, and as regular Digital Foundry readers will know, the 10MB dedicated RAM attached directly to the Xbox 360's Xenos GPU can give the Microsoft console a very real advantage here.

A very common solution on PS3 is to reduce the resolution of these textures: Killzone 2 for example scales them up from a quarter-resolution buffer, but adds multi-sampling anti-aliasing to smooth off the edges. For effects that are on-screen for a split second (for example, explosions) it's very hard for the human eye to notice much difference: it's a massive bandwidth-saver, with little impact on overall image quality.

BioShock 2 employs the same trick with its transparencies (without the MSAA). A massive amount of the game's alpha textures are rendered with a quarter-resolution buffer, which is fine, except for one problem: these aren't on-screen for a split second, they are there a lot of the time. All of the water, particles and fire effects in BioShock 2 are rendered in this way, meaning that depending on the scene, some or even all of the screen is being generated at quarter-HD resolutions.
 
How being a TPS saves the game from trouble..??

Also this low resolution buffer trick also helps on surfaces that are beneath the water surfaces right ?
If so then I'd like to mention a case. it was a while back when I was playing UC1's very first level & there was one thing which I noticed when I came across a small puddle of water. The texture work that was in the base of the puddle was equally as detailed as the ones that were in the surrounding dry area of the puddle (which happened to have the same kind of textures as the ones found in the base of puddle) cause I for one failed to spot even a single difference between those two. What does this actually means ?
 
Would the rainy level from UC2 count as situation with considerable amount of alpha ?
Also there was this whole jet ski level, water room level (the one which is said to be the most annoying level in game) & some more segments with quite a lot of water in Uncharted 1
 
One reason would be that U2 doesn't have extreme transparency situations like the escape to Dionysys segment (at the end of Syren Alley) in Bioshock 2.
U2 is full of water/shaders reflex, rain, snow etc. Only the explosion are a bit jarring. I think Bioshock 2 isn't exactly the showcase or the best scenario of transparancies way on the ps3. Even bayonetta had better use of low buffer compared to bioshock 2. I guess 2k Marin has choice the way more practice & 'economic'. Maybe the engine not help in this sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm wondering how is it that you determine the exact size of the transparenices? Couldn't it be any fraction?
When it blends in front of geometry, the steps seem to be 2 pixels wide instead of 1, at least judging by the screenshots shown there.
 
Back
Top