PS2 shook the world with the quality of its textures, blew PC gamers away.
The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn
- Thread starter gongo
- Start date
PS2 shook the world with the quality of its textures, blew PC gamers away.
user542745831
Veteran
The two pictures you provided might not necessarily be appropriate for such a comparison.
Digital Foundry might have some more appropriate comparison screenshots available over there for example:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/e...rfare-2-comparison-gallery-comparison-gallery
and also over there:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-comparison-cod-black-ops-pc?page=2
Another example:
"UNCHARTED 2: Among Thieves" at 2560x1440:
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/4/4/lg/855.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/4/3/lg/694.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/4/3/lg/693.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/4/3/lg/692.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/4/3/lg/691.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/4/3/lg/690.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/4/3/lg/689.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/4/3/lg/688.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/2/1/lg/026.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/2/1/lg/025.jpg
http://www.1up.com/media/03/7/2/1/lg/014.jpg
Source: http://www.1up.com/do/media?cId=3168740&sec=IMAGES
Might look "cleaner" or whatever you wanna call it (which is a good thing of course), but nothing more, and nowhere near "next-gen" good just because the rendering resolution got quadrupled, don't you think?
This.
This.
This.
Increased rendering resolution might also actually result in some gameplay advantages in racing games for example though, as once described by Digital Foundry for example when talking about the PC version in their "Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (2010)" Face-Off (especially see the highlighted (bolded/underlined) part of the quote):
Digital Foundry said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure if it's meaningful for me to chime at this point, but here are the things a lot of you are ignoring:
1. You get a higher resolution in console games whenever the developer believes that whatever is gained by higher resolution is worth whatever is lost in whatever else the fillrate could have been used for. If, next gen, there's so much fill that devs really can't find anything else to do with it, you'll see lots of 1080p games. Current-gen consoles are already capable of 720p games. Developers tend to prefer using the available fill for other things. It is highly likely that next-gen, as new graphical techniques are invented, resolution will drop back down to 720p or even 600p.
2. PC games don't "run at 1080p." They run at whatever resolution you set them to run at, at whatever detail settings you set them to run at, at whatever frame rate your graphics card can handle. Different users have different preferences on how to balance those things. Two users with the exact same hardware specs might run the exact same game at different settings. I remember back when I played PC games, I typically preferred to run at 800x600 with higher graphics settings if they were available rather than 1024x768 with lower graphics settings (yeah that dates me).
3. There's no objective measure of the "best" way to use available resources. There are only preferences. And yes, there are even tradeoffs in PC games. There does not exist PC hardware that can run every game that will come out now and in the next four years at maximum settings, resolution, IQ, and 120 Hz frame rate. Yeah, it's nice that you can run Call of Duty, a game designed to run at 60 fps on 7-year-old hardware, at super-duper ultra settings, but that's not saying much. The difference is that on consoles, you typically have no control over which tradeoffs you prefer; the developer's preferences hard-coded.
1. You get a higher resolution in console games whenever the developer believes that whatever is gained by higher resolution is worth whatever is lost in whatever else the fillrate could have been used for. If, next gen, there's so much fill that devs really can't find anything else to do with it, you'll see lots of 1080p games. Current-gen consoles are already capable of 720p games. Developers tend to prefer using the available fill for other things. It is highly likely that next-gen, as new graphical techniques are invented, resolution will drop back down to 720p or even 600p.
2. PC games don't "run at 1080p." They run at whatever resolution you set them to run at, at whatever detail settings you set them to run at, at whatever frame rate your graphics card can handle. Different users have different preferences on how to balance those things. Two users with the exact same hardware specs might run the exact same game at different settings. I remember back when I played PC games, I typically preferred to run at 800x600 with higher graphics settings if they were available rather than 1024x768 with lower graphics settings (yeah that dates me).
3. There's no objective measure of the "best" way to use available resources. There are only preferences. And yes, there are even tradeoffs in PC games. There does not exist PC hardware that can run every game that will come out now and in the next four years at maximum settings, resolution, IQ, and 120 Hz frame rate. Yeah, it's nice that you can run Call of Duty, a game designed to run at 60 fps on 7-year-old hardware, at super-duper ultra settings, but that's not saying much. The difference is that on consoles, you typically have no control over which tradeoffs you prefer; the developer's preferences hard-coded.
Last edited by a moderator:
user542745831
Veteran
Which probably was on a CRT based display, where both resolutions where displayed natively, which (unfortunately) would not be the case with today's fixed-pixel-display-technologies like for example LCD, Plasma, DLP, OLED and so on
?
Last edited by a moderator:
correct, some of the floor texture were absolutely amazing
also, at that point in time, most pc gamers had never seen (this much) grass in a videogame, not to mention moving grass..
so yeah definitely a case of detail over resolution
Yeah, I remember moving my monitor required a forklift and a state permit.Which probably was on a CRT based display, where both resolutions where displayed natively, which (unfortunately) would not be the case with today's fixed-pixel-display-technologies like for example LCD, Plasma, DLP, OLED and so on
I don't miss those days. I think the last PC game I bought was Neverwinter Nights.Which probably was on a CRT based display, where both resolutions where displayed natively, which (unfortunately) would not be the case with today's fixed-pixel-display-technologies like for example LCD, Plasma, DLP, OLED and so on
It's not that important if the box ships with a decent scalar ala 360.
It was quite nice and all, but that scenario was rotating all the time without any connection with the floor.
DOA2 was nicer overall.
Last edited by a moderator:
Subjective. TTT boasted much more detail, effects and higher polygon models even though someone may argue the stages were not interactive. The lighting effects in TTT were phenomenal. Due to the brilliant lighting Jin's stage had wood which actually looked like wood, in ogres stage rock looked like rock, in Leis stage wet asphault looked like wet asphault, silk loojed like silk etc. No other fighting on the PS2 mimicked so well the lighting bounced from material. The character models probably had more geometry than any other game at the time, including more impressive facial animations than DOA2. Some stages almost gave a similar look to a bump mapping technique although it wasnt. The textures overall were unmatched.menmau said:
Wasn't TTT pre-rendered back drops? Kind of doesn't count as personally using pre-rendered back grounds is cheating
user542745831
Veteran
Wasn't TTT pre-rendered back drops? Kind of doesn't count as personally using pre-rendered back grounds is cheating
Now that you mention it:
It would rather be quite awesome if some next-gen games would use pre-rendered backgrounds like shown in the following video for example:
wouldn't it
?Just imagine how awesome a game with pre-rendered backgrounds, like "Resident Evil Remake" for example (see video above), could probably look if it would utilize the hardware of upcoming next-gen gaming consoles and 1080p resolution or maybe even beyond 1080p, like "4K" for example
?
Last edited by a moderator:
a) TVs max out at 1080p
b) No, outside of skyboxes, pre-rendered backdrops add nothing to a game. If you're going to fix your camera angle, you can do something almost that pretty in real-time already.
c) Fixed camera angles are terrible for video games.
b) No, outside of skyboxes, pre-rendered backdrops add nothing to a game. If you're going to fix your camera angle, you can do something almost that pretty in real-time already.
c) Fixed camera angles are terrible for video games.
Well I just lost a big post thanks to a short key mistake...
I'll make it shorter as a result.
A gpu that perform anywhere between a hd7770 and a hd 7850 will have no trouble rendering most of the time @1080p.
Tricks like lower resolutioon render targets are going to get less noticeable as you start from higher, half 1080p is still 720p.
Overall the quality of BF3 on a good pc is likely to be the base line for the up coming next generation of systems. I don't see what is not next gen about it (if it means something which I don't think it does...).
Now if I compare bf3 "pc quality" with the launch titles of this gen and previous personally I see no point in complaining.
I'll make it shorter as a result.
A gpu that perform anywhere between a hd7770 and a hd 7850 will have no trouble rendering most of the time @1080p.
Tricks like lower resolutioon render targets are going to get less noticeable as you start from higher, half 1080p is still 720p.
Overall the quality of BF3 on a good pc is likely to be the base line for the up coming next generation of systems. I don't see what is not next gen about it (if it means something which I don't think it does...).
Now if I compare bf3 "pc quality" with the launch titles of this gen and previous personally I see no point in complaining.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that you mention it:
It would rather be quite awesome if some next-gen games would use pre-rendered backgrounds like shown in the following video for example:
wouldn't it
Just imagine how awesome a game with pre-rendered backgrounds, like "Resident Evil Remake" for example (see video above), could probably look if it would utilize the hardware of upcoming next-gen gaming consoles and 1080p resolution or maybe even beyond 1080p, like "4K" for example
current-gen. there already game using pre-rendered background. It's Final Fantasy XIII and XIII-2. (much more on XIII)
maybe there other games but i dont remember.
as for last gen (on PS1), there already FF8 that mix Video with realtime 3D gameplay.
the result is awesome in the case of FF8. so if next-gen using something like that i'm sure it will be able to deliver more crazy graphic. But the inflexibility of pre-rendered backgrounds maybe limit it's usefulnes
I doubt it very much.Wasn't TTT pre-rendered back drops? Kind of doesn't count as personally using pre-rendered back grounds is cheating
They werent flat rotating images like PS1's Tekken 3.
Their geometry would change based on camera angle as you would expect from realtime polygons. Many objects were viewable slightly from various sides unlike flat 2D objects and moved independently from nearby objects and background layers. Lighting was also affected on the backfround objects or walls based on camera angle (see Jin's stage for example). And they werent streeming FMV either as the game run normally when you took the disk out.
Also I remember when the game was first revealed on the PS2, Namco had a few demonstrations running with the camera moving around in ways we dont experience in the game to show off the visuals and the backdrops looked polygonal.
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
Just about all of the games in this gen use pre-rendered back drops one way or an other. And actually I've seen it done really well in fully controllable 3d space, the results can be horrendously detailed and realistic. Forza 4 of which uses that concept for it's "image base lighting" tech.
the idea is simple you render as much EYE bursting level of detail as possible or use a highly detailed camera, (like forza 4) and then you translate the coordinates into a mesh underneath. It's 3d and feels 3d but the amount of detail isn't straining the computer, this is good for models that want to exceed the amount of possible rendered detail.
It can work............but it's still only smoke and mirrors. it'd be nice to have it though.
Likewise 3 decades in a nutshell; Consoles is where you'll find various new game tricks and ideas used, PCs is where you'll find all the new hardware.
the idea is simple you render as much EYE bursting level of detail as possible or use a highly detailed camera, (like forza 4) and then you translate the coordinates into a mesh underneath. It's 3d and feels 3d but the amount of detail isn't straining the computer, this is good for models that want to exceed the amount of possible rendered detail.
It can work............but it's still only smoke and mirrors.
it'd be nice to have it though.Likewise 3 decades in a nutshell; Consoles is where you'll find various new game tricks and ideas used, PCs is where you'll find all the new hardware.
Last edited by a moderator:
not to turn this into a comparison, but this is something I read quite often.
There actually is not that big a difference between BF3 pc 'ultra' compared to good old PS3 when you scale the pc down to 720, aside from the framerate.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-battlefield-3?page=4
this is obviously the single player component where the difference is the smallest (multiplayer the PC has a lot more simultaneous players for example)
I think BF3 on a good pc wil actually be low-tier instead of baseline, next generation.
(imagine how 'well' BF3 would run on a 2005-2006 PC and you understand
)Likewise 3 decades in a nutshell; Consoles is where you'll find various new game tricks and ideas used, PCs is where you'll find all the new hardware.
lol so true!
They were pre-rendered dude
Now that you mention it:
It would rather be quite awesome if some next-gen games would use pre-rendered backgrounds like shown in the following video for example:
wouldn't it
Just imagine how awesome a game with pre-rendered backgrounds, like "Resident Evil Remake" for example (see video above), could probably look if it would utilize the hardware of upcoming next-gen gaming consoles and 1080p resolution or maybe even beyond 1080p, like "4K" for example
I have always wondered how good modern hardware could make pre-rendered back grounds look.
Capcom in the remakes had the backgrounds animated and really brought them to life, I bet modern hardware could have them all cast shadows and crucially, be interactive.
Arent you talking about static scenery far into the background?