user542745831
Veteran
This.
The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn
- Thread starter gongo
- Start date
This.
Massively compared to what you could do on the PS1. Not compared to what you can do on current-gen consoles. Even less so compared to what next-gen consoles will do.
I disagree, speaking purely on the basis of a Resident Evil remake on a next generation console pre-rendered back grounds would produce a much bettering look game then going fully 3D.
Camera angles wouldn't be as hard hit and bas as they were on PSOne because there's more memory and storage to have more then one angle per room.
I already saw that, one thing is that even good quality video is not that much of an good indicator.
Another thing is that the Ultra setting in BF3, it's pretty much pushing everything at 11 without much significant results and also add AA. In the high quality mode you already have all goodies about FB2. The hd 7850 run the game in high @1080p at around ~50 frames per second.
Ultra mode is pretty much about giving the geekest PC gamers something like you give a bone to a dog.
Then there is lightning and there are are neat differences (for example the red light in the helicopter is a point and cast proper shading on the characters getting out of the helicopter).
Then you have lightning precision at least on the 360.
You can also look at game like the witcher 2, and see the difference in lightning.
Point is that "next gen" means nothing as far as rendering is concerned as such it leads to a pretty empty and vague discussion. Consoles are with all respect to the devs pushing successful hack jobs of what is available on PC. If you want something better then that is for now what is available on PC. Speaking of "next gen" doesn't make justice to the improvement available in some PC games. Coming with more accurate lightning model costs a lot in processing power. There is not point in somebody stating that's for him the improvement is not "good enough/ next gen".
It all comes down to false statements as this one from Cops n Rappers:
That is not true this generation has last a long long time, the most advanced devs teams have moved forward, Dice for example is pushing the first dx11 only game on PC then they ported it back to this generation of consoles. Lot of people are experimenting with what PC cards allow for a few years.iLkewise 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.
This all idea that because new consoles will ship, the most advanced software developers will find something new is inaccurate. The next consoles are going to bring parity with PC and introduce capabilities available to the devs for a few years in PC graphic cards.
3d "researchers" they don't have waited for the next generation of consoles to push their researches further and I would add luckily. I don't know send a PM to say Andrew Lauritzen and ask him if it is holding on any researches because whereas there are shipping monster GPU in the pc realm, new consolez are not there. Does he expect the next generation of consoles to somehow remove a sort of metaphysical lock that prevent his brain to move forward.
In the same vein you could contact Repi and tell him that FB2 is nice but as next genz consoles are coming he should really start to work seriously and that the time for lazy devs is to end by fall 2013.
I'm kidding but half kidding, there is somet truth to what I say, bright people are working at their best on hardware pretty "next geny". They've been for a while
Well that is an awful statement to make, a card in between the 7770 and hd 7850 (say with shading power closer to the former and rendering power closer to the later) with a few optimizations is to push BF3 on high mostly 60 FPS. I don't see what is low tiers about it.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
Not too mention that there are some lacking to BF3 that have nothing to do with the tech, there are some objects here and there that have really ugly textures (I've spotted a few in the eurogamer vids, like awful pile of bags, etc.). FB 2 use virtual texturing if memory serves right. As they iterate the game they should build better assets for that kind of tiny things along the way (if they deem it relevant that's it). Even for such a big titles artists time is spare.
Things are to get only better but it's a pretty amazing bottom line, luckily again some devs have not wait for new consoles and have moved forward. Frostbyte engine 2 is "next gen" ready and has been for while. I would say the same about Crytech engine. I would say the team in charge of the last Halo (I forgot their name xxx 343) is also next gen ready.
Not too mention again that will only get better though it will take time.
As for some things posted here they imo don't make sense, whatever tekken rendition says nothing about the state of today technology, it's pointless.
I would say the same thing about speaking at the same time of pre-rendered environments and UE4 which main feature is about real time GI and storing lightning information in a massive data structure.
Anyway I suspect the mods will interfere at some point.
user542745831
Veteran
This thread is about "next-gen", isn't it?
And UE4 is supposed to be a "next-gen" real-time 3D rendering engine, isn't it?
So, discussing if a next-gen game with pre-rendered backgrounds, like "Resident Evil Remake" for example, but made for PS4/Xbox 720 (or whatever they are going to be called), would look better than a UE4 based game rendered in real-time, can be considered to be a reasonable discussion within this thread, don't you think?
Well I was merely point out the fact that next gen means nothing as far as rendering is concerned.
By the way I don't know if this is reasonable discussion as you skip on most of post, I would say the most relevant part of my post.
Saying that "ue4 is a next gen engine" doesn't mean much, it's been developed on PC and is set to run on PC. The fact it should also run on consoles doesn't make it anything special vs the competition.
If you put aside their GI implementation that uses at least 8GB ( the demo they shown actually ran on a PC with 16GB of RAM) and its unreasonable requirement for anything but devs kits, UE4 is imho nothing special.
It's more EPic catching up with a lot of stuffs some developers, both in the console and PC realm, have already implemented a while ago.
UE3 didn't support fine grained multi-threading, it's the bread and butter on the most successful teams working on the ps3 (see the spurs programming model), it's also at work on the 360.
Halo already run lot of particles on the GPU for cheap (though a lot less but xenos is a 7 years old GPU). And so on, deferred rendering, etc. Epic is pretty good at PR and marketing though.
The work that has been put in the last Halo engine is impressive, MSFT could release it on a PC (in a fuller form).
Would it get the "next gen" attribute if MSFT were to do so? The answer is imo irrelevant.
The whole point is that people dismissing the advancement made in the pc realm and by some teams obviously working on both console and more "universal" implementation (like say 343 Industries among others) as not being " next gen" is not making any sense from a technology point of view.
As for pre-rendered stuff I don't see what is next gen about it, it's a design choice if not artistic choice, it has trade off. I see nothing that would prevent devs to use that if it fit what they are trying to do.
From a tech pov it would be more interesting to speak about the characters in such a set-up. Square work is interesting (even though I'm not fond of their games), pre rendered stuffs allows to focus a lot of the processing power on characters, it should allows for really detailed characters, nicer hair, clothes simulations, that kind of stuffs.
It will not work with every games though, not too mention it's kind of pointless when it comes helmet wearing GI
Anyway I'm not sure about is your point on the matter, it's not like pre-rendered stuffs are going to be forbidden for unknown reasons by either Sony or MSFT. It might well still be used in a few games but overall I don't how it relates to the discussion which was in the last few pages about "what next gen should like" or more "what is good enough to be vouched as "next gen" and to go back to a member's comment "define next gen".
I at least pointed out that some talks on the matter is not relevant to nowadays tech as well as pointed out that the separation between PC and consoles is not longer relevant wrt to the rendering tech used in a given game. The next gen" attribute when it comes to games technology and rendering technique means peanuts.
I'm right on the topic, as the point is exactly that "define next gen".
There is another topic to discuss the improvements extra processing power should bring to the games running on the next generation of console (by the way the only sensible meaning of "next gen games" from a technical point of view).
By the way I don't know if this is reasonable discussion as you skip on most of post, I would say the most relevant part of my post.
Saying that "ue4 is a next gen engine" doesn't mean much, it's been developed on PC and is set to run on PC. The fact it should also run on consoles doesn't make it anything special vs the competition.
If you put aside their GI implementation that uses at least 8GB ( the demo they shown actually ran on a PC with 16GB of RAM) and its unreasonable requirement for anything but devs kits, UE4 is imho nothing special.
It's more EPic catching up with a lot of stuffs some developers, both in the console and PC realm, have already implemented a while ago.
UE3 didn't support fine grained multi-threading, it's the bread and butter on the most successful teams working on the ps3 (see the spurs programming model), it's also at work on the 360.
Halo already run lot of particles on the GPU for cheap (though a lot less but xenos is a 7 years old GPU). And so on, deferred rendering, etc. Epic is pretty good at PR and marketing though.
The work that has been put in the last Halo engine is impressive, MSFT could release it on a PC (in a fuller form).
Would it get the "next gen" attribute if MSFT were to do so? The answer is imo irrelevant.
The whole point is that people dismissing the advancement made in the pc realm and by some teams obviously working on both console and more "universal" implementation (like say 343 Industries among others) as not being " next gen" is not making any sense from a technology point of view.
As for pre-rendered stuff I don't see what is next gen about it, it's a design choice if not artistic choice, it has trade off. I see nothing that would prevent devs to use that if it fit what they are trying to do.
From a tech pov it would be more interesting to speak about the characters in such a set-up. Square work is interesting (even though I'm not fond of their games), pre rendered stuffs allows to focus a lot of the processing power on characters, it should allows for really detailed characters, nicer hair, clothes simulations, that kind of stuffs.
It will not work with every games though, not too mention it's kind of pointless when it comes helmet wearing GI
Anyway I'm not sure about is your point on the matter, it's not like pre-rendered stuffs are going to be forbidden for unknown reasons by either Sony or MSFT. It might well still be used in a few games but overall I don't how it relates to the discussion which was in the last few pages about "what next gen should like" or more "what is good enough to be vouched as "next gen" and to go back to a member's comment "define next gen".
I at least pointed out that some talks on the matter is not relevant to nowadays tech as well as pointed out that the separation between PC and consoles is not longer relevant wrt to the rendering tech used in a given game. The next gen" attribute when it comes to games technology and rendering technique means peanuts.
I'm right on the topic, as the point is exactly that "define next gen".
There is another topic to discuss the improvements extra processing power should bring to the games running on the next generation of console (by the way the only sensible meaning of "next gen games" from a technical point of view).
Last edited by a moderator:
Next gen is a vague term indeed. In fact both sony and MS could very well Wii-out this time and release 1.5 versions of their consoles. I doubt that would happen, but they could do it if they wanted to.
But when we say Next-Gen, we are inferring the transition that we have come to expect from a new console cycle. Its a matter of history. With every new console generation so far, the graphical difference between their games has always been big. They never looked like improved versions of predecessors, but true technological leaps. BF3 on ultra is indeed impossible on current consoles, but I wouldn't call it a Huge evolution over what we have already. It would be enough for a launch game or for the first years of a ps4 or xbox1080, but after next gen matures we will laugh at the graphics of it.
Its just a matter of remembering the other console generations. Before ps2, what was the most highend pc game of the time? Quake 3? (You might think of another one, I'm just using it as an exmple) Does that compare to latter ps2, xbox or gc games? Resolution aside, the quality of models, lighting, animation, physics an all, came even close? Or think of Gears of War 1 this gen, to my taste I find it quite underwhelming actually, but it was the big eyeopener to the possibilities of this gen, and there was no pc game to match its graphics before people started developing for the 360.
With few exceptions, you can easily tell the gen of most games just from looking at it, even if it is a pc game, you can tell from what console era it comes.
It's not me saying console cycles have influence in the development of game technologies, its the developers themselves that acknowledge this fact. Watch some talks of the past GDCs...
One thing is having a couple devs, looking at what cool thing they can do with dx11 for the pc version of a game, while still keeping the engine somewhat runnable on a 360 and ps3 and sharing his attention to those versions of the game as well. Another is having a developer making an engine for the ground up for dx11 only and the entire team of artist making assets with completely different tech in mind (curved surfaces, displacement mas, more complex shaders, dynamic GI, hundreds of shadowed lights, who knows what else). Now we may have a couple devs working on pc only titles, and that leads to advancements in the field, sure, but it is a slow process. Now imagine dozens of the best devs out there dedicated exclusively to next gen machines, doesn't that make a difference?
The first few years of new console releases have always been the most prolific in the development of new real time rendering technology, this time could be the exception, but based on what we've seen in the past, next gen games should way better looking things then anything we could have seen in any real time scenario. We are just basing our speculations on the premise that this next gen will be equally impactful in the overall look and appearance of games as the past ones were.
But when we say Next-Gen, we are inferring the transition that we have come to expect from a new console cycle. Its a matter of history. With every new console generation so far, the graphical difference between their games has always been big. They never looked like improved versions of predecessors, but true technological leaps. BF3 on ultra is indeed impossible on current consoles, but I wouldn't call it a Huge evolution over what we have already. It would be enough for a launch game or for the first years of a ps4 or xbox1080, but after next gen matures we will laugh at the graphics of it.
Its just a matter of remembering the other console generations. Before ps2, what was the most highend pc game of the time? Quake 3? (You might think of another one, I'm just using it as an exmple) Does that compare to latter ps2, xbox or gc games? Resolution aside, the quality of models, lighting, animation, physics an all, came even close? Or think of Gears of War 1 this gen, to my taste I find it quite underwhelming actually, but it was the big eyeopener to the possibilities of this gen, and there was no pc game to match its graphics before people started developing for the 360.
With few exceptions, you can easily tell the gen of most games just from looking at it, even if it is a pc game, you can tell from what console era it comes.
It's not me saying console cycles have influence in the development of game technologies, its the developers themselves that acknowledge this fact. Watch some talks of the past GDCs...
One thing is having a couple devs, looking at what cool thing they can do with dx11 for the pc version of a game, while still keeping the engine somewhat runnable on a 360 and ps3 and sharing his attention to those versions of the game as well. Another is having a developer making an engine for the ground up for dx11 only and the entire team of artist making assets with completely different tech in mind (curved surfaces, displacement mas, more complex shaders, dynamic GI, hundreds of shadowed lights, who knows what else). Now we may have a couple devs working on pc only titles, and that leads to advancements in the field, sure, but it is a slow process. Now imagine dozens of the best devs out there dedicated exclusively to next gen machines, doesn't that make a difference?
The first few years of new console releases have always been the most prolific in the development of new real time rendering technology, this time could be the exception, but based on what we've seen in the past, next gen games should way better looking things then anything we could have seen in any real time scenario. We are just basing our speculations on the premise that this next gen will be equally impactful in the overall look and appearance of games as the past ones were.
Talking about pre-rendered backgrounds brought this back to my mind:
You could do much better then what was shown in the video with actual knowledge of the full high-detail geometry and lighting of the baked scene. So, yeah, there is room for some pretty amazing stuff going that route, yet I still think it is not applicable to most games including RE type games.
The fixed camera of RE1, 2 & 3 added atmosphere and some excellent graphics without breaking gameplay during the exploration, puzzlesolving sections. The moment action kicked in, it became an incredible frustrating thing. Still it was a worthwhile compromise in the psone era, and we played through it because 1. we ware amazed by those graphics 2. most 3d games had bad controls too 3. the design was good enough to go around most of the issues. Nowadays, we get good enough graphics with the actual 3d environments that sacrificing playability is not worth it. And if those games were to be made today, I'm sure the designers would have avoided the pre-rendered levels route. Fixed camera during exploration is fine, but give me an over the sholder camera if you are gonna give me something to shoot at and ask me to aim correctly and conserve my ammo.
Now a point n' click adventure game though, would totally work in my opinion.
You could do much better then what was shown in the video with actual knowledge of the full high-detail geometry and lighting of the baked scene. So, yeah, there is room for some pretty amazing stuff going that route, yet I still think it is not applicable to most games including RE type games.
The fixed camera of RE1, 2 & 3 added atmosphere and some excellent graphics without breaking gameplay during the exploration, puzzlesolving sections. The moment action kicked in, it became an incredible frustrating thing. Still it was a worthwhile compromise in the psone era, and we played through it because 1. we ware amazed by those graphics 2. most 3d games had bad controls too 3. the design was good enough to go around most of the issues. Nowadays, we get good enough graphics with the actual 3d environments that sacrificing playability is not worth it. And if those games were to be made today, I'm sure the designers would have avoided the pre-rendered levels route. Fixed camera during exploration is fine, but give me an over the sholder camera if you are gonna give me something to shoot at and ask me to aim correctly and conserve my ammo.
Now a point n' click adventure game though, would totally work in my opinion.
user542745831
Veteran
Can they really?
What "RancidLunchmeat" wrote a few posts earlier:
might make more sense, don't you think?
Have you ever heard of or played "Resident Evil Zero" and/or "Resident Evil Remake" on GameCube / Wii?
Serious question: do you enjoy Resident Evil Code: Veronica X and Resident Evil 4 / 5 / 6 (real-time environments) more than Resident Evil 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 (pre-rendered environments)
?You might want to take a look at this for example:
?
It didn't use pre-rendered environments though, didn't it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you ever heard of or played "Resident Evil Zero" and/or "Resident Evil Remake" on GameCube / Wii?
Serious question: do you enjoy Resident Evil Code: Veronica X and Resident Evil 4 / 5 / 6 (real-time environments) more than Resident Evil 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 (pre-rendered environments)
Yes, I heard of it, and it was an homage to the older games, and thus they adopted the same technical restrictions of static camera because that was what the first games were like.
My preference regarding RE 1,2,3 vs RE 4 and 5 is irrelevant because there are MANY more design and gameplay style differences between those then merely camera type.
I had also seen the RE3.5 footage a very long time ago, and I remember that in the time I thought "Wha the hell was wrong with that for them to wanna change it?" I felt like it looked pretty solid, but still, that happens with all cancelled games.
Finally, I do like all RE games (of the main series, haven't played the others) with 2 and 4 being my personal favorites, and 5 being the one I like the least. Yet, I have issues with many of the design choices of ALL of them, and to my tastes at least, none of them are very Honest horror games as I always feel like they are artificially made more difficult and scary because of awkward gameplay (be it camera type, weapon handling, tank like movement, etc)
COPS N RAPPERS
Regular
It all comes down to false statements as this one from Cops n Rappers:
That is not true this generation has last a long long time, the most advanced devs teams have moved forward, Dice for example is pushing the first dx11 only game on PC then they ported it back to this generation of consoles. Lot of people are experimenting with what PC cards allow for a few years.
This all idea that because new consoles will ship, the most advanced software developers will find something new is inaccurate. The next consoles are going to bring parity with PC and introduce capabilities available to the devs for a few years in PC graphic cards.
3d "researchers" they don't have waited for the next generation of consoles to push their researches further and I would add luckily. I don't know send a PM to say Andrew Lauritzen and ask him if it is holding on any researches because whereas there are shipping monster GPU in the pc realm, new consolez are not there. Does he expect the next generation of consoles to somehow remove a sort of metaphysical lock that prevent his brain to move forward.
In the same vein you could contact Repi and tell him that FB2 is nice but as next genz consoles are coming he should really start to work seriously and that the time for lazy devs is to end by fall 2013.
I'm kidding but half kidding, there is somet truth to what I say, bright people are working at their best on hardware pretty "next geny". They've been for a while
what i was inferring to was new ideas starting for games not just shooters, you have heavy rain, gears of war, god of war and final fantasy setting early examples. ( for the way games should play, not in just only looks.) In the pc gaming world these days have gotten much better but mostly what you see is influences the console industry has given. and PCs improve up on those ideas with much more sophisticated tech and features.
it's true pcs always set the mark on graphics and features, which intern are used in consoles, but the gameplay mechanics and the way they play out on consoles usually sets the trends.
PC starts the development of features and graphics, consoles start the game trends, and PCs later on elaborates them with newer features.......and thus the cycle continues and repeats.
that's why you have console manufactures like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft being out for so long and their quests for more innovation.
Last edited by a moderator:
fearsomepirate said:
What you see is Namco making the floor infinite and move seperately from the background because they dont really want you to get into the background. Another thing going is that the axis of the floor is not always lined with the background. They used that same technique with T5, T6 and TTT2 in some stages but pushed the background further and corrected the coordinates of the floor and background so that the floor is always aligned with the background. This reduced that weird feel we got from TTT and the arcade version of T3 caused from the misaligned floor and separate background movement
Edit: here is a practical explanation why Namco made it like this. Because the fighters fight on an infinite vertical plane, the models arent supposed to ever approach the walls. So any time they are supposed to move near like when a character got a straight attack that throws him away creating a distance, you dont want to make him fall sideways so that he avoids approaching the wall. It wouldnt look normal and it would have affected the gameplay. This was quite a problem with TTT since many backgrounds are rendered so near the action, some even in closed environments. So the solution was to rotate independently the background when characters moved or created a distance after an attack, make the floor move infinetely and keep the movent of the characters on the floor straight.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Probably a really dumb question, and I'm not sure if this is even the right thread for it. Anyway, what are the chances that EA would release BF3 on the next Xbox, running at 1080p 60fps with all the added content?
My guess is pretty low with BF4 in development, but I would hope they do anyway.
My guess is pretty low with BF4 in development, but I would hope they do anyway.
Chances are probably high, they like money after all.
The real question IMO is how many games that you buy on PSN or XBLA will be playable on your next-gen consoles. I would be really happy if I could just ditch the PS3 and keep all my games on the PS4. Multiplayer games have a kind of longevity that single player games just don't.
I would love a re-release via XBL/PSN of Team Fortress 2, jazzed graphics, all the new content, and a big push in the launch window. So few console gamers played it and it could be a rich, next gen worthy title and as a shooter it is a kind title in that it allows a lot of game styles. I would much rather see stuff like that -- and a "BF3 -- compilation" with all the content in next-gen visuals and maybe an extra mini-campaign or re-worked campagn to have coop or whatnot that some really sparse new titles that are a mile wide but inch deep.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I know, it wouldn't cost them much, it'd be a cheap port and a great way to show off the power of the next-gen console(s).
(((interference)))
Veteran
Zero, since BF4 will launch in time for Holiday 2013 alongside the next Xbox.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
That's pretty much what I thought -- Well, lets hope that BF4 runs on the same engine (Frostbite 2.0) and that the next Xbox can run it at 60fps. I don't even care what resolution, 720p would be fine by me.