There are different weather settings in Infamous and this is the one where the rain just stopped and you can see wet puddles on the street, hence the specular sheen on the bricks. And of course not all of them are shiny like this one, some are more dried up such as this.That image shows me a specular response from the bricks that is not physically plausible. Why would bricks be so shiny when they are dry? Furthermore, it appears the window seals have the same specular response when they are clearly supposed to be made of a different material.
Here is an image of a real world location:
There is no such specular response on bricks (unless they are coated with something or wet). Which is my point.. you can't really tell that building is using PBR at all. I would think an Oren Nayar BRDF would be used on the bricks with very very low fresnel so that you don't get hardly any specular or the roughness would be so high that you'd not really see a massive amount of energy at the ideal reflection vector.
Interesting. I'd only ever seen the slides, so I wasn't quite sure what all they were using for what and how the model was actually "assembled." Found the course notes, it's fascinating.I think that they actually did use the SH data for specular in the shipping game. Their course notes from SIGGRAPH certainly go into detail on how to do it (they refer to it as "area specular"). They basically pre-computed Cook-Torrance specular projected onto SH for a set of viewing angles with the camera located on the XZ plane, and stored the resulting coefficients in lookup textures. The pre-computation also depends on fresnel intensity and roughness which gives you 3 dimensions for your parameterization, but they factor out the fresnel in such a way that you can reduce it to 2D. They also drop the SH coefficients that depend on Y, since they assume the specular reflection to be symmetrical with regards to the Y-axis. Then in the shader they just had to come up with a local coordinate frame where the camera is lined up with the XZ plane, and then use that to rotate the SH coefficients that they pull from the lookup textures. It's pretty cool stuff considering how long ago it came out.
"Awesome" is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is whether I:SS uses PBR materials (and implements them well) as the game was raised as an example of why what The Order is doing isn't all that technically impressive according to some. Looking at your screenshots, the dry materials are entirely lacking. Ergo, The Order is pulling off better rendering tech than I:SS, goes the argument, and RAD and their game are achieving something a little special in getting all the tech executed well and blended together.Entire world of Infamous Second Son has art style direction that makes is totally fine that some materials look different from our real world.
During gameplay, game looks incredibly awesome.
"Awesome" is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is whether I:SS uses PBR materials (and implements them well) as the game was raised as an example of why what The Order is doing isn't all that technically impressive according to some. Looking at your screenshots, the dry materials are entirely lacking. Ergo, The Order is pulling off better rendering tech than I:SS, goes the argument, and RAD and their game are achieving something a little special in getting all the tech executed well and blended together.
Did you mean "the best looking game" or "among the best looking games"? The former is impossible to call because art styles are so very different and subjective. L. Scofield's ideas of 'good looking' seem pretty different to mine, for example. But I agree that a selection of best looking games would include The Order along with DriveClub and others.The Order is clearly the best looking PS4 games.
Did you mean "the best looking game" or "among the best looking games"? The former is impossible to call because art styles are so very different and subjective. L. Scofield's ideas of 'good looking' seem pretty different to mine, for example. But I agree that a selection of best looking games would include The Order along with DriveClub and others.
Just because I:SS has some limitations doesn't mean that The Order's tech is better. I:SS doesn't have the luxury of blurring and dirtying the screen to hide flaws in their model. Also, since The Order is an extremely linear corridor shooter it means RAD can make sure that all the surfaces visible to the player look decent. Open-level games such as I:SS are at a disadvantage here and not due to tech issues."Awesome" is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is whether I:SS uses PBR materials (and implements them well) as the game was raised as an example of why what The Order is doing isn't all that technically impressive according to some. Looking at your screenshots, the dry materials are entirely lacking. Ergo, The Order is pulling off better rendering tech than I:SS, goes the argument, and RAD and their game are achieving something a little special in getting all the tech executed well and blended together.
ISS uses a whole bunch of methods to try and produce its "look." It handles light sources directly, it uses cubemaps, it uses SSR, and there's even a bit of planar reflections (noticeable, for instance, when looking out across the water).Please forgive the OT post but:
This image reminds me of a debate I had between whether I:SS was using actual SSR of static/dynamic objects in the world or just the light source only. I looked all through the game trying to find SSR and could only find it with light sources while the rest of the reflections were cubemap lookups. Can someone verify this is the case?
The game uses SSR for non light sources and mixes them with static cubemaps, just look at any of the street lamps, you'll see it reflects the poles as well. Cause only using SSR in a game like Infamous would look hilariously bad cause there are lots of tall buildings and signs at quite a height which. It's just like Watch Dogs that mixes cubemaps and SSR, in fact every game that uses SSR mixes them up with cubemaps achieve reflections.Please forgive the OT post but:
This image reminds me of a debate I had between whether I:SS was using actual SSR of static/dynamic objects in the world or just the light source only. I looked all through the game trying to find SSR and could only find it with light sources while the rest of the reflections were cubemap lookups. Can someone verify this is the case?
Wait what blur?Just because I:SS has some limitations doesn't mean that The Order's tech is better. I:SS doesn't have the luxury of blurring and dirtying the screen to hide flaws in their model. Also, since The Order is an extremely linear corridor shooter it means RAD can make sure that all the surfaces visible to the player look decent. Open-level games such as I:SS are at a disadvantage here and not due to tech issues.
Regarding your "best looking game" ranking, depending on the criteria, The Order might even be disqualified from the get go due to all the blurriness and graininess. IQ purists must certainly hate it (I'm looking at you Globalisateur).
Chromatic aberration + DOF +motion blur + grain. It's like looking at a magazine scan.Wait what blur?
Honestly I dislike it when people say this for pretty much any situation where the game is pushing a lot of effects on screen. Some people say Driveclub "hides" its flaws with all the blurry weather and rain, some people say I:SS hides its flaws with the neon lights, wet look and "blurry" DoF. Some say Killzone hides its flaws with its blurry Motion blur. Some say BF4 hides its flaw with all the bloom and lens flare. I think it's a ridiculous way to over simplify things especially relating to technology.
The game uses SSR to inform the reflection result, but generally attempts to avoid having it be the sole contributor.
Here's a screenshot showing the very obvious reflections on "blustery", note how the railing reflection disappears in a region around Delsin where the game can't correctly reflect it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6HkGsWIAAAbGQ8.jpg:orig
Wait what blur?
Honestly I dislike it when people say this for pretty much any situation where the game is pushing a lot of effects on screen. Some people say Driveclub "hides" its flaws with all the blurry weather and rain, some people say I:SS hides its flaws with the neon lights, wet look and "blurry" DoF. Some say Killzone hides its flaws with its blurry Motion blur. Some say BF4 hides its flaw with all the bloom and lens flare. I think it's a ridiculous way to over simplify things especially relating to technology.
The game uses SSR for non light sources and mixes them with static cubemaps, just look at any of the street lamps, you'll see it reflects the poles as well. Cause only using SSR in a game like Infamous would look hilariously bad cause there are lots of tall buildings and signs at quite a height which. It's just like Watch Dogs that mixes cubemaps and SSR, in fact every game that uses SSR mixes them up with cubemaps achieve reflections.