Trailer from Naughty Dog

I don't doubt that they tried but also i don't think that we can call one of those"cute attempts" sub-surface scattering.
In my opinion -judging always from the visual result- i would say that sub-surface scattering in video games starts this generation with xbox360/ps3 and even more with dx10 PCs.

 

The fact they're world's apart actually doesn't confirm it. Quite the opposite - If there was only 10% difference between the 3D shots and the trailer no-one would notice!

What I find interesting is they reportedly overestimated shader power by 10%, and the RSX got a 10% clock decrease...

 

Evan Wells Naughty Dog's lead designer and co-president is the guy from ign interview.It'a pr now ?

 

The 10% figure confirms nothing. The line about the game not running realtime at e3 and the subsequent fidelity dropoff confirms everything.

When we see RT gameplay we can revisit the subject.

 

The animation is fantastic. Overall looks really nice and probably alot of fun coming from Naughty Dog.

 

your jumping a gun here bit to early, that could be mistranslation .

 

I think what TheChefO is trying to convey to us is that the game at this moment might looks as good as the e3 trailer or might even surpass it but the trailer that was shown at e3 was not rendered in real time on the ps3.

 

Worlds apart? I'm not the hyperbole police, but looking at macabre's comparison pic, is that really worlds apart? This is the point I was trying to make before. If you want to take the best elements from all the images snapped from the original trailer, and apply them to the one 3D shot, then you clearly tilt the field in favor of the trailer. But if you look at all the shots from the trailer, you see a good number of angles and shots that look the same or worse than the 3D shot from Game Informer. But worlds apart they are not...IMO. PEACE.

 

chef-o, I don't think there is a hard cap on RSX for AA, but anything above 4xAA will not be very practical @ 720P, nm 1080p. Going by G70 featureset, it seems the next step is 3loop 8xaa. Doesn't sound like a great idea.

 

Why they changed the character design? I once thought the game is like "Nick Lachey's sweet runaway", but now it looks like Johnny Messner from "Anacondas 2"!

 

Faking a believable sss on skin is not that hard. One can even tweak the lambertian model towards the backlit side to make the surface looks slightly translucent. The skin shader used in Ruby Demo, a better faked sss, has already been used in MANY games.

 

Indeed it could be a misinterpritation. I have no insider information claiming it was or was not. All I have is access to the cgi e3 vid, the screens released since (including the "3d" gif), and my own two eyes. These shots that have been released since the e3 vid do vary in quality as MD pointed out. However none equal or surpass the cgi vid. Not just in one facet either. Texture detail, AA, AF, lighting, and shadow all show significant dropoffs. Some things are understandable for a promo vid, others not so much. In some cases they have improved the graphics over the vid and I expect some aspects to continue improving.

As I've said, we'll see where the game stands in Realtime gameplay and how close they got to the e3 vid. Personally I think Light, Shadow, AA, AF, and texture detail will all continue to fall short, I just want to see how close they get.

To disregard these differences is to discredit the teams efforts to match them in realtime.

 

Thanks for the reply Pakotlar - Farid answered this on the previous page though.
Unless you have conflicting information?

 

I think people in this thread has lived up to my "nitpicker" claim.

 

Urm, I don't belive it was CGI in that trailer but (buffed up) ingame assets.

 

What is CGI?
Actual definition is Computer Generated Imagery. Commonly associated with Movie creation to depict unreal things, realistically.

Videogames generate their visuals on-the-fly. If game visuals are predetermined (prerendered or rendered offline), generally this is done for depicting graphics that are not possible to be recreated in realtime on the target platform.

To what extent the visuals in the e3 video have overshot the abilities of ps3 are unknown. What is known is they have overshot the abilities of the platform (until proven otherwise via realtime demonstration).

 

I know that but the way you were saying it it seemed that you meant CGI like the Killzone CGI trailer with no actual ingame assets at all. That's a pretty big difference.

 

That's not CGI though. CGI is a shorthand way of saying a scene modelled and rendered in something like Maya; a game rendered with an offline rendering engine rather than a realtime engine. A game engine running at low speed and then sped up with extra AA isn't CGI.

It's also wrong to say the E3 trailer overshot the abilities of the PS3. If the trailer overshot anything (hopefully no-one here was taking the buckets of AA as to be expected from the game!), it's the developers expectations of what they could achieve with this game. Subtle difference, but important none-the-less. You can't look at that E3 trailer and say 'PS3 will never in its life-time produce something as good as that (ignoring the AA ) because the devs said they overestimated 10%.'

 

I agree. They may have missed their budget/power estimation when formulating approaches (I heard they did their own physics ?), they may have a different technique in mind but it takes too much rewrite and content recreation, they may have some dependencies on Sony or third party libraries, or further advancement in techniques could help alleviate certain bottlenecks, etc. etc. ...


Too many factors to warrant any conclusion about the future performance of PS3.

Whatever the reasons... if it's 10%, I wonder which 10% he's refering to (Does it cover AA ?). The original animation caught my attention because of the life-like animation, the physics (e.g., car running into crates) and then the greenery.

If the gamma-corrected screenshot is valid, then I'd say it's very close to the trailer. Just focus on the animation and gameplay. Few people will notice these little unmatched static quality since they don't run the trailer side by side (Like MotorStorm). In any case, the gun flare is only for an instant. I'd be interested to see it under more normal lighting, especially in motion.