Trailer from Naughty Dog
- Thread starter wco81
- Start date
From the quote, that 10% applies to shader performance, which does match the 10% clock-speed drop. But that also means incredibly accurate hardware targetting!
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%.'
"overshot by 10%" is an opinion. In my opinion they overshot by significantly more if the latest pics compared to the original video are anything to go by.
I won't put a percentage on it as that's silly.
If they produced THE EXACT same quality as the trailer in realtime, but did so at a "percentage" of the framerate shown, then "percentage" is an accurate measure.
Without equivilant graphics it is impossible to quantify with something as broad as a percentage to represent the entire scope of the game.
Regarding CGI:
This is not just the game engine sped up offline though. Many details I have outlined prior in this thread do not match the original trailer. Not just AA
It's not as bad an offender as other "games" and it may come close in the end. However from what I've seen they still have a lot of work to do to match the e3 vid.
Whether they have or have not overshot the ps3's abilities (or their ability to get a certain level of quality/performance) is up to them to prove. So far the e3 vid is surpassing what I've seen demonstrated live (in gameplay) on the ps3 by their team or any other for that matter.
Does that mean it is impossible to achieve the e3 vid on ps3? I'll believe it when I see it.
As for now:
Lighting
Shadow
Texture Detail
AA
AF
Have all been downgraded from the e3 vid. Call that what you want. CGI or in-game engine rendered off line. to me CGI = offline rendered. To what extent they went above the ability of the platform matters little. There is horrible looking CGI too btw.
Just because it's rendered by Maya or Lightwave doesn't mean it's movie quality or even above the abilities of the platform. It just means it wasn't rendered on the platform...for whatever reason.
Does ps2-level geometry, textures, animation, and lighting rendered via MAYA equal CGI?
Last edited by a moderator:
CassidyIzABeast
Newcomer
hmm, downage am not found
"overshot by 10%" is an opinion. In my opinion they overshot by significantly more if the latest pics compared to the original video are anything to go by.
Sure. If you want to be pedantic about it, you should compare the same exact frame (Same lighting condition, character model, etc.), and then state your "overshot siginificantly more" percentage as opinion. Where do we stop (until insanity takes over) ? What's the point of being so precise when we know the game is not final yet ?
I'd cast a vote to have ND focus on gameplay and animation/physics more once they get the feel close to the original trailer.
Once it's in motion, I doubt these minor details you noticed in 1 frame will make any difference... coz as a graphics casual, I already missed out some details you guys pointed out. The only things I noticed are the fake leaves, the jaggies and the slight change in character model. The gun flare made everything look stark, but the pirate in front (and the other one behind him, the trees and their shadows) look comparable to the original trailer.
Long story short:
me said:
...
me said:Certainly promising and has oodles of potential. Not only graphically but
This game is looking like it could be great. But to say it matches the e3 vid ...
me said:
Eagle-Vision
Regular
Small images FTL
Basically, the trailer was like the GoW commercial. Used the GoW engine to render it, but was speed-up.
They have? You'll have to explain this and point them out to me, as I'm not seeing it. From the stills from the trailer, we see blurry textures lacking AF. Shadowing is excellent in the 3D sample. Lighting is too different from the trailer to be compared, but certainly isn't poor - the vegetation is casting and receiving shadows from the vegetation. Texture detail doesn't obviosuly look downgraded to me. Certainly on the protagonist, texture detail higher than the trailer.Regarding CGI:
This is not just the game engine sped up offline though. Many details I have outlined prior in this thread do not match the original trailer. Not just AA
As for now:
Lighting
Shadow
Texture Detail
AA
AF
Have all been downgraded from the e3 vid.
The obviously shortfallings that I see are lack of AA and the skin shader, and the skin shader is hard to pin down given the different lighting. There's also a difference in the sense of vegetation density, but that mught be because of the choice of location in the still. As others have pointed out, there's scenes in the trailer that look similar in geometry detail.
Yes, except you'll be hard pushed to get PS2 quality lighting from Maya
If it's rendered in a graphics package rather than on a realtime engine, it's CGI. If it's rendered in the game engine, it's in-game, though not necessarily realtime. In this case, I'm not seeing anything that puts the E3 trailer at a CGI effort. It could be, but that's not obvious from the rendering. You don't look at it and think 'that's unreal' and comparing it to the realtime effort, the same effects seem to be in place.TheChefO said:
Ok, but I don't see how all these bickering about match/unmatch in 1 frame will help the developers' big picture. To some the differences matter, to others they don't. Even if they match the render, they may still fall flat in gameplay. In which case, it is irrelevant to me how hard they work to match the trailer.
The best and only real way to credit the team's effort is to buy the game (after looking at the total package). If they want our money, they better work hard for it in the face of stiff competition.
Since they will be featured in some game magazine next month, we will have better grasp of the game (and plenty of time) to complain. My money is currently reserved for Heavenly Sword, Assassin's Creed, GT HD, God of War II, Metal Gear, FF 13, ...
This is a new franchise I know very little about, it's not on my radar yet.
CassidyIzABeast
Newcomer
I say we wait for video of it in motion to see its its trully a downgrade b/c the animation is really what showed the game, one still shot says nothing to me in regards to this game.
They have? You'll have to explain this and point them out to me, as I'm not seeing it. From the stills from the trailer, we see blurry textures lacking AF. Shadowing is excellent in the 3D sample. Lighting is too different from the trailer to be compared, but certainly isn't poor - the vegetation is casting and receiving shadows from the vegetation. Texture detail doesn't obviosuly look downgraded to me. Certainly on the protagonist, texture detail higher than the trailer.
The obviously shortfallings that I see are lack of AA and the skin shader, and the skin shader is hard to pin down given the different lighting. There's also a difference in the sense of vegetation density, but that mught be because of the choice of location in the still. As others have pointed out, there's scenes in the trailer that look similar in geometry detail.
Yes, except you'll be hard pushed to get PS2 quality lighting from Maya
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5585122&postcount=327
Lighting/Shadow -check the vegetation in the distance (sense of depth)
Texture Detail -check the belt buckle
AA -check anywhere in the screen
AF -check the rocky ledge in the background
Perhaps my monitor just sucks and only displays the e3 vid screenshots properly while it hides these details in the other shots?
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree there shouldn't be any bickering at all. The visuals are not matching the original e3 vid. Period.
That does not mean they won't improve or that the game won't be fun and purchase worthy.
I'm at a loss as to why people refuse to see the game for what it has shown up to date. Seeing it for what it is is to appreciate the improvements the team will be making over the course of development. There is no shame in being honest about the game and I applaud the team's honesty for releasing shots in progress. Some people I guess just want to see CGI and forget about it until it's out. I like to see how the game progresses as it shows how far the team has come.
They did put themselves in a tough situation though as the original e3 vid set a high standard that has not been matched yet. If they match it, great. If not, well it doesn't make it a bad game or even a bad looking game but they did steal their own thunder by setting the bar as high as they did.
In my world...
Certainly, and it applies to all games in recent history. Period. What's the point again except for the sake of promoting further arguments ?
Read this: http://www.whitedovebooks.co.uk/7-habits/7-habits.htm (See Habit #2).
It's one of those recommended readings. I use it myself too.
Thanks for the link Patsu.:smile: Interesting stuff.
While I appreciate your concern and desire to improve the quality of this site via my posting habits, (at least I'm guessing this was your aim?) I fail to see how this changes the fact that the e3 vid is significantly above all else shown.
To be honest, I don't see the E3 as being significantly above this new screenshot. The lighting and shadowing in themselves appear superior than the E3 and the textures take only a slight hit (the example posted was rather unfair - the lighting from the gun understandably would make the surrounding area light up / flash / bloom for the sake of HDR). In terms of the model, the new one looks better and the creases in his shirt are much better.
My disappointment lies in the fact that I never thought the original looked any good in the first place. The lighting was bad and the shadowing was bad. The colour pallete made it look bad. In other words, while the above mentioned aspects did improve, they were small, and now we have the lack of AA and AF. As well, the water, which was hyped up, came out to be about nothing at all + looks ugly and fake.
For all the hints and talk of this title looking much improved, I just don't see it - its only a little better than the original.
I certainly hope this title turns out better / gets a better showing soon.
My disappointment lies in the fact that I never thought the original looked any good in the first place. The lighting was bad and the shadowing was bad. The colour pallete made it look bad. In other words, while the above mentioned aspects did improve, they were small, and now we have the lack of AA and AF. As well, the water, which was hyped up, came out to be about nothing at all + looks ugly and fake.
For all the hints and talk of this title looking much improved, I just don't see it - its only a little better than the original.
I certainly hope this title turns out better / gets a better showing soon.
I second this notion.
Nay, I expect a better showing.
These guys are good for it. This will be a AAA franchise this gen.
While I appreciate your concern and desire to improve the quality of this site via my posting habits, (at least I'm guessing this was your aim?) I fail to see how this changes the fact that the e3 vid is significantly above all else shown.
It's subjective. See the post after yours for another perspective, different from your opinion that the e3 video is significantly above the screenshot. I posted also because I can see where you're going, but I can't tell where it's significantly different.
* The discussion was originally framed under the context of a "downgrade", which I disagree because the game is not completed yet. It's a work in progress.
* Then it took the form of "match" or "unmatch", which I think it's the latter, but it's pretty close on cursory look, especially after the gamma correction. Some of the shortfalls you highlighted may be due to the gun flare or the darker setting.
I definitely feel that we need to see more to understand the situation better.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. :smile:
Graphics rating IMO:
e3 vid: 10
3d shot: 6
misc others 6-8
Expected level when finished: 9
ManuVlad3.0
Regular
Another comparison (a "little" more fair):
http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/afrika/Uncharted/Unchartedcompa1.jpg
http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/afrika/Uncharted/Unchartedcompa1.jpg
Similar threads
- Locked
