UC4: Best looking gameplay? *SPOILS*

[RenegadeRocks]

the thread closed??? :O

Worst looking game ever ! ! ! .......I am sure thread won't close if I say that lol ! Anytime a good looking game releases , ppl go overboard trying to tell everyone that the game does not look good !

Sorry,, iammaouttahere !

 

[Clukos]

To answer shiftys question, i do think MGSV had amazing gameplay and definitely one of the best of all time in terms of how it feels and plays but i wasn't very impressed with the visuals and that is understandable given its open world nature and the 60 fps target. I do think the engine is a masterpiece of software engineering and was sad to hear that konami kept it only for Pes titles. I also think Witcher 3 and Bloodborne were amazing games but none had this wow factor with the visuals, at least for me. Uncharted 4 genuinely looks different than anything I've seen before it, on PC, Ps4 or any other platform. Do I have to frame my opinion in a more politically correct way to avoid arguments?

Edit: This thread moving about is silly. Are we not allowed to talk about the visual aspect of a game in the game specific thread? W/e

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thanks for trashing my new thread in the first two posts. Sorry I tried to keep things civilised by separating the immiscible factions.

 

[milk]

We should have at least another 5 Uncharted Threads.
One for gushing the gushers
One for gushing at the gushing threads themselves
One specifically for stating the things in which its mediocre and below par
One for gushing at how wonderfully mediocre and subpar those thimgs are
One for talking about how the textures are low res in some of the uncharted related threads
Maybe then no thread will get ruined.

 

[Clukos]

I'd like to elaborate on what i said with this

The thing I like about ND is that they don't release good looking games, they release good games that look good. We've already had many great looking games this generation but i think this is the first that combines technical prowess with impeccable game design.

What i meant personally is that we haven't played a game this gen that turned heads for the audiovisual presentation and the game actually turned out to be genuinely a great game as well. What I consider technical showcases this gen so far, to see my point of view(i exclude MGSV just because i don't consider it a graphical showcase, while the presentation of its technical aspects i still find amazing):

• Ryse - Mediocre game, repetitive gameplay
• inFAMOUS Second Son - Good game but almost nothing felt truly original or new
• Driveclub - Lots of issues with the game, took months to get fixed
• The Order - All over the place pacing, poor enemy encounters and abrupt sequel bait ending
• Battlefront - Lack of content, simplified gameplay and interaction with the environment, as safe a game can be under the Star Wars license
• Quantum Break - Gameplay falls short (while it can still be fun, it's never as exceptional as i think it could be), TV show is messing up the pacing of the game

From the looks of things U4 both manages to be a stunning game (really don't care about BEST EVAH etc. i'm happy to enjoy a great looking game without comparing it to others) but also a great game underneath, which is what matters most when playing the game. And I must stress out, this is just my opinion, feel free to disagree, i don't have a problem with that.

 

[ultragpu]

While I certainly haven't got the game yet but everything I've seen from the game I can confidently put this at the top of the hierarchy in graphics. It's a perfect marriage of tech and art utilized to the most balanced and striking way if you will. This game pretty much has everything under its belt whether in iq, scale, interactivity, minute details, lighting, physics, destruction, animation or effects, and all have been executed to such a high quality. Of course this is all my opinion and it will not be forcibly shoveled down to anyone else' throat. But I feel like this thread needs more pictures to demonstrate one's opinion in order to back it up don't you all agree?

http://i.cubeupload.com/MnC1hK.png

 

[London Geezer]

I don't know why we should demonstrate even more that this is, in fact, a very pretty game. The amount of material I've already seen for this game is crazy. Kinda makes me feel I didn't.

It's beautiful. It will probably be the most beautiful game I will have played - not that I wouldn't have bought it if it weren't.

I simply cannot wait to see how the story unfolds and ends. And for that reason, I will try to stay out of UC4 threads or articles until I actually get the game in the next few days.

EDIT: I didn't know where to post this. I'm getting lost with all these UC4 threads. But they're all the same anyway. Not to take away anything from Shifty's job. I still love you, Shifty.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Any post in this thread is open to counter argument/crticism, unlike the game thread.

I for one think UC4 is very pretty, but its achievements are being raised to a pedestal it doesn't really belong. I see plenty of faults and shortcomings that make it look much like many other computer games out there. I'll even dare comment that the best Quantum Break has to offer looks better to me in terms of progressing computer game visuals than the best I've seen of UC4, because the implementation of the lighting makes everything so grounded as VFX_Veteran has said. But both have shown me jarring faults like illumination under desks and red bounce light that shouldn't be there. They're all highly compromised.

I suppose UC4's biggest detractors just want to see the love shared among other developers working just as hard.

Are the radioactive rocks stil in it? Or has the lighting had a tweak since then?

 

[ultragpu]

Shifty can you give an example of the best case scenario in QB's lighting and how specifically it looks better? Just need some context to gauge the difference if you don't mind.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

See VFX's thread here.

 

[Clukos]

And then i'll argue that Uncharted 4 approach to materials is much more impressive than a real-time screen space GI (which breaks quite often), i mean let's take a look at this:

Even the food appears to be translucent, haven't seen anything in a game like this (such detailed materials). How light interacts with materials is just as important as lighting itself imo. But i think it's perfectly fine if you think QB is more impressive, it's your opinion. I've also played 27 hours of the game (QB) and i've looked at its visuals, positives and negatives quite extensively and i can share my own as well

For example, i posted that in the thread you linked, this is how stable GI (or at least parts of it) is in the game

And it can look quite jarring when playing the game even though it doesn't translate to screenshots. And this is not a one off, it's literally in every material in the game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'll take realistic lighting over any other aspect of graphics. Lighting defines realism and solidity. Everything else defines the qualities of the content. So awesome lighting and weak skin shaders means realistic plastic people, whereas weak lighting and awesome skin shaders means a great looking computer game that obviously looks like a bunch of Photoshopped heads. The bounce light in Madagascar that I raised before is a strong no-no for me. I suppose one could call it an uncanny valley response. The whole graphics look great, and yet here we have something very out of place. It's jarring before I even stop to think about why it's jarring. Another great example from that thread is the lack of contact shadows when Nathan climbs on the jeep. Lack of those shadows means the brain has trouble processing the scene for depth. Is Nate on the jeep, or tiny and floating 3 metres in front of it?

I'm guessing from these discussions had before that different brains respond to different cues. L. Scofield had a far stronger response to image and texture quality over lighting quality when quizzed about it before. Although I'll argue my brain is prioritising what it should.

 

[Clukos]

The whole graphics look great, and yet here we have something very out of place.

I don't think you pose a strong argument for QB, from what I've played I've seen too many things being out of place (just look at the video posted above). Have you played the game first hand? Screen space artifacts can be seen everywhere. Low res buffers and textures, low poly objects etc. It's a game of extremes in terms of visuals, it can look extremely pleasing in one scene and very jarring in the next. I think visually it's one of the most inconsistent titles out there. And while it does a lot of things right, i don't think i want another game trading off so much for partially real-time screen space GI. That is my opinion after extensive time with the game (I've finished it twice).

Edit: What i think about QB is that it would look absolutely amazing in a future iteration of hardware with proper VXGI instead of the currently used approach. I also think TTC is trading off less to achieve their real-time GI, albeit on a more powerful console and with limited scope in terms of gameplay movement and dynamics.

 

[Metal_Spirit]

Shifty and Clukos...
You are bringing the VFX thread discussion here. And making references to things you guys posted there!

 

[Clukos]

To close off with this discussion, i need to prove that i played the game, i'm not arguing for the sake of arguing

And also i have to add that QB itself shows how improved it can look in the pre-rendered cutscenes (over 12 gigs of them), even though the screen space GI remains.

 

[MrFox]

It doesn't look like Toy Story.

 

[Metal_Spirit]

Besides, Ratchet and Clank kicks both asses

 

[ultragpu]

It's interesting to see how some people's brain may prioritize certain effect when it comes to judging a whole image's quality. But after all we're all genetically different right? For me I take many things into account not just one or two features. The best lighting in the end just like good AA or dense geometry, is only a tool to help to make the whole frame look good, it's not a savior of all, far from it. When you get through the initial phase of awe on a macro scale such as a world lit by good lighting, you subsequently start to examine minute details, the quality of assets, resolution, AA etc. But what happens when most of them are rendered sub par or a severe lack of? Your brain would start to depreciate the initial shock and awe slowly but inevitably. In the end your brain would come to a rough conclusion after weigh in on the pros and cons that the whole thing just isn't as astounding as before but feeling deceived. It's not that people don't appreciate QB's lighting prowess, but rather the rendering engine is held back by too many other issues.
To me QB could have a full on raytrace engine working yet still looking slightly above average due to low quality assets, low res buffers and low ish geometry density.

 

[milk]

So awesome lighting and weak skin shaders means realistic plastic people, whereas weak lighting and awesome skin shaders means a great looking computer game that obviously looks like a bunch of Photoshopped heads.

I never thought of it like that, but reading this I can't help but recognize my own tastes in there. I always feel like I prefer games that look real world models of something, than a collage of individually detailed stuff.
On that note, I think QB's inconcistencies and instability is just as detrimental as ND's emphasis in HIGH POLY, HIGH RES TEXTURE, COOL SHADERS everywhere, but without that sauce that ties it all together and make them feel part of a real world, even if not THE real world, but A real world, with a consistent internal logic to how things should look like. I think QB doea bether in that regard, but doesn't hit the nail in the head as I think SWBF or the Order do. Both those are much less ambitious in other technical mater like big dynamic evironments and SFX, which both QB and U4 put a lot of emphasis.
The lesson is no next gen gets everything right yet, as to be expected. Some devs concentrate a lot in consistency, end end up with a corridor shooter or a static world, or a very unstable one. U4 gives me the feeling ND left all its team members to go crazy in their respective areas and squeeze as much as they could out of their engine and see how it looks together afterwards. Those was the first wave of AAA true next gen games, now that these devs have a shipped game, they'll refine their texh and content, and be more able to play to their strengths, and know where their weaknesses are.

 

[Clukos]

big dynamic evironments and SFX, which both QB and U4 put a lot of emphasis.

QB doesn't put a lot of emphasis on open environments, it's very much a very linear game set in limited spaces. I would compare it to The Order in that regard, they are very similar in how they handle player space. Uncharted 4 isn't comparable in that sense.