UC4: Best looking gameplay? *SPOILS*

[Laa-Yosh]

As for the visibility of detail, pjbliverpool has a very valid point here. Movie VFX is obviously supersampled; and we could say the same about real life in a way too, in that even though the ability of the retina to resolve detail is limited, it's still working with all the light rays hitting the same point, so it's sort of like supersampling.

AA in games, especially post AA, works very differently, as it will only be able to work with the 1 or possibly 2 (with MSAA) shading samples per pixel it gets. With MIP mapping, the details in those samples are already filtered to an average, so you will inevitably lose information. This new generation of AA solutions is really good at dealing with flickering and jaggies and noise and such, but they just can't recreate the detail that has already been lost in the source image (or in the case of temporal approaches, images).

A good parallel might be trilinear vs anisotropic filtering. Let's imagine that someone comes up with a post filter that can enhance the result of trilinear filtered textures; it'd still not look as good as using proper aniso. You can't really replace the actual work of looking at what's all there under that pixel.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Do CGI artists for movies modelise genitals by the way ?

Well, that's actually not that stupid of a question.
When you want to have proper cloth simulation on pants, then you need to account for the general mass of the entire body. We've found that it made the results more believable.
We haven't gone as far as to run softbody sims on the underlying anatomy model though, and I don't think anyone else would do that either.

There are also some strange cases like Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen - I can imagine the dailies when the director had to review options, simulations etc. But it's more like an exception

 

[Warchild]

Gameplay distance (Thanks for TR pictrues clukos)

Gameplay Closeup

 

[Laa-Yosh]

There's a clear difference in the quality between Lara and Drake there.

The anatomy model (hands, head etc) on Nate is more detailed and more realistic. The skin structure has more variance in the close-up, but that's actually the less important most of the time; the secondary details, that sit between the high-frequency skin stuff and the large forms like the skull or muscle groups. This is really subtle stuff, the way the soft tissues and such form an uneven surface under the skin.

The clothing is also better, both the larger sharp folds and the more subtle ones. This is actually where even ND has used scanning and it shows.

Another important element of this comparison is that the actual polygon and texture budgets for the two character assets are probably quite similar (so, Drake is probably not using more than 50-60% memory but the actual difference might be even less), so it demonstrates the additional gains that come from the investment in artist time and possibly skill. I do have to note though that ND uses a lot of tiled micro-texture detail on top of the base maps (for skin structure and cloth weave), which are applied in the shaders - so there must be an additional processing cost, at least in the close-ups.

 

[rockaman]

There is a point to saying 1080p supersampled "movies" show more detail as Uncharted. But we're not talking about movies in this thread, or at least we weren't before. And they really aren't doing any rendering at 30 fps with frames being rendered every 33 milliseconds... I'm sure Resident Evil CGI movies look much better than Uncharted 4 lol, even by giving the same detail in the same end output resolution we watch the movie in.

But games? Neither games are supersampled, they are all running at 1080p unless you are running ROTR/QB with a monster rig at 4K downsampled at about 3x to 5x the price of a PS4. So that kind of point is a little bit moot when comparing games to games. It makes sense when comparing games to movies though, but that's a different ballpark altogether anyway. Uncharted 4 is not downsampled to 1080p. It's rendering at 1080p, so those limits of rendering resolution meeting distant details are going to be met much more quickly than for a CGI movie.

The PS4 just isn't going to supersample and brute force it's way out of getting those micro-details visible at long distances. But it doesn't mean they disappeared or are not being rendered. It just becomes an attractive but pixelated mess of a detail

I agree also that the polygon budgets overall for the models actually do look quite similar. If there is any difference, and I personally feel the Uncharted model looks much better, I think much of it is down to the use of shaders. In other ways they are very similar, like self-shadowing and the overall quality of lighting is not too different.

Specifically Drake's face though I think has a much higher budget of something than Lara's face. If it is not polygons, it must be in other ways though, like shaders or textures or other details. I would even say Elena's face as in this picture looks better than Lara's model close up. Polygon wise it doesn't seem like much difference, but the shading looks far better.

This is photo mode though, I don't have any pictures of her in gameplay atm (even though it literally is the same as gameplay but lol ).

This next one is a cutscene, but it's actually the gameplay models and gameplay shading, not the advanced ones in other cutscenes.

It's not so easy to tell it is gameplay-quality shading, but if you compare to the actual cutscenes-specific models it is very obvious it is the gameplay models and shading.

It reminds me a lot of Tomb Raider Underworld's Lara actually, which I feel is underappreciated. In 2008 when it released, it had very excellent shaders, even though it was stylized to look cartoony... it also had some of the highest polygon budget for characters in any game (the face was particularly highly detailed in polygon budget, but even the character model is very high polygon... for that time).

Must apologize to ISPs everywhere again.... these are in 4K

2008 game remember!

But these also serve as an example... those micro-details in character models from a distance are only possible to achieve... or more literally "resolve"... with a high rendering resolution.... e.g. 4x resolution of 1080p in this case...

 

[Recop]

Gameplay distance (Thanks for TR pictrues clukos)

Gameplay Closeup

Your post proves my point. Comparisons from a large distance are rather pointless. It's like comparing 720p/1080p too far from your TV.

Not to mention that it is really hard to get the exact same distance otherwise than in a close up.

Reliable comparisons can only be made with close ups.

 

[Karamazov]

a small clip of same closeup in gameplay.
Looking good but i'd definitly like higher res shadows for the neo version, even if it's still 30fps

 

[rockaman]

I'm going to be hoping for a 3D version with higher resolution shadows with PS4 Neo, that will be the treat

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I'm sorry Rockaman but I have to disagree with a lot of the things you say.

That Lara model from 2008 is a pretty good example of doing very little with a lot of resources. Very simple forms and shapes, yeah the curves are not jaggy but the results are still boring and uninteresting. Shaders that use a few texture layers but the actual texture is a boring repetitive pattern, and simple unrealistic phong-like shading.

And as for Drake, I'll have to repeat myself - it really isn't about using more polygons or higher resolution textures, it's about what's actually there. Complex but subtle, varied, interesting, lifelike. Even if you'd cut everything in half - the poly count, the texture memory - it'd still look better than both 2008 and 2016 Laras.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

It's also a good example of the 20/80 rule of thumb thing that I sort of mention here and there. Meaning, in a lot of real life cases, the first 20% of your effort gets you to 80% of the way; then you spend the remaining 80% of your effort on the last 20% to get to your goal.

Obviously, in practice, you don't get to 100% and have to stop well before that. But the great divide between average artwork and truly outstanding ones is the will (and ability) to put in a LOT more effort and subtlety.

Edit: probably also applies to coding

 

[Warchild]

There's a clear difference in the quality between Lara and Drake there.

The anatomy model (hands, head etc) on Nate is more detailed and more realistic. The skin structure has more variance in the close-up, but that's actually the less important most of the time; the secondary details, that sit between the high-frequency skin stuff and the large forms like the skull or muscle groups. This is really subtle stuff, the way the soft tissues and such form an uneven surface under the skin.

The clothing is also better, both the larger sharp folds and the more subtle ones. This is actually where even ND has used scanning and it shows.

Another important element of this comparison is that the actual polygon and texture budgets for the two character assets are probably quite similar (so, Drake is probably not using more than 50-60% memory but the actual difference might be even less), so it demonstrates the additional gains that come from the investment in artist time and possibly skill. I do have to note though that ND uses a lot of tiled micro-texture detail on top of the base maps (for skin structure and cloth weave), which are applied in the shaders - so there must be an additional processing cost, at least in the close-ups.

Thanks for the detailed post! I agree with a lot of your points. I made some more just for fun: Lara shots are 4k
Gameplay:

Cutscene level shaders for tomb raider/Uncharted 4

Cutscene # 2

Gameplay

 

[pjbliverpool]

To illustrate it more for you pjbliverpool. Can your eyes resolve as much details in one particular human in this
? Real life LODgate?

I don't know whether you're trying to be deliberately patronising or you just missed my point but I never for a moment suggested that it should be possible to resolve as much detail on an object at a distance as the same object close up. The point is that UC4, just like every other computer game loses a disproportionately large amount of detail as the distance draws out compared to real life. That is why it can look almost CGI quality from close up but just look like a normal computer game from a normal playing distance.

And to answer your question directly, the distant scene is still clearly one of real human beings with all the detail associated with such. Take the following from UC4 though and we're blatantly looking at a computer game model. If as you say the same LOD was present on this model as the close ups' of drake the it would look almost real from this distance.

 

[pjbliverpool]

It is the same hair model being rendered. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You can even see the individual hair strands from this far away from the character. That's why I blew up the image so it is proof that the exact same hair is being used in-game.

1080p isn't even *close* to the rendering resolution needed to show these details *limited specifically by resolution*. This is coming from someone who just played through DOOM 3 and Tomb Raider Underworld at 4K, so I can tell you for 100% that resolution will limit some of the details you will see, especially so small at 1080p, especially at that distance. There is no way to resolve anything better from a 1080p image with a detail that small (literally a detail taking up so little space of the character, and even less of the screen real estate, to the point you can count easily the number of pixels across in this image his hair is being rendered on). It's like a 20 to 40 pixels across detail we're talking about. That's not good enough resolution, that does not mean the detail is *not there*. That's absurd.

No, it's absurd to suggest that detail which cannot even be seen is being rendered in full detail. It is not. That's the whole point of an LOD system.

It is simply the distance. The image I shared is about 5 to 10 times the distance from the camera of the same image, and with even larger FOV than Clukos' image *and with no increased resolution* to compensate for that fact. Every image in this thread is 1080p maximum of course (unless we start tiling screenshots, but no one has done that yet...). And yes, this image *does* show the hair is still rendered.

No it doesn't. It shows what looks like some hair, which could just as easily be a texture as 3d hair. But that's not even the point, the only obsessed with chest hair here is you. I never mentioned chest hair, I talked about fine detail in general. The individual fibres in his clothes, the pores in his skin etc... are you suggesting the game renders every single pore in Drakes skin from all distances too?

The limiting factor because of the 5 to 10x distance from camera is the 1080p resolution. We're talking about a detail that is about 2% the surface area of the character model. Do you see how much difference there is in zoom level between these two images? It is a factor of 5 to 10x at least.

Rendering resolution is absolutely the limiting factor when going so far away from the character when we are literally talking about an element that makes up less than 2% of the body surface area of the character.[/quote]

No, the difference is rendering power. Those details aren't rendered at normal gameplay distances because the PS4 wouldn;t be capable, and even if it were it would be a ridiculous waste of processing resources.

Do I have to take like 5 more pictures to prove this? I really don't see the point when this image clearly proves his chest hair is being rendered in gameplay exactly the same, even at gameplay distances.

Again with the chest hair?? And you can post as many images as you want. None of them are going to show that the Drake model at normal gameplay distance is as detailed as the Drake model in extreme close ups. In fact, by all means go ahead and carry on posting the screenshots clearly demonstrate that to be the case.

If you really, really, really need me too, I will even zoom on these images as well and show that the hair details are still there. Even when you rotate the camera around Drake they are easily visible as long as you push the camera up close to Drake, only limited in further camera distances from being visible by rendering resolution, not LOD at far gameplay distances.

You can zoom in as much as you like on the hair texture, it's not going to change anything. And as for zooming the camera in to show that the detail is still there... I think you've missed the point.

 

[pjbliverpool]

But there are many games with a photomode and character models still don't look as good as in Uncharted...

Re-read my arguments. I've already said UC4 wins in model detail when close up. My point is and always has been that posting extreme close ups with insane levels of detail is not representative of what you see in the game model while actually playing the game.

Also, why do you ingore the video posted by Clukos ?

It proves that you will have the same level of detail if you're able to make a close up during gameplay.

I haven't ignored anything, you've just misunderstood my argument since that video is not relevant to it. My argument once again is that the models are extremely detailed when you zoom in very close which under normal gameplay situations you don't do. I didn't say it was impossible during gameplay to zoom in that close, in fact I specifically said it can happen in rare cases. But the vast, vast majority of the time that you're in control of the character, you are not going to be zoomed in to that degree, unless of course you consider standing an inch away from a wall and panning the camera around so that it's facing behind the character to be an integral component of the gameplay

All objetcs tend to look the same from a large distance... if you want to compare them, you have precisely to make some close ups...

So you're agreeing with my point then. During normal gameplay when you're not zoomed in ala photomode, character models and material details (not shading but actual detail like weave patterns) are comparable in UC4 to other top tier games. Again, that's not me saying that the game doesn't look spectacular, other aspects of the graphics (e.g. lighting, general world detail, image quality) can still give it a leg up over most games.

 

[Recop]

So you're agreeing with my point then. During normal gameplay when you're not zoomed in ala photomode, character models and material details (not shading but actual detail like weave patterns) are comparable in UC4 to other top tier games.

I agree, but your point would be true even compared to a PS3 game... all character models will look more comparable from a large distance.

And this is true for any detail in a game : textures, objects, shadows, etc.

Sure, my comparison is a bit extreme but my point is still valid.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Looking comparable does not mean equal. Everything is relatively comparable in any generation. Even Half-Life 2 or Crysis is comparable to Uncharted 4.

I used the word comparable to try and avoid creating controversy. However it seems I underestimated just how, err passionate, people will get about any comment against this game which may be interpreted as a slight. In this case, by comparable, I actually meant, just as good.

And telling Clukos to "don't bother" gathering screenshots to make a more objective comparison is rather defensive, even while seemingly cherry-picking shots of TR and QB (one with an incredible amount of motion blur that hides all the details in the image too, how does that help us compare the visual quality?

Cherry picking? They were literally the first clear shots I found of both games from the images tab in google. Do a search and see for yourself. And if anything, a shot of QB that blurs out the detail would have hurt my argument, not helped it, so you're suggesting I cherry picked a shot to harm my own argument? I asked Clukos not to bother because there are plenty of screenshots available online, posting additional ones were not needed to either prove or disprove the point IMO, however the shots he posted were excellent which I specifically mentioned to him, they also helped to demonstrate what I was talking about IMO.

even on top of that both images were showing the backs of the characters, and we know that the "back" of the character is the flattest and easiest to shade, and the one we see for the greater proportion of these games),

Hmm, yes I wonder why I posted pictures of the back of characters when making an argument about how the characters look during actual gameplay. Can you think of a reason?

and yet you're dictating terms on what images are acceptable enough for Uncharted 4? That is a double standard, no less.

Dictating terms? Asking for screenshots of normal gameplay rather than stylised photomode shots is dictating terms now is it? I didn;t dictate anything, my original post simply stated that it would be nice since they're more representative of what you see while playing the game.

Even worse, Clukos' comparison does much more justice to the technical merits of all 3 games much more accurately than the screens you posted, despite saying he should not bother with such a comparison (good comparison btw Clukos).

Something which I mentioned in my response to him which you clearly haven't read.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Her neck is scaring me.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Damn, some of you guys are really unfair and unreasonable. PJB is right in practically everything he says.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Gameplay distance (Thanks for TR pictrues clukos)

Gameplay Closeup

That demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. In the distant shots, the character models look quite similar, I'm not going to argue that they are identical or that Lara is better, my point was never about TR or any other game vs UC4, The Lar model would not look out of place in UC4 and the Drake model would not look out of place in TR.

However there is clearly a massive quality difference in the close up shot. UC4 is vastly better there.

And that's my point, the close up shots are not giving a true representation of how the game compares (in fine character detail) during actual gameplay to other games. If you looked at the close ups alone you'd be forgiven for thinking UC4's graphics are a generational leap over games like Quantum Break but when you draw the camera out to a normal playing distance the difference is minimal - again in terms of the fine character detail that shows up in the UC4 close ups.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I agree, but your point would be true even compared to a PS3 game... all character models will look more comparable from a large distance.

And this is true for any detail in a game : textures, objects, shadows, etc.

Sure, my comparison is a bit extreme but my point is still valid.

The point isn't valid if you post pictures of character models that are clearly far smaller than normal gameplay size. My point was about what you see under normal game playing circumstances. There can be a massive rendering quality difference between characters even when shown at normal gameplaying distances. e.g.