UC4: Best looking gameplay? *SPOILS*

[Recop]

What data does one provide to show no volumetric lights in the whole of UC4? You'd need a video of the entire game. Videos of lights that aren't volumetric don't prove their absence across the entire game.

You can't prove the absence of something, i agree.

My comment wasn't especially about the volumetric lights.

But when you say something like that : "DOOM is on another level from UC4 technically. That's just a fact."

You should provide some evidence to support your point...

 

[VFX_Veteran]

I don't think anybody told you that, only that your opinion may not be as valuable to them since you frequently make bold claims about things you are often proven wrong about. And the "Ps4 gamer" crap is getting old, this isn't NeoGaf. Make arguments, present evidence, and we can have a discussion. What is there to discuss when we post (i can be part of the problem as well) "x is so much more advanced than y!" without providing anything to back that up? One example of an even comparison with evidence is what i posted some pages ago with the RotTR/QB/U4/TO comparison.

I simply can't afford to get into a screenshot battle with you guys. You can control the forums if its going to resort to that. I have been a developer working for "look/surfacing/lighting" departments for 16yrs. I'm continuously looking at this stuff everyday and making custom shaders/pipeline tools to cater to the artists. No, I'm not saying take my word simply because I work in the industry, but please give me some benefit of the doubt with regards to the look of things (as you give Laa-Yosh/HTupolev/Shifty who also share my opinion on a lot of things Uncharted). Even if I sat here and tech analyzed every 3D feature done in a game, I don't think it'll make a bit of difference with how you perceive me.

For the record, we critique videogames here all the time. We know what's good subjectively and what breaks down technically. Yes, we are about buzz-words because implementing those features gets you closer to what we work with. So you have to forgive me for noticing continuous usage of stuff like dynamic occlusion/SSR in Quantum Break or tessellation in Tomb Raider for things such as hair/trees (where no other game does it to that level) -- even if those games' implementation are full of artifacts. It's the effort that we respect in trying to make a realtime game come closer to real ray-traced solutions.

 

[AlNom]

But when you say something like that : "DOOM is on another level from UC4 technically. That's just a fact."

From a certain point of view.

e.g. Anakin was on another level from Obi-Wan.

He just wasn't on the higher ground in that one fight.



Y'all need to turn your stick sensitivity down.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But that's the difference. He said there was "none at all", not that there was "mostly none". Those phrases mean completely different things lol. And if you say there is "some" like that video shows, it doesn't mean always. That's just bad extrapolation on your own part lol.

If VFX went through all of UC4 and saw 50 lights using volumetric approximations which weren't true volumetric lights, that'd be a lot of evidence to believe there are no true volumetric lights in the entire game. If there are places where there are true volumetric lights, it'd be easy to fail to recognise them as such given all the other examples. So yes, if there's 'some' rather than 'none', it means VFX was mistaken. The solution is for someone to point out, "there are some in some places" and correct him. But that would require rational discussion and people here tend to prefer just bitchin'.

To prove from "none" you only need one

That's to disprove VFX's argument, or to prove the existence of 'some'.

Very literal language English is

No, it's far from it. To try and be literal and unambiguous, legalese uses ridiculous amounts of words. Vernacular English is full of imagery and metaphor and analogy and subjectivity.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But when you say something like that : "DOOM is on another level from UC4 technically. That's just a fact."
You should provide some evidence to support your point...

Yes, that point is ridiculously hyperbolic. Personally I don't think Doom all that but I've no interest in talking the point.

 

[Scott_Arm]

None more black

 

[Scott_Arm]

...
To prove from "none" you only need one Very literal language English is

What?

 

[AlNom]

Vehicular English is full of imagery and motors and car analogy and subjectivity.

Tuned up.

 

[Clukos]

tessellation in Tomb Raider for things such as hair/trees (where no other game does it to that level)

And that is my main problem with your posts, you make claims that just don't hold. And not only that, you claim that no other game does that at that level too

Trees

Spoiler

Hair

Spoiler

Neither are tessellated. You don't have to be 16 years in the offline rendering bizz to know that much. Tessellation in RotTR is largely limited to ground geometry and completely absent from the X1 version (except for snow deformation iirc). And if you don't want to put effort into your posts, that is fine! Just expect the replies to reflect on that.

 

[HTupolev]

Yes, that point is ridiculously hyperbolic.

Sort of.

If we're using English preciselyish, saying that a value judgement is a fact isn't a hyperbolic statement, it's simply a false one. Because the value judgement was an opinion, not a fact. An opinion could be held unanimously by the whole of humanity, and it still wouldn't be a fact.

The loose usage is doesn't always create fights; in a circumstance where everyone agrees on something, use of the "imprecise" version of "objective" won't initiate conflict. But when there's disagreement, it's confusing and antagonizing. It's used for emphasis, but the real impact is making it harder to have a dialogue.

 

[Karamazov]

Too much hanger in here now, sad Drake is sad

http://i.imgur.com/Q0uhXmk.jpg

BTW i found some kryptonite plants

http://i.imgur.com/3KjdW2C.jpg

 

[rockaman]

If VFX went through all of UC4 and saw 50 lights using volumetric approximations which weren't true volumetric lights, that'd be a lot of evidence to believe there are no true volumetric lights in the entire game. If there are places where there are true volumetric lights, it'd be easy to fail to recognise them as such given all the other examples. So yes, if there's 'some' rather than 'none', it means VFX was mistaken. The solution is for someone to point out, "there are some in some places" and correct him. But that would require rational discussion and people here tend to prefer just bitchin'

Do we know he did that? Did he indicate that he did this? But in either case, his statement was proven false. So what is your issue? Are you trying to say there was more validity to the statement before it was shown that it was incorrect or inaccurate? Lol.

Someone made a claim, it was shown to not be exactly true. I think we found out more than what we originally knew. What is really so objectionable about the correction being discovered?

That's to disprove VFX's argument, or to prove the existence of 'some'.

That's... what I said? The video showed that VFX's statement was wrong. There's nothing complicated about that. It's just the statement he made was too absolute.

 

[HTupolev]

BTW i found some physically accurate emissive plants

FTFY

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's... what I said? The video showed that VFX's statement was wrong. There's nothing complicated about that. It's just the statement was too absolute.

Yes, but that's not what was being talked about. Recop was saying VFX needed to provide proof for his arguments, which I was pointing out was basically impossible in this case. But Recop, recognising that, points out he was being more general.

 

[AlNom]

FTFY

(Predator)

 

[Karamazov]

secret sauce

 

[rockaman]

No, it's far from it. To try and be literal and unambiguous, legalese uses ridiculous amounts of words. Vernacular English is full of imagery and metaphor and analogy and subjectivity.

So I was right! We do have to call a lawyer into this thread

And anyway, is this the goal of the use of English in a graphics comparison thread, to use less precision with words, and more metaphors or analogies? Probably not the best setting for creative use of English language

Yes, but that's not what was being talked about. Recop was saying VFX needed to provide proof for his arguments, which I was pointing out was basically impossible in this case. But Recop, recognising that, points out he was being more general.

No, that's not what he said.

He did not say he was being any more general. He simply said that it would be impossible to make a 100% proof of his statement, not that the statement was not any less absolute. But that's alright

 

[London Geezer]

I go away for 5 minutes and the thread grows by 9 pages. Wtf! Recap anyone?

 

[rockaman]

I go away for 5 minutes and the thread grows by 9 pages. Wtf! Recap anyone?

The one about the "caveat wars" was the most accurate XD

Brought to you by Naughty Dog

Continue the Caveat War does.

There we go

 

[Recop]

From a certain point of view.

e.g. Anakin was on another level from Obi-Wan.

He just wasn't on the higher ground in that one fight.



Y'all need to turn your stick sensitivity down.

Actually, anyone is free to say what he wants.

It's not a real problem if you make unsupported claims. However, don't complain if people don't take your comments seriously.