UC4: Best looking gameplay? *SPOILS*

[RobertR1]

Depends on how that power is used. In most cases we see 900p/1080p split with next to none technical differences, some games don't even have any difference between the two systems (Destiny for example).

That's the easiest thing to do and keeps the fanboys off you. Use the extra power of the PS4 for better resolution, frame rate and effects.

The gamer community embarrassment that was on display last gen gives a clear guidance to developers on how to avoid that backlash this time around.

 

[milk]

I think what's more interesting is how the PC ultra settings which is what's been compared here, failed to look better overall. It kinda shows how much of a burden a 1.3tf machine is these days.

I don't that proves much about burden at all. U4 brute forced it's looks with meticulous artist tweaking in every corner. It's hard for any newer dev house to compete. They still did a pretty damn good job with gears 4. It's a AAA game in every sense, and has no reason for shame.

 

[Pixel]

I don't that proves much about burden at all. U4 brute forced it's looks with meticulous artist tweaking in every corner. It's hard for any newer dev house to compete. They still did a pretty damn good job with gears 4. It's a AAA game in every sense, and has no reason for shame.

Yeah instead of using incredibly high res textures everywhere in a modern game, which PS4 sometimes cannot do, they overcame ps4 memory bandwidth limit by using shaders to create materials instead of textures. As to why its not done more often, is that perhaps because its more work intensive? Or because only the PS4 generally has sufficient idletime on its CU compared to Xbox One (due to 50% more CU), thus only 1st party will explore this/have opportunity to explore this, as 3rd party generally want to create parity (outside of resolution and other minor visual differnces) between both consoles? Or something else?

 

[iroboto]

This is the original post I was objecting to:

It's interesting to see not even Gears of War 4 PC ultra settings could compete with good ol UC4. The Xbone shackling is really showing here especially the foliage, lighting and general asset quality.

In particular the part of the post where I found preposterous is the final sentence: "The Xbone shackling is really showing here especially the foliage, lighting and general asset quality"

We can collectively come up with a million reasons why Gears of War 4 looks the way it does, and definitely come up with legitimate reasons as to whether the PC game was 'shackled' by Xbox One. All of which could easily be a discussion around:
a) Time to build a product
b) Graphical Objectives for the Project
c) Budget of the Project
d) Experience of the team, and with the hardware
e) gameplay objectives of the team

These factors, alone, could answer that question above, without the need of bringing Uncharted 4 into the picture. Uncharted 4 serves _zero_ purpose in answering the question of whether a game designed and projected for Xbox One shackled the PC edition; effectively, it's just a fanboy self pat on the back statement, others would use a more lewd term to describe this behaviour.

But because this is a topic about UC4, I decided to answer the most obvious thing, which is to explain why games cannot be compared in the method of which you guys are doing. Because of
a) Time to build a product
b) Graphical Objectives for the Project
c) Budget of the Project
d) Experience of the team and with the hardware
e) gameplay objectives of the game

I don't have an issue someone saying UC4 is better looking than GOW4. Hell, from the screenshots I agree from what's being presented but It's hardly the same as assuming they are operating under the same conditions. *edit* such that we can distill it down to being a conversation about power differences.

So the followup responses generalized to become "well we all know PS4 has better hardware, thus, will always look better than XBO is entirely obvious, you're an idiot for thinking otherwise iroboto".
Well then my response would be no problem, lets compare Knack vs Gears of War 4. And you'd all be up in arms over that comparison on how it would be fair. Of course it is, look at (A) through (E), of course Gears would look better.

Right, so then, lets just stop the discussion there as to why comparisons in the way that is being done in this thread are dumb.
You've effectively compared:
a) A game that has had less time in the oven
b) A game required to make 2 builds using a generic engine
c) A budget that is likely smaller than UC (a new studio would not nearly get the same funding that ND would)
d) a new team with less experience working together, working with the hardware, DX12, UWP shit goes on
e) different objectives for the game, this is obvious once again.

Is it any wonder? Really? You think 1/2 a TF difference matters more than (A) through (E)?

This thread serves no purpose but to continually fuel fanboy insecurities.

TLDR; you don't need to use UC4 as a comparison method to prove a game designed and made specifically for Xbox One had marginal improvements on PC. You only need logic for that.

 

[milk]

I can't disagree with any of that

 

[milk]

Nor that

EDIT: missing PENIS

 

[Recop]

Well then my response would be no problem, lets compare Knack vs Gears of War 4. And you'd all be up in arms over that comparison on how it would be fair. Of course it is, look at (A) through (E), of course Gears would look better.

This argument is not relevant... Uncharted and GOW4 are 2 AAA games.

Between AAA games, the deciding factor is clearly the hardware.

Is it any wonder? Really? You think 1/2 a TF difference matters more than (A) through (E)?

Even if everything was equal, that won't change the fact that they're working on a inferior hardware... and you will still get an inferior result.

To me, many multiplatform games running on PS4 are technically superior to everything you can find on XB1 : Batman, Doom, Battlefront, etc.

And after all, RAD was able to compete with Crytek...

 

[milk]

This argument is not relevant... Uncharted and GOW4 are 2 AAA games.

Between AAA games, the deciding factor is clearly the hardware.

That's grossly simplistic. Hardware certainly plays its part, but from AAA game to another, there are a whole other bunch of variables.
The end result in gears 4, from what we've seen this far, is still technically inferior to U4 in most ways, sure, but byba thin margin, and they still did a great job. I think they deserve much more praise than bashing.
But there are few studios that can compare to ND, and a big reason is the sheer budget they can afford for their projects (which they earned by delivering quality work of course)

 

[bgroovy]

The idea that Microsoft can't bring the same resources to bear on Gears as Sony can on Uncharted is preposterous.

 

[Recop]

I think that GOW4 is impressive considering the hardware. But, once again, GOW4 is technically inferior to many games running on PS4... not only Uncharted 4.

For instance, i still think that Killzone is technically unmatched on XB1.

The hardware is clearly the deciding factor among ambitious games.

You have to be a very poor studio to release a less impressive game on a more powerful hardware. Since i think that most developers are competent, this situation simply never happens...

 

[ultragpu]

I don't that proves much about burden at all. U4 brute forced it's looks with meticulous artist tweaking in every corner. It's hard for any newer dev house to compete. They still did a pretty damn good job with gears 4. It's a AAA game in every sense, and has no reason for shame.

The amount of quality asset made is one aspect of course, tho there are other aspects in play too. The fundamental of the engine is simply more advanced overall, much bigger levels, more open, far more densely rendered foliage, more volumetric lights, more complex set pieces and more complex character models with SSS shader under weapon illumination. You don't need a whole army of devs to do all those, it's what a 1.84tf machine could facilitate over a 1.3tf machine. And ramping up the resolution, the AO, the LOD or texture res as shown in the Ultra settings don't cover the gap nearly as much.
That said, if they developed Gears 4 with a 8tf machine in mind and down port it over to a Xbone version, we'll see a vastly worse looking Xbone version than the one out now while the PC version looking much better than the corresponding PC version out now thus much better than UC4 if that makes sense.

 

[ultragpu]

This is the original post I was objecting to:

In particular the part of the post where I found preposterous is the final sentence: "The Xbone shackling is really showing here especially the foliage, lighting and general asset quality"

We can collectively come up with a million reasons why Gears of War 4 looks the way it does, and definitely come up with legitimate reasons as to whether the PC game was 'shackled' by Xbox One. All of which could easily be a discussion around:
a) Time to build a product
b) Graphical Objectives for the Project
c) Budget of the Project
d) Experience of the team, and with the hardware
e) gameplay objectives of the team

Even when everything else is equal, the sheer hardware difference stands to be the next prominent factor and it is technically shackling the graphics complexity of the end result only to a lesser degree. Now here's some food for thought.
Development budget of Gears of War 4 could be well over 100 million according to Epic's Tim Sweeney
http://www.polygon.com/2016/5/2/11565868/gears-of-war-4-100-million-budget-epic-games-sale
Don't know about UC4's figure but UC 2&3 costed about 20 million each, Gears 1 costed about 12 million. If anything I'd wager Gears 4 be a much more expensive game than UC4 with MS behind the finance.
Now every game is different in its graphical and gameplay objectives so its impossible to find two of the same. But it's also not hard to say Gears 4 looks definitively better than uncharted 3 is it? We're not even comparing drastically different scenes, they're both in calm moments with nothing big happening on the screen, yet UC4 manages still to outshine it. Not to say this is 100% scientific but its kinda obvious even admitted yourself.

For a more extreme example, a game programmed with a PS3 in mind and up ported to a 980 ti would still look, function like a PS3 game in terms of level design, set pieces complexity, scene complexity etc but with 4k textures, iq, fps LOD and better shadows. It's called shackling.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

, much bigger levels, more open, far more densely rendered foliage, more volumetric lights, more complex set pieces and more complex character models with SSS shader under weapon illumination. You don't need a whole army of devs to do all those, it's what a 1.84tf machine could facilitate over a 1.3tf machine.

A lot of that in UC4 was sporadic and not part of an amazingly superior engine. SSS disappears completely at times. Volumetric lights are only added where they can be fit in in the less demanding levels, I believe. As milk says, most of UC4's greatness comes from artists hand tweaking every aspect of a level. Definitely the foliage is superior, but UC4's engine isn't anything fabulous in terms of a coherent solution. What it has allowed is the piecing together of various techniques per scene to best effect.

First thing I did on getting a PS4 was take a load of screenshots of UC4 showing what was broken with it!

 

[Karamazov]

technically, the xbox one would be able to run UC4 with almost the same details but at an inferior resolution, say 900P ? The two console are so close in architecture.

 

[Globalisateur]

technically, the xbox one would be able to run UC4 with almost the same details but at an inferior resolution, say 900P ? The two console are so close in architecture.

Not sure about that. The memory architecture of XB1 is very different than on PS4. It's not only a flops difference.

Some buffers size may not be realistically possible on XB1. Would Infamous SS and its generous buffers be possible on XB1 using a 900p res at the same performance? I don't think so.

 

[ultragpu]

A lot of that in UC4 was sporadic and not part of an amazingly superior engine. SSS disappears completely at times. Volumetric lights are only added where they can be fit in in the less demanding levels, I believe. As milk says, most of UC4's greatness comes from artists hand tweaking every aspect of a level. Definitely the foliage is superior, but UC4's engine isn't anything fabulous in terms of a coherent solution. What it has allowed is the piecing together of various techniques per scene to best effect.

The UE4 by default doesn't even support volumetric lighting and how does the fact more foliage rendering in UC4 engine not account for a good portion of rendering superiority? As inconsistent as UC4's techniques may show from time to time, they're still more abundantly used. I understand people tend to attribute UC4's prowess mainly with artist's hard labor and I'm not disputing that but I think at the same time it's blown a bit out of proportion too. You can pour an army of laborer to a less complex and flexible engine, tho what you would get from it would not be nearly as pretty. This is why engine gets updated all the time, let's not pretend the hard work of programmers, engine architect and hardware muscle don't matter any more.
Regarding to UC4's hard tweaked assets, ND outsourced a fuck load of them to overseas third party devs all within a limited budget, so what's stopping Gears 4's 100 million budget from doing the same? My personal belief is that at some point they would have to work around XBone's limit while up porting the PC version, even Tim Sweeney emphasized on a 2.5tf machine would show UE4 in its ideal form, much less a 1.3tf one.

First thing I did on getting a PS4 was take a load of screenshots of UC4 showing what was broken with it!

And Shifty that's a real nasty habit you got there

 

[Recop]

but UC4's engine isn't anything fabulous in terms of a coherent solution.

And ?

So, the first drawing is less impressive because it uses a traditional pencil while the second one is more impressive because it is made on a computer ?

 

[Recop]

Not sure about that. The memory architecture of XB1 is very different than on PS4. It's not only a flops difference.

Some buffers size may not be realistically possible on XB1. Would Infamous SS and its generous buffers be possible on XB1 using a 900p res at the same performance? I don't think so.

And there is a substantial difference in GPGPU capabilities.

 

[ultragpu]

DF agrees UC4 is the best looking console game this gen and yes he puts it above Gears 4 too.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=219617486&postcount=47
According to him games like The Order, Doom, Battlefield 1 and Battlefront are also a notch above Gears 4.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And ?

So, the first drawing is less impressive because it uses a traditional pencil while the second one is more impressive because it is made on a computer ?

I wasn't talking about whether the overall results were impressive. Ultragpu said UC4 was technically more accomplished hence looked better. I'm saying a lot of that looking better was art and not engine, rather that specific technical accomplishment, regardless of whether UC4 is better looking or not.

To tackle your example specifically, the first image is probably the more appealing by and large. However, technical accomplishment is hard to argue. To be able to draw that well in pencil is quite the achievement, but it's also more natural than trying to draw anything in Paint with a mouse. Both require different skills which shouldn't be weighed against each other.