UC4: Best looking gameplay? *SPOILS*

[Recop]

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.

I don't agree. You need a very good tech to be able to render a lot of details with discrete popping, for something like the chase scene, etc.

Sure, there are no buzz words for a stable framerate, excellent textures/shaders, very good animations, highly detailed environements, etc. but it's still very hard to achieve... that's why very few games looks as good as Uncharted 4...

To me, it's really simple : a game can't look good without a good tech. On the other hand, you have several games with an advanced engine but poorly optimized.

 

[London Geezer]

Wow. Screenshots comparisons is still a thing, in 2016?


PSN: ddeiana

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't agree. You need a very good tech to be able to render a lot of details with discrete popping, for something like the chase scene, etc.

Sure, there are no buzz words for a stable framerate, excellent textures/shaders, very good animations, highly detailed environements, etc. but it's still very hard to achieve... that's why very few games looks as good as Uncharted 4...

That's not what's being said.

Ultragpu: "UC4 looks better than everything. Ergo UC4 is the most technically advanced game."
Me: "UC4 is technically accomplished in many areas, but superior visuals can come at the same tech level but with better art or more tricks. Looking better does not necessarily mean technically more demanding."

Specifically, a lot of the stand-out situations in UC4 aren't due to amazing tech but amazing art. eg. Inside Nate's house looks frickin' incredible in the detail and lighting, but it's all very baked. Kinda like comparing Forza Horizon 3's clouds to Warhawk's. Warhawk was ray-marching volumetric clouds in a technically advanced fashion, whereas FH3 is just pasting a photograph, but FH3 looks way better. Few games are going to match Nate's house for detail and pretty lighting because they wouldn't create a completely static environment just for exploring. And in terms of the interaction and animation in the house, UC4 was pretty ordinary. Gears may well be able to create the same quality in game.

 

[Recop]

Kinda like comparing Forza Horizon 3's clouds to Warhawk's. Warhawk was ray-marching volumetric clouds in a technically advanced fashion, whereas FH3 is just pasting a photograph, but FH3 looks way better.

But this is not my point. You can't judge a game on a single point... you have to consider the whole result.

If we follow your logic, then GT6 is technically more demanding than Forza 6 because it has dynamic weather/day-night cycle. We all know that is wrong. Forza 6 may use a more traditional engine, but it is clearly the superior game.

Could we say that Tetris with dynamic GI is more impressive than Uncharted 4 ?

Could you say that QB is technically more advanced than Halo 5 ?

You can't isolate a single technical aspect to judge a game. Sure, Halo 5 hasn't QB's lighting, but it does many other things that QB doesn't.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Where was I judging UC4 on a single point?

If we follow your logic, then GT6 is technically more demanding than Forza 6 because it has dynamic weather/day-night cycle. We all know that is wrong. Forza 6 may use a more traditional engine, but it is clearly the superior game.

How can you make that claim? GT6 is running on completely different, inferior hardware, so is obviously going to look inferior. Maybe it's technically better than F6 because it is achieving more with lower level optimisation than F6 is? We don't know. It's silly to try and make a technical superiority claim. In fact it's basically stupid to make that claim of any game one hasn't got access to the source code to.

My point is only that looking at a game and seeing it as prettier and then concluding it's superior technology unattainable in another engine or on another system is naive. Smoke and mirrors can do so very, very much to obscure the tech involved (that tech being various flavours of smoke and mirrors! ).

 

[Recop]

My point is only that looking at a game and seeing it as prettier and then concluding it's superior technology unattainable in another engine or on another system is naive. Smoke and mirrors can do so very, very much to obscure the tech involved (that tech being various flavours of smoke and mirrors! ).

Ok, i agree with that.

But if we compare the console version of GOW to Uncharted 4, there is not a single doubt that Uncharted 4 is technically the more demanding game.

I mean, even third party developers are able to use the PS4's extra power... (1080p vs 900p)

So, this should not be a hard task for ND, let's be serious... unless you think that ND is less competent than third party developers ?

Maybe it's technically better than F6 because it is achieving more with lower level optimisation than F6 is?

Sure, but we aren't talking in relative terms... it's a strict comparison.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I mean, even third party developers are able to use the PS4's extra power... (1080p vs 900p)

Having more power doesn't mean technically more accomplished. In fact it can lead to less technically accomplished solutions because you have more opportunity to just brute force.

I think some people are discussing 'technically' with a different definition, hence the arguments not making a great deal of sense to me.

 

[Karamazov]

If gow4 is pushing the xbox one as much as UC4 is pushing the ps4 then they are both as accomplished games.
Devs do with what they have, And did great things with these two games.

 

[function]

Optimisation and implementation, tradeoffs, artistic choices and talent, and base unit performance all muddy claims of any one game having "the absolute technical bestness".

Results that we get to see onscreen derive from all of these things.

I'm really impressed by Gears 4, particularly its visual consistency. From the videos, at least, no one area seems to detract from the overall experience. That's quite something.

 

[Recop]

If gow4 is pushing the xbox one as much as UC4 is pushing the ps4 then they are both as accomplished games.
Devs do with what they have, And did great things with these two games.

Sure. From this point of view, a game pushing the PS2 as much as UC4 is pushing the PS4 are both as accomplished games.

But, once again, i don't make a relative comparison.

In a strict comparison and not a relative one, UC4 is technically better than everything you can find on the PS2. It's a fact. However, this doesn't mean that the developers who worked on the PS2 were less talented : they just had a less powerful hardware.

I never said that ND is a better developper than TC.

I'm just saying that UC4 is technically better because it was made on a more powerful hardware : 2+2=4.

To me, it's an indisputable fact.

 

[Recop]

I'm really impressed by Gears 4, particularly its visual consistency. From the videos, at least, no one area seems to detract from the overall experience. That's quite something.

I had the opposite feeling by watching this video. Especially at 56secs and about the texture quality (1min40 to 2min25 for instance).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But, once again, i don't make a relative comparison.

I'm just saying that UC4 is technically better because it was made on a more powerful hardware : 2+2=4.

To me, it's an indisputable fact.

Which no-one disputes and noone, surely, is bothering to discuss. The question is one of relative hardware utilisation and what the software manages to achieve. High technical accomplishment is achieved when hardware is pushed to the maximal visual results, and it's that aspect of games that we like to discuss. Especially comparing limited systems like consoles with PCs and seeing how devs cleverly work around limitations. Or between different consoles with different designs and seeing how specific obstacles are overcome.

 

[function]

I had the opposite feeling by watching this video. Especially at 56secs and about the texture quality (1min40 to 2min25 for instance).

I think the fact you have to stick the camera into a wall in an atypical way, and compare it to PC ultra settings, and then claim seeing texels = poor visual consistency, is proof of how far you have to go to make your case.

Texture resolution isn't infinite unless procedurally generated, and it always has to give somewhere even if you sacrifice diversity for resolution and then repeat a lot (which impacts on things seeming consistent - or interesting - in terms of world variation).

I'm just saying that UC4 is technically better because it was made on a more powerful hardware : 2+2=4.

To me, it's an indisputable fact.

Well, to you might be but that doesn't mean it is.

Software is a technology (or collection of technologies) in itself. The tools are also a collection of technologies. Dismissing the technologies developed for the game itself - the things that make up the game - and judging the accomplishments of the game only by the hardware it runs on is quite ridiculous.

My PC is faster than the X1 and the PS4. Ergo, any game I run on it is more technologically impressive than any console game, right? Wrong.

 

[Recop]

I think the fact you have to stick the camera into a wall in an atypical way, and compare it to PC ultra settings, and then claim seeing texels = poor visual consistency, is proof of how far you have to go to make your case.

Texture resolution isn't infinite unless procedurally generated, and it always has to give somewhere even if you sacrifice diversity for resolution and then repeat a lot (which impacts on things seeming consistent - or interesting - in terms of world variation).

No, the texture quality in GOW is simply inconsistent. See the textures on the armor at 2min05.... it's a cutscene with a highly controlled environment and you still see poor textures.

Another example here (ultra) : http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...s-of-war-4-world-texture-detail-001-ultra.png

My PC is faster than the X1 and the PS4. Ergo, any game I run on it is more technologically impressive than any console game, right? Wrong.

You're taking extreme examples... in a normal world with normal people, the deciding factor is the hardware...

If you take 2 competent studios, then the deciding factor is the hardware.

If you take 2 competent pilots, then the deciding factor is the car.

As simple as that... but you are free to think that ND failed to make a technically more accomplished game with a stronger hardware... even though all other developers are able to use the PS4's extra power (1080p vs 900p).

Basically you are saying that TC is a world class studio while ND is an average studio. Personally, I'm making none of those claims... i'm just saying 2+2=4.

 

[chris1515]

I think UC4 looks very good but The Order 1886 steal the thunder. It is the first game giving the next gen vibes. UC4 is looking better int the best moment but the WTF moment of this gen were TO1886 and Drive Club weather system...

Gears 4 looks good too but no WTF moment...

The second one will probably be Horizon Zero Dawn looking so good for an open world...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No, the texture quality in GOW is simply inconsistent. See the textures on the armor at 2min05.... it's a cutscene with a highly controlled environment and you still see poor textures.

Another example here (ultra) : http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...s-of-war-4-world-texture-detail-001-ultra.png

And UC4 has missing AO and radioactive rocks. How are you going to quantify the imperfections of these games to ascertain which is inferior?

You're taking extreme examples... in a normal world with normal people, the deciding factor is the hardware...
If you take 2 competent studios, then the deciding factor is the hardware.
If you take 2 competent pilots, then the deciding factor is the car.

That's a different definition to the one everyone else here is using. For everyone else, if you have two consoles and one is punching more above its weight than the other, that one has the technically more accomplished software. Or the same console, and two very similar titles. If one dev creates a sci fi FPS that runs at 30 fps with occasional drops to the 20s, and another creates a similar FPS with the same features but a solid 30 fps thanks to some cleverer use of the hardware, the second game is technically the superior.

Traditionally, console games are more accomplished than PC games running on more powerful hardware because they do cleverer things to eek more out of the hardware.

 

[Recop]

For everyone else, if you have two consoles and one is punching more above its weight than the other, that one has the technically more accomplished software.

In a relative comparison : yes

In a strict comparison : i don't think the XB1 can push above its weight to close the technical gap with the PS4. At least, if 2 competent developers work on a AAA game on each console. I simply can't believe that a world class developer such as ND can make a less technically accomplished game on a more powerful hardware (in a strict comparison).

This doesn't happen in multiplatform games, so it won't happen in exclusive titles. Actually, the probability to close the technical gap is even lower among exclusive titles IMO.

And UC4 has missing AO and radioactive rocks. How are you going to quantify the imperfections of these games to ascertain which is inferior?

IMO, UC4 has more consistent visuals. This is all what i'm saying.

 

[Recop]

I think UC4 looks very good but The Order 1886 steal the thunder. It is the first game giving the next gen vibes. UC4 is looking better int the best moment but the WTF moment of this gen were TO1886 and Drive Club weather system...

Gears 4 looks good too but no WTF moment...

The second one will probably be Horizon Zero Dawn looking so good for an open world...

I think that UC4 is technically better (bigger studio + higher budget) but that The Order looks better overall (more linear + less dynamic).

 

[iroboto]

In a relative comparison : yes

In a strict comparison : i don't think the XB1 can push above its weight to close the technical gap with the PS4. At least, if 2 competent developers work on a AAA game on each console. I simply can't believe that a world class developer such as ND can make a less technically accomplished game on a more powerful hardware (in a strict comparison).

This doesn't happen in multiplatform games, so it won't happen in exclusive titles. Actually, the probability to close the technical gap is even lower among exclusive titles IMO.



IMO, UC4 has more consistent visuals. This is all what i'm saying.

This was never the point in contention. In fact no one here is contesting that point, yet you keep iterating it as if everyone here is saying GOW4 is technically more accomplished than UC4. No one here has said that.
My issue is using UC4 as a yard stick for GOW4 and then looking at PC Version of GOW4 at Ultra settings (screenshots) and saying, yup, XBO shackled PC.

The two concepts aren't related at all. It's a stupid concept because anything that is less powerful than PC and not designed for it would be by in large shackling PC, that jump in logic is so far apart it doesn't even make sense to take that position.

As for you position, it's unfortunately apple and oranges.
You are desperately trying to boil this down to hardware supremacy, but you can only ever make that declaration with something like multi-platform games, where as many of the variables are unchanged.

You keep saying 2 competent race car drivers, driving 2 separate cars, the driver with the faster car will win.
But that's flat out wrong, because drivers can make a big difference in times especially when it comes down to how well the drivers know their own cars and its capabilities.
A better example will be 1 driver, 2 cars on the same track, running the same tires, on the same weather conditions, with the same amount of driving time in both cars.

Comparing GOW to UC is like, 2 separate drivers, 2 separate cars, 2 different tracks, in 2 different weather conditions, with different pit crews, and different tires. Then when you pick a winner based on time you immediately point at it being the difference in performance in the car. When there are loads of other variables at play.

Under your very same thought process, every other AAA title made for PS4, _not a single title ever_ on XBO could surpass it.

And I don't think its hard to pick some examples that would poke holes in that theory.

 

[chris1515]

UC4 is more inconsistent but the biggest reason are problem on the art side. Error in baked GI like the radioactive rock or horrible background(bad sea and very low polygon boat) in Italian level... After the chapter 12 everything is looking very good and consistent art wise.

TO1886 is very consistent in the visual prowess...