UC4: Best looking gameplay? *SPOILS*

[chris1515]

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.

Out of Star Citizen all multiplatform games are limited by base platform (Xbox One or PS4 or minimum PC required...).

 

[chris1515]

Some will say Star Citizen will be limited by the minimum PC configuration but like Crysis I think the minimum configuration will be very high...

 

[iroboto]

Out of Star Citizen all multiplatform games are limited by base platform (Xbox One or PS4 or minimum PC required...).

Star citizen isn't the greatest example, since it's not the norm. But it's certainly an example.

 

[Recop]

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

Actually, this is what i think. Technically, none of the PS4 AAA exclusive games are surpassed on XB1. It's also true for several AAA multiplatform games : the PS4 version of Battlefront will never be surpassed by any game on XB1. Same thing for Batman, Doom, MG5, TW3, etc.

Optimization is not magic... at launch, most of XB1 games were running at 900p. Today, we are still in the same situation... nothing has changed... 720p was the true exception and only some games running at such a low resolution got a massive upgrade later (MG5, COD).

With optimization you can't find 40% more GPU power... and unless you a very bad developer, you won't lose 40% more GPU power either...

Optimization means some improvements, not a revolution... for a revolution, you need a new hardware.

If you compare FH2 and FH3 you can easily see some improvements but not a revolution... you can clearly see that they had not access to 40% more GPU power.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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).

As long as you use that definition of 'technically', there's no debate to be had. But that term makes no sense to qualify the comparison.

• Which game looks the best - subjective comparison
• Which game is doing the most - objective comparison (if we had enough metrics) that would invariably favour the more powerful machine. This is what you're talking about
  
• Which game is the most technically accomplished - relative comparison based on how the devs are using the software. Phrased differently, which software is achieving the greatest utilisation of the hardware its running on.

Putting it another way, how would you qualify the comparison for hardware utilisation and quality of software if not 'technically'? What would you place in the following blank space?

"PS4 with 1.8 TF is producing exactly the same visuals in GameX as our 3.6 TF PC, just at 900p instead of 1080p, making it a __________ superior implementation by Studio M in their port."

I'd use 'technically' - it'd clearly be using better techniques.

 

[iroboto]

Actually, this is what i think. Technically, none of the PS4 AAA exclusive games are surpassed on XB1. It's also true for several AAA multiplatform games : the PS4 version of Battlefront will never be surpassed by any game on XB1. Same thing for Batman, Doom, MG5, TW3, etc.

Optimization is not magic... at launch, most of XB1 games were running at 900p. Today, we are still in the same situation... nothing has changed... 720p was the true exception and only some games running at such a low resolution got a massive upgrade later (MG5, COD).

With optimization you can't find 40% more GPU power... and unless you a very bad developer, you won't lose 40% more GPU power either...

Optimization means some improvements, not a revolution... for a revolution, you need a new hardware.

If you compare FH2 and FH3 you can easily see some improvements but not a revolution... you can clearly see that they had not access to 40% more GPU power.

But that point alone is a counter point to your entire argument. That with more time and knowledge do games (even when nearly all the variables are nearly the same) improve even in a fixed setting.

I see the difference in the way we think. You put the console on the pedestal, I put developers on the pedestal.

I see it like 2 tennis players, 1 amateur with the best equipment there is and 1 professional with amateur equipment. Results will dictate that the professional will win. There is no equal for experience and talent, you need more and more talent to take advantage of better equipment.

You see it like formula 1. Where all race car drivers have earned their way into AAA development and they are in a race to the finish. The teams with the best car will win because every driving team is about the equivalent.

The truth is probably some midway point. But my only rebuttal to that view is this,
At the end of the day the developers code the game. They design the game, they make the art for the game, they make the levels for the game. The Console is just a canvas that they operate on. The console can't write
It's own code, and it can't draw its own art.

Everything you credit a game for is actually owed to the developers, not the console. Right now you are still giving credit to the console.

You must know that if you gave ND 5 years I'm sure they could recreate UC4 on XBO, likely at 900p. But when did having higher resolution become revolutionary. As cited earlier there is no monopoly on technology that PS4 has over PC or XBO. It's just more GPU flops and ROPS and bandwidth to support it.

 

[Globalisateur]

Please guys, be reasonable, this argument must cease. Naughty dog are unbeatable at what they do. that's it. It's not about technology, art or tflops advantage.

It's about destroying people's lives. The others studios can't compete.

 

[function]

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).

What is you definition of technically accomplished software?

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.

That is a strawman argument and repeatedly equating your opinion to simple addition is baffling.

 

[Dictator]

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.

I saw this in the campaign and it made me think of this. I have yet to test if it also flares the SSS from muzzle flashes, but it definitly works from the moon point lights scattered around the maps as far as I can see.

If it works like in real life, you need a really strong back lighting source and a lack of strong ambient light for SSS to show up usually in an image. So perhaps just most of the time the lights are not bright enough / there is too much ambient.

 

[Recop]

The truth is probably some midway point. But my only rebuttal to that view is this,
At the end of the day the developers code the game. They design the game, they make the art for the game, they make the levels for the game. The Console is just a canvas that they operate on. The console can't write
It's own code, and it can't draw its own art.

Everything you credit a game for is actually owed to the developers, not the console. Right now you are still giving credit to the console.

No, i'm just saying that there are cold realities in the real world...

You can say that a female boxer can beat a male boxer... sure it can happen... but 9 times out of 10 it won't happen in a normal situation...

You have to take extreme examples to fit your view : an extremely talented female boxer vs an extremely weak male boxer... this is not a normal situation...

 

[iroboto]

No, i'm just saying that there are cold realities in the real world...

You can say that a female boxer can beat a male boxer... sure it can happen... but 9 times out of 10 it won't happen in a normal situation...

You have to take extreme examples to fit your view : an extremely talented female boxer vs an extremely weak male boxer... this is not a normal situation...

That's a bad example. Games are not bouts. Games are creations and the development of one game has no relation on the development of the other. You'd be better off comparing swimming times of men of women than a boxing match. Regardless

I'm talking about when a game is released, it is a static snapshot of a developers efforts into a game. Over time as developers improve, their next release will snapshot at their new experience. Developers will always find a way to overcome the hardware obstacles because that is what is required from them. They are required by the market to produce a better game with better visuals with each iteration. Which means they will change how they use the hardware to meet those requirements.

Your argument is that Xbox games will never look as good as PS4 games because it's missing 40% GPU, but that argument fails if you choose a title in the future and you compare it to a launch title for PS4. You're argument falls apart.
This isn't an extreme example, this is just what happens with games and consoles. Fixed hardware forces developers to find other ways to improve the graphical fidelity of their games.

 

[Recop]

Your argument is that Xbox games will never look as good as PS4 games because it's missing 40% GPU, but that argument fails if you choose a title in the future and you compare it to a launch title for PS4. You're argument falls apart.
This isn't an extreme example, this is just what happens with games and consoles. Fixed hardware forces developers to find other ways to improve the graphical fidelity of their games.

I don't talk about the graphics but about technical achievements. Even with optimization, you can't overcome 40% less GPU power... this is my point.

Once again, there are physical limitations... optimization doesn't mean revolution... your point is valid with slight hardware differences (XB1 vs XBS for instance) but not substantial ones.

 

[Clukos]

I think the most impressive aspect of U4 is just the sheer amount of high quality assets, although this cannot be accounted only to ND. They outsourced a lot of assets to external teams.

I saw this in the campaign and it made me think of this. I have yet to test if it also flares the SSS from muzzle flashes, but it definitly works from the moon point lights scattered around the maps as far as I can see.

If it works like in real life, you need a really strong back lighting source and a lack of strong ambient light for SSS to show up usually in an image. So perhaps just most of the time the lights are not bright enough / there is too much ambient.

Here's the same effect in U4 (plus hair light scatter approximation)

I'll have to get GeoW4 to check it out but do all light sources produce the same effect during gameplay?

Lod, streaming and draw distance is another strong point of U4.

And i'm thinking it has more to do with ND using the h/w smartly rather than the h/w being capable as we've already seen numerous console games this generation suffering from pop-in, lod and draw distance issues.

 

[function]

I don't talk about the graphics but about technical achievements. Even with optimization, you can't overcome 40% less GPU power... this is my point.

Once again, there are physical limitations... optimization doesn't mean revolution... your point is valid with slight hardware differences (XB1 vs XBS for instance) but not substantial ones.

So, again, what is your definition of technically accomplished software? And what is a technical achievement in software?

 

[Recop]

And i'm thinking it has more to do with ND using the h/w smartly rather than the h/w being capable as we've already seen numerous console games this generation suffering from pop-in, load and draw distance issues.

Sure, if developers work on the same hardware, then talent will be the deciding factor and ND is definitely an incredibly talented studio.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't talk about the graphics but about technical achievements.

Again. You need to exaplin what the heck you're talking about. I asked you to provide an indication in this post. Is there reason you haven't? Because at the moment this discussion is going nowhere as you're repeating a term rather than discussing it.

 

[Recop]

Again. You need to exaplin what the heck you're talking about. I asked you to provide an indication in this post. Is there reason you haven't? Because at the moment this discussion is going nowhere as you're repeating a term rather than discussing it.

Oh sorry, i thought you already knew my definition : "Which game is doing the most - objective comparison (if we had enough metrics) that would invariably favour the more powerful machine. This is what you're talking about"

In a strict comparison, this is my definition.

Otherwise we would have much more examples from the old gen in this thread but this is not the case...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Okay. Why are you using that definition? As I say in that post, what term will you use for relative comparisons (as we're all doing)?

Otherwise we would have much more examples from the old gen in this thread but this is not the case...

No, because the thread is, "best looking game," and not "technically most accomplished game." There's clearly no way a PS2 game looks better than UC4, but in terms of utilisation and factoring in the state-of-the-art for the time, I'm sure there are plenty of PS2 games doing cleverer things than ND's first PS4 title. Although the fact that PS4 games are that much larger maybe undoes that idea.

 

[Recop]

what term will you use for relative comparisons (as we're all doing)?

I will use this definition : "Which game is the most technically accomplished - relative comparison based on how the devs are using the software. Phrased differently, which software is achieving the greatest utilisation of the hardware its running on."

No, because the thread is, "best looking game," and not "technically most accomplished game."

Fair enough.

 

[Globalisateur]

It's odd because now that the dust has settled I don't think UC4 is the best looking game on PS4.

I think Bloodborne is the best looking game on PS4. It's the game that has the most striking effect on my imagination. It's not only about technology or even art. It's not about aliasing or unwanted CA.

It's about a game that had the most profound effect on me. It's the most real and immersive game. It's a game that doesn't try to look like a movie (even with the abusive CA, it's still better than the grain filter seen in UC4 which had a huge negative effect on me, completely killed the immersive effect of the game).

Now when I try to recall the best looking images about the games I have played, it's Bloodborne and its organic world I do think about, even about the average looking Chalice dungeons. I don't really think about the incredibly pretty but somehow forgettable UC4 landscapes.