Because even that statement can be read equivocally. Cutscenes in The Last of Us were "in game visuals" (assets, rendered with better shaders etc.) "captured on a Playstation 3" (renderfarm).
Uncharted 4: A Thief's End [PS4]
- Thread starter Strange
- Start date
- Status
Because even that statement can be read equivocally. Cutscenes in The Last of Us were "in game visuals" (assets, rendered with better shaders etc.) "captured on a Playstation 3" (renderfarm).
Betanumerical
Veteran
It game and captured on the PS4 yet pre-rendered.. right..
So what your saying is TLOU stuff wasn't in game visuals at all then right?.
The direct feed looks way to clean, absolutely no artifacting from geometry aliasing, texture filtering, shadows or anything. I'd say it might even be using a different "cinematic" lighting system the way TLOU did.
Just check out the fly, such tiny pieces of geometry will never be that sharp without supersampling. Same goes for eyelashes.
Does it detract anything from the game or the trailer? Not at all.
Should we expect the same quality for gameplay though? Not likely.
Just check out the fly, such tiny pieces of geometry will never be that sharp without supersampling. Same goes for eyelashes.
Does it detract anything from the game or the trailer? Not at all.
Should we expect the same quality for gameplay though? Not likely.
The Last of Us was in-game models and textures, supersampled and touched up. Depending on how you define "in-game visuals" that may still count as such, just as any bullshot may be called a screenshot; as I said, equivocal.
Skepticism of what? If people are thinking every moment in the game is going to look this good with every NPC being of the same detail then they haven't been paying attention to the games industry for the past 10 years.Cutscenes always look gorgeous and then the game proper always looks a lot simpler and gamey. There's no reason to think otherwise nor reason to expect this cutscene being rendered in realtime. That said why would people doubt it's possible? It's a cutscene. It can be heavily optimised to run in realtime. And even if it was proven to be running in realtime on a PS4 that doesn't say much for how the game itself will look.
So I don't see the importance in establishing whether this demo was realtime or not. It bares little relationship to how the game proper will look either way.
If it does not matter whether the result was achieved in realtime, then they might as well have used a CG house and been done with it. Certainly that is easier than the blood, sweat, tears, and time it could take to optimize a cutscene to run at 60fps and 1080p with absolutely impeccable IQ.
In-game footage trailers set expectations, and it should matter to some degree whether they are genuine.
Cut-scene:
From Eurogamer:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-last-of-us-tech-analysis
Billy Idol
Legend
Thanks. Hope we get something new at gamescom...
Animation looks weird to me...as in not natural. The best natural facial animation to date is in Quantum Break. As for the graphics it looks pretty good but not beyond what I've already seen from other games. In other words it's not a benchmark in graphics.
In your opinion...
It's a closeup of one character too...and the skin looks unnatural..lol.
Last edited by a moderator:
But i think animations are the most important element on the video they are looks amazing to me.
They are developing and testing their engine for the final game. Why pay a CG company to produce a cutscene that you're going to produce in house anyway?
That blood, sweat and tears may have not been used though, as it could have been rendered at low framerate and composited to final framerate. Point being the disbelief strikes me as confusing. This isn't unbelievable good given context. It's doable on PS4 IMO, just not in game.
Of course it does. And in this case it is genuine, because it's made in engine. Therefore, the engine is capable of producing this quality. At what framerate we don't know, but it'll scale. So we have expectations set to somewhat less than that trailer but still very high because it did look good. That should be our evaluation of every pre-release promo trailer for every game! (look at E3 last year and the far better quality than titles we got in real games).
I don't even know why people are arguing about it being prerendered....it doesn't look THAT great for it to need to be prerendered...
I think some people were expecting ND to blow everyone out of the water...but this teaser isn't really doing it for me. I think ND has fallen into the trap of "overuse" of trendy graphical features. Back in the day it was colored lighting, then shiny bump mapping and now it's facial animation.
I think some people were expecting ND to blow everyone out of the water...but this teaser isn't really doing it for me. I think ND has fallen into the trap of "overuse" of trendy graphical features. Back in the day it was colored lighting, then shiny bump mapping and now it's facial animation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eh? Are you looking at a low quality video? Actually for most it looks too good this is why we are doubting it. Even the slightest detail on his skin looks too clean and defined. The fly on his face looks also too clean and casts a perfectly smoothed natural looking shadow.
It looks fine to me, but I'm only interested in gameplay. That's what's not blowing me out of the water on my end. Knowing that the game is coming in 2015 isn't what I'm interested in right now, I sort of guessed that already. I'm fine with this being the last one though - it's good if they try something new.
I'm fine with this being the last one though - it's good if they try something new.
I think you're oversimplifying the demo. Things that clearly impress people are the realism, the cleanliness (possibly 'fake' as not in game) and framerate (likely true in game, or at least presently a target, as you wouldn't create 60 fps cutscenes for a 30 fps game), and general artistry. The clothing appears to be modelled at a mesh level instead of just tweening normal maps. The water in the background moves and is shaded very realistically, but the DOF can help with that. The flora is remarkably detailed and moves convincingly and, for those extrapolating the cutscene to the game experience, is suggestive of the same in game.
Overall it is very impressive, as a cutscene, and a progression of standard technologies in realtime graphics. A game doesn't have to reinvent rendering to be able to be impressive. It's also worth noting that the beginning of the trailer reads, "the following trailer was captured directly from a PS4," implying a stronger, though not conclusive, connection with being realtime.
Personally I think the jaw-dropping either comes from a fairly emotional response due to the artistry and enthusiasm for the IP, or a belief that the game itself will look just as good. Those with positive responses are entitled to them - they're not stupid or sheepish or anything. I myself will not extrapolate game experience from a PR trailer. There's lots of precedent to show that trailers designed to get you excited aren't a good measure of what the final game will be. The trailer should be measured as a trailer, that just happened to be rendered on a PS4.
Drake god old... but power of PS4 is there to make him look awesome.
I see something Liam Neeson'ish combined with some Harisson Ford'ish.
It really makes him look tougher and more believable
upnorthsox
Veteran
I see something Liam Neeson'ish combined with some Harisson Ford'ish.
It really makes him look tougher and more believable
Mileage, its being married that does it to you.
The clothing is the least impressive from what I see. It's all shiny and bumpmappy plastic looking.
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Games