Uncharted 4: A Thief's End [PS4]

​

It is good technology with good art. Every console games is a compromise...

For example use tesselation on console is a stupid idea. Sub pixel polygon kills GPU rasterization performance. On PC base version is often console, take a high end GPU and use tesselation because you can brute force and efficiency is not important. If you want to use sub pixel geometry on console do like Media Molecule and go 100% compute without rasterized polygons...

 

The occlusion and draw distance alone are better than most other Ps4 (or really any platform) titles we've seen to date. Like i said poly count is one thing but taking it as a whole it looks breathtaking.

 

Nope DICE respectfully disagrees with this


http://frostbite-wp-prd.s3.amazonaw..._EA_PhotogrammetryStarWarsBattlefront_v8.pptx

 

Poly count will always be compromised on console out of games using exotic rendering.

http://media.lolrus.mediamolecule.com/AlexEvans_SIGGRAPH-2015.pdf

In the title geometrically dense

 

I know that this game is real graphical showcase for the hardware. The details, the impressive scale of the environment etc.

But there is still something in the lighting and materials (I think) that prevents me having a real WOW moment. Still can't put my finger on why this game still doesn't impress me, when it should.

I probably have being spoiled by Driveclub and Battlefront realistic materials... Notably the rocks @Ike Turner just posted look like how rocks should look...

 

This is exactly how I feel. Thankfully I'm not alone

 

for me, Uncharted 4 looks like NOT chasing realistic looks. It chase stylized but realistic look. maybe like those Tintin movie a while back. Btw when i watched that a while back, i though "wow this is uncharted the movie".


(go to 50 secs)

 

And if they use this in UC4 they need to cut something else and the GPU efficiency will take a hit...

 

Maybe, maybe not. That was not the point of my reply... just correcting your "using Tessellation on console is stupid" statement which was simply wrong.

 

It is sure at 100%, sub pixel polygons are not very efficient on current GPU technology if you rasterize polygon. After they use it in some place in Battlefront but it means they needed to cut corners somewhere else on consoles. On UC4 it would probably need to cut some effects for example...

In Battlefront if it generates sub pixel polygons it reduce the GPU efficiency... It is how current GPU work...

 

I just wanted to gush about the beauty. Honestly, for a console game, this is "next gen" imo. Im not for the game just bc of its graphics but i do like "eye candy" and back when PSX 2014 camee about i was impressed but ive always wanted to see if ,by release, they could push it a little further. They never leave me disappointed.

 

Chris,
You stated that using Tessellation on console is a stupid idea. I pointed out that you are factually and technically wrong. Nobody said that applying it to UC4 wouldn't have adverse effects to performance or cutbacks elsewhere. No need to further continue arguing about this in here as this is getting off topic and frankly useless. Oh and Battlefront doesn't only use it in some places..it.s practically applied to all environmental assets..
Anyway let's go back on topic.

 

It means they sacrifice some efficiency for have it on all environmental places after is means the goal they had for the game was achieved with visuals they wanted.

For ND or other console team they wanted more effect and they decided to not use tessellation because they wanted more effect...

Edit: I played Battlefront demo on PS4 but I am not into multiplayer games and never buy the game. It was gorgeous just a little bit too much specular aliasing sometimes but probably the best realistic material work with The Order 1886.

 

If sub pixel polygons were efficient on current GPU normal maps would disseapear and every team would use displacement map instead like in Dreams on every splats...

I never said geometry is not a good things...

 

Battlefront does not tesselate into sub-pixel polys. Its that simple. They keep polys at a more reasonable screen-space size, and use a displacement system that doesn't wobble and swim around.

 

Good idea after I would prefer having sub pixel polygons everywhere but it is impossible...

 

More of that apartment scene, sadly jpg




These books clearly need to be tessellated imo, disappointing.

It's perfectly possible that you guys just don't like the art direction of the game. But then it's a case of looking at a tree and missing the forest, especially when the game hits all the right marks in many areas that other games are not even trying to cover. For example, for as beautiful the rocks in Battlefront are, they are completely static (as the rest of the environment), limiting interactive gameplay with the environment, a staple of the Battlefield series.

 

It's darn near trolling to focus only on the amount of poly count to determine how impressive the graphics are while ignoring every other aspects of the image. What those screens showed is a combination of excellent lighting, geometry, texturing, shaders, shadow LOD, scale, volumetrics and iq. No other console game has displayed such well balanced array of visual fidelity, at least to what I've seen and played and I've played pretty much every major graphics heavy console games to date. UC4 is going beyond anything technically. And by that I mean not the best of everything but the best utilization of everything.
The graphics taken as a whole easily kills the like of Battlefront, The Order, Quantum Break or TW3 on consoles it's not funny.

 

Thanks