Unreal Engine In Game Vs. Publicity Shots

[swaaye]

I forgot that players could make 360 screens in Halo 3 (I've actually never played the game). When I said that there were Halo 3 bullshots, I was referring to the pre-release shots from Bungie.

Shots such as:
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/734817/halo-3/images/halo-3-20070701092827387.html?page=mediaFull
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/734817/halo-3/images/halo-3-20070701092828449.html?page=mediaFull
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/734817/halo-3/images/halo-3-20070701092557998.html?page=mediaFull

Though to be fair, it looks like Bungie released tons of in-game shots way back in early/mid '07 that are more representative of the actual gameplay. Less of a "cover up" than what Epic likes to do.

 

[warb]

Those are Halo 3 photomode shots.

 

[Pugger]

Darkis you do realise that BUNGIE stated before the super bowl trailer was ever shown it was fully CG?? Swaaye you do realise all those links are taken from in game camera mode. That is the game.

 

[Betanumerical]

Darkis you do realise that BUNGIE stated before the super bowl trailer was ever showed it was fully CG?? Swaaye you do realise all those links are taken from in game camera mode. That is the game.

The Game at >1080P

When the game doesnt even render at 720P, that is not representative of how the game looks.

 

[Pugger]

The Game at >1080P

When the game doesnt even render at 720P, that is not representative of how the game looks.

That is true but that is how nearly all games are previewed. Look at Unchartered 2, all the pictures show so far have been downsampled, they are not representivie of the game either. By the way maybe I'm looking at the wrong pictures but they appear to be 1024X576. If you are on about the trailer again Bungie made it plain it was nothing to do with the actual game itself.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PR shots are downsampled. That's a given I expect in considerable part to the same shots being used for print magazines and so produced at 150/300 dpi for that purpose, and then downscaled for internet distribution. We can at least tell the content and look of the game even if the in-game IQ isn't represented. The whole point of this thread isn't games producing PR content in higher fidelity, but the use of non-game features in PR content which give an unrealistic representation. eg. If the Pr stuff as AO on everything, and the game doesn't, that's misrepresentation.

This is not a place to argue whether that is acceptible or not, nor which companies are worse at it than others. This is the Tech Forum! The question is how the PR side of rendering is handled, and if engines, UE3 in particular, provide a very easy means to add extra features and quality systems, switching to alternate rendering engines and assets without the developers having to build those sytems themselves.

 

[Dargakis]

well, for UE3 shots i supplied they just take the 3d data from the game, but put in the models with > 1 million polygons (they use those to create the normal maps).
Then they import it into maya, with infinite anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing. real lightning, ray-traced AO, real depth of field, they render it (few hours) et voila, gears bullshit shot done!
Their own engine does not have those features because it was never created with the idea that it would have to be rendered in 1/30th of a second, so when they want to fake the screenshots, they have to use an external renderer, like maya. It could also be blender, but you get the idea.
that is my take.

 

[Neb]

In UT3 the biggest difference was the lighting. Dunno about the locked SSAO (static or not working dynamic?) to medium in packed engine files.


I remember these promo shots that have the more "GI'ish/high precision HDR" type lighting.

http://www.gamersyde.com/pop_image.html?G=6242&N=14
http://www.gamersyde.com/pop_image.html?G=6242&N=11
http://www.gamersyde.com/pop_image.html?G=6242&N=5

And more... like the cutscene videos.


The final game still held it quite good though minus some stuff of course (native 1280x1024 downscaled to 960x768 to fit that times Photobucket free account upload size limitations).
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/UT3-9.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/UT3-3.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/UT3-6.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/UT3-5.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/UT3-10.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/UT3-4.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/UT3-8.jpg
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w193/NebulasPhotoPocket/UT3Demo4.jpg

 

[swaaye]

the final game's biggest issue is all the aliasing. They were talking about DX10 mode having MSAA, but dropped that. At least you can force MSAA. But there's also the shader aliasing that's everywhere.

Texture resolution is rather low too. Could be a artifact of console development.

 

[Neb]

the final game's biggest issue is all that aliasing. They were talking about DX10 mode having MSAA, but dropped that. And then you add on all of the shader aliasing too.

Texture resolution is rather low too though. Could be a artifact of console development.

IIRC you could force AA with some drivers. Shader alisisng was moderate though, mostly on high-res textures. Kinda mix about the textures but there where quite some high-res textures in the game, atleast for PC version.

 

[Dargakis]

offtopic: i believe crysis is the only game that can be configured to run the game at 'bullshot'-level detail.

Most pc games in general should be able to run the regular bullshot-mode, ie: very good aa, filtering and super high res.
Only in consoles it seems more obvious, because last generation they mostly ran in 480p at the maximum, that doesn't translate well to magazines as explained by the mod above here.

 

[Neb]

offtopic: i believe crysis is the only game that can be configured to run the game at 'bullshot'-level detail.

Most pc games in general should be able to run the regular bullshot-mode, ie: very good aa, filtering and super high res.

While that is true to a certain extent you still can't compensate for dev bullshots that have higher settings that are not in game settings. Mods will of course add stuff but still. I am sure thigns could be brought back to UT3/Gears but I gave up since the editor was unusable and "cooking" such files was borked.

 

[homerdog]

offtopic: i believe crysis is the only game that can be configured to run the game at 'bullshot'-level detail.

Most pc games in general should be able to run the regular bullshot-mode, ie: very good aa, filtering and super high res.
Only in consoles it seems more obvious, because last generation they mostly ran in 480p at the maximum, that doesn't translate well to magazines as explained by the mod above here.

Yes Crysis supports 'Offline Rendering' - basically screenshots can be rendered at whatever res you want. It can produce some amazing results. Of course other than the AA that's actually what I see when I play the game. This thread is more focused on Epic style bullshots where in game assets (models, animations, lighting, textures) are not used.

One thing that gets me; how is it not false advertising when passing off bullshots as "screenshots"?
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/...f-war-2-20081103060358889.html?page=mediaFull

Clearly says "IGN: Gears of War 2 Screenshots" in the top left, but that is not a screenshot from the Xbox 360 game Gears of War 2.

 

[Acert93]

Well there are some very doctored Halo 3 shots out there that look nothing like the actual game with all of its various visual disappointments.

I forgot that players could make 360 screens in Halo 3 (I've actually never played the game). When I said that there were Halo 3 bullshots, I was referring to the pre-release shots from Bungie.

Shots such as:
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/734817/halo-3/images/halo-3-20070701092827387.html?page=mediaFull
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/734817/halo-3/images/halo-3-20070701092828449.html?page=mediaFull
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/734817/halo-3/images/halo-3-20070701092557998.html?page=mediaFull

Those are not "very doctored" shots -- and they do look something like the final game. That is High Ground, Resort, and Epitath and outside Aliasing and texture fidelity (due to the 7x7 downsampling) that is EXACTLY how the game looks.

The game absolutely has some asstacular areas and can look quite ugly at times -- but it can also look quite stunning. The Epitath shot (last one) you linked to is a good example of when the game is hits its marks it can look great. This shot shows of nice models with excellent lighting and shadowing, nice particle effects, and a detailed sci-fi layout with "depth" (not so flat like many forerunning objects) and nice transparencies. Even the texture work, while simple, is detailed and transitions well on this map.

The game gets a lot of hate at times, in some ways observed, but I think it is overblown. The fact you had not played the game and were calling essentially shots you get right out of the game "very doctored" is an example.

 

[homerdog]

7x7 downsampling is pretty damn doctored in my book. Hell I'd even call 2x2 downsampling 'very doctored'. That's quadruple the pixels!

 

[Acert93]

Then almost all game media is pretty damn doctored. But I am not sure how far our illdefined and loosy terms get us anywhere. e.g. Last generation it was pretty standard to apply filtering, AA of some sort, and up-resolution game shots (even downsample to such). Games following that path this generation (which is most) are treading old ground.

If these are pretty damn doctored then what is something that swaps out the in-game lighting engine for something much more advanced? Or calling CGI gameplay?

Anyhow, swaaye went on to say they didn't even look like the game... but he hasn't played the game. That was my contest, to point out that it does in fact look like the game minus the obligitory refinements.

Curiously of these games were live demoed, even beta tested, over 6 months prior to release. The amount of media (concept art samples, high poly concept and source models, early tech demoes of potential technology, visual goal "impressions," bullshots and compiled video, straight up bait and switch in regards to render paths, etc) that is tossed around and undefined by developers and incorrectly labeled by the press is shocking. But we aren't helping the situation with generalized terms and no doing direct comparisons, either.

Where does journalistic and consumer responsibility come into play when a game is demoed publically, even distributed for free online, and a journalistic website calls bullshots screen shots, or worst, in-game shots?

On a technical level I would like to see some of the best PR shots with the same scene from the game and compare/contrast what is going on in regards to the technology.

 

[homerdog]

Then almost all game media is pretty damn doctored. But I am not sure how far our illdefined and loosy terms get us anywhere. e.g. Last generation it was pretty standard to apply filtering, AA of some sort, and up-resolution game shots (even downsample to such). Games following that path this generation (which is most) are treading old ground.

If these are pretty damn doctored then what is something that swaps out the in-game lighting engine for something much more advanced? Or calling CGI gameplay?

Yep I think the vast majority of game media is pretty damn doctored. You don't?

Then we have those who swap lighting engines, models, textures etc. which is something worse than doctoring. Don't have a word for it... Epicing maybe?

Where does journalistic and consumer responsibility come into play when a game is demoed publically, even distributed for free online, and a journalistic website calls bullshots screen shots, or worst, in-game shots?

I'm thinking along those same lines. When does it become false advertising?

 

[catisfit]

When TV adverts for most games still seem to be CG along with the tagline "Graphics representative of gameplay", an increase in AA or resolution doesn't come close to the false advertising already prevalent across the industry. Latest example: HAWX.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

7x7 downsampling is pretty damn doctored in my book.

We have to be absolutely clear on definitions, which I'm sure I've mentioned a couple of times of already. PR shots are downsampled. That's a given. If it's created in engine using in game assets and the in-game rendering engine, then it's not doctored. It's oversampled and beyond normal IQ, but not 'doctored'. This is the standard and we can't be rid of it . That's not a downright lie though. It's not offering anything that the game won't offer, just offering it in a higher fidelity. That's different to CGI renders and the like that present a picture of higher quality models, textures, lighting, shadowing, etc. A completely different look to what you get when you switch the game on.

In principle, the advertisements aren't presenting the product but the 'feel' of the product. Nintendo has pushed this very much with Wii ads in beautiful CGI that aren't the least bit like the game you play. But they indicate the style of game, and the 'emotions' you'll feel while playing. So they're not positioned as examples of what you're getting, but adverts designed to generate interest. Kinda like box-art, which is there to present in a static image something to captivate the casual glancer and get them to pick up the box.

I repeat for the last time this is not a thread about advertising or what is acceptible. Discuss here the hows of games creating PR content. If you're posting to say 'I think it's wrong' or 'it's false advertising', don't. And don't grumble when such posts are removed and you get an infraction for ignoring moderators who are trying to keep in the Technical forum technical!

 

[homerdog]

Shifty you're no fun.