Unreal Engine In Game Vs. Publicity Shots

[Rotmm]

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?

Or how about Gran Turisming?

 

[catisfit]

Or how about Gran Turisming?

The TV ad for Prologue was actual game footage like all Sony UK ads (Pacific Rift, LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2 etc), and the press screenshots had just the same trackside detail (for example) as the game exhibits.

I certainly didn't see any obvious replacement of models/textures etc

 

[_phil_]

Yes Crysis supports 'Offline Rendering'

Every engine i know can do that.Epic did also add a lot of lighting complexity in their bulshots.

 

[Neb]

Every engine i know can do that.Epic did also add a lot of lighting complexity in their bulshots.

Might it still be in there to 'dig' out?

 

[Neb]

The TV ad for Prologue was actual game footage like all Sony UK ads (Pacific Rift, LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2 etc), and the press screenshots had just the same trackside detail (for example) as the game exhibits.

I certainly didn't see any obvious replacement of models/textures etc

There was some supersized downscaled screenshots released for GT5/GT5p. MS2, KZ2 had CGI "render targets". LBP might be clean though.

 

[catisfit]

There was some supersized downscaled screenshots released for GT5/GT5p. MS2, KZ2 had CGI "render targets". LBP might be clean though.

If you read the posts I was responding to it was referring to the act of replacing lighting engines, models and textures to doctor output as "Gran Turisming".

The actual game advertisments on TV for Prologue showed the game and put "actual gameplay footage" (or similar wording) at the bottom of the screen - it's direct video capture. The same goes for Killzone 2, Pacific Rift and LittleBigPlanet TV adverts here in the UK.

As already discussed, there are reasons for downsampling images for use in magazines. If you've ever seen a magazine use a regular screenshot for an image (it happens occasionally) you'll immediately realise why.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There was some supersized downscaled screenshots released for GT5/GT5p. MS2, KZ2 had CGI "render targets". LBP might be clean though.

For Pete's sake, downsampling is not the same thing!! How many times has this got to be repeated?! KZ2's "render targets" are not the material being used to promote the game. GG have not taken their engine and replaced the lighting and models and everything else with non-game resources! There's a world of difference between taking the output of the game at highres and downsmapling it, and taking the output from a different, non-game engine and downsampling it. How many companies are doing the latter, and what are they using? Are they just using source models in Maya etc., or are they running a special "PR Mode" within their game engine? I find the latter unlikely, because someone would have to write that engine, and unless it's a valuable feature to publishers, using an offline renderer built for the job makes more sense and it wouldn't be worth any engine developer's time to add features that'll barely be used.

 

[Neb]

For Pete's sake, downsampling is not the same thing!! How many times has this got to be repeated?! KZ2's "render targets" are not the material being used to promote the game.

I am aware of the difference. But at first (2005) it was for that purpose. Or why else have it in first person view mode etc like it was someone playing it. Deliver a sample of 'the intensity' and throw in a 'free' face makeover.

I guess in the end it is just that UE3 Is cappable of producing major CGI'ish visuals while other devs and engines would have to resort to hiring a 3rd party studio to make an impressive trailer (than what their engine allows). Or implement the features as you said which doesn't make sense if they aren't going to be used since they know the consoles limitations.

I would see the UT3 cutscenes and KZ2 intro scene as samples of what the engines are cappable of but the system can't do in realtime at acceptable framerate (lighting etc).

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

or are they running a special "PR Mode" within their game engine? I find the latter unlikely, because someone would have to write that engine, and unless it's a valuable feature to publishers, using an offline renderer built for the job makes more sense and it wouldn't be worth any engine developer's time to add features that'll barely be used.

The UE3 engine makes that easily possible because of it's WYSIWYG editor. Make a smallish map, fill it to the brim with mega-high art assets and models, sort out camera/object paths, hide the GUI, and take some nice screenshots. Some of the PC screenshots were even identified as from staged scenes in the editor (you could see the cursor occasionally).

These things would be unplayable as a game especially with AI and other players to deal with, so they are not really practical for a game, but great for advertisng a game. Remember, we even had the previous UT2K4 with its "Holy Shit" settings that were unplayable even on high end hardware until a couple of years after release.

So you don't need a new engine, you just need one that scales to ridiculous levels, has tools to help you (intergrated editor), and you set up a staged scene. In terms of actual usage, UE3 isn't that different from the way you might do these things for an offline render, except UE3 has realtime render as a primary function - but there's nothing to stop you pushing all the IQ options to the max and sacrificing that realtime/playable rates to get pretty pictures that are impossible to play at.

 

[Akumajou]

Your comparing Halo 3 the game, to a CGI trailer created by Digital Domain.

That's an increadibly silly example.

I know this is why Guerrilla Games was under alot of pressure from the gaming media but seriously, Halo 3 should have at least matched or exceeded the CGI trailer given the difference in hardware that XBox 360 has over XBox 1, with two extra CPUs at much higher frequencies, 8 times the ram, and much faster/powerfull GPU as well as all that "Easy to program for" that keeps getting mentioned.

My question is where are the old GoW pictures and trailers that were used to publicly demonstrate the game?

 

[swaaye]

Remember that 360 has to push an awful lot more pixels than Xbox 1 if it is pushing 720p. Compared to 480p (640x480), that's 200% more pixels to fill each frame. Add to that the fact that the 360 is also doing more per pixel than Xbox 1 and it becomes apparent that the hardware improvement isn't nearly as amazing as it may seem. IMO the current consoles are rather gimpy for even 1280x720 which is proven by the games that render at a slightly lower res (such as Halo 3, in fact).

 

[Delta9]

The Game at >1080P

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

Here is a compare with a real shot and using the screen grab.