Naughty Dog has better HDR lighting in Uncharted games.
Their engine basically hits every single checkbox for a console game AND does each very well.
What does Naughty Dog's engine get right? *spawn
- Thread starter JB9861
- Start date
Naughty Dog has better HDR lighting in Uncharted games.
Their engine basically hits every single checkbox for a console game AND does each very well.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Borrowed the game of my friend, it looks good but I'm not a huge fan of the color palette, a bit too oversaturated and unrealistic even when compared to stuff like Halo Reach. I think it would look a good deal better if they used more realistic lighting & colours.
And the cutscenes are all prerendered video correct? Are they using the same LOD character models in cutscenes as during gameplay?
I also don't think much of the shooting gameplay, it's not very fun compared to other TPS like Gears or RDR - guns feel weak (perhaps because it takes so many shots to kill enemies). The hand to hand combat works well though.
And the cutscenes are all prerendered video correct? Are they using the same LOD character models in cutscenes as during gameplay?
I also don't think much of the shooting gameplay, it's not very fun compared to other TPS like Gears or RDR - guns feel weak (perhaps because it takes so many shots to kill enemies). The hand to hand combat works well though.
They try to stay out from the realistic look, so this most likely is purely artistic decision.
In U2 the Drakes model has only one LoD, but they do have better skin shader on characters heads during cutscenes.
Shading is quite demanding and doesn't scale well with the amount of characters, so they didn't use in-game.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Yeah, I had a look myselfy and was quite surprised that the in game models are the same as they use in the cutscenes, very high poly with finely detailed faces and hands.
Though the skin shader they use in cutscenes doesn't look too realistic (though this does seem to be somewhat inconsistent - at times it can look real), faces look rather plasticky (especially Flynn's) very much like a Pixar film, but perhaps that's the kind of look they're going for.
I've just finished chapter 11 and was quite impressed by the Kathmandu levels, great draw distance and detail on the cityscape. The setpiece where the choppers shot down the building your in was also impressive.
I would add MSAA plus HDR -both effects were incompatible in most PC graphics cards back in 2005 for some reason and that's why I always admired the combined use of AA + HDR-, the colour, the textures and the ligthing in general.
I never played Uncharted games but I've watched some videos and the animations' transition appeared to be kind of jerky and jumpy at times though.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Animation is very good, but it would be nice if they improved their IK implementation. Everytime a character walks it looks more like skating/floating.
It's not perfect, but I can think of no game with better animation than Uncharted 2.
As for AA + HDR, their resolve happens before tonemapping so it doesn't work very well. This is a hardware limitation of RSX if I recall correctly so it's hard to fault them, and it's certainly better than nothing.
As for AA + HDR, their resolve happens before tonemapping so it doesn't work very well. This is a hardware limitation of RSX if I recall correctly so it's hard to fault them, and it's certainly better than nothing.
Be carefull,you're technobabling like Lens Of Truth here...
I can't really decide between the animation in Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, and RDR for third person. I probably like AC the least because I always feel things are non-interactive and mechanical when I play.
L. Scofield
Veteran
How so? I remember the exact same defect in animation occurred in Rebel Strike when Factor 5 added IK.
Sigfried1977
Legend
As much as the animation in AC impresses me, it loses out for the simple fact that Altair and Ezio are still sliding up and down the stairs. Ubisoft obviously put a great deal of effort into the animations, so this particular omission seems all the more off putting. AC also forces you to see every animation to the very end. RDR looks great in motion, but Euphoria shenanigans make for some seriously sluggish character controls if you ask me. Passing through a door without getting stuck simply shouldn't be a problem.Period.
For me Uncharted simply wins because it combines excellent animation with incredbly responsive controls.
For me Uncharted simply wins because it combines excellent animation with incredbly responsive controls.
I'd rather put Tomb Raider Underworld in there instead of AC, that game had outstanding animation, easily among the best of the best and it was responsive as well (ofcourse I won't say the same for the camera, but that's a diff thing altogether)
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I haven't played AC, so I need to ask a question. Did the main charater have a lot of static objects (i.e. stable buildings, ledges, ground, trains where only the background moves, etc.) to traverse or were they dynamic objects? Traversal of dynamic objects requires additional calculations. I don't know if any 3rd party titles that use the sheer amount of animations over dynamic surfaces. Drake can do almost, if not, all of his movements on dynamic objects. To me, that puts Uncharted 2 on a higher level from an animation perspective.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I thought RDR's animation was really good. The game felt very responsive to me, but then again that was coming off the back of playing GTAIV, so yeah it probably is sluggish when compared to other games that don't use Euphoria. OTOH i do love me some Euphoria... sooo good hit detection when you put a bullet in someone. U2 is good in this regard, def up there... AC otoh really annoys me the way the enemies fall after you kill them with your weapons. Even the way the arms swing (as though without any weight to them) when you're carrying a corpse you just murdered. Just a few niggling issues liek that really kill the immersion for me in AC games (still a bloody guilty pleasure for me though).
I also really love Uncharted games' artistic look. Very cohesive and wonderfully composed. The earlier comparison with Halo Reach i disagree with completely, as i prefered the look of Halo 3 to Reach. I hate it when every game dev seems to feel the need to make their games look "realistic" or "gritty"... i much prefer "fantastical" and "stylised" myself. It's why my top three games this gen are U2, KZ2 and GOWIII. Trying to make realistic looking games is always hard because no matter how close you get (unless you're rendering offline) an observer will always see imperfections. Games that go more stylised are more appealing to me because in my eyes they're harder to fault. When they're lit right, with solid IQ they can really stir your imagination
It's not a limitation of RSX, that's just how most people do it. They do it this way because doing it the "right" way means doing your tonemapping step at subsample resolution, which in their case would double the cost (since they use 2xMSAA).
(((interference)))
Veteran
Finished the game, some of the later levels are absolutely stunning, their ice & snow rendering is to notch also though the moving environments in the train and convoy levels are a great gameplay feature - very Indiana Jones.
Are the SPUs doing a lot of geometry processing since the poly counts seem very high with vast levels with high amounts of character and environment detail. Any idea of the amount of triangles the engine can push out compared to say Halo Reach which also has quite large environments (though I don't remember seeing anything in Reach as detailed as some of the levels here).
Are the SPUs doing a lot of geometry processing since the poly counts seem very high with vast levels with high amounts of character and environment detail. Any idea of the amount of triangles the engine can push out compared to say Halo Reach which also has quite large environments (though I don't remember seeing anything in Reach as detailed as some of the levels here).
I think that in DF article it was quoted to push 1.2 mill per frame in UC2.I dunno how many Reach pushes but I do know Dead Rising had peak of 4 mil per frame,Dead Rising 2 probably even more.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Hmm, but they can have thousands of zombies on screen at once - and not much else in terms of graphical effects.
Anyone know what Assassin's Creed, RDR, Battlefield BC2, Gears 2, Black Ops etc manage to push?
Apparently Reach can push 4 million more polygons (per frame?) than Halo 3 could
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/11/x10-halo-reach-demoed-will-be-the-definitive-halo/
Unless they're not using a per frame metric that's way more than Uncharted 2 - which doesn't make sense as the vistas in U2 seem to be just as large as Reach's but far more detailed - eg. compare the Falcon flying through the city level in Reach to the Kathmandu levels in Uncharted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Black Ops would probably push the least while BC2/RDR and AC would push more.
Sounds quite a lot for what is shown.
Heres some results with ~1.7m polys frame.
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/6/6/1/5/1/custom3.jpg.jpg
This assimilation had about 1-1.2m polys frame.
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/6/6/1/5/1/pc3.jpg.jpg
But U2 is heavily controlled due to linear gameplay. It's easy for devs to put lots of sprites and 2D textures to give impression of being 3D yet dont break illusion as you cant get into angle nor close enough to make it stand out badly. This greatly reduces amount of polygons needed. Then if Reach has terrain deformation (dont know if it has) that would greatly up terrain complexity and geometry amount.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked