Why RE4's lighting may be the GCN's Best

Status
Not open for further replies.

Li Mu Bai

Regular
The best lighting on the other two consoles was readily apparent. The Box? Splintercell without absolutely any doubt. The lighting incorporated in SC, heavily utilizing the vertex shaders, is easily the best upon any console currently. (although shining over brilliantly, almost blindingly in some areas)The PS2? SH3 easily. The GC? Not quite so easy to pinpoint, but I've narrowed it down to 3 titles with generally individual impressive lighting engines.

Luigi's Mansion, SFA, & LOZ:WW. The GC hasn't had a game that relied quite so heavily on lighting barring LM. I would have to say out of those 3, currently the Wind Walker would be the best IMO. The way the reatime light & shadows reacted in that game's environment was extremely impressive.

Sadly, I had to eliminate RE & RE0 as viable candidates due to the lighting for the most part was part of a FMV background. The majority of the time it is simply just animated & nigh identical to how a looped back video would function. (the torches, chandelier swinging, lighting moving past the train's windows etc, as examples) The shadows casted by the character and enemies were in real-time, though the shadowing didnt blend into the environments like it would with real time light sources since it possesses no means of detecting the background's depth from the FMV unless the developer actually made the mesh for it.

Capcom cast one hell of an optical illusion however, albeit not technically. So this brings me to RE4. I was discussing the TTS proposed unified lighting pipeline, shadow maps, real-time shadows, & pre-lit areas over on the GA forums. The unified pipeline as well as projected shadows have yet to be implemented. Anyhow, I was discussing the Cube's lighting capacity advantage over the PS2's with Panajev. (the PS2's most ardent tech. defender there & here) He inadvertently brought some things back to my attention which I realized would/could give RE4 superior, & at the very least the equivalent lighting of Splinter Cell X-Box if implemented.


If you had a game with almost all geometry being static and not dynamic, (ala the mansion) and without too much complex skinning and morphing to be performed, (and this last part would push Flipper past the NV2A chip as the extra flexibility of the Vertex Shaders would not be needed) then the GCN has a nice advantage in the lighting department. This is essentially what RE4 appears to be exploiting.

Flipper does handle its lighting in parallel to the geometric Transform (Vertex Shaders perform lighting serially, after the Transform phase) and has acceleration for local lighting support. The fastest Transform for Flipper is 5 cycles for a Vertex and with lighting done in parallel. The NV2A's Vertex Shaders take each, 4 cycles per Vertex with no lighting included. The point? RE4 may have the best lighting of any GC game, &/or the best or equivalency to any platform software to date. I would liken it to SC, though shadows & lighting are used here for overall mood, & ambience instead of stealth.

I was at Biohazard 4's sight, examining pics & rewatching the hi-res trailer when this dawned on me. I must admit it's somewhat premature, as more of RE4 needs to be shown admittedly, but the tech. possibility is indeed there. From what little we've been shown, the flashlight behaves more realistically than any point generated light I have seen. Yes besting even Heather's lamp vest from SH3 IMO. I will explain why later as this is already a lengthy read.
 
While seemingly not unified, some of the lighting in Rebel Strike is Very impressive also.

Unlike Rogue Leader, all the lighting is now per-pixel and some uses of its uses are very cool.

But maybe you are talking more about indoor lighting?
 
Bohdy said:
While seemingly not unified, some of the lighting in Rebel Strike is Very impressive also.

Unlike Rogue Leader, all the lighting is now per-pixel and some uses of its uses are very cool.

But maybe you are talking more about indoor lighting?

Indeed I was Bohdy. This is not to discount RS3 in any way, I'm thoroughly impressed by the light scattering technique as well as the overall lighting engine. This too will be one of the premiere light showcases of the GCN's ability, although it will be more prominently featured in RE4 (the lighting) due to its importance to the survival horror genre.
 
The lighting in RE4 is typical vertex lighting, just like in SH3, and the game doesn't appear to be using volumetric shadows either. Sure, it looks great, but I don't see that technically it's doing something special, compared to even RS2.

Splinter Cell had a mixture of dynamic vertex lights and projected light maps, and also HDR effects, but it's shadows implementation was all over the place.
 
marconelly! said:
The lighting in RE4 is typical vertex lighting, just like in SH3, and the game doesn't appear to be using volumetric shadows either. Sure, it looks great, but I don't see that technically it's doing something special, compared to even RS2.

Splinter Cell had a mixture of dynamic vertex lights and projected light maps, and also HDR effects, but it's shadows implementation was all over the place.

To be honest though Marconelly, we haven't seen enough to make those determinations. Light maps are not outside of the Cube's ability, & the skinning animation appears to be better than either SC or SH3 judging by the trailer. (if an accurate representation) Comparatively in the short RE4 trailer we have seen the light beam respond to cold wind, as well as cold breath actually crossing the beam's path.

I didn't see this type of light interaction in SH3. Both have excellent lens flare, although I noticed some incorrect shadow casting in SH3 as the light being placed on her vest, should've cast her arm's & weapons shadows' against the floor, wall, etc. (being anal here)

These are minute, & my attempt at comparing them both is quite speculative & as I have mentioned, highly premature. The point light (Leon's flashlight) just appears to be operating more realistically than Heather's vest light at this point.
 
RE4 definitely looks fantastic, and as you mentioned, some of it's minute details (dust and leaves flowing around as the wind blows, etc.), as well as host of cool looking effects (that 'blue vision' for example) and dramatic lighting (when the lightning strikes) make up to that great look. To tell you the truth, I appreciate that a lot more than any 'powerful engine' the game might use or not, but I wasn't sure if you are comparing games strictly on technical basis.
 
Flipper does handle its lighting in parallel to the geometric Transform (Vertex Shaders perform lighting serially, after the Transform phase) and has acceleration for local lighting support. The fastest Transform for Flipper is 5 cycles for a Vertex and with lighting done in parallel. The NV2A's Vertex Shaders take each, 4 cycles per Vertex with no lighting included.
That's not really true. While there is paralelism between light calculation and other stuff like UV generation, 5 cycles number is for simple transform without light and texture, and doing anything more will be slower.
And lights are still added serially to one another - more lights take more time, unless you are already spending more time on the other geometry processing that paralels lighting.

Anyway not sure why any of that would apply to SC which is a very CPU limited game, on any platform.
 
In this pics, the lighting surely looks impressive:
<center>
5.jpg


8.jpg


12.jpg


16.jpg


28.jpg

</center>
BTW, It would be really cool if Capcom includes self-shadowing, the characters and objects would look way better than they currently do.
 
It's not simply a matter of how advanced the lighting techniques are. What must also be considered is the extent to which they are used, i.e. how much (and what type of) detail they have to cover. It's not uncommon to spend more processing overall on lighting in a game with a lower precision lighting model calculated over a greater drawing distance than a game with a higher precision model in simpler environments.
 
chaphack said:
RE4 looks as good as RE0! the little details might not be there, but heckamonda, this is on a 99 cube!!!!

And this is fully 3D, nothing's prerendered as it's all done in real-time.
 
I know that, GCN is an amazing piece of harware. Compact, affordable, yet packs graphics powress without any overbearing hype.

We need more F5 and Capcom in the GCN world. The Cube can produce amazing visuals.
 
chaphack said:
I know that, GCN is an amazing piece of harware. Compact, affordable, yet packs graphics powress without any overbearing hype.

We need more F5 and Capcom in the GCN world. The Cube can produce amazing visuals.

I agree wholeheartedly. If the Cube could obtain the amount of technical dev. time & support that the PS2 enjoys, just imagine.
 
Li Mu Bai said:
chaphack said:
I know that, GCN is an amazing piece of harware. Compact, affordable, yet packs graphics powress without any overbearing hype.

We need more F5 and Capcom in the GCN world. The Cube can produce amazing visuals.

I agree wholeheartedly. If the Cube could obtain the amount of technical dev. time & support that the PS2 enjoys, just imagine.

But this "if" is a pretty big one, as what you've said, "just imagine". Just like imagine every game on PS2 is as good looking as SH3, ZOE2, ...

People used to claim X-BOX and GCN as easy power houses that will easily outpace PS2 in visuals (I am not pointing at you LMB), after seeing the games from them, the still unchanged fact is that the most important thing is the time and effort from the developers. Unless the difference in power is night and day, the power alone doesn't make a game looking radically different/better.

And BTW, BH0 is looking great, no matter the background is pre-rendered or not.
 
maskrider said:
But this "if" is a pretty big one, as what you've said, "just imagine". Just like imagine every game on PS2 is as good looking as SH3, ZOE2, ...

People used to claim X-BOX and GCN as easy power houses that will easily outpace PS2 in visuals (I am not pointing at you LMB), after seeing the games from them, the still unchanged fact is that the most important thing is the time and effort from the developers. Unless the difference in power is night and day, the power alone doesn't make a game looking radically different/better.

And BTW, BH0 is looking great, no matter the background is pre-rendered or not.


agreed. that IF is a bit ambiguous. it's like saying "what if every game on Xbox was given as much attention as RS3 on Gamecube" or "what if every game on PS2 was give as much attention as HL2-PC"... or "what if every game on PC was given as much attention as Jak2, SH3 and Zoe3.."

at the end of the day there are teams on each platform working very hard to achieve pretty results... on PS2 we have the first party teams and Konami, on GC we have Nintendo and those few second party teams, on Xbox we have...ermmm... other people (?help?).

at the end of the day we should be praising Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft for supporting those (few) first and second party teams to push their platforms to their limits, not complaining "because the competition spends more time on their platform!"...

u see my point?
 
I agree wholeheartedly. If the Cube could obtain the amount of technical dev. time & support that the PS2 enjoys, just imagine.

you'd see better art assets, which is eaxctly what we get on the ps2 for large projects.
 
london-boy said:
maskrider said:
But this "if" is a pretty big one, as what you've said, "just imagine". Just like imagine every game on PS2 is as good looking as SH3, ZOE2, ...

People used to claim X-BOX and GCN as easy power houses that will easily outpace PS2 in visuals (I am not pointing at you LMB), after seeing the games from them, the still unchanged fact is that the most important thing is the time and effort from the developers. Unless the difference in power is night and day, the power alone doesn't make a game looking radically different/better.

And BTW, BH0 is looking great, no matter the background is pre-rendered or not.


agreed. that IF is a bit ambiguous. it's like saying "what if every game on Xbox was given as much attention as RS3 on Gamecube" or "what if every game on PS2 was give as much attention as HL2-PC"... or "what if every game on PC was given as much attention as Jak2, SH3 and Zoe3.."

at the end of the day there are teams on each platform working very hard to achieve pretty results... on PS2 we have the first party teams and Konami, on GC we have Nintendo and those few second party teams, on Xbox we have...ermmm... other people (?help?).

at the end of the day we should be praising Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft for supporting those (few) first and second party teams to push their platforms to their limits, not complaining "because the competition spends more time on their platform!"...

u see my point?

I'm speaking in terms of optimization & time allocated by 3rd party developers. Of course some devs. are far more technically proficient than others, but in the end this is all a business. The gifted 3rd parties will gravitate towards the console that will generate the most revenue, based upon market penetration no#'s. This is what I was referring to, not the individual merits of the 1st & 2nd parties per platform per se.
 
all i'm saying is that in my opinion, this myth about "GC's potential not used because of developers going to PS2" is just that, a MYTH.
Nintendo have had long enough to release Mario Sunshine, Zelda TWW and Metroid, and everyone can agree that the extra time was used "to get it right". and that means "getting closer to its full potential".

the fact that there are not that many 3rd party devs willing to spend as much time on the platforms as first party is something that happens on EVERY console.

on PS2 Konami is an "exception", and personally i've been very impressed and surprised by what they could get out of the PS2. but thats it, it's not like Sony has 19238 3rd party devs who spend 2 years and millions of dollars on their games.... same for Xbox....
those VERY VERY few 3rd party devs who do, are "exceptions". Factor5 is a 2nd-3rd part hybrid so that would be another exception...

i think each of the 3 consoles have had enough time and effort put into them to show their "potential" whatever that is...
 
london-boy said:
all i'm saying is that in my opinion, this mith about "GC's potential not used because of developers going to PS2" is just that, a MITH.
Nintendo have had long enough to release Mario Sunshine, Zelda TWW and Metroid, and everyone can agree that the extra time was used "to get it right". and that means "getting closer to its full potential".

the fact that there are not that many 3rd party devs willing to spend as much time on the platforms as first party is something that happens on EVERY console.

on PS2 Konami is an "exception", and personally i've been very impressed and surprised by what they could get out of the PS2. but thats it, it's not like Sony has 19238 3rd party devs who spend 2 years and millions of dollars on their games.... same for Xbox....
those VERY VERY few 3rd party devs who do, are "exceptions". Factor5 is a 2nd-3rd part hybrid so that would be another exception...

i think each of the 3 consoles have had enough time and effort put into them to show their "potential" whatever that is...

Nintendo's focus, with possibly the exception of EAD & Retro, has never been about exploiting the technical limitations of the hardware. How many of their 1st party titles utilize DOT3 bumpmapping? Or more than 4 textures per pass when 8 is their limit. Or pixel shaders? Or full usage of the TEV? Their focus is gameplay, at the expense usually of visuals. That is why Capcom, Factor 5, & possibly SK (2nd party) as well as other various 3rd parties titles generally look better. The tools/capabilities are there, Nintendo simply doesn't implement them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top