• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Agni's Philosophy runs at 60FPS on a GTX 680, uses 1.8GB VRAM. Can next-gen run it?

orioto

Good Art™
About the difference between the FFXII demo and the game, was the demo a technical real time demo ? or just a bullshot mockup ? Cause that's different i guess.

Also the diminishing returns doesn't have only disadvantages. The difference between the bullshot and the real thing will be smaller to.
 

aegies

Member
That's why I said, all MS and Sony are doing are just licensing the design from AMD. It relieves AMD of liabilities and provides production flexibility for both MS and Sony. I remember MS being very unhappy with how the arrangement with nVidia turned out during the time of Xbox.

And pertaining to Agni, I know it is running real time. I would love to know what is going on, on the right panel where the clothing animation seem very primitive. My speakers are a bit busted. Makes me wonder if we'd see more detailed clothing physics and animation next gen akin to UE's Apex Clothing.



954086-final_fantasy_jnk4u.jpg


Doesn't look like it but if you have a link to correct me, it'll be most welcome.

Microsoft didn't "license" the Xenos or Xenon. They co-designed the chips with ATi/AMD and IBM, and own the designs. I don't believe there's any residual payment to AMD for 360 sales. It stands to reason they'd be in a similar situation now as well.
 

i-Lo

Member
Microsoft didn't "license" the Xenos or Xenon. They co-designed the chips with ATi/AMD and IBM, and own the designs. I don't believe there's any residual payment to AMD for 360 sales. It stands to reason they'd be in a similar situation now as well.

Ah, I see. It makes sense to work together because it's not a simple off the shelf part being tweaked and repurposed. So I'd assume it'd be same for Sony. I'm too lazy to research but I think Sony and IBM co-developed CELL (iirc Sony sunk around $400 million into R&D). So yea, it'll most definitely be the same for next gen systems.
 

Rootbeer

Banned
I watched the gametrailers agni's philosophy tech demo walkthrough and I want next gen NOW. I guess if you have a 680 you technically have next gen, just not the software to run on it yet :p (I have a 570, plan to upgrade to a GTX 7XX series next year :p)
 

Tess3ract

Banned
KZ2 did a great job with motion blur as well (IMO).

I think we'll see better implementation of the feature.
Never played that, but I played KZ3. It looked okay but it was more distracting than anything that interfered with fidelity.



Crysis and Planetside 2 have pretty great motion blur. And Star Wars 1313. I guess it's subjective.
I didn't like it in either of those.
 

Spazznid

Member
Motion Blur

If done right, it should be barely noticable if at all, when in motion. It's something that should be missed when it's gone. I disable Motion blur in every game except for Source-games and Planetside (And SOMETIMES Crysis).


I didn't like it in either of those.

What? PS2 without it is just so static...
 
I've never really liked motion blur. Doesn't it happen naturally in your eyes anyway?
No. This is because motion blur occurs when an object is physically moving, leaving behind a trail of reflected light. With a monitor, there is no physical movement. It's all a bunch of colored pixels changing rapidly on a flat surface. Because nothing is actually moving around, no motion blur is created. Hence why it has to be added as a post-process.

From Wikipedia's article on motion blur:
Without this simulated effect each frame shows a perfect instant in time (analogous to a camera with an infinitely fast shutter), with zero motion blur. This is why a video game with a frame rate of 25-30 frames per second will seem staggered, while natural motion filmed at the same frame rate appears rather more continuous. Many next generation video games feature motion blur, especially vehicle simulation games.
Our eyes see at a speed close to that of a camera running at 1/50 shutter speed, not an infinitely fast shutter, hence why games look so unnatural at lower frame rates.

On the other hand, we don't see camera motion blur, because the brain actively shuts out those kinds of images. Kind of funny, then, that camera motion blur is so common compared to per-object motion blur...
 

lord

Member
Do people actually think SE is investing on this engine without a target spec to work with? I mean damn, I am damn sure a large respected publisher like them actually knows how powerful MS and Sony's console will be. They are, after all, the targeted platforms for this engine. It's just a matter of performance.
 
Microsoft didn't "license" the Xenos or Xenon. They co-designed the chips with ATi/AMD and IBM, and own the designs. I don't believe there's any residual payment to AMD for 360 sales. It stands to reason they'd be in a similar situation now as well.

AMD's cross licensing agreement with Intel for x86 probably ensures the deal isn't that straight forward. For either Microsoft or Sony. They can't just sell an x86 compatible design to a third party to be produced anywhere. The agreement AMD has with Intel is fairly restrictive on such matters.
 
They've sent a man to the moon, they've cloned dinosaurs and now they will bring us Hollywood graphics in realtime 60fps glory! Technological progress is awesome!
 

Cwarrior

Member
it's the year 2005 in this thread

Going by this thread & mgs:gz(ran on a pc) a lot people have learn't nothing from 2005 &06 and are doomed to fall for the same smoke & mirror tricks.

Doesn't anyone remember the white engine/crystal tools? ff13 2006 trailer in which the battle system animation & graphics look far better then what we got in the final product or mgs4 2005(also ran on pc) in which the final product didn't even come close to the trailer all round.

They already lied to me in the past so I have a right to be skeptical, Proof is in the pudding I won't believe any of it until I see it running on real system being played by a real human being.
 
D

Deleted member 20920

Unconfirmed Member
it's the year 2005 in this thread

Going by this thread & mgs:gz(ran on a pc) a lot people have learn't nothing from 2005 &06 and are forever doomed to fall for the same smoke & mirror tricks.

Doesn't anyone remember the white engine? ff13 2006 trailer in which the battle system animation & graphics look far better then what we got in the final product or mgs4 2006(also ran on pc) in which the final product didn't even come close to the trailer all round.

They already lied to me in the past so I have right to be skeptical, Proof is in the pudding I won't believe any of it until I see it running on real system being played by a real human being.

I think the first FF13 trailer wasn't made on the White Engine back then and was mostly target render which wasn't even real time. One of the problems SE had with this gen was that their engine was bad and that bad engine wasn't even finalised until a year before FF13 was out. They seem far more prepared this time round.
 
it's the year 2005 in this thread
No, you need to actually read the thread and pay attention to what people have been saying, which is that this time it's different because we actually have real-time footage of the assets being edited with their tool set on hardware we actually have right now.
 

Stark

Banned
I think the first FF13 trailer wasn't made on the White Engine back then and was mostly target render which wasn't even real time. One of the problems SE had with this gen was that their engine was bad and that bad engine wasn't even finalised until a year before FF13 was out. They seem far more prepared this time round.

Yeah, none of the specs were finalized so development was at a halt- or something like that:

What further complicated the development was that the team was also working on Square Enix's multiplatform engine Crystal Tools. The team made the mistake of trying to accommodate every single project in progress and a considerable amount of time was spent prioritizing all the different requests and the team was not able to determine the final spec requirements. It created a standstill between the engine and game development teams; if the engine's specs couldn't be finalized, neither could the game's.

From the wikia.
 

Yasae

Banned
That's not entirely true. While that's a bullshot, that looks 99% like the actual game does. Most likely that's downsampled.
I'd say the difference isn't quite night and day, but it's considerably more than 1%.

gPr3d.jpg


EDIT: MGS4 got a graphical "downgrade" as well. Targets or not, if you release screenshots of what could be in a player's hands - not concept art or CG trailers - you should probably keep them grounded in the real world. Square-Enix wasn't intentionally deceptive but came off that way by showing their hand far, far too early. Why didn't they have next gen engines by 2006 and something ready to show? What's the reason there?
 

Erasus

Member
Thats exactly what happened in 2005 too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysa8zof4Hfw

Yes, that was running on a devkit provided by Sony... They thought they would get that kind of performance due to sli 6800GTX cards. Nvidia said NOPE and sent the RSX instead. PS3 specs wasnt finalised, look at the WiiU filan devkits came out only a few months ago

I'd say the difference isn't quite night and day, but it's considerably more than 1%.

Its a resolution difference. And I agree 720p looks kinda bad on my PC monitor to me. On a 720p 42 plasma its fine, but yea rez matters.

Why didn't they have next gen engines by 2006 and something ready to show? What's the reason there?

Specs werent done yet

In this case both Sony and MS probably went out early with target flops/performance for their next gen stuff so devs could start designing engines and games
 

Perkel

Banned
Why are we discussing FFXIII tech demo in 2012 ?

FFXIII released and it was close to target render. No doubt about that.

Agni demo may or not may be looking like that on ps4/x720 and that is all.
 

Jac_Solar

Member
Haven't developers and publishers, or people in general that want to advertise "something" been claiming this for a very, very long time?

IE; "ingame realtime videos" of a game rendered by the very console it's meant for; new consoles showing off videos and tech that look incredible -- but never really come close to the quality of the ad when it's actually out.

I think there's a massive, extreme line between "videos rendered by whatever, for whatever, on whatever in realtime", as opposed to actual gameplay videos, with someone playing the game and doing some sort of gamey actions; jumping, climbing, equipping items, picking stuff up and equipping it, fighting, evading, dodging someone or something -- and NOT just a camera floating through a world.

Lots of tricks, "sleight of hand" and such make up for the extreme gap between real world implementation and eye candy, pure fantasy commercials.

It might also be cause of, or have something to do with, the extreme amount of resources put into showing off a relatively short video/scenes, or gameplay that's meant to attract customers. Ie things that would just not be financially or logistically feasible to develop for an entire game by publisher or developer.
 

Sid

Member
I am almost one hundred percent positive that Microsoft at least will own the design to their silicon. They did with the 360 after getting burned on the Xbox. Also, the chipset in Durango is not off-the-shelf kit.

Also, Agni's is running in real time, I assure you.
Cool,how about some PS4 info?
 

Famassu

Member
About the difference between the FFXII demo and the game, was the demo a technical real time demo ? or just a bullshot mockup ? Cause that's different i guess.
It was a target render that they based on what they had heard the (then) "next-gen" hardware would be like (which was more than they turned out to be), it wasn't even running in real-time. AFAIK, they didn't have anything even closely comparable to even the unfinished Luminous Studios that they used for Agni's Philosophy, let alone any kind of finished development tools (or dev kits, for that matter).
 

gogogow

Member
Its a resolution difference. And I agree 720p looks kinda bad on my PC monitor to me. On a 720p 42 plasma its fine, but yea rez matters.

Eh.....it's not about resolutions regarding that FFXII bullshot/realtime screenshot, but even so, a differerent resolution will at most give you a worse IQ, not simplified textures and lower polygon models etc.
 

Reiko

Banned
Eh.....it's not about resolutions regarding that FFXII bullshot/realtime screenshot, but even so, a differerent resolution will at most give you a worse IQ, not simplified textures and lower polygon models etc.

Look at her hair too.

NOT even the same.
 

Perkel

Banned
Eh.....it's not about resolutions regarding that FFXII bullshot/realtime screenshot, but even so, a differerent resolution will at most give you a worse IQ, not simplified textures and lower polygon models etc.

but higher res = more details which you can spot meaning increasing texture size will be more noticeable on higher res than low res. Also the more objects with higher polycount the more problem with AA on lower Res.

For example look at at PS2 FFXII. On native res it's mess with tons of aliasing and blurry textures. With Psxe it is wonderfull looking game with a lot of good textures.
Second example. Dark Souls.
Every armor and weapon in game is superbly detailed and have highresolution textures. But because of low res you can't see that. Only thanks to DSfix we know how awesome looking are those armors.

When you have lower res you only notice good texture being close to it or just looking at it close. Like when you look at the wall in FPS up-close. With higher res you will notice good texture right away from mid distance instead of upclose.

In summary resolution do matter. The better resolution the better looking textures may be the less aliasing you will get and the lower latency screen must be to display it.
 

Famassu

Member
it's the year 2005 in this thread

Going by this thread & mgs:gz(ran on a pc) a lot people have learn't nothing from 2005 &06 and are doomed to fall for the same smoke & mirror tricks.

Doesn't anyone remember the white engine/crystal tools? ff13 2006 trailer in which the battle system animation & graphics look far better then what we got in the final product or mgs4 2005(also ran on pc) in which the final product didn't even come close to the trailer all round.
It doesn't really look "far better", technically. The trailer was just so much more cinematic than the more static-cam final game that it might look more impressive, but the final game has some of the exact same animations that the target render of 2006 and there are many areas in the game that don't really have anything to be ashamed of when compared to it. The final game came EXTREMELY close the the technical level of the target render (the battle system itself didn't, but then again that kind of battle system wouldn't have worked too well). Otherwise there are some small downgrades due to the PS3 & Xbox 360 hardware not being quite as capable as they originally thought it would be. Still, Final Fantasy XIII is very close to the target render, there's no doubt about that.
 

Yasae

Banned
It doesn't really look "far better", technically. The trailer was just so much more cinematic than the more static-cam final game that it might look more impressive, but the final game has some of the exact same animations that the target render of 2006 and there are many areas in the game that don't really have anything to be ashamed of when compared to it. The final game came EXTREMELY close the the technical level of the target render (the battle system itself didn't, but then again that kind of battle system wouldn't have worked too well). Otherwise there are some small downgrades due to the PS3 & Xbox 360 hardware not being quite as capable as they originally thought it would be. Still, Final Fantasy XIII is very close to the target render, there's no doubt about that.
And it's not an ugly game, and the facial details are actually very close. The parts polygon starved are again either the most complex or those with the least amount of focus.

Versus also seems to be a better looking product with fewer shortcomings as you'd expect. If only the mainline entry had those extra years.
 

Reiko

Banned
And it's not an ugly game, and the facial details are actually very close. The parts polygon starved are again either the most complex or those with the least amount of focus.

Versus also seems to be a better looking product with fewer shortcomings as you'd expect. If only the mainline entry had those extra years.

Older build. But I dunno... Doesn't look that spectacular over FFXIII.

932981_20090924_screen001.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 20920

Unconfirmed Member
Older build. But I dunno... Doesn't look that spectacular over FFXIII.

932981_20090924_screen001.jpg

This scene doesn't matter anymore because Nomura said they scrapped it and did a pre-render version. But I did thought it was a bit rough. Do note that many of FFXIII's scenes were pre-recorded real time scenes. Whereas this is supposedly fully real-time, engine run.
 

kinggroin

Banned
That's not entirely true. While that's a bullshot, that looks 99% like the actual game does. Most likely that's downsampled.

It looks like the game in the way Killzone 2 looks like its CG base. Its generally the same, but fidelity is very far away from that picture.
 

Durante

Member
It looks like the game in the way Killzone 2 looks like its CG base. Its generally the same, but fidelity is very far away from that picture.
It looks like a console multiplatform title compared to its PC version. Too bad we never got the latter.
 

kinggroin

Banned
It looks like a console multiplatform title compared to its PC version. Too bad we never got the latter.

That's a good way of putting it, except even worse since we rarely get fully tesselated versions of the console assets.

Durango/Orbis need to land already. My PC is starving.
 

sniperpon

Member
Neat, but what's the point?

1) Why do we want games to look like Hollywood movies?
2) What would it cost to make a whole game that looks like this? 100 million USD? 150 million?

I wrote a blog post about this topic recently in fact.
 

entremet

Member
Haven't you guys learned from previous tech demos? Especially Square? Doubt we get anything like this next gen.
 

RedSwirl

Junior Member
To be fair to Metal Gear, they developed and ran that 2005 demo on a PS3 dev kit from which the final hardware was downgraded.
 
Two of the best uses of motion blur IMO are:

God of War 3 - absolutely one of the highest quality motion blurs I have ever seen

Planetside 2 - fuckkkkkkkk
 
Neat, but what's the point?

1) Why do we want games to look like Hollywood movies?
Hollywood movies don't look anything like this, aesthetically or otherwise.

If you're asking why we would want games to have the quality of pre-rendered CG... that would be a stupid question to ask.

2) What would it cost to make a whole game that looks like this? 100 million USD? 150 million?
Nobody knows, but the whole point of the engine is to improve the tools so that there is a smoother work flow and greater productivity. It is unlikely that games of this quality will cost substantially more to make than current-gen games (the assets are close to the same level of complexity as current-gen games, just with more polygons and higher-res textures).
 

Stallion Free

Cock Encumbered
Nobody knows, but the whole point of the engine is to improve the tools so that there is a smoother work flow and greater productivity. It is unlikely that games of this quality will cost substantially more to make than current-gen games (the assets are close to the same level of complexity as current-gen games, just with more polygons and higher-res textures).

If anything, tools improved this gen from last gen and yet costs still increased dramatically.
 

UrbanRats

Member
Neat, but what's the point?

1) Why do we want games to look like Hollywood movies?
2) What would it cost to make a whole game that looks like this? 100 million USD? 150 million?

I wrote a blog post about this topic recently in fact.

Is that graph in the link supposed to be a joke, or... ?
 

sniperpon

Member
Hollywood movies don't look anything like this, aesthetically or otherwise.

Wow, were we watching the same video? The entire thing was a reconstruction of every single Hollywood cinematographic trope that exists.


It is unlikely that games of this quality will cost substantially more to make than current-gen games

We've heard that one before. History indicates otherwise.

Tim Sweeney also thinks you're wrong.


Is that graph in the link supposed to be a joke, or... ?

Great critique!
 
Top Bottom