Support NeoGAF

[FatalT]

Are we all shitting ourselves because the PS4 version doesn't look like Tinkerbell sprinkled magical Disney sparkle dust all over the sand like she did to the PS3 version? I just want to make sure I'm on the same page here.

 

[dark10x]

And we are back to subjectivity, halo ruined by one person is another's looking way better. So it's all subjective?.

I think that's the point here. It is subjective. When changes to presentation are made you will have a variety of opinions on the matter. I've read the reasoning behind the removal of motion blur but I disagree with the developers on this matter. Clearly that's a subjective thing but it's disappointing that it wasn't at least an option.

Looking at Halo, that is also subjective. I actually enjoyed playing Halo with different assets as sort of an alternative vision but, ultimately, I feel they missed the target when it comes to atmosphere. The remastered version is far too bright and completely changes the tone of the game. They did a MUCH better job remastering Halo 2, I feel.

It's the same reason people have such a love/hate relationship with The Twin Snakes. I think it's a fascinating product but it made some pretty huge changes. Thankfully, the original is still available. I just wish TTS was made available without serious performance issues.

I didn't mean for this critique of Journey to sound overly negative. I simply thought it would be interesting to discuss these sorts of changes. I still prefer playing on PS4 due to the improved IQ and frame-rate but I remain disappointed at the removal of certain things. Motion blur is a huge loss for me.

I do not think for a second that this was a lazy remaster, however. Changes were made but it's clear that this was still given a lot of attention. This isn't a situation like Sleeping Dogs, Prototype, or other such low quality remasters. Those are poorly made products. Journey on PS4 is still very well made, as I pointed out many times in the article, but the changes are worth discussing. I really only went down that path since Journey is one of the few games I view as standing out as a truly remarkable piece of art. It stands up there with the likes of ICO in my book. It's a very special game.

Clearly, though, it was a difficult project due to the rather tricky visual effects and loads of SPU code. Porting that stuff over does seem very difficult.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

If you've never played Journey, the changes are irrelevent because you have nothing to compare it to and, once you're playing, you'll be drawn in some those details become irrelevent.

If you have played Journey, like myself, you'll likely be immediately drawn into the overall experience and not notice the changes or, at least, be more focused on, again, the experience.

It's a shame it's not a 1:1 port with all effects in tact but I can completely overlook it, because the game still looks incredible and the framerate makes for an incredibly enjoyable playthrough.

 

[Harlock]

Porting something made from the ground for PS3 seems dificult, unless you redo the whole code. From a bright side view, is cool to have things unique for the PS3 version.

 

[FranXico]

Are we all shitting ourselves because the PS4 version doesn't look like Tinkerbell sprinkled magical Disney sparkle dust all over the sand like she did to the PS3 version? I just want to make sure I'm on the same page here.

Yes, some people think that the different approach taken/results obtained for the sand shimmer compromises the original vision.

And here was I thinking that most important aspect of Journey as a work of art is its minimalist art direction, symbology and narrative. Silly me.

 

[Springfoot]

The thing that bugs me about this, is that anyone who has strived to get a very specific look when doing something creative knows what huge differences tiny changes can subconsciously have to the impact of a product/image. The angle and intensity of a light source being tweaked four hours to get precisely the right look. Or in the case of Guilty Gear Xrd (for those who didn't see the GDC talk), the insane levels of tweaking they did to make a 3D animation look almost flawlessly 2D. Any compromise would have reduced the final result from "WOW that's incredible and adds to the magic of this game" to "Meh, close. The gameplay/story had better be good." Which is why that effect had never been done so convincingly before, even though by their own admission it could have been achieved years ago. No one had cared to put in that level of care, effort and attention to detail until them.

The original Journey team obviously strived to create an extremely specific and cohesive look too, especially with the sand. It was a massive feature of the game, both graphically and gameplay-wise, and obvious it was VERY important to them that it looked and behaved in exactly the way it did. And as a result of that time and effort, it is one of the first things in the game that captures your imagination before the story kicks in. Who didn't walk around in circles observing and playing with the sand dynamics when they first played the game? We hadn't really seen sand look and behaved this good before in a game. It was clearly a pillar of importance to the original team.

As soon as I saw the side by side comparison video the other day, I knew something was "wrong". It was smoother, sure, and a little crisper, but I wasn't being blown away by a smoother, crisper version of the original vision. I was seeing a smoother, crisper version of a slightly inferior copy. Where care, time and a desire to match or even surpass the original in one if its most unique aspects wasn't there. And my reaction wasn't the "WOW" I was hoping for, but more of a slightly deflated "Oh... That's a little disappointing".

I'll play it and still enjoy it, I'm sure, but I feel a little robbed of the wonder and amazement I could have experienced if they had cared as much (or were as talented... Maybe they did care but just couldn't do it) as the original developers.

This was a fantastic post. It's really sad to see how much life and animation was lost in the sand in the PS4 version. It occupies anywhere from 60-90% of the screen throughout most of the game, and given how much of the game is about exploring this visually stylized landscape (with very simple gameplay mechanics), dropping the ball on recreating these visual effects is disappointing.

Especially when you have devs talking about how much time and care they put into these visual effects:

The texture probably took the longest to get right. We went through about half a dozen different techniques until we found something that worked. In the end, the idea behind the texture is that if you think about an individual grain of sand, it is basically a sharp crystal, where each side is like a little mirror. So one way to think of the surface of a sand dune is that it's made up of trillions of little mirrors, all pointing in different directions. That's why it sparkles the way it does in the sun.

The PS3 is a pretty powerful device, but even it has it's limits, so we had to settle with simulating just 8 million little mirrors (and actually we even grouped those up into sets of 1000). When the journeyer, or a cloth creature, or the wind pushes the sand, we use a physics simulation on the SPUs to move all the little mirrors against each other. So, that's the basic idea, but then taking that mirror texture and using it to create just the right amount of sparkle ended up consuming about 2 months to settle on the 60 lines of shader code that actually render the sand on the PS3's graphics card.

Not to mention players (of the PS3 version) saying stuff like this about how much of an impact those little touches had (from the same forum thread where the dev explained how they achieved the look of the sand):

I have no idea how the sand works, but it's mesmerizing in places. The end of the Underground Passage area comes to mind. The sand there shimmers in irridescent colors and just looking at it floors me every time.

 

[Bashtee]

Y'all insane, game looks and plays better than the PS3 version.

 

[Footos22]

Y'all insane, game looks and plays better than the PS3 version.

Yep played through it last night. Looks and plays fantastic.

Better then the ps3 version did at least.

 

[SerTapTap]

Actually played it yesterday finally, didn't notice anything but better iq and 60fps honestly.

 

[thelastword]

I'm starting to get it now - people seem to want details mentioned but without critique. The point of the article was centered on the changing of source material. It's about preservation. The PS4 port of Journey is TECHNICALLY sound and plays very well, just as I said. The issue is that it differs in a number of ways from the original game. Let's leave console wars stuff on the side.

I don't think it's console wars to disagree with the article's general tone. It's been proven already that the sand particles were not dialed back or disabled, it was actually improved on account of the resolution increase from the update.

I thought the purpose of every remaster was to improve things (and clearly that's what they did here). They gave us 60 fps, higher resolution sand textures, 1080p, better anti-aliasing, better lighting amongst other things..... but reading the article, you'd actually think that many of these elements are worse in this update...but it's really not.

I really don't get the "artistic vision" leanings in the article..... just on account of some coarser looking sand, "which is actually worse technically". Not only is it worse technically, but I'm glad that the dev supports a point I made that some of the detail of the sand is actually lost due to MB in the PS3 version. I can get some shots to show what I mean. It makes no sense to increase sand texture resolution twofold, and then go right back to blurring those details, especially if the game is running at a 60fps update.

My point is this, the article was predominantly that "the artistic vision was compromised", as opposed to focusing on tangible improvements made in the updated release. Improved texture resolution? you concluded that the vision was compromised, better bloom lighting? you said obscures certain details, but the MB also obscures the already lower resolution sand textures on the PS3 version, so how do we balance this off?

Tbh, I do think there's room to discuss such a subject (artistic vision), but I don't think this remaster should be a poster child for such an article. There are quite a few remasters that comes to mind, one in particular (up-coming) that changes the entire mood/tone of the game, what I thought was a dark/night-time scene, now looks like daylight. That I will claim is a visual compromise on vision. When the Uncharted games comes in with an improved drake model, lighting, textures and effects in Uncharted 1, I certainly won't call that a compromise on vision.

Perhaps someone should make a thread on "Should remasters just update resolution and framerate to keep a game's artistic vision in place" ? That'd be an interesting read......

 

[FranXico]

The developers responsible for the port posted the following comment on the DF article:

Just to mention a few things here:

- The removal of the motion blur was intentional and carefully considered. The post process motion blur of the original gave a very different feel at 60FPS. It's difficult to describe but it really detracted from the cinematic style - it just really stuck out as an obvious post process effect at 60. The best way I can describe it is being akin to switching on some of the frame processing on an old movie with a modern LED display - the effect started to make Journey feel like a modern racing title and really compromised the original artist vision. Additionally with the increase to 1080p, a global increase in anisotropic filtering and a reduction in texture compression the game gained a new solidity and clarity - a lot of this got lost when re-enabling motion blur, so we stuck with the much more natural blur from POV at 60.

- One of the compromises made in the original PS3 version was the resolution of the sand texturing, which is procedurally generated. For surfaces near or low to the camera the illusion of sand was often broken by texture magnification - so we opted to use some of the extra power available on PS4 to double the resolution of this system. The result is a finer grained surface (like sand!) at the loss of some of the coarseness you sometimes see in the original. You can see see this improvement most clearly in the open sections of the dune surfing section after 'landing' (level 4).

- Early on in the development process we received a bunch of fan emails asking us to keep various glitches and exploits that people use in the game - nearly all of these have been intentionally kept/replicated to make the game as true to the original as possible.

- This was a non-trival re-master - the original PS3 version of Journey is a master-piece in PS3 Cell/SPU programming and utilized all of the power of the original system. Translating all of this to a new CPU (and GPU) was an immense technical challenge. We'd recommend people read around some of the Naughty Dog articles/posts about their experiences in bringing a late generation PS3 title to PS4 - it really is/was a tough job. There were many thousands of hours of time spent making the re-master as faithful as possible.

The developers themselves have confirmed that the same effect was employed, but used finer grains because of the higher resolution.
(edited out a confusion from my part)

 

[gai_shain]

Yes, some people think that the different approach taken/results obtained for the sand shimmer compromises the original vision.

And here was I thinking that most important aspect of Journey as a work of art is its minimalist art direction, symbology and narrative. Silly me.

It still is but this thread is here to discuss technical aspects or is it not?

 

[McLovin]

Eh it looks good to me, ps4 version is sharper/cleaner and the 60fps is nice, PS3 version did have more blur though. My guess is it was just something the PS3 was really good at. Kind of like how killzone 2 had some effects Shadow Fall didn't.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I disagree, of course it matters. There would be no point of a remaster then because you could argue that 30fps gives it a distinctive look, that 720p poor aliasing/shimmering etc is part of the original vision. There is a distinct difference between hardware compromise and artistic vision.

George Lucas defense force ? Seriously though, removing motion blur and changing the appearance of the sand to optimise few instances of grains of sand to close to the camera not looking as nice as they could is not something trivial either. I did not have issues with the sand looking wrong at any time in the PS3 version... They admit that the new sand is anothe kind of comprise as the final effect is more subdued.

 

[Javin98]

Are we all shitting ourselves because the PS4 version doesn't look like Tinkerbell sprinkled magical Disney sparkle dust all over the sand like she did to the PS3 version? I just want to make sure I'm on the same page here.

Yeah, that's pretty much this thread. Full of hyperbole, mostly. Some people would rather have those sparkly sand than silky smooth 60FPS and the clarity of a much higher resolution. Durr...60FPS is nothing when you compromised 'dat artistic vision

 

[dark10x]

Yeah, that's pretty much this thread. Full of hyperbole, mostly. Some people would rather have those sparkly sand than silky smooth 60FPS and the clarity of a much higher resolution. Durr...60FPS is nothing when you compromised 'dat artistic vision

Who are those people? I'd like 60fps and a higher resolution with the original effects in place. As is, I still prefer the PS4 version, but it could be even better.

 

[Panajev2001a]

This was a fantastic post. It's really sad to see how much life and animation was lost in the sand in the PS4 version. It occupies anywhere from 60-90% of the screen throughout most of the game, and given how much of the game is about exploring this visually stylized landscape (with very simple gameplay mechanics), dropping the ball on recreating these visual effects is disappointing.

Especially when you have devs talking about how much time and care they put into these visual effects:


Not to mention players (of the PS3 version) saying stuff like this about how much of an impact those little touches had (from the same forum thread where the dev explained how they achieved the look of the sand):

Nice notes .

 

[Javin98]

Who are those people? I'd like 60fps and a higher resolution with the original effects in place. As is, I still prefer the PS4 version, but it could be even better.

There have already been several people. Heck, just look at the first page of this thread. There was even one guy on the previous page that said the PS4 version is like Big Mac without the special sauce. Whatever the hell that means. Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to you or DF, dude.

 

[tanooki27]

Both? The spectacle is a large part of what Journey is about. This is actually on of those games where I don't think 60fps is actually all that important. There's very little accuracy required for anything, and the character feels floaty to control by design.

60 fps is "all that important" for every game. spectacle is nice for movies and television - and games. but without fluid transitions between controller inputs and onscreen movements, games lose some of the magic that makes the medium so special. games are about movement.

 

[omonimo]

Who are those people? I'd like 60fps and a higher resolution with the original effects in place. As is, I still prefer the PS4 version, but it could be even better.

But from what the developers said the cause seems the higher resolution in the sand texture because they just removed only the motion blur in the special effects. They lied? Just to understand because I'm confuse.
Still I was quite sure the less sparkling effect in the sands was caused to this thing. MGS: GZ suffers of the same virtual 'downgrade' in the wet ground.

 

[AlStrong]

I'd like 60fps and a higher resolution with the original effects in place. As is, I still prefer the PS4 version, but it could be even better.

The best might be if they patch in a toggle option for motion blur for the folks that want it.

 

[Dictator93]

It isnt a purely subjective aritistic appraisalto find this up port lacking in an aspect. OBMB as a pp effect is expensive: it missing (in spite of whatever someone opines about it not being necessary or something at 60hz) means that this port is technically inferior in one aspect. That is just one aspect though, everything else seems great.

 

[travisbickle]

The developers responsible for the port posted the following comment on the DF article:



The developers themselves have confirmed that the same effect was employed, but used finer grains because of the higher resolution.
(edited out a confusion from my part)

It's not really a surprise the changes were made by the arts team purely for aesthetic reasons. I don't think anyone would jump on a poster on the first page for suggesting that.

 

[| Praxis |]

If you've never played Journey, the changes are irrelevent because you have nothing to compare it to and, once you're playing, you'll be drawn in some those details become irrelevent.

If you have played Journey, like myself, you'll likely be immediately drawn into the overall experience and not notice the changes or, at least, be more focused on, again, the experience.

It's a shame it's not a 1:1 port with all effects in tact but I can completely overlook it, because the game still looks incredible and the framerate makes for an incredibly enjoyable playthrough.

This is what I wanted to say. I have already completed the ps3 version around 5 times and the ps4 version 3 times. I'd choose the ps4 version any day.

 

[Risk Breaker]

So 2x resolution for the procedural texture on the sand, 1080p, 60FPS pretty much locked and no motion blur (barely noticed there was any on PS3). Pretty good!

 

[Jeels]

From those side by side sots, I definitely prefer the PS4 version...Can't wait to play this again.

 

[dark10x]

Apparently Tricky Pixels commented on the article

Where was this first mentioned? I'm trying to find the original source.

I really don't get the "artistic vision" leanings in the article..... just on account of some coarser looking sand, "which is actually worse technically". Not only is it worse technically, but I'm glad that the dev supports a point I made that some of the detail of the sand is actually lost due to MB in the PS3 version. I can get some shots to show what I mean. It makes no sense to increase sand texture resolution twofold, and then go right back to blurring those details, especially if the game is running at a 60fps update.

My point is this, the article was predominantly that "the artistic vision was compromised", as opposed to focusing on tangible improvements made in the updated release. Improved texture resolution? you concluded that the vision was compromised, better bloom lighting? you said obscures certain details, but the MB also obscures the already lower resolution sand textures on the PS3 version, so how do we balance this off?

I'll be honest, I think you're reading this with a distorted view. Look again at the body of the text. It's mostly positive and everything holds true even in light of the dev comment. The only thing that could be argued is this...

This glittering sand effect is now reduced significantly. In the original version, you'll notice sparkling grains of sand present throughout many scenes, while the effect is often absent on PS4, resulting in a flatter overall presentation. The sand in general appears to lack the coarseness that is so evident on PS3.

Not how I said "reduced significantly"? This statement is completely true. The changes they made DID reduce this effect. I'm not saying the base textures aren't present, rather, that they are not displayed in the same fashion. Can you deny that? Whether or not that's a problem is up to the user.

Did you miss this?

Taken on its own as a standalone product, Journey on PS4 is an immensely polished experience from top to bottom. The visual design and fluidity of the experience rival the quality you might expect from one of Nintendo's top-tier development teams.

Regarding motion blur, there is nothing that will convince me that it should be disabled. I understand the effect, how it works, and how it looks. I also realize it's highly subjective. It's an effect I love above most others. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that it is missing and lamenting that fact.

Ultimately, I was just trying to come up with an interesting idea for the piece and potentially create some discussion. That's it. It wasn't intended to be negative.

 

[stryke]

Where was this first mentioned? I'm trying to find the original source.

It's in the comments of the article.

I say "apparently" because, well, can't really verify them now can we.

 

[EGM1966]

And we are back to subjectivity, halo ruined by one person is another's looking way better. So it's all subjective?.

Pretty much. Seems nothing was dropped or changed due to issues with PS4 supporting it merely design decisions when the native effects didn't seem to translate well to 60fps and 1080p, at least as judged by devs.

Port seems fairly solid otherwise and it does seem care has been taken but some changes have been made not everyone is going to like

I find PS4 version fine and the experience barely affected myself although I do miss the extra sparkling and coarse look a little; but not enough to affect anything.

Obviously I see a lot of upside with resolution and frame rate.

Others clearly really miss the original look though.

 

[dark10x]

It's in the comments of the article.

I say "apparently" because, well, can't really verify them now can we.

OK, it's been appended to the main article after confirming the identity of the poster just to give a bit more info!

 

[ypo]

It's hilarious to hear people pretending to know wtf they are talking about when the original ran at 30fps 720p with blocky sand textures up close. Omg guys artistic vision yo.

 

[Ridley327]

After a marathon for all of the trophies, I definitely do see both sides of the argument regarding the sand coarseness. It's undeniably not nearly as vivid, but I did appreciate the finer detailing that came from upping the resolution for that effect. Motion blur is definitely a YMMV on its appropriateness, but I didn't once miss it in this port, especially with how well it runs.

The PS4 version of Journey is probably not nearly as eye-opening as Bluepoint's wonderful port of Flower was, but it's still a great port that does wonders for the visual presentation of the game.

 

[Jedi2016]

So we have half the story from Tricky Pixels, now we need the other half... thatgamecompany should say something about what their vision was and how the PS4 version compares to that, and finally settle what the sand is "supposed" to look like.

I have downloaded the game (free since I own it on PS3), but I haven't played it yet.

 

[dark10x]

It's hilarious to hear people pretending to know wtf they are talking about when the original ran at 30fps 720p with blocky sand textures up close. Omg guys artistic vision yo.

Yeah LOL

Yuo cant have good art at low rezzz dawg

I mean, dat ICO? 512x224? Shiiit, that wasn't art. Just a bunch of pixels! OMG so artistic lololol

 

[ypo]

Yeah LOL

Yuo cant have good art at low rezzz dawg

I mean, dat ICO? 512x224? Shiiit, that wasn't art. Just a bunch of pixels! OMG so artistic lololol

For sure dawg. Any improvement to it will be considered a downgrade. Looking like blurry ass is a vision sometimes. So artistic yo.

 

[FranXico]

OK, it's been appended to the main article after confirming the identity of the poster just to give a bit more info!

Thanks for keeping your readers as much informed as possible like this. Very appreciated.

 

[Fafalada]

OBMB as a pp effect is expensive

Relative to what though?
Last gen titles dedicated ~4-5ms to (quality)motion-blur, which yes, was expensive but the same algorithm would cost an order of magnitude less on current gen, which even at 60fps isn't a big deal anymore. Obviously you can always do something that costs more, but we're talking about porting here.

On the sand topic - I don't recall real-world dry-sand having the high specular property from either version - but I always took it they were portraying this

Ie. artistic intent all the way.

 

[AgentP]

Whenever DF say things like "feel right", they stepped out of the area of objective measurement where they should stay.

 

[ypo]

Exactly. And when they start talking about *artic vision* without even talking to the creator, you know they are trying too hard.

 

[RyanPierre]

But it is still disappointing that the game's port isn't what the original creator would have deemed complete. In that sense, it is certainly compromised.

Huh? Has thatgamecompany stated that they don't consider the PS4 version to be complete? That would be a significant statement, where are you getting that from?

As far as making compromises, what projects don't? Making compromises is a necessary part of game development, which will hold true for both the original version and this port.

 

[Skyzard]

Sounds like the developers ignored the complaints about the lack of sparkling.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Game looks and runs amazing. i swear sometimes ignorance is bliss

 

[pixelbox]

Relative to what though?
Last gen titles dedicated ~4-5ms to (quality)motion-blur, which yes, was expensive but the same algorithm would cost an order of magnitude less on current gen, which even at 60fps isn't a big deal anymore. Obviously you can always do something that costs more, but we're talking about porting here.

On the sand topic - I don't recall real-world dry-sand having the high specular property from either version - but I always took it they were portraying this

Ie. artistic intent all the way.

I like when you post.

 

[Three]

Regarding motion blur, there is nothing that will convince me that it should be disabled. I understand the effect, how it works, and how it looks. I also realize it's highly subjective. It's an effect I love above most others. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that it is missing and lamenting that fact.

Ultimately, I was just trying to come up with an interesting idea for the piece and potentially create some discussion. That's it. It wasn't intended to be negative.

Those who try to find fault in the articles tone are just being overly sensitive. I do think motion blur is needed less at higher framerates though. Motion blur is equivalent to what AA is spatially, in that you lose high frequency detail with both in the bid to smooth out quantization in some form. So higher framerates require less motion blur in the same way that higher resolutions require less AA as the discreet data becomes more and more fine.

TVs try hard to remove motion blur with motion interpolation and strobing yet here we are in the video games industry trying to introduce it. It's the same with other effects too like chromatic aberration. It reminds me of this joke

The games industry tries very hard to mimic the limitations of film, some people like it because it makes it more "real" to them some people don't because it's actually less "real" to them.

George Lucas defense force ? Seriously though, removing motion blur and changing the appearance of the sand to optimise few instances of grains of sand to close to the camera not looking as nice as they could is not something trivial either. I did not have issues with the sand looking wrong at any time in the PS3 version... They admit that the new sand is anothe kind of comprise as the final effect is more subdued.

It's not that the sand looks "wrong" in any version but it certainly is less physically accurate on the PS3 version. The key to good graphics are graphics you don't notice so they achieved what they set out to do on The PS3 version. The effect may be subdued when it comes to the glitter but in terms of the quote below I don't think it is a compromise at all really, it's an improvement that others may not like. A compromise would mean that they cannot lower the sand resolution, they chose to increase it because they now could generate it more realistically.

- One of the compromises made in the original PS3 version was the resolution of the sand texturing, which is procedurally generated. For surfaces near or low to the camera the illusion of sand was often broken by texture magnification - so we opted to use some of the extra power available on PS4 to double the resolution of this system. The result is a finer grained surface (like sand!) at the loss of some of the coarseness you sometimes see in the original. You can see see this improvement most clearly in the open sections of the dune surfing section after 'landing' (level 4).

A compromise would be something like this quote for the original PS3 game by its creators

It was important to use three separate heightmaps because heightmaps can take up a lot of memory. If we tried to store the entire terrain of the game at full detail, you'd need to tape 4 PS3s together just to get the thing to run. But by storing the dunes at very low detail (and then smoothing them dynamically as they got close), and only storing the "loose sand" for a small distance around the player, we were able to get things working on the standard single-PS3 configuration.

That is hardware constraint which meant there was a compromise on the PS3 version the other increasing sand texture resolution is intentional rather than a compromise. I posted this image earlier in the thread

If you look at the gif version of it you can see that on the PS3 version there is a distance where glitter gets cut off and appears harshly into view at a given distance.
excuse the poor quality gifv but you can still see the cutoff
http://imgur.com/bto81u9

 

[pixelbox]

It seems in the process of increasing the texture resolution; the sand specular was lost due to becoming harder to see. I also feel like the sand specular on the PS3 version was exaggerated because of the lack of anisotropic filtering. It sucks, but at least we know it's not a half-assed port and technically superior, contrary to some people wanting an opportunity to shit on the PS4.

 

[pixelation]

The developers responsible for the port posted the following comment on the DF article:



The developers themselves have confirmed that the same effect was employed, but used finer grains because of the higher resolution.
(edited out a confusion from my part)

That's cool and all, but how hard would it be to implement a switch to enable the "purist" version? (lol) i mean, keeping the motion blur and sand coarseness?, i imagine not very...

 

[dark10x]

Those who try to find fault in the articles tone are just being overly sensitive. I do think motion blur is needed less at higher framerates though. Motion blur is equivalent to what AA is spatially, in that you lose high frequency detail with both in the bid to smooth out quantization in some form. So higher framerates require less motion blur in the same way that higher resolutions require less AA as the discreet data becomes more and more fine.

TVs try hard to remove motion blur with motion interpolation and strobing yet here we are in the video games industry trying to introduce it. It's the same with other effects too like chromatic aberration. It reminds me of this joke

See, I think there are different lines of thinking on what motion blur can bring.

I view it as an artistic effect. You will not find any decent quality CGI work that doesn't make extensive use of motion blur - including those rendered at higher frame-rates. It's a standard feature in offline rendering.

I do not believe motion blur is used solely to mask lower frame-rates - it actually adds to the visual quality.

I really think this is an interesting example.

https://youtu.be/u4QH0M5t-is?t=122

The introduction movie for GT4 (ignore the incorrect aspect ratio). This video runs at 60fps. The game also runs at 60fps. While this intro utilizes assets used within the game itself it looks quite a bit more impressive in motion. This is entirely the result of motion blur. It's the picture in motion as a whole that matters not whether you can make out the smallest of details in motion. 60fps isn't even fast enough to eliminate gaps anyways.

This is footage of GT4 in-game without motion blur

https://youtu.be/jNBnj7uoxsw?t=28

I think the difference is tremendous. It was something I was thinking about even back in 2001 when GT3 first launched. I was blown away by how fluid the intro looked in comparison to the game itself. At the time, 60fps video playback was ALSO rather uncommon so that alone was impressive to behold.

I enjoy the visual effect itself and I also feel it brings us closer to matching pre-rendered film when used well. It is something I desire at any and all frame-rates. The smearing of an LCD is not a comparable effect at all (though I do not game on LCDs either). Ghosting on sample and hold displays is a completely different, undesirable effect.

Have you tried something like Crysis 3 on a CRT? Seeing that game run at a frame-rate higher than 60fps on a CRT monitor with motion blur enabled is truly a remarkable thing. High quality motion blur can make simplistic looking games look far more impressive than they should.

So again, I reiterate that I view it as an artistic effect. If you want to discuss it in another way consider this...

While riding in a car, have you looked directly to the side of the traveling vehicle. Just watch the terrain move past your view point. The details do not remain sharp - there is a natural blurring that happens when your eyes are unable to keep up. At certain speeds it just isn't possible to retain detail but it is not an unpleasant effect.

60 frames per second is nowhere near as fast as the human eye. There are still visible gaps in the image. I can see them during motion. It is a great compromise but you really need to go for a much higher frame-rate before those gaps can really be eliminated (at least to the point where you can't notice them). Motion blur fills in those gaps. So it does actually contribute to fluid motion in this sense as well. Again, though, this is NOT why I like the effect.

 

[wachie]

Apparently Tricky Pixels commented on the article

Yup, that just was the confirmation needed.

All the comparison pics/videos I saw was contrary to the "analysis" of DF. If there were no comparison pics/videos I would have thought that the PS4 version was the inferior one.

 

[dark10x]

Yup, that just was the confirmation needed.

All the comparison pics/videos I saw was contrary to the "analysis" of DF. If there were no comparison pics/videos I would have thought that the PS4 version was the inferior one.

Is that really necessary? Nothing written was untrue and examples were provided.

Tricky Pixels clarified their reasons for making the changes.

 

[Moosichu]

See, I think there are different lines of thinking on what motion blur can bring.

I view it as an artistic effect. You will not find any decent quality CGI work that doesn't make extensive use of motion blur - including those rendered at higher frame-rates. It's a standard feature in offline rendering.

I do not believe motion blur is used solely to mask lower frame-rates - it actually adds to the visual quality.

I really think this is an interesting example.

https://youtu.be/u4QH0M5t-is?t=122

The introduction movie for GT4 (ignore the incorrect aspect ratio). This video runs at 60fps. The game also runs at 60fps. While this intro utilizes assets used within the game itself it looks quite a bit more impressive in motion. This is entirely the result of motion blur. It's the picture in motion as a whole that matters not whether you can make out the smallest of details in motion. 60fps isn't even fast enough to eliminate gaps anyways.

This is footage of GT4 in-game without motion blur

https://youtu.be/jNBnj7uoxsw?t=28

I think the difference is tremendous. It was something I was thinking about even back in 2001 when GT3 first launched. I was blown away by how fluid the intro looked in comparison to the game itself. At the time, 60fps video playback was ALSO rather uncommon so that alone was impressive to behold.

I enjoy the visual effect itself and I also feel it brings us closer to matching pre-rendered film when used well. It is something I desire at any and all frame-rates. The smearing of an LCD is not a comparable effect at all (though I do not game on LCDs either). Ghosting on sample and hold displays is a completely different, undesirable effect.

Have you tried something like Crysis 3 on a CRT? Seeing that game run at a frame-rate higher than 60fps on a CRT monitor with motion blur enabled is truly a remarkable thing. High quality motion blur can make simplistic looking games look far more impressive than they should.

So again, I reiterate that I view it as an artistic effect. If you want to discuss it in another way consider this...

While riding in a car, have you looked directly to the side of the traveling vehicle. Just watch the terrain move past your view point. The details do not remain sharp - there is a natural blurring that happens when your eyes are unable to keep up. At certain speeds it just isn't possible to retain detail but it is not an unpleasant effect.

60 frames per second is nowhere near as fast as the human eye. There are still visible gaps in the image. I can see them during motion. It is a great compromise but you really need to go for a much higher frame-rate before those gaps can really be eliminated (at least to the point where you can't notice them). Motion blur fills in those gaps. So it does actually contribute to fluid motion in this sense as well. Again, though, this is NOT why I like the effect.

Thank you for coming back and clarifing why you prefer motion blur even at 60fps. I'm hoping that Trixy Pixel are reading this and at least add it back as an option.