Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
I wonder how many people really think like this when thats not the intention, never.
-
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.
Nintendo's "colors" and deferred rendering
- Thread starter freezamite
- Start date
- Status
Without being able to name names you're just setting up a strawman to take down.
This is a big example of where you seem to be debating against an argument that doesn't actually exist. I have not ever seen a single person post "The only thing that makes graphics in a videogame good is the resolution, which has to be 1080p or else the graphics are garbage" but this seems to be the fictional point of view you're arguing against.
People care about 1080p because, as you must know since you talk about being able to comprehend more than almost everyone else, they want to play games in the native resolution of their monitor or television. This shouldn't come as any surprise to you since you know how much non-native resolutions affect the image quality.
I've never seen anybody say that resolution is the pinnacle of graphics technology or that nothing else matters in terms of gauging how advanced a game's graphics are. I have seen people say that they care more about resolution than other fancy graphical effects, because despite how advanced the graphics may be the image quality will be distractingly bad if they are not rendered in the native resolution of the screen displaying them (good upscaling notwithstanding).
So in summary you need to keep a couple things in mind;
Most people saying they care about resolution the most probably aren't concerned with the most technologically advanced or realistic graphics, they are most likely saying they care first and foremost about image quality and cleanliness of the displayed image.
The vast majority of people who are caring about 1080p aren't some hugely uneducated ignorant mass as you've represented them, they're instead a group of people who want to play games in their screen's native resolution so that they can appreciate the art and graphics technology without being distracted by the subpar image quality that sub native resolutions present on modern screens.
This is a big example of where you seem to be debating against an argument that doesn't actually exist. I have not ever seen a single person post "The only thing that makes graphics in a videogame good is the resolution, which has to be 1080p or else the graphics are garbage" but this seems to be the fictional point of view you're arguing against.
People care about 1080p because, as you must know since you talk about being able to comprehend more than almost everyone else, they want to play games in the native resolution of their monitor or television. This shouldn't come as any surprise to you since you know how much non-native resolutions affect the image quality.
I've never seen anybody say that resolution is the pinnacle of graphics technology or that nothing else matters in terms of gauging how advanced a game's graphics are. I have seen people say that they care more about resolution than other fancy graphical effects, because despite how advanced the graphics may be the image quality will be distractingly bad if they are not rendered in the native resolution of the screen displaying them (good upscaling notwithstanding).
So in summary you need to keep a couple things in mind;
Most people saying they care about resolution the most probably aren't concerned with the most technologically advanced or realistic graphics, they are most likely saying they care first and foremost about image quality and cleanliness of the displayed image.
The vast majority of people who are caring about 1080p aren't some hugely uneducated ignorant mass as you've represented them, they're instead a group of people who want to play games in their screen's native resolution so that they can appreciate the art and graphics technology without being distracted by the subpar image quality that sub native resolutions present on modern screens.
Every discussion for the last year on NeoGaf has been 1080p / 60FPS and it's really tiresome.
I thought we all loved games? As in gameplay not just resolutions etc?
What is worse is that NeoGaf represents a small portion of those who buy games, because the general consumer who buys the Xbox One Version over a PS4 version probably doesnt care either in the ever so slight difference in graphics/whatever.
I thought we all loved games? As in gameplay not just resolutions etc?
What is worse is that NeoGaf represents a small portion of those who buy games, because the general consumer who buys the Xbox One Version over a PS4 version probably doesnt care either in the ever so slight difference in graphics/whatever.
Also, I can never get enough street cred, because disagreeing with his entire point that I need to understand the technical aspects before I'm allowed to like it would make me a poser and discredit me. The only thing we should appreciate is the balance struck between hardware and cost and the technical choices made and therefore see what is lacking instead of what is there. Without that we aren't experiencing the imagery as deeply as OP. We are posers to have a less informed opinion.
I wouldn't even think this discussion was for me except OP seeks to say that if I like something, I am wrong and ignorant. Enjoy your one true appreciation I guess.
Edit: I feel like I should self identify and say that I am impressed by Mario Kart 8 so far.
When you see the same "media" or posters then go on about how 720p is really the same as 1080p or near enough that it doesn't matter it kinda raises eyebrows.
And there's actually modern CG that look worse than Terminator 2.
Heck look at how fake Star Wars look in comparison now but that's probably because Lucas is a hack...
You can find MK8 unimpressive but then you better not consider the latest shitfest with framedrops up the wazoo to be OMG SO PRETTY either.
From what I've seen MK8 certainly looks better than CoD Ghost even on pc.
We can discuss tech specs all day but if you don't have the knowledge to back it up you look like a moron (like the op in that weird OP).
If you want to say that Frozen looks better than Wrecking Ralf you better not come up with BS reasons, which is really what is happening with just saying it's unimpressive because it doesn't have tessellation or some other BS marketing speak they learned this week.
supernormal
Member
Well of course there should be a main focus on gameplay, but that's a given. Also since the thread is regarding graphics I just pointed out where I would prefer devs spend their graphic resources.
Really interesting post OP.
I'm not knowledgeable in the many graphical techniques (I get overwhelmed by the number of different Anti-aliasing techs and which is 'best')
I've seen a few people discuss the graphical differences between Super Smash Bros. 4 and Brawl, there is certainly a difference but I could never put my finger on what it was (I was actually thinking "SSB4 is more colourful", lol) perhaps deferred rendering is also being used? it makes everything look more natural.
I'm not knowledgeable in the many graphical techniques (I get overwhelmed by the number of different Anti-aliasing techs and which is 'best')
I've seen a few people discuss the graphical differences between Super Smash Bros. 4 and Brawl, there is certainly a difference but I could never put my finger on what it was (I was actually thinking "SSB4 is more colourful", lol) perhaps deferred rendering is also being used? it makes everything look more natural.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Two things:
1. It s a deeply ingrained tradition in hardcore gaming to equate realistic scenes with more and better technology, as the dream of technological progress for many enthusiasts is to create virtual reality. "I want to jack into the Matrix."
2. At this point, and especially as technology matures bringing with it diminishing returns, we need to stop detaching art style and art assets from "how good the graphics are". The art IS the graphics. Without the art you would have no game to look at - all the tech is there to support something.
1. It s a deeply ingrained tradition in hardcore gaming to equate realistic scenes with more and better technology, as the dream of technological progress for many enthusiasts is to create virtual reality. "I want to jack into the Matrix."
2. At this point, and especially as technology matures bringing with it diminishing returns, we need to stop detaching art style and art assets from "how good the graphics are". The art IS the graphics. Without the art you would have no game to look at - all the tech is there to support something.
A lot of people underestimate the strength of a well-crafted lighting engine. Wind Waker looks like a completely different game for it. Another good example of it is Dark Souls, which has an absurdly good one. Those things can make games look exponentially better, without increasing resolution or texture size at all.
Well if you look at the OP's post history and look for the Metal Gear Solid thread (I understand this is a socially unacceptable practice in general) you will find the people he is talking about.
FOr example.
Let's now move on to Bayonetta 2
He was banned before. Just leave him alone on that front and do the leg work by remembering what people actually say in this forum.
You can find many examples without even looking through his posting history.
chrominance
Member
Are there a lot of people saying "next-gen versions of Ground Zeroes are better because oh man the colours look awesomer?" And specifically not pointing out the quality of light sources, higher resolution, etc.? Also, why does that matter anyways? You just said that you hate the "graphics first" crowd and then go on to talk a whole lot of mess about how they're doing it wrong because they're not "graphics first"-y enough!
Plus, yeah, Killzone 2 used deferred rendering techniques years ago. That's not new, and frankly it's not interesting unless you like reading up on graphics techniques. Would it be so awful if Mario Kart 8 looked no better than what a PS3 or 360 could output except for the art style? I thought that's what everyone wanted out of Nintendo (or at least out of the Wii U, given its current spec): colourful HD visuals.
Maybe I just don't read the same discussions the OP does but it feels like OP is attacking a straw man.
Someone managed to rip the GTA V map out of the console code and port it to GTA IV PC, and the lighting engine improvements in V are really obvious when you do that. IV makes the same map look a little flat and lifeless by comparison. My guess is lack of HDR but don't quote me on that because I might become one of the know-nothing graphics-first people OP is talking about.
Plus, yeah, Killzone 2 used deferred rendering techniques years ago. That's not new, and frankly it's not interesting unless you like reading up on graphics techniques. Would it be so awful if Mario Kart 8 looked no better than what a PS3 or 360 could output except for the art style? I thought that's what everyone wanted out of Nintendo (or at least out of the Wii U, given its current spec): colourful HD visuals.
Maybe I just don't read the same discussions the OP does but it feels like OP is attacking a straw man.
Someone managed to rip the GTA V map out of the console code and port it to GTA IV PC, and the lighting engine improvements in V are really obvious when you do that. IV makes the same map look a little flat and lifeless by comparison. My guess is lack of HDR but don't quote me on that because I might become one of the know-nothing graphics-first people OP is talking about.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Mario Kart just doesn't impress me technically.
GTA V did. Although I've seen much more detailed and crisp games, but GTA V is just beautiful and its mindblowing that something like that is possible on last gen consoles.
I dodn't care about the tech behind games, I just want aestetically pleasing stuff to look at.
Mario Kart looks good, but its not mindblowing, its just nice.
GTA V did. Although I've seen much more detailed and crisp games, but GTA V is just beautiful and its mindblowing that something like that is possible on last gen consoles.
I dodn't care about the tech behind games, I just want aestetically pleasing stuff to look at.
Mario Kart looks good, but its not mindblowing, its just nice.
Killzone 2 on the PS3 used differed rendering, and had scenes with up to 350 individual light sources...
can you show me a scene, or even evidence to suggest, that the new Mario Kart has that many at any given time??
also...in regards to colors...
differed rendering??
plagiarize
Banned
Games designed around the weak (relatively) CPU of the Wii U, will be able to leverage it's notably more powerful GPU to finish up with an end result that is clearly technically superior to what we were seeing in similar games on 360 and PS3. Considering Mario Kart 8 against, say Sonic and All Stars Transformed (which is a great game, and probably the best looking cart racer on consoles to date), Mario Kart 8 is clearly ahead, even before we consider that it's running at twice the frame rate (and I'd wager it will drop frames a lot less often than Transformed did).
The problem with the Wii U remains that weak CPU though. Engines designed around a more powerful CPU as found in the 360 and PS3 get bottlenecked by it, and in many cases the loss in performance is relatively slight, so developers consider it 'good enough'. Publishers aren't putting big teams on their Wii U games, (for very good reasons) so you can't expect the Wii U versions of multiplats to come out looking better.
Yes, when given the time and resources, we've seen that happen with Most Wanted U and Deus Ex... but then those sold like crap, so who is going to bother doing that again?
So the notion that the Wii U isn't more powerful than the 360 and PS3 proliferates thanks to this multiplatform titles... but all Nintendo had to do was provide a slightly more powerful CPU and all this could have been avoided. That's the worst part of all this. A higher clocked version of the exact same processor in a slightly bigger box with a bit more cooling, and Wii U versions of multiplatform games would have run on par with or better than the 360 and PS3.
As it is, that CPU chokes engines designed around more powerful ones, and developers don't have enough resources to leverage the GPU to compensate *and* to leverage the Wii U game pad.
what framerate did Killzone 2 run at again?
the whole point with deffered rendering is that the number of lighting sources isn't really an issue.
The problem with the Wii U remains that weak CPU though. Engines designed around a more powerful CPU as found in the 360 and PS3 get bottlenecked by it, and in many cases the loss in performance is relatively slight, so developers consider it 'good enough'. Publishers aren't putting big teams on their Wii U games, (for very good reasons) so you can't expect the Wii U versions of multiplats to come out looking better.
Yes, when given the time and resources, we've seen that happen with Most Wanted U and Deus Ex... but then those sold like crap, so who is going to bother doing that again?
So the notion that the Wii U isn't more powerful than the 360 and PS3 proliferates thanks to this multiplatform titles... but all Nintendo had to do was provide a slightly more powerful CPU and all this could have been avoided. That's the worst part of all this. A higher clocked version of the exact same processor in a slightly bigger box with a bit more cooling, and Wii U versions of multiplatform games would have run on par with or better than the 360 and PS3.
As it is, that CPU chokes engines designed around more powerful ones, and developers don't have enough resources to leverage the GPU to compensate *and* to leverage the Wii U game pad.
what framerate did Killzone 2 run at again?
the whole point with deffered rendering is that the number of lighting sources isn't really an issue.
my issue with the OP was not that he thinks people who talk about graphics should be more knowledgeable...that is perfectly acceptable, and i agree with him 100%.....my issues arise because he then continues to pretend he knows more about the situation then he really does...and begins to make silly comments like "Mario has bright colors because of differed rendering"
absolutely, however youre missing the point...OP is off on this differed rendering tangent in multiple threads (here, and the MGSV thread) and he is making completely nonsensical claims with zero evidence to back any of it up, but wants everyone to swallow every bit of his rants as gospel...
absolutely, however youre missing the point...OP is off on this differed rendering tangent in multiple threads (here, and the MGSV thread) and he is making completely nonsensical claims with zero evidence to back any of it up, but wants everyone to swallow every bit of his rants as gospel...
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
"None of these people understand what's truly going on in these Mariokart.gifs"
:lol
This is embarrassing.
:lol
This is embarrassing.
Wishmaster92
Member
Reggie: "A resounding YES"
plagiarize
Banned
One thing we can say for the Wii U, is that it's capable of deferred lighting at 60 fps and 720p, something I don't think we saw on the 360 or PS3. At least in the OPs first picture the lighting is responsible for a good chunk of all that colour. In the gif, not so much, but I am absolutely a fan of the Nintendoland lighting look that Nintendo seem to be favouring these days.
Interestingly, the Xbox One seems to struggle with deferred lighting at anything above 60 fps and 720p, although naturally the Xbox One has a lot more power it can leverage elsewhere in making it's games look substantially better... but it is interesting (to me) to not that the One's Achilles heel, is actually one of the few areas where we can point to the Wii U and say that it's absolutely more capable than the last gen power houses.
But do you know what you are talking about since you are one of the people the OP got into an argument with in the MGS thread?
I'm not digging the way you made that snide Mario64 remark.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Does it matter? Unless you're a computer scientist you're only going to have a tenuous abstraction ridden understanding anyhow.
Interesting conclusion, since what drove OP's thread was in part an MGS related incident and Nintendo was just one example to back up his claim.
But tell us more about your nintendo feelings lol
Interceptor
Banned
Maybe OP is annoyed by this childish one liners regarding Nintendo. Maybe OP is annoyed that it is increasingly hard to distinguish between a shill in a cubicle managing his 10 social media accounts and a "hardcore" fan spreading the word about his superior hardware 24/7 because they use the exact same marketing vocabulary to determine the quality of a game. I do not say that i share the views of the OP but i can understand his frustration to a certain degree when you want to talk about the games you enjoy and the discussion again gets lost in arguments like "please understand" this, "lol 900p" there and "look at this rock, it´s so beautiful. 10/10".
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
What, the WiiWheel (Wiil?)? Is the split-screen also placeholder? What is the answer to the below?
If the lighting is so intensive that it doesn't allow the above, they should tone it back. Too late now, I guess. Am I just waiting for that other shoe to drop here?
EDIT: Oh Okay NVM I followed your link and read the article:
And here everyone may witness the dawning of a moment of disappointment for me. Fuck the graphics. This right here is what they fucked up with this console, and all of us told them that from the beginning. Should be multiple WiiU pads each with their own view, all competing. If not, what's the point? Certainly not the graphics. But the thing that's supposed to distract you from the graphics is underutilized, or not even utilized at all. I realize this rant is not germaine to the OP's discussion, but here you got to witness me finding this fact out about this title, so there you go. Sorry.
Exactly which is why all this talk is absolutely stupid to begin with, it's like in 2007 when people were talking about Blue Ocean strategy with less knowledge than a republican congressman have of the female body.
Seriously if you don't know about it stop talking about it.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
I think it's good fun discussing esoteric tech stuff on the internet, but people take it too seriously and spoil all the fun.
I mean, colors is in quotes in the title of this thread.
"colors"
I actually find the half truth and biased knowledge that basically pass off as credence is more annoying than outright trolling.
Again if you're talking a business model, a book or something at least a basic search would be a good start.
And I think even the OP stated he didn't articulate his point well so I feel it's a little unfair to criticize him for that now :/
i dont think any of those comments are fair to make about the PS360 or the Xbone...because you cant simply isolate lighting without talking about the rest of the games assets...
what else is the GPU responsible for in the games? that is the question that needs to be asked...im not downplaying what is achieved in Mario Kart, or any of the newer Mario games...they are absolutely beautiful and stunning to look at...
but are the textures as detailed? are the character models as detailed? are the environments as big? what kind of AI are we dealing with? particle effects? shaders?...i would wager ALL of these categories favor the average Xbone game...
im supremely confident that the Xbone could run Mario Kart 8 in 1080p @60fps in all its deferred glory
i dont claim to be any form of expert...but i know enough to not allow myself to be completely BS'd
was not intended to be snide...simply asking if Mario64's bright colors are the result of a deferred rendering engine...
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Dude is well know in some vg spanish forums. He has been banned in some of them.
plagiarize
Banned
Not if it's using deferred lighting. I'm not. Again, name a cross gen game that the Xbone is running at 1080p with 60fps that uses deferred lighting. Again, name a 360/PS3 game that runs at 60 fps that uses deferred lighting.
There could be ones I'm unaware of. I'd love to know if there are any exceptions. And I'm not suggesting that 360/PS3 games look bad, or anything silly like that. Nor am I suggesting the Wii U is even close in power to the Xbox One... because it isn't. I'm just saying that the Wii U is better at deferred lighting specifically than the 360 and PS3, and that overall it's a more powerful system.
There are certainly areas that it gets beaten by the other consoles, and porting to it properly requires more effort than anyone is going to bother using when a small amount of effort gets you something that runs okay (albeit worse than 360 and PS3).
But if I was going to highlight one thing that sets the Wii U apart from the 360/PS3, I think the OP picked the right thing to highlight. Pretty deferred shading at 60 fps and 720p, or 30 fps and 1080p. Which in that one thing and that one thing alone seems to put it at the same kind of level as Xbox One.
All the other generational leaps the Xbox One offers over the 360 and PS3 the Wii U falls very short of, landing much closer to last gen than this gen.
Facts aren't fair, and to my knowledge (again, which might not be complete) deferred lighting kept last gen games at 30 fps, and deferred lighting keeps the Xbox One at 720p, at least if we're talking about games running at 60 fps.
You seem really angry and aggressive about this. Have you tried taking a walk? I find that helps.
In any case, I don't understand the point of this topic. People who don't find Mario 3D World impressive should know that it's colorful because of a deferred lighting engine and not because of palette choices. Okay? That was fairly common knowledge to begin with, and even then you can't fault people for not finding the game technically impressive. It isn't.
Mario Kart 8 already runs at 60fps on Wii U, so theoretically yes the Xbox should be able to handle a simple res bump from there. This isn't the same as Tomb Raider where they have to double the resolution and the frame rate.
Edit - Sorry for the double post, I thought they would merge if nobody posted after me.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
This is like a spinoff thread from the WUST threads. These never go well. Might have as well bumped the "Wii U GPU Speculation" thread (That is, if you haven't already made a post or several posts about the same thing in it, and decided to make it its own thread)
allgamespc
Banned
he has a point, people bashing the Wii U based on its specs only and not on what its capable of doing, which is a LOT more than 360/PS3. Its getting really tiresome reading about Wii U in here with so many haters and ignorant people who just talk to bash without understanding what they are saying.
That thread was closed for hardware/software/nintendo speculation.
Well it's no surprise that people don't know what they're talking about on this board. We had like a 20 page thread of people bitching about titanfall being 6 v 6. Not a whole lot of talking about how that may be right number for the balance of the game just a whole lot of people crying that they won't play anything smaller than 16 v 16.
Basically having any type of intelligent conversation is tough to have on this board when for every good poster you have 10 who's sole purpose in life it to act like a shill for thier favorite company since that's about all they enjoy in life.
Basically having any type of intelligent conversation is tough to have on this board when for every good poster you have 10 who's sole purpose in life it to act like a shill for thier favorite company since that's about all they enjoy in life.
If you didn't read the post like it was screaming at you maybe you would get the tone or something.
Mario 3D World is really like all the other 3D Mario before it.
they look good but never OMG LOOK AT THAT SO PRETTY!!
It's always the gameplay possibilities that are mindblowing more than anything
That was the case for every single one of them, heck the weird fetish for the art style of the Galaxy games always seemed off to me, the retro games I can get but this?
Bionic Commando Rearmed ran at 60 for the most part. The technique itself isn't necessarily more demanding than forward rendering; that's pretty much the point. But yes, 1080p and deferred rendering is where the 32 MB ESRAM really becomes a bottleneck on XB1 as I understand it, as you can't fit all your render buffers. It would be the same same for WiiU but it's better in that regard than the 10 MB eDRAM on the 360
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
Gotta keep fighting the industry cancers I guess.
plagiarize
Banned
COD Ghosts, BF4 and MGS: Ground Zeroes already run at 60 fps on Xbox 360 and PS3. Guess what resolution the Xbox One runs them at.
As far as I'm aware, every Xbox One game with deferred lighting that runs at 60 fps runs at 720p on the One. I have heard speculation that this is entirely to do with the amount of ESRAM on the system not having the bandwidth to handle that specific technique at higher resolutions (if you're doing 60 fps).
If people have examples that prove otherwise, I would genuinely like to be corrected, as I don't like believing something to be true that isn't.
Do you have a source for that using deferred lighting? A cursory search on the internet didn't bring anything up. A lot of games use deferred techniques, that don't use deferred lighting, like most Unreal Engine games, for example.
Does coding on it count?
It uses the same engine as all the Grin games, which was using deferred rendering since GRAW1 PC in 2006
but youre taking lighting and isolating it like its the only technical aspect of a games visuals...it just doesnt work that way...you have to factor everything else into the equation...
Mario Kart does certain things really well...but the fact remains the majority of its appeal is its beautiful and colorful art style...
for example...in Ryse, the main character model is made up of 85,000 polygons how many polygons do you think Mario is made up of in Mario Kart 8? its no where near 85k!...
you cant simply ignore all of the additional processing being done in a game like Ryse and then say "SEE! it cant do deferred lighting in at 720/60!" because there might be as many polygons in one character of Ryse as a whole frame of Mario Kart...
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Basically, im no techie, but theres something about the lighting and such in alot of their games that just seem a step above, idk what they're doing but it just looks so appealing this time around.
There's also little variety in Ryse so I wouldn't say they weren't cutting corner there either....
Now if your argument is that MK8 is cutting more corners than Ryse...
plagiarize
Banned
Well, of course. Hah.
Eh if that was the case I would be gushing over Knack or the Witness but I don't. I'm not technically versed in these things but I can see that there is a bunch of stuff going on in Mario Kart 8, SM3DW and Bayonetta 2 that isn't happening in those other 2 next gen games.
This is why I was annoyed with your Mario 64 remark. The shades, lighting, special effects to bring out the colors are radically different. It would be like comparing an IPS panel to a Twisted Pneumatic display and saying just because they are being fed the same data on colors to be displayed there isn't anything in the hardware that makes the colors displayed more correctly on an IPS monitor.
- Status