Thank you.
That's why they should have introduced dialog choices earlier.
Bullshit! That can't be true. Your eyes are lying to you. Anyone who isn't blind can see that Star Citizen is clearly better looking.I finally got to see SC on a high end rig this weekend.
UC4 based on the videos released looks just as good if not slightly better.
Look at the past uncharted MPs and TLOU one which were the same frame rate as the actual game. They look terrible compared to their SP's and is likely because the majority of the resources will be going into the campaign.
Yea honestly I feel like U4's multi looks better, compared to the campaign, than previous ND games, they just looked terrible, U4's multi still looks pretty solid in comparison and it's running at twice the framerate.
So I think this time it's a nice improvement for ND, if we look at their MP mode in past games.
Drake is an okay next-gen reimagining, but Sully looks completely different, as does Elena. I'm kinda pissed about that to be honest.
The artists clearly wanted to make them look less cartoony, but I feel like they ditched a bunch of similarities in the process. I also wonder how much facial capture has forced them to change the character models.
I try to but I really really don't care about Sam. He's probably the most boring character in the series (that opinion might change after playing the game, hopefully).
Nadine is great, though.
That's why they should have introduced dialog choices earlier.
Oh, look, here we have an example of a PC gamer telling everyone else that thinking Uncharted 4 is better looking than Star Citizen is being delusional. You know it works both ways, right? I have no idea why some of you insist it's wrong to have opinions.
I don't know why I'm stepping into this, but I noticed you were arguing what looked better ands now it's changed to what's more impressive.
My take is that a game can look objectively better and yet be less impressive. To me impressive is more contextual. I'm more impressed by a phenomenal looking game on middling hardware than an even better looking game on a 1500-2000 dollar PC. This is because one requires more talent and ingenuity than the other, which is largely what impresses me.
That might be what lukeskymac is getting at with his brute force argument, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.
Saying anyone who thinks Star Citizen isn't the better looking game is blind doesn't sound like you think people are free to have opinions to me.PC is my main platform of choice, sure, but I have and play all the consoles. I'm just a 'gamer'.
My inflammatory statement was more in response to his condescending "There it is!" bs he kept spouting.
So yeah, people can have opinions, and those opinions can make no sense to me, and vice-versa.
I don't know why I'm stepping into this, but I noticed you were arguing what looked better ands now it's changed to what's more impressive.
My take is that a game can look objectively better and yet be less impressive. To me impressive is more contextual. I'm more impressed by a phenomenal looking game on middling hardware than an even better looking game on a 1500-2000 dollar PC. This is because one requires more talent and ingenuity than the other, which is largely what impresses me.
That might be what lukeskymac is getting at with his brute force argument, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.
Saying anyone who thinks Star Citizen isn't the better looking game is blind doesn't sound like you think people are free to have opinions to me.
Muinaiset said:My inflammatory statement was more in response to his condescending "There it is!" bs he kept spouting.
That transition had me like
Some gifs.
If they're slowing down the page I will link them on request.
There are times where I honestly believe it does look better - but those are the realtime cutscenes, which have a smaller scope and allow ND to throw the entire system at small, detailed shots, which is why I dismissed the MP comparisons when they happened.
The main point is that ND does more with what they have, though.
Example: Take the Gary Oldman trailer and compare his model and his animation to Drake's in the PSX story trailer. No one's changing my mind that in those circumstances, Drake looks better than the Admiral.
You saw a game's unfinished multiplayer sandbox mmo component and compared it with single player directed cutscene and found one looks "just as good if not slightly better."I finally got to see SC on a high end rig this weekend.
UC4 based on the videos released looks just as good if not slightly better.
Beyond speaking to your frankly inane points aobut "brute forcing" and star citizen not using polygons unwisely (which is absurd when one follows their development).Example: Take the Gary Oldman trailer and compare his model and his animation to Drake's in the PSX story trailer. No one's changing my mind that in those circumstances, Drake looks better than the Admiral.
The problem with PC at this point isn't the argument of power it's clearly so much more powerful than any console. The problem is the days of the most proficient devs working exclusively on it is over. No more Crytek, Epic or anyone that really has the resources to make a game that eclipses consoles. Instead the best devs in the industry work on consoles with ND at the absolute top. You will always get better results of course with 3rd party but even then it's more of a High Settings vs Ultra and not the night and day difference it used to be.
The reason it's such a point of contention for PC users is because the investment is just as high as its ever been but they are no longer getting the payoff they used to. I remember buying an insanely overpriced alienware(I didn't know better) for Doom 3 and it feeling like I just played a game a decade ahead of consoles. Same for when I played Crysis.
That sure as hell looks like a transition to gameplay. Look how Nate's stance is in the last frames.
But doesn't matter, thread is now about SC gfx...
That sure as hell looks like a transition to gameplay. Look how Nate's stance is in the last frames.
But doesn't matter, thread is now about SC gfx...
U4 looks incredible, there is no doubt about that. But why people think it will be best looking game next year?
Do they not remember situation from past gens when higher end multiplatform games were speced on PCs and downscaled to consoles? Because its exactly what is happening today and will continue even further next year.
I mean, just compare any past gen high end multiplatfrom title on PC's on ultra settings with console exclusives that were remastered. The difference is quite substantial. The whole comments about Paragon trailer being CGI just proves it even further.
And just to add Star Citizen as a comparison, so people would really get what CIG is aiming at with that game. Star Citizen is not in a situation like Crysis 3 was on past gens, as title done on PCs, but with some assets, scope and tech limitation designed around past-gen platforms. It is a title that goes beyond capabilities of current gen consoles, so its like high end mid-gen next-gen title done few years earlier.
Beyond speaking to your frankly inane points aobut "brute forcing" and star citizen not using polygons wisely (which is absurd when one follows their development).
So you use an example of the first time they showed off a single player character model? Why not use their latest showing where their tech has more matured? Why not point out actual points in a side by side comparison.
I am so sorry to start talking in this thread about this, but my brain hurts from some of the stuff being posted here.
Like I said, I am sorry that it has come to this. But people saying inane things cannot be defended. I am not here to say "lolol this looks bad", rather to try and end this absolutely silly narrative that "PC games are all hardware and the devs are shit". Clearly people know that devs who worked at places like naughty dog, ready at dawn, sony santa monica, crytek, and id are NOW working at CIG, right?
I thought it was excellent. The character scripts and performances came across as genuine and grounded, and the conversation writing struck me as a solid balance between humane and adventuresque.
But my criticism of the other Uncharted games and their serious elements is less about these smaller moments and more about the contrast against the action. This gives me promise that at least the former will be right on track, but I hope they can hold up thematic and character consistency when Drake is inevitably mowing down waves of bad dudes and jumping across exploding shit.
You saw a game's unfinished multiplayer sandbox mmo component and compared it with single player directed cutscene and found one looks "just as good if not slightly better."
I for one am shocked. Come on man, you know better than that.
Beyond speaking to your frankly inane points aobut "brute forcing" and star citizen not using polygons unwisely (which is absurd when one follows their development).
So you use an example of the first time they showed off a single player character model? Why not use their latest showing where their tech has more matured? Why not point out actual points in a side by side comparison.
I am so sorry to start talking in this thread about this, but my brain hurts from some of the stuff being posted here.
Those days are not long gone though. That is exactly what Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are.... It is building its technology and game design around hardware that scarcely exists.
Like I said, I am sorry that it has come to this. But people saying inane things cannot be defended. I am not here to say "lolol this looks bad", rather to try and end this absolutely silly narrative that "PC games are all hardware and the devs are shit". Clearly people know that devs who worked at places like naughty dog, ready at dawn, sony santa monica, crytek, and id are NOW working at CIG, right?
It appears "decadent" perhaps in comparison to console ports, but it isn't a console port. It is literally the polygon budget you can allow by having better hardware. That is the whole point of having better hardware though. Do you want them to NOT use it or something? Do you think console devs do not limit and plan their polygon budgets around their hardware?Why did they make a trailer out of it in the first place then? I'm not going to argue with someone who's denying they're throwing polygons at stuff because they can when just a few weeks ago you talked about this with Durante. "Decadence" was the word he used, I believe.
What else are you trying to get at by saying "brute forced"? Seriously? That they lack talent and they rely all on their hardware? That they 'misallocate' that hardware because they are incompetent and other devs would do a better job?]Now who's being inane?
Yeah sorry Dictator I think your the most knowledgeable guy on the forums when it comes to this stuff but I also know you have a bit of a bias which is fine. SC looks excellent but it isn't even close to being the leap PC games used to get with Epic and Crytek and come on man you know whatever talent you have hired doesn't mean anything until the final product is out. I'm not saying SC won't be the graphical king I'm just saying at this point for me UC is better
It appears "decadent" perhaps in comparison to console ports, but it isn't a console port. It is literally the polygon budget you can allow by having better hardware. That is the whole point of having better hardware though. Do you want them to NOT use it or something? Do you think console devs do not limit and plan their polygon budgets around their hardware?
And they made the bishop trailer, in spite of it having rough edges (lighting, camera work, and clothing) because they constantly show off their technology as it evolves: it is open development. They have done it with every piece of tech they developed so far and it happens to be one of them.
You can see it iterrate as it devs going from something like this in 2013, to this in 2015
What else are you trying to get at by saying "brute forced"? Seriously? That they lack talent and they rely all on their hardware? That they 'misallocate' that hardware because they are incompetent and other devs would do a better job?
That sure as hell looks like a transition to gameplay. Look how Nate's stance is in the last frames.
But doesn't matter, thread is now about SC gfx...
Some gifs.
If they're slowing down the page I will link them on request.
I hear if you say "Star Citizen" 3 times in a mirror, Dictator93 will show up to tell you why it looks so much better than anything else
I am sorry that that discussion miffed you and others. But beyond the technical standards and phrasing, how else do we go about talking about these things? Should we just line up screenshots next to eachother and ask? This is a serious question and not rhetorical.They can use they polygon budget as they please. But it's very disingenuous to have a discussion around character models with arguments like "this is obviously better because polygons" and argue that because they're based on an objective fact they have more weight than the inherently subjective arguments about art direction. Which is what happened in that thread.
TBH, in the extremely jank filled and overly-honest presentations CIG does for its backers, not really. There is a reason why they immediately mentioned the things they are still working on in the presentation in october at CitizenCon (i.e. an internal, for backers-only event where they showed it off). Then they mentioned the things they had worked on since showing off bishop when they showed off mark hamill's character 2 weeks ago. Heck, they even mentioned things they are working on technologically for characters post-showing off hamill's character (tear production for eyes, hair, and apparently even more detailed facial textures).Surely there's a difference between quick developer updates and a full-fledged story trailer?
Fine I will not assume your framing device, sorry for assuming as such. Please then tell me then why you use the words "brute force", why you apparently negatively connotate it, and why you presumably hold a different perspective of other developer's work (i.e. that other developers art and technology are not brute forced)? A game using more polygons on a more powerful platform is not "brute forcing": it seems like something any and every dev that wants a pretty game would do.I'm not going to bother with this anymore if all you're going to do is keep framing this as a dichotomy when it's not.
Yeah but does Star Citizen have Nadine's hair? Didn't think so.Sorry to burst your bubble but there is absolutely no competition for Star Citizen. That game has scenes of 30+ million polys with 4k+ textures and every other advanced graphical effect. Thinking UC4 is coming close to that is a bit silly.
Seriously, let's just stop this pointless debate. This all started because opinions can't be taken as opinions even when they were never stated as facts. Let's just agree to disagree when we can't come to a conclusion on which game looks better.Ok guys, regardless of what has already been said, can we stop the SC vs Uncharted debate altogether, and rather focus on the footage shown instead? Feel free to make another thread if that is what you want to discuss. Thanks
The point is that it doesn't even matter. If SC is better then the world keeps spinning in the exact same way as if U4 was better.Seriously, let's just stop this pointless debate. This all started because opinions can't be taken as opinions even when they were never stated as facts. Let's just agree to disagree when we can't come to a conclusion on which game looks better.
If Naughty Dog had hardware that costs literally four times as much as what they are working on now, they would smash whatever the hell Star Citizen is doing to smithereens and back.
The fact that they have even achieved something that is comparable in its current state is impressive beyond words.
Exactly. We're all free to think which game looks better. This debate started when someone came in here and said "thinking Uncharted 4 will be close to Star Citizen is a bit silly".The point is that it doesn't even matter. If SC is better then the world keeps spinning in the exact same way as if U4 was better.
It's so goddamn petty. "Oh, look, this banana is sweeter than that orange." Is that going to stop you from eating oranges?
Agreed.Ok guys, regardless of what has already been said, can we stop the SC vs Uncharted debate altogether, and rather focus on the footage shown instead? Feel free to make another thread if that is what you want to discuss. Thanks
I do not want to be part of such a debate in this thread.Seriously, let's just stop this pointless debate. This all started because opinions can't be taken as opinions even when they were never stated as facts. Let's just agree to disagree when we can't come to a conclusion on which game looks better.
To me it looks like he just lost a bunch of weight and aged.Drake is an okay next-gen reimagining, but Sully looks completely different, as does Elena. I'm kinda pissed about that to be honest.
The artists clearly wanted to make them look less cartoony, but I feel like they ditched a bunch of similarities in the process. I also wonder how much facial capture has forced them to change the character models.
Seriously, I do not want such a debate as well. It usually ends up being nothing more than fanboy duel. I just wanted to say in this thread that I find it ridiculous that opinions cannot be accepted as such by some and that "if you disagree, you're delusional" crap. Also, if it helps, I don't think you had any negative intentions posting in this thread.I do not want to be part of such a debate in this thread.
If someone wants to make another thread I am all for it, but it would require a completely different rigor of posting more akin to that of a DF thread. No non-sese baby.
Sorry for hi-jacking the thread partially into a certain direction.
Bullshit! That can't be true. Your eyes are lying to you. Anyone who isn't blind can see that Star Citizen is clearly better looking.
This isn't meant as an insult, but just to show how annoying it is to have differing opinions for some people
Seriously, let's just stop this pointless debate. This all started because opinions can't be taken as opinions even when they were never stated as facts. Let's just agree to disagree when we can't come to a conclusion on which game looks better.
Seriously, I do not want such a debate as well. It usually ends up being nothing more than fanboy duel. I just wanted to say in this thread that I find it ridiculous that opinions cannot be accepted as such by some and that "if you disagree, you're delusional" crap. Also, if it helps, I don't think you had any negative intentions posting in this thread.
Drake is an okay next-gen reimagining, but Sully looks completely different, as does Elena. I'm kinda pissed about that to be honest.
The artists clearly wanted to make them look less cartoony, but I feel like they ditched a bunch of similarities in the process. I also wonder how much facial capture has forced them to change the character models.
SC mostly brute-forces its way to better graphics. Some people will get upset by that (mainly gaffers who backed SC), but when you compare things like character models of both games and UC4's look better despite SC's obviously containing a lot more polygons, it becomes evident. ND is just very good at pretty much everything.