• 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.

Assassin's Creed Unity -- The graphics "leap" we've all been waiting for.

The Cowboy

Member
any videos that would wow me? Because I haven't seen it yet
As said by a few of us, its not a game that looks great in motion, in order to get the visuals up to this level they had to make some compromises in very clear and very close to your character places - and its really noticeable and often really bad looking

Its one of those games that looks fantastic in screenshots, but really doesn't look all that great moving (at the moment at least - if they patch the LOD etc it would look fantastic both ways).
 

enzo_gt

tagged by Blackace
Yes there's a big difference.
The game can't really be maxed out yet though. There's tesselation coming in a future patch that was left out. Not sure why it was left out.



PS4 Screenshot 3

PC Screenshot 3
Are these screens at the same time of day? Because the PS4 shot looks much more preferable, especially in terms of the lighting, how it reflects off the hair, etc.

The PS4 shot looks kind blurry but the PC shot looks extra alias-y. I Imagine PC makes all the difference in denser areas though, or maybe this isn't the greatest example.

I would like more PS4/PC comparisons.
 

turcy

Member
PC games capped at 30FPS mostly run and look like shit. Same is true for console though, but on PC it's worse.

yup.

i just can't do PC games at 30fps, it just looks like it's missing information.

now, if i had a g-sync monitor, i'm sure i'd be singing a different tune - but i don't, and as such can't play 30fps bound games.

:/
 

Shredderi

Member
The highs this game hits graphically are truly astounding. Sure, games like The order may look better because they're most likely extremely linear. But these games don't exist in a vacuum. You have to take into consideration what the games are doing and on what scale if you want to make valid comparisons. AC:U seems to be a bit of a technical mess as it is now so I'll look into buying it next year after patches and building a pc with a 970 in it, although I'm not sure if even that will run this game at 1080p/60fps :D Gotta build a rig with decent upgradeability since I have a feeling that building a new one right in the midst of this transitional period will result in the new rig underperforming when games get even more technically impressive after this. I'm pretty forgiving with console games but I play on pc to get the high end experience at 60fps.
 

Skyzard

Banned
I prefer the PS4 screen. The blurriness hides the seams better. And I'm being serious.

You're not wrong. The AA seems all kinds of off in the PC version that at the moment FXAA is the best option (perhaps other than AA), both of which add the blur.

MSAA (in that screenshot) has worse jaggies.
 
sfbgts.gif
no way this is a game
 

kyser73

Member
A quick look at how much it would cost to build that PC gives me ~ AUD$1700 just for the CPU & twin 980s alone.

It should look like the best thing since sliced bread for that kind of money.
 

benzy

Member
You're not wrong. The AA seems all kinds of off in the PC version that at the moment FXAA is the best option (perhaps other than AA), both of which add the blur.

MSAA (in that screenshot) has worse jaggies.

I feel like in motion the aliasing in that PC screen wouldn't be as noticeable, but the high blurriness of the ps4 version would definitely distract me.
 

Catdaddy

Member
I'm really liking the game, the graphics are great the story so far is very AC worthy. I'm on the PS4 and have yet to see anything that ruins my experience.

It seems like to some people its like reading a 1000 page novel and complain about some of the punctuation. I played games when characters were a pixelated dot, so I'm not overly sensitive to performance unless its unplayable.

I'm in Seq 5 and nothing majorly says this is train wreck. This seems like a step forward graphics-wise and they need to nail down some of the issues.
 

Cuyejo

Member
I'd like to see some screens with them in motion on a dynamic object. I couldn't find it affecting any dynamic objects at all in Crysis 3 or KZ:SF.

Here is an example image of what I'm talking about:

NWLOR8.png

Light bleeding to playable characters has been done in a lot of games... Sonic Generations, Ryse, Killzone SF, even Uncharted 3 had it if I recall correctly, just some I can remember.

Sonic-generations-visuals.jpg
 

TimFL

Member
Nope. Stock processor. Those i7s just won't call it quits! They run really really well!

Damn I got an i7 920 stock with 6gig RAM and a Radeon HD7950 Vapor-X 3gig edition... it's close to unplayable.
I hope they fix the issues they have with AMD cards soon.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
VFX_Veteran said:
Sampling multiple probes will definitely add to the fidelity and converge the rendering equation faster.
Sampling multiple probes on higher granularity (eg. per fragment) - we've always sampled multiple on lower-gran. BF3 is an example of PC doing it per fragment and console doing it per-object IIRC - so yea it's relatively recent to consoles, but not recent in November 2014.

I know baked lighting has been around for years
Now you're just conflating unrelated terms. Baking can be done in a million different ways and light-probes aren't particularly tied to it.
As I've said before (and others) the technique of using them to "ground" dynamic-object lighting has been around for a long time, including most Ubisoft games released in the past 5 years or so (no FC3 was not the first even in Ubi).
 

benzy

Member
Congrats, you just proved you have no idea what GI actually is

Oh, really? So you think the lower passenger door panel would be lit red without indirect illumination from the dashboard and windscreen? The gif is just to show the game in motion.
 

lord pie

Member
What games like AC unity, second son, TLOU, most unreal games, killzone etc demonstrate is just how much mileage baked lighting gives you. But from a production stand point, you make a huge trade: higher quality and accuracy, often simpler/faster to render (with baked lighting) but dramatically increased asset sizes and an enormous impact on iteration times within the production pipeline. You really need a well sorted pipeline to attempt a project with primarily baked lighting.

If a game design can accept fixed times of day (like those games mentioned) and you are willing to throw massive computing resources at the problem (baking lighting at that quality is an enormous computational challenge) then it's certainly worth it.

I suspect in the case of unity, the lighting isn't stored as lightmaps. More likely very dense probe volumes heavily compressed (denser near surface geometry). Hence sensible lighting on the characters, but no especially obvious lightmap seams, pixilation or texture compression artifacts. Also lightmaps *really* don't scale well with modern geometry density. I've seen evidence in game to suggest individual blocks of buildings are baked separately, which would make a lot of sense.

For the interiors, most of the shiny rooms are very rectangular. I believe they render out a cubemap from the centre of each room, projected onto a box to roughly match the walls. This is a pretty common trick for baking reflections.

Even with that, I believe one of the developers said that lighting data accounts for half of the game install.

The really impressive games, technically, will be those that can achieve this kind of lighting fidelity without baking, with dynamic time of day, etc. Frankly that's probably still a long way off.

Those games at the cutting edge are still dealing with an order of magnitude lower lighting resolution. For example arguably the most advanced and impressive, the tomorrow children's GI system uses three 32×32×32 cascade volumes which it generates in ~ 1/100th of a second - there is no way that could possibly compare to a baked system that might take a day to render over several hundred servers.
 

HTupolev

Member
no way this is a game
I don't want to act like DC doesn't have good graphics, because it does, but you're looking at a low-res gif of a racing game. Low-quality representations of racing games have been capable of looking pretty damned "good" since forever.

Here's a clunky offscreen gif of a 60fps original Xbox game:
ral2lyhg.gif


It's partially baked. Yes, the light probes that represent the indirect is baked. However, the dynamic character moving around still have to fire rays to these probes and get illumination from them. No other game does this except Far Cry. If you can name another -- please do.
You're going to have to be more specific, because the process of simply baking irradiance in an easily-interpolatable 3D map and sampling it per-object at runtime is ancient history. Very popular technique all through the 7th gen.
 

Gurish

Member
Game looks amazing in pics, but once you move with all the horrible pop ins and LOD issues, sorry but that just ruins the impact, good but unbalanced tech, mixed results at the end.
 

benzy

Member
I don't want to act like DC doesn't have good graphics, because it does, but you're looking at a low-res gif of a racing game. Low-quality representations of racing games have been capable of looking pretty damned "good" since forever.

Here's a clunky offscreen gif of a game running at 60fps on an original Xbox:
ral2lyhg.gif

Offscreen captures always messes with the colors and clarity to get rid of gaming artifacts, so I'm not sure why the Rallisport 2 gif is compared to a direct-feed one. :p If we shrink down ACU into a gif with just environments we'd still be able to tell it's a game just because the lighting is quite different from DC's, so whether it's in gif form or a video, the look of the lighting remains the same.

But either way, you can download the DC clip in 720p that the gif was created from here and it looks pretty much the same as the gif.

http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_real_life_or_driveclub_-hyu5XRsO9aFfdLNM_fr.html
 
AC:U shines the most during the Rift sequences; that's when the graphics and performance really come together. Of course we know why this is the case, but I really wish the main game could run like that. Overall the game has looked quite beautiful at times, and downright ugly at times too. Of course I'm playing on PS4; no master race version for me.
 

IcyEyes

Member
What games like AC unity, second son, TLOU, most unreal games, killzone etc demonstrate is just how much mileage baked lighting gives you. But from a production stand point, you make a huge trade: higher quality and accuracy, often simpler/faster to render (with baked lighting) but dramatically increased asset sizes and an enormous impact on iteration times within the production pipeline. You really need a well sorted pipeline to attempt a project with primarily baked lighting.

If a game design can accept fixed times of day (like those games mentioned) and you are willing to throw massive computing resources at the problem (baking lighting at that quality is an enormous computational challenge) then it's certainly worth it.

I suspect in the case of unity, the lighting isn't stored as lightmaps. More likely very dense probe volumes heavily compressed (denser near surface geometry). Hence sensible lighting on the characters, but no especially obvious lightmap seams, pixilation or texture compression artifacts. Also lightmaps *really* don't scale well with modern geometry density. I've seen evidence in game to suggest individual blocks of buildings are baked separately, which would make a lot of sense.

For the interiors, most of the shiny rooms are very rectangular. I believe they render out a cubemap from the centre of each room, projected onto a box to roughly match the walls. This is a pretty common trick for baking reflections.

Even with that, I believe one of the developers said that lighting data accounts for half of the game install.

The really impressive games, technically, will be those that can achieve this kind of lighting fidelity without baking, with dynamic time of day, etc. Frankly that's probably still a long way off.

Those games at the cutting edge are still dealing with an order of magnitude lower lighting resolution. For example arguably the most advanced and impressive, the tomorrow children's GI system uses three 32×32×32 cascade volumes which it generates in ~ 1/100th of a second - there is no way that could possibly compare to a baked system that might take a day to render over several hundred servers.

Nice post.
Tomorrow children for sure looks pretty intriguing from a technical standpoint. Can't wait to see this game run under of my eyes :D
 

Seik

Banned
I'm surprised it's only running around 40fps on a 980GTX, but hey at least it's quite a looker. :)

How does it fares in 1080p only?
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Offscreen captures always messes with the colors and clarity to get rid of gaming artifacts, so I'm not sure why the Rallisport 2 gif is compared to a direct-feed one. :p If we shrink down ACU into a gif with just environments we'd still be able to tell it's a game just because the lighting is quite different from DC's, so whether it's in gif form or a video, the look of the lighting remains the same.
Has nothing to do with the colors, but the simple fact that things look better when they're smaller. You do not notice the imperfections *nearly* as much. Even showing a 1080p game in 720p can make it look much better than it does in reality.
 

DarkoMaledictus

Tier Whore
Sorry but the order destroy this game, at least for me, unity is open world, yes, so just for this reason it's not so next gen for me. Open world games can't touch linear games on technical level, and will be in this way for… er.. some time.

To be fair The Order isn't even released, from the footage I am very skeptical. Not saying Unity is an amazing game, but until the order is released there is just no point in comparing anything to it...
 

Cuyejo

Member
With Unity there's also this exaggerated effect going on, akin to HDR photography, it doesn't look right to me, particularly on interiors, I find it unflattering. I reckon some may like that look though.
 

HTupolev

Member
Offscreen captures always messes with the colors and clarity to get rid of gaming artifacts, so I'm not sure why its gif is compared to a direct-feed one.
Older lower-fidelity game, more wrecking of the core image needed to obscure the truth.

Gifs of direct-feed are closer to the source than gifs of off-screen, but you're still talking about an image that's had a lot of information removed from it.

But either way, you can download the DC clip in 720p that the gif was created from here and it looks pretty much the same as the gif.
I don't need to look at 720p footage to know what DriveClub looks like, I own the game and can see it at 1080p on my TV. The graphics are very impressive in some ways, but IMO they don't quite live up to what the initial impression given by some gifs might have you expect.

Has nothing to do with the colors, but the simple fact that things look better when they're smaller.
No, the impact on the colour representation is part of why off-screen footage "makes things look impressive"; a lot of stuff gets crushed or blown-out, hiding inaccuracies.
 
Yes it looks very impressive in many ways. The attention to detail and clutter for an open world game is ahead of anything else on the market I think. But the LoD, even in the PC vids is some of the worst I have seen. That is a pretty significant trade off.

The game had good art direction, but the low polygon environments, lighting, flat textures, etc. But no, this game is superior with its graphics tech.

Modelling/rendering if anything looks more impressive than here...Lighting as well looks pretty dynamic, since they have a full night and day cycle I guess it isn't baked. What you are generally seeing in that footage is equivalent to PS4 spec of the game. I have little doubt that the footage rendered on highest end PCs would look more impressive than what we are seeing with this game.

This for instance looks very impressive to me, certainly better than even the ACU characters.
icxblc.gif
 
Thanks everyone for the nice words about the pics that I and others have taken to try to show this game in its best light (dat pun)

There would be a lot, and I mean LOT, of amazing outdoor rooftop pics if it wasn't for the texture and building LOD transitions. It's a shame, because many of the shots I have would look fantastic if it wasn't for a few of the buildings still in a low LOD state.

Hopefully a patch fixes it, or Ubisoft adds the ability to push it out further for those who have machines to push it.

And that tessellation patch will no doubt help. As for now, I only see it really affecting the rooftops, but I'm wondering how the streets and cobblestone roads will be affected and the interiors, if at all?

Anyway, despite all its flaws, it's still imo the most gorgeous game on PC, even better than Ryse. Especially in motion.

It comes at a high cost tho.
 

Arion

Member
The interiors in this game are really something else. Too bad the gameplay sucks and you would need some monstrous PC to make it run right.
 

nOoblet16

Member
From what I have played of Unity so far the environment lighting look impressive but it also looks way exaggerated, for example the sun is actually never visible just a lot of bright light in the area where the sun should be which gives it a very soft CGI look but I don't really prefer it that much.
 

Jtrizzy

Member
wow. I just played the first hour or two, and this is like holy shit amazing to me. Easily the graphics king at this point.

cpu: i7@4.4
gpu: 970
res:1080p
all max with FXAA
v sync (I'm getting no tearing and it's super smooth. May try adaptive later.)
frame rates at 60 with drops but only into the 50's
 

Seanspeed

Banned
No, the impact on the colour representation is part of why off-screen footage "makes things look impressive"; a lot of stuff gets crushed or blown-out, hiding inaccuracies.
Ok fair enough.

Lets just say that full-screen/resolution direct capture is the only properly representative material to make it simple.
 

benzy

Member
Older lower-fidelity game, more wrecking of the core image needed to obscure the truth.

Gifs of direct-feed are closer to the source than gifs of off-screen, but you're still talking about an image that's had a lot of information removed from it.


I don't need to look at 720p gamersyde footage to know what DriveClub looks like, I own the game and can see it at 1080p on my TV. The graphics are very impressive in some ways, but IMO they don't quite live up to what the initial impression given by some gifs might have you expect.


No, the impact on the colour representation is part of why off-screen footage "makes things look impressive"; a lot of stuff gets crushed or blown-out, hiding inaccuracies.

Alright, yeah DC definitely has a super-sampled image quality look to it by shrinking it down in gifs that's definitely not there at 1080p, hiding the jaggies and poor texture filtering flaws. I guess what I'm fine with is representing DC's lighting in gifs since the uniformity of the lighting is still very much impressive and apparent at 1080p, and without it the gif wouldn't be anything special.
 
Top Bottom