You don't have to be done after one response to me, sheesh. Honestly though, it's not worthwhile for you to interpret me incorrectly and also call me incoherent- just pick one or the other.
What I meant in the paragraph that confused you so much is this, and please tell me if I've misunderstood you:
You said that the image is, for sure, taken from the game being rendered at a higher resolution and then downsampling. I said that this is not definitely the case. Does that make sense?
Then I said, it is equally possible is that the image was taken from the game being rendered at 800x600 and being presented without any downsampling, but anti-aliased. Since the image appears to be one of a game running at a resolution above 480p but still sub-HD, I think this is the more likely of the two.
In either of the above cases, it is a bullshot. You stating that it is not a bullshot is the only reason I decided to reply to you. Your explanation for how the image got to look that way is possible (though I I believe it is less likely), but
still results in that image being a bullshot. I hope my meaning is clearer on this point now.
I didn't mention nor do I think any kind of "upscaling" is taking place at all in that image.
I can see bluring on the textures of the stone surface(colossus' foot); you can't see it? - then you need glasses. If it had 16x AF, the stone-foot texture of the colossus wouldn't be that blurry. And you said i had no idea what i'm talking about...
)
I agree with you in that it is very unlikely that 16x AF was being used in the render in question, and thus... I didn't say so. I said it was likely that anisotropic filtering was enabled. 8:1 or even 4:1 would be more likely to produce results as seen in that shot.
What portion of the above left you the impression that i said 16x AF improves the resolution of the texture?
Sorry, I did not do that. I was giving you credit for mentioning that the textures were still low-resolution in that image, even though it obviously is not a native PS2 capture.
Why does everyone on GAF think he's tech-savvy? And why do people have this attitude saying "you have no idea what you're talking about" when in truth they don't know shit and have no solid arguments, only speculation.
We're both speculating, of course. Neither of us knows for sure how that image was produced. But I have played through the game in question testing out various combinations of the graphics settings we are discussing on an emulator you were not even sure of the name of. I hope that you can at least accept that I have a working knowledge of these topics even if you feel that I am applying it incorrectly. My experience in this case seems more relevant to the question at hand.
To clarify for the drunk old man in us all, my only point is ultimately this:
that image is a bullshot. I am very, very certain of it. I could have simply left it at that originally but I wanted to give you my reasoning for it. I hope this helps.
Dachande said:
The SOTC image doesn't even belong in this thread anyway. We're talking about bullshots that are using ridiculous assets, effects and camera angles that couldn't possibly be in-game captures, like the Madden ones from the first post.
The models in the SOTC screenshot are clearly game assets and probably even from gameplay - my guess it's just captured straight from the framebuffer on a devkit with a tool and run through Photoshop to resize it for use by the media, but that doesn't qualify it as a "bullshot" by any stretch of the imagination.
Okay, wait, is this the consensus? If I'm just operating under a false assumption of what a bullshot is, then I apologize.
I was definitely thinking that any shot that demonstrated in-game image quality that was impossible on the console it was being demonstrated for would be considered a "bullshot."
Urbandictionary just says:
A screenshot fabricated by a company to misrepresent the graphics of a game; a combination of the words bullshit and screenshot.
That's definitely what I was operating under but I'll gladly bow out if I am wrong.
