Support NeoGAF

[jett]

This is a minor nitpick but they're precaching to HDD, not streaming directly off BD.

Their tech isn't really that far off everyone else's as far as I can tell. They're still doing the baked lightmap/probe hybrid stuff that everyone's been doing this generation. Maybe their stuff is better optimized than most, but for the most part they just utilize their tech very very well.

And FWIW BR drive *is* slow compared to DVD, it's objective fact. And split memory is a much bigger problem for cross platform titles.

Well technically blu-ray reading speed is actually much faster than DVD, it's the PS3's 2X BD drive that's slower than 360's 12X DVD drive. A 1X BD drive is over 3 times faster than a 1X DVD drive.

 

[patsu]

Exactly. Are you looking at what the other games do in the full scope? Without a fully detailed description on what U3 and the other games do you can't objectively call one better than another

If the results are not obvious to the players, then they may have spent the resources unwisely.

Most of the games already start with HDD installs, bald heroes, relatively static levels, sloppy framerate, no real 3D, subHD, etc. ^_^

What game do you have in mind ?

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

If the results are not obvious to the players, then they may have spent the resources unwisely.

Most of the games already start with HDD installs, bald heroes, relatively static levels, sloppy framerate, no real 3D, subHD, etc. ^_^

What game do you have in mind ?

Well if you're going with a dismissive attitude, might as well call Uncharted an on-rails game and dismiss it as well -_-'

 

[Ravage]

I can't think of any games that impressed me more than UC3 this gen. Maybe God of War 3, but its a tad too inconsistent towards the end. So 'peerless' sounds about right to me.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Exactly. Are you looking at what the other games do in the full scope? Without a fully detailed description on what U3 and the other games do you can't objectively call one better than another

Yeah thats just false. You can easily tell whats goin on in almost any game. From DOF, the level of AA/AF, a good estimate on poly counts, texture resolution, light sources,lighting types , shading, physics, etc. The postmortems or dev diaries or whatever only provide insight into things that we can't easily tell, which are in the vast minority. You should visit B3D more.

This is a minor nitpick but they're precaching to HDD, not streaming directly off BD.

Their tech isn't really that far off everyone else's as far as I can tell. They're still doing the baked lightmap/probe hybrid stuff that everyone's been doing this generation. Maybe their stuff is better optimized than most, but for the most part they just utilize their tech very very well.

And FWIW BR drive *is* slow compared to DVD, it's objective fact. And split memory is a much bigger problem for cross platform titles.

Yeah but this is one minor detail among a sea of the different systems and engines running in this game. It is quite disingenuous to focus on one aspect when trying to compare it to other games. Also I dont get what your getting at with your point about split memory, it is still a ridiculously complex hurdle for anybody making a game for the system, especially considering its basically impracticable to try and have the rsx use the xdr.

 

[patsu]

This is a minor nitpick but they're precaching to HDD, not streaming directly off BD.

Their tech isn't really that far off everyone else's as far as I can tell. They're still doing the baked lightmap/probe hybrid stuff that everyone's been doing this generation. Maybe their stuff is better optimized than most, but for the most part they just utilize their tech very very well.

Utilizing tech/resources very very well is the key to high performance software.

There won't be enough space on the HDD to cache everything. They have to implement a more elaborate system to decide what and when to cache "on-demand"

In one of their earlier papers, a technique they use is to have the SPUs categorize each screen zone to decide whether detailed work/assets are needed. If not, they can use the resources elsewhere. The system benefits more than just lighting. Other games like BF3 have also adopted this technique.

And FWIW BR drive *is* slow compared to DVD, it's objective fact. And split memory is a much bigger problem for cross platform titles.

Yes, but only compared to the outer DVD areas. And as you mentioned, it can be overcome by good HDD cache use (sometimes).

I remember Insomniac stream low priority data like dialog directly from BR though. They wrote a paper on it.

 

[patsu]

Well if you're going with a dismissive attitude, might as well call Uncharted an on-rails game and dismiss it as well -_-'

Huh, I asked you what game you have in mind. It seems you are the one who dismiss yourself. -_-

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Yeah thats just false. You can easily tell whats goin on in almost any game. From DOF, the level of AA/AF, a good estimate on poly counts, texture resolution, light sources,lighting types , shading, phytc. The postmortems or dev diaries or whatever only provide insight into things that we can't easily tell, which are in the vast minority. You should visit B3D more.

You can tell whether a game is using DOF or not, that's easy. But the details of the implementation are unknown unless released by the devs. Same with the lighting, U3 uses volumetric shadows, but they look very different to those of alan wake, which are different to those in crysis, which are different to alone in the dark's, etc... Or the indirect lighting for the characters: is it using light probes, light fields, some form of IB...? You get the point.

B3D is very informative when developers share they're knowledge, but most of the guesswork there is only that, guesswork.

Huh, I asked you what game you have in mind. It seems you are the one who dismiss yourself. -_-

A pretty nice list has been already posted in the thread. You can have a go with that.

 

[patsu]

You can tell whether a game is using DOF or not, that's easy. But the details of the implementation are unknown unless released by the devs. Same with the lighting, U3 uses volumetric shadows, but they look very different to those of alan wake, which are different to those in crysis, which are different to alone in the dark's, etc... Or the indirect lighting for the characters: is it using light probes, light fields, some form of IB...? You get the point.

B3D is very informative when developers share they're knowledge, but most of the guesswork there is only that, guesswork.

You can interact with and test the volumetric lighting in U3 for fun (to see how well it works). There is also a paper on SPU volumetric lighting in the PhyreEngine slides.

A pretty nice list has been already posted in the thread. You can have a go with that.

It would be difficult to compare open world games with closed world ones.

I think U3 is more impressive overall than BF3 though. Even though BF3 lighting + destruction is amazing, the environment is rather static and less crowded. There is an earthquake in BF3, but they didn't show it to me as it happened. All I could do during that time was

Spoiler

pass out

. In U3, we had to platform through a crumbling

Spoiler

desert city

. While I can shoot at faraway enemies in BF3, I can't walk to their area sometimes. The level of presentation and engagement is rather different.

 

[KageMaru]

Strange that DF doesn't drill ND on the details.

Hybole exists in uncharted threads because the game hit high enough. Not every game can achieve this level of tech sensation.

Love the game, and also believe it's top tier, but all this talk about it having no equal is silly.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

You can interact with and test the volumetric lighting in U3 for fun (to see how well it works). There is also a paper on SPU volumetric lighting in the PhyreEngine slides.

Yes, as I said, it does volumetric lighting/shadowing. But there are plenty of approaches to do it, all of them with their own benefits and trade-offs. Which one is using U3? We can't say without the devs explicitly telling us.

 

[patsu]

Yes, as I said, it does volumetric lighting/shadowing. But there are plenty of approaches to do it, all of them with their own benefits and trade-offs. Which one is using U3? We can't say without the devs explicitly telling us.

Well, it looks and performs great. If they can use minimal resources to implement it without falling apart, it would be the best implementation. People can toy with it to see if it's a 2D or 3D effect.

Love the game, and also believe it's top tier, but all this talk about it having no equal is silly.

If they are taken in by the game and no other game came close to doing it, then they will think so.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Well, it looks and performs great. If they can use minimal resources to implement it, it would be the best implementation. People can toy with it to see if it's a 2D or 3D effect.

1. How can you tell how resource-intensive are those effects, do you have access to the game profiler?

2. There's more to volumetric shadow approaches to whether they're a 2D post process effect or 3D. All the examples I gave (AW, Crysis, AitD, U3) use 3D volumetric shadows and yet their implementation is very different from each other.

 

[patsu]

1. How can you tell how resource-intensive are those effects, do you have access to the game profiler?

2. There's more to volumetric shadow approaches to whether they're a 2D post process effect or 3D. All the examples I gave (AW, Crysis, AitD, U3) use 3D volumetric shadows and yet their implementation is very different from each other.

By having it run in parallel with other subsystems like stereoscopic 3D, while fighting enemies under the rays, on a boat rocked by physics ? I intend to replay the game after ND patch it to find out more.

 

[spwolf]

Some people are trying too hard to put UC3 down, it is a monumentally impressive game, its showcase set pieces are insane and only rivaled by God of War 3.

Anyway, that's a poor technical analysis like I said in the UC3 OT.

jett being the most positive guy in the thread is making me question my sanity

 

[The Lamp]

sogood.gif

Needs a "not sure if serious" caption for the people undervaluing Uncharted 3's graphics.

Never have I seen eyes so realistically portrayed, besides Heavy Rain, although the eyes in that game weren't animated nearly as well/smoothly as Uncharted 3's.

I'm not sure why Elena looks inconsistently underwhelming compared to Nate and Sully's face in some scenes, though.

Also, looking at that Heavy Rain screenshot, you can see that Naughty Dog isn't going for photorealism with the way their character looks. Heavy Rain was trying to make their characters look as convincingly human as possible, but Uncharted deliberately has this almost..artificial but believable feel.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

By having it run in parallel with other subsystems like stereoscopic 3D, while fighting enemies under the rays, on a boat rocked by physics ? I intend to replay the game after ND patch it to find out more.

Yeah, but you don't have access to the specifics of those other system's implementations. We're in the dark

EDIT:
Take this for example:

http://advances.realtimerendering.c... 2010 Advanced RealTime Rendering Course).pdf

Over 50 pages just for the skin shader. No way to get even close to understand what U3 or any other game does without technical papers to show us exactly what they did and how they did it.

 

[squidyj]

Yeah, but you don't have access to the specifics of those other system's implementations. We're in the dark

EDIT:
Take this for example:

http://advances.realtimerendering.c... 2010 Advanced RealTime Rendering Course).pdf

Over 50 pages just for the skin shader. No way to get even close to understand what U3 or any other game does without technical papers to show us exactly what they did and how they did it.

They are describing more than one technique across those 50 pages so I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that other than browbeating. It's pretty obvious in some scenes what the general level of quality of SSS is going on in U3. There are some pretty clear instances of artefacting in real-time shots with U3 that wouldn't happen if they were using SSSSS or a texture space alternative (costly!) or even the new pre-integrated technique proposed at this year's SIGGRAPH.

Personally I think ND's greatest technical strength is in doing things right as opposed to just 'doing things'.

 

[Phonomezer]

I'm surprised more people haven't bought up the bizarre, fluro lighting in this game.

I'm only up to Chapter 8 in U3, but the lighting is incredibly inconsistent. In an underground area near the beginning of the game, it is all prebaked. In the château, the lighting is positively neon and casts big white chunks everywhere like that Crysis 2 mod.

Even inside the château, if you look around you will notice that the light cast inside are just big white chunks, looks like the semen stains perezhilton.com draws on peoples faces with MS paint.

U2 had similar lighting, but it wasn't this "bad".

 

[wonderdung]

Yeah but this is one minor detail among a sea of the different systems and engines running in this game. It is quite disingenuous to focus on one aspect when trying to compare it to other games. Also I dont get what your getting at with your point about split memory, it is still a ridiculously complex hurdle for anybody making a game for the system, especially considering its basically impracticable to try and have the rsx use the xdr.

Well let me put it this way. All tech choices involve a series of tradeoffs, and ND have chosen their tradeoffs very well for the game that they're making. For every individual thing they're doing you could probably find a game that does that specific thing better, but the magic of their game is that it all works together so well. That's why I say they're not that far ahead of the rest of the industry technically, they are just very very good at doing things that work well for their game.

Maybe it's not really an important distinction... I just think the impressive thing about Naughty Dog is not so much their tech itself... it's that from external appearances their tech and design teams seem to be on the same page. I know that's definitely not been the case on some of the games I've made and they've suffered for it.

It's possible that ND employees would read that and chuckle, but I'm not sure. It's a highly competent bunch, that's for sure. And U2 is an impressive game, I'm sure U3 is as well. They just don't do any one thing that's specifically very impressive relative the the rest of the industry. (Well, their hand-rolled SPU optimization paper was pretty damn impressive, but it's not something that translates directly to things like "gameplay on a sinking ship".)

You should visit B3D more.

The problem with B3D is just like anywhere else... there are intelligent posters (like patsu from this thread) and not so intelligent posters. I've read absolutely ridiculous stuff about my own games on there. Lots of armchair speculation... it can be very difficult to tell what to believe.

 

[Radec]

ROFL. Gears 3 is top notch in every way. And there are great looking multiplatform games.

Battlefield 3
Crysis 1 and 2
Metro 2033
RDR
GTA4
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood

Are all technically impressive and all multiplatform. People on here love to act like Uncharted is on its own level. That isn't the case.

I stopped reading at Crysis 2.
lol.

 

[nelsonroyale]

And then you watch the new Rainbow Six concept video and suddenly the where-we-are-with-tech is not so funny anymore.

???? I would say Versus CGI is more fitting, thats actually impressive looking CG...Rainbow 6 will look nothing like that proof of concept stuff, nothing

 

[dragonelite]

I stopped reading at Crysis 2.
lol.

It is a benchmark game for a game that does so far i know all the lighting in realtime not with some of that baked stuff.

Yeah there are some technical issues like the Ai but a lot of games have that.

 

[Radec]

It is a benchmark game for a game that does so far i know all the lighting in realtime not with some of that baked stuff.

Yeah there are some technical issues like the Ai but a lot of games have that.

have you played it on the ps3?

the game is so bad looking. Crysis 1 even looked better at some point.

BF3 is the best looking multiplat now.

 

[squidyj]

It is a benchmark game for a game that does so far i know all the lighting in realtime not with some of that baked stuff.

Yeah there are some technical issues like the Ai but a lot of games have that.

A lot of the lighting is not real-time unfortunately. Their dynamic GI solution only applies to the sun, other lights do not bounce light around.

 

[DarkChild]

I don't understand why are people arguing about most technically amazing game on consoles when GTAV is soon to be released and will take that title by storm

 

[DarkChild]

A lot of the lighting is not real-time unfortunately. Their dynamic GI solution only applies to the sun, other lights do not bounce light around.

It doesn't mean they are not dynamic, it just means that dynamic GI doesn't work on those lights.

 

[mrklaw]

Well let me put it this way. All tech choices involve a series of tradeoffs, and ND have chosen their tradeoffs very well for the game that they're making. For every individual thing they're doing you could probably find a game that does that specific thing better, but the magic of their game is that it all works together so well. That's why I say they're not that far ahead of the rest of the industry technically, they are just very very good at doing things that work well for their game.

Maybe it's not really an important distinction... I just think the impressive thing about Naughty Dog is not so much their tech itself... it's that from external appearances their tech and design teams seem to be on the same page. I know that's definitely not been the case on some of the games I've made and they've suffered for it.

It's possible that ND employees would read that and chuckle, but I'm not sure. It's a highly competent bunch, that's for sure. And U2 is an impressive game, I'm sure U3 is as well. They just don't do any one thing that's specifically very impressive relative the the rest of the industry. (Well, their hand-rolled SPU optimization paper was pretty damn impressive, but it's not something that translates directly to things like "gameplay on a sinking ship".)



The problem with B3D is just like anywhere else... there are intelligent posters (like patsu from this thread) and not so intelligent posters. I've read absolutely ridiculous stuff about my own games on there. Lots of armchair speculation... it can be very difficult to tell what to believe.

Surely the fact that Naughty Dog seem to be able to use a wider pallette of tech tools on screen at once, without as many compromises as other devs seem to need to, is why they are ahead of the rest of the industry? (well, most of the rest of the industry, lets not make the pedestal too high)

 

[perineumlick]

And the Uncharted backlash begins again. It happens every time it's released. Now it's DF that, according to GAF, are full of hyperbole. Lol, gotta love it!

 

[jiggles]

Well technically blu-ray reading speed is actually much faster than DVD, it's the PS3's 2X BD drive that's slower than 360's 12X DVD drive. A 1X BD drive is over 3 times faster than a 1X DVD drive.

The PS3's original spec actually had a 1x BD drive. Imagine how shit that would have been.

 

[Y2Kev]

I still feel like ac1 is the best looking of the trilogy. The textures are just zomg.

 

[nelsonroyale]

I don't understand why are people arguing about most technically amazing game on consoles when GTAV is soon to be released and will take that title by storm

Not all...SM next game is likely to be more impressive...Actually, U3 looks much more impressive to me than what has been seen of GTAV

 

[Xater]

It is a benchmark game for a game that does so far i know all the lighting in realtime not with some of that baked stuff.

Yeah there are some technical issues like the Ai but a lot of games have that.

It doesn't matter what technical bullshit is going on if I don't see it on screen. The low resolution and terrible framerate are more than enough to disqualify the game.

 

[charsace]

Surely the fact that Naughty Dog seem to be able to use a wider pallette of tech tools on screen at once, without as many compromises as other devs seem to need to, is why they are ahead of the rest of the industry? (well, most of the rest of the industry, lets not make the pedestal too high)

You're sure they are using a wider palette? Because I don't see it.

 

[Hyuga]

And the Uncharted backlash begins again. It happens every time it's released. Now it's DF that, according to GAF, are full of hyperbole. Lol, gotta love it!

Yep ;-)
Their Uncharted 3 analysis has hurt many people's feelings here, as it seems.

 

[pixelbox]

While people put me on their ignore list, info is readily available. B3D has members who really like technology, and then there's the fanboys. Rather they develop for both or not, it doesn't stop the wild claims. One member posts there is absolutely no game on the PS3 that interest him. While that could be a fact, how can you claim to be a developer that is open minded. The point is as with any site you should take what is said with a grain of salt. Members there are certificated devs but bias as hell and refuse to give credit where it's due.

The only thing that I see as a flaw in the U3 engine is thier MB. Their OMB only works on characters and very few, selected items. Other than that it really one of the best. SSS, POMs, Normals, God rays, HDR, GI, High polys, high level of physic driven objects/particles, Mb, High material counts, very Complex shaders, fluid dynamics, complex particle instructions, complex animation systems, high dynamic light counts. All at once and people are not impressed? Really?

 

[NinjaBoiX]

(referring to moving levels)Yeah Uncharted 2 didn't start that.

I think they mean that U2 was the first game where the gameplay area physically moved through the level, rather than a static platform with a scrolling background. Yeah, Gears 1 had a train level, but I'm pretty sure they "cheated", so to speak. U2's train was actually moving through a streaming environment.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

It doesn't matter what technical bullshit is going on if I don't see it on screen. The low resolution and terrible framerate are more than enough to disqualify the game.

Hang on, are you talking about U3? Low res and frame rate problems? Tell me it isn't so!

 

[Phonomezer]

I think they mean that U2 was the first game where the gameplay area physically moved through the level, rather than a static platform with a scrolling background. Yeah, Gears 1 had a train level, but I'm pretty sure they "cheated", so to speak. U2's train was actually moving through a streaming environment.

Gears of War 2 also had this. Twice in the game, if I recall correctly (Act 2 and the Boat).

 

[pixelbox]

Hang on, are you talking about U3? Low res and frame rate problems? Tell me it isn't so!

C2.

 

[DarkChild]

Not all...SM next game is likely to be more impressive...Actually, U3 looks much more impressive to me than what has been seen of GTAV

And we have seen nothing yet.

 

[pixelbox]

Gears of War 2 also had this. Twice in the game, if I recall correctly (Act 2 and the Boat).

From what i understand is the train in U2 was actually moving versus a repeating environment with no colision passing a set piece.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

While people put me on their ignore list, info is readily available. B3D has members who really like technology, and then there's the fanboys. Rather they develop for both or not, it doesn't stop the wild claims. One member posts there is absolutely no game on the PS3 that interest him. While that could be a fact, how can you claim to be a developer that is open minded. The point is as with any site you should take what is said with a grain of salt. Members there are certificated devs but bias as hell and refuse to give credit where it's due.

The only thing that I see as a flaw in the U3 engine is thier MB. Their OMB only works on characters and very few, selected items. Other than that it really one of the best. SSS, POMs, Normals, God rays, HDR, GI, High polys, high level of physic driven objects/particles, Mb, High material counts, very Complex shaders, fluid dynamics, complex particle instructions, complex animation systems, high dynamic light counts. All at once and people are not impressed? Really?

Dude, not every gaffer is a tech-head. Most people know AA, HDR, V-sync and such, but please explain:
OMB?
SSS?
GI?
POM's?
I thought I was reletively clued up with tech lingo, but I've never heard of these before.

 

[Gaogaogao]

if only it wasn't at expense of the fucking input lag, the game already had enough.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

C2.

Yeah, that makes more sense. But the lighting in that game. :O

 

[DarkChild]

Yeah, that makes more sense. But the lighting in that game. :O

That game had some pretty spectacular things. It had awesome post processing, HDR flares on all surfaces, high quality object and camera motion blur and on top of that bokeh DOF. Too bad it dropped frames like it did.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

That game had some pretty spectacular things. It had awesome post processing, HDR flares on all surfaces, high quality object and camera motion blur and on top of that bokeh DOF. Too bad it dropped frames like it did.

Which is one thing to note about ND. They do what they do and at a solid frame rate on this limited HW. Crytek just figured to throw in some fancy effects but at a shoddy frame rate. Unacceptable. Playable but not near as impressive as other games even on the the 360 (Gears 3) and certainly not even close to the best PS3 exclusives.

 

[Y2Kev]

If u3 ran like c2, Nd would be skewered. The performance and iq is truly awful.

I feel like infamous 2 was better looking than rdr but less fun to play. Sorta irrelevant.

 

[DarkChild]

If u3 ran like c2, Nd would be skewered. The performance and iq is truly awful.

I feel like infamous 2 was better looking than rdr but less fun to play. Sorta irrelevant.

I felt like it wasn't even close. I hate the fact that everything 50 feet from me is blurred in Infamous 2. Some scenes in RDR are just eye melting, especially near river.

 

[Phonomezer]

Which is one thing to note about ND. They do what they do and at a solid frame rate on this limited HW. Crytek just figured to throw in some fancy effects but at a shoddy frame rate. Unacceptable. Playable but not near as impressive as other games even on the the 360 (Gears 3) and certainly not even close to the best PS3 exclusives.

Framerate wasn't that bad. I don't recall ever struggling against it.