-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry vs Uncharted 3
- Thread starter RibbedHero
- Start date
GL could be a number of effects. SSAO is one for instance, radiosity seems to be in question, or indirect lighting. I love how people say C2 is so sandbox and "open" when the reality is its one big hallway. You cant go anywhere in that game so that talk needs to stop. Using light probs is not a real Gl technique as you all know and if U3 is using this technique then so be it. We don't know yet but i can say it look more complex than that. Reason being U3 engine isnt design to uses tons of lights (Although theres a good amount).
There is no console game that has real GI or sub-surface scattering.
Saying that a game is technically good because it has SSS is kind of silly. SSS in games is a just a shader that takes some maps and lights and produces some result, not really any different from any other shader. Depending on how it's done it's not even particularly expensive.
Parallax mapping is a pretty well-defined thing, it's generally understood what it is, roughly how it is implemented and how expensive it is. Including parallax mapping could be considered some sort of technical feat. (Contingent on the rest of the game) An SSS shader is really just a shader that looks more like skin, you can do a cheap version with just half-lambert lighting. Including SSS in a game really says very little about technical proficiency.
"This game has SSS" is not particularly more impressive than "this game has a bark shader for trees!"
Edit: I read through the PDF on Uncharted skin/cloth/hair. Nothing about it is particularly technically impressive. What makes it looks good is they made good decisions. As someone else said above they executed very well on the techniques they decided to include.
For example if you look at the cloth rendering it has a rim term and an inverse rim term, but neither of those take light direction into account, they are based solely on the view vector and the surface normal, even though "proper" rim lighting / SSS should take into account light direction. They chose to do this because it looks good in a variety of settings and is hard to screw up. That's an example of doing something smart that worked for them and gave them the look they wanted but the shader itself is technically simple.
IMO what makes Uncharted look good and many games look bad is that many games just slather on effects without considering how they impact the overall look while the Uncharted guys put more thought into how to accomplish what they are going for and smartly doing what works for them.
Saying that a game is technically good because it has SSS is kind of silly. SSS in games is a just a shader that takes some maps and lights and produces some result, not really any different from any other shader. Depending on how it's done it's not even particularly expensive.
Parallax mapping is a pretty well-defined thing, it's generally understood what it is, roughly how it is implemented and how expensive it is. Including parallax mapping could be considered some sort of technical feat. (Contingent on the rest of the game) An SSS shader is really just a shader that looks more like skin, you can do a cheap version with just half-lambert lighting. Including SSS in a game really says very little about technical proficiency.
"This game has SSS" is not particularly more impressive than "this game has a bark shader for trees!"
Edit: I read through the PDF on Uncharted skin/cloth/hair. Nothing about it is particularly technically impressive. What makes it looks good is they made good decisions. As someone else said above they executed very well on the techniques they decided to include.
For example if you look at the cloth rendering it has a rim term and an inverse rim term, but neither of those take light direction into account, they are based solely on the view vector and the surface normal, even though "proper" rim lighting / SSS should take into account light direction. They chose to do this because it looks good in a variety of settings and is hard to screw up. That's an example of doing something smart that worked for them and gave them the look they wanted but the shader itself is technically simple.
IMO what makes Uncharted look good and many games look bad is that many games just slather on effects without considering how they impact the overall look while the Uncharted guys put more thought into how to accomplish what they are going for and smartly doing what works for them.
higherARC05
Banned
pixelbox said:
There are pdfs for Cryteks ssgi for Crysis 2 but you know there aint any in final game. Pdfs are mostly ideas and concepts devs have during production.
Also crysis 2 is considered "open" and sandbox because you can go through each area completely different with alternate routes and strategic choices like not killing a single guy at all. And area are large enough whete you can get confused where to go next sometimes esp in the night time level where a building collapses.
Uc games are known for their linearity and scripted actions. Hence when you jump ledge to ledge its like you teleport to it safely with no real need for timing and skill.
French said:
I understand that, and I wasn't meaning to single you out, but I was hoping you could support your claim in detail. All too often people make claims that they can't support IMO. Margalis did a wonderful job explaining how something that looks good isn't always technically without peer, which is exactly what I've been trying to convey in this very thread. ND just pick their battles very efficiently, they make the appropriate trade offs most of the time. It's just, IMO, they did a slightly better job in UC2 than UC3.
DarkChild said:
That's more than a bit. I'll be disappointed if launch games next gen look like UC3.