Support NeoGAF

[Mistle]

Honestly I don't care how much stronger the U will be compared to PS3/360, if this is what Zelda is going to look like (and chances are it'll be even better), then I'm more than happy.

 

[MrDanger88]

 

[Seda]

Honestly I don't care how much stronger the U will be compared to PS3/360, if this is what Zelda is going to look like (and chances are it'll be even better), then I'm more than happy./

This!

 

[antonz]

As Gahiggidy said they seem to have found the perfect balance on the artwork to really show just how fantastic it is and be true to what people expect without going for some batshit insane reality style

 

[Betta Lines]

Honestly I don't care how much stronger the U will be compared to PS3/360, if this is what Zelda is going to look like (and chances are it'll be even better), then I'm more than happy.

Tech demos tend to look better than full games... It's certainly not gonna looks as good in terms of animation during gameplay.

The infamous Killzone PS3 'target render' is a good example. Some argue that the final game had better visuals (I disagree), but certainly the animation was shite compared to the entirely scripted trailer.

 

[Peru]

Tech demos tend to look better than full games... It's certainly not gonna looks as good in terms of animation during gameplay.

The infamous Killzone PS3 'target render' is a good example. Some argue that the final game had better visuals (I disagree), but certainly the animation was shite compared to the entirely scripted trailer.

It's not a good example at all. Nothing about it is similar to this tech demo (and neither could it be manipulated in real-time).

 

[Mistle]

Tech demos tend to look better than full games... It's certainly not gonna looks as good in terms of animation during gameplay.

The infamous Killzone PS3 'target render' is a good example. Some argue that the final game had better visuals (I disagree), but certainly the animation was shite compared to the entirely scripted trailer.

Yeah, well because the demo is completely structured of course they can make the animation smooth and dramatic. I understand that. Graphically though, I'm sure Nintendo will still make the game look and play greatly.

 

[VisanidethDM]

It's not a good example at all. Nothing about it is similar to this tech demo (and neither could it be manipulated in real-time).

Was this Zelda HD demo playable? Because manipulation in the vein of movable camera and such doesn't equal to real time graphics.

 

[Thunderbear]

This is what I wanted when the Wii came out, and why I skipped on getting the Wii. We've had to wait 4-5 years to see it because Nintendo gave us a really cheap GPU, CPU and not a lot of ram.

I wonder how long we have to wait before a Wii U HD Zelda game will hit the stores... I hope they got some great launch titles other than multi-platform releases.

 

[Betta Lines]

I think it's quite clearly realtime. Not playable, but realtime nonetheless.

 

[Alexios]

Tech demos tend to look better than full games... It's certainly not gonna looks as good in terms of animation during gameplay.

The infamous Killzone PS3 'target render' is a good example. Some argue that the final game had better visuals (I disagree), but certainly the animation was shite compared to the entirely scripted trailer.

The target render was, well, a render. This demo is real time. The animation has been as good before, imo. The difference is that, obviously, Link doesn't have a different animation for every enemy (outside being grabbed by this or that boss or whatever other context action), he uses the same combat animations for all outside turning his head.

Anyway, this tech demo is so early and so beneath other demonstrations that the game certainly has room for major improvements even if the system is only as powerful as the 360. Look at the spider's sad excuse for hair for example. A nice fur shader they could most certainly implement (considering other tech demos show and ports of upcoming games require such capabilities from the system) will fix that right up and make it look a ton better.

It can look a lot like like this and be improved in many areas, it's just up to Nintendo if they will go for this art style, if they will design such a location, and if they will put the budget and polish behind the game's visuals. This isn't a preview of how Zelda will look, it's just a tech demo so all things can change completely (just as from the GC demo we ended up with Wind Waker instead) but the system appears capable of these visuals unless the ports we've heard about run like shit or have other graphical issues.

Really, this wasn't even particularly impressive in stills, it's mostly the lighting that makes it look great in motion. Not much normal mapping either.

Using things like that and the fur shader and other such tricks could also hide some of the downgrades they may need to do in the geometry and other aspects.

Early tech demos actually tend to be surpassed overall, just as Twilight Princess surpassed the pre-Wind Waker demonstration Nintendo used to show off the GC.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Yeah, well because the demo is completely structured of course they can make the animation smooth and dramatic. I understand that. Graphically though, I'm sure Nintendo will still make the game look and play greatly.

Nintendo has been far removed from this kind of graphical excellence for years now.

They still can pull some crazy vodoo with the Wii (SMG2, and heck, Skyward Swords too looks great), but if you look at Skyward Sword footage, there's some things (textures, tree geometry, object geometry) that would look outdated in the PS2 era, and that has nothing to do with processing power - it's a design approach.

I honestly wouldn't flinch one second if I was told this tech demo wasn't done by EAD.

 

[Krev]

Was this Zelda HD demo playable? Because manipulation in the vein of movable camera and such doesn't equal to real time graphics.

Err, yes it does.
Real time means rendered by the console in real time. As in, not pre-rendered.

Tech demos tend to look better than full games... It's certainly not gonna looks as good in terms of animation during gameplay.

The infamous Killzone PS3 'target render' is a good example. Some argue that the final game had better visuals (I disagree), but certainly the animation was shite compared to the entirely scripted trailer.

The Killzone target render on the other hand was not real time because it was a CG movie played back for the audience at Sony's conference. No current console could output that in real time.

 

[VisanidethDM]

I think it's quite clearly realtime. Not playable, but realtime nonetheless.

I honestly think it's something akin to GoW3 cutscenes. Ingame engine with an absurd amount of post-process layers of polish and embellishments.

 

[Luigiv]

Tech demos tend to look better than full games... It's certainly not gonna looks as good in terms of animation during gameplay.

The infamous Killzone PS3 'target render' is a good example. Some argue that the final game had better visuals (I disagree), but certainly the animation was shite compared to the entirely scripted trailer.

Killzone is different though. It was pre-recorded at 5fps then sped up (in other words it was pre-rendered). This Zelda demo was rendering in real time with a manipulable camera and lighting.

Of course it had the benefit of being scripted, which certainly helps (see Sonic Colours Starlight Carnival Act 1 or RE4's cutscenes) but at the same time the demo was also being held back by the teams inexperience. And hell, given how much camera manipulation was achievable, a lot of the benefits of scripting weren't even there to begin with.

 

[Gravijah]

Killzone is different though. It was pre-recorded at 5fps then sped up (in other words it was pre-rendered).

Huh. Interesting.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Err, yes it does.
Real time means rendered by the console in real time. As in, not pre-rendered.

Loading screen Snake wasn't pre-rendered in MGS4, but didn't equal to ingame graphics.

Non-playable footage can be easily "bullshotted".

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I honestly think it's something akin to GoW3 cutscenes. Ingame engine with an absurd amount of post-process layers of polish and embellishments.

GoW III cutscenes are not real time, they are video footage that was rendered using in-engine assets, with more effects and stuff than would be possible for the PS3 to render smoothly in real time. Uncharted/2 pulls the exact same thing, leading to the illusion of "no load times" (but you can't skip the cutscenes straight away because it's still loading).

If you can change the viewing angle, then it is being rendered in real-time, by the hardware.

Now, if you want to argue that this isn't representative of the final game because it's small environments with only 2 models to render then that's a valid argument. Then again, it's early hardware + software, so it could easily look better in the final product too.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Tech demos tend to look better than full games... It's certainly not gonna looks as good in terms of animation during gameplay.

The infamous Killzone PS3 'target render' is a good example. Some argue that the final game had better visuals (I disagree), but certainly the animation was shite compared to the entirely scripted trailer.

That wasn't a graphic demo though, it was a rendered CGI target. This demo is actually real time so it's going to give us a good Idea on what we might expect from the Wii U and I'd say judging by this we can expect some amazing lightning effects.

 

[Betta Lines]

I accept that they could make a cutscene in a Wii U Zelda game look as good as this demo.

But animation of this quality during gameplay? This is what I was comparing to the Killzone render. I really don't think they could do it. If we saw gameplay animation as slick as this it would be mind-blowing.

 

[Krev]

Loading screen Snake wasn't pre-rendered in MGS4, but didn't equal to ingame graphics.

Non-playable footage can be easily "bullshotted".

I think you're a little confused on terminology.
The term you're looking for is 'in-game'. Zelda graphics might not represent what we get during gameplay, but the tech-demo is 100% real time.
Saying it's not real time is saying it was rendered at some time earlier, rather than being rendered on the console before you. Something that is not real time is by definition non-interactive. Basically, an FMV, or the Killzone demo.

 

[Betta Lines]

Uncharted/2 pulls the exact same thing, leading to the illusion of "no load times" (but you can't skip the cutscenes straight away because it's still loading). .

Actually most of the time you can. Uncharted 2 did some pretty incredible background loads.

 

[VisanidethDM]

If you can change the viewing angle, then it is being rendered in real-time, by the hardware.

What hardware? Does Nintendo even have a finished machine, right now? I doubt it.

Point being, you can achieve things, with scripted footage, that equal the effects of bullshotting. You don't care about framerates at all, you don't need dynamic lighting and can orchestrate the best possible effect at the smallest performance hit, and so on.

It's a tech demo. Like every other tech demo in videogame history, it really means nothing.
The final product may look worse, or even better, but I'm positive that it will look sensibly different.

 

[Gahiggidy]

...
Now, if you want to argue that this isn't representative of the final game because it's small environments with only 2 models to render then that's a valid argument.

...

Don't forget the bats. Also, should we be impressed that those bats seem to cast different size shadows depending on how high off the ground they are?

 

[Krev]

What hardware? Does Nintendo even have a finished machine, right now? I doubt it.

This hardware, which was powering the demos.

 

[VisanidethDM]

I think you're a little confused on terminology.
The term you're looking for is 'in-game'. Zelda graphics might not represent what we get during gameplay, but the tech-demo is 100% real time.
Saying it's not real time is saying it was rendered at some time earlier, rather than being rendered on the console before you. Something that is not real time is by definition non-interactive. Basically, an FMV, or the Killzone demo.

I admit I've not seen footage of someone moving the camera in the tech demo, but if the camera movement is simply X-Y axis scrolling, then that's achievable even with pre rendered footage. You can implement the possibility to look left or right during a pre-rendered scene, by rendering a larger area than the screen and then simply sliding the viewpoint.
If the camera control was full X-Y-Z, then the footage was real time.

Once again, it means very little. Since I doubt Nintendo has even finalized the components of their console, we're basically looking at a Zelda PC demo.

 

[Alexios]

I admit I've not seen footage of someone moving the camera in the tech demo, but if the camera movement is simply X-Y axis scrolling, then that's achievable even with pre rendered footage. You can implement the possibility to look left or right during a pre-rendered scene, by rendering a larger area than the screen and then simply sliding the viewpoint.
If the camera control was full X-Y-Z, then the footage was real time.

Once again, it means very little. Since I doubt Nintendo has even finalized the components of their console, we're basically looking at a Zelda PC demo.

X-Y-Z and also moving light sources around to see how they affect the characters and environment.

 

[Mistle]

Found this on Reddit, seems relevant to this discussion. Sorry if it's been posted.
Does anybody think there's any truth to seeing such a progression from this tech demo to the actual U Zelda?



Click for bigger pic.

 

[VisanidethDM]

This hardware, which was powering the demos.

Which is, I'm confident, quite different from what we will buy next year. I've heard nothing about Nintendo even finalizing the GPU.
As far as we know, there may be a GTX580 in that box. Did they say anything about what they're using?

 

[DefectiveReject]

Who cares. It was god damned stunning. (Amir0x, yes I think it is)

 

[VisanidethDM]

X-Y-Z and also moving light sources around to see how they affect the characters and environment.

That means full real time, so they're limited at the benefits of scripting. But once again, have they finalized anything about hardware?

 

[Scalemail Ted]

I admit I've not seen footage of someone moving the camera in the tech demo, but if the camera movement is simply X-Y axis scrolling, then that's achievable even with pre rendered footage. You can implement the possibility to look left or right during a pre-rendered scene, by rendering a larger area than the screen and then simply sliding the viewpoint.
If the camera control was full X-Y-Z, then the footage was real time.

Once again, it means very little. Since I doubt Nintendo has even finalized the components of their console, we're basically looking at a Zelda PC demo.

Not only dd they have options for changing viewing angles but also for changing the lighting conditions dynamically... So you could watch the scene with normal lighting or by torchlight

 

[SolidSnakex]

 

[antonz]

Which is, I'm confident, quite different from what we will buy next year. I've heard nothing about Nintendo even finalizing the GPU.
As far as we know, there may be a GTX580 in that box. Did they say anything about what they're using?

While I know what you are trying to do you are partially correct. Whatever hardware that is in that machine is not final. Developers all over confirmed the fact the devkits being worked on are being as they are developing.

One thing is for sure though. a Super powered GPU they are gonna abandon for a weaker is not a component in the kits.

 

[Caramello]

Was this Zelda HD demo playable? Because manipulation in the vein of movable camera and such doesn't equal to real time graphics.

Uhh yes it does

 

[Krev]

I admit I've not seen footage of someone moving the camera in the tech demo, but if the camera movement is simply X-Y axis scrolling, then that's achievable even with pre rendered footage. You can implement the possibility to look left or right during a pre-rendered scene, by rendering a larger area than the screen and then simply sliding the viewpoint.

That would be very hard to pull off, and would come across as 100% fake.

If the camera control was full X-Y-Z, then the footage was real time.

You can see the camera being moved here.

If you look at the fluidity of the lighting changes and camera movements in the demo, it's obviously real time. What you're suggesting, with the camera flicking through different video streams and panning across the video, would be very hard to pull off without looking completely stilted. But that's not what this is anyway, since you can tilt the camera and ever so slightly change the perspective.

Once again, it means very little. Since I doubt Nintendo has even finalized the components of their console, we're basically looking at a Zelda PC demo.

The tech demo would be built to a spec at the very least in the ballpark of what we're going to get. This machine starts mass manufacturing in October, so I think they have a pretty good idea.
And while it's evidently more powerful, what the demo presents is not massively more impressive than what 360 and Ps3 can put out to the point that people should be calling fake, anyway.

Seems a lot of people here just don't want to believe.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Does anybody think there's any truth to seeing such a progression from this tech demo to the actual U Zelda?

It really depends on the hardware. Keep in mind that you're looking at pics generations away in that reddit picture. 10 years in videogame terms are centuries compared to other medias.

Also, the gamecube comparison is between a tech demo and a game that came so late in the console life that it was also a launch game for the console's successor (or even not launch, I can't remember).

It's plenty possible, expecially if Zelda HD comes out something like 2016 instead of being a launch window game. But in that case, it will suffer from the same problem Twilight Princess suffered from: it was amazing compared to the tech demo, but it looked like turd compared to what the rest of the world was playing.

 

[GCX]

I accept that they could make a cutscene in a Wii U Zelda game look as good as this demo.

But animation of this quality during gameplay? This is what I was comparing to the Killzone render. I really don't think they could do it. If we saw gameplay animation as slick as this it would be mind-blowing.

Zelda team is made of gods if their first HD game would animate even nearly as well during the actual gameplay.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Not only dd they have options for changing viewing angles but also for changing the lighting conditions dynamically... So you could watch the scene with normal lighting or by torchlight

Yeah, it's clearly realtime. I've seen footage now.

My perplexity (due to experience with several console launches) is on hardware. We really don't know what's in that box, and there's a very tiny chance that it's something even similar to what we will buy.

Well, on one hand, it's a reveal that is relatively close to the actual release, so maybe Nintendo has something more than a processor and a super beefed up graphic card attached to it to run some demo on, but I'm gonna be cautious.

 

[DefectiveReject]

I'm not gay, but that Link would get it....lol
His eyes are so dreamy...... :/

 

[wazoo]

I expect the final game to be way better. Take this into context. They asked the Zelda team to produce a demo on un unfinished hardware using HD assets and tools and skills they never used before and at the same time they are in rush hour for finishing last gen based tech Skyward sword.

At least the first N64 demo and the first GC demo in 2000 were done by a team commited to produce the next chapter and experimenting and playing with the toolset. This is not even close, considering that Skyward sword has to be finished.

 

[VisanidethDM]

While I know what you are trying to do

Which is?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

They aren't very likely to drop the specs below what they have running in those boxes. Unless it's a conspiracy and the boxes were empty.

 

[Krev]

Yeah, it's clearly realtime. I've seen footage now.

My perplexity (due to experience with several console launches) is on hardware. We really don't know what's in that box, and there's a very tiny chance that it's something even similar to what we will buy.

Well, on one hand, it's a reveal that is relatively close to the actual release, so maybe Nintendo has something more than a processor and a super beefed up graphic card attached to it to run some demo on, but I'm gonna be cautious.

The 'you will say wow' quote aside, Nintendo have for a long time been very modest when it comes to selling the graphical abilities of their systems. They are not Sony.
It would be extremely unlike them to cram super powerful and expensive PC hardware into the box and develop a Zelda-game for it in order to deceive people about the capability of their device.
And once again, manufacturing starts in October. They must have quite a few prototype units ready by now. It's only logical that those are what they had running at E3.

It really seems like you're looking for reasons not to believe.

 

[Betta Lines]

Wouldn't be surprised if all the Wii U demos were running on hidden PCs.

 

[VisanidethDM]

Seems a lot of people here just don't want to believe.

Well I can't really blame them.

If they don't want to believe the WiiU will not be capable of pushing graphics like this, then I'd definitely call them wrong. It's not unlikely. In all honesty, as I said I don't think it will be the case for launch window games, but 4 years in? Easily.

If they don't believe Zelda will look like this, well, then yes, it won't. That I'm positive of. No game will. It's a tech demo, and while you'll get demos with the same poligon counts and the same texture resolution and the same amount of shaders, you'll never get a game with frame by frame custom animation, such care on any single individual texture and so on.

That's what I call "bullshotting", and it's something everyone before Nintendo did. You could make a PS3 tech demo of a guy entering a room and shooting at some apples, and making it look amazing simply spending 2 months of that. Try to make a game spending 2 months on a single room. It's not a matter of processing power. I'm sure the WiiU will be powerful enough to run something like that demo and more.

 

[GCX]

At least the first N64 demo and the first GC demo in 2000 were done by a team commited to produce the next chapter and experimenting and playing with the toolset. This is not even close, considering that Skyward sword has to be finished.

It's possible that SS is actually pretty much done by now and most of the team has already moved forward. The E3 demo seemed really polished, final music has been recorded, etc.

And someone here quoted Miyamoto saying "it's finally done" in one of the roundtables when talking about SS.

 

[Luigiv]

What hardware? Does Nintendo even have a finished machine, right now? I doubt it.

Point being, you can achieve things, with scripted footage, that equal the effects of bullshotting. You don't care about framerates at all, you don't need dynamic lighting and can orchestrate the best possible effect at the smallest performance hit, and so on.

It's a tech demo. Like every other tech demo in videogame history, it really means nothing.
The final product may look worse, or even better, but I'm positive that it will look sensibly different.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? The major benefits of scripting are:

1. You have control over the camera and therefore have control over the exact polygon and pixel throughput on the screen. As such, things closer to the camera can be higher detailed whilst things further away can be lower detailed without having to wast your ram on procedural LoD scaling and mipmapping. It also allows you to fake some effects by interspersing pre-rendered assets throughout the scene. The point of all of this however is to maintain a steady frame rate, whilst pushing more advance effects, not forget about it (where the fuck did you pull that idea from anyway?).

2. You don't have to compute game logic and can possibly even get away without physics, which frees up some CPU resources.

Whilst the Zelda demo definitely benefits from point 2, point 1 is completely moot. The player has a lot of control over the camera, so there is no room for unbalanced detail sets and faked effects. On top of that the lighting is completely dynamic too which is something that could have been faked, even in game. Also again, the framerate is silky smooth too.

 

[Xavien]

Can't believe this thread is repeating itself yet again.

 

[Krev]

Wouldn't be surprised if all the Wii U demos were running on hidden PCs.

No, they were running on this hardware. Which was sort of hidden too, by the way.

It can't be stressed enough that the machine starts mass production in October. That's very soon. It's only logical that they have prototype units ready, based on the dev kit specs and at the very least similar to what we're going to be able to buy. Furthermore, it's only logical that they're what's being used to run the show floor demos.
Statements like this:

We really don't know what's in that box, and there's a very tiny chance that it's something even similar to what we will buy.

Don't make much sense when you consider how soon they're going to be shipping this thing out.