A lot of the textures you might be thinking about are using Guerilla micrtexturing tech, or whatever it is that they choose to call it. It generates simple patterns over existing textures with very high precision. It;s how cloth looks so good up close.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Killzone: Shadow Fall launch trailer & tech trailer
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
A lot of the textures you might be thinking about are using Guerilla micrtexturing tech, or whatever it is that they choose to call it. It generates simple patterns over existing textures with very high precision. It;s how cloth looks so good up close.
gundamkyoukai
Member
My point was it's not as simple as saying this is GG first DX 11 game and Crytek 4 games ahead so they won't catch up .
Sony has a whole team that just makes tech and all there teams going to be making DX 11 games while also sharing tech with each team .
Still not matter what it's a 1.8TF system it can't do what it can't do not matter how good they are so it not a matter of catching up .
Technically it most probably is, but Uncharted 3's implementation of the procedural physics based sea simulation in actual gameplay is what made it special. I mean this shit is bananas, especially on 8 year old hardware.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wHn_jZGE7U
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Yeah, I don't know about those KZ3 screens... I'm playing the game right now, and to be honest I think it kind of looks like garbage. Nothing seems to work the way it should in terms of visuals, nothing seems to fit together and look solid enough while you're actually playing. I'm still far more impressed with the way KZ2 looks.
In fact I'd readily point the KZ3 and KZ:SF on the same screen to someone who doesn't think the PS4 is an upgrade enough. The difference is practically insane with how janky KZ3 looks in comparison.
In fact I'd readily point the KZ3 and KZ:SF on the same screen to someone who doesn't think the PS4 is an upgrade enough. The difference is practically insane with how janky KZ3 looks in comparison.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
That's just trolling.
They're not sprites.
I see. Good stuff.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
The cool thing about it is how the surfaces you walk on moved with it, affecting everything that's on those surfaces including your character. It was the only game to finally again do what Team Ico did on PS2 with SotC.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I've played Crysis 2 and 3 on the PS3. It looks horrible.
Aye. Tech matters but not so much they're going to visually transform a game. I've noticed some PC titles receive additional upgrades like HBAO+ or TXAA but in reality, these features are superflous. Performance hit for minor gains. I personally think good tech should only be used if it will benefit the game visually; otherwise using good tech for the sake of using it is pointless. Console games will always take shortcuts to maximise performance, even if it means using cheaper, less advanced effects. You can't compete with a high-end graphics card.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Ploid 3.0
Member
I just saw these vids, very impressive. This is why we need console gaming over what would be available on super sayian tablets in the point they trump PS4 tech. With their yearly upgrades the developers have to think about people that are still on Gen B, C, and D sort of like PC. Also the time to make the games would probably be met with another hardware upgrade.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
It's very impressive, but this is the issue with all of these "X looks better than Y" tech debates. Art and presentation versus mathematical engine technology. The former is subjective and open to lengthy, involved discourse on artistic values and techniques. It's a complicated issue because art is hard to define and debate as well as highly diverse and subjective. Technology, on the other hand, is far less so. It has little to do with the subjective impressions of art and more the objective math behind the project, which does have a bearing on the look of a game but does not define art and presentation.
When discussing technology we're talking about sampling rates of reflections, anti-aliasing algorithms, complexity of tessellation and displacement maps, texture/shadow resolution, physic simulations, etc etc. There's real, objective math and technical methods here that don't guaranty a game looks good, but can define it as an extremely demanding and impressive game on a purely rendering technical level. It could be the ugliest game in existence and still have the most advanced water, lighting, shadows, physics, and everything else of all games that have ever been.
I think that's what catches people up when discussing Crysis 3 versus your crop of Guerrilla and Naughty Dog games and their technology. If we're just going to pick the tech that impresses us the most as individuals, then we're not really discussing tech so much as art. EG: I think Super Mario Galaxy "looks" better than Crysis 3, because I like the artistic vision and presentation a fuckton more. I think Shadow Fall looks better too, and Uncharted 2 has some of the most gorgeous environments of the generation gone. But in the same breath as saying "I don't like Crysis 3's art", I can also recognise it has some of the most advanced real time rendering technology ever implemented in a gaming engine. EG: The grass simulation shits all over every other game on the market, at least what I know of. There's absolutely nothing like it in Super Mario Galaxy, Uncharted 2, or Shadow Fall. Not really a question of whether or not these games could have this technology, but the simple fact they don't.
And that's why I lean towards Crysis 3 still being the most advanced tech out there. Granted, I don't know near enough about Shadow Fall's tech than I'd like, but outside of the real time dust simulation not much impressed me in the sense of being ground breaking technology that doesn't already exist and in some cases exceeded. Even if, again, Shadow Fall is to me the better looking game.
Great post, and yea I do agree. Will be interesting to compare Crytek 'tech' with GG's, as well as the visuals in general. I feel like Crytek will likely have more check box tech additions, whilst GG will produce the engine with the more attractive aesthetics and design. But who knows. The new consoles evidently are bridging the gap somewhat.
It's interesting this whole tech vs aesthetics thing, because theoretically Crysis 2/3 were some of the most technically proficient games out on the consoles, at least in terms of tick box technical features. As you eluded could be the case in your post, despite this, they still looked like ass. because Crytek aimed for the big fish and forgot the basics, like decent AA/AF, IQ in general, a decent frame rate, good art etc.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
PS3 couldn't handle them after all. They look pretty good on the 360 though.
Crysis 1 had something like that, procedurally adding a frozen layer on surfaces.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Star Citizen > All.
It uses Cry Engine 3 like Crysis 3, but, it looks like a visual delight.
Curious to see how Unreal Engine 4 stacks up. What I'm really interested in is how well these engines scale to the console. The UE4 PS4 tech demo didn't really look as good as the original reveal.
When the PS4 was initially announced, I had really, really high hopes for the console. I actually had expected games to look as good as the UE4 tech demo and Agni's Philosophy! Unlikely we will see visuals that good until next gen. Perhaps it's too early to call, but I don't really think we are going to see a true 'generational' leap. This is probably going to be a transitional gen; a refinement over what we currently have. I guess the fact we've seen what these next-gen consoles are capable of already on the PC probably dampens the excitement factor.
Kydd BlaZe
Member
Godayyum...
Launch trailer is straight up BOSS.
Launch trailer is straight up BOSS.
SniperHunter
Banned
Your last post was great as well. The art in the new Crysis games was really really bad
gundamkyoukai
Member
CryEngine is one of the best engines out there if not the best .
Still what also happens is talking tech within the confines of consoles and games .
Yes CryEngine has load of techniques but lets take Ryse is it more technically advance than KZ SF on console ?
While we all know CryEngine walks all over GG engine but it may not be so for the games on console .
I guess part of the fun is seeing what devs can do when every one has a level playing field .
EDIT forget to add another way to level the playing field is for GG to make games on PC but that never going to happen .
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Pretty much. It's why older games with such brilliant, cohesive art direction stand the test of time irrespective of super dated technology. Art is art and good art looks good forever.
And yeah, they're bridging the gap. To be fair, a lot of the technology that could be implemented in PC for a very long time now hasn't been due to the current gen console ceiling. It's why people still cite the first Crysis for its technology, the fact it was playing with rendering effects that PC games routinely ignored as there was never any pressure from developers to include them when they were generally too expensive for most console games. Now we're setting consoles catch up in a major way, and everybody reaps the benefits.
Oh yeah, it did.
I'm pretty sure one of the major concessions made to Unreal Engine 4 was their real time global illumination method, which was very expensive and (if I'm correct) difficult to get working on Xbox One / PlayStation 4 hardware this early in the game. Could be cut from the engine entirely, I'm not sure.
Square-Enix signed up for a multi-studio Unreal Engine 3 + 4 license. Eidos Montreal is using Unreal Engine 3 for Thief. So I assume Deus Ex 4 is using Unreal Engine 4. That should be something.
JohnnySasaki86
Member
The grass tech is just one aspect of the technical rendering package. That one thing may impress you the most, but theres other aspects to consider like resolution, quality of lighting and shadows, real time ray traced reflections, density of the geometry, size of levels, post processing, and the framerate it outputs all these things at.
Crysis 3 may do a lot of those things too, but KZ: SF seems to do them at a much higher quality. I agree that the grass simulation is something thats significant and awesome. I'm sure it something that also takes time to implement. I admit I'm a not software engineer, so I cant really say which renderer is doing more complex tasks. My point is that you can't just pick out that one technical feature and say its engine is more advance because SF's renderer doesn't have it.
Dictator93
Member
I am not sure if I would reasonably try and argue this given... certain circumstances.
Please wait for the thread to pop up.
gundamkyoukai
Member
I am not sure if I would reasonably try and argue this given... certain circumstances.
Please wait for the thread to pop up.
Crysis 3 already has KZ SF beat still i looking forward to see how much tech they got in for a launch game on 1.8 TF system .
That is the beauty of PC add as much tech as you want if it runs like crap just upgrade .
Q
Queen of Hunting
Unconfirmed Member
Thread derailed much with crysis talk lol
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Does it though? Does it actually? Framerate/resolution are mute arguments because Crysis 3 is a PC game and Shadow Fall is a console game. They're metrics hard to judge because they're dependant on hardware, and for the former hardware of an open environment. Crysis 3 can run amazingly at 1080p or like garbage at 720p. That depends on the person's hardware, not the engine or game (optimisation aside). Shadow Fall is what it is and can't go higher or lower.
Crysis 3 has reflections. It has detailed lighting and shadows. Levels can be quite large in scope with data streaming to avoid loading screens. Post processing is advanced. But what are the numbers? This is what I was referring to my post. You need the numbers to compare the quality.
And while we're throwing around tech trailers, let's not ignore the CryEngine 3 trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5d_1IkD6dk
Outside of the tessellated toad, which isn't in the game, that's what Crysis 3 looks like in real time.
VFX_Veteran
Banned
To be fair your volumes are nothing but 3d textures with very low resolution. Something I wouldn't consider volumetric in the conventional sense of the word (i.e. ray-marching).
JohnnySasaki86
Member
Point taken. Like I said though you can't just pull out one technical feature and say that renderer is more advanced because the other one doesn't have it. Its the whole package, thats my point. I guess it would really take a technical software engineer to tell us which one is more complex and advance. I agree its hard to say which has higher quality lighting and what not without being biased toward the art. We can only judge it be what we see. IMO SF has bigger levels and with more complex geometry. Basing this off the over head city fly through part.
I am remember the first time I played kz3. I am an avid pc gamer and I was completely blown away by the cinematic feel the game had for me. I remember being holy SH!@ I am playing a cg movie.
fuzzyreactor
Banned
seems to happen in every Killzone thread. Yes, I know the cryengine is more advanced but idc. Killzone SF looks just as good and the gameplay is better.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Something looks slightly off in Crysis games. It's like every surface is a touch metallic somehow, or the scene doesn't have as much depth as you'd expect given the level of detail. Maybe it's because they do realtime GI that can't look as good as precomputed (and then don't make the best of it because it's only applied to a static light - the sun), I don't know. I could never put my finger on as to why or what makes them look that way, if it's the lighting engine, or the artwork or the materials shader. It's a unique look but to me it looks slightly fake and offputting. In fact, now that I think about it, the best quality gameplay screenshots and videos of Ryse exhibit that look as well.
Unrelated to previous comment, I do believe the SSR reflections are in some way more advanced in KZ, those tech slides indicated that in some roundabout way, that they have their own special method of making them 'better', whatever that meant.
VFX_Veteran
Banned
You should take a closer look at 4A's graphics engine for Metro:LL. I believe it's doing more than any other engine out there technically. I've never seen any game that has EVERY single light casting a shadow in real-time and dynamically using area lights. It's really amazing.
BadAss2961
Member
I think Crytek's overrated. They're just one of very few developers that cater specifically to the high end PC market. Even then, their games aren't the most optimized as you've gotta have ridiculous setups to max them out. The PC games that impress me the most are the ones that look great and run well even on modest hardware.
CryEngine looks great on a good PC, but not so much elsewhere -- a sign of what happens when you level the playing field. GG blows them away on consoles, and they're not the only one that does. Take Ryse for example, and just imagine how much Sony Santa Monica would destroy that in a next-gen God of War game.
You let Guerrilla throw anything they want at a PC game, and I have no doubt they'd outclass Crytek.
No it doesn't. CryEngine trumps whatever engine GG is using for KZ:SF. Fact. Shadowfall is a beautiful game, there is no doubt about that. But you can't compare Guerilla's engine to Crytek's. This is where Crytek excels at.
My goodness. How ignorant can you be? Assuming you are talking about engines.
gundamkyoukai
Member
It also depends on the engine by a fair amount i would say don't forget Crysis 1 was made on a engine that hardware had to catch up on to run it great .
Yeah it could have had better optimization but the engine was \ still is great .
Truth is hardware and engines go hand in hand , like you said before UE 4 would have not had to get rid of there global illumination method if not for such weak hardware on consoles .
A consoles game only engine will never be as good as a PC engine .
soulassssns
Banned
I have a huge chub right now. So glad I purchased this game.
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
My body is ready. Launch trailer is stunning.
Tried the disc in my PS3, does not even get detected
BadAss2961
Member
The guys behind Metro are in that small group of devs that design games to push high end PCs. And yeah, I also think what they're doing is more impressive than the Crysis series.
In all fairness Crytek have a lot of experience with engine creation. They have a really deep feature set in their engines that are only utilised by a fraction of people.
However, GG have a good track record of producing visual show stoppers.
Just take a look at Killzone 3. It looks mind boggling good. No other console shooter comes close visually.
Killzone 2 'maxed out' the PS3 but doesn't really look anywhere near as good as KZ3 from a tech perspective, even though the former might have a favourable aeasthetic (grittier, softer look). Keep in mind this is a PS3 game... lol. It shits all over what Crytek have shown on the PS3 and 360.
As a underlying graphic tech layperson, I would writhe on the floor with elation if an open ended WRPG on next gen hardware looked as good as that with character models closer to Uncharted/TLoU/Beyond than KZ.
I think it speaks volumes about art design taking precedence because I still prefer KZ2 to KZ3. The latter lacked uniformity in theme and atmosphere for me.
You are late to the party then, because we already are seeing such jump. Killzone is a fantastic example.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I didn't mean to imply the grass alone sets it above, but the other stuff too. I haven't seen anything in Shadow Fall approaching the tessellation and pixel accurate displacement maps of Crysis 3, in my opinion, alongside a few other stuff. But again, it's a numbers thing that I admittedly don't know, and Shadow Fall is still using most of these effects to some degree.
The lighting is weird, but it's mostly an art thing. I think the GI takes multiple light sources for interiors, but not for outdoors, where yeah it's just the locked sun.
No idea about the reflections. It's a weird one. Shadow Fall might be more advanced. It's funny, but the ENB mod for Deus Ex: Human Revolution hacks in crazy high quality and expensive ray traced reflections. Looks fucking insane.
Indeed, Last Light's engine is incredible. I think it looks more impressive than Crysis 3, if just for the art. I remember reading that 4A faked some of the effects though, to their credit. The game doesn't use any actual real time global illumination, but some fancy simulation/fake effect.
Yeah, they do. Guerrilla working so close with Sony while having excellent engineers and artists works to their advantage in a major way. Them and Naughty Dog know Sony's hardware better than anybody else.
gundamkyoukai
Member
I always forget about these guys but yeah there game \ engine is very impressive .
ProfessorMoran
Member
LOL that's fucking awesome.
ProfessorMoran
Member
and the clip of ruined helghan in the tech video?
Have you seen Shadow Fall?
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Every single light in KZSF is area light apparently, and shadow casting as well. As per their tech doc.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Welp that was a bit underwhelming, they should just give masks to all minor NPCs.
edit: hahaha this thread, it's like 2008 all over again.
edit: hahaha this thread, it's like 2008 all over again.
No, just no.