iamshadowlark
Banned
Say what?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Would it be possible to make an open-world game with Uncharted 3 level of detail?
- Thread starter sublimit
- Start date
Say what?
sublimit
Banned
Really?The videos i've seen from Witcher 2 look like they are lacking the detail of Uncharted games.Even the PC version.
If you mean Witcher 2 then no.It's not open world.
Tallshortman
Member
Not even close. U3 is the best looking console game, to try that with a game like fallout would be impossible on consoles.
revolverjgw
Member
I thought we were talking about open world games? The Witcher 2's environments are small, enclosed, cramped, and full of invisible walls.
Absolutely not. You're doing so much, much more in an open world game. In a GTAlike game at any moment you have 20 cars driving around, likely more pedestrians and a huge draw distance. In contrast in Uncharted they designed the gameplay around the fact that they could only have ~6 or so enemy AIs on the screen at once (at least this was the case in U1, probably a bit better in the later games).
Anuxinamoon
Shaper Divine
Yes.
And with big teams and big scope = harder to keep the feeling of a hand crafted focused game.
I have no doubt it can be done, its just trying to get 100 super talented people like those at ND people on the same page every day with a massive scope of a game is more difficult than you would expect.
The reason why ND is so good at making what they make is their super talented team is hand picked and focused on making an awesome, focused user experience. And they have the resources behind them to do so.
Nope.
PC has already far surpassed it in terms of engines. See cryEngine 3.
Also what your asking is impossible every generation. Naughty Dog tweaks the fuck out of their engines to get every last drop of performance possible out of hardware. To the point that emulating or porting their games is very difficult because it's so customized.
If you're talking about production values (animations, cut scenes, voice acting) probably not for dozens of years due to development cost that's independent of specs.
Is this like a religion or something? How could you possibly not see the difference between Witcher 2 PC and UC3?
http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=37163621&postcount=4127
http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=457378&page=83
http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=37607658&postcount=4483
http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=37222787&postcount=4205
Those are some mighty crappy pictures of Witcher 2 you chose. The downsampled UC3 pictures I posted earlier easily rival those pics in terms of asset quality/texturework/level of deatil/whatever you wanna cal it. 720p is seriously holding UC3 back.
Anyway, W2 is neither here nor there as it isn't an open world game.
SMT
this show is not Breaking Bad why is it not Breaking Bad? it should be Breaking Bad dammit Breaking Bad
Maybe 5 to 8 years from now, not next gen, but the generation after that?
PC games may be able to implement that level of detail sometime soon, but it takes a lot of $capita, and let's be honest here, Uncharted 3 was a short game, maybe that was how they were able to budget-it in.
If you're talking about a massive RPG along the scales of of Skyrim, you're going to take several years to get it done, start now time is of the essence.
Also, with a big name company like Bethesda, maybe they can afford to invest the time and money into the game, the only downside is, whether or not they chose to make the effort, their game will sell just because it's BETHESDA, I'm sure some hurt PS3 owners will have something to say, but regardless, they'll get away with the minimum.
As for Uncharted 3, Sony was the underdog last gen, and they're doing fine now.
All of you know Sony as being an extravagant company, well UC3 was an example, and boy did it pay itself off.
Sony takes a lot of chances, you guys know this first-hand, look at their expected sales-numbers forecast, they are confident.
But as they say: ''Those who do not try, do not know success, or learn from their mistakes.''
PC games may be able to implement that level of detail sometime soon, but it takes a lot of $capita, and let's be honest here, Uncharted 3 was a short game, maybe that was how they were able to budget-it in.
If you're talking about a massive RPG along the scales of of Skyrim, you're going to take several years to get it done, start now time is of the essence.
Also, with a big name company like Bethesda, maybe they can afford to invest the time and money into the game, the only downside is, whether or not they chose to make the effort, their game will sell just because it's BETHESDA, I'm sure some hurt PS3 owners will have something to say, but regardless, they'll get away with the minimum.
As for Uncharted 3, Sony was the underdog last gen, and they're doing fine now.
All of you know Sony as being an extravagant company, well UC3 was an example, and boy did it pay itself off.
Sony takes a lot of chances, you guys know this first-hand, look at their expected sales-numbers forecast, they are confident.
But as they say: ''Those who do not try, do not know success, or learn from their mistakes.''
Sentenza
Member
Are you joking?
The Witcher 2 maxed out on PC has some of the most impressive and detailed textures I ever seen, *even* by PC standards.
Of course, its world is small and quite self-contained, so this is not saying much about making a proper open world game with the same detail. Yet.
DanielJr82
Member
I think Red Dead Redemption is gorgeous. On the Xbox 360 anyways, I hear the PS3 version is washed out.
I thought Just Cause 2 was quite close, at least here and there. The game's quite stunning even more considering the amount of crazy stunts you can do.
But in general it would require quite too much work, resources and money to get it .Uncharted can achieve visuals like it does because of it's more smaller and scripted nature.
But in general it would require quite too much work, resources and money to get it .Uncharted can achieve visuals like it does because of it's more smaller and scripted nature.
Yes. I'm pretty sure it is possible. One of the reasons Uncharted looks so great is because the environments are so small so they are able to focus in and develop beautiful assets and scenes. Doing this in on open world scale would just take so much more time and I don't even want to think about how they would split all the work up. I believe one of the modelers for Uncharted 3 recently made a thread on polycount where he explained how there was only one modeler and one texture artists for all the environment art for each level (iirc). May have been one other person on board for the level design. Two people working for two years together to model and texture an entire uncharted 3 level from concept art provided. think how narrow the levels usually are. It would just require a really large staff. One of the reasons why all these AAA games are going up in budget.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Give Naughty Dog lots and lots and lots of money. LOTS.
Open world games/games with distant terrain that you can explore/approach use LOD of varying quality, so, while it's very demanding, it's not "that" much more demanding than a linear game because the assets/models/content in the distance aren't rendered in high quality until you approach it (Ideally.). LOD quality is whatever quality the Xbox360/PS3 can handle (There tend to be several different levels of quality depending on the distance. I think I heard somewhere that 7-8 different levels of LOD quality for trees, for example, is normal for an AAA game.) It's a continuous process as you move about the map.
Uncharted 3 has the explorable content (All levels combined.) of, like, 5% of Skyrim (Example.), and they probably spent a long time developing that. There is a lot of detail in those areas.
Unless you have a team of 10.000+ talented people working for a couple of years, I don't think it's possible to create such a world. And teams of that size are very inefficient (Atleast in a complex production like this, where everybodys result needs to be put correctly into a single product; the game.)
I think procedural generation is the only way to make something resembling a Skyrim size world with Uncharted 3 detail. But to even get to that point, unless someone brilliant comes up with a perfect algorithm/solution, the gaming industry needs to start experimenting more with procedeural generation and pool together solutions, and iterate their way to a solution/method that can make something like a Skyrim+U3 detailed world.
You know, like a program that automatically makes a lot of the models needed, places them around the map in a logical manner, and automatically generates the necessary textures and puts them, logically, on the models.
There are already programs like CityEngine out there, which generates entire cities on the fly.
Procedural generation and manual work on the content generated is probably the only way to make Skyrim like games much more detailed/larger/varied in the future.
Bethesda already had most of the engine developed, and they still spent several years on the project. Games will probably become much more expensive to make using the same old method of development, so I think it'd be much more efficient to develop worlds using procedural tech in more areas of development (Open world games usually use some form of procedural generation to generate trees/generate initial heightmaps perhaps, and to a much lesser degree, texture placement over large areas I think.)
And/Or I really think they should consider discussing something like a universal game engine at one of those developer conferences. It's very unlikely to make something like it at the moment, but I think they should atleast talk about it.
If there was an open source engine with everything necessary to make a game integrated (3D modeller, 2D software like photoshop, texture/heightmap editor/generator, open for all scripts, physics, A.I, etc.) into it, making games would probably be much easier. Developers wouldn't even need to spend a lot of their budget on making an engine, or licensing an engine.
And, they could potentially pool together all the resources/assets in a shared database -- if a huge amount of assets/models/content/worlds were readily accessible, a prototype game could be built really fast. Then they could modify the content so it doesn't resemble anything that's in the other game (From which they borrowed the content/models/assets.), or make new content.
Not sure how viable that is, though.
I'm not saying it should be exactly like that, but a shared engine with everything necessary to make a game is the general idea. It'd probably cost like 1$ billion dollars to make at first though.
Uncharted 3 has the explorable content (All levels combined.) of, like, 5% of Skyrim (Example.), and they probably spent a long time developing that. There is a lot of detail in those areas.
Unless you have a team of 10.000+ talented people working for a couple of years, I don't think it's possible to create such a world. And teams of that size are very inefficient (Atleast in a complex production like this, where everybodys result needs to be put correctly into a single product; the game.)
I think procedural generation is the only way to make something resembling a Skyrim size world with Uncharted 3 detail. But to even get to that point, unless someone brilliant comes up with a perfect algorithm/solution, the gaming industry needs to start experimenting more with procedeural generation and pool together solutions, and iterate their way to a solution/method that can make something like a Skyrim+U3 detailed world.
You know, like a program that automatically makes a lot of the models needed, places them around the map in a logical manner, and automatically generates the necessary textures and puts them, logically, on the models.
There are already programs like CityEngine out there, which generates entire cities on the fly.
Procedural generation and manual work on the content generated is probably the only way to make Skyrim like games much more detailed/larger/varied in the future.
Bethesda already had most of the engine developed, and they still spent several years on the project. Games will probably become much more expensive to make using the same old method of development, so I think it'd be much more efficient to develop worlds using procedural tech in more areas of development (Open world games usually use some form of procedural generation to generate trees/generate initial heightmaps perhaps, and to a much lesser degree, texture placement over large areas I think.)
And/Or I really think they should consider discussing something like a universal game engine at one of those developer conferences. It's very unlikely to make something like it at the moment, but I think they should atleast talk about it.
If there was an open source engine with everything necessary to make a game integrated (3D modeller, 2D software like photoshop, texture/heightmap editor/generator, open for all scripts, physics, A.I, etc.) into it, making games would probably be much easier. Developers wouldn't even need to spend a lot of their budget on making an engine, or licensing an engine.
And, they could potentially pool together all the resources/assets in a shared database -- if a huge amount of assets/models/content/worlds were readily accessible, a prototype game could be built really fast. Then they could modify the content so it doesn't resemble anything that's in the other game (From which they borrowed the content/models/assets.), or make new content.
Not sure how viable that is, though.
I'm not saying it should be exactly like that, but a shared engine with everything necessary to make a game is the general idea. It'd probably cost like 1$ billion dollars to make at first though.
Shai-Tan
Banned
the witcher 2 = blur the shit out of distant things with depth of field or whatever so it can have a high level of detail up close. uncharted = have amazing texture artists who eke out everything they can from the texture budget. areas are enclosed but at least it doesn't overuse fake camera effects to cover up lack of detail at a distance
Sentenza
Member
Callibretto
Member
aw man, now I really want Uncharted full HD collection for PS4...
sublimit
Banned
Have you played Uncharted 3 recently?Just play the beginning of the France chapter and look at the level of detail inside the forest...it's crazy.Textures are also much better in U3.For example the rocks in W2 to me look as if they are covered by tinfoil. :/
I'm not saying the Witcher 2 doesn't look impressive.It's just that it can't much Uncharted 3 level of detail.
I think it would be possible in terms of an open world the size of Arkham city or smaller, and it would have to not be very highly populated. GTA/Saints row size area would be way too much work, wouldn't run very well and wouldn't fit on one disk (on 360 anyway) open world games on multiple disks are painful.
Sentenza
Member
No, they really aren't.
Sure, Uncharted series is impressive by console standards and there's some amazing art direction involved, but it seems to me like you're deliberately ignoring all the occasional smoke and mirrors they use to hide poor details here and there.
http://i.imgur.com/6rDyH.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/tvXZW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PWTgS.jpg
And when it comes to textures, more specifically, The Witcher 2 on PC on max settings is one of the most impressive things out there.
You can just enter the monastery in the prologue or Floatsam's tavern, look around a bit and it should really be pretty obvious what I'm talking about.
EDIT: holy shit, why those imagines don't auto-resize? What I have to do? D:
Sentenza
Member
Yeah, they are not the best quality in screen capturing, but that's not the point.
The point is that those poorly detailed parts are actually in the game.
thelurkinghorror
Member
Just Cause is really really close. And why you can't have those vistas in a game like Uncharted? Maybe for the same reason, you have a budget and a gameplay to pursue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-fNbKnW9-w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-fNbKnW9-w
CadetMahoney
Member
you can't have true open world with that amount of detail unless the dev knows 100% they'll make their money back in spades. Huge development team and time. I guess you can just shrink the world down.
Probably not due to budget and memory/tech constrains. Next gen may have the tech to allow it, but uncharted 4 or other AAA non open world games will still be two seps ahead because they will push hw with controlled environments.
But there are nice open world world games like Infamous 2 or RDR or even Batman AC , so i think this generation has achieved really nice graphics. I wonder what will next gen offer
But there are nice open world world games like Infamous 2 or RDR or even Batman AC , so i think this generation has achieved really nice graphics. I wonder what will next gen offer
thelurkinghorror
Member
Maybe it's a matter of time.
What we need is a new powerfull middleware who let the developers spread the awesomeness trough all the map, like SpeedTree do with plants.
Moreover a random generated content don't have the same amout of love a handbuilded scenography has.
What we need is a new powerfull middleware who let the developers spread the awesomeness trough all the map, like SpeedTree do with plants.
Moreover a random generated content don't have the same amout of love a handbuilded scenography has.
R_thanatos
Member
i think the closest i've seen this gen was Infamous 2
You should try playing The Witcher 2 and not judging off videos.
We won't see one anytime soon, not because of lacking hardware but because of manpower. That level of polish is too much for something that isn't a linear action game.
It would if the game actually had that level of IQ, it's unfortunately hamstrung by a low resolution and a lack of strong anti aliasing and texture filtering (the former being the most noticeable). Also:
They do on mine, I love the game but Uncharted 3 has it's fair share of terrible textures and worse still, baked-in lighting. Especially during the shipyard sequence, I'd say some sections there looked downright horrible at times. That's not to say it didn't have some great looking examples as well, it did, but it does not nearly match TW2 despite the more constrained maps (at least on PC, haven't played the 360 version).
It would if the game actually had that level of IQ, it's unfortunately hamstrung by a low resolution and a lack of strong anti aliasing and texture filtering (the former being the most noticeable). Also:
They do on mine, I love the game but Uncharted 3 has it's fair share of terrible textures and worse still, baked-in lighting. Especially during the shipyard sequence, I'd say some sections there looked downright horrible at times. That's not to say it didn't have some great looking examples as well, it did, but it does not nearly match TW2 despite the more constrained maps (at least on PC, haven't played the 360 version).
Pachterballs
Banned
Comparing pc to ps3? With the world of difference in ram btw them??? Uc3 holds up exceeding well. That is all.
Can't wait for the last of us
Can't wait for the last of us
You're wasting your time, those that wish to make this thread a UC3 wank-fest aren't looking at the subject objectively.
sublimit
Banned
Congrats on totally missing the point of this thread.Please take your PC elitism with you and leave.This thread is not about your imaginary battle of PS3 vs PC.
Portugeezer
Member
WItcher 2 did already. Uncharted level graphics with bigger world, not sure if I would call it open world though... you have freedom to go many places, but nothing even close to Skyrim.
Perhaps with some kind of crowd-sourcing development?
I don't think an open world game with that level of detail is all that possible simply due to the man hours required to create so many unique assets. An open world game with that level of geometric detail/density is possible, but it would not be anywhere near as finely tuned and feel somewhat more repetitive.
They're both highly impressive, but considering the hardware, I find Uncharted 3 to be much more so. The Witcher 2 doesn't run as well as it should considering the power of the PC hardware available and its animation is a mixed bag. Love that over the top bokeh depth of field, though.
It lacks some of the finer details, though, I've found. It looks really incredible as a result of its textures, lighting, and effects but the geometry seems a bit less refined overall. Also, the animation in Uncharted 3 is quite a bit better AND uses per-object motion blur.
They're both highly impressive, but considering the hardware, I find Uncharted 3 to be much more so. The Witcher 2 doesn't run as well as it should considering the power of the PC hardware available and its animation is a mixed bag. Love that over the top bokeh depth of field, though.
Betta Lines
Member
It is extremely likely that an Uncharted 4 on PS4 would be just as linear as the previous games. Perhaps bigger environments with the occasional choice of route, but I certainly wouldn't expect a switch to open-world design.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Exactly. That's why games like GOW3 look and perform so well, Santa Monica knows that, at "x" event, the camera will be looking in "x" direction. This allows them to fill that small perspective on the area with as many whizz bang effects as they can, knowing you can't suddenly turn the camera 90 degrees and ask the engine to draw something else entirely. In sandbox games, you can go anywhere and do anything at anytime, so the engine needs to run with some headroom to allow for a sudden explosion of particles or massive vista, meaning that under normal stress conditions, you could never have it pushing as much as GOW3.
It would be a travesty if they switched to an open world game design for a future Uncharted game, as far as I'm concerned.
lol PC elitism? I don't even have a working PC now.
The silly posts in this thread have already turned this into a PS3 vs PC thread when people were claiming UC3 looks better than any other game, PC games included.