-
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 you be happy if "Next-Gen" games looked like this ?
- Thread starter AngelSoldier
- Start date
Sorry, but angst doesn't actually translate to graphical fidelity.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The next gen console wars have already started and there isn't even any hardware out yet. I'm starting to think that everything will be awesome and no one will be happy.
AngelSoldier
Banned
You are blind.
You cannot see an image for what it is, only what you believe it to portray. You are shallow and simple.
You prove nothing, but take a jab at everything. You are childish.
Kitschkraft
Member
No, I remember particularly some of those wall textures being incredible.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
Truly, the epitome of gaming.
the only real impressive stuff I see from that is how clean the shadows and reflections are, nothing else in the video really jumps out as being worthy of new hardware. Everything else is we can do as good, just not as much maybe (dof for example in a scene this small).
plagiarize
Banned
mirrors edge has BAKED GI and great texture work. neither of those things is really pushing the 360. realtime GI is likely a next gen thing. Crysis 2 on PCs can do it right? so that strikes me as a good starting point.
higher quality dynamic lighting, tesselation, better particle effects, more complex simulations (AI included)... these are the sort of things next gen will do better.
if you don't get why the lighting and particle effects are jaw dropping in that Zelda video, you aren't going to be impressed by next gen.
'next gen' won't be seen in screenshots. you'll need to see it moving more than ever to appreciate the improvements. next gen will be all about the dynamic.
Yeah, show me the in-game footage from current gen games that surpass the cutscenes from FFX/XII.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
the problem is that the entire zelda video is just a cutscene. It's not like the particles are reacting differently each time, they're scripted to look that good, adding a different lighting pass doesn't actually change that, same goes with a lot of the lighting, it seems like it's baked for the day or night, with some dynamic lights tossed in for "effect" moreso then anything, which most games this gen do without any difficulty. The halo 3 announcement trailer for example is as effective to if not moreso then the zelda demo for the exact same reasons. Amazing looking lighting and particle effects, and it too ran on the 360.
I prefer this gif myself:
I didn't support Nintendo this gen because of the under-powered hardware, but this looks damn great. All aboard the hype train.
Edit: That is, if they can pull this off.
plagiarize
Banned
i'm not claiming it's doing any kind of simulation for the smoke effects, but it's clearly pushing a lot of soft particles. i can't remember seeing smoke that good in Halo 3 or any other 360/PS3 game for that matter, though i may just not know the examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iD2lmN3RdEA#t=44s i'd love to see another game doing that in engine in a cutscene. again, i might just not know the example, but that's a really impressive effect.
lighting seems way more dynamic than you're giving credit for. even if it's pre baked, it's pre baked at a higher resolution than i've seen baked before, and it seems not to be a static lightmap, but rather an animated one.
and, yes. well done. you've identified Halo 3 as being a high benchmark for lighting this gen. this looks better, and runs at a full 720p framebuffer.
something that Halo 3 couldn't do.
other games achieved similar effects much more cheaply, but the dynamic lighting in Halo 3 has not, in my opinion, been bettered on consoles, and you can see exactly how expensive that glorious lighting was by looking at all the ways Halo 3 was unimpressive graphically.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
Particles in a one off cinematic are easy to do, you not reusing it 500 times else where in the game to save space.
I'm talking about this announcement trailer.
they had a playable demo of it running.
EricDiesel
Member
100% agree. I think the next XBox reveal is going to be met with a lot of anger and "thanks, NINTENDO" comments because it's not Samaritan only twice as pretty. It'll be entertaining, at least. But damn. Temper your expectations.
I don't recall it looking like that or being at that resolution. Looking at old clips on Youtube confirms for me that current gen has matched or surpassed FF's PS2 FMV.
I think the anger would be justified if the leap is anything less than that of a normal generational leap. Particularly when this generation is taking more than 50% longer than usual.
AngelSoldier
Banned
If only.
Unfortunately, Games nowadays DO NOT look even close to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoc-dMndt5s
And if you think otherwise you're either delusional or high.
You have zero understanding of technical graphics and animation, that much is for sure.
I could state how Blizzard's animation in Warcraft and Starcraft CGI is still unsurpassed, and how they keyframe animations instead of motion capture. Instead, all you do is post still images and then claim that anyone who disagrees must be an idiot.
But keep spouting personal attacks because obviously that's all you know how to do.
This is a great way to argue your points, simply call the other person an idiot. Are you in 5th grade?
Brofist
Member
Open your eyes man, can't you see?!
Finaika
Member
His dad modelled cars in the first Need for Speed.
AngelSoldier
Banned
I didn't mention which one he made cars for but ok ! It doesn't matter anyway, obviously everything posted is just ammunition for another to use against you.
You have only to go back and read the opinions of many others to see that you are wrong.
Again, I have admitted that Blizzard is good. But they are not the end all be all. You say Square's FMV's are full of "angst," I say Blizzards are rather "cartooney."
Also, I've posted plenty of video links, not my problem if you don't wanna watch them.
EDIT: As is typical of GAF, a simple "yes"or "no" question has been turned into oh, so much more ...
I mean, at least I admitted that Western companies like Blizzard and Bungie are capable of making good CG, but some of you ... "Square Enix = Low Tier" "Lol, Square = shit" etc etc .... Fucking shit.
Also note that I am not judging graphics by how they're made or what tech is used to make them. I judge only by the final product, which really when it comes down to what I asked in the OP is all that should matter.
Rodney McKay
Member
I care way more about animations and intractability than I do about raw details in games.
A game like Witcher 2 or FF13 may have mind blowing detail in their games, but whenever I bump into an invisible wall or a character's clothes clip through their body it pulls me right out of the experience.
I would much rather the processing power go toward better AI, destructible environments, realistic animation systems, and physics. Basically things that will actually improve how games play and feel, not just how they look.
A game like Witcher 2 or FF13 may have mind blowing detail in their games, but whenever I bump into an invisible wall or a character's clothes clip through their body it pulls me right out of the experience.
I would much rather the processing power go toward better AI, destructible environments, realistic animation systems, and physics. Basically things that will actually improve how games play and feel, not just how they look.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
the FF 12 CGI might look good but it doesn't animate as well, it's a bit stiff.
DerZuhälter
Member
Seriously. Even if impressive on a technical level, this must be the most horribly "directed" cutscene I have ever seen. As someone who never played Final Fantasy XIII (or any predecessor counting back to VIII) the frames reek of the Rick McCallum shit statement "Everything is so dense". It's epilepsy inducing and half of the time you have no idea what the hell is going on. My eyes had trouble to focus on stuff. If that's what you want for gaming, preferably with a big flashing A or Square button in the middle, and it gets delivered... well then I'm going to quit gaming.
molekiller
Banned
Blizzards CGIs eat Square's ones for breakfast and shits on top of them.
EricDiesel
Member
Justified how? By gamer entitlement? Because it's what we've come to expect? That's a pretty weak defense.
And what's a "normal" leap? Genesis to Saturn? Atari 2600 to Atari 5200? PS2 to PS3? Gamecube to Wii? That could mean practically anything. There's no set standard for hardware generations.
SappYoda
Member
It does indeed look like shadows don't change at all
They could be using prebaked shadows.
But it's pointless to look at tech demos as something a system can deliver since:
- Tech demos are controlled environments (Camera is fixed, no AI, no game logic, etc.)
- Hardware specs could be cut before launch.
- Devkits usually have better specs than the actual hardware.
Justified in that selling what is essentially the same old hardware at brand new hardware prices is a crock of shit. The industry and its consumers deserve progression. Not stagnation as immediate profits on hardware become more important than the overall advancement of technology and more options at the disposal of both developers and gamers.
A normal leap is that of virtually every consoles succession except for GC to Wii. I wouldn't consider the various upgraded forms of the Atari 2600 as actual generational changes.
Yes. Now you know the truth, my Nintenjas will kill you.
@SappYoda DAT COMPRESION ARTIFACTS but yes, prebaked shadows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V65Q5e5N17I
Demo *only* had two still time-of-the-day and several viewing angles.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
I don't know whay you keep mentioning Bungie (i don't even know if they made that TV ad), they are not even in the same league. The top dogs of CG animation are Blizzard (most realistic movement, and lighting), Blur-studio (most realistic human faces), Ubisoft (2nd most realistic humans, but better animation than blur), From Sofware (most realistic hard surfaces, robots) and Squeare-enix (amount of stuff going on in the screen).
Of course, not all of the CG trailers for each studio have the same quality. Some of blurs look very good (force unleash 2, Prey 2), while others look average. Blizzard's WoW cinematics (except the last one) are better than Diablo III's . Square most realistic cgi to date is FF versus XIII, and I think that is the only one that rivals Blizzard in the technical aspects.
Valjean Lafitte
Banned
Pink hair and pretty ladies, oh noes!
There are at least three different renders of the same location: http://www.arroway-textures.com/en/gallery/raucherhofThis is true graphic power!
IceDoesntHelp
Banned
It does indeed look like shadows don't change at all
They could be using prebaked shadows.
But it's pointless to look at tech demos as something a system can deliver since:
- Tech demos are controlled environments (Camera is fixed, no AI, no game logic, etc.)
- Hardware specs could be cut before launch.
- Devkits usually have better specs than the actual hardware.
We know the Wii U was underclocked for heating issues, so the Zelda Tech Demo was running on unfinished and underclocked hardware. Also take into consideration that every Zelda Tech Demo that was shown was outperformed by another Zelda game.