[QUOTE=Cookieeater;37146013]Tessellation is crap. The graphics end up being too insignificant to warrant the FPS loss. In my opinion, graphics don't need better textures or polygons. Textures are high resolution enough to the point where increasing the resolution won't make it look better. The same can be said about polygons. I think computer graphics will improve in the lighting department this decade while textures and polygon counts will remain the same. Frostbite 2 and Unreal Engine 4 seem to have this trend with the biggest marketed graphical features being deferred shading and real time global illumination.[/QUOTE]
Tessellation seems like crap because the way its used, in Crysis 2's case, they slapped it on everything at max density, it looks like crap, and it makes your framerate crap as well.
it HAS good ground on deformables such as hair, water, and physics related distruction; because its cheaper to handle the physics and deformation on the CPU, then offload the fancy mesh bending to Tessellation. Although, when we have the GPU power to do it on every surface, I welcome it; it allows bricks walls to be non-cardboard flat pieces of shader caked crap.
I'd agre Texture res can be high enough its not an issue, the issue is artists who make low-res textures, or don't care that they have a 512x512 texture stretched over a large wall.
Poly counts are like textures, its to the point where the artists make the choice, but I would like to see the ability to render more polys on screen at once, and faster.
Lighting isn't going to get very far IMO, Raytracing is around the corner, and once that becomes available at real-time, shit is going to change fast.
[QUOTE=Cmx;37145922]You are kidding right?[/QUOTE]
play Skyrim on the PC along with the texture pack DLC and some extra settings changed in the cfg. it's an aesthetical wonder.
it's kind of a cheap shot to say i'm kidding. i don't like being laughed at fyi
[QUOTE=Amaurus;37145818]If it means anything, that's the day the CS:GO prepurchase beta starts.[/QUOTE]
Pre-purchase now to receive 25% off Ricochet 2.
Skyrim is an ugly and vastly overated game.
[QUOTE=The Jack;37148207]Skyrim is an ugly and vastly overated game.[/QUOTE]
It suffers from shitty animations, that's about the only gripe I have with it.
Oh, and they need to fire whoever is making their rock model / textures, that person is seriously fucking up the textures.
Skyrim has ugly texture shadows.
Dark Messiah, a Source engine game released 5 years before Skyrim, looks much better than Skyrim.
I wouldn't say it looks much better at all. Though I agree that skyrim isn't the best looking game out there.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37146148]play Skyrim on the PC along with the texture pack DLC and some extra settings changed in the cfg. it's an aesthetical wonder. [/quote]
Textures aren't the only thing holding it back, Trees still look horrible, animations are terrible and lazy, water also still looks terribad from a distance.
[quote]it's kind of a cheap shot to say i'm kidding. i don't like being laughed at fyi[/QUOTE]
Oh no, did I hurt your feelings? :(
[QUOTE=thisispain;37145102]tessellation is a completely bogus thing anyway. we've had tessellation for ages in OpenGL and certain GPU's experimented with it but never found any particular use for it.
having it suddenly be directx11 is in all likely-hood just an excuse to make it look like you really need Dx11 for the best graphics. yet Skyrim is certainly one of the best looking games i've ever seen and that's all Directx 9.[/QUOTE]
Not even the same thing. New tesselation is new pipeline stages and shaders. And opengl has it too, with the same level hardware.
it's kind of annoying how much new graphics tech FUD there is. It was the same with direct3d10 level hardware, people just don't understand that the new features aren't going to map directly to options in games. It didn't help that games like crysis totally mishandled it, even now games like arkham city come with fps raping forced d3d11 features, it doesn't help the image. D3D9 is at the awkward point where it is 'good enough'. Read [URL="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476342%28v=vs.85%29.aspx"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh404562%28v=vs.85%29.aspx"]this[/URL] and tell me whether you actually understand any of it, or the advantages. I'm using direct3d here but the same goes for the equivalent opengl features, it's just not as easy to find the same kind of feature list.
The funny thing is, we've reached the point where new d3d9 games, actually require at least d3d11 cards for their highest options.
[QUOTE=SiPlus;37148823]Dark Messiah, a Source engine game released 5 years before Skyrim, looks much better than Skyrim.[/QUOTE]
Buy better PC...
[QUOTE=SiPlus;37148823]Dark Messiah, a Source engine game released 5 years before Skyrim, looks much better than Skyrim.[/QUOTE]
it's also on a much smaller scale than skyrim
[QUOTE=Cmx;37149447]Textures aren't the only thing holding it back, Trees still look horrible, animations are terrible and lazy, water also still looks terribad from a distance.
Oh no, did I hurt your feelings? :([/QUOTE]
Plus it has no writers and from a creative standpoint it was made by people who treat originality and adventure like a plague
[QUOTE=The Jack;37151517]Plus it has no writers and from a creative standpoint it was made by people who treat originality and adventure like a plague[/QUOTE]
What do you mean?
What could be more adventurous than going into cave after cave of draugr to collect items?
[QUOTE=Cmx;37152375]What do you mean?
What could be more adventurous than going into cave after cave of draugr to collect items?[/QUOTE]
all Draugr are the same.
Caves are filled with the same stuff.
Skyrim is the second most bland environment in tamriel
Loot is generic
variety of weapons and magics are low
Aside from dragonpriests (who give little warning on where they are going to be for first time players. meaning that you can travel 15 minutes in a dungeon fighting lvl 4 creatures and then find yourself fighting a level 50 boss) there's no dungeons for heigher level players and thus little fear
Playing as a theif character is heavily discouraged as stealth is only meant to be used in preperation for sneak attacks.
Dragons are generic. Timedragons aren't very unique either. Alduin is a horrible cliche. Also- In the lore alduin is a Literal world eater and is an aspect of akatosh so you can imagine my dissapointment in finding that he's just a black dragon
anyway.. i just went massively off-topic. But the only thing the creation does well is the view distance/lod plus maybe the streams.
hey guys let's talk about how bad skyrim is skyrim sure is bad this isn't off-topic man fuck todd howard right overrated GARBAGE
e: i do hope thisispain was joking though. i can admit that i enjoy the look of skyrim and the atmosphere despite its major flaws, but one of the best looking games out there hahahahaha no
2006: Omg gaiz oblivion sucks morowind is so much beter!
2011: LOL skyrim suks so much more like skyshit amirite oblivion and morowond r so much better!
2014: hahha gaiz elsweyr sucks SOOO much skjyrim morrowind and oblivion r so much better!
etc...
Anyway, back on topic. I think HL2: Ep3 will be released with the current version of Source, and HL3 will be used to reveal Source 2, like how Half-Life 2 revealed Source.
[QUOTE=Crimptor;37153276]2006: Omg gaiz oblivion sucks morowind is so much beter!
2011: LOL skyrim suks so much more like skyshit amirite oblivion and morowond r so much better!
2014: hahha gaiz elsweyr sucks SOOO much skjyrim morrowind and oblivion r so much better!
etc...
Anyway, back on topic. I think HL2: Ep3 will be released with the current version of Source, and HL3 will be used to reveal Source 2, like how Half-Life 2 revealed Source.[/QUOTE]
except they aren't clever enough to make elys..
I think the engine has changed a lot. I think it will only be called Source 2 once the map structure changes. I don't think valve will change the way they make maps until they make an rpg or driving game or branch into some other genre that involves huge maps.
I wish games could handle clipping. That's really the only thing I notice "wrong" when I play a game. People's arms don't go through themselves, y'know.
Maybe Source 2 will dazzle the world with this technology.
I played a source game like 11 years ago for the first time and I still prefer it to a lot of engines, I would probably like the engine to stay similar just because it is so nice to play with just with more power I guess. Although I would not want it to change too much.
[QUOTE=Tehgameze;37155530]I played a source game like 11 years ago for the first time and I still prefer it to a lot of engines, I would probably like the engine to stay similar just because it is so nice to play with just with more power I guess. Although I would not want it to change too much.[/QUOTE]
The first iteration of the Source engine came out 8 years ago. So unless you're a wizard or happen to have worked at Valve, your statement is erroneous.
I hope source 2 would support massive landscapes.
I would love to see custom mappers able to make natural maps that span for miles if they wanted to.
[QUOTE=Crimptor;37153276]2006: Omg gaiz oblivion sucks morowind is so much beter!
2011: LOL skyrim suks so much more like skyshit amirite oblivion and morowond r so much better!
2014: hahha gaiz elsweyr sucks SOOO much skjyrim morrowind and oblivion r so much better!
etc...
Anyway, back on topic. I think HL2: Ep3 will be released with the current version of Source, and HL3 will be used to reveal Source 2, like how Half-Life 2 revealed Source.[/QUOTE]
Nah, the next one would be Elder Scrolls Online, everyone will be bitching how the world is too small or something.
[QUOTE=Philly c;37149475]Not even the same thing. New tesselation is new pipeline stages and shaders. And opengl has it too, with the same level hardware.
it's kind of annoying how much new graphics tech FUD there is. It was the same with direct3d10 level hardware, people just don't understand that the new features aren't going to map directly to options in games. It didn't help that games like crysis totally mishandled it, even now games like arkham city come with fps raping forced d3d11 features, it doesn't help the image. D3D9 is at the awkward point where it is 'good enough'. Read [URL="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476342%28v=vs.85%29.aspx"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh404562%28v=vs.85%29.aspx"]this[/URL] and tell me whether you actually understand any of it, or the advantages. I'm using direct3d here but the same goes for the equivalent opengl features, it's just not as easy to find the same kind of feature list.
The funny thing is, we've reached the point where new d3d9 games, actually require at least d3d11 cards for their highest options.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, as I've tried to argue, DX9 was a big jump in graphics, but DX10 added its programmable shader core pipeline that has the ability to boost performance on DX9 style graphics.
DX11 added quite a few new features to make a lot of shit less hacky (So we can have MSAA in deferred engines for example)
When people bash DX10 - 11 they only think of the crappy half-assedish work a few developers have done.
[video=youtube;dhXiEXXPjBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXiEXXPjBE&feature=g-all-lik[/video]
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
source would crash rendering only the fucking frog xD
[QUOTE=Robertto;37163723][video=youtube;dhXiEXXPjBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXiEXXPjBE&feature=g-all-lik[/video]
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
source would crash rendering only the fucking frog xD[/QUOTE]
Yes, we get it, CryEngine shoves tons of wonderful polys down your throat, then tops it off with Hollywood's shitty style bloom and framerate. (24 FPS!)
[QUOTE=Robertto;37163723][video=youtube;dhXiEXXPjBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXiEXXPjBE&feature=g-all-lik[/video]
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
source would crash rendering only the fucking frog xD[/QUOTE]
My point of view as an indie game developer:
- The bird animation in the beginning isn't realistic: While CryTek seems to be able to do good procedural things, manually animated object still sucks.
- All the scenes contains carefully crafted environments: at 0:18, they're using DoF and Fog to hide what's in the background, which if you look closely is way less complex than the front scene. This makes me think they're using hard LOD ranges to keep framerate high enough.
- Same for the butterfly animation as with the bird
- On the Canyon type scene at 0:38, they're using a lot of fog to give more depth to the scene, remove it and it's as dull as the Citadel animation at the beginning of Ep2
- At 0:47, foliage animation is everything but realistic. It's a simple linear movement waiving back and forth one "bone" inside the foliage mesh. Again, reduced physics details to keep framerate high?
- Tessellation isn't the magical fix to vertex limitations, though is cheaper to render
- Lens flare are nothing new and are just 2D images overlays based on hardware-occlusion queries and a simple math formula. Any engine can do it.
- HDR Flares and Shape, as known as Glow, is also nothing new, and it looks bad especially if you use it everywhere.
- The Global Illumination however looks great - I think some CryTek engineers wrote a paper about it
- Volumetric fog shadows is something I even have inside my own indie engine. A clever combination of depthmap and volumetric rendering is enough.
- Area Lights is in the Alien Swarm SDK (and I'm sure you played with it already in Garry's Mod), known as Volumetric Light or Projective-texture lights. Nothing new.
- The particles system however IS impressive. I don't know how much procedural it is and how much textures it uses, but the render is really looking good. I'm a bit skeptical about the "unlimited" though, as each billboard comes on the screen with a cost, unless they found a way to render it into the GBuffer with a fixed cost (or they do on-the-fly eye-space LOD).
- Cloth and vegetation simulation were already in Crysis 1 (and you can find it in free SDKs such as PhysX)
- Look carefully on the bottom right at around 2:18, when the helicopter starts to land: the foliage is flickering a lot.
So, that's my point of view about the engine and their tech demo. For me, since Crysis 1 they just iterated over the CryEngine with small enhancements, but most things comes from more powerful computers and more vertices on the screen. Add fog everywhere and eye-candy HDR and you win "noobish" people. And all of this with a low framerate.
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;37161022]I hope source 2 would support massive landscapes.
I would love to see custom mappers able to make natural maps that span for miles if they wanted to.[/QUOTE]
I'm thinking this due to the ending of EP2 with the Helicopter. Unless you start out crashed in the arctic (which would be annoyingly cheap), surely you have to see somewhat into the distance?
I don't know. I would hope it's about time they did increase the map size somewhat though.
[QUOTE=Namjaa;37155392]I wish games could handle clipping. That's really the only thing I notice "wrong" when I play a game. People's arms don't go through themselves, y'know.
Maybe Source 2 will dazzle the world with this technology.[/QUOTE]
Most of that problem is caused by bad animation/rigging work, combined with the significant dynamism of video games in general. A lot of developers have this thing for only ever using mocapped animations, meaning they tend to overlook all but the most terrible clipping in favour of a quicker pipeline
[QUOTE=glitchvid;37164267]Yes, we get it, CryEngine shoves tons of wonderful polys down your throat, then tops it off with Hollywood's shitty style bloom and framerate. (24 FPS!)[/QUOTE]
Of course you insult the engine because its being pushed at you in a negative tone, your bias is incredible. Cryengine 3 looks better in every aspect than Source, don't be naive.
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=xplodwild;37164660]My point of view as an indie game developer:
- The bird animation in the beginning isn't realistic: While CryTek seems to be able to do good procedural things, manually animated object still sucks.
- All the scenes contains carefully crafted environments: at 0:18, they're using DoF and Fog to hide what's in the background, which if you look closely is way less complex than the front scene. This makes me think they're using hard LOD ranges to keep framerate high enough.
- Same for the butterfly animation as with the bird
- On the Canyon type scene at 0:38, they're using a lot of fog to give more depth to the scene, remove it and it's as dull as the Citadel animation at the beginning of Ep2
- At 0:47, foliage animation is everything but realistic. It's a simple linear movement waiving back and forth one "bone" inside the foliage mesh. Again, reduced physics details to keep framerate high?
- Tessellation isn't the magical fix to vertex limitations, though is cheaper to render
- Lens flare are nothing new and are just 2D images overlays based on hardware-occlusion queries and a simple math formula. Any engine can do it.
- HDR Flares and Shape, as known as Glow, is also nothing new, and it looks bad especially if you use it everywhere.
- The Global Illumination however looks great - I think some CryTek engineers wrote a paper about it
- Volumetric fog shadows is something I even have inside my own indie engine. A clever combination of depthmap and volumetric rendering is enough.
- Area Lights is in the Alien Swarm SDK (and I'm sure you played with it already in Garry's Mod), known as Volumetric Light or Projective-texture lights. Nothing new.
- The particles system however IS impressive. I don't know how much procedural it is and how much textures it uses, but the render is really looking good. I'm a bit skeptical about the "unlimited" though, as each billboard comes on the screen with a cost, unless they found a way to render it into the GBuffer with a fixed cost (or they do on-the-fly eye-space LOD).
- Cloth and vegetation simulation were already in Crysis 1 (and you can find it in free SDKs such as PhysX)
- Look carefully on the bottom right at around 2:18, when the helicopter starts to land: the foliage is flickering a lot.
So, that's my point of view about the engine and their tech demo. For me, since Crysis 1 they just iterated over the CryEngine with small enhancements, but most things comes from more powerful computers and more vertices on the screen. Add fog everywhere and eye-candy HDR and you win "noobish" people. And all of this with a low framerate.[/QUOTE]
oh my fucking god are you seriously one of those generic pretentious indie game developers? So fucking...wow, holy shit.
Cryengine 3 is more than its particle effects, and you'd know that if you would get off your ignorant high horse once in awhile.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
