And still not seeing anything that could be done on PS3.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;49231891]It's not real. Those were taken from the NVIDIA page where they showed comparisons across settings + how to tweak visuals. It's since been taken down.[/QUOTE]
I haven't heard of that, but if that's true, it still is an accurate pic, based on this video from a similar (same?) area and angle.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Uz9WYVr.jpg[/IMG]
Even with compression, you can see it looks like ass.
[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;49231904]And still not seeing anything that could be done on PS3.[/QUOTE]
Very funny coming from you.
It's not that much different from PC. The reason is due to the ugrid structure that their games run on. As you move away it despawns things or loads in LOD models. By increasing a ugrid number you can make the engine spawn more of the assets that live in a specific cell.
It's honestly a bit antiquated when we have much better culling tech these days but for a world of that detail it's still an extremely hard problem to solve, and means that ugrid should eventually evolve. Engines are just now starting to answer this problem by having built in object grouping systems that generate a single model from say, a building with rails, walkways, etc and atlas the textures together so the GPU doesn't have a billion separate objects splashed all over the screen. This would take months and months of development on top of the work they already had to do to completely overhaul the renderer itself. Plus it would mean that you couldn't build a game world at all while this development takes place due to the fact that you are rearchitecting the entire way objects are loaded and unloaded, something that's definitely going to need a lot of testing before you can pass it off to the level designers and artists for production.
You gotta give them credit where it's due. Shortcomings don't make something shit.
Maybe they should stop using such a mediocre engine so their games don't look 5 years old? They could hire a QA guy or two to help with the tons of bugs and performance issues in their games. Other open world games manage to look up to modern standards and even graphically impressive. I wish people would stop giving them a free pass. If ubisoft or EA released this game under a different name, we'd never hear the end of the complaints.
But god forbid they put in work for 'months and months' to overhaul their engine. Just let modders fix it I guess.
youre just being sensationalist tbh
if you want to have a real discussion about the business of games then you cant just ignore that switching engines is nontrivial. joking about hiring a QA guy or two doesn't speak meaningfully either.
also let's differentiate between people talking critically while respecting the work and giving a free pass, and pls dont make comparisons to completely unrelated companies and your beliefs about hypotheticals regarding them. it's just pointlessly ranting about fanboyism when nobody is acting like that here.
that last comment is just being snarky and disrespectful towards the devs
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;49231940]
Very funny coming from you.[/QUOTE]
And what does that mean?
Do you really think that volumetric lighting and PBR can be done at 1080p on last gen? Or are you just ignoring facts while trying to make shitty quips again?
[QUOTE=vrej;49227460]Just buy a PC people, why go through all this?[/QUOTE]
Uh, I don't know, I've been using consoles from an very early age, before there were 'powerful' high-end gaming computers. Like shit, the PS1/PS2? So tell me, what were the main reasons you would've wanted to [I]buy[/I] a console back then? Exactly. This is why I still stick with consoles. I have no reason at the moment to stick with PC gaming for a long duration of time. And I'll say this, there's not a whole lot of games I like on PC. I imagine it would be the same for others as well.
[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;49234492]Uh, I don't know, I've been using consoles from an very early age, before there were 'powerful' high-end gaming computers. Like shit, the PS1/PS2? So tell me, what were the main reasons you would've wanted to [I]buy[/I] a console back then? Exactly. This is why I still stick with consoles. I have no reason at the moment to stick with PC gaming for a long duration of time. And I'll say this, there's not a whole lot of games I like on PC. I imagine it would be the same for others as well.[/QUOTE]
Seems like the last time you looked at PC gaming was when the PS2 was still relevant.
[editline].[/editline]
Regardless of dumb opinions, both PC gaming and console gaming have their place, and can co-exist. Even if they share many of the same games.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;49231891]It's not real. Those were taken from the NVIDIA page where they showed comparisons across settings + how to tweak visuals. It's since been taken down.
you can still access some of the images knowing the URL
[url]http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-ugridstoload-tweak-interactive-comparison-001-ugrids-13-vs-ugrids-5.html[/url][/QUOTE]
since he can't use an actual source I'll post some
[video=youtube;JQ4oz8Y1Z8Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ4oz8Y1Z8Q[/video]
[video=youtube;-y1Mt-ziC7E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y1Mt-ziC7E[/video]
[video=youtube;urHFezRlzWc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urHFezRlzWc[/video]
[video=youtube;zuSiO45ky7o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuSiO45ky7o[/video]
console versions indeed look a bit shit
fallout 4 is a quantumly bad/good example. It shows us what a REALLY power hungry game will look like on PC vs console as opposed to something much lighter.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;49234492]Uh, I don't know, I've been using consoles from an very early age, before there were 'powerful' high-end gaming computers. Like shit, the PS1/PS2? So tell me, what were the main reasons you would've wanted to [I]buy[/I] a console back then? Exactly. This is why I still stick with consoles. I have no reason at the moment to stick with PC gaming for a long duration of time. And I'll say this, there's not a whole lot of games I like on PC. I imagine it would be the same for others as well.[/QUOTE]
I could post wiki articles about how PC has far more exclusives (just looking at recent ones) but that would be pretty stupid to do all in all and nobody cares
but, PC does have more exlusives
Fallout 4 is a horrible example of graphical fidelty, though. In comparison to other recent games, it looks like shit on [I]every[/I] platform.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;49230444]Of course unified memory is better than the same size in split. Then you don't have to waste time and bandwidth moving data from the vram to ram or vice versa, and you have lower total ram utilization, since you wouldn't need duplicates of files.
[B]Approximately 98% of ps4 games are 1080p.[/B] Most of the ones that aren't are Battlefield, or Assassin's Creed. Others are Watch Dogs and UFC and another two or three I can't remember.[/QUOTE]
Mmmmm, statistics pulled out of one's arse - my favourite!
[QUOTE=Stopper;49235178]Mmmmm, statistics pulled out of one's arse - my favourite![/QUOTE]
It's probably pretty close to the truth though.
Last year, i looked at the rendering resolutions of [B]retail[/B] PS4 games, and 94% of them were in 1080p.
Now, if you add on all the downloadable PlayStation Store games, which include tons of indie games that pretty much always run in 1080p, it's not hard to imagine the percentage climbing to 98%.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49234921]since he can't use an actual source I'll post some
[video=youtube;JQ4oz8Y1Z8Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ4oz8Y1Z8Q[/video]
[video=youtube;-y1Mt-ziC7E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y1Mt-ziC7E[/video]
[video=youtube;urHFezRlzWc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urHFezRlzWc[/video]
[video=youtube;zuSiO45ky7o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuSiO45ky7o[/video]
console versions indeed look a bit shit
fallout 4 is a quantumly bad/good example. It shows us what a REALLY power hungry game will look like on PC vs console as opposed to something much lighter.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
I could post wiki articles about how PC has far more exclusives (just looking at recent ones) but that would be pretty stupid to do all in all and nobody cares
but, PC does have more exlusives[/QUOTE]
Thanks for sharing the real comparisons. I had seen those exact images in crimson's post on NVIDIA's webpage for tweaking ugrids and shadow distance/quality settings in the ini files. It's a shame people bother to twist things to troll or serve whatever dumb opinion!
Yeah people don't recognize just how resource intensive these types of games are and the effort that goes into optimization. There are companies dedicated to just occlusion culling middleware.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;49234879]Seems like the last time you looked at PC gaming was when the PS2 was still relevant.
[editline].[/editline]
Regardless of dumb opinions, both PC gaming and console gaming have their place, and can co-exist. Even if they share many of the same games.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. I still know the strengths of PC gaming compared to consoles. However, the same reasons I played the PS1 and PS2 for long hours on end back then are still why I play the newer, more recent consoles (PS4 and Xboxone). There are a few PC games that I like though. Like Sam & Max: Hit the Road, Diablo II, Half-life, etc, right? But a few games that I like (and mind you, I actually do look for good, fun games on PC) on PC are not going to convince me that PC is better for gaming, sorry.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49225282]the cool thing about consoles is that they're a standardized platform so once devs get used to it they can push optimization to insane degrees[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately not going to help very much. PS3 saw continued improvements throughout its lifespan because it was such a weird architecture, and such a pig to program, so it took years for devs to get familiar with it.
PS4 and XB1 are essentially commodity PC hardware - there's nothing new or unusual to get used to, no learning curve for the programmers. It's less difficult to get the best out of them, but there's less far to go from there.
[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;49238605] not going to convince me that PC is better for gaming, sorry.[/QUOTE]
It's ridiculous to believe the PC isn't better for gaming in some ways, so it's a good thing no one will try and bother to ;)
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49238705]It's ridiculous to believe the PC isn't better for gaming in some ways, so it's a good thing no one will try and bother to ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, modding, graphics, sometimes controls and if you want to bring it up; exclusives.
I just still prefer consoles. Because most games I found or attempted to play left me bored on PC. And I'm not trying to make anyone, or you, feel like an idiot for being a PC gamer. It's just not for me.
[QUOTE=icemaz;49226875]I would hope there is a feature the devs can use like the 3DS, where a few games which take up a lot of processing power can lock off certain "app-switching" features, so it can dedicate more resources to the game.[/QUOTE]
I feel like that should of been done with the 3DS version of MGS3 because holy shit that frame drop in certain scenes.
[QUOTE=Matt2468rv;49225250]I think the push to have all sorts of background crap running is hindering performance on today's consoles.
While the app-switching, fancy menus, and constant background recording of games is nice, I'd certainly give it all up in favor of a little performance boost or higher resolution rendering.[/QUOTE]
not really related, but I have yet to see a game that was going for really impressive, realistic looking graphics and physics that didn't fall flat for me. The issue for me is that when you try to be super realistic, the smallest weaknesses are immersion-breaking for me. However, if you forego the realism and instead choose a more artistic direction, minor weaknesses are not that big of a deal.
[QUOTE=Stopper;49235178]Mmmmm, statistics pulled out of one's arse - my favourite![/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, they aren't pulled out of my ass. Around 95%-98% are in fact 1080p. You can easily Google for more information. Not sure what exactly about that figure is so hard to believe, can you say why? If you can provide any sources to counter that (you can't) feel free to do so.
[editline]3rd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;49238609]Unfortunately not going to help very much. PS3 saw continued improvements throughout its lifespan because it was such a weird architecture, and such a pig to program, so it took years for devs to get familiar with it.
PS4 and XB1 are essentially commodity PC hardware - there's nothing new or unusual to get used to, no learning curve for the programmers. It's less difficult to get the best out of them, but there's less far to go from there.[/QUOTE]
The idea that because the ps4 and xbone use x86 cpus game developers aren't going to be able to improve the graphics and performance is false.
There are two very good examples, one being the original Xbox which had, from what I remember, a celeron or maybe it was a Pentium 3 and you could even upgrade the cpu to a slightly faster celeron with some skill. You can easily see that games released in 2001 on the Xbox looked much worse than games released in 2005. The same goes for any system x86 or otherwise.
The other example is obviously PC itself which has seen and will see many innovations in APIs and game engines that improve efficiency and graphics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
