Call of Duty: Ghosts video compares graphics to Modern Warfare 3
73 replies, posted
[QUOTE=PredGD;40744987]The Source engine is probably the only dated engine which I think looks good. It got its own unique and good looking style.[/QUOTE]
Difference between source and Call of Duty games is that Source upgrades its tech with every game release. CoD updates their tech every half a decade.
See 2003 Call of Duty, then Call of duty 4 in 08, then Ghosts in 13
[QUOTE=cluckmoo;40745095]modern warfare 3 actually looked worse than modern warfare 2[/QUOTE]
I always felt WaW was the best looking CoD. I have yet to play Blops 2 so i dont know if it still it the best. There was a lot of detail in a lot of the textures. You could see the pattern of weave of characters clothes and the texture of leather on their boots.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;40745142]Difference between source and Call of Duty games is that Source upgrades its tech with every game release. CoD updates their tech every half a decade.
See 2003 Call of Duty, then Call of duty 4 in 08, then Ghosts in 13[/QUOTE]
mw2 did texture streaming
mw3 did ssao
black ops 2 introduced dx11 with physically based rendering
at least in the graphics front, source has seen a lot less improvements than iwengine
The only real noticeable difference in Graphics that MW2 had was more HDR and bloom used, along with a brighter color palette and Gamma.
"We really pushed the limits with MW3"
Watchu smoekin cuz i wan it
Why would they think "Hey, we're making a video to show how nice our graphics are, let's upload it at 720p"?
That dog model genuinely creeps me out.
There's just something about it that looks incredibly off.
There's probably no way that I'm ever buying another CoD game unless Activision allows them to release the Mod Tools including Radiant like with all CoDs before MW2. WaW sure as hell wouldn't still be played if there wasn't any tools.
Boosting polygon counts and texture resolutions isn't enough to make a game look better than last gen. Lighting and environment design are the most important things IMO.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;40744401]Oh god please go back to 1996 Gamefaqs or something. Graphics stopped being a focus and selling point years ago, old games used brag about the game's graphics ON THE GAME'S BOX. The graphics art team doesnt work on the game's coding so graphics cant negatively effect a game's development no matter how much clueless angry gamers think.[/QUOTE]
Man, graphics aren't just about scanning rock textures and mocapping actors, tho many gamers will judge graphical fidelity by looking how close they can get to a rock before they start seeing pixels.
The further up you go on the "realism" saturation curve the more important it is that every little thing works together and every tweak you make looks like it should under all circumstances, from skin having the right phong maps under certain weather conditions to your muzzle flash light bouncing off of puddles and bumpmaps and tessellation correctly. If one thing looks crappy in comparison to the other, it'll all go down the uncanny valley and look completely weird.
Of course the more stuff you add to your map, the more difficult for AI: both in terms of strategies, for example deciding what's still adequate cover for the situation, as well as pathfinding that only grows more complicated the more the player interacts with objects and relocates/destroys them.
And if you're done with all that, have fun fiddling with LODs and draw distance testing on various graphics levels, we wouldn't like ugly texture pop-in or, even worse, object pop-in around the horizon. Maybe see if you can just put shadows from a static light source on a texture instead of making the game render the fine details. You want your game to be properly optimized after all.
It's a huge timesink and at the end of the day you'll still end up with basic screw-ups like captured motion clipping through environmental objects because the triggers weren't aligned properly - can happen quite frequently once the player starts interacting with the map in ways you haven't tested properly.
There's tons of more attached to this never ending rat tails, but I'm already walking the borders of my knowledge with some of the stuff here, so I'll shut up before mixing up specific terminology any further.
You'd be surprised how frequently some people comment shit like "looks like for kids" if a game uses an artstyle, basically any artstyle, which increases the necessity to not fall behind in the race for realism. I'm glad they didn't change Bioshock Infinite's colorful artstyle, but there's also cases like Fuse (formerly Overstrike) that got a complete presentation overhaul. If graphics in general and ~realism~ especially didn't matter anymore, we wouldn't have gotten that bit at the PS4 reveal with the old dude and his lovely eyes.
I will say tho that the next gen console specs show devs and publishers are finally starting to draw lines. And thank fuck for that.
/rant
subD = sub-definition technology, because it looks like shit
[QUOTE=Juniez;40744910]idk if you saw the video but "everything you're about to see is running real time in the next generation call of duty engine"[/QUOTE]
All source filmmaker movies are made in-engine.
doesn't mean it's in-game.
[QUOTE=Wii60;40746899]All source filmmaker movies are made in-engine.
doesn't mean it's in-game.[/QUOTE]
if you built a game in that engine, then yes it would be
unless you're talking about the rendering aspects of SFM, in which case that's not realtime
[QUOTE=Blooper Reel;40745869]That dog model genuinely creeps me out.
There's just something about it that looks incredibly off.[/QUOTE]
The Undoggy Valley
Still the same engine~
It's just very heavily modified or something.
[video=youtube;ciRQ0XsPoQs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciRQ0XsPoQs&feature=youtu.be&t=4m47s[/video]
Jump to 4m 40s
so it [i]is[/i] legit sub-d
neat stuff
also makes an interesting point: why would you want a new engine? if the graphics (what people usually equate an engine with) are awful then improve the renderer, if the networking is bad then improve that part of the engine. there's rarely a need to start from the ground up and doing so would probably end up in a lot of repeated work
Please tell me that I'm not the only one who thinks the dog looks really, really outdated? I mean, it looks like the model should be at the end of the Silent Hill 2 Dog Ending. It's easily the least impressive thing about it.
[QUOTE=Makol;40747394][B]Still the same engine~[/B]
It's just very heavily modified or something.
Jump to 4m 40s[/QUOTE]
good
[QUOTE=Makol;40747394]Still the same engine~
It's just very heavily modified or something.
Jump to 4m 40s[/QUOTE]
Honestly, expecting them to have produced a whole new engine in 2 years is silly. They even admit they can't do that. But it has changed so much from the base that is could probably be classified as one if it wasn't incrementally updated.
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Odellus;40748014]good[/QUOTE]
Why?
I wouldn't say it's a new engine, just a new version, kinda like what DICE does with Frostbite
[QUOTE=Ericson666;40748094]I wouldn't say it's a new engine, just a new version, kinda like what DICE does with Frostbite[/QUOTE]
The Frostbite major revisions tend to be pretty large in terms of differences, IWEngine, not as much. Though this is probably the biggest leap they've taken in years as the hardware is finally allowing them to get wasteful (really, that's all modern programming seems to have become, "what can I get away with on the hardware", optimisation can wait, working products are a must).
Am I the only one who caught him saying that volumetric lighting was a new technology? That was a major technology in the F.E.A.R. engine, so much for new.
[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;40748149]Am I the only one who caught him saying that volumetric lighting was a new technology? That was a major technology in the F.E.A.R. engine, so much for new.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure they mean "new" for their engine. SubD isn't exactly new, we've had subdivision and tessellation for a while now, this just seems to be an improved system for fancier curves over raw details in real time.
[QUOTE=Juniez;40747699]so it [i]is[/i] legit sub-d
neat stuff
also makes an interesting point: why would you want a new engine? if the graphics (what people usually equate an engine with) are awful then improve the renderer, if the networking is bad then improve that part of the engine. there's rarely a need to start from the ground up and doing so would probably end up in a lot of repeated work[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Odellus;40748014]good[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;40748061]Honestly, expecting them to have produced a whole new engine in 2 years is silly. They even admit they can't do that. But it has changed so much from the base that is could probably be classified as one if it wasn't incrementally updated.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ericson666;40748094]I wouldn't say it's a new engine, just a new version, kinda like what DICE does with Frostbite[/QUOTE]
I posted because it seemed like a ton of people on different forums thought it was a whole new engine, but by looking at it it's kind of obvious it's a very very upgraded version of the current one.
In my opinion I think the CoD games look pretty good and run great, so I'm all for them adding new stuff and fixing it up. No point in making a new one from the ground up if the current one works fine for what they want.
I'm glad they just came out and said it's the same engine we already know relatively well instead of saying nothing and having people flip out over it.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;40744803]What I love is how they push MW3 as being at the pinnacle of graphical fidelity on release when in reality it was pretty crappy looking compared to Battlefield 3. Also, most of the tech that they've added to the new engine has been around for several years now and has been possible on current gen hardware.[/QUOTE]
MW3 looked worse than MW2 imo.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;40748061]Why?[/QUOTE]
because it and source get everything right (just so happens they're both two of the closest relatives to idtech (quake 3/4's iteration) used today)
graphics:performance
netcode
responsiveness (mouse and player movement)
i don't want another horribly unresponsive engine like frostbite on the market
Cool more details on shit you don't spend much time looking at
[QUOTE=All0utWar;40745957]There's probably no way that I'm ever buying another CoD game unless Activision allows them to release the Mod Tools including Radiant like with all CoDs before MW2. WaW sure as hell wouldn't still be played if there wasn't any tools.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;tK_MgNeB4GA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK_MgNeB4GA[/video]
i wonder what attachments dog will get
poop baggie holder? retractable leash? muzzle? poodle-trim fur?
I enjoyed Black Ops 2. :(
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.