• Call of Duty: Ghosts video compares graphics to Modern Warfare 3
    73 replies, posted
More polygons and sharper textures are starting to show some very diminished returns. Lighting however has remained archaic for years and quite literally any innovation would make a major difference. There were great global illumination solutions, but they are just too expensive for next-gen consoles. Also, if games hope to look any better in the next generation, artists are going to need to reform how they develop assets. Refer to the FOX engine presentation; their artists take photographs of textures under specific lighting conditions they set up to prevent the texture from changing complexion due to odd external light sources, or to prevent one texture looking different from another. They also take into account issues with gamma. All this effort is made to capture the true essence of what the texture is. After that, they test their assets in a recreated room that is almost uncanny to it's real-life counterpart to make sure the texture or object looks real, or else it will look out of place in the very realistic room.
"MW3 engine was pushed to its limits" yeah what a crock of bullshit IW 5.0 or why should i call it that, IW 4.1 didn't have anything new or fascinating, it had like a few tweaks here and there but the same graphics options as before, and just like mw2, ran at 60fps which i wont complain about because i got some good gameplay but you look over at treyarch, who use the IW 3.0 engine, and have made it look a thousand times better than the fucking IW 4.0 or 5.0 engine, they literally get the same amount of time but made the engine better and better at each release IW what the [B][U]fuck [/U][/B]are you doing
"MW3 was state of the art at the time," said the Xbox One douchemonger host. It doesn't even look that good. Is this trying to showcase how powerful Xbox One is? Graphics like those have been obtainable for quite a while. IW is just a bunch of lazy idiots who don't know what quality control is.
[QUOTE=Jazer;40750537]More polygons and sharper textures are starting to show some very diminished returns. Lighting however has remained archaic for years and quite literally any innovation would make a major difference. There were great global illumination solutions, but they are just too expensive for next-gen consoles. Also, if games hope to look any better in the next generation, artists are going to need to reform how they develop assets. Refer to the FOX engine presentation; their artists take photographs of textures under specific lighting conditions they set up to prevent the texture from changing complexion due to odd external light sources, or to prevent one texture looking different from another. They also take into account issues with gamma. All this effort is made to capture the true essence of what the texture is. After that, they test their assets in a recreated room that is almost uncanny to it's real-life counterpart to make sure the texture or object looks real, or else it will look out of place in the very realistic room.[/QUOTE] CoD does need sharper textures, they look pretty awful without the specular/normal mapping used to cover them up
I just hope they'll have enough space for dynamic lighting on actors this time around. My friend bought MW3 for his PS3 when it came out and the lack of any form of dynamic lighting in mutiplayer annoyed the hell out of me for some reason. It didn't look natural.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;40749123][video=youtube;tK_MgNeB4GA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK_MgNeB4GA[/video][/QUOTE] See like these game-changing mods for CoD4 were amazing. The custom zombie maps for WaW are awesome as well. Now we have to wait months just to play 5 new maps when we could be playing hundreds of different ones for free.
THESE ARMS ARE BEAUTIFUL
[QUOTE=Odellus;40748873]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[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Not all modern engines built from scratch are laggy or unresponsive though, Frosbite itself probably isn't, but the games built on it are. Though as they haven't built a straight up arcade shooter on it we probably will never find out.
It's cool and all but the things they consider "new" have been around for fucking years. Modern Warfare 3 was NOT "pushing the limits" and it most certainly was not the most fucking beautiful game that could be done at the time.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;40752259]"MW3 was state of the art at the time," said the Xbox One douchemonger host. It doesn't even look that good. Is this trying to showcase how powerful Xbox One is? Graphics like those have been obtainable for quite a while. IW is just a bunch of lazy idiots who don't know what quality control is.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you think "quality control" is but making graphics better is not that. [editline]23rd May 2013[/editline] If you want a company that actually has terrible quality control pre and post release, DICE is the one you should have complaints with.
"unprecedented level of detail" can they stop with the lies please
[QUOTE=McNab;40752647]I just hope they'll have enough space for dynamic lighting on actors this time around. My friend bought MW3 for his PS3 when it came out and the lack of any form of dynamic lighting in mutiplayer annoyed the hell out of me for some reason. It didn't look natural.[/QUOTE] Dynamic lighting on models is in Quake 1. Stop throwing around words without knowing what they mean. Do you mean dynamic shadowmaps perhaps? Because that's visible in the screenshot at the top of the OP.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.