-
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.
The visual evidence to end the X360/PS3 battle once and for all.
- Thread starter Mrbob
- Start date
- Status
Well I can't for the life of me find this interview, but iirc there were 3 models in MGS2. One for the tanker section (lowest detail), one for the indoor sections (medium detail) and one for cutscenes (high detail). I don't know why you find it so incredible, when the fact that no one noticed is a testament to the effectiveness of the technique.
Also people seem to think I have something against MGS4 or Kojima, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is Kojimas team have always prided themselves on doing more with less and using the extra power to make a more believable world. The insanely detailed MGS4 model doesn't seem consistent with that, but hell, if they can do it more power to them.
Also people seem to think I have something against MGS4 or Kojima, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is Kojimas team have always prided themselves on doing more with less and using the extra power to make a more believable world. The insanely detailed MGS4 model doesn't seem consistent with that, but hell, if they can do it more power to them.
eso76
Member
Ben Sones said:
Yeah, i've been saying this for a few days...well, since the shock from the trailer wore off. If you look at the pics you can definately see that mgs4 is not pushing millions polys or hyper high res textures. It's awesomeness has little to do with those things.
Of course the artists were backed up by quite some power, here, but analyzing Gow's visual you can say they are more demanding in terms of pure processing power (details on characters and especially backgrounds, parallax mappung, shadows being casted by every object surrounding the player when he shoots etc): a "vulgar display of power" you'd say.
Mgs4 is a design marvel, the use of polys is well balanced and everything looks natural.
It's also using quite some fogging, which, however, you never perceive as a trick to cut the draw distance, since it looks so natural.
All in all, Mgs4 is not a proof of ps3 superior capabilities, it's once again a proof that team kojima is still, by far, the best out there.
And having the best team out there working on your console means more than having the most powerful console anyway.
I'd expect LOD to kick into action if snake's far enough, it's best that more processing power's freed up to add more detail to what's closer to the camera. As for snake's model, we do know that even models simpler than the human figure have a few sharp edges even with high polycounts, car models with at least 40K verts have a few sharp edges here and there(see gt5 and pgr3 models). So snake may've a few we've not noticed even if he had more verts than those, considering the added complexity of the human figure as compared to a car, and the focus on facial detail so as to better convey emotion.
Why would anyone think that a couple of launch titles that won't be out until next year would be any indication of either of their respective system's peak graphical power? This is nothing more than another Sony vs. Microsoft slap fight.
Both games look stunning. Of course, we know that the MGS4 stuff is cinematic (even Kojima isn't crazy enough to employ game play camera angles that focus on Snake's chin) and that the GoW stuff is layered with a bit of polish that doesn't currently exist in the game engine.
The good news is that both Dev teams still have plenty of time to get their games ready. Both games will look fantastic. Even better news: both games will be surpassed by leaps and bounds in the years to come.
There is so much irony at play here that it makes my brain hurt. Xbox lovers have been lording their system's graphical might over Sony fans this last generation and now they seem a little bit defensive when the shoe is on the other foot. Sony fans, on the other hand, have waded through the current generation telling us all that there are more important things in the video game industry than graphics. Now that their system claims to have the upper hand there, they can't see to talk about anything else.
From the looks of things, I'll own both systems (and Nintendo too). You guys can stick around here, posting screenshots as damning evidence of one system's superiority over another until your eyes bleed. Be content to scrutinize perfectly acceptable shots of Solid Snake's jowls, looking for any sign of polygon edges. Smile while you peer down through the lens of your magnifying glass to inspect a Gear's generous codpiece. In then end, it doesn't matter to me. I'll be playing both and you can be pretty certain that Snake's flabby chin and Phoenix's metal bulge won't be much of a factor to determine whether or not I enjoy the experience.
Both games look stunning. Of course, we know that the MGS4 stuff is cinematic (even Kojima isn't crazy enough to employ game play camera angles that focus on Snake's chin) and that the GoW stuff is layered with a bit of polish that doesn't currently exist in the game engine.
The good news is that both Dev teams still have plenty of time to get their games ready. Both games will look fantastic. Even better news: both games will be surpassed by leaps and bounds in the years to come.
There is so much irony at play here that it makes my brain hurt. Xbox lovers have been lording their system's graphical might over Sony fans this last generation and now they seem a little bit defensive when the shoe is on the other foot. Sony fans, on the other hand, have waded through the current generation telling us all that there are more important things in the video game industry than graphics. Now that their system claims to have the upper hand there, they can't see to talk about anything else.
From the looks of things, I'll own both systems (and Nintendo too). You guys can stick around here, posting screenshots as damning evidence of one system's superiority over another until your eyes bleed. Be content to scrutinize perfectly acceptable shots of Solid Snake's jowls, looking for any sign of polygon edges. Smile while you peer down through the lens of your magnifying glass to inspect a Gear's generous codpiece. In then end, it doesn't matter to me. I'll be playing both and you can be pretty certain that Snake's flabby chin and Phoenix's metal bulge won't be much of a factor to determine whether or not I enjoy the experience.
TheJesusFactor
Member
You guys talk about Polygon count and Texture Mapping a lot. I do a little 3D rendering and I can tell you right now that polygon count and texture mapping, while important, is nothing without proper lighting effect. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Lighting is more important than the other 2. As an example, Doom 3 engine focused on improving 2 things, multiple layers of textures and lighting. The polygon count stayed virtually the same. Almost all game designers never use high polygon counts because they are not needed with the right textures. They rather have the extra resources for proper light and texturing.
It is also true that the PS3 might be able to push close to 1billion polygons, but with all the effects turned on, it will probably reduce the polygon count by 1/8 the original figure. I remember, the PS2 being able to push 80 million polygons, but realistic figures were close to 10 million with all effects on. Please keep this in mind when you try to figure out the PS3 performance, don't fall for the hype again.
The UE3 Engine is very focus on giving off the proper specularity and shadows and you can tell from the images. I'm also pretty sure that the MGS4 Snake model does not use a high polygon count, but clever use of Texture and Bump Mapping. The same is said for GOW, the difference is that the UE3 engine feels rather generic due to the nature of a general engine, while the MGS4 engine is very specific.
In terms of polygon count, I think MSG4 might have the slight edge, but GOW have the superior lighting, shadowing, and texturing. I wouldn't make a call which system is better because the Xbox 360 development kit has been out longer than the PS3 kit. And the MGS4 demo is really just a demo without the calculation of physics or AI. It is a simple animation script focus on just showing an impressive demo.
Truthfully, even if the Xbox360 is underpowered, it will have a development advantage. It takes times to harness the full power of a game console. Xbox360 developers, with a 1 year lead in understanding the hardware, can make games look better than PS3 for the good part of the next generation. PS3 developer will be behind in development by 1 year. It is only at the end of the system lifecycle where you start seeing the superior power of the PS3 over the Xbox360, by then, we will be heading into the next next generation of systems.
It is also true that the PS3 might be able to push close to 1billion polygons, but with all the effects turned on, it will probably reduce the polygon count by 1/8 the original figure. I remember, the PS2 being able to push 80 million polygons, but realistic figures were close to 10 million with all effects on. Please keep this in mind when you try to figure out the PS3 performance, don't fall for the hype again.
The UE3 Engine is very focus on giving off the proper specularity and shadows and you can tell from the images. I'm also pretty sure that the MGS4 Snake model does not use a high polygon count, but clever use of Texture and Bump Mapping. The same is said for GOW, the difference is that the UE3 engine feels rather generic due to the nature of a general engine, while the MGS4 engine is very specific.
In terms of polygon count, I think MSG4 might have the slight edge, but GOW have the superior lighting, shadowing, and texturing. I wouldn't make a call which system is better because the Xbox 360 development kit has been out longer than the PS3 kit. And the MGS4 demo is really just a demo without the calculation of physics or AI. It is a simple animation script focus on just showing an impressive demo.
Truthfully, even if the Xbox360 is underpowered, it will have a development advantage. It takes times to harness the full power of a game console. Xbox360 developers, with a 1 year lead in understanding the hardware, can make games look better than PS3 for the good part of the next generation. PS3 developer will be behind in development by 1 year. It is only at the end of the system lifecycle where you start seeing the superior power of the PS3 over the Xbox360, by then, we will be heading into the next next generation of systems.
Things are a bit different this time due to the people involved in the creation of the hardware...
What exactly makes you believe that GoW will provide superior lighting, shadows, and textures? How could you possibly make such a judgement at this point?
Also, while the demo is nothing more than an animation script, the history of this series has shown that the final products (in game) will match their demonstrations.
TheJesusFactor
Member
I wasn't talking about the hardware. They are probably both very capable in these areas, we will see. It was mainly a comparison of the game engine used at their current stage of development from the previously posted screen shots. Of course the UE3 engine has been in development longer than say the MGS4 engine. I'm sure i'm not alone when I say that those screen shots showed the GOW have much better dynamic lighting and texturing.
TheJesusFactor said:
Have you not seen MTS4 and the Final Fantasy 7 Demo? Everything on Xbox 1.5 looks like a upgraded pc compared to those 2 pieces of software for PS3. No matter what you say the difference is just enormous in how much better the PS3 is in the hardware department compared to xbox 1.5.
I wasn't talking about the hardware either. I'm saying that I don't understand how you could have made that comment based on the media we are seeing. The shadows in MGS4's trailer were of extremely high quality and were present across a large number of models. I've never seen that many moving characters in Gears of War just yet. The shadows seem to work in a very similar fashion between the two games, but we've seen more objects at one time using them in MGS4's trailer.TheJesusFactor said:
It's difficult to pass judgement on any of those aspects, though. The lighting in GoW is a lot less subtle, but that doesn't mean it is more impressive technically.
TheInkyVoid
Member
TheJesusFactor said:
The number is ~60 million untextured, unlit tris.
That is a real number. I know, I've cranked out that many, or somewhere near that number, on a Tool myself. Any competent PS2 engineer can do the same. The PS2 is incredibly powerful when it comes to fillrate. It is why so many effects look better on the PS2 than on the other two consoles.
Don't talk about hype if you don't know what you are talking about.
eso76
Member
dark10x said:
You don't listen to me !
Take a look at the trailers or gameplay vids; you'll notice that when characters shoot their weapons, every object in their surroundings cast dynamic shadows.
Take a look at that sequence where Marcus (marcus, wasn't he ?) pushes a car in flames down an alley; you'll see every part of the background casting dynamic shadows as the car passes by.
That's something not present (yet) in mgs4, for example.
I think it is, though. Every object is casting shadows on itself and its surroundings. The difference is that the time of day and environment does not allow for any single light source to fly around the environment. It would seem that all of these features are already possibly with the MGS4 engine, but the scenes were saw were not able to demonstrate them. Everything in the trailer was casting shadows based on the sun (and the shadows were accurate and present on all objects). There were no dynamic light sources present.eso76 said:
That Gears of War footage is at night and features distinct sources of light (which also play a role in the level). There are plenty of chances for shadows to be cast as a result of the setting.
Pseudo judo
Member
Keep talkin... :lolWordofGod said:
Doom_Bringer
Banned
WordofGod said:
quit trolling
TheInkyVoid
Member
WordofGod said:
Or save $350 and just pickup a copy of FEAR for their peecee.
Pseudo judo
Member
:rolls eyes:WordofGod said:
Synbios459
Banned
I have a question: Do you think the difference in power between the PS3 and Xbox360 will be like going from the PS2 to the Xbox 1?
TheInkyVoid
Member
360 can do shiny metal armor?
Now I've seen everything!
Now I've seen everything!
WordofGod said:
Killzone was 5fps and something tells me that you ate that up with a spoon. No matter. Everyone but you seems to realize that only one of the games in the original comparison is playable. Can you guess which one it is?
Right now, you are comparing unfinished gameplay to a cinematic trailer. Laugh it up.
SolidSnakex
Member
Redbeard said:
Was someone saying something about a Final Fantasy tech demo?
The clothing movement Aeris' dress has is incredibly impressive. What's even more impressive is that they created it in a month and a half.
Yes, but those differences will not be of the same variety.Synbios459 said:
As I've said, both machines are capable of virtually all of the same effects. It's going to be about just how far you can take everything on each machine before they start to struggle. I really believe the PS3 will have a higher ceiling, but they will compare very favorably and consumers aren't like to see any major differences between them.
The original Killzone (final version) was only like 5 fps too.
The FF7 demo was very impressive looking. Along with the near Advent Children quality models (complete with complex cloth simulation), there was a MASSIVE city with gobs of detail in the demo. It also ran at 60 fps. It looks much nicer than N3, but wasn't actually a game...so it hardly should be compared.
eso76
Member
WordofGod said:
you don't agree ? : )
look, it's not a matter of opinions, it just does : )
In the latest movie (xboxyde) gow has a much more stable framerate. It's 30fps most of the time, there's some tearing and for a split second it pulls 60fps -but to be honest there's nothing on screen, just the main character facing a wall, really-
BlackClouds
Member
sp0rsk said:PUT YO HANDS UP IN THE AIR AND SAY HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
:lol :lol
TheJesusFactor
Member
TheInkyVoid said:
The point was on how unrealistic it is to expect the full polygon count in a real game, but I see you rather troll.
GitarooMan
Member
WordofGod said:
I know the trailer for MGS4 is 60 FPS but there is no proof the game will run at 60FPS. And people who think every game will run at 60FPS next gen are crazy. I actually think something would be wrong if everything ran 60FPS because that means the devs aren't really pushing the machines for all the graphics they can handle.
I'd rather see some early gen games pushing the machine hard for great graphics and effects at a rock steady 30fps and then as the gen moves on and devs get more familiar with the systems, you can see those same type of graphics at 60fps.
Pseudo judo
Member
I,m not sure why I'm bothering but...GoW is a working title MGS4 is not. Saying MGS4 runs at 60 fps when the game doesn't exist is just plain stupid.WordofGod said:
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
This thread proves that the barrel is an endless pit of despair, and that their really isn't a bottom to scrape.
Now, continue with your childish dogmatic ways of trying to prove each others opinions wrong, regardless of how futile it is, it's really valuable and a service to all here, no seriously, carry on...
Now, continue with your childish dogmatic ways of trying to prove each others opinions wrong, regardless of how futile it is, it's really valuable and a service to all here, no seriously, carry on...
Wakune said:
Yup. I was giving WarofGod trouble about bashing GoW's gameplay framerate while he splooged over Killzone renders.
Immediately following, he posted shots of Killzone to counter other shots (which he edited out after he realized how hypocritical his framerate argument had become).
- Status