WTF happened to Xbox? Where are the REAL exclusives? "Console" and "timed" aka FAKE exclusives are NOT enough.

[SonicMage117]

We saw many engine major engine developments in between console generations. Just look at the history of the Unreal Engine and iD Tech. Also Nvidia and AMD haven't spent the last 20 years waiting for console generations to continuously develop their GPUs. First two Xbox consoles launched with cutting edge GPU, but the development cycle meant they were surpassed in under a year. The Xbox One launched behind the PC market, well behind

Which ones? I know the history well because I was one of the ones in line for the 9800pro and X800 XL which came bundled with Doom III Half Life 2. I don't remember either being made specifically designed to take true advantage of pc hardware though, not anymore than ease of use for developing on consoles. I remember ATi cards being coupled with Doom 3 because id had a partnership with ATi, that was when lighting and shadowing first became a thing bit there were alot of issues with it. Engines before that aren't really worth mentioning as developers on consoles such as PS1, N64 and what not were doing polygonal techniques far better than pc.

 

Crytek made maybe the biggest advancement in game engines with the CryEngine, and look what happened there. People with high end pc's couldn't run the game stable for years. I still remember the jokes of "Far Cry/Crysis killed Nasa's supercomputer" back in the hay day. Most great game engines start on pc but take a bit to turn up well. Source Engine was more of a stable one but one that nobody saw potential in, probably because of limitations.

 

Xbox One is literally a closed Windows machine. It's dedicated tools are not in the same bracket of definition as PS4 and Switch which is why I don't really mention it. That aside, the only exclusive I can think of that it actually has is Sunset Overdrive (Great game btw). I always found it strange that Microsoft spent so much energy on making a the XBX when they should have put all those efforts towards acquired exclusivity deals among developers. I suspect Microsoft will do well with next gen, as it were.

Games are not movies, you can't apply the same effects to them. Also the reasons for 24fps or 30fps in film is historic and due to technological limitations, not because anything above looks bad.

When did I try to apply these film to attributes to games? You asked me a question, I answered you. The simple fact is that a developer who says "We want our game to have a more cinematic feel" is not the community trying to befoul the games with excuses, that was an initial vision for what they were going to create in the first place. If we want to get super technical, some streamlined games are in fact, interactive movies so I could definitely see how developers would use this as a vision instead of the usual media press meme. So I'm not the one that's comparing games to movies, developers are and in case of a game such as The Order 1886, it worked well for them.

 

And why the worry? When you play The Order 1886, you don't see or feel any choppiness that you would from a game designed to run in 60fps, the optimization is much better than that but only if it fills the original vision.

That's one of the most important features for fidelity and the things you want $600 worth of GPU for, and yeah the GPU in a console has half the processing power of the RTX 2080/GTX 1080 Ti. It does make a ****load of difference. Nvidia spent over a decade developing RTX just so they could make lighting more realistic and it looks incredible. You can't live in a world where consoles struggle with lighting and are also on par with the highest PC graphics.

 

If we're not talking photorealism and lighting, we're talking artistry and that's down to preference.

I agree with the half the power statement but lighting doesn't make the game and pc games are full of compromises of their own. Here is my opinion: You can literally get away with so much and that nVidia HairWorks? Trash? Yes it is. Bloom? Thankful that Spider-Man PS4 had the option to turn it off. If we're being honest, some of what we're paying for is overkill, some effects don't fit some games well while others it does

 

Now the pc eletism/autism (call it what you may) within me is telling me to ports also usually require more power to run a game as well and to look good as the console version but that is another thing for optimization and that's excused by the background apps, spankware and so on.

 

And now this has nothing to do with preference, artistry or opinion. My 1080ti is put to good use but it's strange that a $300-400 can produce comparable graphics  in the first place - even though most is smoke and mirrors, not like we'll see proof of the smoke and mirrors anyway unless someone hacks the game, that is. I mean, we can talk about excuses of how pc games can and should look better than potato console games but since the proof of otherwise is easy to find, those excuses all fall to ash.

 

Again it's not about hardware, somehow we keep getting back to who has the bigger penial advantage, that's irrelevant, it's about what's produced and to what end. Software tools are the miracle of this gen and with good reason. If I was wrong then alot of pc users wouldn't own a PS4 or Switch for exclusives and consoles would already be dead. After all, PS4 is the preferred platform for showcasing a game in 4K right now.

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

 

which came bundled with Doom III Half Life 2. I don't remember either being made specifically designed to take true advantage of pc hardware though

 

You remember wrongly?

 

 

 

that was when lighting and shadowing first became a thing

 

What, lighting and shadows became a thing in 2004? Normal mapping became a thing. Nvidia had released a card with hardware lighting in the 90's and before that it was done on the CPU. What do you think Glide, OpenGL, and DX7 were doing in the 90's?

 

 

 

Engines before that aren't really worth mentioning as developers on consoles such as PS1, N64 and what not were doing polygonal techniques far better than pc.

 

What? Maybe at launch but by '98 PC high end graphics and the Unreal Engine/iD Tech were superior and it would be 6 years until Half-Life 2.

 

 

 

Crytek made maybe the biggest advancement in game engines with the CryEngine, and look what happened there. People with high end pc's couldn't run the game stable for years.

 

How long did it take consoles? It would have taken the PS4 to run the PC version of that game at a stable 30fps on high quality settings at 1080p. It was released 6 years later.

 

 

 

that was an initial vision for what they were going to create in the first place.

 

In the case of the The Order 1886 it just happened to be that they wanted to push more polygons than the hardware would allow at a higher frame rate. If I remember correctly that game even had frame dips.

 

 

 

When you play The Order 1886, you don't see or feel any choppiness that you would from a game designed to run in 60fps

 

Yeah right.

 

 

 

If I was wrong then alot of pc users wouldn't own a PS4 or Switch for exclusives and consoles would already be dead..

 

That doesn't parse at all. I've owned consoles and a gaming PC since '95. I don't play consoles for graphical fidelity because for the majority of the time I've owned them my PC has been way in front of the latest console. I play consoles for the games, that are fun to play, you know gameplay. I don't play the prettiest games, sometimes I play the ugliest games. Exclusives tend to have really good gameplay, especially Nintendo exclusives, and Nintendo hasn't been anywhere close to even the other consoles fidelity for over a decade. Also Steam link is a thing now but for the longest time playing PC on your TV in another room was a pain in the arse.

[SonicMage117]

You remember wrongly?

 

If I remembered correctly, engines that are designed to take advantage of pc hardware aren't used for console games later.... I guess if you consider multiplatform engines that way you could be right. Seems like id Software pushed console limits even more than pc which is why I said it. If your argument is: "the engines were designed first on pc so they were made to take full advantage of your pc" then you could probably say that about every engine. Are you one of those angry folk that blames consoles for holding back pc gaming from flourishing to it's full potential?

What, lighting and shadows became a thing in 2004? Normal mapping became a thing. Nvidia had released a card with hardware lighting in the 90's and before that it was done on the CPU. What do you think Glide, OpenGL, and DX7 were doing in the 90's?

 

Self shadowing is specifically what I was talking about... As shown here.

https://youtu.be/80guchXqz14

What? Maybe at launch but by '98 PC high end graphics and the Unreal Engine/iD Tech were superior and it would be 6 years until Half-Life 2.

 

Yeah, it took many trial and error, something that doesn't happen with console exclusive in-house engines. They somehow manage to avoid that broken process.

How long did it take consoles? It would have taken the PS4 to run the PC version of that game at a stable 30fps on high quality settings at 1080p. It was released 6 years later.

Don't forget to acknowledge the fact that the animation was crap though ans the post-effects were really bad as well. That's why the time consoles caught up, this was fixed and other engines got the package, it's also why there came Cryengine 2. This happens with most third party engines which aren't funded properly or are designed to run multiple games or on multiple platforms, that's the issue.

In the case of the The Order 1886 it just happened to be that they wanted to push more polygons than the hardware would allow at a higher frame rate. If I remember correctly that game even had frame dips.

You remember wrongly.

 

And here's the proof, a framerate test:

https://youtu.be/B4ocPKdyD7Y

Yeah right.

Yes. I am right, the evidence shows it clear as day.

That doesn't parse at all. I've owned consoles and a gaming PC since '95.

 

I don't play consoles for graphical fidelity because for the majority of the time I've owned them my PC has been way in front of the latest console.

I have two pc's, one which is far more powerful than my PS4 and the other is mid-tier/medium spec (still better than a PS4).

I play consoles for the games, that are fun to play, you know gameplay. I don't play the prettiest games, sometimes I play the ugliest games. Exclusives tend to have really good gameplay, especially Nintendo exclusives, and Nintendo hasn't been anywhere close to even the other consoles fidelity for over a decade. Also Steam link is a thing now but for the longest time playing PC on your TV in another room was a pain in the arse.

I don't play console games for the graphics either, I bought my PS4 specifically for exclusives, knowikg that it would collect dust mostly until a first party game would release, the fact that Sonys exclusives have had amazing graphics this gen is a plus and a nice thing for any PS4 owner, I take it you are not a PS4 owner, couldn't see you not acknowledging this fact if you were.

 

On PC I play everything from 2D pixel platformers to more graphically demanding games but What does any of that have to do with appreciating the fact that Sony's killing it with their exclusives graphically due to superior development tools? And why does that have to factor in how you or I enjoy our games? And why would you expect me to appreciate Shadow Of The Tomb Raider's new lighting when it does worse than it's predecessor at merely every angle, when you can't appreciate that Sony exclusives are only getting better, and then there is always an excuse to make it seem that the progress is irrational or non-legit when proof shows otherwise? This seems a bit double standard.

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

 

Are you one of those angry folk that blames consoles for holding back pc gaming from flourishing to it's full potential?

 

I don't think anyone would phrase like that. It's also not the game engine that's at issue, not in the last decade of multi-platform titles and established more general engines. Ports are different if you design for one platform then have to port it to another one then the developer either adds the features or they don't. In terms of multi-platform then it's the number of AI, the objects, the poly budget, the texture resolution, they could all be bigger on PC. It's not just the PC though, multi-platform games have been doing this to consoles. It's also stupid to blame the consoles for this, it's the developers and the publishers that do this. Some of them do release high resolution texture packs which is cool. It's not been so much of an issue in the last decade on the graphics side, but the gameplay side it's more so, and I'm sadder on that respect anyway. Although PC has many fine exclusives, the most profitable and play games in the world that focus on gameplay anyway.

 

 

 

Self shadowing is specifically what I was talking about... As shown here.

 

Specifically shadow volume in the case of Doom 3. Per pixel lighting and normal mapping were also very important new features in Doom 3.

 

 

 

You remember wrongly.

And here's the proof, a framerate test:

 

a) Why is that video at 30 fps?

 

 

 

"We're going for this filmic look, so one thing that we knew immediately was films run at 24 fps. We're gonna run at 30 because 24 fps does not feel good to play. So there's one concession in terms of making it aesthetically pleasing, because it just has to feel good to play."

 

b) That video has frame dips? At around the 6min mark. Also that game is blurry as ****, I forgot how bad it looked. Forget depth of field, it's depth of cataracts.

 

 

 

And why would you expect me to appreciate Shadow Of The Tomb Raider's new lighting when it does worse than it's predecessor at merely every angle

 

I can't really take your opinion of graphics seriously. I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. I guess you just prefer less fidelity and you don't know what it is or can't see it. Making it pointless for you to judge. Some people like low poly games, some people like 2D games, apparently you prefer games with less fidelity.

[SonicMage117]

Good to know, but can't take your opinion too seriously either, the fact that you keep trying to excuse Shadow's downgrades and try to make me look crazy by pointing out its flaws is laughable. Hopefully you understand that this has nothing to do with not liking the series, I've stated many times on the threads here that I much prefer the new trilogy over the older ones as they give story - that's the reason I play them anyways. Overall, I much prefer Shadow over Rise and the original for a few different reasons, preference is irrelevant but we can't disagree with the video simply because we choose to avoid the truth. What is the truth?

If only you'd be honest with yourself and watch the video, you'd see that the compromises for this were actually because the engine was demanding, too much so for higher end pc's to handle so they took away much of the fog effects, smoke, etc, lowered the detail of Lara's model (no, this isn't a design choice, it's not an artistic choice, it's a performance choice), animals move worse, equipment texture is lower resolution in detail. It's not all bad, the advancements in Shadow Of The Raider were water, volumetric lighting and explosions. Literally everything else was either same level of quality or worse. You may excuse the compromises by saying it's a change of environment if you wish, I'm a realist, it's not that you won't change my mind because I'm stubborn and assuming, it's because I already had the proof - I don't mean to sound rude but proof by tangible evidence is far greater than word of stranger - I mean this respectfully.

 

 

Anyway, nice of you to wait up online for me, I appreciate the convo. Time for me to get ready for bed now. Have a good night

[injurai]

Shadow was offloaded to a smaller studio, they are no longer doing bespoke character models and animation and instead are recording easy to obtain data from mocap. It's the third entry in a series that isn't making huge innovations, where market interests are elsewhere. I think it's pretty clear Shadow is becoming a runt amongst AAA line-ups, and is low on the totem poll for Square's resources.

[Fenixp]

b) That video has frame dips? At around the 6min mark. Also that game is blurry as ****, I forgot how bad it looked. Forget depth of field, it's depth of cataracts.

Well, what's been proven in this discussion is that PS4 can render impressive graphics for tight, mostly obscured (by blur, scenery and shadows) corridors when running @ 1920 by 800 at nearly smooth 30 FPS.

[SonicMage117]

Well, what's been proven in this discussion is that PS4 can render impressive graphics for tight, mostly obscured (by blur, scenery and shadows) corridors when running @ 1920 by 800 at nearly smooth 30 FPS.

Okay yeah, let's pretend The Order 1886 has poor art syle, blurry graphics and unimpressive detail in order to make consoles look like they're behind a generation still. Hell, while we're add it, let's discard all the other impressive exclusives that run at 1080p at 30fps/60fps with clearer graphics and high contrast, that don't hide things in darkness or are you just going to pretend that PS4 doesn't have games like Horizon Zero Dawn, God Of War, Spider-Man, Detroit and Uncharted 4 (and others) don't exist? Id expect nothing less from Fenixp, true forum logic at its best

 

 

Edit:

 

Shadow Of The Tomb Raider is now 34% off, making it $39, a pretty large discount considering how short it's been out. Apparently the game didn't sell as well as the first two for whatever reason.

Edited October 15, 2018 by SonicMage117

[ktchong]

Just played a bit of the new God of War last weekend.

 

Some thoughts about God of War: PS4 is the first Playstation I own, so I have never had the opportunity to play a God of War game before this new one. However, I have seen videos of the old God of War games on YouTube, so I was somewhat aware of his stories and characterization in the games. I had always thought the characterization of Kratos in the past games was dull, shallow and uninspired - one of the reason why the God of War trilogy was never a "system seller" that could appeal to me to buy a Playstation. Kratos was just the stereotypical "look at me I am such a badass" with zero depth to impress young teenage gamer boys, (i.e., so, Kratos is kinda like Master Chief of the Halo series in that respect - another popular "tough guy" video game character with no real depth to speak of.)

 

This new God of War has reinvented Kratos. Now he is actually interesting as a character, a  depressed and tormented father with a checkered and secretive past, who was initially reluctant to be drawn into any action or confrontation. That is called character depth. In term of storytelling, the reluctant, retired hero who was forced into action is always more interesting than the "I am looking for a fight because I am such a badass" protagonist, (whose shallowness seems to appeal to only young male gamers.)

Edited October 22, 2018 by ktchong

[injurai]

Kratos was always a great character, especially from the first game. The problem was that he didn't progress and for essentially games 2 and 3, he was in a holding pattern. Those games were more about Kratos' feats and exploits than his growth or development as a character. But that period is also justified by the game because he has nothing left to do other than kill the gods. Course his "recklessness" towards innocent bystanders who get in his way is unjustified, but this was probably the first character trait of Kratos that was introduced in the first game.

 

He needed to "reinvent" himself with a second chance. Obviously early Kratos does appeal to younger boys, but it's also a rather good "dark epic" in video game form. Which is why Kratos performing all these feats is so compelling, especially when you get to play all of that out. Oh, and the pacing has always been among the best in the medium.

 

I see absolutely no relation between him and Master Chief other than that they are platform mascots.

[SonicMage117]

This new God of War has reinvented Kratos. Now he is actually interesting as a character, a depressed and tormented father with a checkered and secretive past, who was initially reluctant to be drawn into any action or confrontation. That is called character depth. In term of storytelling, the reluctant, retired hero who was forced into action is always more interesting than the "I am looking for a fight because I am such a badass" protagonist, (whose shallowness seems to appeal to only young male gamers.)

It's strange how shallow characters can be popular because of "cool" factor huh? I guess it's no different from a female chracter being popular just because she's hot.

 

Anyway, they seemed to have made all the right choices with the new game. It basically is the tonal opposite if the other games in the franchise. I think games like this showcase how developers and storytelling have only evolved.

[Katphood]

I own an Xbox One X because I don't have the money for a high-end PC and my old one plays all the classics I care for. I use the 1X for the following games:

 

-Forza Horizon series

-Rare Replay Value

-Sunset Overdrive

-Quantum Break

-Fable Trilogy(2 isn't available on PC)

-Gears of War series

-Halo: The Masterchief Collection

-D4

-State of Decay

-Killer Instinct

-Ryse: Son of Rome

-Cuphead

...