rather linear games have stopped being invested in and devs have invested more time in open world games
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Graphics Disparity between Open World and Linear games have been nearly eliminated this gen
- Thread starter Toriko
- Start date
I have yet to see a game that made me go "wtf this is looking real" the way the Order 1888 did. Their lightning and PBR is still unmatched imo - granted they only ever had to render a corridor with black bars. But damn.
Last edited:
Rdr is a technical marvel that no open world game probably won't be able to match for a long time. But when compared to a linear corridor game like The order it won't look better head to head imo. Like someone put earlier, an open world game like rdr looks absolutely beautiful when you look at the environment as whole rather than just looking at tiny pieces of it.
I almost forgot how good this game looked.Rdr is a technical marvel that no open world game probably won't be able to match for a long time. But when compared to a linear corridor game like The order it won't look better head to head imo. Like someone put earlier, an open world game like rdr looks absolutely beautiful when you look at the environment as whole rather than just looking at tiny pieces of it.
There are various games graphically better of RDR2 even on the Pro. With less pixels of course. I'm not trying to say it's not impressive but there are compromises really noticeable in different spots.
Last edited:
A little reminder that there are no traditional cutscenes in GoW 2018. That is the game presentation's whole schtick, to not rely on any cuts but on perfectly smooth and seamless transitions from gameplay to story bits. ;)
Last edited:
Yes, but there is little evidence to show that they "switch" or "swap" models like last gen give that the polycount and texture quality are high enough not to be distracting during close ups in cutscenes. I remember ND categorically stating that Nathan's model is the same for both cutscene and in-game and the better visuals are, as aforementioned, the reprioritizing of computational power for an in-engine scripted towards visuals effects. As for GoW, there are no swtiches. It's the LoD 0 model and given the nature of the no-cut camera, a swap is impossible. It relies on the same system as Uncharted or Tomb Raider (which is why the weapons and attire the character has on him/her don't change in cutscenes).
Lest we forget, a 30fps game has leave a certain overhead that can deal with the worst stress that may be encountered during the game. In a cutscene this overhead is no longer needed and entire processing power can be made to serve the best visuals the engine can muster in real time.
Generally, the protagonist in most games today (depending on the design) tend to stick to the highest detail model while side characters may feature more LoD states.
I agree if we talk about environments but when it comes to realistic looking characters tlou2 is going to take it to the next level
I agree if we talk about environments but when it comes to realistic looking characters tlou2 is goint to take it to the next level
I'm pretty certain TLOU2 is going to take the environments to the next level as well :P
I think is true at the same time is not
Pure IQ? Maybe, but when it comes to details and set pieces, they are pretty far.
Lets take the car chase scene of uncharted( or even the clock tower) and compare to any main story missions of open world games.
Almost none of them really comes close to the detail of it (maybe spider-man)
And i think gow(the boss battles) doesnt count, because is not reallly a open world.
Pure IQ? Maybe, but when it comes to details and set pieces, they are pretty far.
Lets take the car chase scene of uncharted( or even the clock tower) and compare to any main story missions of open world games.
Almost none of them really comes close to the detail of it (maybe spider-man)
And i think gow(the boss battles) doesnt count, because is not reallly a open world.
One thing R* does so very well is establish a sense of atmosphere and a living, breathing world where things happen on their own. Plus, from the videos I have seen thus far, the LoD system (my biggest pet peeve, sometimes even with GoW) looks to be one of the best (if not the best) out there. On the whole, RDR2's presentation comes off as greater than the sum of its individual parts, much greater. R* with their crunched devs have thrown down the gauntlet and now it will be up to the other devs to rise up to and exceed the challenge. Suffice it to say, I assume it will happen only on next gen hardware.
Wildlands doens't get talked about nearly enough in open world game comparisons. Game looks insane and has such an enormous scale and variety.
Rdr is a technical marvel that no open world game probably won't be able to match for a long time. But when compared to a linear corridor game like The order it won't look better head to head imo. Like someone put earlier, an open world game like rdr looks absolutely beautiful when you look at the environment as whole rather than just looking at tiny pieces of it.
I played and finished The Order this year, and when you remove the 20 instagram filters and realise you're just walking around in static, claustrophobic rooms and corridors, the sacrifices they made to reach that fidelity are obvious.
It's fairly inconsistent as well as the "outdoor" areas do not keep up with the interiors.
Well isn't that the very point that he's trying to make? i.e. linear games reach a level of fidelity not possible in open world exactly because of those sacrifices to map and level size/design.
In any case The Order 1886, lacks a lot of tech seen in say a more modern game like Detroit. But they go out of their way to specifically build their levels using things the engine is good at and avoiding the ones it's not good at (so do other games but TO1886 aims for a soft CGI look rather than realistic and it achieves that). You can't really have that level of control when building an open world game because it's not really practical.
Cross posting from the 2018 graphics thread. Too many people in here sleeping on The Division:
Disappointed to see Tom Clancy's The Division excluded from the list. The ambient lighting in that game is the most stunning of the generation to me, even 2 years after release.
Here are a collection of my favorites (lots of images incoming):
I'm sad for you. But definitely are there. I think the same Horizon is better in the characters model or in the environment in terms of poly counts. But is it quite evident if you care to spot such graphic details. RDR2 is quite "poor" in terms of raw polycounts from this point of views. Even texture aren't that impressive especially in the ground. But I understand RDR2 is stronger to recreate a vivid and interactive environment.
Last edited:
Rdr is a technical marvel that no open world game probably won't be able to match for a long time. But when compared to a linear corridor game like The order it won't look better head to head
imo. Like someone put earlier, an open world game like rdr looks absolutely beautiful when you look at the environment as whole rather than just looking at tiny pieces of it.
I don't have gifs, but when RDR2 is equally draped in depth of field and such "cinematic" filters I think it looks comparable.
Texture quality, characters/environment polycounts, are not exactly in the same league in a big screen. But that's predictable.I don't have gifs, but when RDR2 is equally draped in depth of field and such "cinematic" filters I think it looks comparable.
Man, I'd kill for a 4K Pro patch, just to ogle everything again.Rdr is a technical marvel that no open world game probably won't be able to match for a long time. But when compared to a linear corridor game like The order it won't look better head to head imo. Like someone put earlier, an open world game like rdr looks absolutely beautiful when you look at the environment as whole rather than just looking at tiny pieces of it.
Grow up pal. I've played all the big hitters .This is just my opinion.
The Order is BB 800p and RDR2 is 4K, of course it looks inferior on the big screen.
Lighting is pretty much like the brunt of the overall look of a game. If you don't have good lighting, you don't have good graphics.
The character models in RDR2, FFXV, and even Odyssey all look comparable for in-gameplay comparisons. We don't want to focus on cinematic rendering as that's not representative of what the game is actually doing during gameplay. What do those other games have that say, Odyssey doesn't have? There is a true SSS implementation in those open world games whereas in the linear games there isn't. Kratos has a hack for SSS map that's only around his ears/nose. These open world games have it across the entire body during full day/night cycles.
Here are some Pure gameplay shots for comparison:
From the looks of it, the base assets remain unchanged as the biggest improvement comes in the form of more accurate lighting and DoF during cutscenes
That's a HUGE difference though. Leave cutscenes/photomode out of the screenshot comparisons. If you are going to make a comparison, compare in game realtime framegrabs with the camera not messed with.
Since we are reminiscing about TO1886, I'd like to post some real time gameplay pics from my OG system back in the day. The looks absolutely beautiful to this day. Just wish the the image was sharper (presumably would have happened if there was ever a pro patch). Perhaps one of prettiest mediocre games to date.
"Huge" is subjective but there is a notable difference. As long as cinematics are rendered using engine in real time they will always trounce gameplay fidelity courtesy of the reason I have already stated above. Also, all the images you quoted are real time frame grabs from my personal collection.
"Huge" is subjective but there is a notable difference. As long as cinematics are rendered using engine in real time they will always trounce gameplay fidelity courtesy of the reason I have already stated above. Also, all the images you quoted are real time frame grabs from my personal collection.
Naw fam, GOW still looks better than RDR2 in my eyes especially earn it comes to Kratos' character model, and I'm sure when TLOU 2 releases it will blow everything out of the water including RDR2.
Yes, open world games are looking better and better but that's because a lot of them carry very high budgets and spend more time in the oven. Publishers aren't putting as much effort into linear games because open world games just sell a lot better and have more room for micro-transactions.
Yes, open world games are looking better and better but that's because a lot of them carry very high budgets and spend more time in the oven. Publishers aren't putting as much effort into linear games because open world games just sell a lot better and have more room for micro-transactions.
Some more TO1886:
Can't detect horse testicles:
Setting aside NPC animation system which frankly seems like a step beyond ACU, RDR 2's lighting looks more sublime (although ACU originally planned to have real time GI) and the LoD system for objects and shadows are definitely superior (which could have significantly to do with the types of environment RDR2 is built around).
Oh and let's not forget the resolution and the framerate.
Can't detect horse testicles:
Setting aside NPC animation system which frankly seems like a step beyond ACU, RDR 2's lighting looks more sublime (although ACU originally planned to have real time GI) and the LoD system for objects and shadows are definitely superior (which could have significantly to do with the types of environment RDR2 is built around).
Oh and let's not forget the resolution and the framerate.
And they have glaring flaws too. Which is my point. There is no self-occlusion, no SSS, lower res skin textures, only 1 specular lobe for the beard, light source isn't consistent with the environment lighting, etc. etc..typical gameplay with the normal limitations and no "magic" like others are declaring.
Man, these type of threads are always pointless. You always see the same users trying to push their view, passing as "experts", fanboys who just cannot check their biases at the door, the hyperbolic posters with their favorite words like "destroys" and "trounces", and in the end just really a few users trying to have an honest discussion about the games they think look the best and why.
Of course is your opinion. I just pointed out how wrong you are in my opinion. But an expression like grow up don't help you in such conversation. It's really childish.
Art direction goes a long way when talking about how a game looks. People need to differtiate b/w pure graphical quality and overall visual experience.
When talking about it as a whole, I think I can say that I haven't been as impressed visually by a game like with RDR2.
For me it's the best looking game overall when you consider all the various factors.
This is a video I made yesterday. Just in awe of the world that's been created. I've spent more time just exploring the world than I have playing most games in my life.
https://youtu.be/8NtdCeCoJtY
When talking about it as a whole, I think I can say that I haven't been as impressed visually by a game like with RDR2.
For me it's the best looking game overall when you consider all the various factors.
This is a video I made yesterday. Just in awe of the world that's been created. I've spent more time just exploring the world than I have playing most games in my life.
https://youtu.be/8NtdCeCoJtY
I agree with Tyaren on one point, there is hyperbole RDR 2 is not one generation ahead of the other games. After art is as important as graphical feature. Reading post mortem games about rendering in GDC or SIGGRAPH, the rendering choice and compromise are made following art direction and the mood the art team and the director want to give to a game.
All developer need to have a target for base rendering and it is base console now. For example people said HZD had more polygon than RDR2 I doubt it. I think Guerrilla decide to focus on what is near the player and all assets has rendered with many polygons but it is a compromise and it has an impact on draw distance and tiny field of view. Rockstar wanted to convey the atmosphere of a western with large plan, they needed huge draw distance and large fov. Same for many Ubi soft games after it is a compromise and things near player are a little less detailed.
There is one domain where HZD is inferior to RDR 2 and other Open World(AC...) is the lighting, indirect lighting is better on other open world. I hope it will improve for Horizon 2 as it is improved in Death Stranding .
After hard to compare linear game to Open world out of a few games many games are now semi open world like God of War and Uncharted or soon TLOU2, out of Quantum Break, Detroit, Until Dawn and TO1886 I don't think of another game.
All developer need to have a target for base rendering and it is base console now. For example people said HZD had more polygon than RDR2 I doubt it. I think Guerrilla decide to focus on what is near the player and all assets has rendered with many polygons but it is a compromise and it has an impact on draw distance and tiny field of view. Rockstar wanted to convey the atmosphere of a western with large plan, they needed huge draw distance and large fov. Same for many Ubi soft games after it is a compromise and things near player are a little less detailed.
There is one domain where HZD is inferior to RDR 2 and other Open World(AC...) is the lighting, indirect lighting is better on other open world. I hope it will improve for Horizon 2 as it is improved in Death Stranding .
After hard to compare linear game to Open world out of a few games many games are now semi open world like God of War and Uncharted or soon TLOU2, out of Quantum Break, Detroit, Until Dawn and TO1886 I don't think of another game.
Last edited:
I seem to recall an Order technical paper discussing the use of self-oclussion volumes driven by the skeleton, where in-game cover was used as an example case. Helps pick up some slack where SSAO can fall flat, even if the technique is not that high fidelity itself. Definitely not the only game to use it since, but I believe it did originate with RAD. Been a while since I've played the Order, but I also remember some light leaking issues in certain in-game conditions where parts of the face did have visible back scattering. Most AAA games this gen have some kind of SSS in gameplay; I'm inclined to believe the Order does as well. As for the beards, I don't really recall, but I will say a second lobe isn't going to necessarily break the gpu bank. Lighting conditions are soo crucial to getting hair to look like it has any sort of volume, especially when games lack the shadow resolution to really give it proper depth. Go get your haircut in RDR2 and you'll see the same limitations.
None of the games mentioned in this thread are without their flaws, but the Order is definitely up there when it comes to it's impressively consistent and stable presentation, especially evident with the still exceptional material work.
Last edited:
I don't have gifs, but when RDR2 is equally draped in depth of field and such "cinematic" filters I think it looks comparable.
Those are beautiful but I would say material rendering, asset quality and geometric detail is pretty obvioulsy higher in the Order 1886. Just to be clear, I absolutely think RDR2 is more impressive overall, but in terms of graphical fidelity, The Order 1886 has it beat. The geometric disparity in the ambient environment is clear when playing both games.
I agree if we talk about environments but when it comes to realistic looking characters tlou2 is going to take it to the next level
Not just characters, they will take their environments and lighting to the next level as well.
During the E3 demo, the light coming from the torches that the seraphites were holding, is one of the best lighting I've seen in a game.
It felt dense and heavy with thick moisture and fog choking the very air. I have never seen light to have that volumetric look presented so convincingly before in any game.
It's not just pure technical horsepower but the artistic care with which the flames and the fumes wither and morph, it's breathtaking!
Not just characters, they will take their environments and lighting to the next level as well.
During the E3 demo, the light coming from the torches that the seraphites were holding, is one of the best lighting I've seen in a game.
It felt dense and heavy with thick moisture and fog choking the very air. I have never seen light to have that volumetric look presented so convincingly before in any game.
It's not just pure technical horsepower but the artistic care with which the flames and the fumes wither and morph, it's breathtaking!
Yeah, TLoU2 is the next big jump for linear games. Compared to U4, I think jump is pretty darn significant. Certainly bigger than U3 to TLoU last gen.
RDR2 is hugely impressive, but I think one of the tricks is the slow pace of the game. If you were able to move through that world at Spider-Man or GTA speeds, they'd have had to dial things back to keep the asset streaming consistent. That's not to take anything away from the the achievement, it's incredible, but I think that's one area they've gained - and impressively utilised - some extra overhead.
It's a huge leap from U4 to TLOUII. So much so that people couldn't believe what they were seeing at E3.
ND confidently managed to cast aside the notion which was prevalent in the early PS4 times that the console is basically a cheap PC so we won't be seeing graphical leaps this gen.
I think i'm too old because every major release this gen has made my jaw drop with its visuals.
However RDR2 has probably wowed me the most.
However RDR2 has probably wowed me the most.
The couple of forumers that claimed that the terms "graphics" and "visual fidelity" exclude anything art related and are just about technicals aspects didn't return to elaborate on that when I genuinely asked if I was understanding/using these terms wrongly. That's that I guess.
No offence but you can provide a picture where RDR 2 shows more polycounts of HDZ? I don't have the game but polycounts is surely the weak point of RDR2 which I have and I noticed it immediately. It's the most disappointing part of the engine and it reminds too much to GTA 5 remaster. Take how example Uncharted: the leap between the third and fourth is huge. Now take I look to GTA5 and then RDR2. I'm expected to see the same leap there. I'm quite surprise no one here complains about the excessive similarity of the assets of the two games. I expected more from a company like R.
Last edited:
They are different though. An art style is directly related to texture color. However, a low res texture instead of a high res one, will make a difference. If you want water in a game, sure, have the artist paint blues, silvers, and greens. But you have to make that water look pleasing to the eye and will need a water shader that takes into effect fresnel and light propagation.
I think what they are saying is that tech is more needed than art at the "production" level in order to make the visuals go to the next level. An incredible artist can and WILL make a game look stellar if the game is totally reliant on making shortcuts in lighting (i.e. Spiderman, UC4, HZD, etc..). But when you have the hardware to perform really complex 3d rendering features (i.e. FFXV, Odyssey, RDR2, Quantum Break, etc.. on the PC), the artist doesn't have to work so hard and it becomes more important.
The more I play RDR2 (aside from being quite bored with nothing it seems other than riding my horse across huge areas), the more unimpressed with the graphics as a whole I'm becoming.
At times is absolutely beautiful but for the most, I'm not impressed. No HDR, dull, flat lighting, jaggies, extremely low res textures, dithering and the worst 4KCB I've ever seen. In parts it doesn't even look 1080p where the graphics look a mess - the lighting with the blurry foliage being the main culprits.
In big open vistas or smaller areas with the right kind of foliage (less detail of trees but lots of grass for example) or desolate areas, the flat lighting (TOD/Weather dependent) doesn't affect the graphics at all and is very impressive - however, from what I've played, it has lots of areas not like this and looks ugly.
Almost all interiors look really impressive with a lovely stylized/filmic look too - beautiful! Inside
The Camp looks beautiful (just outside has the ugly look that I'm talking about that I see in a mass part of the world).
Valentine when amongst the main town buildings looks great but just before you reach the town, it looks really poor.
Coming into St. Denis blew me away (was a part cloudy, foggyish day). The detail of the buildings and what was going on. Wow. The lighting at night or when coming through inside the interiors is awesome. The texture work and graphics and details were amazing! However, on occasion leaving St Denis, towards its outskirts, the flat lighting (TOD etc) was making it look a bit scruffy - almost like the IQ took a down turn.
I don't know man, the IQ in this game is fucking really bad at times and seems to be getting a free pass by a lot of people. Almost to the point I can't understand why the fuck it's not being called out? I mean I'm not talking about little bits here and there - its a big portion IMO. Maybe I've not seen enough of the map and I've spent too much time in unflattering areas with poor TOD/Weather?
I'm also finding the gameplay in terms of a cohesive, living breathing, world not what I've been led to believe. An example, I was just randomly confronted by some Driscol's whilst on the way from my Camp to Valentine. I proceed to kill 3 of them as one rides off. I chase the runner, catch him and kill him (took about 1 min in total). I then come back to where I'd killed the other 3 and they were all gone INCLUDING THE STAGECOACH/WAGON THEY HAD. As if nothing had just happened? So how is this right? What within 1 min EVERYTHING had disappeared? Pfffft....
Wish I'd have bought an X1X for this but then again I don't know who to believe because I've seen many posts in these forums saying his 'pin sharp' the X1X is but I've also seen a post from a guy who said it was blurry in parts too. I've seen YouTube videos saying the HDR is only fucked on the ps4 version (although DF says its all).
This is IMO a poor effort from r* in terms of their 4KCB and bullshit HDR for Ps4 Pro. Are they truly happy with the IQ in this game after all these years? Could they not match the IQ of many many many other games on the ps4? Not impressed at all and I've not seen one bit in this game as sharp as the trailers they showed which I'm not too bothered about because when it looks good, it looks really good and doesn't need to be any sharper as the IQ is spot on.
Its like some of the graphics have a finished, high IQ look (maybe blur, DOF, AO, better AA, higher res) and other parts look unfinished making it hard to see the 3D'ness of the graphics - Witcher 3 had this in certain areas too but their IQ was better and these areas were both fewer and far between as well as being complimented with an art style which masked it.
It almost feels sabotaged so they can sell a ps5 version.
Some more TO1886:
Can't detect horse testicles:
Setting aside NPC animation system which frankly seems like a step beyond ACU, RDR 2's lighting looks more sublime (although ACU originally planned to have real time GI) and the LoD system for objects and shadows are definitely superior (which could have significantly to do with the types of environment RDR2 is built around).
Oh and let's not forget the resolution and the framerate.
Frame rate yes but are you seriously saying RDR2 'even looks' 4K all the time?