@FreedomFreeLife: I've posted this in two other threads on this but hey, maybe you'll finally reply this time since you're so commited to posting your nonsense.
If it's apparently evidence of more lies and prerendered footage then how come multiple websites have come out with analysis saying it's not prerendered like previous footage? Or are you just going to continue to ignore that.
There's something that needs to be understood about trailer footage vs real time game play footage. When any given trailer (his applies to all trailers, not just Uncharted) is in-engine, and even if running on the platform hardware, there's a reason it looks so much more crisp and at a higher fidelity than the gaming experience we get, hands on.
Fixed camera and action scripting.
Because all the action is controlled and scripted, the camera is set and the characters are all running through directed animations, the assets can all be perfectly tuned & optimized.
But when they code the game for disc (or consumer download), they have to make it flexible and adaptable to handle unpredictable conditions - namely the players input. Not knowing where they'll look in the environments, the direction they'll go, what actions they'll want to make the character do from one moment to the next, and who knows what else. So they have to find the best balance in resolution, texture, lighting, and the myriad of graphical factors to be able to handle all this in actual real time conditions when the game is in the players hands.
It's the difference between controlled laboratory conditions and unpredictable real world conditions. So in-engine is not the same as in-game.
There's something that needs to be understood about trailer footage vs real time game play footage. When any given trailer (his applies to all trailers, not just Uncharted) is in-engine, and even if running on the platform hardware, there's a reason it looks so much more crisp and at a higher fidelity than the gaming experience we get, hands on.
Fixed camera and action scripting.
Because all the action is controlled and scripted, the camera is set and the characters are all running through directed animations, the assets can all be perfectly tuned & optimized.
But when they code the game for disc (or consumer download), they have to make it flexible and adaptable to handle unpredictable conditions - namely the players input. Not knowing where they'll look in the environments, the direction they'll go, what actions they'll want to make the character do from one moment to the next, and who knows what else. So they have to find the best balance in resolution, texture, lighting, and the myriad of graphical factors to be able to handle all this in actual real time conditions when the game is in the players hands.
It's the difference between controlled laboratory conditions and unpredictable real world conditions. So in-engine is not the same as in-game.
You are a nobody. These guys are tried and proven developers who are critically acclaimed as top developers in the industry and have been doing it for years. Your attempt to downplay what ND showed doesn't really mean anything. It's no secret you are a PS hater, and all you are really presenting is damage control.
The main thing that ND wanted to point out and let people know, the important thing, was that what was shown was indeed "real-time". All that in-game in-engine mumbo jumbo is meaningless because we already know it was a cut scene.
The simple fact is even cut scenes, if in realtime, require a great amount of system power to achieve. If rendering highly impressive cut scenes graphics in real-time were a piece of cake then Crytek wouldn't have opted to make all of Ryse's cut scenes on xbox one pre-rendered
ND rendering what was shown in their trailer for UC4 in realtime @ 1080p with a constant 60fps is phenomenal PERIOD! Stop the damage control as a "hermit" you should very well know that a demanding graphically intensive cut scene can tank FPS even on high end PC games.
There is no way around it, if ND's graphical level is reaching that high in a unshakable cut scene, then what they produce in-game is likely going to be very close to what showing now.
Battlefield 4 (not even crysis 3 the so-called best looking and most demanding game by hermits) @ 1:47 seconds ALL 3 of these relatively high end cards tank nearly 20fps at 1:49 it's even more from their previous solid 60fps averages, in what section does this great tank occure you ask? Yeah, A freaking in game real-time cut-scene. Believe it.
BF4 real-time gameplay
Yessssss the holy 1080p at 60fps promis land herms speak of is achieved here...
but Oh no
BF4 real-time cut-scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_pXTkRefg
Damn, the 1080p 60fps PC holy-grail was shattered to almost half the frame rate by what is revealed to be, oh my...a real-time cut scene!
So now I think it's fair to stop trying to down play what ND showed with in-engine and in-game damage control if everything they showed was in real-time. BTW those PC games on those cards are only running at 1080p but still tanked more than 20 frames below the STANDARD 60fps all hermits brag about :o!!!! Herms say it aint so??
There's something that needs to be understood about trailer footage vs real time game play footage. When any given trailer (his applies to all trailers, not just Uncharted) is in-engine, and even if running on the platform hardware, there's a reason it looks so much more crisp and at a higher fidelity than the gaming experience we get, hands on.
Fixed camera and action scripting.
Because all the action is controlled and scripted, the camera is set and the characters are all running through directed animations, the assets can all be perfectly tuned & optimized.
But when they code the game for disc (or consumer download), they have to make it flexible and adaptable to handle unpredictable conditions - namely the players input. Not knowing where they'll look in the environments, the direction they'll go, what actions they'll want to make the character do from one moment to the next, and who knows what else. So they have to find the best balance in resolution, texture, lighting, and the myriad of graphical factors to be able to handle all this in actual real time conditions when the game is in the players hands.
It's the difference between controlled laboratory conditions and unpredictable real world conditions. So in-engine is not the same as in-game.
You are a nobody. These guys are tried and proven developers who are critically acclaimed as top developers in the industry and have been doing it for years. Your attempt to downplay what ND showed doesn't really mean anything. It's no secret you are a PS hater, and all you are really presenting is damage control.
I wasn't disputing that the game was running from a PS4 and using the actual assets. Just that those assets are run in controlled conditions (fixed camera and scripted animations) which are not the same conditions as real time when the game is controlled by the player and all the unpredictability that entails. The actual game play experience won't have the same fidelity as a scripted trailer, and we saw this from the Last of Us. From the very same exalted devs. You should work on that reading comprehension ;)
Oh and I own a PS4 and have been playing the Destiny Alpha. You can even get the Sony Commander @Heil68 to confirm this. And there goes your "sony hater" slander, sherlock :P:P
Battlefield 4 (not even crysis 3 the so-called best looking and most demanding game by hermits) @ 1:47 seconds ALL 3 of these relatively high end cards tank nearly 20fps at 1:49 it's even more from their previous solid 60fps averages, in what section does this great tank occure you ask? Yeah, A freaking in game real-time cut-scene. Believe it.
BF4 real-time gameplay
Yessssss the holy 1080p at 60fps promis land herms speak of is achieved here...
but Oh no
BF4 real-time cut-scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_pXTkRefg
Damn, the 1080p 60fps PC holy-grail was shattered to almost half the frame rate by what is revealed to be, oh my...a real-time cut scene!
So now I think it's fair to stop trying to down play what ND showed with in-engine and in-game damage control if everything they showed was in real-time. BTW those PC games on those cards are only running at 1080p but still tanked more than 20 frames below the STANDARD 60fps all hermits brag about :o!!!! Herms say it aint so??
What is this? What are you trying to prove here? Of course there always will be drops. I've seen some videos where PS4 version's FPS drops down to 14-15FPS.
Lots of butthurt in this thread and denial from desperate lems, shameless closet lems claiming to be hermits and hermit faithful.
Bu but teh a pre-rendered trailerz?
The Dark Sorcerer at the e3 reveal was also real time rendered output, and that's not even a real game. It's impressive by naughty dog sure, but it will always come down for actual game play.
That literally puts a bullet through hermit's and lemming's head and explode like water melons. You sore losers ever think for a minute that this is PS4 now not PS3, no point using TLOU or UC3 for comparison, things change and sometimes for the better.
There's something that needs to be understood about trailer footage vs real time game play footage. When any given trailer (his applies to all trailers, not just Uncharted) is in-engine, and even if running on the platform hardware, there's a reason it looks so much more crisp and at a higher fidelity than the gaming experience we get, hands on.
Fixed camera and action scripting.
Because all the action is controlled and scripted, the camera is set and the characters are all running through directed animations, the assets can all be perfectly tuned & optimized.
But when they code the game for disc (or consumer download), they have to make it flexible and adaptable to handle unpredictable conditions - namely the players input. Not knowing where they'll look in the environments, the direction they'll go, what actions they'll want to make the character do from one moment to the next, and who knows what else. So they have to find the best balance in resolution, texture, lighting, and the myriad of graphical factors to be able to handle all this in actual real time conditions when the game is in the players hands.
It's the difference between controlled laboratory conditions and unpredictable real world conditions. So in-engine is not the same as in-game.
Yay, quoting this because this is indeed the case, and saves me from typing and trying to word it all, thanks AA :P.
But yeah, essentially, the trailer may indeed have been rendered real time on a PS4... but that's in no way representative of how it will be when the entire level is there.
I wouldn't bet against naughty dog. If you look at their past work, they have done an amazing job in all the consoles they have worked on. Their games have always been some of the best, if not the best graphically in all the platforms they have worked on. Now the game wont look like the trailer, mainly because you dont play games from that type of camera angle, but I dont think we should expect a major drop in quality compare to a cut scene. Seeing as they can actually render them in real time this time around, on the PS3 they were only in engine, and rendered on more than one PS3.
Lems and Herms know damn well this aint pre rendered, theyre just desperate to downplay how good the trailer looked.
Nobody is saying that it's pre-rendered. Just pointing out what should be obvious. It's easier to optimize the output under controlled conditions (fixed camera and scripted animations) as opposed to live conditions taking into account player input.
If you expect the gameplay to be 100% what a trailer shows, you're gonna be disappointed.
Lems and Herms know damn well this aint pre rendered, theyre just desperate to downplay how good the trailer looked.
Nobody is saying that it's pre-rendered. Just pointing out what should be obvious. It's easier to optimize the output under controlled conditions (fixed camera and scripted animations) as opposed to live conditions taking into account player input.
If you expect the gameplay to be 100% what a trailer shows, you're gonna be disappointed.
I love how you completely ignored my second post, how about you address it?
The example I posted with BF4? The 290, 290x and 780 tanking from a nearly solid 60fps to nearly 30fps on all units during a controlled condition fixed camera and scripted animation real-time cut scene. What you are saying sounds nice in theory but doesn't seem to pan out in real life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_pXTkRefg
Hell these powerful gpus aren't even doing holy PC 4k resolutions it's 1080p...just like UC4! Yet they still tank! DURING A REAL-TIME CONTROLLED CONDITIONS CUT-SCENE! Curiously, the gameplay sections never caused these units to drop that low...fancy that!
Maintaining frame rate in controlled conditions of graphically intensive cut scenes OBVIOUSLY isn't much less strain on what ever graphic processor and system running it if it has to be done in real time looking at these results.
I even provided a link so you can konw those big frame drops happened when the cut scene started. I also pointed out the Ryse example where Crytek decided to make all of the cut scenes in that game pre-rendered instead of real time.
Why did CRYTEK (the guys hermit claim are the top graphical experts in the industry) opt to go pre-rendered in Ryse when controlled conditions real-time cut scenes make producing great graphics so much easier...according to you?
Also:
A lot of xbox fanboys and PS haters have broken down and bought a PS4. It's simply a much better system at a much better value. Owning the system doesn't have any impact on anyone's preference or bias in here. You mention Heil68, calling him the "Sony commander"...yet he owns all systems as too, yep that means xbox one as well. lol it is curious to see you identify him with sony when he also owns a xboxone when your defense against being a sony hater was that you own a PS4. Nice job!.
Why did CRYTEK (the guys hermit claim are the top graphical experts in the industry) opt to go pre-rendered in Ryse when controlled conditions real-time cut scenes make producing great graphics so much easier
According to them they wanted to reduce loading time.
“My entire rigging pipeline is predicated on the idea that I have to build rigs that can blend in and out of cutscenes seamlessly,” Technical Art Director Christopher Evans told Edge, “so I would go to Peter and the guys and say, ‘Hey, I see this loading video is now scheduled to be prerendered. Why?’ We talked about it and it was, ‘Well, we don’t want players to be waiting. If we’re rendering a scene live as well as trying to load the next scene, the engine will take probably three or four times longer.’ In the end, we sided with the gamers. We didn’t feel they should have to wait through a big loading time.”
Naughty Dog is good but they're not the best when it comes to graphics. Crytek has that distinction in my opinion. Lets see what the gameplay looks like because they have a consistent track record of not having the same image quality as the trailers.
And who knows why Battlefield cutscenes drop frames. There are too many variables.
Why did CRYTEK (the guys hermit claim are the top graphical experts in the industry) opt to go pre-rendered in Ryse when controlled conditions real-time cut scenes make producing great graphics so much easier
According to them they wanted to reduce loading time.
“My entire rigging pipeline is predicated on the idea that I have to build rigs that can blend in and out of cutscenes seamlessly,” Technical Art Director Christopher Evans told Edge, “so I would go to Peter and the guys and say, ‘Hey, I see this loading video is now scheduled to be prerendered. Why?’ We talked about it and it was, ‘Well, we don’t want players to be waiting. If we’re rendering a scene live as well as trying to load the next scene, the engine will take probably three or four times longer.’ In the end, we sided with the gamers. We didn’t feel they should have to wait through a big loading time.”
Naughty Dog is good but they're not the best when it comes to graphics. Crytek has that distinction in my opinion. Lets see what the gameplay looks like because they have a consistent track record of not having the same image quality as the trailers.
And who knows why Battlefield cutscenes drop frames. There are too many variables.
First of all don't give me a line of text without a link. I like to know the legitimacy of what someone shows me on here and see everything within the context of what was said.
Second your opinion on who is the best when it comes to graphics is just that, your opinion. Cryteck is known mainly as a PC dev and ND as a console dev. ND hasn't produced any games below 720 on consoles last gen yet received unanimous praise for graphics they achieved, but Cryteck, when working on consoles, had to reduce resolution to get the results for the graphics they wanted to get graphical praise. That says something.
Also, who knows why BF4 cutscenes drop frames? Too many variables? LMAO what a cop-out. I am sure if I looked for sections of Crysis 3 frame tests I could find similar results with cut-scene drops but I have given more proof with my argument then the guy you are trying to defend now. You aren't even arguing with facts, all you have are opinions and non-arguments to counter with.
I think my point is made if those UC4 graphics were achieved in realtime at 1080p running at a constant 60fps then ND has a firm grip on their engine and what they can realistically achieve with the PS4 hardware, everything else coming from nay sayers is damage control unless you can add some facts other than your opinion, which I doubt.
So uncharted 4 has gone from a action/adventure/tps to a game of close ups with absolutely nothing going on!! Awesome! Cows should be excited! So you guys will get to have a 3 hour single player experience staring at Nathan Drake's face and admiring his pre rendered hair and wrinkles!! Amazing!!!
Seriously, why do you guys fall for this crap each and every single E3? That was not GAMEPLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There was no ammo meter, no health bar, no objective and no enemies on screen. There was NOTHING GOING ON!!! You should be excited that the PS4 can manage 60fps on what was nothing more than a cut scene!!! Wooooo hooooooo!!!
I don't see why people are so surprised. Naughty Dog wowed just about the entire industry with Uncharted 2, and then even improved upon that with Uncharted 3. If people are impressed with Uncharted 4, which it seems most people are, then wtf are people going to be saying when Uncharted 5--or Naughty Dogs next game--arrives on ps4?
I'll get excited if the game is confirmed to run at 60fps/1080P.
They said same thing about Killzone, 60fps and 1080p... but game is 30fps and not even 1080p. Even lower res than Titanfall.
And don't forget how Watch_Dogs was 1080p/60FPS according to Sony lmao.
DF did a frame rate and resolution test you clown. It's not a "according to Sony" thing at this point nub.
So DF tested the full game that we are getting in 2015? No? Then it's "according to Sony".
Way to try to change the subject and dance around an argument to make your dumb comment fit. Sorry no.
We are talking about the trailer/demo that ND showed for UC4. That trailer WAS real time 1080p/60fps nothing more nothing less. The final game could be 420p for all we know but it is a fact that what ND showed at E3 2014 was on the PS4 and 1080p/60fps. Stop trying to dance around that with your stupid "according to Sony" BS.
Add to that they also commented the final game play will look better than the trailer at a target of 60FPS (with some drops no doubt) then all is good. Can't claim ownage with a trailer though need the final or close to final game for that.
Add to that they also commented the final game play will look better than the trailer at a target of 60FPS (with some drops no doubt) then all is good. Can't claim ownage with a trailer though need the final or close to final game for that.
I don't think many people are claiming ownage over this, it just seems like there is a lot of massive damage control by hermits and lemmings over how amazing the graphics were and the fact that what was shown has been confirmed to be 1080p/60fps is making them scramble to downplay or simply deny it all together.
You can all fight amongst yourselves about this and that and what ever, but Facts are facts, Naughty Dog Deliver on graphics Uncharted and the Last of Us all stand out as great graphical feats on a last gen console, so why even care,
Corrinne Yu@Corrinne
@ZirpPop Our U4 trailer is an in engine real game level running on a real PS4,Paolo.Our trailer doesn't look good enough to be prerender CGI
If the Programmer says it is, then why should I believe anybody else who doubts when it's come from the coder themselves, only release will be the judge if she is speaking the truth, but I believe she is,
Corrinne Yu@Corrinne
@therealcliffyb@LiaSae And I have faith in Uncharted 4 narrative and gameplay will stand game art history test of time and make a statement
I mean The Order 1886 dev's have even said that in their game they haven't had to put in a video editor at all because they can make the cut scenes and in game graphics exactly the same so it's seamless, so if this is true and they can make a gorgeous looking game like The Order 1886, then surely Naughty Dog can surpass that in everyway. look at what they did with last gen consoles I mean there work speaks for themselves,
and stop posting them silly comparison pic's when there not of the same area. you cannot compare 2 places in the game to one another, one's in game and ones a CGI cut scene which was always used in last gen consoles. ridiculous
Why did CRYTEK (the guys hermit claim are the top graphical experts in the industry) opt to go pre-rendered in Ryse when controlled conditions real-time cut scenes make producing great graphics so much easier
According to them they wanted to reduce loading time.
“My entire rigging pipeline is predicated on the idea that I have to build rigs that can blend in and out of cutscenes seamlessly,” Technical Art Director Christopher Evans told Edge, “so I would go to Peter and the guys and say, ‘Hey, I see this loading video is now scheduled to be prerendered. Why?’ We talked about it and it was, ‘Well, we don’t want players to be waiting. If we’re rendering a scene live as well as trying to load the next scene, the engine will take probably three or four times longer.’ In the end, we sided with the gamers. We didn’t feel they should have to wait through a big loading time.”
Naughty Dog is good but they're not the best when it comes to graphics. Crytek has that distinction in my opinion. Lets see what the gameplay looks like because they have a consistent track record of not having the same image quality as the trailers.
And who knows why Battlefield cutscenes drop frames. There are too many variables.
First of all don't give me a line of text without a link. I like to know the legitimacy of what someone shows me on here and see everything within the context of what was said.
Second your opinion on who is the best when it comes to graphics is just that, your opinion. Cryteck is known mainly as a PC dev and ND as a console dev. ND hasn't produced any games below 720 on consoles last gen yet received unanimous praise for graphics they achieved, but Cryteck, when working on consoles, had to reduce resolution to get the results for the graphics they wanted to get graphical praise. That says something.
Also, who knows why BF4 cutscenes drop frames? Too many variables? LMAO what a cop-out. I am sure if I looked for sections of Crysis 3 frame tests I could find similar results with cut-scene drops but I have given more proof with my argument then the guy you are trying to defend now. You aren't even arguing with facts, all you have are opinions and non-arguments to counter with.
I think my point is made if those UC4 graphics were achieved in realtime at 1080p running at a constant 60fps then ND has a firm grip on their engine and what they can realistically achieve with the PS4 hardware, everything else coming from nay sayers is damage control unless you can add some facts other than your opinion, which I doubt.
You seem to be technologically challenged. The link is in the wall of text and google is your friend.
Everyone is allowed to have an opinion and mine is that Naughty Dog is overrated. They are much better than Crytek at making a game but not at making a game engine. Anyone is free to debate that.
Again we shall see how the gameplay turns out but history is not on their side. Caution is the best course.
@ttboy: nah you're the delusional one, and so is a lot of these herms. This is how I see it, PC gamers pretending that they are game developer experts who has coded and is literally downplaying multiple sources from websites and even a coder herself, just because they don't want to BELIEVE it's possible. They are even downplaying their favorite tech analysis, DF, to protect their way of thinking. It's the pathetic truth. Kinectthedots even killed the doubters (like adobe) with their own ammo. It's really really pathetic.
@ttboy: nah you're the delusional one, and so is a lot of these herms. This is how I see it, PC gamers pretending that they are game developer experts who has coded and is literally downplaying multiple sources from websites and even a coder herself, just because they don't want to BELIEVE it's possible. They are even downplaying their favorite tech analysis, DF, to protect their way of thinking. It's the pathetic truth. Kinectthedots even killed the doubters (like adobe) with their own ammo. It's really really pathetic.
...or there's a number of examples of games not looking like their E3 reveals
@ttboy: nah you're the delusional one, and so is a lot of these herms. This is how I see it, PC gamers pretending that they are game developer experts who has coded and is literally downplaying multiple sources from websites and even a coder herself, just because they don't want to BELIEVE it's possible. They are even downplaying their favorite tech analysis, DF, to protect their way of thinking. It's the pathetic truth. Kinectthedots even killed the doubters (like adobe) with their own ammo. It's really really pathetic.
She is new to the team. If they prove that its the same image quality in actual gameplay then thats great for them. The just have a consistent history which is the same for Crytek.
They also claimed this was captured directly from a PS3 in real time.
Loading Video...
Just saying.
THIS. THIS THIS THIS.
Come on people. If you really believe U4 is going to look as good as the trailer does, and maintain 1080p 60fps, you're delusional. Yes, it's "in-engine" and yes it's "running real-time on a PS4" but that means NOTHING about how the actual game will look.
Log in to comment