Should UC3 go sub-HD?

UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3rich-sac

No, I hate blury games

MGS4 included.

I don't konw what itis butit just looks muddy in lower resolution on these HD platforms. Lower than 720p is auto unimpressiveness for console graphics IMO.

No, I hate blury games

MGS4 included.

I don't konw what itis butit just looks muddy in lower resolution on these HD platforms. Lower than 720p is auto unimpressiveness for console graphics IMO.

casharmy

You can tell the difference between something like 1152x700 and 1280x720?

If you can, how the hell can you stand playing console games on 40"+ TVs?

When going subHD by a small amount, like Resistance 3 does, I can't tell the difference. When dropping the resolution by a large amount, like CoD, I can see the difference.

However, I don't think overall resolution is the main factor, as a game could output in 1080p and have really low res textures and still look like poop, so I just want the games to look good, and the people that know how to do that know how better than I do.

Everything I've seen of U3 looks fantastic so far. Even if the AA isn't great, so what? People need to stop measuring the sum of a game's visuals by the weakest part of them.

Nah man as soon as it's a single pixel under HD then the game becomes a blurry mess and is down right ugly :o

UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3rich-sac

UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3rich-sac

UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3rich-sac

BF3 isn't really sub-HD. It just overscans the top and bottom out. It would be fine if UC3 needed to do that.

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3Cow4ever

You heard it here first folks. Most games look better than Crysis 2. :lol:

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3DarkLink77

You heard it here first folks. Most games look better than Crysis 2. :lol:

This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact. I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong.

When going subHD by a small amount, like Resistance 3 does, I can't tell the difference. When dropping the resolution by a large amount, like CoD, I can see the difference.

However, I don't think overall resolution is the main factor, as a game could output in 1080p and have really low res textures and still look like poop, so I just want the games to look good, and the people that know how to do that know how better than I do.

Everything I've seen of U3 looks fantastic so far. Even if the AA isn't great, so what? People need to stop measuring the sum of a game's visuals by the weakest part of them.

Pug-Nasty

What? Resistance 3 has almost exact number of pixels as MW games do on PS3. Its 960x704. Thats DEEP in sub hd teritory.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

When going subHD by a small amount, like Resistance 3 does, I can't tell the difference. When dropping the resolution by a large amount, like CoD, I can see the difference.

However, I don't think overall resolution is the main factor, as a game could output in 1080p and have really low res textures and still look like poop, so I just want the games to look good, and the people that know how to do that know how better than I do.

Everything I've seen of U3 looks fantastic so far. Even if the AA isn't great, so what? People need to stop measuring the sum of a game's visuals by the weakest part of them.

Bus-A-Bus

What? Resistance 3 has almost exact number of pixels as MW games do on PS3. Its 960x704. Thats DEEP in sub hd teritory.

Aren't CoD games like half that? Well, they look it. Either way, I said there are multiple things that affect the picture, and overall resolution may not be the most important thing.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

When going subHD by a small amount, like Resistance 3 does, I can't tell the difference. When dropping the resolution by a large amount, like CoD, I can see the difference.

However, I don't think overall resolution is the main factor, as a game could output in 1080p and have really low res textures and still look like poop, so I just want the games to look good, and the people that know how to do that know how better than I do.

Everything I've seen of U3 looks fantastic so far. Even if the AA isn't great, so what? People need to stop measuring the sum of a game's visuals by the weakest part of them.

Pug-Nasty

What? Resistance 3 has almost exact number of pixels as MW games do on PS3. Its 960x704. Thats DEEP in sub hd teritory.

Aren't CoD games like half that? Well, they look it. Either way, I said there are multiple things that affect the picture, and overall resolution may not be the most important thing.

I think for the insane amount of effects, physics, lighting and animation UC3 is doing all at 1280 x 720, a few quarter res alphas can be well excused. Every game has flaws, by your rationale, Gears 3 might as well drop it to 1024 x 720 res since it doesn't have HDR, deferred lighting, 4xmsaa, full res alpha or moving levels. UC3 looks absolutely incredible as it is and I don't see the need to drop the res.gpuking

Who said "deferred lighting" is some kind of tech holy grail? Its purely a choice of rendering, if you need alot of light sources you will go for deferred rendering, there are ALOT of DR games this gen, its nothing new and arguably you will pay more performance going forward rendering than deferred rendering. Even Deus Ex is deferred rendering, and who said thats impressive? RDR has all of that and its open world, one would expect you would hype that one as if its best thing ever.

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3Cow4ever

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3parkurtommo

It´s an impressive tech demo, i agree. The game itself, is far from perfect.

[QUOTE="gpuking"]I think for the insane amount of effects, physics, lighting and animation UC3 is doing all at 1280 x 720, a few quarter res alphas can be well excused. Every game has flaws, by your rationale, Gears 3 might as well drop it to 1024 x 720 res since it doesn't have HDR, deferred lighting, 4xmsaa, full res alpha or moving levels. UC3 looks absolutely incredible as it is and I don't see the need to drop the res.Bus-A-Bus

Who said "deferred lighting" is some kind of tech holy grail? Its purely a choice of rendering, if you need alot of light sources you will go for deferred rendering, there are ALOT of DR games this gen, its nothing new and arguably you will pay more performance going forward rendering than deferred rendering. Even Deus Ex is deferred rendering, and who said thats impressive? RDR has all of that and its open world, one would expect you would hype that one as if its best thing ever.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3parkurtommo

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Crysis 2 is nowhere near being a graphics contender. Most games look better, despite being HD.mmmwksil

You heard it here first folks. Most games look better than Crysis 2. :lol:

This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact. I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong.

I think for the insane amount of effects, physics, lighting and animation UC3 is doing all at 1280 x 720, a few quarter res alphas can be well excused. Every game has flaws, by your rationale, Gears 3 might as well drop it to 1024 x 720 res since it doesn't have HDR, deferred lighting, 4xmsaa, full res alpha or moving levels. UC3 looks absolutely incredible as it is and I don't see the need to drop the res.gpuking

Few things there since Gears was brought here (not that I agree with TC).

FP10 w/bloom control may not quite be "true HDR" in terms of range and control, but it's close. Gears dyanmic range is fine. UC3's RGBM does give more range, but at the expense of shader instructions.

Gears doesn't need deferred lighting, it's lightmass global illumination solution does just fine. (yes I know it's baked, most are) There is still many items that dynamically react however, with multiple light sources. DR is high tech stuff, but it's a want more then a need given the enviornment you're trying to create.

FXAA is doing a pretty good job yeah?

Gears 3 does use full alpha, something the 360's high profile games are becoming accustomed to using (Like Reach). Thanks to the EDRAM's bandwidth. Multi-layered explosions + volumetic effects = very nice.

Both games are incredible, people just need to leave it at that.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="gpuking"]I think for the insane amount of effects, physics, lighting and animation UC3 is doing all at 1280 x 720, a few quarter res alphas can be well excused. Every game has flaws, by your rationale, Gears 3 might as well drop it to 1024 x 720 res since it doesn't have HDR, deferred lighting, 4xmsaa, full res alpha or moving levels. UC3 looks absolutely incredible as it is and I don't see the need to drop the res.gpuking

Who said "deferred lighting" is some kind of tech holy grail? Its purely a choice of rendering, if you need alot of light sources you will go for deferred rendering, there are ALOT of DR games this gen, its nothing new and arguably you will pay more performance going forward rendering than deferred rendering. Even Deus Ex is deferred rendering, and who said thats impressive? RDR has all of that and its open world, one would expect you would hype that one as if its best thing ever.

What are you on about? Crysis 1 was forward renderer and ittrumped every single DR game that came out till now BF3. So if we discard all non DR games as gfx king, than we can safely remove GOW III? Thats forward rendering game according to newest SIGGRAPH 11 papers.Forward renderer with DR shadowing, like Gears 3.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3DarkLink77

You heard it here first folks. Most games look better than Crysis 2. :lol:

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]UC3 seems to be suffering with bad AA, cheap Alpha particles, choppy split screen....so why not drop the resolution just a bit for the added performance? Even the top some top Graphicsl contenders have already taken the subHD route; Crysis 2 and BF3parkurtommo

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Crysis 2 is nowhere near being a graphics contender. Most games look better, despite being HD.mmmwksil

You heard it here first folks. Most games look better than Crysis 2. :lol:

This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact. I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong.

They should just use FXAA, bobbetybob

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

You heard it here first folks. Most games look better than Crysis 2. :lol:

Cow4ever

This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact. I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong.

You know I was talking about you, Cow4ever. I just quoted DL instead.

Yeah, seriously. 320x240 with 256 SSFIVAA

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact. I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong.

mmmwksil

You know I was talking about you, Cow4ever. I just quoted DL instead.

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] The hypocrisy...Cow4ever

You know I was talking about you, Cow4ever. I just quoted DL instead.

Don't see any of that hypocrisy here, Cow. Are you possibly mistaken?

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

You heard it here first folks. Most games look better than Crysis 2. :lol:

TheOtherTheoG

This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact. I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

You know I was talking about you, Cow4ever. I just quoted DL instead.

mmmwksil

Don't see any of that hypocrisy here, Cow. Are you possibly mistaken?

"This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact."

So what you're basically saying here is that the matter is subjective.

"I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong."

And here it's suddenly objective.

Hypocrisy at its best.

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] I know and it makes you ahypocrite cause you critizise me for stating my opinion as fact and then do the exact same thing.Cow4ever

Don't see any of that hypocrisy here, Cow. Are you possibly mistaken?

"This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact."

So what you're basically saying here is that the matter is subjective.

"I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong."

And here it's suddenly objective.

Hypocrisy at its best.

I was referring to the claim that most games looked better than Crysis 2. This is what the thread was about, isn't it? Perhaps I should've clarified myself, and that was my mistake.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

Don't see any of that hypocrisy here, Cow. Are you possibly mistaken?

mmmwksil

"This is the same guy whom earlier tried to pass off Valve as the greatest developer ever as fact."

So what you're basically saying here is that the matter is subjective.

"I don't know if he's being intentionally funny or terribly serious and wrong."

And here it's suddenly objective.

Hypocrisy at its best.

I was referring to the claim that most games looked better than Crysis 2. This is what the thread was about, isn't it? Perhaps I should've clarified myself, and that was my mistake.

Oh. Sorry ok I understand. But clearly alot of games look better than Crysis 2. If we're talking about consoles here. And btw I wasn't serious when I said fact, I don't know why you guys overreact so much with opinion vs facts, doesn't matter. I was just emphasizing my view. Cow4ever

About the other thread that was locked regarding Valve? I know, I was just yankin' your chain, pal. :P

I agree that people here take everything too seriously, which is why I turn everything into some sort of joke after a while. I aim to make SW a better place :D

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"]Oh. Sorry ok I understand. But clearly alot of games look better than Crysis 2. If we're talking about consoles here. And btw I wasn't serious when I said fact, I don't know why you guys overreact so much with opinion vs facts, doesn't matter. I was just emphasizing my view. mmmwksil

About the other thread that was locked regarding Valve? I know, I was just yankin' your chain, pal. :P

I agree that people here take everything too seriously, which is why I turn everything into some sort of joke after a while. I aim to make SW a better place :D

Lol I agree I try to do the same thing! But somehow it always ends up as a worse place :( lol

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Who said "deferred lighting" is some kind of tech holy grail? Its purely a choice of rendering, if you need alot of light sources you will go for deferred rendering, there are ALOT of DR games this gen, its nothing new and arguably you will pay more performance going forward rendering than deferred rendering. Even Deus Ex is deferred rendering, and who said thats impressive? RDR has all of that and its open world, one would expect you would hype that one as if its best thing ever.

Bus-A-Bus

What are you on about? Crysis 1 was forward renderer and ittrumped every single DR game that came out till now BF3. So if we discard all non DR games as gfx king, than we can safely remove GOW III? Thats forward rendering game according to newest SIGGRAPH 11 papers.Forward renderer with DR shadowing, like Gears 3.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="gpuking"] A LOT of people said DR is uber high tech, yes that's including Digitalfoundry, even they called it bleeding edge. You don't have to ignore the beauty and technical prowess of DR or down play it just because your favorite game Gears3 doesn't support it. In case you didn't notice games like KZ2&3 and BF3 wouldn't look as godly without DR and it's really hard to go back to the dated FR once you seen it. I can promise you Gears 3 would look TONs better if it supports DR.gpuking

What are you on about? Crysis 1 was forward renderer and ittrumped every single DR game that came out till now BF3. So if we discard all non DR games as gfx king, than we can safely remove GOW III? Thats forward rendering game according to newest SIGGRAPH 11 papers.Forward renderer with DR shadowing, like Gears 3.

No, on PC when more than 12 light sources come into play things start to get a little shaky, at least thats from my experience. God Of War 3 most certainly uses forward rendering, it says in their papers from last months SIGGRAPH. UC3 is deferred rendering most probably since it fits PS3 better, not because it needs hundred of light sources(which you never see in UC games anyway).

http://advances.realtimerendering.com/s2011/index.html

[QUOTE="gpuking"]I think for the insane amount of effects, physics, lighting and animation UC3 is doing all at 1280 x 720, a few quarter res alphas can be well excused. Every game has flaws, by your rationale, Gears 3 might as well drop it to 1024 x 720 res since it doesn't have HDR, deferred lighting, 4xmsaa, full res alpha or moving levels. UC3 looks absolutely incredible as it is and I don't see the need to drop the res.Innovazero2000

Few things there since Gears was brought here (not that I agree with TC).

FP10 w/bloom control may not quite be "true HDR" in terms of range and control, but it's close. Gears dyanmic range is fine. UC3's RGBM does give more range, but at the expense of shader instructions.

Gears doesn't need deferred lighting, it's lightmass global illumination solution does just fine. (yes I know it's baked, most are) There is still many items that dynamically react however, with multiple light sources. DR is high tech stuff, but it's a want more then a need given the enviornment you're trying to create.

FXAA is doing a pretty good job yeah?

Gears 3 does use full alpha, something the 360's high profile games are becoming accustomed to using (Like Reach). Thanks to the EDRAM's bandwidth. Multi-layered explosions + volumetic effects = very nice.

Both games are incredible, people just need to leave it at that.

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

What are you on about? Crysis 1 was forward renderer and ittrumped every single DR game that came out till now BF3. So if we discard all non DR games as gfx king, than we can safely remove GOW III? Thats forward rendering game according to newest SIGGRAPH 11 papers.Forward renderer with DR shadowing, like Gears 3.

Bus-A-Bus

No, on PC when more than 12 light sources come into play things start to get a little shaky, at least thats from my experience. God Of War 3 most certainly uses forward rendering, it says in their papers from last months SIGGRAPH. UC3 is deferred rendering most probably since it fits PS3 better, not because it needs hundred of light sources(which you never see in UC games anyway).

http://advances.realtimerendering.com/s2011/index.html

Gears 3 shows off a very impressive physics effect right off the bat in a Act 1 flashback...