Uncharted 2's graphics ain't technically impressive

i'm sorry...... i'm a vfx artist, and get payed 160k a year for it, i'm pretty sure i'm going to be knowledgeable on this topic... there is one primary difference between good cg and great CG. good CG strives to look cool, making you thing "wow, that's some good CG" which is what crysis does. great CG doesn't go for real, it looks good, it looks like it took effort, but it doesn't look real, and it just makes you go wow. and what is your point with the baked textures? trust me, they are not baked. the sub surface scattering texture used for human skin in the game was released by the devs for anybody to use, it contains over 200 nodes and 64 different angle color variations, it's more advanced than the shader used for the na'vi skin in avatar. The engine itself is actually incredibly hard on the hardware, as it uses HDRI on all the shots. in other words, it's rendering 2 versions of the game, one with high exposure one with low, then combining them to produce a picture with dark darks and bright brights, but you can still see everything. basically, the engine is great CG. now lets take a look at crysis. crysis has all the same environments, it's all jungle with cliffs in it. crysis lighting uses low density realtime raytracing, which although realistic, looks like crap. it gives highlights but not reflections. the reflections are then rendered from the angle of reflection, reversed, and painted onto the reflective surface, which is not only horribly ineffective, it looks like cg since it screws with the angles. Not to mention the macro generated rock stuctures look horrible..... especially since it's all planar mapping. finally, the art direction sucks and the "physics" is nvidia physx 2.0 (physx that will run on either card, but runs on the software level and on the cpu, released to developers and CG artists as a plug-in) which, sucks. it can't have concave shapes, and the developers should recieve no credit for it's use.... it even generates collision meshes for them.12345678ew

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]No its not an issue but it doesn't prove the PS3 is more powerful then the 360, just that ND did an insane job on that game. garland51

Exactly. It has something to do within the talent of developers, not the hardware inside the PS3 itself. The only reason why we haven't seen such graphics like that on the 360 is because Microsoft's developers won't put in the time, energy, money, etc. to achieve those kind of graphics. While there aren't many 1st/2nd party games on the 360 that doesn't come close to UC2 graphically, they do indeed have a lot more talent unlike most of PS3's exclusives, & that's all that counts. And Cows can say whatever they like about it & twist it all around if they want to.

Give it the same kind of development time, & money, & I guarantee you that they'll come out to be the same on the 360.

But will it be as GOOD as Uncharted 2?

Doubt it. And bad.

They can even have the most unlimited ammount of money and development time...it will never be a great whole-packed experience as Uncharted 2.

Yep...that's talent allright :P

[QUOTE="sayonara89"]

And what are you trying to do mr. IgorAntunov? Game looks great, game is technicaly grat, it's not Crysis level but without a doubt the best looking console game to date. My coclusion is that yo're just another sad xbox fanboy who is angry on Bungie for Reach screenshots :P

Bus-A-Bus

You are wrong,you really are.Uncharted 2 could be done on 360 with less time and money,and look exactly the same :)

then why isnt there an xbox game that matches uncharted? Its been out a year earlier, and is proven to be easier to develop for, why are there no games that rival UC2 or even Killzone2, a game that has been out a year? especially since you say it would be cheaper, and UC2 only had a budget of about 20 mil...

Smooth edges? Am I the only one who see's the jaggies and no AF texture filtering?

The game has rubbish IQ...

PC gamer used to 16xAF and at least 12xAA with ATI's Edge detect..

i'm sorry...... i'm a vfx artist, and get payed 160k a year for it, i'm pretty sure i'm going to be knowledgeable on this topic... there is one primary difference between good cg and great CG. good CG strives to look cool, making you thing "wow, that's some good CG" which is what crysis does. great CG doesn't go for real, it looks good, it looks like it took effort, but it doesn't look real, and it just makes you go wow. and what is your point with the baked textures? trust me, they are not baked. the sub surface scattering texture used for human skin in the game was released by the devs for anybody to use, it contains over 200 nodes and 64 different angle color variations, it's more advanced than the shader used for the na'vi skin in avatar. The engine itself is actually incredibly hard on the hardware, as it uses HDRI on all the shots. in other words, it's rendering 2 versions of the game, one with high exposure one with low, then combining them to produce a picture with dark darks and bright brights, but you can still see everything. basically, the engine is great CG. now lets take a look at crysis. crysis has all the same environments, it's all jungle with cliffs in it. crysis lighting uses low density realtime raytracing, which although realistic, looks like crap. it gives highlights but not reflections. the reflections are then rendered from the angle of reflection, reversed, and painted onto the reflective surface, which is not only horribly ineffective, it looks like cg since it screws with the angles. Not to mention the macro generated rock stuctures look horrible..... especially since it's all planar mapping. finally, the art direction sucks and the "physics" is nvidia physx 2.0 (physx that will run on either card, but runs on the software level and on the cpu, released to developers and CG artists as a plug-in) which, sucks. it can't have concave shapes, and the developers should recieve no credit for it's use.... it even generates collision meshes for them.12345678ew

I don't care what your job is, I see things with my own eyes and it's Crysis >>>>> Uncharted by a long way

No matter how much you say CryEngine isn't as good at 'CG' :roll:

And go into the PC section and say PhysX 2 and you'll get laughed out of the board, there's NO SUCH THING

On top of that Crysis DOESN'T EVEN USE PHYSX

nuff said..

Mattizzle815

[QUOTE="Mattizzle815"]

nuff said..

supersaiyen

I suggest you go and replay Crysis if you think that... And turn the texture settings off 'low' :|

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="sayonara89"]

And what are you trying to do mr. IgorAntunov? Game looks great, game is technicaly grat, it's not Crysis level but without a doubt the best looking console game to date. My coclusion is that yo're just another sad xbox fanboy who is angry on Bungie for Reach screenshots :P

BlancoBX

You are wrong,you really are.Uncharted 2 could be done on 360 with less time and money,and look exactly the same :)

then why isnt there an xbox game that matches uncharted? Its been out a year earlier, and is proven to be easier to develop for, why are there no games that rival UC2 or even Killzone2, a game that has been out a year? especially since you say it would be cheaper, and UC2 only had a budget of about 20 mil...

why cant anybody ever give me an answer to this question?

The AI could use some work, 40% of the time enemies would just blow themselves up with grenades. IgorAntunov

Stop playing games on easy. I played my first play through on hard and never saw an enemy kill himself with a nade, unless I shot him while he was holding it.

[QUOTE="BlancoBX"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

You are wrong,you really are.Uncharted 2 could be done on 360 with less time and money,and look exactly the same :)

BlancoBX

then why isnt there an xbox game that matches uncharted? Its been out a year earlier, and is proven to be easier to develop for, why are there no games that rival UC2 or even Killzone2, a game that has been out a year? especially since you say it would be cheaper, and UC2 only had a budget of about 20 mil...

why cant anybody ever give me an answer to this question?

The most inflammatory way to answer this is "Just wait" :P

The simple fact is that no one wants to go out on a limb and say so. Chances are that there are better looking games being developed on both systems that look better...... you just have to ...... wait :P

[QUOTE="12345678ew"]i'm sorry...... i'm a vfx artist, and get payed 160k a year for it, i'm pretty sure i'm going to be knowledgeable on this topic... there is one primary difference between good cg and great CG. good CG strives to look cool, making you thing "wow, that's some good CG" which is what crysis does. great CG doesn't go for real, it looks good, it looks like it took effort, but it doesn't look real, and it just makes you go wow. and what is your point with the baked textures? trust me, they are not baked. the sub surface scattering texture used for human skin in the game was released by the devs for anybody to use, it contains over 200 nodes and 64 different angle color variations, it's more advanced than the shader used for the na'vi skin in avatar. The engine itself is actually incredibly hard on the hardware, as it uses HDRI on all the shots. in other words, it's rendering 2 versions of the game, one with high exposure one with low, then combining them to produce a picture with dark darks and bright brights, but you can still see everything. basically, the engine is great CG. now lets take a look at crysis. crysis has all the same environments, it's all jungle with cliffs in it. crysis lighting uses low density realtime raytracing, which although realistic, looks like crap. it gives highlights but not reflections. the reflections are then rendered from the angle of reflection, reversed, and painted onto the reflective surface, which is not only horribly ineffective, it looks like cg since it screws with the angles. Not to mention the macro generated rock stuctures look horrible..... especially since it's all planar mapping. finally, the art direction sucks and the "physics" is nvidia physx 2.0 (physx that will run on either card, but runs on the software level and on the cpu, released to developers and CG artists as a plug-in) which, sucks. it can't have concave shapes, and the developers should recieve no credit for it's use.... it even generates collision meshes for them.almighty151986

I don't care what your job is, I see things with my own eyes and it's Crysis >>>>> Uncharted by a long way

No matter how much you say CryEngine isn't as good at 'CG' :roll:

And go into the PC section and say PhysX 2 and you'll get laughed out of the board, there's NO SUCH THING

On top of that Crysis DOESN'T EVEN USE PHYSX

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] oh no a effect that most cant even point out. killzowned24

[QUOTE="Hathesulacon"]

He...hes right...Any Ps3 game can be done on 360. Just use another disk. The only difference is the blu ray disks. Bigger. But idk, I played some ps3 games. I other than MGS4 being a movie/game. And a few others like that, I dont see much utilizing of the full blu ray or dual layer blu ray. But eh. Its fine.

Zero_epyon

PS3's RSX has LibCGM, while PC (with NVIDIA GPUs) has NVAPI (part of "The Ways It's Meant To Be Played").

NVAPI enables some DX10.1 like features on "DX10.0" NV GPUs e.g. FarCry 2.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Note "technical". CryEngine 3 applys full time SSAO.ronvalencia

i'm sorry...... i'm a vfx artist, and get payed 160k a year for it, i'm pretty sure i'm going to be knowledgeable on this topic... there is one primary difference between good cg and great CG. good CG strives to look cool, making you thing "wow, that's some good CG" which is what crysis does. great CG doesn't go for real, it looks good, it looks like it took effort, but it doesn't look real, and it just makes you go wow. and what is your point with the baked textures? trust me, they are not baked. the sub surface scattering texture used for human skin in the game was released by the devs for anybody to use, it contains over 200 nodes and 64 different angle color variations, it's more advanced than the shader used for the na'vi skin in avatar. The engine itself is actually incredibly hard on the hardware, as it uses HDRI on all the shots. in other words, it's rendering 2 versions of the game, one with high exposure one with low, then combining them to produce a picture with dark darks and bright brights,

12345678ew

Refer to fulltime SSAO. Halo 3 also render two HDRs(FP surface) i.e. one for low and one for high.

but you can still see everything. basically, the engine is great CG. now lets take a look at crysis. crysis has all the same environments, it's all jungle with cliffs in it.

12345678ew

Did you forget Crysis's alien ship's interiors?

crysis lighting uses low density realtime raytracing, which although realistic, looks like crap. it gives highlights but not reflections. the reflections are then rendered from the angle of reflection, reversed, and painted onto the reflective surface, which is not only horribly ineffective, it looks like cg since it screws with the angles. Not to mention the macro generated rock stuctures look horrible..... especially since it's all planar mapping. finally, the art direction sucks and the "physics" is nvidia physx 2.0 (physx that will run on either card, but runs on the software level and on the cpu, released to developers and CG artists as a plug-in) which, sucks. it can't have concave shapes, and the developers should recieve no credit for it's use.... it even generates collision meshes for them.

12345678ew

CryEngine2(Crysis) doesn't use NVIDIA PhysX library. For interaction with the environment, Crysis's vegetation's procedural animation calculations is done on the GPU i.e. DX9c GPU.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] and it also has technical crappy AI. beekayjay

[QUOTE="beekayjay"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Unlike Uncharted 2, Crysis has full destructive environment and proper voxels generated geometry enabled mountains. ducati101

[QUOTE="supersaiyen"]

[QUOTE="Mattizzle815"]

nuff said..

almighty151986

I suggest you go and replay Crysis if you think that... And turn the texture settings off 'low' :|

While I do agree that U2 is no tecnical marvel, It does what games do at thier best, use smoke and mirrors to give an illusion that works just fine.

and that is not a complaint but rather a very large complement to ND, they know the Ps3 hardware well, and know where to push, and where to leave as is.

it may be rather comfined, and generally not be at the hight of really high end PC processing, but with the PS3 being as small as it is, I was quite impressed with how they used what they had to work with.

Movements in the game is quite well done too.

Just completely unrelated notion - anyone else dislike how some of thecows uses cutscene images to prove the graphics? I mean, that is really low.

giving an entirely wrong picture of what teh game really is and looks like when playing.

It has nothing the xbox360 couldn't do.IgorAntunov

thenn... why hasn't it been done yet?

Glad to see we have a game developer on these forums. It's always nice to get a professional opinion from an expert.

Mind you, I believe Naughty Dog is or has been awarded a few awards for Uncharted 2 in technical achievements.

[QUOTE="ducati101"][QUOTE="beekayjay"] I got owned? Where? Is this magic? Maybe we should ask the 4 people who still play Crysis multiplayer. beekayjay

[QUOTE="beekayjay"][QUOTE="ducati101"] They say ignorance is bliss, at least you continue to amuse me :)ducati101

i'm sorry...... i'm a vfx artist, and get payed 160k a year for it, i'm pretty sure i'm going to be knowledgeable on this topic... there is one primary difference between good cg and great CG. good CG strives to look cool, making you thing "wow, that's some good CG" which is what crysis does. great CG doesn't go for real, it looks good, it looks like it took effort, but it doesn't look real, and it just makes you go wow. and what is your point with the baked textures? trust me, they are not baked. the sub surface scattering texture used for human skin in the game was released by the devs for anybody to use, it contains over 200 nodes and 64 different angle color variations, it's more advanced than the shader used for the na'vi skin in avatar. The engine itself is actually incredibly hard on the hardware, as it uses HDRI on all the shots. in other words, it's rendering 2 versions of the game, one with high exposure one with low, then combining them to produce a picture with dark darks and bright brights, but you can still see everything. basically, the engine is great CG. now lets take a look at crysis. crysis has all the same environments, it's all jungle with cliffs in it. crysis lighting uses low density realtime raytracing, which although realistic, looks like crap. it gives highlights but not reflections. the reflections are then rendered from the angle of reflection, reversed, and painted onto the reflective surface, which is not only horribly ineffective, it looks like cg since it screws with the angles. Not to mention the macro generated rock stuctures look horrible..... especially since it's all planar mapping. finally, the art direction sucks and the "physics" is nvidia physx 2.0 (physx that will run on either card, but runs on the software level and on the cpu, released to developers and CG artists as a plug-in) which, sucks. it can't have concave shapes, and the developers should recieve no credit for it's use.... it even generates collision meshes for them.12345678ew

Wow, just wow mods. My thread got locked for me mearly stating how I think UC2 looks better than Crysis. I guess its against systems wars rules to have an opinion:|

Wow, just wow mods. My thread got locked for me mearly stating how I think UC2 looks better than Crysis. I guess its against systems wars rules to have an opinion:|

iKINGBOBi

[QUOTE="12345678ew"]i'm sorry...... i'm a vfx artist, and get payed 160k a year for it, i'm pretty sure i'm going to be knowledgeable on this topic... there is one primary difference between good cg and great CG. good CG strives to look cool, making you thing "wow, that's some good CG" which is what crysis does. great CG doesn't go for real, it looks good, it looks like it took effort, but it doesn't look real, and it just makes you go wow. and what is your point with the baked textures? trust me, they are not baked. the sub surface scattering texture used for human skin in the game was released by the devs for anybody to use, it contains over 200 nodes and 64 different angle color variations, it's more advanced than the shader used for the na'vi skin in avatar. The engine itself is actually incredibly hard on the hardware, as it uses HDRI on all the shots. in other words, it's rendering 2 versions of the game, one with high exposure one with low, then combining them to produce a picture with dark darks and bright brights, but you can still see everything. basically, the engine is great CG. now lets take a look at crysis. crysis has all the same environments, it's all jungle with cliffs in it. crysis lighting uses low density realtime raytracing, which although realistic, looks like crap. it gives highlights but not reflections. the reflections are then rendered from the angle of reflection, reversed, and painted onto the reflective surface, which is not only horribly ineffective, it looks like cg since it screws with the angles. Not to mention the macro generated rock stuctures look horrible..... especially since it's all planar mapping. finally, the art direction sucks and the "physics" is nvidia physx 2.0 (physx that will run on either card, but runs on the software level and on the cpu, released to developers and CG artists as a plug-in) which, sucks. it can't have concave shapes, and the developers should recieve no credit for it's use.... it even generates collision meshes for them.Teufelhuhn

This is what I was going to say, you beat me to it!

[QUOTE="iKINGBOBi"]

Wow, just wow mods. My thread got locked for me mearly stating how I think UC2 looks better than Crysis. I guess its against systems wars rules to have an opinion:|

Teufelhuhn

But I revised it to make a less offensive version. In any case by bad:oops:

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="iKINGBOBi"]

Wow, just wow mods. My thread got locked for me mearly stating how I think UC2 looks better than Crysis. I guess its against systems wars rules to have an opinion:|

iKINGBOBi

But I revised it to make a less offensive version. In any case by bad:oops:

UC2 looks just as good if not better than Crysis IMO. UC2s art direction combined with great lighting, textures, effects, etc make it the best looking title out there.

[QUOTE="iKINGBOBi"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

It got locked because

A) There was already such a thread

and

B) You went out of your way to call out hermits.

Either way this isn't a place for you to discuss moderations, so please keep it on-topic.

Teufelhuhn

But I revised it to make a less offensive version. In any case by bad:oops:

Oh ok lol, would you mind taking a look at it to see if its ok by system wars rules. I had a point to make lol. Its completely revised to not anger anyone, just opinion nothiing more lol

[QUOTE="ducati101"]

[QUOTE="beekayjay"] Its cool to just make up ownage; I guess being delusional really is a great debating strategy. I'll be sure to send you postcards from reality now and then! :-)beekayjay

Im sorry but to deny that it isnt technically impressive makes you sound like an uneducated fanboy. A game does not have to be on massive scale to be technically imrpessive. Compare it to the best looking games on the 360, Gears of War 2 for an example. UNC2 has better textures, lighting effects, particle effects , shadows and animations. What it does it does very well its only drawback is its linear and there are alot of great looking and technically impressve games that are linear.

I've been a pc gamer for aeons, I bought an xbox360, wii etc. All have their positives, I finally bought a ps3 primarily in order to have a blu-ray player and also to play some of the better exclusives. I got uncharted 2 for my first ps3 exclusive game, just finished it. Here is the deal, the game uses a huge amount of pre-baked trickery, combined with awesome art direction (which includes alot of well done animation), to give an illusion of technical proficiency. It has nothing the xbox360 couldn't do, and it's a league behind something like crysis. It's biggest technical achievement is excellent anti-aliasing and smooth framerate, but seeing the engine for what it is, it comes as no surprise, the engine is not that demanding on the hardware, there are cheap shaders plastered over every texture, and lighting is used cleverly to give you something more than is actually there. Contrast the dark areas to the light filled areas, the dark areas look average and in parts mediocre. It also helps that there is a heap of variety in every scene, giving the game a refreshing look at all times. In the end this game is a big budget title polished to the nth degree and infused with a heap of developer talent, in terms of gameplay, art assets and animation. Testament to this is the lack of pop-in or any significant glitches, and the meticulous camera placement. This implies that the devs spent huge amounts of time making every scene and set-piece look as good as possible using their artistic talents, arranging the huge number of pre-baked shadows just so, using many simple light effects for maximum impact, and animating the hell out of every action by the player character and every other. This was possible because the game is so very linear and confined, but this doesn't matter because it's so well done. The AI could use some work, 40% of the time enemies would just blow themselves up with grenades. Can the 'uncharted has awezomes technical grafix better than crysis and any xbox360 game please end?' Technically, it doesn't. Artistically, it is a personal opinion. You can argue that, as can you argue that mario galaxy has the best artistic graphics. Thankyou.IgorAntunov

You have no clue what your talking about, it does not use pre baked shadows or lighting. If you dont belive me walk drake under a tree and watch the leaves cast a shadow on his shirt. Those are real time shader effects and the lighting is some of the best in any game right now , better then just standard HDR used in most games.

[QUOTE="IgorAntunov"] It has nothing the xbox360 couldn't do.VendettaRed07

thenn... why hasn't it been done yet?

thats what ive been asking in every uncharted thread for the past 2 weeks...cant seem to get a straight answer tho...

[QUOTE="beekayjay"][QUOTE="ducati101"] Keep them coming please, it is fun reading your comments. Cant comment on Crysis multiplayer, cos i haven't played in a while. Kinda busy with Mechwarrior multiplayer for crysis.

ducati101

Thanks Ducati101! I'll definitely look it up when I get home! I love mods.....BEST thing about PC gaming, absolutely.

cmon, 15 pages? everyone here knows UC2 graphics are impressive. what is not technically impressive about it:|

Crysis is technically better, only edge UC2 has on it is its style really and that's down to preference. :)

I've been a pc gamer for aeons, I bought an xbox360, wii etc. All have their positives, I finally bought a ps3 primarily in order to have a blu-ray player and also to play some of the better exclusives. I got uncharted 2 for my first ps3 exclusive game, just finished it. Here is the deal, the game uses a huge amount of pre-baked trickery, combined with awesome art direction (which includes alot of well done animation), to give an illusion of technical proficiency. It has nothing the xbox360 couldn't do, and it's a league behind something like crysis. It's biggest technical achievement is excellent anti-aliasing and smooth framerate, but seeing the engine for what it is, it comes as no surprise, the engine is not that demanding on the hardware, there are cheap shaders plastered over every texture, and lighting is used cleverly to give you something more than is actually there. Contrast the dark areas to the light filled areas, the dark areas look average and in parts mediocre. It also helps that there is a heap of variety in every scene, giving the game a refreshing look at all times. In the end this game is a big budget title polished to the nth degree and infused with a heap of developer talent, in terms of gameplay, art assets and animation. Testament to this is the lack of pop-in or any significant glitches, and the meticulous camera placement. This implies that the devs spent huge amounts of time making every scene and set-piece look as good as possible using their artistic talents, arranging the huge number of pre-baked shadows just so, using many simple light effects for maximum impact, and animating the hell out of every action by the player character and every other. This was possible because the game is so very linear and confined, but this doesn't matter because it's so well done. The AI could use some work, 40% of the time enemies would just blow themselves up with grenades. Can the 'uncharted has awezomes technical grafix better than crysis and any xbox360 game please end?' Technically, it doesn't. Artistically, it is a personal opinion. You can argue that, as can you argue that mario galaxy has the best artistic graphics. Thankyou.IgorAntunov