Quote: It's worth noting that Cell Shading is a ***** to render.
Since when!?!?!?
Even good cell shaders eat up almost no shader throughput.
Quote:And even with a 4770, think of how much powerful that is than what's in the 360, yet the tech demo looks like a 360 game.
Jesus what kind of magic xbox360 games have you been playing? Even most prerendering cinematics on xbox360 don't even look that good let alone gameplay. Not to mention that demo ran at 60 fps at 1080p to top it off.
Quote:They used upscaled Zelda 64 models for the GC tech demo, and they are now using upscaled GC models for the Wii U demo.
How do you upscale geometry? That doesn't make any sense. The closest thing I can think of would be tessellation.
Quote:There isn't much of a difference other than the complex lighting, volumetric particle effects, order of magnitude higher texture resolutions/complexity, several orders of magnitude higher geometric complexity, etc..
Fixed that for you.
Quote:No, I'm just being realistic.
It's realistic to believe that graphics won't improve over the 6+ year life cycle of the hardware? When have the tech demos for any 3D video game console ever been anywhere near as impressive as the games released late in the consoles lifespan? Historically graphics have always improved over time on every hardware platform, to think that they can't or won't get any better this time is simply delusional.
NV Wrote:It's realistic to believe that graphics won't improve over the 6+ year life cycle of the hardware?
Of course not, who said that?
It's going to improve especially since it's going from SD to HD.
NV Wrote:When have the tech demos for any 3D video game console ever been anywhere near as impressive as the games released late in the consoles lifespan?
... many tech demo's are as impressive as the final product. I'm assuming you're talking about the graphics?
Also, games that are released a long time after the console was released, don't necessarily have to be graphically impressive.
Look at Uncharted, for the PS3 for example.
One of the first PS3 games, and still damn impressive. More so than most of the games that are released afterwards.
NV Wrote:Historically graphics have always improved over time on every hardware platform, to think that they can't or won't get any better this time is simply delusional.
Obviously, no one said it won't get any better. It will get better, but not as much as it used to be.
See N64 > Gamecube, and since the Wii graphically stalled, now Wii > Wii U too ofcourse.
Until we know the specs, all we can do is speculate, so let us wait a few more days, and see what it is actually capable of.
(06-02-2012, 08:06 AM)Zee530 Wrote: [ -> ]Intriguing but i was never an NFS fan, i believe the best racing game is Gran Turismo, has a bit more sense of realism to it.
Gran Turismo is a simulation game, while NFS (Except ProStreet, Shift, Shift 2) are arcade racing games. It is like comparing an Airbus A380 with a small biplane
(lol, plane example)
(06-02-2012, 09:43 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Jesus what kind of magic xbox360 games have you been playing? Even most prerendering cinematics on xbox360 don't even look that good let alone gameplay. Not to mention that demo ran at 60 fps at 1080p to top it off.
Crysis 2 pulls pretty close. A REALLY big thing to point out here though is that you don't really get that close to any objects, which makes textures a lot easier to pull off.
Quote:How do you upscale geometry? That doesn't make any sense. The closest thing I can think of would be tessellation.
Well, to be more accurate they're probably using the in-house high-poly. A surprising amount of people don't seem to understand that when making a game you first model a high-poly with all detail/etc, then bake it down (be it normal mapping or bump mapping) onto a low-poly in-game mesh. So for this demo, they likely used a higher-res mesh of the TP link (as it's EXACTLY the same design). [Edit] Actually, on further inspection they are using the TP body (+AO and some shaders), with a new head. [/edit]
![[Image: sneaky.png]](http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg303/zurginator/sneaky.png)
So the question is: Were they at the current performance peak, and wisely appropriating resources, or were they saving time?
The lighting/shadows/reflections are nice, if nothing new. CryEngine 3 pulls all of them off with little to no performance impact --- they really should be expected at this point. It's also worth noting that only the windows are casting shadows --- all other lights (torches, etc) cast light but no shadows. This is an important note because CryEngine 3 can render an infinite number of lights (for all intents and purposes) as long as they don't cast shadows. (Once again I source CE3 because it's what I work with)
Also, I love how completely blown out the Ambient Occlusion is. It's beautiful...
Quote:Well, to be more accurate they're probably using the in-house high-poly. A surprising amount of people don't seem to understand that when making a game you first model a high-poly with all detail/etc, then bake it down (be it normal mapping or bump mapping) onto a low-poly in-game mesh. So for this demo, they likely used a higher-res mesh of the TP link (as it's EXACTLY the same design).
I understand that but how exactly is that "upscaling"?
(06-03-2012, 07:16 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Well, to be more accurate they're probably using the in-house high-poly. A surprising amount of people don't seem to understand that when making a game you first model a high-poly with all detail/etc, then bake it down (be it normal mapping or bump mapping) onto a low-poly in-game mesh. So for this demo, they likely used a higher-res mesh of the TP link (as it's EXACTLY the same design).
I understand that but how exactly is that "upscaling"?
It's not, I was being lazy with my terminology.
Test to see if new GT web player can be embedded on forums
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:968px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:gametrailers.com:825d00b9-dbe9-45d4-81bf-411403d84759" width="960" height="540" frameborder="0"></iframe></div></div>
Test FAILED!!
(07-14-2012, 02:08 AM)Zee530 Wrote: [ -> ]Test to see if new GT web player can be embedded on forums
Code:
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:968px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:gametrailers.com:825d00b9-dbe9-45d4-81bf-411403d84759" width="960" height="540" frameborder="0"></iframe></div></div>
Test FAILED!!
lol of course not, that's html XD
Yes I know that is an old post
(08-23-2012, 05:23 AM)ExtremeDude2 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-14-2012, 02:08 AM)Zee530 Wrote: [ -> ]Test to see if new GT web player can be embedded on forums
Code:
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:968px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:gametrailers.com:825d00b9-dbe9-45d4-81bf-411403d84759" width="960" height="540" frameborder="0"></iframe></div></div>
Test FAILED!!
lol of course not, that's html XD
Yes I know that is an old post
It was copied to the clipboard without me viewing it so i didnt see it until i pasted it.