jetrii said:
Earlier when I saw the first few pages of that PDF I thought "That's neat, Naughty Dog is starting their presentation in much the same way they started the history of Uncharted presentation." 9 pages later, closed out of the PDF. Why? Out of all of the technical documents Naughty Dog has released, you posted one that couldn't be any less reverent to our conversation. The entire PDF is just an overview of how Naughty Dog structures their development studio and some of the tools they use. There are 2 useful slides in which they brush on SPU usage then it jumps into generic algorithms and methods that any graduate student could learn in their first semester. Even the 2 SPU slides are completely irrelevant since they don't even list the exact usage of the SPUs, any code, exact bandwidth, loads, memory usage, etc. The final slides show things which many developers already do and post effects which anyone with a background in computer graphics could spot just by looking at a screenshot of the game. You showed generic data that has no value. I could change the name of the game/studio and show that data and no one would know where it is from nor care because it's just so darn generic! Naughty Dog is one of my favorite studios and they have released a lot of awesome code, algorithms, and presentations on their work. However, this is not one of them, this is the kind of PDF that you show someone that has no knowledge of Naughty Dog or how Uncharted works. Don't worry, I won't bother posting any numbers or specs like I did before, I'd hate for you to have to alt-tab to wikipedia every 10 seconds. Also, don't bother replying to this, I won't humor you anymore. Had you just posted that PDF, your opinion, and fundamental understanding of game graphics, I would have respected your opinion and politely pointed out any flaws in your understanding of computer graphics. However, your last post came off extremely rude. I can excuse your ignorance but I won't stand for your arrogance.
|
You are REALLY trying to get out of presenting any documentation for Gears 2, aren't you? I knew it. All you can say it that it's done in games. ND isn't reinventing the wheel. It's using all those techniques in ONE engine where other engines or the same engine couldn't do it on other systems. 560MB was used for textures alone. Remember this was back when the PS3's OS used to take up 86MB of the split RAM pools (not the 24MB of XDR RAM it currently takes up). ;)
Now, for the Crysis physics stuff. Watch how this gun floats down to the ground. Watch the LACK of physics based death animations. Why did he catch on fire after falling to the ground?!
Now Killzone 2...
http://www.videogamer.com/videos/killzone_2_visari_square_gameplay.html#
This gameplay has weather physics effecting the fires, cloth physics, qrenade tossing, particles of debris, etc. and ALL while tons of characters are moving and firing at each other. Where is that level of physics in Crysis? Where is that show of power? Even the characters have physics (a feeling of weight for them and the weapons). There are about the same amount of polygons in each soldier's FACE in Killzone 2 as in an ENTIRE LEVEL in Killzone (link below). Of course, this was before they added even more detail to the faces in 2008.
http://www.psu.com/2GB-levels-in-Killzone-2-News--a1111-p0.php
I'm still waiting for your credible evidence to show up. This is looking completely one-sided as far as proof goes.
