By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 09 March 2011
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
Slimebeast said:
mendozahotness said:

So the prerendered cutscenes look better but the real graphics look worse.

 

ND needs to sort da priorities out

Well they did.

There's a plausible explanation for all this. It's the 3-D graphics.

A designer guy from ND in a gametrailers interview recently said that 3D in Uncharted demands essentially twice as much rendering power (those were his almost exact words) and they had to develop tricks to deak with that. So there definately has been a penalty to performance and decrease in image quality to get the game to support 3-D.

I seee you've done some of your homework. Did you also hear that the graphics are already ahead on the technical side of things than where Uncharted 2 was in the same timeframe? Just a thought: if you're assuming (from one screenshot) that UC3 will somehow look worse than UC2, you don't know this dev very well.

Really, all you have to do is look at Killzone 3 (which also supports 3D and easily looks better than Killzone 2).

Thank you lol.

Bolded: yes and no. If you account for all factors - including the 3-D support - the game will overall be better looking. I mean 3-D shouls realistically have a significant penalty. But IMO it's a penalty worth it. For usually much much less than half the theoretically needed double rendering power you can get true 3-D. So I am all for ND's (and Sony's) priorities here.

Killzone 3 yes, very impressive graphics everyone say. But maybe Guerilla used a different technique for their 3-D? I don't know the names of them techniques but apparently Crysis 2 uses a very efficient and economical but somewhat ugly 3-D that only gives like a 3% penalty. Maybe Uncharted 3's 3-D gives a much bigger penalty than KZ3?