| zeldaring said: |
Ok explain to me why xenoblade 3 being mentioned? |
They explain why in the video. They liked the image treatment techniques (temporal upsampling), volumetric clouds, particle effects, models, expansive world, and liked the post-processing (ex. blur) and how all this came together to make a compelling visual end result. And again, that doesn't mean they're saying it's the best looking open world game ever. They're appreciating how these techniques have been used to create a compelling end-result for the vision MonolithSoft were aiming for. They talk about how the temporal upsampling creates sharper lines in the art style that make the anime style design of the characters pop more. In the full DF video for the game they talk about how the eyes, although painted and non-reflective, are still presented in a way within the character models that presents a hand-drawn anime style even when characters turn their heads to different angles. That's a mighty impressive little detail that wouldn't dawn on anyone unless it was done wrong. It's not just the list of features. It's how they are used towards the end goals for those specific projects. For a project like XC3, although it's open world, the simulation of world day/night and weather doesn't have a huge impact on the actual gameplay. So losing those dynamic world shadows isn't as big a deal. Meanwhile, the volumetric clouds that likely were a big reason shadows were removed lend towards the fantastical world design they're trying to target. And DF felt the trade-off was worth it based on their sentiment.
| zeldaring said: |
it even lacks features that were basic during the 360 era, like dynamic shadows and for a open world game that's one of the most important graphical feature, and it just looks like crap over all, |
It also has features that either didn't exist or weren't easily possible or common during the 360 era, the very same features it's being praised for (ex. volumetric clouds, image treatment). The last part of that statement is subjective. Others in this thread have already expressed they believe XC3 looks the opposite of "crap". If you have a lack of preference for the visual and character design, that's purely subjective.
| zeldaring said: |
and most likely when DF makes best looking thirdparty games they might mention RDR and crysis 3 then what. RDR looks a switch game while xenoblade 3 looks like a early ps3 game. |
Quite possibly. Nowhere am I disputing that RDR is impressive. You're completely missing the point of my posts. I'm actually trying to teach you about the tech. If you go back and read my posts, nowhere have I said where my preference lies for either of these games (or anything else for that matter). Again, the last part of that statement is subjective. I went and looked at a 1080p video of Genji just now (an early PS3 game). From a technology point of view Genji and XC3 are worlds apart.
| zeldaring said: |
Switch's advanced graphical features could come at cost, like lower resolution, less stable framerate so there are tade offs. again BOTW is on wiiu its not using switch's advanced feature set , so does that not count as well? how about mario rpg which looks like a small indi game. What about mario wonder, it's not using those advanced graphical features but still mentioned why aren't you not questioning why DF mentioned it. like i said it's all bout someone not accepting being wrong, |
Yeah, using new techniques absolutely could (and often does) have costs. But that doesn't make the feat of implementing them and learning from the process any less impressive to me (and seemingly to DF either). If no one ever played around with new techniques, we would've never gotten new hardware features that could do them better. And we wouldn't have ever gotten to the point of RDR graphics even. So do you see where I'm coming from with playing with new tech being admirable, interesting, and appreciable? As for BOTW, I don't know how differentiated the actual implementation of the Switch and Wii U versions of the codebase are. Sure they appear to have the same graphical feature set, but that doesn't mean those features aren't implemented without the hardware nuance in mind. I couldn't say unless I sat and looked at the codebase. Besides, the technically impressive part of BOTW is in how systems driven it is. People comflate graphics with visuals, but the term "graphics" is actually synonymous with "calculation". So the technology powering those physical systems (what BOTW does better than any of its mainstream contemporary open world games even on more powerful consoles), is cause for being impressed. Not because those other systems can't do it, but because it just isn't being done. The technical feat there isn't the hardware, but the design and engineering.
Last edited by trasharmdsister12 - on 01 August 2024
