By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Graphics Whore Showdown Round 11: Uncharted 2 vs God of War III

 

Graphics Whore Showdown Round 11: Uncharted 2 vs God of War III

Uncharted 2 124 51.45%
 
God of War III 117 48.55%
 
Total:241
Ping_ii on 26 March 2010

God of war 3 looked better IMO, both made my jaw drop but gow 3 made my jaw drop 5cm more(LOL).



Around the Network
elticker on 26 March 2010

i guess ima gonna go with uncharted 2 as GOW fixed camera is a big advantage and if you take a close look at GOW images you see inconsistency in the first shot of gow where the rock is falling it has very basic detail and doesnt seem to fit with the bridge shape.



 

 

Trentonater on 26 March 2010

would've helped if the gow footage wasn't from the demo



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Biofy1meIfE562y8VMnww

BUG LONDON.

geddesmond2 on 26 March 2010
Trentonater said:

would've helped if the gow footage wasn't from the demo

Lol yeah wtf how did nobody not notice that yet and when you get to that part in the game the first thing you notice is the vast improvements they made over the E3 demo.



elticker on 26 March 2010
geddesmond2 said:
Trentonater said:

would've helped if the gow footage wasn't from the demo

Lol yeah wtf how did nobody not notice that yet and when you get to that part in the game the first thing you notice is the vast improvements they made over the E3 demo.


lol i didnt play the demo but i saw how bad the first shot looked along with second and third being close up so couldn't really comment on them.



 

 

Around the Network
vitoxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 26 March 2010

easy pick.... god of war 3



Squilliam on 26 March 2010
elticker said:
i guess ima gonna go with uncharted 2 as GOW fixed camera is a big advantage and if you take a close look at GOW images you see inconsistency in the first shot of gow where the rock is falling it has very basic detail and doesnt seem to fit with the bridge shape.

Please, no!

FYI, the camera is NOT fixed. It is highly scripted to provide a highly cinematic play experience, yes, but in no meaning of the word is the camera fixed! Within the setup cinematic parameters there is a LOT of room for the camera to adjust (zooming, panning, etc) to the action that happens on the screen (where the player is, where the enemies are, etc). Because of the amount of adjustments the camera system can make automatically, there are very few assumptions that can be made about what to render or not render.

Not only has the camera system in GoW been described in detail at a lecture at GDC in the past, but if you paid attention during game play, it would be apparent that the camera does have several degrees of freedom outside of its scripted nature.

We could easily allow the user full control of the camera during game play. The reason we do not is because we feel it breaks the cinematic experience that we have carefully crafted, not because there is some geometry missing if you turn around (as you imply).

Brilliant stuff. Except the fundamental assumption you made about the existence of some sort of "glide path of the camera", that the remainder of your post rested on. There is no "glide path of the camera" in any God of War game. Your assumptions of how the camera works may (may!) have held true for, say, Panzer Dragoon 15 years ago, but it just isn't how the camera works in GoW3.

There are paths, but not for the camera but for the equivalent to a "camera dolly" (in film terms). Continuing the film analog, one could say that our game camera is mounted on the dolly arm and can move both in and out, can pan, tilt, and zoom, etc. (In actuality, our camera is more sophisticated than a dolly cam and can do things no physical camera could do.) Which of these movements the camera makes is dependent on parameters that our camera designers have carefully set, but ultimately on the location of the player and the enemies on screen. This decision is made at run-time, not tool-time. I repeat: for every game frame, we determine at run-time the position and orientation of the camera. In other words, the possible movement space for the camera is an irregularly-shaped 3D volume, not some simplistic "glide path." As a general rule, neither position nor orientation of the camera within this volume can be predetermined for any particular game play moment.

So I'm afraid your assumption of how the camera system works in GoW3 is wrong, as is everything else you claimed based on those assumptions.

But moreover, even if it WAS possible to predetermine it, it just isn't a good idea anyway. First, the time to implement such a system would be better spent doing something else. Second, it would detrimentally affect the time it takes to build levels which negatively affects what art and design can achieve in a fixed amount of time. Third, just outright rendering those objects in the first place would be faster than trying to be "clever."

Idea that game camera has anything to do with anything, that you can hang any arguments on the fact that the camera isn't user controlled? Dead, burnt, and then dumped into the ocean.



Tease.

elticker on 27 March 2010
Squilliam said:
elticker said:
i guess ima gonna go with uncharted 2 as GOW fixed camera is a big advantage and if you take a close look at GOW images you see inconsistency in the first shot of gow where the rock is falling it has very basic detail and doesnt seem to fit with the bridge shape.

Please, no!

FYI, the camera is NOT fixed. It is highly scripted to provide a highly cinematic play experience, yes, but in no meaning of the word is the camera fixed! Within the setup cinematic parameters there is a LOT of room for the camera to adjust (zooming, panning, etc) to the action that happens on the screen (where the player is, where the enemies are, etc). Because of the amount of adjustments the camera system can make automatically, there are very few assumptions that can be made about what to render or not render.

Not only has the camera system in GoW been described in detail at a lecture at GDC in the past, but if you paid attention during game play, it would be apparent that the camera does have several degrees of freedom outside of its scripted nature.

We could easily allow the user full control of the camera during game play. The reason we do not is because we feel it breaks the cinematic experience that we have carefully crafted, not because there is some geometry missing if you turn around (as you imply).

Brilliant stuff. Except the fundamental assumption you made about the existence of some sort of "glide path of the camera", that the remainder of your post rested on. There is no "glide path of the camera" in any God of War game. Your assumptions of how the camera works may (may!) have held true for, say, Panzer Dragoon 15 years ago, but it just isn't how the camera works in GoW3.

There are paths, but not for the camera but for the equivalent to a "camera dolly" (in film terms). Continuing the film analog, one could say that our game camera is mounted on the dolly arm and can move both in and out, can pan, tilt, and zoom, etc. (In actuality, our camera is more sophisticated than a dolly cam and can do things no physical camera could do.) Which of these movements the camera makes is dependent on parameters that our camera designers have carefully set, but ultimately on the location of the player and the enemies on screen. This decision is made at run-time, not tool-time. I repeat: for every game frame, we determine at run-time the position and orientation of the camera. In other words, the possible movement space for the camera is an irregularly-shaped 3D volume, not some simplistic "glide path." As a general rule, neither position nor orientation of the camera within this volume can be predetermined for any particular game play moment.

So I'm afraid your assumption of how the camera system works in GoW3 is wrong, as is everything else you claimed based on those assumptions.

But moreover, even if it WAS possible to predetermine it, it just isn't a good idea anyway. First, the time to implement such a system would be better spent doing something else. Second, it would detrimentally affect the time it takes to build levels which negatively affects what art and design can achieve in a fixed amount of time. Third, just outright rendering those objects in the first place would be faster than trying to be "clever."

Idea that game camera has anything to do with anything, that you can hang any arguments on the fact that the camera isn't user controlled? Dead, burnt, and then dumped into the ocean.

That was the impression they gave me but the god of war pics werent impressive at all. They were all dark images with little colors and all they show is kratos so how can i judge it so the second and 3rd pick cant be used for comparison cause there is no close up of the uncharted charecter so if i sue the first image it looks very bad but thats the demo so the final game might be better than uncharted but i am toolazy tio go search for it on youtube.



 

 

aragod on 27 March 2010
elticker said:
Squilliam said:
elticker said:
i guess ima gonna go with uncharted 2 as GOW fixed camera is a big advantage and if you take a close look at GOW images you see inconsistency in the first shot of gow where the rock is falling it has very basic detail and doesnt seem to fit with the bridge shape.

Please, no!

FYI, the camera is NOT fixed. It is highly scripted to provide a highly cinematic play experience, yes, but in no meaning of the word is the camera fixed! Within the setup cinematic parameters there is a LOT of room for the camera to adjust (zooming, panning, etc) to the action that happens on the screen (where the player is, where the enemies are, etc). Because of the amount of adjustments the camera system can make automatically, there are very few assumptions that can be made about what to render or not render.

Not only has the camera system in GoW been described in detail at a lecture at GDC in the past, but if you paid attention during game play, it would be apparent that the camera does have several degrees of freedom outside of its scripted nature.

We could easily allow the user full control of the camera during game play. The reason we do not is because we feel it breaks the cinematic experience that we have carefully crafted, not because there is some geometry missing if you turn around (as you imply).

Brilliant stuff. Except the fundamental assumption you made about the existence of some sort of "glide path of the camera", that the remainder of your post rested on. There is no "glide path of the camera" in any God of War game. Your assumptions of how the camera works may (may!) have held true for, say, Panzer Dragoon 15 years ago, but it just isn't how the camera works in GoW3.

There are paths, but not for the camera but for the equivalent to a "camera dolly" (in film terms). Continuing the film analog, one could say that our game camera is mounted on the dolly arm and can move both in and out, can pan, tilt, and zoom, etc. (In actuality, our camera is more sophisticated than a dolly cam and can do things no physical camera could do.) Which of these movements the camera makes is dependent on parameters that our camera designers have carefully set, but ultimately on the location of the player and the enemies on screen. This decision is made at run-time, not tool-time. I repeat: for every game frame, we determine at run-time the position and orientation of the camera. In other words, the possible movement space for the camera is an irregularly-shaped 3D volume, not some simplistic "glide path." As a general rule, neither position nor orientation of the camera within this volume can be predetermined for any particular game play moment.

So I'm afraid your assumption of how the camera system works in GoW3 is wrong, as is everything else you claimed based on those assumptions.

But moreover, even if it WAS possible to predetermine it, it just isn't a good idea anyway. First, the time to implement such a system would be better spent doing something else. Second, it would detrimentally affect the time it takes to build levels which negatively affects what art and design can achieve in a fixed amount of time. Third, just outright rendering those objects in the first place would be faster than trying to be "clever."

Idea that game camera has anything to do with anything, that you can hang any arguments on the fact that the camera isn't user controlled? Dead, burnt, and then dumped into the ocean.

That was the impression they gave me but the god of war pics werent impressive at all. They were all dark images with little colors and all they show is kratos so how can i judge it so the second and 3rd pick cant be used for comparison cause there is no close up of the uncharted charecter so if i sue the first image it looks very bad but thats the demo so the final game might be better than uncharted but i am toolazy tio go search for it on youtube.

So you engage in discusion without playing either judging by 3 screenshots knowing nothing about the games? Well done!



MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising

Reasonable on 27 March 2010
Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:
Uncharted 2 for me. GoW3 looks great, but the fixed camera angle gives it a big advantage, and I think that if the engine was asked to support some of the levels in Uncharted 2 with free camera it'd struggle.

So I'm going to go with the overall more versatile engine vs the highly polished but I'd argue overly focused GoW3 engine. Also, I still think Uncharted 2 has better animation, etc.

But GoW3 sure looks pretty, just at a price in terms of very fixed gameplay and lack of free visual controls.

Thats not true. Whilst the camera angles are fixed, the camera itself does not follow a set path. =Tt doesn't give them any room to really optimise at all vs a free camera. The lack of free visual control is more a reflection on the fact that the game has heavy use of the face buttons than anything to do with optimisation.

Quill I'm playing GoW3 right now and that camera's on rails alright!  Firm rubber ones I'll admit, so that if I push the stick waaay over to the side it slightly 'blips' beyond the set FOV, but rails nonetheless.

It's a great engine, but whether they could or couldn't allow free camera they haven't, and that gives huge advantages in how much you can shove on the screen as the Santa Monica devs know pretty well, if not near enough exactly, what you are capable of putting on screen at any time and can control the streaming of assets/textures/geometry accordingly.

A game with full 360 view in your control simply has account for less predictable control of what you're going to choose to put on the screen.

GoW3 is also focused on character models (understandably) with very static geometry (even the big moving ones) an minimal phyics so far as I can see from me play experience - which is fine, but again less versitle so far as the evidence seems to show.  And I like versitily and control of the camera - so there! 

Besides, if we're just talking pure visuals then GT5:P - and almost certainly GT5 from the media I've seen - are the real visual masters on PS3 in terms of the produced image on screen.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...