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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Unreal Engine 4 vs. Playstation 3 games (God of War III, Ascension, Uncharted 3, The Last of Us etc)

sam987 on 19 May 2012

Again PS3 exclusives are heavy-scripted and linear graphics. Those aren't that hard to achieve....



Around the Network
GameAnalyser on 19 May 2012

And after those UE 4 shots were posted, I would say that Samaritan shots proved to be the winner and that's the minimum standard next generation's early phase need to keep up.



Kresnik on 19 May 2012

Do the people posting earlier on really believe that the PS3 games look like a "jagged, blurry mess"?

UE4 engine looks nice. Didn't completely blow me away, but I'd imagine it'll only look better as teams get more used to it, just as ND/SSM got used to their engines this generation.

But damn, I still think current-gen games look absolutely beautiful =/



Find my website here

Kresnik on 19 May 2012
pezus said:
brendude13 said:
pezus said:
Gilgamesh said:
Zim said:

 

Yes the UE4 shots are MILES better. Also you conveniently skipped the most impressive picture but chose the absolute best shots you could find of PS3 games (one of which isn't even in game). 

The particle effects around the eyes in the third shot are the type of thing having to be pre-rendered cutscenes now. Likewise that first shot has so much detail. 

 

I agreed in the OP that UE4 is better, my post was about how it's not a huge increase to the next gen comparing it with the PS3 games.

Let's put it this way:

PC games already look miles better than PS3 games

+

Those UE4 shots look miles better than any PC game

_______________

= ???

I disagree, I'm starting to think even Crysis (Warhead) looks mediocre. I have yet to play Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 but other than the 1080p / 60fps combination (which sometimes isn't even possible to achieve without a £1000 rig), there isn't that much of a difference, it's similar to the PS2 and Xbox difference. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2's console counterparts look almost as good.

Those UE4 shots are stunning though, everything is crisp and vibrant and those particle effects are second to none, I don't think the differences are huge, but it's still significantly better looking and will probably look even better at E3. I would love to see a real next gen game running on this engine, or one just as good looking. I wonder how much effort it takes to produce a game with graphics like this though.

The resolution, shadows, anti-aliasing, vsync, smoother framerates all jacked up. BF3 on PS3 doesn't look close to the PC version honestly. I am always disappointed when I play PS3 games now, they look a bit blurry and jaggy after playing so many PC games.


It was you!  You are saying that about PS3 games right, that they look blurry and jagged? (not a mess, admittedly)


I did find the example I meant though, it was this one: (don't know how to quote twice in the same post, sorry)



Find my website here

Kresnik on 19 May 2012
youarebadatgames said:
Those PS3 textures are a blurry, muddy mess that are at best low to medium detail compared to PC games. Compared to UE4 and DX11? No contest.


Blurry muddy mess?  Seriously? 

I've never much cared about graphics, but still!



Find my website here

Around the Network
darkknightkryta on 19 May 2012

I think I see the problem now with the UE4 images, it's that character they created. The normal maps they're using are really bad. He's very angular in nature, probably to hide the low amount of polygons they used to make him with. The texturing on him is borderline low res (decently far away he looks good though, up close on the other hand). Though the environments are good. I am still dissapointed with the lighting and shading though. Looking at the model again light isn't scattering over the model, it's being handled by the normal maps and poorly. Compared to the Samartarian demo, this is really a step back, hell half the stuff they wanted in the Samartian demo isn't in this demo (The fancy boketh(however it's spelled)blur, reflections, etc). I'll go on a whim and say they just rushed this demo, or it was made with the older consoles in mind.



Play4Fun on 19 May 2012
pezus said:
teigaga said:
loool, i think most people missed the point from the post and comparison. These next gen pics are probably the least impressive we've seen leading up to a new generation. Of course they're better then the ps3 and current pc games, but what happens when you don't a million lava particles conveniently hovering over your hammer,..... The game won't look too far off what we've come to expect.

I'm excited but in comparison to previous generations, this is more a half step. Like the dreamcast vs gamecube. We're at a point where games are looking like HQ GCI, thats as good as graphics need to be. But without a doubt we will see more impressive things then those UE4 pics, we've haven't even seen it in motion, that could change everything.

If you really think games look like CGI you don't know a lot about graphics, do ya? They are nowhere close to that level.

If he is someone who isn't into the technical details then it's understandable why he thinks it looks close to CGI.



zarx on 19 May 2012
darkknightkryta said:
I think I see the problem now with the UE4 images, it's that character they created. The normal maps they're using are really bad. He's very angular in nature, probably to hide the low amount of polygons they used to make him with. The texturing on him is borderline low res (decently far away he looks good though, up close on the other hand). Though the environments are good. I am still dissapointed with the lighting and shading though. Looking at the model again light isn't scattering over the model, it's being handled by the normal maps and poorly. Compared to the Samartarian demo, this is really a step back, hell half the stuff they wanted in the Samartian demo isn't in this demo (The fancy boketh(however it's spelled)blur, reflections, etc). I'll go on a whim and say they just rushed this demo, or it was made with the older consoles in mind.


Doesn't look that low polly 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

PullusPardus on 19 May 2012
Play4Fun said:
pezus said:
teigaga said:
loool, i think most people missed the point from the post and comparison. These next gen pics are probably the least impressive we've seen leading up to a new generation. Of course they're better then the ps3 and current pc games, but what happens when you don't a million lava particles conveniently hovering over your hammer,..... The game won't look too far off what we've come to expect.

I'm excited but in comparison to previous generations, this is more a half step. Like the dreamcast vs gamecube. We're at a point where games are looking like HQ GCI, thats as good as graphics need to be. But without a doubt we will see more impressive things then those UE4 pics, we've haven't even seen it in motion, that could change everything.

If you really think games look like CGI you don't know a lot about graphics, do ya? They are nowhere close to that level.

If he is someone who isn't into the technical details then it's understandable why he thinks it looks close to CGI.

uh... who made that stupid comparision?



Scoobes on 19 May 2012
zarx said:
Scoobes said:

I suspect 1080p with 60fps will be the bare minimum. Even a mid-range graphics card can max out the vast majority of games whilst maintaining that sort of resolution. Some games may dip to 30 but even my old 4850 could maintain some impressive framerates at 1080 resolution with most games on "High" settings. With the benefit of having full knowledge of the hardware on the consoles, developers should be able to squeeze some extra juice out of the hardware too.


I doubt it, if devs wanted to do that there would be more 60fps games this gen, and less sub 720p games. 1080p 60 will be standard for racers and fighters and some action games. But the big blockbuster action/shooter games won't be CoD will likely be 720p 60 but games like Epics next gen shopeice will be 720p 30. You won't be able to make games that "look like Avatar" (to a casual observer from 10ft+ away) at above 720p 30fps even with a GPU on the level of a GTX670. 

Devs are already talking about it

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-focus-does-pixel-count-matter?page=1

http://timothylottes.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/games-vs-film.html

Note the comments on the blog especially

If next gen consoles are really a huge leap in power then devs will go for 1080p 30 as a standard baseline but that will require very powerful consoles. Sony said that PS3 games would be 1080p but you can count the number of games that do on one hand, and MS origonally had a policy that all games had to be 720p or higher, a policy that lasted about a year until Bungie failed to meet the target with Halo 3. Developers will likely make similar decisions next gen, they will choose graphical details over resolution and framerate for the most part. And for the reason why just look at this thread where many people don't think that the UE4 shots are that much better than current gen, most devs won't sacrifice level of detail for resolution or framerate at the risk of looking last gen. 

I'm still not entirely convinced. Looking at Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 on modern hardware I just find it hard to see how devs could ignore the 1920x1080 res of most TVs. With all the extra details and effects they'll be adding I don't se how 1280x720 will be able to show everything they want to. And I think if devs are going to be pushing fast paced multiplayer (as seems to be the norm currently) then 60fps is a must.

Then again, most people managed to get by with 640x480 for years so maybe they'll just see it as a case of diminishing returns.




Get your Portable ID!