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

Forums - Gaming - inFAMOUS Second Son’s Retail Version Differences Compared To E3 2013 Trailer

Zekkyou on 13 March 2014
sales2099 said:

Ok so I get that the shadow effects are gone, but I personally notice that the faces especially in screen #2 and 3 looked better now then last year.

I dunno, guess graphics is in the eye of the beholder. It ain't no Watchdogs downgrade thats foresure.

Agreed (it happend sales, it finally happend! :p). Ignoring the lighting, since we need a comparison of 2 shots at the same time, it seems more to be a re management of resources than an up or downgrade. There are certainly some parts that look worse, but others that look better. Will be cool to DF can do some comparisons when their assessment of it comes out.



Around the Network
green_sky on 13 March 2014
think-man said:
Thats BS, they must have been running the game on PC at E3.

Now i'm thinking all the beauty we saw from FF15 is going to be downgraded aswell.

Load of BS indeed. Your's truly also did the same it seems. 

 Dark Souls 2!



mutantclown on 13 March 2014
BenVTrigger said:
mutantclown said:
BenVTrigger said:

Really is mixed bag. From an art stand point I think they improved some things for sure. Delsons face for example looks slightly tweaked in a good way in terms of looks but if you zoom in on detail he clearly took a hit technically with less skin texture detail.

Also certain things like shadows took a huge hit. They may have been a little too overpowering in the earlier trailer but now they are nearly non existant.

It looks like Sucker Punch were forced to downgrade the game from a technical point of view but made some pretty great artistic choices to help cover it up.

My biggest issue is the retail version is noticably blurrier.


You deduced all that from a compressed captured video, re-compressed on the interwebs? wow, you're a fucking genius!

Actually yes.

There are significant texture / lighting / and and geometry differences between the two version. The main detail difference that compression woukd affect would be artifacting / overall blur which is why I asked earlier if both are direct feed shots.


They're not.  /thread



playnbox on 13 March 2014

I like the E3 version



Talal on 13 March 2014

Delsin's face looks better now imo. The rest looked better before.



Around the Network
Talal on 13 March 2014
BenVTrigger said:

Really is mixed bag. From an art stand point I think they improved some things for sure. Delsons face for example looks slightly tweaked in a good way in terms of looks but if you zoom in on detail he clearly took a hit technically with less skin texture detail.

Also certain things like shadows took a huge hit. They may have been a little too overpowering in the earlier trailer but now they are nearly non existant.

It looks like Sucker Punch were forced to downgrade the game from a technical point of view but made some pretty great artistic choices to help cover it up.

My biggest issue is the retail version is noticably blurrier.


These are my thoughts also.



pokoko on 13 March 2014
Zekkyou said:
Shinobi-san said:

lol shadows didnt just take a hit they gone XD

If you go watch some of the recent gameplay it seems likely that part is due to the time of day. Without a direct source of strong light (which none of the screen in the 2014 version seem to have), the light becomes lightly spread. In gameplay where there is a strong single point light source (such as the sun :p), the shadows are back.

Yeah, it's obviously indirect lighting, probably just after sunset.  In the comparison gift I posted above, one side of his face is darker so shadows are still in effect.



Anfebious on 13 March 2014

Wow it looks like shit now.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

the_dengle on 13 March 2014

Looks better to me, but I don't care how realistic the lighting is. I like that I can actually see everyone's faces in the new version.



Ssenkahdavic on 13 March 2014
Nate4Drake said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
Some of the character detail looks better, but overall its terrible.

Everything in the background is blurry and the lighting is pretty terrible.


Have you ever heard about  Depth of Field ??    Oh Jesus...  

 

https://www.google.it/search?q=depth+of+field&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=MSoiU87aOYby4QS9qIEg&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=899#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=KHvtk0_Oz9RE8M%253A%3BEzKJwLL0Qs9ryM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.the-walls.net%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2013%252F03%252FBlondes-Women-Scarlett-Johansson-Actress-Lipstick-Depth-Of-Field.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.picstopin.com%252F1377%252Fblondes-women-scarlett-johansson-window-panes-sheer-clothing-hd-%252Fhttp%253A%25257C%25257Chdwallpapersfor*com%25257Cwallpaper%25257Cblondes_women_scarlett_johansson_window_panes_sheer_clothing_desktop_1377x2040_hd-wallpaper-1677818*jpg%252F%3B2560%3B1600

That link is completely useless btw and has absolutely no bearring on this topic, nor my issues with it.

Depth of Field would be a perfectly valid argument if it was just 1 picture that I was looking at, not a comparison of mutiple pictures.  Do all character models look better now vs then? I said some so thats a no.  If that was a yes, then PERHAPS you could use the Depth of Field argument. 

While it definitely seems that there are a good few here that think it looks better now,  i do not. 



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein