I can't believe you are hammering on this point so much.

Not only is it going against common knowledge - it is implied in the hundreds of articles similar to this one:

http://n4g.com/news/1516332/watch-dogs-sets-new-graphical-standards-for-open-world-games-on-ps4-new-screens-released

... but is also contrary to experience. GTA3,4,5 haven't looked as good as linear games. Neither have any other open world games (depending on a few factors).

I also found that image to be woefully inadequate for any type of argument you are trying to make. Surely you could figure out why? I also don't appreciate your use of fancy nomenclature in argument as it simply comes accross as unnecessary pomposity - especially since your argument is a very simple one - really, it's a one liner. The pomposity stems from these kind of things: "For idiots simpletons dummies laymen".

Once again, there are hundreds of articles like this one,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/06/03/all-this-naughty-dog-graphics-hype-is-missing-the-point/

with statements like these:

"it’s far easier to create gorgeous looking graphical sets for linear titles than to craft a hugely detailed open-world game."

The fact that you major in CS says very little. I did computer science as well and I know very well what is learnt at undergraduate level - not so very much at all. It may intimidate the average person here, but it is a ruse in my opinion. And the things you mention about being an Indie dev under your 'credentials' are also not worth anything because (I assume) you haven't made a single game as of yet. And even if you did, then it would have given you absolutely zero insight on the topic of 3d open world games.

In short, I'm calling you out on a bullshit statement and subsequent arguments.

Zekkyou said: I wonder what sort of fluctuations we can expect seeing as the original was built around necessity rather than stability. The environmental set pieces for example intentionally took a performance hit to provide more detailed surroundings. It worked well since those scenes generally had you just walking from point A to B while admiring the view (so never felt sluggish), but they increases the gap between the original and the new target. Those scenes tended to hover around 24fps (20 - 28), so the jump for it to be a solid 1080p/60fps would be somewhere around 650%+. That's without even considering the upgraded assets and AA o_o If they manage to lock those scenes at 60fps and i'll be pretty impressed. That would be some serious dedicated for a port

0 drops most likely

I can't believe you are hammering on this point so much.

Not only is it going against common knowledge - it is implied in the hundreds of articles similar to this one:

Common Knowledge is often wrong, why would it be right in this case? Last time I checked making and producing a video game isn't common knowledge.

http://n4g.com/news/1516332/watch-dogs-sets-new-graphical-standards-for-open-world-games-on-ps4-new-screens-released

That article was merely a bunch of screenshot saying that graphical fidelity of open world games

... but is also contrary to experience. GTA3,4,5 haven't looked as good as linear games. Neither have any other open world games (depending on a few factors).

This is by design.

I also found that image to be woefully inadequate for any type of argument you are trying to make. Surely you could figure out why? I also don't appreciate your use of fancy nomenclature in argument as it simply comes accross as unnecessary pomposity - especially since your argument is a very simple one - really, it's a one liner. The pomposity stems from these kind of things: "For idiots simpletons dummies laymen".

Pomposity? Try frustration. This a point that I have repeated far to many times. I will admit that it was a bit tactless, but its clear that some of the arguments I had yesterday where really agitating, so I just took a break from the site for a while.

Really look at that image, these are two exact same scenarios, the exact same maps, loaded with the exact same assets in the exact same world. This is not real world i.e a game like this wouldn't be made commercially, this is to convey a point. In both illustrations, everything outside the Red Circle is not being rendered, but the entire map is loaded, that means no extra loading of the map has to be done, its just culling things out of the red circle to save performance. The "Linear" game is rendering a single section of a loaded map every frame its rendered. The "Open world" game is rendering a single section of the loaded map per frame but is rendering a different part every frame, hence the arrow. Despite this, they are both rendering the same amount of Area.

These are identical maps, of identical games, with identical assets, the only difference is that one is "linear" and the other is "Open World"

Thus as far as rendering is concerned any differences in power usage are by design. If a dev prioritizing loading a large map over making a small corridor look pretty that is by design.

Once again, there are hundreds of articles like this one,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/06/03/all-this-naughty-dog-graphics-hype-is-missing-the-point/

with statements like these:

"it’s far easier to create gorgeous looking graphical sets for linear titles than to craft a hugely detailed open-world game."

Whether or not its more difficult has nothing to do with my statement. This is quote is concerned with design

The fact that you major in CS says very little. I did computer science as well and I know very well what is learnt at undergraduate level - not so very much at all. It may intimidate the average person here, but it is a ruse in my opinion. And the things you mention about being an Indie dev under your 'credentials' are also not worth anything because (I assume) you haven't made a single game as of yet. And even if you did, then it would have given you absolutely zero insight on the topic of 3d open world games.

Credentials don't matter, simply do the research. Not the commercial crap, forget what the dev say. Devs say w.e they want in Articles to get the support of consumers. Read up on rendering in the Academic field. Your not going to get a valid experiment in the commercial industry. And FYI, I never touted my credentials, I was asked. Its not part of my argument in the slightest.

In short, I'm calling you out on a bullshit statement and subsequent arguments.

I never enter an argument or make a serious claim unless it is both sound and correct.

There is no correlation between the linearity of a game and its technical demands.

This means that all things equal. The scale of the map is what determines the openess of a game. That does not mean it will render more, just that it will take up more space on disc.  The things that determine its technical demands are how its designed, not simply its openess.

EDIT: And yes, it occured to me that someone could simply design an open world and linear game to use the same assets but to clarify, THIS IS THE EXACT SAME WORLD, AN OPEN WORLD THATS LOADED A MAP FAR LARGER THAN IT CAN RENDER. In the linear sense its only rendering a part of the map. While the open world part is rendering multiple parts of the map in subsequent frames.

e.g

lets give a rendering cell an arbitrary amount of processing power, remember every cell is identical, so that the only difference is how much of the map is rendered not what is rendered.

each cell is 5, and their are 5 cells.

Linear:

Cell 1 (5) * 60 FPS = 300 a second

Open World:

Cell 1 (5) * 12 frames + Cell 2 (5) * 12 frames + Cell 3 (5) 12 frames + Cell 4 (5) 12 frames + Cell (5) *12 frames  = 300 a second, covering the entire map in a second

Yeah, me too. Decided to wait a little longer and I think it will be well worth it, also I'm doing basically a media blackout to avoid spoilers.