Next Generation Emulation banner

22681 - 22700 of 23075 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
That's not what I meant and is not Microsoft vs. Sony and for example Persona 5 is a third party game and the same for Dreams, although they are exclusive to the platform at the moment. What I meant were games from First Party, but I didn't include GT because that game can skip a whole generation and releases are rare.

Sony is more focused on narrative games, and everyone feels somehow recycled with the same formula for success. As I said before, I fully understand why they do that, as they are in a different position.
Persona 5 is third party, but Dreams isn't. They're made by the same people who did the Little Big Planet games, another series quite different from the others. I'm not sure why you would name Halo (Halo 4 on 360, Halo 5 on Xbox One, Halo 6/infinite next gen) but not GT. I also think that once-a-generation games are a good example of companies breaking their cycle of recycling concepts, and shouldn't be ignored.
Still, it's not really relevant to what my post was about ultimately.
My post was more about analyzing how the same mechanic can have a very different feel in two different games, and how it can be both good and bad.
Sony has been recycling concepts for open world games, not so much for other types of games. In most cases, it seems to work, people seem to enjoy Tsushima quite a bit.
MS has been recycling their formula of 4-players co-op shooters, and it seems to have finally worked with Sea of Thieves getting quite popular.
I wanted to write a little bit about how the same concept can be twisted to fit two different games while still following the character of that game. (In sea of thieves, it is turned into a crew)

I just realized that through all the editing and writing I completely missed the point I wanted to reach after saying what we are developing here at work. What I forgot to say is that the word Supported is very flexible and in many cases a simple basic support can be enough to declare support for a certain feature. Just look at the HDR support on TVs or my 1080 Ti with RT support, but the question that remains is not what features are supported, but to what extent and if they actually make sense with the overall hardware design.
I agree that support can mean different things, but based on how AMD explains it, I'm not sure if there's truly varying degrees of support.
I think the only way the PS5 could support ML upscaling in a worse way, would be if they didn't have access to the whole 4 bits / 8 bits method of optimizing this feature. This would force them to do ML the slow way instead of splintering the card to get better performance.

But I don't see why this would be the case. From what I'm seeing, support for Windows ML goes back to GCN cards.
Here's Vega running Windows ML to manipulate media:

And you might be able to understand this article better than I do (I had to google translate it), but it appears as if AMD confirmed great performance with the Radeon VII, which is also GCN.

Maybe we could expect worse performance in ML if it was a comparison between a Xbox using RDNA and the PS5 using GCN, but even then I'm not sure this would be the case. From what I understand, GCN was actually better at GPGPU than RDNA, which could have given it an edge (RDNA is better in many other things instead). Either way, the big take away from this is: AMD has been working on this stuff for a while. GCN cards were good at it, RDNA cards are good at it. AMD's support for ML appears to be baked entirely into Navi since the beginning of RDNA (while describing RDNA1: "RDNA retains high-performance machine learning credentials, with support for 64, 32, 16, 8, and even 4-bit integer math in parallel "), it's not something (based on their own explanation) which is gonna be on a scale from 1 to 100. It's instead a yes-or-no form of support. Without their 4/8bits trick, performance would be slower. But that seems to be the only trick they've got. Other than that, if you want better ML performance, you just gotta have a stronger GPU. Which the Xbox does have, so it would have more power to spare/lose to do more ML compared to the PS5.

You can find some more info in here: AMD hints at how RDNA could beat Qualcomm's Adreno GPU
And more technical writing here: https://www.amd.com/system/files/documents/rdna-whitepaper.pdf
And here: https://gpuopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/RDNA_Architecture_public.pdf


Ultimately, I don't believe it's impossible that there's some information we were never told and which would tip the ML scale. But that's the thing: that information hasn't been revealed yet.
There's no proof, nothing tangible to hold on to.
The information that HAS been revealed point to both console sharing the same support. This is based on what AMD said (about GCN and RDNA), what Sony has said (about RDNA 2) and what Microsoft has said (about WinML and DirectML).
It feels like one hand is heavy with evidence in favour of strong support while the other is empty, and we're just searching for a way to fill the empty hand. Skepticism is good, and being skeptic of what they tell us helps us be informed consumers. But I feel like we've dug enough to be confident in the information we currently have. All that's left to do is wait for the consoles to be released and for new information to be available to us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
I recently found this gaming/humour series, and it's one of my favourite thing:
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
It feels like one hand is heavy with evidence in favour of strong support while the other is empty, and we're just searching for a way to fill the empty hand. Skepticism is good, and being skeptic of what they tell us helps us be informed consumers. But I feel like we've dug enough to be confident in the information we currently have. All that's left to do is wait for the consoles to be released and for new information to be available to us.
Evidence is one thing, but as I told you before, support is a flexible concept and I base my skepticism on Sony's silence and moves. The link you provided is in fact German and it describes some aspects of which I don't know how good Google's translation was for you. First of all, it clearly states that AMD cards have no hardware to support RT, but that similar effects might be possible thanks to the Windows implementation of DirectML.

Bearing that in mind, we have several interesting points here, and the first and most obvious is that DirectML is a proprietary API from Microsoft that is most likely not supported by the PS5. Another important aspect of this German article is that it clearly states: "Könnte aber über die Windows-Funktionen DirectX Raytracing und DirectML ähnliche Effekte bieten", which means: "COULD support RT-like effects via the Windows DirectX functions". They are describing that you can expect something similar if supported.

The GPU described is a high-tier one with high GPGPU performance (general purpose computing units) that was used to enable DirectML. In this sense, it is important to consider if the PS5 hardware have such a high GPGPU, but as we know, the PS5 GPU is not the most powerful next generation.

My theory:
I heard that the PS5 was supposed to come out last year, but Sony changed their plans, and as far as I remember, they did say that (maybe that's wrong). Its said that RDNA1 was originally planned, but after they learned that the XSX was going to be RDNA2, they quickly changed their plans and did everything they could to improve the GPU as much as possible.

Few points of consideration:

- The variable rates and the calculation of the TFLOPS do not quite match, and even DF pointed this out in their analysis video. According to the general information, the PS5 is an 8.5 or 9.2 TFLOPS console.


I had a GTX 1080 that matched the real TFLOPS of the PS5, and it struggled with 4k/60, but for 4k/30 it was great. In the other hands, my GTX 1080 TI with 11 TFLOPS has small problems with 4k/60 in many games, which is consistent with the latest information about Spiderman MM and the required performance mode.

- Cerny downplayed RT quite a bit in the revelation, suggesting that Sony is aware that their hardware may be missing.

Sony's approach to EPIC could provide more information about why Cerny downplayed RT at the unveiling, and to me it makes a lot of sense. If you look at EPIC's PS5 demo, one of the key features was an RT-like lighting system, and that could be the feature that Sony is looking for. Sony's studios are not known to use the Unreal engine, so why would they suddenly look at and invest in the Unreal engine? If you look at my comments you'll see that I believe that Sony is in a very awkward position here, as they have the less powerful hardware and not the required API.

EPIC plays a big role here, as at some point they will either implement DirectML in their engine or simply offer an alternative lighting system, as they show with the PS5 demo. In other words, Sony has turned to EPIC to get an alternative to what they will need the next generation if they are to remain competitive in the graphics department.

All that info leads me to believe that Sony is lacking the hardware somehow and further explains why they aren't coming upfront with those features. However, from what I can see they are doing all they can to find an alternative that IMO EPIC can provide in the long run to a certain degree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
The GPU described is a high-tier one with high GPGPU performance (general purpose computing units) that was used to enable DirectML. In this sense, it is important to consider if the PS5 hardware have such a high GPGPU, but as we know, the PS5 GPU is not the most powerful next generation.
This appears irrelevant. For AMD, GPGPU power isn't separate from the GPU power. They are both tied directly together, because they are the same. GPU power is used for gpgpu. This is why the 4 & 8 bits integers matter. You won't have a card with mid-range GPU power and high-tier GPGPU power, because this isn't how AMD describe their cards as working. The GPU power is the GPGPU power. So the only thing that matters is: does the card support those functions. And from what we're told, it absolutely does, AMD has been working on this since even before RDNA.
If it was Nvidia, it could be separate. You could have the GPU power, and a variable amount of tensor cores, used exclusively for ML. But with AMD, GPU power = ML.

My theory:
I heard that the PS5 was supposed to come out last year, but Sony changed their plans, and as far as I remember, they did say that (maybe that's wrong). They said that RDNA1 was originally planned, but after they learned that the XSX was going to be RDNA2, they quickly changed their plans and did everything they could to improve the GPU as much as possible.
I cannot find anything supporting this. I can find Sony in early 2019 annoucing their next console wouldn't be released before the second half of 2020. Since this was their financial report, they can't exactly start lying about it. This was BEFORE AMD even released RDNA 1. So before RDNA 1 was even finished, Sony was already announcing their console would be coming much later in the future - after the release of the next generation of AMD card. This directly contradicts the idea they were gonna use RDNA 1. They chose to release in late 2020 before AMD had even finished RDNA 1.
If you can find a link to what you've read, it would help clarify.

- The variable rates and the calculation of the TFLOPS do not quite match, and even DF pointed this out in their analysis video. According to the general information, the PS5 is an 8.5 or 9.2 TFLOPS console.

I had a GTX 1080 that matched the real TFLOPS of the PS5, and it struggled with 4k/60, but for 4k/30 it was great. In the other hands, my GTX 1080 TI with 11 TFLOPS has small problems with 4k/60 in many games, which is consistent with the latest information about Spiderman MM and the required performance mode.
I'm not sure what you're saying about the tflops.
36 compute units multiplied by 64 shaders per compute units multiplied by 2.23ghz multiplied by 2 instructions per clock.
36 x 64 x 2.23 x 2 = 10,275.84
That's 10.27584 tflops.
For the record, here's the series x:
52 x 64 x 1.825 x 2 = 12,147.2
That's 12.1472 tflops.

The GTX 1080 has less than 9 tflops. You're also comparing the performance of a computer to that of a console, even tho you have yourself previously discussed how much more juice is squeezed out of a console than a PC, even when using the same amount of power. This is due to consoles avoiding the bloat of computers API like DirectX and Vulkan, and developers coding straight to metal.
Instead of comparing a PC to a console, it would make more sense to compare a console to a console. Such as: comparing the 4.2 tflops of the PS4 to the 10.28 tflops of the PS5.

Also: I still don't understand why we're discussing this. We're supposed to be discussing support for ML, which is irrelevant to tflops. GCN cards had support for GPGPU, for ML (as shown by AMD), and they had fewer tflops!
DirectML is meant to be SUPER useful for weak graphic cards and for laptops. It's not only aimed for powerful devices, it's aimed for weak devices with a low amount of tflops.
It will allow weak devices to render games at a low resolution and upscale them to 1080p.

If you look at EPIC's PS5 demo, one of the key features was an RT-like lighting system, and that could be the feature that Sony is looking for.
...
or simply offer an alternative lighting system, as they show with the PS5 demo. In other words, Sony has turned to EPIC to find out what they are known to be missing
What's interesting about this is that when discussing ray-tracing, the two things that Cerny said the PS5 could do first were: Audio and RT Lightning.
First, he described how the GPU in the PS5 has support for AMD's RDNA 2 solution for ray-tracing. Then, he gave examples of what it could be used for. He talked about how audio would be very cheap to do, and how it could also be used for lighting. What he found to be more expensive to do were shadows, reflections, or FULL ray-tracing. Despite this, he mentioned seeing a game in development using reflections without too much trouble.
I wouldn't read too much in Epic's Lumens engine.

Not that this really relates to DirectML, since ray-tracing and DirectML are unrelated. Funnily enough, unlike the description they gave for DirectML, RT does require hardware support.
Here's the full quote about RT:
The CUs contain a new specialized unit called the intersection engine. Which can calculate the intersection of rays with boxes and triangles. To use the intersection engine, first you build what is called an acceleration structure. It's data in RAM that contains all of your geometry. There's a specific set of formats you can use, there are variations on the same BVH concept. Then in your shader program you use a new instruction that asks the intersection engine to check a ray against the BVH. While the intersection engine is processing the requested ray triangle or ray box intersections, the shaders are free to do other work. Having said that, the ray-tracing instruction is pretty memory intensive so it's a good mix with logic heavy code. There's of course no need to use ray-tracing. PS4 graphics engines will run just fine on PS5, but it presents an opportunity for those interested. I'm thinking it'll take less than a million rays a second to have a big impact on audio, that should be enough for audio occlusion and some reverb calculations. With a bit more of the GPU invested in ray-tracing, it should be possible to do some very nice global illumination. Having said that, adding ray-traced shadows and reflections to a traditional graphics engine, could easily take hundreds of millions of rays a second and full ray-tracing could take billions. How far can we go? I'm starting to get quite bullish. I've already seen a PS5 title that's successfully using ray-tracing based reflections in complex animated scenes with only modest costs.
EPIC plays a big role here, as at some point they will either implement DirectML in their engine
I feel like we're finally concluding that the PS5 is unlikely to be lacking ML upscaling if they want it, which is really what started this conversation.
There's no guarantee, but since the card appears to have full hardware support for it, they have the door open.
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
This appears irrelevant. For AMD, GPGPU power isn't separate from the GPU power. They are both tied directly together, because they are the same. GPU power is used for gpgpu. This is why the 4 & 8 bits integers matter. You won't have a card with mid-range GPU power and high-tier GPGPU power, because this isn't how AMD describe their cards as working. The GPU power is the GPGPU power. So the only thing that matters is: does the card support those functions. And from what we're told, it absolutely does, AMD has been working on this since even before RDNA.
If it was Nvidia, it could be separate. You could have the GPU power, and a variable amount of tensor cores, used exclusively for ML. But with AMD, GPU power = ML.
I never said it was a separate thing. I was talking about the PS5 GPU performance as a whole, which is not the most advanced next generation.

I cannot find anything supporting this. I can find Sony in early 2019 annoucing their next console wouldn't be released before the second half of 2020. Since this was their financial report, they can't exactly start lying about it. This was BEFORE AMD even released RDNA 1. So before RDNA 1 was even finished, Sony was already announcing their console would be coming much later in the future - after the release of the next generation of AMD card. This directly contradicts the idea they were gonna use RDNA 1. They chose to release in late 2020 before AMD had even finished RDNA 1.
If you can find a link to what you've read, it would help clarify.
That's why I said that I remember reading about it, but that I might be wrong. I'll look and come back as soon as I have a link for you.

I'm not sure what you're saying about the tflops.
36 compute units multiplied by 64 shaders per compute units multiplied by 2.23ghz multiplied by 2 instructions per clock.
36 x 64 x 2.23 x 2 = 10,275.84
That's 10.27584 tflops.
For the record, here's the series x:
52 x 64 x 1.825 x 2 = 12,147.2
That's 12.1472 tflops.

The GTX 1080 has less than 9 tflops. You're also comparing the performance of a computer to that of a console, even tho you have yourself previously discussed how much more juice is squeezed out of a console than a PC, even when using the same amount of power. This is due to consoles avoiding the bloat of computers API like DirectX and Vulkan, and developers coding straight to metal.
Instead of comparing a PC to a console, it would make more sense to compare a console to a console. Such as: comparing the 4.2 tflops of the PS4 to the 10.28 tflops of the PS5.
If you watch the DF video, Richard clearly stated that the 2.23 is not a normal value, but the 1.8, if I'm not mistaken.

Also: I still don't understand why we're discussing this. We're supposed to be discussing support for ML, which is irrelevant to tflops. GCN cards had support for GPGPU, for ML (as shown by AMD), and they had fewer tflops!
DirectML is meant to be SUPER useful for weak graphic cards and for laptops. It's not only aimed for powerful devices, it's aimed for weak devices with a low amount of tflops.
It will allow weak devices to render games at a low resolution and upscale them to 1080p.


What's interesting about this is that when discussing ray-tracing, the two things that Cerny said the PS5 could do first were: Audio and RT Lightning.
First, he described how the GPU in the PS5 has support for AMD's RDNA 2 solution for ray-tracing. Then, he gave examples of what it could be used for. He talked about how audio would be very cheap to do, and how it could also be used for lighting. What he found to be more expensive to do were shadows, reflections, or FULL ray-tracing. Despite this, he mentioned seeing a game in development using reflections without too much trouble.
I wouldn't read too much in Epic's Lumens engine.

Not that this really relates to DirectML, since ray-tracing and DirectML are unrelated. Funnily enough, unlike the description they gave for DirectML, RT does require hardware support.
Here's the full quote about RT:
The CUs contain a new specialized unit called the intersection engine. Which can calculate the intersection of rays with boxes and triangles. To use the intersection engine, first you build what is called an acceleration structure. It's data in RAM that contains all of your geometry. There's a specific set of formats you can use, there are variations on the same BVH concept. Then in your shader program you use a new instruction that asks the intersection engine to check a ray against the BVH. While the intersection engine is processing the requested ray triangle or ray box intersections, the shaders are free to do other work. Having said that, the ray-tracing instruction is pretty memory intensive so it's a good mix with logic heavy code. There's of course no need to use ray-tracing. PS4 graphics engines will run just fine on PS5, but it presents an opportunity for those interested. I'm thinking it'll take less than a million rays a second to have a big impact on audio, that should be enough for audio occlusion and some reverb calculations. With a bit more of the GPU invested in ray-tracing, it should be possible to do some very nice global illumination. Having said that, adding ray-traced shadows and reflections to a traditional graphics engine, could easily take hundreds of millions of rays a second and full ray-tracing could take billions. How far can we go? I'm starting to get quite bullish. I've already seen a PS5 title that's successfully using ray-tracing based reflections in complex animated scenes with only modest costs.
We are not discussing RT here, but I just wrote my theory about what Sony is doing ;)

I feel like we're finally concluding that the PS5 is unlikely to be lacking ML upscaling if they want it, which is really what started this conversation.
There's no guarantee, but since the card appears to have full hardware support for it, they have the door open.
I always had my doubts about the hardware, but after seeing the developer from Sony graphics department say that I believed his words. First of all, I would believe his words more than any article or PC information, because console hardware is as custom as the hardware we have at work where we decide which features to include and which not, regardless of the standard hardware specifications.

To be more precise, I don't think the PS5 supports ML, but I never denied that the hardware supports it, which is where the confusion between us lies in this regard. More specifically, to me, support does not necessarily mean hardware, but software, and regardless of whether they provide such a feature later on, the hardware is as useless as a piece of silicon under my desk (I have many) until they provide software support for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
I think the big difference may be that your interpret his tweets as being about software support, while I interpret his tweets as being exclusively hardware.
To me, his tweets talking about architecture, compute units and compute shaders makes me think he's talking about hardware support.
But since we don't get any more context and we're limited to short tweets, it's difficult to get a true understanding of what he's saying.
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
I think the big difference may be that your interpret his tweets as being about software support, while I interpret his tweets as being exclusively hardware.
To me, his tweets talking about architecture, compute units and compute shaders makes me think he's talking about hardware support.
But since we don't get any more context and we're limited to short tweets, it's difficult to get a true understanding of what he's saying.
Agree.... I think this is different for me because I work with hardware and software here and hardware is useless until we bring it to life with our OS and software.

Our software dictates what's supported and what's not to us. Have a look at your phone and think in all those awesome features... now remove the software..... what can your phone do? sure it has hardware support still but in reality its not supporting anything....

At the end it all depends in your own interpretation of things but in general hardware without software is like a human body without soul.
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
I Watched MS showcase and the games were OK but Halo or better said 343 didn't delivered. Being such a expensive franchise and MS pumping so much money into that game at least 343 could have done a better job. I understand they sacrifice graphics to provide a solid 60fps experience but they are representing the launch of a new console and want to show the power and what they have done is simply bad.

I'm not saying the game will be bad as it may be the best Halo of all time but the presentation was sub-par. First of all there was some texture pop-in and then they probably choose the worst and most boring gameplay of the game as there was not really enough action. I personally think the Destiny 2 trailer was far better and looked miles better as well. The only good thing about the presentation overall was the confirmation of many games running at 60fps and 4k which is great to hear.

I think MS have been doing a great job with their strategy but for some reasons their quality control is terrible or at least what they demand from their developers. The picture below say more than 1000 words.

IMG_20200723_222231.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
I gotta be honest: if I saw the trailer and was told it ran on the X1X, id believe it. To me, it looked like a game that may have been aiming for the X1X at first and was pushed back + upgraded to benefit from the XSX.

In a few years from now it wont matter since we'll have been impressed by all the other games that will have been announced, it was just a missed opportunity to give us that 'wow factor'.

I did like the games overall and im happy to see Fable return.
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
I gotta be honest: if I saw the trailer and was told it ran on the X1X, id believe it. To me, it looked like a game that may have been aiming for the X1X at first and was pushed back + upgraded to benefit from the XSX.

In a few years from now it wont matter since we'll have been impressed by all the other games that will have been announced, it was just a missed opportunity to give us that 'wow factor'.

I did like the games overall and im happy to see Fable return.
I thought is just me because i'm not a huge Halo fan eventhough I like 4 and 5 hehehehehe. I agree and I don't see anything that could not run on the X1X. I understand the circumstances and decisions they made to keep solid 60fps but the quality coming from 343 just isn't there.

I also liked the rest a lot and SoD 3 surprised me quite a bit. The Medium is probably the Silent Hill I was expecting to see and Fable coming from Playground we know is gonna be great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
I thought is just me because i'm not a huge Halo fan eventhough I like 4 and 5 hehehehehe. I agree and I don't see anything that could not run on the X1X. I understand the circumstances and decisions they made to keep solid 60fps but the quality coming from 343 just isn't there.

I also liked the rest a lot and SoD 3 surprised me quite a bit. The Medium is probably the Silent Hill I was expecting to see and Fable coming from Playground we know is gonna be great.
There's something about it that doesn't look quite right. It feels like it's lacking severely in lighting and shadows.
This is an official picture, from the game's page on Steam: I would expect to see some shadow effects under + around the capsule. I'd expect to see better ambient occlusion being used on the objects littering the floor.
But everything looks strangely flat. The lack of shadowing under the capsule is weird, and then combine that with the fire effect being reflected through the capsule and into the floor.
This isn't what you should be using to advertise your game.

The weirdest part in all of this, to me, is that those issues would be fixed with ray-tracing. Fire reflection in the floor? Underwhelming river reflection? Ray trace that shit. Poor lighting, poor shadowing? Ray trace it.

I think it would have been funny and powerful for MS to play that first gameplay reveal, then once it's done go "oh wait, something's missing, isn't it? We forgot to turn on the ray tracing" and then bam you play it again with those effects to show the full impact.

This "game engine footage" from 2019 looked better: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Screenshot-5938-1440x810.png
I've also heard of people criticizing this next screenshot: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ht2ik6JRkiTsUQq8u99gea.png
A lot of the issues seem to be the result of missing shadows. The reason the helmet sits so weirdly in that character's face, for example, is the lack of shadows on the character.
But even with those, the textures in the back would be disappointing. Same with the trees. I know it's normal to use low quality models to save performance in the distance, but something's just not right here.
The "game engine demo" from 2018 looked closer to what we would expect from the next console:



I'm afraid they might be rushing the game to have it as a launch title. They have good developers, good software and good hardware. They can absolutely do better than this. People have rightly pointed that Gears 5 might even look better than this despite being current-gen.
This makes me think the result we seen isn't due to a lack of talent or resources, but simply a lack of time. This is the first gameplay we get, and it's only about 4 months before the game is due to release.
I know MS wants a heavy hitter to launch alongside the console, but I would delay this game. It would greatly tarnish the reputation of the console if this was their first big title, the one people bought the console with.
Unfortunately, I don't know what I would replace it with. I might just give everybody 2 years of free game pass ultimate if they bought the series X, to keep them hooked.
People may be disappointed by the lack of that big exclusive must-have title, but they'll be interested by getting what's over 300$ in game pass value. Even if the console is 600$, people will see "over 300$ in games" and think "yeah, that's appealing".

And if they don't delay the game, I do hope they get to polish it in time.
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
There's something about it that doesn't look quite right. It feels like it's lacking severely in lighting and shadows.
This is an official picture, from the game's page on Steam: I would expect to see some shadow effects under + around the capsule. I'd expect to see better ambient occlusion being used on the objects littering the floor.
But everything looks strangely flat. The lack of shadowing under the capsule is weird, and then combine that with the fire effect being reflected through the capsule and into the floor.
This isn't what you should be using to advertise your game.

The weirdest part in all of this, to me, is that those issues would be fixed with ray-tracing. Fire reflection in the floor? Underwhelming river reflection? Ray trace that shit. Poor lighting, poor shadowing? Ray trace it.

I think it would have been funny and powerful for MS to play that first gameplay reveal, then once it's done go "oh wait, something's missing, isn't it? We forgot to turn on the ray tracing" and then bam you play it again with those effects to show the full impact.

This "game engine footage" from 2019 looked better: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Screenshot-5938-1440x810.png
I've also heard of people criticizing this next screenshot: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ht2ik6JRkiTsUQq8u99gea.png
A lot of the issues seem to be the result of missing shadows. The reason the helmet sits so weirdly in that character's face, for example, is the lack of shadows on the character.
But even with those, the textures in the back would be disappointing. Same with the trees. I know it's normal to use low quality models to save performance in the distance, but something's just not right here.
The "game engine demo" from 2018 looked closer to what we would expect from the next console:

I'm afraid they might be rushing the game to have it as a launch title. They have good developers, good software and good hardware. They can absolutely do better than this. People have rightly pointed that Gears 5 might even look better than this despite being current-gen.
This makes me think the result we seen isn't due to a lack of talent or resources, but simply a lack of time. This is the first gameplay we get, and it's only about 4 months before the game is due to release.
I know MS wants a heavy hitter to launch alongside the console, but I would delay this game. It would greatly tarnish the reputation of the console if this was their first big title, the one people bought the console with.
Unfortunately, I don't know what I would replace it with. I might just give everybody 2 years of free game pass ultimate if they bought the series X, to keep them hooked.
People may be disappointed by the lack of that big exclusive must-have title, but they'll be interested by getting what's over 300$ in game pass value. Even if the console is 600$, people will see "over 300$ in games" and think "yeah, that's appealing".

And if they don't delay the game, I do hope they get to polish it in time.
In case you didn't know MS has confirmed that the game was running on the PC, which in IMO makes it even worse. This should be a showcase of the games we will most likely be playing on an XSX or like me on my PC this holiday. The problem I see here is how they keep shooting themselves in the foot, and I think I have the answer to that. I really like Phil's direction, but I don't think his game view is in line with what people expect these days. This reminds me of how coding has evolved, because in the past the user interface didn't matter, but a good code behind it, whereas today it's like: "we don't give a damn about the code behind it, as long as it's pretty".

The presentation was bad, and Phil is to blame here, because he saw the footage long before us and gave the green light for everything. I'm aware that RT can easily fix the problems, and just like Minecraft's RT footage, it could make wonders, but that's not all that bothers me. If you look closely, the running animations of these gorillas look bad and driving the warthog feels strange, but the worst thing was the guy at the end who looks really bad when you want to promote your next generation hardware.

In my opinion, we had another Game Pass show, because that's all they want to sell us, and don't get me wrong, I love GP, but this show shouldn't just be about selling us GP if you have a console coming. A lot of players like to play with a console and don't care about the PC, and I feel that MS or rather Phil ignores those who will eventually jump ship and buy a PS5 instead, and rightly so. Since the game was rendered on PC, they could at least activate RT if they use a 2080 ti or so, but such rough material with texture pop-in and graphics that look like they're running on an OG Xbox One is a no-go. As long as MS doesn't show the console's muscles properly, I'll be just as skeptical as I am with the PS5.

Another thing about the show are few games they show up such as Tetris, Grounded and the other painted-like story game that made me ask myself "Why in hell you have a pre-show for?" tbh the pre-show have few games that I would trade-in with those such as the transformers-like one.
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
I agree and the truth people are ignoring....


People are so down the console war BS that they ignore the good things in gaming. To me its mind blowing but at least is refreshing to see someone with a working brain talking about it.

I think whatever the platform we like we should support good pro consumer practices as the other ones will follow and at the end we all end getting better services and games far more accessible to everyone.
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
DF confirming what I have been saying since quite long time... Playstation push higher graphics because they reduce their game to 30fps but DF saying "30fps doesn't matter" is a BS I never expected to hear.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,038 Posts
Kojima might be working on a horror game (second attempt?) and hes apparently discussing plans with Junji Ito. They had plans to work together in some capacity for Silent Hills, but those plans obviously fell through. Theres nothing solid yet, seems to be casual talks.
 

·
Crazy GFX coder
Joined
·
17,133 Posts
I still have to play Guardians :rolleyes:
I personally liked 4 and ended playing 5 and while the story sucks the gameplay was solid. With Halo infinite MS dropped the ball hard. The gameplay looks boring and the graphics leave a lot to desire when they have a console releasing soon. Early build??? isn't MS tired of finding excuses??? they either never learn or have the wrong people managing the whole thing.

- Phil Spencer
I like the direction but his executions are questionable.

- Aaron Greenberg
With so many marketing mistakes I question that dude capability

- Matt Booty
Not much to say.
 
22681 - 22700 of 23075 Posts
Top