Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

New "Division" vid: The future of graphics

13

Comments

  • tom_goretom_gore TamperePosts: 1,796Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Elikal

    I guess this ends the debate about "ohh by stylized lasts longer." Sorry peeps. This is photorealism now, which will never get old. We are close to the top of the line with this.

    Photorealism? You have bad vision and/or a shitty camera?

     

  • ego13ego13 Reno, NVPosts: 267Member
    Originally posted by ElRenmazuo
    This pretty much sums up the conversation in this thread

    Thank you for that.....and so true!

    Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.

    image

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ego13
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Foomerang

     


    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    ATI demo from 2005... yes 2005.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRDeOAzVs2U

    Many elements are already there, and back then it was only DirectX 9.


     

    Sorry, tech demo is not a game. Try again.

    I haven't seen any gameplay in that video posted in the thread title post. Looks like a tech demo of that Snowdrop engine.

    So what was your point?

    I just say: take that 2005 demo, increase texture resolution appropriately since today's graphic cards have much more horsepower, and there you go, you have 99% of that video posted in the OP. All is already in, those reflections, the weather, the lights in the puddles, etc...

    Hell, that was 8 years ago.

    So you said initially you saw something just as good years ago, show us a horrible tech demo that doesn't even come close on ANY level and then want us to "imagine" what it would be like if we made it just as good.  Well played!

    I've been working for real time graphic effects for the video/movie industry for over 20 years, so I'm knowing what I'm talking about. That "horrible tech demo", as you say, has most of the elements seen in the video in the OP of this thread, only difference is that the textures are lower resolution since graphic cards back then had less horsepower and less memory. And that was 8 years ago.

    It looks nice, yes, because they are using the modern graphic power at the maximum. But none of what I've seen in those videos is impressive enought to be "the future of graphics", unless that future technology is already 5+ years old and was only waiting for more horsepower to be playable at reasonable frame rates.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • CalmOceansCalmOceans BergenPosts: 2,273Member
  • mmoguy43mmoguy43 , CAPosts: 2,447Member Uncommon

    We already saw this in the E3 preview but this video does a nice job of breaking down what is in the tech.

    It looks pretty

  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member

    ya i have been waiting for this game for quite some time now. in fact it is the only game i have been looking forward to all year.

     

    i really hope they get the port over to PC done right.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • sakersaker harrisburg, PAPosts: 993Member Uncommon

    Looks fantastic but is it a -real- MMO? or just a multiplayer lobby online shooter?

  • ego13ego13 Reno, NVPosts: 267Member
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by ego13
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Foomerang

     


    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    ATI demo from 2005... yes 2005.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRDeOAzVs2U

    Many elements are already there, and back then it was only DirectX 9.


     

    Sorry, tech demo is not a game. Try again.

    I haven't seen any gameplay in that video posted in the thread title post. Looks like a tech demo of that Snowdrop engine.

    So what was your point?

    I just say: take that 2005 demo, increase texture resolution appropriately since today's graphic cards have much more horsepower, and there you go, you have 99% of that video posted in the OP. All is already in, those reflections, the weather, the lights in the puddles, etc...

    Hell, that was 8 years ago.

    So you said initially you saw something just as good years ago, show us a horrible tech demo that doesn't even come close on ANY level and then want us to "imagine" what it would be like if we made it just as good.  Well played!

    I've been working for real time graphic effects for the video/movie industry for over 20 years, so I'm knowing what I'm talking about. That "horrible tech demo", as you say, has most of the elements seen in the video in the OP of this thread, only difference is that the textures are lower resolution since graphic cards back then had less horsepower and less memory. And that was 8 years ago.

    It looks nice, yes, because they are using the modern graphic power at the maximum. But none of what I've seen in those videos is impressive enought to be "the future of graphics", unless that future technology is already 5+ years old and was only waiting for more horsepower to be playable at reasonable frame rates.

    Your credentials mean nothing.  I can point you to many people working within my industry that are inept and I'm sure you could do the same.

     

    As far as everything else, at this point you're just screaming NO to try and prove you're right without any facts.  I'm done responding to your asinine attempts at invalidating what is clearly right in front of your eyes.  You were asked for proof and conjured up a 'tech demo' that was neither on par, at ANY level, then asked everyone to just imagine that it was on par and that it was as good.  So...in light of that...just imagine that you're right...and move on.

    Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.

    image

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tom_gore
    Originally posted by Elikal

    I guess this ends the debate about "ohh by stylized lasts longer." Sorry peeps. This is photorealism now, which will never get old. We are close to the top of the line with this.

    Photorealism? You have bad vision and/or a shitty camera?

    To achieve photorealism, the engine would have to use real time radiosity. You can see they do not notably in the scene where the neon lamp dangles down its cable in the corridor - they have a pretty impressive algorythm, but it's not radiosity.

    Not to mention that while the textures are nice, as well as the animations, at no moment in the video you feel like it's a "real world" video. It all still "stinks", so to speak, computer graphics. It doesn't feel real at all.

    This is definitely not "photorealism".

    Nothing wrong with that, it's just a video game, but let's not try to make it something that it is definitely not.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • GruugGruug Chillicothe, ILPosts: 1,311Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by aspekx

    ya i have been waiting for this game for quite some time now. in fact it is the only game i have been looking forward to all year.

     

    i really hope they get the port over to PC done right.

     

    According to what the dev team has said, they are NOT porting anything. Console has one team and PC has another. And it was mentioned specifically that no port would be needed.

    Also, you do realize that games are always developed on PC first before going to the console.  Whether it is a PS4 or Xbox One, the respective development kits are placed on PC's BEFORE they ever see it run on any console. Has a lot to do with editing abilities and such that the consoles simply do not have.

    Let's party like it is 1863!

  • tom_goretom_gore TamperePosts: 1,796Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by tom_gore
    Originally posted by Elikal

    I guess this ends the debate about "ohh by stylized lasts longer." Sorry peeps. This is photorealism now, which will never get old. We are close to the top of the line with this.

    Photorealism? You have bad vision and/or a shitty camera?

    To achieve photorealism, the engine would have to use real time radiosity. You can see they do not notably in the scene where the neon lamp dangles down its cable in the corridor - they have a pretty impressive algorythm, but it's not radiosity.

    Not to mention that while the textures are nice, as well as the animations, at no moment in the video you feel like it's a "real world" video. It all still "stinks", so to speak, computer graphics.

    This is definitely not "photorealism".

    No, it's not. But try to tell that to the same people who already claimed last gen consoles had photorealistic real-time graphics when they first saw their games.

    I can't deny the Division looks pretty sweet in any case.

     

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon

    Still waiting to see a game from 5 years ago that looks that good, Captain :)

  • SomeOldBlokeSomeOldBloke Lancaster, UKPosts: 2,141Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by Elikal
    Last I checked, the Division will also be on PC.

    it will? wow, will look stunning on a PC

    Yeah, there was a petition and they caved and announced a PC version.

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tom_gore

    I can't deny the Division looks pretty sweet in any case.

    It definitely does look very good, I never denied that. I just don't agree when people try to make it the "future of graphics" with photorealistic rendering, since when watching the video, every moment feels like computer graphics.

    But yeah, some people are impressed by a couple of reflections and some lens flares ;)

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • tom_goretom_gore TamperePosts: 1,796Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Still waiting to see a game from 5 years ago that looks that good, Captain :)

    No games, but plenty of tech demos on PC. The reason those were never made into games was because there was not big enough gaming audience as the last gen consoles couldn't handle them (and most gaming PCs neither, at that time).

    The graphics were already there, but they were not viable to be made into a game. Fast forward 5 years and we will again see more beautiful tech demos on PC, but will be stuck with the graphics we see in that video. It's an improvement, but I still hate the big gap we have to wait between each console generation for the graphics of the mainstream games to take a leap forward.

     

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member
    Originally posted by ego13
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by ego13
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Foomerang

     


    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    ATI demo from 2005... yes 2005.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRDeOAzVs2U

    Many elements are already there, and back then it was only DirectX 9.


     

    Sorry, tech demo is not a game. Try again.

    I haven't seen any gameplay in that video posted in the thread title post. Looks like a tech demo of that Snowdrop engine.

    So what was your point?

    I just say: take that 2005 demo, increase texture resolution appropriately since today's graphic cards have much more horsepower, and there you go, you have 99% of that video posted in the OP. All is already in, those reflections, the weather, the lights in the puddles, etc...

    Hell, that was 8 years ago.

    So you said initially you saw something just as good years ago, show us a horrible tech demo that doesn't even come close on ANY level and then want us to "imagine" what it would be like if we made it just as good.  Well played!

    I've been working for real time graphic effects for the video/movie industry for over 20 years, so I'm knowing what I'm talking about. That "horrible tech demo", as you say, has most of the elements seen in the video in the OP of this thread, only difference is that the textures are lower resolution since graphic cards back then had less horsepower and less memory. And that was 8 years ago.

    It looks nice, yes, because they are using the modern graphic power at the maximum. But none of what I've seen in those videos is impressive enought to be "the future of graphics", unless that future technology is already 5+ years old and was only waiting for more horsepower to be playable at reasonable frame rates.

    Your credentials mean nothing.  I can point you to many people working within my industry that are inept and I'm sure you could do the same.

     

    As far as everything else, at this point you're just screaming NO to try and prove you're right without any facts.  I'm done responding to your asinine attempts at invalidating what is clearly right in front of your eyes.  You were asked for proof and conjured up a 'tech demo' that was neither on par, at ANY level, then asked everyone to just imagine that it was on par and that it was as good.  So...in light of that...just imagine that you're right...and move on.

    I believe Jean Luc is partly correct in that a game with this sort of engine and fidelity could of been made on PC 5 years ago...it's just that it's not till consoles also could run such an engine that it became financially viable to do so.

    As to a game that is truly massive in it's player interactions that has graphics like these I don't see it happening any time soon because massive to me is more than 100 players on screen at once with lot's of customization in looks and abilities and preferably with a world that reacts to the action and has a life of it's own.

    Of course since most people these days things  Massively Multiplayer means more than one person at screen at once with heavy instancing we'll probably see an "MMO" with these graphics shortly.

    That being said I think The Division is going probably gonna be a great game that blurs the lien between single player and multiplayer for shooters and uses elements taken from  MMOs to do so.

  • coretex666coretex666 PraguePosts: 1,928Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Still waiting to see a game from 5 years ago that looks that good, Captain :)

    We all are waiting for it.

    Waiting for L2 EU Classic

  • mistmakermistmaker viennaPosts: 232Member Uncommon

    5-10 years until such graphics and effects can be made in a mmorpg. more 10 than 5 though...

     

    so great. i wish there would be games like that now, i mean, mmorpgs. imagine SWG with such graphics :-)

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    Originally posted by ego13

    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    Originally posted by Foomerang  

    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard ATI demo from 2005... yes 2005.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRDeOAzVs2U Many elements are already there, and back then it was only DirectX 9.
      Sorry, tech demo is not a game. Try again.
    I haven't seen any gameplay in that video posted in the thread title post. Looks like a tech demo of that Snowdrop engine. So what was your point? I just say: take that 2005 demo, increase texture resolution appropriately since today's graphic cards have much more horsepower, and there you go, you have 99% of that video posted in the OP. All is already in, those reflections, the weather, the lights in the puddles, etc... Hell, that was 8 years ago.
    So you said initially you saw something just as good years ago, show us a horrible tech demo that doesn't even come close on ANY level and then want us to "imagine" what it would be like if we made it just as good.  Well played!
    I've been working for real time graphic effects for the video/movie industry for over 20 years, so I'm knowing what I'm talking about. That "horrible tech demo", as you say, has most of the elements seen in the video in the OP of this thread, only difference is that the textures are lower resolution since graphic cards back then had less horsepower and less memory. And that was 8 years ago.

    It looks nice, yes, because they are using the modern graphic power at the maximum. But none of what I've seen in those videos is impressive enought to be "the future of graphics", unless that future technology is already 5+ years old and was only waiting for more horsepower to be playable at reasonable frame rates.



    Having knowledge of video or graphics that are designed to run on the best hardware available to be later recorded and stored for playback isn't necessarily relevant to designing video and graphics that are supposed to look good on not only the best commodity hardware available but which also scales to the most common hardware available.

    Something that is "the future of graphics" in gaming isn't the same thing as "the future of graphics" in the video or movie industry. If the graphics are made for the next console generation, then those graphics really are the future of graphics for at least five years, maybe ten. In the gaming industry.

    Although, I find it hard to believe that any graphics being displayed right now are the graphics we'll be seeing in five years. Look at games that released initially on the PS3 and XB360 and compare them to games that released in the past couple months. The graphics of recent games are generally superior to the graphics of earlier games as developers learn to squeeze more out of the hardware. I would expect that same thing to happen with the new generation of consoles, especially as they have to continue to compete with newer PC hardware that can just brute force more graphics.

    **

    Concerning tech demos created on workstations and then recorded for later playback, they may have features that aren't really feasible for commodity hardware. The feature sets may exist, but the horsepower doesn't, so a tech demo can show things that don't end up in games for years.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • ego13ego13 Reno, NVPosts: 267Member
    Originally posted by Drakynn
    Originally posted by ego13
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by ego13
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Foomerang

     


    stuff

    stuff

    stuff

    stuff

    stuff
    stuff

    I believe Jean Luc is partly correct in that a game with this sort of engine and fidelity could of been made on PC 5 years ago...it's just that it's not till consoles also could run such an engine that it became financially viable to do so.

    As to a game that is truly massive in it's player interactions that has graphics like these I don't see it happening any time soon because massive to me is more than 100 players on screen at once with lot's of customization in looks and abilities and preferably with a world that reacts to the action and has a life of it's own.

    Of course since most people these days things  Massively Multiplayer means more than one person at screen at once with heavy instancing we'll probably see an "MMO" with these graphics shortly.

    That being said I think The Division is going probably gonna be a great game that blurs the lien between single player and multiplayer for shooters and uses elements taken from  MMOs to do so.

    The Division is clearly NOT being marketed at all as a single player game.  While I don't completely think that it will be "Massive", it will be online and, as shown in the gameplay footage, you will encounter other players and have pvp fights that can lead  to you effectively losing your loot.  I would bet that it will be instanced, however, just due to the fact that any other way of doing it would just mean complete and utter chaos.

     

    Instancing isn't bad, especially when it will control the negative aspects of too many players.  If you've played Need for Speed: Rivals just think if there wasn't any instancing...even with a massive map you'd have thousands of racers on top of each other unable to even really move.

    Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.

    image

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones


    Concerning tech demos created on workstations and then recorded for later playback, they may have features that aren't really feasible for commodity hardware. The feature sets may exist, but the horsepower doesn't, so a tech demo can show things that don't end up in games for years.
     

    The demo I linked can be downloaded and run on our home computers - I wouldn't have linked it otherwise.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • Professor78Professor78 TamworthPosts: 588Member

    Not really leaps and bounds ahead of what is currently out there for PC. For me BF4 is still top notch and comparable, Frostbite engine is pretty sweet. (Paracel Storm weather change for example!)

    It also looks like Assassins creed Black flag on Ultra.

    Core i7(d0)on Foxconn Bloodrage, 6gb Tri DDR3,GTX 680, 120gb OCZ Vertex 2 SSD, 640gb Caviar Black, Windows 7, HAF 932 case, 24" Full HD Dell, Logitech G19, Rat 9, 50mb BB.

  • ElRenmazuoElRenmazuo Alexandria, VAPosts: 4,561Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tom_gore
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Still waiting to see a game from 5 years ago that looks that good, Captain :)

    No games, but plenty of tech demos on PC. The reason those were never made into games was because there was not big enough gaming audience as the last gen consoles couldn't handle them (and most gaming PCs neither, at that time).

    The graphics were already there, but they were not viable to be made into a game. Fast forward 5 years and we will again see more beautiful tech demos on PC, but will be stuck with the graphics we see in that video. It's an improvement, but I still hate the big gap we have to wait between each console generation for the graphics of the mainstream games to take a leap forward.

     

    Heres a tech demo from a 5-7 year old console

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPCw09-DNFg&hd=1

     

     

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member
    Originally posted by ego13
    Originally posted by Drakynn

    I believe Jean Luc is partly correct in that a game with this sort of engine and fidelity could of been made on PC 5 years ago...it's just that it's not till consoles also could run such an engine that it became financially viable to do so.

    As to a game that is truly massive in it's player interactions that has graphics like these I don't see it happening any time soon because massive to me is more than 100 players on screen at once with lot's of customization in looks and abilities and preferably with a world that reacts to the action and has a life of it's own.

    Of course since most people these days things  Massively Multiplayer means more than one person at screen at once with heavy instancing we'll probably see an "MMO" with these graphics shortly.

    That being said I think The Division is going probably gonna be a great game that blurs the lien between single player and multiplayer for shooters and uses elements taken from  MMOs to do so.

    The Division is clearly NOT being marketed at all as a single player game.  While I don't completely think that it will be "Massive", it will be online and, as shown in the gameplay footage, you will encounter other players and have pvp fights that can lead  to you effectively losing your loot.  I would bet that it will be instanced, however, just due to the fact that any other way of doing it would just mean complete and utter chaos.

     

    Instancing isn't bad, especially when it will control the negative aspects of too many players.  If you've played Need for Speed: Rivals just think if there wasn't any instancing...even with a massive map you'd have thousands of racers on top of each other unable to even really move.

    Actually it has been said you can play The Division solo without ever engaging in PvP or PvE multiplayer action,what it won't be is an offline game as far as I know.While the "marketing" so far has emphasized the multiplayer aspects more storngly in some cases the games open world is more prevalent and  being single player centric where you can go off to multiplayer zones if you choose to and are rewarded if you do so,is constantly being mentioned.Unless something has changed and I missed it.

    But that really wasn't the point of my post which was to semi back up Jean-Luc_Picard somewhat and point out that at this stage calling for a truly massive multiplayer game with these kind of graphics is still unrealistic e.g people wanting Everquest Next with graphics like this without wanting to sacrifice the large scale destructibility and non instanced open world that that game is potentially offering.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    Originally posted by lizardbones Concerning tech demos created on workstations and then recorded for later playback, they may have features that aren't really feasible for commodity hardware. The feature sets may exist, but the horsepower doesn't, so a tech demo can show things that don't end up in games for years.  
    The demo I linked can be downloaded and run on our home computers - I wouldn't have linked it otherwise.

    Well sure it can now. When did the demo release? Could it have run on most computers when it released?

    **

    Just went and looked it up, and it does look good. The question then becomes why stuff that would run on top of the line hardware in 2005 didn't become common place. The answer is when something devotes all available resources to doing one thing, it can be done very well. Those graphics didn't show up in video games because the games couldn't write the custom shaders and such that they had to write for the demo (It was an ATI Research Project). There are also a lot of things that aren't happening in that demo that are happening in a game.

    So again, making something that turns into a movie isn't the same as writing something that's going to show up in a game, even if the 'movie' is being run in real time.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

Sign In or Register to comment.