Howdy, Stranger!

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

New "Division" vid: The future of graphics

13

Comments

  • ego13ego13 Member Posts: 267
    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

  • GruugGruug Member RarePosts: 1,789
    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 Member UncommonPosts: 2,001
    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 Member UncommonPosts: 5,628

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

  • SomeOldBlokeSomeOldBloke Member UncommonPosts: 2,167
    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.

  • tom_goretom_gore Member UncommonPosts: 2,001
    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 Member Posts: 2,030
    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.

  • mistmakermistmaker Member UncommonPosts: 321

    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 Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    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 Member Posts: 267
    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

  • Professor78Professor78 Member UncommonPosts: 610

    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 i5 13600KF,  BeQuiet Pure Loop FX 360, 32gb DDR5-6000 XPG, WD SN850 NVMe ,PNY 3090 XLR8, Asus Prime Z790-A, Lian-Li O11 PCMR case (limited ed 1045/2000), 32" LG Ultragear 4k Monitor, Logitech G560 LightSync Sound, Razer Deathadder V2 and Razer Blackwidow V3 Keyboard


  • ElRenmazuoElRenmazuo Member RarePosts: 5,361
    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 Member Posts: 2,030
    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 Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    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.

  • VincerKadenVincerKaden Member UncommonPosts: 457
    I don't think I'll just need a new computer to be able to play that.... I'm also going to need upgraded eyeballs in order to appreciate how awesome this game looks!

    image

  • tom_goretom_gore Member UncommonPosts: 2,001
    Originally posted by ElRenmazuo
    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

     

    Yeah. Too bad PS3 could not run it like that, as you can see from Beyond: Two Souls (the game looks pretty nice considering the hardware, if you forgive the low resolution and framerate). You've only proven my point. The tech has already been there for years, but only now it's viable to be made into a game, because the next gen consoles can run it.

     

  • and the PC master race finally realizes its the consoles that advance game engines :) in 7 years why have we never had a pc dev make this weather system or level of detail? it takes a next gen console, division is only added to pc now because people asked for it and ubisoft decided to allow it, i doubt it will come out at same time prob a month or two later to make it exclusive to consoles.
  • muffins89muffins89 Member UncommonPosts: 1,585
    Originally posted by adderVXI
    Hell they sold one console on this video.....

    2

  • tawesstawess Member EpicPosts: 4,227

    Now since we have pretty much flogged the subject at hand in to glue...

     

    What will really grind my gears is if that car that was on fire outside the police station is always on fire... Why would anyone go back over and over again and build a fire in that precise car...? What kind of sense does that make. If they manage to make that dynamic then we can start talking next gen... Sure it is very fancy that the smoke interact with my *bleep* as i wave it around... But if they can not make small things like a burning car make sense... What is the point.

     

    After all we have AI fish now... So how hard can it be to make a AI fire.

    This have been a good conversation

  • tom_goretom_gore Member UncommonPosts: 2,001
    Originally posted by Chattaway
    and the PC master race finally realizes its the consoles that advance game engines :) in 7 years why have we never had a pc dev make this weather system or level of detail? it takes a next gen console, division is only added to pc now because people asked for it and ubisoft decided to allow it, i doubt it will come out at same time prob a month or two later to make it exclusive to consoles.

    No advances in game engines have been made that haven't been there for years already. What you probably mean is that it's the consoles that make creating games with those engines finally viable.

    Are we (as the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race) pissed? Yes, slightly, because we also know we are stuck with the "next-gen" for the next 5-10 years again, but at least it's a leap forward that has been long overdue now.

    But we are also happy, because now the next gen games are being made and the best platform to run those games will still be PC. You Filthy Console Peasants can have your 720p and 30 FPS. Hell, you can even keep your 1080p and 60 FPS with the few titles that support it, while we start moving to 1440p and/or 120FPS, and in a few years to 4k and beyond.

    You know what I think? I think you're just jelly because we are getting Division, too ;)

     

  • DarkHighDarkHigh Member UncommonPosts: 157
    Looks good for a console but this is not photo realism. This kind of statement brings back memories of half life 2's first trailers. Everyone was amazed at the major changes, and now a few years later it still looks decent but its meh comapared to what has come out since then. This will be exactly the same, it always is.
  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,628


    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Chattaway and the PC master race finally realizes its the consoles that advance game engines :) in 7 years why have we never had a pc dev make this weather system or level of detail? it takes a next gen console, division is only added to pc now because people asked for it and ubisoft decided to allow it, i doubt it will come out at same time prob a month or two later to make it exclusive to consoles.
    It's more like the advanced game engines are first developed on PCs since they will always have the most advanced hardware, and then are adapted to consoles once those have caught up with the actual technology.

    And anyone disputing that PCs have the most advanced hardware aren't even worth paying attention to. The actualy hardware of those new PS4 and XBox One is completely crushed by any modern gaming PC, and you don't even need the best processor and graphic card for that.



    well if you're gonna get technical, personal computers do not have the most advanced hardware ;)
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Chattaway and the PC master race finally realizes its the consoles that advance game engines :) in 7 years why have we never had a pc dev make this weather system or level of detail? it takes a next gen console, division is only added to pc now because people asked for it and ubisoft decided to allow it, i doubt it will come out at same time prob a month or two later to make it exclusive to consoles.
    It's more like the advanced game engines are first developed on PCs since they will always have the most advanced hardware, and then are adapted to consoles once those have caught up with the actual technology.

    And anyone disputing that PCs have the most advanced hardware aren't even worth paying attention to. The actualy hardware of those new PS4 and XBox One is completely crushed by any modern gaming PC, and you don't even need the best processor and graphic card for that.




    This is actually true. Nobody writes a game on a console.

    When people are all like, "Then why do console graphics look so good?" It's because developers have years and years to optimize the graphics engines to get the most out of the chips. That's why that demo you posted can look so good on an AMD x1800 card with 256MB of ram. The developers were able to write dozens of custom shaders and tweak the application to get every last bit of performance out of that card. It couldn't do anything else beyond that scripted demo, but it was able to look really good. With enough time developers get to the point that they can make things look really good and run games on weaker hardware that has fewer built in features.

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

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by Foomerang

     


    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    Originally posted by Chattaway and the PC master race finally realizes its the consoles that advance game engines :) in 7 years why have we never had a pc dev make this weather system or level of detail? it takes a next gen console, division is only added to pc now because people asked for it and ubisoft decided to allow it, i doubt it will come out at same time prob a month or two later to make it exclusive to consoles.
    It's more like the advanced game engines are first developed on PCs since they will always have the most advanced hardware, and then are adapted to consoles once those have caught up with the actual technology.

     

    And anyone disputing that PCs have the most advanced hardware aren't even worth paying attention to. The actualy hardware of those new PS4 and XBox One is completely crushed by any modern gaming PC, and you don't even need the best processor and graphic card for that.


    well if you're gonna get technical, personal computers do not have the most advanced hardware ;)

     

    when advances to the hardware are made though, its usually straight to PC, but that doesnt take away the fact that the 'next gen' consoles are at 'best' the equivalent of mid range PC's, though with the Xbone's useage of DDR3 for graphics, im not sure 'next gen' is really applicable, especially when you consider the Xbone doesnt actually have higher definition than the Xbox 360, same resolution in fact 1280x720. which pretty much puts it on the same par as your average laptop, though most of them even are able to handle 1440x 900.
     To me it seems like the limitations of the Xbone are going to be holding back games until the next generation, again, although with the PS4 outselling the Xbone, its possible we might see some improvement, but again, we're seeing limits of 1920 x 1080 even with the PS4.
    Its only a matter of time before there's another advance in GPU's etc available for the PC, and once again we're going to have the problem of the consoles just not being able to handle games that are on PC, which means the 'mass market' that usually develops games multiplatform for PC/Consoles, is going to focus on the lowest denominator, in terms of hardware. With few taking the risk of developing for PC, barring MMO's perhaps, which are really the domain of the PC.image

Sign In or Register to comment.