The Most Beautiful Game Yet.

[Gseckz]

The story mediocre and maybe the character isn't that interesting but you have agree this is one of the most beautiful game yet. The 4k graphics is the best iv seen yet. The cities looks amazing and the people walk thier daily lives and the wildlife is really on point.

Its like playing witcher 3 again and having your mind blown on how breathtaking games can be. Correct me if im wrong though.. Name a more beautiful game in 2018

[spyteo]

agree 100/100

[Teiryn]

I can name a possibly better looking game all the way back in 2014:

https://youtu.be/J-cMJu96t6s
https://youtu.be/uIYPuTLJFrI

[em_t_hed]

for some reason i read that as 'the most beautiful girl yet'

[Dwayne]

i think it's the most beautiful game ever ... simple
story could be a bit better maybe yeh, but for the rest this game really something

[jinjojuice]

Originally posted by Gseckz:

The story mediocre and maybe the character isn't that interesting but you have agree this is one of the most beautiful game yet. The 4k graphics is the best iv seen yet. The cities looks amazing and the people walk thier daily lives and the wildlife is really on point.

Its like playing witcher 3 again and having your mind blown on how breathtaking games can be. Correct me if im wrong though.. Name a more beautiful game in 2018

It's 2017, who knows what's to come in 2018.but yeah it's a nice looking game thats for sure,4k/hdr is amazing.

[gamertaboo]

Originally posted by Aura:

I can name a possibly better looking game all the way back in 2014:

https://youtu.be/J-cMJu96t6s
https://youtu.be/uIYPuTLJFrI

Everyone keeps saying that but I'm not convinced. I played Unity and enjoyed it even with it's launch issues.

I would say this game isn't much of a step up from Unity in terms of graphics, but it's as good looking as Unity is at the very least in my opinion. Though Unity's Global Illumination was probably better. And maybe Unity's character models were better.

It's really hard to compare the two because the color palettes used in the two games are just completely different. This game is much more colorful than Unity was, due to the desert and wilderness and whatnot. Whereas Unity was set in a big City and is just less vibrant.

[Sir Noob Wulf]

Originally posted by Aura:

I can name a possibly better looking game all the way back in 2014:

https://youtu.be/J-cMJu96t6s
https://youtu.be/uIYPuTLJFrI

Yup the real reason unity ran like ♥♥♥♥ is because well the hardware was ♥♥♥♥.

[voidofopinion]

Originally posted by gamertaboo:

Originally posted by Aura:

I can name a possibly better looking game all the way back in 2014:

https://youtu.be/J-cMJu96t6s
https://youtu.be/uIYPuTLJFrI

Everyone keeps saying that but I'm not convinced. I played Unity and enjoyed it even with it's launch issues.

I would say this game isn't much of a step up from Unity in terms of graphics, but it's as good looking as Unity is at the very least in my opinion. Though Unity's Global Illumination was probably better. And maybe Unity's character models were better.

It's really hard to compare the two because the color palettes used in the two games are just completely different. This game is much more colorful than Unity was, due to the desert and wilderness and whatnot. Whereas Unity was set in a big City and is just less vibrant.

Actually they use entirely different artistic processes in their visual aesthetics.

Unity makes use of high detail textures, models and an overwhelming amount of NPC's to create the effect that Unity's world is detailed and alive. This is modeled after the genre of photorealism where the idea is to create an artistic work that tricks the eye into accepting it at a glance as a real object.

Origins is quite the opposite. Origins uses even higher quality models but extremely muddy textures, coupled with an outstanding light and shadow engine to fool the eye into thinking it is seeing more detail than it really is. If you spend any time looking at any one object in the game all of it's flaws begin to show almost immediately, but because the lighting and shadows are so good it tricks your brain into seeing a more complete and rich environment than is really there. This is called Impressionism.

I think Ubisoft chose to go in this direction as a solution for rendering sand, statues and tombs (three things very important to depicting Egypt).

[Sir Noob Wulf]

Originally posted by Void(null):

Actually they use entirely different artistic processes in their visual aesthetics.

Unity makes use of high detail textures, models and an overwhelming amount of NPC's to create the effect that Unity's world is detailed and alive. This is modeled after the genre of photorealism where the idea is to create an artistic work that tricks the eye into accepting it at a glance as a real object.

Origins is quite the opposite. Origins uses even higher quality models but extremely muddy textures, coupled with an outstanding light and shadow engine to fool the eye into thinking it is seeing more detail than it really is. If you spend any time looking at any one object in the game all of it's flaws begin to show almost immediately, but because the lighting and shadows are so good it tricks your brain into seeing a more complete and rich environment than is really there. This is called Impressionism.

I think Ubisoft chose to go in this direction as a solution for rendering sand, statues and tombs (three things very important to depicting Egypt).

Well it works here.But yeah once you stand still to enjoy the view you realise that the view isnt that good.In unity that was not the case though.

But obviously both the games are limited because they have to work on consoles.

[voidofopinion]

Originally posted by Wulfrix:

But obviously both the games are limited because they have to work on consoles.

Not exactly true.

Scaling and optimizing for console and PC already happened and demonstrated by the fact we have Low, Medium, High and Ultra graphics settings.

The problem is that you want to maximize the lifespan of your engine and putting the PC version up to 11 out of the gate creates all sorts of problems.

1: You don't want to make your console market feel like they are getting an overwhelmingly inferior experience because that breeds resentment.
2: It's expensive to make a new engine so you start out with the hope of making your game visually better than everything currently on the market, then you modify, improve and optimize, allowing games to better reach their potential over time to maximize that investment.
3: You have to keep current hardware in mind while leaving room for growth for future hardware. A good example being Grand Theft Auto, a bad example being Crysis.
4: Tricks, added features and creative workarounds are always being discovered for console development.
5: Half-Step consoles now allow for more parity with PC's

So it's less that consoles are holding back PC gaming, and more that publishers want to limit development costs and slow the progress of technology because making the most amazing game of all time every time doesn't make financial sense.

This actually happens in almost every tech industry. You R&D, You Patent, You sell the old tech as long as you can possibly get away with while you continue R&D on other things, then at the end of the life cycle you introduce the "new" technology.

One odd exception to this is consumer grade PC hardware which is in near constant development where they are always trying to sell a product that doesn't yet exist to a customer base that can't actually make use of it. You spend $700 on a graphics card then have to wait for 2 years for all but 3 games to make any use out of it. By which time the new card they are marketing is twice as powerful as your current video card and all the marketing is telling you it's time to update. So you upgrade to the new card and wait another 2 years for any games to fully make use of your new card.

This is why they develop janky effects such as HBAO+, TSAA, PhysX, TressFX, Tessellation which use a massive amount of overhead when first introduced to the market. But you have to do something with the other 50% of someones video card or they get upset that their $3000 rig isn't being pushed to it's limit! This is why nVidia and ATI work so closely with developers to shoehorn such features into AAA titles. You have to make the demand if you want to supply.

Eventually those effects are refined after several iterations, but have you seen a "The way it's meant to be played" game that offers something new from nVidia and not have that graphics option but a hot mess? The hot mess makes people think they can't run the latest and greatest so they have to buy a new video card, so the cycle repeats itself.

The games industry is fascinating from a business perspective. It has long since surpassed the grocery store in terms of customer manipulation and psychological warfare.

[Sir Noob Wulf]

So basically consoles holding the gaming industry back.What you said is exactly what i meant dude.The statement is indirect but true nevertheless.

Also that is why i never used those stupid options even when i had a desktop.They just cut the performance in half to give the illusion of better graphics when that is not the case.
In fact the only real tech that made a different was pure hair and HBAO+.Those wereoptimised and actually made the game look better.

[voidofopinion]

Originally posted by Wulfrix:

So basically consoles holding the gaming industry back.What you said is exactly what i meant dude.The statement is indirect but true nevertheless.

Also that is why i never used those stupid options even when i had a desktop.They just cut the performance in half to give the illusion of better graphics when that is not the case.
In fact the only real tech that made a different was pure hair and HBAO+.Those wereoptimised and actually made the game look better.

If consoles didn't exist then Ubisoft would change nothing in their business strategy and the PC version would be exactly the PC version we have today.

The problem is with the bean counters... Not sidegrading to open up another market space.

But I share your sentiment. As someone who always buys high end hardware I'm amazed at how much worse some of these features can make everything look.

SSAO was awful and it wasn't until HBAO that we started seeing something more detailed than dark blotches on the screen. I have a very personal hatred of TSAA and DoF. TSAA causes so much damage to texture quality as to be unreal and I have no idea why I am paying so much money to render amazing levels of graphics only to apply a horrible smear on everything that is more than 50ft away. Render detail on Max + TSAA & DoF is like paying $1000 for caviar only to put ketchup on it.

[Sir Noob Wulf]

Originally posted by Void(null):

Originally posted by Wulfrix:

So basically consoles holding the gaming industry back.What you said is exactly what i meant dude.The statement is indirect but true nevertheless.

Also that is why i never used those stupid options even when i had a desktop.They just cut the performance in half to give the illusion of better graphics when that is not the case.
In fact the only real tech that made a different was pure hair and HBAO+.Those wereoptimised and actually made the game look better.

If consoles didn't exist then Ubisoft would change nothing in their business strategy and the PC version would be exactly the PC version we have today.

The problem is with the bean counters... Not sidegrading to open up another market space.

But I share your sentiment. As someone who always buys high end hardware I'm amazed at how much worse some of these features can make everything look.

SSAO was awful and it wasn't until HBAO that we started seeing something more detailed than dark blotches on the screen. I have a very personal hatred of TSAA and DoF. TSAA causes so much damage to texture quality as to be unreal and I have no idea why I am paying so much money to render amazing levels of graphics only to apply a horrible smear on everything that is more than 50ft away. Render detail on Max + TSAA & DoF is like paying $1000 for caviar only to put ketchup on it.

Yup,i always disable depthof feild and motion blur wherever possible.
For me Fxaa or smaa is good enough.I know fxaa makes the image blurry but i have seen some good implementations of it.

[Teiryn]

Originally posted by Wulfrix:

Originally posted by Void(null):

If consoles didn't exist then Ubisoft would change nothing in their business strategy and the PC version would be exactly the PC version we have today.

The problem is with the bean counters... Not sidegrading to open up another market space.

But I share your sentiment. As someone who always buys high end hardware I'm amazed at how much worse some of these features can make everything look.

SSAO was awful and it wasn't until HBAO that we started seeing something more detailed than dark blotches on the screen. I have a very personal hatred of TSAA and DoF. TSAA causes so much damage to texture quality as to be unreal and I have no idea why I am paying so much money to render amazing levels of graphics only to apply a horrible smear on everything that is more than 50ft away. Render detail on Max + TSAA & DoF is like paying $1000 for caviar only to put ketchup on it.

Yup,i always disable depthof feild and motion blur wherever possible.
For me Fxaa or smaa is good enough.I know fxaa makes the image blurry but i have seen some good implementations of it.

I prob dislike TXAA the Most - blurry image with quite a big performance impact.

[Sir Noob Wulf]

Originally posted by Aura:

Originally posted by Wulfrix:

Yup,i always disable depthof feild and motion blur wherever possible.
For me Fxaa or smaa is good enough.I know fxaa makes the image blurry but i have seen some good implementations of it.

I prob dislike TXAA the Most - blurry image with quite a big performance impact.

TXAA is useless.Its better to use DSR or any other form of super sampling.