18 réponses à ce sujet

[OSE Killer]

 Mass Effect 3 Take Back Earth Teaser Trailer
www.youtube.com/watch

[Arcon97]

doubt it. the demo's graphics are ok and I have everything maxed. Looks nothing like the trailer which is why I never look at trailers, they are 99.9% full of lies.

[Aargh12]

No high-end gamer machines would be able to render it in real time in 1080p (or 720p for that matter). This was rendered by highly specialized render-farm.

Don't over glorify PCs.

[OSE Killer]

I can dream... And I do think my 3 way SLI GTX470 machine could get close to that and still be playable at 60 fps, if using the correct game engine.

Hell, "rage" can at times look good plus 60fps and only uses ~45% of one of my GTX 470's.

Get the right engine and you would be impressed. 

Modifié par OSE Killer, 20 février 2012 - 09:04 .

[Aargh12]

OSE Killer wrote...

I can dream... And I do think my 3 way SLI GTX470 machine could get close to that and still be playable at 60 fps, if using the correct game engine.

Nope, it wouldn't. The machine would not be able to render it even at 10FPS. Not enought computing power.

Hell, "rage" can at times look good plus 60fps and only uses ~45% of one of my GTX 470's.

It doesn't look even close to that trailer. The closest thing to Take Earth Back was that tech demo Epic showed last year (the Samaritan) and that was rendered with three GTX 580s at 30FPS. And it still had slowdowns.

Get the right engine and you would be impressed. 

Nope, you can't optimize the engine to render that kind of detail on as "slow" rig as yours. It's just not possible.
I don't say that level of graphics can't be reached. It can, but not on today's hardware and definitely not in realtime.
If that was possible Pixar, ILM, Blur and the rest would not use render farms and would switch to real-time graphics years ago to save time and money.

[Amaranthy]

OSE Killer wrote...

I can dream... And I do think my 3 way SLI GTX470 machine could get close to that and still be playable at 60 fps, if using the correct game engine.

Hell, "rage" can at times look good plus 60fps and only uses ~45% of one of my GTX 470's.

Get the right engine and you would be impressed. 

Check Battlefield 3. Devs said it would need 2x560GTX to run BF 3 on max with smooth framerate.

[Lurka]

Lol can't tell if trolling or just stupid... Besides ME3 on PC will look almost graphically identical to consoles unless you closely compare screenshots, don't forget it was developed on 360 and then small teams would of ported it to PS3 and PC.

[OSE Killer]

I run battlefield 3 on max about 100+ fps most of the time.

But I will say the samaritan demo looked great, and probably could have run much faster without high levels of AA.

Not sure if FSAA was avail at that time..

[DAOWAce]

Can't tell if the OP is trolling or plain stupid.

It's a cinematic.

We won't have those kinds of graphics rendered in realtime in games for at least another decade or two.

That's not even counting the fact that a game with that type of graphical fidelity would take many years to create.

A shame Project Offset was canned; thanks Intel.

[OSE Killer]

I'm not trolling or being stupid...

The word "should" is in the title. 

It didn't say this is how it looks...


But to your comment on graphic fidelity and years to make...

They made the trailer correct? They had to get the rendering assets from somewhere. They had to design and texture every object in the trailer as well as animate them. It takes time, but they already had a lot of things from the mass effect universe in the trailer already. And I'm sure they didn't spend anywhere near a year to make the trailer.

Modifié par OSE Killer, 20 février 2012 - 10:22 .

[MrChowderClam]

lol not sure if serious...

A single frame for that video takes about 48 hours to render. Also, you can't render that kind of stuff (faster) on a GPU, it HAS to be on a CPU.

Offline rendering and realtime rendering are completely different worlds. It's tempting to compare the two, but ultimately they have different goals and completely different pipelines. It's going to take more than a hardware leap to get from the IQ in game today to the IQ in that trailer.

Modifié par MrChowderClam, 20 février 2012 - 10:33 .

[Resheph_606]

When the technology in above link will be developed, and I'm not talking decades here, we will get everything and more, than this trailer shows.

[Axl124]

Lurka wrote...

Lol can't tell if trolling or just stupid... Besides ME3 on PC will look almost graphically identical to consoles unless you closely compare screenshots, don't forget it was developed on 360 and then small teams would of ported it to PS3 and PC.

absolutely not. ME 1 and ME2 on pc look a lot better than on console. Simply becasue you can amp up the AA and the framerate is a lot better. I played ME1 and ME2 on xbox, then on PC. It is juwt so much better on the PC. Especially for ME2 which is essentially a third person shooter and running @ 1080 P @ 60 FPS, ME2 looks incredible. The ME3 demo looked gorgeous to me as well. I don't know what else people want, but some of the effects were awesome. 

[Raxxman]

Resheph_606 wrote...



When the technology in above link will be developed, and I'm not talking decades here, we will get everything and more, than this trailer shows.

This is basically voxel technology. It's not new, it's just been abandoned by the industry for some reason.

I don't mean to be negative to the company. If they've advanced voxel technology that far then they've done themselves proud, and I for one will look forward to companies using this technology.

[Aargh12]

OSE Killer wrote...
They made the trailer correct? They had to get the rendering assets from somewhere. They had to design and texture every object in the trailer as well as animate them. It takes time, but they already had a lot of things from the mass effect universe in the trailer already. And I'm sure they didn't spend anywhere near a year to make the trailer.

Geeez, they had to render it. It wasn't real time render. There's a difference between makinga trailer on render farm (it takes even minutes to make on frame, Pixar animations take up to 15 minutes per frame) and releasing it to the public and making a game to render on a gaming rig. The stuff from Bioware doesn't matter. 

[Alithinos]

 I'd love if at least the in-game cutscenes had a graphic fidellity like this.
Only the cutscenes.
What I don't like though that I see in both this trailer and the game is that it seems there is too much grey everywhere.
Some scenes needed more saturated colors,I don't get why they changed the excellent color palette of ME2 with this greyish of ME3.

Anyway,I don't think that graphics like that are not done-able,they would just need a very powerful machine to run,and of course current gen consoles wouldn't.
I say that because we have seen almost comparable amount to detail in modded Crysis.
Does anybody watch how Crysis,the game that made us say 'wow' in 2007 keeps evolving with user created mods ? 

Check this out,might surprize you:

http://media.giantbo...98905-2pblu.jpg

[Ksandor]

DAOWAce wrote...

Can't tell if the OP is trolling or plain stupid.

It's a cinematic.

We won't have those kinds of graphics rendered in realtime in games for at least another decade or two.

That's not even counting the fact that a game with that type of graphical fidelity would take many years to create.

A shame Project Offset was canned; thanks Intel.

Not a decade.... But if the game industry cannot divest itself from consoles it will take awhile. Console technology is ancient. Xbox360 core tech is what... 6 years old?

Hopefully smartphone, tablet, PC integration and 1 licence for all platforms business model will make consoles obsolete.

NVIDIA and ATI can design cards 100 times faster than GTX580 but as long as the games try to fit in the obsolete Xbox 360/Playstation 3 concept no game will need that fast hardware. Oh remember, PC industry and Xbox ecosystem is controlled (dominated) by Microsoft.

If you do not believe the above then ask yourself why Microsoft or Sony did not market the next gen consoles yet?

Because of the tablets and multiplatform games of course. They are afraid to commit to new consoles but they are also afraid of divesting themselves from console industry because they do not trust the smartphone ecosystem either. The market is young, the market is unstable and global economic crisis is still in effect.

This year more and more smartphone manufacturers will stop using Android (at least begin to sell more non-Android smarties). For instance the defunct Sony Ericsson Xperia phones now fully absorbed in Sony will probably use Playstation Vita OS. Because Google Android Market asks too much money from companies like Sony who want to sell Playstation games. Besides Microsoft takes money from Android phone vendors in order not to sue them for violating its patents. This is why Android is becoming a pariah fast. Because HTC pays Microsoft 5 dollars and Samsung pays 15 dollars per Android device. This made the mobile game platform market very unstable. And there is Win8. What will happen then?

Do you know NVIDIA Maximus technology? Thanks to that a single HP Z800 workstation can now render a movie without the need of hiring HP cloud rendering remote farms. With Maximus, Dreamworks would not feel the need to hire a whole bunch of HP servers to render Puss in Boots. One workstation would be able to do that. There are Youtube videos showing that a Maximus card can do 3 days of rendering work in 3 seconds! Now if Maximus would come to the commercial home desktop systems what would happen? Do you think that trailer is awesome? See the new trailers which will be possible in near future with Maximus then. And that's just a start.

The technology is there but it is not available to video games yet. It may take up to 3-5 years. But mark my words cloud gaming is coming (Onlive cloud gaming platform for instance). The PC/console gaming platforms will change -- the world as you know it is at an end . When the platforms will change the game hardware and visual will also change!

Modifié par Ksandor, 21 février 2012 - 11:20 .

[Aargh12]

[quote]Ksandor wrote...
Not a decade.... But if the game industry cannot divest itself from consoles it will take awhile. Console technology is ancient. Xbox360 core tech is what... 6 years old?[/quote]
There wil be jumps in technology used and not it won't be fluent as developing on PCs would be.
[quote]
Hopefully smartphone, tablet, PC integration and 1 licence for all platforms business model will make consoles obsolete.[/quote]
Not even one bit - you can have one OS but you still have to deal with different architectures. And that takes more time and money. Not to mention the problems of making gameplay suit all types of controller types - gamepads, touch screen and K&B.
[quote]
NVIDIA and ATI can design cards 100 times faster than GTX580 but as long as the games try to fit in the obsolete Xbox 360/Playstation 3 concept no game will need that fast hardware. Oh remember, PC industry and Xbox ecosystem is controlled (dominated) by Microsoft.
[/quote]
Still, those companies make more money in low- and mid-end devices. Also, power isn't everything. You need to know how to use it. And since developers have problems with implementing 64bit instructions or DX11 - do you really think you could make a game that utilises GTX 580 to it's full potential?

[quote]Because of the tablets and multiplatform games of course. [/quote]
This is plain bull****. They don't have money to invest in new consoles (they lose money on them for several years). Especially when old hardware still sells and still shows that there is more power to be used in them.
[quote]They are afraid to commit to new consoles but they are also afraid of divesting themselves from console industry because they do not trust the smartphone ecosystem either. [/quote]
Yup - we're talking about Sony that bought smartphone division of Ericsson and Microsoft that wants to dominate phone OS with it's Windows (although thery're not very effective at it).

[quote]This year more and more smartphone manufacturers will stop using Android (at least begin to sell more non-Android smarties).[/quote]
Yup, I saw that on CES2012 and we'll see it on MWC. They won't stop using Android when it's easy-to-use system and it's very (I mean very) popular system. And they won't commit their time and money to create their own OS to use on their devices, because this is basically a suicide. Look at how Nokia's doing recently.
[quote]For instance the defunct Sony Ericsson Xperia phones now fully absorbed in Sony will probably use Playstation Vita OS. [/quote]
They won't - PSVita OS is made for almost exclusively for gaming and not for every-day bussiness or casual use.
[quote]Because Google Android Market asks too much money from companies like Sony who want to sell Playstation games.[/quote]
Their store their rules. And last time I saw every company (except for Nokia and Apple) want to use Android as their main system. Because it's popular and because A Market doesn't ask for that much money Apple or MS wants.
[quote]Besides Microsoft takes money from Android phone vendors in order not to sue them for violating its patents. This is why Android is becoming a pariah fast. Because HTC pays Microsoft 5 dollars and Samsung pays 15 dollars per Android device. This made the mobile game platform market very unstable. [/quote]
And do you really think that they wouldn't stop suing for patents after Sony, Samsung, etc. switched to their own systems? They would. And Apple would follow. And then Google would suely find a patent of their own that was used in OS of other's phones.

[quote]And there is Win8. What will happen then?[/quote]
Nothing really. They realeased Windows Phone 7 and they are now losing even with Bada OS. Win8 won't change MS situation for the better. It can even worsen it on desktop PCs. Especially when they are pursuing Metro UI which is crap for devices other's than smartphones.

[quote]
The technology is there but it is not available to video games right now. It may take up to 3-5 years. But mark my words cloud gaming is coming (Onlive cloud gaming platform for instance) the world as you know it is ending .
[/quote]
Making a game solely for clouds will require more time and money than ever. I can see how devs will switch to that. I don't want to mention networking problems, compression (both audio and video), ability to lose your games and ability to play them, input lag, price (monthly subscription and games) and the fact that you don't really own the games you'ce bought on cloud.

Modifié par Aargh12, 21 février 2012 - 11:36 .