Quote “Polycount’s member 3dflasher has created an amazing DX11 demo reel, showcasing what players can expect from the upcoming next-gen titles.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYPX-RQjm3U
Enjoy. I certainly did!
sso are you just a bot hooked up to a boring videogame news rss feed or something
Honestly, that was nothing special.
Also, I hope the smudgy dirty screen effect doesn’t become a new trend that every game uses.
And the song was bad.
Just bringing stuff to the forums that I think people may find interesting. Things that they may not encounter or discover on their own.
It already is. Obscuring the screen with useless shit is hip these days for some reason. Be it dirt and glare or UI elements.
It doesn’t even make sense most of the time. Specially in the Last of Us, where it’s a third person game.
I honestly truely think Cryengine 3 looks better than this.
It does. The official Crytek trailers are better representative of the engine.
Meh.
Chess with golden and platinum pieces on an ivory board might look fancy, but it’s still a boring game.
(My point being: graphics don’t make the game)
Well, we are only talking about a graphics engine here, not any game in particular.
Gameplay is first and foremost, yeah, but visuals are also important.
It makes more sense in a third person game than in a first person game unless you’re wearing a mask in the first person game. It’s bad in any game though. BF3 started the “dust on your eyes” crap I think.
Then I’d really like to know what would you consider to be special. And thank you for letting us know about your distaste of particular genre of music.
All side, those graphics seriously didn’t impress you? ._.
They weren’t a good representation of what the Cryengine 3 is capable of. Check out the official trailers from Crytek and you’ll see it properly.
Epic’s Samaritan trailer and the UE4 trailer are also better examples of DX11 features.
edit: oh, whoops, for some reason I thought that was made with Cryengine 3. Nevertheless, my point still stands.
Have you played Hawken? Not only do you have to spend every match squinting through a horribly-beat-up glass cockpit, there’s a persistent static filter over the screen.
I have. Film grain filter, blur from mlaa, and low fov from looking through a window from your robot. I really hate film grain most of all and don’t know why mlaa is used instead of smaa. The looking outside a robot doesn’t really bother me but what does is vignetting where they darken the edges of the screen. It was annoying as hell in Dishonored because it happened every time you crouched. Thiaf looks worse in that respect too. Especially since it moves around and flashes and stuff.
Next-gen = current gen with mad post-processing.
The lens flare thing does look cool as shit but only in situations where applicable. For example, a military game using that simulates wearing ballistic goggles, which makes sense. Idk if you guys have worn goggles for anything (be it lab work, swimming, or even paintball) but it is so easy to smudge or disrupt the clarity of the plastic. It makes senses that the grime on the lenses would pick up the light as you look around. Just so long as it’s not overdone.
The Last of Us, that just doesn’t fit. It’s a third person game. Unless your actual character is a camera viewing Joel, it makes no sense.
ITT: Ignorant consumers talk shit about the tip of the iceburg.
About the dust/glare stuff.
Simon Pegg recently defended the often-criticized use of lens flares in J.J. Abrams’ movies by saying that Abrams uses them to induce a sense of realism by accentuating specific anomalies that happen when light hits a lens.
It makes everything look like a filmed event, a documentary of sorts. It makes the audience feel as if they’re actually witnessing real life events. Much like how Spielberg sprayed bloody seawater on the lens in Saving Private Ryan.
I think these effects really add to the atmosphere of games like The Last of Us, because as a player you’re viewing everything from a relatively short distance. In BF3 it might not make a lot of sense since you’re not a witness looking from a distance but rather the soldier himself… But I guess they’re wearing goggles or glasses or whatever.
Why doesn’t Abrams use a higher framerate if he wants that realism?
And it doesn’t change the fact that it obscures the screen in a medium where obscuring the screen makes it difficult to really play. Not to mention it’s annoying.
This.
Post-process / temporal AA that blurs everything (like that which seems to have been used in this video) is nasty as well, I’d rather have no AA.
The ‘chromatic aberration’ post-process effect is another annoying trend.
Devs, stop trying to simulate video cameras, it only limits you and your games.
This too.
Film industry, adopt a higher standard framerate already, 24FPS should have died decades ago.