FSAA/Anti-aliasing/Major resolution problem (merged)

[shell]

Originally Posted by Drebbel

Maybe I am being naif, but who cares about AA if the images look as nice as the posted screenshots.

Maybe those who dont like broken wires and masts and ugly jagged edges. Especially in motion!

And in a simulator like SH you have much time to look around.

[mearle]

Originally Posted by shell

Maybe those who dont like broken wires and masts and ugly jagged edges. Especially in motion!

And in a simulator like SH you have much time to look around.

Got to agree it dont look good at all

[Immacolata]

Ye, I'd gladly sacrifice all kinds of photo gloss effects if it gets me my AA back.

...
releasing game without FSAA in 2007. Pff.

[Cigol]

I don't know. The game looks amazing and seeing it in action makes you appreciate it ten times more. The screenshots do more damage than good in my opinion.

The game runs in high-ish resolutions and on a decent monitor the jaggies are not an issue whatsoever (at least not with the post processing enabled). I'm not saying Jaggies disappear, but they aren't as prevalant as the number of people crying about it (at least not on my setup and I run it with everything on maximum - so your mileage may vary I couldn't honestly say)

The difference between 'jaggies' and 'no jaggies' is not light and day either. 3D engines do not work on that simple a premise, and jaggies don't necessarily have to be considered as a negative in a well constructed engine (AA can interfere with some special effects and has negative impact upon peformance - it's not a perfect solution to the problem).

The ruckus over the 'hollywood' effect is unjustified also. It might not be photo-realistic, but it is incredibly atmospheric. There is an artistic sensiblity that nobody seems to really care for these days. Put in bloom, HDR, bump mapping, all those other special effects... yeah that will solve everything and make it look automatically great (sarcasm!).

Well SH4 looks marvelous, and it's not a collection of special effects buzzwods that are there to sell the game as meaningless disjointed eyecandy - it's a very focused and artistically appreciable design.

People who play without the post-processing are missing the point in my opinion and people who complain about jaggies are being far too critical.

I'm speaking as someone who has just dropped in on the release. The predominant complaint is the lack of anti-aliasing and how game breaking it is - but there are far more pertinent issues relating to the actual gameplay that should be focused upon.

[nhall70]

Originally Posted by Cigol

I don't know. The game looks amazing and seeing it in action makes you appreciate it ten times more. The screenshots do more damage than good in my opinion.

The game runs in high-ish resolutions and on a decent monitor the jaggies are not an issue whatsoever (at least not with the post processing enabled). I'm not saying Jaggies disappear, but they aren't as prevalant as the number of people crying about it (at least not on my setup and I run it with everything on maximum - so your mileage may vary I couldn't honestly say)

The difference between 'jaggies' and 'no jaggies' is not light and day either. 3D engines do not work on that simple a premise, and jaggies don't necessarily have to be considered as a negative in a well constructed engine (AA can interfere with some special effects and has negative impact upon peformance - it's not a perfect solution to the problem).

The ruckus over the 'hollywood' effect is unjustified also. It might not be photo-realistic, but it is incredibly atmospheric. There is an artistic sensiblity that nobody seems to really care for these days. Put in bloom, HDR, bump mapping, all those other special effects... yeah that will solve everything and make it look automatically great (sarcasm!).

Well SH4 looks marvelous, and it's not a collection of special effects buzzwods that are there to sell the game as meaningless disjointed eyecandy - it's a very focused and artistically appreciable design.

People who play without the post-processing are missing the point in my opinion and people who complain about jaggies are being far too critical.

I'm speaking as someone who has just dropped in on the release. The predominant complaint is the lack of anti-aliasing and how game breaking it is - but there are far more pertinent issues relating to the actual gameplay that should be focused upon.

You're probably right. For those people who can get past it, SH4 is probably a great game. For those of us who can't...it's an absolute show stopper, which is too bad (for us anyway ).

I guess for me, the thing that's so frustrating about this is that the devs don't have to do anything to support FSAA. It's probably the easiest feature in the world for them to support. All they have to do is NOT do anything that renders it unusable!

Ubisoft has pulled this on three games in a row now and there has been a similar outcry in the forums for all three of these games. When are they going to get it right? They REALLY need to dump this engine they're using a develop a good one.

[Avatar]

So, is the 360 better for gaming? I've always thought that PC's are the best platforms for gaming. YOu can't buy silent hunter, DW, IL2, or any other sim for that matter on consoles. I think that the really old nintendo came out with silent service way back in the day, but that's about it, right? I'll settle for less graphic quality, which is weird, for a better game, like a simulation. The reason it's weird is that I thought PC's were or are supposed to be better than a console. I mean, that's why we hand over the big bucks for a computer. Maybe I'm way off base, but it seems that most video game companies make console games on a pc, I think.
anyway, I'm not afraid of consoles, I have a ps2, but I want all the extra goodies that a pc can offer. For example, in GTA:SA, the map is very small compared to the world wide maps of simulations.
I guess the future will hold all the answers, but I'll be there playing games!

[-Pv-]

The console vs pc debate has been going on for years. The way I see it, if you have a PC for other reasons (applications, internet, DVD, etc.) then it's a natural to add game entertainment to the mix. At this point in the evolution, consoles are strickly entertainment although some versatility is slowly being added. The driving point is cost. If parents are not buying expensive PCs for general purpose and use around the home, young game players are then going to buy less expensive dedicated systems they can take to their friend's house.

PCs will continue to be more powerful for a long time to come attracting the game designers who love a challenge.

Perhaps consoles will eventually turn into PCs and PCs will eventually morph into consoles and there will no longer be any distinction to argue about. Every machine will play every game, run Word and surf the Internet. Even washing machines.

On AA:
A lot of judgement is being applied by people who don't own the game. I put down my money before this debate on AA ever had a chance to start, so I guess I will live with my decision. Right now I'm having trouble keeping my heart ticking regular for the next few days. As soon as a release date was announced, I scheduled a vacation and I'm not going to eat or sleep for several days. When I go back to work, I'll have to drop anchor at my desk and pipe the commander ashore to keep from shouting DIVE DIVE all day.

I agree that static screen shots give an idea of features, atmosphere and mood, but not very good on performance and animation. The dev team poured screen movies at us for months. I didn't see any AA shouting during that time. I see at least one satisfied customer so far. Lets see what happens when we get more of the committed playing the game.

Those who have decided they don't like the game because it's in the Pacific, SHIII wasn't developed enough, and there may not be control over AA in the game will be able to take to heart all the miriad other faults the community will find over time and feel satisfied their investment wasn't wasted on this title (no sarcasm intended.) Sharp eyes have already spotted the "m" for meters when the game engine is probably feet by default and I will have to get used to a reversed rudder control after years of clicking on the top-to-bottom control. As a trade-off, I will probably click the correct direction for engine reverse more often now.

With all that said, I've also been on the other end of the issue with a recent new release of a very popular game title. I had posted messages in forums saying why I returned the game after purchasing it and boy did I get the flames. It's as if the purchasers' enthusiasm for buying the game had been ripped from their soul. Life as they knew it was threatened by my dislike for the game. I'm not like that with these posts. It's my hope we can all find the entertainment that best matches our buget and mood. I would also like to see a good production effort supported so that effort may continue. Toward that goal, I've purchased every sub sim that has come out since the mid-80s and most of the titles have had some compromises I've had to live with. Some were nearly unplayable (Gato, Red October.) This might be unique to me, but if the underlying logic and game play is solid and play value is retained for an extended time (thank you dynamic campaign) there are a lot of graphic anomalies I can live with until the next great title comes out.
I'm not going to defend a game I've not even played. For all I know the promotion department at UBI gets an award for a superb snow job. Maybe the game's a real stinker. I'm anxious to discover what lies within by putting my money down on a good bet and peeling back the cover myself. It's likely I've already sold myself and I'll be completely enthralled with an unplayable game.
My money. My risk. If the next sub title from Romania is the Kursk during war games in Northern Russia, then I'll buy that too. Sonalysts could use some competition.
-Pv-

[ryuzu]

Originally Posted by Avatar

So, is the 360 better for gaming? I've always thought that PC's are the best platforms for gaming. YOu can't buy silent hunter, DW, IL2, or any other sim for that matter on consoles. I think that the really old nintendo came out with silent service way back in the day, but that's about it, right? I'll settle for less graphic quality, which is weird, for a better game, like a simulation. The reason it's weird is that I thought PC's were or are supposed to be better than a console. I mean, that's why we hand over the big bucks for a computer. Maybe I'm way off base, but it seems that most video game companies make console games on a pc, I think.
anyway, I'm not afraid of consoles, I have a ps2, but I want all the extra goodies that a pc can offer. For example, in GTA:SA, the map is very small compared to the world wide maps of simulations.
I guess the future will hold all the answers, but I'll be there playing games!

For sims, the PC is the only platform you can really use - but then again, the sim market is struggling to survive. First Person Shooters are still best on PCs (if only because of the mods) but there are some console examples that are stealing some of the PC thunder (Halo, R6 Vegas, CoD3 are some current examples).

For anything else (e.g. regular gaming) the odds are it'll be easier to play on a console since 1) things work first time (although the latest console patches are a worrisome development) 2) the game is configured/optimised for the console 3) everyone will have basically the same install, so multiplayer is easier to set up and use. Besides which there are many extremely good games which are not available for PC (well emulation is a different matter!).

As for hardware prices - yes a good spec. PC costs more than a contemporary console, but the games on the console are often almost twice as much as their PC counterparts, and do not get discounted as quickly/heavily. As a result PC vs console costs are actually not that much different. PC costs more upfront, while Sony and MS sell their consoles at a loss in order to make up the difference on game sales. Nintendo do make a profit on their consoles, but then again, the Wii (like the Gamecube before it) is lower spec'd than the other consoles of the generation.

r.