Graphics On The 360

[Jonny2410]

 

I realise there's a heck of a lot of city to render, but the aforementioned games both had a similar amount of rendering to do and both did it well.

Please don't tell me that you think the previous games took as much processing power as IV does to render...

If we can place fanboyism on hold for a while, the point is that GTA's graphics are second rate, and yes, I really do think that CoD4 and AC have as much rendering to do as GTA IV - I mean haven't you played them?. I think the graphics engine Rockstar is using is outdated - it needs a revamp or replacement otherwise the GTA franchise is going to go downhill really fast. Maybe you want that but I don't. People are going to be REALLY disappointed if, two or three years down the road, GTA5 has the same tired old graphics engine that it has now. Your attitude of 'Shut up, everything is fine' can only weaken the franchise. The franchise can only remain strong if we are willing to criticize the areas that need improvement.

I know what your saying they aren't exactly amazing but would you rather

 

Have the graphics we have at the moment and best gameplay experience (IV's features suck - no planes, jetpacks etc.) in the next gta

 

Or Amazing graphics and sh*tty gameplay

 

Obviously i would like a bit of both but they have to lend there time to one or the other especially with how large the city is.

 

Personally i would rather they spend more time on improving the fun factor of the game and perhaps lighting the atmosphere up a bit because IV does have a dark feel.

 

But yes i agree with you that the graphics do look a bit dated in places

[Beery]

 

I know what your saying they aren't exactly amazing but would you rather

 

Have the graphics we have at the moment and best gameplay experience (IV's features suck - no planes, jetpacks etc.) in the next gta

 

Or Amazing graphics and sh*tty gameplay?

I think CoD4 and AC prove that we can have amazing graphics and great gameplay too. These games have proven that the Xbox360 is fast enough to do it all if the graphics engine is up to the task.

 

Anyway, we could go back and forth on this all day, and I want to play the game at some point, so I think this will be my last post in this thread. The point is, GTA5 needs to have a graphics update otherwise the franchise will be in trouble. You can have all the gameplay in the world, and that alone will satisfy some gamers, but if the franchise is to remain on top (as it is now) it has to keep up with the technology of the times in terms of graphics. Stagnation is not good for the game.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Beery

[Jonny2410]

 

I know what your saying they aren't exactly amazing but would you rather

 

Have the graphics we have at the moment and best gameplay experience (IV's features suck - no planes, jetpacks etc.) in the next gta

 

Or Amazing graphics and sh*tty gameplay?

I think CoD4 and AC prove that we can have amazing graphics and great gameplay too. These games have proven that the Xbox360 is fast enough to do it all if the graphics engine is up to the task.

Any grand theft auto game takes a much longer time to produce than a fps - i mean cod4's storyline is about 6 or 7 hours long while Iv's can be, with all the side missions, 50 to 60 hours long.

Add this to the task of creating a massive city with all the little details down allyways etc and it is a long process.

So the game takes a long time to produce (2004 onwards) and therefore the engine in which it is based on also naturally gets dated.

 

I'm not a Rockstar fanboy and infact i think gta IV has been the worst of the series so far but the overall city etc is a masterpiece in detail.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Jonny2410

[cps82]

I know what your saying they aren't exactly amazing but would you rather

 

Have the graphics we have at the moment and best gameplay experience (IV's features suck - no planes, jetpacks etc.) in the next gta

 

Or Amazing graphics and sh*tty gameplay?

I think CoD4 and AC prove that we can have amazing graphics and great gameplay too. These games have proven that the Xbox360 is fast enough to do it all if the graphics engine is up to the task.

CoD4 you can't compare, completely different ball park. AC just shows how gameplay suffers to the expense of graphics.

 

I think it looks great, filters are a tad over done imo but apart from that.

 

If your graphics look like this 360 or PS then you have nothing to worry about.

[zeno52]

 

I know what your saying they aren't exactly amazing but would you rather

 

Have the graphics we have at the moment and best gameplay experience (IV's features suck - no planes, jetpacks etc.) in the next gta

 

Or Amazing graphics and sh*tty gameplay?

I think CoD4 and AC prove that we can have amazing graphics and great gameplay too. These games have proven that the Xbox360 is fast enough to do it all if the graphics engine is up to the task.

Guys, there is always a balancing act between graphics quality and framerate. You have to keep CPU and GPU overhead in mind. Once again, I have a background in 3D modeling/animation and game modding, so maybe I can shed some light on why GTA games have subpar graphics:

 

Comparing GTA to COD or AC is stupid. Neither game has as much overhead as GTA. A GOOD comparison will be Mercenaries 2 when that comes out, since it is also a massive sandbox game with the same type of overhead.

 

First of all, Call of Duty 4 only has to load small maps - not a huge world, with draw distance that goes out for MILES.

Assassin's Creed - same deal - there is no mile-long draw distance.

Neither have a CPU-intensive physics engine, either.

Neither have a world full of complex AI characters. AC characters just walk around pretty much. Call of Duty just has some enemies, but they are pretty scripted and not as complex or have anywhere near as many interactions as GTA's NPCs. So, CPU overhead for NPCs for both of those games is pretty low. You won't see COD enemies bumping into each other, then having a conversation about it, for example.

 

Neither game has tons of vehicles that can interact with each other and pedestrians as well.

 

Day/Night cycles make a BIG difference because it means shadows can't be "baked" into the maps. For COD, a lot of the shadows you are seeing are actually painted in/static, and the graphics engine isn't having to constantly calculate and render shadows. That's because the lighting source never changes. GTA is ALWAYS having to calculate, animate, and render shadows within the player's visual field.

 

The reason the shadows are so blurry is because they are using a less costly algorithm. For really crisp, anti-aliased shadows, GPU processing increases immensely. Those of you who do PC gaming probably know that adjusting shadow quality for games like Oblivion and Crysis have the biggest performance impact firsthand. Moving from excellent to poor shadow quality in these games can boost performance by up to 10 - 15 frames per second! That's HUGE! So, cutting out crisp shadows and adding a blurry depth of field effect wasn't merely an artistic choice - it was an optimization.

 

So, the way game engines are optimized, is they test it's performance under full load. In GTA4, this would be causing a huge car pile-up, exploding tons of cars at once, while it's raining (or whichever weather is most intensive, maybe sun's shadows would be worse), and there are tons of pedestrians being affected by the explosion. And you know what? It will slow down some. This is why Satchel Charges aren't in the game. Doing 6 (or however many charges you could do in previous games) explosions at once would cause noticeable lag.

 

The 360 isn't that powerful, people! I have a top of the line computer (better than PS3 and 360), and I'm sure this game could tax it quite heavily! There's a LOT going on in the background!

 

I hope this clears things up. Next time, compare like to like. Even Saints Row might not be a good comparison since it doesn't make use of the highly intensive Natural Motion physics engine.

Edited May 8, 2008 by zeno52

[Jonny2410]

I know what your saying they aren't exactly amazing but would you rather

 

Have the graphics we have at the moment and best gameplay experience (IV's features suck - no planes, jetpacks etc.) in the next gta

 

Or Amazing graphics and sh*tty gameplay?

I think CoD4 and AC prove that we can have amazing graphics and great gameplay too. These games have proven that the Xbox360 is fast enough to do it all if the graphics engine is up to the task.

 

This is why Satchel Charges aren't in the game. Doing 6 (or however many charges you could do in previous games) explosions at once would cause noticeable lag.

 

 

Gameplay and fun sacraficed for graphics

 

Thats what annoys me

[zeno52]

I know what your saying they aren't exactly amazing but would you rather

 

Have the graphics we have at the moment and best gameplay experience (IV's features suck - no planes, jetpacks etc.) in the next gta

 

Or Amazing graphics and sh*tty gameplay?

I think CoD4 and AC prove that we can have amazing graphics and great gameplay too. These games have proven that the Xbox360 is fast enough to do it all if the graphics engine is up to the task.

 

This is why Satchel Charges aren't in the game. Doing 6 (or however many charges you could do in previous games) explosions at once would cause noticeable lag.

 

 

Gameplay and fun sacraficed for graphics

 

Thats what annoys me

What I don't understand is why couldn't they just allow only one to be detonated at once? It would still be nice to place a single satchel charge on a pedestrian

 

But yeah, from one of the previews or developer interviews I read, optimization of the framerate was why satchel charges were removed.

 

I also would've been happier with slightly less graphics quality in order to have slightly more gameplay. As long as the same physics engine could stay

[a_flyin_penguin]

CoD4 has all pre-rendered sh*t with no realtime lighting for the day and night cycles. Of course everything is going to look better on that. It's much more simplistic. Think about the gameplay experience as well. CoD is a narrow, heavily scripted linear experience and IV is absolutely the opposite. I can't believe some of you are so dense. As for the features, who wants a jetpack in NYC? You guys are just being ridiculous. The series is growing up and maturing. Grow up and mature with it or switch affiliation to Saint's Row. They have all that fantastical crap you are yearning for, and you don't have to worry about the story. That takes a huge backseat to all the insane customization you can do. I'm not being mean. I'm just telling you that SR2 is going in the direction that you guys want GTA to go, but that's just not going to happen any more.

 

Gameplay and fun were not sacrificed for graphics. The silly, childish gimmicks were taken out to accommodate the new direction for the series. The gameplay, in my opinion, is richer and more fun than it's ever been. I guess you guys won't be satisfied with anything until you can fly a musclebound gangbanger in heart boxers, sporting an afro around with a jetpack after hopping off your bicycle, shooting dual SMGs at pre-generated clusters of guys wearing purple and pink again, will you?

Edited May 8, 2008 by a_flyin_penguin

[Jonny2410]

 

CoD4 has all pre-rendered sh*t with no realtime lighting for the day and night cycles. Of course everything is going to look better on that. It's much more simplistic. Think about the gameplay experience as well. CoD is a narrow, heavily scripted linear experience and IV is absolutely the opposite. I can't believe some of you are so dense. As for the features, who wants a jetpack in NYC? You guys are just being ridiculous. The series is growing up and maturing. Grow up and mature with it or switch affiliation to Saint's Row. They have all that fantastical crap you are yearning for, and you don't have to worry about the story. That takes a huge backseat to all the insane customization you can do. I'm not being mean. I'm just telling you that SR2 is going in the direction that you guys want GTA to go, but that's just not going to happen any more.

 

Gameplay and fun were not sacrificed for graphics. The silly, childish gimmicks were taken out to accommodate the new direction for the series. The gameplay, in my opinion, is richer and more fun than it's ever been. I guess you guys won't be satisfied with anything until you can fly a musclebound gangbanger in heart boxers, sporting an afro around with a jetpack after hopping off your bicycle, shooting dual SMGs at pre-generated clusters of guys wearing purple and pink again, will you?

Hmm thats one strange opinion you have there..

 

I thought the point of video games was for fun? I didn't play VC or SA for a simulation of real life with ultra realism , i played it for the gameplay and fun. Fun is what GTA is built on and what makes it one of the best series of games.

 

yes euphoria has added some amusement but so many features have been removed its silly.

 

"Who wants a jetpack in NYC?" - For fun!!! Comeon don't be so boring, jeez

 

"Gameplay and fun were not sacrificed for graphics. The silly, childish gimmicks were taken out to accommodate the new direction for the series"

Err actually satchel charges were removed due to frame rate problems - sacraficed for graphical reasons. And are satchel charges really " silly, childish gimmicks" - no.

 

So in that case if your so mature and hate all these " silly, childish gimmicks " - you must have hated III, VC and espescially SA - 3 of the best games ever produced.

 

"The gameplay, in my opinion, is richer and more fun than it's ever been." - That is correct and i agree with you but imagine what it could have been like with previous features remaining?

 

" I guess you guys won't be satisfied with anything until you can fly a musclebound gangbanger in heart boxers, sporting an afro around with a jetpack after hopping off your bicycle, shooting dual SMGs at pre-generated clusters of guys wearing purple and pink" - Err we had that in SA and thats what so many people enjoyed about it.