Jump to content

Analysis of GTA V's graphics


Miss Darko

Recommended Posts

Anyway, you should look at the jump from IV to V like going from GTA III to SA. There's already another game after IV with the same engine, and it's called Red Dead Redemption. V's tech won't feature just better graphics (That's evident by the trailer) but more options, better AI, etc running in the same old base hardware (Xbox 360), imo.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, you should look at the jump from IV to V like going from GTA III to SA. There's already another game after IV with the same engine, and it's called Red Dead Redemption. V's tech won't feature just better graphics (That's evident by the trailer) but more options, better AI, etc running in the same old base hardware (Xbox 360), imo.

This.

And we seen just the graphics in the trailer, which are in early stages. Wait for the second or even third trailer. I absolutely think the graphics will be a bit better. Remember GTA IV first trailer? The graphics were low compared to the final game. So...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember which thread induced a seeming Flameboy rant about Playstation 3's HiDef attributes, but I thought anyone who'd been wondering more, just look at the Wiki, also take my advice from personal experience, the PS3 output to a 1080 capable monitor with 720P mode as well, the games look great on it, there's only so much graphical detail you're going to SQUEEZE out of GTA IV as the main example, because it had plenty of NOT SO HD objects and textures

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, you should look at the jump from IV to V like going from GTA III to SA. There's already another game after IV with the same engine, and it's called Red Dead Redemption. V's tech won't feature just better graphics (That's evident by the trailer) but more options, better AI, etc running in the same old base hardware (Xbox 360), imo.

This.

And we seen just the graphics in the trailer, which are in early stages. Wait for the second or even third trailer. I absolutely think the graphics will be a bit better. Remember GTA IV first trailer? The graphics were low compared to the final game. So...

I saw no graphical improvement from the trailer to the final release?

 

The only difference I'm aware of is that in early trailers and screens of IV, Niko's model was slightly different. (Hair).

 

What you see in the trailer graphically is pretty much what your going to get. The game is more than likely nearly done and ready for promotion which is why they released a teaser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong and excuse me if this has already been discussed, but I believe that the whole concept of this topic falls on the fact, that we have most likely seen none gameplay material from V and you're comparing cutscene material to gameplay material, which means that the whole point of comparison doesn't exist since cutscene animation and gameplay animation are two completely different things.

 

 

What you should be comparing is this

 

 

 

to this

 

 

 

...quite obviously ending up making the conclusion that V's cutscene quality is better than IV's.

8wjrzl.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, in the GTA IV trailer, the sun actually glared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post by the OP! THIS is the type of post that this forum need more of, rather than the over the top bitching and complaining that is prevalent. Great observations about the graphics, and SHOULD silence most of those who keep harping about how it's going to be exactly like GTAIV, as if THAT would be so bad anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the shots we see in trailer aren't really easily explained by simply calling them cut scenes. The whole vibe of the trailer seems to be Rockstar showing off their new animations. Take a good look at MP3's animations. It's clear Rockstar can make very good animations. Is it really that hard to believe that the ped animations would be a step up from what we saw in IV ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obviously a current gen game, the graphics, while great, would look way way way better if it was a next gen game, I think people are confusing technical stuff with artstyle stuff, it looks so much better than IV mostly because of the colorful filter.

G1T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong and excuse me if this has already been discussed, but I believe that the whole concept of this topic falls on the fact, that we have most likely seen none gameplay material from V and you're comparing cutscene material to gameplay material, which means that the whole point of comparison doesn't exist since cutscene animation and gameplay animation are two completely different things.

In GTA cutscenes are not different from gameplay except actors are performing the movements and facial expressions of a fully-scripted dramatic scene, and the camera is used cinematically. The game engine is still drawing it in real time using the same assets used in gameplay. Most of the footage in the trailer, except the robbery scene, looks like stuff that would happen in free roam gameplay. That's why people are able to mostly recreate the trailer in GTA IV's video editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's obviously a current gen game, the graphics, while great, would look way way way better if it was a next gen game, I think people are confusing technical stuff with artstyle stuff, it looks so much better than IV mostly because of the colorful filter.

The graphics in the trailer are probably close to what the game will look like when released. The graphics in GTAIV looked just like in the trailers see:

And also RDR's trailer looked just like in-game:
So were going to see a noticeable improvement in the graphics of GTAV in comparison to other R* games, don't you worry. Edited by Elric101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we're comparing GTA V to is Red Dead Red and GTA IV, not LA Noire because it's not really in the same league.

 

NextBox or LOOP is said to have TWO GPUs like most SLI and Crossfire card set ups on PCs. This is a great tact for console design if they can keep it reliable and cooled!

===============================

GTA IV is worked on game engine called "rage". It's developed by Rockstar games brand and I think it will be used in GTA V, but of course, improved. New York is in grey colors(Fall), but the GTA V LA will be more orange cause it's summer. What do you think? That's my opinion.

 

=================

 

http://beta.ivc.no/wiki/index.php/Xbox_360_Revisions

 

New update worth checking out ^

 

As for RAGE/Euphoria, we know, that's the engine that took 4 and half years to build, it's evolving and hence my statement prior and above ^

Edited by Slamman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The-San-Andreas-man
It's obviously a current gen game, the graphics, while great, would look way way way better if it was a next gen game, I think people are confusing technical stuff with artstyle stuff, it looks so much better than IV mostly because of the colorful filter.

The graphics in the trailer are probably close to what the game will look like when released. The graphics in GTAIV looked just like in the trailers see:

And also RDR's trailer looked just like in-game:
So were going to see a noticeable improvement in the graphics of GTAV in comparison to other R* games, don't you worry.

The original GTA 4 graphics looked vastly different from what the game looks like now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Machiavelli's Prophecy

I'm really not sure if the trailer was console footage because it just looks too good to be true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think there was a difference between trailers, cutscenes and gameplay, but that's only a marginal one, since the game engine still does the work in real-time, it's just intended that you don't have control of the character or effect the camera on things such as those, where story, narrative, presence, staging, all are important to the game designer and how the plotting typically presents itself.

 

Certain studios... Naughty Dog... are making attempts to do this as the game goes along, you have most of the control, then a small cutscene direction takes over before handing control back to you, keeping you more in the game, however, cutscenes allow a nice break from intense action typically... you're rewarded in that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

In Red Dead Redemption, when you start going further and further from a town, say Armadillo, the lights in that town start disappearing, and when you go on a high point, say the hill that leads to Macfarlane's ranch, and you overlook the town down the hill, you don't see the lights inside and surrounding the town, it rather turns into a completely black area which somehow breaks the immersion. When you zoom in, the lights alongside the textures start getting rendered to appear onto the screen. It's fine with the textures, but the developers at San Diego studio should have devised a method by which the lights can appear even in the furthest point from a given lightened town or cabin, so that the immersion doesn't break up.

 

You have a game like Just Cause 2 in which the lights don't disappear in the distance, even from small cabins grouped in a certain area. I think it's something related to how the game's area is handled by the engine. When you're in Nuevo Paraíso and looking into New Austin, you don't see any pedestrians or land animals passing by within the land of New Austin, and when you shoot by the canon inside El Presidio into the land of New Austin, no effects happen although the distance between the two lands isn't that long, only a short length of San Luis river separates them from each other. This led me to think that when you're in Nuevo Paraiso for example, the game's engine disregards the other lands in terms of the moving objects (i.e., animals, pedestrians), and the possible physics effects you may apply to that land (i.e., the effect of a canon).

 

The conclusion is that, for a better immersion, I would like to see the issue of lighting fixed in GTA V. Since we're heading to rural regions, it would be nice to drive over a hill while you can see lights coming out of a small town in the far distance. It can look like a spot of light when you're over that hill, and man, for Los Santos, nothing would be more immersive than seeing the shining lights coming out from within and the surroundings of the city when you're in not the distant countryside, while you over a hill overlooking it.

Edited by FiS!!HeR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Red Dead Redemption, when you start going further and further from a town, say Armadillo, the lights in that town start disappearing, and when you go on a high point, say the hill that leads to Macfarlane's ranch, and you overlook the town down the hill, you don't see the lights inside and surrounding the town, it rather turns into a completely black area which somehow breaks the immersion. When you zoom in, the lights alongside the textures start getting rendered to appear onto the screen. It's fine with the textures, but the developers at San Diego studio should have devised a method by which the lights can appear even in the furthest point from a given lightened town or cabin, so that the immersion doesn't break up.

 

You have a game like Just Cause 2 in which the lights don't disappear in the distance, even from small cabins grouped in a certain area. I think it's something related to how the game's area is handled by the engine. When you're in Nuevo Paraíso and looking into New Austin, you don't see any pedestrians or land animals passing by within the land of New Austin, and when you shoot by the canon inside El Presidio into the land of New Austin, no effects happen although the distance between the two lands isn't that long, only a short length of San Luis river separates them from each other. This led me to think that when you're in Nuevo Paraiso for example, the game's engine disregards the other lands in terms of the moving objects (i.e., animals, pedestrians), and the possible physics effects you may apply to that land (i.e., the effect of a canon).

 

The conclusion is that, for a better immersion, I would like to see the issue of lighting fixed in GTA V. Since we're heading to rural regions, it would be nice to drive over a hill while you can see lights coming out of a small town in the far distance. It can look like a spot of light when you're over that hill, and man, for Los Santos, nothing would be more immersive than seeing the shining lights coming out from within and the surroundings of the city when you're in not the distant countryside, while you over a hill overlooking it.

I understand where you are coming from, but how exactly does that ruin immersion? Truth be told when I leave a town in RDR I am more immersed in my next objective. Not if lights are on, peds are walking, or animals are moving in the town I just left. Why would they waste all that processing power on things that most players won't even notice. I agree on a higher end system those details would be nice and appreciated but as a console gamer I loved the environment. Around me the environment all felt alive and immersed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for a trailer or teaser the developer has put work to avoid bugs and glitches and add a little bit of color etc its all part of the marketing but i do believe it will look a lot better than gta 4 no doubt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a graphics whore, I hope we see iCEnhancer work as a Mod on GTA V, time will tell

 

As far as the two games, IV and V looking much different, they don't really, but it's a revisioned SA and looking just as good as a reinvented Liberty City.

 

Speaking about Red Dead Red, just leaving a town and not looking back??

HOGWASH!! complete Hog wash

 

You may not look for lights or peds, as in NPC, but you sure as hell used your scope rifle on other players, from as far as distance as possible, most often time, even when doing something like Twin Rocks, I used this method to clear the gangs out before getting too close. Using up scope ammo at least. I also used the method to see the difference between scope rifles. Outside of that, distance concerns were more likely in traveling to a place where other enemies exist and distance certainly plays a factor

Edited by Slamman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Invisible Don

 

Great first post cookie.gif

 

 

There was an important graphical advancement that L.A. Noire had, other than the MotionScan thing. It's this:

 

user posted image

 

Team Bondi licensed the Lightsprint SDK global illumination middleware for L.A. Noire. Global illumination basically simulates the way light bounces around and colors bleed onto other surfaces when the light rays bounce off of one surface onto other surfaces in the area. Notice how the colors of the surroundings in these images are seemingly reflected onto the characters and objects in the scene. The green tint on the golf players, the beige underglow on the wind turbines. This is what gives the trailer its almost CGI-rendered look at times (especially with the shot of the hikers in front of the mountain, in my opinion.)

Obviously, neither GTA IV nor RDR had this particular advancement, and this is, I think, what will be one of the most under-appreciated, yet awesome, improvements GTA V will have over GTA IV. It's very subtle, yet it breathes so much life into the world.

 

The color bleeding light thing is called Radiosity. Its an interesting debate about the footage being created on a high spec PC for trailer purposes only and that the final game wont look like that because calculating light bounces takes up a huge chunk of the processing resources. It would take a multiple processors or at least hyper threading to calculate it all in realtime and the time increases the more bounces and passes you have. Im not sure current hardware can handle all this going on in GTAV not to mention euphoria and the animations which all need to run simultaneously to create the world.

 

The trailer to me looks real time apart from a few scenes I hope the consoles will look the same otherwise it would be misleading and will only cause disappointment.

 

But I think Rockstar know this and it was done on a console.

It seems like there would be a way to optimize this though. If you can assume that wind turbines will only show up in dusty, outdoor areas, couldn't you then bake in the beige underglow somehow? And if people are standing on a golf course, or slightly above a golf course, you could assume a green underglow.

 

Radiosity is amazing. At first I always assumed it would become the next bloom, but it's so damn subtle that it can completely change the mood of a scene without being noticeable at all.

Edited by Invisible Don
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great first post cookie.gif

 

 

There was an important graphical advancement that L.A. Noire had, other than the MotionScan thing. It's this:

 

user posted image

 

Team Bondi licensed the Lightsprint SDK global illumination middleware for L.A. Noire. Global illumination basically simulates the way light bounces around and colors bleed onto other surfaces when the light rays bounce off of one surface onto other surfaces in the area. Notice how the colors of the surroundings in these images are seemingly reflected onto the characters and objects in the scene. The green tint on the golf players, the beige underglow on the wind turbines. This is what gives the trailer its almost CGI-rendered look at times (especially with the shot of the hikers in front of the mountain, in my opinion.)

Obviously, neither GTA IV nor RDR had this particular advancement, and this is, I think, what will be one of the most under-appreciated, yet awesome, improvements GTA V will have over GTA IV. It's very subtle, yet it breathes so much life into the world.

 

The color bleeding light thing is called Radiosity. Its an interesting debate about the footage being created on a high spec PC for trailer purposes only and that the final game wont look like that because calculating light bounces takes up a huge chunk of the processing resources. It would take a multiple processors or at least hyper threading to calculate it all in realtime and the time increases the more bounces and passes you have. Im not sure current hardware can handle all this going on in GTAV not to mention euphoria and the animations which all need to run simultaneously to create the world.

 

The trailer to me looks real time apart from a few scenes I hope the consoles will look the same otherwise it would be misleading and will only cause disappointment.

 

But I think Rockstar know this and it was done on a console.

It seems like there would be a way to optimize this though. If you can assume that wind turbines will only show up in dusty, outdoor areas, couldn't you then bake in the beige underglow somehow? And if people are standing on a golf course, or slightly above a golf course, you could assume a green underglow.

 

Radiosity is amazing. At first I always assumed it would become the next bloom, but it's so damn subtle that it can completely change the mood of a scene without being noticeable at all.

Indeed. It can make the difference between bad graphics and good graphics. Hopefully next-gen will allow for some real-time radiosity as well.

 

But I'm guessing they will do baked radiosity in this case, which of course won't be perfect since it will be static and won't change automatically based on the real lighting (they may have different versions though, like how they have day and night versions of building textures), but it'll look better than none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and when you shoot by the canon inside El Presidio into the land of New Austin, no effects happen although the distance between the two lands isn't that long, only a short length of San Luis river separates them from each other. This led me to think that when you're in Nuevo Paraiso for example, the game's engine disregards the other lands in terms of the moving objects (i.e., animals, pedestrians), and the possible physics effects you may apply to that land (i.e., the effect of a canon).

That's why you use a Nikon mate. Canon is for Noobs. cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germanviking86

Believe me when I say this, its not going to look like that once it hits shelves. I can predict a lot of graphic downsizing, just like they did in IV. I know for a fact that GTA IV wouldn't be half of what it is without realistic Textures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Believe me when I say this, its not going to look like that once it hits shelves.  I can predict a lot of graphic downsizing, just like they did in IV.  I know for a fact that GTA IV wouldn't be half of what it is without realistic Textures.

I honestly don't think GTA IV's graphics changed all that much from the trailers to the gameplay. Game designers make a point to showcase the game as flatteringly as possible, and they did take steps to prevent pop-in and other visual tics from the trailer, as well as recording gameplay in specific lighting conditions. Obviously the real game is going to seem like a step down from that, even though the graphics are basically the same.

 

These are GTA V's graphics at their best. But it's going to look basically like this whatever platform you're playing on. Worse LOD, some unflattering lighting at times, etc. The baked radiosity may also look a little weird at times when the lighting and the faked radiosity don't quite mesh together.

 

But do you really expect it to look completely different? That's kind of unlikely. I often hear people say that GTA IV's graphics in the first trailer looked better than the finished game, but I don't really see it. I think what we see is a very close approximation of what we'll get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand where you are coming from, but how exactly does that ruin immersion?  Truth be told when I leave a town in RDR I am more immersed in my next objective.  Not if lights are on, peds are walking, or animals are moving in the town I just left.  Why would they waste all that processing power on things that most players won't even notice.  I agree on a higher end system those details would be nice and appreciated but as a console gamer I loved the environment.  Around me the environment all felt alive and immersed.

I don't think that light being rendered in the distance inside or around a small town or a cabin would consume a considerable amount of processing power. Random lights, you know like those moving lights in the distance representing moving cars during night time in Liberty City, can be used to represent lights in a town in the far distance, and as you approach it, the density or the clarity of the lights around that town become more visible, and when you start getting near the town, the real light distribution inside and surrounding that town start getting rendered in a way that the player can't notice that they have just been rendered in front of his eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's fantastical game requirements all add taxing constraint to the hardware, more so in consoles it could be said, but PCs?!?!

 

Just look at how iCEnhancer is demanding even more number crunching then normal. You guys thought Crysis was hard on your system!??? haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.