Gameplay Graphics comparison

[dewan2000]

Same will be with gta v

I love how the texture isn't even loaded in on that Xbox screen in the middle set. Cool, accurate comparison.

Which makes it just as valid. Think about it, same exact location on both systems, but on PC the high quality assets and textures are loaded.

 

How is that not clear reasoning why the PC version is superior? It's just as valid bud. Quit grasping straws.

With that first screen, I could even see my PC getting a tad bit strained with loading some of that especially with draw distances cranked up and anti-liaising on high.

Im that since its a scene with a plane flying through the area at high speed that some of the rock textures are not fully loaded.

[DaRkL3AD3R]

Praying PC GTA 5 fixes this abomination.

[Tommy_Vercetti_Mob]

Wow...just...wow. no threes!!!

 

Does seem kinda odd, different location perhaps?

It's the same. Watch the gameplay video again. I think it's around 2:00

Now ive noticed it is the same spit, they took out the train?

Wow, notice how less detailed the railway is in the second shot than the first....

regardless its still amazing...

[DarrinPA]

Graphics aren't my number one concern, but I do miss the trees. I think it looked better with them. Unless it's just that they haven't loaded yet. Remember crashing into invisible trees that load AFTER you died.

[Tommy_Vercetti_Mob]

 

Completely neutered the environment. Seriously praying the PC version fixes all this weakness... god damn consoles.

I hope they port V to PC and Next Gen.....

[DaRkL3AD3R]

Crap. Something else made even more apparent now looking at that screenshot from the game-play trailer of the plane flying over the bridge, there's no shadows being cast from the terrain :| look at the far left side of the train-bridge. You can see that that should be clearly shadowed by the mountain but nothing. Light going straight through and hitting the support pillars. Damn man. Starting to understand what IGN and a few other preview people were saying... those screenshots are obviously done up.

[OysterBarron]

This could be a sign that they have also optimized for next gen consoles! I beleive the gameplay we are seeing is the results of optimization for current gen consoles.

[Miss Darko]

@DaRkL3AD3R

Actually the positioning of the shadows is correct. The screenshot and the gameplay footage are close to the same time, but the position of the sun is slightly lower in the gameplay footage. In the screenshot, it is almost directly above. In the footage, it's a little bit lower so more of the mountain is shadowed, but it wouldn't be casting its shadow onto the bridge. After all, look at where the bridge's shadow is.

 

I wouldn't worry about that. Even RDR got that right and it's an older game.

[2019Redifiv/2020Modifiv]

ok, I REALLY believe this is a question about the game having a

hard time loading the textures/objects fast enough when flying

fast. The most obvious evidence is how the railing on top of

the red train car has vanished in the gameplay video.

That is not because Rockstar has changed the train model, but

simply because the game can only manage to load in the low

LOD model of the train at that speed. I'm almost sure

that when playing the game, and you are hiking or driving through the area

the vegetation and detail will be same up close.

[brian.]

 

Wow...just...wow. no threes!!!

 

Does seem kinda odd, different location perhaps?

It's the same. Watch the gameplay video again. I think it's around 2:00

Now ive noticed it is the same spit, they took out the train?

Wow, that is a travesty.

 

Not only is that console gameplay shot super low detail textures, but the high res shot isn't even bigger than 720p, imagine how good it will look on native resolution on your computer.

 

I caught a lot of slack saying it will look like this in the end, and people bashed me for it, well there it is.

 

And @jevity, no, that is not evidence, it is further away, and you are viewing an LOD of the object. If the textures are that low on those rocks, you can bet the time has been spent dumbing it down ("optimizing it") to run on the systems they are launching on. The vision is in the promotional screens, but we won't get that until later I guess.

Edited July 12, 2013 by brian.

[Travís.]

You're taking stills from Youtube footage and then comparing them to screens that have been tweaked to have appropriate quality for their resolution. Hardly worthwhile.

 

I will say that I was surprised when you posted the first 2 screens because I hadn't realized they re-shot that angle from Trailer 1.

This

[brian.]

No, not that. Compressed flash video does a service to video games. Even the PC version of games on 1080p and maxed settings don't look as good as even console gameplay footage. It does something to the picture, hides things, blurs things, it makes GTA IV look like real life at 360 or 480p. Without ENB series, and a different kind of real life - "digital video real life" - Go watch footage of, for example, the boston bombing scene - go watch and tell me as a GTA fan that Rockstar didn't nail that news footage look in GTA IV. That games don't look more real, you will feel like half the time it's all being rendered in GTA IV lol.

 

Youtube doesn't make games look worse, it makes them look better just as much as worse. Real gameplay will never look as good as any screenshot or video, even on maxed pc settings, it will still look better on video or screenshots than actually moving pixels on your screen in real time. And no compression is going to delete trees and make textures so small they look like Nintendo 64 mario mountains. No, friends, that is the effects of crunch time and optimization for dinosaur consoles.

 

The degradation you see "real video" go through in compression for the web becomes a service to video games, because both end up false representations of the real thing, "real" video becomes crappy looking, but video games are made to look much like that crappy video of real people - so let's put an end to defending games based on "derp, it's a compressed youtube video!" because it is completely wrong, and the game looks better on youtube than it will stretched out huge on your tv screen, that is for damn sure.

Edited July 12, 2013 by brian.

[2019Redifiv/2020Modifiv]

Wow...just...wow. no threes!!!

 

Does seem kinda odd, different location perhaps?

It's the same. Watch the gameplay video again. I think it's around 2:00

Now ive noticed it is the same spit, they took out the train?

Wow, that is a travesty.

 

Not only is that console gameplay shot super low detail textures, but the high res shot isn't even bigger than 720p, imagine how good it will look on native resolution on your computer.

 

I caught a lot of slack saying it will look like this in the end, and people bashed me for it, well there it is.

 

And @jevity, no, that is not evidence, it is further away, and you are viewing an LOD of the object. If the textures are that low on those rocks, you can bet the time has been spent dumbing it down ("optimizing it") to run on the systems they are launching on. The vision is in the promotional screens, but we won't get that until later I guess.

two things.

 

1. the first screen is most likely shot while the dev camera was stationary =

the game had ample time to load in all assets completely.

 

2. watch trailer 2 and notice how the scene of Trevor flying through the same area looks great.

[brian.]

You are making the mistake of assumption. I am telling you on the other hand from eyesight and experience that I can tell by the triangle and texel density and the distance from the camera on that asset in either shot that one of them in near clip asset and the other is far clip asset. You can trust me, and you can see it for yourself if you look closely. If you do any GTA modding, you can tell as well that it is within clip on the high res one, but not on the low res. The mountains and some other stuff are close though, and they tell a story or dumbed down material shaders and highly shrunken textures.

 

You're looking at like, all LOD of what is in the other image, drawing a lot further in the other image, none of the "rail on the car" image is LOD, that sh*t is drawing super far. That is some PC settings, view and detail distance, and the "gameplay video" screenshot, is the console version, with tiny textures and missing spec/normals and lots of seams and blurry and low detail distance etc .

 

The rest of the stuff is not close range however.

 

I will tell you this: On the PC, we will have in addition to "traffic density" a "detail density" or "foliage density" and that will put all those trees where they are supposed to be, and we will also have "medium" and "high" textures, if not also "extra" or "very high", that will fix those little 64x64 rocks/mountains that have now had their material dumbed down, normal map distance became laughable, if it's there at all. I suppose the cost of being the first in line will be to deal with the issues and solutions of the hardware. Probably worth it for people who cannot wait to get their hands on it.

 

More power to you, I'll appreciate your vids until it comes to PC, and thanks for taking one for the team

 

They really had to tame this game I see, it's a shame, but I'm sure the PC and nexgen console releases will make up for it. And I am 100% sure a PC version is coming, and I don't see why they wouldn't launch a "complete edition" on the new consoles at the same time, after their initial run up to launch and post launch content is finished up on the old consoles.

 

IF I had this game pre-ordered, I would cancel after seeing this and just wait for a PC version. A game like GTA where you can see so far, it can't be truly enjoyed unless it actually supports the resolution it's on. That screenshot is just as low res as SA, with squared off patches of grass instead of the smooth rounded grass to rock blends in the other image - it's a real disappointment. The one screen is amazing, the other looks like mario64 with a bigger game world than usual. N64 could never do what you see there, but damn, the age of those consoles really shows once some optimization has been done.

Edited July 12, 2013 by brian.

[GTAaLEX117]

@Brian. Are you really suggesting that a compressed video screenshot is supposed to look as realistic as an actual in-game screenshot? The fact remains that this video is not raw footage of the game, but is heavily compressed. You can't even see the textures properly.

Though the texture problem may be more about the loading times since the players is coming into the area fast and at a certain altitude. The grass and rock are a long way from looking like SA... look at this, this is how they would look fully loaded, and up close:

 

[gtafanny]

Two words: Motion Blur. the graphics difference isnt that great in idle shots, but the trees and bridge detail is another thing

[brian.]

GTAaLEX117, I'm saying that footage of my MW2 gameplay even on PC looks way better on youtube than it did when I initially recorded it. And I don't downscale or any other trickery, and the source footage looks exactly like the game (record lossless), but the compressed video looks much more like a go-pro real-life digital headcam than playing the game looked - follow on, let me explain this.

 

I am saying that GTA IV on youtube looks way better than it even does on max resolution and settings on my pc.

 

The compressed video hides things that you can easily spot during raw gameplay. Lossy encoding does a service to games in the exact same way it does a DISservice to actual film.

 

ACTUAL FILM suffers from lossy compression like Youtube, but video games are complimented quite well by it. In the same way they it encodes lower information of a streetlight in film, it does so in games. What is lost in film, is also lost in games, but what is also lost in games, actually makes them end up looking better.

 

That screenshot looks better than the game will ever look in real time, in motion, even better than it will look on higher resolutions man, it is what it is. You can take a picture of a tree and a painting of a tree and apply filters OR compress them enough to the point they are indistinguishable - the same applies to games. As a film becomes more and more lossy, it starts to look like video games are achieving these days, and as a game becomes more and more lossy, it hides artifacts and blurs it makes it look more realistic.

 

You can see it for yourself. Go launch up any game and then go watch that game on youtube hd. It looks more realistic, because the compression can't tell it isn't real, and the compressed video - film or game - is merely a lower-informed representation of the original info it was passed. In other words: The tree painting looks real if you compress it enough, and the tree photo looks like a painting if you do so as well.

 

Did I explain that clearly? Not sure basically, even high res gaming on PC doesn't match the approximations of video compression and their benefits to otherwise flawed real time 3d

 

Those screens we saw leading up are on settings the consoles can't handle, and that many people won't be able to achieve on their PC's either. They aren't retouched or anything, they are just the high settings running at 720p. Even slightly better settings on PC is till acceptable when you consider how much less jaggy it will be since most modern graphics cards do native monitor resolution better than lower resolutions in 3d applications (for example, lowering gta iv resolution also lowers its performance and it runs best at you monitor's native).

 

720p is only made up of so many squares - no amount of aa, blurring, or other tricks are going to fix a low resolution display - it's still just 720 dots high and 1280 dots wide. It's tiny, it's not got enough squares small enough to support a far clip that draws hard edges and detail as far as Rockstar does. It's not enough resolution for most games, let alone one that draws this far. Games like mass efect lod things at like 20 meters away. GTA, not until much further, upwards of 300 meters. That means you need a lot more pixels to support those shrunken/pixelated/far models that are not yet switched to LOD. 720p simply cannot support the medium or far clip of these games. We've seen it in IV, we'll see it in V.

 

Run GTA IV on the lowest possible resolution, and then you will see why San Andreas would have looked like sh*t on PS2 if it had more detail. It looked great, not too much aliasing. Now, seeing IV on that res, it looks like utter sh*t, it looks bad at 720p, and begins to look okay at around 1600x1200 give or take. That detail crunches nasty in the distance before then, and horribly at SA/PS2/640x480 resoltuion. It's stepping backward to show the point forward - it's why I cannot sit around and entertain "it's just screenshots and just video, the real game will look better"

 

Because it won't. It simply will not. It will look fine for the consoles and do fine and if you were okay with IV, you'll prolly be okay with V. But I myself was not okay with IV - for all the low resolution textures, low resolution display, jagginess of geometry beause it's just not enough squares in small enough space to look good shifting the pixels around the screen - it's too "coarse", and now I see, the texel density is super low as well.

 

It's whatever though, I'll be watching it on youtube until it comes to PC and Mac anyway, so it'll look great

 

And yea, there are some things that get lost in compression, and some things that look better in the raw gameplay, but the blurriness and approximations that can't tell it's a game or a film or a picture do service to video games and sort of enhance them in their own way, armed with what I've said here, go check it out, you'll see games like LA Nolire, which suffer from uncanny valley, suffer a bit less on youtube Games like GTA IV, look like real life cities [cities in digital video!] on youtube, when you watch them side by side in different tabs with actual city videos.Even the max settings on PC don't look like that.

 

In shortest terms: Much "realistic" look of games in preview videos is due to the compression algo can't tell the difference between game or movie, and does what it does as it does it - what brings film down in quality, brings games closer to film quality, just off the strength of going through the same process, resulting in loss of information, in the case of film, you lose detail, in the case of games, you lose a lot of artifacts

Edited July 12, 2013 by brian.

[DeafMetal]

Don't really care much for graphics but holy sh*t I can't wait to see how this looks maxed out on my PC.

[K20]

how IV looked on PC, is how V will look on consoles.

[dinoSAUR230]

The lighting is nowhere near as good as in the trailers. It's so dull, there are no flares on the camera or decent shadows

[Mr. Sleepy]

Instead of whining your bitchy mind about the YouTube "compression" fallacy which is not even true, go download the video like I did from Rockstar's website at 720P and then compare the shots, face it, consoles can't take that level of detail and they had to remove a lot of sh*t so the game can run decently, I hope by the time that GTA V comes to PC they will fix these mutations and abominations, I want the vegetation because it adds to the immersion, fix your sh*t Rockstar when you release it for PC and better make it a good port.

[GTAaLEX117]

And yea, there are some things that get lost in compression, and some things that look better in the raw gameplay, but the blurriness and approximations that can't tell it's a game or a film or a picture do service to video games and sort of enhance them in their own way, armed with what I've said here, go check it out, you'll see games like LA Nolire, which suffer from uncanny valley, suffer a bit less on youtube Games like GTA IV, look like real life cities [cities in digital video!] on youtube, when you watch them side by side in different tabs with actual city videos.Even the max settings on PC don't look like that.

 

In shortest terms: Much "realistic" look of games in preview videos is due to the compression algo can't tell the difference between game or movie, and does what it does as it does it - what brings film down in quality, brings games closer to film quality, just off the strength of going through the same process, resulting in loss of information, in the case of film, you lose detail, in the case of games, you lose a lot of artifacts

Again that's all fine and dandy, but you still didn't really explain this: http://www.igta5.com/images/gameplay-1-the...ncudo-river.jpg

 

That's how the textures would look up close, fully loaded, and from a stationary position. Not from an altitude shot, from a distance and with motion blur.

If you want to actually look at the terrain properly, you need a screenshot like that.

 

But I agree that the HD screenshot they released is way too detailed to be from a current gen console, it's more than likely from a dev console.

[d3ex2]

You're all crazy! I think the game looks amazing.

 

I'm a PS3 owner btw. You just have to face the fact that consoles simply can't handle all this sh*t. They have to remove some stuff to make the game run well.

 

Seriously I'd take less trees if it meant better performance.

 

I've watched the gameplay trailer a million times and not one frame of it disappoints me. I'm surprised it looks this good on consoles! If you want better graphics, higher resolution, more cars, peds or objects then get a PC. I will still love the sh*t out of GTA V. I've played III, VC, SA and IV on a PS2/PS3. I've never played on PC. Console games are still a load of fun.

 

 

[Mr. Sleepy]

If I recall and understood correctly, a dev console uses less performance than a finished console, or vice versa. Bleh..

[GTAaLEX117]

It's also funny how people only rely on that high speed, altitude, blurry screenshot to try to justify bad textures. They never really think about looking at other parts of the trailer, like these:

 

http://www.igta5.com/images/gameplay-1-joyride.jpg

http://www.igta5.com/images/gameplay-1-mt-...d-i-presume.jpg

http://www.igta5.com/images/gameplay-1-now...y-parachute.jpg

 

And my favorite: http://www.igta5.com/images/gameplay-1-down-i-come.jpg

[badass nyuka]

Did they capture the footage with an hdmi cord or an av cable ?

[Shane_Dbns]

Someone pls post that screen cap from the gameplay trailer when franklin was walking in the desert type region, it looks almost next gen

[VATG]

 

http://www.rockstargames.com/V/screenshots...ot/221/1280.jpg[/img]

http://oi39.tinypic.com/10pnlhz.jpg

I don't get you. Both different places, both still shots and you get a screenshot from YouTube for the second pic?

 

YouTube compresses the video to make it look a bit worse.

those comparison were made for general impression only, i ain't gonna lie i'm feeling a bit cheated because SOME of the images that are displayed on R* website

even though i knew there is no chance in the world the game will look like this and this is probably a PC/next gen screens...

 

The snapshot was taken from the flv version (307 MB) downloaded of R* website, but i understand what your saying and i think your right this isn't a direct feed or raw video and yes those are different places/time of day (still this is the closest thing to the official screenshot) and there are many more things to consider like texture loading time, camera angle etc., overall i still think the game is beautiful and amazing.

Edited July 12, 2013 by VATG

[_FRANKENSTEIN_]

GTA 4 PC images are way better than console ones

[brian.]

 

And yea, there are some things that get lost in compression, and some things that look better in the raw gameplay, but the blurriness and approximations that can't tell it's a game or a film or a picture do service to video games and sort of enhance them in their own way, armed with what I've said here, go check it out, you'll see games like LA Nolire, which suffer from uncanny valley, suffer a bit less on youtube Games like GTA IV, look like real life cities [cities in digital video!] on youtube, when you watch them side by side in different tabs with actual city videos.Even the max settings on PC don't look like that.

 

In shortest terms: Much "realistic" look of games in preview videos is due to the compression algo can't tell the difference between game or movie, and does what it does as it does it - what brings film down in quality, brings games closer to film quality, just off the strength of going through the same process, resulting in loss of information, in the case of film, you lose detail, in the case of games, you lose a lot of artifacts

Again that's all fine and dandy, but you still didn't really explain this: http://www.igta5.com/images/gameplay-1-the...ncudo-river.jpg

 

That's how the textures would look up close, fully loaded, and from a stationary position. Not from an altitude shot, from a distance and with motion blur.

If you want to actually look at the terrain properly, you need a screenshot like that.

 

But I agree that the HD screenshot they released is way too detailed to be from a current gen console, it's more than likely from a dev console.

Bro, that's not motion blur in the plane image - that is straight up low resolution textures. You can look at them, compare them, to the other screenshots, you can SEE the seams and it's not a post effect like motion blur, it's much lower resolution textures, while the screenshots you can see even the ridges on that train - the screenshot was false, the gameplay video is the true detail. Motion blur, altitude, none of that is going to make the blended grass on the far right turn lower poly square like that. Pop in and late drawing of the near clip map, we may be looking at LOD, but that is then some seriously bad pop in.

 

And the screenshot you keep posting, I don't really need to address but will: that is at least half the texel ratio of the comparison shots (half the texture size) and far less detailed material, with the spec washed out, and the normal map far less detailed than the promotional parachute screen.

 

We are seeing "Foliage Density: High", "Textures: High" "View/Detail Distance: 100" PC options in one screen, and set-in-stone console settings in the video (medium textures, 20 view and detail, no foliage density, etc).

Edited July 12, 2013 by brian.