How did the ps3 and 360 perform so well graphically?

[aj654987]

Its always like that. PS2 only had 32 mb of Ram but look at what its games were like versus a PC with that amount of Ram.


Also look at Metal Gear Solid and Gran Turismo on PS1 which only had a 33mhz processor and 2 MB ram and compare that to what would be a 386 from the late 80s and the massive difference in graphics.


Its as others said the programmers get really good at doing a lot of tricks with the graphics to make them look better than they are.

 

[vshah]

Apparently you are the only one who thinks so. All reviews have been good to great, and being that I have the game, the character models, including faces are top notch for console and even better than pc games currently.

the character body models are great, the faces and facial animation just suck IMO. Halo 4 had better face models and animation.

 

[Randum]

No it isn't. It doesn't actually look as good. Side-by-side, it simply isn't as visually nice. For me, being used to no "cheap tricks", it doesn't look good even _without_ any comparison!


I mean, those screenshots look like a blurry mess (from upscaling). Draw distance is short (hidden by fog). The trees are obviously low polygons (you can see the straight edges). Look at the log on the ground in the middle of the second screen shot. Jaggies (and would look worse in motion). First screenshot's car door, blocky and low polygons. The bushes right above and behind that car, flat sheets of leaves. Ground textures are blurry (I've been running 8-16x AF forever on the PC now).


And this is only 720p at 30FPS (PC standard is 60FPS so that's already twice the work) when I've had been running 1680x1050 on the PC since before the PS3 came out and have upgraded to 1920x1200 since.


Don't get fooled by the bloom and light rays from the sun, those have been easy to do since before 2006.

Isn't the point to trick the viewer?! I like when they squeeze great visuals out of low-end hardware. I'd appreciate a PC game that did this!

 

[ChronoReverse]

The point is that it DOESN'T trick the viewer if you actually looked. But the standard for consoles is low enough that it's a stepup compared to what came before.

Don't get me wrong, The Last of Us look great... compared to other console games.

 

[Doppel]

The point is that it DOESN'T trick the viewer if you actually looked. But the standard for consoles is low enough that it's a stepup compared to what came before.

Don't get me wrong, The Last of Us look great... compared to other console games.

Apparently it DOES trick the viewer. The eye is a fickle thing, susceptible to many illusions (google optical illusion). Tricking it is good design. If it cuts the frame rate in half to put in some lighting effect that is only noticeable when stopping specifically to look for it, you leave that out.

PS3 cost $800 or so when it came out. I defy anybody to post screens from a game that looks better than the last of us on the PC on hardware chat cost $800 in 2006. Note I'm making this fair: not saying find a 2006 PC game that looks as good; it can be a recent game--but it has to be on hardware that was about $800 back in 2006.

 

[purbeast0]

not sure where you got that $800 number from, but ps3 launched at $500/$600.

 

[BertolomeoDiaz]

i do know it was 800€ when it was brand new in germany
a friend of mine bought it for that price
but it had somewhat bigger hdd as the version that followed soon after
i think it was 80Gb instead of 40Gb

 

[Doppel]

not sure where you got that $800 number from, but ps3 launched at $500/$600.

I think Sony ate $200 or something like that on them at launch.

 

[Raduque]

not sure where you got that $800 number from, but ps3 launched at $500/$600.

BoM was about $830 on a PS3 at launch. So he's being generous. I don't think anybody is going to be able to meet his challenge.

 

[ChronoReverse]

BoM was about $830 on a PS3 at launch. So he's being generous. I don't think anybody is going to be able to meet his challenge.

The problem is that it's the wrong question really.

The question could be reversed and the 360/PS3 wouldn't be able to meet the challenge either.


For example, in 2006, the X2 3800+ was $140 with an $85 mobo. You can get 1GB of RAM for about $120 along with an $95 320GB hard drive (the PS3 came with 80GB at best during launch). Round it out with a case, PSU and optical drive for $110. Slap in an X1900XT for $200.

Totals $750 (retail and thus higher than actual cost) and you can play F.E.A.R. at 1600x1200 with max quality, 4xAA, 16X AF with framerates averaging 33FPS (standard FPS for the consoles but unacceptably slow for PC).

Not only is that twice the resolution of almost any PS3/360 game (and using high AA/AF that no 360/PS3 game uses), it's doing some interestingly dynamic shadowing (and effects) that's very visible and not really matched in this regard by 360/PS3. It also has some nice emergent A.I. behaviors that are rather surprisingly clever sometimes.



Now I know what the shortcuts they used in F.E.A.R. are but if we're going to be using the standard of "fools the unsuspecting player", then it's a fair to use it for the PC games too.

Obviously it's nowhere near as efficient as the latest 360/PS3 games but that's not the parameters here either.

So the arbitratry specifications here simply aren't a good way to compare in the end.

 

[Doppel]

The problem is that it's the wrong question really.

The question could be reversed and the 360/PS3 wouldn't be able to meet the challenge either.


For example, in 2006, the X2 3800+ was $140 with an $85 mobo. You can get 1GB of RAM for about $120 along with an $95 320GB hard drive (the PS3 came with 80GB at best during launch). Round it out with a case, PSU and optical drive for $110. Slap in an X1900XT for $200.

Totals $750 (retail and thus higher than actual cost) and you can play F.E.A.R. at 1600x1200 with max quality, 4xAA, 16X AF with framerates averaging 33FPS (standard FPS for the consoles but unacceptably slow for PC).

Not only is that twice the resolution of almost any PS3/360 game (and using high AA/AF that no 360/PS3 game uses), it's doing some interestingly dynamic shadowing (and effects) that's very visible and not really matched in this regard by 360/PS3. It also has some nice emergent A.I. behaviors that are rather surprisingly clever sometimes.



Now I know what the shortcuts they used in F.E.A.R. are but if we're going to be using the standard of "fools the unsuspecting player", then it's a fair to use it for the PC games too.

Obviously it's nowhere near as efficient as the latest 360/PS3 games but that's not the parameters here either.

So the arbitratry specifications here simply aren't a good way to compare in the end.

Resolution doesn't impress me unless we're comparing apples to apples (same game). Screen shots talk. Half Life at 1600X1200 doesn't look anywhere near as good as a 360/ps3 game at 720p.

I think the challenge is still fair. Find PC hardware that cost $800 in 2006 and identify a single game that looks as good as the last of us. It can't be done, and not because the PC's hardware is weaker, but because the time isn't spent building the game to that specific hardware.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It isn't fair to compare that way because that isn't how pc hardware and pc games are done. New video cards and CPUs come out every 6 months or so. Nobody is playing 2013 games on 2006 hardware. It doesn't even support the proper directx version.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Resolution doesn't impress me unless we're comparing apples to apples (same game). Screen shots talk. Half Life at 1600X1200 doesn't look anywhere near as good as a 360/ps3 game at 720p.

See, this is why it's not a fair comparison because the deck is stacked in the first place!

In what kind of world does resolution not count as a quality bump as well? If you ask someone to compare, side-by-side, something in low resolution (upscaling to 720p) to something in crystal sharp high resolution, would they not think "this one is sharper!"?



Then there are so many details that you can't capture in stills. Moving jaggies as opposed to high levels of AA, low resolution textures with shimmer in motion vs sharp textures with AF applied. Moving dynamic shadows as opposed to static baked in shadows. Flat textures either applied to the ground or baked into the distance so you never see it up close as opposed to bump-mapped surfaces that are damaged by every bullet. Every object in levels are moveable and the majority can even be interacted with by the A.I. actors and not just the player (seriously, the A.I. will do things like push down shelves for cover and it's not scripted, F.E.A.R. was well known for its A.I.)!

And this is just F.E.A.R., a 2005 game (that took until 2006 before rigs can run it well).



If you discount the things where a PC game looks better and no 360/PS3 looks nice in those areas (more than just resolution!) then what's the point of asking? Again, I'll reverse the question back to you. Find a 360/PS3 that does the same sort of dynamic effects F.E.A.R did with A.I. as good. I won't even ask for high resolution or AA. Set it at 720p.

 

[007ELmO]

lol resolution counts, doppel being non scientific.

 

[Raduque]

The problem is that it's the wrong question really.

The question could be reversed and the 360/PS3 wouldn't be able to meet the challenge either.


For example, in 2006, the X2 3800+ was $140 with an $85 mobo. You can get 1GB of RAM for about $120 along with an $95 320GB hard drive (the PS3 came with 80GB at best during launch). Round it out with a case, PSU and optical drive for $110. Slap in an X1900XT for $200.

Totals $750 (retail and thus higher than actual cost) and you can play F.E.A.R. at 1600x1200 with max quality, 4xAA, 16X AF with framerates averaging 33FPS (standard FPS for the consoles but unacceptably slow for PC).

Not only is that twice the resolution of almost any PS3/360 game (and using high AA/AF that no 360/PS3 game uses), it's doing some interestingly dynamic shadowing (and effects) that's very visible and not really matched in this regard by 360/PS3. It also has some nice emergent A.I. behaviors that are rather surprisingly clever sometimes.



Now I know what the shortcuts they used in F.E.A.R. are but if we're going to be using the standard of "fools the unsuspecting player", then it's a fair to use it for the PC games too.

Obviously it's nowhere near as efficient as the latest 360/PS3 games but that's not the parameters here either.

So the arbitratry specifications here simply aren't a good way to compare in the end.

I love F.E.A.R. but there's no way in hell it's as pretty overall as The Last of Us.

 

[ChronoReverse]

I love F.E.A.R. but there's no way in hell it's as pretty overall as The Last of Us.

Eye of the beholder.

I find flat, shimmering textures and jaggies everywhere distracting and ugly. Not that The Last of Us is ugly, but these things do detract if we're going to so picky about it.

I appreciate it when, after a firefight is done, a room looks like the lobby in The Matrix after Trinity and Neo mowed down the guards. Bullet holes everywhere (that aren't flat decals), shelves knocked over, objects destroyed and scattered all around.

And that while I'm in said firefight, there are shining, sparkling, shadowing effects galore while the AI replicants actually utilize cover in a game where there's no cover system.


I can't say it's "beautiful" which is what The Last of Us goes for, but it's still visually stunning. The more interesting thing is that FEAR is hardly the most stunning game in that time-frame but one that came to mind as running very well on sub-$800 hardware in 2006.

 

[Raduque]

In the eye of the beholder. I find flat, shimmering textures and jaggies everywhere distracting and ugly. Not that The Last of Us is ugly, but these things do detract if we're going to so picky about it.

I'm honestly not that picky about it. I've never had an ultra mega super uber powered gaming PC. The most badass, for it's time, GPU that I ever had was a GeForce 3 Ti200 that I ran at Ti500 clocks. I'm used to playing without AA since the days before AA was a thing.

appreciate it when, after a firefight is done, a room looks like the lobby in The Matrix after Trinity and Neo mowed down the guards. Bullet holes everywhere (that aren't flat decals), shelves knocked over, objects destroyed.

And that while I'm in said firefight, there are shining, sparkling, shadowing effects galore.


I can't say it's "beautiful" which is what The Last of Us goes for, but still visually stunning.

I appreciate it too, and I don't disagree, F.E.A.R.'s environmental destruction is definitely visually stunning, but the game is not pretty. And I maintain that there is no PC from that era that can maintain playable framerates in a game that is as pretty as TLoU.

Edit: And for your comparing pleasure, F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin at max settings and The Last of Us, both indoor shots featuring two character models. F2PO is running on my gaming rig, an E8400/6gb/GTX460 768

 

[ChronoReverse]

I appreciate it too, and I don't disagree, F.E.A.R.'s environmental destruction is definitely visually stunning, but the game is not pretty. And I maintain that there is no PC from that era that can maintain playable framerates in a game that is as pretty as TLoU.

Well, let's make something clear here. We're talking about technological stunningness right?

Because whether a game looks pretty is much more dependent on the artists working on the assets (and full credit to them). This is why even games running at 480i in the Gamecube/PS2 age can look amazing despite the ridiculously limited hardware.


But that's a separate issue from graphics engine efficiency which is why I focused on "visually impressive" as opposed to "beautiful".

The two screenshots you posted are a good example of what I mean. The Last of Us screenshots are unequivocably more beautiful. But that's a function of the great work the artists put into the textures. And it's also hidden by the fact it's a still screenshot. In actual moving gameplay, the clothing textures (which look great) are much less convincing.

 

[Raduque]

Well, let's make something clear here. We're talking about technological stunningness right?

No, I don't believe so.

He specifically said "looks as good".

 

[ChronoReverse]

Okay, I'll concede that point then. But then it's more an issue of artists and not "performs well because of optimization".


If that is the final conclusion, that is, "How beautiful a game looks is more dependent on the artists" then I fully agree.

But I dispute that the PC engines of the time, without additional coding, are not capable of doing a similar or better level of graphics given the same artists. It's obviously less efficient but PC's had enough umph that the limiting factor is art assets.




And I'll still point out that with arbitrarily set parameters, you can just as easily make the 360/PS3 lose out too. Say if I asked for a console game that had similar levels of shadowing, environmental interactiveness and visual fidelity that I can walk around after a fire-fight admiring how I can look _into_ bullet hole gouges without being distracted by jaggies and blurry ground textures.

 

[Raduque]

But I dispute that the PC engines of the time, without additional coding, are not capable of doing a similar or better level of graphics given the same artists. It's obviously less efficient but PC's had enough umph that the limiting factor is art assets.

More than likely, you are correct. I think during that time, PC game engines were more used as development platforms for bringing amazing technologies (such as the destructible environs or the A.I. as in the F.E.A.R. games) to games, and I think only lately has focused more on providing us with prettier as well as technically capable games.

 

[Doppel]

See, this is why it's not a fair comparison because the deck is stacked in the first place!

In what kind of world does resolution not count as a quality bump as well? If you ask someone to compare, side-by-side, something in low resolution (upscaling to 720p) to something in crystal sharp high resolution, would they not think "this one is sharper!"?

That's exactly what I said--that is an apples to apples comparison. Resolution alone tells me absolutely nothing about how a game looks except to say that it looks better at a higher resolution than a lower one. Again my example: Half Life at 1600X1200 runs at a higher resolution than anything on a PS3/360 but looks worse than pretty much everything on those.

Looking at the screen shot comparison in post #67 that PC game looks wildly less impressive than the last of us. It's clear, but its textures are drab .

 

[BrightCandle]

There is a big visual quality difference between the two, the last of us is clearly a lot less complicated to render, can you guys see that?

A large amount of the geometry has been baked into the textures, so where there should be polygons in the hair, in the backpack and in the scene in general in practice there is just a bump mapped texture (one with basic lighting built into it). It looks like there is a lot of detail in the scene whereas in reality its all in the textures and it wont light that correctly at all.

In contrast in the F.E.A.R 2 screenshot you can tell there is a much higher poly count because the edges of the characters are smoother and the lighting is dynamically produced on the clothing. The odd result of which is that because dynamic lighting and ambient occlusion are not that great in quality yet that the lighting model actually looks worse and the lower quality textures are really apparent.

But F.E.A.R 2 is doing more than the last of us is, its dramatically more advanced in its rendering. The last of us looks like they get a large amount of the effect of the look from pre baked textures with ray traced lighting models in built. They then layer that onto a very low quality model and live with the jaggered nature and use post processing to apply the dynamic lighting. In essence a lot more was done upfront in texture creation to make the last of us look as good as it does, but technically there isn't a lot going on.

Its worth mentioning there is absolutely nothing stopping that from happening on a PC game, infact games like Rage and Battlefield do use a lot of ray traced scenes to prebake the lighting of the world in a similar way. But they can also combine this with more advanced effects if they should choose to, they just didn't. The last of us is special, in being single player only and with having very limited set piece scenes they could control the lighting circumstances completely and that allowed them to get away with this, but it looks like your playing a CGI movie rather than a truly dynamic game at least from the make up of the pictures I have seen of the game.

Its technically unimpressive but it looks good because of the textures. That could be done on PC as well as consoles there is nothing special about the technique these guys used to make this fit onto the PS3. In many ways its a shame they had to crunch down the geometry and compromise the actual true image quality so dramatically to get the look, that is after all what developers have to do for this incredibly aged hardware, costs them a lot of time and money to do it and the end result while better than the release titles in some ways is worse in a lot of others.

 

[Raduque]

Its worth mentioning there is absolutely nothing stopping that from happening on a PC game, infact games like Rage and Battlefield do use a lot of ray traced scenes to prebake the lighting of the world in a similar way.

Funny you should mention RAGE because that game's near-field textures look absolutely TERRIBLE. Even when I forced it to do more than my system is capable of, resulting in an unplayable slide show, it still looked about Doom3-level textures.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Rage was interesting because it's probably the only game that you needed a SSD to max it out because of the way it streamed textures. I never played it but some reports are that a SSD allows the textures to stream fast enough for sharpness that you otherwise never get even with superior GPU specs