The first TRUE DX12 title (DualShockers)

[Alqoxzt]

Huh? The visual impact of PBR shouldn't be affected by camera angle and distance in this way at all.

You mean how far the camera is from the player doesn't make any effect on how much sharp a surface will look.
I mean the closer to the surface we get the more dull the PBR/PBSed surface will become.
I observed this while playing evolve(an FPS).
And indirect light in paragon is not up to the game in OP.
Anyway ue4 looks plastic even with PBR as compared to Cryengine.

 

[dogen1]

I'm comparing the PC version of GoW4 with the PC version of Paragon, so differences in resolution and frame rate doesn't really apply.

I think it does. The fact that it's really an xbox one game, and a 1080p one at that, limits how good it will look.

 

[antihelten]

You mean how far the camera is from the player doesn't make any effect on how much sharp a surface will look.
I mean the closer to the surface we get the more dull the PBR/PBSed surface will become.
I observed this while playing evolve(an FPS).
And indirect light in paragon is not up to the game in OP.
Anyway ue4 looks plastic even with PBR as compared to Cryengine.

Of course moving further away from an object will make it less sharp since it occupies fewer pixels, but I'm not talking about sharpness here, I'm talking about PBR.

And no, moving closer to the surface of an object should not make it look more dull with PBR. One of the most well known examples of well implemented PBR out there is probably Ryse, and the main characters armor certainly doesn't start looking dull and plasticy when you move closer to it

Also could you give me an example of where you think the indirect lighting in GoW4 looks better than Paragon?, cause I'm really not seeing it.

And as far as UE4 looking plasticy even with PBR, it is perhaps not as good as Cryengine, but I would still dare say that Paragon does a much better job in this regard than GoW4. Just have a look at the character models and their different skins, in particular the Master skins.

I think it does. The fact that it's really an xbox one game, and a 1080p one at that, limits how good it will look.

And Paragon isn't equally limited by the fact that it's a PS4 game?

 

[dogen1]

And Paragon isn't equally limited by the fact that it's a PS4 game?

Not at all. A game running at 900p on a ps4 has a lot more horsepower available than a xb1 game running at 1080p.

 

[antihelten]

Not at all. A game running at 900p on a ps4 has a lot more horsepower available than a xb1 game running at 1080p.

Paragon runs at 900p at 60 FPS. GoW4 runs at 1080P at 30 FPS in the campaign and in multiplayer horde mode, and at 60 FPS in competitive mode. Furthermore GoW4 utilizes adaptive resolution, which lowers the resolution in intensive scenes to avoid having the FPS dip (although as the analysis from digital foundry showed, even this is not enough to keep the framerate at the target at all times).

So Paragon pushes at least 39% more pixels per second compared to singleplayer and horde mode, and at most 31% fewer pixels per second when compared to competitive mode. The exact number of course depends upon how often and by how much adaptive resolution lowers the resolution in GoW4

The GPU in the PS4 pushes about 40% more TFLOPS than the Xbox One, but given that game performance never scales perfectly with TFLOPS, and that the two consoles are much closer in other departments (such as the CPU), the extra performance of the PS4 is probably somewhere in the 0-30% range depending upon how CPU limited you are.

As such I really don't see how GoW4 would be more limited than Paragon during development. Furthermore looking at the settings menu of GoW4, it certainly doesn't give the impression of the developers just phoning in the PC version.

 

[Alqoxzt]

Of course moving further away from an object will make it less sharp since it occupies fewer pixels, but I'm not talking about sharpness here, I'm talking about PBR.

And no, moving closer to the surface of an object should not make it look more dull with PBR. One of the most well known examples of well implemented PBR out there is probably Ryse, and the main characters armor certainly doesn't start looking dull and plasticy when you move closer to it

Also could you give me an example of where you think the indirect lighting in GoW4 looks better than Paragon?, cause I'm really not seeing it.

And as far as UE4 looking plasticy even with PBR, it is perhaps not as good as Cryengine, but I would still dare say that Paragon does a much better job in this regard than GoW4. Just have a look at the character models and their different skins, in particular the Master skins.



And Paragon isn't equally limited by the fact that it's a PS4 game?

On Indirect lighting

you can see we can see detail and if could not find detail then at least we can see something present in the area in this scene where there is no direct sunlight

but in paragon

just darker areas with not much revealing details where there is no sunlight.

 

[dogen1]

Paragon runs at 900p at 60 FPS. GoW4 runs at 1080P at 30 FPS in the campaign and in multiplayer horde mode, and at 60 FPS in competitive mode. Furthermore GoW4 utilizes adaptive resolution, which lowers the resolution in intensive scenes to avoid having the FPS dip (although as the analysis from digital foundry showed, even this is not enough to keep the framerate at the target at all times).

So Paragon pushes at least 39% more pixels per second compared to singleplayer and horde mode, and at most 31% fewer pixels per second when compared to competitive mode. The exact number of course depends upon how often and by how much adaptive resolution lowers the resolution in GoW4

The GPU in the PS4 pushes about 40% more TFLOPS than the Xbox One, but given that game performance never scales perfectly with TFLOPS, and that the two consoles are much closer in other departments (such as the CPU), the extra performance of the PS4 is probably somewhere in the 0-30% range depending upon how CPU limited you are.

As such I really don't see how GoW4 would be more limited than Paragon during development. Furthermore looking at the settings menu of GoW4, it certainly doesn't give the impression of the developers just phoning in the PC version.

I thought we'd only seen the multiplayer so far.

 

[antihelten]

On Indirect lighting

you can see we can see detail and if could not find detail then at least we can see something present in the area in this scene where there is no direct sunlight

but in paragon

just darker areas with not much revealing details where there is no sunlight.

The GI in those two shots from GoW4 really don't look particularly impressive to me, and there are clearly areas that are improperly shaded.

Of the two Paragon shots you linked, the first one looks far better than the GoW4 shots, nice deep shadows and a lot of depth to the scenery. The second shot is a blurry mess so it's impossible to judge anything from it, kinda like if you tryed to conclude anything from this GoW4 shot. However there are several other Paragon shots out there that shows of the GI much better, such as this one (slightly blurry shot, but nice diffuse lighting), or this one (notice the nice light bleed from the coloured light source), or this one

I thought we'd only seen the multiplayer so far.

Carfax posted some videos from the single player campaign earlier in the thread, also the reveal gameplay trailer from E3 last year was from singleplayer.

 

[dogen1]

Carfax posted some videos from the single player campaign earlier in the thread, also the reveal gameplay trailer from E3 last year was from singleplayer.

Oh ok, and I forgot about the dynamic resolution.

 

[antihelten]

Oh ok, and I forgot about the dynamic resolution.

No biggie, and don't get me wrong I think GoW4 looks nice and it appears to run great as well, I just don't think it's the very best looking UE4 game we have seen so far.

 

[Carfax83]

Hahaha that's more like you are the one trying to seek out validation for your petty upgrade. I am not the one who started this whole argument cherry picking scenarios.

Actually it was you that started it, by whining about the benchmarks from GamersNexus which used a water cooled GTX 1080 that didn't even have that high of a clock speed because the GTX 1080 opened a can of whoop ass on the GTX 1070 and you felt the need to defend it for some odd reason..

Buyer's remorse perhaps?

60FPS isn't some magical number that exceeding it suddenly puts the game on a whole different level than 56FPS lol seriously!

If your monitor uses a 60Hz refresh rate like 90% of the monitors out there, then dropping below 60 FPS can be jarring and very noticeable if Vsync is enabled..

Why do you think PC games have so much focus on 60+ frame rates?

And yes of course a card that is 20% faster will provide a better experience in demanding scenarios whoever denied that?

Except it's not just 20% faster, it can be quite a bit more depending on the game and the circumstances. In some games, it's over 30%, like Deus Ex MD.

Nobody said anything about the 1070 being a valid upgrade over the 980Ti. Seems like you are trying to validate yourself again. Trying to blame the other for validating their decision is a classic cop out when I showed most of your numbers to be wrong!

Eh, don't really care about validating anything. By next year, I will have a GTX 1080 Ti. My GTX 1080 is just temporary

 

[Carfax83]

@Alqoxzt, those screenshots look really terrible. I can't believe GameGPU didn't even have the decency to use .png rather than jpegs. The best way to solve this debate is to look at the footage I posted earlier of 4K Ultra. 4K on YouTube is as close as we're going to get for now to viewing it on our own screens..

The footage looks incredible, especially compared to the Xbox E3 footage of the same area posted this year. With the 4K footage, you can at least get a grasp of the crispness of the texture quality and the quality of the material shaders..

 

[Shmee]

Ok, so MS account required. Is it possible to sign up for a Microsoft account and login for the game but still use the local account on my PC?

 

[Pseudoics]

Ok, so MS account required. Is it possible to sign up for a Microsoft account and login for the game but still use the local account on my PC?

You can sign into the windows store and other apps individually. Just look out for the 'this app only' or similar when it asks for a Microsoft account sign in.

I've finished Act 1 last night with insane settings on 1080p with a 1070 without a single drop below 60fps apart from a very short 4 seconds towards the end. The game is gorgeous. Not always, but it's definitely worth a look for enthusiasts.

 

[tg2708]

You can sign into the windows store and other apps individually. Just look out for the 'this app only' or similar when it asks for a Microsoft account sign in.

I've finished Act 1 last night with insane settings on 1080p with a 1070 without a single drop below 60fps apart from a very short 4 seconds towards the end. The game is gorgeous. Not always, but it's definitely worth a look for enthusiasts.

How are people playing when the game releases on the 11th?

 

[Pseudoics]

How are people playing when the game releases on the 11th?

The Ultimate Edition unlocks a few days earlier. Plus, I'm in Australia so not sure if that also gave us a head start.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

As a note, this new "Ultimate Edition" incentive is a very nice business model. Make it so you can pay an extra $40 to actually get the game almost a week earlier than everyone else. By the time the second-rate $60 customers are able to play, everyone's already finished the game and all the discussion has already happened. By far the most effective "preorder" bonus yet. $100 games are closer than ever.

 

[Alqoxzt]

The GI in those two shots from GoW4 really don't look particularly impressive to me, and there are clearly areas that are improperly shaded.

Of the two Paragon shots you linked, the first one looks far better than the GoW4 shots, nice deep shadows and a lot of depth to the scenery. The second shot is a blurry mess so it's impossible to judge anything from it, kinda like if you tryed to conclude anything from this GoW4 shot. However there are several other Paragon shots out there that shows of the GI much better, such as this one (slightly blurry shot, but nice diffuse lighting), or this one (notice the nice light bleed from the coloured light source), or this one



Carfax posted some videos from the single player campaign earlier in the thread, also the reveal gameplay trailer from E3 last year was from singleplayer.

Ok got it.
The screenshots you posted clearly shows Paragon has better PBR and diffuse return(but still black areas at some places). Actually the screen shots I posted are from google and a bench site as I don't own either of game and videos of Paragon on youtube are kinda 1hour long and don't reveal much detail as screens posted by you show.

 

[Thinker_145]

Actually it was you that started it, by whining about the benchmarks from GamersNexus which used a water cooled GTX 1080 that didn't even have that high of a clock speed because the GTX 1080 opened a can of whoop ass on the GTX 1070 and you felt the need to defend it for some odd reason..

Buyer's remorse perhaps?



If your monitor uses a 60Hz refresh rate like 90% of the monitors out there, then dropping below 60 FPS can be jarring and very noticeable if Vsync is enabled..

Why do you think PC games have so much focus on 60+ frame rates?



Except it's not just 20% faster, it can be quite a bit more depending on the game and the circumstances. In some games, it's over 30%, like Deus Ex MD.

Eh, don't really care about validating anything. By next year, I will have a GTX 1080 Ti. My GTX 1080 is just temporary

lol you really need to grow up man......

Dipping just below 60 is no big deal with fast sync or triple buffered vsync which are the only 2 ways one should ever be using vsync.

And please don't bother posting benchmarks which make no mention of the actual GPU used. The hardware unboxed review makes no mention of what variants of the cards were used. We know with FE vs FE comparison the difference is 24%.

There are games like that and then there are games like this.

And hence we use averages.

 

[antihelten]

Ok got it.
The screenshots you posted clearly shows Paragon has better PBR and diffuse return(but still black areas at some places). Actually the screen shots I posted are from google and a bench site as I don't own either of game and videos of Paragon on youtube are kinda 1hour long and don't reveal much detail as screens posted by you show.

The various shot from Paragon posted here doesn't really have any completely black areas, they do however have some extremely dark areas, however having extremely dark areas is perfectly natural with GI. For instance take a look at some of the UE4 tech demos, like the elemental demo, the infiltrator demo, the cave demo, or for a really extreme example the Apollo demo (which uses Nvidias VXGI), all of these demos display some really dark areas.

 

[Carfax83]

OK, now that I have the game I've been playing, and I can say I'm mightily impressed! Mostly from the level of optimization involved, but also from the graphics. Yes the graphical potential has been severely blunted from the game being designed primarily for the Xbox One (most apparent in the early stages of the game), but the UE4 is so scalable that the PC version still looks fantastic and you see it more and more as the game continues!

One thing that is particularly awesome, is how CLEAN the game looks. I haven't noticed not one single instance of temporal aliasing since I've been playing, which is really amazing! Also the lighting for the flashlights which uses real time global illumination is fantastic! Not only does it illuminate the environment fairly realistically using single bounce, but it also casts dynamic shadows. Other notables are the material shaders (UE4 is amongst the best at this) and the particle effects..

Haven't had any issues playing at 1440p ultra, runs at 60 FPS constantly with no frame drops. Game is memory hungry though. Before I closed it to write this post, it was using almost 10GB of RAM, and about 7.6GB of VRAM. Anyway, here are some high quality .pngs that I took which are totally superior to that garbage that RS deep linked from GameGPU:

 

[Erenhardt]

It actually doesn't look that bad. Lets say visuals are 4/5 for a 2013 game.

 

[Carfax83]

^^ Even though my screenshots are much better than GameGPU's, they are still screenshots. The game looks way better in motion when you are actually playing it. Like I said earlier, the thing that impresses me the most is how clean it looks. No shimmering or flickering at all anywhere, at least none that I've noticed..

Even Doom doesn't look nearly as clean as Gears 4. If you thought that Doom's 8xTSSAA was good, wait till you see Gears of War 4's temporal aliasing! Anyway, check out Digital Foundry's Gears of War 4 tech review video:

 

[Grooveriding]

Yeah it looks okayish.. but like a title from a few years ago. Meanwhile Battlefield 1 early trial released today and is the best looking PC game to date, along with being very well optimized in the usual DICE fashion.

 

[Carfax83]

Yeah it looks okayish.. but like a title from a few years ago. Meanwhile Battlefield 1 early trial released today and is the best looking PC game to date, along with being very well optimized in the usual DICE fashion.

How's the DX12 performance?