Here's some random pics of Bo3; Let's see some of WoW or any Blizzard game that looks better. Then we can vote on which is the most realistic...
This is an in-game, in-engine, realtime rendered cutscene from StarCraft II, released in July 2010. Observe the bad graphics, the ****ty animation, the non-existent post-processing effects... Oh yeah... Saying that the company who patches games more than a decade after release (16 years for Diablo 2 and 14 years for Warcraft 3) doesn't care about support... They even have a completely open way to communicate the changes with their audience, unlike most developers I've ever seen. Legacy of the Void was more or less built along with the community. How can you compare that to the yearly CoD payfest? WTF. Blizzard's game support is LEGENDARY. I don't know any other company giving so much back after purchase.
I am really sorry, that I brought CoD into this. But you do not need to inform everyone that you support some kind of dogma about CoD getting modern game engine filled with modern rendering techniques. And you will support that with any kind of false argument/image. That top image is wallpaper CGI art made in one of tools made for 3D photo realistic rendering. They just imported resources required for given scene from game and cranked up texture resolution. That bottom one is propagation material with everything staged (frozen). Then fine tuned with photography HDR correction in Photoshop or something and that hints there may have been additional modifications. (How I know? Because game does not have proper lighting and shadowing system able to achieve this level of dynamic contrast.) And finally downsized to hide remaining deficiencies. Now, if we look at best this game provides: 4k, Ultra details. Which means 1080p looks worse. But let's forgive inconsistent texture LOD between objects. Look at 1:00 (1 minute 0 seconds). Slow down playback to 0.25x. Player Jumps up, goes around "HELP" sign. And then around 1:05~1:06 moves around corner to left. At that point he either traveled in time to year 2003. Or game engine did not update that particular feature to anywhere near 2016 standard. May you be so kind and explain to us what exactly that dark object there is and what we can see on its 'surface'? Spoiler Edit: And considering, your post above complaining about real in game screenshot... You did not show any in-game renders. And that video from PrMinisterGR. Those are cut scenes rendered live by game engine. And as game came out I played it as usually on max details. It took me few of those cut scenes to start to suspect they may not be pre-rendered as Blizzard did till then. Then I lowered all details to minimum and re-played them. And at that point I was amazed as I realized what DX9 can do in right hands. Edit2: And please learn to use spoiler tags for high resolution images. As they break way forums are displayed even at 1080p, and mobile users are hit much worse.
how to take a screenshot on a pc Pretty close tbh, taken at 1920x1200. Click for full-resolution. More to follow...
That's because you do not realize how painfully obvious differences there are. To list few proper thing on Wallpaper render. - Proper volumetric lights in background * beautifully done self casting shadows and detailed lighting + skin reflection - Depth of Field which does not distort/alter geometry of blurred objects So, what went wrong with actual game render? - effect of lights on its surrounding geometry is completely butchered, especially visible on smoke * what happened to this guy's skin? There is some greenish inversion which infects even his hair. Is that supposed to be subsurface light scattering of sorts? - That in-game DoF effect invented some new geometry to entire scene. Mech on right is severely affected, but you may claim that he has such shape till you see him on ray traced render. But this DOF managed to even cut quite some holes into bollard on the left. And if that screenshot from menu is indeed yours... Do yourself a service and get some free screen gamma calibration software.
By Cod Ghosts vs AW2 vs BO3 I didnt see any real gfx enhanced transition apart from a little higher player model detail (AW2 and BO3) and that's mostly visible ingame menus. This is only multiplayer comparison, I've played all three. COD Ghosts raised the bar and it stayed there (terrain - maps), actually AW2 and BO3 have moments where it can look worse, less detailed textures and less tessellation/reflections.
Perhaps I was too hasty and should have just posted my own screenshots from the start. You are correct re first pic. I chose it cause it didn't have all the menu options in the way. The pictures come out darker than what I see onscreen even with fraps, even changing between srgb and hdtv settings in-game doesn't affect the screenshot. "shrugs". In-game I have brightness set to 0.30 Even 1.0 doesn't do much. I do enjoy your nit-picking, though, especially as there still isn't any screenshots of Blizzard games to compare. Perhaps it's time to compare fps vs fps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf4obtLgDDE vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVz00c5ARBM Then I came to realise there is no comparison. Blizzard go for cartoony look, not realistic.
I think AW and BO3 runs better than Ghosts. I do love old school shooters movement and it was really AW that got me interested in COD multiplayer again. There is a massive call for them to remove all the movement stuff though in the next game as it seems the majority didn't like it.
It's not like I posted a WHOLE HOUR of in-game graphics for StarCraft II (which is a 2010 title), right? Those graphics look like that in the ship where you play the Terran campaign for the game. That's how it looked when you were in the ship.They are realtime renders and where looking like that when I had a GTX 275. You play all the campaign and your base of operations looks like that.. What's your point exactly? The art style? CoD goes for "realistic" with creepy Kevin Spacey in 2016 looking BARELY better than a Blizzard game from 2010 that you can run on dirt?
You should enjoy my criticism as I take it lightly. Because I tend to criticize even myself. I did consider this one as image with some light post processing. You made me look at actual BO3 footage and now I think that guy on right with rocket launcher did not shoot that rocket at all. You see, there is that flame in front of it and smoke puffs with quite a lot of space in between them. In actual game, rockets leave pretty dense and darker smoke trail. As for darkness of your screenshot, that's probably due to some nVidia driver magic enhancement. I did never like it, but many do. So, if it is actually not that dark and has proper contrast on your screen, then it is fine. I would not really go as far as comparing animated style game to something aspiring to represent 'real' like environments as you realized yourself. But you can always look for consistency and out of place effects like that one I pointed out in post #65. I found another unseemly thing there right after, but that was not as horrific to look at. By 'consistency and out of place effects' I mean: - having high detail textures next to, or over low detail ones. - popping-in geometry at close range - popping-in high textures over low detail ones which are not matching them. (altering what you see) - baked-in reflections used on other objects than those they were made for - use of old baked-in reflections after updating surrounding geometry - enabling/disabling visual effects with distance (especially if they cover significant portion of visible scenery) = pop-in of shadows, lights, reflections, fog, ...
If this was Domination mode (it's not); the guy on the left is standing very close to site B. This area of the map is highly contested and is hectic at times. I will say I don't know if it's doctored or not, but, it looks very close to in-game, if it isn't. I've got some screenshots now to compare for that map and a few other ones. Bare in mind I use fov 120 so perspective is not comparable. They are fully doctored using in-game and game config.ini options only No paint shop pro etc. I have removed my name in one pic using windows paint for privacy. edit: it seems using direct link doesn't seem to show my original screen resolution. These are all small compared to actual 1920x1200 used. Also due to messing with brightness pics look a little washed out. edit 2: fixed links. click to open, click the picture in the new tab for full-resolution versions.
The StarCraft II shot you gave is from the strategy part of the game. I was talking about the campaign part of the game that had realtime graphics like this (look at the 26th minute): In 2010. At the same time it has an engine that could show 800 units at the level of detail that you just posted. In 2010. In the same year it was Call of Duty Black Ops coming out, on the Xbox 360. So yeah...
Yes, your screenshots are OK. Only big defect is shadow resolution. On 1st picture, you have 2 globes (radars) and they have triangular pipe construction around them. Shadows that construction casts are not very flattering. And basically any wire or thin geometry casts similar (torn into pieces) shadows, even on 4k. But those are screenshots from nature, where you do not run into bad cube maps, or reflections suddenly coming to existence. So, how does rocket smoke with your fully tweaked config looks like? Anything close to your post #62? And while you run around that obvious elephant, taking photos of detailed ants. I would rather know, what you think about Elephant... If you already forgot, it is post #65. And time travel gateway.
I'd say there's a difference in actual game-play gfx in comparison as shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suiHfnQ357Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPc3C-Ibi4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CIwPtJhss8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2abotLRrkPs ...which actually isn't that impressive compared to cut-scenes and I did try and find best examples. Notice the low-polygon look of the models and the game-world in general. As for that cod video. I'm not really sure what I'm looking at, could you find another example of the problem? Cheers. As you've noted, 2010 is when Black ops came out, I have it, but, didn't play it much. It is reasonable though to compare SC2 vs BO1 aswell to see how far we've come in relation to this discussion. Sadly, I can't find vid with full-gfx quality, but, this one is "ok". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPP4IsdkJUk As for cut-scenes themselves in SC2, ofcourse, very good for it's time. I don't think the assets (and fx) are the same though vs in-game. Being older games; it's hard to find "best" examples due to compression. My opinion though is COD;BO does fps better than SC2 (engine?), while SC2 is also a strategy game which BO isn't. edit: found some screenshots of sc2 (scroll); http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...175335&article_id=692694&page=1&show=original My own screenshots of BO early in game 1920x1200; BO3 in comparison is much more adventurous with it's colour palette vs BO. BO is "grittier". Kinda like Quake 2 vs Quake 4 difference re colour.
BOLD: I do not know if it was meant as insult, or to show your ability to ignore any flaw. (Anyway, it would be appropriate to say: "It is baked-in reflection completely out of place used on surface which had no need for reflections as it could have been just another wall or locked door.") UNDERLINED: You do not even need full SC2 GFX to blow BO1 out of water. Rest of your postings... You show images and videos which you consider as supporting evidence of you being right. But they are very proof that you are wrong. Do you have some kind of selective blindness? In 2010 I would be embarrassed to post such screenshots and call them good. They did not even care to align textures to geometry properly at places. By this I admit defeat. (Yes, you can bring anything you want. You can put any broken aspect of any CoD above most modern/best of kind project there is or will be.) Because I have brought most of arguments which retarded child seeing computer graphics for 1st time would understand. I can't fight/persuade person with selective blindness/deep faith or other self inflicted mental disease with evidence or reason. No one can. So here is last(first) anecdote: (Anecdotal part comes from HW requirements. Comment section is priceless, maybe you can persuade everyone there that PC version is the best.)
Lol talk about offtopic Is this stilll U4E thread or how id engine looks like vs blizzard engine :infinity: ;p
All you have to do is post screen-shots to back-up what you're saying. I think I've done more to show where I'm coming from, where-as you just act like a commentator. As for the cod video, I had to enable html5 and look again, but, 0.25 isn't working consistently. I will try on another browser... The problem is despite all your criticism; you still haven't posted anything for comparison or argument sake. This is therefore 1 sided. I post, you pick it apart. Where are these Blizzard game screenshots? I'm the only one posting anything except these poor youtube videos. Let's look at screenshots and compare. Forget company bashing, forget the insults, let's see them.
