Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Will FFXIV surpass Aion's graphics?Follow

#52 Aug 17 2009 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
*
121 posts
Kerberoz wrote:
Quote:
Do you have any evidence to put forth to back up your statements that everything Square Enix has said about their Crystal Tools engine is a marketing lie? Perhaps some articles you've read online?

I don't have to prove anything. SE lying is a default accepted truth, not a claim which must be backed up.

There a particular reason why you're frequenting a message board for a game you have no intention of ever playing? You don't like Square. We get it.

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 4:29pm by JasonWalton
#53 Aug 17 2009 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Kerberoz wrote:
Try some screenshots that aren't minimum settings like the one above. That's also at a consistent 60+ fps. Have fun with your 29 fps (with no one else on the screen) console port.

I'm not that impressed.

I mean, looking at some of the pictures like this one... It really doesn't look hardly any better than World of Warcraft graphics, a game already known for not having great graphics.

Aion has a higher poly count than World of Warcraft, but horrendous texturing and uninspired art direction, so it works out about equal.

Based on that, I have not the foggiest doubt in my mind that FFXIV will absolutely destroy Aion in graphics.

EDIT: I'm talking about environment. Aion admittedly has very pretty character models and texturing.

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 6:34pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#54 Aug 17 2009 at 3:03 PM Rating: Good
**
295 posts
Quote:

I don't have to prove anything. SE lying is a default accepted truth, not a claim which must be backed up.


They see me typin
They hatin
Moderatin they tryin to catch me trollin dirty
Tryin to catch me trollin dirty
Tryin to catch me trollin dirty



Edited, Aug 17th 2009 4:05pm by Nathanael
#55 Aug 17 2009 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Guru
**
691 posts
Quote:

I don't have to prove anything. SE lying is a default accepted truth, not a claim which must be backed up.

0.o What universe are you from and how do I get there. I wish to claim that I live on a mountain of chocolate and make it so.

Proof is the basis of all reasonable conversation and debate. True debates are two or more sided discussions in which all parties have a defensible argument. As far as I can tell, your argument is "it's bad because everyone knows it is, so I don't have to defend myself."

I truly dislike confrentation, but you've managed to say so many things that are ignorant, misleading, or just plain false that I had to say something before you actually convinced some people.

More to the point, the Crystal Tools game engine, like all engines, is a shortcut for companies to cut out most of the low-level work and focus primarily on game construction. The game designer says "I want a character here, that looks like this," and the engine then handles the back-end logic such as how the character interacts with the environment (physics) and the player (AI). The primary selling point of crystal tools, is that it is an engine designed based on distributive processing. This was to take advantage of the 6 available cores in the PS3, but anyone with access to Wikipedia could tell you that. Developing a game engine takes years of work and millions of dollars. Put simply, SE would never have put the resources into developing their own game engine when they could buy the rights to another one cheaper, unless there was a very good reason.

I am not familiar with the Crystal Tools engine personally, but seeing as the "marketing hype" is all about how it works well cross-platform, I would guess it would be there.

Quote:
PS3 limitations.


Ok, this is just plain a fallacy. There have been good and bad arguments for and against the PS3 limiting the progress of multiplatform MMOs, and really it's just silly. Say what you will about it's price or lateness appearing on the market, but the PS3 is a marvel of a piece of technological hardware. I'm saying this as a computer scientist, I don't even own a PS3 (although I will next time the prices drop). Consoles are becoming more and more like computers while computers are functioning more and more like consoles.

The PS3 has artfully sidestepped the majority of the console limitations by utilizing large, swappable HDDs. In previous generations, consoles suffered from having tiny cashes and microscopic ram (if it had any at all). The PS3 and XBOX/XBOX360 both utilize HDD paging to emulate large GB sized RAM. PS3 pulls ahead here a little though because you can use any old 2.5" hard drive including (if you really felt like it) a terabyte hard drive. (this can be done with an xbox as well, but it requires serious tampering with the hardware).

What really defines a console, though, is the blazing speeds it can process information, this is afforded it simply because it doesn't have to worry about silly things like large OS, anti-virus, web brousers, 3 copies of Norton... whatever. This serves to help on two levels, it frees up processing cycles and ram for the game, and it allows the hardware production to be built specifically for game design. The graphics card and ram in a console can pass information directly to the processor at processor speeds (this is usually orders of magnitude slower).

I apologize for the wall of text, the reason I mention all of this (not only to help debunk the thought that this generation of consoles could in any way hamper this generation of computers) was to lead up to the following point. The PS3's price tag comes almost entirely from one selling point, the cell processor, which, to those who don't know, is a multi-core processor with 8 cores, 6 of which are available to developers. Because all of the hardware in consoles is tied so closely with the processor, almost everything runs at processor clock speed.

It's been well known for quite a while that FFXIII will run on all 6 cells of the cell processor. Seeing as both it and FFXIV will be built on the Crystal Tools engine, it's pretty much a given that FFXIV will also use all 6 cores.

By the way, for those interested hint hint, this game will play much better on multi core computers.

Alright, *purging breath* one last thing.

Quote:
Try some screenshots that aren't minimum settings like the one above. That's also at a consistent 60+ fps. Have fun with your 29 fps (with no one else on the screen) console port.


Umm..... so?

PAL standards in Europe and several areas of Asia define cable signal to 24.9 frames per second, NTSC uses 29.97 interlaced (bumped up to 60 for the interlaced frames) and non-interlaced video for HD1080i and p. Standard animation on a computer or television monitor is 24.9 (25) frames per second, which in that medium, the eye cannot distinguish from 60+. Higher frame rates in any RPG are for epeen numbers, nothing more.

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 7:09pm by Hulan

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 7:11pm by Hulan

Edited, Aug 18th 2009 12:15pm by Hulan
#56 Aug 17 2009 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,478 posts
Kerberoz,

Your hatred for SE aside almost all major Game Companies are now developing their titles either using In-House Platform Independent Environments or Licensed Platform Independent Environments. This way they develop one common code-base; models, textures, sound effects and soundtracks are of the highest quality. They then compile out to the target platform and go through debugging and fine-tuning / optimizing.

FFXIV will in fact be much more adaptable and flexible for SE.
____________________________
[img]http://sigs.enjin.com/sig-ffxiv/3529_48d6215903dff562.png[/img]
Rai [Elvaan] [Rank 10] [Leviathan]
75PLD | 50RNG| 75NIN | 56WAR | 37RDM | 44BLU | 45BST | 37THF | 26WHM | 40BLM | 20BRD | 11COR | 22MNK | 37DRK | 75DRG | 37SAM | 18SMN | 8PUP
#57 Aug 17 2009 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
65 posts
Quote:
They see me typin
They hatin
Moderatin they tryin to catch me trollin dirty
Tryin to catch me trollin dirty
Tryin to catch me trollin dirty


Win lol
____________________________
FFXI~RDM75-Blu60-Blm37~Retired
#58 Aug 17 2009 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
*
58 posts
Quote:
PS3 pulls ahead here a little though because you can use any old 3.5in hard drive including (if you really felt like it) a terabyte hard drive.


You are right. You can use a 3.5" drive but it won't fit inside the ps3. You have to use a 2.5" hdd if you want it housed internally. Any sata hardrive will work if you don't mind it being external.

The rest of your post was great though and I completely agree.
#59 Aug 17 2009 at 9:59 PM Rating: Decent
******
22,699 posts
From kerbs screenshots, I'd describe Aion's graphics as really good. They use the cartoon art style that WoW uses, but they actually make it work. FFXVI however, will be using an art style that I prefer and will be equally as great at the very least.

I personally plan on putting together a core i7 computer for ffxvi and to replace this 2.8Ghz P4, Radeon 9600 Pro, 1536mb ram computer.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#60 Aug 18 2009 at 4:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Hulan wrote:
Quote:
Try some screenshots that aren't minimum settings like the one above. That's also at a consistent 60+ fps. Have fun with your 29 fps (with no one else on the screen) console port.

Umm..... so?

PAL standards in Europe and several areas of Asia define cable signal to 24.9 frames per second, NTSC uses 29.97 interlaced (bumped up to 60 for the interlaced frames) and non-interlaced video for HD1080i and p. Standard animation on a computer or television monitor is 24.9 (25) frames per second, which in that medium, the eye cannot distinguish from 60+. Higher frame rates in any RPG are for epeen numbers, nothing more.
When adjusting graphical settings on higher end games, I usually aim for a target of around 40FPS, because I start noticing choppiness at 30FPS, but I can't really tell a difference above 40FPS.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#61 Aug 18 2009 at 4:14 AM Rating: Good
**
923 posts
Hulan wrote:


The PS3 has artfully sidestepped the majority of the console limitations by utilizing large, swappable HDDs. In previous generations, consoles suffered from having tiny cashes and microscopic ram (if it had any at all). The PS3 and XBOX/XBOX360 both utilize HDD paging to emulate large GB sized RAM. PS3 pulls ahead here a little though because you can use any old 3.5in hard drive including (if you really felt like it) a terabyte hard drive. (this can be done with an xbox as well, but it requires serious tampering with the hardware).

What really defines a console, though, is the blazing speeds it can process information, this is afforded it simply because it doesn't have to worry about silly things like large OS, anti-virus, web brousers, 3 copies of Norton... whatever. This serves to help on two levels, it frees up processing cycles and ram for the game, and it allows the hardware production to be built specifically for game design. The graphics card and ram in a console can pass information directly to the processor at processor speeds (this is usually orders of magnitude slower).


The main issue with the PS2 and FFXI was not procesing/graphics, it was limited memory access. The PS3 may have 512MB of RAM, but the system splits the memory in half. 256 dedicated to graphics, 256 to system. Paging stores data locally, you better believe SE won't allow that to happen in an MMO.

I'm talking about available memory address space, which is "limited" to 256 MB at the moment(less, once everything is accounted for) obviously a huge improvement over the PS2, but the point remains that such limitations are in place, and while technology improves so do the demands.

Will SE reach the limit? who knows......but the possibility is there. The PS3 is not a magical box.
#62 Aug 18 2009 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
***
1,596 posts
At first when I was watching the trailers, Aion looked amazing but then when I started seeing the screenshots popping up on BG I didn't think I was looking at the same game, The character and monster models look highly detailed but the world that you run around in is very cartoony and textured poorly. It looked like MGS4 Old Snake running around in MGS1 Gamecube Shadow Moses Island. Really wierd to me...

FFXI's graphics (Registry Hacked to 1920x1200 that is) just work for me everything nothing really seems out of place in the world (Except for stuff like flying flowers in Highlands)
____________________________
FFXI: Ragnus Rondain of Phoenix Nin 75,Whm 75,Rng 43 (Retired 5/21/10)
FFXIV: Noemi Rondain of Saronia Arc/Mnr/Pug (On hold until the game stops sucking)
WoW: Ishkabibble of Antonidas Orcish Hunter of 17th level (Kinda active)

Allakhazam's Rating System: Simplified

If you post with the majority opinion: Rate Up
If you post against the majority opinion: Rate Down
If you post against the majority opinion but make a good argument: Slight Rate Down
#63 Aug 18 2009 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,709 posts
samosamo wrote:

Will SE reach the limit? who knows......but the possibility is there. The PS3 is not a magical box.


Square is always known for reaching the limits of every system they produce games on, is it always graphically? No, not always, but they do push the system as far as it can go with their games.
____________________________

#64 Aug 18 2009 at 8:00 AM Rating: Decent
**
821 posts
Haven't read even half of the topic, but my opinion!

FFXIV will surpass Aion's Graphic in all ways. I've played Aion and even the Low-Res Screenshots are already looking better than IG Aion graphics.
But what do you expect...Aion is theoretically 1 Year old already...of course a game that will be relased in around 1 year will have better graphics^^

Square itself won't push the PS3 to the limits with FFXIV, but non the less might push it to its Online capable Limits^^
#65 Aug 18 2009 at 8:13 AM Rating: Decent
I don't know if FFXIV will surpass Aion's graphics.

We don't have enough information on the game right now.

This weekend, I played Aion for the first time, and I was quite impressed by the graphics.

I assume that Final Fantasy XIV graphics will be superior if Square Enix wants to become a leader in MMORPG gaming, which they currently are not.

I'm confident in the PS3's abilities, but I think releasing an MMORPG outside of the PC platform could possibly restrict its development in the long run.

We'll just have to wait for more information and screenshots before we can compare.
____________________________
MUTED
#66 Aug 18 2009 at 8:13 AM Rating: Decent
Guru
**
691 posts
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
PS3 pulls ahead here a little though because you can use any old 3.5in hard drive including (if you really felt like it) a terabyte hard drive.



You are right. You can use a 3.5" drive but it won't fit inside the ps3. You have to use a 2.5" hdd if you want it housed internally. Any sata hardrive will work if you don't mind it being external.

The rest of your post was great though and I completely agree.



Haha, I'm sorry, I was at work when I wrote that and my mind was therefore in somewhat of a haze of incomprehension. You are totally right, and I don't know what possessed me to say that, I will fix it post haste.

Quote:
Quote:
Hulan wrote:


The PS3 has artfully sidestepped the majority of the console limitations by utilizing large, swappable HDDs. In previous generations, consoles suffered from having tiny cashes and microscopic ram (if it had any at all). The PS3 and XBOX/XBOX360 both utilize HDD paging to emulate large GB sized RAM. PS3 pulls ahead here a little though because you can use any old 3.5in hard drive including (if you really felt like it) a terabyte hard drive. (this can be done with an xbox as well, but it requires serious tampering with the hardware).

What really defines a console, though, is the blazing speeds it can process information, this is afforded it simply because it doesn't have to worry about silly things like large OS, anti-virus, web brousers, 3 copies of Norton... whatever. This serves to help on two levels, it frees up processing cycles and ram for the game, and it allows the hardware production to be built specifically for game design. The graphics card and ram in a console can pass information directly to the processor at processor speeds (this is usually orders of magnitude slower).



The main issue with the PS2 and FFXI was not procesing/graphics, it was limited memory access. The PS3 may have 512MB of RAM, but the system splits the memory in half. 256 dedicated to graphics, 256 to system. Paging stores data locally, you better believe SE won't allow that to happen in an MMO.

I'm talking about available memory address space, which is "limited" to 256 MB at the moment(less, once everything is accounted for) obviously a huge improvement over the PS2, but the point remains that such limitations are in place, and while technology improves so do the demands.


Are you sure that the PS3 and XBox360 do not use hard drive paging for expaneded memory? I know paging is typically unpopular for high level RAM, since the read/write is so terrible, but I was under the impression there was a partition on PS3 and XBox360 hard drives to make up for the small 512MB RAM...

I suppose I may have heard this somewhere unofficial, I cannot recall, so perhaps you are right. Can you point me towards somewhere that can confirm or deny this?

Quote:
Quote:
Hulan wrote:

Umm..... so?

PAL standards in Europe and several areas of Asia define cable signal to 24.9 frames per second, NTSC uses 29.97 interlaced (bumped up to 60 for the interlaced frames) and non-interlaced video for HD1080i and p. Standard animation on a computer or television monitor is 24.9 (25) frames per second, which in that medium, the eye cannot distinguish from 60+. Higher frame rates in any RPG are for epeen numbers, nothing more.

When adjusting graphical settings on higher end games, I usually aim for a target of around 40FPS, because I start noticing choppiness at 30FPS, but I can't really tell a difference above 40FPS.


Hmmm, your experiance is different than mine then, but I believe you. Perhaps what I mean is that SE should spend more time worrying about keeping our frame rate at 30, than making so that we can get up to 60. Sixty, is, in my opinion, not worth the effort, since 30 works well enough. If they put in the effort to make it stay at 30, I will be perfectly happy with that.

Edited, Aug 18th 2009 12:14pm by Hulan

Edited, Aug 18th 2009 12:19pm by Hulan
#67 Aug 18 2009 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
**
923 posts
Hulan wrote:
Are you sure that the PS3 and XBox360 do not use hard drive paging for expaneded memory? I know paging is typically unpopular for high level RAM, since the read/write is so terrible, but I was under the impression there was a partition on PS3 and XBox360 hard drives to make up for the small 512MB RAM...

I suppose I may have heard this somewhere unofficial, I cannot recall, so perhaps you are right. Can you point me towards somewhere that can confirm or deny this?


I never said they don't use page files, just that SE wouldn't allow storing content locally (which is what paging would do) even if it was only temporary. I may have worded it strangely..

Mistress Theonehio wrote:
Square is always known for reaching the limits of every system they produce games on, is it always graphically? No, not always, but they do push the system as far as it can go with their games.


I wasn't really talking about squeezing every ounce of performance out of the system. My question was asking if the memory address space limit would be reached, I don't really see it happening, that's an insane amount of items/inventory but you never know...
#68 Aug 18 2009 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Guru
**
691 posts
Quote:

I never said they don't use page files, just that SE wouldn't allow storing content locally (which is what paging would do) even if it was only temporary. I may have worded it strangely..


I see; yes I understand your point here, but I truest SE to come up with marginally elegant solutions to the security versus space issue.

Attempting to lasso this discussion back on track - I apologize for sidetracking it - I believe that I have given my argument for why the PS3 will not hold back FFXIV graphically, given that it can process several threads at once and handle data traffic better than a computer. So to the general topic, Aion is impressive looking, but as has been stated before, it appears to have a high polygon count but sacrifice textures.

FFXIV on the other hand, seems to be sticking to low polygon counts and high detail texturing. This is probably a byproduct of their experience with console production, where polygons are expensive, but textures are not. I do not believe we will be able to tell which is better until both are up and running and out of beta, but fundamentally, FFXIV has an edge because it is being developed with the goal of being the best it can be graphically. This is evidenced by their statements to that end during E3, in which they mentioned the goal of releasing the game using the best technology available at release time. This means DX11 (or maybe OpenGL), Windows 7, the works. Aion, on the other hand from all evidence is targeting a wider audience with low to high end computers. Only time will tell in the end though.
#69 Aug 18 2009 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
*
58 posts
The ps3 encrypts the partition it creates. There's no way to really tell what it's doing with it's hdd.
#70 Aug 18 2009 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
**
923 posts
LeadSalad wrote:
The ps3 encrypts the partition it creates. There's no way to really tell what it's doing with it's hdd.


I see your point, but encryption doesn't usually stop those wanting something bad enough. I don't see SE taking the chance, but I believe I made my points so I'll just stop right here.
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 13 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (13)