PDA

View Full Version : Cutscenes look terrible, even with default setting, tes off and DX11 off



Mixmaxo
27th Aug 2011, 18:08
OK so this seems to be a rather large issue affecting the game. In game the game is fine, a bit stuttery maybe.
Cutscenes look terrible and compressed however. I read on another thread here that it has something to do with tessellation and DX11, I have tried many settings including defaults with tessellation off and DX11 off and still the problem persists. Have many people encountered this and has anybody fixed it?

Arksun
27th Aug 2011, 18:47
The cutscenes actually dont look too bad to me, maybe a little soft/lower res but overall smooth, at least playing on DX9 with XP. Better than I thought they were gonna be anyways after reading forums before playing the game.

neilthecellist
27th Aug 2011, 20:06
The cutscenes look terrible, the cutscenes were basically designed for monitors 22" and lower. Mine is 24" and it just looks terrible against my native 1080p display. The mysterious character in the intro cutscene looking at the four people on the holo display while chatting... My god, his whole head was like an octagonal block, terrible, this is what you get with DX9 garbage that is "universal" across both consoles and the PC. Too bad DX11 doesn't affect pre-rendered cutscenes.

Screw pre-renders, do what Witcher 2 did and give us cutscenes made on-the-fly with the engine.

Also, who the hell still uses XP?

Mixmaxo
27th Aug 2011, 20:45
It has nothing to do with monitor size. I'm playing on my 15.6" laptop, Asus G53JW.

Mixmaxo
27th Aug 2011, 20:57
After looking through the videos on youtube it would appear that they decided to compress the hell out of the cut-scenes and that it is not a graphical performance issue. This could have been done so that the game fits on a DVD for the crapbox 360.

Hectick
27th Aug 2011, 21:26
After looking through the videos on youtube it would appear that they decided to compress the hell out of the cut-scenes and that it is not a graphical performance issue. This could have been done so that the game fits on a DVD for the crapbox 360.

Yes you are correct. The size of this game is close to hitting the limits of the DVD. Always trust in the consoles to hold game development back. :thumb:

Mixmaxo
27th Aug 2011, 21:31
Yes you are correct. The size of this game is close to hitting the limits of the DVD. Always trust in the consoles to hold game development back. :thumb:

It is very disappointing that the dev's didn't do two different renderings of the cut-scenes, one for crap box and one for PC and PS3. Just like with FFXIII.

dimljajvbu
27th Aug 2011, 21:36
Or just had the cutscenes in-engine, rather than pre-rendered. That was presumably how they were created anyway, and it would use a lot less disk space than the current cutscenes, yet give "full quality"....

rek7
27th Aug 2011, 21:37
Yes you are correct. The size of this game is close to hitting the limits of the DVD. Always trust in the consoles to hold game development back. :thumb:

That's only now. At the start of every new console generation, the PC is behind by a huge margin.

This console cycle, however, has been extraordinarily long and has been seriously detrimental to real advances in the industry.

Fursnake
27th Aug 2011, 21:38
For that matter I don't see why the cutscenes couldn't have been done using the ingame engine. I don't know, I am not that far into the game so perhaps there are later cutscenes that could not have been done with the ingame engine, but so far everything I have seen seems like it could have. Also, that would have made the game feelmore seamless.

Mixmaxo
27th Aug 2011, 23:44
That's only now. At the start of every new console generation, the PC is behind by a huge margin.

This console cycle, however, has been extraordinarily long and has been seriously detrimental to real advances in the industry.

I'm sorry but that is uniformed garbage, new consoles have never up to par with what a top end PC is capable of, that's a fact. This generation of consoles is made up of the same component's as PC's are. CPU, GPU, HDD, Disc drive, PSU, Mobo, next generations will be too. To make a console marketable it's much cheaper than a 4grand PC and thus less capable. But that is not the problem here!
FFXIII by Square-Enix has the best pre-rendered cut-scenes in a video game... on a blu-ray (PS3)
On the crap box with storage limitations due to DVD format, the cut-scenes have been compressed, or dumbed down to conserve space or storage on a DVD and hence look like crap.

The developers of Deus Ex seem to have done one render of the cut-scenes to use on all platforms.
Perhaps time ran out and a non compressed rendering of cut-scenes was planned for PC and PS3.

Mixmaxo
27th Aug 2011, 23:53
I like the pre-rendered cut-scenes, very cinematic and story developments are a plenty with the in-game engine. So I feel its a nice balance. It's a decision from the beginning of a games development to use in-game or pre-rendered cut-scenes. Pre-rendered is often of more quality, and if these video files were re-mastered that could be the case.
That wont happen though. But where were QA?

Mixmaxo
28th Aug 2011, 00:11
That's only now. At the start of every new console generation, the PC is behind by a huge margin.

This console cycle, however, has been extraordinarily long and has been seriously detrimental to real advances in the industry.

Also the console cycle has not been extraordinarily long and its far from over. It's laughable that you think this has been detrimental to the industry as the industry is in a better place than it ever was. It's clear you have no idea about the industry or the topic in this thread as it has nothing to do with limitations of hardware other than the crap box.
It is about the video the game plays when triggered, due to progression development, being of a low visual quality.

Shralla
28th Aug 2011, 01:26
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA CRAP BOX I GET IT YOU'RE SO WITTY AND HILARIOUS AND DEFINITELY NOT IGNORANT AND ANNOYING






Oh wait, that's the opposite of what I mean.

Nakah
28th Aug 2011, 02:31
The cutscenes look terrible, the cutscenes were basically designed for monitors 22" and lower. Mine is 24" and it just looks terrible against my native 1080p display. The mysterious character in the intro cutscene looking at the four people on the holo display while chatting... My god, his whole head was like an octagonal block, terrible, this is what you get with DX9 garbage that is "universal" across both consoles and the PC. Too bad DX11 doesn't affect pre-rendered cutscenes.

Screw pre-renders, do what Witcher 2 did and give us cutscenes made on-the-fly with the engine.

Also, who the hell still uses XP?
Shut it, kid.

lukeman3000
28th Aug 2011, 06:23
Agreed; the pre-rendered cutscenes are somewhat of an eyesore.

Mixmaxo
28th Aug 2011, 12:29
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA CRAP BOX I GET IT YOU'RE SO WITTY AND HILARIOUS AND DEFINITELY NOT IGNORANT AND ANNOYING






Oh wait, that's the opposite of what I mean.

You would be the ignorant and intentionally annoying one kid. You think a consoles that was released with a serious known harware fault and has a failure rate of over 40% isn't crap? Good for you, you'll go far!
No back to your bridge Troll.

ninotoreS
28th Aug 2011, 12:41
I'm sorry but that is uniformed garbage, new consoles have never up to par with what a top end PC is capable of, that's a fact.

I'm sorry but your memory is apparently garbage.

Look pal, at the beginning of this latest console generation the 360 and PS3 were performing better than all but the most tip-top of the line PCs.

And that's a fact.

I'm not some console-gaming fanboy or anything, I've been an avid PC gamer since the original Doom. But you've clearly forgotten just how big of a leap this latest generation was for consoles back in 2005-2006 when it began. It marked the first time consoles had caught up to PCs in harware ability. And for 7 in 10 gaming PCs in '05-06, the 360 and PS3 had more than just caught up, they had surpassed.

And you can probably expect this to happen again next generation, for at least the first couple of years.


Anyway, on topic...

Blame Eidos Montreal for not being good enough to do what most quality developers are doing these days with cutscenes, and simply keeping them rendered in real-time. No huge filesize footprint then.

Another problem with the game's cutscene movies are that they are drastically darker than the rest of the game, no matter what you do with the luminosity setting. Again, again, this wouldn't be a problem if they were simply real-time cutscenes.

ninotoreS
28th Aug 2011, 12:59
Also the console cycle has not been extraordinarily long and its far from over. It's laughable that you think this has been detrimental to the industry as the industry is in a better place than it ever was. It's clear you have no idea about the industry or the topic in this thread as it has nothing to do with limitations of hardware other than the crap box.
It is about the video the game plays when triggered, due to progression development, being of a low visual quality.

Good god, you're really not very bright. And what makes it so much worse is that you're nonetheless blissfully convinced you're the smartest guy around.

Look, you're too dim to see his point, so I'll explain it to you: all he's saying is that new lines of hardware tech -- like GPUs, for example -- haven't been advancing in horsepower the last few years at the same clip as they have in previous generations, and that's specifically because of this generation's consoles' fixed specs holding the market back.

Games are now being developed, almost without exception, for the consoles first, and the PCs second. This is resulting in fewer games actually bothering to push the hardware envelope this generation. There are some exceptions (Battlefield 3, for one), and there's starting to be more of them now that this console generation is truly starting to get long in the tooth, but generally speaking PC games today and the hardware they're running on are being hobbled at every step by console limitation cosiderations.

It didn't used to be this way, however. It wasn't like this in the PS2/Xbox/GameCube generation, but that was back when the PC platform was selling better in relation to other platforms than it is now, and you still saw a lot of big-budget PC-exclusive games.

Mixmaxo
28th Aug 2011, 13:47
I'm sorry but your memory is apparently garbage.

Look pal, at the beginning of this latest console generation the 360 and PS3 were performing better than all but the most tip-top of the line PCs.

And that's a fact.

I'm not some console-gaming fanboy or anything, I've been an avid PC gamer since the original Doom. But you've clearly forgotten just how big of a leap this latest generation was for consoles back in 2005-2006 when it began. It marked the first time consoles had caught up to PCs in harware ability. And for 7 in 10 gaming PCs in '05-06, the 360 and PS3 had more than just caught up, they had surpassed.

And you can probably expect this to happen again next generation, for at least the first couple of years.


Anyway, on topic...

Blame Eidos Montreal for not being good enough to do what most quality developers are doing these days with cutscenes, and simply keeping them rendered in real-time. No huge filesize footprint then.

Another problem with the game's cutscene movies are that they are drastically darker than the rest of the game, no matter what you do with the luminosity setting. Again, again, this wouldn't be a problem if they were simply real-time cutscenes.

I agree, but as you said consoles were performing better than all BUT tip-top PC's.
That was my point, a console will never be capable of what a high-end PC is.
I'm not talking about you're average PC, I'm talking about high-end.
I was correct in what I said. When 360 and PS3 launched they did not out-perform what a PC is capable of. Sure they outperformed the majority of PC hardware but technically speaking they did not surpass what a PC CAN do.
Just as the next generation will not surpass what a high-end PC can do on the day said next-gen console is released.

Nakah
28th Aug 2011, 14:20
"Look pal, at the beginning of this latest console generation the 360 and PS3 were performing better than all but the most tip-top of the line PCs."
Misleading. Most have bought their gaming PCs 2/5/10 years ago from launch date, overpriced.

Now, I don't know why anyone cares so much about the cutscenes, but I doubt they take much space considering their quality, but they could have at least rendered them with AA on. It probably stuttered playing them ingame ;)

Dreadstunlock
28th Aug 2011, 16:28
I'm sorry but your memory is apparently garbage.

Look pal, at the beginning of this latest console generation the 360 and PS3 were performing better than all but the most tip-top of the line PCs.

And that's a fact.

I'm not some console-gaming fanboy or anything, I've been an avid PC gamer since the original Doom. But you've clearly forgotten just how big of a leap this latest generation was for consoles back in 2005-2006 when it began. It marked the first time consoles had caught up to PCs in harware ability. And for 7 in 10 gaming PCs in '05-06, the 360 and PS3 had more than just caught up, they had surpassed.

And you can probably expect this to happen again next generation, for at least the first couple of years.


Anyway, on topic...

Blame Eidos Montreal for not being good enough to do what most quality developers are doing these days with cutscenes, and simply keeping them rendered in real-time. No huge filesize footprint then.

Another problem with the game's cutscene movies are that they are drastically darker than the rest of the game, no matter what you do with the luminosity setting. Again, again, this wouldn't be a problem if they were simply real-time cutscenes.

Xbox 360, never updated graphics, Xbox, never updated, PS3, PS2, every console, none of them were ever updated, same crap, same expense.

Buying a 1000$ PC today, will own any console, cut your bull**** son.

Nakah
28th Aug 2011, 17:16
...

Delete your post before you embarrass yourself. He never said anything about the consoles being better today.

Mixmaxo
28th Aug 2011, 17:43
Good god, you're really not very bright. And what makes it so much worse is that you're nonetheless blissfully convinced you're the smartest guy around.

Look, you're too dim to see his point, so I'll explain it to you: all he's saying is that new lines of hardware tech -- like GPUs, for example -- haven't been advancing in horsepower the last few years at the same clip as they have in previous generations, and that's specifically because of this generation's consoles' fixed specs holding the market back.

Games are now being developed, almost without exception, for the consoles first, and the PCs second. This is resulting in fewer games actually bothering to push the hardware envelope this generation. There are some exceptions (Battlefield 3, for one), and there's starting to be more of them now that this console generation is truly starting to get long in the tooth, but generally speaking PC games today and the hardware they're running on are being hobbled at every step by console limitation cosiderations.

It didn't used to be this way, however. It wasn't like this in the PS2/Xbox/GameCube generation, but that was back when the PC platform was selling better in relation to other platforms than it is now, and you still saw a lot of big-budget PC-exclusive games.


Clearly you are the one who is not too bright as everything you said is utter non-sense.
Many many games are developed with PC as the lead, an example of games released or will be released this year where PC is the lead development platform are: Portal 2, Duke Nukem: Forever, Fear 3, The Witcher 2, DCUO, Dragon Age 2, Brink, Deus Ex HR, Dead Island, Rage, Battlefield 3, MW3, Skyrim, Crysis 2 and more. Those are some of the highest profile releases this year, all being developed with PC as the lead.

Its obvious that you know nothing of game development, so please stop embarrassing yourself.
Consoles do not hold hardware development back. If you believe they do, you are an idiot.

Console limitations also do not hobble how a PC game will perform proof of which will be seen when Battlefield 3 runs at 25fps on PS3 and 60+fps on a high end PC, not the mention far superior graphical quality.

Now do us all a favour and jump off a bridge.

Nakah
28th Aug 2011, 19:21
Clearly you are the one who is not too bright as everything you said is utter non-sense.
Many many games are developed with PC as the lead, an example of games released or will be released this year where PC is the lead development platform are: Portal 2, Duke Nukem: Forever, Fear 3, The Witcher 2, DCUO, Dragon Age 2, Brink, Deus Ex HR, Dead Island, Rage, Battlefield 3, MW3, Skyrim, Crysis 2 and more. Those are some of the highest profile releases this year, all being developed with PC as the lead.

Its obvious that you know nothing of game development, so please stop embarrassing yourself.
Consoles do not hold hardware development back. If you believe they do, you are an idiot.

Console limitations also do not hobble how a PC game will perform proof of which will be seen when Battlefield 3 runs at 25fps on PS3 and 60+fps on a high end PC, not the mention far superior graphical quality.

Now do us all a favour and jump off a bridge.
They may be developed with PC as the lead, but that doesn't mean the consoles are not affecting the product, because they are.
Portal 2 : VALVE
MW3 : NOT OUT
Battlefield 3 : NOT OUT
Skyrim : NOT OUT
Crysis 2 : Consolized garbage, I don't need to explain this.
Fear 3 : Where are my shadows? Why is this worse than FEAR 1?
Brink: Garbage
Deus ex HR: Two directional buttons pressed at the same time made you move twice as fast, menu buttons clearly made for consoles (doesn't register the button under the mouse click, but instead is in favor of controllers), mouse smoothing, I can go on.


"Console limitations also do not hobble how a PC game will perform proof of which will be seen when Battlefield 3 runs at 25fps on PS3 and 60+fps on a high end PC, not the mention far superior graphical quality."
More time spent optimized for consoles, in some games this had a negative impact on FPS of the PC version.
Superior graphical quality? Graphics is one of the major things being held back.

"Consoles do not hold hardware development back. If you believe they do, you are an idiot."
Can you explain?

Mixmaxo
28th Aug 2011, 19:38
They may be developed with PC as the lead, but that doesn't mean the consoles are not affecting the product, because they are.
Portal 2 : VALVE
MW3 : NOT OUT
Battlefield 3 : NOT OUT
Skyrim : NOT OUT
Crysis 2 : Consolized garbage, I don't need to explain this.
Fear 3 : Where are my shadows? Why is this worse than FEAR 1?
Brink: Garbage
Deus ex HR: Two directional buttons pressed at the same time made you move twice as fast, menu buttons clearly made for consoles (doesn't register the button under the mouse click, but instead is in favor of controllers), mouse smoothing, I can go on.


"Console limitations also do not hobble how a PC game will perform proof of which will be seen when Battlefield 3 runs at 25fps on PS3 and 60+fps on a high end PC, not the mention far superior graphical quality."
More time spent optimized for consoles, in some games this had a negative impact on FPS of the PC version.
Superior graphical quality? Graphics is one of the major things being held back.

"Consoles do not hold hardware development back. If you believe they do, you are an idiot."
Can you explain?

Nonsense.

tet5uo
28th Aug 2011, 20:01
If you can't make the connection between consoles with 7 year old hardware and games being held back technically because of this then you have your head in the sand.

10hellfire01
28th Aug 2011, 20:33
That's only now. At the start of every new console generation, the PC is behind by a huge margin.

This console cycle, however, has been extraordinarily long and has been seriously detrimental to real advances in the industry.

I'm just gonna skip the whole thread. Learn technology when you wanna make a huge statement. Every console release consoles have been on PAR or SLIGHTLY behind their PC counterparts. And with the next generation I'm confident they will be behind due to quantity over quality now.

Nakah
28th Aug 2011, 21:15
Nonsense.

You're nonsense.