GRAPHICS: console version

(Hyrage) #1

Hey what’s up guys.

First, I want to thx Splash Damage for Brink on PC. I bought 3 versions of the game (2x 360 and 1x on PC).

I must say that the experience is amazing on PC (really nothing to say about it), but the console version… honestly I don’t know what happened internally, but the end results are far from being appreciated.

Visually the game is a deception. Not that the game isn’t detailed, there are plenty of details, but we can’t see anything properly, because the game runs probably on a too low resolution, the lack of anti-aliasing is obvious and the textures are abusively low res.

Brink is based on a modified version of Id Tech 4 (arguably a great engine) and Splash Damage spend probably more than 1 year and a half working on that game, right?

$8 game arguably better looking than Brink ($60) on console?
How can a $8 game such as Modern Combat: Domination on PSN ends up being arguably better looking than Brink (a $60 game and runs)? Aslo note that the $8 game doesn’t use a sophisticated engine such as Id Tech 4. (I worked on that $8 game, I can tell lol…)
http://youtu.be/Dwpm31j5YGs

Let’s be 110% honest and fair, Brink is by a far a superior game (I mean $60… it stands for something right?) to Modern Combat: Domination, but I really don’t get how did Splash Damage ended up with such terrible visuals on console for a AAA multiplayer game released in 2011?

[ul]
[li]Did the dev team had a bad luck?[/li][li]Did the dev team lacked time?[/li][li]Did you guys thought console gamers didn’t need decent graphics?[/li][li]Is the engine too limited to offer decent visuals on consoles?[/li][li]What happened?[/li][/ul]
Because I really don’t get it as a consumer, gamer and designer. Still, I envy the dev team behind Brink for such an awesome product on PC. Thumbs up.

(Sabayon) #2

Every console version of a game is going to look far worse then what it look’s like on PC. It’s how its always been…

(abjectblitz) #3

I think it has always been a struggle to get id tech 4 working well on consoles as has been proved in previous games. They had to hack the **** to get texture streaming and such rubbish in . SD is also a PC developer, one of the last to migrate to console development inhouse.

Game was clearly also rushed out the door by Bethesda.

Eitherway consoles are a pos and should never have come out with such lack of memory.

(Hyrage) #4

C’mon that’s crap. The consoles are more than capable to deliver great looking graphics in 720-1080p…

Gears of War was released as early as 2006 and still looks way better than Brink released recently in 2011. And GoW is one example among many others…

[ul]
[li]Shadowrun[/li][li]Left 4 Dead[/li][li]The Darkness[/li][li]Dark Sector[/li][li]Battlefield: Bad Company 2[/li][li]Red Faction[/li][li]Modern Warfare[/li][li]Halo 3[/li][li]Halo Reach[/li][li]Crysis 2[/li][/ul]
Plenty of multiplayer games that didn’t use Unreal Engine and looked better than Brink. The thing is, in order to compete on console, it would have been more than important for the game to have graphics good enough to compete with all the other games on the market.

Plus, the $8 game I mentioned in the first post looks arguably better than Brink. Well, there is no doubt that Brink could look much better on console.

(Midnight) #5

Your xbox is 3 years old and way too slow, get over it and play on your PC like a real man.

(Hyrage) #6

Sorry bro, but my 5 years old PC can deliver better graphics with a far less powerful hardware than the 360 or PS3. The current gen consoles are still very capable rare are the games that take advantage of the platforms.

(Kill5Joy) #7

try 6 years,and it shows

(Hyrage) #8

And that’s not the problem. The trouble is that devs are trying to put too much detail in their game, so they end up sacrificing image quality such as resolution and anti-aliasing.

It makes the graphics look much worst.

(Ainokeato) #9

[QUOTE=Hyrage;326473]And that’s not the problem. The trouble is that devs are trying to put too much detail in their game, so they end up sacrificing image quality such as resolution and anti-aliasing.

It makes the graphics look much worst.[/QUOTE]

You have the answers and yet still ask the questions.

(obliviondoll) #10

@title of thread… There are TWO DIFFERENT CONSOLES, with TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the game.

@OP… The graphics are fine on MY PS3, not sure why they aren’t on yours. Unless you’re playing Brink on XBox, which has a known issue with the graphics, and the already-complete update’s meant to be fixing it - has been sent to MS already, just waiting on them to sign off on it.

(Midnight) #11

xbox is 6 years old? man time flies, and that thing is OLD. No wonder PC’s are leaving it in the dust.

(fearlessfox) #12

The known issue is to fix texture pop.

The graphics on ps3 are very blurry and low resolution, and in hectic fire fights it can be quite difficult to make things out quickly.

It’s not game breaking, and it appears to affect certain maps worse than others (container city seem to be the worst affected), but if the gamer were sharper it would help a great deal. IMO, at least.

(Hyrage) #13

Honestly, Halo 2 looks better than Brink on the 360 and that’s an big issue for me…

(shadyadi) #14

And now I know that you are full of s**t. Brink isn’t that bad, the environments look fine, the odd animation is a bit jerky. Troll harder.

(tokamak) #15

I don’t see anything wrong with the console graphics and that’s coming from someone who plays Brink on highest settings on the pc.

(Hyrage) #16

I’m talking about the 360 version, the PC version looks great.

Take at this video in 1080p and go to 1:02 and pay attention to the guy on the left (enemy) in red and you’ll maybe start to understand why Brink looks disgusting on the 360.
http://youtu.be/IVy0Dr-LKHQ

And compare to this and tell me how Brink looks better. The number of polygons doesn’t help a game to look better; it’S the overall look including texture quality, clean and clean image, etc.
http://youtu.be/nr40stPtQes

(wolfnemesis75) #17

The graphics on Brink are fine. I play console. Great graphics don’t make a great game, funfactor does. Brink looks great and is fun.

(Hyrage) #18

Wrong. Everything matters and anything badly executed can prevent a player from having fun; that’s engagement and any game has the goal to be an engaging & interactive experience. Graphics empowers the gameplay. Better graphics = better gameplay = better experience and especially in multiplayer.

Image quality or art direction> amount of details

(wolfnemesis75) #19

[QUOTE=Hyrage;326753]Wrong. Everything matters and anything badly executed can prevent a player from having fun; that’s engagement and any game has the goal to be an engaging & interactive experience. Graphics empowers the gameplay. Better graphics = better gameplay = better experience and especially in multiplayer.

Image quality > amount of details[/QUOTE]

No! YOU wrong, brother. Graphics don’t necessarily make for a good game. Look at how popular COD is. The graphics and same old same old maps in that game suck.

(shadyadi) #20

[QUOTE=Hyrage;326738]I’m talking about the 360 version, the PC version looks great.

Take at this video in 1080p and go to 1:02 and pay attention to the guy on the left (enemy) in red and you’ll maybe start to understand why Brink looks disgusting on the 360.
http://youtu.be/IVy0Dr-LKHQ[/QUOTE]

I don’t care about what a particular guy looks like on a certain angle in a screenshot, in motion the game is perfectly fine. If you have an issue with that sort of thing that’s great for you. I checked out the guy, and what? he looks a bit blocky but you wouldn’t notice if you were actually playing the game, had to pause it to see what you were on about.

You could do the same in MW2 or plenty of other games and no doubt find a hideous player model, why try so hard to nitpick?
And why try to compare it with snidey remarks to some crappy GameLoft ‘the videogame plagiarists’ title?