According to Nomura, FFXV will only use Luminous Studio for lighting and CGI.

#161mrklarrydPosted 10/3/2013 10:33:03 PM
1Truth posted...
According to a TGS 2013 interview by Dengeki, he said that Luminous Studio can only used is small amount because it's not ready. Instead, FFXV is being primarily made with a custom engine that supports DirectX 11. However, once Luminous Studio is complete, they'll be adding more aspects of it to FFXV, but by that point all the graphics will have been finished, so Luminous Studio will only be used for elements like real-time lighting and also for transferring the CGI scenes by Visual Works to playback in real-time like was done with Agni's Philosophy.

You guys do know what this means, right?

It means that FFXV will not come close to having gameplay graphics on par with the real-time CGI of Agni's Philosophy. I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again, FFXVI by Hiroyuki Ito will be the first FF that 100% uses Luminous Studio and the first FF that has playable CGI graphics.

To think that some FFXV fanboys were trying to convince themselves that the FFXV gameplay graphics would improve to be on par with Agni's Philosophy by the time the game releases. LOL!


DragoonGriffith posted...
And not a single **** was given that day.

And I'm not even overly hyped about FFXV. I just know a Ito topic under disguise when I see one.


DragoonGriffith nailed it one post in.
#162ShinGoukenPosted 10/3/2013 11:15:36 PM(edited)
sawplo posted...
How many times do I have to repeat this? I said game developers are justified in spending a lot of money on graphics because they cant know for sure that their gameplay will have mass appeal.


You say they should, i have proved that you are wrong.

Let me reword it this way.


No, stop rewording the same thing over and over. Im not going to magically agree with your position just because you reworded it.

If graphics dont matter, why do they even bother improving them


Companies will use the tools at their disposal. They're hardly going to make games with atari graphics. Gamers are not against graphics if the gameplay is good, and will support good graphics in games that have good gameplay

So, let me ask you a simple question. If the new generations of gamers care about graphics, who do you think game developers want to market to?


New generation gamers care in the sense that they entered the gaming world under the new generation of graphics. They expect a standard of graphics. But that doesnt mean they value it above gameplay. The simple rule is that a PS1 game shouldnt have atari graphics and a PS3 game shouldnt have PS1 graphics. PS3 games have a minimum standard for the new generation of gamers but (and i will bold this) the graphics do not encourage sales. A new gen gamer might be put off by PS1 graphics, but no matter how much above the standard the graphics might be, even a new gen gamer doesnt value them over gameplay.

FFXIII sales werent all that much better than FFXIIs. Ome would assume that the majority of both their sales were from existing fans of the series (who bought it on release, hence the huge drop in sales a week later). If 20% of FFXIIIs sales are a result of xbox sales, that would put both sales in the same ball park. So did FFXIIIs sales benefit from its graphics? It would seem not
---
Final FFXII Perfect game Inventory Video (3000 Hours) - http://youtu.be/d1V1W1o2PJ0
#1631Truth(Topic Creator)Posted 10/4/2013 3:02:59 AM
Ultimate_Finale posted...
1Truth posted...
Here's a famous screen of the in-game graphics found in The Division:
http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/news/1496109869_1371013857.jpg


Meh, just looks like an upscaled PS3 game TBH. Nothing too fancy.

Nope.

The graphics in The Division are above and beyond anything I've seen in current gen. They also make FFXV look like an upscaled version of FFXIII/FFXIII-2, by comparison. The fact The Division is also Open World and with a 1:1 scale New York City, is just proof that this game will have graphical detail that will far exceed what's possible in current gen (PS3/360).

CokaineCowboy77 posted...
The Division is playable CGI. All games are.

And that screen is nowhere near the level of graphical quality of AP. I think you're thinking too much about texture and skin detail instead of rendering and animation, which is what made AP impressive. Like the actual cinamatography of AP was much better than The Division's gameplay.

But, you can't compare the two, as I've tried to say, they're completely different types of images.

I'm obviously referring to CGI in the form of pre-rendered graphics that are so detailed that they usually can't be rendered in real-time. The CGI in films like Avatar, Transformers, and Pacific Rim, are prime examples. I believe the PS4/One will come close to producing graphics like that in real-time during gameplay. The in-game graphics of The Division is proof of that.

Also, I only care for Agni's Philosophy for it's graphical detail and polygon count, as that what was generated in real-time and impressive. The animations themselves were all scripted and isn't impressive to me until I see that **** actually being played. The animations were no different to a Metal Gear Solid 4 cutscene; it's all scripted but simply playing back in real-time. In that sense, you can't compare the actual gameplay of The Division with the scripted animations in Agni's Philosophy.
---
The Zodiac Brave Theory
A groundbreaking new discovery about the story of Final Fantasy XII. Release: November 2013
#164sawploPosted 10/4/2013 5:21:48 AM(edited)
Companies will use the tools at their disposal. They're hardly going to make games with atari graphics. Gamers are not against graphics if the gameplay is good, and will support good graphics in games that have good gameplay.


Your problem is that you are still talking about black and white in terms of gameplay. You assume gameplay is good, or if it is not good, then it is bad. What about all the games, (and I wager this is the majority of all games out there), that have average gameplay?

You also assume that every gamer agrees with what good gameplay is.

I have to assume one thing when you say "good gameplay". You must mean gameplay with mass appeal. Remember, good gameplay is not universal. What one gamer finds to be "good", ie fun, another gamer might find "average" or even "bad", ie boring. The point is the likelihood of producing a game with mass appeal in terms of gameplay is pretty low. So, developers should spend money on graphics because this will attract the average gamer more.

Let me bold this. I have never said games with mass gameplay appeal need good graphics. However, most games can't guarantee mass appeal toward their gameplay. Therefore, it is better for a developer to add nice graphics in order to garner more appeal toward the game.

PS3 games have a minimum standard for the new generation of gamers but (and i will bold this) the graphics do not encourage sales.


I will buy a game if it is in a genre I like and has great graphics no question asked. If it has average graphics, I will research before I buy. If it has bad graphics, I won't buy it at all unless I hear the ultimate praise of the game.

So graphics do encourage my purchase. In all seriousness, do you think I am the only gamer out there like this? (Before you try to dispute this, you have already admitted there are graphics "lovers", to paraphrase the word, out there.)

So if you agree there are some gamers out that do this, then graphics do encourage sales, and I have justified that developers should put money into graphics, if not only to appease and attract those graphics lovers out there.

Great graphics dont "hurt" your type of gamer (FYI - I characterize you as a "gameplay" gamer), but they certainly attract those gamers who love them.
#165Ultimate_FinalePosted 10/4/2013 8:52:08 AM
1Truth posted...
Nope.

The graphics in The Division are above and beyond anything I've seen in current gen. They also make FFXV look like an upscaled version of FFXIII/FFXIII-2, by comparison. The fact The Division is also Open World and with a 1:1 scale New York City, is just proof that this game will have graphical detail that will far exceed what's possible in current gen (PS3/360).


I think you need your eyes checked, m8.
---
Now Playing: Grand Theft Auto V (360), Silent Hill 2 (PS2)
http://i.imgur.com/2xDYYuk.png
#166theofficefan99Posted 10/4/2013 9:37:15 AM
Like the actual cinamatography of AP was much better than The Division's gameplay.


AP's cinematography was pure ****, though, so that's not saying much.
---
"Dyin' is easy. It's the livin' that's hard..." Grim Reaper, Maximo vs. The Army of Zin
#167CokaineCowboy77Posted 10/4/2013 11:56:49 AM
theofficefan99 posted...
Like the actual cinamatography of AP was much better than The Division's gameplay.


AP's cinematography was pure ****, though, so that's not saying much.


Nope, not saying much but it's still true.
---
"When it comes to sex don't test my skills, 'cause my head game got you head over heels" - Lil' Kim
#168ShinGoukenPosted 10/4/2013 12:05:28 PM
sawplo posted...
Your problem is that you are still talking about black and white in terms of gameplay. You assume gameplay is good, or if it is not good, then it is bad. What about all the games, (and I wager this is the majority of all games out there), that have average gameplay?


A game with average gameplay does not deserve the sales of a game with good gameplay. Trying to lure people into a very average game with quality graphics is a poor sales technique that will backfire when the game damages future sales. If effort were made to improve gameplay, the reviews and reception would reflect it and sales would improve, while also establishing a solid fanbase that will come back to buy future titles.

Would you play a game with the best graphics in the world if the gameplay was below your personal standard? What if it had a steep learning curve, an irritable cast, a plot that doesn't make sense or something else that might otherwise impact your enjoyment? Are the graphics alone enough to save a game for you personally?

The problem here is the amount of value you place on graphics over gameplay. You say you would pay money for a game with average gameplay so long as the graphics are good. I think the majority would pay money for average graphics so long as the gameplay is good.


I have to assume one thing when you say "good gameplay". You must mean gameplay with mass appeal. Remember, good gameplay is not universal. What one gamer finds to be "good", ie fun, another gamer might find "average" or even "bad", ie boring. The point is the likelihood of producing a game with mass appeal in terms of gameplay is pretty low. So, developers should spend money on graphics because this will attract the average gamer more.


Games are broken into genres so that gamers can easily find games with the kind of gameplay they enjoy. Within each genre are games that are clear market leaders and everyone who wishes to compete in this genre will take the current gameplay of the market leaders, copy it and perhaps improve it. A FPS that intends to compete with CoD will have to do more than make pretty visuals, they have to ensure that their shooting mechanics are up to scratch and that they offer everything CoD does and more.

Mortal Kombat doesn't steal Street Fighter fans by improving graphics. Both Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter have fairly standard (actually, i would say less than standard graphics). A street fighter fan isn't going to spend money on a Mortal Kombat title because it's prettier, they will buy it if the reviews and reception reflect on the quality fighting mechanics, large selection of fighters, online capabilities, bonus content or other non graphics related material.
---
Final FFXII Perfect game Inventory Video (3000 Hours) - http://youtu.be/d1V1W1o2PJ0
#169ShinGoukenPosted 10/4/2013 12:05:32 PM
Let me bold this. I have never said games with mass gameplay appeal need good graphics. However, most games can't guarantee mass appeal toward their gameplay. Therefore, it is better for a developer to add nice graphics in order to garner more appeal toward the game.


And what happens when the critics give the game a poor review for its average gameplay? The critics may say "The graphics are top quality and the visuals are stunning" but they will go on to say "the gameplay is average at best and will fail to entertain even the most easily satisfied of gamers. The story is a bore and the characters are bland and uninteresting. Fans of this genre might like to try (insert X game)"

Average gameplay and great graphics will not save a game from poor reviews. If a game has "average" gameplay, they had better step up their game. Video games are a competitive business and not all games are going to sell. Hoping to lure in graphic whores to make up sales is not an easy ticket out of a poor selling game.

I will buy a game if it is in a genre I like and has great graphics no question asked. If it has average graphics, I will research before I buy. If it has bad graphics, I won't buy it at all unless I hear the ultimate praise of the game.


And the games that have "bad" graphics (pokemon and minecraft, my two favorite examples) that outsell the s*** out of games with stunning graphics show that the majority of gamers would not dismiss a game simply for having terrible graphics. You are the minority. I'm sorry buddy, but the average gamer does not dismiss a game for poor graphics and they do not buy a game for good graphics. You are a minority.

So graphics do encourage my purchase. In all seriousness, do you think I am the only gamer out there like this?


Based on the incredible sales of games that pass up good graphics for improved gameplay, i believe you are the minority.

I play minecraft and fully admit that to see minecraft with the graphics of FFXIII is very appealing. But the bottom line is, minecraft is fun and the graphics are completely irrelevant. If improving the graphics lead to much higher sales, why would minecraft not devote some time and resources to improving them?

I'm also a pokemon fan (pokemon is actually my favorite game franchise) and i'm looking forward to the new release in a few days because they are finally improving the graphics. A 3D pokemon game! But pokemon, like minecraft, havn't devoted time and resources into graphics in the past 15+ years because they must have realised that the boost in sales would not be worth the money spent. They have made the jump to 3D only because of the games system it is being released on. They cannot release it on the DSi (that would be like the next FF title coming out on the PS2), no, they have to release it on the 3DS and i personally look forward to it.
---
Final FFXII Perfect game Inventory Video (3000 Hours) - http://youtu.be/d1V1W1o2PJ0
#170CokaineCowboy77Posted 10/4/2013 12:47:53 PM
1Truth posted...
I believe the PS4/One will come close to producing graphics like that in real-time during gameplay. The in-game graphics of The Division is proof of that.


The game could quite possibly run on current-gen hardware. There is nothing substantially difficult about The Division's graphics from a programming side. AP on the other hand would struggle.

Also, I only care for Agni's Philosophy for it's graphical detail and polygon count, as that what was generated in real-time and impressive.


Which does not require superior hardware to run on. And that was not what made AP impressive from a developers standpoint. If you took a still image of AP and compared it to a current gen title there would be little difference. Again, it was the entire cinematography of the scene that made it impressive. The subtleties that you wouldn't normally (and won't for a while) find in real-time gameplay. And even with the fast paced cinematography you were still able to do even quite complex adjustments that you'd normally be able to do in other games and the cutscene will remain the same, from the colour of Agni's hair, to her forehead sweat, to that weird mans beard length, and the changes would interact with the surrounding animations. The fact that AP can do this while in a cinematic-like cutscene like that is what made AP so impressive from a developer's viewpoint.

The Division is unable to do that while remains it's high-quality textures and skins. Nothing was remarkably difficult about The Division from a programming side of things. It looks good, but graphically, overall, it's not as impressive as AP. The Division could quite possibly run on current gen hardware (there's nothing remarkable to stop it from doing so) but AP would struggle. AP was running on a high end GTX I think.
---
"When it comes to sex don't test my skills, 'cause my head game got you head over heels" - Lil' Kim