PDA

View Full Version : INCREASED DETAILS IN CUTSCENES? No way...



ReDLaCES22
12-12-2012, 02:04 AM
So I've been searching the web to see if anyone or any site addressed this noticeable difference in AC3 but it seems as though most glossed over it. I would say that initially I picked this up when watching one of the cut scenes for Desmond Miles when he was inside the Ancient Ruin of the First Civilization. What I picked up was that there was more detail on Desmond's hair and face in the cut scene then when I was actually seeing during gameplay. When you have control of Desmond his hair appears flat and a part of the map of his face, but in the cut scene his hair is an external layer and you see more of the scars and little nuances on his face.

Subsequently I noticed it was the same with Connor! Connor appears to have more detail on his face than during gameplay. In the cut scenes you can see all of his wrinkles and he looks more older and aged. But in gameplay Connor looks more younger and youthful with less blemishes.

Can anyone explain this? I would love and prefer if someone from Ubisoft can expound on this, but anyone with any insight would suffice. What's going on here guys?...

kalo.yanis
12-12-2012, 02:34 AM
Simple explanation: they use higher-resolution models and textures for the cutscenes. That's why Connor's suit appears mostly the same during those even if you've dyed it (they didn't have enough space on the disc for all hi-res dyes).

Assassin_M
12-12-2012, 03:01 AM
It`s called an exploit...to put it very simply..

GTA IV used a similar thing where faces had higher quality animation and over all visuals.

It`s the same here. They`re building more space by making cutscenes have more detail in graphics. It`s a big game.

ReDLaCES22
12-12-2012, 04:54 AM
It`s called an exploit...to put it very simply..

GTA IV used a similar thing where faces had higher quality animation and over all visuals.

It`s the same here. They`re building more space by making cutscenes have more detail in graphics. It`s a big game.

So are you guys saying the reason why the characters in the gameplay don't have the same kind of high resolution models as those in the cut scene to allow more space to do everything while you're playing the game? I'm thinking it had something to do with the amount of room on the Xbox 360 disc. Am I right about this?

Assassin_M
12-12-2012, 05:21 AM
So are you guys saying the reason why the characters in the gameplay don't have the same kind of high resolution models as those in the cut scene to allow more space to do everything while you're playing the game? I'm thinking it had something to do with the amount of room on the Xbox 360 disc. Am I right about this?
Maybe, but I`m not going into Specifics. I`m talking in a general sense. The game IS BIG.. and I mean really big. they said in a chat event that they literally ran out of space. The hardware is dated as of this point. Whether or not Blu ray can take more is not is not the case. I believe It was the Hardware, really....

ace3001
12-12-2012, 07:16 AM
So are you guys saying the reason why the characters in the gameplay don't have the same kind of high resolution models as those in the cut scene to allow more space to do everything while you're playing the game? I'm thinking it had something to do with the amount of room on the Xbox 360 disc. Am I right about this?No. The reason is, cutscenes are basically in a controlled environment. They load the high resolution textures only to the areas that you're going to see on-screen during that cutscene. If they're to be used in-game, then all the high res textures in the area that Connor is currently in will have to be loaded simultaneously. The current consoles don't have that kinda memory.

Madhouse456
12-12-2012, 07:54 AM
Oh, this is funny.

Assassin_M
12-12-2012, 08:03 AM
Oh, this is funny.
You`re funny..

ReDLaCES22
12-12-2012, 09:20 AM
Maybe, but I`m not going into Specifics. I`m talking in a general sense. The game IS BIG.. and I mean really big. they said in a chat event that they literally ran out of space. The hardware is dated as of this point. Whether or not Blu ray can take more is not is not the case. I believe It was the Hardware, really....

Well if its according to that, then it has nothing to do with space and everything to do with power. Space is not contingent on hardware but on disc space. If they couldn't have certain things running at the kind of fidelity they wanted to then that means they didn't have the CPU or GPU processing power to run it. In other words, if what you're saying is true, then Ubisoft were convicted that the current consoles weren't strong enough to run in-game graphics at such a high resolution when not in the cut scenes. If that's what you're saying, then that's sad. :-(

However, the game still looks and runs pretty fantastic and does a good job of covering it up :-)

ReDLaCES22
12-12-2012, 09:27 AM
No. The reason is, cutscenes are basically in a controlled environment. They load the high resolution textures only to the areas that you're going to see on-screen during that cutscene. If they're to be used in-game, then all the high res textures in the area that Connor is currently in will have to be loaded simultaneously. The current consoles don't have that kinda memory.

So I guess what you're telling me that despite the cutscenes and the in-game gameplay using the same allotted memory that is stored in the consoles, the cutscenes are able to pulled higher res textures because its in an controlled environment, whereas in-game stuff is being rendered in real time constantly and simultaneously and would be hard for the systems to run that while you're playing the game due to the systems internal memory that is more forgiving to the cutscenes?

pacmanate
12-12-2012, 09:31 AM
Mostly Xbox's fault. Stupid 7gb. WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH 7GB. NOTHING!

pirate1802
12-12-2012, 09:36 AM
Mostly Xbox's fault. Stupid 7gb. WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH 7GB. NOTHING!

-_________- And us PC folks have to suffer the console's limitations too.

ace3001
12-12-2012, 01:51 PM
So I guess what you're telling me that despite the cutscenes and the in-game gameplay using the same allotted memory that is stored in the consoles, the cutscenes are able to pulled higher res textures because its in an controlled environment, whereas in-game stuff is being rendered in real time constantly and simultaneously and would be hard for the systems to run that while you're playing the game due to the systems internal memory that is more forgiving to the cutscenes?Pretty much. With cutscenes, the devs can make do by loading only the sections that need to visible. But in gameplay, they need to load everything, which costs an amount of memory that the current consoles don't possess. Console limitations is one reason why I hope the next AC would be for the next gen consoles.

And PS3 fans blaming Xbox disk space is hilarious. Forgetting multiple disks? If the consoles could actually load the high res textures, Ubi could've easily distributed them in an optional installation disk. But the fact is that the aging hardware can't handle it.

ReDLaCES22
12-13-2012, 01:00 AM
Pretty much. With cutscenes, the devs can make do by loading only the sections that need to visible. But in gameplay, they need to load everything, which costs an amount of memory that the current consoles don't possess. Console limitations is one reason why I hope the next AC would be for the next gen consoles.

And PS3 fans blaming Xbox disk space is hilarious. Forgetting multiple disks? If the consoles could actually load the high res textures, Ubi could've easily distributed them in an optional installation disk. But the fact is that the aging hardware can't handle it.

Interesing and valid point. Sort of like what they did with BF3 right? Yeah, if only they were able to do that. Nonetheless the game still looks great to the point most people won't notice unless if they we're scrutinizing every detail. Great job Ubisoft. ;-)