I'm pleased that most of the thread has delivered interesting discussion - Durante's stuff especially is excellent!
I hope not with those noisy looking screens littered all about.
Dark10x said:
You are, without a doubt, looking for controversy where there is none. The supposed tone that you take away from the article is NOT the intended one. These are designed to be critiques - that's how I've ALWAYS gone about my business. It's not a message board post and I'm not just going to lump endless praise on it. This isn't an IGN review. I actually love the game. In fact, it was a genuinely awesome experience but I can admit that it has issues as well. You're making this a black and white issue - either you love it or you hate it. It doesn't have to be so stark.
IGN has nothing to do with this, to be clear, I have no problem with any outlet and what they do with their opinions of a game. I don't care much about reviews that much anymore, it's only someone's opinion. I've played games that are sitting at 90+ metacritic and I SMH. I'm not particularly concerned whether you like the order or not at least you can understand that relative to the article you wrote and the thread we're in.
Dark10x said:
That is not what was said. I suggested that there could be arguments that the softness of the image doesn't raise it far beyond what we saw with 900p in Ryse but go on to state that The Order produces better image quality. The idea is to entertain the possibility that additional resources could be saved and similar quality results can still be achieved. Also, I cite it as one of the best examples of image quality in games because that's exactly what it is. It is *NOT* the best example of image quality in console gaming but it's one of the very best.
The argument was derived here, it was not compelling here and certainly not compelling for a technical argument. In what technical argument is 1600*900 upscaled can be seen as similar to 1900*800 native, that's not up for debate and that certainly is not compelling, it wasn't compelling in the thread it was discussed and moreso in a non-forum technical piece. Numbers don't lie.
It's funny that DF would agree with less being on par with more since their "hardly any difference between 900p and 1080p" is in line with this compelling argument.
Dark10x said:
You're just not reading into it properly, I dare say. I feel as if you're going into the article expecting some sort of anti-Order bias when that's not the case. It's VERY important to point out that this is a narrow game as its scope is precisely WHY it is able to achieve the results it does. I'm not bashing the game, I'm providing a reasonable explanation as to why they were able to achieve such results.
Anything you can say with words has tone, your opening remarks are "this is using a narrow design", lets be fair here, that's really stating the obvious. Anybody who saw the order from first glance knew it wasn't going to be an open world game, but here you are mentioning open-world which is on the other end of the spectrum.
A narrow game in design won't guarantee that you will set the graphical benchmark. The Evil Within has this same narrow design, it has some effects going, it has the black bars as well but it's no where close to what the order displays, you'd think that because it has worse graphics that it's performance would be at least better, but where on paper is that guaranteed?
It's simple really, the narrow design of the order does not so much justify the order's graphics as much as the hardwork and pedigree of the dev which did the work, so when you use the narrow design talk so persistently with so many "buts" and "I have my doubts about MSAA in between" yet you don't prove it, but you felt you should say it nonetheless. This is what has me scratching my head.....I mean this is a technical anaylsis, yet you dont know what aliasing killer is at work. Are you saying that RAD is lying about it? To me all these things that you suggest just seem a bit skewed to me and most importantly are not substantiated with any tests or facts.
So yes, beyond that, right there in your final verdict, BEHOLD you used the same narrow design narrative yet AGAIN, so at this point, I think that you have hit that proverbial "narrow design/great graphics" nail so much that curiously "it sounds like this whole means to an end bit is diminishing the work this team has done".
Dark10x said:
My uncertainly in regards to MSAA is, as such, due to the fact that I cannot say with certainty that it is actually using it. I'm inclined to say yes, but there are examples of artifacts that seem out of place for MSAA. As such, I'd rather express uncertainty than make a false claim. I try hard never to make claims about features that I'm not completely certain about.
I'm still baffled by that, it's strange that (even by your own admittance) you seem reluctant to give the game too much praise, I guess you don't want to sound too "forummy" but have no problems going against what is public knowledge about the order's AA method. I mean the tone in this article does pile up.
Dark10x said:
The entire thing is written from a critical point of view not designed to slander the game, rather, push readers to think about the points raised. It's an attempt at presenting a balanced finding rather than a page full of praise.
And this is what's wrong right there. Don't get me wrong I'm not talking about the praise part, but in your attempt for balance you did quite the opposite of diminishing what RAD has done here. A tech analysis should be less concerned about word diplomacy and more concerned about hard facts for e.g. 2 is greater than 1. Native vs Upscaled, 4xMSAA or not.
No, it has 2-4x AF most of the time, with some hints of 8x on rare some surfaces from what i've seen. Pretty much KZ:SF setup.
How did you come up with these numbers?
I don't see anything in the Order that a 7850-7870 couldn't handle. Game looks nice, but it's not really doing much with it's limited scope.
Dark10x, here's your case in point.
