icecold1983
Member
A 680 barely even outperforms a ps4 in lots of modern games. Tho its hard to speculate how much of it is down to kepler sucking vs devs just not optimizing for it
Ya but those don't look like noticeable downgrades at all. Battlefront especially, which had changes that were actually seen as upgrades in the final product.Icecold asserted that BF1 and Battlefront were downgraded:
http://www.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=243023970
A 680 barely even outperforms a ps4 in lots of modern games. Tho its hard to soeculate how much of it is down to kepler sucking vs devs just not optimizing for it
A 680 barely even outperforms a ps4 in lots of modern games. Tho its hard to soeculate how much of it is down to kepler sucking vs devs just not optimizing for it
Ya but those don't look like noticeable downgrades at all. Battlefront especially, which had changes that were actually seen as upgrades in the final product.
I mean were there any actual downgrades?
Even Framerate wise?
Coupled with what CPU?
Do we even know what CPU the PC's running the watchdog demoes where using? That would make a difference as well, no?
Surely if they where using 680's that outperformed either console at the time they wouldn't have used a jaguar CPU as well?
Regardless, the point is that we don't need to speculate that stuff here because what we saw was running on an X. This is a different situation to Watchdogs.
Even Framerate wise?
Coupled with what CPU?
Do we even know what CPU the PC's running the watchdog demoes where using? That would make a difference as well, no?
Surely if they where using 680's that outperformed either console at the time they wouldn't have used a jaguar CPU as well?
Regardless, the point is that we don't need to speculate that stuff here because what we saw was running on an X. This is a different situation to Watchdogs.
Not really, no.
You and I both know how this industry works. Doesn't matter what they say.
And it will likely look very similar, if not the same, on the Pro. Count on it.
Well, thats at least counterintuitive. If given more time, I expect a particular product will get better. Thats what typically happens with all the apps and systems I have developed in my life.
But who knows? Im not a game developer. Maybe the story is different there.
The product will get better. It will become a releasable game. However, to make that happen, often the idealized graphics first shown off will have to be modified.Well, thats at least counterintuitive. If given more time, I expect a particular product will get better. Thats what typically happens with all the apps and systems I have developed in my life.
But who knows? Im not a game developer. Maybe the story is different there.
It does get better over time in other areas, but there are usually compromises that would need to be made to make it better.
not watching the videos linked. Are you saying battlefront was downgraded seriously?They are very noticeable
The product will get better. It will become a releasable game. However, to make that happen, often the idealized graphics first shown off will have to be modified.
It doesn't already work. The game isn't done yet, not every system is in place, not every part is developed. What you saw was their vision of what the game will be, but it doesn't really exist yet.I cant quite understand. I see a game being demoed using an ultra high PC downscaled to run on a console, but if the game is already running on an Xbox One X, why would they downgrade something that already works?
Well, thats at least counterintuitive. If given more time, I expect a particular product will get better. Thats what typically happens with all the apps and systems I have developed in my life.
But who knows? Im not a game developer. Maybe the story is different there.
100% honest question: What kind of compromises?
Game isn't done. AI isn't probably done. Systems that they plan to release with aren't probably even made.I cant quite understand. I see a game being demoed using an ultra high PC downscaled to run on a console, but if the game is already running on an Xbox One X, why would they downgrade something that already works?
It doesn't already work. The game isn't done yet, not every system is in place, not every part is developed. What you saw was their vision of what the game will be, but it doesn't really exist yet.
not watching the videos linked. Are you saying battlefront was downgraded seriously?
I don't think so considering ever Frostbyte game has targeted 60, so no idea what it can do when it targets 30
Like if they decide they want more enemies on the screen at a time, they would need to free up resources and probably take a hit in draw distance or what have you to make it happen.
Obvious this is purely conjecture on my point.
Game isn't done. AI isn't probably done. Systems that they plan to release with aren't probably even made.
Vertical slices are very very polished demos that show what they're trying to make. They aren't really fully representative of what you've seen.
Truth.The real question is how much its gonna be downgraded
Sure, AI is an example. But it can be way more than that. There could be no inventory system running. There could be no real netcode. Effects could be completely fake for the demo. There are tons and tons of things that could be going on here, not to deceive anyone, but to show what the developer feels is a good representation of the final game, which again, is a year and half off.Ok... I guess something like maybe AI is at the lowest for demo purposes, but then for the final product is much more demanding and then subsequently graphics need to be downgraded? In that case, yeah, I see your point. It makes sense probably.
Sure, AI is an example. But it can be way more than that. There could be no inventory system running. There could be no real netcode. Effects could be completely fakes for the demo. There are tons and tons of things that could be going on here, not to deceive anyone, but to show what the developer feels is a good representation of the final game, which again, is a year and half off.
Was it successful? I thought it was ranked far below the likes of Mario, DBFZ and D2.I honestly can't imagine what any devs mental state is after having a successful E3 showing.
Was it successful? I thought it was ranked far below the likes of Mario, DBFZ and D2.
There's an incredibly detailed context behind why.Obviously it's a vertical slice made for E3, so a downgrade is possible.
Anyone remember Halo 2? It had a vertical slice demo that looked nothing like the final game. It was pure bullshit, even worse than the Watchdog's, or Division demo's.
Still I think Bioware wants to hit their targets on graphic fidelity with this one. Those guys are definitely hungry after Montreal's Andromeda failures.
Nope
. It looks good but not that good.
Also
Battlefront didn't get downgraded.
BF1 didn't gets downgraded.
So this is totaly doable especially on PC
How many people really questioned Battlefront's graphics, especially when we heard they were using photogrammetry, which isn't as demanding as other forms of materials pipelines or varied texturework. Still the shortcomings in Battlefront are quite pronounced towards it's 60fps refresh.No. Star Wars Battlefront exists. Anthem's graphics are achievable on PS4 Pro and Xbox One X.
Thanks for driving by.Apparently we have one thing in common.
I love how Dragon Age Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda suddenly never happened.
The downgrade andromeda got was nasty.I love how Dragon Age Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda suddenly never happened.
I love how Dragon Age Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda suddenly never happened.
Andromeda's trailer started the Sarah GIFs, it already looked bad long before the game released.The downgrade andromeda got was nasty.
How many people really questioned Battlefront's graphics, especially when we heard they were using photogrammetry, which isn't as demanding as other forms of materials pipelines or varied texturework. .