Yeah. I laughed how primitive it's physics were, but graphically it was out of this world.
There were some truly amazing games that year.Dead or Alive 3
there something about max payne graphics that i absolutely love, i cant put my figner on it but it just looks really nice to me, its crystal clear. i guess i prefer graphics before bloom and all that jazz
Could you show me a shot demonstrating the parallax textures in Chaos Theory? I don't recall seeing ANYTHING like what PDZ had on offer.Chaos Theory was 2/3 (parallax mapping and fully dynamic shadows) and the desire for motion blur features comes down to preference (you love those things, I think they look like shit). It also ran just fine at 720p on decent PCs at the time and 6 months earlier too.
Could you show me a shot demonstrating the parallax textures in Chaos Theory? I don't recall seeing ANYTHING like what PDZ had on offer.
Also, whether you like it or not, you have to admit that per-object motion blur is a demanding effect.
The textures were absolutely incredible for 2005.
The textures weren't actually that high-res and the level of detail was MUCH lower than the top console games of the time. Max Payne was quite poly starved.
New engines and popularisation of new effects tend to follow console-generations. PC-gaming tends to take a leap at the same time, or slightly after, new consoles are released.
They were still less detailed, but I suppose it was the object blur that left me the most impressed at the time.
He meant PDZ did.
Yes. The game uses it CONSTANTLY. Kameo also made heavy use of it.
Unfortunately, this is a very Western developer kind of issue. It was common on the XBOX and it has become common this generation. Japanese developers used to really care about delivering a perfect balance between performance and visual quality while only a select few Western developers actually put real effort behind this.
Well, it was clear that, early in this generation, Japanese developers struggled to work with modern hardware. In the past, it always seemed as if many Eastern developers preferred to write new engines specifically for each new game. Many developers also were used to working on fixed function hardware (PS2) and didn't have experience with modern graphics hardware. I'm not sure what the reality of the situation was, but Eastern developers simply seemed to target faster framerates more regularly in the past. Hitting 60 fps (or at least a steady 30) always seemed important. That simply hasn't been the case with a large number of Western developers where they seem more interested in pushing systems in other areas at the expense of framerate.
That wasn't so much of an issue as much as the mipmaps breaking the effect. Up until a mod was created, Crysis had the same issue (POM wasn't compatible with AF initially).
Absolutely. Turn 10 deserves plenty of praise for delivering a solid 60 fps framerate when even developers like Criterion abandoned it (for shame). Hell, I still haven't been able to completely eliminate slowdown in Most Wanted on my PC.
Bingo.
Chaos Theory was 2/3 (parallax mapping and fully dynamic shadows) and the desire for motion blur features comes down to preference (you love those things, I think they look like shit). It also ran just fine at 720p on decent PCs at the time and 6 months earlier too.
That was half my point given the pong stuff. People weren't making the Gears of War type shooter on PC either (they still aren't). So no there was no equivalent to exceed it on PC. Neither Valve nor IW at the time had that kind of focus. Source was an already couple years old engine with a focus on being scalable to very low end systems, IW wasn't receiving the budgets they received post Modern Warfare for their games or have the same cinematic focus, Crytek had not released anything, etc.
No, all my examples apply. They show pretty and technically impressive for the time games. People posted 3D fighting games...
The current example is probably BF3 since they had to halve the player count/map size for current consoles.
They might, they might not, we don't even know much about the game (I think it's possible it will be neutered compared to ARMAII and it may even be a good thing) I don't see this as an argument against my point which was about last gen and the notion PCs were in fact left behind for a time in terms of capabilities. So I presented games that were impressive in their own right even if not in the same genres. Rather than choose some uglier FPS made in an already outdated engine without Microsoft level of budgeting or the same cinematic direction and aiming to please the lowest end possible, just because it's in a similar genre.
I think it was until Crysis came out about a year later.
Could you show me a shot demonstrating the parallax textures in Chaos Theory? I don't recall seeing ANYTHING like what PDZ had on offer.
Also, whether you like it or not, you have to admit that per-object motion blur is a demanding effect.
The textures were absolutely incredible for 2005.
Like I said though, not trying to complain too long. It's been a long time coming to be able to look at new console options etc.
I have no idea what you're trying to argue... But it can't have anything to do with what my posts were getting at though.
For some reason I thought that attempt was on the last gen consoles. I'm sure they could do a better job eventually with better know how. I mean, it even has less players than BF3. Fakedit: checking the wiki page it seems it's indeed for previous gen systems as well. Unless the current gen versions weren't ports of the last gen system version, but I'm still sure it could be done better.
Only the quality of the art. Kind of like Halo 4 compared to PC shooters of this year.
Well, to be fair Beyond does have a fully fledged physics system. The lack of AI is probably the biggest saving factor here. However, when we only compare real time rendered cutscenes, Beyond is probably looking better then most pc games released this day.
It's also a matter of opinion.
