Support NeoGAF

[wumster3000]

Yes, the game is good for XB1, but unfortunately not for PC. I believe wumster is talking about delaying the PC version. I'm pretty sure PC gamers wouldn't mind, especially knowing that this was an XB1 exclusive. Pushing the PC version to be released at the same time with XB1 is the mistake. It's rushed.

This is exactly what I mean. Delay the freaking game on PC instead of rushing the game out. They have hurt themselves more than helped. I for one will not be purchasing any PC games from them until they have been thoroughly tested by reputable sources. I have the game on Xbox with the free code for the PC version, but this still does't excuse me from ranting about a poorly optimized port.

 

[ethomaz]

This is garbage. Microsoft is responsible here, more so than Remedy, IMO. Spencer said Quantum Break was developed for Xbox One and was not a good fit to just jump over to PC.

Suddenly, the men upstairs say that QB has to end up on PC in order to prop up this UWA initiative which, as of now, has failed with Quantum Break. They sent the game out to die as a UWP, and I wish I could find the article now, but I remember Remedy saying that there were limitations to UWP that they were working through, things that should be there but weren't finished yet.

This is the thing about Microsoft that confuses me to no end. This could have been the PREMIERE UWP. The killer app for the Windows 10 Store. They could've have released the XB1 version first (since it's clear that a majority of the game's development went into it) and released the PC version in a finished, playable state.

But it seems that since the start of this generation, Microsoft has been determined to undermine whatever success they have in gaming spaces. Good games held back by a weak console, good games held back by a restrictive, unnecessary app platform.

Quantum Break is a fantastic game. It deserves better than this.

I disagree with the part about MS being the only responsible here... Remedy did a shit work too and are reponsinle for the game issues more than MS.

It is easy to Remedy hides behind UWP when in fact the biggest issues are not related to UWP.

Yes UWP is terrible and needs a lot of work to be something near acceptable.

But that didn't hold any developer to do a good game for PC... even with limitations in options and all you can do a pretty good job in performance and IQ side and that is not the case of Remedy's Quantum Break.

The game is already poor in terms of IQ on Xbone and it doesn't hold compared with this gen standards... in fact in terms of IQ looks more like a remaster with last gen IQ boosted to this gen.

And on PC they choose to use the same bad tech used on Xbone (due he limitations?) making everything looks even worst in a platform without he limitation.

Remedy didn't do anything good for themselves here and there are the first responsible for the development of the game... they created that mess.

BTW it is sad to see great games limited by technical issues caused by gaming developers.

 

[Insane Metal]

The xbone does have high quality everything thoug, the only concession there seems to be is resolution.

No... the 'reconstruction' technique used in the XBone (because of the low resolution) is still in use on PC, and it can't be disabled. So even if you run the game at a higher resolution, it still doesn't have a crisp IQ as one would imagine. The shadow resolution is much higher on PC, as well as god rays and other transparencies/alpha effects.

It seems the game was made with the XBox One in mind and the PC version received a shitty port.

 

[grandwizard]

An absolutely awful port. Thanks Microsoft for giving people another Arkham Knight to point to as a way to avoid PC gaming.

 

[Ricky Ricardo]

I disagree with the part about MS being the only responsible here... Remedy did a shit work too and are reponsinle for the game issues more than MS.

It is easy to Remedy hides behind UWP when in fact the biggest issues are not related to UWP.

Yes UWP is terrible and needs a lot of work to be something near acceptable.

But that didn't hold any developer to do a good game for PC... even with limitations in options and all you can do a pretty good job in performance and IQ side and that is not the case of Remedy's Quantum Break.

The game is already poor in terms of IQ on Xbone and it doesn't hold compared with this gen standards... in fact in terms of IQ looks more like a remaster with last gen IQ boosted to this gen.

And on PC they choose to use the same bad tech used on Xbone (due he limitations?) making everything looks even worst in a platform without he limitation.

Remedy didn't do anything good for themselves here and there are the first responsible for the development of the game... they created that mess.

This is a disingenuous argument. You keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it any less false. I'm not going to engage with you on this because it has been shown that the game DOES compare with this gen's standards. In fact, it's doing things no other game on the market is doing. So go take a seat with your subjective noise and let's get back to the issue at hand.

I did not say Remedy is not to blame. The game came in hotter than hot, it's on fire. But there's an interview from them stating that they were already handicapped and they knew it and Microsoft knew it because they still didn't have some of the features Remedy wanted available in the UWA. They're held by the released date their publisher sets. Remedy's latest PR hasn't been all that great, but it doesn't change the fact that their hands are tied.

 

[Serick]

The game is just so ugly in screenshots and when standing still. It shines when in motion and combat and time effects are going off in full effect though. When I found the second

Spoiler

time machine

and stood still it was very jarring just how low the resolution is. Large hard stepping jaggies everywhere, it's really an eyesore sometimes. It's really a shame the PC version doesn't look much better.

Side note where the fuck is my Windows code Microsoft?

 

[paragonpro]

Slight improvment, but dissapointing. I loved the game but was really dissapointed with the visual fidelity. The low resolution was really noticable on the xbox one. It was blurry af

 

[ethomaz]

This is a disingenuous argument. You keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it any less false. I'm not going to engage with you on this because it has been shown that the game DOES compare with this gen's standards. In fact, it's doing things no other game on the market is doing. So go take a seat with your subjective noise and let's get back to the issue at hand.

I did not say Remedy is not to blame. The game came in hotter than hot, it's on fire. But there's an interview from them stating that they were already handicapped and they knew it and Microsoft knew it because they still didn't have some of the features Remedy wanted available in the UWA. They're held by the released date their publisher sets. Remedy's latest PR hasn't been all that great, but it doesn't change the fact that their hands are tied.

I don't nothing false in my comments... the defensive control made for some here are funny sometimes... the game is poor in terms of IQ than most games released on Xbone and it do only few things better than others.

UWP limitations didn't hold the game to perform like shit as it was now.

Comments like yours try to hide non related UWP issues behind UWP limitations.

 

[Zaph]

and Remedy's response on these issues

Remedy have been a bit pointed with their responses so far, haven't they? Sounds like a lot of internal frustration...

 

[Lockjaw333]

So do we read anything into the massive fps advantage that the 390 is showing over the 970, or is it such a mess overall that we just throw that out?

What a s*show

 

[wapplew]

Who the hell think "save as" port is a good idea?

 

[Dictator93]

So do we read anything into the massive fps advantage that the 390 is showing over the 970, or is it such a mess overall that we just throw that out?

Considering the NV driver crashes - I am not sure if I would consider this game as meshing well or in an optimised fshion on NV hardware as of yet.

 

[Coolade]

UWP is a waste.

*air horn*

Glad to see I'm not the only one who enjoys super deluxe. On topic, this is disappointing. Not being able to hit 60fps on a 970 at medium settings for an x1 port. Maybe I was expecting too much. I wonder if DF will test a 120hz or 144hz monitor with a titan x to see how high fps can go and if pacing improves?

 

[ps3ud0]

This is garbage. Microsoft is responsible here, more so than Remedy, IMO. Spencer said Quantum Break was developed for Xbox One and was not a good fit to just jump over to PC.

Suddenly, the men upstairs say that QB has to end up on PC in order to prop up this UWA initiative which, as of now, has failed with Quantum Break. They sent the game out to die as a UWP, and I wish I could find the article now, but I remember Remedy saying that there were limitations to UWP that they were working through, things that should be there but weren't finished yet.

This is the thing about Microsoft that confuses me to no end. This could have been the PREMIERE UWP. The killer app for the Windows 10 Store. They could've have released the XB1 version first (since it's clear that a majority of the game's development went into it) and released the PC version in a finished, playable state.

But it seems that since the start of this generation, Microsoft has been determined to undermine whatever success they have in gaming spaces. Good games held back by a weak console, good games held back by a restrictive, unnecessary app platform.

Quantum Break is a fantastic game. It deserves better than this.

I disagree with the part about MS being the only responsible here... Remedy did a shit work too and are reponsinle for the game issues more than MS.

It is easy to Remedy hides behind UWP when in fact the biggest issues are not related to UWP.

Yes UWP is terrible and needs a lot of work to be something near acceptable.

But that didn't hold any developer to do a good game for PC... even with limitations in options and all you can do a pretty good job in performance and IQ side and that is not the case of Remedy's Quantum Break.

The game is already poor in terms of IQ on Xbone and it doesn't hold compared with this gen standards... in fact in terms of IQ looks more like a remaster with last gen IQ boosted to this gen.

And on PC they choose to use the same bad tech used on Xbone (due he limitations?) making everything looks even worst in a platform without he limitation.

Remedy didn't do anything good for themselves here and there are the first responsible for the development of the game... they created that mess.

BTW it is sad to see great games limited by technical issues caused by gaming developers.

Both havent come out of this unscathed - it be interesting to see how the partnership continues in the future. Obviously Remedy has been paid well to develop the game (thats an assumption but talent isnt cheap) and MS made the decision to release the game as it was. I dont think either is naive regards what role they played - its the consumer thats suffered...

ps3ud0 8)

 

[nOoblet16]

The game is just ugly in screenshots and when standing still. When I found the second

Spoiler

time machine

and stood still it was very jarring just how low the resolution is. Large hard stepping jaggies everywhere, it's really an eyesore sometimes. It's really a shame the PC version doesn't look much better.

You could say the tech is "cutting edge"

In setiousness though, your argument is kind of contradictoary tbh. Because if you stood still then the image would be native resolution. In the case of a reconstructed image from past frames, even if you do have loss of asset detail it won't really produce any more jaggies than a "true" 1080P image, because for all intent and purposes the image is 1080P at that point when still...afterall that's how the technique works. If it didn't do that even when still then the technique doesn't work...but we know that's not true.

Any kind of reconstruction, even MSAA reconstruction is in practical sense, indistinguishable from native 1080P in stills, it's only in motion that you notice the artifacts (in case of MSAA reconstruction, it causes jigsaw artifacts due to non uniform rasterisation) or the upscale blur (in case of temporal reconstruction as in QB)

 

[SunBroDave]

Not being able to hit 60fps on a 970 at medium settings for an x1 port. Maybe I was expecting too much.

It's not that you were expecting too much, it's that you have standards for what's acceptable for a game that you pay money for, and Microsoft does not care one bit about meeting those standards.

Any kind of reconstruction, even MSAA reconstruction is for practical reasons, indistinguishable from native 1080P in stills, it's only in motion that you notice the artifacts (in case of MSAA reconstruction) or the upscale blur (in case of temporal reconstruction as in QB)

It's my understanding that there is still an observable IQ difference between reconstructed 720p and native 1080p.

 

[ethomaz]

The game is just so ugly in screenshots and when standing still. It shines when in motion and combat and time effects are going off in full effect though. When I found the second

Spoiler

time machine

and stood still it was very jarring just how low the resolution is. Large hard stepping jaggies everywhere, it's really an eyesore sometimes. It's really a shame the PC version doesn't look much better.

Side note where the fuck is my Windows code Microsoft?

The IQ get lower in movement... screenshots from static scenes will give you the best of what the game can deliver in terms of IQ.

But high action and camera movements drops the IQ a bit and creates artifacts.

That is one of the disadvantages generated by the reconstruction tech.

 

[Purest 78]

I disagree with the part about MS being the only responsible here... Remedy did a shit work too and are reponsinle for the game issues more than MS.

It is easy to Remedy hides behind UWP when in fact the biggest issues are not related to UWP.

Yes UWP is terrible and needs a lot of work to be something near acceptable.

But that didn't hold any developer to do a good game for PC... even with limitations in options and all you can do a pretty good job in performance and IQ side and that is not the case of Remedy's Quantum Break.

The game is already poor in terms of IQ on Xbone and it doesn't hold compared with this gen standards... in fact in terms of IQ looks more like a remaster with last gen IQ boosted to this gen.

And on PC they choose to use the same bad tech used on Xbone (due he limitations?) making everything looks even worst in a platform without he limitation.

Remedy didn't do anything good for themselves here and there are the first responsible for the development of the game... they created that mess.

BTW it is sad to see great games limited by technical issues caused by gaming developers.

Blame always goes to the top And that's MS in this case.

 

[ethomaz]

Both havent come out of this unscathed - it be interesting to see how the partnership continues in the future. Obviously Remedy has been paid well to develop the game (thats an assumption but talent isnt cheap) and MS made the decision to release the game as it was. I dont think either is naive regards what role they played - its the consumer thats suffered...

ps3ud0 8)

Blame always goes to the top And that's MS in this case.

Well it is fair to blame both.

At the end are the consumers paying 70 euros for this release state.



PS. Just my impression or PC gaming scheme looks to be taking step backwards with issues you didn't have years or decades ago? QB is not the first example this gen.

 

[Serick]

You could say the tech is "cutting edge"

In setiousness though, your argument is kind of contradictoary tbh. Because if you stood still then the image would be native resolution. In the case of a reconstructed image from past frames, even if you do have loss of asset detail it won't really produce any more jaggies than a "true" 1080P image, because for all intent and purposes the image is 1080P at that point when still...afterall that's how the technique works. If it didn't do that even when still then the technique doesn't work...but we know that's not true.

Any kind of reconstruction, even MSAA reconstruction is in practical sense, indistinguishable from native 1080P in stills, it's only in motion that you notice the artifacts (in case of MSAA reconstruction, it causes jigsaw artifacts due to non uniform rasterisation) or the upscale blur (in case of temporal reconstruction as in QB)

The IQ get lower in movement... screenshots from static scenes will give you the best of what the game can deliver in terms of IQ.

But high action and camera movements drops the IQ a bit and creates artifacts.

That is one of the disadvantages generated by the reconstruction tech.

So, I get that.. I just meant that it's harder to notice the lower res (jaggies/blurriness) when you're moving/playing/time-stuffing. There are scenes in the game that just look really bad, even when you're standing still and it's easier to pick apart the image there and in screenshots.

 

[nOoblet16]

It's not that you were expecting too much, it's that you have standards for what's acceptable for a game that you pay money for, and Microsoft does not care one bit about meeting those standards.

Everything I've read and seen in screenshots of this game (I'm not paying and supporting this kind of shit) points to you being wrong in this regard. It's my understanding that there is still an observable IQ difference between reconstructed 720p and native 1080p.

I did say for practical reasons.
But unless you can prove otherwise by showing me a blur pattern in the edges I am not wrong. Yes there is an IQ difference, in motion (as I already mentioned)..the temporal ghosting you see on objects/characters, the fact that it breaks the moment you move and gives you an upscaled image...that's the IQ difference you are looking for.

Just do the math, if the edges themselves are not blurred during stills (as is the case with any upscaled non native image) then I wanna ask you, where is this blur coming from ? It can't just pop out of nowhere if it doesn't exist at a pixel level. If it's there then it has to be visible in some form during pixel counting and I haven't seen any evidence of it. If I am wrong then prove me otherwise with evidence and I will gladly say I was wrong...but dont just say I'm wrong because to your eyes it looks wrong and bring no evidence with it.

 

[SunBroDave]

Unless you can prove otherwise by showing me a blur pattern in the edges I am not wrong.

If the edges themselves are not blurred (as is the case with any upscaled non native image) then I wanna ask you, where is this blur coming from ? It can't just pop out of nowhere if it doesn't exist at a pixel level, if it's there then it has to be visible in some form during pixel counting.

At the very least DF's pixel counting revealing the resolution to be 720p gave the impression that there was an observable difference, but I have no firsthand evidence to refute your claim (also I edited my earlier post to seem less confrontational).

 

[holygeesus]

UWP blaming seems an easy cop-out. When games launch simultaneously on two markets, as in the case of Rise of the Tomb Raider, performance is consistent, so to blame the market it is being sold on, seems disingenuous to me.

 

[Henrar]

God dammit Remedy. I had such high hopes for PC version but I think I'll just stick with XBO version for now and wait for patches for PC version. I hope they'll fix it.

Also, I wonder why performance on Nvidia's GPUs is lower than expected. Didn't Nvidia release GameReady drivers for this game few days ago?

 

[ethomaz]

Unless you can prove otherwise by showing me a blur pattern in the edges I am not wrong.

If the edges themselves are not blurred (as is the case with any upscaled non native image) then I wanna ask you, where is this blur coming from ? It can't just pop out of nowhere if it doesn't exist at a pixel level, if it's there then it has to be visible in some form during pixel counting.

I'm not getting at all what you are saying (I'm not Emglish native btw).

The blur exists at pixel level and that is why pixel count give you a 720p image and not 1080p... the image if far from a 1080p native image.

What is it better? Well the result give you a better image than 720p upscalled to 1080p.

 

[opticalmace]

50 fps cap? ....what?

I don't understand.

 

[potatohead]

I disagree with the part about MS being the only responsible here... Remedy did a shit work too and are reponsinle for the game issues more than MS.

It is easy to Remedy hides behind UWP when in fact the biggest issues are not related to UWP.

Yes UWP is terrible and needs a lot of work to be something near acceptable.

But that didn't hold any developer to do a good game for PC... even with limitations in options and all you can do a pretty good job in performance and IQ side and that is not the case of Remedy's Quantum Break.

The game is already poor in terms of IQ on Xbone and it doesn't hold compared with this gen standards... in fact in terms of IQ looks more like a remaster with last gen IQ boosted to this gen.

And on PC they choose to use the same bad tech used on Xbone (due he limitations?) making everything looks even worst in a platform without he limitation.

Remedy didn't do anything good for themselves here and there are the first responsible for the development of the game... they created that mess.

BTW it is sad to see great games limited by technical issues caused by gaming developers.

Remedy does not decide how much money they get to fund development for 2 simultaneous releases on different platforms.

That is a publisher decision. Management, in this case, Microsoft, would be deciding how much time and money and human resources are assigned to each task at the grand level. Which basically means what Remedy has the money to do.

Microsoft, of all companies, who own the PC platform for gaming essentially with Windows, should know best how inappropriate it is to almost directly port the Xbone version to PC.

It's still possible that Remedy "squandered" resources that were assigned to the PC release. Maybe. Just maybe.

But that would be taking much more a leap of faith to say the development process itself was shifted.

It is a lot more likely that, given how common cross-platform console and PC games are these days, with such games coming from almost all major publishers who are readily able to release games simultaneously on two platforms, that there is an issue with funding/direction/resources.

Oh and UWA being new and probably not helpful in this scenario isn't great either.

It's absolutely very common to see cross-platform games across consoles and PC, which is why this is even more egregious of an error, for the platform holder, of the OS at least, itself of the vast majority of the PC games market is not willing to or unable to deliver an at least acceptable PC port of their own game.

And it doesn't matter if it is "not willing" or "unable" to deliver a good port of the game on PC. Because both situations are just as bad.

 

[nynt9]

Blame always goes to the top And that's MS in this case.

Well when Remedy devs are acting flippant on forums and twitter then I think that's on them.

 

[potatohead]

Well when Remedy devs are acting flippant on forums and twitter then I think that's on them.

Developers can only share what their masters holding their leash allow them to.

Until we know more I am resistant to blaming the developers.

It is possible they wasted money/squandered resources, but there needs to be more evidence of this.

The IP owner and one selling the product (Microsoft) is ultimately responsible for the issues their product delivers.

At the end of the day a Microsoft published game is a Microsoft product, whether or not it is developed by Ensemble or Remedy or whoever else, they are the ones who must ensure development goes smoothly.

If they can't do that then as publishers they are not doing their role properly.

If Sony or Nintendo delivered as poor a product on their own systems they would be just as much to blame.

 

[ethomaz]

Developers can only share what their masters holding their leash can do.

Until we know more I am resistant to blaming the developers.

Publishers didn't code the game.

Technical issues like performance are developer responsibility.

That is what I think... the publisher (MS) is responsible for others issues like the all UWP limitations and lack of options to developers give more options to consumers.

Edit - You edited... yeap now I agree with you... the top responsibility is MS (publishers)... even the performance issues being Remedy responsibility it was MS that accepted to sell that to us.

 

[nynt9]

Developers can only share what their masters holding their leash allow them to.

Until we know more I am resistant to blaming the developers.

It is possible they wasted money/squandered resources, but there needs to be more evidence of this.

The IP owner and one selling the product (Microsoft) is ultimately responsible for the issues their product delivers.

At the end of the day a Microsoft published game is a Microsoft product, whether or not it is developed by Ensemble or Remedy or whoever else, they are the ones who must ensure development goes smoothly.

If they can't do that then as publishers they are not doing their role properly.

If Sony or Nintendo delivered as poor a product on their own systems they would be just as much to blame.

I'm talking about the way they've reacted towards their customers. Acting like the technical problems are non issues is not the way to handle the situation. Any half competent developer with working eyes can tell there are issues with the game.

 

[potatohead]

Publishers didn't code the game.

Technical issues like performance are developer responsibility.

That is what I think... the publisher (MS) is responsible for others issues like the all UWP limitations and lack of options to developers give more options to consumers.

Edit - You edited... yeap now I agree with you... the top responsibility is MS (publishers)... even the performance issues being Remedy responsibility it was MS that accepted to sell that to us.

I agree, that publishers didn't code the game.

Coding costs money, publishers contribute that money. Coding takes work, developers do the coding (and create assets and so on).

There's two hands involved I agree. I want to know more, at the very least

I'm talking about the way they've reacted towards their customers. Acting like the technical problems are non issues is not the way to handle the situation. Any half competent developer with working eyes can tell there are issues with the game.

That sucks then.

Not trying to defend or incriminate anyone here just because. We can all agree something is clearly wrong with the PC version, and we should know more about it.

MS and Remedy together should give us more information. The customers deserve better.

 

[jelly]

Microsoft to me these days is ship it incomplete, work on it later. Always beta. They're applying Windows 10 development to everything, get user feedback, see how it works, correct issues later.

 

[nynt9]

Microsoft to me these days is ship it incomplete, work on it later. Always beta. They're applying Windows 10 development to everything, get user feedback, see how it works, correct issues later.

I think of it more like "ask for forgiveness instead of permission". They ship something, and if people don't complain too much they keep it, if people do complain they kinda try to make it stick with PR, if the complaints are too strong they very slowly improve it until either people stop complaining or they give up on fixing it and abandon it.

 

[dmr87]

So do we read anything into the massive fps advantage that the 390 is showing over the 970, or is it such a mess overall that we just throw that out?

What a s*show

Drivers most likely, could be hardware related too. Nvidia has focused on getting as much as they can out of DX11.

 

[Dinky Dino]

This is garbage. Microsoft is responsible here, more so than Remedy, IMO. Spencer said Quantum Break was developed for Xbox One and was not a good fit to just jump over to PC.

Suddenly, the men upstairs say that QB has to end up on PC in order to prop up this UWA initiative which, as of now, has failed with Quantum Break. They sent the game out to die as a UWP, and I wish I could find the article now, but I remember Remedy saying that there were limitations to UWP that they were working through, things that should be there but weren't finished yet.

The higher ups clearly didn't even look into how badly stuff on the pc gets dragged through the mud. You can get away low frames, bad load times and bad frame times on consoles and not expect an outrage but not on pc.

Though this is great in the sense that it pushes UWP one step closer to it's graveyard. Maybe even vulkan will be used more now too.

This release was a taste of what would happen to games in they were all locked down under UWP in terms of having access in at least fixing simple stuff like frame times.

 

[texhnolyze]

Their way of handling this issue with their customers is just pretty bad.

Don't they have a PR person or something? I am no PR but those response from the FAQ and twitters are just childish. PR 101, go read a book or two, Remedy. You're not going to get people's heart by going so defensive.

 

[dr_rus]

Can't decide whether the FOV or the real issues comment is more baffling

Oh, yeah, the default FoV is definitely way too low for a PC version - playing the game on my monitor setup feels really weird because of this.

 

[jelly]

I think of it more like "ask for forgiveness instead of permission". They ship something, and if people don't complain too much they keep it, if people do complain they kinda try to make it stick with PR, if the complaints are too strong they very slowly improve it until either people stop complaining or they give up on fixing it and abandon it.

Halo MCC works for that. Still needs attention but hate cooled off so they won't bother doing anything now. Gits.

 

[GameAddict411]

It seems that no effort was put into this port whatsoever. It was basically a copy and paste job. Really shameful. They didn't even bother removing the crappy resolution filter and almost seems like they broke the frame rate pacing on purpose.

 

[Shin-Ra]

It is not just you. The highest setting still looks a bit rough.

That said, this is the most extreme example I could find. During gameplay, it doesn't always look THIS bad.

Hmm, interesting to see at what res the volumetric lighting in Uncharted 4's SP will run. The beta had a few volumetric light shafts, hell, even UC3 and TLOU had volumetric lighting.

Bluepoint did a nice job bringing U3 up to speed.

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

50fps limit, lol wtf is this a PAL release from the 90s?

Microsoft continues to disappoint. Where are all those folks saying it played perfectly on PC and people were just bitching again?

 

[dark10x]

Note that the lighting in Uncharted 3 is kind of a trick. It's not really doing the same things as Quantum Break and the volumetric shafts have stricter limitations. It does look cool, though, and runs quickly.

 

[MrCunningham]

50 fps cap? ....what?

I don't understand.

They are clearly appealing to nostalgic PAL gamers.

 

[Javin98]

Note that the lighting in Uncharted 3 is kind of a trick. It's not really doing the same things as Quantum Break and the volumetric shafts have stricter limitations. It does look cool, though, and runs quickly.

As in, that's a pre baked volumetric light shaft while those in QB are dynamic volumetric light shafts or something along those lines, right?

 

[ethomaz]

They are clearly appealing to nostalgic PAL gamers.

At 70 euros

 

[ps3ud0]

At 70 euros

But no plastic cart to blow on...

ps3ud0 8)

 

[Dictator93]

As in, that's a pre baked volumetric light shaft while those in QB are dynamic volumetric light shafts or something along those lines, right?

IIRC:
The volumetric shafts in Uncharted 3 in a number of scenes I looked at (I think the museum or temple scene at night? the one with all the guards that have it attached to their pistols) do not cast shadows and are not really spot light sources from what I saw. Rather, they are just screen space shafts eminating from a point on the screen. They only form intersectional rays and occlusion within screenspace boundaries facing the camera. So if the effect's source point is out of screenspace, or if the "light shaft" is perpendicular to the camera direction, it will not show off the "rays effect". Rather, it will just look like a coloured cone that can also go through geometry and look a bit weird. I think in those type of scenes where they have like 3 or 4 of them on screen, it is usually screen space effect. I have not seen all scenes in the game though!

Though! There is a traditional ray marched volumetric used in UC3. You can see it at the one boat area with all the waves at night or when you enter the ruins for the first time after coming out of the desert wandering area.

There appear to be two types: real and fake.

 

[Mohasus]

Yes, the game is good for XB1, but unfortunately not for PC. I believe wumster is talking about delaying the PC version. I'm pretty sure PC gamers wouldn't mind, especially knowing that this was an XB1 exclusive. Pushing the PC version to be released at the same time with XB1 is the mistake. It's rushed.

A delay didn't help GoW:UE.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

The screwed up frame pacing is soooooooo sad, I was looking forward to this game!

I don't mind turning down settings or—heck—even capping to 30fps if it means I get to play, but this 5/6th of your refresh rate stuff is terrible.

Speaking of: what would even cause that? Why would a game's framerate be locked to 5/6th of the refresh rate?