Digital Foundry had a nice breakdown suggesting that it's genuinely running, but that each moment appeared staged to maximize the impact of each moment.
Digital Foundry had a nice breakdown suggesting that it's genuinely running, but that each moment appeared staged to maximize the impact of each moment.
It's a modern AAA title.
Of course it will.
How many times are y'all going to do this with Frostbite games only to be proven wrong?
Yeah, good point. Haven't been let down so far.
Was it really an Xbox or just a really beefy PC?
In any case, it doesn't really matter. This is 100% a vertical slice. The finished game should look worse, which makes total sense.
UPDATE: In a previous version of this article, we stated that it wasn't clear what hardware this demo was running on - in fact, EA's Patrick Soderlund does confirm that it is a real-time Xbox One X demonstration. Many apologies for the error, we will have a deeper look at the demo very soon, but we can confirm 2160p checkerboarding from our tests - something that would be unlikely on PC and very much in line with Frostbite's console technologies.
Not quite how things go down. E3 demos are rarely target renders nowadays (or target renders at all, cant think of a game in many years that actually did that, one thing to capture it on powerful hardware, one way to actually make it prerendered). E3 segments do naturally get more polish of course, and the optimisation part is more or less true (even though you would never make a postprocess effect that eats 10 fps unless you are a complete idiot)
This too.A downgrade is the least of my worries.
DICE is on a different level.How many times are y'all going to do this with Frostbite games only to be proven wrong?
Every games development is different, but I disagree with what you're saying completely.
It is a huge waste of time productivity wise to make a demo. It can easily take 6+ months just to focus on getting a demo ready, and it's largely doing work that you will need to go back and revise later.
I think you're gravely underestimating the the effort that goes into polishing something to make it look ready for a game that hasn't even had all of its systems developed.
And they are by definition target renderes. This whole thread, and all the drama that has followed similar outrages in the past are a testament to that.
This to.I just have no faith left in Bioware. No way the final product looks like that.
It's going to be Watch dogs downgrade level.
Even Andromeda looked pretty amazing when it was shown off the first time, and Bioware's strengths have never been in delivering amazing looking games.
And now I'm pissed again off thinking about where Biowares strengths actually do lie, and how Anthem is very clearly EA forcing them to do the exact opposite of that, the festering cunts.
I have worked on 20+ AAA games, I am fully aware of the work involved in E3 demos
This was shown on a Xbox one x. So for that and the pro, no. For PS4 and normal Xbox yeah.
We saw a vertical slice at a conference. Of course the final game won't look like that.
The first real time demo of the game was from the PS4 Pro showcase, right? That was not an amazing looking game.Even Andromeda looked pretty amazing when it was shown off the first time, and Bioware's strengths have never been in delivering amazing looking games.
And now I'm pissed again off thinking about where Biowares strengths actually do lie, and how Anthem is very clearly EA forcing them to do the exact opposite of that, the festering cunts.
Not quite how things go down. E3 demos are rarely target renders nowadays (or target renders at all, cant think of a game in many years that actually did that, one thing to capture it on powerful hardware, one way to actually make it prerendered). E3 segments do naturally get more polish of course, and the optimisation part is more or less true (even though you would never make a postprocess effect that eats 10 fps unless you are a complete idiot)
Absolutely, especially on console. Hopefully PC will come close.