bloodydrake
Cool Smoke Luke
subversus said:/goes to gamersyde
/checks framerate
/30 fps? pass
if you say so.....
subversus said:/goes to gamersyde
/checks framerate
/30 fps? pass
MuseManMike said:Watch Carmack's Quakecon presentation, he explains why the textures are the way the are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zgYG-_ha28
DaBuddaDa said:This shit is so dirty it makes Gears of War look like a field full of flowers. Damn the RAGE world is disgusting.
I love the beautiful, old school gib splatter everywhere.
I thought the same thing.Metalmurphy said:Those textures... Some of them are insanely bad oO Look at the busted cars for example.
omnomis said:Are you joking? This video is the PC version where there isn't a compromise, and the textures look pretty insane. I personally think that in the actual console videos the textures look acceptable for 60fps though.
thesoapster said:This game looks great. Reminds me a bit of Bioshock, but combat looks sooo much better.
StuBurns said:Doom 3 is shit
A tad harsh? FEAR is a game that FEELS like dog shit. The animation and appearance of the weapon in the players hand is a joke. It looks absolutely terrible.StuBurns said:It's a very bad FPS, but what it actually is, is a good horror game. And I think being a bad shooter is kind of required for that actually, I've never played a mechanically great game that is scary, it's too empowering. FEAR for example, outclasses Doom 3 in combat and encounter design, but it's never scary.
Shit might be a tad harsh, I'm not one for the horror genre in any medium, and the compromises to gameplay for it to work in gaming is pretty extreme.
I can only weep for you.dark10x said:A tad harsh? FEAR is a game that FEELS like dog shit. The animation and appearance of the weapon in the players hand is a joke. It looks absolutely terrible.
Doom 3, on the other hand, FEELS incredible. The feeling of actually firing your weapon is extremely well done. Blasting an Imp with a shotgun at close range is always a blast.
Doom 3 has a lot of design problems to be sure, but it still plays very well.
I absolutely hate FEAR, however, but I won't suggest that the game is terrible. I think it FEELS awful to play, but I can see why some people would love it.
That's how I feel about you as well.StuBurns said:I can only weep for you.
What the fuck is wrong with Youtube commenters?.. I mean, really, it's in the goddamn title. They never cease to amaze me.graphics looks sick! too bad its not for pc
JonCha said:Hey, looks like November got a whole lot more interesting.
Install the expansion and play till you get the double-barrel. It's like in the second level and doesn't take too long to get.jett said:Is Doom 3 really that good still? I tried replaying it a bit and it was kinda meh, although I didn't get very far. The enemies take a retarded amount of bullets to kill, annoyingly. SFX for the guns are pretty poor too, so the gunplay doesn't feel all that great to me either.![]()
Problem is...id is rarely at development conventions.I'm sure alot of devs would find alot of meaningful stuff if they were to release tech papers.Phonomezer said:Loved the trailer. I've always been sold on the game but now it's a lock.
And those visuals at 60fps... alot of other developers should be taking notes.
If the enemies are taking too many bullets, you're playing it wrong.jett said:Is Doom 3 really that good still? I tried replaying it a bit and it was kinda meh, although I didn't get very far. The enemies take a retarded amount of bullets to kill, annoyingly. SFX for the guns are pretty poor too, so the gunplay doesn't feel all that great to me either.![]()
Stallion Free said:Install the expansion and play till you get the double-barrel. It's like in the second level and doesn't take too long to get.
Also, the initial weapons in D3 are kinda on the weak side.
dark10x said:Seriously, you should be able to down most enemies very easily. One shotgun blast should be enough to take out all of the base enemies, for instance, as long as you land the shot properly.
Actually the potential is as limited by the PC, in fact given the bluray drive, the PS3 should have the best textures in this case, they just didn't want, or have the time, to do so.mhayze said:Really glad to hear that they will still be working on the PC release all the way until the steam release to try and improve the quality (from the linked QuakeCon address posted in this thread). I hope that there is another layer of higher LOD texture data that eventually is made available for PC players that shows up what the artists originally drew (or as damn close to it as is feasible) - I appreciate that games need to target the consoles because of the size of the market, but it seems like a real shame to waste some of the potential of the PC.
I don't think that's the case at all. They needed to be realistic with file sizes in order to ship a disc and be reasonable with the standard digital download. It seems that their textures require an enormous amount of space. If this were PC only, I don't think we'd see all that much of a difference.mhayze said:Really glad to hear that they will still be working on the PC release all the way until the steam release to try and improve the quality (from the linked QuakeCon address posted in this thread). I hope that there is another layer of higher LOD texture data that eventually is made available for PC players that shows up what the artists originally drew (or as damn close to it as is feasible) - I appreciate that games need to target the consoles because of the size of the market, but it seems like a real shame to waste some of the potential of the PC.
Well it's not the upcoming high res texture pack, so there are actually still some sacrifices. Apparently they will be eventually releasing a true HD texture pack for PC owners. I'm sure it will require a TON of VRAM though.omnomis said:Are you joking? This video is the PC version where there isn't a compromise, and the textures look pretty insane. I personally think that in the actual console videos the textures look acceptable for 60fps though.
Actually the blu ray was a limiting factor as well. Lots of room but slow or something like that. Carmack has spoken about his dislike for Bluray in the past.StuBurns said:Actually the potential is as limited by the PC, in fact given the bluray drive, the PS3 should have the best textures in this case, they just didn't want, or have the time, to do so.
There is a potential 'texture pack' coming for a level as a test. Not for the complete game. And it shouldn't take any additional memory if my understanding of virtualized textures is right.Ulchie said:Well it's not the upcoming high res texture pack, so there are actually still some sacrifices. Apparently they will be eventually releasing a true HD texture pack for PC owners. I'm sure it will require a TON of VRAM though.
Those two things aren't connected. He doesn't like it because it's slow seeking. He blamed a lack of time on not producing higher res assets for PS3. Which I think is kind of bullshit, because he's been talking about doing it for like three years.Ulchie said:Actually the blu ray was a limiting factor as well. Lots of room but slow or something like that. Carmack has spoken about his dislike for Bluray in the past.
StuBurns said:Actually the potential is as limited by the PC, in fact given the bluray drive, the PS3 should have the best textures in this case, they just didn't want, or have the time, to do so.
Megatextures require a very small memory footprint, that is the whole point of the concept. It's true the PS3 doesn't support 8k by 8k textures, but all three platforms will be getting the same assets, on PC because id don't want a game on 'a stack of eight DVDs', but Carmack did specifically say he wished he'd had used the complete bluray for less compressed assets.NBtoaster said:The PS3 is limited by the Blu Ray drive speed and also only supports textures up to 4096x4096. Both PC and 360 support up to 8k x 8k (megatexture requires holding a very large texture in memory).