-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Quake Wars Pics. Holy SH*T...? (640x480 ; ;)
- Thread starter Borys
- Start date
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Based on the Gears of Wars screens as a comparison, I'd say this game could be done on X360. Plus, considering they are going after Battlefield 2's marketshare, I would think a console version is imminent. Could make a great launch title for PS3....
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Borys said:
I remember hearing that back in May. These new screens look amazing. The need for voice communication just screams XBOX Live. crosses fingers
Pedigree Chum
Banned
Didn't Splash Damage say that this will run on the same specs as Doom 3?
DonasaurusRex said:
it's being nitpicky to be sure, but if they expect me to upradge to a 7800 to play this game I dont want to see shit like this!
the body armour and sleeves are pretty low poly too. The normal maps make them look nice head on, but if you look at some of the more angled shots you can see how flat they are.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
momolicious
Member
^ PCs are not that advanced yet to handle both perfectly
Flo_Evans said:
Dont forget the plastic look. Overuse of normal mapping is getting annoying. I hate the way they do fake creases on clothes too. Increase the polycounts rather than overstretching normal mapping!
momolicious said:
PC's already are more powerful than PS3. Expect big advances over time.
Deg said:
Ehrmm no, not really...
Maybe the RSX is comparable to current high-end PC GPU's (especially in SLI), but I don't think any current PC CPU can be compared to either CELL or Xenon. Even if the highest-end PC atm is comparable to either PS3 or X360, it will take developers quite a while to fully exploit that hardware. So I don't expect PC games to actually look better than next-gen console games until after about two years. The same happened current-gen when you think about it. Yes the PC had nice texturing and high resolutions with the likes of Quake 3, but the PS2 did so much other things better (animation, particles, polygons, grafical effects) a year in it's life with the likes of MGS2, GT3 and FFX, that it was actually more convincing looking than most PC games. Hell, just have a look at current PS2 games and the power difference back then between PC and PS2 becomes even more apparant. PC developers always have to take into account the many users with a lower-spec machine, so they can hardly ever optimize for the highest-end hardware available.
Deg said:
What, you want pics of my rig and equipment boxes when I get home? Cus I was going to snap some pics of my new custom 360 faceplate anyway, and would be happy to ablige.
I sit at a computer all day at work. When I get home, I want to sit on my couch in front of my big screen HDTV and play my games with all of the conveniences of Live. I know you're not a brainiac, but this really shouldn't be terribly hard to understand. Maybe when you get a job one day, you'll see that sitting at a computer for 16 hours a day isn't terribly fun.
I have a high end PC just for those FEW titles that I can't get on a console like WoW, or for games where I can't get the full experience on a console like HL2. If I could get these experiences on my 360, then I really wouldn't bother keeping my PC up, but I can't, so I do.
Flo_Evans said:
it's being nitpicky to be sure, but if they expect me to upradge to a 7800 to play this game I dont want to see shit like this!
the body armour and sleeves are pretty low poly too. The normal maps make them look nice head on, but if you look at some of the more angled shots you can see how flat they are.
you're not a pc gamer are you?
nor do you play battlefield style games...
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
must...play...this (with good controls i.e. fuck off consoles)
must...sell...organs...and...pets for cash
must...sell...organs...and...pets for cash
Kasra said:
http://media.gigex.com/ss/4393/screens/4393_10.jpg
see that tree. see how dense the forests are in this game?
the forests in bf2 are a joke.
bf2 doesn't compare in this area.
Gameplay >>>>>>>>>>> Graphics
Seriously, when you players are crying over pixels ingame I'm gonna blow your head off and enjoy the game.
Here's the most common (and stupid) example:
Counter-strike, looks like shit but it's still the most popular online FPS game.
Next-gen makes everyone into a graphic whore.
Seriously, when you players are crying over pixels ingame I'm gonna blow your head off and enjoy the game.
Here's the most common (and stupid) example:
Counter-strike, looks like shit but it's still the most popular online FPS game.
Next-gen makes everyone into a graphic whore.
Parallax Scroll
Banned
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't higher poly counts increase the overhead for hit detection and possibly physics, and thus increase network traffic?
R0nn said:
We are talking about the current next generation.
BF2 trees are awful. Very simple models. Although they do animate, shake with wind by air vehicles etc. BF2 doesnt have any forests either.
This game should top BF2 graphically easily overall as a year might well have a passed by then. Especially if it ends up with 32 players. But i hate the plastic look the Doom 3 engine supports. UE3 looks much better in this respect. I would prefer if DICE continue to make their own engine for BF for 64 players.
Three things to consider on the PC front:
1. The engine is so far removed from Doom 3 at this point that Splash Damage is uncomfortable calling it that without a disclaimer("Heavily modified"). Don't expect your rig to run the game perfectly at max settings just because Doom 3 does...
2. The player limit goal of 24-32 is only for official servers. Just like it was for Wolf ET(32). Independent servers will be able to set their own player limit(64 I'd expect), and also should see modifications so that you can play the game to your liking(increased speed, double jump, XP storage, etc). Splash Damage is, imho, the most helpful and generous dev when it comes to the mod community. Which leads to:
3. Custom maps will extend the PC version's life far beyond console iterations.
1. The engine is so far removed from Doom 3 at this point that Splash Damage is uncomfortable calling it that without a disclaimer("Heavily modified"). Don't expect your rig to run the game perfectly at max settings just because Doom 3 does...
2. The player limit goal of 24-32 is only for official servers. Just like it was for Wolf ET(32). Independent servers will be able to set their own player limit(64 I'd expect), and also should see modifications so that you can play the game to your liking(increased speed, double jump, XP storage, etc). Splash Damage is, imho, the most helpful and generous dev when it comes to the mod community. Which leads to:
3. Custom maps will extend the PC version's life far beyond console iterations.
Borys said:
Elitist console gamers, eh? I was a PC gamer for many many years, and they are the real elitist pricks (as was I
). Anyway, I think it's quite the other way around. I for one am happy not having to spend hundreds of quid a year (or probably every other year to be fair) on PC upgrades anymore, . The only thing I lost was being an elitist PC gamer - can't say I miss it much though.
Goreomedy said:
Thats the beauty of pc gaming.
hadareud said:Elitist console gamers, eh? I was a PC gamer for many many years, and they are the real elitist pricks (as was I
Anyway, I think it's quite the other way around. I for one am happy not having to spend hundreds of quid a year (or probably every other year to be fair) on PC upgrades anymore, . The only thing I lost was being an elitist PC gamer - can't say I miss it much though.
Instead you spend 100's of quid more on massively overpriced goods(more than 100% markup in many cases) for broken versions of games. :lol Console gamers are the ultimate suckers, they pay for anything.
Borys said:
I wouldn't go quite that far. I am often enticed back to my PC by games like Warcraf 3, WoW, SWG (shut up), and HL2. It's just that I really can't do it every day or sit there for 4 or 5 hours when I get home from work. Sitting on my couch and playing PGR or something for 4 hours is fine because I'm comfortable and relaxed.
This is why I'm interested in the Rev controller. If they can give me the precision of a mouse while allowing me to sit on my couch... well they win. Too bad about the lack of HD though.
Oh and the 360 version will undoubtedly have downloadable maps (if it comes ot 360). Maybe they'll be free and maybe not. I'm willing to pay for the convenience of comfort, so w/e. The consoles do need to get better on the downloadable front, though. I know it's hard in a closed environment, but someone smart needs to find a way to have more user created content out there.
Deg said:
That's nice, on the other hand you could also stop talking shite for the sake of it.
This just again shows that most PC gamers feel a certain kind of superiority over console gamers. But yeah, downloading games for free is slightly cheaper than having to buy them - good for you.
Plus, the broken games argument is so stupid I think we don't really have to discuss this (especially since this thread should be more about the awesome quake wars screens than this shit).
SaggyMonkey
Member
Borys said:
Bzzt, try again. No chance in hell could the original Xbox could deal with QW engine using a single giant texture for the entire environment terrain, while also dealing with that level of texture detail, lighting or physics on that scale... (or support enough players online to make it interesting) But if you mean they could possibly sand down all the detail and make a different game from the concept (like modern combat), well ok.
hadareud said:
I mean look at the price of the HDD on xbox 360! Or a wireless controller with all bells and whistles VS a top class mouse
Also that reminds me games tend to cost 25% less than console games at full price. Plus we've had HD for years now and user community in games. Its easy just making a remark with no weight to it. Next time try harder.
Eel O'Brian
Member
Chittagong said:
I'd just like to add "Please."
Deg said:I mean look at the price of the HDD on xbox 360! Or a wireless controller with all bells and whistles VS a top class mouse
Don't get me wrong, there's no denying that you're getting ripped off on accessories and game prices with consoles - after all this is what the manufacturers are making their money with.
Still, if I compare what I spend on a console over it's life time of 5 - 7 years to what I'd spend on keeping my PC up to date it's still a lot less. I'm missing out on a couple of great games though, but the PC games that I'm interested in and that are not coming to consoles are getting less and less (apart from RTS - which might very well change soon as well, going by todays announcement of EA).