samuelmorris
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,506
Well, you're just assuming there's a compromise if the game didn't turn out how you'd hoped, that doesn't actually prove the point
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Valve has never been a leader in engine technology. The engine used in the original Half-Life was outdated at the time (it was a modified version of id Tech 1, when id Tech 2 was already available), and Source was also technically inferior to other engines of that time, such as id Tech 4 and CryEngine 1. The current version of Source is woefully lacking in features compared to just about any other modern engine, but that's because of the way they handle development, not because of consoles.So you are fine with a developer making a sub standard (graphically) game for pc because of console limitations and then recompiling it for consoles? I personally am not 'ok' with it but that is all that is available currently (there are exceptions such as metro). I am not against Valve, I am actually a large supported of them, but they haven't attempted to push forward pc gaming since they implemented HDR into the source engine back in 2005.
That's a matter of opinion, which I and many other people would disagree with. If you know where to look, the graphical limitations of the Source engine are very evident.and yet despite how old and basic the engine is, games produced on it still look very good
The limitations are plain for all to see, but that doesn't make the games look bad, just simple, and clean, which is no bad thing. I'd rather have simple crisp graphics than blurry or fuzzy complex ones.That's a matter of opinion, which I and many other people would disagree with. If you know where to look, the graphical limitations of the Source engine are very evident.
The story sucked, the game played sucked, the ending sucked, the multi-player sucks, and the graphics suck.
I'm perplexed people defend this shit at all
I still play CSS, so I dont always need to stress my GPU if the game play is fun.
I broke out the original Quake a few days ago ... they don't make 'em like they used to. Now it's all flashy graphics and too much attempted realism imho.
I agree. That's no reason to regress technologically. What a colossally disappointing product from one of the stalwarts of the PC gaming industry.
This is what we have to look forward to? Hilariously idiotic game play and weak graphics for the benefit of people who game on "easy bake oven computers" that they purchased from Toys-R-Us?
a high res texture pack is being worked on right now
"We have a bicubic-upsample+detail texture option for the next PC patch that will help alleviate the blurry textures in Rage."
This is why i never bothered with a SLI/Xfire setup.
I dont know.. maybe Im just the odd ball but ive been playing it and the story is kind of fun and I find myself just stopping at times and looking around.. its a pretty detailed world if you don't just fly through it..
Yea it doesn't look great up close but looking out windows and stuff and the outside areas someone spent a lot of time detailing it.. you really get the feel like you are in a wasteland.
Im enjoying the game.. on the PC..
Doom 4 better be designed with hardcore PC gaming in mind...in my mind, id Tech 5 should be like all of its predecessors - at the very forefront of graphics technology, so gloriously detailed that even the fastest rigs can barely play it, yet able to be scaled down to lower-mainstream hardware.
You are prolly going to be disappointed. This engine, and this game, were aimed squarely at the consoles, it is doubtful they will change their focus for their next engine or game.. Especially since iD is owned by Zenimax, and no longer free to do whatever they want.
Considering the regrets that Carmack admitted upon Rage's release, don't count future id titles out just yet...