Don't Buy Global Agenda - [H] Editorial

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been scrimming and playing in Cal and TWL clans off and on for 5 years I've never heard of that. How would they stop you?
Click to expand...
You can set the server up to check the variable settings in the clients (punkbuster required IIRC) and boot them if they are not within the ranges set. I mostly played back in the RTCW and ET days, it was common back then at least.
 
I've never heard of this game until now. It looks interesting. I might have to check it out.
 
J Macker said:
I hope nobody expects a 5770 to to max details at 4E6 pixels (2560x1600 or 3x1280x1024). But this article shows acceptable performance at 4E6 pixels with a 5770 with many games. So, Eyefinity can be done for cheap. That's the only point. I didn't say it would look uber awesome.

Your original statement also stated that you need at LEAST (2) $300 cards, and now you say you're going to purchase a single 5850. So perhaps that initial claim was a bit exaggerated, hmm?
Click to expand...

If you want to run eyefinity with all the details cranked to the absolute max on on three monitors in their native resolutions (at least 1680X1050 each), you would have to get two 5850's. I am only going to get one because I only care to game and focus my attention to one monitor, I am sure eyefinity looks amazing in person though. I personally just don't have the time and extra cash to be that absolutely hardcore about PC gaming. Spending $300 on a single part of a computer would be considered stupid by many people, but I am still faithful to the sadly dying industry of pc gaming.
 
So far, I've seen some really horrible arguments in this thread. Probably the worst one is equating multi-monitor gaming with aimbotting, wall hacking or other cheats. The extra field of view does not aim for you. The extra field of view does not allow you to see through walls. The extra field of view only allows you to see more of what is already there in front of you. The person using the wider field of view still has to perceive what is on the screen and still has to react to it. With the extra field of view that will split the attention of what is on the main monitor and slow down reaction times.

This is the equivalent of changing mouse sensitivity on the fly when doing something like sniping. Are the very same people defending the banning of multi-monitor field of view changes also demanding the removal of the ability to change mouse sensitivity on the fly? It's an advantage only those with the ability to do this which not everyone has.

Here's another example, lag. Very low ping times are something everyone looks for because it gives them an advantage in most cases. I've dealt with high ping and low ping servers on various games and I always do better with lower pings. Since low pings are an advantage, shouldn't the server artificially increase the pings to equal those of the highest pinging players?

These are all advantages which can affect gameplay in an "unfair" way. I see few things like this done on any games to make all players "as equal as possible" and I haven't heard about this game implementing similar measures. If that is so, why is the company singling out higher field of view of people with multi-monitor setups and banning the ability to use them? It's essentially no different than the other things I mentioned.

I have also seen the argument that the game developer can do what they want with the game since it's their game and that it's unfair to call for a boycott of the game. That statement is monumentally stupid. Yes, the game developer can do what they want with the game. However, that does not mean people unhappy about what they are doing don't have a right to speak their minds, bring the point of contention to others and ask others not to buy the game. In the US, freedom of speech works both ways.

Another point of contention which many people don't seem to have grasped is that the developer isn't leaving out support for multi-monitor setups at the current time. The developer flat out stated that they are actively stopping the use of multi-monitor setups. This isn't something they may eventually add into a patch because it was overlooked but the exact opposite. The developer officially stated this.

If you absolutely have to know and haven't looked at my sig, I don't have an Eyefinity setup. I don't currently have any plans to set one up anytime soon either. However, I do not want roadblocks put up which in the long run will hinder my ability to use such a setup if I do decide and have the means to get one. I know all about multi-monitor setups outside of gaming and find they are invaluable. My main system is a dual monitor setup and I would love to add a third monitor if I had the ability to do so. I have a lot of concurrent apps running and have found two to be insufficient for my needs. I wouldn't be surprised if many others with multi-monitor setups for gaming find this to be the same for them. I'm wondering, is it an unfair advantage that I can do more concurrently with my dual monitors than most people with a single monitor? I am in the minority with having more than one monitor.

I don't have a direct stake in this discussion as the game's pros and cons don't affect me at the moment. I do see the difference this company's stance can affect the big picture over time. I also understand that Kyle has his own opinions and he has the right to voice his opinions along with his predictions about the possible future. You're definitely not going to find me telling him to shut the hell up just because I may not agree with him unlike many of the people here while using illogical arguments such as those I presented previously.

 
If they [Global Agenda] are foolish enough to claim they won't support eyefinity they will lose some business. Am I surprised? No. Who is behind this? To not include a new technology because it would be unfair is an oxymoron in a combative game and simply short sighted in the long run. Life isn't fair, will they slow down multi-player to make it "fair" to those with a slower internet connection? If they are truly doing what the article states I don't think they will last long. Then again some well established game houses nix functionality to AMD at the behest of Nvidia. Maybe they are mediocre programmers putting out a wild new game idea hoping to gain some additional financing.
 
macro-ing turns to botting. Which is annoying in a lot of games.

So a tiny minority has an "unfair advantage" but guess what, if people are hardcore enough about gaming to have an eyefinity setup, they're going to pwn you anyway probably.

Pro-tip: catering to whiners is stupid. they're going to find the good people simply won't play their game and the whiners will whine anyway. big mistake.


going out of your way to prevent something isnt cool. i understand disagreeing with something but buying it anyway. Theres a lot of flaws in a lot of games, but we cant boycott them all for minor things. But going out of your way to DEFEND a company that does something like this is just nutty.
 
Last edited:
Catering to whiners IS definitely very stupid, because it never ends. That's one sure-fire way to lock yourself down in an endless balancing cycle ('specially when it comes to game mechanics) and it'll shift your focus away from new game content or refining existing elements. If MMO devs would keep that in mind a lot of 'em would be doing a LOT better.
 
TroubleMagnet said:
You can set the server up to check the variable settings in the clients (punkbuster required IIRC) and boot them if they are not within the ranges set. I mostly played back in the RTCW and ET days, it was common back then at least.
Click to expand...

Huh I couldn't comment on that I'm CS and CSS only. How odd.
 
Damn, I knew I would forget something I wanted to mention in my wall of text above.

I keep hearing how multi-monitor gaming is such a niche and such a small percentage of users make use of it. If that is so, how would it have an effect on the balancing of the game? I would hazard a guess that there are many more people aimbotting, wallhacking and using other blatant cheats than there are using multi-monitor setups. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would prefer fewer people aimbotting and the like on servers than people with multi-monitor displays. At least the person with multiple displays and a higher field of view isn't doing anything more than a person who looks back and forth quickly.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Another point of contention which many people don't seem to have grasped is that the developer isn't leaving out support for multi-monitor setups at the current time. The developer flat out stated that they are actively stopping the use of multi-monitor setups. This isn't something they may eventually add into a patch because it was overlooked but the exact opposite. The developer officially stated this.
Click to expand...

Do you have a cite for this? My beef with this is apparently the dev quote has been taken out of context and people are reading the wrong things into it. The thread linked in Kyle's editorial is NOT the one the dev was responding to and they post the dev's response without the specific question in another thread he was responding to. They NOT banning multi-monitor setups, they're just limiting the horizontal FOV setting so everyone has the same limits on the angles they can see.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Damn, I knew I would forget something I wanted to mention in my wall of text above.

I keep hearing how multi-monitor gaming is such a niche and such a small percentage of users make use of it. If that is so, how would it have an effect on the balancing of the game? I would hazard a guess that there are many more people aimbotting, wallhacking and using other blatant cheats than there are using multi-monitor setups. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would prefer fewer people aimbotting and the like on servers than people with multi-monitor displays. At least the person with multiple displays and a higher field of view isn't doing anything more than a person who looks back and forth quickly.
Click to expand...

That much is very true, rampant macro'ing in MMOs is fairly common (from anything such as tradeskills to more advanced stuff like playing two toons at once in PvP, or even a whole group of 'em)... If the company isn't going to the same lengths to prevent that sorta stuff as they're going to block Eyefinity then there's really very few valid points that work against Kyle's argument, regardless of how it was presented.
 
I can't believe all the hate in here.

As I use Eyefinity, maybe my opinion is a little biased, but as I see it, there is no reason for all this negativity.

Kyle didn't make an article like this saying don't buy Bioshock 2 or ME2, neither of which support landscape Eyefinity, because in those games it was simply an oversight. This game is ACTIVELY BANNING surround gaming. There is a large difference.

The whole unfair advantage argument has been so beat to death, and debunked so often, it is ridiculous to continue it. Let's limit all games to 15 fps at low settings and 800x600 while we're at it, that way the people trying to play on integrated graphics and netbooks can compete...

Thanks for the heads up about this game, I will not be supporting it or anything from this dev.
 
TroubleMagnet said:
They NOT banning multi-monitor setups, they're just limiting the horizontal FOV setting so everyone has the same limits on the angles they can see.
Click to expand...

It's sort of the same thing tho, isn't it? If your FOV is stretched way beyond the aspect ratio of your display setup, then it's not usable because it just looks like ass...
 
So I watched the review video posted in the article and well eyefinity is nice. Although it's not something I'd personally do. To my eyes it looks like the landscape is best for racing style games and portrait for fps/rpg games.

I'd rather just have a dual monitor setup with a 24" 1080p monitor in landscape for gaming and a 22/24" in portrait for web/email/chat/music etc.
 
Impulse said:
It's sort of the same thing tho, isn't it? If your FOV is stretched way beyond the aspect ratio of your display setup, then it's not usable because it just looks like ass...
Click to expand...

Looking like ass != unplayable. FOV can (and should IMHO) be limited in games since if there are no limits then you can set it so you have 360 degree vision. Sure, it will look terrible but you can do it and basically get a rear view mirror. Another factor to consider is some of their anti-bot code may take FOV into account, so if they see someone swinging around and blasting stuff near instantly outside of what should be in their field of view then chances are it's a bot. You leave FOV open and you have to look a lot harder at this.
 
Impulse said:
It's sort of the same thing tho, isn't it? If your FOV is stretched way beyond the aspect ratio of your display setup, then it's not usable because it just looks like ass...
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same thing.

you can still use 3 monitors at their native resolutions but your vertical FOV will be less than a standard monitor, but you'll still be pushing 3X as many pixels as someone on a single monitor.

you just wont have the advantage of seeing more than anyone else in game. I'd probably feel differently if I had a 3 monitor setup, but it seems like a fair compromise. From what I've read, it's not like they're disabling the use of the technology, they're just making sure that the playing field is fair for everyone. Actually, now that I think about it, I can see more developers doing this in the future.

edit: Like TroubleMagnet said, where do you draw the line? Because of EF's modular nature, someone could essentially setup a rig to run what amounts to a rear view mirror to gain a significant advantage. I can see that becoming a big problem, especially for online games.
 
Last edited:
piscian18 said:
Huh I couldn't comment on that I'm CS and CSS only. How odd.
Click to expand...

Yah, I never got into CS (and by extension CSS) since they had a reputation as being filled with hacks and aimbots. ET got like this late on in it's life as well since the anti-hack detection fell behind too far.
 
But no editorial on Nvidia not allowing Physx on their cards if coupled with an ATI card. Nvidia isn't letting us use the hardware we bought the way we want to, either. Where's the outrage there? I don't see any editorial telling us not to buy Nvidia, why is that? Their reason is just as stupid as Hi-Rez's and they actively used resources to block it. In your article regarding physx, you specifically said you weren't going to editorialize (and why, I don't know) but now all of a sudden you're going ape shit over lack of eyefinity in this game. OK, seems a tad hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
bobzdar said:
But no editorial on Nvidia not allowing Physx on their cards if coupled with an ATI card. Nvidia isn't letting us use the hardware we bought the way we want to, either. Where's the outrage there? I don't see any editorial telling us not to buy Nvidia, why is that? Their reason is just as stupid as Hi-Rez's.
Click to expand...

Didn't Nvidia claim it happened due to some change in the drivers? I'm not saying I believe that excuse, but if that is the truth they are under no obligation to correct it.
 
Where to even start..

Well I'll start by saying a LOT of you come across as highly irrational in your statements.

Actively STOPPING you from using an advanced technology (regardless of market penetration) is pretty weak. I can't understand that from a standpoint of a person who loves new technology (You'd think developers would be the same.). But flat out calling it cheating is absurd.

I'll delve deeper:

If this was a tournament or an online gaming league banning Eyefinity, yep sure do agree 100% that is within their right. Because the point would be competitive game play. In this case they are simply making a game, telling people "No you can't have this kind of hardware" is not like a software macro. The hardware is available, you should be able to use it.

Hardware that is not banned that give people advantages in games:
Gaming mice with buttons that can have macros .. or more than two buttons
Keyboards that can program and store macros in their memory
More than 2.1 speaker setups
Headphones (Some people might not have headphones)

You can see the logic, all of these things can pose an advantage over others. Where do you draw the line saying well 700$ is a lot of money for an advantage.

700$ is a lot of money to some people, not everyone. To me its a moderate amount, and if I really wanted it I would do Eyefinity (Just not ready yet for me IMHO). It's not like a 10000$ setup that only 50 people have.

To some people eyefinity might not even be an advantage, it might be a distraction, it might make them play worse because they are used to only 90 degrees in their FOV for a game.

All those things aside, what really shocks me is how everyone is responding to Kyle.

This is his website, period. He can say what he likes on it. The sad thing is that everyone is acting like he is being irrational. He has an opinion just like everyone else. I've actually got to meet Kyle and from that experience and his writings here he seems VERY rational to me. Do I agree that no one should buy the game because Eyefinity isn't supported? No.

However.. It makes me mad to see the developers doing these things, just like it makes some of you angry that Apple does certain things that you might not agree with.

I've personally wanted to throw my iphone through a wall after I've read some of the things they've pulled, and I'll be getting an android phone as soon as AT&T has them available in a good device.

Some of you boycott the most ridiculous things, and some of us support those boycotts. Not everyone does, but you know what?
We should always respect each other for their opinions; that said we should also keep an open mind as to why people have those opinions.

No one is saying you have to agree with anyone on the earth, but you should think for yourself and use a rational mindset when it comes to things like these.

I seriously hope some people take that to heart, because life is much more enjoyable and you'll get along with so many more people having an open mindset.
 
Derangel said:
Didn't Nvidia claim it happened due to some change in the drivers? I'm not saying I believe that excuse, but if that is the truth they are under no obligation to correct it.
Click to expand...

They claimed it was because it might cause instability - and they actively disabled it.
 
Weenis said:
If this was a tournament or an online gaming league banning Eyefinity, yep sure do agree 100% that is within their right. Because the point would be competitive game play. In this case they are simply making a game, telling people "No you can't have this kind of hardware" is not like a software macro. The hardware is available, you should be able to use it.
Click to expand...

GA is competitive game play. Winning or losing AvA matches matters as you gain or lose territory based on this, basically their whole selling point for the subscription part of the game. So they are going to have more motivation than most other games to try and make a level playing field.
 
Since I don't have Eyefinity, their ban is irrelevant to me. I buy games if they seem enjoyable, so I'll be waiting for thorough gameplay reviews before making a decision.
 
I'm probably not going to play the game because it looks like a pile of dog shit.
 
A lot of you guys that see us as eyefinity users a niche market or cheaters can think about this. To put a cap on the advancement, integration, or implementation of new technology to say it is cheating or a niche market is, in my opinion, hurtful to any industry. Innovations with positive outcomes should not be limited to barriers or cutoff for the fact that we should always move forward. Just because we as a gaming society sees things like eyefinity as a niche market or cheating, if we do not embrace technology like this, we in turn advocate the decline in innovation and progress of future technology. If gaming and systems worked like communism, then we would still be playing games with graphics like quake.
 
dr.stevil said:
I'd probably feel differently if I had a 3 monitor setup
Click to expand...

That's the contentious point in the matter. Many of the people defending the intentional exclusion of this technology are using that as the basis of their defense. They don't have it so no one should be able to use it. That is what their arguments boil down to. In a previous post I took exception to this line of reasoning with examples everyone who plays online PC games comes into contact with every time they play. There will always be disadvantages and advantages to be had. However, I don't see how a wider field of view can be considered cheating like an aimbot or a wallhack. They are not even close to the same thing. I don't know of any online PC games where having something do all the aiming for you is allowed. That has nothing to do with skill or ability. It's the same with being able to see through walls unless there is a device in the game which allows you to do so like some type of x-ray glasses. I will state again, an increased field of view from a multi-monitor setup is no different than looking around. It does not give you any type of special powers.

dr.stevil said:
edit: Like TroubleMagnet said, where do you draw the line? Because of EF's modular nature, someone could essentially setup a rig to run what amounts to a rear view mirror to gain a significant advantage. I can see that becoming a big problem, especially for online games.
Click to expand...

Where you draw the line is important. However, using an example like 360 degree viewing is completely illogical. I don't know of a single person who naturally has the ability to see a 360 degree viewing angle. The number and placement of human eyes do not allow for anything like this naturally. I don't think it would be difficult for people to accept a limitation in games where the field of view is no more or little more than the average person's field of view. As it is, I'm not sure there are any games which allow of a field of view anywhere near 360 degrees even with a really screwed up aspect ratio.

Trying to use an extreme example which doesn't currently exist as an argument against something is not valid.
 
TroubleMagnet said:
GA is competitive game play. Winning or losing AvA matches matters as you gain or lose territory based on this, basically their whole selling point for the subscription part of the game. So they are going to have more motivation than most other games to try and make a level playing field.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't buy that... It sounds a lot like DAOC's RvR (realm vs realm) where you gain or lose keeps, relics, etc. and there were a lot of things people could do to gain an edge on one another there if they had better hardware. I've no idea if Eyefinity works (in which case it'd be another edge) but people w/faster hardware could bump up the distance at which the game starts drawing models, play at a higher res, etc.

None of it made any difference whatsoever to the casual players tho (and I never once saw 'em bitch about it, they bitched about powergamer's abuse of game mechanics but never hardware advantages)... Casual players don't pan, a powergamer that had his kb&mouse set up properly was infinitely more aware of his surroundings even on a single display. Casual gamers used the mouse rather than keyboard hotkeys, you can see how that would impact a fight when you have to mouse over 8 buttons and 10 hotbars to click every spell...

So on and so forth. There's always gonna be someone out there with an edge on this type of game... I don't think Eyefinity raises that bar very far. If we were talking about competitive FPS leagues w/cash prizes or something like that then I could understand the dev's paranoia over keeping things fair, otherwise I think they're blowing it out of proportion and giving themselves bad press by actively going out and trying to prevent people from enjoying their hardware to the fullest.

One person w/better peripheral vision out of hundreds or thousands is not gonna affect the outcome of the game's fights or ownership of it's territories. Hell I doubt even one guild full of Eyefinity-touting gamers would do that, and if they can, then the game is horribly balanced anyway... 8-man groups could often take on as many as 50 players in DAOC but they seldom had a huge impact in the large scale aspect of the game (the keeps, relics, etc.).

A lot of this goes back to basic arguments over game design theory, and a lot of it is still very much in it's early stages when it comes to MMOs.
 
SmokeRngs said:
There will always be disadvantages and advantages to be had. However, I don't see how a wider field of view can be considered cheating like an aimbot or a wallhack. They are not even close to the same thing.
Click to expand...


nah, it's no where near an aimbot. IF anything, maybe something more along the lines of using a zoom hack in AOE
 
Impulse said:
Personally I don't buy that... It sounds a lot like DAOC's RvR (realm vs realm) where you gain or lose keeps, relics, etc. and there were a lot of things people could do to gain an edge on one another there if they had better hardware. I've no idea if Eyefinity works (in which case it'd be another edge) but people w/faster hardware could bump up the distance at which the game starts drawing models, play at a higher res, etc.

None of it made any difference whatsoever to the casual players tho (and I never once saw 'em bitch about it, they bitched about powergamer's abuse of game mechanics but never hardware advantages)... Casual players don't pan, a powergamer that had his kb&mouse set up properly was infinitely more aware of his surroundings even on a single display. Casual gamers used the mouse rather than keyboard hotkeys, you can see how that would impact a fight when you have to mouse over 8 buttons and 10 hotbars to click every spell...

So on and so forth. There's always gonna be someone out there with an edge on this type of game... I don't think Eyefinity raises that bar very far. If we were talking about competitive FPS leagues w/cash prizes or something like that then I could understand the dev's paranoia over keeping things fair, otherwise I think they're blowing it out of proportion and giving themselves bad press by actively going out and trying to prevent people from enjoying their hardware to the fullest.

One person w/better peripheral vision out of hundreds or thousands is not gonna affect the outcome of the game's fights or ownership of it's territories. Hell I doubt even one guild full of Eyefinity-touting gamers would do that, and if they can, then the game is horribly balanced anyway... 8-man groups could often take on as many as 50 players in DAOC but they seldom had a huge impact in the large scale aspect of the game (the keeps, relics, etc.).

A lot of this goes back to basic arguments over game design theory, and a lot of it is still very much in it's early stages when it comes to MMOs.
Click to expand...


Exactly, I played on an Eyefinity set up.

Sure it made a difference with peripheral vision, I saw one or two people in the peripheral areas, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to determine whether or not you shoot them first :p
 
Developers who willfully hold back tech or force regression of tech will not get my money. What the hell is the deal with PC game developers lately? Are they all secretly (or not so secretly, I guess) turning into console game devs with asinine moves like this and matchmaking while excluding the possibility of hosted servers?
 
was considering Global or AvP for this month, but my 3240x1940 desktop just andswered the question
 
dr.stevil said:
nah, it's no where near an aimbot. IF anything, maybe something more along the lines of using a zoom hack in AOE
Click to expand...

It's still not even the same thing. A hack alters the game to do something outside of the scope of the game. A change in the field of view does not alter the scope of the game. The person is seeing no more than they would if they were looking back and forth. It doesn't cause a zoom effect, it doesn't highlight enemies, it doesn't allow you to see through walls, it doesn't automatically kill your enemy, etc.

I don't understand why people can't see an expanded field of view as a progression of where we have already been. Hell, I've lost count of the times where I've heard people complain about a new game with a decreased field of view compared to the "standard".
 
SmokeRngs said:
Where you draw the line is important. However, using an example like 360 degree viewing is completely illogical. I don't know of a single person who naturally has the ability to see a 360 degree viewing angle. The number and placement of human eyes do not allow for anything like this naturally. I don't think it would be difficult for people to accept a limitation in games where the field of view is no more or little more than the average person's field of view. As it is, I'm not sure there are any games which allow of a field of view anywhere near 360 degrees even with a really screwed up aspect ratio.

Trying to use an extreme example which doesn't currently exist as an argument against something is not valid.
Click to expand...

No, 360 degree IS a valid argument, although admittedly extreme, since that is what you could do (barring engine bugs) with a totally unrestricted FOV setting. So then we have to decide where the limit should be. What exactly is the average person's field of view? Do you let them move their head, their eyes or just what they can see when looking forward? In theory someone could set up 6 monitors and get to, or at least close to, a 360 display. Should this be allowed? Would you consider a person with one monitor using the FOV setting ment for an eyefinity setup to be cheating? If they open it up for eyefinity you can bet people without an eyefinity setup will want to get that FOV too. Who cares if it looks bad if they can watch three doors at once instead of two!
 
In many MMOs you can freely pan your camera as you move in any direction (or strafe), I'm not sure a lot of people posting in this thread grasp that... Hell I'm not sure if GA even gives you that option, but using Eyefinity in a game like that is literally no more of an advantage than running at a high res w/a good mouse and a good keybind arrangement... You just end up having to pan slightly shorter distances (since the FOV covers a larger span), but you're still gonna want to pan and any player that isn't doing so (usually a good majority) is at an inherent disadvantage... There's always gonna be a huge divide tho, between players that take full advantage of those game mechanics and players that don't.
 
SmokeRngs said:
It's still not even the same thing. A hack alters the game to do something outside of the scope of the game. A change in the field of view does not alter the scope of the game. The person is seeing no more than they would if they were looking back and forth. It doesn't cause a zoom effect
Click to expand...


of course it is. If you're able to see more at a time than someone else, it's exactly the same thing as using a zoom hack in AOE (or any other top-down RTS type of game) where your view is limited for a reason. It's also probably why a few people mentioned SC2 and diablo as well.

If you don't see that, that's fine... we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Did Kyle make an article against Battlefield 2? For years, their stance was that widescreen gaming was an unfair advantage, so they wouldn't patch proper support.

That bullshit impacted far more people than the few that have Eyenfinity setups playing Global Agenda.

Edit: Whoops, looks like Kyle acknowledge BF2 1 post ahead of me. I agree that it is harsh for Kyle to go after the small guys that put out a small release tied to Steam. This is not exactly a high profile release.
 
acanthis said:
was considering Global or AvP for this month, but my 3240x1940 desktop just andswered the question
Click to expand...

I talked to the Rebellion/AVP guys yesterday morning for about 30 minutes. AVP will have full "Eyefinity Support" out of the box....or Steam.

Rebellion explained to me that Eyefinity Support was simple to integrate and took little resources.

(There will also be full DX11 Tessellation in the game used on the Alien. Rebellion stated that Tessellation on the Alien(s) allowed it to really give the character that smooth svelte look, getting away from any pointy polys sticking up where they should not be. Noted that the Alien may (ballpark) Tessellate up to 180K polys and down to 18K. Also, DX11 version will have MSAA built in, where the DX9 version will not. Oh yeah, and enhanced shadows that they said made the game much more intense.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top