The Evil Within

Dion said:
Why is it idiotic? If people can take advantage of it and use it.. I see no problems. Turn down your settings if you can't handle high res textures.
Click to expand...

Same reason Crysis was a bad idea. If you create something that runs like a turd people get pissed at you and the platform. Also why creating a game with recommended SLI would be idiotic.

It's just the way markets work. If you are going to make something only a fraction of people can truly use you need to sell it at a much higher price to make sure only they can afford it. Rather than selling it cheap and creating a backlash.

Don't have 4gb VRAM, buy it on console or wait till it's $5 and an el-cheapo card can run it. That's what 4gb VRAM is a requirement means.
 
cageymaru said:
LA Noire ran at 30 fps and was fine. With that said, I don't trust the ID Tech engine at all as I've had texture pop in within all of those games.
Click to expand...
I did not think it was fine at all. I had to use the controller just to help tolerate that jittery low frame crap. Just panning around at 30 fps makes me queasy.
 
cageymaru said:
I thought that the game was supposed to run on much lower spec PC's?
Click to expand...

Run, and run enjoyably are two completely different things. If a game is really dependent on certainly lighting, physics, particle, or other effects to truly set the mood and atmosphere, and that's what the game is about, than running it without those is going to be a bad experience. On the other hand if it's a fast paced MP shooter where those things don't matter, or even get in the way, running it on a lower spec'd PC isn't much of an issue.

That's the issue here. If this game is a "take you through the artists vision" game, then blocking off parts of the screen, locking a frame rate, grainy filters, and all of that aren't really a problem. It's an artistic choice. But not being able to run it at the level it's supposed to be seen is a massive fucking problem.

On the other hand if it's not that type of game, and it's just a generic horror FPS, running it below spec with details missing isn't an issue at all. However then the black boxing, frame rate caps, and other items make no logical sense and should have been tossed.

Since all signs point to it being the former, the 4gb VRAM is silly.
 
misterbobby said:
lol looking at videos I would say this game has no real high res textures. Hopefully it will have a VT Compress setting like Wolfenstein did to enable so you dont have to eat your vram up while still getting ass ugly textures.
Click to expand...

You're comparing Oranges and Apples.

The art of the textures has nothing to do with the engines texture resolution or size.

As long as the game still runs good on cards with 2 or 3gigs of VRAM i see no issues. Time will tell for that.
 
cageymaru said:
With that said, I don't trust the ID Tech engine at all as I've had texture pop in within all of those games.
Click to expand...

Isn't that kinda the whole point of how this engine works and what's awesome about it? It streams partially resident textures from a massive file, making it possible for games to use extremely high resolution texture artwork while maintaining very high frame rate.

I didn't mind the appearance of the texture streaming in RAGE or Wolfenstein New Order. I was blown away with how fast the games ran on my crappy laptop despite looking so good. Some of the environments in these games were absolutely stunning, like those post apocalyptic interiors in the ruined city in RAGE.

A lot of little details that you just can't do in games with traditional texture mapping because rendering would require insane amount of GPU power.
 
Bismo Funyuns said:
Isn't that kinda the whole point of how this engine works and what's awesome about it? It streams partially resident textures from a massive file, making it possible for games to use extremely high resolution texture artwork while maintaining very high frame rate.

I didn't mind the appearance of the texture streaming in RAGE or Wolfenstein New Order. I was blown away with how fast the games ran on my crappy laptop despite looking so good. Some of the environments in these games were absolutely stunning, like those post apocalyptic interiors in the ruined city in RAGE.

A lot of little details that you just can't do in games with traditional texture mapping because rendering would require insane amount of GPU power.
Click to expand...
Lol ok. Sorry but RAGE had horrific looking blurred out garbage for textures. I cant even fathom how anyone can find that crap acceptable much less praise it.
 
misterbobby said:
Lol ok. Sorry but RAGE had horrific looking blurred out garbage for textures. I cant even fathom how anyone can find that crap acceptable much less praise it.
Click to expand...

Gameplay-wise, it was fun but not spectacular, weak ending and some of the car racing stuff detracted from the game, etc. But some of those environments in RAGE were gorgeous. Especially if you like post apocalyptic settings.

Maybe you guys with high end rigs are used to running games with crazy lighting and photorealistic texture mods and stuff, but for me with my weak hp laptop and 5830m, I never had the chance to see anything like it until RAGE.

It's surprising the game was playable at all on last gen consoles, let alone at 60fps.

http://i.imgur.com/MIKXd59.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JZ8HfOe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CSiM0Lr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RsvM0Ja.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8ynweEr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kZ7d9x9.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/GiIRuu9.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VxpfgE8.jpg

I'd say RAGE started out with bad rap because of the bungled AMD drivers at launch, and you still have to tweak the cfg file a bit to fix the textures, but it's nuts how crazy optimized the game is to run so fast on weaker PCs and still look this good.

At least id had the ambition to try to push the envelope a bit with a new kind of engine. I liked Wolfenstein New Order and I'm still highly optimistic for DOOM4. Main problem with RAGE IMO was no team deathmatch multiplayer, otherwise I think it might have been a hit.
 
Last edited:
I love the way you avoided any texture up close. Surely you don't think people are that stupid? I could post screenshots all day long that show how butt ugly that game was when you got near anything. If you really want to play the screenshot game then I will take you up on that tomorrow after work.


In the meantime I will just leave this here...http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMxODgyNTI4NmQwb1lRSUFnU1JfNl8xN19sLmpwZw==

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMxODgyNTI4NmQwb1lRSUFnU1JfNl8xOV9sLmpwZw==

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/19/rage_gameplay_performance_image_quality/6#.VDY3bKhdWPV

Low-Detail Textures

RAGE is awash with low-detail textures. Some objects appear very blurry, while some look basically OK. Characters look better than anything else, and almost all objects look bad up close.
 
Another lousy console port I can see.... 50GB of hard drive space wasted and yet the graphics don't look anywhere near HD. 4GB of VRAM required to run at 1080p? WTF? Sorry but that is idiotic, considering how shit the graphics look. And 1080p isn't even considered a "high resolution" anymore, not in the world of modern PC's. Don't get me started with that 30 FPS cap as well.

And like I mentioned before, this game will most likely have texture popping because of how poorly coded the ID Tech 5 engine is.
 
4GB of VRAM for 1080P for this particular game IS idiotic, any way you look at it, but the point of making a game require top of the line hardware is pretty logical: if you want the best, buy the best. If you can't afford the best, then the plan is to run it on what your system is capable of. The world isn't geared towards making an even experience for everyone, it's for people to be able to cherry pick what they can afford, and then go from there.

Again, 4GB VRAM is fine...but not for 1080P, and not for this game. My 2 cents.
 
BiH115 said:
4GB of VRAM for 1080P for this particular game IS idiotic, any way you look at it, but the point of making a game require top of the line hardware is pretty logical: if you want the best, buy the best. If you can't afford the best, then the plan is to run it on what your system is capable of. The world isn't geared towards making an even experience for everyone, it's for people to be able to cherry pick what they can afford, and then go from there.

Again, 4GB VRAM is fine...but not for 1080P, and not for this game. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense.
 
BiH115 said:
4GB of VRAM for 1080P for this particular game IS idiotic, any way you look at it, but the point of making a game require top of the line hardware is pretty logical: if you want the best, buy the best. If you can't afford the best, then the plan is to run it on what your system is capable of. The world isn't geared towards making an even experience for everyone, it's for people to be able to cherry pick what they can afford, and then go from there.

Again, 4GB VRAM is fine...but not for 1080P, and not for this game. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

PEople with a high end processor and a 780 oc'd shouldn't feel like their computer is "outdated/old."

780's (not all of them, but most) only have 3gb of VRAM.
 
Bismo Funyuns said:
Isn't that kinda the whole point of how this engine works and what's awesome about it? It streams partially resident textures from a massive file, making it possible for games to use extremely high resolution texture artwork while maintaining very high frame rate.

I didn't mind the appearance of the texture streaming in RAGE or Wolfenstein New Order. I was blown away with how fast the games ran on my crappy laptop despite looking so good. Some of the environments in these games were absolutely stunning, like those post apocalyptic interiors in the ruined city in RAGE.

A lot of little details that you just can't do in games with traditional texture mapping because rendering would require insane amount of GPU power.
Click to expand...

Thank you! There aren't a lot of us out there, but it's nice to see someone speak a bit of sense about this engine.
 
misterbobby said:
I love the way you avoided any texture up close. Surely you don't think people are that stupid? I could post screenshots all day long that show how butt ugly that game was when you got near anything. If you really want to play the screenshot game then I will take you up on that tomorrow after work.


In the meantime I will just leave this here...http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMxODgyNTI4NmQwb1lRSUFnU1JfNl8xN19sLmpwZw==

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMxODgyNTI4NmQwb1lRSUFnU1JfNl8xOV9sLmpwZw==

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/19/rage_gameplay_performance_image_quality/6#.VDY3bKhdWPV

Low-Detail Textures

RAGE is awash with low-detail textures. Some objects appear very blurry, while some look basically OK. Characters look better than anything else, and almost all objects look bad up close.
Click to expand...

Do you actually play games, or just walk up to things really closely and stare at them? Yes, there were indeed some poor texture choices made in RAGE, and to a lesser extent a few in Wolfenstein as well, but taken as a whole, and while you're actually... ...playing... ...the games, they are stunning as mentioned. I guess it's fun to hate id, hate Tech 5, etc. but the fact is, it's still a fairly impressive engine, and there are a LOT worse engines out there. I guess if you like generic looking Unreal-based games, or unoptimized Crytek games, then go for it. The look of games on Tech 5 is different in a good way. Also, just because id and Machine games slammed a few crappy textures in, does not mean it's a limitation of the engine. That's art direction. Which these games were decent in as well for the most part. There were just some areas that didn't hold up to the others.
 
J3RK said:
Do you actually play games, or just walk up to things really closely and stare at them? Yes, there were indeed some poor texture choices made in RAGE, and to a lesser extent a few in Wolfenstein as well, but taken as a whole, and while you're actually... ...playing... ...the games, they are stunning as mentioned. I guess it's fun to hate id, hate Tech 5, etc. but the fact is, it's still a fairly impressive engine, and there are a LOT worse engines out there. I guess if you like generic looking Unreal-based games, or unoptimized Crytek games, then go for it. The look of games on Tech 5 is different in a good way. Also, just because id and Machine games slammed a few crappy textures in, does not mean it's a limitation of the engine. That's art direction. Which these games were decent in as well for the most part. There were just some areas that didn't hold up to the others.
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous question. And how was that even considered close? If someone is going to say this game had nice looking graphics and take a screenshot so far away then I will damn sure post screenshots showing the opposite. I am not talking about art direction or any other nonsense. I am simply saying the game had horrible looking textures. Anyone arguing that needs their eyes examined. And if you follow the context here its that with a game having textures anything like that then the vram requirements look silly.
 
wow look at this, game is hardlocked at 30fps but with a debug mode u can unlock it but its not recommended.. what the hell were they thinking? hope this game flops hard.

Shinji Mikami and the team at Tango designed The Evil Within to be played at 30fps and to utilize an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 for all platforms. The team has worked the last four years perfecting the game experience with these settings in mind.
 
Stiler said:
PEople with a high end processor and a 780 oc'd shouldn't feel like their computer is "outdated/old."

780's (not all of them, but most) only have 3gb of VRAM.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but I'm saying in terms of being able to turn up settings without the VRAM limit. A 780 is still a very powerful card, but people shouldn't be expected to be able to max games out. If it's done right (which it never is, so everything I'm saying is moot really), games should be made so that it REALLY pushes current generation boards to the limit, with the next generation being the one that is able to completely max it out. The whole 4GB VRAM for 1080P bullshit needs to go into the garbage, along with the mentality that the console folk deserve the same quality of graphics as those who pay for $1,500+ PC's. It's just not realistic.
 
Mortuus said:
wow look at this, game is hardlocked at 30fps but with a debug mode u can unlock it but its not recommended.. what the hell were they thinking? hope this game flops hard.

Shinji Mikami and the team at Tango designed The Evil Within to be played at 30fps and to utilize an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 for all platforms. The team has worked the last four years perfecting the game experience with these settings in mind.
Click to expand...
What's worse is that they're dancing around the question of whether or not the game will play fullscreen i.e. without the black bars on a true 21:9 display. From what the moderator said on the BethSoft forums I gather that the game will still be letterboxed on 21:9 monitors without disabling the black bars. The most direct answer that leads to this conclusion is, "The game was designed to play at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio on 1.78:1 displays." Idiotic... Just boggles the mind.
 
Armenius said:
What's worse is that they're dancing around the question of whether or not the game will play fullscreen i.e. without the black bars on a true 21:9 display. From what the moderator said on the BethSoft forums I gather that the game will still be letterboxed on 21:9 monitors without disabling the black bars. The most direct answer that leads to this conclusion is, "The game was designed to play at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio on 1.78:1 displays." Idiotic... Just boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

Wish I had access to a 21:9 monitor just to see what happens. If it's letterboxed and the rendered content is still 2.35:1, those would be some tiny bars.
 
misterbobby said:
What a ridiculous question. And how was that even considered close? If someone is going to say this game had nice looking graphics and take a screenshot so far away then I will damn sure post screenshots showing the opposite. I am not talking about art direction or any other nonsense. I am simply saying the game had horrible looking textures. Anyone arguing that needs their eyes examined. And if you follow the context here its that with a game having textures anything like that then the vram requirements look silly.
Click to expand...

I freely admitted that there are in fact some low res, and truly not very good looking textures in both games. For every low-res-not-very-good-looking texture though there are 50 very good looking textures, mapped to fairly high-poly (compared to many games) geometry, and while in motion looks incredibly good.

I did not address those screenshots specifically, as you can make a case for either side. In fact, I didn't even look at them. I've heard both sides a million times. What's ACTUALLY important, is how it looks overall while you're playing it. Since I play RAGE regularly, and just very recently finished Wolfenstein, I can say they both are very good looking games.

I've never seen a game that was flawless. I'd say the closest thing to a flawless (graphically speaking) game was Butcher Bay at the time that it was released. It was thoroughly impressive, and I never found one thing to complain about visually. (still even holds up pretty well now)

Anyway, I never said that there weren't some bone-head texture choices in the two existing Tech 5 games. I said that because these texures exist, doesn't necessarily point to Tech 5 being a bad or even highly flawed engine. Purely because if the artists had wanted to, they could have put higher resolution textures in their places.

I played RAGE a couple of weeks ago. No texture pop-in whatsoever. The game is silky smooth and highly responsive. The game mechanics are solid. There are some subjective issues like whether or not some people like the buggy portions. There are places that could use a texture overhaul, though I would say it's not highly necessary to enjoy the game. Could it look better yes. However, it does look largely good already, and some of the details that they did add to the game are exquisite. I'm a fan of everything id's done so far, so admittedly I enjoy their games. I can honestly say though that Tech 5 is a pretty cool engine.

I seem to remember a comparison of stock textures on this site for Crysis 2. Ones that showed electrical panel textures, among others that were horribly low res. However, the game still looks pretty damned good while playing it. (whether it's all that fun is another thing entirely) Show me an engine that doesn't have a few flaws, or a game that you couldn't find any faults with AT ALL, and I'll take you more seriously.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RAGE had some amazing textures from far away to mid range yet close up they looked not so good...but most games are like this...least RAGE gave us an amazing illusion which most other games struggle to do from any range...RAGE did have some very good megatextures up close during the mountain level...one of the best I've ever seen in a game
 
BiH115 said:
No doubt, but I'm saying in terms of being able to turn up settings without the VRAM limit. A 780 is still a very powerful card, but people shouldn't be expected to be able to max games out. If it's done right (which it never is, so everything I'm saying is moot really), games should be made so that it REALLY pushes current generation boards to the limit, with the next generation being the one that is able to completely max it out. The whole 4GB VRAM for 1080P bullshit needs to go into the garbage, along with the mentality that the console folk deserve the same quality of graphics as those who pay for $1,500+ PC's. It's just not realistic.
Click to expand...

I'd expect to max out most games on a 780 when running @ 1080p. Even new pc games I can usually crank everything up just fine for the most part.

For example, I recently played through the Vanishing of Ethan Carter, the game ran like butter for me and it has some of the most DETAILED textures of any game I've ever played, it just looks drop dead gorgeous.

Then you have this game, the textures and details are no where near that quality (not to mention it's not nearly as large in terms of environment, the videos are usually all inside/tight quarters) yet the requirements are noticeably higher when it comes to maxing out this game.

It's like they just don't know how to optimize for a pc vs console and they just throw it on there and use what worked for the console instead of optimizing it for pc users with their hardware.
 
Back on the topic of THIS game. I agree with everyone. The "design decisions" that they made are absolutely retarded. I'm SO sick of hearing the "cinematic" argument. If that's REALLY the goal, then you still make the game run at 60 for smoothness and responsiveness, and come up with a decent blurring scheme or something that makes it feel more "cinematic." The black bar thing is asinine. If both can be resolved via a console command, then they should just add them into the options and make EVERYONE happy. That said, if it gets positive feedback from people playing it, AND these choices can be reversed via hack, (without side effects) then I will pick the game up when it drops in price. I'd even buy it at full price, but would like to send a message to idiots making "design choices" that are bad for people who actually play the games.
 
polonyc2 said:
RAGE had some amazing textures from far away to mid range yet close up they looked not so good...but most games are like this...least RAGE gave us an amazing illusion which most other games struggle to do from any range...RAGE did have some very good megatextures up close during the mountain level...one of the best I've ever seen in a game
Click to expand...

Agreed. The worst textures were down in the sewers, and some parts of the subway area. There were also a few bad ones in the city area. Overall though, I'm always amazed that people say it looks bad. It really just plain doesn't look bad. :confused: It's easy to point out a good part of one game, and compare it to a bad part of another, but you can go around in circles doing this if both games are good overall. Oh well...
 
I'm still really interested in this game, I'm just scared to death that it's going to be a technical mess.
If the reviews and user reactions (of the PC version specifically) are positive I'll still buy it ASAP.
 
misterbobby said:
What a ridiculous question. And how was that even considered close? If someone is going to say this game had nice looking graphics and take a screenshot so far away then I will damn sure post screenshots showing the opposite. I am not talking about art direction or any other nonsense. I am simply saying the game had horrible looking textures. Anyone arguing that needs their eyes examined. And if you follow the context here its that with a game having textures anything like that then the vram requirements look silly.
Click to expand...

Id attempted something outside the box to solve the problem of rendering high quality textures without slowing down frame rate. Whether they succeeded or failed, folks seem to have different opinions.

RAGE used a new engine designed to stream both low res and insanely high resolution, high quality texture versions of everything, all the texture data baked into one ginormous file. It doesn't quite make sense to say RAGE had low res textures. The reality is it used much higher resolution textures than anything before it on last gen consoles. Instead of 4k textures, try 64000x64000 on the PS3 and Xbox360, running at 60fps (uncompressed internal version was 128000x128000). It was designed to achieve high frame rate on weaker PCs and consoles despite using extremely high res textures.

As I understand it, instead of loading everything when you enter an area, it is constantly streaming parts of the huge texture data file when you walk around and look at the world. When you look a certain direction, the game is not streaming those parts of the high resolution texture data behind you. If you suddenly turn around with your nose in a wall, you may have seen parts of that low res version of the texture file, depending on how your VRAM, your SSD read speed, video drivers, config settings, etc., handled partially resident streaming for those pieces of the megatexture file.

In Wolfenstein New Order, the streaming was less noticeable and the game is somewhat VRAM-limited, rather than CPU-limited or GPU-limited. Great looking game, extremely optimized for both CPU and GPU, but eats up VRAM.

The jury is still out on Evil Within. On the German guy's video, the partially resident texture streaming appeared to be seamless, and it looked pretty solid running at 1440p. Very glad to hear it's not locked to 30fps, but I'm not so optimistic for how it will run on my laptop with only 1GB VRAM. (Hopefully the 980 desktop cards with 8GB VRAM will drop soon.)
 
Last edited:
Stiler said:
PEople with a high end processor and a 780 oc'd shouldn't feel like their computer is "outdated/old."

780's (not all of them, but most) only have 3gb of VRAM.
Click to expand...

That's an Nvidia mentality issue. They knew the new consoles were going to have 8GB of memory for the CPU and GPU to share long before they were officially announced and yet they still released 3GB cards. It was all over all the major technology and gaming websites for a long time. So unfortunately those cards are old and outdated.

AMD is making a new Linux driver in anticipation of SteamOS and it's only going to work on the 300 series or newer. So don't feel bad. My R9 290 became old and outdated as of yesterday since it won't be supported by the new driver.
 
cageymaru said:
That's an Nvidia mentality issue. They knew the new consoles were going to have 8GB of memory for the CPU and GPU to share long before they were officially announced and yet they still released 3GB cards. It was all over all the major technology and gaming websites for a long time. So unfortunately those cards are old and outdated.
Click to expand...

Consoles having 8GB of shared memory has jack to do with VRAM on dedicated GPU's. Really not sure what your point is. Console games on PS4/Xbone aren't getting >=4GB textures. Far from it.

That's just as silly as the wishful thinking about future PC games running better on AMD cards just because AMD APU's are in the newer consoles.
 
Armenius said:
What's worse is that they're dancing around the question of whether or not the game will play fullscreen i.e. without the black bars on a true 21:9 display. From what the moderator said on the BethSoft forums I gather that the game will still be letterboxed on 21:9 monitors without disabling the black bars. The most direct answer that leads to this conclusion is, "The game was designed to play at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio on 1.78:1 displays." Idiotic... Just boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

This is very worrying. Ive already preordered, suppose ill be the class guinea pig :(
 
Armenius said:
What's worse is that they're dancing around the question of whether or not the game will play fullscreen i.e. without the black bars on a true 21:9 display. From what the moderator said on the BethSoft forums I gather that the game will still be letterboxed on 21:9 monitors without disabling the black bars. The most direct answer that leads to this conclusion is, "The game was designed to play at a 2.35:1 aspect ratio on 1.78:1 displays." Idiotic... Just boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

It was by a Japanese developer, that sort of thing is common there, play the way the artist intended. Where as the attitude here of "max FPS, benchmarks, settings my way, aspect ratio I want" which tosses the artists vision out of the mind would seem utterly idiotic and stupid to them.

There's a cultural difference going on. Which is fine, stick to American made games ;)
 
frenetic_ferret said:
It was by a Japanese developer, that sort of thing is common there, play the way the artist intended. Where as the attitude here of "max FPS, benchmarks, settings my way, aspect ratio I want" which tosses the artists vision out of the mind would seem utterly idiotic and stupid to them.

There's a cultural difference going on. Which is fine, stick to American made games ;)
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, and to a degree it's true, and makes some sense. However, regardless of cultural difference, you have to know you're chewing up a good portion of already limited viewing space by putting those bars in there. It doesn't make it look more like a theater screen, it makes it look like an even smaller monitor. (In the PC's case anyway.) I have a PC in my living room on a 65" screen, so it wouldn't be quite as bad in that scenario.

In the case of 30FPS, I still think that should be optional as well. What's the look he was trying to go for, VHS tape in the US? Film is 24, most displays are 60-based in some way or other (or 50-based in some parts of the world on certain types of displays.) That doesn't make it cinematic, it limits control precision. There are things you could do filter/shader-wise that would probably work a lot better than hard-limiting the FPS.

I know he just wants people to see it how it was in his head (if we're to believe this, and that it's not due to unoptimized use of the engine,) but even then... ...maybe his vision just isn't a good one in practical gaming terms.

Still, looks like an interesting game if these items can be remedied in other ways. And being a fan of the way things look on this engine, I can still see it looking pretty damned nice. I could almost live with borders, but will need to hack the frame cap. 30FPS is the sole reason I refuse to play my copy of Brink... Otherwise, it could be a fun game. For a shooter though, it felt sloppy because of this.
 
I'll buy once I know for a fact 60fps works without breaking the game.
The 45 min playthrough video still looks awesome...
 
LeviathanZERO said:
I'll buy once I know for a fact 60fps works without breaking the game.
The 45 min playthrough video still looks awesome...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing the more I think about it. That's the only dealbreaker for me. I'd rather not have the bars, but I can't play at 30. I definitely don't need more than 60 because I play with VSync on all of my games, and 60 is fine for that. But 30... phooey!
 
DPI said:
Consoles having 8GB of shared memory has jack to do with VRAM on dedicated GPU's. Really not sure what your point is. Console games on PS4/Xbone aren't getting >=4GB textures. Far from it.

That's just as silly as the wishful thinking about future PC games running better on AMD cards just because AMD APU's are in the newer consoles.
Click to expand...

Need to tell that to the Project Cars developers then. They are doing so many optimizations on the console to squeeze every ounce of power that they can and still are having issues meeting their goals as far as visual quality and frame rate.
 
cageymaru said:
Need to tell that to the Project Cars developers then. They are doing so many optimizations on the console to squeeze every ounce of power that they can and still are having issues meeting their goals as far as visual quality and frame rate.
Click to expand...

The consoles are new. PCs can only ever use a fraction of the power in the hardware they have. Largely due to DirectX, Windows itself, API layers, lack of to the metal access, and the curse of multiple configurations.

On the other hand, it takes a long damn time before developers can truly use everything a console has to offer. We're currently in the time frame where developers are learning and nobody has mastered the hardware or the engines.

Things will get better for all platforms with time, you can't stop progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top