Just like the previous article with cry engine and water physics, this doesn't impress me and I don't find it that visually appealing so despite what technical achievements might have been accomplished doing this, I don't see the point of showing it because I've seen a lot better.
The music soundtrack impressed me more than the video itself.
This still doesn't look as nice as the E3 2012 trailer, don't get me wrong I'm looking forward to this but whether it's ps4/PC it still looks visually worse.
I find it interesting that most people commenting are struggling to tell whether it's better but I guess that's a good thing for you?
Really seems clear to me anyway. Compared to the E3 2013 footage well as some people have already said the comparisons weren't a fair represent...
where exactly did I say that the Titan Z wasn't part of the GTX line?
This would run games terribly...as I said on the titan-z thread who made the mistake of thinking that card was for professional graphics designers.
Quadro/firepro for professional graphics design
GTX/Radeon for gamers
So what you're saying is that the kind of person this is targeted towards is a graphics designer and has the cash to spend on this for his freelancing work but doesn't want the superior card for the job because maybe he wants to game aswell? This is costing the same amount as you would spend on one of those quadros/firepros. Niche market much even by these top end cards standards...
Either way this card seems pointless to me as you'd get more bang for your buck wi...
Why are people saying this is for workstation/graphics designers? I thought that's what the quadro/firepro graphics cards were for which you pay roughly the same amount of cash and it's going to be a lot better for that purpose.
This to me seems clearly a gaming card and for the people who have the dosh to fork out for the best.
Why would graphic artists use this? They would use the nvidia quadro or the amd firepro line...this card is designed for gaming.
This is obviously under the assumption that it would be basically 100% safe (negligible numbers with complications).
I've said this before on other VR threads but this kind of VR personally doesn't interest me at all.
I'll probably be dead by the time the kind of VR I would be interested in comes out, if it's even possible at all unless they work out a way to surpass CPU limitations (which I think we're getting kind of close to reaching).
Chip in the brain or some sort of interface which puts you in a sleep like state and projects the game in your head, ...
This definitely is very much like the tech demo of tressfx 2.0 however it does seem to have additional features that the former lacks and at least to me looks better.
The specs you'll need to utilize that feature in witcher 3 will be ridiculous just like ubersampling was and still is a bitch to run.
If they announced that the new halo was to come out on PC, I might be more inclined to believe him...that and windows 9/whatever actually being any good for pc.
What he fails to mention is that games like the last of us and GTA V sacrificed other things to get the better looking graphics than older xbox 360/ps3 games.
What people don't notice is that earlier on, games on the 360/ps3 were running at 60 fps not your more standard 30 fps these days.
This illusion of optimization is just a marketing ploy, sure games on consoles will be more optimized in the sense that a game only needs to be configured for a specific...
Danger
Seems obvious no?
People want a game that's going to last as it means it's going to be longer before they're going to have to search for another game and pay $$$.
Sure games length shouldn't be the only thing you focus on, but it is important that when you pay for a game that's it's actually going to take you longer than an afternoon to complete.
I'm concerned that games for a while now are showing a dangerous trend. First ...
In my opinion since after ps2 and xbox one, consoles have become increasingly more and more irrelevant.
There are only a couple of reasons why one should be buying a console at this stage and they're pretty weak reasons.
1. Exclusives - This is the main reason and the exclusives are not that large in number, I know quite a few people that only bought a console because they're favourite franchise was on it.
2. Technophobic - You're...
I thought me specifying team mates as in people on the same sponsor would've been clear...I'm aware starcraft 2 is a single player game in competitive however the top players are generally part of teams which go in to maximize their chances of winning and they split the prize pool.
ye multi million prize pots that get split among tons of people and sponsors, nobody is going away with anywhere near that amount of money, not surprisingly competitive gaming isn't a p...
but a titan is pretty unlikely to die with the movement boost in the time it takes to get the flag from one end to the other unlike a player where no matter how fast you are you could easily get killed along the way.
It's a lot worse than you think. Not only does he have to give a massive chunk to his sponsors but I do believe he'll need to split it between his teammates (as in people in the same sponsor) as well.
here's my list.
1. Shotgun
2. jump kick
3. in CTF always be in a titan when carrying the flag.
4. Shotgun
5. lock on pistol
Fair enough but regardless I still find it visually unappealing even if it is the best "REAL TIME" demo.
What I mean by that is that to me it looks ugly (kind of like what faces looked like in games like halo 3) just because it technically is an improvement doesn't necessarily mean I personally find it nice to look at.