I did know about it. It wasn't nearly as dramatic as was made out by the daily mail but still. A DEAD GOAT with its head hanging off and blood dripping on the floor? For a game launch.
Crazy lol
You may as well have beds at a Mafia game launch with real horses heads in them lol
I only played the demo on PC, so i was surprised to read about technical shortcomings from IGN, because on PC the game is extremely easy to run, i don't think i saw the framerate ever drop below 100FPS all the time i played that.
Shame.......shame that i wasn't there! :-D
It'll never top the likes of the God of War launch parties though. They always go mental. Who can possibly forget the infamous goat sacrifice for GOW2?
The games technical origins date way back to 2005. It was no technical masterpiece on 360, in fact it ran only 960 x 540 which is the lowest resolution game i have seen on 360 or PS3. Not to mention the fact it didn't half suffer screen tearing and slowdown even at that res.
PC should be able to do it far better justice and with modern hardware should have no problems at all with the assets on display. I actually completed this on 360 a week ago and the DLC.
Yup, the boost is truly massive over the original builds of the game. I am seeing 70 percent performance boost after this patch in the hardest hit areas, with my minimum going from 30 to at least 50FPS.
Massive performance boost = well done Bethesda
On the other hand......
This is clearly a case of bad coding and slack optimisation in the launch build. Nobody, NOBODY else is to blame except Bethesda. Getting such a vast boost with this patch ...
Yep. I'll believe it when it installs and runs on my PC.
Thanks for the disagree BTW. Sorry you won't believe it when you install it :-)
Movies aren't the same as games- for one, movies shot in 24FPS get 'free' motion blur between frames which smoothes the image transition. Games do not. In order to get that in games, you absolutely must have a motion blur solution which isn't always very cheap(in terms of performance load). A high quality motion blur can make a massive difference in the perception of motion in a game. Try Crysis on PC with and without it, it feels incredibly different.
Some di...
The difference is 24FPS is the absolute, rock bottom, bare minimum for any game.
I don't want just the minimum. 24FPS means that the response of the controls is going to be pretty slow. Acceptable for an RTS maybe.
30FPS is far more preferable, and anything over that speeds up the response time and gives the game that little bit more fluidity.
1/24th of a second before you can see any input changes, or 1/60th which is well over twice as f...
Pretty much this and OpenGL above this. They could easily look like this now if a manufacturer comes out next year with a 'power' console.
By that i mean a machine they lose money on the hardware to build and fit the latest GPU generation from Nvidia or AMD out this year. That sort of performance fitted to a console would be able to knock these sort of visuals out in 1080p.
It seems likely than Microsoft will join Nintendo in the budget face off, usin...
From the article: "So you should only replace the hardware when you can make a dramatic leap in quality, not just 2X or 3X. It has to be huge and fundamentally new"
Plus the talk of moving to mobile gaming.
Does this equal a veiled pop at Nintendo/Microsoft if they underdeliver on the spec fronts....? Could this be Epic saying we aren't impressed with your hardware, so we are moving away to alternative platforms?
I don't thi...
I think the camera changes for MGS3 were kind of more important because the environments lend themselves well to it- i never had difficulty with them but the camera could be a little 'high'. Subsistence fixed it and that is the version here so i assume it retains the camera controls?
Minor changes. The game is essentially the same with a big res bump on the home consoles. I played MGS2 on PC about 7 years ago in 1200p though and i still have it. It looked pretty decent even at such a high resolution. So thats good news for these.
So that kinda removes one of the games for me. Although i would happily play 3 and peacewalker again.
Reynod's link to the PC mod works well. It should be mandatory for anyone playing the game on PC because no matter what system you have you should see fairly significant performance boosts.
I for one saw a performance jump of 20 percent, which is pretty significant. The game was fine before for me but any boost in frames is welcome so even in a worst case scenario it is even more fluid than before.
Yup it wasn't so good on console, i seem to recall 360 suffering from nasty pop in and animation etc not to mention poor framerate.
They should just build it for PC and do what they want, then port it to more capable consoles like Wii U or the next gen machine which will probably be out within a year of the game launching anyways...
Well most of the insiders seem to agree with the idea it is about twice as powerful as xbox 360 Colwyn.
That is nowhere near the kind of hardware you need to max BF3 in 1080p TBH or run PC games on ultra even factoring in the console gain efficiency. The kind of cards that can do that as a minimum e.g 560Ti or 6950 are 7 or 8 times faster than xbox 360 and PS3.
Still, I am sure if Wii U turns out with the GPU in best case scenario it would run something l...
More data = better game! Actually Tetris is a better game than RAGE and that will fit in a couple dozen kilobytes.
RAGE was a bit of a letdown lets face it. Doom 3 was a great game. Lets hope Id don't get hung up fiddling the technology again instead of perfecting the game.
Maybe RAGE will have helped. One can hope that they can take that experience and work and make good use of of it with Doom 4.
Yes you paid $600 but who forced you to do it? Nobody as you admit. You want a cheaper machine then you could and should wait for the price to drop TBH. I will pay up for whatever i think the thing is worth, if its worth $600, then cool. If you know you are gonna keep it 5 or 6 years then its not a problem. I would be less inclined to drop $300 on a new machine i'll be throwing out in 2 years and its value (plus its games!) will crash even faster.....
EDRAM is sort of s...
"Everything has a cost, and the last thing I want is a $600 console out of the gate"
When have you personally ever paid $600 for a console though? I mean, when have you ever been forced to pay that much for a console instead of waiting for the price to drop? I would much prefer a console generation to last. Developers need a lot of time to squeeze the machine. Accelerating hardware cycles would be disastrous for the industry, a crash would ensue.
The leap has to be big if you want more than just higher resolution. If you will settle for the kind if visuals we have now, in 1080p, then sure, a budget GPU will do.
However, if you want the higher resolution, AND 3D, AND Samaritan level visuals....you'll need a damn sight more performance than a budget GPU like a mere 6670. Even if you only want any two of these three criteria you'll need more than a 6670.
The fact of the matter is this: an SoC wou...
Its small, but thats it. If you will accept something a little bit bigger then you can get a lot LOT more bang for your buck. 699 pounds in the uk gets you an i3 2120 and pitiful GT545 in the X51 range.
http://www.arbico.co.uk/Arb...
This machine can be customised so you can have an i5 2500 quad core and Radeon 6870 for the same money, and mat...