Meh, microsoft have paid them off but then you didn't see that coming? Couldn't care less about timed DLC, i'll have the PC version which lets face it will more than make up for waiting a bit longer for (no doubt overpriced DLC to make the money back) it when there is loads of other games to play anyway! Who cares?
Even if you get the PS3 version should it bother you, you are still getting the game and the DLC- PS3 wasn't even around when ES4 turned out was it...
The load times are now standard length, you don't notice them. This is also on a gaming laptop i have been playing it on initially which have slower 2.5 drives.
Should be plenty quick for anyone on a desktop, i'll see on mine later today.
Yes, i said they have around half the staff of Turn 10 and Turn 10 don't do everything in house either.
I have disagrees but fail to see anyone outlining what exactly they disagree with in my post....
Nowhere did i say that GT5 didn't pay for itself. I don't want them to rush the games, but i don't want GT6 to suffer the extended development time and protracted release GT5 did.
This industry moves so quickly it is easy to get ...
The problem is simple- Polyphony do not have enough staff. Someone like Turn 10 have more than double the number of staff, and they outsource art.
The cost of making a game such as this is often just about wages, paying 100 people to produce a game for 5 years and not seeing a return out of that until the game launches- this is also why Prologue came out.
Still this leads me to think that Polyphony need to employ more people, especially modellers if creating ...
I am not sure talking like this will help you increase the sales of your game seabass LOL
I think the point made is clear. Does more performance from a PC result in better visuals? I don't see how you can claim not to know if it does or not. Quite clearly, it does whether that means merely increased resolutions and framerates and filtering or the potential for developers to create better assets. PC inefficiency swallows up a portion of increased power. Consoles if anything would amplify any advantage in raw performance which is why my idea is even more crucial to the discussio...
I am mostly dismissing intelligent design over superior force just because that is the rule of the jungle. You have to accept that.
PC is the outstanding example of this. There is no question that console hardware is far more specific, in fact it is designed primarily for games with cut down operating systems and stripped back hardware.
This is still not nearly enough to match a PC with hardware that is only a single generation newer, with significantly less ...
Slightly improved latency would never make up for a difference on the scale of a billion or possibly even more transistor advantage in separate chips. Bus speeds are more than high enough to nullify this minor advantage. Unified memory worked better this generation simply because the other console (PS3) has a rather more inflated operating system size. It matters far less the more memory you have.
In fact although you said that the EDRAM is intelligent use, and it kinda is, 3...
Level load times i could care less about, but death load times are relevant. I hate sitting there for half a minute everytime i died in a tough part.
They are indeed 20s+ death load times in this game. Annoying, but not enough to ruin the game.
As for the PC version, i think it is lazy that they at least didn't try this on an average machine to give us some idea! Any dual core, couple gigs of RAM and an old 500Gb HDD.
It wouldn't be h...
It is obvious that we will be onto better processes by that time....this is why in massive letters i wrote for EXAMPLE and quoted 40nm as that example. Sigh.
No matter how good the process is it will have a limit and an SoC design means it can never be as powerful as individual high end chips around on the same process at the same time.
Ditto the architecture, it cannot be as fast as separate chips. We already know that GPU technology has heavily encroached o...
If we assume that the details about this being an SoC part are correct, then for one second we can theorise on what kind of performance it might be expected to have relative to other high end parts of the time.
A fair bit less.
This is because jamming everything onto one chip even if you push the process technology to the limit means you'll never have as many transistors to play with if you did separate chips, separate CPU/GPU.
For EXAMPL...
@ awi5951
Sure you had 4Gb of memory back then. So did i. 4Gb of DDR2.
This is/was useless for consoles even way back in 2004 before they launched, because it was far too slow. It was perfectly fine for system memory in a PC, but for graphics work it was about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Even if the consoles had a 256bit memory bus it wouldn't be very good, but in fact it was more economical to use 128bit memory buses, whereupon DDR2 would be horribl...
It is less about foresight Dlacy...its more about cost. As with any console, each component is costed right down to the smallest screw to try and make sure you can build it, sell it and make it profitable as soon as possible.
1Gb of memory now is cheap, but back when these machines were reaching the end stage of their design in 2004/2005 it certainly wasn't. Indeed only higher end video cards had 512mb of DDR3 and as we know XDR was an expensive choice on the sony side....
Hmm. PC will always have an excess of memory because they have large operating systems. Thats one advantage the consoles have, their OS footprint is compact.
It looks great. I have been replaying the PC version of Arkham Asylum with nvidia 3D vision and physx enabled- its actually one of the best looking games ever when you take into account the quality of the 3D mode on PC(it has a nearly perfect stereoscopic mode), truly breathtaking and an epic experience.
If this is only a small improvement on AA with the size of the areas and the same level of 3D vision quality on PC it'll be one of the most immersive games you could play...
It'll work better on newer hardware like Wii U. Assuming it uses at least a DX10 class GPU, some of the more advanced UE3 functions will come off well, including the ability to support proper anti aliasing as long as Nintendo's API supports it fully which it should.
Surfing games are kinda niche and this is obviously low budget looking like a high res N64 game. Still, at least its not another shooter....
PR nonsense.
Realtime graphics are always a good decade or more behind movie CGI. It has just become possible only now to render Toy Story in realtime, 30 frames a second. Toy Story is 15 years old and the complexity of scenes in modern films is massively greater. Just looking at the figures for some of the assets used in avatar shows how this is rubbish.
Even better though is looking at the specs of the WETA render farms that worked on the movie, WETA owning...
Super Sampled Anti Aliasing is about as good as it gets regards quality for AA above even MSAA but as you correctly said, it uses massive resources especially at higher resolutions.
By rendering the image at a higher resolution than native and then downsampling it (shrinking with filters), you get near perfect anti aliased scenes with superb image quality. This is mostly employed by developers bullshotting their games to make then look better in stills. Basically taking a 128...
Surprised they didn't bother including Warhead! Don't tell me they are gonna knock that out too and charge again....
I think the external areas looked reasonable for console, but the part where Psycho is talking looks really rough.