Duke4.net Forums: Is that a bus?! - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Is that a bus?!

User is offline   You 

#91

Oh, I should add I do have a PS3. When you consider the cost of a graphics card (never mind a whole machine), dropping 170 euro on a second-hand PS3 makes so much more financial sense. It's also a great feeling knowing you can bring a game home, put it in, and boom, it's running at optimal settings.
It's also great when your so fucking busy, getting a game of anything is difficult. Hitting the on button on the control pad and jumping straight into an online game is very convenient .

Although I have to agree that a gamepad is no where near as good as a mouse and keyboard. To make a game enjoyable you need some sort of auto-aim that doesn't take away too much skill, but still makes the controller usable. Best balance I've seen of this yet is WarHawk on the PS3.


Quick edit:
This PC can play the original portal at 1280x1024, medium-minimal graphics detail with portals 2 deep. Only time I had to change down the resoloution due to framerate was in the large room with all the turrets. I've a feeling Duke will run decently. At least I hope so as I want some PC mouse multi-player ;)

This post has been edited by You: 07 May 2011 - 04:29 PM

0

User is offline   Striker 

  • Auramancer

#92

View PostDescent, on 28 April 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:

That's a shit gimmick on all but the absolute lowest end of cards.

Hardly, it's especially nice to have if you want to run a game with incredibly high resolution textures without streaming or texture compression. It is also useful for games that have shit-tons of textures to begin with, and have actually gotten to the point of using 1.2gb of VRAM, like Crysis. Helps reduce texture loading pauses as well in certain games.

This post has been edited by StrikerMan780: 07 May 2011 - 03:59 PM

0

User is offline   Raziel 

#93

View PostStrikerMan780, on 07 May 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Hardly, it's especially nice to have if you want to run a game with incredibly high resolution textures without streaming or texture compression. It is also useful for games that have shit-tons of textures to begin with, and have actually gotten to the point of using 1.2gb of VRAM, like Crysis. Helps reduce texture loading pauses as well in certain games.

Shouldn't matter if a game uses more textures than VRAM can hold. The engine should be able to intelligently swap textures in and out all the time. RAGE is entirely based on the idea of constantly swapping textures in and out. Keep in mind that video cards require uncompressed textures unless you're going to go with something like one of the real time compression formats. Now the raw texture data for one RAGE level takes up a lot of gigabytes ;). Those textures are then heavily compressed using JPEG-XR compression (the full game is roughly 20GB, it would take up terabytes if the textures were uncompressed). While the game is running (even on consoles) it decompresses those textures in real-time to their RAW format and swaps bits into video ram while removing other bits the engine doesn't need for the time being.

You have a partially valid point, but Crysis is not the best example - I originally wrote an entire essay here, but I just removed it since I do have my own opinions and speaking from experience, people on this board get really heated up when I start pointing out things they don't want to hear. It's something I'd like to avoid, so I'll just say that Crysis is not a very resource-efficient game and the lack of decent resource-management by its engine doesn't help.
0

User is offline   zwieback 

#94

low system req. doesn't mean bad graphics. for example, if you look at the demoscene:
this is a demo made on a computer that is more than 20 years old.
also if you look at consoles you will realize that you can get a lot out of "older" hardware if you are motivated to do that.

and btw. i just played crysis2 .. for a game that is so perfect the humans in the underground look pretty shitty and have a very boring skin material.

This post has been edited by zwieback: 09 May 2011 - 01:02 AM

0

#95

View Postzwieback, on 09 May 2011 - 01:00 AM, said:

low system req. doesn't mean bad graphics. for example, if you look at the demoscene:
this is a demo made on a computer that is more than 20 years old.
also if you look at consoles you will realize that you can get a lot out of "older" hardware if you are motivated to do that.

and btw. i just played crysis2 .. for a game that is so perfect the humans in the underground look pretty shitty and have a very boring skin material.

You seriously did not just compare the demoscene with the 3drealms guys. I just know you didn't!
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#96

I don't think the bus is a victim of this, but I'm going to have to say that I'm afraid the PS3 will probably affect DNF's assets and game content a fair amount. Look at it this way:
1) What are they going to optimize/rewrite for the cell processor?
Cell can't do all that much for DNF, physics yes, but I can't seem to find any evidence that Mequon supports the Cell processor. I think it is unlikely that sound will be moved to the Cell, though it may happen, it would be a minimal saving though. Other than that, I can't really see all that much in the game that you could be moved onto it in retrospect. This is the same problem 360->PS3 ports used to face. Games these days really have to be built taking the Cell processor's abilities into account from day one. A PS3 without cell processing is just a single core PowerPC processor (versus the 360's 3 cores - same clock speed, 3.2ghz).
2) GPU doesn't support hardware occlusion culling
In a game like DNF where environments are interactive & destructable, you really need occlusion queries, otherwise you'll need to drop the polygon count of the game or leave it to run slowly. Take a guess which one they would go for...
3) GPU specs in general - but this is nothing new, in most games it doesn't really matter either since you can pre-compute the visibility, in DNF though, I think a lot more will fall into the category of not being pre-computable:
To save me having to recall this kind of crap from memory, please refer to -> http://www.pvcmuseum...0-gpu-specs.htm

Of course, by the time it all releases, we won't even know, but I still can't help but wonder how much quality was sacrificed to get the game to consoles... At least we'll be getting it, and soon. For the international release, it is now one month and one day away ;) - of course, we'd all be playing it now if GBX stuck to their original release date ;). But it can't be helped guys, software development is like that.

Oh, and I'm not bagging the PS3, I own the original 360, a 360s, Wii and PS3 slim. The PS3 slim is actually my favorite of the current-generation consoles. Not so much for its power, but because it feels like a rock solid machine, the controller is excellent and doesn't feel like it'll break, it's quiet (even compared to the 360s), and it plays blu rays with 3D support and all. But I am realistic, I think they've probably reduced the quality of many assets to fit it into the console-budget.
1

#97

Normally I would agree with you since the ps3 does hold back graphics at all multiplatform games. However, in this case the game was already outdated in 2007 and it looked like a 2005 game.
From what I've seen, gearbox kept the assets from the 2007 teaser and just added some better textures on maps and tweaked the lighting and rendering in general.
At least that's how I see it but maybe they didn't even do that much, who knows.
So following this idea, I think it's pretty hard for the ps3 to bring down the graphics much more than they already are.
-1

User is offline   zwieback 

#98

hehe i didn't .. at least not directly. what i was thinking is: they are using an old version of unreal, but did some modifications throughout the years - it is really hard to say that the graphics are all 2005ish or 2007ish because they are 2003-2011ish ;) i bet some parts are very polished and look great, while other stuff just looks outdated as hell.
they took their time, so they were tweaking some things. that's all i wanted to say. you can tweak and polish stuff even on older hardware. i hope that's clear enough

This post has been edited by zwieback: 09 May 2011 - 02:25 AM

0

User is offline   Raziel 

#99

View PostMr.Deviance, on 09 May 2011 - 02:03 AM, said:

Normally I would agree with you since the ps3 does hold back graphics at all multiplatform games. However, in this case the game was already outdated in 2007 and it looked like a 2005 game.
From what I've seen, gearbox kept the assets from the 2007 teaser and just added some better textures on maps and tweaked the lighting and rendering in general.

It's interesting that you say that since I've actually predicted this in an ancient post a long time ago (posted when everything turned to shit and everyone thought the game was cancelled):
http://forums.duke4....dpost__p__34189

The question was whether the engine would have been viable in 2011/2012 (which is of course right up my alley, so I decided to respond, here are the interesting bits from my post:
"The DNF engine as it is right now should hold out for another 3 years with virtually no changes (apart from small changes to the rendering code and shaders to take advantage of newer graphics hardware) ... Most of the real advances in graphics in the last last few years has all been in the vertex/fragment shader area, some work on enhancing shadows, some stuff on post processing ... The real problem in DNF's case is the in-game content, that's the stuff that will get dated quickly. Updating a shader or two is simple, but if the levels start looking dated, there is very little you can do to fix it without jumping in and reworking all that content"

I think it's fair to say the levels are looking a bit dated, as I predicted. Indeed they also added massive amounts of post-processing and shader-based effects to make things modern, again, spot on. You'll also notice I did not mention the characters in my post since I did expect that those would probably get updated to today's standards (it's a fairly cheap investment since you only have to update a character model once and it will look that way throughout the entire game. Of course, modern character-art would go a long way towards making the whole game look modern, so it is an obvious thing to do).

So I would say I was pretty spot on with how I predicted things would turn out in the hypothetical world where the game did come out. Well, I'm happy that hypothetical world is the one I'm living in since I really do like what I'm seeing so far. Yes, the game isn't perfect, but it does look like it'll be a great game regardless of its shortcomings.
0

User is offline   Striker 

  • Auramancer

#100

Graphically, I can't say the PC version of DNF looks bad or like a 2005 game at all.

The textures seem rather sharp and crisp here too:
Posted Image
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#101

View PostStrikerMan780, on 11 May 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

Graphically, I can't say the PC version of DNF looks bad or like a 2005 game at all.

The textures seem rather sharp and crisp here too:
COOL PICTURE EXISTED HERE

That is true to some degree, the textures look really nice and have now got shaders applied to them, but the actual maps are build using a much older style of content creation. It's kind of hard to explain what I mean, but I'll try.

Games these days tend to have their levels modelled in very high-poly meshes, think millions of polygons even for a single room. Every object in that high-poly room would then be remodeled (or in some cases reduced automagically by algorithms) to low-poly meshes. You would then use the high-poly meshes to generate normal maps for the low-poly meshes. Aside from the edges of the in-game meshes which still look low-poly, everything within the object itself will be almost indistinguishable from the original high-poly mesh since it is using the normal information from the high-poly mesh mapped as a texture, it's quite clever really. They usually do share low-poly meshes, and similar objects will be started from the same high-poly meshes, however, artists would spend a lot of time detailing each individual high-poly art-piece to make it look unique. The level editor mainly serves as a tool to later assemble all of these different bits together to recreate the high-poly scene that was originally modelled in low-poly for in-game rendering. The level editor is also used to set up the level sound, in-level scripting etc. etc.

Now, if you go back a few years, the way things were done was quite different. The most important component of level design was in fact the level editor, rather than just being a tool to put all of the final bits of art together, it was actually where most of the level got created. The majority of your level geometry would be created within the editor as brush-based geometry and you would decorate the map with static-meshes created in a 3D modelling package. It was a good way of doing things for multiple reasons, firstly, the engines were optimized for that kind of geometry, so it made sense to use it, they were low-poly, potentially visible sets could help speed up rendering, BSP trees helped with other things like fast collision detection, AI and rendering the maps back-to-front (which meant not needing a depth buffer). Secondly, the static meshes could be reused, and believe me, in the old way of doing things, they got reused all over the place with minimal tweaking, at best you could expect a different texture mapped onto the same object. The reason for this is quite simple, the focus of level design in the past was your level editor, it was where your level was created, the static-meshes were just decorations, props created which you can drop into your level to add detail. This perspective is vastly different to the modern level designer, which tends to be focussed on creating a high-polygon scene in a fully featured 3D modelling package.

The picture you posted is an obvious example of this, you can see it in the cups, the chairs, the tables and the sauce bottles etc. These would all be standard props that are just inserted into the level which was built using the level editor. In simpler terms, in the old way of doing things, you had simple level geometry and a standard set of props you could use in your level as you saw fit. In the new way of doing things, modellers spend astronomical amounts of time building the high-poly level, and then adapting all of that into something playable in-game. The most noticeable side-effect of doing things the old way is how clean the levels look since you can't easily add in chips, cracks, bits of damage and other small details since brushes are a little inflexible, you'll also see the same texture repeated over-and-over again on surfaces with little to no variance. You do get the same thing in modern level design, but the additional finer details added by artists into the high-poly map really ends up making those textures look a little more interesting and the level itself much more detailed.

Anyway, it's getting late, so I'm going to head to bed soon. I hope this post was informative.

This post has been edited by Raziel: 11 May 2011 - 05:49 AM

2

User is offline   Kenneloth 

#102

Don't really get the point of complaining about the bus or other graphics. It's freaking Duke and it's comming! ;)
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#103

View PostKenneloth, on 11 May 2011 - 05:54 AM, said:

Don't really get the point of complaining about the bus or other graphics. It's freaking Duke and it's comming! ;)

I agree, but I think it is important for people to know about these kinds of things, including the pros and cons of each of the methods. The most obvious cons of the "new way" being that games tend to have less content these days (in terms of level size), and tend to have giant, hollywood-style budgets. The pros of the old way is that levels could in essence be bigger and there could be a lot more content created with a smaller team & budget. Another less obvious pro, though it could be debatable, is that level designers actually focussed on making good levels in the past, I sometimes wonder if some of that has been lost with the focus moving more towards good art, but that might just be a personal opinion. The obvious con of doing it the old way is that levels simply aren't as detailed and you tend to get a few standard props littering the level over and over again. Obvious pro of the new way, levels have a lot of detail. Take it as you will guys, I'm just spreading my knowledge, and hopefully my seed sooner or later. Anyway, I'm off to bed.
0

#104

As i see it, the graphics are about as good as bioshock from 2007 which was pretty good at that time. And lol at the pig hiding under that cop!
0

User is offline   DN4EVR 

#105

View PostRaziel, on 11 May 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

I agree, but I think it is important for people to know about these kinds of things, including the pros and cons of each of the methods. The most obvious cons of the "new way" being that games tend to have less content these days (in terms of level size), and tend to have giant, hollywood-style budgets. The pros of the old way is that levels could in essence be bigger and there could be a lot more content created with a smaller team & budget. Another less obvious pro, though it could be debatable, is that level designers actually focussed on making good levels in the past, I sometimes wonder if some of that has been lost with the focus moving more towards good art, but that might just be a personal opinion. The obvious con of doing it the old way is that levels simply aren't as detailed and you tend to get a few standard props littering the level over and over again. Obvious pro of the new way, levels have a lot of detail. Take it as you will guys, I'm just spreading my knowledge, and hopefully my seed sooner or later. Anyway, I'm off to bed.

I'd rather have good looking average levels of a good(not too small or big) size. Can't we all just...get along? ;)
0

User is offline   zwieback 

#106

i think we all should be aware that the colors and everything has been made by choice. it's duke in his world (like randy said - and i couldn't agree with him more on that one). it looks almost a bit like a comic sometimes. i really wonder how modern the game "feels" when we get our hands on the demo. to me, the game looks like a maxed out fun experience so far - which is all i ever wanted from duke. Because at the end of the day, gaming is all about having a good time (at least for me).
0

User is offline   You 

#107

View PostJhect, on 11 May 2011 - 06:19 AM, said:

As i see it, the graphics are about as good as bioshock from 2007 which was pretty good at that time. And lol at the pig hiding under that cop!


I like the look of DNF, but Bioshock had much better graphics.
0

#108

@Raziel

You are heading to bed ?
It was 2:41 PM when you posted that.

I believe you've copy and pasted it ?

This post has been edited by themaniacboy: 11 May 2011 - 09:41 AM

0

User is offline   Raziel 

#109

View Postthemaniacboy, on 11 May 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

@Raziel

You are heading to bed ?
It was 2:41 PM when you posted that.

I believe you've copy and pasted it ?

Depends on your location in the world, for me it was 12:41am...

Copy and pasted what? I guarantee you my posts are my own. I just happen to know a lot about game development for various reasons I don't want to get into. I hope you found my post interesting though. Games are moving more and more in that direction. I suspect when people switch back to voxels, they will still high-poly model levels like today, but they won't have to build a low-poly mesh as well, that's still a few years away though.
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#110

View Postzwieback, on 11 May 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

i think we all should be aware that the colors and everything has been made by choice

I think you missed the point. Modern doesn't mean dark and colorless, that's just a phase game development has gone into because people *believe* it creates atmosphere. I'm talking about the way levels are constructed, not how the textures look.

DNF was actually going for a realistic look In 2007 - that wouldn't change my discussion here though since I'm not talking about textures or use of color. In terms of graphics I like the style they've gone for, and that's more what you're talking about.

This post has been edited by Raziel: 11 May 2011 - 02:15 PM

0

User is offline   muskydragon 

  • Yatta is a dictator! :)

#111

Speaking of Bioshock - I'd love to see System Shock 3.. FUCK! get it done someone please! or I WILL!
0

User is offline   zwieback 

#112

raziel, my post wasn't directed at you at all. i actually agree with the stuff you said.
0

User is offline   Outtagum 

#113

View PostStrikerMan780, on 11 May 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

Graphically, I can't say the PC version of DNF looks bad or like a 2005 game at all.


It would be nice if they released a *quality* 1080p video of the recent PC version of the game.

*Most of the videos released have been made up of inconsistent quality clips. One clip may be fine, while another is badly compressed and/or is older footage with old assets.

The new high res screenshots look great. ;)
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#114

View Postzwieback, on 11 May 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

raziel, my post wasn't directed at you at all. i actually agree with the stuff you said.

Oh, hehe. I thought that was a reply to my little essay since textures and color are also graphics related - just a different angle, so yeah. My bad ;).
0

User is offline   Micky C 

  • Honored Donor

#115

View PostRaziel, on 11 May 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

I think you missed the point. Modern doesn't mean dark and colorless, that's just a phase game development has gone into because people *believe* it creates atmosphere. I'm talking about the way levels are constructed, not how the textures look.

DNF was actually going for a realistic look In 2007 - that wouldn't change my discussion here though since I'm not talking about textures or use of color. In terms of graphics I like the style they've gone for, and that's more what you're talking about.


I was really looking forward to a graphically realistic DNF actually, it would have felt more serious yet at the same time made the jokes funnier IMO. But I've got to admit DNF only looks slightly cartoony, and still looks realistic in many regards.
0

User is offline   MusicallyInspired 

  • The Sarien Encounter

#116

Games don't have to lack colour to look realistic. DNF looks plenty realistic enough.
0

User is offline   Fox Mulder 

#117

I'm digging the movie-like picture quality. I just learned DNF even has a film grain effect.

This post has been edited by Fox Mulder: 12 May 2011 - 11:39 PM

0

User is offline   Micky C 

  • Honored Donor

#118

Ooo, where'd you read that from?
0

User is offline   randir14 

#119

The written counterpart to the Nvidia video on Duke4's main page mentions the film grain. These are the graphics options in the game according to that article:

Resolution
Texture Detail
Shadow Detail
Shadows
Motion Blur
Anti Aliasing
Film Grain
Post Processing Special Effects
Stereoscopic 3D

http://www.geforce.c...-previews-page2

This post has been edited by randir14: 13 May 2011 - 01:08 AM

0

User is offline   Raziel 

#120

View PostFox Mulder, on 12 May 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

I just learned DNF even has a film grain effect.

It didn't in the PAX demo as far as I could tell...

I really hope it can be turned off because I really, really hate that sort of thing. It was the first feature I turned off on Mass Effect since it was extremely annoying. DNF was overly heavy on post-processing on the PAX demo already, I was kind of hoping they would reduce the amount of post-processing, not add to it!

This post has been edited by Raziel: 13 May 2011 - 01:52 AM

0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks not owned by Voidpoint, LLC are the sole property of their respective owners. Play Ion Fury! ;) © Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options