Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 7
Results 151 to 171 of 171
  1. #151
    Veteran
    Saigon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NA
    PSN ID
    saigon1914
    Posts
    4,977
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    33,954 (0 Banked)
    Though it sounds disappointing, it really isn't. I just want to know if this game is going to live up to all of the hype it has been receiving. I loved the E3 preview and I hope most of the game play, which I know has been improved and changed, is on par.

  2. #152
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by hood View Post
    Why is it so hard to understand that if they couldn't achieve everything they wanted to do with 150k poly so they took it down to 85k so that the game would look and play better overall is a downgrade. Why is this even being debated it says it right in the twitter post.

    Edit: Now is this bad news no, does it mean the game is worse no. It just means they had to take a step back and prioritize.
    what you're mistaken by is that lowering the poly wasn't the reason for the visual upgrade. they actually improved it by coding it.

    lowering the poly /= increased visual quality.

    lowering the poly = more resources to play with = more updates to the visual quality.

  3. #153
    Elite Member
    hood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,600
    Rep Power
    70
    Points
    5,269 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    what you're mistaken by is that lowering the poly wasn't the reason for the visual upgrade. they actually improved it by coding it.

    lowering the poly /= increased visual quality.

    lowering the poly = more resources to play with = more updates to the visual quality.
    so much fail in this post

    Im not trying to be a $#@! but really sit back and look at what u just said.
    "I think all those developers who are saying, "We donít want to do a PS3 game," or "Itís really difficult to do it," should shut up and make their games. If you have time to complain about it, then you should be spending your time working on getting the most from the hardware."

  4. #154
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    21
    Posts
    8,345
    Rep Power
    84
    Points
    31,925 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by hood View Post
    so much fail in this post

    Im not trying to be a $#@! but really sit back and look at what u just said.
    I don't see the fail in that post. He's right.

  5. Likes Omar likes this post
  6. #155
    Elite Member
    hood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,600
    Rep Power
    70
    Points
    5,269 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    I don't see the fail in that post. He's right.
    look i know youre here to back him up but his post says exactly what Ive said. Less polygons made more room for a better game overall which is exactly what the deveper said in his twitter post. The Fact of the matter is the polygons dropped the game looks better they could not achieve the same results with 150k. This is Fact simple cause and effect he/she wants to argue whether or not 150k made any difference apparently Crytek did and lowered it. I'll say it once more CRYTEK couldn't achieve what they wanted at 150k so they lowered it to 85k. Giving them more resources which translated into a better looking game overall.
    "I think all those developers who are saying, "We donít want to do a PS3 game," or "Itís really difficult to do it," should shut up and make their games. If you have time to complain about it, then you should be spending your time working on getting the most from the hardware."

  7. Likes mistercrow likes this post
  8. #156
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by hood View Post
    look i know youre here to back him up but his post says exactly what Ive said. Less polygons made more room for a better game overall which is exactly what the deveper said in his twitter post. The Fact of the matter is the polygons dropped the game looks better they could not achieve the same results with 150k. This is Fact simple cause and effect he/she wants to argue whether or not 150k made any difference apparently Crytek did and lowered it. I'll say it once more CRYTEK couldn't achieve what they wanted at 150k so they lowered it to 85k. Giving them more resources which translated into a better looking game overall.
    well ok, but your post sounded like as if you were saying that lowering the polys caused the game to look better.

    so we're back to where we were earlier. we have a few options here to look at. i've already said this though so i'm glad that at least we're on the same page now.

    you're saying that lowering the poly is a downgrade, i agree. it is. but you will not see that visually. why they went with 150k to begin with? We don't know. it seems like they didn't know what they were doing or they had something else planned and they didn't think it was worth it. who cares.

    the point is, when they lowered the polys, the did not make any difference at all, that we can see with our eyes.

    it's like if they lowered the resolution from 8k to 4k. you wouldn't know the difference.

    but what they did is that they took those resources and then they made the rest of the game considerably better-looking.

    so in the end, there was a downgrade and there was an upgrade. what we're seeing with our eyes is only an upgrade.

    the downgrade is a moot point. it doesn't matter if a game has a million poly character, it can still look like crap, not to mention, wasting all those resources on polys that we do not need.

    and again, this happens to all platforms, it doesn't matter if it's the all-power PC, it happens to all games at one point or another, it was more of a PR disaster for them to boast something they weren't going to stick with and didn't matter to begin with.

  9. #157
    Dedicated Member
    Sajuuk Khar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,464
    Rep Power
    74
    Points
    9,896 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    what you're mistaken by is that lowering the poly wasn't the reason for the visual upgrade. they actually improved it by coding it.

    lowering the poly /= increased visual quality.

    lowering the poly = more resources to play with = more updates to the visual quality.
    well, which is it then? They improved the coding which boosted the visuals or reduced the poly count to free up resources?

    Think what hood is saying is that your kinda giving multiple reasons for the resource re-balancing. If they were able to get the visual quality up to what they wanted through programming upgrades alone, then they wouldn't have needed to take a hit on the model geometry.

    Realistically though, they realised they could get a very similar degree of visual complexity in the model by using less polys to then allow them to use those resources else where. But no matter which way you cut it, they had to make reductions one way or another.

    BUT :P, that's not a bad thing per say. If the model still looks good even when using less polys ( you do start to get diminishing returns with polys...), thus freeing up resources, Crytek would actually be stupid to not do that. Your right Sufi that they probably shouldn't have mentioned poly counts, at least until it was fully locked in place. Does make you think that with that many polys just taken out of a model which not a big it at all the visual quality...what the hell were they doing with them before?


    Edit: Yeah looking at the differences in the old and new images there is a nice visual improvement, not sure how much is directly related to the freeing up from the model being optimised though. A lot seemed to be just better painted textures, with maybe some res boosts as well. I'd say its more related to the development tool upgrades MS and the natural progression of development between when those two images were made. Just that during that time they realised they didn't need 150k polys :P
    Last edited by Sajuuk Khar; 09-30-2013 at 18:58.

  10. #158
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sajuuk Khar View Post
    well, which is it then? They improved the coding which boosted the visuals or reduced the poly count to free up resources?
    they did both but yes, they had to get the resources from the reduced polys. if you follow our conversation, at one point, it seemed like hood was saying that reducing the polys cause the game to look good, so we went off course for a little bit.

    Think what hood is saying is that your kinda giving multiple reasons for the resource re-balancing. If they were able to get the visual quality up to what they wanted through programming upgrades alone, then they wouldn't have needed to take a hit on the model geometry.

    Realistically though, they realised they could get a very similar degree of visual complexity in the model by using less polys to then allow them to use those resources else where. But no matter which way you cut it, they had to make reductions one way or another.

    BUT :P, that's not a bad thing per say. If the model still looks good even when using less polys ( you do start to get diminishing returns with polys...), thus freeing up resources, Crytek would actually be stupid to not do that. Your right Sufi that they probably shouldn't have mentioned poly counts, at least until it was fully locked in place. Does make you think that with that many polys just taken out of a model which not a big it at all the visual quality...what the hell were they doing with them before?
    yea there was a hit but my post above yours explains why that's a moot point and your last para pretty much nails that anyway. it's a downgrade but really they should not have used resources on that to begin with.

    it's a PR issue.
    Last edited by Omar; 09-30-2013 at 19:06.

  11. #159
    Elite Member
    hood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,600
    Rep Power
    70
    Points
    5,269 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    well ok, but your post sounded like as if [B]you were saying that lowering the polys caused the game to look better.

    so we're back to where we were earlier. we have a few options here to look at. i've already said this though so i'm glad that at least we're on the same page now.

    you're saying that lowering the poly is a downgrade, i agree. it is. but you will not see that visually. why they went with 150k to begin with? We don't know. it seems like they didn't know what they were doing or they had something else planned and they didn't think it was worth it. who cares.

    the point is, when they lowered the polys, the did not make any difference at all, that we can see with our eyes.

    it's like if they lowered the resolution from 8k to 4k. you wouldn't know the difference.

    but what they did is that they took those resources and then they made the rest of the game considerably better-looking.

    so in the end, there was a downgrade and there was an upgrade. what we're seeing with our eyes is only an upgrade.

    the downgrade is a moot point. it doesn't matter if a game has a million poly character, it can still look lik crap, not to mention, wasting all those resources on polys that we do not need.

    and again, this happens to all platforms, it doesn't matter if it's the all-power PC, it happens to all games at one point or another, it was more of a PR disaster for them to boast something they weren't going to stick with and didn't matter to begin with.
    Im sorry im just gonna let you continue to contradict yourself and move on.
    "I think all those developers who are saying, "We donít want to do a PS3 game," or "Itís really difficult to do it," should shut up and make their games. If you have time to complain about it, then you should be spending your time working on getting the most from the hardware."

  12. #160
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by hood View Post
    Im sorry im just gonna let you continue to contradict yourself and move on.
    i'll post my edit from the post above:

    EDIT: I see where the confusion comes from:

    Quote Originally Posted by hood
    It does look better but a downgrade is a downgrade 150k to 85k means whatever they were trying to pull off they couldn't do it.

    to which I said that they probably could do it, just didn't think it was worth it to do. what i misunderstood from it was, i thought he was saying that Crytek couldn't do 150k polys so they reduced it.

    what hood meant was that they couldn't do 150k while adding the rest of the details.

    now, to my defense, throughout my entire discussion, i've made my points very clear, it seems like hood wasn't reading my posts correctly because i mentioned several times that they did have to reduce the polys to get the resources to make the game look better...in fact, i went into a lot more detail as to why this entire thing is pointless.

    after that, it's just been miscommunication due to semantic reasons.

    even if they can't do 150 polys with these details, doesn't speak for the power this platform truly would have.

    1) Too early in the generation. more advancements will be made.

    2) Cross-gen engine. not efficient.

    3) this one is a developer's fault. you can make any platform chug if you don't set your priorities straight.
    Last edited by Omar; 09-30-2013 at 19:10.

  13. #161
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    21
    Posts
    8,345
    Rep Power
    84
    Points
    31,925 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Its not that crytek didn't know what they were doing when they put 150k models. Those models were for close up cutscenes with more facial detail perhaps and when you compare little things like the smoothness of the curves in ears, nose and eyes you can clearly see the difference in 150k and 85k. They already had the 85k model for gameplay from the start most likely so I guess its not even a downgrade. Just abolishing the use LOD for the maincharacter

  14. Likes Omar, mynd likes this post
  15. #162
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    Its not that crytek didn't know what they were doing when they put 150k models. Those models were for close up cutscenes with more facial detail perhaps and when you compare little things like the smoothness of the curves in ears, nose and eyes you can clearly see the difference in 150k and 85k. They already had the 85k model for gameplay from the start most likely so I guess its not even a downgrade. Just abolishing the use LOD for the maincharacter
    but there is a discrepancy here.

    if those 150k polys were just for cutscenes then we have to determine, were they using the exact models for gameplay? if so then yes, they don't know what they were doing because

    1) you can't see those details in gameplay.

    2) they can just use higher poly just for cutscenes and keep the gameplay polys at 85k.

    maybe they did do the #2. (you may consider that a pun as well)

  16. #163
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    21
    Posts
    8,345
    Rep Power
    84
    Points
    31,925 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    but there is a discrepancy here.

    if those 150k polys were just for cutscenes then we have to determine, were they using the exact models for gameplay? if so then yes, they don't know what they were doing because

    1) you can't see those details in gameplay.

    2) they can just use higher poly just for cutscenes and keep the gameplay polys at 85k.

    maybe they did do the #2. (you may consider that a pun as well)
    They can do both. Use 150k when the camera is close (story boss battle maybe) and use 85k when you have hundreds of soldiers (like storming the beach E3 demo). That's the point of a LOD system that it chooses between your 1 and 2 depending on how far the object is

  17. #164
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    They can do both. Use 150k when the camera is close (story boss battle maybe) and use 85k when you have hundreds of soldiers (like storming the beach E3 demo). That's the point of a LOD system that it chooses between your 1 and 2 depending on how far the object is
    oh right, but then from what they're saying, it implies that there was downgrade of polys across the board.

    are they actually saying that it's still 150k up close and 85k from afar due to LOD? are we to assume the inclusion of LOD is because of that?

    EDIT: but wait, they said no LOD. it seems like what you're talking about, they may have been doing that before the update.
    Last edited by Omar; 09-30-2013 at 20:34.

  18. #165
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    21
    Posts
    8,345
    Rep Power
    84
    Points
    31,925 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    oh right, but then from what they're saying, it implies that there was downgrade of polys across the board.

    are they actually saying that it's still 150k up close and 85k from afar due to LOD? are we to assume the inclusion of LOD is because of that?

    EDIT: but wait, they said no LOD. it seems like what you're talking about, they may have been doing that before the update.
    Yes they had LOD before but not now. Now ALL scenes will have 85k model regardless of all other factors (like god of war 3). It means there's no 'pop in' since the game doesn't switch models and textures

  19. #166
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    18,417
    Rep Power
    166
    Points
    209,180 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    but there is a discrepancy here.

    if those 150k polys were just for cutscenes then we have to determine, were they using the exact models for gameplay? if so then yes, they don't know what they were doing because

    1) you can't see those details in gameplay.

    2) they can just use higher poly just for cutscenes and keep the gameplay polys at 85k.

    maybe they did do the #2. (you may consider that a pun as well)
    If you watch the presentation you'd see they were aiming for movie like cutscenes without any difference between cutscene and gameplay, they didn't want a clear break. Itachi is 100% correct 150k was used for only the closest possible camera work.

  20. #167
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    If you watch the presentation you'd see they were aiming for movie like cutscenes without any difference between cutscene and gameplay, they didn't want a clear break. Itachi is 100% correct 150k was used for only the closest possible camera work.
    so do the cutscenes look worse now? less movie-like?

  21. #168
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    18,417
    Rep Power
    166
    Points
    209,180 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by hood View Post
    Why is it so hard to understand that if they couldn't achieve everything they wanted to do with 150k poly so they took it down to 85k so that the game would look and play better overall is a downgrade. Why is this even being debated it says it right in the twitter post.

    Edit: Now is this bad news no, does it mean the game is worse no. It just means they had to take a step back and prioritize.
    No, it means they did what ever game developer does, they optimized.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    so do the cutscenes look worse now? less movie-like?
    Probably not, because they have improved their bump mapping shaders to get better details with he less polys.
    I really dont see why people are making a big deal of this, it goes on in game development all the time, look at Naughty dogs hi-res models vs the ones they ended up using, that's not a downgrade, its simply optimizing it for the product.

    A low res model with and without normal mapping...



    Same amount of triangles, different shaders....

    Last edited by mynd; 10-01-2013 at 09:30.

  22. Likes x_terna likes this post
  23. #169
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    well, there you go then. their focus was off. this happens a lot though. but it seems to happen to Crytek and GG a lot more I notice. they try to push the hardware first and then look at optimization. it seems like ND does the opposite.

  24. #170
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,704
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,948 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    Its not that crytek didn't know what they were doing when they put 150k models. Those models were for close up cutscenes with more facial detail perhaps and when you compare little things like the smoothness of the curves in ears, nose and eyes you can clearly see the difference in 150k and 85k. They already had the 85k model for gameplay from the start most likely so I guess its not even a downgrade. Just abolishing the use LOD for the maincharacter
    you know what, it just occurred to me. why are we even assuming that they ran out of resources and had to reduce that because they needed more resources.

    for all we know, it might've just been a choice. and he said that too in the twitter.

    for all we know, they could've made these changes without changing a single thing.

    can we confirm for sure that they were at 100% resource use? nope.

    maybe they didn't like the desired look or they may just not have thought that it was going to be worth all the effort.

    either way, pretty much blown out of proportion. just like it was when it was announced the first time *sigh* we need a life. well i do anyway, i spend too much time here.

  25. #171
    Forum Sage
    Itachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winterfell
    PSN ID
    iwinulose042
    Age
    21
    Posts
    8,345
    Rep Power
    84
    Points
    31,925 (151,503 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIII-2Final Fantasy XIIIFull Metal AlchemistDragon Ball ZNarutoDeath NoteNaughty DogLightningNoctisAssassins Creed EzioPS3 Slim
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    you know what, it just occurred to me. why are we even assuming that they ran out of resources and had to reduce that because they needed more resources.

    for all we know, it might've just been a choice. and he said that too in the twitter.

    for all we know, they could've made these changes without changing a single thing.

    can we confirm for sure that they were at 100% resource use? nope.

    maybe they didn't like the desired look or they may just not have thought that it was going to be worth all the effort.

    either way, pretty much blown out of proportion. just like it was when it was announced the first time *sigh* we need a life. well i do anyway, i spend too much time here.
    That's what I thought aswell, its just that when you market something boldly (in this case the 150k number) then people latch onto any changes made later

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.