Post by: Deftech on August 03, 2005, 05:52:00 PM
(IMG:http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1150/full-res/1123103439.jpg)
(IMG:http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1150/full-res/1123103438.jpg)
This post has been edited by Deftech: Aug 4 2005, 12:55 AM
Post by: Carlo210 on August 03, 2005, 05:58:00 PM
And about shooters in this genre, I'm more hyped up about Prey than I am about Quake 4.
Post by: Twasi on August 03, 2005, 05:58:00 PM
Post by: Andy51 on August 03, 2005, 06:14:00 PM
Post by: Deftech on August 03, 2005, 06:22:00 PM
No jaggies
Prey atleast uses an upgraded color palette, where as quake 4 seems to look exactly like doom 3 did.
time for Carmack to make an engine that will actually give the 360 a work out huh?
Post by: shazboznian on August 03, 2005, 10:58:00 PM
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/...1_screen001.jpg
and
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/...9_screen002.jpg
YEAH!!!
Post by: Infamous_One on August 03, 2005, 10:32:00 PM
Post by: aepuppetmaster on August 03, 2005, 11:20:00 PM
Post by: Deftech on August 03, 2005, 11:33:00 PM
QUOTE(aepuppetmaster @ Aug 4 2005, 02:55 AM)
this is what i was afraid of, if u look at what ehy promised and then u look at the acutally game, it is a shit load beter than the xbox but still not what they promised, guess i'll have to wait for the xbox720.......yeah like i'll wait.
what who promised?
thats the doom 3 engine maxed out dude, The only major difference between doom 3 on xbox and quake 4 on 360 is the lower res textures, 480p instead of 720p, and xbox has jaggies.
its the 360's fault the doom 3 engine is now considered old?! Carmacks engines are always good tests for rigs and time demos but Ive always like the Unreal engines a LOT more.
you were buying the 360 just for quake 4 and you expected it to look like what? as good as Unreal 3 engine games?
Im confused :blink:
Post by: Moleman on August 04, 2005, 12:03:00 AM
Post by: Carlo210 on August 04, 2005, 12:03:00 AM
Post by: miggidy on August 04, 2005, 01:44:00 AM
I could be wrong.
But I'm not complaining here, yes the game doesn't look good as other Xbox 360 titles but it looks good enough.
And if the game play is fun, who cares?
Post by: Deftech on August 04, 2005, 01:52:00 AM
Please tell me thats not at launch.
Im so glad games Like Gears of War and Huxley arent.
Post by: mcbraders on August 04, 2005, 02:44:00 AM
Post by: incognegro on August 04, 2005, 04:02:00 AM
Post by: twistedsymphony on August 04, 2005, 06:17:00 AM
It's too bad... Quake is really a (reflectively) dull game, having it be all shiny and plasticy just doesn't look right to me
I've been waiting for this game for a long time too.. I played the first Quake on the PC over and over and over. Same with Quake II. I never played Quake III on the PC but I played it to DEATH on my Dreamcast
They've been saying that Quake IV will be the single player of II with the multiplayer of III and a much more in-depth story overall. To be honest, from what I've heard, the single player sounds like a great game, and if the multiplayer is so much as exactly like Quake III that will be great too.
One of the biggest things about quake has always been the user mods. I hope they find some way to allow that stuff on the console without allowing cheaters... otherwise they'll find themselves in Halo2 territory
Here's hoping that the graphics don't doom the title... and yes it IS a launch title.
Post by: crobar on August 04, 2005, 07:20:00 AM
um skrew graphics quake one is fun as hell...
you guys are tools if you are thinking graphics will make the game more fun...
insane realistic graphics dont mean your going to have a fun game...
i for one hope its fun....thats it.
Post by: pingrr on August 04, 2005, 07:44:00 AM
Post by: twistedsymphony on August 04, 2005, 08:20:00 AM
QUOTE(crobar @ Aug 4 2005, 08:55 AM)
WTF...
um skrew graphics quake one is fun as hell...
you guys are tools if you are thinking graphics will make the game more fun...
insane realistic graphics dont mean your going to have a fun game...
i for one hope its fun....thats it.
um skrew graphics quake one is fun as hell...
you guys are tools if you are thinking graphics will make the game more fun...
insane realistic graphics dont mean your going to have a fun game...
i for one hope its fun....thats it.
While I agree that graphics are not the BE ALL of a game they certainly contribute to the over all experience.
Think of it this way... if a next gen fighting game came out and had the best game play, multiplayer option and best story ever in a fighting game. but looked like the original virtua fighter.... how much would you really want to play that game? You're right that graphics arn't everything, but they can and DO very easily make or break an otherwise fantastic game.
Doom 3 has been hailed for it's great graphics but I found the plastic surfaces just too distracting. No matter how much I wanted to play the game, see where the story went, see what everyone was raving about, the shininess just killed the atmosphere for me. I couldn't "get into it" like I could with other games because of the graphics.
Like I said... I can't wait for Quake IV but I hope that the graphics aren't so distracting that it ruins it for me like Doom 3 was ruined for me.
Post by: miggidy on August 04, 2005, 09:46:00 AM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Aug 4 2005, 09:27 AM)
Yes Prey looks better. They put in a upgraded color palette to give it a fresh look, and it shows.
Ah that explains it.
Too bad they aren't doing the same for this game.
I've always liked Quake over the Unreal games!
Post by: Shawn_ on August 04, 2005, 10:01:00 AM
Either way, it should be a fun game.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on August 04, 2005, 10:06:00 AM
Post by: Jason9875 on August 04, 2005, 03:10:00 PM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Aug 3 2005, 05:33 PM)
its using the doom 3 engine, its going to look kinda poopy compared to any of the games using newer ones. Its still very crisp looking though, so that alone is a huige step forward.
No jaggies :luv:
Prey atleast uses an upgraded color palette, where as quake 4 seems to look exactly like doom 3 did.
time for Carmack to make an engine that will actually give the 360 a work out huh?
:beer:
No jaggies :luv:
Prey atleast uses an upgraded color palette, where as quake 4 seems to look exactly like doom 3 did.
time for Carmack to make an engine that will actually give the 360 a work out huh?
:beer:
The Doom 3 engine can bring ANY console/computer to its knees and make it explode if the designers wanted.
The main flaw in the Doom 3 engine (this maybe tweaked in Quake 4) was the fact that every texture also had a high quality bumpmap, along with a few other graphics, (I cannot remember if it had heightmaps, and or not..) which use a lot of memory, remember for ULTRA quality in Doom 3 it is recommended to have a video card with 512MB of onboard RAM.
And the unified lighting is also a hinderance since it limits the amount of polygons that are on scene.
Also if the Quake 4 designers wanted to make the 360 implode upon itself they could always enable relief mapping, if the xbox 360 even supports it.
Post by: Deftech on August 04, 2005, 03:46:00 PM
the engine is inefficient and archaic compared to shit out now.
and if you think the top of the line video card for a pc can even come close to what the R500 can do....I guess Im wasting my time by replying.
please dont confuse pc's and consoles, dont lump them together.
whatever brings a pc to its knees, the console version made from the ground up will run it a LOT better.
quake 4 on 360 looks like old school shit, kinda sad to think doom 3/quake 4 looks old.
If it looked like it played different than doom 3, I might pick it up for $5.00, but no thanks. It doesnt even look like a quake in my opinion.
dont worry, itll only be another 7 years till carmack makes another engine, and by the time its released, itll only be used for 1 or 2 games and be outdated. bahaha
that guy was cool 6 years ago, an icon, now hes pretty much non existent. even the quakecons are a a joke.
:beer:
Now prey on the other hand, they took it and added some new shit, not just the color palette, I think I remember reading that it doesnt even resemble the doom 3 engine anymore after what they did to it, and it shows, because it looks better than quake 4 and doom 3.
Post by: Jason9875 on August 04, 2005, 06:43:00 PM
QUOTE
and if you think the top of the line video card for a pc can even come close to what the R500 can do....I guess Im wasting my time by replying.
Not a single one, but Dual 7800 GTXs can come close, and as for Relief mapping, it is currently a feature only on the 7800 GTX, and the 6xxx series. So like I said I wasn't sure if the new ATi GPU would even have support for it. And in case you don't know Relief mapping is kinda like bump mapping it just has more dramatic, and better looking results, along with making the game unplayable on the 6xxx series :P
QUOTE
the console version made from the ground up will run it a LOT better.
Yea when its optimized for the console it will run great!
But you misunderstood my point, which was the fact that the Doom 3 engine can indeed make the xbox 360 stutter, if someone wanted to enable everything it was capable of. (which some people seem to think that the game Doom 3 is exactly what the engine can do, which is completly false, they had to scrap items to get it to run on current computers.)
QUOTE
the engine is inefficient and archaic compared to shit out now.
you can't comare the Doom 3 engine to any other in terms of effecency because no other game engine (AFAIK) has a unified lighting system. If you moded other game engines to do the same all of them would run poorly compared to other games were certain items of pre-rendered shadows, and don't have to mess with doing advanced lighting calculations.
Post by: Deftech on August 04, 2005, 08:09:00 PM
ready for this one...I will say its refreshing to have someone around that knows there way around video cards and other graphical talk. I was worried this would turn into a bitch fest, alas I am relieved.
you make good points.
I knew what relief mapping was but didnt hear that its exclusive to the geforce line. Interesting indeed.
and Im not talking about one card versus another in just pure power #'s, efficiency and how they go about doing those tricks is whats starting to matter a lot more lately, enter the R500. You can have 4 geforces with a fill rate of a gazillion per second for all I care, but if the tech doesnt move forward, that power is useless.
I dont see a doom 3 engine game slowing down the 360 for one simple reason, they dont have to account for the FSAA anymore. Its all done with the buffer and takes a HUGE load off the entire system, not to mention the bandwidth between the ati and the edram is just outrageous.
That is the ONE thing that will seperate the 360 and ps3 in my opinion. Being able to run fsaa/msaa with very little hit in performance is going to be a bigger deal than most people think, and I see cross platform games on the ps3 looking either a little jaggier but still running smooth, or they boost the AA and youll see a hit in system performamce.
Unified shaders is another thing I see being a big deal. Nvidia says they dislike it, but I guarantee they adopt it soon enough.
I could be very wrong, but thats where I stand as of now.
I also didnt know Relief mapping was harder to get running. theres got to be different ways to manipulate it so it can run more better, but Im not a dev so Im talking out my ass
Post by: Jason9875 on August 04, 2005, 11:14:00 PM
QUOTE
I knew what relief mapping was but didnt hear that its exclusive to the geforce line.
Im not exactly sure its exclusive to the Geforce line, it might be something like Ultra Shadow 2, or HDR, in which the ATi Radeon series (xX00) don't support, which if thats the case then the r500 will be able to do all that.
and as for the FSAA/MSAA there is no need to point out Full Screen AA, as to my knowledge there inst a video card in that could do AA and didn't do full screen AA.
QUOTE
I also didnt know Relief mapping was harder to get running.
http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cg...ic;f=3;t=013411
I found the thread that mentioned it, said he got 50fps at 640x480 resolution, on a 6800 GT.
Maybe the r500 could run relief maps fairly well after all...
Post by: Deftech on August 04, 2005, 11:38:00 PM
QUOTE(Jason9875 @ Aug 5 2005, 02:49 AM)
and as for the FSAA/MSAA there is no need to point out Full Screen AA, as to my knowledge there inst a video card in that could do AA and didn't do full screen AA.
its used so some of these people here will recognize it easier. They know who they are :P
ive had too many say wtf is AA...most sites mention "FSAA" and thats the term most know. you have to remember who youre dealing with at this site, members who confuse Aliasing with Geometrical shapes, and think Aliasing should turn a square into a circle
:blink:
Post by: Deftech on August 04, 2005, 11:52:00 PM
Post by: tNCecil on August 05, 2005, 07:55:00 AM
Post by: deftonesmx17 on August 05, 2005, 09:47:00 AM
Back to the thought of optimized for a specific type of chip. Lets talk Half-Life 2 for now. A game that was optimized for ATI chips. Lets use a 9800 Pro (no not even an XT) for this example. With this chip I am able to run every setting to the max. Yes @ 1024x768 I can have 6xAA and 16xAF and still never drop below 30fps. This chip, which is old, doesnt even come close to what the ATI R500 or the Nvidia RSX are packing. Now once again, how can anyone even attempt to say the RSX will have trouble with AA?
I guess what I am saying is, dont act like the edram(the Gamecube has a small amount and we see how well it works) is some miracle thing. Don't forget that M$ touted around the XNA as a miracle development tool, then NDA's began to lift and we come to find out that some developers don't even like to use it.
This post has been edited by deftonesmx17: Aug 5 2005, 04:50 PM
Post by: Deftech on August 05, 2005, 10:48:00 AM
remember Im going by whats on the papers, I sure hope it turns out as good as promised.
I think thats the biggest advantage of the systems architecture honestly. HD res with AA and little hit to overall performance. I wouldnt be getting it if it did otherwise.
when I read about this concept, that was the clincher, I knew then that I was buying this machine. sex for the eyes :luv:
Post by: deftonesmx17 on August 05, 2005, 10:17:00 AM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Aug 5 2005, 12:23 PM)
kill the AA in the same res you play halflife in and see how much better it runs. thats my point.
Ok at the title screen where the train rolls by with no AA and 16xAF I get 103 FPS, with 2xAA it drops to 99fps, 4xAA 96fps, 6xAA 93fps.................so at 6xAA on a old vid card that is about a 9% impact compared to no AA
see my point, a game that is optimized for a single chip(not even just a single brand like HL2) will run fine. the RSX will have very little trouble with AA, and 1080p will never happen.......$ony is full of it. With only 720p and 1080i the max impact might be like my HL2 example 9%
plus i am in a crabby mood today
I still hate Grill Master Ken though...........
Post by: Deftech on August 05, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
optimized for one chip you say.
Now take a cross platform title and assume the ps3 version gets no special attention.
Lets use Dark Sector for example...
you get AA for free with the 360, the ps3 starts slight slowdown with AA being used(remember its not manadatory, so that in itself is a huge + for the 360)
both versions are to be released at the same time, no time to better utlilize the almighty RSXIYUIBN SynthesizerFromHeaven nvidia quadruple setup. The 360 should give is a smoother looking, smoother running title.
again, thats just an example, please dont go nuts on me. Youre crabby and im sensitive today
muwhahahahaha
dont make me open the safe
wheres sonys building at in Japan anyways?
anyone have coordinates
Post by: deftonesmx17 on August 05, 2005, 10:45:00 AM
QUOTE(Deftech @ Aug 5 2005, 12:43 PM)
he 360 should give is a smoother looking,
duh anything ATI gives you better image quality
Sorry I will try not to be crabby with you
Like you can't find the $ony building
Post by: Deftech on August 05, 2005, 11:34:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Aug 5 2005, 02:56 PM)
duh anything ATI gives you better image quality :P
Sorry I will try not to be crabby with you :beer:
Like you can't find the $ony building :rolleyes: :beer: :P :lol:
Sorry I will try not to be crabby with you :beer:
Like you can't find the $ony building :rolleyes: :beer: :P :lol:
lol, dont stop being crabby on my account
sony here I come!!
Post by: twistedsymphony on August 05, 2005, 12:17:00 PM
Just say it out loud "Absolutely every game will be in 720p with FSAA" I get all warm and fuzzy when I say that... it's a guarantee...
Think of it this way EVERY woman COULD potentially have sex with you but not every woman will actually do it. Every PS3 game COULD have 720p and FSAA, but WILL every game have that? probably not... MS guarantees every woman will have sex with you :lol:
Post by: Deftech on August 05, 2005, 12:21:00 PM
I'd need to pop a lot of viagra for such a task.
I just cant get over that all games will come to us looking clean and in hd. Oh these are good times!
Post by: deftonesmx17 on August 05, 2005, 12:24:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Aug 5 2005, 01:52 PM)
the clincher is that MS is REQUIRING it.
Yeah I know and I am very happy about that. I force at least 2xAA on every computer game I play.
Post by: Jason9875 on August 05, 2005, 04:27:00 PM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Aug 5 2005, 09:28 AM)
Ok at the title screen where the train rolls by with no AA and 16xAF I get 103 FPS, with 2xAA it drops to 99fps, 4xAA 96fps, 6xAA 93fps.................so at 6xAA on a old vid card that is about a 9% impact compared to no AA
see my point, a game that is optimized for a single chip(not even just a single brand like HL2) will run fine. the RSX will have very little trouble with AA, and 1080p will never happen.......$ony is full of it. With only 720p and 1080i the max impact might be like my HL2 example 9%
see my point, a game that is optimized for a single chip(not even just a single brand like HL2) will run fine. the RSX will have very little trouble with AA, and 1080p will never happen.......$ony is full of it. With only 720p and 1080i the max impact might be like my HL2 example 9%
If you want true results you should be running a time demo and then average out the frames you get, and run in a higher resolution.
1080i with AA will lower performance greatly, look at the 6800 GT when running 1600x1200 (I am unsure as to what exact resolution 1080 is but I am pretty sure 1600x1200 is similar to it....) with 4xAA enabled loses 32% of its performance.
And as for the x850 XT PE it loses 25% of its performance, with the settings above.
Also the 7800 GTX when running 8xS AA (4xMSAA and 2xSSAA) it loses ~45% of its performance in 1600x1200, and thats without its uber special transparancy AA enabled.
(results above taken from http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/229/19/ )
Though one thing the RSX has going for it, assuming they keep the extra AA stuff from the 7800 GTX, is that it can produce a much better image, just with a huge performance cost that enabling 8xS AA, and transparancy AA have on high res games.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on August 05, 2005, 05:42:00 PM
Post by: Carlo210 on August 05, 2005, 08:13:00 PM
etc etc :beer:
Post by: JimmyDeushku on August 07, 2005, 01:55:00 AM