Why did Valve use a low quality FMV for the ending of Portal 2? *No spoilers* - Games

Why are you all bitching jesus fucking christ. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] If this was any other company there would be no complaints. Just enjoy your fucking game.

[QUOTE=t h e;29328482]I'm just thinking in a logical way, since I have no knowledge on techincal things whatsoever, so I'm most definitely wrong, but I just thought that if there's more things moving the computer has to use more CPU to render the movements, I think its much easier on the PC if theres a still model as oppose to a moving model. Could be wrong though.[/QUOTE] As I said, on modern hardware it won't even be noticable. I made about 20 of them fall over and play their little animation, no fps drop at all.

[QUOTE=Legend286;29328583]As I said, on modern hardware it won't even be noticable. I made about 20 of them fall over and play their little animation, no fps drop at all.[/QUOTE] That's the thing though, Valve is all about low-end computers, and they did this for a console too. I like it fine through cinematic, it's probably 10x easier for them as well.

[QUOTE=Alvaldi;29328484]Why are you all bitching jesus fucking christ. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] If this was any other company there would be no complaints. Just enjoy your fucking game.[/QUOTE] Everyone either holds valve at the highest standard possible or the lowest possible. Some people would buy a valve game if it was just a metal box with a tree in the middle priced $79.99 and they would love it. Others would complain about the optional maple or cypress DLC skins for the tree and then get mad on an internet forum because their maximum FPS on the map was 79 and not 80.

[QUOTE=t h e;29328601]That's the thing though, Valve is all about low-end computers, and they did this for a console too. I like it fine through cinematic, it's probably 10x easier for them as well.[/QUOTE] Even on the consoles it wouldn't matter. Valve probably made the entire turret orchestra a single model anyway, which negates any negative performance impact of having many animated models on low end, along with reducing the draw calls, a lot.

I just find it odd how this is pretty much the first time Valve has used CGI as a cutscene in the beginning or end of a game and they did it in Portal 2 of all things. It's very unusual for them.

[QUOTE=Legend286;29328319]You know animations don't make a model any more costly. You want 50 turrets with a playable framerate? fine, I'll give you more than that. You are dumb. I actually just crashed the game, I placed so many that I ran out of edicts. At the time I had about 200 down, with 50 fps.[/QUOTE] Valve's target audience is much broader than you. You're right about what you're saying, regarding draw calls and animations, but you missed this simple fact.

Let's see here, we've got an OP complaining about something completely arbitrary and has a 50-50 chance of being a troll, we've got regular people pointing out his stupidity, we've got Valve fanboys pointing out his stupidity in a more harsh, pointlessly sarcastic manner, And we have the token fellow who thinks that everyone who calls out the OP for over-exaggerating a minor arbitrary thing that was clearly needed for the sake of not destroying 70% of the computers that would need to render the scene in the first place is a rabid Valve fanboy who would probably bash any other game if it weren't Valve. Oh Facepunch, never change. [editline] January 1, 1363 [/editline] Oh yeah, and we have that fucknugget that complains about complainers complaining about complainers and just butts into conversations just to be smug and make him feel less insecure about the record-breakingly small size of his dong. That would be me.

[QUOTE=Downsider;29328726]Valve's target audience is much broader than you. You're right about what you're saying, regarding draw calls and animations, but you missed this simple fact.[/QUOTE] It'd still run fine for a large majority though. They could've made it optional too, but apparently Valve have never heard of that term. OPTIONAL (proper) dynamic lighting, OPTIONAL ocean simulation, OPTIONAL advanced physics. They could do that easily, but no. Someone will probably bitch about how they would do it if they needed, but face the facts, after you remove the projected textures (which a majority would probably disable due to poor performance from them) it's just the same old crappy lightmaps, vertex lighting on models where lightmaps would look better, and wouldn't be a chore to add in. Zeno Clash did it...

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;29328649]Everyone either holds valve at the highest standard possible or the lowest possible. Some people would buy a valve game if it was just a metal box with a tree in the middle priced $79.99 and they would love it. Others would complain about the optional maple or cypress DLC skins for the tree and then get mad on an internet forum because their maximum FPS on the map was 79 and not 80.[/QUOTE] I'm scared to see what happens ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ if EP3 is released.

[QUOTE=Legend286;29328858]It'd still run fine for a large majority though. They could've made it optional too, but apparently Valve have never heard of that term. OPTIONAL (proper) dynamic lighting, OPTIONAL ocean simulation, OPTIONAL advanced physics. [b][i]They could do that easily,[/i][/b] but no. Someone will probably bitch about how they would do it if they needed, but face the facts, after you remove the projected textures (which a majority would probably disable due to poor performance from them) it's just the same old crappy lightmaps, vertex lighting on models where lightmaps would look better, and wouldn't be a chore to add in. Zeno Clash did it...[/QUOTE] noooooo

[QUOTE=Legend286;29328858]:words:[/QUOTE] Considering the current mindset of most other PC developers (i.e. Video options? What are those? :downs:) and also the fact that this is considered a branch of Source and not a full update to it, I'll take what I can get. Although I certainly won't defend Portal 2 as being easy to mod, if that's what you're annoyed about. I may be a rabid Valve fantard that wouldn't be able to competently make a mod consisting of one new gun and a generic map, but even I will admit that Portal 2 is kind of a "One Step forward, two steps back" kind of deal with modding. Although I don't see how any of this is relevant to this incredibly silly topic about a single pre-rendered cutscene that still looked decent enough to not be horribly jarring or ruinous to the scene itself. Jesus, us FPers get heated over the most minor goddamn things, don't we?

-snip-

[QUOTE=KingKombat;29328439]long story short OP is dumb in many ways and only one of his arguments can actually hold up[/QUOTE] KingKombat, It's time for you to change your avatar.

Uhm it looked fine on my 24 inch 1920x1200 so whatever. I always notice lower quality cutscene videos in other games and it really annoys me. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it here though.

Okay I'll have to agree with the OP to an extend. The FMVs in Portal 2 had a notable lower FPS (30?) and that did ruin it a bit [i]for me[/i]. This might be a bug as other people are reporting it as fine, but I did notice the lower FPS and it did bother me. I would've preferred if it wasn't pre-rendered.

For me the BIKs showed up kind of fuzzy, irritating but not too noticeable if you just focus on what's going on. [editline]21st April 2011[/editline] The only part that looked remotely 'low quality' was the [sp]wheat field at the end[/sp]

[QUOTE=geogzm;29332987]For me the BIKs showed up kind of fuzzy, irritating but not too noticeable if you just focus on what's going on. [editline]21st April 2011[/editline] The only part that looked remotely 'low quality' was the [sp]wheat field at the end[/sp][/QUOTE] Yeah that part was the only thing that looked a bit bad.

[sp]I liked the pre-rendered video, made the outside area look gorgeous.[/sp] [editline]21st April 2011[/editline] If anything, it makes me more pumped for the Source Film maker