[QUOTE=Joey1;44886203]Yup, Not even close to E3 2012[/QUOTE]
you can't really say that when E3 2012 was night time and thats day time.
Night time on all versions looks really nice anyway,
[QUOTE=Marzipas;44886281]you can't really say that when E3 2012 was night time and thats day time.
Night time on all versions looks really nice anyway,[/QUOTE]
I know but even when the 2012 demo started in daytime/evening it had completely different feeling(It blew everyone), streets were full of people and cars. Now even on PC ultra it has this empty feeling
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Bz0Abrr.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Marzipas;44886281]you can't really say that when E3 2012 was night time and thats day time.
Night time on all versions looks really nice anyway,[/QUOTE]
Not [I]as[/I] good, and it never will feasibly play that well while looking that good. Vertical slices are so common, I don't know why people didn't just expect a slight upgrade from Assassin's Creed IV's graphical fidelity.
[QUOTE=Zet;44885872]All PC settings: [url]http://imgur.com/a/oH9Bq[/url][/QUOTE]
3GB VRAM required for ultra?, damn.
I'm hoping that since this seems to be going on about having more than 2gb vram, my 4gb 770 might make up for my CPU a bit.
Ugly ass lighting. Bah
Blame last gen consoles for shitty graphics
Also the person who took those screenshots should've waited for nighttime to show all the streetlights and dynamic shadows, etc
and also maxed anisotropic filtering lol
[QUOTE=Marzipas;44886281]you can't really say that when E3 2012 was night time and thats day time.
Night time on all versions looks really nice anyway,[/QUOTE]
Then there's this
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wxc9cjTg0[/media]
Gtfo... that's ultra on PC.
Jesus christ.
It looks nowhere near as good as it did in the trailers and honestly... looks like a 2 [sp]or 3[/sp] year old game.
Where do the horrible spec requirements come from?!
There's nothing to justify those, graphicwise. All cars are matte with pretty much no reflections whatsoever.
Edit://
Dumb me all you want. It's true. There's nothing remarkable or special about these graphics to justify the requirements they announced.
[QUOTE=booster;44886378]Then there's this
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wxc9cjTg0[/media][/QUOTE]
Hud changes but that video looks accurate.
Edit: the first bit at least. With the streets and such? Looks relatively accurate to the videos I've been seeing.
[QUOTE=Joey1;44886307]I know but even when the 2012 demo started in daytime/evening it had completely different feeling(It blew everyone), streets were full of people and cars. Now even on PC ultra it has this empty feeling
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Bz0Abrr.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/wQaSoUu.jpg[/t]
Looks fine to me?
I mean graphically looks really off but That seems like a decent amount of stuff on screen.
It's looking best at night.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/yhBmwNl.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;44886398]It's looking best at night.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/yhBmwNl.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Well, a lot better at least.
I can't exactly tell, not until we have side-by-side comparison pics. But IMO this looks graphically better than the Ultra we have now
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z3iG2QlJXk[/media]
[QUOTE=mchapra;44886391][t]http://i.imgur.com/wQaSoUu.jpg[/t]
Looks fine to me?
I mean graphically looks really off but That seems like a decent amount of stuff on screen.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's true. The amount of traffic seems fine. Same goes for peds.
[QUOTE=mchapra;44886391][t]http://i.imgur.com/wQaSoUu.jpg[/t]
Looks fine to me?
I mean graphically looks really off but That seems like a decent amount of stuff on screen.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck is up with edges on the building in right side of that picture
Not saying it looks bad though, seems very pretty.
But not maybe the "Wow Next Gen graphics!!" we were promised.
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;44886398]It's looking best at night.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/yhBmwNl.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
"Hey I'm gonna take a screenshot to show off the graphics but then I'll save it as a big fat fucking jpeg so you can't even tell if I have antialiasing on or off"
Aside from that, yeah, that looks pretty nice
[QUOTE=Pr0fane;44886386]
Dumb me all you want. It's true. There's nothing remarkable or special about these graphics to justify the requirements they announced.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe we'll dumb you because we're not judging the game on Ultra based on HUGE JPGES with no AA and other features disabled.
[QUOTE=KaptonJack;44886342]Not [I]as[/I] good, and it never will feasibly play that well while looking that good. Vertical slices are so common, I don't know why people didn't just expect a slight upgrade from Assassin's Creed IV's graphical fidelity.[/QUOTE]
With the extra 6-7 months of development time I think people were expecting something significantly better than that.
That said, if all of that time was put into the gameplay and it's more fun than it would have been, then the extra dev time should be worth it. We'll see in a few days.
I've spent so much time trying to steal a video game I paid for just because I'm impatient.
I'm going to bed.
Yeah I think it looks pretty damn good. Like it's still essentially a console port with higher textures and better anti-aliasing. Most E3 trailers are always spruced up to look absolutely fantastic and yeah as it's been said repeatedly of course the lighting system will be more noticeable and wonderful at night, most of the trailers have either been montages of quick clips or "gameplay" being tailored at a very specific weather cycle and time in the day to achieve the most appealing results. It's really nothing new, they wanted to show off how the game looks at the best of times and that's probably re creatable.
And these babies refusing the buy the game because it didn't look exactly the same as it did 2 years ago in a trailer? Fuck off. It looks great, a decent fun open world game finally on PC and I'm not going to actually miss out on a really well made game.
Same thing happened to Far Cry 3. In the E3 reveal there was more vegetation, that was overall more luscious than what we got, and the lightning looked better.
IMHO they should show the "real" product in E3 reveals, even if the game is good and all, I can't help but to feel like the people who pre-ordered it after the first footage get kind of "scammed". As in they're not getting the product they paid for.
[QUOTE=booster;44886906]IMHO they should show the "real" product in E3 reveals, even if the game is good and all, I can't help but to feel like the people who pre-ordered it after the first footage get kind of "scammed". As in they're not getting the product they paid for.[/QUOTE]
except that would require them to never iterate over the life cycle of the game?
yeah right
development changes a game. if you don't realize that by now you really should
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;44886911]except that would require them to never iterate over the life cycle of the game?
yeah right
development changes a game. if you don't realize that by now you really should[/QUOTE]
My point was, if you show your game to look "this" good, isn't the audience expected to receive a game that looks as good as that, or even better?
I don't know about you, but "development changes" usually meant making the game look and feel better. Not downgrading it.
Why should I as a customer expect a worse looking product than what is advertised?
[QUOTE=booster;44886906]IMHO they should show the "real" product in E3 reveals, even if the game is good and all, I can't help but to feel like the people who pre-ordered it after the first footage get kind of "scammed". As in they're not getting the product they paid for.[/QUOTE]
A better thing would be to not promise what they can't deliver. Games are always going to change during the development cycle, but developers need to be more careful that they don't hype features up too much only to remove them later on.
Mass Effect 3 was a good example of this in that it promised a multitude of endings that really reflected your choices and would not come down to just A, B, or C...and we got an ABC ending.
[QUOTE=booster;44887024]My point was, if you show your game to look "this" good, isn't the audience expected to receive a game that looks as good as that, or even better?
I don't know about you, but "development changes" usually meant making the game look and feel better. Not downgrading it.
Why should I as a customer expect a worse looking product than what is advertised?[/QUOTE]
people seem to forget that e3 really isn't for consumers
it's a industry circlejerk
I'll say it again everyone should probably with hold judgement on it not looking as good as it did at E3 until someone actually plays the exact same mission, same weather and same time of day and then you've got your hands on a decent comparison. For all we know it looks roughly the same.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;44884912]Wow, I know it's probably scripted and all but it's not as cringe-inducing as I thought it would be. It's actually kind of funny.
[editline]23rd May 2014[/editline]
I think I need to watch the other clueless gamer videos.[/QUOTE]
Conan is the only LPer worth watching
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
