[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;43369023]"visual upgrades" more like downgrades
The new Lara looks way worse now, I'll stick with the regular edition thanks
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YMZYNiw.png[/img]
old|new[/QUOTE]
Is it me ir new Lara looks kinda like Ellie from The Last Of Us?
EDIT:
I'm late as usual.
Maybe it's just that picture, but it almost looks like she's now Asian or something.
Might just be the camera angle or lighting though.
[QUOTE=Asmaedus;43375096]Isn't she like 14 or some shit[/QUOTE]
She's 21 in the relaunch.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;43380015]Maybe it's just that picture, but it almost looks like she's now Asian or something.
Might just be the camera angle or lighting though.[/QUOTE]
she looks less asian now imo
What's this bullshit about next gen graphics? Seriously, these graphic capabilities have been around for a long as time now. The only thing people are doing anymore are higher resolution textures and barely noticeable high polygon models. Let's face it, we've reached the point where graphics are more than acceptable. Can we focus on cool stuff now please? Like more RAM for faster loading, quicker CPU's for smoother processing and physics. The only thing we haven't quite mastered yet are physics and virtual reality.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;43384962]What's this bullshit about next gen graphics? Seriously, these graphic capabilities have been around for a long as time now. The only thing people are doing anymore are higher resolution textures and barely noticeable high polygon models. Let's face it, we've reached the point where graphics are more than acceptable. Can we focus on cool stuff now please? Like more RAM for faster loading, quicker CPU's for smoother processing and physics. The only thing we haven't quite mastered yet are physics and virtual reality.[/QUOTE]
Until we reach true photorealism, there is always going to be a push for more and more realistic visuals.
The one on the right has a very blank and vacant expression that's for sure, also looks like she's been lying in the sun for 3 days straight.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;43386093]Until we reach true photorealism, there is always going to be a push for more and more realistic visuals.[/QUOTE]
But we also need to focus more on good storytelling and better mechanics. This fast rise in graphics is hurting more creative or story focused games something bad.
What are we going to do with the best graphics anyway if the only game available is shooting foreigners for hardly any reason?
But it's also true, as long as there is room for advancement, we should keep going for better graphics, just not in the way it's done right now. Right now, I think we should focus on 1080p and 60fps until we start getting new lighting systems and so on and the consoles will be stuck at 20-30fps with 540p or some shit.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;43384962]What's this bullshit about next gen graphics? Seriously, these graphic capabilities have been around for a long as time now. The only thing people are doing anymore are higher resolution textures and barely noticeable high polygon models. Let's face it, we've reached the point where graphics are more than acceptable. Can we focus on cool stuff now please? Like more RAM for faster loading, quicker CPU's for smoother processing and physics. The only thing we haven't quite mastered yet are physics and virtual reality.[/QUOTE]
GPUs have far, far more potentional than simply graphical effectd, as confusing as it may seem. Really a GPU may be designed for graphics, but it's still a bunch of processors on a core level and it has many things it does better than a CPU (and of course, a CPU manages stuff a GPu can't do too well, which is why we have both).
More RAM won't speed up loading, we need faster hard drives / ssds (and for consoles, disk drives), for that. Having more RAM just means we can load more at once. And CPUs are getting more powerful at a very fast rate anyways, it isn't like they are being ignored.
Physics is arguably already mastered - at least, as much so as real-time rendering. Bullet is releasing a new version that runs on the GPU now, which gives a large speed increase, especially for large numbers of relatively simple things colliding, which is most physics anyways.
And your graphics argument about "graphics are more than acceptable" is meaning. That's what people said 5 years ago. We are a long, long way off until we get photorealism, at least another 2 console generations, I'd say, and when we get there, what we have now will be laughable.
is this worth the price tag? I was gonna pick this up until I heard this "definitive" version was coming out for next gen.
[quote]Let's face it, we've reached the point where graphics are more than acceptable. [...] Can we focus on cool stuff now please? Like more RAM for faster loading [...] [/quote]
Technological advancement is not uniform or linear; some fields will inevitably advance faster and further than others -- others may falter and stall for large periods of time.
[b]CPU[/b]
The problem with CPU advancement is lack of competition and ever-increasing difficulty in cramming additional transistors/coming up with new alignments/etc.. We also need new materials and new ways to send information and those are two fields also coming out with revolutionary ideas it seems every couple of weeks. We now have [i]room temperature Bose-Einstein condensate[/i] for crying out loud. Not to mention graphene, nanotech steadily advancing (which is directly relevant to 'next gen CPUs') and so on.
[b]RAM[/b]
RAM is advancing just fine -- I don't get your beef with it. We're [i]right now[/i] finally gaining access to DDR4 (which was promised to come out in 2008). It'll probably be a year until it's surpassing DDR3 from its initial launch but it's going to be a useful technology. Meanwhile, SSDs are becoming cheaper, more reliable, and more energy efficient. This is a [i]huge[/i] time for RAM and it's constantly advancing. If you want to argue capacitance isn't advancing, I'd like to point out that I can't name a single game that can at this time take up [i]60GB of RAM[/i] -- so the point is largely moot as we're already well below our 'limits' there in capacitance and DDR4 is going to boost both clock speed and transfer rates -- so we're already advancing the way you want and we're advancing it right now.
[b]Physics[/b]
Physics is largely bound by GPU advancement (as that's where we're wanting to do that math atm). The stuff that isn't bound is mostly limited by mathematical advancement, I'd imagine. Pure maths are one of the slowest science fields and who knows when there'll be another large advance. "Focusing" on it probably wouldn't do much -- you're waiting for revolutionary thinkers, not hardware developers.
[b]VR[/b]
VR is a holistic problem (benefits from all of the above advancing) while having its own, separate, issues. Much of its problems arise from people staying away from the field as they feel it too volatile to pursue tech. development in. The Rift could change all that and there could be a flood of advancements in software, hardware, engine platforms, APIs, and so on and so forth spurred by it. "Literal" VR is some time off and is primarily limited by the medical sector. You're not going to get that to go faster without a huge amount of added effort/money/interest -- people don't just shove transistors into people's grey matter whenever and whyever they feel like. The tech is still advancing and every other month I'm reading about something that'll probably be a core component to an eventual 'base platform' that'll launch "true VR" but we're still at least 10 years out.
So I really don't see your point. It's not like things have stalled in any of those fields. Further, we don't aim for 'acceptable'. We aim for exceptional.
[QUOTE=ss1234;43407482]is this worth the price tag? I was gonna pick this up until I heard this "definitive" version was coming out for next gen.[/QUOTE]
I bought it during the sale and I'm having fun with it. It's an Uncharted game for the PC, basically.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;43369023]"visual upgrades" more like downgrades
The new Lara looks way worse now, I'll stick with the regular edition thanks
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YMZYNiw.png[/img]
old|new[/QUOTE]
I don't really have much interest in the series so I couldn't say which one is "better" but I think the second looks more attractive and more like a real person.
However it also looks like it's a different person altogether, which is a really bizarre and confusing choice considering it's still the same game.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;43369023]"visual upgrades" more like downgrades
The new Lara looks way worse now, I'll stick with the regular edition thanks
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YMZYNiw.png[/img]
old|new[/QUOTE]
What have they done!? The new one looks terrible, horrendous, atrocious, appalling, disastrous, dreadful, and any other synonym for bad that I can't think of! Someone already pointed it out, but she looks like the FakeFactory Alyx. Why is she glowing orange? Something about the new one makes her look like she got lots of plastic surgery and lots of makeup on.
I REALLY hope that they keep the original design for the sequel (which I think they announced.....right?) I would be really disappointed if they change the face that much. I just finished the game, and I loved it. One of my favorites of 2013, and a major part of that was the character design of Lara. They made her look like a normal person, and not a sex object. I can't imagine replaying the first one, jumping into the second one and Lara looking completely different. It will ruin the character for me.
I like the old one a lot more too. I also just finished the game today and I loved it, I even collected everything to get on 100%. As someone else already mentioned here, the old character design looks more authentic because you can pretty much see the pain in her eyes. That combined with the squeeky sounds shes making sometimes makes her a perfect character for the game in which she's just becoming that typical survival adventurer. The new one looks like she's already expecting all the things which happen in the story.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;43369023]"visual upgrades" more like downgrades
The new Lara looks way worse now, I'll stick with the regular edition thanks
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YMZYNiw.png[/img]
old|new[/QUOTE]
It's like they didn't know if they should just give her a fake tan or try to make her look more like Ellie
And they just came up with a horrible mash of both
Fake tan Lara?
It isn't a fake tan, it's just a more realistic skin tone than her previous one
I'll just play my non enhanced enhanced edition on the PC then
because that's what it basically is sans the DLC.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.