Raven10

This user has not updated recently.

1164 315 50 43
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Raven10's forum posts

#1 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 13 days ago

People here often complain about waiting a long time for a game to get released. After all, seven years is a long time to wait for Final Fantasy Versus 13 or The Last Guardian. Versus was announced before the PS3 launched while The Last Guardian was announced shortly after. Both games have been in development since 2005. Of course the wait for Duke Nukem Forever was even longer - nearly 15 years. The result of all that work - not a lot. At least the game was eventually released, which may be more than either Versus or The Last Guardian can say. Of course while 15 years may seem like a long time, the record for longest in development movie is double that - 31 years for The Thief and the Cobbler. That animated movie was eventually taken by debtors away from its creator and completely ruined in an attempt to make it appeal to family audiences. The director, who worked on the film from 1964 to 1992, never worked in the film industry again, and the rest of us lost a chance to see what many who had seen it called the greatest animated film of all time. 31 years seems like a hell of a long time, and it has been for The Overcoat, a film that began production in 1981 and is still in production today. The film began its life as one of many animated films that were made in the Soviet Union at the Soyuzmultfilm. Because its films never had to make a profit, and were financed entirely by the Soviet government, the artists were allowed to make whatever they wished with an unlimited budget and no oversight from businessmen. The result was some of the greatest animated films in history, almost none of which are known to Americans. The Overcoat was directed by Yuriy Norshteyn, whose previous film, Tale of Tales, has numerous times been voted the best animated film of all time by animators from all around the world. Suffice to say that anticipation over his next project was huge. But as the Soviet Union neared collapse, his production house was shutdown. He continued work, animating every frame of the proposed 60 minute film himself. Now in 2012, 31 years later, he has only 30 minutes of the film complete. Born in 1941, it is predicted that Yuriy Norshteyn will likely die before he completes the film. His fans of course still wait patiently for the day when they will see the next great film from the greatest of Russian animators. In just a couple weeks, when the year turns over to 2013, The Overcoat will have been in production for 32 years, breaking the record set by Thief and the Cobbler.

So before you go complaining that 7 years is a long time, think about waiting over 4x that long for something that in the end may never be released. That is the fate for Soviet animation fans. For many of us, we were not even born when The Overcoat began production. To put it in perspective, the NES was released in 1985. The video game crash that ended Atari occurred in 1983. When this film started development, the big games were things like Pac Man and Space Invaders. Imagine a game being announced then and still be in production today. Pretty crazy, right?

#2 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 14 days ago

@MethodMan008 said:

hmm.. the only games it runs really bad on with high settings is metro 2033, batman arkham city (tessellation is what kills it for me), and frycry 3.. i can run farcry3 with everything at max at like ~20fps.

OS is windows 7 pro.. getting windows 8 pretty soon.

Metro 2033 is just poorly optimized. The DX11 stuff is really early and it just wasn't built as well as it could have been. It's one of those games that will probably never run well. Batman would probably benefit from a dedicated PhysX card. If you have that on high with DX11 then it is no wonder it isn't running well. If I were you I would put the 660 as a dedicated PhysX card and then get a 680 to replace it. FInally, don't run 8x MSAA on any game. It is overkill. You are killing performance for only a tiny bit better picture. I've heard that SMAA provides great results with a much smaller performance hit than MSAA. Search it on Google. You'll have to force it on outside of the game, but should look great if you can get it running. At the worst turn on some high quality FXAA and 2x MSAA. It will blur the image a little, but it will fix the jaggies pretty well and won't kill your performance like 8x MSAA. In all honesty, no card around will run Far Cry 3 at 60 fps with 8x MSAA enabled. It's just plain overkill.

#3 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 14 days ago

I think your 660 is the problem not your CPU. On some very intense games you might suffer a bit from it but your GPU should bottleneck it before the CPU causes problems. I wouldn't SLI. A single 670 or 680 will give you much better performance than two 660's in most games. SLI performance really varies from game to game. If you can afford it I always recommend one better card over two worser cards. A 670 is actually two steps up from a 660 (with the 660 ti being in between) so you'd see a 5-10 fps improvement with that. If you really want to run very modern games on max then a 680 is going to be what you need. Looking at Far Cry 3, Planetside 2, Medal of Honor Warfighter, and the upcoming Crysis 3, I would expect to need pretty beefy cards to handle the best looking games going forward. We are starting to see developers make engines with support for high end gaming rigs, probably in anticipation of new consoles. So I don't think a 660, or even two 660's will cut it if you really want to run games on max settings.

#4 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 14 days ago

I have no major issues with it and I have only a mid-range system. I don't have it maxed out, but on medium settings it looks great and runs over 30 fps unless there is a ton of stuff happening on screen.

#5 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 14 days ago

@I_Stay_Puft said:

That's seriously a lot of money and dreams lost by a measly 28 bucks. So you can't post the same project twice on kickstarter? I wonder if they tweaked something minor or changed the name would that be viable as a new project?

You can. But if you failed once it really requires a pretty major overhaul to get support a second time around. Most backers will think that if it didn't click the first time there is no real reason for it to click the second time and won't donate.

#6 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 16 days ago

@Adrian79: Yea Jeff is on top. Ryan is in charge of the Bombcast. Dave is in charge of the code. Vinny is in charge of the video editing and shooting. Patrick is head of news. Alex (who works from New York), Brad, Alexis (The other code guy), and Drew aren't in charge of anything.

#7 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 16 days ago

@Brad: Thanks!

#8 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 17 days ago

@Synnosaurus: I'll give it to you that lots of bloom and lens flare can harm viewing experiences. But motion blur makes the game look smoother if implemented correctly. Often, though, it is poorly done or overdone and then it looks bad. Ambient Occlusion gives objects more realistic shadows. I don't see how that could effect your viewing ability.

#9 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 17 days ago

@Brad said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Raven10 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@believer258 said:

Watch the Quick Look. That frame rate is kind of gross for most of it. But it still looks playable, an if you're OK with that and you really want the game, then go for it - and if you like it enough, get it on PC when it goes on sale for crazy cheap a few months from now and play it in all its gorgeous 60FPS glory.

Well not Max settings. The most high end cards are getting about 45 at the most with everything maxed out. Makes a 580 look outdated.

Brad looked like he was getting a pretty solid framerate on the quicklook and it looked significantly better than the console version, so even assuming that was not using DX11, I'm sure even a moderate PC can make the game look vastly superior and run far better than a console.

That was in 720p though.

No it wasn't. 1920x1080 with DX11 enabled, most settings at or near max, and vsync off. It's not hard to get this game looking fantastic and running smoothly on a decent machine, I was getting 40-50fps on my 560 at home with above-average quality settings.

Brad, do you know what GPU the office computer you were using has? That performance and image quality were perfectly fine for me so if I at least meet that then I'll be good.

#10 Posted by Raven10 (1164 posts) - 5 months, 17 days ago

I enjoyed Crysis 2. Not as much as Crysis 1, but I thought the upgrade system was cool, and the suit abilities were still fun and easier to use in combination than in 1. They've said this one is a bit more open than the second so I'm hoping it combines the best of both worlds.

I have 6 GB of RAM which I think should be fine in this case. I also have a 2 GB 560 ti so that should be able to play it on medium/high settings along with my Core i7, even though it is a first gen one. I doubt I'll be able to use the DX11 stuff, as even the second game only ran at about 25 fps on my PC with the DX11 stuff turned on. It sure was beautiful in all of its near slideshow glory though.

Use your keyboard!

  • ESC