Dread612

Soooo forget their games every coming out for the PC then?

Enjoy your payday gentlemen. We'll see you again when you leave your studio in a few years to start a new studio because of "creative" differences with Microsoft.

@AmatureIdiot said:

They said they released Full Spectrum Warrior free on Last Save, that games pretty good.

Yep, it's here:

http://news.bigdownload.com/2008/10/07/download-full-spectrum-warrior-full-free-game/

@CptBedlam said:

@Dread612: You're comparing apples and oranges. Rage looks different, yes. The texture technology puts emphasis on the artist being completely free to "paint" (with "stamps") on the world geometry as much as he wants - the performance stays the same no matter how much stuff you slap on that level because it gets baked at the end. That is why the landscape and the rocks etc look magnitudes more incredible than in any other game. You don't just see rock textures repeated on a wall. It looks fucking "real" - and it was possible because of the megatexture technology. The tradeoff they had to make is not having detail maps on the textures up close.

In the same fashion you guys point out muddy up close texturs in Rage, one could just take any game with a more traditional engine and point out every repeating texture.

I'd take impressive looking vistas over sharp looking telephones any day. So, thank you ID!

Well there isn't another id tech 5 engine game to compare. I just grabbed a pic from my screen shot folder to contrast this game to another, since some posters in this thread didn't seem aware of what I was referring to. Fair enough point about it being a different engine and they are using different techniques. However, I think regardless of what techniques they use to paint the landscape the end result for the PC version is sub par to the what we have been getting so far from other engines. So yes, it's impressive technology that they can make this game look good on the console's 5-6 yrs old tech at 60FPS. A decent PC can already run console ports at 60 FPS. I want it to scale and look good on my not so old tech. Why? Most every other port does just this already. IDtech 5 is taking a step backwards.

Honestly I rather have repeating textures than mud, come on, it's 2011, lets leave the PS2 era.

I'd take impressive looking vistas over sharp looking telephones any day. So, thank you ID!

Really? I mean I enjoy a beautiful vista as well, but you can't be serious? You look at vista for like 20-30 sec and move on, 99% of the game you are looking at the enemies and objects in the world. Especially in this game where you are constantly on the lookout to pick up salvage to craft. So when I pick up whatever to make more boomerangs I have to look at those god awful boots.

@niamahai: Lol :)

If a game like Dead Island can do the basics right, then id's 7 year OMG mega texture piece of modern engineering awesomo engine should definitely be able to.

I think we can all agree that Dead Island PC's version is a console port. Go ahead, click to enlarge it. Port or not, I can still see textures. No mud or smudges. You can even see markings on the bricks way off in the left hand corner. You can see the detail on the vase. You can easily count the logs in on the hut. Sigh @ id.

@Rekt_Hed said:

Exactly! @ dread how else did you think this was gonna work when devs ares making a massive game to run at 60 fps on consoles that are really old now by most console life cycle standards? You might just have to wait for a high res texture pack patch on the PC but ID aren't crytek so I wouldn't hold your breath

I know your right, I'm just disappointed with this engine for the PC version, seems like a step backwards. Other game engines run fine on the consoles, (although not at 60FPS) and they scale just fine to the PC.

I'm curious then, if these textures look like this, then what is taking up all that 20GBs?

Yay, it's 2011 and here we are with PS2 era textures?!!?! :(

@translucentfish: Loss of detail, lets say this is painting, it looks like those areas are smudges.

@kyrieee:

Thanks for the insult? Good thing there are people like you that can engage in adult conversations about topics. Your making the world and the internet in general a better place....

As for the wind turbine, it is not part of the background, its on a mesa that you can drive all the way around. Its not part of some back drop. Look at the blades of the turbine, those look fine, you can even see the red markings on them.

@Jack268:

I think using COD Black Ops is probably not the best example. COD has expanded to the casual market. It's sales are not typical of the majority of multi-platform games that come out. There are lots of people that their Xbox/PS3s might just as well be called their Black OPS box. Any breakdown of sales of lets say BFBC2?

@DrBendo said:

While I'm not one to suggest that graphical fidelity doesn't matter, and I could understand disappointment when developers take odd shortcuts, I have to ask: Why do you give a shit? Were you really anticipating zooming in on the back of a turbine or a pair of boots off to the side in perfect detail? The examples you throw out there illustrate only that the developers didn't give their all to shit that doesn't matter in the slightest. If you're looking for poor textures, you can find them, but do they detract in any way from the game itself? Are there other poor textures that actually matter but weren't conveniently available in screenshots?

If character models or major environments look shoddy, then there's a solid complaint. However, if the only things that are sub-par that would only garner attention if someone is looking purely to nitpick, does it matter?

Well, yes, it distracts me. The character textures look so good, when I turn 90degrees and see those boots, it takes me out of the experience. I sit there and wait, maybe the texture has to load in? Or maybe that is the texture? Maybe because my video card only has 896MB of RAM it can't handle all the textures in memory? That's why I'm asking here for other people's experiences.

You're right, take any game and if you hunt hard enough you will find an ugly texture. I play alot of games. But this game just really jumps out at me as having such a contrast in textures within the same area.

I just recently wrapped up Fallout New Vegas, I put about 90 hrs in that game. I think we can all agree New Vegas isn't the most visually stunning game. However only once during that 90 hrs experience did the game present me noticeable ugly textures that took me out of the game experience and say, ugh that's messed up looking.

Look how good the character looks, textures are crisp and everything on her is extremely detailed. Then look at the red circles, those areas just draw my eyes anyway. It makes it look like the character and the environment don't belong in the same world.