Killzone devs believed Ryse was running on high-end PCs. They were proved wrong.

#61Ramsus082Posted 9/30/2013 3:24:31 PM
And of course the game will look better. It'll keep on improving until launch, I'm sure. That's why it's disingenuous to compare an old, lesser-optimized and abruptly-halted version with more polys to current builds with LoD optimizations.

Months from now, they're going to be able to take finished code that looks great with all these post effects and say "DOWNGRADE!? MORE LIKE UPGRADE AMIRITE!?" as if nobody ever expected incomplete software to mature with more development time.

Disingenuous.
---
Band I'm listening to - "Song I'm listening to"
#62PraetorXynPosted 9/30/2013 3:24:57 PM
zephirraines posted...
gldoorii posted...
Ryse... That's the QTE fest, right?


But god of war and heavy rain were great right?


All three are terrible for that reason. Stop trying to bait and switch.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9
#63Ramsus082Posted 9/30/2013 3:31:59 PM
BudWisenheimer posted...


Does Crytek have a reputation for lying about their graphics? I don't know enough about them to bother defending them. But I've always heard they are no joke when it come to this very subject. I also remember the gushing over how well optimized Crysis 2 was over the first one.


What are you referring to when you reference Crytek lying? Are you talking about the possibility of the finished product not looking better than the months-old, incomplete target version they abandoned? I wouldn't consider them a liar either way, the issue isn't that the game might not have enough fancy tricks to compensate for the tech downgrade and not shine; It probably will, and the end result probably will look better than what they showed us months ago. The issue is that they made a marketing decision to market their game based on some pretty specific specs, they set expectations for the future of both the software and the hardware and it's disappointing to many that expectations were set too high on the former at this point; How would the game have looked if they added the same level of detail to 1080p/150k polys? We're asking this question because that's where the expectations were set.
---
Band I'm listening to - "Song I'm listening to"
#64BudWisenheimerPosted 9/30/2013 3:34:25 PM
Ramsus082 posted...

If they're saying that the finished product will look better than a technically-superior version that will now never exist, then cool

I don't think they've ever said the E3 version was technically superior. Where did you get that? If they were shooting for the June-specs then we know there have actually been performance improvements since then. DR3 is another example of making a game look better than it did at E3 thanks to these boosts and development time.

But they're trying to make that point through disingenuous claims and comparison screenshots that don't measure up fairly.

What screenshots? Isn't Crytek saying that the finished game will look better? Surely they don't have screenshots of the finished game.

We'll probably here nothing on this from GG.

Maybe not. But then we'd have no actual reason to doubt Crytek unless someone can point out their track-record for lying about these things. And we've certainly seen more than our fair share of developer quotes and gaming "news" even more trivial than this. Even just in the last few months.
#65BudWisenheimerPosted 9/30/2013 3:40:19 PM
Ramsus082 posted...
What are you referring to when you reference Crytek lying?


This idea that they exaggerating or aren't being truthful about taking budget from one area to get greater returns overall. And this conversation they had with GG about their game graphics has been called into question as well. Are you reading the whole thread or just me? ;-)
#66Ramsus082Posted 9/30/2013 3:47:49 PM
BudWisenheimer posted...


I don't think they've ever said the E3 version was technically superior. Where did you get that?

1080p/150k is objectively superior to 900p/85k. Since the downgrade is real, and recent, it's likely that they showed off the former to GG.


If they were shooting for the June-specs then we know there have actually been performance improvements since then. DR3 is another example of making a game look better than it did at E3 thanks to these boosts and development time.

Right, but DR3 didn't set precise specs they were to hit and advertise themselves on it, only to walk it back completely when it became clear that they bit off more than they(it?) can chew. DR3 got a bit more stable, thankfully. It was upgraded, like every game is during the course of it's development process. Ryse was unarguably downgraded, and while that version will improve like every single game during the course of it's development....it's on a different curve.

What screenshots? Isn't Crytek saying that the finished game will look better? Surely they don't have screenshots of the finished game.

They compared screenshots of the first, old-and-given-up-on version of Ryse to the newer, optimized screenshots that they're still working on. It will be disingenuous at best when they tell us that it's been "upgraded" instead of downgraded.

Well, of course it will be upgraded! Every game is upgraded in that regard, where it improves just because it becomes more mature over the course of development.


Maybe not. But then we'd have no actual reason to doubt Crytek unless someone can point out their track-record for lying about these things.

I don't know what you're referring to when you reference claims about Crytek lying; Nobody is saying that Ryse, from here on out, won't improve it's visuals. They might even get their downgraded version to look better than the 1080p/150k version. That doesn't mean the game wasn't downgraded, and it doesn't mean the new version is "upgraded". We're talking about this only because expectations were made, marketed on, and taken back. Expectations were set, and now we're left to compare the finished, maybe-better-looking version of Ryse to what it could have been if they were able to meet the technical expectations they've set for us.
---
Band I'm listening to - "Song I'm listening to"
#67Ramsus082Posted 9/30/2013 3:52:04 PM
BudWisenheimer posted...


This idea that they exaggerating or aren't being truthful about taking budget from one area to get greater returns overall.

Well, that's definitely how resource allocation works, for sure. You take resources from one area and put it in another, and that target will likely improve. I get it, it's just that it begs the question how good would this be if it was the same LoD......only 1080p/150k like they said it would be. I'm not calling them liars, just disappointing and over-eager.

And this conversation they had with GG about their game graphics has been called into question as well. Are you reading the whole thread or just me? ;-)


I'm like a puppy starved for attention, glance my way and it's oooooover.
---
Band I'm listening to - "Song I'm listening to"
#68BudWisenheimerPosted 9/30/2013 4:04:04 PM(edited)
Ramsus082 posted...
1080p/150k is objectively superior to 900p/85k. Since the downgrade is real, and recent, it's likely that they showed off the former to GG.


Ah! You're not completely caught up either. I think I've heard that only one character was 150k. And I've definitely heard the game was always 900p (pretty interesting that so many people were fooled). So if that's right then the only they cut was the number of polygons on the main character. But there's probably no build with just that one subtraction and no other additions. You'll have to factor in all the gains now and after the game is finished to see if they are right about the final code looking better than the E3 build.

It's like getting yelled at for taking 65k from one bank account with 150k. But I bought a collector's automobile that appreciated just two months later. Now I have a new car and the ability to sell it for more than I paid. Assuming Crytek is right about their graphics expertise.

EDIT: Oh sorry for the dumb analogy. You already get it.
#69Lefty128kPosted 9/30/2013 4:22:33 PM
Troll_Directory posted...
Lefty128k posted...
We are all "random people on a message board" around here, BTW.
That's what I'm saying. You're a quick study.


The difference between us is that you were ****** enough to try and point that out as a reason for not giving due consideration to something someone else says.

Thus making you look like a hypocrite. We should listen to you a random person, but not another random person?

LOL, fail.
#70Troll_Directory(Topic Creator)Posted 9/30/2013 4:36:47 PM
Lefty128k posted...
Troll_Directory posted...
Lefty128k posted...
We are all "random people on a message board" around here, BTW.
That's what I'm saying. You're a quick study.


The difference between us is that you were ****** enough to try and point that out as a reason for not giving due consideration to something someone else says.
You really are out of touch with what's happening. Try to follow. You called the Crytek manager some random person (even though I provided their name and job title) and don't want to give due consideration to something they said, because you worship GG and don't want to believe they got proved wrong. Then, you accused some other random person of worshiping Crytek, after they made a logical comment about how GG could clear this up if it's not true.

I pointed out what you did, and you got really defensive about it.

So, I take it back. You're not a quick study. I apologize for calling you that.