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

#71Foxx3kPosted 9/30/2013 5:46:03 PM
NSGraphite posted...
Thats not proof. thats one developers word vs another. proof requires written documentation that can be traced to the appropriate date, video or picture evidence that has been tested for tampering, or something of that nature.


You're saying that a Killzone developer saying how Crytek was running their game is equivalent to a Crytek developer saying how Crytek was running their game?

Fanboys are so pathetic, holy cow.
---
[LanParty nF4 Ultra-D] [AMD64 3700+ San Diego] [2x 1gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8] [2x 250gb Barracuda] [Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS] [X850XTPE]
#72Ramsus082Posted 9/30/2013 5:52:41 PM
BudWisenheimer posted...


Ah! You're not completely caught up either. I think I've heard that only one character was 150k.

Right, and that character was officially downgraded to 85k. We shouldn't even know this, the reason we do is because the number was actually a marketing point.

And I've definitely heard the game was always 900p (pretty interesting that so many people were fooled).

Assuming for just a second that this is true, then it's even stranger they'd choose to market the number of polygons they were doing without even attempting to hit 1080p, which is a pretty important marker(and marketing point!) this generation.

It would be weird for them to go balls-out with their rhetoric about triangles knowing that they weren't hitting the "next-gen" milestone.


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.


This is all predicated on accepting the above, and I'm not sure I'm ok with that yet.

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.

Bud, it's like saying that your game meets X specs, then saying that it actually doesn't and you have to shoot for a lower number but don't worry, because they'll make it up to you.
---
Band I'm listening to - "Song I'm listening to"
#73BudWisenheimerPosted 9/30/2013 6:02:45 PM
Ramsus082 posted...
Bud, it's like saying that your game meets X specs, then saying that it actually doesn't and you have to shoot for a lower number but don't worry, because they'll make it up to you.


But the E3 build did meet the 150k main character specs. And "always 900p" was confirmed by a Crytek dev. Now they are shifting the budget based on their expertise and wanting it to look better than the E3 build. I'm fine with that because I always hear they know their graphics. Assuming I ever play it.
#74Lefty128kPosted 9/30/2013 6:24:05 PM
Troll_Directory posted...
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.

You're the one proselytizing the unsubstantiated claims from Crytek. Such a "quick" mind as yours should have realized that.

Again, I ask the question you avoided and clipped out of my post.

We should listen to you a random person, but not another random person?

Why should we listen to you, a random person, preach Cryteks claim?
I say preach since you are taking it on faith and have no proof.
#75Ramsus082Posted 9/30/2013 6:33:57 PM
BudWisenheimer posted...


But the E3 build did meet the 150k main character specs.

Yeah, and the final build won't. That's the issue, as large or small as it is.


And "always 900p" was confirmed by a Crytek dev. Now they are shifting the budget based on their expertise and wanting it to look better than the E3 build.

Then, I think it's silly to boast about your poly count when you're not hitting 1080p. The game was and still is being marketed as a marvel of technical progression on consoles. Ryse hype was everywhere. I have a feeling we won't see another developer any time soon talk, market and boast about their specific tech numbers in their game if it's not hitting 1080p. It's a little(here's that word again) disingenuous to market your game like that while cutting such a controversial corner these days.
---
Band I'm listening to - "Song I'm listening to"
#76True_FoeHammerPosted 9/30/2013 6:37:59 PM
BudWisenheimer posted...
Ramsus082 posted...
Bud, it's like saying that your game meets X specs, then saying that it actually doesn't and you have to shoot for a lower number but don't worry, because they'll make it up to you.


But the E3 build did meet the 150k main character specs. And "always 900p" was confirmed by a Crytek dev. Now they are shifting the budget based on their expertise and wanting it to look better than the E3 build. I'm fine with that because I always hear they know their graphics. Assuming I ever play it.


Shifting the budget? These games have one solid month of development time left before going gold. If anything, the game should now be in the bug-squashing phase, and that's it. If developers are STILL making big changes to the game... you and every other fanboy should be worried. VERY worried.
#77BudWisenheimerPosted 9/30/2013 8:24:47 PM
Ramsus082 posted...
Then, I think it's silly to boast about your poly count when you're not hitting 1080p.


I would agree with you if you could find a single person who knew they weren't hitting 1080p to begin with. The funny part is that people refuse to believe it while complaining the resolution was downgraded. Get mad now ... Confirm cause later. Or in this case ... find out you were wrong later.

True_FoeHammer posted...
If developers are STILL making big changes to the game... you and every other fanboy should be worried. VERY worried.


I'm trying to worry but it's not working. Maybe after I've spent some money first.
#78tsaphPosted 9/30/2013 9:26:57 PM
Evel138 posted...
I remember E3 2005 quite vividly and yeah, no....."target render" was never mentioned. Its only quite sometime afterward, as the community smelled BS, that the facts of the matter came to light. (In the article you, yourself, posted....its referred to simply as "later, it was revealed"......so by the fact of the very article you posted, you're full of **** regarding what transpired at E3 05)

Again, revisionist history is fun for everyone!



I think you need to work on both your memory, and your reading comprehension.
#79Evel138Posted 10/1/2013 1:38:56 AM
tsaph posted...
Evel138 posted...
I remember E3 2005 quite vividly and yeah, no....."target render" was never mentioned. Its only quite sometime afterward, as the community smelled BS, that the facts of the matter came to light. (In the article you, yourself, posted....its referred to simply as "later, it was revealed"......so by the fact of the very article you posted, you're full of **** regarding what transpired at E3 05)

Again, revisionist history is fun for everyone!



I think you need to work on both your memory, and your reading comprehension.


Later, it was revealed by a Guerrilla rep on the US PS forums that it was a render, which showed what was “possible on PS3,” instead of actual gameplay footage which was eventually shown during E3 2007.

"Later" as in a period of time occurring after the fact. Hell, it even points to the specific place it was "later revealed". People "ran with it" because there was no information to the contrary during E3 05. So yeah, I think it is YOU that needs to work on both your memory and reading comprehension.

Or, if you want to keep this going in some fleeting attempt to save face, we can argue about how much "later", we can go there, but you're categorically incorrect about what transpired at E3 05....period.
---
GT/PSN: Evel138 Lucky Number
http://fav.me/d6gbf9y
#80Troll_Directory(Topic Creator)Posted 10/1/2013 3:37:00 AM
Lefty128k posted...
Why should we listen to you, a random person, preach Cryteks claim? I say preach since you are taking it on faith and have no proof.
Are you from Westboro? Do you know the difference between quoting a game developer, and quoting scripture? I don't want to piss you off, if you don't understand what's happening here.