Re: What year does DNF look graphics wise today?
alex d you can't get a simple thing dude. Completely different look can't be achieved RIGHT NOW. You must read something before posting.
And no one compared real time techniques with non-realtime dude. I said exactly that someone could use some of modern non-realtime rendering concepts in they realtime applications (and that means you have to THINK how to do that and maintain good FPS).
And so, i say DNF will look just as good as any other game on the market. Yes, new Crysis have some neat deffered renderer which i don't like actually. Yes, new game from Id will bring a world-texturing revolution, which i like, cuz it gives some very special look to overall realtime (and it will impact non-realtime too) graphics. BUT NO DAMN GAME will bring us completely different look till we get some actual raytracing realtime techniques. And that's it dude. If you did'nt get it - then i can't help you.
By the way such giants as Id and Crytek always think about new tech's and implemet them. Small developers (as you are i think) can't afford such waste of time and maybe money (if your awesome graphics will burn all known gpu's in 5 seconds). So actually i'd better bet on Id then on Gearbox to bring us new rendering tech. By the way - do you thing Gearbox will handle top-level graphics for DNF? (as for me - i don't give a sh*t. cuz i'd play DNF even in 2d as i said before).
2 Dukefan24: agree. Game is a gameplay. By the way - DN3D was'nt completely 3d, so what? It's still awesome.
2 DarkDuke: Crysis and GTAIV was average cuz of gameplay. Actually i played Sin (remember that?) with about 15 to 20 fps and i enjoyed it much. And i played Blood (first) with 20 fps too (earlier). So what? And i still love those games. But i don't want to install Crysis again (and GTAIV). By the way GTA SanAndreas was gpu-hungry too. But i'm still playing it sometimes cuz it was a masterpiece. So, dude, i think you're wrong. Imho.
|