DNF Graphics

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

Dude Rage looks like a movie.

[Garrett]

It does look like a tasteless post-apocalyptic movie ripoff, but I don't see what it has to do with graphics.

[peoplessi]

Originally Posted by OttoMoto

2peoplessi: i'm just talkin bout a unique tool, that will allow u to integrate any 3rd party module. Engine that will have no limits. U can change even the way of communications between ur cores and data on the fly. The whole architecture... So there will be no needs for engine developing - just buy some parts and u'll have what u need to make a game. Sounds impossible, as some parts are really binded together, but i think it is a future. And with all that stuff - u'll only have to script ur game, and add some media.
And let Carmack work on new graphics, let Unreal inc. work on new skeletal animation routines, let CryTek work on entire planet size outdoor geometry, then link they results and make _Games_ not just _Demonstrations_!
^_^

I know what you meant, and that's why I said what I said. You have to have some sort of backbone to stick the "meat" to. You can't just combine modules that have no knowledge of each other together and wish it will work perfectly.

Unreal? You mean Epic? I think they have been making their newest engine for few years now, and I doubt they will swap. Again, why use skeletal animations, you were so fond of outsourcing everything, why not use Euphoria? Or similar systems that only focus on that one specific part.

CryTek, well not everyone needs a planet sized outdoor geometry, some need totally different things. Nothing that resembles this planet. That kind of workload would a) be waste of time b) why?

Your view is bit too optimistic to say the least.

id Tech 5 is nice, but it's not the be-all-end-all solution. Again, they don't license it openly to anyone, only to close partners. Looks great, but so do the other engines too.

[SpinX]

The problem with rage's graphics as shown in those 2 screens is again the low res textures that are applied, its the consoles that can't put up higher res textures like in crysis, FEAR2 has ugly textures, and i fear that DNF will have them too, WHy not give the pc users high res textures and the consoleversion low res textures? but they don't seem to do that...

[peoplessi]

Originally Posted by SpinX

The problem with rage's graphics as shown in those 2 screens is again the low res textures that are applied, its the consoles that can't put up higher res textures like in crysis, FEAR2 has ugly textures, and i fear that DNF will have them too, WHy not give the pc users high res textures and the consoleversion low res textures? but they don't seem to do that...

You never know what DNF will have I hope PC users will get as high res textures as is feasible to do.

[OttoMoto]

2 peoplessi:
(about the engine) YES U CAN! ^_^ All those 'bones' are just some old-school way of doing things...
U just have to make some virtual interfaces to combine things together.
Ur system has no knowledge about how the things was coded in those modules.
void pStuff;
pRenderer->createStuff(features..., pStuff). pEntity->addGraphicsStuff(pStuff).
pEntity->pStuff->draw() - and here u go.
Ur renderer draws stuff - and ur engine knows nothin about how it's done.
All u need is to specify some features by scripting. All u need is scripting - forget about how the things works. Ur engine just has to provide those interfaces. Once and forever.
(Yep actually u don't need to do 'pEntity->pStuff->draw()' - ur renderer will draw all the things neseccary just by the time when it will update the picture).
Full automatic system.
Think global.
[and i was kinda sarcastic bout CryTek and other. Why so serious peoplessi?]

2 SpinX: LOW RES TEXTURES? WHERE? U guys r killin me.
ok here u go: http://trailers.gametrailers.com/gt_...irect_h264.wmv

2 Garrett:
Please check the video. Then tell me pls what render techniques have u seen in it. We will discuss them later, but for now i'll say - the're a lot. I just want to hear it from ur level of knowledge (as u r 13 years exp gamer).
Now about id games. Quake2 was'nt somethin really different - and actually i was'nt meant q2 or q3. Doom3 looks twice better then farcry. And riddick as i know was based on tech4 engine. Farcry and Crysis are FLAT. Doom3 was all about makin some extra volume. And they done alot work to bring us the feel of volume - farcry shaders has nothin in common with such stuff. Farcry shaders looks like Thief4 'dot3 bump mapping' - and even Thief looks better then farcry in case of volume. All the other things done in farcry was kinda old. Octree/quadtree optimizations? Comeon... Doom3 was'nt about large open environments - but do u really think that Carmack was'nt able to make some poly-sorting algorithm? Actually they did it indoor cuz of the gpu's. Farcry is 95% flat (i mean no normal maps). And this allows game to run fast in outdoor. Add normal maps for each texture and u'll get ur 1fps. But even with normal maps for characters and some indoor textures - it looks ugly. Why? Cuz Doom3 shaders was'nt so simple as u can think...

Some words about Crysis graphics. Crysis looks FLAT as a farcry. They can't bring us a proper lighting model. So the final picture looks like quake2 with 4096x4096p textures. And u can draw any number of pixels - but it will be still flat and ugly. I don't know how to explain this to Crysis fans - maybe i should pick up some shots next time. But even Half-Life2 is more volumetric then Crysis.
Imho - CryEngine graphics has nothing in common with realisctic lighting and shadowing. That's my point - and i feel like i would prove it by some shots later.
So i prefer to compare Unreal3 graphics, Tech4, Source, and DNF. (and tech5 if we will get some new info about it). Would u mind guys?

Some words about Rage. Rage is all about megatexture feature.
That feature allows game artist to make every polygon looks unique by painting it directly with no texture restirictions. And this is a revolution.
Also u have no restrictions about the characters texture size - that means that u can have as detailed creature as u want. But still - u have to think about GPU power.
Actually Rage is not about high defenition character textures. So i think we will see some major difference between DNF and Rage level design - and just that. Maybe there will be no other difference.
Yes, tech5 has some additional features, like some extra cool render techniques, but that's not some real advantage.
But Doom4 will bring us 3times more detailed picture - and no crysis can bring u such level of details. Combined with unique textures of EVERYTHING Doom4 will look like wall-e maybe, but not as any game u've seen before.
Remember guys - we r talkin bout graphics. I don't know what level of interactivity there will be, or what amount of physical calculations. But as for graphics - megatextures is an absolute new way of creating things. I think we will get awesome game worlds soon.
But enough of that - all i wanna say it's just DNF can be compared with Rage by the level of details - so it can take another half-year of developing with no risk of becoming graphically outdated.

p.s.: I like big posts (:
p.p.s.: I appreciate ur oppinion guys. Actually it's good to see u not addicted to game graphics as some fans. Gameplay it's everything (that's why i'll buy DNF even for 100$). But sometimes we just have to talk about graphics.

[SyntaxN]

Originally Posted by OttoMoto

Doom3 looks twice better then farcry.

Completely different type of environments, hard to compare. People tried to do outdoor environments with the D3 engine (i think it was called "Doom 3 can do it" or something...) and it looked like shit.

Originally Posted by OttoMoto

And riddick as i know was based on tech4 engine.

Nope, Starbreeze has their own inhouse engine.

Originally Posted by OttoMoto

Farcry and Crysis are FLAT. Doom3 was all about makin some extra volume. And they done alot work to bring us the feel of volume - farcry shaders has nothin in common with such stuff. Farcry shaders looks like Thief4 'dot3 bump mapping' - and even Thief looks better then farcry in case of volume. All the other things done in farcry was kinda old. Octree/quadtree optimizations? Comeon... Doom3 was'nt about large open environments - but do u really think that Carmack was'nt able to make some poly-sorting algorithm? Actually they did it indoor cuz of the gpu's. Farcry is 95% flat (i mean no normal maps). And this allows game to run fast in outdoor. Add normal maps for each texture and u'll get ur 1fps. But even with normal maps for characters and some indoor textures - it looks ugly. Why? Cuz Doom3 shaders was'nt so simple as u can think...

Wow man you really need to get your stuff together. Far Cry used normal maps (their own normal mapping approach called Polybump) all over the place in outdoor environments. Now why didn´t you see them as much as you did in Doom 3? Because Far Cry uses a much more natural and "soft" lighting for outdoor environments. Doom 3´s harsh lighting (often you have only one or two lightsources) makes the normal mapping much more visible.

Originally Posted by OttoMoto

Some words about Crysis graphics. Crysis looks FLAT as a farcry. They can't bring us a proper lighting model. So the final picture looks like quake2 with 4096x4096p textures. And u can draw any number of pixels - but it will be still flat and ugly. I don't know how to explain this to Crysis fans - maybe i should pick up some shots next time. But even Half-Life2 is more volumetric then Crysis.
Imho - CryEngine graphics has nothing in common with realisctic lighting and shadowing. That's my point - and i feel like i would prove it by some shots later.

Sure man whatever you say. Crysis lighting looks like totally unnatural and shit...wow

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by OttoMoto

2 peoplessi:
2 Garrett:
Please check the video. Then tell me pls what render techniques have u seen in it. We will discuss them later, but for now i'll say - the're a lot. I just want to hear it from ur level of knowledge (as u r 13 years exp gamer).
Now about id games. Quake2 was'nt somethin really different - and actually i was'nt meant q2 or q3. Doom3 looks twice better then farcry. And riddick as i know was based on tech4 engine. Farcry and Crysis are FLAT. Doom3 was all about makin some extra volume. And they done alot work to bring us the feel of volume - farcry shaders has nothin in common with such stuff. Farcry shaders looks like Thief4 'dot3 bump mapping' - and even Thief looks better then farcry in case of volume. All the other things done in farcry was kinda old. Octree/quadtree optimizations? Comeon... Doom3 was'nt about large open environments - but do u really think that Carmack was'nt able to make some poly-sorting algorithm? Actually they did it indoor cuz of the gpu's. Farcry is 95% flat (i mean no normal maps). And this allows game to run fast in outdoor. Add normal maps for each texture and u'll get ur 1fps. But even with normal maps for characters and some indoor textures - it looks ugly. Why? Cuz Doom3 shaders was'nt so simple as u can think...

Some words about Crysis graphics. Crysis looks FLAT as a farcry. They can't bring us a proper lighting model. So the final picture looks like quake2 with 4096x4096p textures. And u can draw any number of pixels - but it will be still flat and ugly. I don't know how to explain this to Crysis fans - maybe i should pick up some shots next time. But even Half-Life2 is more volumetric then Crysis.
Imho - CryEngine graphics has nothing in common with realisctic lighting and shadowing. That's my point - and i feel like i would prove it by some shots later.
So i prefer to compare Unreal3 graphics, Tech4, Source, and DNF. (and tech5 if we will get some new info about it). Would u mind guys?

Some words about Rage. Rage is all about megatexture feature.
That feature allows game artist to make every polygon looks unique by painting it directly with no texture restirictions. And this is a revolution.
Also u have no restrictions about the characters texture size - that means that u can have as detailed creature as u want. But still - u have to think about GPU power.
Actually Rage is not about high defenition character textures. So i think we will see some major difference between DNF and Rage level design - and just that. Maybe there will be no other difference.
Yes, tech5 has some additional features, like some extra cool render techniques, but that's not some real advantage.
But Doom4 will bring us 3times more detailed picture - and no crysis can bring u such level of details. Combined with unique textures of EVERYTHING Doom4 will look like wall-e maybe, but not as any game u've seen before.
Remember guys - we r talkin bout graphics. I don't know what level of interactivity there will be, or what amount of physical calculations. But as for graphics - megatextures is an absolute new way of creating things. I think we will get awesome game worlds soon.
But enough of that - all i wanna say it's just DNF can be compared with Rage by the level of details - so it can take another half-year of developing with no risk of becoming graphically outdated.

p.s.: I like big posts (:
p.p.s.: I appreciate ur oppinion guys. Actually it's good to see u not addicted to game graphics as some fans. Gameplay it's everything (that's why i'll buy DNF even for 100$). But sometimes we just have to talk about graphics.

Dude, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, there's no Thief 4 in existense. Second - Riddick uses it's own engine. Third - Doom 3 looks fugly and there's no way it can look even similar to far cry, not to mention better.
And last - you're a god-damn Id fanboy who just knows a bunch of fancy words about graphics. The Doom3 engine (or Id Tech 4 as they prefer to call it now) is shit, and the new Tech 5 engine is hardly anything out of the ordinary except for megatexture streaming. And so far rage looks like any tasteless current gen title, nothing more. Also, there is nothing known about the Doom 4 visuals and until there is, saying that no crysis will look as good is just laughable.
Get your facts straight and stop being such an Id fanboy.

[Amakou]

Guys, you're off topic. Bring it back, or it'll be locked.

This is not about which engine looks better between iD, Starbreeze, or Crytek.

~Amakou~

[OttoMoto]

2 SyntaxN:
I meant indoor Farcry looks ugly compared to Doom3.
Doom3 shaders are much more complex then farcry 'soft' lighting shaders. That's why Doom looks more volumetric. It uses four textures to make the final picture and also some gradient texture map to improve the specular and diffuse bump.
Now about 'natural and soft' lighting - it's a fake. There is no 'soft' stuff - just some additional ambient lighting. And it looks unnatural, cuz real lighting is much more complex then just some additional ambeint value. That's why Half-Life2 looks much realistic and volumetric than far cry. And actually i can see some major bumps over the surfaces in a real life with daytime lighting. And i can't see them in farcry. Why?
"Because Far Cry uses a much more natural and 'soft' lighting for outdoor environments"
Much more natural then the nature itself, yeah? Cool.
And crysis looks like shit - that's right.
Now u tell me why should'nt it looks like shit.

[SyntaxN]

Originally Posted by OttoMoto

2 SyntaxN:
I meant indoor Farcry looks ugly compared to Doom3.
Doom3 shaders are much more complex then farcry 'soft' lighting shaders. That's why Doom looks more volumetric. It uses four textures to make the final picture and also some gradient texture map to improve the specular and diffuse bump.
Now about 'natural and soft' lighting - it's a fake. There is no 'soft' stuff - just some additional ambient lighting. And it looks unnatural, cuz real lighting is much more complex then just some additional ambeint value. That's why Half-Life2 looks much realistic and volumetric than far cry. And actually i can see some major bumps over the surfaces in a real life with daytime lighting. And i can't see them in farcry. Why?
"Because Far Cry uses a much more natural and 'soft' lighting for outdoor environments"
Much more natural then the nature itself, yeah? Cool.
And crysis looks like shit - that's right.
Now u tell me why should'nt it looks like shit.

Seriously, before this gets worse lets go btt

[OttoMoto]

2 Garrett:
I'm not an Id fanboy. I just like CG and i'm interested in new features.
If there is no Thief4 then it was Thief3 - not a big deal dude - why r u so serious? relax a lil
And no - i'm not just another gamer who knows a lil about graphics - i actually made some rendering routines by myself, some poly-sorting stuff, some shaders, some physics, skeletal animation, shadowing - lots of stuff. And i know exactly what am i talkin about. And all this stuff it's kinda difficult to understand till u got some basic knowledges of how it's actually working. I spend about 6 years before i made some working engine. So i got alot of info.
But still - i'm not sayin that my oppinion is the only right thing. We are here to compare DNF with other titles by graphics. I just don't feel like we can compare it with crysis - and u've seen my oppinion.

[peoplessi]

OttoMoto, but you don't have any real arguments, that is based on something else that how you feel. Also, this is getting highly offtopic, not to mention your output/posts are hard to read.

[OttoMoto]

So, peoplessi - i have'nt seen any real arguments from u either...
But what arguments do u need? Shaders? Textures? Well i'll try to get some if u r so mean.
But anyways - i'm not offtopic - we r talkin about DNF graphics, and i don't think they have somethin absolutely new in the geometry shading.
So we must compare the look of DNF with UT3, Half-Life2, FEAR, PREY and understand what kind of rendering features we will get with DNF. So is it offtopic?
And if u guys r CryTek fanboys - then compare Duke with Crysis i don't mind.
---
Some of the DNF rendering features i've seen so far: volumetric lighting (cool stuff really), normal mapping (have'nt seen any parallax occlusion techniques so far), shadow maps (smooth, but have'nt seen any self shadowing at all), light maps (for static objects), different materials (not a Doom3 style), HDR (lots of bloom and lighting post-processing stuff), motion blur and depth of field.
---
Ok - so it's not something like Doom3 - it's much more colorfull and bright. No stencil shadows and half-lighted monsters. Yes they have some dark level corners, but it's just light maps - and i don't think they r completely black. I like volumetric lights - they add some atmosphere to levels and looks cool.
As for self shadowing - i have'nt seen any good self-shadowing in other games (remember GTA4 or MassEffect) - so for DNF it's not a disadvantage.

[peoplessi]

You should really take more time and make your posts more readable. It's better for the whole discussion. This thread was about DNF Graphics, not what you envision the future to be. It would be a fun discussion to have if your posts wouldn't be so cumbersome to read. No need to press enter after every line, the software does that for you.

http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpo...&postcount=175 - starting from there, it went wildly offtopic.

I haven't seen single one proper HDR implementation in games. It's just too overdone, and doesn't look anymore realistic. Only makes everything look too bloomy.

[demonhorde665]

Originally Posted by KaiserSoze

I see little difference in dx9 vs dx10 when I play Crysis
Warhead. The last comment George made re: dx certification
was that DNF was a dx9 game.


Most likely it'll end up being dx9 and run on XP/Vista.

Wouldn't be surprised to see DNF's system recommendations
mirror those of Crysis: WH btw.

I highly doubt that ... crysis is an overblaoted graphics show of a engine DNF is using a UT based engine which tends to run much better , at 1280x1024 (my monitors highest resolution) i can run UT3 maxed out and see frame rate around 70-90's while crysis only gets 30-35 fps ( and im only on GF 9600 gt) not a power card like the gf 280 or higher models.

given this i imagine that DNF will run and look fairly good on average hardware since it uses a UT engine i definitely don't expect to see crazy recomends and requirements like on crysis

---------- Post added at 08:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 AM ----------

mmm ooookkk you guys are both acting silly ...

as far as new games are concerned graphics quality is pretty much an opinionated thing.

it all matters whatyour taste in visuals are. I personally love the look of FEAR , and STALKER both games to me look more appealing than doom 3 or farcry/crysis .. after those i also prefer the source engine games look over D3 and FC. it's a matter of taste. the question you have to ask to ascertain which engine is better is ... Which engine get's it's greatest quality levels with the leaste FPS hit ... the winner in this case would clearly be the source engine. but that doens't mean that every one will like the look of the source engine, nor shoudl you expect every oen else to agree with your opinion on which looks better. It's like arguing over what color looks better "red or blue".

[Kristian Joensen]

demonhorde665, you can't really say anything about how DNF will run based on how UT3 runs as they share virtually no code and no code with regards to the visuals see here for a quote or two about DNF's engine.

[peoplessi]

True, but expecting similar performance for similar visuals isn't too much asked I hope the animations aren't capped in the same way as in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. The 20frame cap made them look jerky.

I fully expect DNF deliver on PC - visually and from gameplay. All the aspects, from physics to animation. It would be really bad to see DNF get hit due console limitations - to say there is no risk of that is highly optimistic. I have trust in 3D Realms, for them being a long time PC developer, they must know what you can, and can't do on PC. Making too obvious compromises is one of those "don't do" things.

[Silentwulf]

Have we heard anything about DNF's heavily modified engine being based of Unreal Engine 3 yet? Last time I checked, it was based off a heavily modified Unreal Engine 2....

[OttoMoto]

U've seen the animations already (teaser) (and sneak). I don't know bout u, but i like em and hope they will mix fine (some IK maybe, like Euphoria). And i hope they'll make lots of context animations (asskicked pig as example) and some extra cool stuff for those huge aliens (smashin buildings, tryin to get Duke out, or somethin epic - i really like old-school nintendo style battles when u need to figure out the weak points and use some tactics to win). As we know, realms got some interestin motion capture stuff to bring us as real animations as possible - and i bet they will. Well, the last game with good animations i've played was MassEffect. What about u guys?

2 demonhorde665: yep, maybe u right about different tastes, but when i'm talkin about FPS games graphics, then i'm talkin about how real it is comparing with mother nature. Cuz some 80-90% of such games are tryin to look realistic. So, for me - source renderer is more realistic then any other real-time renderers. But i like 'Gemini' too, just for it's bril 'plastic toy' look - and this is only about my taste. So all we have to do now, it's define if we talkin about our tastes, or if about technology and photorealism. So from the point of technology - DNF has less advantages then upcoming Rage (but i hope DNF release is goin to be soon), but it looks as good as any crysis game (just without some freakin shaders like ambient occlusion shadowing) and as any UE3 game - so there's nothing to be worried about - all u graphics geeks r goin 2 be pleased (and me too). Now, from the point of visual style and personal taste - this game looks more like a thriller. So i don't feel like crysis fans will like it, cuz it's gonna be dark sometimes and even scary (as original Duke3d). The picture is sharp and clean, with some intense post-processing, but just for volume lighting and blooms - i hope we will see no differense in overall coloring by changing shaders quality in graphics options. And such picture (for me) looks more realistic then 'Gemini' or Crysis renders. Looks more like Source.
Ok. Now i want to hear ur oppinion guys. About tech and non-tech (human-depending) side.

2peoplessi: i tried to make it more readable. Just by the way - what resolution do u use? Mine is 1680x1050 (22'' widescreen).

[peoplessi]

Silentwulf, DNF engine has nothing to do with Unreal Engine 3, they broke off long before that. Everything, almost everything, is new. Well, I think nothing is left un-touched - but only 3D Realms knows for sure.

OttoMotto, Same resolution here. The short teaser showed some impressive lighting, but that was some over year ago. Things move fast, and I think there is new things we don't know about.

[Malgon]

Originally Posted by peoplessi

True, but expecting similar performance for similar visuals isn't too much asked I hope the animations aren't capped in the same way as in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. The 20frame cap made them look jerky.

I fully expect DNF deliver on PC - visually and from gameplay. All the aspects, from physics to animation. It would be really bad to see DNF get hit due console limitations - to say there is no risk of that is highly optimistic. I have trust in 3D Realms, for them being a long time PC developer, they must know what you can, and can't do on PC. Making too obvious compromises is one of those "don't do" things.

Are the animations really that bad in ET:QW?

[glade86]

i don;t mind it being somewhat low grahpic than the others, i just want it for the game, im sure even with a few cheesy parts it would rock

[Mr.DJ]

I'm pretty sure the gfx engine will be scalable and slow down even the higend PC's on highest quality settings. However, should 3DRealms ever decide to do it at all....future upgrades to the GFX will probably be added via patches or expansions!

[Angilion]

I have high hopes because it's developed for PC. It isn't developed for a console and ported to PC.

Off-topic...has anyone ever done a decent port of a console game to PC, actually making use of a PC's capabilities? All I've seen is mediocre ports that are about as good as the console and spectacularly bad ports that appear to have been hastily cobbled together in an afternoon by a fairly competent pupil as part of a GCSE project.

[helious]

Originally Posted by peoplessi

You should really take more time and make your posts more readable. It's better for the whole discussion. This thread was about DNF Graphics, not what you envision the future to be. It would be a fun discussion to have if your posts wouldn't be so cumbersome to read. No need to press enter after every line, the software does that for you.

http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpo...&postcount=175 - starting from there, it went wildly offtopic.

I haven't seen single one proper HDR implementation in games. It's just too overdone, and doesn't look anymore realistic. Only makes everything look too bloomy.

You obviously never played Gears of War 2, or Gotham Racing 3+4

[Gideon]

I don't think DNF has to look like Farcry2 to be a great game. The game looks pretty good to me. While I'm sure the graphics will be smoking, it's the gameplay, story, and interactivity that's going to make DNF shine.

[SpinX]

I just hope they don't dumb the size of the textures down on the PC version just to have it run on consoles too...

since crysis (and warhead) there hasn't been a game announced with better graphics... maybe rage, but i have to see some first person screens first... The reason that is according to me, is that crysis was pc game build for pc, and not a game for consoles ported for pc...

In the old days they made a game for pc primairly, resulting in a nice menu interface/high gameplay standards and state of the art graphics...

today its different, its made for consoles, and pc gets a port with crappy interface... (press ''x'' to pick up in screen, Please don't turn off your pc while saving, blinking weapons and items that can be picked up, etc...) and with graphics that don't push hardware limits...

[Nukkus]

Originally Posted by LadiesAndGentlemen

Dude Rage looks like a movie.

What is this "Dude Rage"? Is it a game about an angry surfer?

[Foofles]

Originally Posted by SpinX

I just hope they don't dumb the size of the textures down on the PC version just to have it run on consoles too...

since crysis (and warhead) there hasn't been a game announced with better graphics... maybe rage, but i have to see some first person screens first... The reason that is according to me, is that crysis was pc game build for pc, and not a game for consoles ported for pc...

In the old days they made a game for pc primairly, resulting in a nice menu interface/high gameplay standards and state of the art graphics...

today its different, its made for consoles, and pc gets a port with crappy interface... (press ''x'' to pick up in screen, Please don't turn off your pc while saving, blinking weapons and items that can be picked up, etc...) and with graphics that don't push hardware limits...

Yeah, the biggest thing that PCs have that consoles don't is memory... so Crysis can fit tons of really high res texture and normal maps in memory where consoles cannot and have to rely on more creative methods.

But looking at it from a development side, you start to understand why ports will share assets... in fact, usually when deploying to multiple platforms everything will be identical, assets and code, aside from direct API calls. Otherwise it'd take forever.

I'm sure after spending their entire lifespan developing and publishing PC games that Apogee/3DR isn't about to give PC users the shaft... we'll get the most awesome experience of all, if anything.

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

More creative methods? lol, there are no creative methods, they just have to be flat out primitive.

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

Originally Posted by Nukkus

What is this "Dude Rage"? Is it a game about an angry surfer?

I don't use commas; I've always said they were made for retards who don't know when to breathe.

[Monkey Butler]

Misuse of semicolons is for idiots who know when to breathe, but still manage to get it wrong

[Nukkus]

Originally Posted by LadiesAndGentlemen

I don't use commas; I've always said they were made for retards who don't know when to breathe.

I used no commas. Hence your post is oddly misdirected. I am guessing this is an example of Dude Rage?

[LadiesAndGentlemen]

What the hell are you rambling about this time?

[X-Vector]

Originally Posted by LadiesAndGentlemen

I don't use commas; I've always said they were made for retards who don't know when to breathe.

lol, there are no creative methods, they just have to be flat out primitive.

I take it you also have a problem with proper capitalisation?

[Ironside]

Originally Posted by Gideon

I don't think DNF has to look like Farcry2 to be a great game.

Gee man if you think FC2 looks good your crazy. Duke will piss all over FC2!

[Nukkus]

Originally Posted by Ironside

Gee man if you think FC2 looks good your crazy. Duke will piss all over FC2!

My first thought when playing Far Cry 2: "Where the hell did all the color go?".

[espguy400]

At this point i don't care how good the graphics are going to be.I would just
be happy for the game to finally come out.

[terrannova]

Originally Posted by Nukkus

My first thought when playing Far Cry 2: "Where the hell did all the color go?".

It looks like Africa, doesn't it?

Anyways, as long as Duke can deliver sweet graphics & gameplay without horrible framerates on current top-end video cards I'm game!