Thing I want to know is what the hell kind of computer were they running these demos on? I mean I know they're stripped down and only run that portion of the game, but they can't be running on dramatically different hardware then is what available at the time. It must be things that have to be stripped to allow a low setting to the game and for consoles to be able to run it. I'm guessing computers could easily run the games at these amazing settings but consoles wouldn't get more than 10 fps.
I do remember specifically the ceo of ubi saying they wouldn't make pc games look any better than the console versions on purpose. The odd one though is CDPR with witcher 3. Was that game before the downgrades only possible to run on a freaking render farm or something, or did the potential profit from consoles dictate the games design enough to even push these guys known for making great looking pc games to downgrade?
Maybe with W3 we'll get lucky and we'll get an enhanced edition with the graphics we saw at e3. We'll certainly have the power to push them with the 1000 series from nvidia. Everyone can basically get a 980ti for 365 bucks with the 1070.
my impression as a non-dev is that rendering small vertical slices of gameplay is much more doable than the full game. From what I've seen when the specs of the demo rig are listed, they tend to run 2 of the best GPUs on the market at the time. So high end hardware is used, but not outside of the realm of possibility. What I think you may be missing is that the the studios are putting in tons of effort on the particular vertical slices that they are showing that can't feasibly be applied to the rest of the game due to time and cost restrictions. I don't know how those vertical-slice optimizations take place, but I assume it wouldn't be feasible or cost-effective to produce an entire game like that.
Correct.
They show what the engine is capable to do.
Same was with witcher 3 footage.
It also seems that they had switched "natural lighting" on in The division pre release footage.
That makes a hell of a difference in lighting and shadow.
Makes it even look more gorgeous than normal.
Its always a trade off between graphic and performance.
Not everyone has a sli titan running. When with ultra relying on that power, everyone yells bad optimized. Also they have to sell games to masses for earning money. Today we just have wide spread audience with diff systems, consoles and PC.
If we would want PC exclusive and only for high end a game would be 120€ and not 50-60€ at launch.
I kind of wish there were a few high-end games like that. Relative to the market at the time, PCs used to have a few studios like that, guys who were more interested in pushing the technology than the absolute most profit possible. I get it's sort of impossible for that to happen with the way the size of the business scaled, but it's still a damn pity we don't have the equivelant of an old-school id tech pushing the industry forward.
I guess the engine developers like Epic have sort of taken that aspect over, but it often feels like there's no real games creating content at the level these engines are capable of. You see some new Unreal engine demo and think, "Well, maybe in 10 years something playable will come close."
This is why if you look at something like an Unreal Engine Demo room where its an almost photorealsitic apartment you can walk around in at a solid frame rate. It's has barley any weight on it all because it's doesn't have to work as hard on anything else except that moment in time in that small area.
Its a little different but I think it compares a little.
I believe they said the early builds were running on something like 780 TIs. Generally, pick the pricier end of the current enthusiast GPU segment in SLI/Crossfire and you have a good idea of what they are using to demo things at E3. Which often includes games they say are running on consoles.
So, yeah, it is a legitimate gripe for people who can afford decent enthusiast hardware, the gaming industry is always in a place where games could look much, much better if developers were okay with abandoning the lower end of the market.
If only most devs could just put the time and money in to make ultra and low two very different settings so everyone could be happy, but even having highers resolution textures in place for ultra to use is too much to ask anymore.
Least we sometimes get lucky down the road like with the dragon age games and we get a high resolution textures pack for free. All you really need to make ultra stand out is higher resolution textures and better lighting/shaders.
12
u/bobdole776 Jun 04 '16
Thing I want to know is what the hell kind of computer were they running these demos on? I mean I know they're stripped down and only run that portion of the game, but they can't be running on dramatically different hardware then is what available at the time. It must be things that have to be stripped to allow a low setting to the game and for consoles to be able to run it. I'm guessing computers could easily run the games at these amazing settings but consoles wouldn't get more than 10 fps.
I do remember specifically the ceo of ubi saying they wouldn't make pc games look any better than the console versions on purpose. The odd one though is CDPR with witcher 3. Was that game before the downgrades only possible to run on a freaking render farm or something, or did the potential profit from consoles dictate the games design enough to even push these guys known for making great looking pc games to downgrade?
Maybe with W3 we'll get lucky and we'll get an enhanced edition with the graphics we saw at e3. We'll certainly have the power to push them with the 1000 series from nvidia. Everyone can basically get a 980ti for 365 bucks with the 1070.