Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming Discussion' started by T-hug, May 1, 2015.
Skip to 0:58 to see the demo:
Too bad we won't see games looking like this for another ten or fifteen years. And what will the tech demos look like in 2030? Like games from 2045, I bet. I remember Square Enix showing a similar tech demo back in 2012, which was supposed to be real time, and looked better than this one. Instead of showing off what can be done on the latest PC hardware, why not show something that can actually be played? Remember the time when designers tried to make games look as good as possible using the widely available tech instead of 'effin future PCs for billionaires?
Neat. Not that big a deal to me, though. The technology is impressive, but I think we kind of got to a point these past ten years where graphics have suffered diminishing returns greatly. It requires so much more power and work to make a noticeable difference. If VR becomes prominent, I'm sure stuff like that will start benefiting greatly due to this kind of tech, due to having to render everything twice and the level of fine tuning needed for VR.
As it is, I'm just waiting for the next game with interesting or enjoyable gameplay. As long as it's a smooth experience, I'm not concerned about it on the graphical side.
You've got a demo with 1 NPC and huge environment working. Great!
Too bad games rarely have only 1 NPC at a time. Pls don't waste our time at E3 with this.
which is especially funny considering PC in japan is not really a viable platform and the demo was made by Squenix.
This is just mindblowing!
The 2012 demo features the same character at 01:08:
I think if you watch it back now you can see the differences in the new video which I believe has 8k textures!
None of this sort of stuff really impresses me any more because nothing ever comes out that looks even remotely like the stuff they show. Even the 2012 demo (wasn't that supposed to be running on a PS4 in real time at one point?) is just so far out of the PS4s reach its a joke.
Seems like every five minutes some dev or another are releasing their own "Killzone 2" video from E3 2005. "Look what we can do". Except they actually can't. That demo was running on what £2000 worth of video cards, with literally nothing going on apart from a pre determined animation that you can change the camera view and thats pretty much it.
What others have said. Also very shiny (or actually quite matte) but that was not so much as broaching the uncanny valley as galloping along its lowest point.
dx12. Only on Windows10.
I wish for OpenGL to get pushed more...
Well, that falls on the devs. The engine has the capability to push what you see in these tech demos. However, as you said, it's hardware restriction. Since there are no more PC exclusives (aside from a handful of indies).. All games have to be made with all systems in mind. While, yes, PC ones can be optimized to take advantage of DX12? They also have to realize that not everyone has systems to utilize that technology.
So, if devs got smart and separately developed the console and PC versions.. With PC taking FULL advantage of what's offered? We may see more of what's in this tech demo.
I'd also like to see other alternatives as wells. OpenGL is great, but for a lot of big games, they'll probably want something with more of a budget behind it and is commercially pushed. It should also be crossplatform.
I've been gaming on Mint and other ditros of Linux based OSs. I can generally get most games running well under WINE, but if the game doesn't have an OpenGL mode, then I'm a bit screwed.
Work is being done on the Vulkan API which is supposed to be the successor to OpenGL. From what I understand they're aiming at having similar capabilities to that of DX12 but at the same time ditching a lot of the old OpenGL legacy garbage.
sounds good to me.
I'd argue against that.
Falcom release almost everything ON PC and it sells really well, their PC games are just ports.
99% of visual novels and online games are PC only. Its a totally viable platform, with strong numbers, but only in particular markets.
Heavy PC supporters.
Online games always have been more of a PC thing but atm more Online games find their way onto consoles too. And VN's alone don't make the platform viable. Many PC ports are made just for the western market.
All those games you've listed are on PC, with many of them having their originals on Pc and the PSP versions are ports. every game buy Sen no Kiseki 1 and 2 from the LOH series are on PC, 1 of them is on steam, I even own all the others on PC, theres a good 4 games in that series not on your list. Just because they got PSP ports doesn't mean the company isn't a heavy PC supporter, they started on PC, they release more or less everything on PC, you might have compiled a nice list there, but it would have been good to check the wiki pages for those releases first.
Many VN PC ports are made for the western Markets? Since when, Visual Novels OWN the PC in Japan, they always have. We get not even 1% of the visual novels released in Japan, hell we don't even get 1% of what they get in just a single year. Visual novels with less nudity got PSP ports, and sometimes a console port, but the vast, and I mean vast majority are PC only. Even this first page of top rated ones from VNDB is dominated by PC with 1 or 2 PSP and PS2 ports in there. https://vndb.org/v/all
Lol I never said VN ports are made for western I said PC ports in general are made for the western market.
Not true. DirectX 12 will be the standard within a few years, and while quad-SLI titans is a ridiculous requirement, that type of graphical fidelity is technically achievable right now. Which means that within 5-6 years, the price of the tech needed to reproduce such high-end graphics will have dropped dramatically for gaming PCs. I do agree with the diminishing returns thing, however, and a 'realistic' aesthetic has never been my favorite.
Truth be told, this tech demo doesn't even look that much better than games like Far Cry 4 or Shadow of Mordor when you max them out. Speaks again to the diminishing returns. You can only add so many polys to textures before people can't notice the difference any more.
The gaming market is still very console driven. Many developers won't take the extra effort to port a console game to PC and make full use of its potential. It's simply too expensive and the market with people who have strong enough PC's to play games with such level of detail is very niche. I wouldn't expect such level of detail in games until at least the next gaming generation. And like you said if a game isn't pretty aesthetically it ain't gonna be pretty with 63 million polygons per NPC. Nintendo games are the living example. New Super Mario World has a low level graphical fidelity but the aesthetic makes it look beautiful and the game runs at 1080p60 on a very outdated hardware. Not to mention games that focus less on graphical fidelity are cheaper to make and companies can't stop whining how expensive games are to make nowadays. It's almost like people want to push boundaries but at the same time whine because of boundaries being pushed.
I have to wonder if a lot of it on the AAA publisher/shareholder side of things push for graphics because it's more quantifiable than gameplay quality. It's easier to show them what they're investing in that way and that's what they push for.