theres nothing wrong with the renderer in quake wars, the problem is todo with console having no anti aliasing, and the engine will render frames at 800x640 for all screen display sizes, if you upscale the render image, the calcfov in the engine does not calculate the eye camera joint, and its another little thing id will never do themselves
the widescreen displays will just change the g_fov ratio in the driver
I don’t understand why companies like xbox couldn’t do some hardware updates and when they released the slim put some more power in that thing along with the minor upgrades they made to it in general. The same with the PS3 newer models. I don’t understand why they won’t pack actual power into a console unless they are marketing a NEW overpriced product.
Completely agree with:
The game is of a very low resolution and we have jaggies, pop in, no anti aliasing and generally poor looking visuals
The released gameplay vids were much better looking.
Pretty obvious isn’t it? The whole draw to consoles is they’re identical so EVERY GAME released for it can be run on any machine… If you start releasing higher powered machines, then that is not possible.
I don’t understand why you can’t have automatic sliders and have better performance or graphics or whatever. I think that consoles should go this route. People wouldn’t know any better unless they upgraded and they could still play the game. It would just have adjustable settings based on hardware just like a PC game. But what do I know?
People with super ****ty xboxes would just have to be aware that the new high powered graphics driven game might not LOOK as nice. And Microsoft could profit. Same for Sony. I fail to see a problem. Just don’t make it so that the original ever fails to play the material until it’s time to move into the next league of hardware.
I’m afraid it’s a minefield, so unless you have the required knowledge/info to look into it deeply - you won’t see the (numerous) problems involved 
Basically, every step along that path turns a console into a PC - and that is exactly what console manufacturers cannot afford to do The hardware has to stay the same, otherwise consoles would face driver/hardware update issues, just like PC’s (apparently) do. About all you can upgrade, are optical drives, HDD’s (generic), and external accessories like controllers and wireless components.
Maybe its just me, but i couldnt care less about graphics. Just this weekend I busted out the N64 for me and my friends and had a blast. I think I had more fun playing Mario Kart 64 that night than ive had playing my xbox all week. when it comes down to it, its a matter of “is the game fun” rather than “how good does it look”.
Well, before we even think about that fact that we may need a new console, it could be the time for every game on console to feature…
Then yeah, I’ll strongly desire a new generation of hardware once devs are ready and learned something from this gen.
Their problems more than likely all lie in the PSU. The one in the PS3 is so small, and the xboxs one is just elongated. if there were larger PSUs then im sure that the processors in them may run better and or open up to put a more powerful processor in its place.
All the grx these days on the 360 look the same it tired old and boring, even gears of war beta 3 is nothing special anymore its all the same old same old, we need new hardaware and tech.
On the 360 hardware at least, it utterly slaughters general GPU performance. I mean ABSOLUTELY slaughters it. I guess the thinking was “zomg lol, with all this HD goodness, who’s going to need AA?”. I don’t think 360 owners are prepared for the kind of sacrifice that AA requires (I’m one of them, although my time on the 360 is increasingly shrinking for various reasons).
The problems are (1) 5-year-old GPUs and (2) limited system and video RAM, at least with the 360
Honestly I don’t care so much about all that as I do the interface. If the community is the worst crap ever I might walk away from my xbox I’ve held so near and dear for so long and get a PC and start building it to play brink on dedicated servers.
Even though SOME of the PC people I know leave something to be desired.
[QUOTE=dazman76;294206]On the 360 hardware at least, it utterly slaughters general GPU performance. I mean ABSOLUTELY slaughters it. I guess the thinking was “zomg lol, with all this HD goodness, who’s going to need AA?”. I don’t think 360 owners are prepared for the kind of sacrifice that AA requires (I’m one of them, although my time on the 360 is increasingly shrinking for various reasons).
The problems are (1) 5-year-old GPUs and (2) limited system and video RAM, at least with the 360[/QUOTE]
UT 2004 with proper anti-aliasing looks more gorgeous than a lot of 360 games that doesn’t have any; simply because it’s smooth, sharp and clean. A new hardware would be sure welcome, but game devs still need to learn that smooth frame rate and sharp graphics sometimes looks much better than a game without anti-aliasing and thousands useless objects or details.
I agree - although Epic themselves don’t, apparently They switched to this “deferred rendering”, which I believe was supposed to eliminate the need for AA (amongst other benefits). I’ll be honest - I don’t like the newer UT engine visual style. Every modern UT game seems to look the same somehow. I admit, some of the visuals in Bulletstorm were jaw-dropping if you stopped to look at them. Still, I don’t rate general UT visuals these days - certainly not after seeing Rage, anyhow
[QUOTE=Jess Alon;294188]I don’t understand why you can’t have automatic sliders and have better performance or graphics or whatever. I think that consoles should go this route. People wouldn’t know any better unless they upgraded and they could still play the game. It would just have adjustable settings based on hardware just like a PC game. But what do I know?
People with super ****ty xboxes would just have to be aware that the new high powered graphics driven game might not LOOK as nice. And Microsoft could profit. Same for Sony. I fail to see a problem. Just don’t make it so that the original ever fails to play the material until it’s time to move into the next league of hardware.[/QUOTE]
If consoles go this way, they will become very much like a PC and therefore redundant.
[QUOTE=dazman76;294206]On the 360 hardware at least, it utterly slaughters general GPU performance. I mean ABSOLUTELY slaughters it. I guess the thinking was “zomg lol, with all this HD goodness, who’s going to need AA?”. I don’t think 360 owners are prepared for the kind of sacrifice that AA requires (I’m one of them, although my time on the 360 is increasingly shrinking for various reasons).
The problems are (1) 5-year-old GPUs and (2) limited system and video RAM, at least with the 360[/QUOTE]
Yeah AA is just as important for HD as the processor. And very true on the RAM as well. Its like the developers didnt think 5 years a head.
It’s a shame really, because the 360 does a reasonable job - even though the PS3 architecture is kind of next-gen compared to it Crysis 2 and Rage have surprised me, but I’m pretty sure both of those games have required a LOT of time in optimisation, to achieve the graphical levels. They do look stunning, but I imagine the same heavy optimisation would always be required when third parties make use of the engine - so it’s no certainty that we’ll see 360 games using those engines, and achieving the same results as id/CryTek have
The PS3 is a different matter because of Cell, but it’s GPU is still getting old - and was always going to be the limiting factor next to that 8-core monster It could potentially out-live the 360 for years, but it all depends on what MS does next, i.e. how their next GPU compares to current PC hardware. It’ll no doubt be a big jump from current specs, so it might scare Sony into action early
[QUOTE=dazman76;294532]It’s a shame really, because the 360 does a reasonable job - even though the PS3 architecture is kind of next-gen compared to it Crysis 2 and Rage have surprised me, but I’m pretty sure both of those games have required a LOT of time in optimisation, to achieve the graphical levels. They do look stunning, but I imagine the same heavy optimisation would always be required when third parties make use of the engine - so it’s no certainty that we’ll see 360 games using those engines, and achieving the same results as id/CryTek have
The PS3 is a different matter because of Cell, but it’s GPU is still getting old - and was always going to be the limiting factor next to that 8-core monster It could potentially out-live the 360 for years, but it all depends on what MS does next, i.e. how their next GPU compares to current PC hardware. It’ll no doubt be a big jump from current specs, so it might scare Sony into action early :)[/QUOTE]
Agreed 100%. I got Crysis 2 on the PS3 and ill turn the 120Hz on for my tv and WOW its a huge difference in graphics. I hope they look forward more when the next consoles debut and not try to use current tech when building them.
[QUOTE=oO Para oo;293829]The one thing i cant work out is when I draw out my nade how to cancel it and put it away, anybody sussed it yet?[/QUOTE]A little birdie tells me Sprinting will put your grenade back in your pocket, and magically disarm it. :o
