The posters here are strong with the dark side... they have given in to their hate and it has made them strong.
At the risk of inciting perhaps more riots, a little bird has told me that updated shaders and lighting models will be added via a patch somewhere down the line in time for certain territory releases (I'm not sure if the US release is the territory in question... I'm still trying to get solid information). We don't even had a build of this in our office yet.
Again, I have no idea what the end visual quality will be, only that at some point it should be better than the screens you currently see.
I know a lot of people here are disappointed. I think the only thing I can possibly suggest is wait and see.
Capcom Entertainment Inc.
- Sr. Director of Strategic Planning & Research
This thread contains what everyone should know before they purchase the PC version of Resident Evil.
Capcom made the original version.
Ubisoft is the publisher for US/Europe/Australia.
The PC game is actually made by a company called NextSource.
It's already published in South Korea, Taiwain and a French website have a preview copy and posted screenshots to verify that Ubisoft's version is the same.
* Darkness is removed. Where the console version covers the game in eirie darkness, night is almost as bright as daytime in the PC version removing most of the feel.
* Haze/Fog is removed. You can see at any distance and when opponents run into the supposed fog (that cannot be seen) they just vanish in thin air.
* The PC version uses low quality models from the PS2 version rather than the higher quality GC models, meaning that everything like tree's etc uses alot fewer polygons than the GC version.
* There is no support for EAX, modern soundcards or surround sound.
* There is no mouse support. You are going to need a joypad with two sticks to play it.
* There is no support for Anisotropic Filthering or Antialiasing.
* Many keys on the keyboard, such as F1-F12, TAB, DEL, Insert etc cannot be bound at all.
* They did not bother about a real "quit game" function, you quit the game with ALT+F4.
* Despite the lack of effects/shaders the PC version still requires a graphiccard with Pixel Shaders 2.0 to play.
* Buttons in-game will be refered to 1-10 rather than "USE", "MENU", "SHOOT" etc. When you look at the in-game players manual it will describe how to do things by using the Playstation 2 controls with the Playstation 2 setup (which might not be the same as how you set up the joypad). You are pretty much forced to guess the buttons on your way through.
* Aiming is corrupted. Analog controllers work as digital ones. You have some kind of threshold that must be passed before the aim start to move and when it does it moves too fast. This makes it almost impossible to hit smaller targets even when they are perfectly still.
This is not only a sloppy port, by removing the fog, daylight, darkness they have removed most of the feel the original version had. When a consolefan tipped you about playing this game, they had never tried the PC version.
What's left is only a rather annoying and dull actiongame with graphics that was hot four-five years ago and frustrating gameplay both because the lack of quicksaves and the messed up controls.
You are better of renting/borrowing a GameCube or waiting for one of the GameCube emulators to be good enough.
Well, I mentioned STALKER because it looks to be a resource hog. The beta that was released was unfinished and lots of things happen to a game for every year it's in development. While it might run on one 7900GTX, you might need more than that to run the final game in top settings if they add all new gee-whizz effects.
I could upgrade my current rig to 2x8800GTX right now.
However, by the looks of it I have no reason to because there are no games that demands that kind of power that I have not already finished (I have 2x7900GTX now). By the looks of it, I cannot see many upcoming games that will.
Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Hellgate, STALKER and Alan Wake. That's about it. Is it worth spending $1200-1400 on five games? I do not think so anymore. So can someone tell me if there's other games that appear to suck up alot of horsepower coming during 2007 that makes the upgrade worth it?
I believe that I had SUN Java Runtime Environment installed when it broke down last time and now I do not. The delay was temporary (probably something with the dsl connection at home) and now the page loads in two sec
I have reinstalled java now but I do not seem to be able to spawn the popup again. I guess there's a timer how many popups you get per day.
I also quit my job so I kinda cant check the job computer again either. Ohwell...
I am not anti-microsoft and I do not plan to move to apple or linux anytime soon. I enjoy the simplicity, without extra hassle to find and install what I want and need.
I believe Microsoft already have a good insight on how many run pirated windows, but the costs of going to court in each individual case is probably not worth it.
But I am worried to run an operating system built by the same people who started the whole TCPA idea. Now when I know their attitudes and their plans, I feel less secure. While Microsoft themselves might not be interested to harass each individual, I know many less subtile companies/organisations that do not hesitate. If Vista do make it easy for someone to access my harddrive it's ofcourse alot easier to just dump a filelist of my mp3 folder and go to court (I assume that everybody here have one and enjoy listening to music).
This time it's not a started program we are talking about. This time its the operating system itself. You do not actually need special hardware if you agree to let everything you do be started from a big brother system (if that's the case).
This comes from someone who havnt ran a firewall since he got broadband 6-8 years ago, and do not even run anti-virus unless the computer acts really strange.
With all talk about Microsoft's ideologies when it comes to privacy/anti-pirate activity, security checks when installing SP2, talk about windows media player checking licenses, MSN erasing MP3 files after sending them (claiming they are a potential threat when we know they are not), microsoft building hardware to refuse to run unlicensed software etc...
Do you dare to buy Vista?
Sure, it looks nice, but it feels like a trojan horse to let "Microsoft's latest" take care of everything I do with my computer.
Isnt it horrible that I feel more secure with hackers & viros programmers than I do with the programmers of my operating system?
ID Software was first again with something new, this time Dynamic Light. They are followed by games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R, Splinter Cell 3, F.E.A.R. and Unreal 3. This is also used heavily in the tests by Mad Onion in their 3d Mark 05.
Dynamic Light means that the light is not pre-rendered with a lightmap, so light will be blocked by any obstacles that stands in it's path, including characters. Light will "wrap" itself around any object that blocks it.
While the rest of the boys decided that dynamic light was in, Valve had earplugs. Half-Life 2 does not even contain an attempt to have dynamic light like the other boys. For benchmarking this is the reason why Half-Life 2 will blow past the 60fps border with ease, no matter how much you turn on in the engine. The sad part is that it makes it impossible to produce games that uses darkness as an element.
First game, post Doom 3, was Deus Ex 2/Thief 3. Thoose game didnt really use that feature though, and the implementation was pretty simply compared to D3.
A problem with the shadows in Doom 3, as many have adressed, is that the shadows are very "sharp" and pitchblack dark. Now the tech-demo of Unreal 3 appeared, besides dropping everyone's jaws, it introduced Soft Shadows as a buzzword. Shadows that doesnt die in stright lines, but take off gradually.
Then came Chronicles of Riddick, using an updated version of Starbreeze's Enclave engine. It uses a 16-tap (4x4 pixels) filterkernel to acheive smooth shadows (that is, if you run the game in 1600x1200, its roughly the same job as running it in 6400x4800). The result just looks great, but it also requires extreme machine resources to be playable.
This is what it looks like:
I run the game in 2048x1536 without Anti-Aliasing. The top image is rendered with 8fps, the bottom is rendered with 31fps
Chronicles of Riddick (couldnt find images from the PC version):
Chronicles of Riddick have a setting called "2.0++", featuring Soft Shadows, something we will later see in the Unreal 3 engine.
If you're up for the challenge, try grabbing a computer that can run that setting in a decent framerate...
I personally have an A64 3800+ with 6800GT. I run HL2 in 1920x1440 and Doom 3 in 1600x1200 without problems... If I am to play with Soft Stencil Shadows I am forced to go down to 800x600 with AA or 1024x768 without AA...
Forget about HL2... we know that almost any computer will play that "ol' engine" at 60+ fps... Any benchmark from now on should contain Chronicles of Riddick, and I am very excited to see how the next-gen graphiccards can handle the game.