Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SuperKid

GTA V is coming September 17, 2013

49 posts in this topic

It's a terrible looking engine, have you tried the mod for BF3 which removes all the filters?

Once you've seen past the motion blur, tints, camera glare and all the other pointless overlays it looks ugly as hell.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the engine used by Rockstar (RAGE), RDR was visually stunning.

I'm shocked you think that. We're all allowed our opinions, but I don't think this, this, or this can be considered "visually stunning". I've played Battlefield 3 minus the filters and it blows that away. Better models, textures, lighting, shadows, you name it. All of that in addition to the fact that Frostbite 3 is what powers Battlefield 4, and that looks even better.

You say that as if the RAGE used by the GTA-series is actually better. :|

All the media put out for GTAV so far looks really poor - low resolution textures, low polygon counts, poor quality lighting, outdated facial animations, etc. That's without knowing anything about performance, which was hugely lacking in GTAIV. Yet again we'll be looking at it running 30fps on consoles

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAGE engine is technically impressive, its just gimped by 6 year old hardware. I imagine they have some form of RAGE already running on next-gen hardware, I'd be interested to see what the graphics would look like on next-gen system.

But that's the thing, it's not technically impressive. Games like Far Cry 3, Crysis 3 and The Witcher 2 were able to take advantage of current-gen consoles while offering great graphics and even better PC versions, yet you seem to be suggesting that Rockstar is somehow more limited by current-gen consoles. While Max Payne 3 demonstrated that the engine has improved it was plagued by constant loading screens, which were particularly evident on the PC when the game kept jumping to horrifically low resolution pre-rendered cutscenes. Meanwhile Far Cry 3 was able to offer massive levels with very minimal loading screens and superb graphics.

Perhaps I'd be more tolerant if there was evidence that the gameplay had improved substantially but so far we haven't seen that, nor do we have evidence to suggest a huge leap forward in that department. Usually by this stage in development we'd have seen some in-game playthroughs. It's possible the game will turn out great

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the thing, it's not technically impressive. Games like Far Cry 3, Crysis 3 and The Witcher 2 were able to take advantage of current-gen consoles while offering great graphics and even better PC versions, yet you seem to be suggesting that Rockstar is somehow more limited by current-gen consoles.

GTA5 has been in development for 5 years, you can't just keep updating the graphics engine during development or the game would never be finished, at some point you have to stop developing graphics and start building the world. I'm not making excuses, those games you listed are far newer technology wise than the RAGE engine was 5 years ago.

None of the open world games you mentioned pack as much detail into the world as GTA does, Crysis 3 does look impressive but it has self contained levels, not a full open world. Far Cry 3 looks deserted compared to GTA.

Personally I think its amazing what they can accomplish with 512MB total RAM/VRAM minus the memory reserved for the OS. As for PC, all the games you listed had PC as lead platform and backported to consoles, GTA has consoles as lead and ported to PCs which is why you don't get the kind of fidelity asset/model wise.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of the open world games you mentioned pack as much detail into the world as GTA does, Crysis 3 does look impressive but it has self contained levels, not a full open world. Far Cry 3 looks deserted compared to GTA.

Far Cry 3 pushed PCs to their limits with DX11 features and highly detailed environments - while the environments are obviously different, to suggest that GTA has higher detail is laughable. I mean, look at this:

rsggtavscreenshot030.jpg

It looks terrible. Then compare that to Far Cry 3:

220240screenshots201212.jpg

GTA5 has been in development for 5 years, you can't just keep updating the graphics engine during development or the game would never be finished, at some point you have to stop developing graphics and start building the world.

And every other game has to deal with the same issue. You're just making excuses.

Personally I think its amazing what they can accomplish with 512MB total RAM/VRAM minus the memory reserved for the OS. As for PC, all the games you listed had PC as lead platform and backported to consoles, GTA has consoles as lead and ported to PCs which is why you don't get the kind of fidelity asset/model wise.

And that's entirely the fault of the developer. Max Payne 3 was designed around PC and had decent graphics, yet everything put out for GTAV looks terrible. If developing for the X360/PS3 is limiting the game then they shouldn't be developing for it, like a lot of other developers have realised. id Software's RAGE is the perfect example of targeting consoles, as they abandoned their PC heritage and designed everything around consoles running at 720p and the game was a technical disaster as a result. Watch_Dogs is being designed for next-gen consoles, PC and current-gen consoles and is due for release not long after GTAV but it looks dramatically better. Rockstar is too busy accepting truckloads of money from Microsoft and Sony to worry about artistic integrity or PC gamers.

Even if GTAV does make it to PC it will be very dated on release and it's entirely possible it will be a poorly optimised mess, like GTAIV was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GTA5 has been in development for 5 years, you can't just keep updating the graphics engine during development or the game would never be finished, at some point you have to stop developing graphics and start building the world. I'm not making excuses, those games you listed are far newer technology wise than the RAGE engine was 5 years ago.

None of the open world games you mentioned pack as much detail into the world as GTA does, Crysis 3 does look impressive but it has self contained levels, not a full open world. Far Cry 3 looks deserted compared to GTA.

Personally I think its amazing what they can accomplish with 512MB total RAM/VRAM minus the memory reserved for the OS. As for PC, all the games you listed had PC as lead platform and backported to consoles, GTA has consoles as lead and ported to PCs which is why you don't get the kind of fidelity asset/model wise.

Exactly this. If Rockstar were to continually update models and assets for the game (ala Duke Nukem Forever) it will never get done.

Usually what happens in a game development cycle is character models are made to photo-real quality then scaled back to match the hardware. This is evident in Tomb Raider - compare the PC version to the console versions - it simply blows them away.

What people are forgetting is that Rockstar are building GTA5 to that of current gen hardware (for consoles). Packing in so much data for a CITY full of textures, 100+ characters, 50+ cars, lighting information, AI, voice, radio stations, tv channels...

All this data has to fit on a dvd that cant be more than 8GB.

Of course games like battlefield 3 are going to look better, you might see only 30% of a city the same scale of LA in GTA5. That means higher quality texture maps, more realistic facial animations (we wont see LA Noire style facial animation anytime soon) - why? because the map for battlefield is maybe 1/100th in size to that of the GTA map. Trust me - as a game developer all this stuff matters.

IF (and its highly likely) that GTA5 comes out on next gen - then you can expect it to be as good as current gen PC games. IF it does come out for next gen, expect only a short delay (of say 6 months or so) so they can add specific next gen features, like social integration and stuff. I would even say without that social intergration GTA5 would be ready in some degree for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far Cry 3 pushed PCs to their limits with DX11 features and highly detailed environments - while the environments are obviously different, to suggest that GTA has higher detail is laughable. I mean, look at this:

I like how you cherry picked the worst looking, earliest in development GTA5 image just to make a point.

1280.jpg

1280.jpg

1280.jpg

Compared to:

1257995-far-cry-3-25.jpg

Far-Cry-3-hangglider.jpg

GTA5 hardly a bad looking game considering the amount of detail packed into every image, Far Cry 3 has mountains and trees, wow so much detail, DX11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And every other game has to deal with the same issue. You're just making excuses.

All the games you quoted are NEWER technology wise than GTA5 which probably started development as soon as GTA4 was released in 2008.

And that's entirely the fault of the developer. Max Payne 3 was designed around PC and had decent graphics, yet everything put out for GTAV looks terrible. If developing for the X360/PS3 is limiting the game then they shouldn't be developing for it, like a lot of other developers have realised. id Software's RAGE is the perfect example of targeting consoles, as they abandoned their PC heritage and designed everything around consoles running at 720p and the game was a technical disaster as a result. Watch_Dogs is being designed for next-gen consoles, PC and current-gen consoles and is due for release not long after GTAV but it looks dramatically better. Rockstar is too busy accepting truckloads of money from Microsoft and Sony to worry about artistic integrity or PC gamers.

Even if GTAV does make it to PC it will be very dated on release and it's entirely possible it will be a poorly optimised mess, like GTAIV was.

So its the developers fault that they only have 512MB of RAM to work with?

Max Payne 3 looks better because its not open world, they are self contained levels, its idiotic to even try and compare them. Watch_Dogs is targeted at next generation, GTA5 is targeted at current generation and has probably been in development for twice if not three times as long as Watch_Dogs hence the older tech and we haven't even seen Watch_Dogs running on PS360 yet so you can't say it looks better than GTA5.

I don't blame them for abandoning PCs, Consoles have a far larger target audience and far less piracy. PC games sell a fraction of the millions upon millions that console games sell.

I am a PC gamer but I am also not an entitled whiner about how developers are abandoning PC and we just get crappy console ports. Deal with it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers are abandoning PC because of how easy it is to pirate AAA games. Plain and simple. Dont pirate games, developers will make them again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly this. If Rockstar were to continually update models and assets for the game (ala Duke Nukem Forever) it will never get done.

Usually what happens in a game development cycle is character models are made to photo-real quality then scaled back to match the hardware. This is evident in Tomb Raider - compare the PC version to the console versions - it simply blows them away.

What people are forgetting is that Rockstar are building GTA5 to that of current gen hardware (for consoles). Packing in so much data for a CITY full of textures, 100+ characters, 50+ cars, lighting information, AI, voice, radio stations, tv channels...

All this data has to fit on a dvd that cant be more than 8GB.

And the same was true for Mafia II and it had much better graphics and a considerably better optimised engine. The reality is the RAGE engine used for GTAIV was a technical mess - there were major framerate drops on the console versions and they had to run sub-720p; even on the PC with multi-GPU setups and overclocked quad-core processors the game struggles to maintain 60fps on hardware released years later, which is shocking really. Even considering the scale of the environment the RAGE-engine does a bad job. Take Far Cry 3, for instance - it was release 4yrs after Far Cry 2, which is similar to the development period for GTA4. Yet Ubisoft Montreal was able to considerably improve the graphics and develop for the PC simultaneously.

Why should I care that Rockstar planned things poorly from a technical perspective? All I care about is the final product. The reality is that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't play Rockstar games because of the graphics. GTAI V looked impressive at the time, but almost everything else they've done has never looked fantastic. However, the worlds they create, story telling, and characters are always good, that's why people buy them, and I haven't seen anything to indicate GTA V won't be just as good.

Far Cry 3 looks fine on the Xbox 360/PS3 just as long as you're looking at a screenshot and not it in motion, because the framerate is garbage. It's a PC game ported to consoles. GTAV is a console game, that's where Rockstar's focus has been since the PS2 and GTA III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers are abandoning PC because of how easy it is to pirate AAA games. Plain and simple. Dont pirate games, developers will make them again.

Nonsense. Developers are putting more effort into the PC - just look at the PC releases for Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider, Borderlands 2, Assassin's Creed 3, Batman: Arkham City, Skyrim, Dishonored, DiRT series, Battlefield 3, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Max Payne 3, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should I care that Rockstar planned things poorly from a technical perspective? All I care about is the final product. The reality is that

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good lord, because it IS DATED, it is FIVE YEARS OLD.

A) It was dated and poorly optimised for the time.

B) The media put out for GTAV doesn't look any better, whereas the preview footage for Max Payne 3 did look better.

The fact that you're claiming the RAGE-engine is good means we're clearly not going to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I said it was good, I said it was technically impressive for the 6 year old hardware, take away the memory reserved for the OS and you're left with around 200MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM. You're just being dismissive because a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also like how you conveniently ignored the comparison pics I posted at the top of this page. Far Cry 3 doesn't look all that great considering its mostly hilly empty space with a smattering of trees. All the other games you mentioned are either self contained levels where they can afford to crank up the image quality or are nowhere near the scale of the world of GTA that doesn't have any load times.

The screenshot I posted was simply one of the first I found. As for the examples you posted - I hadn't seen them, so there's nothing "convenient" about it. However, they're all shots from a distance - as soon as you get up close things look a mess in GTAV, whereas in Far Cry 3 they look better. When you compare the videos the difference is a lot more evident.

Where did I said it was good, I said it was technically impressive for the 6 year old hardware, take away the memory reserved for the OS and you're left with around 200MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM. You're just being dismissive because a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT: Realistic graphics are the most important part of a game.

I would rather Rockstar spend time making the game fun and replayable, than worrying if each leaf casts a shadow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't just discount things like that, to get the kind of graphical fidelity you are talking about a graphics card alone costs the same as a whole current gen console. Just because you have a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you like the way GTAV looks, cool. I do too. But don't give me this nonsense that the Frostbite engine looks bad by comparison. That's probably the dumbest thing I've read all day long... I'm not sure why we're even having this "competition" either when it's a rather moot point anyway. It all comes down to the developers: you can have a great engine, but unless you have decent artists, your game will still look like crap. :ermm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't just discount things like that, to get the kind of graphical fidelity you are talking about a graphics card alone costs the same as a whole current gen console. Just because you have a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has nothing to do with "all you can afford", Until Uncharted, Gran Turismo, etc.. come to the PC I will always have some form of Playstation.

You don't get to demand anything, that is just being entitled. You get what you're given and be thankful you've got it. Having a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that as if the RAGE engine used by the GTA-series is actually better. :|

All the media put out for GTAV so far looks really poor - low resolution textures, low polygon counts, poor quality lighting, outdated facial animations, etc. That's without knowing anything about performance, which was hugely lacking in GTAIV. Yet again we'll be looking at it running 30fps on consoles

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's just a rumor about January release?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please use the official thread...

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.