49 replies to this topic

[Denis W]

theyarecomingforyou, on 04 February 2013 - 00:01, said:

They weren't good but Max Payne 3 was definitely worse. The Alan Wake cinematics also didn't try to pass themselves off as being in-game - there was a noticeable break.



Yeah, I can understand why they're used but if they're going to go that route then they should pre-render them at 1080p @60fps with maximum settings, then compress them further if needed to fit on the game disc. Especially as Max Payne 3 was released on PS3 with it's Blu-ray drive - they should have taken advantage of the extra storage space for higher resolution cinematics. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

If it added an extra GB then yeah they should've rendered with 1080p as the baseline. That being said, 30 GB is already quite hefty for a game.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Denis W, on 04 February 2013 - 00:26, said:

If it added an extra GB then yeah they should've rendered with 1080p as the baseline. That being said, 30 GB is already quite hefty for a game.

Or have the high-resolution cinematics as free-DLC, like Skyrim did with the high resolution textures. I know 30GB is on the large side for a game but with digital distribution and the low cost of storage there's no reason games can't be much larger, as long as the experience justifies it.

Then again, it was the gameplay that really let the game down. Regardless of whether the cinematics were in-game or pre-rendered there were far too many of them and they ruined the pacing of the game. The difficulty was also very spiky, with too many insta-death moments that came out of nowhere. But that reminds me, I really need to go back and complete it.

[Wakers]

theyarecomingforyou, on 04 February 2013 - 00:46, said:

Or have the high-resolution cinematics as free-DLC, like Skyrim did with the high resolution textures. I know 30GB is on the large side for a game but with digital distribution and the low cost of storage there's no reason games can't be much larger, as long as the experience justifies it.

Then again, it was the gameplay that really let the game down. Regardless of whether the cinematics were in-game or pre-rendered there were far too many of them and they ruined the pacing of the game. The difficulty was also very spiky, with too many insta-death moments that came out of nowhere. But that reminds me, I really need to go back and complete it.

Bandwidth springs to mind.

A large number of people still have data caps, not to mention low speed broadband. Downloading 30GB took long enough on my 10Mbit connection, imagine doing it on 5 or even 2.5!

[theyarecomingforyou]

Wakers, on 12 February 2013 - 14:32, said:

Bandwidth springs to mind.

A large number of people still have data caps, not to mention low speed broadband. Downloading 30GB took long enough on my 10Mbit connection, imagine doing it on 5 or even 2.5!

That's why I said it should be done as optional DLC, so that people could choose whether they want to download it or not.

[Dashel]

Good list, I quite agree. While I too would love to see more DX11 implemented, I don't think that fits with the character of his list (how can you say they are inconsequential?) DX11 would take much more resources than any of the 'easy fixes' he suggested. I'd rather start small on the AAA stuff and still support the direct PC creations that care about the native experience.

McKay, on 03 February 2013 - 15:58, said:

Im sure the fact that it could only run on a paltry number of systems was a major factor, why plough all that cash into a game so that it can only run on a tiny number of PCs? Not every PC gamer has a liquid-cooled Extreme-overclocked i7 with SSDs and Crossfire Video cards.

PC Gaming should always be about more, which in turn drives the hardware. I'd much rather live on an annual update cycle than retard the entire system because of the have me nots. My four year old rig can still play far too many current games with ease, its depressing. Games that do that are the killer apps. (Do you think I bought Metro for the gameplay? Or Crysis?)