official Guild Wars 2

[spaceelf]

Finally got a crew together to do the dungeon story mission at the end

 

...what the **** was that?  :huh:

 

hah wow that was bad.  I'm glad I ignored it for months.

[Yogurth]

Really? You found Arah story mission bad? I though it was excellent, grandiose and epic, and pretty long.

[Wakers]

Ya know, i would've given them a pass on last years wintersday decorations running like crap since the game just launched a couple months earlier and they had many bugs to fix. But to be a year later, and have a decorated LA still run like ass is ridiculous. How could they not have improved this?

 

To be fair, non-decorated AA runs like crap.

 

So does Black Citadel.

 

I don't think they have the capabilities with the engine to get it to run any better, because they based it on such an old one.  They're just going to wait for CPUs to advance so that it's no longer an issue I think, much like WoW did with Stormwind and Ironforge.

[spaceelf]

Really? You found Arah story mission bad? I though it was excellent, grandiose and epic, and pretty long.

Mass Effect 3s ending was far better heh.

 

not much else to say there.

[trag3dy]

Really? You found Arah story mission bad? I though it was excellent, grandiose and epic, and pretty long.

 

Epic? You're gonna have to explain that one. There are lots of words I would use to describe the final personal story mission..epic isn't on the list. I would use words like; boring, tedious, dull, uninteresting and describe it as poorly thought out and badly executed.

[spaceelf]

Epic? You're gonna have to explain that one. There are lots of words I would use to describe the final personal story mission..epic isn't on the list. I would use words like; boring, tedious, dull, uninteresting and describe it as poorly thought out and badly executed.

I certainly laughed when my friend made King Kong jokes.

[Max Norris]

There are lots of words I would use to describe the final personal story mission..epic isn't on the list. I would use words like; boring, tedious, dull, uninteresting and describe it as poorly thought out and badly executed.

Well shoot Victory or Death's been on my to-do for a few weeks now (haven't played long), guess I won't hurry to get to it then, pity. Can't be worse than GW1 Faction's ending... can it?

[trag3dy]

Well shoot Victory or Death's been on my to-do for a few weeks now (haven't played long), guess I won't hurry to get to it then, pity. Can't be worse than GW1 Faction's ending... can it?

 

It's worth doing, but only once. If for no other reason than to see how bad it is.

[Blackhearted]

To be fair, non-decorated AA runs like crap.

 

So does Black Citadel.

 

I don't think they have the capabilities with the engine to get it to run any better, because they based it on such an old one.  They're just going to wait for CPUs to advance so that it's no longer an issue I think, much like WoW did with Stormwind and Ironforge.

 

True, normal LA doesn't run great either. But last year when the wintersday decorations were removed from LA my framerate nearly doubled(i'm not exaggerating either). That's how bad it was, and apparently still is.

 

As for wow, one big thing that helped it run a good bit less badly was dx11 support. If anet would get on the ball and bring the option to use a DX11 renderer to gw2 they could give the majority of their playerbase a similar free performance boost to what wow got from it.

[spaceelf]

True, normal LA doesn't run great either. But last year when the wintersday decorations were removed from LA my framerate nearly doubled(i'm not exaggerating either). That's how bad it was, and apparently still is.

 

As for wow, one big thing that helped it run a good bit less badly was dx11 support. If anet would get on the ball and bring the option to use a DX11 renderer to gw2 they could give the majority of their playerbase a similar free performance boost to what wow got from it.

aren't they working on console versions?  I can't really imagine they'd build those yet completely ignore optimizing their initial product.

[trag3dy]

aren't they working on console versions?  I can't really imagine they'd build those yet completely ignore optimizing their initial product.

 

A console version? Where'd you hear that? I'm pretty sure they've said that will never happen. The combat would be nearly impossible to play with a controller.

[spaceelf]

A console version? Where'd you hear that? I'm pretty sure they've said that will never happen. The combat would be nearly impossible to play with a controller.

I have no idea.  Just thought I had.

[Wakers]

They were considering it when the game was in development, however they've dropped that idea completely.

 

I think they were thinking the new consoles would be something.. better than what we ended up getting.

[spaceelf]

They were considering it when the game was in development, however they've dropped that idea completely.

 

I think they were thinking the new consoles would be something.. better than what we ended up getting.

They can still handle GW2 far better than the current PC client heh.

 

(So was I, admittedly.)

[Wakers]

What? With their 1.6Ghz per core CPUs?

 

They'd blow up in Lion's Arch.

[spaceelf]

What? With their 1.6Ghz per core CPUs?

 

They'd blow up in Lion's Arch.

No, they wouldn't, because they have eight cores and aren't held back by DirectX 9.

[Blackhearted]

No, they wouldn't, because they have eight cores and aren't held back by DirectX 9.

 

It's 8 cores with only like 6 cores available to games. And regardless of how many cores you have it doesn't change the fact that those CPU's are very low performance CPU's. And low performance CPU's are very much unsuitable for a game as ridiculously cpu-bound as gw2 is.

[spaceelf]

It's 8 cores with only like 6 cores available to games. And regardless of how many cores you have it doesn't change the fact that those CPU's are very low performance CPU's. And low performance CPU's are very much unsuitable for a game as ridiculously cpu-bound as gw2 is.

DX9 is very much unsuitable for anything and everything.  Even on the top of the line card you won't be able to draw many unique objects, and multicore renderers take a lot more work.

 

Even the Xbox 360 could draw a lot more than devs will be able to do with DX9.

 

(DX9 is most likely exactly why the game is ridiculously CPU bound.)

[Wakers]

No, they wouldn't, because they have eight cores and aren't held back by DirectX 9.

 

What are you babbling on about?

 

AMD CPUs have 8 cores at the top end, they perform worse than the 4 core i5 Intels.  They're also twice as fast as the Jaguar CPUs in the consoles.  Just because the consoles have 6 cores for games doesn't mean the game can use 6 cores, especially when those cores are less than half as fast as they are in desktop CPUs.

 

The game engine just doesn't allow for extensive threading.  

 

And the game engine runs on DX9.  Moving it to Xbox and DX11 won't suddenly make it less CPU dependent, that's just a flaw in the engine.  Changing between versions of DirectX does not magically rewrite the game engine.

[spaceelf]

What are you babbling on about?

 

AMD CPUs have 8 cores at the top end, they perform worse than the 4 core i5 Intels.  They're also twice as fast as the Jaguar CPUs in the consoles.  Just because the consoles have 6 cores for games doesn't mean the game can use 6 cores, especially when those cores are less than half as fast as they are in desktop CPUs.

 

The game engine just doesn't allow for extensive threading.  

 

And the game engine runs on DX9.  Moving it to Xbox and DX11 won't suddenly make it less CPU dependent, that's just a flaw in the engine.  Changing between versions of DirectX does not magically rewrite the game engine.

DX11 is multithreaded.  DX9 is not.  It's also capable of drawing about twice as much per frame, largely because of that.

 

If you're going to program for a console, you're going to program for the machine.  You're not going to release an engine coded the same way as PC for an Xbox One or PS4.  Or an Xbox 360 or PS3 for that matter.

[Athernar]

DX11 is multithreaded.  DX9 is not.  It's also capable of drawing about twice as much per frame, largely because of that.

 

If you're going to program for a console, you're going to program for the machine.  You're not going to release an engine coded the same way as PC for an Xbox One or PS4.  Or an Xbox 360 or PS3 for that matter.

 

DX11 isn't going to do squat if the engine itself is single threaded.

[spaceelf]

DX11 isn't going to do squat if the engine itself is single threaded.

It would still allow the API to draw a lot more.  If it is.  I don't believe GW2 is, but the graphics engine most likely is.

[Wakers]

DX11 is multithreaded.  DX9 is not.  It's also capable of drawing about twice as much per frame, largely because of that.

 

If you're going to program for a console, you're going to program for the machine.  You're not going to release an engine coded the same way as PC for an Xbox One or PS4.  Or an Xbox 360 or PS3 for that matter.

 

It makes no difference at all how many threads which version of Direct X has if the game engine itself has 1 audio thread, 1 processing thread and 1 GPU thread, which is the case with GW2.

 

Again, moving the game to Directx 11 does not magically rewrite the engine.  They wouldn't rewrite the engine for consoles because that would mean ceasing development on the PC version, putting their entire programming team to work on building another new engine from the ground up when the end result would still be vastly inferior in performance compared to the PC version due to the lack of processing power available.

 

If they're not going to do it for the PC version, where there market is - they're certainly not gonna do it for a console version where the game might not even get any market at all.

[spaceelf]

It makes no difference at all how many threads which version of Direct X has if the game engine itself has 1 audio thread, 1 processing thread and 1 GPU thread, which is the case with GW2.

The average PC has far less processing power than the new consoles, and far more API overhead taxing the CPU even with DX11.  Most gamers still aren't even quad core.

 

Given the large lack of knowledge about programming in some of these responses I'm not even going to bother.

[trag3dy]

And pc gamers have average pcs often as not?

 

But now matter how you look at it it's pointless to talk about because the game will never be ported to a console.