By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
PullusPardus on 05 March 2014
Edit Thread
TheJimbo1234 said:
PullusPardus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:

You don't understand how games are made too well.  They have not fully utilised PCs for years. As I have mentioned, look at DX 11 and how games were capped to crappy dx9 for years. That is getting shafted son; shafted mighty hard.

Also you never make a AAA game using just a high level language. That would be insane. You normally buy an engine and work from there.

But few games have maxed out the CryEngine since. Look at what CryEngine3 can do....and look at how many games DON'T use any of those features. The oinly game that will is a PC exclusive.

Graphics cards are so damn powerful now, you can have BOTH! (Go go PCs!) You could have hyper immersive graphics with epic storylines, fantastic and revolutionary gameplay etc. And before you say cost - it is faster to use the new engines which look better than to use the old game engines. Again, this is due to PC power and new, efficient and streamlined engines.

DirectX 11 is used in a lot of games, what are you even talking about here? its a windows platform..

 

@bolded eh... are you okay ? thats what I said have you even read what I just said? that whooooooooolle thing? I tried to be as direct as possible so you would actually read it.

and you can't max out an engine, holy crap what the fuck man.


O sweet jesus.....pedantic much. You do know that the consoles have OpenGl equivalent of DX, hence the fetaures are the same. 

Also it is not used in many games - it is used in very, very few. Then in the few it is used in, even less use DX11 features and merely aim for the better utilisation of the gpu.

 

As for your previous post - games are still resource heavy and optimisation is not really happening in the way you mention. What you talk about is a little ill-informed and engine specific. Optimisation is happening due to the reduction of once cgi-only effects equations into something that can be done on the fly eg. depth of field and the aim for real time ray-tracing, though this is only possible with the growing power of gpus. 

Also voxels are kinda crappy. Things liek tessalation are far more efficent and popular, hence why voxels are found in mainly very old games or poorly optimised one (yup - crysis).

The game size depends on two things - content and format. Why are so many AAA games so short? Because you can only compress and make redundancies to a limit. The more textures, voices, animations, models, etc you have, the bigger it is. That is a simple fact. Killzone is that big because they didn't need to compress it. They were not limited to a tiny dvd, yet every multiplatform game last gen was, hence why they became so bloody short. Yes, building libraries of motions and lighting helps save room, but this requires more efficient engines to access this data on the fly, and again - better gpus. There are other features that reduce size, but as I said, more content will require more size, hence why every new console has opted for bluray. If you want to return to single player campaigns of 50hrs + and good graphics etc, even with these new engines and compression, you are going to need a lot more room than what a dvd offers.

 

However - back to the point at hand; consoles shafting PCs.

These features have been around for a few years now, and yet most games still lack them. Hell, BF4 was beat at launch by a mid range gaming PC. That is again, showing that PCs are being held back.


I give up, I just can't seem to get your logic.