Reasonable said:
selnor said:
Hmmm. Digital Foundry seem to think technically, Alan Wake is right up there with GOW3 and UC2 on there full tech analysis.
Here is some quaotations from Digital Foundries tech analysis.
"Alan Wake's well-realised motion blur helps gives the impression that the frame-rate is smoother than its standard 30FPS. Attention to detail in this engine is second to none."
"Alan Wake's expert use of light, shadow and atmospheric effects is one of the highlights of the game. There's nothing quite like it on any other console game and it's a substantial tech achievement."
"Certainly though, the sense of scale that Alan Wake creates in the final shipping game is phenomenal"
"the basic building blocks for a bloody good game are in evidence and the technology is clearly state-of-the-art."
Further and much more impressive is Remedies latest comments.
"We already have a few bigger changes in mind that could free up as much as 30 per cent processing time, but they were too big to do for Alan Wake 1. But it's not all about improving the engine. We also learned what kind of content works and looks the best with the engine we have, and can, from day one, make cooler stuff in the future. Expect the downloadable content to benefit from this already somewhat." |
Selnor - let it go. You're checking picking from an article that also contains gems like:
"Performance then. Alan Wake is a pretty consistent 30FPS game, as you would hope when the resolution has been reduced from the standard 720p down to 960x540. However, even with this reduction, there are performance issues, and you'll notice them within moments of picking up the joypad."
The engine does do some pretty good stuff, but reading that and playing a bit it's clear that right now, at best, the engine is similar to where Naughty Dog's engine was with the first Uncharted, with some screen tearing and other issues, or Assassin's Creed. The article makes it pretty clear to a neutral reader like me this engine, while certainly 'up there' in many ways, is also not 'up there' with the current top level engines around.
It's also clear that they did indeed have to drop to sub HD to get performance, and that the engine seems heavily locked into needing the muted colours and gameplay style to hide some of its weaknesses - i.e. it is not necessarily a very versatile engine at this point for supporting a wide range of gameplay styles within a single game.
How can this compare to games with the same if not more going on graphically and rendering at 720p while supporting, in Uncharted 2's case, vastly different gameplay, from shooting to vehicles to platforming to large environment exploration to small space tight quarters combat?
I hate even getting dragged into these discussions but can you just let it go that Remedy built a great engine, that it has some flaws, and it hasn't snatched some imaginery graphical crown from other existing technical powerhouses?
Remedy made an engine tailored to their game, and made sacrifices to get that game working right (dropping to sub HD for example to ensure smooth frame rate and smooth response) - all of which I find commendable and sensible and I wish this was focused on more, as well as the fact the game they made is pretty good, than trying to shove their engine into a conflict with the current Naugthy Dog and Santa Monica engines, because right now it's not the equal of them yet, although further optimization and a second version might well get it there, and I wish you'd just let the game be what it is instead.
|
