yo_john117 said:
I don't think I've ever seen you make a sensible post in my entire time here. Carmack knows more about this than you ever will. |
If by "this" you mean covering his ass for this failure, then I guess you must be right.
It'd be fun to exchange opinons against each other about the quality of our comments, but I sincerely don't know you.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1
AbbathTheGrim said:
If by "this" you mean covering his ass for this failure, then I guess you must be right. It'd be fun to exchange opinons against each other about the quality of our comments, but I sincerely don't know you. |
It's because I tend to ignore you most of the time but I was exceptionally bored and ended up quoting you.
Carmack didn't fail, not at all in fact.
Here's a great post you overlooked that explains everything: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4265547
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Thats perfectly fine. let me know more, but the real issue of backlash is coming from the PC gamers, not the console gamers. Carmack is getting backhanded by all of them for not making the game up to par and now Carmack has stated that the consoles don't run with not even 1/10 of a PC's power. He's blaming the PS3 for his troubles when the PS3 owners are not the ones who are complaining. He's also stated that PC is no longer the lead platform and games are made in mind where the larger paying audience is. This is fine....but its not like they wont rip his game for fun out of spite. |
That is what threw me with these statements from John Carmack. I haven't heard people complaining that the PS3 was having issues running the game, so to hear Carmack throw the PS3 under the bus (after praising the platform before the release [another odd thing as well]).
My personal taste in gaming has not been effected by the release of RAGE. I don't have interest in it whatsoever. Something that pisses me off is when people just make damn blanket statements. I never thought I would actually agree with STAGE is shocking...how things change.
Tridrakious said:
That is what threw me with these statements from John Carmack. I haven't heard people complaining that the PS3 was having issues running the game, so to hear Carmack throw the PS3 under the bus (after praising the platform before the release [another odd thing as well]). My personal taste in gaming has not been effected by the release of RAGE. I don't have interest in it whatsoever. Something that pisses me off is when people just make damn blanket statements. I never thought I would actually agree with STAGE is shocking...how things change. |
Carmack didn't throw the PS3 under the bus he replied to a question about whether it was possible to make RAGE on PS3 better. He replied with the truth the PS3 is held back by limited RAM and poor IO performance are the issues and there is no real way arround these as they are hard limits and the assets are already compressed as much as possible. These are not opnions these are well documented facts and no matter how powerful on paper the CELL is it can't make Blu-Ray faster, allow a full install or reduce the size of the source textures without a negative impact on the graphics.
It's not like he hasn't criticised other platforms he has been vocal about DVD and lack of a standard HDD hurts the game on 360 and that PC is hamstrung by API overheads and a wide veriaty of hardware configurations. It's not like he is singling out any platform. He complements and has complaints about all platforms, yet only his PS3 complaints generate a backlash this big...
@TheVoxelman on twitter
| Kynes said: All this "fiasco" makes me remember when they developed Doom3 and, instead of calculating the lightning shader in real time, they developed texture lookups. In the nVidia FX cards it helped a lot, due to their poor shading capabilities, but in the top cards of the 9 series of ATI it made the game slower. A graphics enthusiast (Humus, nowadays the main developer of the engine used in the avalanche studios games -> Just Cause 2) discovered this, and developed a substitution shader that improved the performance in almost a 40%. When you develop a game for more than one architecture, sometimes you have to adapt to the shortcomings of one of them, but you can't always develop close to the metal. Some PS3 fans think they deserve that the developers spend much more time in their version than in others. That was reasonable in the last generation, with one console capturing almost the 75% of the market, but it's unreasonable in a market almost evenly fragmented. |
Very inaccurate post...
The lighting calculations are all performed in real time. What you are talking about is the specular component of the default lighting interaction shader. Here instead of a power function, a texture lookup was performed to simulate the power function. This was done to make the game look the same on all the hardware codepaths they had, because the codepaths for older hardware at the time couldn't do per-pixel a specular calc without using a texture lookup. The high end NV and ATI cards at the time ran on the vertex/fragment shader path and it just so happened the NV cards were faster on the lookup. Never mind the fact that the game ran faster on NV cards by miles because of ATI's lagging GL driver...
yo_john117 said:
It's because I tend to ignore you most of the time but I was exceptionally bored and ended up quoting you. Carmack didn't fail, not at all in fact. Here's a great post you overlooked that explains everything: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4265547 |
If that information is accurate and the supposed issues of the PS3 are directly related to less RAM available in the system, you are right.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1
This is interesting to say the least. I mean does anyone really not expect Id not to make it better on 360?
_mevildan said:
The lighting calculations are all performed in real time. What you are talking about is the specular component of the default lighting interaction shader. Here instead of a power function, a texture lookup was performed to simulate the power function. This was done to make the game look the same on all the hardware codepaths they had, because the codepaths for older hardware at the time couldn't do per-pixel a specular calc without using a texture lookup. The high end NV and ATI cards at the time ran on the vertex/fragment shader path and it just so happened the NV cards were faster on the lookup. Never mind the fact that the game ran faster on NV cards by miles because of ATI's lagging GL driver... |
Wow you sure do know your technical specs. lol
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
