1105 replies to this topic

[101011]

DragonsFire, on 07 October 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

Yeah, game looks pretty terrible /sarcasm.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2814333

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2814670

While I'm sure the game could always look better, it still looks pretty solid to begin with, and the screenshots you'll find at the above posts are a good example of just that.

The game's overall quality has gone down since CB, though, and the game really just doesn't live up to what it could be. Does the game really look all that solid? The cockpit looks like {Scrap}, damage textures are surprisingly low-res, our feet don't actually fit terrain, and hills don't even cast shadows! Add to that all the PP that makes the game look worse than it does without (if you haven't already, try turning off PP, it makes everything so much better), and that overall film grain that makes everything look dark and dreary. Oh, and pointing to screenshots that have been modified really doesn't count now, does it?

[keith]

101011, on 07 October 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

The game's overall quality has gone down since CB, though, and the game really just doesn't live up to what it could be. Does the game really look all that solid? The cockpit looks like {Scrap}, damage textures are surprisingly low-res, our feet don't actually fit terrain, and hills don't even cast shadows! Add to that all the PP that makes the game look worse than it does without (if you haven't already, try turning off PP, it makes everything so much better), and that overall film grain that makes everything look dark and dreary. Oh, and pointing to screenshots that have been modified really doesn't count now, does it?

agree 100%. that film grain they put in CB made the game look horrible. they never put in patch notes or anything. pretty sure that was the first sneaky thing PGI did. was also the first thing they did to ruin this game. take away that grain maps looks amazing, its whole another game.

[DragonsFire]

101011, on 07 October 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

The game's overall quality has gone down since CB, though, and the game really just doesn't live up to what it could be. Does the game really look all that solid? The cockpit looks like {Scrap}, damage textures are surprisingly low-res, our feet don't actually fit terrain, and hills don't even cast shadows! Add to that all the PP that makes the game look worse than it does without (if you haven't already, try turning off PP, it makes everything so much better), and that overall film grain that makes everything look dark and dreary. Oh, and pointing to screenshots that have been modified really doesn't count now, does it?

Actually, it's mentioned specifically twice in the 1st post that there is zero post editing, as in, not doctored after the fact.

While I agree that some of the graphical quality that we originally enjoyed in Closed Beta is no longer with us, I also see a game that performs very well for me and is far more stable than it was back in CB. There were a number of performance related issues tagged with those increased graphics from CB, and I know that there have also been posts as to why the changes have been made. Most of them boil down to a better experience overall for the bulk of the playerbase. Sometimes developers have to make concessions to to allow for greater usability by the majority.

That's not to say that these improvements won't find their way back into the game at some point, but they have bigger fish to fry currently. Either way, my main point of posting those screenshots was to demonstrate that the game can indeed look quite good, film grain aside.

Edited by DragonsFire, 07 October 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[101011]

DragonsFire, on 07 October 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Actually, it's mentioned specifically twice in the 1st post that there is zero post editing, as in, not doctored after the fact.

While I agree that some of the graphical quality that we originally enjoyed in Closed Beta is no longer with us, I also see a game that performs very well for me and is far more stable than it was back in CB. There were a number of performance related issues tagged with those increased graphics from CB, and I know that there have also been posts as to why the changes have been made. Most of them boil down to a better experience overall for the bulk of the playerbase. Sometimes developers have to make concessions to to allow for greater usability by the majority.

That's not to say that these improvements won't find their way back into the game at some point, but they have bigger fish to fry currently. Either way, my main point of posting those screenshots was to demonstrate that the game can indeed look quite good, film grain aside.

Lordred, on 15 April 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

I went from the game controlling the AA (lack there of) and AF to forcing the drivers to control them completely, I also set the Occlusion to use the values from another game (Skyrim) when I had the AA forced really high under MSAA, CSAA, or SSAA the game would create all sorts of weird artifacts, massive performance issues and the like. Settling on FXAA (and only low amounts) at least afforded me slightly crisper images in game, and only slightly reduced the Aliasing problems this game has.



Starting with a base image which is as high quality as I can get the game to give me, and shooting it in a high quality format such as .PNG allows me to make several color/saturation/brightness/contrast/digital highlighting edits in the end, generally subtle ones) to result in a what I consider to be "fantastic" screen cap.

Here is the first image in this thread, unedited and edited to show the difference.

I know there are plenty of people who just look at the pretty pictures and go on their merry way, but I would love for some feedback, hear what people would like to see.

~Red

I actually had no problems with actual client stability in CB, and I currently have equal, if not worse, framerates. I agree that the game can look nice, but then again, it's Cryengine. You have to work hard to make it look not-nice (or be lazy and use bad textures). Right now it looks okay, but it could be - and was- so much more!
EDIT: Because I hit post too soon.

Edited by 101011, 07 October 2013 - 06:04 PM.

[DragonsFire]

Lordred, on 05 October 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Why should I let PGI decide how my game looks, they may be happy with no AA, and low texture quality, but I am not.

Now presenting ZERO POST EDITING Screenshots.

Captured at a native 1920x1200. Zero post editing.

What you see is what I see in game!

The post you are referencing is NVIDIA based settings that he is changing to increase the quality of graphics in game while he takes the screenshot.
The post I reference here correlates with those same settings that he has changed to get the resultant captures. He did not make any post screenshot edits (ie - he did not get the screenshot and then go into Adobe and spruce it up, that is a live in-game shot, available to anyone with similar hardware, settings and drivers).

Edited by DragonsFire, 07 October 2013 - 06:12 PM.

[Chronojam]

Well technically he's not wrong because all the tricks to make the game better using out-of-game controls and driver customization was done during live rendering