#101
Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:33 AM
#102
Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:54 AM
Kay Wolf, on 18 November 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:
Kay Wolf,
I am not privy to the Crytek and Piranha Games Inc. negotiations but I would bet a dime to a dollar that Crytek is not giving CryENGINE3 to PGI for free. Crytek has already conducted training on CE3 for the Piranha Devs. I am mostly sure this is a complete package with CE3 licensee fees, training for CE3, and on-going technical support. And I have a sneaking suspicion who was influential in PGI going with CE3.
#103
Posted 20 November 2011 - 11:39 AM
Oh, and you don't have to Kay Wolf me, hehe... Colonel or Kay or The Wolf will do alright.
Edited by Kay Wolf, 20 November 2011 - 11:40 AM.
#104
Posted 20 November 2011 - 04:55 PM
#105
Posted 20 November 2011 - 05:32 PM
As a side note, every time I hear the word "benchmark" a year is cut from my lifespan.
#106
Posted 21 November 2011 - 12:42 AM
#107
Posted 21 November 2011 - 11:14 AM
Edited by CSFSebbo, 21 November 2011 - 11:15 AM.
#108
Posted 21 November 2011 - 03:14 PM
Because for me it's one of the few games which runs very decent on my native resolution (there isn't a lot of others which still do sadly) and is also the one which looks the best.
Honestly I was really pleasantly surprised and since then think CryEngine 3 is actually not bad at all.
Sure you can turn on DX11 and all it's goodies - then you might need to buy a new PC, but even on the lowest settings there is not a whole lot of difference and it still looks great.
All the people suggesting buying a new Computer or saying "oh I need to upgrade my computer", you might want to wait before you do so.
Crysis 2 actually ran a lot bettern than Crysis 1 (Crysis 2 on "Extreme" brings me better Framerates than Crysis 1 on "Very High") and my Ati 4850 seriously is not the newest card.
So yeah - obviously the best thing is just to wait and see how it turns out, but since it's free to play I can't really imagine them releasing a game nobody is able to play.
#109
Posted 21 November 2011 - 05:31 PM
TheUncle, on 21 November 2011 - 03:14 PM, said:
Because for me it's one of the few games which runs very decent on my native resolution (there isn't a lot of others which still do sadly) and is also the one which looks the best.
Honestly I was really pleasantly surprised and since then think CryEngine 3 is actually not bad at all.
Sure you can turn on DX11 and all it's goodies - then you might need to buy a new PC, but even on the lowest settings there is not a whole lot of difference and it still looks great.
All the people suggesting buying a new Computer or saying "oh I need to upgrade my computer", you might want to wait before you do so.
Crysis 2 actually ran a lot bettern than Crysis 1 (Crysis 2 on "Extreme" brings me better Framerates than Crysis 1 on "Very High") and my Ati 4850 seriously is not the newest card.
So yeah - obviously the best thing is just to wait and see how it turns out, but since it's free to play I can't really imagine them releasing a game nobody is able to play.
I got a fairly medium - high end computer and it runs Crysis 2 at 60+fps on Extreme settings, a notch below the maximum. The game looks and runs fabulous, much better optimizations compared to Crysis 1. Why i don't play on maximum is because i like having a consistent fps than an erratic one.
#110
Posted 21 November 2011 - 05:47 PM
#111
Posted 22 November 2011 - 01:39 AM
Kay Wolf, on 18 November 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:
There is a huge difference between an actual free project and a "free to play" game.
If you can make money off of it then you have to be a licensee. And "free to play" is by no means free.
#112
Posted 22 November 2011 - 02:18 AM
I have no doubt I'll need to upgrade my PC - and that's fine by me. I have 8 months to save up, scrounge for pennies behind the couch and so forth.
#113
Posted 22 November 2011 - 04:11 AM
That was on a Pentium 4 3.2GHz, 2GB DDR400 RAM and a 9600GT 512MB GPU running on XP Home Edition. A relatively old machine. The GPU was the only thing less than 5yrs old at the time.
Edited by bumblebee, 22 November 2011 - 04:17 AM.
#114
Posted 22 November 2011 - 06:47 AM
Proper 'optimal' coding and sufficient hardware/network implementation will be key, as will the knowledge of the player (you know, not playing at an internet cafe with reduced bandwidth, using a cable when possible instead of wireless, etc...).
Hell, half the time they need a few rounds of 'performance' tuning in the data centers for the networking/hardware where the servers are housed, I've seen some horrid setups in some of these places.
I'm sure the devs would rather have you pump $1000 into the game than into a new rig to play it.
#116
Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:18 PM
#117
Posted 23 November 2011 - 08:39 AM
#118
Posted 23 November 2011 - 08:46 AM
Hopefully the mech animations are not so bad like in MW:LL. The mechwalk isn't dynamic there. Only the legs move but the Torso not. Looks so weird. If the animations are crappy like this in MWO, i don't play this game
Also i dont hope they include this ****** weapon modular system. Has nothing to do with a real battlemech.
maxx
#119
Posted 23 November 2011 - 09:09 AM
As for a weapon modular system I hope they do add that.. Being able to visually see what a opponent has on his unit is very nice. And lets you know what to aim at first.
Either way there is no reason why they should not be able to create a full dynamic mech system on CE3. They have full and complete access to all the code. And would be able to do things that MWLL can only dream of.
#120
Posted 23 November 2011 - 09:22 AM
Garth Erlam, on 23 November 2011 - 08:39 AM, said:
Hmmm, 401st post... this one... I'm never this prolific, except on my own forums.
Edited by Kay Wolf, 23 November 2011 - 09:23 AM.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users