Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

What aliasing?

112 replies to this topic
rokker_22
  • rokker_22

    Rat

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2013

#31

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:59 PM Edited by rokker_22, 30 December 2013 - 11:59 PM.

I see a lot of people complaining about the aliasing on this game. Maybe my tv is just so awesome that i don't see it but I'm genuinely wondering why people claim the game has that much?

 

Intel and Nvidia were responsible for the AA in this game and I think they did a damn good job. Turn your tv sharpness down.

 

"what aliasing" he says.....

 

787939471.gif?1373109489

 

either you dont know what aliasing is...or you are blind.


SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#32

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:59 PM

Just sit still in your car for a few minutes and you'll notice it.

I hardly see it, but I've been gaming much longer than the HD era so I don't notice as much as people with more recent experiences with gaming.

It is there though.

Loxley
  • Loxley

    This member is no longer active.

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#33

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:29 AM

You're complaining about aliasing on hardware that is 8 years old. It's going to have aliasing and plenty of it, in a open world game especially.

 

What in Dan Houser's ass made you think this game wouldn't have plenty of aliasing? Did you think the devs at R* North are magicians?


rokker_22
  • rokker_22

    Rat

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2013

#34

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:31 AM Edited by rokker_22, 31 December 2013 - 12:33 AM.

Hope this time it changes if the game actually is capable of DX11 like Max Payne 3.

 

 

of course its changed mate....did you go through the pc build log? its dx11...x64bit...has something called "last gen mode"..implying it has a nextgen set of features...& adaptive dof + a bunch of other advanced settings. thats a fact..gta v pc is not a console port..i would have thought you of all people would know that by now...


zielarz119
  • zielarz119

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2013

#35

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:33 AM

You're complaining about aliasing on hardware that is 8 years old. It's going to have aliasing and plenty of it, in a open world game especially.

 

What in Dan Houser's ass made you think this game wouldn't have plenty of aliasing? Did you think the devs at R* North are magicians?

 

No, I think R* wanted loads of money so they released GTA V on old-gen because there is 150+ millions gamers, unlike next-gen 15mln


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#36

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:33 AM Edited by Xerukal, 31 December 2013 - 12:34 AM.

You're complaining about aliasing on hardware that is 8 years old. It's going to have aliasing and plenty of it, in a open world game especially.

 

What in Dan Houser's ass made you think this game wouldn't have plenty of aliasing? Did you think the devs at R* North are magicians?

 

It's funny because the game has no business being on current-gen and only exists on the 360 and PS3 because Rockstar can't resist easy money. 

 

And because of bad development timing, I guess.  

 

The PC version is our salvation. We must await and prepare for its glorious arrival.  

  • Loxley, UltraGizmo64 and zielarz119 like this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#37

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:34 AM

 

 

 

 

The question shouldn't be where is it, but rather where isn't it? Game looks disgusting.

It's running on almost 10 year old hardware, what did you expect.
Doesn't matter. Art direction > graphics. No hardware will make this crap look good.
A couple of months ago you were an attention whore who posted how nervous you were about irrelevant things about the game, now you changed to trolling.
I don't get why you are still here.

Goes to show how disappointed I am and how misled I feel.

 

Or how much you overhyped yourself, because the only thing R* misled was Franklin's trailer.

 

 

Yeah I don't really see the aliasing as a problem. I also see a lot of people criticising GTA V for texture popping, which is stupid, because the reality is that every single game ever released for PS3 and 360 has some form of texture popping, big or minimal. I've recently played Beyond Two Souls, which was great graphically, but the texture popping was far worse than any game I have ever played, and that was limited world space in relation to missions. So for Rockstar to keep the texture pop to as much of a minimal as possible in a massive open world like they have have, it's just a dream really. Super impressive, especially when considering factors like the overall improves textured and draw distance. There is literally nothing for them to hide when your looking at the world, it's the most exposed game ever graphically, it's light and bright, if anybody named me a game better graphically and the way it handles these graphical issues, I could guarantee that the game either isn't loading a massive open world, or imperfections are just hidden with dirty and wet environments. It handles everything very good.


Skyrim.

 

Did Skyrim not have texture pop-in? I doubt it, but I could be wrong because I haven't played the console version in like 3 years.

 

I assume you're playing on a phone screen, then? 

 

Running the game on a 1920 x 1080 TV (Exact same as my monitor), scaled down my 360 settings to 720p. The aliasing quite literally decimates the eyes at first. I got used to it from how long i've been looking at it. But it is of actual colossal proportions. 

 

I turned around, launched Black Flag on my PC and disabled all aliasing and it wasn't NEARLY as bad. And that game shares visual qualities with V HEAVILY. With some of the greens (Trees in LS) and heavy lighting effects. 

 

It's absolutely disgusting. If it weren't for the aliasing, I'd be praising the sh*t out of the visuals. But there IS aliasing. Metric f*cktons of it. And I can't wait to get rid of it with the PC version. 

Kinda exaggerated, but the aliasing is very bad indeed.


Loxley
  • Loxley

    This member is no longer active.

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#38

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:44 AM

 

You're complaining about aliasing on hardware that is 8 years old. It's going to have aliasing and plenty of it, in a open world game especially.

 

What in Dan Houser's ass made you think this game wouldn't have plenty of aliasing? Did you think the devs at R* North are magicians?

 

It's funny because the game has no business being on current-gen and only exists on the 360 and PS3 because Rockstar can't resist easy money. 

 

And because of bad development timing, I guess.  

 

The PC version is our salvation. We must await and prepare for its glorious arrival.  

 

Agreed, I have no idea why they released it on last gen systems.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#39

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:45 AM

 

 

You're complaining about aliasing on hardware that is 8 years old. It's going to have aliasing and plenty of it, in a open world game especially.

 

What in Dan Houser's ass made you think this game wouldn't have plenty of aliasing? Did you think the devs at R* North are magicians?

 

It's funny because the game has no business being on current-gen and only exists on the 360 and PS3 because Rockstar can't resist easy money. 

 

And because of bad development timing, I guess.  

 

The PC version is our salvation. We must await and prepare for its glorious arrival.  

 

Agreed, I have no idea why they released it on last gen systems.

 

Because the fanbase is many, many times bigger than what next-gen system's would be.

 

Also, they started the game in 2009-2010. Next-gen consoles weren't a thing yet.


SavageSalad
  • SavageSalad

    #nojetpack

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2013

#40

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:54 AM

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

  • blakeney, just-a-spaz and PIOCapacitor like this

Dr.Huge Poop
  • Dr.Huge Poop

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#41

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:59 AM Edited by Dr.Huge Poop, 31 December 2013 - 01:04 AM.

The game looks like Garbage,after spending quality time with my PS4 and Xbox One and coming back to play GTA 5 it just looks,runs, and plays horribly, pop in texture galore,zero ground texture plays at 10-25fps even the last of us is quite crappy looking.

 

 

GTA 5 should have never released on last gen.

 

 

you only can do so much with a console with 512mb of ram we waited 2 years already another 6 months to do it properly on ps4/xbone would have been worth it.

 

The quicker support for ps3 and 360 is axed the better.


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#42

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:00 AM Edited by Xerukal, 31 December 2013 - 01:02 AM.

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.

 

It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.

 

What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 

 

it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 

  • rokker_22 likes this

S1LV3R_W0LF
  • S1LV3R_W0LF

    PC Gamer at heart

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2004
  • Portugal

#43

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:08 AM

 

Hope this time it changes if the game actually is capable of DX11 like Max Payne 3.

 

 

of course its changed mate....did you go through the pc build log? its dx11...x64bit...has something called "last gen mode"..implying it has a nextgen set of features...& adaptive dof + a bunch of other advanced settings. thats a fact..gta v pc is not a console port..i would have thought you of all people would know that by now...

 

lol and you're telling me that? I've been digging the PC facts since the end of 2012. But despite all of these facts and my belief in it, I'm waiting for this game for so long that at this stage I believe that Rockstar at some stage decides to do something different or make it worst then the real capabilities of it. I don't know maybe it's the disappointment and the lack of any solid info from them. But overall I believe it will be able to use DX11, my question is will it actually be and feel like a Next Gen title and a lot of things will change, or will be like ACIV... the game looks amazing but it's clear to see that it's far from being an NG title, it has better visuals but thats it, in content terms it's nothing out of the ordinary (the ocean isn't fully explorable, only small spots with a loading ... disappointing), WD on the other hand looks different from that but before I have those titles in my hand and I can see with my own eyes, I'll take thievery with a pinch of salt.

Aliasing in this game is an undeniable fact, like I said above R* Toronto said the fact IV was in DX9 the AA wasn't possible, so with V the hardware is still the same so is the API, so AA isn't possible so Aliasing is inevitable, it can be masked but it's there.


Pico
  • Pico

    cinnamon ropes

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2009
  • None

#44

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:10 AM

Jaggies are abundant in this game, at least from what I've seen on PS3. The sharper the display, the more you'll notice them. And the larger. Playing on my projector, which is usually at about 110 inches, they are glaringly obvious. That said, they don't detract from the gameplay enough to bother me.

Assuming they port it will, the PC version should look fantastic. Can't wait to see.

rokker_22
  • rokker_22

    Rat

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2013

#45

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:26 AM Edited by rokker_22, 31 December 2013 - 01:46 AM.

lol and you're telling me that? I've been digging the PC facts since the end of 2012. But despite all of these facts and my belief in it, I'm waiting for this game for so long that at this stage I believe that Rockstar at some stage decides to do something different or make it worst then the real capabilities of it. I don't know maybe it's the disappointment and the lack of any solid info from them. But overall I believe it will be able to use DX11, my question is will it actually be and feel like a Next Gen title and a lot of things will change, or will be like ACIV... the game looks amazing but it's clear to see that it's far from being an NG title, it has better visuals but thats it, in content terms it's nothing out of the ordinary (the ocean isn't fully explorable, only small spots with a loading ... disappointing), WD on the other hand looks different from that but before I have those titles in my hand and I can see with my own eyes, I'll take thievery with a pinch of salt.

Aliasing in this game is an undeniable fact, like I said above R* Toronto said the fact IV was in DX9 the AA wasn't possible, so with V the hardware is still the same so is the API, so AA isn't possible so Aliasing is inevitable, it can be masked but it's there.

 

 

 

aciv is a cross-gen title...just like gtav will prove to be eventually....i wouldnt expect a full fledged... so called "nextgen" experience from games that have been intentionally restricted in their potential by ancient hardware....but i still think aciv on pc/ng looks miles better than it does on ps3/360...watch dogs is also a cross-gen title...but it still looks considerably better on pc than it does on ps3/360. the restrictions wont go away until developers have fully moved away from & discard the last gen consoles.

 

i believe...based on all of the factual information "unofficial" information we have on it...that the pc version of gtav will look considerably better than the current console versions as well. 

 

to be honest...i think it looks "nextgenish" on current consoles as it is....save for the abysmal texture quality...eye gouging aliasing...shoddy draw distance etc...but i can definitely see the undertones of what appears to be a nextgen game in downscaled form....i think rock* is going to make a lot graphics aficionados very happy with the pc version

 

edit: on a sidenote...its hilariously amusing to see just how many people in the gta community are completely obvious to the fact the pc version was in development since long ago....their "i hope the pc port will be better" is a dead give away of just how clueless they are.....kudos to rock*. masters of illusion, inducers of ignorance & deception..

 

99% of those waiting for the pc version of gta v literally have no clue about the pc build log file & all of the other facts that have been uncovered 


FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#46

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:37 AM

 

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.

 

It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.

 

What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 

 

it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 

 

Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#47

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:39 AM

 

 

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.

 

It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.

 

What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 

 

it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 

 

Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.

 

That got fixed with a day one patch. The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.


Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#48

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:43 AM


 


 


If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.
 
It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.
 
What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 
 
it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 
 
Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.
 
That got fixed with a day one patch. The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

DR3 was never a current gen game.

Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#49

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:43 AM

 

 

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.

 

It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.

 

What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 

 

it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 

 

Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.

 

The game's FPS DID go down to that level. Several times for me, in fact. On the Xbox 360. So there you go. 


FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#50

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:47 AM Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt, 31 December 2013 - 01:48 AM.

 

 

 

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.

 

It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.

 

What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 

 

it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 

 

Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.

 

That got fixed with a day one patch. The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

 

Are you just digging sh*t up? Because if so, you're looking very stupid right now. DR3 was made for the next gen and not the current gen, it wasn't ported. A next gen, linear game should be running a SOLID 30-60 FPS and not go down to 10 which proves how sh*t the developers are and don't put effort into optimizing the game.


 

 

 

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.

 

It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.

 

What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 

 

it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 

 

Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.

 

The game's FPS DID go down to that level. Several times for me, in fact. On the Xbox 360. So there you go. 

 

Well I have a PS3 and it once has never went down to 10 FPS because it was actually optimized better for the PS3.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#51

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:48 AM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 31 December 2013 - 01:50 AM.

 

 

 

 

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.
 
It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.
 
What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 
 
it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 
 
Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.
 
That got fixed with a day one patch. The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

DR3 was never a current gen game.

 

http://www.gamefaqs....ox-one/67802641

 

http://www.siliconer...60-to-xbox-one/

 

Yes, it was.

 

FranklinDeRoosevelt: DR3 was originally a 360 game before they found out the hardware couldn't handle it. And it's not a linear game. Before you try to say I'm wrong, how about you know about the game first?  :yawn: 


Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#52

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:48 AM

 

 

 

 

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.

 

It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.

 

What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 

 

it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 

 

Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.

 

That got fixed with a day one patch. The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

 

Are you just digging sh*t up? Because if so, you're looking very stupid right now. DR3 was made for the next gen and not the current gen, it wasn't ported. A next gen, linear game should be running a SOLID 30-60 FPS and not go down to 10 which proves how sh*t the developers are and don't put effort into optimizing the game.

 

Speaking of putting effort into optimizing games...

 

GTA%20IV%20PC%20FOB21.jpg

  • rokker_22 likes this

Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#53

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:51 AM

 

 

 

 

 

If any of you kids knew anything about programming, you would know that what Rockstar has done on these old consoles is nothing short of a technological miracle.

Of course it is. But that isn't the point.

 

It's spectacular that it RUNS on these consoles, let alone PERFORMS. But at what cost was this? Abysmal FPS (I count 15 FPS during a 5-star rampage), inconsistent graphics and overall poor performance. Was it worth it? No it wasn't.

 

What would've been worth it (if the game's development wasn't so ill-timed) was waiting a longer time for next-gen to settle in (Not too long) and then ease the game onto consoles that can actually handle it with decency. Not to mention the now starving PC community whom Rockstar loves to ignore on several fronts (Still waiting for that Max Payne 3 CD key on Steam). 

 

it's all one big joke. An unjustifiable one. They wanted money and they wanted to milk the old gen before moving onto the new year. Why do you think there hasn't been a bloody PEEP about the PC version? Because people would know to wait. End of f*cking story. 

 

Dead Rising 3 on the X1 goes all the way down to 10 FPS and that's next gen so you should be licking Rockstar's ass not letting the game's FPS go all the way down to that level. Rockstar managed to make a great looking game on old consoles and they were commercially successful as well as on the business side.

 

That got fixed with a day one patch. The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

 

Are you just digging sh*t up? Because if so, you're looking very stupid right now. DR3 was made for the next gen and not the current gen, it wasn't ported. A next gen, linear game should be running a SOLID 30-60 FPS and not go down to 10 which proves how sh*t the developers are and don't put effort into optimizing the game.

 

Speaking of putting effort into optimizing games...

 

 

 

Ugh, f*ck GFWL. Worst thing ever.


rokker_22
  • rokker_22

    Rat

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2013

#54

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:51 AM Edited by rokker_22, 31 December 2013 - 01:54 AM.

 The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

 

 

 

where did you get that information from? dr3 was confirmed by capcom to have been developed initially on high-end pc's

 

http://www.pro-g.co...._microsoft.html

 

it was ported to the xb1 from pc...not last gen consoles...xb1 port seems to have received massively downcaled assets, geometry & effects...720p resolution downgrade as well...


73duster
  • 73duster

    Ghetto Star

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2011

#55

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:51 AM

This is one of the most overreactions about this game to date. I see this complaint all the time and have never seen anything that stood out as looking even remotely bad.

I think the game looks fantastic. I bet the majority of those who are so distraught over this aliasing garbage are PC superiority police. You know, those guys who love to tell everyone how much better PC's are to consoles.

I feel sorry for people who can't enjoy the beauty of this game due to their inability to accept that this is an open world game on a very old console that pushes the limits.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#56

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:52 AM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 31 December 2013 - 01:53 AM.

 

 The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

 

 

 

where did you get that information from? dr3 was confirmed by capcom to have been developed initially on high-end pc's

 

http://www.pro-g.co...._microsoft.html

 

it was ported to the xb1 from pc...not last gen consoles

 

Look at my other posts. Links.

 

Looks like we have different articles saying different things. They said both then.


Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#57

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:56 AM


 


 The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

 
 

 
where did you get that information from? dr3 was confirmed by capcom to have been developed initially on high-end pc's
 
http://www.pro-g.co...._microsoft.html
 
it was ported to the xb1 from pc...not last gen consoles
 
Look at my other posts. Links.
 
Looks like we have different articles saying different things. They said both then.

DR3 was never a last gen game.

rokker_22
  • rokker_22

    Rat

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2013

#58

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:59 AM Edited by rokker_22, 31 December 2013 - 01:59 AM.

This is one of the most overreactions about this game to date. I see this complaint all the time and have never seen anything that stood out as looking even remotely bad.

I think the game looks fantastic. I bet the majority of those who are so distraught over this aliasing garbage are PC superiority police. You know, those guys who love to tell everyone how much better PC's are to consoles.

I feel sorry for people who can't enjoy the beauty of this game due to their inability to accept that this is an open world game on a very old console that pushes the limits.

 

re-read the things people are saying in here....few if anyone in here is saying its a bad looking game...the complaints are about anti-aliasing..or lackthereof. the game looks beautiful apart from that.


Look at my other posts. Links.

 

 

Looks like we have different articles saying different things. They said both then.

 

 

yea..i just checked them out...looks like some contradictory crap mate


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#59

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:59 AM

 

 

 

 The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

 
 

 
where did you get that information from? dr3 was confirmed by capcom to have been developed initially on high-end pc's
 
http://www.pro-g.co...._microsoft.html
 
it was ported to the xb1 from pc...not last gen consoles
 
Look at my other posts. Links.
 
Looks like we have different articles saying different things. They said both then.

DR3 was never a last gen game.

 

Alright Mr. Troll. Don't read my links then. Not my problem.


Showstopper 26
  • Showstopper 26

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012

#60

Posted 31 December 2013 - 02:05 AM


 

 

 

 The reason it went down that low is because it's a current-gen game on a next-gen console and it was very, very poorly optimized. It sticks at 30 now. It basically got straight ported and then fixed.

 
 

 
where did you get that information from? dr3 was confirmed by capcom to have been developed initially on high-end pc's
 
http://www.pro-g.co...._microsoft.html
 
it was ported to the xb1 from pc...not last gen consoles
 
Look at my other posts. Links.
 
Looks like we have different articles saying different things. They said both then.
DR3 was never a last gen game.
 
Alright Mr. Troll. Don't read my links then. Not my problem.

Why do you hate me?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users