Jakee. Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 So these guys saw a preview and made a Q&A session, what strikes me the most is again we are getting a different story on the quality of the graphics. Gameblog.fr just streamed a live "questions-answers" video which I'm going to sum up. - They say that it look just as good as in the trailers. ( same depth of field etc) Also he pointed out that even though it wasn't a WD-PS4 category he was amazed and "slapped" by the graphics. Not that much of alliasing. Even not at all sometimes. NO clipping. - The switch scroll apparently appeared on the bottom right of the screen while switching. - Oustanding realism. He had a vertigo feeling during Franklin's jump. He saw LS during the jump ( depth of field >>) - A long distance switch took roughly 10sec. - Wildlife looked better than RDRs. And mountains too. - He saw 'carcass' of cars in the water - And the game overall looks slightly better than RDR Why are we getting such mixed messages regarding the graphical fidelity of this game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solofme Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 At this point I really don't now what to expect from the graphics since all these pre-views have very different opinions, I guess I just need to see it for myself (I don't consider it that important anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakee. Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 At this point I really don't now what to expect from the graphics since all these pre-views have very different opinions, I guess I just need to see it for myself (I don't consider it that important anyway) I'm the same, but I would like to have some idea of what the graphics will be like. I am not expecting much of a leap up from GTA IV, but this preview say its better than RDR... that itself is impressive because the RDR graphics were beautiful and flawless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelhere9901 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogy Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Car wrecks in the water _O_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakee. Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelhere9901 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. Also, calling it right now, the final game is going to look better than RDR despite not meeting up to the fidelity of the pre-release screens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakee. Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. Well what are you expecting on 8 year old hardware? It is a very clever way to hide it and I honestly don't mind. If you switch only a short distance, it would probably be instant. It has to load the new assets in for the area. Would you prefer waiting 10 secs on that or a black screen with a white spinning logo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buntuntuntuns Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. It's 10 seconds. And that's across the map in free roam, you're not going to be switching between characters every couple if minutes anyway as if it were a mission. Also, if the graphics are as good as Red Dead's then count of excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogy Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. Also, calling it right now, the final game is going to look better than RDR despite not meeting up to the fidelity of the pre-release screens. Of course the game is going to look better then RDR. I would be surprised if that was not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freezer89 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. Yep, it was stated that the longest duration is 10 seconds. And it will be instanteneous in missions I think. Like when they all are in one room or so. About the graphics.. it's a subjective opinion I would say. But it kinda confuses me too, if they all saw the same demo on the same build and yet there seems to be differences regarding graphics (no anti-aliasing or with, popups or none at all, etc). Thanks for the short summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solofme Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 At this point I really don't now what to expect from the graphics since all these pre-views have very different opinions, I guess I just need to see it for myself (I don't consider it that important anyway) I'm the same, but I would like to have some idea of what the graphics will be like. I am not expecting much of a leap up from GTA IV, but this preview say its better than RDR... that itself is impressive because the RDR graphics were beautiful and flawless Even if it is comparable to RDR I'm more than happy, I'm more concerned with performance then graphics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelhere9901 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. Well what are you expecting on 8 year old hardware? It is a very clever way to hide it and I honestly don't mind. If you switch only a short distance, it would probably be instant. It has to load the new assets in for the area. Would you prefer waiting 10 secs on that or a black screen with a white spinning logo? What has hardware anything to do with this? I'm guessing R* wants to show us the beauty of LS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakee. Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. Well what are you expecting on 8 year old hardware? It is a very clever way to hide it and I honestly don't mind. If you switch only a short distance, it would probably be instant. It has to load the new assets in for the area. Would you prefer waiting 10 secs on that or a black screen with a white spinning logo? What has hardware anything to do with this? I'm guessing R* wants to show us the beauty of LS. Because the Xbox360 and PS3 have 512MB ram, which is tiny to work with. So, Rockstar would, in the 10 second period, have to unload the content from the previous and area and load the assets for the new. I can imagine it has been a nightmare for them, the hardware is the reason the wait time is so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpleezy Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Because some magazines expect something WD like. I was looking at IGN' RDR review and yes! They are criticizing the graphics. So my point some people will point out few bothering details and say thats its not impressive. But this guy from Gameblog is very much like you and I. Impressed by the overall look of it , impressed by the lightning , the colors, actually the look of the whole thing. That's what impressed me in RDR. Yeah there's some clipping, yeah there's some framerate issues in towns, yeah textures are not good when you take a close look at it. But who cares? Because when I was riding my horse through the desert at dawn it looked amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freezer89 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 What has hardware anything to do with this? I'm guessing R* wants to show us the beauty of LS. Uh, loading new areas? If you switch from Michael in Downtown LS to Trevor in the countryside near the sea or whereever it will be an entirely new area so it takes time to load all the textures, etc. So it depends on the hardware. 10 seconds is not that long in this case. Of course they also want to show the beauty of the world. Two flies with one stone. edit: great, again too slow.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solofme Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Because some magazines expect something WD like. I was looking at IGN' RDR review and yes! They are criticizing the graphics. So my point some people will point out few bothering details and say thats its not impressive. But this guy from Gameblog is very much like you and I. Impressed by the overall look of it , impressed by the lightning , the colors, actually the look of the whole thing. That's what impressed me in RDR. Yeah there's some clipping, yeah there's some framerate issues in towns, yeah textures are not good when you take a close look at it. But who cares? Because when I was riding my horse through the desert at dawn it looked amazing. This is probably the best explanation, their expectations are too high. I for one am not expecting Crysis 3 like graphics, like what I said before something similar like RDR is good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakee. Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 Because some magazines expect something WD like. I was looking at IGN' RDR review and yes! They are criticizing the graphics. So my point some people will point out few bothering details and say thats its not impressive. But this guy from Gameblog is very much like you and I. Impressed by the overall look of it , impressed by the lightning , the colors, actually the look of the whole thing. That's what impressed me in RDR. Yeah there's some clipping, yeah there's some framerate issues in towns, yeah textures are not good when you take a close look at it. But who cares? Because when I was riding my horse through the desert at dawn it looked amazing. I never noticed an issue with the RDR textures or graphics, was a truly beautiful game day and night. If Rockstar can pull it off again with V, they will have a 10/10 on their hands. I forgot IGN picked at the graphics for RDR, shame on them! I guess they are looking for a negative else it will just look really biased lmao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelhere9901 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. Well what are you expecting on 8 year old hardware? It is a very clever way to hide it and I honestly don't mind. If you switch only a short distance, it would probably be instant. It has to load the new assets in for the area. Would you prefer waiting 10 secs on that or a black screen with a white spinning logo? What has hardware anything to do with this? I'm guessing R* wants to show us the beauty of LS. Because the Xbox360 and PS3 have 512MB ram, which is tiny to work with. So, Rockstar would, in the 10 second period, have to unload the content from the previous and area and load the assets for the new. I can imagine it has been a nightmare for them, the hardware is the reason the wait time is so long. RAM matters in this situation, yes. But it's not that big of a problem as you think it is. I have Simple Native Trainer installed in my GTA IV and when I teleport from one end of the city to the other, it takes less than a second, believe me. I think, they are trying to do it intentionally. Edited May 28, 2013 by nigelhere9901 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freezer89 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 RAM matters in this situation, yes. But it's not that big of a problem as you think it is. I have Simple Native Trainer installed in my GTA IV and when I teleport from one end of the city to the other, it takes less than a second, believe me. You can't really compare this feature with the other one. First of all, you play it on PC. Secondly it's a teleport not a seamless transistion from one to another area. And lastly, LC is tiny compared to the map of V. Also it doesn't look very nice with telporting to an area and then you see all the textures, buildings etc loading. Even if it only takes one second to load them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosquitoSmasher Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 I am not worried one bit about the graphics. I just look at their previews games this console generation and i only see great things. Sure GTA IV isn't quite a looker anymore, but at the time it was impressive as hell. RDR is still a beauty and so is MP3. The trailers that they released for all those games turned out to have the same graphics as during gameplay, judging by what CVG said that could not be the case this time though. About 20% less impressive than the trailers, still damn good looking. I'm sure we'll be too busy trying things out and simply having FUN to worry too much about graphics. If they are slightly better than RDR, i can kinda believe it, cause if you ask me...the trailers of V look a bit better than RDR in-game, so it would make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakee. Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. Well what are you expecting on 8 year old hardware? It is a very clever way to hide it and I honestly don't mind. If you switch only a short distance, it would probably be instant. It has to load the new assets in for the area. Would you prefer waiting 10 secs on that or a black screen with a white spinning logo? What has hardware anything to do with this? I'm guessing R* wants to show us the beauty of LS. Because the Xbox360 and PS3 have 512MB ram, which is tiny to work with. So, Rockstar would, in the 10 second period, have to unload the content from the previous and area and load the assets for the new. I can imagine it has been a nightmare for them, the hardware is the reason the wait time is so long. RAM matters in this situation, yes. But it's not that big of a problem as you think it is. I have Simple Native Trainer installed in my GTA IV and when I teleport from one end of the city to the other, it takes less than a second, believe me. You are using a PC. You are also forgetting that the game probably does not get the whole 512MB ram. Also, do note that IV didn't have much variety in landscape, the same textures were reused quite a bit in the game, whereas V will have very different landscapes... mountain regions, deserts, citys... V is a much more demanding game I am sure, hence the wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpleezy Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Because some magazines expect something WD like. I was looking at IGN' RDR review and yes! They are criticizing the graphics. So my point some people will point out few bothering details and say thats its not impressive. But this guy from Gameblog is very much like you and I. Impressed by the overall look of it , impressed by the lightning , the colors, actually the look of the whole thing. That's what impressed me in RDR. Yeah there's some clipping, yeah there's some framerate issues in towns, yeah textures are not good when you take a close look at it. But who cares? Because when I was riding my horse through the desert at dawn it looked amazing. I never noticed an issue with the RDR textures or graphics, was a truly beautiful game day and night. If Rockstar can pull it off again with V, they will have a 10/10 on their hands. I forgot IGN picked at the graphics for RDR, shame on them! I guess they are looking for a negative else it will just look really biased lmao. Lol put your game on and you'll see. But I mean it wasnt bothering. I'm not talking about SA clipping here lol. Oh and if you wanna see the real look of the textures take a rifle and zoom in a mountain. Than you'll see. But to be clear I'm not saying RDR is not great. Because its actually my GOAT at least on this generation and the only games which made me take snaps of it lol. But it has issues but issues that in my opinion were exceed by the overall look of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jolzew1 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 So these guys saw a preview and made a Q&A session, what strikes me the most is again we are getting a different story on the quality of the graphics. Gameblog.fr just streamed a live "questions-answers" video which I'm going to sum up. - They say that it look just as good as in the trailers. ( same depth of field etc) Also he pointed out that even though it wasn't a WD-PS4 category he was amazed and "slapped" by the graphics. Not that much of alliasing. Even not at all sometimes. NO clipping. - The switch scroll apparently appeared on the bottom right of the screen while switching. - Oustanding realism. He had a vertigo feeling during Franklin's jump. He saw LS during the jump ( depth of field >>) - A long distance switch took roughly 10sec. - Wildlife looked better than RDRs. And mountains too. - He saw 'carcass' of cars in the water - And the game overall looks slightly better than RDR Why are we getting such mixed messages regarding the graphical fidelity of this game? Thanks for the post...very interesting...If the game ends up being on par with RDR or slightly better then it's an absolute home run in my book. Can't freaking wait to play this bad boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakee. Posted May 28, 2013 Author Share Posted May 28, 2013 Because some magazines expect something WD like. I was looking at IGN' RDR review and yes! They are criticizing the graphics. So my point some people will point out few bothering details and say thats its not impressive. But this guy from Gameblog is very much like you and I. Impressed by the overall look of it , impressed by the lightning , the colors, actually the look of the whole thing. That's what impressed me in RDR. Yeah there's some clipping, yeah there's some framerate issues in towns, yeah textures are not good when you take a close look at it. But who cares? Because when I was riding my horse through the desert at dawn it looked amazing. I never noticed an issue with the RDR textures or graphics, was a truly beautiful game day and night. If Rockstar can pull it off again with V, they will have a 10/10 on their hands. I forgot IGN picked at the graphics for RDR, shame on them! I guess they are looking for a negative else it will just look really biased lmao. Lol put your game on and you'll see. But I mean it wasnt bothering. I'm not talking about SA clipping here lol. Oh and if you wanna see the real look of the textures take a rifle and zoom in a mountain. Than you'll see. But to be clear I'm not saying RDR is not great. Because its actually my GOAT at least on this generation and the only games which made me take snaps of it lol. But it has issues but issues that in my opinion were exceed by the overall look of it. Yeah but why do mountains need to have fantastic textural quality? The fact that you had to use a rifle to see the bad quality is enough to me to say they were fine for what they are restricted to. Meh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solofme Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Because some magazines expect something WD like. I was looking at IGN' RDR review and yes! They are criticizing the graphics. So my point some people will point out few bothering details and say thats its not impressive. But this guy from Gameblog is very much like you and I. Impressed by the overall look of it , impressed by the lightning , the colors, actually the look of the whole thing. That's what impressed me in RDR. Yeah there's some clipping, yeah there's some framerate issues in towns, yeah textures are not good when you take a close look at it. But who cares? Because when I was riding my horse through the desert at dawn it looked amazing. I never noticed an issue with the RDR textures or graphics, was a truly beautiful game day and night. If Rockstar can pull it off again with V, they will have a 10/10 on their hands. I forgot IGN picked at the graphics for RDR, shame on them! I guess they are looking for a negative else it will just look really biased lmao. Lol put your game on and you'll see. But I mean it wasnt bothering. I'm not talking about SA clipping here lol. Oh and if you wanna see the real look of the textures take a rifle and zoom in a mountain. Than you'll see. But to be clear I'm not saying RDR is not great. Because its actually my GOAT at least on this generation and the only games which made me take snaps of it lol. But it has issues but issues that in my opinion were exceed by the overall look of it. Yeah but why do mountains need to have fantastic textural quality? The fact that you had to use a rifle to see the bad quality is enough to me to say they were fine for what they are restricted to. Meh HD mountain textures are essential for a good game, anyone knows that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelhere9901 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 RAM matters in this situation, yes. But it's not that big of a problem as you think it is. I have Simple Native Trainer installed in my GTA IV and when I teleport from one end of the city to the other, it takes less than a second, believe me. You can't really compare this feature with the other one. First of all, you play it on PC. Secondly it's a teleport not a seamless transistion from one to another area. And lastly, LC is tiny compared to the map of V. Also it doesn't look very nice with telporting to an area and then you see all the textures, buildings etc loading. Even if it only takes one second to load them all. Sure, whatever you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpleezy Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Because some magazines expect something WD like. I was looking at IGN' RDR review and yes! They are criticizing the graphics. So my point some people will point out few bothering details and say thats its not impressive. But this guy from Gameblog is very much like you and I. Impressed by the overall look of it , impressed by the lightning , the colors, actually the look of the whole thing. That's what impressed me in RDR. Yeah there's some clipping, yeah there's some framerate issues in towns, yeah textures are not good when you take a close look at it. But who cares? Because when I was riding my horse through the desert at dawn it looked amazing. I never noticed an issue with the RDR textures or graphics, was a truly beautiful game day and night. If Rockstar can pull it off again with V, they will have a 10/10 on their hands. I forgot IGN picked at the graphics for RDR, shame on them! I guess they are looking for a negative else it will just look really biased lmao. Lol put your game on and you'll see. But I mean it wasnt bothering. I'm not talking about SA clipping here lol. Oh and if you wanna see the real look of the textures take a rifle and zoom in a mountain. Than you'll see. But to be clear I'm not saying RDR is not great. Because its actually my GOAT at least on this generation and the only games which made me take snaps of it lol. But it has issues but issues that in my opinion were exceed by the overall look of it. Yeah but why do mountains need to have fantastic textural quality? The fact that you had to use a rifle to see the bad quality is enough to me to say they were fine for what they are restricted to. Meh That's what I'm telling you. Thats why IGN are criticizing the game graphics. Because they are much more concerned by these tiny details than we are. And also you have to separate the websites which are clearly haters and the ones which are objective. The biggest french website jeuxvideo.com wrote a 5 paragraphs preview of GTA V stating that the game graphics are "disappointing" and left out a lot of important details on the game. And oh 1 week later they put out a 10 paragraphs preview on WD untitled " Watch dogs , GTAV killer?" and of course they were a lot more enthusiastic for that game... Just saying.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider-Vice Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 It took 10 Seconds to make a switch? Well that's not entirely new, other previews said the further away you switch the longer it will take, as they have hidden the loading time within the switch sequence. That's just....too long. Well what are you expecting on 8 year old hardware? It is a very clever way to hide it and I honestly don't mind. If you switch only a short distance, it would probably be instant. It has to load the new assets in for the area. Would you prefer waiting 10 secs on that or a black screen with a white spinning logo? What has hardware anything to do with this? I'm guessing R* wants to show us the beauty of LS. Because the Xbox360 and PS3 have 512MB ram, which is tiny to work with. So, Rockstar would, in the 10 second period, have to unload the content from the previous and area and load the assets for the new. I can imagine it has been a nightmare for them, the hardware is the reason the wait time is so long. RAM matters in this situation, yes. But it's not that big of a problem as you think it is. I have Simple Native Trainer installed in my GTA IV and when I teleport from one end of the city to the other, it takes less than a second, believe me. I think, they are trying to do it intentionally. Simple Native Trainer uses insta-teleportation. It's possible in V too but remember they need to hide all the LOD models loading, you don't want to see ugly sh*t (or nothing at all loaded) when you teleport, plus it'd look stupid. It's not only about the RAM but also the Bluray/DVD access times, I imagine it's been quite a nightmare for Rockstar to accomplish that, and if the map is huge be happy it's 10 seconds and not 30 because the machines are struggling to keep up. let your hopes and dreams turn into burning fire! GTANet | Red Dead Network | kifflom black lives matter | stop Asian hate | trans lives = human lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DlZZEE Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 "- A long distance switch took roughly 10sec." That's still too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now