GalvyX99's forum posts

Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts

This is striking evidence that Nintendo is doomed.

We're not going to be in a 3 console market much longer, my friends.

Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts

There are people who DON'T smell new games?

I don't think I want to live on this planet anymore...

Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts
Uncharted 3 maxed out the PS3. Well as far as Sony's Budget will allow them. I mean, Uncharted is pretty much the most linear good looking exclsuvie on the PS3. The only way to handle better looks without impacting something else (Like Uncharted 3 did) is make the world smaller and more Qte. In theory, that could also work with UE 3.5AppleJudgement
I included smaller environments (smaller worlds) in my list of things that can be sacrificed, but I agree with what you say. There are already plenty of examples of this in Gears 3. My favorites are the completely static skybox in some of the outdoor levels, skimping on water particle emitters (submarine diving tee hee!), etc. I mean, it's fantastic level and game design. Epic literally designed each level to minimize noticeable loading and/or pop ups and you have to look for them. During action sequences, unless you're actively keeping an eye out, you won't notice any graphic hiccups.
Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts
360 been maxed out since 08. Difference between gears 2 and 3 is minimal, gears 3 has way more noticeable jaggies and screen tearing.silversix_
Exactly my point! Gears 2 and 3 used a similar version of the Unreal Engine, even though the version used in Gears 3 has several improvements. I've only seen very few examples of -real- screen tearing in Gears 3. Considering the age of the 360, that's amazing. I've developed games using UDK (the toolset developed and used by Epic), and I'm astounded by what they were able to do. I highly doubt any improvements made to Unreal Engine 3 will yield anything the average gamer will notice on the 360. I'll be shocked if peopled with a "trained" eye wont be able to notice the improvements no matter how slight they are.
Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts

All consoles have been "maxed out" since they were first released. There are many games running in 720p @ 30fps with 0xAA.

Art style, animations, textures and "smoke & mirrors" are really the only things that distinguish games from one another.

Tikeio
Not really. Developers have flat out stated the opposite. Take the 360 version of Gears 1 for example. It runs on Unreal 3.0, while Gears 2 runs on a drastically improved Unreal 3 engine. Further still, Gears 3 runs on the Unreal 3.5 engine. Now, I'm not saying that all of a 360's system resources are or are not being utilized during any of these games. I'm saying that Gears 3 is the best you will see on the 360 that is built with that specific version of the Unreal Engine. In terms of game engines, it might help to think of them like limits in Calculus. As game engines continue to improve, they require less and less system resources from the system they're designed for. However, refining game engines for specific hardware is not infinite and eventually refining the game engine yields negligible results. Call of Duty is a game that utilizes a highly refined/reversioned game engine. All current gen Call of Duty games use the Quake 3 engine (that's 2 id tech's ago by the way). The version used in CoD is highly refined and modified, but it's all built on the relatively ancient Quake 3 engine.
Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts

I wonder which game looks better, Gears 3 or the Gears 1 on the PC

ohthemanatee
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. If I had to guess, it would be Gears 1 heavily modded with a medium to high end rig but that's not the point of this thread. Lemmings should be proud that epic was able to get so much out of the 360 with a version of the Unreal 3 engine that's currently out of date. Seriously, the monthly UDK updates have a tendency to change/improve things so much a rule of thumb is to pick a version and stick with it throughout your ENTIRE development. I'm genuinely excited to compare the differences between the last AAA 360 UDK/U3 game and Gears 3. The differences won't be drastic by any means, but you can expect to see noticeable improvements if you know what to look for.
Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts

...As far as UDK/Unreal 3.5 developed games go.

I say this based on first hand experience developing Unreal engine 3. Sure, there are "tricks" developers can use to make their games seem cleaner than what is displayed in Gears 3, but really they're just an illusion. Anything past Gears 3 that looks better will be making signficant sacrifices in some other area. These can be anything from smaller environments and more loading screens to less detailed environments and evironmental particle emitters(these are a big part of creating a scene).

In some areas of the game, Gears 3 already does this. You can see it whenever you quickly round a corner that exposes a very large space (the submarine hanger and the first "combat" area in act 5 chapter 2 are a good spots to see examples).

That said, Epic releases new versions of UDK every month so I'd expect some more improvements down the road.

Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts

P L A Y S T A T I O N

Do I win?

Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=13662174 ^- The current build Minus the price of those two monitors, the grand total is: $976.47 Not bad at all! I promised my wife I'd keep the PC below $1,150 and I see bunches of brownie points in my future. I guess my final question relates to cooling. Is the current set up enough to overclock without fear of cooked hardware?
Avatar image for GalvyX99
GalvyX99

161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 GalvyX99
Member since 2005 • 161 Posts

I meant drop from 16Gb ram to 8Gb ram. I don't think any less would let me work the way I need to lol. Sorry for the confusion, would never consider 4GB these days lol.

Definitely dropping the case I picked out for the one you suggested and dropping from 16GB to 8GB ram more than adjusts for the price difference between the i5 2500K and the i7 2600k. So that's justified in my mind! I can always add ram later!

Edit: Yeah I forgot to ask about the PSU. I picked Raidmax because it was cheap and had 450+ reviews with 4 eggs lol

Thanks very much for the suggestions!