The former barely has anything to do "requirements" with other than memory. The latter of which is not true and meaningless because all objects will be streamed in, it's not loaded into memory all the time and therefore moot.
- Status
Glad to hear that I'm still a great comedian however that doesn't change what I said at all.sorry you made me laugh.......
Polycount isn't that relevant in this case because:
1. It will be streamed.
2. They are using Umbra3 to cut down on the excessive polygon count per scene and drawcalls
Textures well memory. Since when have normal maps or bump maps been a huge deciding factor for hardware? Mipmaps may matter at times but still not that big a factor. LOD X and Y can also be done at half resolutions.
I'm sorry but that barely has anything to do with "next-gen" what does would be things like physically enabled objects, enhanced physics calculated particles and the like.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hey, what you saying make sense however we are looking at next-gen from different perspectives maybe, you seem to know a lot about game programming, I am looking at it from more visual/3d graphic point of view. Just trying to have interesting conversation/put some life into this forum, not bragging at all, So what would be next game definition than?
Last edited by a moderator:
Btw MGS: Ground Zeroes ask for Core i7-4790 as recommended CPU *facepalm*
It will be an understatement that I am tired of listening to these kind of system requirements, this so called "next-gen" has made the devs crazy or maybe they just want to run away from customer support, in either case it's clearly non-sense. Even a sandy bridge i5 will run this game just fine. Although CDPR disappointed me to some extent by delaying the game two times, I hope they don't disappoint by making these kind of system requirements.
It will be an understatement that I am tired of listening to these kind of system requirements, this so called "next-gen" has made the devs crazy or maybe they just want to run away from customer support, in either case it's clearly non-sense. Even a sandy bridge i5 will run this game just fine. Although CDPR disappointed me to some extent by delaying the game two times, I hope they don't disappoint by making these kind of system requirements.
At least as recommended graphic card they say gtx 760, which is surprisingly low...
---------- Updated at 04:17 PM ----------
Last edited:
Usually on PC a good and optimized game is demanding on GPU and forgiving on CPU but here it's opposite like consoles so I see a pure console port coming. The game doesn't look that impressive as well. For a similar game Splinter Cell Blacklist had better graphics (as far as I can say) with UE and it was quite easy on CPU with Core 2 Quad Q8400 as recommended one.
I don't know what kind of processing they are going to do on CPU but i7 4790 is an overkill. Ram requirements on other hand are quite respectable.
EDIT:
You know you can edit your post with the "Edit Post" button ?
EDIT2:
I see you fixed it lol xD.
Last edited:
As sid has been highlighting, we can't really tell what TW3 requirements are based on other games, so could we move back to TW3? I think anyone coming in looking for useful info is going to be very unsure of which game is being discussed, from the last few pages.
---------- Updated at 04:49 PM ----------
When was this posted?Marcin's posts from polish side:
- Can you promise, the thing that is coming soon (system requirements) will be very reasonable?
Marcin: In my opinion, they will
Marcin: System requirements will be final. If something changes, it will only be for the best.
[DUH]
Last edited:
Indeed, CD Projekt is very good in using terms as soon and in the coming days while staying silent for months.
They are not quite on Blizzard level of "soon", but they are slowly getting there
Pardon the ignorance, be gentle - does this mean that they're not anticipating to improve the graphics from the level they've reached at the day of the announcement of the specs? Is it possible to improve the visuals even more without raising the requirements?
Changing for the "worse", as in demanding more, suggests to me that the graphics are improved (in the good case, disregarding the bad case of crappy optimization). I think it's a reasonable deduction, but I don't really know anything in these matters.
I don't think that means they have any intention of downgrading graphics.
It means that if they find a way to OPTIMIZE (NOT DOWNGRADE AND CALL IT OPTIMIZE) the graphics performance of the game further, this will be seen in reduced (better) actual system requirements, and better performance for marginal and sub-minimum systems.
It won't suddenly make old Pentium 4's and Athlon 64's, or little 4-ROP graphics cards, play the game competently. But it could mean a difference between unplayable and playable for, say, Core 2's and Fermi 450/550 and Evergreen 5750/70 cards.
It means that if they find a way to OPTIMIZE (NOT DOWNGRADE AND CALL IT OPTIMIZE) the graphics performance of the game further, this will be seen in reduced (better) actual system requirements, and better performance for marginal and sub-minimum systems.
It won't suddenly make old Pentium 4's and Athlon 64's, or little 4-ROP graphics cards, play the game competently. But it could mean a difference between unplayable and playable for, say, Core 2's and Fermi 450/550 and Evergreen 5750/70 cards.
@Guy N'wah I'll clarify. I don't mean downgrading, but the opposite actually - does it mean there won't be any potential upgrading, once the specs are released, with the clarification that they're not meant to change "for the worse"?
I'm not coming from a "worried the game won't look good" place, I'm coming from a greedy one hoping for it to look even better. I'm just not sure at what point are the graphics set and don't expect even further improvement.
I'm not coming from a "worried the game won't look good" place, I'm coming from a greedy one hoping for it to look even better. I'm just not sure at what point are the graphics set and don't expect even further improvement.
- Status