Breaking news! Max Payne 3 looks like shit!

[commie]

You guys haven't played Darksiders: graphic options for the PC version are limited to screen size and use of vsync. It looks good enough for me but now that screams of console port. GTA IV seem to have bothered many people simply because it had options destined for future computers, and since people gonna bitch for lack of optimisation whenever they can't play something on max details …

Rockstar mentioned that they were hoping t okeep selling GTA4 for years and so wanted to make sure it had options that future computers could take advantage of. A good idea and one I'd like to see in other games that I might like to play again in some future when I have a newer PC. Even so that doesn't excuse the horrible optimisation or lack of it that GTA4 had on release when even on the lowest settings it destroyed a moderate machine.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

http://youtu.be/KP1SZA4SXSU

this one always brings me laughing into tears.

That's how ukranians fight wars.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS LOLOLOLOL AT DOGFUCKER GRAPHIC WHORES

BROS LOLOLOLOL GAMEPLAY WHERE ARRT THOU LOOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLLOLOLLOL PCTARDS ARE GRAPHIC WHORES LOLOLLOLOL OH BAD TEXTURES I CANT PLAY THIS LOLOLLOLOL OHNO BLURRY LOLLOLOLOLLOL

HEY GUESS WHAT GAMEFAGS IS CALLLING

 

[Zed]

First game that impressed me computer-graphically was Unreal Tournament. Then Max Payne. Then... Crysis I guess? After that I haven't really been impressed anymore. Certainly not by this game at least.

 

[Multidirectional]

Back from getting drunk and high with those real friends of mine.. Skyway, I've never seen level of detail in Arma 2 that equals that of GTA4. And I really didn't think you actually gonna bring that game up yet again when I asked for examples. I should've known better. Granted my PC can't run Arma 2 for shit unless I set view distance to way too low levels so maybe I just don't know what you know, but those screenshots certainly don't count. It's just fucking grass and trees everywhere, it doesn't compare to what goes on in nearly every scene in GTA 4. I guess certain parts of Codex can never into whole picture, they just focus their attention on some blurry textures here and there and bitch about it.

 

[MetalCraze]

And what goes on in every scene in GTA4? Every scene in GTA4 has a very low detailed boxes for buildings, a low view distance and a nearly empty street (which for overloaded New York is very strange).

A few trees in ArmA2 have more detail than many scenes in GTA4. And yet they don't bring an average PC to a 15 FPS crawl.

Those screenshots don't count because they are indeed more detailed? Nice logic there.

And as I've said then we have AI. GTA4 engine can handle 30 people max and deletes cars as soon as you turn their back on them - and yet it still brings an average PC to a crawl.

Or is there a "whole picture" that I don't see because all GTA4 does is spawning bots among boxes that just move around using pre-placed waypoints and there's nothing else?

However it works OK on consoles. Why? Are you telling me modern PCs are still no match for 6 years old consoles?

 

[Multidirectional]

A few trees in ArmA2 have more detail than many scenes in GTA4. And yet they don't bring an average PC to a 15 FPS crawl.

I don't know what you're talking about, my PC runs GTA4 just fine, even in multiplayer. Arma 2 isn't even playable on my machine.
Don't know about those empty streets you've been getting either, there are usually shitload of pedestrian animations and physics being calculated in the version I'm playing. Also, incredibly detailed car damage, I don't think I've seen this done to this level in any other game. It's certainly more impressive to me than couple of trees standing there doing nothing, no matter how detailed they look.
I wouldn't say it works ok on the consoles either, I've seen both GTA 4 and Episodes being played on Xbox 360 and performance was a lot shittier than on my PC. I could make out dips below 20 FPS right away.

 

[MetalCraze]

I don't know what you're talking about, my PC runs GTA4 just fine, even in multiplayer. Arma 2 isn't even playable on my machine.

And what machine do you have?

Don't know about those empty streets you've been getting either, there are usually shitload of pedestrian animations and physics being calculated in the version I'm playing.

From whole 30 civilians tops? You are easily impressed. Also 3 garbage bins per street are not complex physics.

Also, incredibly detailed car damage, I don't think I've seen this done to this level in any other game.

There's nothing incredibly detailed about GTA4's car damage. It's normal. Just like in other console games like CM's racing games or Burnouts. Which don't eat FPS for no reason.

It's certainly more impressive to me than couple of trees standing there doing nothing, no matter how detailed they look.

How about a few hundreds of AIs with all dead bodies and weapons actually staying there forever, an AI may ruin a fence 10 km away and it will stay like that there, not magically return to how it was like in GTA4 when you walk 50m away. Thousands of bullets flying around are calculated all the time with the trajectory deflection and material penetration. And all this produces not a single millisecond of lag or desync in multiplayer while GTA4 has to actually cut its stuff there. Surely that counts for something?

I wouldn't say it works ok on the consoles either, I've seen both GTA 4 and Episodes being played on Xbox 360 and performance was a lot shittier than on my PC. I could make out dips below 20 FPS right away.

And it does so on PC too. Except you see X360 is a 6 years old hardware. And GTA4 will work the same on 3 years old PC hardware as it does on console one.

Mafia2 uses much heavier and detailed PhysX calculations instead of 3 garbage bins per street on PC. And yet again - the FPS is much much better than that of GTA4.

GTA4 has a shitty optimisation, nothing else. It isn't like Rockstar is known for bothering to optimize their games if you ever tried Bully or GTA SA when they came out.

 

[Multidirectional]

My machine: E8400 (C2D) 3Ghz, 4GB DDR2 800 RAM, GTS250. That's supposed to be mid-end nowadays, right?
About Mafia 2 - it has less going on screen than GTA 4. And it ran like shit for me with PhysX turned on, so I didn't see how good it is done. Without PhysX though it's a lot less impressive than GTA 4.
Also about the car damage - you are dead wrong there, you obviously didn't fool around enough in GTA 4. Car damage is A LOT more detailed than in any racing game I've ever played.
SA ran fine on my PC I bought in 2003 back then. Even my friends who had shitty Geforce 4 MX (I had super awesome Geforce 4 Ti) cards played it without problems. I really hear lots of new shit when I come to internets. Very different from real life.

 

[MetalCraze]

My machine: E8400 (C2D) 3Ghz, 4GB DDR2 800 RAM, GTS250. That's supposed to be mid-end nowadays, right?

ArmA2 would work OK on this one with medium settings.
I originally played it on a weaker X2 5200+ with Radeon 4850 (that is about the same as 250) and had acceptable FPS even with crappy 1.00-1.02 versions from '09. I've had worse FPS on this one in GTA4 at low-to-mid settings (1/3+ of sliders, medium textures, 1 shadow layer)

Then again one may go with max settings right away and of course it suddenly becomes "unoptimized" because this is actually a PC game made without any limitations for what's going on in the game and specific hardware unlike multiplatforms people used to.

About Mafia 2 - it has less going on screen than GTA 4. And it ran like shit for me with PhysX turned on, so I didn't see how good it is done. Without PhysX though it's a lot less impressive than GTA 4.

And with PhysX it's more impressive. I've played it with PhysX on medium and my slightly OC'd GTX260 handled it well. Were you trying to go with high PhysX ?

Also about the car damage - you are dead wrong there, you obviously didn't fool around enough in GTA 4. Car damage is A LOT more detailed than in any racing game I've ever played.

Play racing games I've named. They also don't use scripted damage like GTA4 still did with car parts flying away.

SA ran fine on my PC I bought in 2003 back then. Even my friends who had shitty Geforce 4 MX (I had super awesome Geforce 4 Ti) cards played it without problems

a) SA came out on PC in 2005
b) It did have sudden FPS drops when there were many cars around. On 1.8 GHz processor. PS2 has 233 MHz one. Nice optimization.
c) videocard wasn't critical as GTA SA already looked heavily dated when it came out on PC. Just like GTA4 or Bully.

 

[Multidirectional]

Then again one may go with max settings right away and of course it suddenly becomes "unoptimized"

Don't ever take me for that kind of retard. Options menu is the first thing I study before playing any game. I fooled around with settings in Arma 2 (I tried to run OA) for a long time. The best I could get is stable 40-50 in tutorial sections, but as soon as I tried the campaign and some action started going on it was down to 23-25. Only thing that helped was setting view distance to very low, which made it look like absolute crap and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have suited gameplay either.

 

[MetalCraze]

That's the first mission. There are a lot of AIs. 25 FPS on what? 4 years old C2D is pretty good there.

Other missions are much lighter.

EDIT: In contrast in GTA4 when you have a battle you are rarely engaged by more than 5-7 AIs at once and it usually happens in a specially pre-loaded area with everything around it removed (and dudes just stand there waiting for you). And if you get into a battle on the street you may notice that civilian cars and civilians suddenly start to disappear, being replaced by cops.

And yet it still causes FPS drops. Why?

 

[Multidirectional]

Were you trying to go with high PhysX ?

Goddamit skyway, I'm not a retard. Not to that level at least. Of course I didn't go with "high" when my PC is too weak to handle any PhysX. Mirror's Edge is the only game that was playable with PhysX to me.

Play racing games I've named.

Obviously I did, I'm not in a habit of talking out of my ass. Burnouts or CM games don't have damage model as good, they just don't. What, you really didn't try out all the crazy ways in which you can fuck up your car in GTA4? You missed out then.

 

[Trash]

I reject your reality and substitute it for my own.

 

[MetalCraze]

Actually in between missions all I did was riding around crashing into things. The damage was good but nothing out of this world that I haven't seen in other games.

The car gets beaten up, the glass crashes and falls out (and this bit is actually scripted as it happens the same way all the time) - good. Seen it in many games.

However I've never seen anything inside the car get damaged. Sits won't get damaged. An engine won't get damaged (the best it will do is start to burn when HP line that is applied to the whole car will get to 0). Not mentioning that car driving behaviour only gets affected if you burst a tire (which is also quite scripted unlike in CM's games). It's like everything but car's hull is made out of Cleve's titanium bones which isn't the case in, say, Burnout Paradise. So what were those secret mindblowing physics that XBox360 can handle but PC has a problem with that I didn't see?

 

[Multidirectional]

I was thinking of making a long detailed video myself but there are other things requiring my attention now. This fagbox video will have to do I guess. Feel free to win an argument, cause I'm off the internet for some life shit.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Burnout is a 60fps console racer. it's clever model work that they pulled off.

 

[MetalCraze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iznneABNwkE

Look it even has hull falling apart not being a solid object.


But let's have a look at those awesome superadvanced GTA4 crash physics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLiWkhfUqow

Why do these cars with such superior physics act like tanks barely getting scratched? And yet you can see FPS drops.

How can it be? Some last gen crap is superior than superadvanced GTA4 noooo

 

[User was nabbed fit]

Isn't it interesting how the video skyway posted clearly shows a level of detail far superior to anything you'll see in ARMA... even though the video is in shitty 240p. Also, lol @ comparing a racing simulator to a game like GTA 4 which doesn't pretend it's going to give you a level of vehicle simulation close to what a racing game will give you. Another classic skyway moment. Try comparing it to something comparable, like the technologically inferior (but much more fun in some areas), Saints Row 2.

Now watch this in 720p and shut up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Hm4K5_Pr0&hd=1

Dozens of cars, dozens of civilians, loads of environmental props. Nothing in ARMA comes close to the scope of GTA's world. And for a game that was developed for third person (less polys and detail on weapons and other close-up things), it still looks surprisingly good in a first person mod. Problem?


But, but, but... ARMA has pwetty twees!

It's incredible how a statement such as, "Rockstar will likely improve the graphics quailty in Max Payne 3 for the PC version, just like they did with GTA 4" (truth), devolves into an argument about how skyway thinks ARMA is anywhere near the same scope or level of detail as GTA 4. Derail much?

 

[MetalCraze]

ArmA2 is of course not of the same scope as GTA4

In ArmA2 cars and people don't disappear forever into nowhere 50 meters away among primitive boxes and it can have hundreds of them, not 10-15 (at best, some streets are completely empty... in New York) aka "dozens". 2-3 garbage cans also go for "dozens" of environmental props I take it?

Your video proves my point though. Dude rides on a nearly-empty Times Square and yet FPS is less than 20.

Where oh where is that superior detail on the empty plain with boxes? Even 720p doesn't show it.

 

[Eyeball]

MP1 was an amazing game. Not only did it tell its corny-ass noir story perfectly, it had genuinely fun gameplay and introduced the John Woo mechanics that have since been copies 6000 times by other, vastly inferior games (except for Total Overdose, which was equally corny and totally badass).

Max Payne 2, while still having shootdodging gunplay, was halfassed. Halfassed storyline, uninspired level design and next to no new additions to the gameplay of the first game. It made you realise just how important the corny noir setting and writing was to the first game, and with far inferior atmosphere and short length to boot, it just was not a worthy sequel to MP1.

MP3 will be donkeyshit, but as the man said, that was obvious from the first screenshots of Max as some kind of Bruce Willis-In-Die-Hard clone shooting gangsters in Brazilian favellas. Give me back my gritty streets of New York By Night!

 

[User was nabbed fit]

ArmA2 is of course not of the same scope as GTA4

In ArmA2 cars and people don't disappear into nowhere 50 meters away among primitive boxes and it can have hundreds of them, not 10-15 aka "dozens"

So you're saying that ARMA's engine could simulate an entire city and keep track of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of vehicles and millions of NPCs, at all times? No need for random generation like every other game? Good luck with that. ARMA's engine must have been developed by Mohammed and optimised by Jesus. Anyway, let me know how it goes! [sound of vault door closing].

BTW, please show me a video where "hundreds" of vehicles, and "hundreds" of NPCs are shown at the same time in the same zone. Because simply keeping track of them on where they are in the world (at different places) is hardly a fucking achievement. Any game can do that if something needs to be tracked. The only vehicles and NPCs that need to be tracked in GTA are those that are relevant to any mission being undertaken, which is why all others are randomly generated. Durrrr, do we really have to break it down like we're explaining this to a five year old?

Your video proves my point though. Dude rides on a half-empty Times Square and yet FPS is less than 20.

From the video description:

"I normally run the game at 1920x1200 but decided to drop it to 720p for recording purposes. FRAPS also chewed up a good amount of my framerate, bringing it down to approx 15-20."

Owned in the face.

 

[MetalCraze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOQOLgyj ... re=related

Jesus?! Is that you Jesus?

Why does your dual-core PC not burst into flames, Jesus?

I mean this is version 1.00, the most shitty unoptimized version of ArmA2 ever, Jesus?!

Why do you write that FRAPS chewed only 1 FPS, Jesus?!

Because simply keeping track of them on where they are in the world (at different places) is hardly a fucking achievement.

You mean it's so common nobody but chosen few (and Rockstar isn't among them) achieved it in gaming history

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Durrrr, do we really have to break it down like we're explaining this to a five year old?

What do you expect? It's Skyway ffs.

 

[MetalCraze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X03SVGkt ... re=related

Mohammad?! Is that you Mohammad?!

What's wrong Mohammad?! How can you photoshop so many highly detailed units into your picture Mohammad and not make your PC die?!

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KK6Fo3Y0AU



Not that my computer could get Arma 2 to do anything like that, but damn. It's like being in the apocalyptic climax of a sci-fi.


As for the A.I. of the fighters themselves, here's a video where someone tests the spawned enemy squad. Pretty good work, I'd say.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6mI410K_ZU

 

[Trash]

Good AI eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S9dAuxJ ... re=related

Test a few of the many other 'dumb arma 2 ai' hits and enjoy the fubar. Or just play the game for a bit and see for yourself that it's shit as a game, has shit Ai, is riddled with bugs and plays like a hog.