Threat Interactive: Dead Space optimization is terrible and EA Motive sucks.... basically

If this game launched today he not only would be praise by most people by it's graphics but by the performance too

You can cherry pick something bad about everything like that but this doesn't make the game looks bad
H5Mv9oXTG360Udwy.jpg
You're zooming in on an image. The low resolution textures in Driveclub are pretty obvious and doesn't require a zoom in. It was a good looking game when it came out but it's clear some aspects of the games graphics have not aged well.
 
Stop giving the Hasan Piker of tech blogging attention.
He's a mouthy fuckwit, with zero credibility who's yet to demonstrate anything more than an ability to spew bullshit to inflame angry, uninformed, idiots.
 
Talking about deranged hate 🤣🤣

Not hate, just facts.

No credentials, no demonstrable talent for anything but creating noise. Hence just another worthless narcissistic online grifter who's spiel promises salvation but who's actions only serve to line his own pockets.

Extreme disdain is my position, I reserve hatred for those who I consider to offer an actual threat. And this clown, despite how he try-hard pretends, is no threat to anything but my patience.
 
No credentials
the "credentials" are all paid for already to defend whats indefensible, it would be a very wrong thing just to say that someone need credentials to talk about something instead of engage in argumentation but in this case is worse even, what do you expect, that some higher up in a famous studio come and say everything is wrong?
 
Last edited:
the "credentials" are all paid for already to defend whats indefensible, it would be a very wrong thing just to say that someone need credentials to talk about something instead of engage in argumentation but in this case is worse even, what do you expect, that some higher up in a famous studio come and say everything is wrong?

Does it not strike you as being implausible that this guy, who's not produced a single thing in his life, knows better than literally every professional working across the industry?

Please, explain to me why this guy should not be treated like a snake-oil salesman ?
 
yeah but the game still looks good, just compare everything in 2015 with anything from 2005 and do the same, we're not in the same pace anymore, at this point i think people just want to defend their 2k dollar gpus
I would say that games started achieving realistic graphics with the launch of the Xbox 360 in 2005 (PGR3), and that graphics peaked with the launch of the Xbox One (forza motorsport 5) and PS4 in 2013.



Modern games look even better, but you usually need to zoom in to appreciate the difference in small details (for example nanite geometry).

Mafia PS5 screenshot. The PC version would look even better because Nanite detail scales with resolution.

7de4QTg.jpg


PS4 game.

26cf1f-9916e7d8d94a4cfb8ac75e5bb3841f86-mv2-2.jpg


26cf1f-28ff6cfc75334a69a47748afef4e8691-mv2-2.jpg


Modern games also started using real-time dynamic lighting, and if you know where to look (especially in open world games with dynamic TOD), you can always see the difference.

5x7ksbzPqkQyUhuN.jpg


pmNdlVYILMQ163sh.jpg


 
Last edited:
Does it not strike you as being implausible that this guy, who's not produced a single thing in his life, knows better than literally every professional working across the industry?

Please, explain to me why this guy should not be treated like a snake-oil salesman ?
heres the thing, i dont know if he has a solution to make games look better and still maintain acceptable levels of performance but i do know that there is something wrong with the way things are, so even if he does not have the solution, and the solution is to go back to "2015 graphics" so be it
 
Modern games look even better, but you usually need to zoom in to appreciate the difference in small details (for example nanite geometry).
exactly, everything now exist to make devs lives easier not to necessarily make graphics better, they expect people to pay a lot of money so they can take less time optimizing, all while moore laws is dead and prices are increase to every node, let alone the AI shit taken all the RAM

this is horrible, this can only be good for those who paid thousand of dollars in a single piece of hardware and need to justify to themselves the throwing of money in the garbage that they did
 
Last edited:
If this game launched today he not only would be praise by most people by it's graphics but by the performance too

You can cherry pick something bad about everything like that but this doesn't make the game looks bad
H5Mv9oXTG360Udwy.jpg
Not the performance no. 30fps racing games can gtfo
 
A decent but flawed Stephen King novel, I prefer the original TV movie adaptation to the modern remakes you?
good review, now please go back to what i said

the game would run at 120fps and still be gorgeous if they launched today with those graphics, so much so that you not questioned it, you just misunderstand when i talked about performance lol
 
Last edited:
This is not true, the most games there don't release console gameplay until 1 month/week previous to the launch. Some games even you can't see gameplay on consoles until people are already playing
I work for over 20 years now in the games industry, but you clearly know better than me!
Thanks for letting me know that all those companies I worked for faked console footage with fake console devkits!
Ill let them know next time I visit them, I´m sure they would love to work with somoene who knows their job better than them!
 
Last edited:
Of course he wouldn't run at 30fps, he already run at that on the ps4, on the ps5 he would run at 120fps AND still been beautiful
If you mean 1080p/120 than sure, but it won't really look great. Higher FPS won't do anything about those textures. If Driveclub launched today people would be extremely critical of the graphics, there are like a dozen racers that look better today. More if you include what's on PC. Even a indie racer looks better these days, JDM for example. A game that uses UE5 to great effect.

4k/120 would probably require something like a 4080. No way the PS5 can do that, not even the Pro.
 
If you mean 1080p/120 than sure, but it won't really look great. Higher FPS won't do anything about those textures. If Driveclub launched today people would be extremely critical of the graphics, there are like a dozen racers that look better today. More if you include what's on PC. Even a indie racer looks better these days, JDM for example. A game that uses UE5 to great effect.

4k/120 would probably require something like a 4080. No way the PS5 can do that, not even the Pro.
i have a pc that is two times or more worse than a ps5 and it can play some ps4 games at 4k/30fps, the ps5 sure can play at least 1440p/120fps

"people" are different than half a dozen enthusiast on the forums (many of them wanting desperately to justify their money expending), just look at the comments on the video, people are praising the graphics and say that they're good even today, every single normal person that a have show the game have become impressed by those graphics
 
Last edited:
I work for over 20 years now in the games industry, but you clearly know better than me!
Thanks for letting me know that all those companies I worked for faked console footage with fake console devkits!
Ill let them know next time I visit them, I´m sure they would love to work with somoene who knows their job better than them!
It's nice how you are assuming, you are the one who is working in the game industry. Sure in the PS3 era and partially PS4 era focusing on consoles devkits were the common, But in current gen? no way
 
It's nice how you are assuming, you are the one who is working in the game industry. Sure in the PS3 era and partially PS4 era focusing on consoles devkits were the common, But in current gen? no way
I dont have to assume when I know - but you are free to believe whatever you want :)
 
i have a pc that is two times or more worse than a ps5 and it can play some ps4 games at 4k/30fps, the ps5 sure can play at least 1440p/120fps

"people" are different than half a dozen enthusiast on the forums (many of them wanting desperately to justify their money expending), just look at the comments on the video, people are praising the graphics and say that they good even today, every single normal person that a show the game have become impressed by those graphics
I highly doubt a PC two times slower can play a game like Driveclub at 4k/30. Ghost of Tsushima, one of the easier to run Sony ports, requires at least a 4060 Ti to do 4k/30. As a point of comparison the PS5 had to drop all the way to 1080 to do 120 in Uncharted 4, and it still drops frames.

And people will praise any old shit on YouTube. How many of those "hire this man" videos used to go around for some crap that put out. I'd rather trust enthusiasts and places like NXGamer and DF for a balanced take. If someone cannot see the clear gap in visual fidelity between Driveclub and more modern racers that just speaks to a lack of observation on their part.
 
I highly doubt a PC two times slower can play a game like Driveclub at 4k/30. Ghost of Tsushima, one of the easier to run Sony ports, requires at least a 4060 Ti to do 4k/30. As a point of comparison the PS5 had to drop all the way to 1080 to do 120 in Uncharted 4, and it still drops frames.

And people will praise any old shit on YouTube. How many of those "hire this man" videos used to go around for some crap that put out. I'd rather trust enthusiasts and places like NXGamer and DF for a balanced take. If someone cannot see the clear gap in visual fidelity between Driveclub and more modern racers that just speaks to a lack of observation on their part.
ghost of tsushima was ported very recently and was a direct cut version, its not easy to run, its easy to run compared to what we have today

yes, i talking about normal people not enthusiasts who need to justify to themselves their expending and need to cherry pick something to say its bad, normal people will look at those graphics and say they look amazing even for today, and those people are far more than dozen enthusiast on forums, that why you see so much complain, the enthusiast would be dead before they admit that something is wrong and they fooled themselves into believe they had that gigantic leap in visual fidelity
 
If (DriveClub) launched today .. not only would be praise by most people by it's graphics but by the performance too

Hey, good news: your hypothetical example exists in real life!

It's called "Dirt 5", and was made by Codenasters Cheshire, a studio formed by many former Evolution Studio developers. They brought their bag of tricks over to make a next-gen launch / cross-gen title after the collapse of Evolution, and it's comparable in a lot of ways. Its rally cars on turf, but gameplay is still way more traditional racer than rally car, with multiple vehicles on track concurrently and no complications needing a co-driver. And it used many of the same graphical techniques, plus offers a high framerate mode (albeit 1440x120, not 4k. ) It's a solid comparison of your idea of what could have been if developers just took last gen and juiced it up.



What should be considered when comparing these games (and the reactions to them in their day) is that A. Codemasters didn't have the same budget/manpower/schedule of a flagship Sony title, and B. even though Codenasters established a new high in framerate and fidelity in racing games with this launch title, game buyers and critics already had in their heads before getting hands on the consoles that next-gen was promising something even better than what this was, so reviews at the time were not greatly complimentary and may have been completely earnest, depending on your viewpoint. (Plus, the Ps4/Xb1 versions existed side by side, and they looked "fine".)

But otherwise, there you go, a discussion point on what would have happened if a game was made today with "those graphics". So, no need to argue about who is right about things we are imagining in theory; Dirt 5 is right there to look at. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
game buyers not, critics, who usually are enthusiast, yes

Hmm, not sure I get why you made this counterpoint? Are you under the impression that critics savaged Dirt 5 but that gamers loved it and didn't care if it was "next-gen enough" for them? Because I can assure you, without even tracking down the Gaf thread or other sources yet, that in 2020 when DIRT 5 came out, this was not the case....

 
Last edited:
Hmm, not sure I get why you made this counterpoint? Are you under the impression that critics savaged Dirt 5 but that gamers loved it and didn't care if it was "next-gen enough" for them? Because I can assure you, without even tracking down the Gaf thread or other sources yet, that in 2020 when DIRT 5 came out, this was not the case....

i think gamers can be influenced by critics and its very hard to say they loved or hate the game, plus it was on the beginning on the gen where everyone believes that we would get a true leap, the fact that you bring this game specifically says a lot
 
ghost of tsushima was ported very recently and was a direct cut version, its not easy to run, its easy to run compared to what we have today

yes, i talking about normal people not enthusiasts who need to justify to themselves their expending and need to cherry pick something to say its bad, normal people will look at those graphics and say they look amazing even for today, and those people are far more than dozen enthusiast on forums, that why you see so much complain, the enthusiast would be dead before they admit that something is wrong and they fooled themselves into believe they had that gigantic leap in visual fidelity
Witcher 3 then, try running that at 4k/30 with a GPU like the 970 then and see what happens. The PS5 could never do 1440p/120 in that title either.

It also has a pretty good upgrade, because the additional RT makes the game remarkably better in a lot of regards even to the average person. But of course it requires a very large leap in hardware to achieve, which you apparently hate. Leaps in graphics rendering needs to be free or something.

And enormous genre changing visual leaps are not occurring anymore because hardware has slowed down and all the easy low level tricks for good looking games have already been done. But that doesn't mean games don't look better. Doom TDA looks quite a bit better vs Doom Eternal for example. Driveclub looked fine when it launched but it's pretty obvious is has bad textures, bad lods, bad lighting, and poor micro detail. Even indie racing games look better today.
 
Last edited:
Ah the guy with big "I haven't worked on any game" energy

The only contribution he ever did was a pull request for UE5 where he took jitter pattern from Decima and without even testing how it works in UE he said that it's somehow superior than the one currently in use.

The guy is basically an antivaxxer, he knows just enough about graphics to convince people who have zero idea how rendering works but professionals laugh at him
 
Love this guy.

He's like Digital Foundry's evil (and much more fun) twin

And he's right: most modern AAA games look like blurry shit
 
Last edited:
The guy is basically an antivaxxer, he knows just enough about graphics to convince people who have zero idea how rendering works but professionals laugh at him
There was no reason to bring vaccines into this discussion about games, especially with the ignorant and provocative suggestion that only uninformed people are against vaccines.

In reality, many professionals who worked on vaccines are now talking about the dangers of various vaccines, and they have good reason to do so, especially after the mRNA Covid gene therapy disaster, which was only called a 'vaccine' for marketing reasons (mRNA technology started out as a gene therapy, and Pfizer and the EU still classify it as such because it fulfils the definition of gene therapy, I can show their own documents saying exactly that if you dont believe).

In fact, more and more professionals who once recommended mRNA jabs and appeared in marketing campaigns have now completely changed their opinion because at this point, the flaws and dangers of the Jovid jab are undeniable. In my country, many healthcare workers received this 'vaccine' to keep their jobs, but very few wanted the boosters. This was a major concern for the government's mRNA marketing campaign, as ordinary people could see that even healthcare workers were so hesitant.

People have been lied about this terrible mRNA technology because it supposed to be safe and effective. Many so-called experts told people that if they got this "vaccine", they would never catch the virus because it was supposed to provide 100% protection, even against infection ltself. People who actually took this jab were often catching Covid, while people like me, who never took it, were often completely immune. Even government data now shows that this thing has harmed 200 times more people in just one year than all real vaccines combined have in total. Any other medicine would have been pulled from the market a long time ago after just a few deaths, but not mRNA jab. This thing has harmed my friends and relatives, and now governments want to hide these harms so as not to enrage people.

rlLDBZ9tFhjrxqVi.jpg


I never took this fake vaccine because I always listen to all experts, not just the ones in the media who are often paid to promote certain medicines. I also have a friend who set up the very first molecular diagnostic laboratory at the CDC in the USA, and he warned me about the dangers of mRNA technology. He made me realise that mRNA is a well-studied technology that pharmaceutical companies dismissed before 2020 because they realised that nasty side effects were unavoidable with this technology and even explained to the public the reasons why they had stopped pursuing this technology.

The problem with mRNA technology always was it's biodistribution. Unlike real vaccines, mRNA does not stay in the injection site (the muscle), but travels everywhere in the body, reaching every organ. That's a huge problem, becasue mRNA technology is transfecting cells, and our immune system (T lymphocytes in particular) will always find and kill cells that arnt working normally (that is the foundation of immunology). For this reason, all organs whose cells have been transfected (the result of mRNA) are targeted by our immune system. While some organs can regenerate from this damage, others, such as the heart, cannot. This is why so many people have experienced heart inflammation after receiving the mRNA gene therapy. Pfizer assured people that they had found a way to address the biodistribution problem, but now we have studies that prove mRNA is still present in all organs, so they simply lied to people. Pharmaceutical companies who discarded mRNA technology in 2017 because of its biodistribution were right. If you want to refute what I said, prove to people that these biodistribution studies are fake.
 
which you apparently hate. Leaps in graphics rendering needs to be free or something.
No, they don't need to be free but moore law is dead, chips are become more expensive and there's nothing we can do about

Like i said, i get people who have expending thousand on single graphics card need to believe that they have done a good deal but they clearly didn't
 
Top Bottom