Infinite_Daremo
Member
Looking forward to this. Playing it with my two mates. 1 of whom hasn't played it before. Were all gonna record the boss fights from each perspective and keep a YouTube record of it. Its gonna be great watching my friend die
Is this game scary at all? Is it more akin to caves of zombies in Skyrim or crimson heads standing up outta nowhere in REmake?
Is this game scary at all? Is it more akin to caves of zombies in Skyrim or crimson heads standing up outta nowhere in REmake?
I'm with what Eusis stated above: resolution is far from being priority #1 for me. The missing lighting in RE4 PC was a far bigger disaster and no super high resolution could compensate for that.Stiil, RE4 had an option to change resolution (deja vu).
Yeah, if you consider "the port sure is disappointing but don't act like it's suddenly unplayable...the game is still great" to be hardcore trolling. I don't. And I still laugh at people who completely lose their shit and act like their eyes would fall out if they looked at a console game.Not that it's ok but that was 2007. This is 2012. It's not acceptable IMO. Also iirc you were trolling hardcore in the 'confirmed sub hd' thread as to how pc gamers should be grateful about a terrible port.
Is this game scary at all? Is it more akin to caves of zombies in Skyrim or crimson heads standing up outta nowhere in REmake?
Is this game scary at all? Is it more akin to caves of zombies in Skyrim or crimson heads standing up outta nowhere in REmake?
image
Pre-patch Tomb of the Giants was extremely tense. No skull lantern drops, so you had to go through the darkness until you found one down in the pit.Not scary in a traditional way. But it is scary when you first see a gigantic, mean looking boss rushing toward you after you walk through the fog, and you have no idea how to fight it, or what it's capable of.
Besides that, the atmosphere of the game is much more depressing than scary.
There's other metrics I'd consider far, far more important to the quality of a port than just resolution, especially when said resolution is at least on par with consoles. It's profoundly dumb, but I'll take a locked frame buffer resolution over the shitfest that was Saints Row 2 out of the box (or even up to the latest official patch!), missing graphical options the PC could clearly dominate in like RE4 above showed, or just anything that runs profoundly unstable compared to console versions. This will probably go down as the most disappointing port, easily, but that's due to a combination of recognizing it'd be a good fit for PC, the fact the game's visuals could clearly benefit from a good, properly optimized PC port, and the simple fact the game is amazing.
But I'm taking a wait and see approach. If you ask me this will become the worst PC port if a litany of bugs and issues come pouring out once people actually get their hands on the game.
Spoilers dude.
So 1920x1080 is the maximum supported resolution? God damn the game is going to be the blurriest thing on earth in 2560x1600.
So 1920x1080 is the maximum supported resolution? God damn the game is going to be the blurriest thing on earth in 2560x1600.
Is this game scary at all? Is it more akin to caves of zombies in Skyrim or crimson heads standing up outta nowhere in REmake?
Nope, the game always renders at 1024x720. Same res as the console versions.
Oh yeah, it's definitely bad and outright stupefying for a non-2D game especially since it's at an odd resolution that'll never be native on anything unless you have a CRT or LCD monitor of that resolution and can somehow force a stretched image, and even then that switches the problem to aspect ratios. I just mean that failing to properly support multiple resolutions =/= worst port ever in and of itself, stuff like failing to support basic graphical features consoles had comes off as far worse.Not supporting modern resolutions is pretty bad though. Worse still that at no point does the game ever output a non-scaled image. It's bad enough the framebuffer is sub-HD, but on top of that, there is no way to actually play a crisp non-scaled output. Even at a windowed 1280x720 resolution the game is still scaling prior to outputting it. But you're right, there's been worse technical issues in games, that weren't even ports, like RAGE. That one didn't even run at release for a fairly large number of people.
Think you misunderstand, there's a difference between the internal render and the resolution of the game.
Obviously, but the final output image will be upscaled from that res. Though in your case I guess it will upscale twice, that is obviously pretty bad.
No, but at the same time I'm not so ignorant to think that this doing better than a game that actually did put some kind of effort into their product doesn't dissuade them from caring enough to do so again.
There's plenty of them in the other topic.
Because that's totally what I said, right?
That's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter that this is a really bad port.
I'd rather deal in reality than some hopeful future where namco *might* give a fuck next time around. As it stands, this is hands down one of the (if not the) worst console to PC ports I've seen in recent memory.
The only worse one I can think might be arguably worse than this was Saint's Row 2, but even then as bad as that port was (and believe me, it was BAD) the game didn't boot you back to the main menu because they failed to do a good enough job optimizing the product and you hit an FPS floor.
Got my subscriber copy of the latest UK magazine (Should be out for everyone within a few days) and they've reviewed this. Odds are the review will be up on their site over the weekend too. Figured you'd want to see. Well, first up is the score, 89%.
But on to the important stuff. Most of the pre-release worries are confirmed. It is just the console version, no texture/hud improvements, no real PC optimisations. 30FPS lock. GFWL. No FoV/Vsync options or anything like that. Best played with a controller, obviously. Other than that, apparently it runs very well for what it is, reasonably stable with quicker loading times.
The review doesn't seem to touch on the new content and I've not played the console original so I couldn't really tell you how the rest of the content compares, though I imagine its similar enough.
May be worth waiting on some more reviews before picking it up.
Europe, Germany, CET
I play with a 16:10 1920x1200..wonder how that will go.
Is this game scary at all? Is it more akin to caves of zombies in Skyrim or crimson heads standing up outta nowhere in REmake?
When you meet the archers of Anor Londo, then you shall know fear.
Well, I'm not.I'm with what Eusis stated above:
I read about these guys before I even played the game and when I came across them.. they didn't live up to the hype.
I read about these guys before I even played the game and when I came across them.. they didn't live up to the hype.
You got lucky.
I won't argue about its status as a potentially big deal breaker, it's certainly going to frustrate me far more on a 1680x1050 monitor than a 1366x768 TV where nothing's native resolution anyway, I just don't see something like that alone making it the "worst port" over others that actively throw out features that were there on consoles, especially true if we go way back rather than simply in the last 5-10 years. This is squandering the potential of PC in blind pursuit of equality (if they didn't actively screw it up in a way it CAN'T easily scale up), not being straight up objectively inferior to the console versions. It takes the 15 FPS limit being a serious problem or GFLW continually eating saves to properly go there.Well, I'm not.
There's nothing I hate more than being forced to play with anything but native resolution. I will gladly renounce to AA, shaders, lighting.
Hell, I would even play in wireframe as far as resolution is native and animations are good.
Yes. If it didn't I'd be right there calling it one of the worst ports ever rather than just one of the most disappointing because seriously, what the fuck?Haven't read the whole thread, but does this support the 360 controller?
Haven't read the whole thread, but does this support the 360 controller?
Am I crazy to think it won't run well on a brand new, pimped out Retina Macbook Pro with Windows 8/16GB ram?