Mountainforest Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad From trailers and screenshots the textures do seem a bit better but overall the graphics don't seem that much improved. Wouldn't be more I'm certain. Note that it's the same engine for all platforms. Graphics won't be better on PC then on PS2. The only major difference will be in the texture and the resolution. I think we should not judge the graphics form the sreenshots and trailers, but one the judgement players gave who actually played them. From what I've read, that quit satified regarding the graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I just assumed there would be a big jump in system requirements between Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic and Star Wars Battlefront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tFighterPilot Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Originally posted by joesdomain I just assumed there would be a big jump in system requirements between Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic and Star Wars Battlefront. KOTOR was only for the PC and X-Box and not for the PS2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountainforest Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Originally posted by tFighterPilot KOTOR was only for the PC and X-Box and not for the PS2 Let's not get pestimistic. I really don't thnik it's that bad. If you read the previews, they are quit satisfied with the graphics (including the ps2 graphics) so I don't think there's any reason for worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Besides, most of us don't care if the graphics are incredible or not. It's the gameplay that's important. Any game can have great graphics but bad gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master William Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 hope it runs good on my computer... those rainy/forest maps are the perfect FPS eaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CortoCG Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Considering the scale of the battles they're claiming the game will have, I don't think they'll sacrifice gameplay for visuals. That said, what they're taking away from visual quality (which is not THAT bad at all) they're putting into the magnitude of the scenes. The models seem around 2000 polygons max, the textures look very washed and there's not a glimpse of shaders of any kind on the trailer. It means that Pandemic is aiming for fast paced gameplay and an overall smooth performance. The recomended requierements shouldn't go above PIII 1 Ghz., 512 Mb RAM, GeForce 2 Ti 64Mb. Almost like BF1942. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CortoCG Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 lukeiamyourdad, from what I can see in your avatar It seems like you're a pretty lady... or David Bowie. Post a bigger picture pls . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Yup, I AM David Bowie. And I won't post a bigger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yaebginn Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 lukeiamyourdad is a dude. he gets laughs off geeks from the internet falling in love with him. its quite humorous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Dude! You killed the joke! I was going to try and seduce him! Ah damn...lolll I'm a very sick individual P.S: I wasn't really going to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CortoCG Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Technically speaking, Knights of the Old Republic is also coming out on Macintosh. I saw a press release from Aspry Media (mispelled) a few months ago. I believe it is coming out in August 30, 2004. I bet they will do they same thing for Knights of the Old Republic II and release it for Mcintosh 6-10 months after the PC and X-box release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schetter Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Interesting topic. Finally something worth discussing. One thing that I think needs to be mentioned here and hasn't yet (sorry to bring back old threads, but I haven't visited here in a while) is the fact that the tralier footage we've seen have been from early alpha builds. This means that the game is playable, makes sense, looks right, and most everything is locking together with some outstanding bugs here and there. There's still a little under three months until release, and I'm guessing they'll have a good two of those months left to get some really hard work in before they have to make a final build of it to publish. There's still time and room for improvement on the graphical side. The physics and gameplay mechanics will be pretty identical across the board, and they must be in order for cross-platform play to actually work and be enjoyable. In any case, I would think that any issues on the physics & gameplay area would be the first things to be worked out and perfected since it's what the game relies on - all the rest (graphics, sound, etc) are secondary to the core gameplay engine. (I'm getting around to the point, hold on). I'm saying all this to support my view that the majority of work being done at this stage of development is polishing the physics, optimizing and adding to the graphics engine (especially on the PC side of things to take advantage of the technology in the beefier machines that some people have), adding to texture sets, and fine tuning the sound engines and files. My second point is that minimum requirements mean very little. They basically guarantee you that you'll be able to load up into the game and get 10-15 fps on average (lower if you get into some thick action) - hardly playable - and that would be in a muliplayer game where you don't have to worry about AI. Forget about an enjoyable single player experience. I'm currently running a GeForce2. I ordered a new card from Newegg this week. I'm upgrading because I'm sick of getting killed due to framerate drops once I get into the action (BF:42). I can't even get 30 fps consistently on relatively open maps once the action starts kickin. BF:42 is now two years old; dated, for sure, in terms of video games. A GeForce2 is the minimum requirement as far as graphics card for that game. To say that the same will apply for a new game two years later is really stretching it. Not to say that it might actually happen, because it might due to the cross-platform developement. But to say that they won't even try to make it scalable upwards in terms of graphics quality and eye candy is just fallacy if they want to attract the casual PC gamer that isn't a SW fanatic. It's my guess that you'll be able to load up and play the game with a PIII, 256MB RAM, and a GeForce2 with all the graphics settings at minimum. If you actually wish to enjoy the gameplay, you're definately going to need something beefier. If you're in this situation, I'd recommend another RAM stick and a graphics card upgrade. GeForce4s are pretty cheap ($60 on newegg.com) and memory comes pretty cheap if you're running SDRAM. (If you've got PC100/133 like me, it's going to be a bit more expensive.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.