Astrotoy7 Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 anyone here heard about/interested in the game being worked on by Remedy/MS called Alan Wake The devs behind Max Payne are working on it and it looks superb. There will be a 360 and a PC version.... though if you want to run a fully optimised PC version..... you'll need a Quad Core PC and DX10 graphics card The demo they showed at E3 was run on a Quad Core Intel PC overclocked to 3.73 GHz... There hasnt been confirmation on how it will run on current dual core cpus, but it *HAS* been confirmed that the PC version is Vista/DirectX 10 only... See the screenshots for some super eye candy trailer here.... dang.. it looks good visually and if Remedy's past efforts are anything to go by, should hopefully turn out to be a great game.. time will tell... in the meantime... better bulk up my pc !! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Well, some of the screenshots look haute, especially the scenery ones. But that one screenie with the protagonist and the other guy looks very unreal. I bet the Source engine can create a better looking screen than that. But looks to be one helluva game otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 7, 2007 Author Share Posted July 7, 2007 ...I bet the Source engine can create a better looking screen than that.... oh heck no... cmon sabre..... source wasnt written to optimise quad core or DX10 shading capability.... Remedy have written this engine from ground up for that very purpose. Source's lighting effects are limited by Dx9 threading bottlnecks...not to mention x86 bottlenecks... look at the different trailers and see the effects with the light...and the outdoor scenes... there is no Dx9 based engine that can handle that *in game* Now Im sure Valve will step up to the plate and eventually optimise their engine for DX10 but until then, comparing source to the AW engine is like comparing standard def TV to high def TV.... its sorta looks the same on a cerain screen and certain resolution....but in optimised conditions...it aint really anywhere near the same at all mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 oh heck no... cmon sabre..... source wasnt written to optimise quad core or DX10 shading capability.... Remedy have written this engine from ground up for that very purpose. Source's lighting effects are limited by Dx9 threading bottlnecks...not to mention x86 bottlenecks... look at the different trailers and see the effects with the light...and the outdoor scenes... there is no Dx9 based engine that can handle that *in game* Now Im sure Valve will step up to the plate and eventually optimise their engine for DX10 but until then, comparing source to the AW engine is like comparing standard def TV to high def TV.... its sorta looks the same on a cerain screen and certain resolution....but in optimised conditions...it aint really anywhere near the same at all mtfbwya Sure the lighting and water effects are unparalleled here, but look at the textures and models up close. They look ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 7, 2007 Author Share Posted July 7, 2007 lolz...the only thing you can pick at in the ones theyve shown is the model of the car with teh hood up....even in that very pic, everything else looks stunning. I thinks its been a while since you had a close look at some source screenies saber. The straight lines....are just too straight... and light doesnt permeate and envelope structures.. have a look for yourself http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screenindex.html and then go back and look at the AW screenies mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 lolz...the only thing you can pick at in the ones theyve shown is the model of the car with teh hood up....even in that very pic, everything else looks stunning. I thinks its been a while since you had a close look at some source screenies saber. The straight lines....are just too straight... and light doesnt permeate and envelope structures.. have a look for yourself http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screenindex.html and then go back and look at the AW screenies mtfbwya I may sound technologically illiterate here, so bear with me. Half-Life 2 is old. Check out Half-Life 2 Episode 2's graphics - much better. Now, What HL2E2 does is, it pushes the (outdated) Source's capabilities to make realistic graphics. What Alan Wake does is that it doesn't push its capabilities, thereby producing only like, 50-60% of its potential. Don't get me wrong here, the scenery et al looks brilliant here, but the game as a whole doesn't look quite as appealing on the whole. The screens may look good as my wallpaper, but not in a video game because of that car and those trees (close-up) etc. And yes, I have seen the trailer, thank you. DirectX 10 sure does make things look pretty, but it takes Valve-style effort to actually look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 7, 2007 Author Share Posted July 7, 2007 Sabre... I havent been able to find any source that cites what either the source engine nor the Remedy-AW engine can do at any percentage of its potential... In fact, ''making up a percentage'' is remarkably misleading...and not fully considerate of the elements it takes to put an image onto the screen.... The source engine is DX9 optimised. It has its limitations. Still, with proper hardware and good coding you can make things look nice *at lower resolutions* There is always argument over how well source optimised dual core configs...this is separate from dual GPU/SLI or crossfire setups. Finally, with the PAE restrictions on x86 operating systems, theres some really restrictive bottlenecks. MS has long ago established that x64 XP is for the enterprise market, so thats not even worth considering. The gaming market is a huge slice of pie for MS and the graphics hardware devs. Tech devs and gamers have ranted and complained about the afrementioned bottlenecks from early on after XP was released....especially when it became apparent that x64 XP wasnt going to be games friendly. So DX10 is the solution they came up with to free these bottlenecks. x64 Vista is definitely sitting quietly awaiting its time in the limelight as the next OS of choice for the high level gamer. It is written as such and can support a useful 8GB to 128GB(theoretical/server based) RAM in Vista Ultimate/Business/Enterprise x64 editions. So, straight off the bat....there is a massive jump in processing capabilities that will allow devs to run wild... Looking at half a dozen screenshots of a game is of course not enough to make a well grounded statement....but even from what is available... the clear gap between that engine and its predecessors is clearly evident.. even in facial characteristics.... I played HL2E2 again just a month ago...and while it looks great, graphical elements jumped out at me.... the way high level filtering is handled, glows, and antialising etc really made the bottlenecks of XP and DX9 hit home. Back when we played the game initially we were wowed, as we were comparing that to preceding games... This pic sums up DX9 for me... the there is no depth to anything. There are some great tricks being employed that give am approximation of depth and the way light changes across terrain/space/objects/faces As nice as you can model and mould a skin... there are things you cant do simply because processing it would make your framerates, and therefore gameplay experience suffer.. anyway, Im sure Valve will knock our socks off when they get their DX10 groove on mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Personally I have yet to find a game that doesn't have the Uncanny Valley effect... especially as we get closer and closer to full res humans. So until then.. all the graphics look fake to mee... I mean they look good but nothing to oogle over... plus my compy can't handle it soooo I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 i don't know. the game looks like it could be DX9 based if it wanted to be. heck, the graphics really impress me as Oblivion graphics with sharper textures and slightly improved geometry. don't get me wrong, the graphics are impressive, but it just doesn't seem like its really raising the bar or anything like Crysis is. still, the game does look promising. hopefully, it will live up to the expectations and the developer's previous work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Sabre... I havent been able to find any source that cites what either the source engine nor the Remedy-AW engine can do at any percentage of its potential... In fact, ''making up a percentage'' is remarkably misleading...and not fully considerate of the elements it takes to put an image onto the screen.... The source engine is DX9 optimised. It has its limitations. Still, with proper hardware and good coding you can make things look nice *at lower resolutions* There is always argument over how well source optimised dual core configs...this is separate from dual GPU/SLI or crossfire setups. Finally, with the PAE restrictions on x86 operating systems, theres some really restrictive bottlenecks. MS has long ago established that x64 XP is for the enterprise market, so thats not even worth considering. The gaming market is a huge slice of pie for MS and the graphics hardware devs. Tech devs and gamers have ranted and complained about the afrementioned bottlenecks from early on after XP was released....especially when it became apparent that x64 XP wasnt going to be games friendly. So DX10 is the solution they came up with to free these bottlenecks. x64 Vista is definitely sitting quietly awaiting its time in the limelight as the next OS of choice for the high level gamer. It is written as such and can support a useful 8GB to 128GB(theoretical/server based) RAM in Vista Ultimate/Business/Enterprise x64 editions. So, straight off the bat....there is a massive jump in processing capabilities that will allow devs to run wild... Looking at half a dozen screenshots of a game is of course not enough to make a well grounded statement....but even from what is available... the clear gap between that engine and its predecessors is clearly evident.. even in facial characteristics.... I played HL2E2 again just a month ago...and while it looks great, graphical elements jumped out at me.... the way high level filtering is handled, glows, and antialising etc really made the bottlenecks of XP and DX9 hit home. Back when we played the game initially we were wowed, as we were comparing that to preceding games... This pic sums up DX9 for me... the there is no depth to anything. There are some great tricks being employed that give am approximation of depth and the way light changes across terrain/space/objects/faces As nice as you can model and mould a skin... there are things you cant do simply because processing it would make your framerates, and therefore gameplay experience suffer.. *big-ass image* anyway, Im sure Valve will knock our socks off when they get their DX10 groove on mtfbwya WTH? Episode 2 is not even released! Where the hell did you play it, El Astro? Okay, the percentage thing was a bit lame, but I think the point is clear. Look at Crysis and you'll know what DX10 should look like. With a view of DX10 like that, you just know that Alan Wake's graphics are average. And you know that they haven't used it to the top of its potential. Crysis looks perfect, with excellent textures and models too. And the trees are beautiful, not 2000-esque models that look pretty only a dozen miles away. I think I'd like to play a game that looks good rather than play a game which offers plain depth with Pong graphics. And if things are going to bang up the framerates, well they could go easy on the lighting and the water. People are not going to actually jump into the water or anything - its can be compromised for some better looking models. That car looks like a disgusting cardboard-machine, damnit. The point is, that the graphics need to look good as a whole. Showing off your awesome scenery effects when your actual close-up gameplay is ugly is almost as bad as showing off a beefed up trailer calling it "in-engine". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 7, 2007 Author Share Posted July 7, 2007 WTH? Episode 2 is not even released! Where the hell did you play it, El Astro? lolz... typo for teh win crysis does look yummy indeed. But its a game for all you bonehead FPSers... The CRY engine is SOOO wasted on a shoot em up... who cares how pretty the freakin leaves are you spend most of your time running/creeping through them and making your gfx card v-sync down its frames to keep up.. bollocks... give me a 'psychological thriller' or RPG any day, where roaming around and seeing the sights is part of the game In a game like that especially, the ambience created by environmental visuals will be a *very* important element of the gameplay experience.. still, I havent seen anything like AW... I think we must all be looking at different parts of the same screenies Maybe I could have used mspaint.exe to paint a gun/bazooka/mcnugget from first person view...that might have put in context for you source junkies. Ive saw oblivion(I hate that game) at 2560x1600 with a 8800GTX on a 305T syncmaster that supports that as its native rez....it was pretty as hell... however, but at this resolution ...even its outside distances and lighting effects still showed its DX9 spots in certain areas. anwyay, this geeky debate discussion can reconvene when AW/Crysis is released and we can crunch some DX10 benchies with our 8800s(or AMD equivalent) The numbers will be phenomenal, and running at UHD, not monkey a$$ resolutions like 1280 x1024...which is where most people play atm. mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbieZ Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 That looks awesome but the name is the lamest name for a game i have ever seen. They need to change that to something considerably less cheesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I watched the trailer and... it's also full of cheese. "Some are born to the light... others are born to endless night..." "I was a writer... blah blah something happened now I have nightmares boo hoo" Boo hoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share Posted July 8, 2007 lolz...when I first heard AlanWake.com I thought it was a Christian faith healer I think that would be even more cheesy @Mike... lolz... interesting that you used the word cheesy... Im sure AW will be nowhere near as dark and disturbing as KH Now theres some cheese, sliced and served on a sandwich. I wonder what Goofy will look like in DX10 I cant say I was too keen on the name ''Max Payne''...(the games were great) I had a History teacher called "Mrs Payne" She was in her 60s and thought she was 23.....the way she dolled up Still, Remedy - are a great/unique dev team, so it will be very interesting to see what they come up with. Im glad they have stepped up to the plate to put the hard yards into the next gen of PC games.... which cant be said for a certain games co. from a galaxy far far away Kudos to them. Some people like to do the hard work...others just watch and complain mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 lolz... typo for teh win crysis does look yummy indeed. But its a game for all you bonehead FPSers... The CRY engine is SOOO wasted on a shoot em up... who cares how pretty the freakin leaves are you spend most of your time running/creeping through them and making your gfx card v-sync down its frames to keep up.. bollocks... give me a 'psychological thriller' or RPG any day, where roaming around and seeing the sights is part of the game In a game like that especially, the ambience created by environmental visuals will be a *very* important element of the gameplay experience.. *blabbity blabbity* That reinforces the point. For a game like Alan Wake, which will most closely resemble adventure games, the graphics should be top-notch. But Crysis, a silly shooter is the one with the ubergraphics. You can guess that Crytek has a lot to do here - lots of levels, AI, stuff like that. I don't think the production for Wake is as complexly detailed as that of Crysis. Why can't they polish their graphics, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbieZ Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I think everyone is trying to place graphics on too high a pedestal here. Everyone has seen Crysis and immediately thinks every game that follows should have equal or superior graphics. Kotor did'nt have that superior graphics when it came out but it is still one of the best games i have ever played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 ^^^^ we're looking at the graphics because its about the only thing that Astro emphasized in his original post outside of system requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I think everyone is trying to place graphics on too high a pedestal here. Everyone has seen Crysis and immediately thinks every game that follows should have equal or superior graphics. Kotor did'nt have that superior graphics when it came out but it is still one of the best games i have ever played. Yes, everone being me, Astro and our furious, yet ludicrous debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 @Mike... lolz... interesting that you used the word cheesy... Im sure AW will be nowhere near as dark and disturbing as KH Now theres some cheese, sliced and served on a sandwich. I wonder what Goofy will look like in DX10 Pft. KH is revolutionary son... Disney RPG.. this is rehashing plots that have been done since forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 congrats Herbie on being the guy to chime in with the age old "but graphics dont make for a good game" ... but as stinger says, we're talking about graphics and specs As much as we all love KOTOR(and to a lesser extent TSL).. Its not like KOTORs graphics are godawful... full 3D tilt and pan isnt exactly low-fi . And, C'mon, those plots arent exactly a Dostoevsky masterwork..... theyre good for a game, but it doesnt leave you questioning the fibre of your being.... I dont think any computer game can do that(unless you're Mike playing Disney titles) mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 anyone here heard about/interested in the game being worked on by Remedy/MS called Alan Wake Hell yes! I've been waiting for this game for a while now, It's number #2 on my 'most hyped games' list right next to GTA IV. The fact that Remedy is Finnish and has come this far (after the success of Max Payne) gives me hope. I long for the day when Nokia is not our biggest company. Anyway, enough off topic The only thing that sucks is I'll have to upgrade to Vista if I want to play this game. I'm just hoping it will support DX9 so I won't have to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 sorry phoenix....the official AW faq clearly states that its a DX10/Vista only game on PC. The only other option you have is the x360 version. mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 sorry phoenix....the official AW faq clearly states that its a DX10/Vista only game on PC. Meh. That sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbieZ Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 congrats Herbie on being the guy to chime in with the age old "but graphics dont make for a good game" ... but as stinger says, we're talking about graphics and specs I thought moderators were supposed to have a little 'tact' when it comes to throwing sarcasm around. Yes everyone is talking about graphics and specs so please explain why my... I think everyone is trying to place graphics on too high a pedestal here. ...opinion is out of place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I thought moderators were supposed to have a little 'tact' when it comes to throwing sarcasm around. Welcome to ze world of the Astro, Herbie. Enjoy your stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.