Dirt 2 is the other way around or how to say, you need DX11 hardware functionality as it doesn't "scale" back on DX10 or 10.1 capable GPU's so you are limited to DX9 only in that situation. (Guess it's easer to develop that way.) For Battleforge and Unigine (The benchmark tool only at the moment.) as far as I've understood it it'll use SM 4.1 if available (DX10.1 kinda.) instead but with other improvements (threading for example.) from DX11 like direct compute (4.1 though and not the full 5.0 version.) And for Call of Pripyat I'm pretty certain the render modes are stand-alone so it has full support for all three modes (Along with the so called "static lighting" which is sorta DX8 specified or something like that.) but you can't use DX11 with only DX10 (Or 10.1) compatible hardware. Bit difficult to describe and I'm not 100% certain what these do and don't for DX10, DX10.1 and DX11 when running like this, I know DX11 is sort of backwards compatible if implemented like what I mentioned about SM 4.1 and Direct Compute 4.1 being used instead of 5.0 (Which is DX10.1 specifications instead of DX11 ones.) along with general D3D11 render improvements like threading or general performance optimizations. (Easily verified by checking the logfiles for Battleforge which will show D3D11 being used or even using a pre-3.0 version of FRAPS, framerate counter won't work at all whereas it'll display correct with version 3.0 and later.) Again not the best description about it and as said it won't really make a huge difference from DX10 or 10.1 visuals and performance as tesselation and shader model 5 instructions (And direct compute 5) won't initialize. Heh quite a messy explanation, perhaps mentioned somewhere on Microsofts developer website or similar articles how this actually works. (As far as I know it scales back to whats available while keeping the D3D11 renderer, either 4.0 on DX10 cards or 4.1 on DX10.1 cards for direct compute and shader model.) EDIT: As for Metro as far as I know it'll work like Pripyat does it, full support for DX9, 10 and 11 (Unsure about DX10.1 features but perhaps, would help AA performance a bit for example.) but I don't think it'll allow the DX11 mode on unsupported hardware. EDIT: Although it wouldn't be that different from DX10 (Or .1) even if it did, atleast nothing that would be noticeable to the user. (Perhaps a bit better performance, depends on the game though and what it uses, Metro appears to be based on a similar tech as X-Ray but it's changed quite a bit though several ex-GSC employeers have worked on the project so for it to be somewhat comparable is understandable like the guy who wrote a large part of the deferred engine code for Stalker albeit it was a rather early version back then I guess as the mode hadn't been used much in games previously, afaik.) EDIT: Then again outside of DX11's "tesselation" functionality (As I see it.) not much would show a visual difference from DX10 although it has other users like better shader code via revision 5.0 or what to call it, programmable shaders (Similar to geometry shaders.) for various extra effects and general performance optimizations and improvements like better multi threading support. (Development should be a bit better and hopefully more titles will use it so it doesn't end up as a addon to DX9 like most DX10 titles were, DX9 primarily but a few improvements via DX10 wether it's visual or just performance.) (Also helps for apps with direct compute and openCL support and perhaps a bit in games as well for offloading certain CPU tasks.)
The video quality is horrible, but you can still tell the visuals are top notch, and character animation looks very good. If Nvidia had any sense they would of got Fermi released at the samae time as this, as a DX11 PhysX game of this quality would definetly help sales of the game and the card, but that is looking unlikely.
Yeah i agree, realsing hardware the same day as a big game like this wouldnt hurt sales i wouldnt think, every video i watch it just gets better and better.
Yep, if Fermi shipped with this game, and could run it at maxed at 1920x1200 at 60fps with full DX11 and GPU PhysX, it would be a fantastic marketing tool for both game and Nvidia. Instead, when its released, it can only be maxed if someone hacks drivers and combines an ATI and Nvidia GPU:3eyes:
Game looks excellent and I'm pretty excited, I just hope it doesn't turn out to be another Crysis or STALKER. While many loved STALKER I couldn't stomach it for more than a few minutes, I hate having to wait for mods before a game is playable. I hope more games are released using DX11 and developers, finally, drop DX 9 and even 10, in time.
Oh goodness tell me about it. I was actually able to play Stalker all the way through one time. After the abrupt ending and lack of anything really interesting once I GOT into the zone, I realized I just wasted so much time on it. I still have the scar. Even mods are not enough to save Stalker for me. Just wayyyyy too boring and uninspired. Felt the same about Crysis. I dunno what it is.. is it just that people are so easily swayed by pretty graphics and nice visuals? But yeah, lets just hope that 2033 stays true to what they are trying to accomplish. If they try to make it kinda resemble other games like Crysis, I will definitely be disappointed since this game looks very promising and the engine looks sick.
it looks like it'll have less of an open world-like feel to it then stalker did, at least IMO, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I gotta say though...how the characters speak, the animation for it, their lips and whatnot......is absolutely horrible from what i've seen
Crysis and STALKER were two of my favorite games to come out in recent years, two of very, very... very few games I enjoyed. So obviously to each his own. Not that Metro 2033 seems to resemble either one of those games from a game play standpoint, but it does seem to have similar PC focused gameplay elements. It is apparently very linear, something more like Half Life rather than STALKER, from what I have read.
I really don't understand why people keep going on about linear gameplay, the only games that aren't linear are MMO's. And even they are linear in many aspects. The greatest games in history were linear and nobody complained about that, because the gameplay was fantastic. I'm far more concerned about the gameplay of Metro 2033 than whether it's 'linear' or not.
To be honest, I think the only reason why people are complaining about its linearity is due to its graphically inherent similarity to the latest installment in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, which in turn is hugely non-linear. In fact, if all the three levels were merged into one, the game would be one huge sandbox, with no linearity whatsoever. Because Metro 2033 shares much with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in terms of atmosphere, art direction, setting, etc. it is inevitable that people will form associations between the two and hence use COP as a standard by which the merits of Metro are measured. If people notice a 'point of [supposed] inferiority' such as linearity when the objective standard against which the game is assessed is an enormous freedom in gameplay, then people will of course tend to put the game down because it doesn't fulfill the criterion of non-linearity in gameplay.
To be fair just because a game is linear it doesnt make it bad, its going to be compared to stalker which is ok but it think this looks better and looks far more entertaining, i find i spend nearly half my time in stalker walking around doing nothing, which would be fine if the game wasnt so huge. Reall cant wait for this game.
I prefer linear FPS over open world, after all the best ones are linear. Wandering around in a empty wasteland isn't my idea of fun, with a linear game developers can create a much more compelling experience.
