Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Grimbarian, Apr 29, 2020.
here we go Valhalla,let's see if I can do better
got what I wanted
should've bought it a long time ago.well,at least I didn't have to pay launch price.
It's a cool game imo
It is an immersive game. All you have to do is enjoy playing it.
I certainly have, and I've never been an AC fan. I just finished the main story after 140hrs, and I loved every minute. It the first AC game I've finished I've still got lots to do, so the game doesn't end for me yet, which I'm happy about, and then there is the DLC coming soon. I had completely missed Vinland believe it or not ,and it is probably the best looking location in the whole game, yet you can finish the main story without going there, which is bonkers.
This may be my favourite game in twenty years of PC gaming. And no game should look this good and run so well on my old PC. For me this is the best looking game I've played on PC or console.
Your "goal" is not to kill Gorm. Your "goal" is to establish a settlement in England. So Vinland is optional, to kill or not kill Gorm. If you want or not..
Same with the "dream land", its just optional content.
I know that... and it is exactly what I meant.
They create this vast area, which is possibly the most stunning area in the entire game, and you don't have to go there. You might not even realise you can unless you look into it. I like the fact that I've finished the main game, but I have lots I can still do, if I want to.
You should try more AAA games then. Even on your own screenshots you can see how procedural it is. The same universal and not very detailed ground texture. The same trees and their positions generated proceduraly without much sense. The most of the environment is missing proper artistic touch. It has some nice places here and there, but that's it. I would prefer smaller map, but with much more attention to detail and diversity in vegetation, better landscaping etc.
Could do without the unnecessary cocky unpleasantness, but, blah, blah, blah internet and all that
I did say for me, and I have played most big AAA titles, apart from Cyberpunk. For a world this big I do not expect to see a landscape that has no repeating textures, placements or assets, as that would be impossible with current tech. MSFS2020 does the best with it, streaming in real world data, but 3D assets are reused everywhere of course. For such a large world I am constantly amazed by the amount of unique features, minute detail and landscape design, and would say describing it as having 'nice places here and there' to be massively underselling it, as I always seem to be stumbling across stunning little areas, or amazing, beautifully lit vista's. It's not without it faults, but show me a game that does not.... Go on?... which AAA game with this sort of scope, does it better?.... and it's not RDR2.... for me.
RDR2, Division 2, GTA5, HZD, TLOU2 etc.. Games are not about the size of the map. I can create map with size of 100kms squared in an hour. It's about the diversity and detail it provides from every single angle and distance. There is no point in hunting map sizes if your dev team is not large enough to fill every cm of space with proper detail.
I dont agree entirely with you.
The game looks as good as the ones you mentioned, except RDR2 that is a more sober and consistent game graphic wise, but AC can look as good as any of the others and in some moments even better.
The lack of consistency does in fact brings the all game a bit down, but, for me, is at the level of any other AAA out there.
Yeah, it is quite inconsistent visually, but it's mostly down to the lighting, which looks fairly bad for like 1/3 of the day cycle. And i agree with RDR2 looking better than Valhalla.
But imo cyberpunk is just heads and shoulders above everything else visually. Obviously is way more performance heavy aswell, as you'd expect. Closest thing to a modern Crysis.
Ubi really struggle with lighting, The Division is a prime example, amazing at night especially the first game with the snow and fog and lights etc but really looks like crap in daytime.
I agree it's not about map size, and Valhalla could be smaller, although I haven't found it an unwieldy playground. I think RDR2 is technically better for the most part, but I find it a bit bland in its colour palette, and simply prefer AC-V...... TLOU2 is utterly stunning, but it's very contained. A tech tour de force none the less, but not a game to compare an open world too. GTA5, HZD lag quite far behind AC-V for me, and they display all the things you criticise AC for, but that's fine, it's how open world games have to be constructed. I simply love the look of AC-V but, recognise it has it's faults.
There is no way Cyberpunk would run well on my PC and even if it did work, I'd not see it at it best, but, yes for sure, from what I've seen it looks amazing if you have the hardware.
These shots show what I love about Valhalla. The environment looks natural, and it is extremely dense and varied. Any model or texture repeats are well hidden and it runs well on my machine. I love it, but I'm not saying others have too.
so when will we preload the DLC which is coming tomorrow?
it's very good except for medium-far distance vegetation.
imo not the best looking game,not even top 5,but at times it does have its charm.