Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by WhiteLightning, Jun 12, 2018.
Ill probably pick this up on PS4 until its available on PC next year
I'm not going to skip it, I've never missed a Remedy release.
Just won't be getting this on PC. I own Alan Wake on 360 because that's what it was on. I will get Control for PS4.
Its not the same man, PC is where its at. Maybe snag a RTX super 2070 and a PC version of Control. Thats sounds like how its meant to be played.
I won't be getting it on the PC, unless the game has multi GPU support then I will get a better experience on the X1X.
It a predicament for some people though, playing the game at 30fps and lower visuals on the PS4 when there is a perfectly good PC version available can't be easy.
Then again, if you are one of the people who hate what Epic are doing, you can't give them money without being a hypocrite.
I'm very glad I don't care either way, plus if the game is good then I may replay it on the PC in a few years with all the RTX stuff enabled.
OR... maybe, ignore RTX (because I think it looks ugly... lets just make everything shiny), and wait for it to come to Steam.
A better platform, one I trust. And, by that point, Control will be updated and patched.
Side note, nothing... absolutely NOTHING I've seen has made me believe or feel that RTX is a must have feature.
Just one more example of how they cheat with that RTX.
In this video SSR reflections are heavily degraded and not implemented properly, and again they did this to trick people into believing how raytracing is so much superior: .
Now compare that with the SSR reflections in this video:
well im actually skeptical about it. both Max Payne I\II and Alan Wake are definitely one
of those nostalgic games i will always remember, Quantum Break was a failure in my opinion
as a single player campaign, it had some holy $hit moments.. but in general for me it was a mess
with insane graphics.
Control seems more or less the same, just different package. no disrespect for Remedy
and the talent they bring to their games, but at the end i judge it as a single player and
QB was very shallow and uninteresting despite the "premium feeling" of the production.
it was exactly the opposite from Max Payne in my eyes.
The version of Quantum Break that was released was not the game Remedy wanted to make.
In the end, they had to drastically cut down the size and scope of the game to meet Microsoft's release window.
But with Control, they are not running into those issues. Remedy own the IP and are in control of it's development cycle and timeline. They sought out a publisher who would back them, but not force their hand.
They've said that with Control they hope to deliver on some of the promises they originally made to themselves with QB.
Plus, Control has James Mccaffrey (Max Payne) and Ilkka Villi (Alan Wake) in it. Plus Courtney Hope (Quantum Break).
Quantum Break may not have been up to the same level as Alan Wake, but to say it was a failure is a bit much. It was a very ambitious game, but one held back by a publisher who want a quick product.
well @Damien_Azreal im still skeptical. and if the game will deliver as you say, it will be a nice surprise for me.
im always happy to see quality single players.
if im ignoring QB for a minute, Control from the trailers\game-play iv seen so far looks
to me like something with "less story more production". i might be wrong here, who knows.
as for the reasons QB didn't meet the expectations from Remedy.. its kinda hard
to relate to that. it is what it is in the end. the final product came out, i played it and it was a very
shallow experience compared to their earlier titles. i have nothing else to add on this subject.. i sure hope im wrong about Control here.
It's Remedy, story is always the main focus.
But, they are promoting the game with gameplay because they want to keep the story as much of a secret as possible.
Also, part of the reason why Quantum Break may have felt a little lacking "story wise", Sam Lake wasn't a writer on it. He was a creative director, but writing duties were handed off to other people.
Where as with Max Payne 1 and 2 and Alan Wake, Sam was the main writer. He still says Alan Wake is his proudest achievement.
But, with Control, Sam is back to being one of the main writers.
Well, i liked qantum break here hehe. Looking forward to control !
Loved Quantum Break.
Hope they make a sequel.
RTX is indeed superior. What's your point? In that Cry Engine video you can see all the limitations traditional SSR have, like the fact the camera does not move up and down and stays all time at the same position on the vertical axis, otherwise reflections would disappear a/o reflected objects would become deformed/warped. Believe it or not, ray tracing is going to take over traditional techniques, which are indeed a "cheat". We can argue of course that this game is sponsored and they want to make RTX look better but fact is that until now reflections were very limited and only doable on certain surfaces because of their "screen space" nature.
Mmmh... Maybe you are trolling, I'm not sure.
I love Quantum Break as well, own it both on the Win10 store and Steam.
But, out of Remedy's games... I'd say QB does not match the brilliance of Alan Wake, or the awesomeness of Max Payne.
It's hard to tell, since you didn't quote anyone... but, I'm going to assume you are replying to me since I said play it without RTX.
And, it's kind of sad, that you would think someone was "trolling" just because they don't like RTX.
It's an honest opinion, based on what I've seen in various games, it's visual appearance and the performance hit it induces. It's not worth it. At times, the difference it either so minimal it seems pointless, and other times (Quake 2 and Control) it just looks like there's an idea that making everything reflective and shiny looks good.
Which, I don't agree with. Too many reflective surfaces can look obnoxious, overly busy... and gaudy. Watching Control's RTX video above, in several of the scenes shown.. I think the game looks much better without RTX.
Making something reflective just because you can, doesn't mean it's good.
But, just reminds me of motion blur or depth of field. There are people that swear by these effects, and personally, I think they are hideous.
And, while down the road, RTX may be worth while. It may be improved, and really deliver, but right now... the performance cost, the look... no. It's not worth it.
lol unreal 3 was it had that everything is fake shiny thing going on. it got old when every other game that gen looked like it was plastic but i think a few games worked around that if they put effort into the games.
in real life photons bounce off things light hits that wall bounces off it as long as it is not some exotic material (or a black hole) some amount of light will bounce off almost all surfaces. but they are not shiny the photons interact with different surfaces in different ways and scatter differently off them. does not matter the source of light the mechanics of light are the same.
"it just works" todd howard/god
and it works fine in rendering software you do not see the surfaces getting shiny, it looks like natural beautiful lighting. the process needs work on top of the hardware needs to be better to pull this stuff off in real time wo massive hits to frames. atm it suffers from A) looks fake or only looks good in certain situations (low light areas etc) B) the cost to run it is ridiculous, well duh again if you worked in rendering software at all you know how intensive rendering a scene with ray tracing is it can take hours of processing to do a moderately complex scene, that when nvidia or someone says hey we doing real time ray tracing and you think umm no.
@Damien_Azreal I was replying to STARAC, I also quoted him.
Here is a pic:
I agree with your thoughts, overdoing something never brings to good results. In this specific case, I think the objects get much more grounded into the context and everything looks more coherent. Remedy did not exaggerate with the reflections, from what I saw materials react to light as they are expected to react in reality, maybe some floors are just too shiny, a problem which is much more visible in Quake II RTX.
But think also about what we saw in Quantum Break with those horrible cube maps which appeared when SSR couldn't work anymore or those warped reflections when standing in front of a reflective/opaque surface:
It irrelevant if RTX effects are worth the performance hit, or if some people like or dislike how it looks.
Having a visual effect you don't like that can be disabled and give you better performance is the dream. It's not something to complain about.
I'm one of the people who likes motion blur and DOF, I wish i didnt as it would mean better performance. Not a fan of CA, but i dont think there is much performance hit with that so again I don't win lol.
Remedy are more than competent developers, so im sure they will do their best with the RT implementation.
Easily fixable with planar reflections:
You can mix SSR with planar if you want, and it costs almost zero performance. Btw, as long as you have different techniques that can produce similar effects, it's pointless to use RT. Hardware is not ready for RT, and that RTX is also a cheat.
Ignorance is not a virtue.
@S.T.A.R.A.C. Your arrogance is not a virtue as well. Relax, life is too short already.
I have never denied there are other methods which can solve the limitations of SSR, I was commenting on your video and what it was showing. In any case, is it better using one technology which solves all the equations at once - and I am NOT referring only to nvidia tech but also to Ray Tracing in general - or using three difference technologies which bring to the same result but are most likely more time consuming? Why nobody used these planar reflections until now when it was so convenient (I am talking about the last 10-15 years)? Are we sure performance are going to be good with millions of triangles on screen which need to be duplicated? RTX is still of course an hybrid version and yes, it is partially a cheat, but for now is what's getting closer to physical reality. I also agree with you that the tech is not ripe yet but it is the first stone for the future tech.
PS: there is one example where planar reflections have been lately used and that is Resident Evil II Remake, namely in the interrogation room where there is a false mirror reflecting stuff properly, in that case the framerate sunk drastically. Using that kind of reflections on deferred engines bring to a huge computational expense, I read a paper about it many years ago.
This is not the question of do some people like RTX or not. The problem here is that they cheat with this RTX bullshit. Like i said they deliberately degrade traditional raster to trick people into believing how raytracing is so much superior. So if you disable RTX or you can't use it because you don't have Nvidia hardware or you have a console, in that case you are gonna end up with shitty reflections or lack of AO like in the Metro case.
I'm arrogant because i tell the truth?
How can RT solve all problems if you have huge performance problems, and you still have to use tricks and hybrid approach! And yes RTX is only Nvidia, so you need to have 2 implementations for GI or reflections in every game, which is even more time consuming. Btw, the reason why devs use SSR is zero performance cost, so you can spend that surplus on something that is more important like geometry or LODs. There are more important aspects of graphics that first should be dealt with, and then we can talk about RT.
And then there is this big problem with deliberate cheating and lowering quality of graphics, to which many people are completely ignorant!
Btw, you can mix SSR and planar to achieve much better performance.