Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Deepblue on March 21, 2006, 08:46:55 pm
-
Oblivion is out. You may now recede from your social life.
-
My what?
-
Isn't out in Europe yet :sigh:
Will probably have to wait until over the weekend or so before I see it on the shelves, but in the meantime I'm using other means to get it.
-
I'am getting it in friday
-
I didn't preorder. I forgot!
/me cries.
-
gonna haveta wait a while before i get mine, spending a whole wad of cash on something else that's being released soon.
-
Ummmm, pardon me for sounding like I have a life, but what is oblivion?
-
Someone buy it for me! *cries*
-
I've just bought a new amplifier for my electric guitar, no rig updates nor Oblivion for me :(
-
I don't know much about the gameplay, but going by the screenshots the graphics look like crap. I don't know why so many people are upgrading their computers just for this game. I wouldn't think it's all that demanding.
-
There are screenshots and DB hasn't posted them all 12 times by now?
My God, they must've reduced his wage.
-
I don't know much about the gameplay, but going by the screenshots the graphics look like crap. I don't know why so many people are upgrading their computers just for this game. I wouldn't think it's all that demanding.
IIRC the graphics actually got toned down because the 360 couldn't handle it at a constant 30 fps. I'm not sure to what extent, but I remember they had to take out the dynamic object shadows for that reason.
The graphics do still look quite good to me, though. Which screenshots are you looking at?
-
I'm just going by the screenshots people are posting on various forums. The ones Ace posted in that other thread, for example. Some things look decent, but the low resolution textures everywhere really stick out. (this may well be a result of toning down for consoles, as the 360 has limited memory compared to a computer)
-
I seem to remember Morrowind having some issues with the 360 not having a hard disk by default, raising issues over streaming stuff from memory.
-
I don't know much about the gameplay, but going by the screenshots the graphics look like crap. I don't know why so many people are upgrading their computers just for this game. I wouldn't think it's all that demanding.
IIRC the graphics actually got toned down because the 360 couldn't handle it at a constant 30 fps. I'm not sure to what extent, but I remember they had to take out the dynamic object shadows for that reason.
The graphics do still look quite good to me, though. Which screenshots are you looking at?
Uh what? They toned down the shadows on both versions because no one wants to play a game at 10 fps. And FYI, the Xbox 360 and PC versions are identical unless you have an nVidia card. Then the 360 version is better because it can do both HDR and AA. The game was not "consolized" in any way.
@Aldo: Morrowind was on the Xbox... Oblivion has speedy loadtimes and amazing drawdistances.
@CP: 60 square miles of land to explore.
It doesn't matter which version you get unless you're PC can't run it on full... In which case the 360 version is going to LOOK better, however, you don't get mods and mouse control with that route.
-
I seem to remember Morrowind having some issues with the 360 not having a hard disk by default, raising issues over streaming stuff from memory.
:confused: Isnt the HDD required for BC anyways....................
-
@Aldo: Morrowind was on the Xbox... Oblivion has speedy loadtimes and amazing drawdistances.
And a hard disk..........which I believe is what I was asking. I know that Volitions' 360 game had to cut features (http://www.aussiexbox.com.au/template_sec_games.cfm?page_id=55540449110031018&se_id=139&site_id=11003) due to the lack of a standard HD, and hence an inability to stream the map data. This (http://www.gamesfirst.com/?id=465) supports that as well, with Bethesda mentioning an advantage to having an HD such as faster load times.
Not sure I see - going by the previous game - Morrowind being a type of game suited to a console, though. Stuff like the inventory, journal, conversation interface, potion-making, etc all seem far more attuned to PC controls (as opossed to the likes of, say, Zelda - which to be honest I enjoyed far more if I compare OoT to the Elder Scrolls).
-
I don't know much about the gameplay, but going by the screenshots the graphics look like crap. I don't know why so many people are upgrading their computers just for this game. I wouldn't think it's all that demanding.
IIRC the graphics actually got toned down because the 360 couldn't handle it at a constant 30 fps. I'm not sure to what extent, but I remember they had to take out the dynamic object shadows for that reason.
The graphics do still look quite good to me, though. Which screenshots are you looking at?
Uh what? They toned down the shadows on both versions because no one wants to play a game at 10 fps. And FYI, the Xbox 360 and PC versions are identical unless you have an nVidia card. Then the 360 version is better because it can do both HDR and AA. The game was not "consolized" in any way.
It doesn't matter which version you get unless you're PC can't run it on full... In which case the 360 version is going to LOOK better, however, you don't get mods and mouse control with that route.
*cough* http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox-360/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion/697549p1.html *cough*
Justin: (blah blah blah)... For anyone wondering which version they should pick up, I can honestly say that my current big-screen HD setup easily matches Allen's high-end PC setup in the looks department. The frame rate and visual clarity is rock-solid, but the load times I've encountered in the massive Imperial city may be a 360-only issue.
Allen: I agree with the assessment on the visuals, but not for the reasons you might think. I'm currently running the game at 1280 x 1024 with small textures on and it looks about the same as the Hi-Def TV you're running the 360 version on. However, when I started playing, I was running it at 1600 x 1200, which looked slightly better than the 360, but at the cost of a big hit in the frame rate. It never became unplayable, but I dropped the resolution because with multiple characters on screen, the game started to chug.
That said, the game looks spectacular, even at 1280 x 1024, both from a technical "bells and whistles" perspective and in terms of the beautifully designed world. It's hard to imagine anyone being disappointed with the graphics in either version. About the only real effective difference is what you already mentioned -- the PC version has slightly shorter load times.
PC version seems to be slightly better than 360 one... if you've got the rig to run it.
That and it was "consolized".
-
@CP: 60 square miles of land to explore.
The game itself seems to be pretty good, although I'm not much into RPGs myself. It's just that the graphics suck in comparison to some of the things we've seen in the last two years.
-
nvidia released 84.25 drivers, which improve performances for Oblivion
-
I don't know much about the gameplay, but going by the screenshots the graphics look like crap. I don't know why so many people are upgrading their computers just for this game. I wouldn't think it's all that demanding.
IIRC the graphics actually got toned down because the 360 couldn't handle it at a constant 30 fps. I'm not sure to what extent, but I remember they had to take out the dynamic object shadows for that reason.
The graphics do still look quite good to me, though. Which screenshots are you looking at?
Uh what? They toned down the shadows on both versions because no one wants to play a game at 10 fps. And FYI, the Xbox 360 and PC versions are identical unless you have an nVidia card. Then the 360 version is better because it can do both HDR and AA. The game was not "consolized" in any way.
It doesn't matter which version you get unless you're PC can't run it on full... In which case the 360 version is going to LOOK better, however, you don't get mods and mouse control with that route.
*cough* http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox-360/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion/697549p1.html *cough*
Justin: (blah blah blah)... For anyone wondering which version they should pick up, I can honestly say that my current big-screen HD setup easily matches Allen's high-end PC setup in the looks department. The frame rate and visual clarity is rock-solid, but the load times I've encountered in the massive Imperial city may be a 360-only issue.
Allen: I agree with the assessment on the visuals, but not for the reasons you might think. I'm currently running the game at 1280 x 1024 with small textures on and it looks about the same as the Hi-Def TV you're running the 360 version on. However, when I started playing, I was running it at 1600 x 1200, which looked slightly better than the 360, but at the cost of a big hit in the frame rate. It never became unplayable, but I dropped the resolution because with multiple characters on screen, the game started to chug.
That said, the game looks spectacular, even at 1280 x 1024, both from a technical "bells and whistles" perspective and in terms of the beautifully designed world. It's hard to imagine anyone being disappointed with the graphics in either version. About the only real effective difference is what you already mentioned -- the PC version has slightly shorter load times.
PC version seems to be slightly better than 360 one... if you've got the rig to run it.
That and it was "consolized".
Right. But seriously, that's just petty.
-
Right. But seriously, that's just petty.
Perhaps, but it's the truth.
-
Distorted. Every user shot I've seen points to the contrary, with the 360 version maintaining maximum detail and optimum frame rates while running AA and HDR. So far, all the PC screens I've seen have had the AA off.
-
Distorted. Every user shot I've seen points to the contrary, with the 360 version maintaining maximum detail and optimum frame rates while running AA and HDR. So far, all the PC screens I've seen have had the AA off.
And how good was the system of those people who took those shots?
-
7800 GTX and Athlon 64 from the best, but still had AA disabled.
-
7800 GTX and Athlon 64 from the best, but still had AA disabled.
Well, most reviews say otherwise:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/693/693513p1.html
What I don't get is the loading time on the Xbox360 being longer than on the PC.
Isn't the whole system (360) designed with a ridiculous transfer data speed? :confused:
-
Wouldn't the considerably lower resolution of the Xbox360 affect how it runs compared to the humble PC?
-
Depends if the 360 is running in HDTV resolution or not.
-
Actually it doesn't. Evertything is rendered internally at 720p or 1080i then scaled. Loading is slower than the PC version due to the fact that the game has to work without a hard drive, and that isn't saying much, as the load times are still breezy, and not anything near the god-awful attrocity of Half-Life 2.
-
HL2 didn't take that long to load. It just had to load 4.02x10^27 times.
-
Distorted. Every user shot I've seen points to the contrary, with the 360 version maintaining maximum detail and optimum frame rates while running AA and HDR. So far, all the PC screens I've seen have had the AA off.
360 with HD or without?
-
It doesn't matter, everything is rendered internally at 720p.
-
It doesn't matter, everything is rendered internally at 720p.
Reportedly the load times are halved (http://rpg.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=10641) with the HD on the 360, and I'm wondering if they had to make other concessions in terms of what has to be stored in RAM. Like, if you have xx amount of RAM, and have to account for 2 types of load latency, then it means either you always work at the slowest (so you have to have smaller data set, such as generally lower detailed and hence sized textures, because it's loading less often as it loads slow), or you have 2 versions (i.e. where the HD version could stream stuff like higher-res textures and more aggressively swap stuff in and out because of the lower latency). Because it's not like that memory bandwidth is as much use if you're forced rely on the slow optical media loading rather than faster HD loading, is it?
Care to actually answer the question, anyways? Core or #(whatever it was called) spec machine?
Although I note all that pullaver we had pre-console release about 1080i graphics seems to have gone now. Same for Sony too, as well; they've both gone to 720p as a base level, despite all those claims about super-high res, etc (granted, 1280x720 isn't bad, but we were promised 1920x1080 or so).
-
I see you meant HDD, not HD. Yeah, the inclusion of a HDD speeds things up considerably.