You do realise.. its a game?
if thats how you really feel about the game, i hear the Army is recruiting.
Upvote
0
About removing the detail in maps
- Thread starter Icey_Pain
- Start date
You do realise.. its a game?
if thats how you really feel about the game, i hear the Army is recruiting.
Not exactly.
Red Orchestra's magic comes mostly from the immersion the game has. Immersion can be created by lore, gameplay, graphics and aesthetics.
By decreasing any one of those, you automatically take away a tiny piece of the immersion that this game offers.
I'm all for optimising this game, but what I would like to see, is that TWI stops confusing optimising with compromising.
Reducing the aesthetics(not graphics) is a compromise, not an optimisation.
Verb1.optimise - make optimal; get the most out of; use best; "optimize your resources"
In my opinion you don't get the most out of a game by reducing it's aesthetics.
I also never said that this is a gamebreaker for me, I will still keep playing this game. I simply state that I would prefer them to atleast give us the opportunity to enjoy better aesthetics if our machines can handle it.
Upvote
0
I'm not one of those guys who says the game has turned into COD, but there are enough elements of twitch-shooter in here that you really need to be above 40FPS at all times, otherwise you're MKB42 fodder.
Upvote
0
lol, with that kind of thinking the only place for you to go would be the army, they accept all sorts of people.
Who said I want anything close to a sim, I just dont want a repetetive semi/full auto spam.. there are bazillions of other arcade games out there that do it better (FH2?).
Upvote
0
Good.
To be honest, I think game developers are pushing too hard in the wrong areas for graphical detail. RO2 has a great aesthetic appeal and we dont need millions of polys on screen just to enjoy the game.
To be honest, I think game developers are pushing too hard in the wrong areas for graphical detail. RO2 has a great aesthetic appeal and we dont need millions of polys on screen just to enjoy the game.
Upvote
0
Yes, gameplay far outweighs graphics. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. That's the point I believe Icey_Pain is trying to make. There are those of us who get more than acceptable performance with the graphics turned up. Is reducing our experience really the right answer to the problems experienced by those having trouble?
I don't think so, personally.
Upvote
0
That's not the point.
It's not one or the other, with a good PC we should be able to get both.
Upvote
0
but a solution is not removing details for everyone
there are low settings available to achieve that for FPS whores
if it runs **** on low settings too they need to extend the stuff that removed with low settings but not to remove details for everyone
but RO is a tactical shooter (even when RO2 is less tactical than RO1) thats what i bought it for
there are tons of modern combat arcarde shooter available
no need for folks seeing RO as one of them
i played RO1 because i wanted a tactical shooter
and i bought RO2 for same purpose
wow according to ur logic i would totally own and probably accused of cheating on every server with 120fps cos currently i do great with my 40FPS
Last edited:
Upvote
0
its quite the contrary actually. Unreal Engine 3 is quite well optimized for large maps, with an excellent built in terrain LOD system and a great lod system for trees and bushes themselves.If large maps, with an appropriate amount of bushes and trees etc, cannot be realised the mod scene for this game will be as dead as the clan scene. RO2 looks to be rapidly running out of options for longevity.
An expansive rural map is easier to render and compile than a dense urban map.
its a common misconception that a "bigger" map is harder to run. In game environments size is completely subjective.. what matters is how many polys, materials and shaders need to be displayed or calculated onscreen at one time and large outdoor environments are generally lighter in all those areas.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This isn't fair on the other people (like me) that can run the game at 70+ fps with detail is their not a way to give people the option
Upvote
0
This aint going to happen becouse it seems they are removing objects from the map and that would put ultras at disadvantage against whose who play in a washed out map. Dam this is sad i was so looking foward to my sistem upgrade wich i propably wont be needing any more
Upvote
0
This aint going to happen becouse it seems they are removing objects from the maps and that would put ultras at disadvantage agains players in washed out maps. Dam this is sad and i was looking forward to my sistem upgrade witch i probably wont be needing any more
Upvote
0
Clearly you have no idea of the importance of high FPS.
I wouldn't disagree that 35-40 fps are acceptable for basic movement and shooting stationary enemy.But for moving targets and ping differences you basically are at a huge disadvantage with low fps
FPS are of fundamental importance in real time/multiplay first person shooters.
Upvote
0