About removing the detail in maps

[Icey_Pain]

I just so happened to read this topic:

[URL]http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2134950[/URL]

It's basically a summary of what TWI is doing to adress some of the performance issues that people are having by toning down the details of the game. I didn't fully read the thread

The thing is that I'm not entirely sure what the technical possibilities are for making this something that's added as a graphical setting. So I will not be complaining about that in this thread. Though it would be good if someone from TWI could shed some light on this possibility.

I however am wondering if we will ever see these nice details back. In a few years from now the PC hardware will be much stronger than it is now and the game will be far more optimized as it is now.

Of course there will be people that will be complaining about such a change when the time comes. Those people will probably be the people that barely match the required system specs right now.
So those people should be taken into account. But I really like how RO2 has all those small details as they really add to the immersion of the game. Looking at that screenshot, I really find that the lack of bricks hurts the general look of the game.

EDIT: Modified the link to show the first page of the thread, rather than the 9th one.

 

[Niklas]

This is horrible. Just bad.

 

[Bosniac]

I too noticed the drop. Certainly in the overall texture quality. They should have done this to medium settings and left ultra the way it is and work on that while letting people play on a stable setup in the meantime. The problem is not hardware (it is with some), but rather poor coding, plain and simple.

 

[Zaltehook]

I too wonder if/when they'll be adding those details back. I'm quite sad that they had to do so in the first place, poor coding or not, I believe they should have kept the detail in at the higher end of the settings and said "deal with it" to those trying to play at that level. Generally what happens with people trying to run a detail-heavy game maxed out is that it lags or performs at a subpar level, dependent on the power of the system.

Doesn't run well? Lower the settings.

 

[Niklas]

I remember a picture of inside a tree, you could see textures inside.
From my 2 weeks css mapping expirience, i know this is not good.

 

[Thaelyn]

I haven't kept up on this issue, myself, as I'm able to run the game acceptably after playing around with the video settings. Are they lowering detail across the board or just altering how low the lower settings dip? If the former, that's disappointing. It really should be the latter.

I know that there are people who have hardware that should hold up with Ultra and isn't, but I think it's a far greater number who should be playing on medium and are complaining about performance with ultra.

 

[Rattler]

This is horrible. Just bad.

Yes.

 

[SheepShaver]

This is horrible. Just bad.

If you are talking about the "quality" of the discussion in that thread over at the Steam forums, yes you are right.
Didn't read that amount of crackerjack bullcrap for a long time.

@Topic
I of course would also prefer if the look of the maps in ultra settings remained untouched.

 

[Qweets]

This is the first thing that TWI has actually upset me about.. I've supported them for years but now they are going to take away details on maps that actually make the map look GOOD and make it look basically like a RO1 map? I ran these maps PERFECTLY, why should a bunch of whiners ruin my immersion? That isn't fair at all, there has to be a way to implement this as a setting that these morons can turn off so I can keep my good looking maps. Ugh I'll be so sad if they do this to every map.. There is a lot of bricks etc and rubble in apartments and I can see them removing that too and making everything look generic and dull.. =\ God damn console kiddy whiners ruining everything for PC gamers.

 

[Icey_Pain]

If you look at the first page of the thread, which is now the new link in the OP. You should be able to see that pavlov's house was among the levels that were toned down the most.
Optimisation on other levels will probably have a lesser impact on the actual visible graphics.

 

[5thSSDW.KGW~CO]

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.

 

[Heilkraut]

especially cos these guys say they can't play with FPS below 60
thats just stupid for a tactical shooter like RO FPS of 35-40 are enough

 

[Echo Black]

Hopefully enthusiasts can turn the detail back on, but I'm not holding my breath, as these seem to be changes to the actual map files. Sorry if this sounds selfish, but I'm not happy about having my immersion lessened because of lower-end systems.

That's not how you go about "optimizing". You either find another way or don't do it.

---

 

[Apex.]

2011: the year where graphics are more important than gameplay..........

oh noes TW removed bricks from the ground.. i better stop playing D:

 

[Echo Black]

2011: the year where graphics are more important than gameplay..........

oh noes TW removed bricks from the ground.. i better stop playing D:

That is irrelevant to the topic, but more importantly: If you don't care about graphics, why are you even posting in this thread? The thread title is not misleading. Is being snarky that important to you? You actually believe you can change minds?

---

 

[Apex.]

has everything to do with the topic.. who cares about graphics.. we bought it for the gameplay did we not? so what if they remove a few bricks from the ground, does anybody actually look down at them? they have no effect on gameplay at all...

and lol @ daddy gamers giving negative feedback to my post... grow up..

 

[rpxy24]

especially cos these guys say they can't play with FPS below 60
thats just stupid for a tactical shooter like RO FPS of 35-40 are enough

First, rigs that crush the "recommended" specs should be able to run the game with more than 60 fps, solid.

Second, everybody's not an immersion WW2 enthusiast who finds his fun exclusively in "tactics" as your use of the term "tactical shooter" seems to imply.

You might love to sneak between a rifleman with your two assault buddies, and sure, killing that rifleman doesn't require more than 35-40 fps.

However, some of us get their fun from playing (not necessarily on ultra, low is fine if it's what i need to get 120fps.) with a framerate that allow ourselves, as the aforementioned rifleman, to take you & your two buddies down.

The game being a tactical shooter doesn't make it different from any other fps...
Folks with 35-40 fps will get consistantly demolished by folks with 60+ in any situation that involves actual aiming & not a 5v2 backstab... and that at equal skill level.
Sure positioning, sound & map awareness, teamwork etc are part of tactical shooters' skillset. But so are aiming & twitch skills, and those are dramatically hindered at a framerate inferior to 60, not that someone horrible to start with would notice the difference though...
And i'm not even gonna go into how a choppy low framerate can absolutely ruin someone who uses tons of mouse acceleration.


Such ignorance.. i think you've just became my new signature.

 

[Pvt.pile]

That's not how you go about "optimizing". You either find another way or don't do it.

Well thats what they have done and are doing.

 

[Echo Black]

Well thats what they have done and are doing.

Nope. You DON'T remove quality from people that could support it. If that's the only option, you either find another way, or don't do it.

---

 

[nebsif]

I dont want all the maps to look like Fallen Fighters (giant/stretched ground textures and no ground clutter).. gameplay isnt what I wanted, but at least the lvl of detail and visuals are good
I mean.. I dont even.. I give up, BF3 beta next week.