I would like to know what exactly you are basing your claim that the game is poorly optimized. Have you played the game? Do you know how many FPS it's gonna have on specific hardware? Do you know how detailed the textures are?MaxT wrote:not really. but even if that were true, why do we have to buy new components cause the developers are too lazy to optimize their games properly (which should be their no.1 priority for all platforms, but it only seems to actually happen for the console versions)?MrStalker wrote:First of all, okey, 30 GB is a bit steep, but who gives a firetruck, seriously? It's HDD space it costs like nothing these days.
How can you speak about poor optimization when you haven't even seen the finished product yet?
Yes it is because the development of PC games is tightly connected to the consoles. Very few games take advantage of the additional power of the PC, most are straight ports. The reason why Rivals can take up so much more space than Most Wanted is this: BluRay.MaxT wrote:there is no "next-gen" for PC games. PC technology constantly evolves, and with proper optimization games can look great, run great and take up little hard drive space regardless of whether we're talking about 2004 or 2013. sure, they'll get bigger and bigger, but with proper optimization that change is constant, so constant we should hardly be able to notice it. NFS jumped from 8 GB to 30 GB in one year -.-MrStalker wrote: Sure, i can understand you're upset if you want to install on you SSD, but what did you expect? Most next-gen games will take up a lot of space. Get a hybrid disk.
First I've ever heard of it. If you have an official source I'd like to see it.MaxT wrote:pretty much, like I said earlier, EA also stated that NFS Most Wanted uses Frostcrap 2.0.MrStalker wrote: Secondly, Frostbite 3.0 doesn't support XP, and XP doesn't support any DirectX runtime above 9.0c, so whoever pushed those specs out at EA probably had a brain fart.
O'rly? Since we're talking about the engine in general and not Rivals in particular, have you seen Battlefield 4? It looks one hell of a lot better then any other engine I've seen, Chameleon isn't even close. Sure, I'm willing to admit that Frostbite 3.0 is a all-purpose engine so it may not be ideal for racing games, but garbage? Your wild assumptions are garbage.MaxT wrote:we complain (well, I do) because Frostcrap games use a lot of resources but don't look any better than Chameleon or even RenderWare games. Frostbite is garbage. EA tells you "It has good technology!" and you start flying that around like a flag even though I'm pretty sure you have no clue what that technology actually is, or whether it's actually unique to Frostbite.MrStalker wrote: Last and most importantly: Stop bitching ffs. Of course the specs are going to be higher than those of last-gen titles! Finally we are starting to see some games with really good technology and amazing graphics worthy of high-end PCs, and all you do is complain? Well then, buy it on console ffs. Glorious PC Gaming Master Race FTW!
I have no clue you say? Well, I'm a fifth year major in computer engineering, and we've had people from DICE at lectures talking about Frostbite and the technology behind it, so I think I have a pretty good idea. A friend of mine currenty does his master thesis at DICE. So don't come with your shiznit and tell me I don't have a clue.