ATARI • Comments
-
-
- 0 Posts
- 1,722 Comments
- 11 Followers
-
The quest for Shadow of the Colossus' last secret
Introducing the secret seekers and their eight-year quest
-
Sid Meier's cultural victory
"If there's anything in reality that's not fun, we will change it."
Loading...hold tight!
Vita exclusive Killzone: Mercenary out on 6th September in the UK
The gameplay was average but no where near as bad as COD on Vita. That and the fact that and the fact that I have played much worse FPS games on consoles brought the score to above average for me. I was happy with the controls.
I still think if those developers had an extra 8 months to work on that game then it would have been so much better.
I hear what your saying though, had there been even one good FPS game on Vita you would not purchase Resistance Reply 0
Also what was that nut job going on about this being launched at a bad time because GTA5 is out at the same time?. Doesn't he know that you can buy as many games as you want on the same day even?. They are not even the same type of game or on the same console?.
Oh scratch that, he was just trolling and trying to make himself feel better because he doesn't own a Vita. It was that that obvious folks wasn't it? Reply +4
Watch Gran Turismo 6 at 60FPS
I don't game with wheels, I liked GT5 and thought it was decent.
I was surprised at how well the PSP GT game handled. The only flaw for me was the fact that there was no championships and just one off races. I kind of used it as a way to "collect" cars as you could only buy certain cars on certain days.
I would love a full fat Gran Tourismo on Vita though. I imagine they would be able to improve the depth to the handling a great deal over the PSP version, which was no arcade racer in it's own right.
As much as I want games that are exclusive to Vita at the same time I would love Metal Gear, God of War, Grand Theft Auto and GT on Vita as these games were amazing on PSP and really pushed the system.
Don't get me wrong, I will still buy GT6 as it will be an amazing sim racer at 60fps with great graphics. I would just like Sony to support Vita. I don't see the point in the producing the handheld if they can't support it properly. I mean the PS3 is six years old yet they are supporting PS3 far more than Vita, people will look at this situation and imagine once PS4 launches things won't exactly improve and Sony wonders why Vita is not flying off the shelves?. Reply 0
I have been wanting a GT game on Vita since owning the PSP version which I have played so much despite not having a career mode.
It's like Sony don't want the Vita to sell well?. I mean once PS4 is launched a big percentage of their time and investment will need to go on PS4. So with that in mind they really should be trying to support Vita so it sells well and then third party developers will start supporting Vita. I mean the PS3 is selling well and at the end of it's life yet instead of supporting Vita with God of War and Gran Tourismo and giving those games a brake on home consoles so when they are released on PS4 they cause more excitement, instead they have supported PS3 with them when the Vita would have benefited the most Reply 0
Nvidia's Project Shield to cost $349 in North America
I like these games and most listed are better than the cheap games you play for five minutes and never play again. Dead Space and Real Racing 2 for example make me wonder why there was no Vita/3DS versions. The Dark Khight Rises plays a little like Arkham City. Then you have lots of RPG's and games like Grand Theft Auto and even GTA 3 and San Andreas.
This device will play these games perfectly and will also act like an android console, how much are those android consoles going to cost again?.
The fact that it has Tegra4 and only a 720p screen will mean that it maxes out android games with good frame rates for a long time. Way longer than those tablets that sport higher than 1080p res.
I imagine it will let me stream PC games to any part of my house over the WiFi. I know my laptop, Kindle and handhelds pick up WiFi from any place in my house so am hoping this device will do the same mate. Reply 0
It would also mean that I can keep my PC at the desk at the back of my front room but also play games on my TV without moving the PC.
I do like the idea of being able to play android/Tegra zone games with real controls and being able to play emulators on it as well.
I will be able to use it as an android console as well.
It is expensive and won't be a mass market product and I think Nvidia already knows that. It's one of those devices that only entice a small percentage of people. Kind of like the Neo Geo hand held that cost around £200. Or those small form factor PC's that cost £1000 yet a bigger PC that costs about £400 less out performs it.
I need to see what the official price is in the UK and how well it performs the things it's advertised as doing first but I do think I will end up buying it. I love tech.
All this talk of streaming PC games makes people forget that it's furnished with a Tegra 4 processor. It will be a more powerful gaming device than Vita in it's own right. Reply 0
Lots of people buy tablets to play games, hand held emulation devices or android consoles. This device does all that. Tablets with Tegra4 will cost much more?.
I don't think it's an awkward form factor?. It looks like it will control like a PS3 controller?.
My PC will run games with better frame rates than PS4 and with better graphics.
I also carry my PC back and forward between my desk when playing strategy games that need you to be closer to the screen to read text and use a mouse and over to my TV as I like playing action games in 3D. This device if works as advertised will ensure I don't need to up root everything on a game by game basis Reply -2
Kind of tight of Nvidia to reduce the storage but this will be sorted by cheap to buy SD cards?. The battery downgrade is a little harsh but I if I can still stream PC games next to a power socket I am ready to go. I don't like the situation I am in right now with having to carry PC back and forward depending on what game I feel like playing. As strategy games need a mouse and to be closer to the monitor so I play them at my desk. I like to play any action game on my 3D TV though and it means moving back and forward.
I also like the idea of playing android games with controls and Tegra Zone. I wonder how much it will cost for those android consoles?. Reply -1
Then you have all those tablet games that will play better with physical controls. Tegra Zone. Then it will run lots of emulators.
If I am not mistaken but don't people buy tablets to play games?. Or those little handheld devices that run emulators?.
What about people who are going to buy android consoles?.
See I want a device that will play tablet games with controls , run emulators and let me stream my PC gaming to any room in the house.
Right now I have a desk and monitor to play games that require you to be closer to the screen. Strategy games etc. I play most of my games on my 3DTV and this device will be able to stream my games to my TV without me doing my back in carrying the PC back and forward on a game by game basis. Or worse still neglecting to use my desk and play strategy games as I have to upset everything and move it over to the desk.
I love this device and I don't care if it sell only 100 as long as I own one. Reply 0
Well streams maxed out PC games to the device for a start. Runs emulators, lets me use my PC in any room in the house without carrying it around. Plays android games and Tegra Zone.
It does pretty much everything I want it to do and that's why I am buying it.
You think streaming PS4 games to Vita is better than streaming PC games to Shield?.
Also there is lots of rather good android games that would benefit from physical controls, Dead Space anyone?.
I also want to be able to run emulators on the device. People spend that much on devices that emulate old hardware or android consoles, so why not this? Reply 0
I also want to stream PC games to the device , it will be nice to play PC games in the back garden on warm summer nights. Reply -3
Face-Off: Metro: Last Light
I think the reason why PS3 may have better frame rates during combat might be because Cell handles Nvidia's PhysX better? Reply 0
I bought the first game on 360 before I owned a PC and enjoyed it and thought it looked great. I thought it looked better than Killzone in places. (I compared to Killzone as they both were going for the same lighting and industrial atmosphere)
Then when I bought a PC I bought Metro 2033 again and when comparing them in your own home and you can look at certain objects up close there is a massive difference. You just don't notice it as much in these short videos.
The first game on PC not only had better textures, smoke, shadows, destruction, anti aliasing, lighting, depth of field etc. It also had more higher quality models and the play area had more details as there was things missing from the 360 version.
Of course these things don't make a game as I still enjoyed Metro2033 on 360. They do make a good game better and enhance the atmosphere and no dips in the frame rate are there to remember you that you are playing a game. The PC also had amazing support for 3DTV.
Not to worry though as it will still be a good game on consoles. We are past the dark ages when ports of PC games on console didn't just have worse graphics but also gimped controls and missing entire swathes of the play area as it was completely cut back.
Nextgen consoles are months away as well so it's not like there is years to go before things improve dramaticly Reply +1
See this is why I don't like when people say things like "Well WiiU could handle Cryengine3 so it should be able to run Metro Last Light and Frostbite3 engine".
If you look at the optimisation that goes into these games and realise that different games stress different parts of the hardware. Do you honestly think 4A decided to run the 360 at a higher resolution knowing it would run slightly slower than PS3?. If that were the case why did they not run the PS3 at the same resolution and let PS3 drop as many frames as 360?.
It's obvious that they have optimised so much on consoles and really stressed out all the hardware and not just the GPU.
Who knows why they decided to run the 360 at a higher resolution and lower frame rate?. It may be that the resolution increase isn't the reason for the lower frame rates. It may be the CPU?. The original game used a really good streaming engine that streamed textures into the game in real time to ease the burden of the GPU. Maybe this streaming engine was able to run on one of the PS3's SPU's leaving more CPU resources for in game artificial intelligence?
All of this could and most likely be wrong of course. I am just highlighting how complex and how well optimised these games are and it's not a matter of just better GPU = better performing game.
Anyway sorry for boring you all.
I just wanted to say that I loved the first game and cannot wait to play this. The article never mentioned if the game has native 3D Vision support?. Does the game support native 3D Vision as I loved the first on PC playing in 3D in the dark lol Reply +4
4A details Metro: Last Light tech upgrades
Everything within a 100 mile radius is turned to ash then the shockwave coasts along the ground causing massive destruction further out.
This games levels on street level look eerily similar to Hiroshima in that some buildings survived all be it with missing roofs.
I can't wait to play this game. The first game was gorgeous and easily a match for Killzone's industrial nightmare and lighting. It had better textures than Killzone. I picked this game up again when I got a PC to play in dx11 3D with PhysX. The first game always ran better with AMD card and now this one looks like it will favour Nvidia?. Reply +1
Sony on Vita: "Sometimes you've had slow starts which have suddenly sprung into life"
A lot of the Vita titles can be bought on other systems so don't cause the same excitement Luigi's Mansion, Kid Icarus or Fire Emblem cause.
The difference between the two platforms is that there has been a lot of thought put into the 3DS games in ensuring they are unique while most of Vita's games are ports from console. My most played Vita games have been ones exclusive to the system like Assassins Creed, Wipeout and Gravity Rush.
When Sony sold the Vita off the back off console gaming in the palm of your hands I thought I would be playing exclusive Metal Gear Solid, Gran Tourismo, God Of War, Killzone, Motorstorm, Ratchet & Clank, Grand Theft Auto etc on the Vita along with lots of exclusive games built from the ground up for the system like Gravity Rush.
Instead we got a launch Uncharted with poor small boxy levels. A Resistence Fall of Man FPS that could have done with another 8 months polish and lots of ports from PS3. I think it's wrong that I should be looking at the latest Need For Speed game and thinking should I buy it on a home system?. Or buy the Vita version that's been gimped just so I have a new game for Vita. This IMHO is the problem with Vita and why it's getting killed by 3DS in the sales. Reply -2
Frostbite engine in the works for mobile
The WiiU CPU is weaker and I am not talking about lower clock rates. The WiiU's CPU doesn't have lower clock rates because it's PowerPC. All the consoles on market right now are Power PC.
WiiU's CPU isn't under clocked. It uses the same Power PC 750 architecture that Gamecube and Wii uses. It has been shrunk down since the Wii revision and that's why it's able to run at higher clock rates than Wii.
Have you seen the size of the WiiU's CPU?. It's tiny and could be confused as a tablet CPU as it's that small. It runs on the 45nm and the die size allows only 1/3rd of the amount of transistors that 360's CPU has.
The only reason there isn't even more of a performance gap between sat 360's CPU and WiiU's is because WiiU has out of order execution and the fact that 360's CPU loses lots of cycles.
WiiU has pretty weak GPGPU as it only has 320 stream processors. GPGPU is not some miracle that was invented to help unburden the CPU. In fact CPU use increases as the CPU has to prepare the code for the GPGPU to work on.
The WiiU's GPU wasn't hand picked because it has GPGPU. In all pretty much every GPU produced since 360/PS3 launched has supported GPGPU. That doesn't mean every GPU is any good at it.
Some PC's that run PhysX dedicate a whole GPU that is more powerful than WiiU's just for GPGPU and even then all it's ever done is some cloth , water, smoke simulations and some destructible scenery.
It's not going to help with loading more characters on screen and giving them artificial intelligence (out of order execution helps with this). Or prepare things for the GPU to render and help with animations etc.
In fact I can't wait to see the first 3D game that uses GPGPU for physics. I doubt there will be many as it's not a free resource and takes cycles off graphics rendering. I think it will be used as much as the 360's tessellation ability, ie hardly ever as there isn't enough resources. Reply +5
It does the consumer no good except maybe have their hopes raised for something they might have not paid any attention to. Reply 0
See EA naming this new engine that runs on tablets "Frostbite" is just an advertising gimmick. See what will happen is Frostbite3 will produce some stunning looking nextgen games on PS4, Next Box and PC and to cash in on the hype of said games there will be tablet versions running on "Frostbite" for mobile.
I think EA would have been the only company to tell lies about why they aren't supporting WiiU because I have read quite a lot of articles from developers/publishers saying they would support the WiiU later down the road if it starts selling better.
The Frostbite engine does make use of CPU resources quite a bit. For example I can run Battlefield3 with all settings maxed out except anti aliasing at 720p at around 30fps. My Laptop only has an overclocked GT540m. The only reason my laptop handles this game so well is because it has an I7 2630qm quad core and the fact that Frostbite3 really makes use of CPU resources more than other PC games.
Now PC developers don't normally push PC CPU's and rely on the GPU , yet BF3 runs this well on a weak GT540m. Console developers max out the whole consoles resources as every single console has the same CPU and GPU.
So with this mind Frostbite2 really does rely on CPU performance and the WiiU has a weaker CPU than either 360 or PS3. So they would have to spend a lot of time making fundamental changes to the game engine so it doesn't rely so much on CPU resources.
Why would EA do this, then pay a huge sum of money to buy a licence so they can port a game to WiiU when it's not selling too well?.
Then by the time WiiU picks up sales EA will be using Frostbite3 and making games for PS4, Next Box and PC. These games will be next gen in size and ambition and simply would not run on WiiU at all as WiiU is using current gen console tech. Xbox1 was a far bigger leap over PS2 than WiiU's GPU is over current gen and of course WiiU has the weakest CPU.
So it's not spite from EA and they are not telling lies when they say Frostbite3 wouldn't run on WiiU and it's very much possible for Frostbite2 not to be a good match even though WiiU has a better GPU. Reply +13
Digital Foundry vs. Soul Sacrifice
I upgraded to 3DS XL and haven't been put off by scan lines, although you are correct that Nintendo were a little tight not using a higher resolution and slightly overclocked GPU to compensate.
See I game in 3D on my PC and am all to aware how much performance is lost running games in 3D so even though 3DS is weaker I am still impressed with the 3D tech as much as Vita.
3DS gives pretty decent performance when you consider it runs games in 3D. This was only possible because it was built from day one to support 3D. If Vita were to run two images of a game so it would be 3D then the performance would be halved, or this game for example would get even more of a resolution cut from 50% to 25% as the resources would need to halved over two images. So from that point of view I think 3DS has pretty decent tech as well. Reply 0
As an owner of both systems since launch I don't think Vita shits over anything in 3DS. See I also game in 3D on my PC and know how much of a resource hog running in 3D is. It kills half of your performance. If Vita was to somehow start running games in 3D the graphics quality wouldn't be far away from 3DS output. It's just that 3DS was built from the ground up for native 3D so doesn't have as big a hit on resources, so produces decent effects. Reply -1
There isn't that much of a performance gap between 3DS and Vita, not like there is between say Wii and PS3.
I would love a technical article on 3DS games and what tricks the games use to keep graphics and frame rates decent. Luigi's Mansion is gorgeous.
Just because something doesn't have top of the line hardware doesn't mean to say we cannot be interested in how developers make good use of available resources. Vita isn't exactly a powerhouse Reply 0
Radeon HD 7790 review
His PC can't max games out now and yet he thinks it will do well running nextgen game engines. I just had a look at early benchmark of Metro Last Light and the 7850 runs the game high settings 1080p at an avg of 21fps with lowest frame rate of 15fps. There is no way in hell his PC will handle next gen game engines like he claims.
That's a sign of ignorance when five different people all try to tell you the same thing and you don't listen calling them all console fanboys lol Reply +1