Max Payne 3 Next big graphics powerhouse ?

[Grooveriding]

Wow dude you really missed the point. The ONLY reason it should take 35GB of space on your drive is because it has high resolution textures and models. The screenshots don't show that at all. So...why is it 35GB estimated space requirements?

It's not about the graphics, it's about the absolute bloat of the software package. It's unnecessary. If the game looked better then I'd say "ok so that's worthy of using so much space".


I will say in response directly to you that in today's game market we should expect the graphics to follow the story and gameplay equally in quality. There is no reason for anyone to expect less today. I'm not going to buy the BS from people about "I play for the gameplay not the graphics". Graphics are as much a part of the art form as anything else. If Skyrim looked like Wolfenstein 3D I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't be as popular. The Graphics help make the world believable and realistic. It can draw you into the story more and help the character's emotions appear more realistic. It's a big deal.

I agree with some of this. Of course game play is paramount, but graphics add to game play and immersion. It defines a large portion of the game environment.

They don't necessarily have to be ground breaking on the technology front (but I love that too) Good art design can compensate for it. I like the look of Diablo 3 and it's in no way or form impressive from a technological stand point. Massive let down compared to D2 ? Yes, but it looks nice. :awe:

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Wow dude you really missed the point. The ONLY reason it should take 35GB of space on your drive is because it has high resolution textures and models. The screenshots don't show that at all. So...why is it 35GB estimated space requirements?

It's not about the graphics, it's about the absolute bloat of the software package. It's unnecessary. If the game looked better then I'd say "ok so that's worthy of using so much space".


I will say in response directly to you that in today's game market we should expect the graphics to follow the story and gameplay equally in quality. There is no reason for anyone to expect less today. I'm not going to buy the BS from people about "I play for the gameplay not the graphics". Graphics are as much a part of the art form as anything else. If Skyrim looked like Wolfenstein 3D I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't be as popular. The Graphics help make the world believable and realistic. It can draw you into the story more and help the character's emotions appear more realistic. It's a big deal.

It could be that the game is massively long and some of the textures look amazing like the skin but really I don't give a toot cause I have accepted and am OK that I will most likely be playing on med settings to maintain above that magic 60fps number.

 

[2is]

I cant pin point exactly when it seems people got so stupid about the graphics I remember a time long ago when we played games for the game mechanics not for staring at an image analyzing its texture and if it's completely circular ect really what gives is the game play the game play is what makes the game. Also I don't care how good it looks if it drops my frame rate to below 60fps it was not worth the image quality.

Graphics have always been a factor, that's why you can't pinpoint when exactly people cared about it. I want good graphics and solid gameplay. I can't judge game play based on screenshots but I can judge graphics and that's exactly what I did. Sorry but if I'm going to pay for this game, use $48.13 worth of SSD space and 35/250GB of my monthly bandwidth quota, it better provide outstanding graphics and gameplay. I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[moonbogg]

I wonder how much Vram will be needed to max it out. Probly like 2.5gigs for 1080p.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its always nice to have a game support top end hardware with slightly higher IQ, even if its actually wasted on ridiculously over specced textures splattered on low poly models (which is rather jarring in these images!).

I also hate Depth of Field, it drives me nutts when the game has decided where I should be looking on the screeen, I just don't do what they expect me to be doing. Hopefully I can turn that off.

Lighting also looks a little flat, but its terrible.

 

[3DVagabond]

Its always nice to have a game support top end hardware with slightly higher IQ, even if its actually wasted on ridiculously over specced textures splattered on low poly models (which is rather jarring in these images!).

I also hate Depth of Field, it drives me nutts when the game has decided where I should be looking on the screeen, I just don't do what they expect me to be doing. Hopefully I can turn that off.

Lighting also looks a little flat, but its terrible.

Yes, the only model that really looks decent is the hero model. The rest look really lowres. The textures aren't particularly detailed or artistic either.

 

[Kippa]

If the game is 32bit based and cannot address more than 1.5gb of ram that could effect performance. If the hi res textures are loaded from hd constantly there could be latency issues. On the other hand if there is an 64bit version which can load some of the huge textures to ram then the lower atency and performance would be much better. Is there any info on whether the games in a 64bit flavour?

 

[BFG10K]

I’m happy that these guys are trying to push the PC to its limits, even if they don’t completely succeed in the way we’d all like. DICE is another that puts in a real effort with enhanced PC graphics and the push for 64 bit executables.

In the days of console dominated sales figures, this is a rarity.

As for the 35GB installation, that just reminds me while I’ll likely be sticking to mechanical HDDs for a very long time for gaming. That’s $35 for an SSD user to install, give or take. On a 3TB Barracuda it’s $2.10.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I'm glad too. I don't spend all this money upgrading my machine just for fun...well, actually, yes, but it's nice to have an excuse to tell other people

@ BFG10K -- SSDs used as OS/apps drive can significantly improve your computing experience. That's what I do. Games get their own big 1.5TB drive, miscellaneous media and stuff gets a 1.5TB drive, and Windows + Apps + documents + DOS games get the SSD.

 

[BFG10K]

@ BFG10K -- SSDs used as OS/apps drive can significantly improve your computing experience. That's what I do. Games get their own big 1.5TB drive, miscellaneous media and stuff gets a 1.5TB drive, and Windows + Apps + documents + DOS games get the SSD.

I wasn’t even impressed with apps and the OS. Yes, some things were slightly faster but nowhere near enough to offset the sacrifices of lacking space and high cost per GB. It just felt like I was paying for extremely expensive storage.

I’ve actually sold my SSD and moved back to mechanical. I can’t decide whether to get a 1TB VelociRaptor or to sit tight and wait for the Black line to be refreshed. In either case I don’t plan on returning to SSDs for a long time.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Aw, that's a bummer. In that case, go with the 1TB VelociRaptor.

 

[3DVagabond]

I wasn’t even impressed with apps and the OS. Yes, some things were slightly faster but nowhere near enough to offset the sacrifices of lacking space and high cost per GB. It just felt like I was paying for extremely expensive storage.

I’ve actually sold my SSD and moved back to mechanical. I can’t decide whether to get a 1TB VelociRaptor or to sit tight and wait for the Black line to be refreshed. In either case I don’t plan on returning to SSDs for a long time.

Maybe do an SSD cache setup. The best of both worlds (If you can believe the marketing. )

 

[SirPauly]

I cant pin point exactly when it seems people got so stupid about the graphics I remember a time long ago when we played games for the game mechanics not for staring at an image analyzing its texture and if it's completely circular ect really what gives is the game play the game play is what makes the game. Also I don't care how good it looks if it drops my frame rate to below 60fps it was not worth the image quality.

Take the frame rate indicator away and curious how well you would do on gauging frame-rate. Oh my, my frame rate dropped to 55 and my quality of graphics is greatly enhanced but hey, I don't care how good it looks.

 

[HeXen]

GTA IV is a shining example of horrible coding and if Max Payne 3 follows the example set by GTA IV, I will be greatly disappointed.

How is that? Did you look at the source code and say..what retards, they should have used***if((dbSpriteX(P) <= (dbSpriteX(T) + 20) && (dbSpriteX(P) >= (dbSpriteX(T) - 20)))). Instead??

Sorry, but its amusing how many gamers who have never worked on a game engine can sit there lazily thinking that they could magically use "better code" or something for a platform where no two are exactly alike in terms of hardware, drivers and software.
Many factors involved but your budget and time schedule are the major ones, your investing to make some money which isnt usually for the very few with uber hardware.
Actually, itruns pretty good when you consider what the engine is loading and how fast it must load and discard. Making it work like that on xbox has obviously helped them keep fragmentation way down and very efficient.

Also, a port is not the same as a multiplatform game. Already, within one day, i have seen about 5 posts where the word "port" is erronously used. Its as if some of you are so overly obsessed, you dont see the forest for the trees.
Most games use multiplat engines and they choose whats called a lead platform. Desktop sales should tell you why consoles take lead most often.

In general, this will most likely be a fun game to play, for those of us that enjoy playing and not staring at pixels. It wont run right for everyone cause computers have always been like that, thats the way it is for non licenced open platforms. Instead of complaining, try making your own simple game and see how many emails and support tickets you get and getback to me

 

[cmdrdredd]

I wonder how much Vram will be needed to max it out. Probly like 2.5gigs for 1080p.

Doubtful....


Honestly I think the 35GB requirement is not true. I only say this because if you look at their estimates requirements they ask for the following at max settings
Intel i7 3930K 6 Core x 3.06 GHZ or AMD FX8150 8 Core x 3.6 GHZ
16GB System RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680 2GB RAM or AMD Radeon™ HD 7970 3GB RAM


You know that's gotta be BS. The screenshots prove it.

 

[toyota]

Doubtful....


Honestly I think the 35GB requirement is not true. I only say this because if you look at their estimates requirements they ask for the following at max settings
Intel i7 3930K 6 Core x 3.06 GHZ or AMD FX8150 8 Core x 3.6 GHZ
16GB System RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680 2GB RAM or AMD Radeon&#8482; HD 7970 3GB RAM


You know that's gotta be BS. The screenshots prove it.

you are misreading that. the specs you just showed are the highest that they tested the game with not requirements. http://www.rockstargames.com/maxpayne3/pc


Highest "Tested" Specs
Windows 7/Vista (64 bit)
Intel i7 3930K 6 Core x 3.06 GHZ
or AMD FX8150 8 Core x 3.6 GHZ
16GB System RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680 2GB RAM
or AMD Radeon&#8482; HD 7970 3GB RAM



High Recommended Specs
Windows 7/Vista (32 or 64 bit)
Intel i7 Quad Core 2.8Ghz or AMD equivalent
3GB System RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce 480 1GB RAM
or AMD Radeon&#8482; HD 5870 1GB RAM

 

[cmdrdredd]

you are misreading that. the specs you just showed are the highest that they tested the game with not requirements. http://www.rockstargames.com/maxpayne3/pc


Highest "Tested" Specs
Windows 7/Vista (64 bit)
Intel i7 3930K 6 Core x 3.06 GHZ
or AMD FX8150 8 Core x 3.6 GHZ
16GB System RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 680 2GB RAM
or AMD Radeon&#8482; HD 7970 3GB RAM



High Recommended Specs
Windows 7/Vista (32 or 64 bit)
Intel i7 Quad Core 2.8Ghz or AMD equivalent
3GB System RAM
NVIDIA® GeForce 480 1GB RAM
or AMD Radeon&#8482; HD 5870 1GB RAM

I did a search and it didn't say tested anywhere so that's what I quoted out lol.

Anyway that's a little more reasonable. I don't even know why they list "highest tested". Who would think a 3930k with 16GB of memory would run poorly with a 680?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Wow dude you really missed the point. The ONLY reason it should take 35GB of space on your drive is because it has high resolution textures and models. The screenshots don't show that at all. So...why is it 35GB estimated space requirements?

First of all I might be wrong but I'm sure I've read somewhere it's a smaller install, it's possible if the game unpacks on the same drive that it needs 35Gb of total space to install but the actual final install size could be smaller once the temp packages are removed.

Second it's not hard to consume that much space with textures, a game can simply use lots of unique textures over a large area such as Rage does, while each individual texture remains fairly low resolution. Obviously a few screenshots can tell you what the quality of some textures are like but it can't tell you how many individual textures are used throughout the entire game.

If the game is 32bit based and cannot address more than 1.5gb of ram that could effect performance. If the hi res textures are loaded from hd constantly there could be latency issues. On the other hand if there is an 64bit version which can load some of the huge textures to ram then the lower atency and performance would be much better. Is there any info on whether the games in a 64bit flavour?

If there's a 32bit executable with the Large Address Aware flag set then on a 64bit OS with 64bit CPU you should be able to address up to 4Gb of virtual memory. Textures are more or less useless in RAM anyway they need to be stuffed into vRAM to be used, it could be used to speed transitions between loading sections in game but then your initial load speed from HDD/SSD to RAM is just going to be longer instead. I doubt the game has enough assets to cram into system RAM that would justify more than 4Gb, most games don't.

How is that? Did you look at the source code and say..what retards, they should have used***if((dbSpriteX(P) <= (dbSpriteX(T) + 20) && (dbSpriteX(P) >= (dbSpriteX(T) - 20)))). Instead??

Sorry, but its amusing how many gamers who have never worked on a game engine can sit there lazily thinking that they could magically use "better code" or something for a platform where no two are exactly alike in terms of hardware, drivers and software.

I agree absolutely, people crying lack of optimisation really get on my nerves.

With GTA IV (and Crysis, amongst others) I've always maintained that no one has shown any decent evidence to suggest the games are significantly unoptimised. There is an actual, meaningful difference between something which is slow because it's unoptimised, and something that is slow because it's just doing a lot of work...

GTA IV was very heavy on the CPU and making changes to the graphics options made little to no difference on its heavy CPU usage which fooled a lot of people in to thinking there was something wrong with the game.

The simple fact is the game is a massive simulation for hundreds of cars and pedestrians all of which run AI routines to guide their behaviour and all use real time physics to calculate their interaction with the world, the game use the euphoria physics engine to blend character animation with real time physics, so that when you run over a pedestrian they roll realistically over the hood of your car all the while the AI is checking if the character can right itself, grab onto parts of the environment for stability, and blending the physics simulation with the characters natural animation to produce some clever blend of the 2...that's not cheap on the CPU and the game is CPU hungry without a doubt, but that's no proof it's unoptimised.

Optimisation has to do with the efficiency of a task and not the magnitude of the task, just because they build an engine which is demanding doesn't mean it's unoptimised, proving its unoptimised requires looking at the code and providing alternative functions for logic which achieve the same output while executing faster, to my knowledge no one has ever done this while crying about game optimisation...

[/rant]

 

[cmdrdredd]

Problem #1 GTAIV came out on console first and didn't run poorly. Now you put it on PC with multiple times more powerful hardware and it runs...poorly. That put a lot of people off. Right or wrong they had a legitimate gripe. Even if you turn down some things to levels that were similar to the Xbox 360 or PS3 then you still got a game that ran slightly worse than it did on the console. It shouldn't.

I know it's not hard to consume tons of space with textures, but the textures have to be higher resolution or uncompressed for that to happen. Modern texture compression shouldn't ever require that much space and you really don't lose that much quality.

 

[Arzachel]

How is that? Did you look at the source code and say..what retards, they should have used***if((dbSpriteX(P) <= (dbSpriteX(T) + 20) && (dbSpriteX(P) >= (dbSpriteX(T) - 20)))). Instead??

Sorry, but its amusing how many gamers who have never worked on a game engine can sit there lazily thinking that they could magically use "better code" or something for a platform where no two are exactly alike in terms of hardware, drivers and software.
Many factors involved but your budget and time schedule are the major ones, your investing to make some money which isnt usually for the very few with uber hardware.
Actually, itruns pretty good when you consider what the engine is loading and how fast it must load and discard. Making it work like that on xbox has obviously helped them keep fragmentation way down and very efficient.

Also, a port is not the same as a multiplatform game. Already, within one day, i have seen about 5 posts where the word "port" is erronously used. Its as if some of you are so overly obsessed, you dont see the forest for the trees.
Most games use multiplat engines and they choose whats called a lead platform. Desktop sales should tell you why consoles take lead most often.

In general, this will most likely be a fun game to play, for those of us that enjoy playing and not staring at pixels. It wont run right for everyone cause computers have always been like that, thats the way it is for non licenced open platforms. Instead of complaining, try making your own simple game and see how many emails and support tickets you get and getback to me

I wrote a huge reply, but it got eaten by the forums :/

"You can't say it tastes terrible because you're not a chef" is the stupidest fallacy ever. The extreme culling used by GTA4 is pointless or even detrimential, because PC gpu's at the time had as much VRAM as consoles had total system RAM. Performance issues in games can often be traced to specific software design decisions like reflection and shadow maps scaling with resolution in GTA4, the invisible tessellated sea in Crysis 2 or Skyrim using x87 fpu calls before 1.4 patch.

While there are some vocal whiny morons, most PC gamers would be content just with not getting treated like dirt.

 

[Arzachel]

I agree absolutely, people crying lack of optimisation really get on my nerves.

With GTA IV (and Crysis, amongst others) I've always maintained that no one has shown any decent evidence to suggest the games are significantly unoptimised. There is an actual, meaningful difference between something which is slow because it's unoptimised, and something that is slow because it's just doing a lot of work...

GTA IV was very heavy on the CPU and making changes to the graphics options made little to no difference on its heavy CPU usage which fooled a lot of people in to thinking there was something wrong with the game.

The simple fact is the game is a massive simulation for hundreds of cars and pedestrians all of which run AI routines to guide their behaviour and all use real time physics to calculate their interaction with the world, the game use the euphoria physics engine to blend character animation with real time physics, so that when you run over a pedestrian they roll realistically over the hood of your car all the while the AI is checking if the character can right itself, grab onto parts of the environment for stability, and blending the physics simulation with the characters natural animation to produce some clever blend of the 2...that's not cheap on the CPU and the game is CPU hungry without a doubt, but that's no proof it's unoptimised.

Optimisation has to do with the efficiency of a task and not the magnitude of the task, just because they build an engine which is demanding doesn't mean it's unoptimised, proving its unoptimised requires looking at the code and providing alternative functions for logic which achieve the same output while executing faster, to my knowledge no one has ever done this while crying about game optimisation...

[/rant]

Cryengine 2 scaled pretty well and most of the hate comes from people being unable to grasp that you don't have to always max every available graphics setting. But GTA4 is a mess. It clearly shows that it was designed with console limitations in mind. I don't believe that the advanced AI and physics are to blame either.

 

[SHAQ]

Don't go bringing CE2 into the conversation now. I've upgraded several times since 2007 and the 2nd level in Crysis still runs in the 30's in town. To me that is not scaling. There is an engine limitation somewhere where there is inefficient use of resources. Crysis isn't GPU limited anymore by any stretch of the imagination. I run it easily with 2x SGSS above 60 FPS where the engine allows it.

 

[Skurge]

Problem #1 GTAIV came out on console first and didn't run poorly. Now you put it on PC with multiple times more powerful hardware and it runs...poorly. That put a lot of people off. Right or wrong they had a legitimate gripe. Even if you turn down some things to levels that were similar to the Xbox 360 or PS3 then you still got a game that ran slightly worse than it did on the console. It shouldn't.

I know it's not hard to consume tons of space with textures, but the textures have to be higher resolution or uncompressed for that to happen. Modern texture compression shouldn't ever require that much space and you really don't lose that much quality.

Then I don't think you've played GTAIV on consoles. GTA4 runs horribly on consoles it also looks worse than you would think. The only way you could get it to look as bad on PC is to run it at 800x600 with everything turned down.

 

[blastingcap]

MP3 screenshots do not look impressive. Also, you reach the point of diminishing returns rapidly with some settings. It's sad if a setting barely improves image quality at the expensive of a major hit to framerates.

 

[JohnnyChuttz]

GTA 4 still looks amazing today that being said you need a higher end rig with a beast CPU and GPU with more than 1gb Vram to really make it shine right.

It shouldn't need all that. It runs at 1080P on PS3 with 256k shared memory.

GTA IV is a shining example of horrible coding and if Max Payne 3 follows the example set by GTA IV, I will be greatly disappointed.

Exactly, see above.