
I must have this.
Moderator: Thanas
Arghh, you guys have me all excited, and the link is broken!Ace Pace wrote:It is.Zac Naloen wrote:Thats not in game graphics.... right?
Yeah, that's what I was wondering as well. The graphics look fucking incredible, but am I going to be able to play it on my computer, or even the souped up rig I'm planning to get this summer, without it lagging like a fucking bastard.Praxis wrote:No possible WAY. It would take a Geforce 6800 Ultra overclocked to render that at 60 fps!Ace Pace wrote:It is.Zac Naloen wrote:Thats not in game graphics.... right?
Its a red X so I can't be sure, but have you looked at the models themselves? outside of the nice bloom effect and the water, theres not all thats so high end.Praxis wrote:No possible WAY. It would take a Geforce 6800 Ultra overclocked to render that at 60 fps!
Amen, brother. I think the key is this: no matter what type of graphics you use, don't break the envelope. That is to say, don't do things that your technology can't do yet. People will forgive you when it comes out (because they don't know any better), but it will look stupid in retrospect. As long as you stick to stuff that your technology level does well, you'll be fine.Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Definitely. Case in point, compare Neverwinter Nights (2001) to Fallout (1997). NWN looks like crap by today's standards, while Fallout still looks great, even though NWN's graphics seemed amazing when the game first game out and Fallout's didn't. Simple, well drawn art beats whiz bang features.