|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ieukoplast
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
169
   |
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nomed Deeps wrote:Just our of curiosity, if CCP had to decide between (1) high res visuals with continuing lag and time-out issues or (2) slightly lower res visuals which totally eliminated lag, ran at a higher FPS, and improved overall playability, which would you prefer? I know some people have problems with the current visuals, but look at games like MindCraft that opt for playability over visuals.
Personally, I think I would gladly sacrifice a bit on visuals if DUST was able to live up to its hype in playability.
Most true gamers will agree:
Gameplay > graphics
Honestly while the graphics in Dust are borderline Playstation 2 graphics (maybe even worse in some cases) I really don't care too much. Sure it would be nice to have everything nicely polished and running smoothly, but if the choice was to have polished and not run smoothly, then to hell with graphics!
|
Ieukoplast
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
crazy space wrote:You've seen the high Poly models right? They are top of industy examples of stunning art. Just look at polycount or zbrush central or Google dust weapons.
The question is, do you want dust to be a 8 gb download while in beta ? It might even be bigger. Just be glad you only have to download 3 gb for now.
Well, don't forget the updates (which cannot be done in the background). Not only is the game ~3GB, but there is almost 3GB in updates as well, and the updates cannot be paused so the PS3 is a slave to downloading until they are done.
I was pretty ticked to have finally downloaded the installation package, only to find out I had to download the biggest update in gaming history (well, MSG4 might have Dust beat here).
So yeah, if the game was 8GB and the updates were 3GB, that would be truly awful.
|
Ieukoplast
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Icy Tiger wrote:I think people are exaggerating here. If it had crap graphics, I would not play it, no matter how good game play is. Thankfully, it has pretty good graphics, even pre e3 they were decent enough. In the long run, game play > graphics though.
Pretty good graphics? ATM is it among the worst of all PS3 games, even those that came out in 2006/7.
But as I said before, I don't really care (to an extent of course, as you pointed out) but just looking at the character in the "fitting room" makes me laugh every time. For this example, it doesn't even come to par with legacy PS2 graphics.
|
|
|
| |
|