bit-gamer.net

Dishonored review

Comments 26 to 50 of 92

Reply
Bauul 8th October 2012, 14:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul

To use an extreme example, you quizzing on these technical aspects is like questioning the quality of the seat covers on the world's first mass-market flying car.

As long as they're "fine", then what does it matter?

To the people who have been waiting for a proper spiritual successor to the Deus Ex/Thief genre of hybrid FPS/Sneak-em-ups, this is one of the most important releases in years. Most of the things you mention are just irrelevant noise next to the overall point of the game.

Maybe Joe should start all his reviews with an disclaimer that states "If I don't mention it in the review, then it's fine."

Unfortunately, Dishonored isn't the first flying car, it is just the latest, if outstanding, flying car. As the latest flying car, you would think a review might investigate how this flying car is technically better and more worthy of a purchase compared to other flying cars currently on the market, some of which are very good or outstanding as well. Have I beaten this bad analogy to death yet?

Hmm, I agree with you to a point. Fine, replace "flying car" with "zeppelin" (or a commercially viable passenger air ship, if you don't like brand names). Dishonored might not technically be "new", but it's been so long since we've had a classic inclusion into the genre it makes far more sense (in my opinion) to talk about the wider aspects of the game, than to spend time discussing minor details or making technical comparisons.

Just my two cents though.
Fizzban 8th October 2012, 16:15 Quote
It is possible I squeaked! What with this, Torchlight2, Baldurs Gate Enhanced next month I am good for a while yet. And then there is Borderlands 2 which my mates are telling me to play. What an awesome end to the year!
heir flick 8th October 2012, 16:30 Quote
im in the market for a new game and this could just be what im looking for
Adnoctum 8th October 2012, 16:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I'm biased, but I actually think these reviews are better than the old, hardware-focused reviews. There's more information about gameplay in this style of review and it's put forward by someone who has spent a lot longer getting to know the game - someone who's played it for many, many hours.

Bear in mind that when I started I wrote at Bit-tech about four or five years ago, I wrote the sort of article you're describing. I did seven page graphical comparisons and the mammoth twelve page review of Crysis, etc - and I know that those reviews came from a less-informed position. It simply wasn't feasible to spend all that time testing and compiling while at the same time playing enough, writing well enough and editing my work.

Crysis, for example, I spent weekends working on because of the pressure at the time and still didn't make it more than halfway through the game before the review had to be released. I also had little more than a basic technical knowledge of the technical stuff; most of what was said wasn't anywhere near as informative as it may seem.

The old style of review may seem more informative by virtue of being longer, but it was not better and much of the hardware information you mention is simply not relevant to a wider game review. I understand a desire for technical information - which is why I began trying to produce separate articles for that just before we adopted the new business model - but really hardware questions should be covered in hardware articles.

I think the operative word in that last sentence was "should", but it is debatable if they do.
I'm feeling a bit argumentative and raw on this issue because I'm worked up from the exact same argument I just had on the hardware side (specifically the GTX650 review): Hardware articles are now shallower when it comes to graphics reviews, with less testing of the abilities of the cards. The recent GTX650 review told me that the card can't play Battlefield 3 @ 1920x1080/4xAA/16xAF/Ultra settings, but didn't tell me at what point it could play BF3, if at all.

So while I accept unreservedly that a professional and experienced game reviewer believes that the technical aspects of a game is better dealt with by a hardware review, the hardware reviews aren't telling me that either. This is a game review similar (or better!) to those done by other game-orientated sites, such as IGN or Gamespot or <insert generic game site>. But the hardware sites aren't giving me the gameplay reviews. Bit-Tech straddles both and used to provide both, and that is what I liked about it.
Can you see why I'm no longer using Bit-Tech alone to research my graphics card purchases?

I like this review (it is the only Dishonored review I have read, and you have convinced me to buy it later), and I like your reviews in general, and I still like Bit-Tech a great deal. I check almost daily, and is often my first stop.
I also appreciate how much work the old reviews must have taken, but there was an opportunity for me to view your results and make MY OWN analysis.
It is difficult, isn't it, when you are in a publishing competition with all the other sites on the Internet? When the NDA goes down, you need to publish in order to not be late and miss out on those initial curious visitors. There isn't enough time after being given a review copy to play it sufficiently and then offering the kinds of benchmarks and IQ analysis you used to.
Perhaps that is another opportunity for Bit-Tech, to offer a follow-up dealing with the performance/IQ aspects of some of the games you review? More revenue opportunities for Bit-Tech, the publishers would get another bite at the publicity apple and the hardware brands would have their products talked about some more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
...makes far more sense (in my opinion) to talk about the wider aspects of the game, than to spend time discussing minor details or making technical comparisons.

Just my two cents though.

Fair enough, I'm not hating the article.
But I'm in the fortunate position of having a powerful gaming system and I don't need to worry if I can play the game at 1920x1200 with all the settings on Ultra. If I wasn't in such a position, I might like to know if I should wait for 6 months until I plan to upgrade my system, or buy it on a console if it is a concern.
The minimum requirements given for Dishonored (which aren't mentioned at all) would have to be a bit of a worry for many gamers:
Minimum:
CPU: 3.0 GHz dual core or better

RAM: 4 GB system

GPU: DirectX 9 compatible with 512 MB video RAM or better (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 / ATI Radeon HD 5850)

Recommended:
CPU: 2.4 GHz quad core or better (enhanced for multi-core processors)

RAM: 4 GB system

GPU: DirectX 9 compatible with 768 MB video RAM or better (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 / ATI Radeon HD 5850)


Does the GPU minimum standard mean any card with 512MB is OK, such as the 9800GT in my ITX box, or does the inclusion of the GTX460 as an example mean that it has to be a bit beefier.
I have no idea.
jimmyjj 8th October 2012, 16:51 Quote
Adnoctum I am with you 100%.

I also like the way you put your argument politely and constructively, which is what I would like to emulate.

I will not bother to restate the arguments, but please put me down as voting for more detailed reviews that cover graphics etc.

I am interested in how this will play on my rig, the kind of anti-aliasing it supports, whether the textures are improved over consoles, field of view, direct x 11 support and all of the things that prompt us to upgrade and maintain our rigs.

I am now off to find other reviews of the game which cover these elements and it is a shame that I should have to do so.

It is not your fault Joe, as you are clearly given a word count and I think you have used it wisely, but in my opinion there is an editorial issue here.

I think it is possible to include these features and not compromise on other elements of the review.
Griffter 8th October 2012, 16:52 Quote
sorry joe for opening this 99% can of worms :-(... if u maybe never opened it up urself. i think if a number is nonsense then do not put it in. but then again, thats in a perfect world. And anyone that has started a career or is working knows, ur way is almost never the way its done.

just adding to take the score out. not for u so much as it is for Simon, to give more a personal touch to each of his writers blogs/reviews/ what-have-you in reflecting ur view to have a number or not. and that i will shout for as one of the sites members. and this site is trying to do everything it can to please its members.

PS: once thats done all will ask, but what about the score 8-/
jimmyjj 8th October 2012, 16:56 Quote
Further to my post above, this very quick video from PC Gamer shows the options available on the PC version of the game.

Notably for me, it is nice to see that there are options for both FOV and anti-aliasing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwIu3Fj0tmA&feature=player_embedded
Fizzban 8th October 2012, 17:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
The minimum requirements given for Dishonored (which aren't mentioned at all) would have to be a bit of a worry for many gamers:
Minimum:
CPU: 3.0 GHz dual core or better

RAM: 4 GB system

GPU: DirectX 9 compatible with 512 MB video RAM or better (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 / ATI Radeon HD 5850)

Recommended:
CPU: 2.4 GHz quad core or better (enhanced for multi-core processors)

RAM: 4 GB system

GPU: DirectX 9 compatible with 768 MB video RAM or better (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 / ATI Radeon HD 5850)


Does the GPU minimum standard mean any card with 512MB is OK, such as the 9800GT in my ITX box, or does the inclusion of the GTX460 as an example mean that it has to be a bit beefier.
I have no idea.

Purely regarding the specs I think it depends oh how much you game. If you don't game much then those specs above mean very little indeed. Some clarification would help, and would be appreciated by the wider audience I agree.

From my perspective I know I can play it with a glance. In fact I don't even need to look at specs for games (at the moment). And I expect most bit-techers know their system well enough to judge it with a degree of accuracy. This is not ideal for those who don't, which is why I agree with you, but then most here do know. And actually most here have a system that is so far past those specs it is laughable.

I know even without having a quad core that it will play at max settings on my machine. An overclocked dual core with 4GB ram and a 560ti will rip through 95% of games at 1920 x 1080 without issue. It has got to the point now where if it comes out on any console you can play it without looking at the specs at all. It is out on xbox 360, therefore it is playable.

As to the 512mb vram thing..that was low for many games a year ago. Now it is really pushing it if you game above 1280x1024.

Loved the review btw joe. Keep it up old chap!
fdbh96 8th October 2012, 17:53 Quote
I really do wish I enjoyed stealth games, as this one does look amazing but its a genre I just can't be bothered to play. I don't know why but I like a set way of finishing a level (sense of achievement?), and I always get stuck on a level (lack of skill :P).

Anyway, good review, I don't really see the point of testing the hardware side of things, as its probably better to ask questions like that on the forums.
Fizzban 8th October 2012, 17:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I really do wish I enjoyed stealth games, as this one does look amazing but its a genre I just can't be bothered to play. I don't know why but I like a set way of finishing a level (sense of achievement?), and I always get stuck on a level (lack of skill :P).

Anyway, good review, I don't really see the point of testing the hardware side of things, as its probably better to ask questions like that on the forums.

Stealth is an option mate. You don't have to play that way if you don't want to. You can use distraction coupled with brute force quite happily from what I've seen.
Adnoctum 8th October 2012, 19:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
Purely regarding the specs I think it depends oh how much you game. If you don't game much then those specs above mean very little indeed. Some clarification would help, and would be appreciated by the wider audience I agree.

From my perspective I know I can play it with a glance. In fact I don't even need to look at specs for games (at the moment). And I expect most bit-techers know their system well enough to judge it with a degree of accuracy. This is not ideal for those who don't, which is why I agree with you, but then most here do know. And actually most here have a system that is so far past those specs it is laughable.

...

As to the 512mb vram thing..that was low for many games a year ago. Now it is really pushing it if you game above 1280x1024.

It is an odd way for Bethesda/Arkane to phrase it though, don't you think? If all that was required for the minimum was 512MB of VRAM, why bring the GTX460/HD5850 into it? Unless you need 512MB and the power of the GTX460, it just muddies the issue.

I'd probably play the game on my gaming system which easily surpasses the recommended settings, and could max out what ever Dishonored requires. But it would suck down the juice and convert it into heat quicker than Shane McGowan could convert a whiskey into a good time.

For those times when I want to play less demanding/older games, I have a low power ITX gaming computer. It has a 2.5GHz quad-core (45w) and a 1GB 9800GT (>75w) and it pulls less than 100w when gaming. How would Dishonored go on such a system? The published specifications don't help me (and is confusing), which is where a performance review would be of great help.

EDIT: There are no benches in any review I can find, so it is possible that no one has been able to independently run a benchmark. I did find this on the Bethesda forums which does a wonderful job at clouding the issue further. To the question "Will my system play this?", an Arkane producer comes back with the clear-as-mud answer "It depends on how you will play" - Run & Gun will use the CPU while Stealth & Powers will lean on the GPU.
dolphie 9th October 2012, 00:11 Quote
oh em gee
Fizzban 9th October 2012, 02:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
It is an odd way for Bethesda/Arkane to phrase it though, don't you think? If all that was required for the minimum was 512MB of VRAM, why bring the GTX460/HD5850 into it? Unless you need 512MB and the power of the GTX460, it just muddies the issue.

I'd probably play the game on my gaming system which easily surpasses the recommended settings, and could max out what ever Dishonored requires. But it would suck down the juice and convert it into heat quicker than Shane McGowan could convert a whiskey into a good time.

For those times when I want to play less demanding/older games, I have a low power ITX gaming computer. It has a 2.5GHz quad-core (45w) and a 1GB 9800GT (>75w) and it pulls less than 100w when gaming. How would Dishonored go on such a system? The published specifications don't help me (and is confusing), which is where a performance review would be of great help.

EDIT: There are no benches in any review I can find, so it is possible that no one has been able to independently run a benchmark. I did find this on the Bethesda forums which does a wonderful job at clouding the issue further. To the question "Will my system play this?", an Arkane producer comes back with the clear-as-mud answer "It depends on how you will play" - Run & Gun will use the CPU while Stealth & Powers will lean on the GPU.

It doesn't just mean a 512 mb card will be enough. That is why they use the 460 and 5850 as an example. They are letting you know that you will need a card of around that power with at least 512 ram to play the game acceptably.

They are covering their bases so that no one can turn around and say "oh my 6450 has 512MB but cant play it". They state the 'sort' of grunt you need and they state the amount of vram you need for the game to be enjoyable.

Maybe I'm just hungover and missing the point. I kinda get the feeling I stumbled past it earlier while I was drooling on my keyboard.
xrain 9th October 2012, 05:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
I'm biased, but I actually think these reviews are better than the old, hardware-focused reviews. There's more information about gameplay in this style of review and it's put forward by someone who has spent a lot longer getting to know the game - someone who's played it for many, many hours.

Bear in mind that when I started I wrote at Bit-tech about four or five years ago, I wrote the sort of article you're describing. I did seven page graphical comparisons and the mammoth twelve page review of Crysis, etc - and I know that those reviews came from a less-informed position. It simply wasn't feasible to spend all that time testing and compiling while at the same time playing enough, writing well enough and editing my work.

Crysis, for example, I spent weekends working on because of the pressure at the time and still didn't make it more than halfway through the game before the review had to be released. I also had little more than a basic technical knowledge of the technical stuff; most of what was said wasn't anywhere near as informative as it may seem.

The old style of review may seem more informative by virtue of being longer, but it was not better and much of the hardware information you mention is simply not relevant to a wider game review. I understand a desire for technical information - which is why I began trying to produce separate articles for that just before we adopted the new business model - but really hardware questions should be covered in hardware articles.

I am going to disagree with you on this. I've been reading bit-tech for nearly a decade, while many of the changes to the site and in the reviews have certainty been a great positive. There are a few that I have found to be a bit problematic.

Firstly, the idea of "If I didn't mention it, it wasn't a problem" really doesn't sit well with me. Since I know that there is no practical way that you have investigated every aspect of that game, and found no issue. I would really like to be told exactly what that you have looked at. It doesn't have to be a dissertation by no means, just a simple "The sound scape was great, with the musical score quite moving in all the right places; and installation was had no problems, with no issues found, a google search for common issues with the game, revealed few problems with the game itself etc. etc." So you really don't need to extensively cover every aspect of the game, but at least just touch on the subject; however brief, will give a well rounded feeling to the article. Then go into depth on the things that actually were issues.

Telling someone that "everything you haven't talked about is just fine", is kind of like being a car salesman, and selling someone "motor-vehicle". It's a problem because that could be anything, is it a lamborghini? a 1970 Subaru outback? or an aircraft carrier? I realize that you guys aren't entering into a contract with us, so I cant hold you liable for everything you implicitly agreed to. But it still isn't good to promise things like that.

Personally I really liked the technical portion of the articles, I would first read the game-play bit, and figure out if the game sounded like something I would like, then I could go to the technical bit, to see how well the game could play on my machine, or if I needed to reduce the graphics, what would be the best thing to reduce first. Even then, whenever I build a new machine, I could go back and pick my favorite games and see how well a budget system would run it. It honestly provided a significant amount of utility to me.

Putting it only into the hardware section isn't correct, yes it makes the OCD in us all rejoice in how tidy everything is now, with all the hardware stuff in the hardware section, and the game-play stuff in the game section. In reality having a bit of bleed over isn't a bad thing. Even if it is just a case of you copying a graph from a few of the gpu reviews. It makes the data easily accessible, and doesn't force us to run through a bunch of video card reviews to see where the game was bench-marked. Think of it like this, I can go to the hardware section to see how a certain piece of hardware will fare in games. I can go to the games section to see how a game will place on different pieces of hardware. Yes the net effect is similar, but I really feel it is a useful concept.

In the end, the problem you guys are having, is how you have been rolling out changes on us. Even if when you really boiled it down the new review format is indeed much more relevant and useful, its also much shorter. At the same time you are also now having a few "sponsored" articles from AMD and the like. So regardless if its the case or not, its getting viewed as if the site has cheapened itself. I can't really think of a good way to do this, other than if you kept the length and depth of the review feel somewhat consistent with the past, you could probably get away with adding more revenue streams to the site, since people wouldn't feel like they are paying more and getting back less. Notice I said consistent, not the necessarily the same.

If you didn't want to read all that I just wrote, the basics are, the reviews now feel more like how the previews used to be. A bit of repetition between the hardware section and the games section isn't a bad thing, and finally at least briefly touch upon the stuff that you categorize under "If I didn't mention it, it wasn't a problem".
fdbh96 9th October 2012, 07:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrain
I am going to disagree with you on this. I've been reading bit-tech for nearly a decade, while many of the changes to the site and in the reviews have certainty been a great positive. There are a few that I have found to be a bit problematic.

Firstly, the idea of "If I didn't mention it, it wasn't a problem" really doesn't sit well with me. Since I know that there is no practical way that you have investigated every aspect of that game, and found no issue. I would really like to be told exactly what that you have looked at. It doesn't have to be a dissertation by no means, just a simple "The sound scape was great, with the musical score quite moving in all the right places; and installation was had no problems, with no issues found, a google search for common issues with the game, revealed few problems with the game itself etc. etc." So you really don't need to extensively cover every aspect of the game, but at least just touch on the subject; however brief, will give a well rounded feeling to the article. Then go into depth on the things that actually were issues.

Telling someone that "everything you haven't talked about is just fine", is kind of like being a car salesman, and selling someone "motor-vehicle". It's a problem because that could be anything, is it a lamborghini? a 1970 Subaru outback? or an aircraft carrier? I realize that you guys aren't entering into a contract with us, so I cant hold you liable for everything you implicitly agreed to. But it still isn't good to promise things like that.

Basically what he's saying is that from the moment he installed the game, it was basically perfect, and gives it a recommendation. What else does the game need? Is a slightly imperfect sound score going to stop you buying a game?
CardJoe 9th October 2012, 11:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
Adnoctum I am with you 100%.

I also like the way you put your argument politely and constructively, which is what I would like to emulate.

Yeah, this is all constructive criticism and politely put - so thanks for that.

To clarify, part of why games aren't all tested - and why you won't find a benchmark for Dishonored - is because of how the reviews take place. It's different for every game, with some games being sent early, some late, some in a finished state, some only 'content complete' (i.e. not fully patched or optimised, but ready for a gameplay review).

In the case of Dishonored, I played it about a month ago and - while I believe it was final code - the review was done outside of the office and without the option to benchmark it. Nobody had that option and, because the game didn't seem very taxing, I didn't push for it.

As far as your other points go, I'll make sure Harry and Simon have a look at these comments and see if there isn't some way we can adjust coverage to better suit the audience. I can't promise change - and I'm firmly of the opinion that hardware testing should be separated from the gameplay review if only the back-end - but I'll raise the issues.
CardJoe 9th October 2012, 11:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrain
I am going to disagree with you on this. I've been reading bit-tech for nearly a decade, while many of the changes to the site and in the reviews have certainty been a great positive. There are a few that I have found to be a bit problematic.

Firstly, the idea of "If I didn't mention it, it wasn't a problem" really doesn't sit well with me. Since I know that there is no practical way that you have investigated every aspect of that game, and found no issue. I would really like to be told exactly what that you have looked at. It doesn't have to be a dissertation by no means, just a simple "The sound scape was great, with the musical score quite moving in all the right places; and installation was had no problems, with no issues found, a google search for common issues with the game, revealed few problems with the game itself etc. etc." So you really don't need to extensively cover every aspect of the game, but at least just touch on the subject; however brief, will give a well rounded feeling to the article. Then go into depth on the things that actually were issues.

I see your point to a degree - and I'm not saying that across the board a "If I didn't mention it, it wasn't a problem" is the flat, fit-all answer. But when it comes to details of eye animation? No. I'm not going to talk about that.

Your point about soundscape is fairly valid - and the music in Dishonored is good - but with limited space a choice has to be to either discuss the really important parts of the game or to just issue a checklist of meaningless words. It's all very well to say "The soundscape is great" is all that needs to be said, but...what does that actually mean? To express a point like that meaningfully needs more space and time; space and time which could/should be used to express the critical parts of the game.

Don't get me wrong; if I have the time and the space or if the soundscape is particularly essential, I'll discuss it. But with Dishonored the soundscape isn't the most important thing; it's the creativity which underpins the game and which informed the design. It's more important to express that this is a game about creative expression in simulated environments and why Dishonored itself is an important game than it is to talk about how the soundscape is just OK.

What this basically comes down to is a philosophical divide on how games should be seen, I think. Technical issues are a separate matter obviously, but if you require conversation about every element of the music and the graphics and eye animation then you're valuing the components over the whole. That's not how I believe games should be judged, nor how I want to approach them - I see them as a gestalt; more than the sum of their parts.

As for approaching technical troubles - I see this as a supporting element of my approach. I can't possibly experience every error or situation and I can only talk authoritatively about the ones I understand. If I play a game and find it has serious stability issues, I'll talk about that. If it doesn't have any errors though, should I say that I had no errors while knowing that others will (because that's a fact of life) and that there's no way I could have tested every situation.

As regards stability, I think a practical approach is to support the expectation that you want your products to work. You expect a game not to crash, just as you expect a DVD not to have scratches on. I do too. If a game crashes a lot for me, you know I'll mention it and investigate - just as I would with a DVD. But if it performs as expected? Well, movie reviews don't all say that the DVDs they bought don't have scratches on and I don't think it's meaningful for me to say "The game didn't crash once...but it might for you and there are people on forums saying it did for them, so watch out for that because it might happen even though it didn't for me..."
Guinevere 9th October 2012, 12:47 Quote
Having read the comments on all sides I find the most worrying aspect that remains is that a 99% score has been given for a game that has never been installed on a known rig.

For all anyone knows, it'll be a nightmare to get working, unstable on half of all systems and at best require a monster SLI rig to play as smoothly as the review system.

I doubt this is the case and I'm not about to start throwing analogies at it, It was a good review and I trust it enough to buy the game!

Note: Isn't it cool that so many of us are loving the review but want BT articles to be even better if possible? How much nicer it is like this than the typical troll hate you get on a lot of other sites.
Palmski 9th October 2012, 13:39 Quote
I would add a +1 to the request for technical overviews of games. Being both a gamer and a builder of rigs to play those games on both are of great interest to me. Plus the in-depth comparisons gave some idea of how the game might run on my hardware which for me is a vital component of whether or not I'll buy a game.
CardJoe 9th October 2012, 14:36 Quote
Well, having talked it through with Harry, it now looks like we'll be working on a separate article to cover the technical side of things in the future. Harry and Matt will be looking at the game in detail, so thanks for your input on that.

As for the 'knowness' of the system - I did know what it was and I was told at the time the rough specs, but frankly I was playing the game at the start of September and I just can't remember the model numbers now.

I do know it was a single Nvidia GPU and that it was Windows 7, running on an SSD. Load times were a few seconds. Beyond that, Harry will let you all know and we'll try and use the comments here to inform further changes between us.
Waynio 9th October 2012, 15:44 Quote
Looks like a surprise giant hit game of the year, love those, same happened with GTA3 for me. :)

Soooo glad I didn't follow any news about it but was aware of it catching your keen interest early on.

Awesome review Joe, sounds excellent fun, game sold, I'll report back after I play some once I get hold of it to say if you made it sound too awesome or if I flat out agree, hope I do. :D

Only performance news I think we need to know of is if it's a system punisher like crysis or metro 2033 or disgustingly optimised like postal 3 was but if it's regular standard you should be fine with lowering eye candy if on low tech & it still look a lot better & sharper than console blurry-vision. :D
Sloth 9th October 2012, 21:28 Quote
Glad to have picked this up on a faith pre-order, seems like it'll have been worth it. Excited to get home and play!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Thanks. It scales pretty easily on most systems, but I don't have the details for the system I was on to hand unfortunately. If it runs on an Xbox 360 though... ;)
Bringing up this quote from early on in the thread because it still seems to be relevant. With consoles being near the end of their lifespans we've seen plenty of multi-platform releases offering similar graphics with similar hardware demands, at least on low console-equivalent settings. Since there was no mention of this differing from the norm it seems fair to assume it'll be like any other multi-platform games. I certainly can't say the screenshots make it look like some revolutionary graphical stunner. Maybe I'm just spoiled.
Deders 9th October 2012, 22:09 Quote
I was a little disappointed with the graphics but only because I was expecting the minimum spec to be a 460 or equivalent. I'd say it would run perfectly well on a 88/9800GT. So far it hasn't used much more than 1 cpu core or more then 45% of my GPU. Most of the time it's around 25%.

Overall the watercolour cartoony style is pleasing, reminds me of Discworld.
jimmyjj 9th October 2012, 22:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Well, having talked it through with Harry, it now looks like we'll be working on a separate article to cover the technical side of things in the future. Harry and Matt will be looking at the game in detail, so thanks for your input on that.

Awesome.
Deders 9th October 2012, 22:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Well, having talked it through with Harry, it now looks like we'll be working on a separate article to cover the technical side of things in the future. Harry and Matt will be looking at the game in detail, so thanks for your input on that.

:D
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums