The pics thread

^Not sure, I would think so.

379864_330973200265473_205344452828349_1241252_1212232401_n-1.jpg
 
Don't call it a diet. Diet is synonymous with what someone eats to stop being fat. It needs a word that has no such synonym.
 
zabu of nΩd;10205639 said:
so yeah, how's that diet / weight loss goin?

meh, I've been at 186/187 the entire winter. so what I put on 7-8 lbs
When the weather finally warms up I'll be biking every single day.
Come July 19th when I post my naked pic like I've done the past 2 years, I'll look amazing. So I dont give a fuck about what I do in the next month or so.
Cant wait to ride to work every day. Especially since gas is going to be stupid expensive.
 
can that shit max crysis?

Crysis isn't really that demanding on current hardware. PCs outstrip the capabilities of the 360 and PS3, but all the best-looking, big-budget games are multiplatform/pc exclusive, so graphics haven't really evolved past the capabilities of the consoles. As a consequence, it's pretty cheap to build a PC that can run anything. The exception is when devs optimize poorly, such as with The Witcher 2. That game looked fantastic on PC (easily one of the best looking games ever) but ran poorly.
 
Crysis isn't really that demanding on current hardware. PCs outstrip the capabilities of the 360 and PS3, but all the best-looking, big-budget games are multiplatform/pc exclusive, so graphics haven't really evolved past the capabilities of the consoles. As a consequence, it's pretty cheap to build a PC that can run anything. The exception is when devs optimize poorly, such as with The Witcher 2. That game looked fantastic on PC (easily one of the best looking games ever) but ran poorly.

someone has never heard of dx11 tessellation. ugh, :err:
 
someone has never heard of dx11 tessellation. ugh, :err:

I'm not saying the technology's not there, I'm saying people are barely using it.
Observe:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYb3NsZP7k&feature=fvwrel[/ame]
Is there a difference? Sure. But barely.
Look at it in an actual game:
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYWhKUoz8ww&feature=related[/ame]
even more negligible.

Point is: very few or no major developers are putting significant effort into advancing PC graphics, because if you can't release it for consoles you're left with a very pretty, very expensive game that not that many people can play.

And to be honest, that's fine. Graphics are good enough as is. There's going to be another generation of consoles, but this should be the last, because we're well into the territory of diminishing returns. Where visuals need improvement is in animation and aesthetics, not polygon count, texture mapping, and shaders. Sure, those things can be improved, but it's not really worth the effort required.
 
And to be honest, that's fine. Graphics are good enough as is. There's going to be another generation of consoles, but this should be the last, because we're well into the territory of diminishing returns. Where visuals need improvement is in animation and aesthetics, not polygon count, texture mapping, and shaders. Sure, those things can be improved, but it's not really worth the effort required.

Have had that discussion recently. Animations need polishing in a lot of cases, but the level of detail is already incredible in most new, serious games. I mean, how much better do you really want games to look?
 
I'm totally in support of the idea of a technological 'cap' of sorts. Aesthetics is firmly secondary to a quality storyline and playability. There are times when graphics enhance the experience, but if they were really all that essential, people wouldn't still be playing NES games. I really don't need a game to look any better than Skyrim does, for example. What more can be gained beyond what the visuals in this game capture?