F5F Stay Refreshed Software PC Gaming This tech demo is stunning.

This tech demo is stunning.

This tech demo is stunning.

T
TOMMYCRAFT05
Member
124
10-24-2023, 05:42 PM
#1
These devices might not support this game at 30 frames per second. Check the video link for details. Hope it works on a PC!
T
TOMMYCRAFT05
10-24-2023, 05:42 PM #1

These devices might not support this game at 30 frames per second. Check the video link for details. Hope it works on a PC!

N
naval1
Junior Member
5
10-24-2023, 07:39 PM
#2
Question the possibility of consoles handling 1 frame per second at 240p resolution
N
naval1
10-24-2023, 07:39 PM #2

Question the possibility of consoles handling 1 frame per second at 240p resolution

C
CLPSGAMER
Member
176
11-02-2023, 08:21 AM
#3
I appreciate the aesthetic and visual appeal. I’m confident they’ll work well as a functional PC version.
C
CLPSGAMER
11-02-2023, 08:21 AM #3

I appreciate the aesthetic and visual appeal. I’m confident they’ll work well as a functional PC version.

S
SoyDash
Posting Freak
859
11-02-2023, 09:48 AM
#4
Haha, the clip seemed a bit simplified compared to what you'd expect from console optimization at 30fps and 720p. It feels like this might become the norm.
S
SoyDash
11-02-2023, 09:48 AM #4

Haha, the clip seemed a bit simplified compared to what you'd expect from console optimization at 30fps and 720p. It feels like this might become the norm.

F
Fumii_
Member
58
11-02-2023, 04:27 PM
#5
It’s actually more disappointing than I anticipated. It works well overall, but there are several issues worth mentioning. When compared to CryEngine, the lighting effects need improvement—there’s no bloom, no lens flare, and static shadows from light sources. The hair in the car scene doesn’t cast realistic shadows, and some strands appear misplaced. The face creation demo looks subpar when measured against NVIDIA’s standards. There’s excessive depth of field applied to compensate for low anisotropic filtering; however, the girls’ faces lack any shadows, which is odd given their appearance. At the 1:39 point, a red flare emits smoke that doesn’t look natural—there’s a poor smoke pattern. The water in the scene remains still despite rain; dry patches didn’t splash, but wet areas did, though this wasn’t very impressive. At the 1:39 mark, a camera object seems to create ripples in multiple directions if there were any objects nearby. The car’s shadow detail is lacking, with noticeable jaggies and inconsistent resolution—grass appears choppy rather than flowing smoothly. Building quality is lower than expected, with some structures at higher resolution while others are only 240p. By 1:09, clouds look sharper than the moon, which seems unrealistic. Animations are decent but lack fluidity; around 2:42, sudden changes occur during attacks, and the ending stalls for a moment. The pacing feels off, likely due to technical constraints. Overall, it’s a solid effort, but noticeable shortcomings compared to industry benchmarks.
F
Fumii_
11-02-2023, 04:27 PM #5

It’s actually more disappointing than I anticipated. It works well overall, but there are several issues worth mentioning. When compared to CryEngine, the lighting effects need improvement—there’s no bloom, no lens flare, and static shadows from light sources. The hair in the car scene doesn’t cast realistic shadows, and some strands appear misplaced. The face creation demo looks subpar when measured against NVIDIA’s standards. There’s excessive depth of field applied to compensate for low anisotropic filtering; however, the girls’ faces lack any shadows, which is odd given their appearance. At the 1:39 point, a red flare emits smoke that doesn’t look natural—there’s a poor smoke pattern. The water in the scene remains still despite rain; dry patches didn’t splash, but wet areas did, though this wasn’t very impressive. At the 1:39 mark, a camera object seems to create ripples in multiple directions if there were any objects nearby. The car’s shadow detail is lacking, with noticeable jaggies and inconsistent resolution—grass appears choppy rather than flowing smoothly. Building quality is lower than expected, with some structures at higher resolution while others are only 240p. By 1:09, clouds look sharper than the moon, which seems unrealistic. Animations are decent but lack fluidity; around 2:42, sudden changes occur during attacks, and the ending stalls for a moment. The pacing feels off, likely due to technical constraints. Overall, it’s a solid effort, but noticeable shortcomings compared to industry benchmarks.

M
Mundee
Junior Member
17
11-04-2023, 11:32 AM
#6
They're shifting toward higher resolutions and frame rates like 1440p at 120fps and 4K at 60fps.
M
Mundee
11-04-2023, 11:32 AM #6

They're shifting toward higher resolutions and frame rates like 1440p at 120fps and 4K at 60fps.

B
Blureux
Posting Freak
797
11-07-2023, 04:58 PM
#7
Watch your back, buddy. I’m counting on it landing for you and it should be an upgrade over XIII—the game I played before.
B
Blureux
11-07-2023, 04:58 PM #7

Watch your back, buddy. I’m counting on it landing for you and it should be an upgrade over XIII—the game I played before.