SotA graphics fidelity

So from what Chris sometime ago the graphic will be good so how well do you think it will compare to other titles like Watch dog or other open world games like the Witcher 3 to be released in the future

 

Remember this is going to be an "mmo" in some cases. So dont expect great graphics; or expect to turn your graphics settings down,

 

From what I hear its not going be an MMO like WoW or GW2 but something similar to the Division if you seen some gameplay videos of that game it looks amazing and its a MMO type game.

 

Probably primarily an adjustment setting, as they have stated they want to make the game tech friendly to people who cant get high end machines or that are using older machines and cant afford a new one.

 

Crysis 3 and Metro last light can run well on lower end PC all they need to do is optimize it well for different PCs I would be disappointed if they didn't support features like in DX11 or even DX10. I don't see any reason for them to be held back by older machine which can range from 2 to 3 years old which is not a problem new game are being released with better visuals in a few months and by a year or so we will see even more. Good developers would know to optimize their games for a range of system.

 

I think the Unity engine takes care of all of this sort of stuff. DX11 and OpenGL 2 are both supported. Portalarium should only need to create assets.

An example of real-time rendering in U4: http://video.unity3d.com/video/6912619/the-butterfly-effect-realtime-rendering

 

Chris said the graphics would be as good or better than skyrim.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

They won't compare. Witcher 2 was potentially the most beautiful game currently available on PC, Witcher 3 will no doubt be more so with it's huge amounts of proprietary technology and Watch Dogs is a huge budget hundreds of staff title. Both are triple A games that intend to make use of next gen console technology. SotA is a kickstarter project, MMO style game with much more conservative polygon budgets using the pro version of the freely available Unity3D game engine.

 

I don't know the polygon budgets for either game, but there is no technical reason for a Unity game to use fewer than one using the Unreal engine. It comes down to the strength of the artists, and I am impressed by what I've seen from Portalarium. I don't evaluate engines based on cost either, since that is really a strategic marketing move more than anything. I really like Unity, and how the company has positioned it. By making a free version available to hobbyists they have caused the Unity store to explode with assets. They have attracted a number of indie developers, and as a result more people have experience with the engine. This is the same gameplan that allowed Unix to gain market share (AT&T made it available to universities for $500 at a time when other OSs were vastly more expensive).

When evaluating an engine for a project such as this one should not ask how many features each engine has, but do they have what you need.

(Personally) I think Unity is in the same league as Unreal or CryEngine feature-wise. And for usability blows them out of the water.

 

Uhhhhh, can you provide a source for that, please?

 

He said it in one of the live hangouts you'll have to watch the videos to find it. You'd be better off asking again because there are hours of footage.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta