probably "our game lags like fricking shit because we rushed it out with indian intern spaghetti code, make it run faster before launch which is in like two weeks."
It isn't even about cutting corners. It's about being reasonable: do you want your game to sell million copies or 50k copies? Because if average office PC can't run it, tough fricking luck.
It isn't even about cutting corners. It's about being reasonable: do you want your game to sell million copies or 50k copies? Because if average office PC can't run it, tough fricking luck.
man if only there was some sort of menu where you can change the graphical settings to the level of quality of your hardware so that people with good computers can enjoy a good-looking game.
Did you know they have teams to edit videos to make the games look better in them? Sometimes the game never actually looked good, it just went through a bunch of post-processing in video editing software.
First one, it’s alpha dooode >Made place holder art that was not obviously placeholder >removed shadows
Second one, most likely feedback on art plus slightly bad marketing practices >subdued the bright color platte probably because it clashed with team colors and calls of it looking too cartoonish. >first shot is staged assets and the colors looks to be made more vibrant in post
Third one, most likely performance reasons >removed grass, shadows and some shaders including parallax occlusion
*were they thinking?
probably "our game lags like fricking shit because we rushed it out with indian intern spaghetti code, make it run faster before launch which is in like two weeks."
It looks old enough to be a relic.
>Those are very nie dynamic shadows and lighting
>lets try them on avrege computer from Steam survey
>....ok, lets cut corners
This is industry standard
Is the average computer from that survey a Pentium 4?
Probably, considering the number of thirdies on CSGO and Dota
It isn't even about cutting corners. It's about being reasonable: do you want your game to sell million copies or 50k copies? Because if average office PC can't run it, tough fricking luck.
standard my ass, relic's frickups make the industry look practically prescient
man if only there was some sort of menu where you can change the graphical settings to the level of quality of your hardware so that people with good computers can enjoy a good-looking game.
I don't want a laggy RTS game. Glad they cut corners. coh3 is the smoothest thing ever.
>we're going to make a fun RTS UwU
Did you know they have teams to edit videos to make the games look better in them? Sometimes the game never actually looked good, it just went through a bunch of post-processing in video editing software.
Is aoe4 worth it?
I've never played an aoe game before.
I'd say that 2 is a decent start point, and that you branch out from there depending on what interests you. It has a bit of everything.
No, but don't let that stop you. You'll inevitably end up playing AoE2 instead.
2 got butchered with all the bloat paid mod content. It's a mess. 4 is the best in the series.
A shitter?
On MY /vst/?
Cope chud
>Set in similar time period
>ZOMG it's the same game!!! :O
It’s like AoE2 reimagined for the zoomer audience.
First one, it’s alpha dooode
>Made place holder art that was not obviously placeholder
>removed shadows
Second one, most likely feedback on art plus slightly bad marketing practices
>subdued the bright color platte probably because it clashed with team colors and calls of it looking too cartoonish.
>first shot is staged assets and the colors looks to be made more vibrant in post
Third one, most likely performance reasons
>removed grass, shadows and some shaders including parallax occlusion
coh is especially remarkable as it manages to look worse than the first game, which released in 2006
This is true. CoH3 looks like it could run in a cellphone.
>Is that DoW 3 on the left?
Yes
>both look impressive tbh
It's really not.
Is that DoW 3 on the left? Never played it but both look impressive tbh