Sebastien Loeb Rally Evo first videos

Commented on 2016-01-31 13:34:40

I got the game yesterday and paid for it a couple of hours and I found it silky smooth on my 980ti with everything set to max. The handling is not a good as Dirty Rally, Seb Rally is more arcadey but it is enjoyable still.
The graphics are not amazing but they do a good job and I love the stages I completed so far.
Overall I am much more impressed with the final game than I was with the demo and it is ALOT better than the PS4 demo.

In reply to

Driftwood

Commented on 2016-01-31 15:31:10 In reply to morpheus9394

I get what seems to be very brief stutter when using one card, like what you can see here in the gameplay video (and the cockpit cam replay) and lowering the settings makes no difference. It's odd.

In reply to

Prower

Commented on 2016-01-31 17:11:44

I hope this comment doens't come out as trolling, but i think Rallisport Challenge 2 on the original Xbox had a better graphics (at rocksolid 60fps), except obviously for the resolution.
I understand doing videogames in Italy is pretty difficult, but RC2 came out 12 years ago...

In reply to

asdfg

Commented on 2016-01-31 21:54:10 In reply to Prower

Posted by Prower

I hope this comment doens't come out as trolling, but i think Rallisport Challenge 2 on the original Xbox had a better graphics (at rocksolid 60fps), except obviously for the resolution.
I understand doing videogames in Italy is pretty difficult, but RC2 came out 12 years ago...

Please cmon now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPbd5yAzHXw

In reply to

KORNdog

Commented on 2016-01-31 22:30:21 In reply to asdfg

Posted by asdfg

Please cmon now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPbd5yAzHXw

Lol. Man, prime example of rose tinted glasses in effect. I remember that game looking amazing. And the co-driver is fucking terrible.

In reply to

asdfg

Commented on 2016-01-31 23:15:10 In reply to KORNdog

Posted by KORNdog

Lol. Man, prime example of rose tinted glasses in effect. I remember that game looking amazing. And the co-driver is fucking terrible.

Yeah, I was knocked by the graphics when it came out. I had just bought a new computer and it better than any racing game I've ever played, back then that is. :)

In reply to

MrRygar

Commented on 2016-02-01 02:27:55

I played the hell out of Rallysport Challenge 1 and 2 was so disappointed when Rallysport Challenge 3 wasn't made on 360, apparently EA brought Dice and stopped the franchise bloody bar-stewards, I remember being impressed graphically often first with the playstation 1 then with the first Xbox I think the playstion 1 because it was the first console to be able to do proper 3d graphics because of the increased storage capacity of CDs (compared to the blurry n64 games despite it being a lot more powerful than the ps1) and the Xbox even more, almost every microsoft published game blew me away graphically and I think its because it hit a sweat spot with the number of polygons rendered on screen, law of diminishing returns (Google image search - law of diminishing returns polygons) has ever since meant that graphics have only improved very slowly despite huge increases in processing power as every 10 fold increase in polygons makes less and less difference to the apparent quality of the rendering.

In reply to

I played the hell out of Rallysport Challenge 1 and 2 was so disappointed when  Rallysport Challenge 3 wasn't made on 360, apparently EA brought Dice and stopped the franchise bloody bar-stewards, I remember being impressed graphically  often first with the playstation 1 then with the first Xbox I think the playstion 1 because it was the first console to be able to do proper 3d graphics because of the increased storage capacity of CDs (compared to the blurry n64 games despite it being a lot more powerful than the ps1) and the Xbox even more, almost every microsoft published game blew me away graphically and I think its because it hit a sweat spot with the number of polygons rendered on screen, law of diminishing returns (Google image search - law of diminishing returns polygons) has ever since meant that graphics have only improved very slowly despite huge increases in processing power as every 10 fold increase in polygons makes less and less difference to the apparent quality of the rendering.

der_ton

Commented on 2016-02-01 11:21:06

That polycount/law of diminishing returns problem had a gamechanger that should be mentioned. The biggest step was with bumpmapping then, where you could have fine details (that react correctly to light, which is the single most important point visually) calculated from high-poly geometry instead of hand-painted, and the ingame polygon count did not have to be increased. Doom3 and then most of the AAA games after 2005 had that, continuing until today.

In reply to

MrWhite

Commented on 2016-02-01 23:27:55 In reply to der_ton

Posted by der_ton

That polycount/law of diminishing returns problem had a gamechanger that should be mentioned. The biggest step was with bumpmapping then, where you could have fine details (that react correctly to light, which is the single most important point visually) calculated from high-poly geometry instead of hand-painted, and the ingame polygon count did not have to be increased. Doom3 and then most of the AAA games after 2005 had that, continuing until today.

Yep. Per pixel shading normal maps, which I believe Doom 3 was one of the first, if not the first, to be used with. Before that we'd just localised bump maps that just reacted to the direction of a light source rather than each pixel being independently lit. Halo was the first game I noticed that on. It was immediate to me just how big of a deal it was, then Doom 3 came along and changed everything. If not for the low poly count, Doom 3 still looks very good, 12 years later. I remember seeing the first (very low res) demos of it from Quakecon all those years ago, and being absolutely floored by it. I don't think I've been as impressed since.

In reply to

[quote=der_ton]That polycount/law of diminishing returns problem had a gamechanger that should be mentioned. The biggest step was with bumpmapping then, where you could have fine details (that react correctly to light, which is the single most important point visually) calculated from high-poly geometry instead of hand-painted, and the ingame polygon count did not have to be increased. Doom3 and then most of the AAA games after 2005 had that, continuing until today.[/quote]
Yep. Per pixel shading normal maps, which I believe Doom 3 was one of the first, if not the first, to be used with. Before that we'd just localised bump maps that just reacted to the direction of a light source rather than each pixel being independently lit. Halo was the first game I noticed that on. It was immediate to me just how big of a deal it was, then Doom 3 came along and changed everything. If not for the low poly count, Doom 3 still looks very good, 12 years later. I remember seeing the first (very low res) demos of it from Quakecon all those years ago, and being absolutely floored by it. I don't think I've been as impressed since.

KORNdog

Commented on 2016-02-02 00:53:12 In reply to MrWhite

Posted by MrWhite

Yep. Per pixel shading normal maps, which I believe Doom 3 was one of the first, if not the first, to be used with. Before that we'd just localised bump maps that just reacted to the direction of a light source rather than each pixel being independently lit. Halo was the first game I noticed that on. It was immediate to me just how big of a deal it was, then Doom 3 came along and changed everything. If not for the low poly count, Doom 3 still looks very good, 12 years later. I remember seeing the first (very low res) demos of it from Quakecon all those years ago, and being absolutely floored by it. I don't think I've been as impressed since.

Release wise i think riddick was the first that remember seeing heavy use of it anyway. Then everyone used it. Tesselation is it's older brother but its pretty expensive. Paralax is a middle ground.

In reply to