Max Payne 3 Next big graphics powerhouse ?

[Grooveriding]

I was reading over this article at pcworld about Max Payne 3 and there are some interesting remarks about the graphics abilities of the engine. I know this is Rockstar and it could just end up being another GTA IV console port hog. Recommended specs are GTX 480 / 5870 and an i7 quad core.

But they do say it supports DX11 and its features, as well the game is 35GB 😱 to account for higher resolution textures. That is over twice the size of the console version (2 dvds on the 360)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/256186/max_payne_3_pc_developer_interview.html#tk.hp_new

You’ll find that screen resolution is scalable, there’s triple and even sextuple monitor support which helps to run higher screen resolutions, there’s various anti-aliasing options, scalable water quality, scalable shadow quality, increased detail for characters and vehicles and a scalable texture filter that further increases visual quality. We’re also supporting DX11 with Max Payne 3, with features including Hull/Tessellation/Domain Shaders (which adds curvature to the character/vehicle models), Gather4 (for optimized shadow sampling / FXAA), Geometry shader / Stream Output and DX11 texture samplers to name a few.

35GB is a pretty hefty install size, even for a PC title. Why the large size? Are we seeing HD textures or better rendered cutscenes?
Both, and more. As we said earlier, one of the goals with Max Payne 3 on PC was to have a game that runs beautifully out of the box on day one across a wide range of machines. The PC is the only platform where you can really max out the high end if you want to, and we wanted Max Payne 3 on PC to have the potential to look beautiful on the highest possible resolutions on the biggest monitors available - so while we can still scale performance down to suit even reasonably low-end rigs, every asset is available at the highest resolution possible, from audio to video to textures.

The installed size of Max Payne 3 is due to the no-compromise quality of its assets, which already push console disc space to the limits. A good portion of the extra space requirements on PC can be attributed to the increased size of the textures, which are four times the size of those on consoles. In addition, the audio quality is significantly higher than the consoles due to lower compression rates, which improves audio fidelity. Again, this comes back to the range of possibilities that the PC platform opens up for us. That, combined with higher video settings when running the game, results in substantially better visual quality.

http://zapp5.staticworld.net/images/article/2012/04/rsg_mp3_pc_035-11348755.jpg
http://zapp5.staticworld.net/images/article/2012/04/rsg_mp3_pc_021-11348737.jpg
http://zapp5.staticworld.net/images/article/2012/05/rsg_mp3_pc_057-11364414.png

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Holy crap.

 

[Concillian]

I have no faith that it won't be poorly ported and need way too much cpu like GTA IV and other ports, like Skyrim before patch 1.4. We can hope they've learned, but not holding my breath.

 

[MrK6]

It seems like a lot of ports are poorly optimized in file size (lack of texture compression?). Some of the screenshots look great, some of them look mediocre. Blah for inconsistent quality.

 

[Kippa]

Is the game going to be 64bit and possibly use more than 1.5gb of ram?

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

It looks outdated to me... I dont know exactly why but something about the engine makes it look really fake-3dish... Like everything is too glossy or something

I think BF3 is much better looking

 

[reallyscrued]

Marketing.

It's lead platform was not PC, that's all you need to know.

 

[thilanliyan]

Things still seem to look "plastic" to me in those screens. Maybe it will look better in motion.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Those screens don't look amazing.

 

[HeXen]

Should be a great game, looking forward to it.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

It seems like a lot of ports are poorly optimized in file size (lack of texture compression?). Some of the screenshots look great, some of them look mediocre. Blah for inconsistent quality.

Inconsistency causes the worst representation of graphics in my opinion. I must agree [if that is what you are more-or-less saying].

 

[d3fu5i0n]

Marketing.

It's lead platform was not PC, that's all you need to know.

Indeed 😉

 

[Skurge]

I think it looks pretty good. If you compare BF3, muzles and tryes and other round objects are not completely round. They are more hexagonal. MP3 looks like tesselation is used very well and the textures look higher res than BF3 (refer to sandbags). The lighting doesn't look as good as BF3 though.

I'd like to see the game in motion 1st though.

 

[BD231]

Rock star games and good graphics have nothing to do with eachother, I don't see that changing in Max Payne 3.

 

[blackened23]

Rockstar has a very POOR recent record with PC ports, I hope they prove me wrong this time. GTA IV / LA Noire are simply some of the worst PC ports ever, and has really soured me on them.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Rock star games and good graphics have nothing to do with eachother, I don't see that changing in Max Payne 3.

GTA 4 still looks amazing today that being said you need a higher end rig with a beast CPU and GPU with more than 1gb Vram to really make it shine right.

 

[blackened23]

GTA 4 still looks amazing today that being said you need a higher end rig with a beast CPU and GPU with more than 1gb Vram to really make it shine right.

GTA IV is a shining example of horrible coding and if Max Payne 3 follows the example set by GTA IV, I will be greatly disappointed.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

GTA IV is a shining example of horrible coding and if Max Payne 3 follows the example set by GTA IV, I will be greatly disappointed.

I never said GTA was optimized and I understand that it is far from it and I am unfortunately expecting the same unoptimized trend to continue with Max Payne 2 and GTA 5. That being said my point was that GTA 4 can be an amazing looking game even by today's standards and that's un modded vanilla GTA 4 and with ENB series modding it looks real excellent. The fact remains that developers are still developing where the big money it at which is Consoles but consoles have crappy AA filtering which IMO is what really makes a game look great and polished.

 

[borisvodofsky]

all this whining over graphics, if you want really good graphics, try real life. This is damn fine graphics to come out of a pile of rocks and electrons.

That is not to say one should go on a shooting spree.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

all this whining over graphics, if you want really good graphics, try real life. This is damn fine graphics to come out of a pile of rocks and electrons.

That is not to say one should go on a shooting spree.

Real life has crappy graphics have you played Crysis 1 maxed out on a 2560x1600 monitor @ 60fps LOL.

 

[toyota]

all this whining over graphics, if you want really good graphics, try real life. This is damn fine graphics to come out of a pile of rocks and electrons.

That is not to say one should go on a shooting spree.

well this is the video and graphics section so what do you expect? do you upgrade your video card for a game with a better story line or better graphics? maybe we should all be happy with pong on a 13 inch black and white tv?

 

[2is]

Those screens don't look like they are worthy of 35GB of precious SSD space to me.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

Those screens don't look like they are worthy of 35GB of precious SSD space to me.

I cant pin point exactly when it seems people got so stupid about the graphics I remember a time long ago when we played games for the game mechanics not for staring at an image analyzing its texture and if it's completely circular ect really what gives is the game play the game play is what makes the game. Also I don't care how good it looks if it drops my frame rate to below 60fps it was not worth the image quality.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I cant pin point exactly when it seems people got so stupid about the graphics I remember a time long ago when we played games for the game mechanics not for staring at an image analyzing its texture and if it's completely circular ect really what gives is the game play the game play is what makes the game. Also I don't care how good it looks if it drops my frame rate to below 60fps it was not worth the image quality.

Wow dude you really missed the point. The ONLY reason it should take 35GB of space on your drive is because it has high resolution textures and models. The screenshots don't show that at all. So...why is it 35GB estimated space requirements?

It's not about the graphics, it's about the absolute bloat of the software package. It's unnecessary. If the game looked better then I'd say "ok so that's worthy of using so much space".


I will say in response directly to you that in today's game market we should expect the graphics to follow the story and gameplay equally in quality. There is no reason for anyone to expect less today. I'm not going to buy the BS from people about "I play for the gameplay not the graphics". Graphics are as much a part of the art form as anything else. If Skyrim looked like Wolfenstein 3D I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't be as popular. The Graphics help make the world believable and realistic. It can draw you into the story more and help the character's emotions appear more realistic. It's a big deal.

 

[3DVagabond]

I cant pin point exactly when it seems people got so stupid about the graphics I remember a time long ago when we played games for the game mechanics not for staring at an image analyzing its texture and if it's completely circular ect really what gives is the game play the game play is what makes the game. Also I don't care how good it looks if it drops my frame rate to below 60fps it was not worth the image quality.

If we cared about gameplay the game devs wouldn't be able to continue to recycle *DOOM for 20yrs by simply updating the graphics and changing the storyline.


*The original FPS