View Full Version : Sam & Max graphics
StewG
04/26/2010, 03:15 pm
OK, lets face it. The graphics isn't too pretty. But that isn't the main point.
The main point is that the games are so demanding. When i set the graphics on full (on season 3), there is a slight lag, and i can play games like Crysis on medium settings without lag.
Isn't there any update or tricks to making them less demanding? It would be nice to play on my laptop too. And my MacBook.
Rather Dashing
04/26/2010, 04:06 pm
OK, lets face it. The graphics isn't too pretty.
Speak for yourself.
Isn't there any update or tricks to making them less demanding? It would be nice to play on my laptop too. And my MacBook.
...there are options less than full, you do realize?
tredlow
04/26/2010, 06:38 pm
Not too pretty? Define 'pretty'.
splash1
04/26/2010, 06:41 pm
OK, lets face it. The graphics isn't too pretty. But that isn't the main point.
The main point is that the games are so demanding. When i set the graphics on full (on season 3), there is a slight lag, and i can play games like Crysis on medium settings without lag.
Isn't there any update or tricks to making them less demanding? It would be nice to play on my laptop too. And my MacBook.
Four words:
Get A Better Computer.
Speak for yourself.
Seconded. I'm really not seeing where the graphics are bad. They fit, period.
SHODANFreeman
04/26/2010, 08:42 pm
I think the game looks great. It might not be the most efficient game engine in the world, but you know, they don't get paid as well as the guys over at Crytek do either.
der_ketzer
04/26/2010, 09:22 pm
It might not be the most efficient game engine in the world
It looks great and it runs on my PC that will not run anything that gets released nowadays.
LeBart
04/26/2010, 09:47 pm
I think he's right when he says that the game is too "demanding". That's not saying that Telltale did a poor job, I understand they're not Crytek, and I do think the game looks very neat. However I see where he's coming from.
adventureaddict
04/27/2010, 02:18 am
I think if your computer can't play it on full settings, its time to upgrade.
I get that some people don't have the money and stuff, but I don't think complaining about that is going to help any.
Vainamoinen
04/27/2010, 02:58 am
I think if your computer can't play it on full settings, its time to upgrade.
I get that some people don't have the money and stuff, but I don't think complaining about that is going to help any.
Firstly, that comment asserts that everyone should have a computer that would handle full settings. Is playing on "5" and a lower resolution "not worth it"? I don't think so!
Secondly, if anything besides buying expensive hardware helps, it's probably to complain (in a polite manner, of course). Obviously, the Telltale Engine has become a little bulky with all the additions to the original code, and that is what StewG complains about. A slim, well-programmed game engine would deliver the same graphics on a less high-end computer.
Thirdly, I think the problem was well identified on this forum, and it has been said that a specific shader/special effects addendum immediately causes such lags even on very fast computers. Maybe that's the point where rectification should start.
It should of course be noted that compared to recent games, Telltale still produces games with relatively low system requirements. For players exclusively into adventure games, however, even these low requirements might cause a problem. They're just not used to having to update their computer! :D
adventureaddict
04/27/2010, 03:11 am
Ha, sorry, just reread my post, I didn't mean to sound so snarky. :p
Just sick of all the 'I can't run on 9, TELLTALE SUCK' comments.
Telltales engine is always in a process of change, so it's probably easier to keep it "bulky" until they can fix it to perfection (which may or may not ever happen).
Hassat Hunter
04/27/2010, 04:32 am
Yeah, 5 isn't "less", but if you complain you can't play on 9, there is no point complaining to TTG about it.
Either suck it up and play on a lower graphics level (which still looks good anyway) or get better hardware.
It's the "Monkey Island isn't about graphics, so why can't I run it on 9 on my PC? You suck TTG!" thread all over again.
LeBart
04/27/2010, 06:00 am
I think it's valid complaint though, albeit a very minor one. It's true Telltale games are not about proficient graphics, but it's also true that better looking games run great on machines that can't quite handle Sam and Max at full.
Basicaly my point is if you can't play the game on the highest setting, then it's no big deal, just lower the graphics and enjoy the jokes. But at the same time if Telltale manages to optimize their engine for future games, it will be a great improvement.
Hassat Hunter
04/27/2010, 06:18 am
Yeah, but TTG can hardly optimize as much as Crytek, Valve or Epic. After all, the only reason they can have their engine so well made is because they spend A LOT of money on it, mostly gotten back by selling engine licenses to others.
I don't really see TTG pushing out the Telltale Tool. Not really enough adventure developers for that I think, so they need to recoup TellTale Engine costs from the games alone...
Didero
04/27/2010, 07:16 am
Plus, Crysis is getting a bit old by now. If you can only run it on medium, your computer is getting slow, relatively. So expecting you can run SnM season 3 on 9 is maybe hoping for too much.
StewG
04/27/2010, 08:33 am
Ok. The point was that it was demanding. The graphic is charming in it's own way, and not ugly! I am well aware that my computer sucks, and that I can turn the settings down. I just don't want to miss any of the magic.
I love both Telltale and Sam & Max, and was just implying that the game could have been a little less demanding. But I wouldn't want it to look any different!
I managed to stop the lag by the way. Way too much stuff in the background ;P
Kroms
04/27/2010, 10:45 am
I just don't want to miss any of the magic.
Then get a better computer. I can't believe that the internet's gotten to the point where people complain that things should be uglified.
Certainly not a dig at Telltale, but I do hope they do get a chance to streamline it a bit more. I can play Arkham Asylum and Crysis pretty far up, yet Devil's Playhouse only 5th graphic setting. Would be nice to have the depth of field and fancy lighting business like I can in other games. :D
Still looks nice though.
StewG
04/27/2010, 02:02 pm
Then get a better computer. I can't believe that the internet's gotten to the point where people complain that things should be uglified.
No need. I fixed the lag! :)
I also wrote that I didn't want the graphics to change. It is possible to make things less demanding without making it uglier!
Sam and Max 3 is our most demanding game yet, and it's been released on 3 new platforms (PS3, iPad, Mac). Things have been a little crazy around here in engine land.
We do care about stability and performance, and we are constantly trying to improve both. I enjoy optimizing and cleaning up code whenever I have the time. You guys are right in that we don't have the engine budget of companies like Epic or Crytek. We also focus our efforts on making tools that allow our artists to work efficiently without having to concern themselves with performance (as much as possible). When you're trying to hit monthly release dates, you need to be making art, not optimizing geometry or whatever.
So basically, Telltale games are probably never going to look/run as nicely as the AAA graphics engines (although I can dream). But we will continue to make things better.
ShaggE
04/27/2010, 05:13 pm
So basically, Telltale games are probably never going to look/run as nicely as the AAA graphics engines (although I can dream).
Pshaw! Season 3 looks exactly how I'd expect a big-budget Sam & Max to look. Really, it's amazing what bump mapping and shadows can do for a game's graphics.
It may not be the most optimized engine of all time, but I've seen plenty of AAA titles do worse with less.
Seriously. You guys did a damn good job, and I can't wait to see the rest of the season.
tredlow
04/28/2010, 12:56 am
Pshaw! Season 3 looks exactly how I'd expect a big-budget Sam & Max to look.
No, it doesn't have enough Christopher Lee.
Anyway, I run it on level 4 graphics, which is the most I can without having too much lag, and I thought it was still awesome. Why would anyone think this has bad graphics, anyway?
Though sometimes, Skun'kape's animation can look unnatural. Just saying.
StewG
04/28/2010, 01:09 am
Sam and Max 3 is our most demanding game yet, and it's been released on 3 new platforms (PS3, iPad, Mac). Things have been a little crazy around here in engine land.
We do care about stability and performance, and we are constantly trying to improve both. I enjoy optimizing and cleaning up code whenever I have the time. You guys are right in that we don't have the engine budget of companies like Epic or Crytek. We also focus our efforts on making tools that allow our artists to work efficiently without having to concern themselves with performance (as much as possible). When you're trying to hit monthly release dates, you need to be making art, not optimizing geometry or whatever.
So basically, Telltale games are probably never going to look/run as nicely as the AAA graphics engines (although I can dream). But we will continue to make things better.
I understand. Pretty hard to develop a game for four platforms monthly, and at the same time try to fix small things like this. Should have tought about that. Now I fell stupid :(
Have to say tough, great job on Season 3! BEST EPISODE EVER! :D
No need. I fixed the lag! :)
I also wrote that I didn't want the graphics to change. It is possible to make things less demanding without making it uglier!
And can you share what you did to fix the 'lag'?
This game, as good as it is, suffers from very poor performance, no matter how much fans want to defend it...
Randulf
04/28/2010, 05:14 am
My trick is to Minimize-Maximize when you switch scenes, especially when you leave very textured areas like Straight and Narrow. I guess this frees up graphics memories taken up by textures.
Pantagruel's Friend
04/28/2010, 01:23 pm
I think the 3D engine is quite OK by 2010 standards. It doesn't have lighting and post-processing all over the place, but the game looks good nevertheless, and using 1920x1080 resolution and level 9 gfx, my GTS250 runs it at fix 60fps in most scenes (and above 50 even in the street, too). Given how extremely resource consuming the AAA engines have become lately, I think The Penal Zone strikes a healthy balance between looks and performance.
Yarbskoo
04/28/2010, 04:00 pm
I just upgraded my computer with a GeForce 9800 GT, and The Penal Zone runs well on the highest settings, and looks great. :cool: On my laptop however, the game is mostly playable, but the framerate is probably a bit less than 20 FPS in the large environments. And that's on the lowest settings and resolution. I guess that's to be expected with an ATI Radeon x1200. :D
Four words:
Get A Better Computer.
Then get a better computer.
You die! You die now! Both of you!
I can't stand people that are all "Hey, if you can't run the game, get a better computer!" Sometimes... okay, scratch that, MOST OF THE TIME that isn't as helpful as actually adressing the problem in details.
Do we know hardware specs? No. For all we know the Mac in question actually exceeds the demands of the game. So why would you then recommend to get a new computer if the current model already exceeds the demands!?! Huh?! Answer that!
adventureaddict
04/28/2010, 08:00 pm
You die! You die now! Both of you!
I can't stand people that are all "Hey, if you can't run the game, get a better computer!" Sometimes... okay, scratch that, MOST OF THE TIME that isn't as helpful as actually adressing the problem in details.
Do we know hardware specs? No. For all we know the Mac in question actually exceeds the demands of the game. So why would you then recommend to get a new computer if the current model already exceeds the demands!?! Huh?! Answer that!
Because most of the time it is because the hardware doesn't sit par with the game. If you're going to give us nothing to go off, of course we're going to assume your computer isn't "good enough" to run it. On the other hand, if specs were given, and were exceeding the demands of the game, I'm sure we'd be a more helpful bunch.
vektsilver
04/28/2010, 08:02 pm
Pshaw! Season 3 looks exactly how I'd expect a big-budget Sam & Max to look. Really, it's amazing what bump mapping and shadows can do for a game's graphics.
It may not be the most optimized engine of all time, but I've seen plenty of AAA titles do worse with less.
Seriously. You guys did a damn good job, and I can't wait to see the rest of the season.
I have to agree the new engine might as well be a well polished grafx engine from one of the big companies.
The lipsync is gorgeous in Season three and I agree the shadowing just makes it feel like the pre-rendered scenes of the Lucas arts Sam n Max 2 trailer that never saw light of day. I can't find a fault in the grafx this time round it just feels like everything is perfect and only has noticible flaws if you REALLY nitpick.
Oh and the Animation this time round im SSOOOOOO pleased it really feels like they went the extra mile which got rid of that canned animation feeling. I thoroughly enjoy the facial animations during dialogue as it is very very dymanic now.
Tell tale you knocked this one out of the park ;) I see my season pre-order was more than well worth it.
Hassat Hunter
04/29/2010, 01:36 am
You die! You die now! Both of you!
[And more stuff]
Don't complain at us. Complain at the graphic whores who need more! more! more!
Seriously, I could do without real-time lightning and stuff, but that's "hot".
But if you want all that, you need a more robust PC. Nowhere NEAR state-of-the-art though, as can be seen by my 4+ year old PC running it on 1440x900 on level 9.
Sam&Max do look pretty snazzy now though, I have to admit...
SHODANFreeman
04/29/2010, 04:17 am
I typically find that the same people who complain so vigorously that they shouldn't ever have to update their PC are the same type of people that buy a new PC with an onboard Intel card that can't run anything more demanding than solitaire.
It's akin to buying a PS2 and then being angry that it can't run PS3 games because you didn't want to pay more for the hardware.
I typically find that the same people who complain so vigorously that they shouldn't ever have to update their PC are the same type of people that buy a new PC with an onboard Intel card that can't run anything more demanding than solitaire.Hey!! I've been making an effort to upgrade my PC. The sad part is every graphics card that I have found that is within my budget either doesn't fit the available slot in my motherboard or saps the power supply dead. And unless I've actually retained my memory on how to build a computer from my media pirating days, I'm not messing with the power supply.
At this point, I'm just happy I can run the game. Oh, sure I get ugly self-shadowing glitches and the animation shutters, but again, at least I can run the game.
I've tried playing this game all "prettified" on my MacBook Pro, but apparently the following hardware on that laptop isn't as powerful as I thought. (Which is odd, because I do a hell of alot of video editing and digital work on it.)
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro4,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
Memory: 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM
Chipset Model: GeForce 8600M GT
VRAM (Total): 256 MB
So, yeah, I should be able to run The Devil's Playhouse on my MacBook just fine, right? I mean, while the processor and RAM are the same, the graphics card is significantly better than the POS GeForce 6100 I currently have on my PC.
Well, guess what? My Mac can't run it at ANY quality. And I'm not the only one, judging from the Tech Support forum.
SHODANFreeman
04/29/2010, 05:51 am
Hey!! I've been making an effort to upgrade my PC. The sad part is every graphics card that I have found that is within my budget either doesn't fit the available slot in my motherboard or saps the power supply dead. And unless I've actually retained my memory on how to build a computer from my media pirating days, I'm not messing with the power supply.
Actually, replacing a power supply is pretty easy, provided you remember where all the plugs go. I mean, I'm no computer technician, but I replaced mine easily when I needed to. For the most part, you just unplug the cables, unscrew it, take it out, slide the new one in, and reconnect the cables. As long as you make a note of where/how many cables you have to plug in, it is quite simple.
(Also, I have never owned a Mac before so I have no idea what to tell you about that :o)
Yep, upgrading a power supply is not an insurmountable task, it's just a whole lot of cables to keep track of. The graphics card is probably the most power-hungry component in a PC with good gaming performance, possibly drawing 200 watts, so a good power supply is key.
It looks like your MacBook should be able to run the game quite well. If it's not working at all it's most likely a technical issue or a compatibility issue, not a performance issue.
Hassat Hunter
04/29/2010, 09:56 am
Yeah, easy power-replacement here too.
And your PC does good editing and stuff because that requires CPU power, which it has... GPU power however, on which games depend, is a lot less.
However if it doesn't work at all that's probably more a Mac Issue, the engine agreeably doesn't work as well as it should on Macs yet.
pwblaine
05/02/2010, 12:15 am
is there any way to turn off the film grain?
and why exactly does telltale not let you specify graphic options and effects, instead just one number is given... almost every other game does..
i can understand if you're trying to reach a casual gamer and not overload them, but i really wish i could get advanced with the settings when i want to
the game runs so slow it definately needs tweaking
Telltale games aren't pretty. TOMI was alright once you got used to it, as it had a decent style. So far, The Devils Playhouse (like every other game out) was just grimy, and if you compare it to other grimy games it's meh.
But I had lag in the opening cutscenes, and I can run crysis (and pretty much every other game).
Trica
05/02/2010, 07:07 pm
I just can't see how someone can see the new Sam & Max season as ugly(ish). To me Penal Zone looked gorgeous! :o Lipsyncing, shadows and lightning.. everything was pretty much perfect!
Maybe I'm still playing games with outdated graphics so I can't see the difference. I dunno. But I still think this was a huge improvement. :D
But I agree the engine could use some little tweaking still. My laptop should be able to handle new games quite well, yet it couldn't run Penal Zone with its highest settings all that smoothly.
Randulf
05/02/2010, 09:10 pm
What is especially sad is that you actually miss out some sight gags if your graphics setting is not high enough :(
What is especially sad is that you actually miss out some sight gags if your graphics setting is not high enough :(
The best example is the Diamond Ring joke that relies on the real-time shadows.:(
Avistew
05/03/2010, 04:54 am
Well, I think it would be sadder if they made it so that level was the minimum requirement, just for the sake of a joke, preventing lots of people to play to begin with.
Especially when people upload videos for everyone to see.
GinnyN
05/03/2010, 05:19 am
The Ring Joke is hilarious even without the Shadows. And it's optional.
I loved ToMI when I play it with my down below requeriments Computer and I love this game even without the infamous Real Time Shadows lurking every where. I'm playing it in 6 and in a smaller resolution than my screen and runs just fine.
That say it, I just change my computer because I could and because somehow I knew my old computer cannot handle this game even with the lower settings. If I couldn't change the computer, I would try anyway, and, if it was playable, I would praise it anyway...
And, someday, I would buy a 4Quad Helicopter with a Massive Screen, so I could play Telltale Games in the max resolution (And work with my digital paintings) for 5 years without change it (And then another 5 years playing Telltale Games, and working in my digital paintings, by lowering the resolution and quality settings and without changing the version of Photoshop =P). Mark my words.
Now I'm thinking about, don't mark them. I need a cintyc first...
TheGingerNinja
05/03/2010, 04:08 pm
OK, lets face it. The graphics isn't too pretty.
I personally like the graphics the only problem I've seen is a little star at the end of peoples guns which is kinda weird
I need a cintyc first...
*lovesigh* Cintiq... drawing right on the monitor.... *lovesigh* How I want thee...
taumel
05/04/2010, 02:14 am
@Ben
You somehow forgot the PC version which makes it four platforms.
@Avistew
But primary you want to to play the game instead of watching a video someone playing the game for you, at least not if it's for the first time.
I suspect that things got more demanding due to the PS3 and that S&M shouldn't look like crap compared to the other titles there. I think that the current gfx engine is too demanding, a) for the gfx quality it offers and b) for an adventure game generally.
For a) i hope that over time TTG will be able to optimize things, so that that the needed performance will be reduced again or that at least you'll get further enhancements for free. Personally i would be hard pressed saying that TTG are well looking games per se. Each game has its high and lows and features scenes which are beautifully done and where you enjoy walking around as well as stuff were you think, oh no, can't be.
As for b) i would love seeing more ressources invested into aspects like story/dialogues/riddles instead of increasing the gfx with each release. You also can make pretty nice looking things without any shader voodoo at all if you're just strong and consistent on the art side.
As i said in another thread already, Bone2 with higher res textures would already be enough for my gfx needs in adventures games these days.
LeBart
05/04/2010, 04:28 am
@Ben
You somehow forgot the PC version which makes it four platforms.
He was talking about new platforms.
taumel
05/04/2010, 07:42 am
Yep, but i suspect the engine has evolved on Win as well, so...
Yep, but i suspect the engine has evolved on Win as well, so...
Our engine hasn't just evolved on win, it's made of win...
i would love seeing more ressources invested into aspects like story/dialogues/riddles instead of increasing the gfx with each release
Both aspects are important to us. Besides the graphical improvements, we have some new animation tech that allows for more expressive faces. Not to mention a fancy new dialog scripting system that gives our designers and writers much more power.
We do want our games to look good, and hopefully we have succeeded at least somewhat in that regard. We also want them to run well for as many people as possible, and this is an area where we could probably stand to improve. But rest assured that we also want to tell stories. Much of our technology is focused towards this end.
taumel
05/04/2010, 11:04 am
Wish you the best and i still would be very interested seeing how the TTG tool works.
bobtheskutter
05/04/2010, 12:43 pm
The best example is the Diamond Ring joke that relies on the real-time shadows.:(
Wow- what?! Can you explain a little more what you mean? I run with my graphics as low as it can get because I am too lazy to mess about with them so just shove them there and play the game. So I had no idea I was missing out on anything. In fact, I didn't pick up on any difference between the levels. It automatically started with one graphics setting (forgotten which) so I've seen it briefly on a higher level... but I didn't pick up on anything amazingly better. Hmm, has anyone got a selection of screen grabs illustrating the difference?
I think it looks amazing btw. Yes, even on setting 1. My jaw dropped a few times with 301.
puzzlebox
05/04/2010, 12:51 pm
Wow- what?! Can you explain a little more what you mean?
YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wkrEz8APFs) can do better than explain. You don't get this scene on graphics settings lower than 7.
I use something around 4 myself, so always appreciate it when people upload vids like this. :)
Pretender
05/04/2010, 01:08 pm
I was pleasently surprised when I played the demo and noticed the gfx have improved quite a bit. Improvement in gfx is never a bad thing in my book.. as long as you're not going to recycle the character models anymore, been there seen that (TOMI pirates)..
bobtheskutter
05/04/2010, 01:08 pm
... but I did. Didn't I? I'm all confused now. I'm sure I must have because I've seen that scene but I am sure my settings are level 1.
*checks*
Oh! I see the difference. I don't see all of the shadows. Ahhhh.
Meh, I still don't get the joke though.
Thanks for the link though.
light_rises
05/04/2010, 01:24 pm
Meh, I still don't get the joke though.
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5mP3S8vAE) might help.
Avistew
05/04/2010, 08:07 pm
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5mP3S8vAE) might help.
Ooooh, thanks, I totally missed that.
Thriftweed Fancy Pants
05/04/2010, 08:36 pm
YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wkrEz8APFs) can do better than explain. You don't get this scene on graphics settings lower than 7.
I use something around 4 myself, so always appreciate it when people upload vids like this. :)
Wait a minute... Is this scene at night? I haven't finished episode one yet, but this scene has already happened in my game, and it was daytime... That's weird.
Hassat Hunter
05/06/2010, 07:33 am
It's probably like that because of being recorded of a TV-screen. IIRC it's supposed to be dusk around that scene (and BoscoTech in general).
Megaace
05/08/2010, 03:18 am
The new PC graphic engine is awesome!!!!! At last it seems we are playing a this-century game... :P Congratulations Telltale!
I can play on my PC at 1920x1200 with the highest settings, 16x antialising and it looks so cool...
Now, please, we NEED a Monkey Island Season 2 with these graphics... ;)
jmmontoro
05/20/2010, 03:31 pm
I don't get this, i'm trying this game and i have to lower the graphics to mid range when i have a cpu that is capable of handling this game on full graphics.
AMD Phenom II X2 550 (3.11 GHz), 4 GB RAM (800 bus), Win 7 Ult 64, nVidia GeForce 9400 GT (1 GB). I have to lower to 5 to avoid lag.
StrawHat89
05/20/2010, 04:17 pm
Just run it on 5 or 6 then. Since you claim they look bad, you won't notice a difference. I run season 3 on 5 in 1680x945 res and it looks fine to me. It could be that the games have compatibility issues with my laptop card, because I can run more demanding games on higher settings (ex: Left 4 Dead 2, Mass Effect 1+2, Dragon Age). No biggie, the games still look nice. I didn't really notice anything at 9 anyway. Probably just better shadows and such (which are damn pointless anyway).
Card is 9600M GT, by the way.
Hassat Hunter
05/20/2010, 04:27 pm
Both are pretty darn old.
StrawHat89
05/20/2010, 04:34 pm
I wasn't aware that the year 2008 was old. And it still makes little sense that I can run better looking games at higher settings, such as Left 4 Dead 2 with its fancy pants shadows and its HARD RAIN. Incidentally, that game has engine issues with all the new stuff piled onto it too.
Really, older hardware isn't the issue when the game has older-looking graphics than said hardware. Really, though, I don't have much of an issue with it even though I sound like I do. I just like to argue things. :P
(I honestly just believe it's an issue with laptop card compatibility. A LOT of games have that going on. Though it could be that my manufacturer hasn't released a driver update since Left 4 Dead 2 came out.)
jmmontoro
05/20/2010, 04:58 pm
i don't have a laptop and i'm not complaining that the game looks bad, its curious that i have more than what it is suggested to have and still can't set to full. is there a way to disable that film grain its very excesive in my opinion?
StrawHat89
05/20/2010, 04:59 pm
Maybe with special startup commands. I do notice that games run a bit better with film grain disabled.
Hassat Hunter
05/20/2010, 05:05 pm
With videocards? Yeah, 2 year is old.
Not to mention you have an "M" card.
Also, you can hardly compare Source and the TTG engine. Of course Source does better for the same graphics. It's also only been finetuned for years at massive expenses to be sold to other developers. TTG can't do that. Same with the Unreal Engine. Or CryTeck.
Give another custom engine and comparrison is more valid...
StrawHat89
05/20/2010, 05:08 pm
Well, sadly, I don't have one. I'm not a big PC gamer. All I know is that this game shouldn't be running as bad as it is at high-end settings depending on the requirements stated by Telltale. Like I said, though, I DO know of custom engine issues with a lot of laptop cards. You don't need to point that out. To be fair, no one uses Source other than Valve really. Well other than Source Mods, which I don't really think count. Point is that it's nowhere near on par with the Crytek or Unreal engines.
Hassat Hunter
05/20/2010, 05:17 pm
Vampire: Bloodlines. Although that's a really unoptimised modified early-beta piece of Source, so it's ridicilously heavy (yet it's a better game than Valve ever produced IMO).
A good example would be your earlier mentioned ME2. Look at ME1. It looked crappier, and yet it was more demanding. Of course ME2 ran with Unreal Engine 3 while the first didn't...
StrawHat89
05/20/2010, 05:19 pm
Actually, they both ran with the Unreal Engine 3 according to the INTERNETS (Wikipedia). Also, I've never heard of Vampire: Bloodlines. Regardless, 1 game hardly counts when all other games made with the current model of Source are all VALVE developed. It really isn't meant to be mass marketed like Unreal or Crytek, and there ARE optimizations issues. Left 4 Dead 2 has a TON of them, yet it still runs better than Sam & Max Season 3 and Tales of Monkey Island.
Hassat Hunter
05/20/2010, 05:29 pm
They do? I thought ME1 used a heavily modified UE2. Oh well... It still runs worse than ME2, even though I am above ME1 min. requirements and below ME2 min. requirements :D.
Try Grand Theft Auto IV.
I've never seen a worse optimised PC game (although they are out there, obviously).
Yeah, it bit Troika a bit though since they needed to ship the game to make money, but couldn't because Half-Life 2 HAD to be the first Source game, and that was pushed back due to the theft of the source code of Source.
StrawHat89
05/20/2010, 05:31 pm
Oh, I know about GTA IV, that and Saints Row 2 are a mess. This game isn't anywhere near as bad as THAT.
OH I JUST REMEMBERED ONE. I can run Street Fighter IV (which uses a custom engine) just fine on mid-high settings on this thing. I was kind of surprised.
The Big z
05/20/2010, 07:57 pm
Since I put the effort into it and not even sure if anyone has seen it, here's a link (http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=308913&postcount=18) to the thread which I posted comparative screen shots between the ipad and a mid to low-high end video card on settings 1 and 9.
One thing that seems to be better than I've seen in other games is the range of expressions and natural movement of the models Season 3 SnM has over other high production games. Even mass effect 2, which had great textures and decent models for the characters still seems to have a less natural feel than Telltale's animated dog and rabbit ;)
One thing that seems to be better than I've seen in other games is the range of expressions and natural movement of the models Season 3 SnM has over other high production games. Even mass effect 2, which had great textures and decent models for the characters still seems to have a less natural feel than Telltale's animated dog and rabbit ;)
I'll go for that, only time I find it odd is when anybody other than Sam is directly interacting with Max, he just looks so adorably impossible.
It is no mystery that Telltale's engine is not as efficient as those used by the bigger players in the games industry. Optimizing a game engine takes a lot of time and effort, and I doubt that Telltale has enough resources to tune their engine to the same degree as the big companies can.
It looks like Telltale introduced a lot of new graphics-related functionality during 2009 and 2010, so I'd bet that there hasn't yet been time to fine tune these a lot.
i have to lower the graphics to mid range when i have a cpu that is capable of handling this game on full graphics.
In my experience the CPU doesn't matter nearly as much as the GPU. You have a powerful CPU which I think should be more than adequate to run the game on full, but it looks like your graphics card can't handle the highest settings. (The 9400 is the entry-level model in the 9000 series)
its curious that i have more than what it is suggested to have and still can't set to full
Meeting the system requirements usually just means that you can run the game, it says nothing about how high settings you can use. To use the highest settings you'd have to exceed the system requirements by a fairly large margin. (And again, the GPU is usually the most important factor)
Maybe someone should do a hardware survey and gather statistics about what graphics settings people use and what graphics cards they have. I'd be interested to see the minimum requirements for running the game at setting 9.
jmmontoro
05/21/2010, 01:53 pm
i've never mentioned minimum requirements, i mentioned suggested requirements, which almost always is what is needed to run the game at full settings.
Wizpig
05/21/2010, 02:11 pm
I don't know about you guys, but with Sam & Max 301 if I tried "9" at native resolution 1920x1080 I'd get like 2 frame per second... with 302 and the same settings, it's all smooth and nice.
I love how they somehow optimized the thing, I think it's the exterior places in 302 with less high-end "lights" that fixed it.
Avistew
05/21/2010, 02:20 pm
I don't know about you guys, but with Sam & Max 301 if I tried "9" at native resolution 1920x1080 I'd get like 2 frame per second... with 302 and the same settings, it's all smooth and nice.
I love how they somehow optimized the thing, I think it's the exterior places in 302 with less high-end "lights" that fixed it.
Are you on a Mac? They did a fix for the Mac in 302 apparently.
Hassat Hunter
05/21/2010, 02:24 pm
i've never mentioned minimum requirements, i mentioned suggested requirements, which almost always is what is needed to run the game at full settings.
I am not sure what games you play, but I have yet to find a single game where you can put the graphics to max. with the recommended settings.
Wizpig
05/21/2010, 03:41 pm
Are you on a Mac? They did a fix for the Mac in 302 apparently.Yeah, on a Mac.
Can you link to me the quote or where you heard of this fix? thanks.
Avistew
05/21/2010, 04:03 pm
Yeah, on a Mac.
Can you link to me the quote or where you heard of this fix? thanks.
It was in the support forum, let me find it.
Here you go (Will actually posted that in several threads but it seems to be the exact same message so I'll just link to one of them):
Ok, we have JUST pushed out a new 302 build for the mac. Like just right now, so it may take a little bit for it to fully propagate to the servers.
This build should feature better performance for Macs. For those of you that had problems with 301 but finished the game anyway (either on Mac or swapping to bootcamp), could you try this new version of 302 and tell us if it fixes your problems? If this doesn't fix everything, then hopefully it will provide us with a lot of feedback so we can improve things further.
TO CHECK IF YOU HAVE THE MOST RECENT VERSION: Right click the 302 .app and check the version number. The new version is 1.0.1.25. Don't trust the version number in the wrapper, it's being stubborn and won't change.
(Click on the arrow next to his name for the link to that thread).
i've never mentioned minimum requirements, i mentioned suggested requirements, which almost always is what is needed to run the game at full settings.
I am not sure what games you play, but I have yet to find a single game where you can put the graphics to max. with the recommended settings.
Yes, that's what I was thinking as well. My impression is that minimum means that the game is able to run, and recommended means something like "playable with reasonable performance and reasonable graphics quality".
I looked up those requirements for Season 3, the only graphics-related information I could find was this: 128MB DirectX 8.1-compliant video card (256MB rec.)
The thing is though, graphics memory doesn't matter nearly as much as the graphics processor when it comes to actual performance. It's unfortunate that Telltale doesn't mention a recommended GPU; I've seen a lot of other publishers omit that information as well.
The graphics memory as part of the system requirements can be very misleading, because there are a lot of graphics cards with huge amounts of memory but a low end GPU. Memory is cheap, the GPU is expensive. It's a way for graphics card manufacturers to make their low-end models look better than they actually are, and to distinguish themselves from competing brands. It's kind of an underhanded move in my opinion. As such, the amount of graphics memory is almost useless as a predictor of performance.
To provide actual useful information, publishers need to list specific GPUs in their system requirements--at least one from each of Intel (if supported), ATI and Nvidia; preferably one desktop GPU and one laptop GPU from each manufacturer. A few publishers do this, but not nearly enough of them.
Hassat Hunter
05/21/2010, 10:35 pm
Actually, now we're back on that, I can actually recall one game where the rec. requirements where full detail at 30FPS.
Majesty 2.
When that was told on the forums though most people went "WTF? That's a pretty weird interpretation of recommended".
Avistew
05/21/2010, 10:59 pm
I've always assumed "recommended" meant "to play it on the best settings". Seems kind of weird to me otherwise. I mean, makes sense having the lowest and the highest ones, but the lowest + some random point in the middle? Not really.
Actually, now we're back on that, I can actually recall one game where the rec. requirements where full detail at 30FPS.
Majesty 2.
I've always assumed "recommended" meant "to play it on the best settings". Seems kind of weird to me otherwise. I mean, makes sense having the lowest and the highest ones, but the lowest + some random point in the middle? Not really.
I agree that "best settings" would be most logical, and I'd like to see it work that way. I don't think that's the current state of affairs though.
But that poses a new problem: What screen resolution are you running the game at? Resolution makes a huge impact on performance, so if the publisher asserts that a certain hardware configuration can run the game at the highest settings; they'd also have to specify which resolution that's possible at. There is no "maximum" screen resolution.
You'd also have to have some kind of quantifiable measure of performance. Hassat mentioned FPS; but your experience at a certain number of frames per second will depend on the type of game: E.g. a game with largely static screens like a P&C adventure game will work great at low-ish FPS, but a first person shooter (where you wave the "camera" all over the place) needs much higher FPS to give the illusion of fluent motion. This also varies a bit from person to person, and other factors such as motion blur can change things.
Avistew
05/21/2010, 11:32 pm
But that poses a new problem: What screen resolution are you running the game at? Resolution makes a huge impact on performance, so if the publisher asserts that a certain hardware configuration can run the game at the highest settings; they'd also have to specify which resolution that's possible at. There is no "maximum" screen resolution.
But wouldn't there be a maximum option to choose from in the games settings?
But wouldn't there be a maximum option to choose from in the games settings?
Depends on the game; some games certainly have a maximum resolution. That's bad design practice though--at least for 3D games, there are to technical reason why you would have to impose a maximum.
Most 3D games will detect which resolutions your graphics card and monitor supports, and present those as your options. Many decade old 3D games will work just fine on modern screen resolutions that didn't exist at the time.
Right now it's possible to play at 7680x4800 (using nine 2560x1600 monitors in a 3x3 configuration) if you've got serious money to burn. That capability would be pretty useless if past games were restricted to only the screen resolutions that were available at the time they were created. (Well, you could argue that it's still a useless feature, but that's beside the point :p)
tredlow
05/23/2010, 05:41 am
Hey, when I started playing episode 301, it was slow as hell on level 4. But the after the second playthrough, it can go up to level 6 smoothly. Anyone know why?
Randulf
05/23/2010, 07:36 am
302 is apparently more optimized than 301, but the darn film filter still slows things down.
Pantagruel's Friend
05/23/2010, 07:42 am
302 is apparently more optimized than 301, but the darn film filter still slows things down.
I seriously doubt it's the grain filter. It's a very simple post processing effect.
Randulf
05/23/2010, 08:17 am
I seriously doubt it's the grain filter. It's a very simple post processing effect.
I too thought it is a very simple effect that should not take much GPU, but really, whenever the projector is turned on, things start to skip.
Vainamoinen
05/23/2010, 01:57 pm
Besides the graphical improvements, we have some new animation tech that allows for more expressive faces.
The facial animation has REALLY improved. Skunkape and Momma Bosco are just brilliant with it. Unfortunately, Sam & Max themselves, with their complete lack of iris and eyelids, don't really offer great opportunities to use the new animation technology. Nonetheless, I love it!
Pantagruel's Friend
05/24/2010, 05:44 am
I too thought it is a very simple effect that should not take much GPU, but really, whenever the projector is turned on, things start to skip.
don't see how it's related to the grain filter - it's a full screen post processing effect, and should consume the same resources no matter what's on the screen.
GinnyN
05/24/2010, 06:24 am
Unfortunately, Sam & Max themselves, with their complete lack of iris and eyelids, don't really offer great opportunities to use the new animation technology. Nonetheless, I love it!
I think you are understimating their expresivity. (Ok, I have troubles with them and I often have to make appear imaginary eye brows for them, but still, they are as expresive as any character, you just have to use your imagination for them!)
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.