[PS3] Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time
- Thread starter GreekDNA
- Start date
I adjusted the in-game brightness setting to 4 notches above minimum as was suggested over at Gaf. It did wonders for the game's appearance. This makes it the 3rd game I have ever had to adjust that setting in. Bioshock and Batman on the 360 were the only other two that I felt compelled to adjust on a professionally calibrated tv. But how many regular people are even going to bother? They will probably just think it's hideous.
I wasn't too impressed by the demo - then again, the "Clank" parts of the game have been the ones I found most annoying even in the earlier games. I still ordered the game and can't wait to play it simply because this is Ratchet & Clank. It's one of the only remaining platformers (okay, platformer-shooter), got some great humour and will play very well for sure.
I see some complaints on the graphics side, but who cares? I'd rather have a fun game that is fun and entertaining to play rather than a pixar-looking slideshow. Graphics were never the incentive to play Ratchet & Clank IMO.
Well done IG for keeping with the framerate and concentrating on finding new innovative ways to enhance the gaming experience.
I see some complaints on the graphics side, but who cares? I'd rather have a fun game that is fun and entertaining to play rather than a pixar-looking slideshow. Graphics were never the incentive to play Ratchet & Clank IMO.
Well done IG for keeping with the framerate and concentrating on finding new innovative ways to enhance the gaming experience.
I doubt "regular people" will think it looks hideous. If the Halo engine can get away with what it does, and people think it looks good, then Ratchet and Clank is in the clear.
That said, James Stevenson mentioned something about a notice when you first turn on / install the game to adjust your brightness / gamma settings in the options menu, so at least a good handful of people will see it.
Keep in mind the HALO 3 engine does alot more than the Insomniac engine in terms of lighting and shadowing quality, reflective water as well as playable real-estate, the engine Insomniac has been using is behind in the area of lighting/shadowing and reflective water while those are the areas that would have the greatest impact in terms of improving how their games look.
And no, ACIT doesn't look hideous, but just because it doesn't look hideous, it doesn't mean the game visually is going to be able to be highly competitive, and the holiday market is highly competitive, you're trying to get the sale, not trying not to lose the sale.
The game should NOT require the player to figure out that he or she has to adjust brightness/gamma settings in order to make it look good, they can obviously have the brightness adjustment option right at the beginning like many games do.
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet Halo 3 still looks ridiculously ugly in real time, especially the player / character models. Halo 3 is a PRIME example of why HDR and other "fancy effects" that you want (i.e. that stupid reflective water) aren't enough to turn a bad engine into a fantastic one.
As for your gamma settings, you're being ridiculous. Each and every set up is different. Period. There is no way for them to make it work across the board, hence, you add these features in so players can adjust the game, not their TV's.
Lastly, I doubt they are going to lose any sales because of how the game looks.
I think he means that rather than tell the user to adjust brightness settings, it should present one of those 'adjust the gamma until you can barely see this dark thing'.
Giant bomb has a quicklook: they seem to like it, and it does look pretty cool:
http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-ratchet-clank-future-a-crack-in-time/17-1545/
http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-ratchet-clank-future-a-crack-in-time/17-1545/
Just re-read it. Seems I misunderstood. That would be opimal, yes. Why they don' thave it, I don't know.
I want to watch media for this, but I've been on complete blackout aside from the Clank Demo. I haven't looked at many screens, and haven't watched a single trailer (aside from the original trailer). It's been difficult.
Last edited by a moderator:
The quick-look is intended to be spoiler free. The only spoiler are maybe gameplay ones, no story:
he shows the weapons in a colosseum-type area and briefly shows a clank section, with a puzzle much more complex than the one in the demo
upnorthsox
Veteran
Do you mean like the one in KZ2?
You can call HALO 3 ugly but even then those effects made the visuals better, not worse, at the end of the day it still looks better than R2 and Ratchet, it would probably look uglier without proper lighting/shadowing and reflective water, in terms of rendering an outdoor forest level the HALO 3 engine is superior to the Insomniac engine, because the Insomniac engine does not support HDR lighting/dynamic light sources/shadowing and the water is oddly lacking reflectivity.
Try reading the post before attacking, I'm suggesting an in-game feature to guide the player to adjust the settings rather than having the player having to figure things out all by himself.
I hope they're trying to get more sales, instead of not trying to lose sales, the whole point is you put a game out there, you should try to make it the best and most polished, and achieve parity with the best games out there in terms of visuals and gameplay, the game gets judged on its own, not the length of time or the circumstances under which it was created, or what have to be sacrificed in order to achieve IQ and framerate, it either looks good to the player and plays well, or it doesn't, it's being released among giants this holiday season, "good enough" doesn't cut it.
Last edited by a moderator:
KZ2 doesn't really need it, it looks pretty damn good without having to adjust anything, same with Uncharted 2. The problem is when one is making the argument that people have the wrong brightness setting for the game, then it's up to the game to guide the player to set up the correct level of brightness.
They gave it 5/5 stars.
Guys, I went to my Gamestop during lunch. They have a different R&C demo there (Something called "Hunt the Beast Rider" ?).
From my memory, it looks better than the last R&C I played, and certainly better than the Clank demo I touched briefly on Thursday.
Graphics complain is a non-issue. If the real game looks like the Beast Rider demo *and* the gameplay is competitive to ToD, I think fans will be VERY happy.
From my memory, it looks better than the last R&C I played, and certainly better than the Clank demo I touched briefly on Thursday.
Graphics complain is a non-issue. If the real game looks like the Beast Rider demo *and* the gameplay is competitive to ToD, I think fans will be VERY happy.
I happen to think many area of halo 3 look great due to the lighting
. Also, it doesn't matter if you feel every setup is different (and the majority I agree probably are). But, they make movies to set standards and games should be made to default to them as well. If you have your brightness/contrast set to industry standards the game should make you adjust anything. You should only have to adjust with a poorly set up tv. You never have to worry about adjusting your tv for a different blu-ray or dvd movie.I really don't think the market that makes up most sales (and buy ridiculous bad games en mass) really cares about if the new Ratchet & Clank has pixar quality fidelity or not... I also don't think it will be competing against other games either, given it's one of a kind. If people chose other games over the holiday market, it won't be because of graphics.
There are going to be two demoes on PSN. The Clank one is just the first. They split them up partly because they are so big. Someone should ask Insomniac about the size of the full game ...