No I get what you're saying. My point is that "High" doesn't look that much different than Ultra, and "Ultra" in House Party is not the same thing as "Ultra" in Green Hell.
Clearly you dont get it.
I didnt compare what each setting does for each game, and then only talk about the difference between graphics settings. Thats what you're doing, because you refuse to look at the whole picture, and simply cant or wont understand what I'm saying.
It's different for each game. In HP, you can only notice the difference between Ultra and High when you get really close to the characters.
Damn right it is different for each game. Some games are well-optimized, and run great even on older machines, with really high graphics fidelity. Others, not so much. Comparing Ultra to High, and refusing to talk about the game's overall hardware requirements to run at maximum details is why you're not getting it. Frankly you seem biased and dishonest, simply because you wont acknowledge simple factual observations.
My guess is that they are swapping 4k textures out for lower res, and that's the biggest thing that makes this game more demanding on Ultra.
Thats great, but if the only difference is higher vs lower res textures, then you'd only see a bigger load on graphics memory, which shouldnt be that much a concern for me, since the issue is raw graphics processing power (i.e. simply a more powerful GPU is required). When you see the GPU usage at 99% and the graphics memory not being fully loaded, then you know what you need more of.
Its the meshes that matter more btw, when it comes to rendering these objects/characters, they are the ones that can be optimized the most, if designed in a more efficient way. Mesh optimizations can make a big difference and can reduce processing load a lot, in certain scenarios.
Put it on Ultra and get really close to a model in this game and the detail is amazing. It's actually pretty damn impressive.
Speak for yourself, frankly I am not so impressed, and I can honestly notice technically inferior quality on some areas, if compared to versions of HP that are much much older. As if they started using lower res textures at some point.
This in particular, isnt very objective.
You can't compare a game like Green Hell in its entirety with this game and just go "oh yeah it's visually better".
Actually I can. You cant, because you're arguing from the perspective of subjective opinion, while I dont.
You see, (and I did my best to explain that to you) when I was comparing Green Hell (which was merely an example) to this game, I was counting the raw amount of stuff that is displayed on screen at a time, as well as the technical requirements for all of it. In other words, the hardware is asked to render a lot more objects in real time, a lot more textures have to be loaded at the same time, there's great variation in flora and fauna, on top of calculations that have to be made in part by the CPU for the AI, that all of it put together, make Green Hell an objectively much more demanding game than HP. Or at least it should be in theory, but unfortunately HP is more demanding than it needs to be. Which means it isnt particularly well optimized.
I don't believe any of us know enough about either of those games to even make a good judgement on what each *should* be in terms of performance, and you can't just expect them to have similar performance. I just don't pretend to be an expert in these things, but that doesn't mean I don't "get" it.
I am not an expert either, but I dont have to be since....hmm, how should I put it?
In House Party you've got a single house with a back yard, in Green Hell you've got a big map, forested areas, rivers, wild animals, cannibals, tons of stuff that can be picked up lying around, things spawning all the time (and despawning), the player's usable items and weapons and inventory that are much more diverse and sophisticated than HP, and so much more (I could talk for days), that it is simply absurd to just say "Oh we just dont know enough and we arent experts", and stop thinking about it.
No sorry, I dont need to be an expert, the image is quite clear and speaks for itself.
I am not an expert on biological Evolution either, but I accept it as fact, because I do understand some basic things about it.
The "not an expert" excuse can be used to justify all ignorance of any form. I simply dont buy it.
Green Hell is also using real photo scanning techniques on their textures. House Party just isn't that kind of game. It's graphic style is meant to be more cartoony. I don't prefer Green Hell graphics over the traditional because I feel like, just like with CGI in older movies, the photoscanning techniques are still a bit uncanny for me. It's like "Almost real, but not quite". House Party doesn't come off that way. HP has a more "cartoony" feel, but it feels natural because it's not *trying* to look real. I guess it's all subjective, but you're comparing two completely different technologies and expecting one to perform like the other.
None of this matters, this is about the art style, it doesnt add anything significant neither to the discussion, nor to the hardware that needs to render this in real time. Its irrelevant.
Also, I am actually comparing 2 different games that are using the same graphics engine: Unity. This actually IS relevant.
Edit: Also, when I look up Green Hell, I'm seeing tons of reports about how "demanding" it is, and a lot of people having issues running it, so I guess it's not that much different.
Yes it is demanding, and not optimized particularly well. But its still better optimized than House Party.
Starting to get my point yet?
This is why I chose Green Hell as an example, not an example of a really well optimized game, but an example of a not-so-well optimized one.
Imagine if I had chosen a better game than GH.
Again, notice how my previous post ended in:
"I dont want to be too harsh on any of these games however, since they are not completed, and there's still a lot more to be done, fixes, content, etc, that developers have planned, it just takes time. "
And I still stand by that.
