[quote]Absolutely, the respawning bases were ridiculous, and would often cheapen your hard-fought victories. Though I never understood why everyone picked on Far Cry 2 so much for that. Every single Bioshock game has done almost exactly the same thing, yet everyone seems to forgive that in a heartbeat. [/quote]
Bioshock games aren't open world. It's a lot more jarring when you mow down a camp, set it on fire, drive off, and suddenly the camp is all back again before you even get out of render range. And let's not forget Far Cry 2's super-compressed dialog. Hahayou'vegotmaliriasonowyouhavetocomeinforshotsoverandoverdownatthechurch! Blah.
What's this beefing about Far Cry 3 towers? Those were GREAT with 3D Vision turned on! The exploration was fun, too. The story was sure bad, though. Maybe they should have compressed the audio again...
I've got to agree with you, though, regarding Watch Dogs. PC Gamer did a preview and it wasn't a happy one. Usually previews are full of forgiveness and expectations that things would be fixed later but not this one. Plus there's that whole UPlay thing.
Absolutely, the respawning bases were ridiculous, and would often cheapen your hard-fought victories. Though I never understood why everyone picked on Far Cry 2 so much for that. Every single Bioshock game has done almost exactly the same thing, yet everyone seems to forgive that in a heartbeat.
Bioshock games aren't open world. It's a lot more jarring when you mow down a camp, set it on fire, drive off, and suddenly the camp is all back again before you even get out of render range. And let's not forget Far Cry 2's super-compressed dialog. Hahayou'vegotmaliriasonowyouhavetocomeinforshotsoverandoverdownatthechurch! Blah.
What's this beefing about Far Cry 3 towers? Those were GREAT with 3D Vision turned on! The exploration was fun, too. The story was sure bad, though. Maybe they should have compressed the audio again...
I've got to agree with you, though, regarding Watch Dogs. PC Gamer did a preview and it wasn't a happy one. Usually previews are full of forgiveness and expectations that things would be fixed later but not this one. Plus there's that whole UPlay thing.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
[quote="ZlothX"]Bioshock games aren't open world. It's a lot more jarring when you mow down a camp, set it on fire, drive off, and suddenly the camp is all back again before you even get out of render range. [/quote]How is that any less absurd than clearing out an entire (locked!) room, walking into the next room, and then walking back into the first one - literally a round journey of a few metres - to find it inhabited by 5 new NPCs again?
Yes, Far Cry 2 had a number of faults, including ones that haven't been mentioned. For example, its story was also rubbish. But that doesn't change that it brought more to the table than most shooters before or since, and its core mechanics were as near-perfect as they get. Also, it was arguably the 2nd-best looking game the world had ever seen, after Crysis.
All I'm saying is that it's weird that a game that did so much right is remembered for its faults, even though none of its faults were particularly severe or game-breaking, and even though ALL games have faults - especially the ambitious ones.
I wasn't aware that anyone actually enjoyed those towers in FC3. To me I just couldn't escape that they were ripped straight from Assassins' Creed, but felt clunkier and with less puzzle value. It's a subjective thing though I guess.
I'll check out that PC gamer preview now. Thanks for the heads up.
ZlothX said:Bioshock games aren't open world. It's a lot more jarring when you mow down a camp, set it on fire, drive off, and suddenly the camp is all back again before you even get out of render range.
How is that any less absurd than clearing out an entire (locked!) room, walking into the next room, and then walking back into the first one - literally a round journey of a few metres - to find it inhabited by 5 new NPCs again?
Yes, Far Cry 2 had a number of faults, including ones that haven't been mentioned. For example, its story was also rubbish. But that doesn't change that it brought more to the table than most shooters before or since, and its core mechanics were as near-perfect as they get. Also, it was arguably the 2nd-best looking game the world had ever seen, after Crysis.
All I'm saying is that it's weird that a game that did so much right is remembered for its faults, even though none of its faults were particularly severe or game-breaking, and even though ALL games have faults - especially the ambitious ones.
I wasn't aware that anyone actually enjoyed those towers in FC3. To me I just couldn't escape that they were ripped straight from Assassins' Creed, but felt clunkier and with less puzzle value. It's a subjective thing though I guess.
I'll check out that PC gamer preview now. Thanks for the heads up.
Games remembered for its graphics are only substantial till its outpaced. Then only get talked about with benchmarks. Games remembered for story/gameplay are much more lasting.
TBH, I think FC2 was mediocre and only did well because there were little as far as open world FPS's imo. Not to mention some terrible bugs/ai.
I have no complaints about Far Cry 3 except your "friends" it was hard to be motivated to save them... Its not Bioshock story but seriously better then 9/10 other fps stories.
Blood Dragon was epic and could swallow FC2/FC3 whole. It might of not been long but next to Bulletstorm its the best FPS "Fun Romp" I've ever played.[Cheap too]
Games remembered for its graphics are only substantial till its outpaced. Then only get talked about with benchmarks. Games remembered for story/gameplay are much more lasting.
TBH, I think FC2 was mediocre and only did well because there were little as far as open world FPS's imo. Not to mention some terrible bugs/ai.
I have no complaints about Far Cry 3 except your "friends" it was hard to be motivated to save them... Its not Bioshock story but seriously better then 9/10 other fps stories.
Blood Dragon was epic and could swallow FC2/FC3 whole. It might of not been long but next to Bulletstorm its the best FPS "Fun Romp" I've ever played.[Cheap too]
[quote="eqzitara"]Games remembered for its graphics are only substantial till its outpaced. Then only get talked about with benchmarks. Games remembered for story/gameplay are much more lasting.[/quote]True, though I maintain that it had better gameplay than most other shooters before or since. I've personally not experienced more sucessfully emergent gameplay or better AI in a shooter. Though I've certainly not played every shooter there is.
But FC2 probably shouldn't be compared to 'fun' shooters like Blood Dragon or Bioshock. It's a slow burner about survival and emergent gameplay, and belongs to the same category as Stalker and Fallout 3. If it was made by a small Ukrainian studio, it'd probably have a massive cult following, but it was made by a AAA studio, so everyone tore it to bits.
[quote="eqzitara"]I have no complaints about Far Cry 3 except your "friends" it was hard to be motivated to save them... Its not Bioshock story but seriously better then 9/10 other fps stories.[/quote]
That's really saying something, considering that the lead writer basically claims that he [url="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/12/19/far-cry-3s-jeffrey-yohalem-on-racism-torture-and-satire/"]purposely wrote the dumbest, shallowest, most cliched story he could come up with[/url], as a form of satire. Though most people seem to agree that the satire failed, since it wasn't dumb, shallow or cliched enough to adequately distinguish itself from the games it was purportedly satirising.
eqzitara said:Games remembered for its graphics are only substantial till its outpaced. Then only get talked about with benchmarks. Games remembered for story/gameplay are much more lasting.
True, though I maintain that it had better gameplay than most other shooters before or since. I've personally not experienced more sucessfully emergent gameplay or better AI in a shooter. Though I've certainly not played every shooter there is.
But FC2 probably shouldn't be compared to 'fun' shooters like Blood Dragon or Bioshock. It's a slow burner about survival and emergent gameplay, and belongs to the same category as Stalker and Fallout 3. If it was made by a small Ukrainian studio, it'd probably have a massive cult following, but it was made by a AAA studio, so everyone tore it to bits.
eqzitara said:I have no complaints about Far Cry 3 except your "friends" it was hard to be motivated to save them... Its not Bioshock story but seriously better then 9/10 other fps stories.
That's really saying something, considering that the lead writer basically claims that he purposely wrote the dumbest, shallowest, most cliched story he could come up with, as a form of satire. Though most people seem to agree that the satire failed, since it wasn't dumb, shallow or cliched enough to adequately distinguish itself from the games it was purportedly satirising.
I'm not saying that its the best story ever written or even good compared to third person games and certainly not a satire. If I were to compare it to any number of third person games I've played in like a year. Its terrible.
I'm just saying its better then 9/10 first person shooters [besides like deus ex/bioshock/half life/blood dragon are only ones I can think of from like last decade]. I can't think of anyone who didn't like Vaas or the intro of the game as an example.
----------------
Its kind of funny because he tried to write a satire of gaming[failed] and just made an pretty good fps story.
Blood Dragon is a great story and a great satire [1980's action hero/culture].
I'm not saying that its the best story ever written or even good compared to third person games and certainly not a satire. If I were to compare it to any number of third person games I've played in like a year. Its terrible.
I'm just saying its better then 9/10 first person shooters [besides like deus ex/bioshock/half life/blood dragon are only ones I can think of from like last decade]. I can't think of anyone who didn't like Vaas or the intro of the game as an example.
----------------
Its kind of funny because he tried to write a satire of gaming[failed] and just made an pretty good fps story.
Blood Dragon is a great story and a great satire [1980's action hero/culture].
It was FC3 which made me realise I was getting quite bored with the current gen of gaming. On paper it ticked all of my boxes: a beautiful open world, 3D, stealth based predatory gameplay or guns blazing, I enjoyed the gun play, moddable to make crafting/survival meaningful. Basically, Skyrim with guns. I was one of those that really enjoyed the Vaas character. (I love fictional 'villians'! Vaas is safely tucked somewhere between the gleefully scummy Baron Harkonan and the Janator in Scrubs in my Villianous Appreciation Association.) FC3 then should be awesome!
Boring! I stopped playing after the first island because I couldn't be bothered.
No idea why. Why?!
It was FC3 which made me realise I was getting quite bored with the current gen of gaming. On paper it ticked all of my boxes: a beautiful open world, 3D, stealth based predatory gameplay or guns blazing, I enjoyed the gun play, moddable to make crafting/survival meaningful. Basically, Skyrim with guns. I was one of those that really enjoyed the Vaas character. (I love fictional 'villians'! Vaas is safely tucked somewhere between the gleefully scummy Baron Harkonan and the Janator in Scrubs in my Villianous Appreciation Association.) FC3 then should be awesome!
Boring! I stopped playing after the first island because I couldn't be bothered.
[quote="eqzitara"]I'm not saying that its the best story ever written or even good compared to third person games and certainly not a satire. If I were to compare it to any number of third person games I've played in like a year. Its terrible.
I'm just saying its better then 9/10 first person shooters [besides like deus ex/bioshock/half life/blood dragon are only ones I can think of from like last decade]. I can't think of anyone who didn't like Vaas or the intro of the game as an example.
----------------
Its kind of funny because he tried to write a satire of gaming[failed] and just made an pretty good fps story.
Blood Dragon is a great story and a great satire [1980's action hero/culture].[/quote]
Hey, I'm pretty much with you. The narratives of most shooters tend to either be expertly done (Half Life 2, Bioshock Infinite, Metro 2033) or pure garbage (almost everything else). Far Cry 3 wasn't in either group - the quality of the Vaas character (I found the doctor interesting too) definitely pulled it ahead of the pack. That's probably more a success of casting than writing though.
But I found it hard to have any respect for the story after reading that interview I linked to. Yohalem comes across as a total hack. Any time the interviewer throws any criticisms of the story his way (X is lazy writing; Y is racist; Z doesn't make sense), he deflects everything like a first-year art student by saying "oh yeah, I meant it like that - I'm being subversive!".
He basically wrote more or less the same story as every other shooter, but had the nerve to claim that his was much better than everyone else's because his was high-brow and clever...because he said so. At one point he actually claims that he tried to make the game not fun so that people would turn it off and stop playing (hey andysonofbob - looks like it worked!)
I got the feeling that Yohalem genuinely wanted it to be a clever satire, but never had a consistent enough vision to actually pull it off (and anyway, how can you satirise something which pretty much satirises itself? And why would you bother even if you could? Everyone knows manshooters are dumb already). I doubt most of the development staff even realised the game they were working on was meant to be a satire, and I don't think even Yohalem fully knew want he wanted. In the end, we were left with a jumbled mess - cliches, intrigue, quality character acting here, awful ham acting there - that left no one satisfied.
I highly recommend reading through the comments on that link (and the sister articles too - I think it was a 3-part interview series). Yohalem came across as a hack, but the user discussion the interviews generated are the most intelligent discussions I've ever read on a gaming website (I know, that's not saying much).
edit: all the interviews can be found [url="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/jeffrey-yohalem/"]here[/url]. Worth a read for the user comments IMO.
eqzitara said:I'm not saying that its the best story ever written or even good compared to third person games and certainly not a satire. If I were to compare it to any number of third person games I've played in like a year. Its terrible.
I'm just saying its better then 9/10 first person shooters [besides like deus ex/bioshock/half life/blood dragon are only ones I can think of from like last decade]. I can't think of anyone who didn't like Vaas or the intro of the game as an example.
----------------
Its kind of funny because he tried to write a satire of gaming[failed] and just made an pretty good fps story.
Blood Dragon is a great story and a great satire [1980's action hero/culture].
Hey, I'm pretty much with you. The narratives of most shooters tend to either be expertly done (Half Life 2, Bioshock Infinite, Metro 2033) or pure garbage (almost everything else). Far Cry 3 wasn't in either group - the quality of the Vaas character (I found the doctor interesting too) definitely pulled it ahead of the pack. That's probably more a success of casting than writing though.
But I found it hard to have any respect for the story after reading that interview I linked to. Yohalem comes across as a total hack. Any time the interviewer throws any criticisms of the story his way (X is lazy writing; Y is racist; Z doesn't make sense), he deflects everything like a first-year art student by saying "oh yeah, I meant it like that - I'm being subversive!".
He basically wrote more or less the same story as every other shooter, but had the nerve to claim that his was much better than everyone else's because his was high-brow and clever...because he said so. At one point he actually claims that he tried to make the game not fun so that people would turn it off and stop playing (hey andysonofbob - looks like it worked!)
I got the feeling that Yohalem genuinely wanted it to be a clever satire, but never had a consistent enough vision to actually pull it off (and anyway, how can you satirise something which pretty much satirises itself? And why would you bother even if you could? Everyone knows manshooters are dumb already). I doubt most of the development staff even realised the game they were working on was meant to be a satire, and I don't think even Yohalem fully knew want he wanted. In the end, we were left with a jumbled mess - cliches, intrigue, quality character acting here, awful ham acting there - that left no one satisfied.
I highly recommend reading through the comments on that link (and the sister articles too - I think it was a 3-part interview series). Yohalem came across as a hack, but the user discussion the interviews generated are the most intelligent discussions I've ever read on a gaming website (I know, that's not saying much).
edit: all the interviews can be found here. Worth a read for the user comments IMO.
Looks great, though I never trust youtube videos. The low-res and artifacting softens objects and makes everything look much more uniform. I've been burnt several times where a youtube gameplay video looked almost photo-realistic, but then when I loaded up the game in crisp 1920x1080, all its flaws suddenly jumped out.
Still, I have no doubt it'll be good looking game. And I'm stoked to hear it'll have TXAA, because an urban environment like this will be plagued with jaggies without a good AA solution, but ain't no one gonna be able to play this beast with SSAA!
Looks great, though I never trust youtube videos. The low-res and artifacting softens objects and makes everything look much more uniform. I've been burnt several times where a youtube gameplay video looked almost photo-realistic, but then when I loaded up the game in crisp 1920x1080, all its flaws suddenly jumped out.
Still, I have no doubt it'll be good looking game. And I'm stoked to hear it'll have TXAA, because an urban environment like this will be plagued with jaggies without a good AA solution, but ain't no one gonna be able to play this beast with SSAA!
I always get nervous when an open world game gets ambitious with graphics tbh. Will see how it runs.
LOL! I was watching trailer, how can they not notice that lightning is broken. Its got wierd "boundaries".
[quote="eqzitara"] Will see how it runs.[/quote]Surely you're not suggesting that there's a chance it'll run smoothly, are you? :D
I've played practically every open-world game of the past 10 years, and Driver: San Fransisco was probably the only one that didn't mop the floor with my PC.
[quote="eqzitara"]LOL! I was watching trailer, how can they not notice that lightning is broken. Its got wierd "boundaries".[/quote]
Indeed! You mean at 0:55 where one building gets brightly lit while the building next to it (and the protagonist) aren't lit at all? That is sloppy .
edit: it's even worse after that...I see what you mean
Surely you're not suggesting that there's a chance it'll run smoothly, are you? :D
I've played practically every open-world game of the past 10 years, and Driver: San Fransisco was probably the only one that didn't mop the floor with my PC.
eqzitara said:LOL! I was watching trailer, how can they not notice that lightning is broken. Its got wierd "boundaries".
Indeed! You mean at 0:55 where one building gets brightly lit while the building next to it (and the protagonist) aren't lit at all? That is sloppy .
edit: it's even worse after that...I see what you mean
Its a "square box" of white whenever lightning strikes. You can see the literal square boundaries where it ends. You can see it infront of some buildings and behind others that there is literally only a few feet away difference. Everything past the lightning "square" doesnt even have it on reflections as well.
I have no idea why they didnt just do the whole skybox. This make lightning look like a physical object.
Its a "square box" of white whenever lightning strikes. You can see the literal square boundaries where it ends. You can see it infront of some buildings and behind others that there is literally only a few feet away difference. Everything past the lightning "square" doesnt even have it on reflections as well.
I have no idea why they didnt just do the whole skybox. This make lightning look like a physical object.
I also would have liked to hear what exactly about this game makes it "next gen", since that's largely how it's been hyped for the past 2 years. TXAA and HBAO+ are great, but hardly new.
I also would have liked to hear what exactly about this game makes it "next gen", since that's largely how it's been hyped for the past 2 years. TXAA and HBAO+ are great, but hardly new.
I was pretty impressed. I mean I cant say too much since I will dig myself in a hole when it comes out but features aside it seems pretty incredible. Reflections/shadows/lighting. Reflections/shadows seem to be very high resolution. I was pretty impressed with not only the reflections but the amount/draw distance. Like everything that should be reflective, was. It really stood out to me because I've never seen a game with that much detail to reflections/lighting.
Anywho thats my 2 cents.
I was pretty impressed. I mean I cant say too much since I will dig myself in a hole when it comes out but features aside it seems pretty incredible. Reflections/shadows/lighting. Reflections/shadows seem to be very high resolution. I was pretty impressed with not only the reflections but the amount/draw distance. Like everything that should be reflective, was. It really stood out to me because I've never seen a game with that much detail to reflections/lighting.
Anywho thats my 2 cents.
Bioshock games aren't open world. It's a lot more jarring when you mow down a camp, set it on fire, drive off, and suddenly the camp is all back again before you even get out of render range. And let's not forget Far Cry 2's super-compressed dialog. Hahayou'vegotmaliriasonowyouhavetocomeinforshotsoverandoverdownatthechurch! Blah.
What's this beefing about Far Cry 3 towers? Those were GREAT with 3D Vision turned on! The exploration was fun, too. The story was sure bad, though. Maybe they should have compressed the audio again...
I've got to agree with you, though, regarding Watch Dogs. PC Gamer did a preview and it wasn't a happy one. Usually previews are full of forgiveness and expectations that things would be fixed later but not this one. Plus there's that whole UPlay thing.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
-- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil"
Yes, Far Cry 2 had a number of faults, including ones that haven't been mentioned. For example, its story was also rubbish. But that doesn't change that it brought more to the table than most shooters before or since, and its core mechanics were as near-perfect as they get. Also, it was arguably the 2nd-best looking game the world had ever seen, after Crysis.
All I'm saying is that it's weird that a game that did so much right is remembered for its faults, even though none of its faults were particularly severe or game-breaking, and even though ALL games have faults - especially the ambitious ones.
I wasn't aware that anyone actually enjoyed those towers in FC3. To me I just couldn't escape that they were ripped straight from Assassins' Creed, but felt clunkier and with less puzzle value. It's a subjective thing though I guess.
I'll check out that PC gamer preview now. Thanks for the heads up.
TBH, I think FC2 was mediocre and only did well because there were little as far as open world FPS's imo. Not to mention some terrible bugs/ai.
I have no complaints about Far Cry 3 except your "friends" it was hard to be motivated to save them... Its not Bioshock story but seriously better then 9/10 other fps stories.
Blood Dragon was epic and could swallow FC2/FC3 whole. It might of not been long but next to Bulletstorm its the best FPS "Fun Romp" I've ever played.[Cheap too]
Co-founder/Web host of helixmod.blog.com
Donations for web hosting @ paypal -eqzitara@yahoo.com
or
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=791918
But FC2 probably shouldn't be compared to 'fun' shooters like Blood Dragon or Bioshock. It's a slow burner about survival and emergent gameplay, and belongs to the same category as Stalker and Fallout 3. If it was made by a small Ukrainian studio, it'd probably have a massive cult following, but it was made by a AAA studio, so everyone tore it to bits.
That's really saying something, considering that the lead writer basically claims that he purposely wrote the dumbest, shallowest, most cliched story he could come up with, as a form of satire. Though most people seem to agree that the satire failed, since it wasn't dumb, shallow or cliched enough to adequately distinguish itself from the games it was purportedly satirising.
I'm just saying its better then 9/10 first person shooters [besides like deus ex/bioshock/half life/blood dragon are only ones I can think of from like last decade]. I can't think of anyone who didn't like Vaas or the intro of the game as an example.
----------------
Its kind of funny because he tried to write a satire of gaming[failed] and just made an pretty good fps story.
Blood Dragon is a great story and a great satire [1980's action hero/culture].
Co-founder/Web host of helixmod.blog.com
Donations for web hosting @ paypal -eqzitara@yahoo.com
or
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=791918
Boring! I stopped playing after the first island because I couldn't be bothered.
No idea why. Why?!
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.-------------------Vitals: Windows 10 64bit, Ryzen 5 2600x, GTX 1070, 16GB, 3D Vision, CV1
Handy Driver DiscussionHelix Mod - community fixes Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes
Hey, I'm pretty much with you. The narratives of most shooters tend to either be expertly done (Half Life 2, Bioshock Infinite, Metro 2033) or pure garbage (almost everything else). Far Cry 3 wasn't in either group - the quality of the Vaas character (I found the doctor interesting too) definitely pulled it ahead of the pack. That's probably more a success of casting than writing though.
But I found it hard to have any respect for the story after reading that interview I linked to. Yohalem comes across as a total hack. Any time the interviewer throws any criticisms of the story his way (X is lazy writing; Y is racist; Z doesn't make sense), he deflects everything like a first-year art student by saying "oh yeah, I meant it like that - I'm being subversive!".
He basically wrote more or less the same story as every other shooter, but had the nerve to claim that his was much better than everyone else's because his was high-brow and clever...because he said so. At one point he actually claims that he tried to make the game not fun so that people would turn it off and stop playing (hey andysonofbob - looks like it worked!)
I got the feeling that Yohalem genuinely wanted it to be a clever satire, but never had a consistent enough vision to actually pull it off (and anyway, how can you satirise something which pretty much satirises itself? And why would you bother even if you could? Everyone knows manshooters are dumb already). I doubt most of the development staff even realised the game they were working on was meant to be a satire, and I don't think even Yohalem fully knew want he wanted. In the end, we were left with a jumbled mess - cliches, intrigue, quality character acting here, awful ham acting there - that left no one satisfied.
I highly recommend reading through the comments on that link (and the sister articles too - I think it was a 3-part interview series). Yohalem came across as a hack, but the user discussion the interviews generated are the most intelligent discussions I've ever read on a gaming website (I know, that's not saying much).
edit: all the interviews can be found here. Worth a read for the user comments IMO.
OMG!!
i7 4970k@4.5Ghz, SLI GTX1080Ti Aorus Gigabyte Xtreme, 16GB G Skill 2400hrz, 3*PG258Q in 3D surround.
Still, I have no doubt it'll be good looking game. And I'm stoked to hear it'll have TXAA, because an urban environment like this will be plagued with jaggies without a good AA solution, but ain't no one gonna be able to play this beast with SSAA!
LOL! I was watching trailer, how can they not notice that lightning is broken. Its got wierd "boundaries".
Co-founder/Web host of helixmod.blog.com
Donations for web hosting @ paypal -eqzitara@yahoo.com
or
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=791918
I've played practically every open-world game of the past 10 years, and Driver: San Fransisco was probably the only one that didn't mop the floor with my PC.
Indeed! You mean at 0:55 where one building gets brightly lit while the building next to it (and the protagonist) aren't lit at all? That is sloppy .
edit: it's even worse after that...I see what you mean
I have no idea why they didnt just do the whole skybox. This make lightning look like a physical object.
Co-founder/Web host of helixmod.blog.com
Donations for web hosting @ paypal -eqzitara@yahoo.com
or
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=791918
My 3D Vision Gallery
Helix 3D Fixes
Win 7 x64
i7 4960X Extreme Edition
MSI Big Bang XPower II
2x EVGA Titan Z
Silverstone Evo 1200w
Anywho thats my 2 cents.
Co-founder/Web host of helixmod.blog.com
Donations for web hosting @ paypal -eqzitara@yahoo.com
or
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=791918