TechRaptor recently reached out to Adrian Chmielarz, the Co-owner/Creative Director at The Astronauts, developers of the TechRaptor approved The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, who was gracious enough to spend time answering our questions. In the interview below we asked Adrian about game development, traditional gaming media and #GamerGate, as well as other gaming industry related topics.
Wccftech interviewed The Astronauts CEO Adrian Chmielarz to talk about Witchfire, the dark fantasy roguelite FPS debuting soon in early access.
Adrian Chmielarz, co-founder of People Can Fly, has shared some gameplay footage from their cancelled horror action-adventure game, Come Midnight.
Come Midnight was in development in 2005-2006. Moreover, People Can Fly was planning to use the following demo in order to show its development progress to THQ. So yeah, keep in mind that while watching it. Obviously the game now looks dated, however, in 2005 Chmielarz claimed that it looked fantastic.
I’m not sure what it is, but I really find the art style pleasing. This actually seems interesting.
It's L.A. Noire meets Wrong Turn!
Lol...must be wearing spiked brass knuckles, every punch was a spray of blood!
It’s also about the developer working with the hardware.
When will people learn that a PC equivalent must be more powerful due to optimization issues. Same goes for comparing PS4 Pro to a PC. Then you guys factor in the little things like Pro is built in checkerboarding, and X had built in DX12 and are other little tricks.
Anyway, we need to stop comparing to PCs, and just compare to each other. Comparing to a PC is just a way of distracting us from the differences that are going on between consoles.
If we speaking of pure power in the console space there is no competition Da X is a work of art if you don't own one you are not gonna understand
I own a Pro and an X. I think calling it a work of art is a bit much. It's a powerful machine and I enjoy using it, but let's not get carried away. These are video game consoles, after all
PC Enthusiast disagrees, if you don't own a gaming pc you are not gonna understand. if you own one and still think like this you are an idiot.
I also own a gaming PC, but i only use it for obscure things like RTS and Kerbal. Honestly I prefer my large tv and console world over PC.
i used to be all about my pc gaming and still am, i have a beast of a pc but lately i'm so sick of online gaming on pc due to hackers. games like gta v and pubg are a mess! in gta v, i keep getting spawned into boxes and have cars drop on me! aim bots are too common on pc too.
so now i just stick with online gaming on ps4 pro.
True. I enjoy the X, but I also enjoy my base ps4. As long as the game doesn't look horrible (homefront) then I'm ok.
"Pro is built in checkerboarding, and X had built in DX12"
lol....built in checkerboarding? WTF are you talking about. One X has used checkerboarding as well. It is nothing "built in". And og Xbox One has *some* DX12 instructions in the GPU just like One X. That has been the case since the beginning of the generations.
No shock you don't want to compare gaming PCs to One X. Xbox fanboys want to delude themselves that they purchased the definitive gaming machine. Just isn't the case.
I guess you need some education...
The PS4 Pro has a chip dedicated to checkerboard rendering. It's built in. No extra power needed for processing. Xbox X has to be programmed for it on an individual basis since it's not baked in.
Xbox One X has a custom chip with DX12 features not built into OG Xbox One. Also has some other built in features.
Anyway, you can Google for yourself and learn a little...
Definitive gaming console you mean right saying definitive machine to support your argument doesn't make you sound smarter
Checkerboard tendering is a software technique for achieving 4k used by both One X and PS4 Pro. Both consoles have hardware that utilizes this technique. This isn’t specific to one or the other. As far as DX12, it made no difference for og One so I see little to brag about there.
@DLaw
Saying definitive console to limit the comparison doesn’t make you sound any smarter either.
I've read a couple of articles that mention PS4 Pro has checkerboard rendering baked into HW, I'm sure XB1X is capable of the same rendering technique but not sure its handled the same - the XB has more power anyway so fanboys shouldn't fret.
What they did is a work of art, but people who never learned about computer architecture do not understand.
@WilliamSheridan
I use my PS4/Wii U/PC on the same tv.
55" Vizio P Series 4k/60-1080/120
There is no console world or pc world, they both can plug into the same freaking thing.
Seriously it's 2018 and people act like PC's don't plug into TV's like it's 1998. ANY HDTV with an HDMI from whenever will connect to a PC. Do people seriously not notice this? It's obvious as the sky is blue.
We all know our PCs can output to a TV but I still prefer playing console on the sofa - PC at a desk with KB/M. Its just a personal preference thing.
That's an issue with the software layer, but really doesn't mean you can't compare the GPU's themselves. Although you can do more with a Console GPU in the same class and speed compared to PC. For the most part, a good rule of thumb is to say that a console GPU will probably end up delivering graphics on the level of a GPU out 2-3 years after the class that the actual console is released in. This will probably become less so as Vulkan and DX12 low level implementations become more common. The API support has been dragging a bit lately, and developers are only doing cursory implementations since the final specs for compatibility haven't really been 100% finalized.
It's easy to compare.
You run the games side by side.
At which point you see the xb1x is extremely close to a gtx 1080.
Lol no it's not. In terms of actual performance it often gets outdone by the 1060gtx. The X1X's main advantage over the 1060 is have the vram to push higher framerates.
I don't post here anymore, but I had to make an exception since you're so fucking full of it.
Final Fantasy XV runs at 3440x1440 on my PC at 75 FPS (monitor refresh rate) on my GTX 1080 (high preset). I have also played it on my One X at 4K.
Not only does it look worse, it's at less than half my PC's frame rate.
What why do you have downvotes.
xbox fanboys can't accept the truth. they think that only xbox one x is capable of 4k.
From your post below:
"The CPU is comparable to a $60-80 PC part (AKA a very low end PC CPU). Which is the main reason they both still struggle to push 60FPS is so many titles."
Seems like you're leaving out some important details about why your system with a 1080 can run at 75fps. You know, things like CPU performance, total ram, how much your system cost...
Also, the 1X has 7 billion transistors in its' GPU (a GTX 1080 has 7.2 billion), so it is close to the performance of a 1080, actually. It's the CPU/memory that bottlenecks performance compared to your PC, not the GPU. You got it all twisted.
@ TheCommentator
transistors does not equal performance
https://www.techpowerup.com...
https://www.techpowerup.com...
Look at the render config section. Scorpio 37.5 GPixel/s 187.5 GTexel/s vs 1080 110.9 GPixel/s 277Gtexel/s or you can just look at the relative performance on the scorpio page. Scroll down for 1080.
I know that already, FGH. The XB1X performance was balanced for the components inside which gives it more efficiency in the long run though.
I did say that the 1X didn't have the memory bandwidth of a PC, right? The 1080 has the same bandwidth as the whole 1X system. There's a reason that the transistor counts are similar though; the 1X has DX12 functions that Nvidia doesn't support in hardware (but AMD does) which makes it more efficient than a 1080 for certain tasks. Nvidia cards still run DX11 better than DX12.
I'd be curious to see how badly the performance of a 1080 would be bottlenecked if paired with a 1X equivalent CPU, TBH. Under those circumstances I bet performance between the two "systems" would be pretty close at that point, which is why I mentioned the omission of the other components in Menech's system in my OP.
Meh, whatever though. Even if you don't agree, the 1X is still an amazing value in performance for $500.
"At which point you see the xb1x is extremely close to a gtx 1080. "
LOLOLOLOLOL WTF console fanboy delusions.
Spreading that lie again I see. lol. Hell....the PS4 Pro is closer to One X than One X is to a 1080. But you keep believing your own delusions.
I run code between the two on a constant basis. Along with other classes of PC GPU's. Part of my work. I don't typically get a chance to see release code, but never have I seen the X1X be comparable to a 1080 when you look close....which I do because I'm looking for technical things.
In the real world, while playing games, I don't compare them side by side, because how many people actually do that or care? That's why I said that most people aren't going to care with the mid-gens, and price was going to be a more important factor.
Like or hate Microsoft you gotta props to their engineering with this machine. Its a custom RX 580 basically but it blows it out of the water in sheer memory available and the speed of that memory. I'd say its about on par with a 1070, which is incredible value for the price since I doubt anyone can find me just the GPU under $500
It's an impressive console for the price there's no arguing that. It's in-between a GTX 1060 & GTX 1070 in terms of performance. But closer to the 6GB GTX 1060. It's still more impressive than both the RX 580 & GTX 1060 from a technical level however.
Since it's more shader heavy than both, although somewhat let down by the core clock. Both the PS4 Pro & Xbox One X have very impressive GPU's. However they're very much let down by their processors. While the GPU in the Xbox One X is comparable to a $400 graphics card with current prices.
The CPU is comparable to a $60-80 PC part (AKA a very low end PC CPU). Which is the main reason they both still struggle to push 60FPS is so many titles. Not that there is anything that could be done about it. Ryzen wasn't ready when Sony & Microsoft started ordering silicon
The next generation of Playstation & Xbox, which would be using a custom AMD solution again no doubt. Won't have these problems however, as once they're equipped with even a Quad-Core Ryzen chip. They'll easily be able to push 60FPS in all modern titles.
The CPU currently in the PS4 Pro & Xbox One X, is so weak it's actually slower than the CPU in an iPhone 8.
@cigi
That doesn't mean the CPU still doesn't process the draw calls. It's just faster now because it doesn't have to be implemented on the software level in the same way.
I wouldn't say it's ingenuity in a big way. It just removes a process for the game engine or developer to handle.
It hasn't been a huge bottleneck in modern gaming. Game engines addressed this last gen pretty effectively.
That being said, the overall design of the X1X is pretty eloquent. It was a machine put together to run games, and run them well without much issue. Everything is streamlined for the developer, and there are some nice additions which are very welcome.
@your comment below
"the only thing nesseary is that developers really use DX12 from the start."
Why is that necessary? Most games use game engines which aren't specific to any API. There's a level of software between them to allow for porting better. DX of some form is about as common to start with as it is not. Depends on if the focus is on console or PC. If it's console, then OpenGL is usually used more because it's easier to port from OGL to DX, as DX uses more high level functions to achieve things, which have to be disassembled and rewritten for DX. But if you go with OGL first, you can simplify the rewriting where necessary, because less code has to be written for DX. It gets a bit less clear when using low level code, and in that case, there are tools which do the porting and it doesn't really matter much which you start with, because most developers aren't doing large amounts of port code in house as it's expensive either way.
Lol people with no technical knowledge about engineering talking about engineering.
"And whats your genius input Mr. Intel Engineer? "
I just want to laugh at you engineer wannabes.
<1060, which is still nice. But it's wasting a good portion of it's power. Hell, if the PS4 Pro had the same GPU but modern CPU, it would run circles around the X1X. Hell if the Xbox One had a modern CPU it would of run circles around the PS4.
The problem is, X1X performs poorer then that framerate wise of most gaming PC's because of the CPU.
This is why if you have say an i7 6700-7700k (quad core mind you with 4 virtual core via HT) and a GTX 1070, the same games that run 30-60 on the X1X are running at 80-130 with higher settings.
X1X CPU in demanding games (not indies) you are losing 30-50 frames per second.
When the CPU massively adds to the frametime, this is how you lose framerate. The quicker your CPU and GPU are, the less time it takes to pump out a frame. The less time, the higher the framerate. Many times the GPU is waiting on the CPU and the longer the wait, the lower the framerate. Poorer CPU's add time to every frame as the GPU waits on the CPU.
Frametime of 30FPS = 33.33ms
Frametime of 120FPS = 8.33ms
Thus to hit a 120 FPS, a CPU and GPU needs to coordinate and resolve each frame in under 8.33 ms. For 60 FPS, 16.66ms. The reason it's hard for games to hit 60, or keep it during large firefights online is because the CPU cannot handle this.
So a bad CPU takes a ton of frames off the top if it adds say 15-20 ms to the frametime. X1X's CPU can easily do that. It's crap. It was crap in 2013, because PC CPU's from 2008 (like the i7 920) still destroy what's in the X1X which came out in 2017 with an updated version of, but still outdated CPU.
They say it's not 'bottlenecked' because it can still clear the 30FPS hurdle, and many times 60 FPS. But in reality, a better CPU would allow more games locked at 30 FPS to run at 60 FPS. So it IS bottlenecked, and quite hard.
Just not hard enough that they can't work around with lower settings and lower thresholds. They can still work with it. Developers are looking at the bottom of the barrel when they tell you if it's bottlenecked, not at the top end. They are looking if they can get their game to 30 or near 60, sometimes at 60. They still can, thus to them, not bottlenecked, even if it massively is.
Never said flexibility wise it matches PC, the One X's target in development is native 4K or as high a resolution as possible while retaining the same frame-rate as the base version. So yeah you'd probably enjoy 1440p 60 FPS on the PC for a respective title, while a developer will push for a native 4K resolution if the title was a 30 FPS title on the base Xbox One. Why? Because thats literally the point of the One X, all existing Xbox One games with better GRAPHICAL performance.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
I also refer you to this video, this PC with a CPU far exceeding the Jags in the One X struggles with a dynamic 4K at 60 FPS on Wolfenstein. While the One X is typically at 60 FPS with a 90% time at native 4K and this guy bumped all the settings to low and medium while the One X and PS4 Pro run the game at high to medium settings with One X having the high settings for shadows while the Pro has medium. No way the One X is below or on par with a 1060, its a bit of step above it right below the 1070
This is why they say target 60, but most times it's 35-50 in firefights online.
Better CPU's also allow you to use those extra MS to add more IQ to the game and still get it to be able to lock it at 60. So a better CPU could give you better IQ and a lock solid 60.
In some diagnostic overlays in PC games you can literally see what your CPU and GPU frametimes are. Doom's is quite good.
Both Sony and MS went the cheap route with trying to lower the frametime by increasing the power of the GPU. But this is pushing against a string.
They gained frametime in milliseconds on the GPU side and the GPU architecture allowed more to be piped through without degrading its frametime in milliseconds. The CPU was modestly bumped barely gaining anything. Thus you got more stuff piped in. It can look better and achieve higher resolution, but framerate? Nope. This is another reason why they went full bore into 4k. The jump in GPU allowed for higher resolutions, but not nearly as much for higher framerate. That's why you still see some games struggling with 1080/60 on the X1X, whereas it can do 1620-1800-4k at 30 FPS.
In other words X1X is a juvenile beast hopping on one leg. It can do some good things, but it's specs are waaaay out of whack.
If Microsoft put out a console with the same specs as an X1X except it had a modern CPU, people would be saying its a HUGE upgrade.
This isn't to say the X1X isn't a good deal for the money, it's just that the configuration itself is not optimized, it's actually an unoptimized mess.
Microsoft thought they needed something beefier to compete with Pro. But although they did a good job with gpu/ram/bandwidth. The biggest problem was always the cpu.
Next gen needs more power for more physics etc imo.
