Wolfinsteins next gen textures everyone

#1 Edited by kmcgz7 (10 posts) -

Yeah...Its not really a joke but kinda is.

My original xbox had better textures than this....This is just not acceptable.

And No it was not streaming...I waited to make sure.

In fact almost every texture in this game looks like crap. I hate id tech 5 and its super textures or whatever they call it... its crap apparently.

#2 Edited by Old_Gooseberry (3470 posts) -

the game is like 45 gigs. You'd think the textures would be lifelike. I dunno what that screenshot is above but 1 bad texture shouldn't stop you from playing the game.

The videos i seen of this game most of it looks very good. I probably won't get this game unless its onsale for like 10 dollars but visually it looks pretty good overall. A few bad textures are bound to pop up.

#3 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9736 posts) -

Who Cares !

#4 Edited by Behardy24 (2644 posts) -

I personally don't mind.

#5 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6567 posts) -

Still a good, fun game. Lackluster visuals don't change that.

#6 Posted by sukraj (21806 posts) -

The game is still fun so i dont care about how good it looks.

#7 Posted by guynamedbilly (12924 posts) -

The engine they are using is crap. Maybe it will be amazing in ten years when storage and data transfer speeds are better. No good right now.

#8 Posted by Treflis (11421 posts) -

I'm gonna have to admit, I usually spend my time guns blazing in the game then study the texture of a plaque on a wall.

Maybe I'm playing the game wrong.

#9 Posted by guynamedbilly (12924 posts) -

You must not be very far. At the point that texture is, there's no one to shoot and you have to wait for the game to progress before you can move again. Unless you just like dumping all your ammo into the wall and are also unable to see the lame textures of the wall you are dumping into.

There's nothing wrong with discussing the individual parts of a game.

#10 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (5639 posts) -

Still a good, fun game. Lackluster visuals don't change that.

Yeah agreed.

But I have to admit I did expect better visuals than this. But still a great game!

#11 Edited by kmcgz7 (10 posts) -

EDIT: Oh yeah, as stated at that point in the game that's really all there is to do is stare at that texture on the wall. No enemy's, no where to go. Just wait.. Its also like the brightest thing around... So the main point is this...If you are making something that you know everyone is gonna see up close for at least 30-60seconds....Then take a little pride...lol

EDIT 2: I will admit, this all might be due to the fact that it is multi gen game that has to also run on older systems.


I think some of you missed my point a little bit.

Was and is it a great game? Yes I had a blast playing it. Loved the destructible environment, lighting, and of course gibbing. I love shooting arms legs and heads off, lol. and then the Wolfinstein 3D Easter egg that I found randomly was utter GOLD.


We deserve better than what they are selling us. Where on earth is that 50GB coming from when a 8GB game from 2009 has better textures? Isn't image data a lot of the data size? When I play a ps4 or xbox one game that in one way or another looks crapper than an original xbox game then there is something wrong. It was not just this one texture either..It was almost all of them. Especially anything bright.

It is freaking 2014 on a PS4 running 1080p/60fps. Could you not have added a little extra detail to textures? It is really Idtechs fault because if I remember Borderlands had texture issues too. But this was a largely inside small spaces game that should have been better. At least there was no streaming,anytime I was up close to a wall or object that I was sneaking around I got taken out of the game by how low res everything was. It may not have happened to you but I am sure if I spent time getting distracted by it from time to time then another small percentage did to.

I hate bringing up Halo but if you look at anyone armor in that game through a scope you will see tiny scratches and such..

Hell.. I think Doom3 even had more badass looking textures,,,

Ok..Now I am just ranting...sorry guys.

Eitherway it was just a discussion of the level of detail in the game, not the fun factor or game itself or even how the visuals play a role in fun. I just thought it was at the very least worth noteing. I mean...Its really really bad guys.. lol....again...still fun though. Then again so is Mario 3......But I wouldn't pay $60 for Mario 3.. feel me...

#12 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9736 posts) -


And Yet if I ask why you didn't get the PC Version you'l say......... ?

#13 Posted by kmcgz7 (10 posts) -


And Yet if I ask why you didn't get the PC Version you'l say......... ?

Would it have really made a difference? Maybe higher screen resolution and fast fps with slightly better shadows...

but the textures I am sure would still be muddy. I don't care if you have dual overclocked Geforce GTX TITANs, its not gonna add extra pixels to texture images that were never there. If I take a highly compressed 300x300 image, its going to look the same no matter how you display it or render it exept maybe some effects that try to polish a turd.

Also I prefers sitting in front of a large TV and not at a desk with mouse/keyboard/x360 controller. That and the fact that I would have to spend atleast a Grand to upgrade my PC to run anything halfway decent. I still have a Galaxy Nvidia 9500GT, lol. But I do miss the modding community and such, but its just not me right now.

Fact is textures look the same on all platforms from what I have read.

#14 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9736 posts) -


I'd correct the misinformation in your post if I thought you genuinely cared about having a better experience. All I'l say is you underestimate the Power of an Open Platform with a dedicated comunnity.

#15 Posted by Randolph (10423 posts) -

I tried the game. The graphics are utterly unimpressive in every way. I could easily tell it was just another cross gen game with a slight new shine. It also had troubled gameplay. The shooting mechanics felt off, and the attempted implementation of stealth was hilariously bad and disruptive to the overall experience. I didn't enjoy anything about it. If this is anything of a preview for Doom, then I'll pass.

#16 Edited by kmcgz7 (10 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:


I'd correct the misinformation in your post if I thought you genuinely cared about having a better experience. All I'l say is you underestimate the Power of an Open Platform with a dedicated comunnity.

I get it, you want to marry your PC, You spend days dressing it up in a dress and veil and dreaming of a day that it will be legal. You love pc gaming. You dream of STEAM every night. This isn't even a discussion on PC's being better than consoles.Your argument that any complaints I have about this game would have been null had I played it on PC is ignorant. Why on earth you want to take a discussion to PC fanboy levels is a perfect example of why forums are getting more and more difficult to have intelligent conversations. So I am going to take the high road and stop replying to your comments. I don't care to argue. So anyway..

*back to the point*


As far as the bugs yes it had plenty, at least before the patch. On the level where you have to jump out the window after you make the death choice, it wouldn't let me jump...It just sat there until the place blew up.I have a video of it actually...Had to restart the entire level over...

Also, I agree that with ID tech 5 current game list, I am very worried about Doom. However, Most of us did have a joyful experience, so even if Doom is lackluster maybe it will still be a decent game even with its faults... As much as I hated the flashlight swap on Doom3 it was pretty neat and creepy even though annoying. IMHO Doom games have always been better than Wolfinstein games, even going back to the "3d" days, But that is just my opinion and I am sure others will have different views. What was it about the stealth system you didn't like? just curious...

#17 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (9736 posts) -


Before you hop on your High Horse...

I don't have a PC, and Steam can burn in hell, I hate DRM.

I'l accept your refusal to reply is because you need to confront you presumptious attitude.

Now Giddy Up !

#18 Edited by Ish_basic (3964 posts) -

the texture quality has a lot of variance. There are some areas that look like a very low resolution image being displayed in 1080p like the one above...another great example, at least in the PS4 version, is the floor during the sequence where you're hand-cuffed and facing the ground (so no choice but to stare at it in all of its pixellated glory).

Given the article about Naughty Dog's issues with fitting all the new textures onto the disc for the TLoU remix, I'm wondering if MG wasn't having problems with that as well and maybe consciously reduced the quality in some of its lesser used texture maps to keep the game size below 50gb (as that seems to have accidentally become a benchmark) for both ease of storage and less harsh downloads. Or maybe the game engine just struggles to display all those proper textures at once...or maybe a vram issue with one of the consoles they were porting it to. Hard to say. But there definitely are some sub-hd textures in this game, and even the general texture quality is quite meh.

Also, graphics matter. It's a visual medium and it's absolutely fair to complain about how this gen of consoles is underperforming so far (largely do to the fact every game has to be ported 4 times). I'm not going to be critical about games like, say, Shadow Run Returns, which is going for an older style of gameplay and look to go along with it. But games like this are trying to look great and failing. Pointing out where they fail is simply valid criticism. Jumping in and saying "it's all about the gameplay" is just obnoxious. No one is talking about that here. Quit trying to look sophisticated and figure out what the actual discussion is.

#19 Posted by Chozofication (2718 posts) -

Ladies and gentlemen, id tech 5.

#20 Edited by sukraj (21806 posts) -

Ladies and gentlemen, id tech 5.

yes I know that bruv.

#21 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2271 posts) -

Admit it this screenshot was taken from an N64 game.

No way a game released in 2014 could have textures this bad.

#22 Edited by Mesomorphin (807 posts) -

It also to do with storage, the texture was compressed because there are bigger and better areas to focus less compressed images onto. If every Texture was raw and uncompressed then the whole game would literally be like 300 gigs big