Graphics - what do gamers want?

New graphics cards flood the market every couple of months or so and promise faster and faster performance with ever increasing clock speeds and memory performance. A lot of enthusiasts clamour for the greatest in the hope that they'll be able to play the latest games with just that little bit of greater detail than the previous generation of cards.
 
My question to you, dear reader, is: what should we, as gamers, be doing? Why should we have to spend hundreds of ££'s on the fastest card we can buy when we know it will almost certainly be superceded by something even 'faster' in a few months time?
 
"Why should we have to spend hundreds of ££'s on the fastest card we can buy?"
 
There are several ways to look at the dilemma facing us here. One way is to point our long fingers at developers. Should we ask why developers cannot code their games in a way that means that the games look good even at lower detail levels or on older generation cards? After all, engines like the Steam engine still look stunning on pretty much any card made in the last couple of years, even when ramped down a little bit.
 
What I am saying is that it CAN be done, so why is it not done more? When was the last time you opened up a game and tried it out only to see a slideshow? Then when you tuned down those lovely graphics, all you were left with was Kryton facing you and a landscape that reminded you of a low-res version of the Tellie-tubbies?
 
"all you were left with was Kryton facing you and a landscape that reminded you of a low-res version of the Tellie-tubbies"
 
Developers like Crytek have an awful lot to answer for in our search for the best and most realistic video games, but they also have a lot to answer for in terms of making gamers buy the latest kit. Did we all need DX10 cards for Crysis? No, we didn't, but the kind folks at Microsoft and Crytek made sure we thought we needed em. Could Crysis have been made to look just as nice without needing you to sell some limbs to play it? I suspect so.
 
That said, another way to look at this is to take a sly look in the mirror. Why DO you buy the latest graphics card? Is it for the pure enjoyment of the game? Would Crysis have been half the game it was if it hadn't looked so good? A tough one to call, but the answer is no.
 
It looks like I've argued myself away from the first sentence on the previous paragraph....or have I? Why is it we demand games look fantastic without too much of a focus on gameplay?
 
doom1
 
Under that sexy skin, Crysis was a decent enough FPS, but it certainly didn't break any gameplay barriers (unless it was the "how low can the frames go" barrier!).
 
 "Crysis....certainly didn't break any gameplay barriers"
 
The race for the biggest "E-Peen" needs to stop and gamers need to start sending a message to devs: "Give us games that look good and play well on what is out there already". Even several months after Crysis's release I was still seeing (and saying) "it's designed for hardware that doesn't even exist yet". When you step back and think about it, that makes no sense at all and is actually ludicrous, especially from a group of people oft-criticised for their lack of long term attention.
 
"Even several months after Crysis's release I was still seeing (and saying) "it's designed for hardware that doesn't even exist yet"."
 
I am picking on Crytek, but they're not the only ones. The Industry seems packed full of companies trying to make hardware manufacturers money and gamers broke. Whilst 'pushing the limits' is an excellent thing to be doing, I would far rather see the limits of game design pushed, instead of the limits of my poor ickle graphics card.
 
Gamers like us need to demand excellence in gameplay as well as in graphics, wrapped up in a bundle that actually uses the hardware we've got sitting inside our PC's. Developers need to start getting their coding...and their balance right.
 
Let us ask not what more hardware can do for our gaming, but what our gaming can do on our harware.
 
Agree? Disagree? Shout at me here
 
 
Crysis very high
«Prev 1 Next»

Most Recent Comments

25-07-2008, 04:21:41

FarFarAway
I take a look at graphics in games and ask a few questions about exactly what gamers want

linkQuote

25-07-2008, 04:51:54

mrapoc
Too right mate!

Crysis looks good..but i get bored after / before finishin the first level :/

Plus my rig aint exactly low and i can still only play comfortable at medium high settings

Games and apps do need to start being coded better (quad support...tidier and heck even better gameplay!)

I have yet to see more than 3 games iv played that support native 64 bit Quote

25-07-2008, 05:09:01

JN
Maybe its just me, but sometimes I think that amazing graphics can spoil a game.

I remember playing games like resident evil where the graphics were pretty dire. You'd be thinking "wtf is that on the floor" then all of a sudden realise its a zombie or sommit that starts chewing at ur feet Quote

25-07-2008, 05:29:04

Mr. Smith
I want amazing graphics.

I want amazing gameplay.

I want amazing hardware.

I get none of the above.

Is it me or are there no decent games out there? As time passes I feel less and less inclined to buy the latest hardware because there aren't any games I want to play and/or the performance increases are negligible.

The HDR mod to Half Life made an old game come back to life for me and still ran really well on my 88gts/88gt... Hell, HL2 ep1 ran smoothly on a 7300gt. However I feel Source looks too dated.

When I play a game I want to become immersed in the environment and feel as if I am there. This requires slick graphics (an attention to detail), sound is paramount (Doom was atmospheric) but also needs involving gameplay...

Recently I have nearly sold my PC a few times as it is now a glorified HTPC. I'm not playing games because there aren't any decent ones out there and the ones coming up that look decent probably won't run to my standards on my hardware which will force me into yet another hardware upgrade.

Sigh.

Edit: Also, all my mates with consoles are spoilt for choice for games that will instantly run fine on there console that is maybe a few years old... I think PC has better gameplay generally but they are so much hassle. I also feel people defend their PC's as they represent a significant investment for most people here (I bet most people here are 18-20 earning <£20K), luckily I could throw my PC out of the window and it would make no odds to me so I feel I can be more objective. PC's are a waste of money. They used to offer screaming performance and awesome games but the last two years I have seen them develop into money leeches. Feel free to disagree...Quote

25-07-2008, 05:33:14

FarFarAway
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Mr. Smith'
Recently I have nearly sold my PC a few times as it is now a glorified HTPC. I'm not playing games because there aren't any decent ones out there and the ones coming up that look decent probably won't run to my standards on my hardware which will force me into yet another hardware upgrade.
This is precisely my point mateQuote

25-07-2008, 06:57:23

Hiks
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Mr. Smith'

Edit: Also, all my mates with consoles are spoilt for choice for games that will instantly run fine on there console that is maybe a few years old... I think PC has better gameplay generally but they are so much hassle. I also feel people defend their PC's as they represent a significant investment for most people here (I bet most people here are 18-20 earning <£20K), luckily I could throw my PC out of the window and it would make no odds to me so I feel I can be more objective. PC's are a waste of money. They used to offer screaming performance and awesome games but the last two years I have seen them develop into money leeches. Feel free to disagree...
Couldn't agree more, The pc games releases has slowed down so much over the past year or two I've been saying this for a while.

I've been a gamer since i was a nipper and always argued that the PC was the defining platform, Whats an FPS without a keyboard and mouse, when was the last platform sonic type game you seen on the PC, strategy games were in a league of their own and obviously they was always cheaper than the consoles on the release date £30 or so.

I used to easily manage to buy a game a week for the PC and those were games i looked forward to getting not just anything off the shelf. I rerember medal of honour, call of duty and wolfenstien all getting released at the same time I rerember it as I booked a week off work lol

Just add a few flashy bits to the quake 3 engine and release some games I say.Quote

25-07-2008, 07:55:00

Duecut
It may just be me but I’ve also noticed that games recently have to be cross-platform, often to the detriment of the game play on the PC. Its maybe best if I just explain what I mean in an example: Take Assassins Creed, An enjoyable game but one developed of a console not a PC. In fight sequences I found that I was just crunching keys all the time (the exact same way I did playing the game on the console), it didnt feel like I had control over what the character was doing.

The PC is capable of much more than a Console but game developers seem just to developed the game for the consoles then code it so a PC can play it too (instead of making a dedicated PC version of the game)Quote

25-07-2008, 07:59:36

Mr. Smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
This is precisely my point mate
I know, I was agreeing with you. It's frustrating...

Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Hiks'
Couldn't agree more, The pc games releases has slowed down so much over the past year or two I've been saying this for a while.

I've been a gamer since i was a nipper and always argued that the PC was the defining platform, Whats an FPS without a keyboard and mouse, when was the last platform sonic type game you seen on the PC, strategy games were in a league of their own and obviously they was always cheaper than the consoles on the release date £30 or so.

I used to easily manage to buy a game a week for the PC and those were games i looked forward to getting not just anything off the shelf. I rerember medal of honour, call of duty and wolfenstien all getting released at the same time I rerember it as I booked a week off work lol

Just add a few flashy bits to the quake 3 engine and release some games I say.
Agreed. I used to be able to walk into a shop and the top 10 games were all quality... Now... Hard pressed to find 1/2 good games every quarter...

Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Duecut'
It may just be me but I’ve also noticed that games recently have to be cross-platform, often to the detriment of the game play on the PC. Its maybe best if I just explain what I mean in an example: Take Assassins Creed, An enjoyable game but one developed of a console not a PC. In fight sequences I found that I was just crunching keys all the time (the exact same way I did playing the game on the console), it didnt feel like I had control over what the character was doing.

The PC is capable of much more than a Console but game developers seem just to developed the game for the consoles then code it so a PC can play it too (instead of making a dedicated PC version of the game)
Too true. Is all the money in consoles? People always go where the money is, its business...

Now you can use kb/m with 360's/consoles I'm seriously thinking get a lappy for my internet needs and a sweet console to game on. I don't want to but unless something changes in the next few months games wise, I'll have to give up!Quote

25-07-2008, 08:00:22

JN
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Duecut'

The PC is capable of much more than a Console but game developers seem just to developed the game for the consoles then code it so a PC can play it too (instead of making a dedicated PC version of the game)
QFT. Just look at the pile of console converted crap called Unreal Tournament III.Quote

25-07-2008, 08:00:34

chudley
Fisrt off. Mr Smith when you chuck it out the window ring this number about 4 hours before hand 07701234567

Secondly I have the same sentiments as the rest of us. I would not pay good money to buy a music CD where the band were playing with toy instruments - I expect real instruments and good music. So why do I pay good money for games developed by poor developers / companies whose only incentive is to make as much money as possible.

That will explain why the last time I bought a game was before Xmas (Cod4) and justifies in part why I still play the same games, going back to CSS and continously playing Project Reality.

More so I have started playing free here href="http://www.fallensword.com/?ref=1617466">FallenSword RPG - Play online now free!

Just click create a new account

Its not the most graphic of games but it is Free and addictive and if you give it a go look for meltingwax to find me Quote

25-07-2008, 08:08:37

doug2507
Agree. But with the majority of gamers using consoles due to the cost/ease of use, it makes sense for the developers to make their main focus aimed at that market because thats where the money is. I bet there's probably less than 1 in 10 people who have a pc capable of running current top titles on better than average settings. Its just so bloomin expensive to run games all polished on a pc compared to a console. Its a bit cr@ppy for ourselves but thats the way it is i reckon. Most of the people i know have a 360 or PS3 and i could probably count the number of people i know with gaming pc's on one hand. Not everybody has the technical sense for pc's as well. But there's still a lot of 'good' games out there for the pc that aren't available for console......Also, to add to that, i think consoles can be more of a social media which attracts the larger audience. Take the Wii for example. How many folks do you know that play it by themselves? I think it is about time though that the developers step things up a notch or two so its not a case of waiting a year for a sequel to come out and rather waiting a few weeks for something new and exciting....Quote

25-07-2008, 08:33:00

Rastalovich
I think all the comments in both the article and this thread are very valid.

I also think we all want the same thing, reasoning maybe slightly different, but it all gears towards the same principles.

Somebody or somehow u get an injection of... maybe £2000.. maybe 5 or 10 years ago u could look at your 2/3 year old rig and seriously replace it with outstanding results.

Atm, u look at ur rig (just stating some "average" equiptment imo today) - Q6600/4G/8800/500g/P35/DVDRW - what meaningful upgrade would u make to that ? Well, u could go x977x/8G/280/320gSSD/P45/BRRW and spend a fair wedge of ur cash. U then run some benchmarks and think u`ve done really well.. but then u play ur game, perhaps it`ll load quicker, maybe u`ll see some slight improvement in frames at certain periods - but overall how much of a performance/quality increase have u just had for ur wedge of cash ?

Kemp is correct when he says about the scaling of graphics within games and engines. Theoreticaly, looking back at the likes of Unreal, u would previously played the game on scaled down settings - but when u bought ur new stuff u`d slap those settings right up and actually feel the improvements, yet alone seeing the different textures and lighting.

Devs have alot to answer for, and I don`t really want to fall back into the stale repetition of blaming programmers and the like, but we`re building machines with multicores, machines that can calculate billions of equations (when u look at the folding @ home principles).

I do want to fall back on something I`ve been banging on about for ages tho. A pc built with the best stuff at the end of 2006, still today can play the majority of games at a very high standard. Handful of months and that`ll be 3 years ago! Since when in the history of pc/computer gaming have advancement in game tech been so stale ?

To appreciate where I`m coming from in that sense, I`m used to devs being presented with a platform - and pushing it. Today it`s not the case, hasn`t been for a while. Imo Kemp is totally correct in so much as Crytek haven`t pushed these evolving pc hardware specs, they`ve badly created an engine - that although looks very good, I`m almost under the impression that they have spiralled the engine with poor application as time has gone on with the dev.

There are a few `good` games that come out from time to time, but even then they lack a heck of alot. Gameplay when they look good, shoddy looks when there`s an eliment of gameplay. Genres are stale, consoles are massaging them a bit, but they`re still stale on there too.

Frequency of pc game releases ? a handful sprinkled throughout the year, then a load around autumn/december, then the quietness of january.

What can we effectively do ?

It`s not just the games for me tho, it`s OS, it`s apps, poor implementation, botching, patches for this`n`that, poor performance on a £3k machine - why ?

We do pay through the nose for these pieces of software to use on our carefully constructed machines, it`s about time that if the software fails or needs a patch - people get compensated.

Don`t blame hardware myself. Next year the pure potential processing power of the pcs we can build will be immense again, then we run something on them and get complaicent.

.. there`s always folding.Quote

25-07-2008, 11:41:49

Acid90
In October 2007, I saved up and bought an Xbox 360. All my friends had one, I hadn't gamed in a long time and wanted to get back into the scene. So I bought Halo 3 (pile of http://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gife) and Cod4 and started gaming my hours away. I met so many idiots on Xbox Live that I eventually got sick of it. I got bored of single player games where I pay £40, have no social interaction with anyone but NPCs and it was frankly, tedious and boring for no real gain other than achievements.

I've now given my Xbox 360 to my brother and in April 08, I built myself a new computer. And bought TF2, now...I haven't gamed on a PC for years, specially in the FPS genre and you know what, it has filled my heart with http://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifing joy. I relise now, whats so great about gaming on a PC. The social interaction.

The community surrounding a game such as TF2 is small and you know what, we pay £10 on Steam for hours and hours of fun online, with people, get into a clan and organise matches and constantly be intouch with whats happening. The PC gaming scene is tight and thats what appeals to me the most, not to mention mouse and keyboard rocks compared to a http://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifty controller. There is more skill needed, more time and effort to perfect the way you play.

Now, thats why I choose a PC over a console. As for the hardware, which this topic is actually about. Its simple, don't do it. I think alot of us buy the hardware for benchmarking and growing our e-peens. When really, games don't need this power. Yes, developers SHOULD help us out but every company is out for one thing, to make money and if people fall into this then your asking for trouble.

I think the source engine looks amazing still and on TF2 the graphics are wicked, good enough for me. Who cares what the sky looks like when I am fragging http://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifhttp://forum.overclock3d.net/oc3d_gf...es/cussing.gifers in the face? Online gaming on the PC is where its at, single player games...not so much. I haven't even used DX10 yet, why? 'Cause I don't need too.Quote

25-07-2008, 12:35:06

w3bbo
The thing is most competative folk who play online will initially like a strong graphics engine but inevitably will tweak the config, turning off all the 'effects' and turning down the textures to gain an advantage to such an extent the game is almost unrecognisable from its initial look.

The gameplay and physics of the game are much more important than graphics imo.Quote

25-07-2008, 13:04:58

Sgt.Bilko
Agreed, It's depressing to see the graphics card I bought 6 months ago (Asus NVidia 8800GTS 512M for 220 quid now selling for less than half that, and now I can buy even better cards for ...you guessed it 220quid.

My son plays on my old rig with an NVidia 7600GT and can still play all the new games albeit at low settings and the Kryton lookalikes.

Furthermore I totally agree with mrapoc about Crycis and especially on the subject of 64 bit support. I think we've all (enthusiasts) been duped there.

Games like COD4 are more what I would call gamer-friendly coz you can still get in the action, and kick ass, on an older rig. My kid does it on a regular basis, coming top on the net!

I gave up trying to find a Crysis server I could play for more than a couple of minutes before getting kicked, and quite frankly the graphics were key-rap!Quote

25-07-2008, 15:44:48

AydST
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Mr. Smith'
I want amazing graphics.

I want amazing gameplay.

I want amazing hardware.
I honestly never thought I'd say this being a Warcraft vetran and the onwner of sooo many PC games but what you want is an XBOX360 with HDMI cable and a 42" LCD Telly.

In all honesty since I got my XBOX a couple of months ago, I rarely touch my PC for gaming

I love COD4 on the xbox, I usually join a few mates and w go around just having fun, proof for me is the fact that for the past 3 weeks I've not gone to bed earlier than 2am

Shame on me and I'm fired.Quote

26-07-2008, 05:11:16

Jeddy
Well talking about the idea of consoles vs pc's, games like Cod4 are fun on the pc, and I will admit i wouldent touch a console with a barge pole, but had Activision not completely screwed the modders over with the ranking system, i think cod4 would be brilliant. As it stands cod4 is a very good game, but it lacks that "polished" feel you get playing css or similiar, where there must be hundreds of different mods, if not thousands.

In the console vs pc debate, i feel consoles are becoming so good that it is not financially practical to buy a pc to beat them. Games on the pc are more expensive to develop, need to be more scalable etc etc. Whereas on the consoles, you open drive, put in game and be done with it. What the pc needs (IMO) is better connection and integration with console gamers, Microsoft SHOULD have incorporated xbox live support for games into vista. That would have definately improved the pc's situation. However, there is something I will never forgive consoles for, online play. Joining a game is tedious, frustrating and generally stupid, the idea of joining a match and waiting for it to fill up and start, not being able to simply join a server on a map of your choice, on a game mode of your choice, with players already on it is so much better than XBOX lives system, and the ps3's system is little better, if not identical.Quote

26-07-2008, 08:27:00

chefinal
professional gamers tend to look for 100 fps constant, nowadays you need to update practically every component about every 6 months and it does cost alot of money.Quote

26-07-2008, 16:21:54

ionicle
at the rate we're going, pc's are going to be turned back into functional items

as games consoles get keyboards and mice, aswell as just controlers

and people will get games consoles if they want to game

and pc's for media, like music, video's, pics, writing letters etc

it is stupid how people have to constantly upgrade

the devaluation on pc parts is disgusting, especially graphics cards, you pay 300 quid for one, one month, the next month its worth 200, next month 150, next month 100, well, maybe not quite that quickly, but i wouldnt be suprised if that happened soon..

it is a con, it is a rip off, and the market seems to be moving away from good gaming

games are just copying previous games

but thats just like the media, how many adverts now, on the telly, just copy other adverts, where has origonality gone, where has new-thinking gone, where has inovation and invention gone, we seem just to be recycling the same old over and over

i mean, i know things have to agree to a set standard, like its good that games have the same buttons for things, like car games, same buttons for accelerate, brake, etc etc, but why should everything else be the same

i have to admit however that once a certain bar has been passed, there can only be so much difference, like realism for example, once graphics are perfected, thats it, all games will look the same, have the same graphics, ...

however, i do think that games like the GTA series, specifically GTA4, it has stunning graphics, great gameplay, but the story is too short, ...a long game is better..

but the good thing about that is the attention to detail

like cans floating in the sea

and car bodies, all rusted, off the side of cliff's, etc, ...

i personally, am a console gamer, always have been, probably always will be, but i do like the odd pc game, AOE2 comes to mind, i like the mouse for selecting people, and right clicking for actions etc

consoles do the things right, they're a pc, thats just used for gaming, and only gaming..

wheras pc's do many things, i bet, that if you brought out a gaming only operating system for a pc, it would be able to run things a fair bit quicker as it wouldnt have to focus on anything else

infact, when you turn on a pc, you should be given an option of like "dvd/film/video watching, operating system, gaming" you pick the one you want to do, and only key bits of the operating system are loaded, optimised for what it is you want to do, asus had a good idea with their express gate..

anyway, rant over about money...

hope someone thinks the same..Quote

26-07-2008, 17:01:37

Kerotan
I reckon open source games will have an increasing share as time goes on, it's obviously easier to do with software -and will be some time before good free games come out with all the work required coding them- but for almost every charging app out now, there is an open-source one which can do the job 95% as well. I don't pay for any software when I don't have to, so I have free firewall, antivirus, browser, defragger, music studio software etc etc all of which work brilliantly and dont cost me a penny.

Because people aren't out to make money with open source, and aren't pressured by the same constraints of time and budget as developing companies, the finished product is often better than the thing it was designed to replace.

This brings me onto another feature of PC gaming which for now at least consoles cannot touch at all which is modding. Just the other day I played a mod for Half-Life 1, called PARANOIA (see attached screenie - not the best but I never was good at taking them lol), and it was such a refreshing burst of single-player fun which I hadn't had for ages. Everything about the mod had a really polished feel and it wasn't just the graphics [which were excellent for goldsrc engine], the devs had actually added features such as being able to ironside almost all weapons, and an interesting visor-armour system.

It's teams like this who show what can be done with a bit of effort, and more power to em I say. If the "real" developers aren't making proper games then it's not up to us gamers to just complain to them them- the more tech-savvy amongst us should get into the devving/modding scene ourselves and show them how it's done!!!Quote

27-07-2008, 12:07:53

chudley
Strange how PC graphics cards drop in price rapidly but consoles seldom do. Obviously manufacturers are placing the prices artificially high ti milk gamers of their money.Quote

27-07-2008, 12:51:29

chefinal
thats might be a good point it is quite weird how the prices come from 400 to like half the price in no timeQuote

27-07-2008, 14:46:45

FarFarAway
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='chefinal'
thats might be a good point it is quite weird how the prices come from 400 to like half the price in no time
Recouping R^D and initial distribution costs, getting yields up to a respectable level and of course knowing that people will buy it cause it's 'new'.

Then something comes out that people might see as 'better value' so the price gets dropped along with the profit margin, although this is oft recouped by a different manufacturing process or just higher chip yields.Quote

28-07-2008, 11:06:58

Jaster
Poor R&D on both hardware and software are to fault. However its not all doom and gloom for PC gaming, alright FPS players are converting to consoles in there droves, but RTS and mmorpg players will always prefer pc. At the end of the day you might slate it but the success of WoW has kept pc gaming profitable. 11 Million at nearly £10 a month, you work out the numbers, and there only just releasing it in Russia and South America. Theres great expectation for Warhammer Online as well, I have always preferred PC's but I have always like Role Playing (ask my GF ) I think you chose your platform dependent on what game types you prefer, and were hitting this mark where consoles have hi jacked some of the more traditional PC genres, I think though with Digital Distribution and the mod squaders that PC gaming is a chore, and its not for everyone, but I love my PC, I love the fact that I built it with my own hands, using nothing but my cunning wit and use of fire and brimstone to give me my personal gaming machine ...I will now go put on my night elf costume and go shopping in morrisons...see if I can get frisked by the security guard (again) !!Quote

28-07-2008, 11:41:34

Duecut
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='ionicle'
infact, when you turn on a pc, you should be given an option of like "dvd/film/video watching, operating system, gaming" you pick the one you want to do, and only key bits of the operating system are loaded, optimised for what it is you want to do, asus had a good idea with their express gate..


This made me smile, I used to have this kinda thing in my autoexec on my old 386 years ago. Games used to use to different memory protocals and you had to choice this at start up (think one version was Himem.sys and I cant remember the other)Quote

28-07-2008, 11:47:10

Rastalovich
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
Recouping R^D and initial distribution costs, getting yields up to a respectable level and of course knowing that people will buy it cause it's 'new'.

Then something comes out that people might see as 'better value' so the price gets dropped along with the profit margin, although this is oft recouped by a different manufacturing process or just higher chip yields.
Pricing, esp. in the uk, is dependent on their feeling on how much people will pay for the product. In excess of sourcing, production, r&d, competition considerations.

Prime example is US prices vS UK.Quote

28-07-2008, 11:56:05

Jaster
hahahaha....I found an old boot disk labelled "games" during a cleanout from my 386 the old autoexec.bat and config.sys....and then this gets posted....theres strange forces at work here ...maybe its just coincidence...Quote

28-07-2008, 12:12:43

Rastalovich
Does ASUS`s "boot within X seconds and ur on the net!" linux thing do dvd stuff ?Quote

28-07-2008, 12:32:43

JN
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Duecut'


This made me smile, I used to have this kinda thing in my autoexec on my old 386 years ago. Games used to use to different memory protocals and you had to choice this at start up (think one version was Himem.sys and I cant remember the other)
Ahh those were the days. Don't forget smartdisk. Without that you're hard disk would run slower than a floppy drive lolQuote

28-07-2008, 12:36:33

FarFarAway
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Rastalovich'
Pricing, esp. in the uk, is dependent on their feeling on how much people will pay for the product. In excess of sourcing, production, r&d, competition considerations.

Prime example is US prices vS UK.
Oh agree totally, was just talking about pricing in general. Of course UK prices are inflated, but there's always a link initially to R&D and stuffQuote

29-07-2008, 00:02:40

pafk0o
Very good article. If i can add something , i think the whole case should be around pro-gaming and today`s meaning of it <-- big companys are using this now to sell their products, best example is asus and their stupid advert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6CrodK3Hs

(Gentleman on left side (not rog) if he would be smarter enough he would decrase details in game and then kick some ass ;])

Many of you guys remember times doom/quake1/CS/starcraft or q3promode , remember configs that we used in FPP shoters, lowering details , most of this games could be runned on cheap machines , and gaming experiance was great , ppl who played really enjoyed it. You didnt need much just you and your skills and this was real gaming for me , having fun thats all. In short time after this game developers have started to make tournaments with many rewards and they have created "pro gamers". Now every second kid on this planet who have internet and is playing some games, he want to be pro. and here we have customer market.

In reality what we are recieving is floood of new gfx and mobos, bugged or without proper drivers and lacking off any support because their developers are focused on upcomming products leaving old one alone.Its cr4p isn`t it?

Another thing about games today, for me Crysis is a benchmark for new components ,not a game , anyway its boring after 2 hours. Some companys if they dont have decent idea to make interesting title , they are just adding details to make game more impressive(you can find here loots of influence from components manufactures).And its not just Crytek many others are doing this now, ask yourself how much time you spend with one new title now , and lets say with game 2-3 years ago....

At the end of a day we have a lots of poor titles and computer components that leaves you my signature on blue screen.

one more , i agree with Kerotan . i think open source can make games more playable and more immortal , not good graphic and high system requirements .Quote

30-07-2008, 07:47:39

rrjwilson
Your point is valid Kempez but I see a different side also.

As quoted by net usage statistics from xfire (one of the most popular) World of Warcraft and CSS are the most played games on any computer. There is a very good reason for this, they are brilliant for gameplay. WoW i've only played a bit (yes im a noob) but even i can see its potential. CSS I've been playing for over 3 years now and its ever changing, I play prodominantly on UKCS which have 3 server a 64slot, 46slot and 32slot and even at those high numbers you can tell the game changes because of single players leaving effecting the dynamics of the team. CSProMod uses Source graphics and 1.6 accuracy which is even better than source but you find a server

I believe those moaning about Crytek's inability to program Crysis should read the CPC article. He openly admits that the programming is bad because they were the first to go into the high end graphics engine rendering so were noobs and fluffed it. It wasn't for next gen hardware that wasn't out it was just badly programmed. The new Crysis has the updated engine (which you can also use on old Crysis) and uses all the tricks they have now learnt from doing Crysis and it runs on even mediocre computers at high settings.Quote

03-09-2008, 20:09:21

Novaprospekt
i dont know about others but i love Unreal engine

its so perfect that it even look good in a low grapic cardQuote

27-11-2008, 14:47:37

digitalblade
Same as you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by name='pafk0o'
Very good article. If i can add something , i think the whole case should be around pro-gaming and today`s meaning of it <-- big companys are using this now to sell their products, best example is asus and their stupid advert
Only that they should be shot for making that kid steel money from his parents so he can by hardware for driving a space shuttle justs so he can play CS. I got a lame friend that did same thing for game like WoW.

Bag coding is a problem, but please don't tell me those guys don't know how to code. And besides even if coding lacks how come game design lacks from it ??? Is this a joke? Give me a brake. Modern games are made for 6-8 hour game play which now requires from us the gamer-sheeps to go get the newest Video and what for? So we can see that new cool looking pixel shader. The game could have been coded with the option for you to use it or not. But guess what, the coders decided that you wanna use it or els you won't have the greatest experience of the game play that doesn't exist. But the true reason is - money from the manufacturers what else. If you could afford game for 70 $(50 Eu) surly, you can just go get a brand new Card for the double. Just so you can play the came for couple of days , makes scene, does it not? Before I used to play the same game with mounts. You had different ways more and more stuff if you get in to it. Now .... well as I sad, after that 6-8 game play you know there is a harder level types but the game was so line made. I really don't wanna wast my time. And what about expansions. Before of every good game we got an expansion. Because it was good we liked it, graphics were ok that didn't matter really, as long as you get in to the wonderful story and game play. Well that's alright now we got bigger stronger ff... well not faster but really Perfect looking games. But we just need to give more 200$ so we can actually see them run. In fact, if you try going low on the graphics you will get bad quality, but guess what if the game is modern coded you won't get a benefit if performance.

On an other hand we got the question can't there be a better coding ?

Should the coders perhaps find a better job for them, like inventing a light saber that cuts nothing ? Sure it will be cool, and useless.

Answer yes they can, they are just bayed better when they do it this way, that's how World rolls. Hate the game not the players right. Indeed we do. And I know coders can lower down reqs because there are some examples. Like Blizzard which the WoW patches (before the new EXP). I was surprised that in near 2007 the made patch that made game play on Pentium 3 better and it did. I had P3 back then and a low hard system, and what do you know now problems playing WoW on max. And they did it with a patch. True that game engine is old now. But Source Engine is just about enough visual quality I need and he is good indeed. Everyone explains " Oh the technologies are so new, we don't know how to code for them". Well I ask: "Why do you". How about you wait for the next gen Video and then code and test on it. Then those money-hungry ones should try making some drives that suit there products and then I can decide whether I want your Pixel Shader 6 so I can't see the lame textures, or I just wanna play the game with my old video without any of those new so lovely over 150 $ costing effects.

I guess after so much effort to code for the new DirectX there is no money for making a good game play. But not that anyone cares after they see that water lol water that looks like water ... was I playing a game or am I watching an interactive move, that never gonna get to the Oscars.

We had games with we could play from 200 MHz to 800MHz depending on the detail level. That's like 4 times lower playable systems then the recommended. And now, well try playing Crysis with Geforce 2. You get my point. Money talks, not mine, mine screams when it sees the new reqs of a game. And that about the use of x2 x4 core. Those cpus should be for real hard core work if a game cant be handled by a single core then it was made not to, just so you can enjoy the logo of Intel or AMD on the loggon screen. It will probably say s.t. like : " For best game experience, come give us money for one more core."Quote

27-11-2008, 15:03:45

Rastalovich
If u could return a game to the developers for a full refund, including ur postal costs, on the grounds of it being totally sh1t, iyo, games would get better.

Likewize if there was competition to windows that played windows games 100% and did all the desktop stuff, if they refunded u the same, windows would be better.

As it stands, u buy it.. they could give a crap what u think of it.Quote

24-03-2009, 08:27:53

Sal
Tbh i hate upgrading my pc becasue what do you do with the stuff your taking out?

you could try to sell it on but its usually too outdated for anyone to want.

When i first built my pc it was back in the summer of 2006.

i had a Asus M2n plus sli, Amd 64x2 5000+, 2gb ram and a 8600GTS. decent enough rig at the time and it was only a week old when i took it to Midlans and gave it a proper break in with 48 hours of nonstop gaming.

Now i had the feeling i had to upgrade this last summer so i splurged out £350 on a mobo and processor and a new psu (otherone failed ) but im still using the same graphics card and ram as i dont really play the high spec games.

im a CSS and WoW man i play games for the gameplay not the shiney extras and the speeds that are needed to play some of the games now are redicilous.

btw Xbox and ps3 suck wii is awsome at a party Quote

24-03-2009, 09:17:22

Dav0s
this is exactly why i spent most of yesterday trying to find a version of lemmings or gta (original) that would run on windows 7.

we find ourselves going straight back to the best gameplay, because once you have seen the amazing graphics, and completed a few levels, the game is just a bad version of one you already own and love.

graphics are at a point where they are fantastic, and nobody will complain about them being bad, so now we need to use technology to give us new concepts for gameplay, rather than for graphics.

games like spore and gta 4 would just not have been possible on older systems due to their massive gameplay element, not their graphics. this is what we need more of, and further advances in graphics can come after.Quote

24-03-2009, 09:43:33

Sal
im a big fan of RTS games but there are none really that appeal to me right now so i find myself going back and playing age of empires 2 which was such an amazing game becasue it was so simply done and it was rated one of the best games of all time for GAMEPLAY i actually have a system devoted so i can play these old classics :PQuote

24-03-2009, 09:56:55

TopSecret
I think that alot of games devs rely too much on the wow factor now, and lose sight of the most important aspect of gaming, which is the playability factor. Graphics should take a back seat to playability as far as I am concerned. Having the experience of playing games from most of the major platforms since the early 80's, I do feel that we have lost the way. We are constantly craving more and more realism in our titles, but in doing so we often lose out on really nailing it with playability.

A prime example of this is Crysis in my opinion, I bought the game when it was released, and have never bothered to finish it. The first time I played it I was blown away with the visuals, but the game is just a tired rehash of yet another FPS. Regards gameplay, there was nothing new there, and it felt like the bubble had burst after the initial pleasure of the visuals had worn off.

On the other end of the spectrum, I played World of Goo the other day for the first time, and I was hooked in 10 minutes. The visuals are never going to be ground-breaking stuff, but the playability is there in bucketloads. There have been games like this, that buck the trend, appearing every now and then but not often enough.Quote

24-03-2009, 10:01:17

Rastalovich
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Dav0s'
this is exactly why i spent most of yesterday trying to find a version of lemmings or gta (original) that would run on windows 7.

we find ourselves going straight back to the best gameplay, because once you have seen the amazing graphics, and completed a few levels, the game is just a bad version of one you already own and love.

graphics are at a point where they are fantastic, and nobody will complain about them being bad, so now we need to use technology to give us new concepts for gameplay, rather than for graphics.

games like spore and gta 4 would just not have been possible on older systems due to their massive gameplay element, not their graphics. this is what we need more of, and further advances in graphics can come after.
It's a sad reflection on the gaming industry, particularly for pcs.

I reckon something akin to spore wouldn't be a problem for lesser systems, for that matter gta4. Problem we're facing here is gameplay vs esthetics. There have been some semi-standard looking games in the distant past that quite frankly survived on sheer gameplay, u take graphical massiveness out of the games and what's left doesn't prove that demanding.

It's too much of this use-of-an-engine for game devs afaic. They rely on the likes of Unreal, Gamebyro, to produce something they can work with to spawn their idea. Sure there have been some decent creations over the years, but I don't think we're touching what the pcs and consoles can do as a potential.Quote

25-03-2009, 08:19:47

Dav0s
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Rastalovich'
It's a sad reflection on the gaming industry, particularly for pcs.

I reckon something akin to spore wouldn't be a problem for lesser systems, for that matter gta4. Problem we're facing here is gameplay vs esthetics. There have been some semi-standard looking games in the distant past that quite frankly survived on sheer gameplay, u take graphical massiveness out of the games and what's left doesn't prove that demanding.

It's too much of this use-of-an-engine for game devs afaic. They rely on the likes of Unreal, Gamebyro, to produce something they can work with to spawn their idea. Sure there have been some decent creations over the years, but I don't think we're touching what the pcs and consoles can do as a potential.
i was getting at the fact that the internet linking aspect of spore, and the sheer size of the map in gta would not have been possible on the likes of ps1 and similar consoles, although some of the greatest gameplaying games came even before this time. i wont bother mentioning them because we all have our favourites.Quote

25-03-2009, 09:02:53

Rastalovich
Game techniques regarding programming should usually pull u out of the crap when it comes to map running, or the size of.

Harping back to the likes of the outside maps of FFVII on the ps1, although the environment isn't as detailed on the large map, it is nontheless massive. I'd hesitate to say larger gta, but what they would do there is instead of having a static fixed map all loaded with it's pointers at one time, they would have a dynamic one that would be loading areas that the "character" would be predicted to go into. In this sense u have a small static area which u then move around a map that is as larger as ur imagination - there really isn't anything other than physical media constraints (cd/dvd/harddrive) that would hamper u. Maps not being ones u store as graphical representations, but if u have a type of flooring for an area u put a "1" in a table, "2" for another type and so on. Effectively designing massive areas with just a data table.

What I'm pointing at here, with the crazy loose example above, is that rather than the sandbox type style many present day engines used, devs would use their intuition to come up with an idea of how to do what.Quote

30-04-2009, 12:23:44

ali_james
Having been away for a while I just read through this and most of the recent GPU reviews, to be honest I feel inclined to save any money I would otherwise have spent on a new GPU to upgrade my 8800 GT.

But seeing the frame rates for most games it shows that any modern card can run any game. Except for Crysis, which I have already played through on release. Yes not a bad game but not worth dropping £200+ to play at 40 fps thats for sure. I think I'll let the cash out on a long overdue monitor upgrade.Quote

30-04-2009, 12:28:36

mrapoc
I agree man

I still have my 8800gt

Clocked it up and it still handles like all games i want to throw at it really

Going to try and hold onto it as much as possible, tech goes too fast now - well in terms of software requirements - the hardware is overpriced considering the actual technological advances

Although dual gpu on one card seems a decent enough breakthroughQuote

05-06-2009, 05:49:01

PanzeR_1987
Looking at the previous posts.

I was abit ****ed of that they were releasing battlefield 1943 on the console alot earlier than the pc

To be honest with you, consoles are alot better than pc's (price, future proofing 'n all that) but i enjoy building my computers... i get alot more satisfaction building a computer from scratch then overclocking it.

Soon enough consoles will turn back into pc's. if you can already change the hdd on an xbox 360, i cant see why in a few years time you wont be able to change the graphics card on it to.Quote

01-07-2009, 06:50:23

d1abl0
I have found that the only really good PC games that i play anymore are RPGs, RTS and MMOs. I still play diablo 2 on my computer and the graphics suck on that but the gameplay is brilliant. The best PC only games are the ones that focus on the gameplay and dont care about the graphics such as World of Warcraft.

But im also a big fan of games like call of duty, halo, GTA etc which i now use my xbox 360 for because it is cheaper than my PC but still provides good graphics and gameplay.

I generally play my 360 now and only use my PC for older games but I am looking forward to games like diablo 3, starcraft 2, and WoWQuote

01-07-2009, 07:16:48

k4p84
I liked Crysis and i like to play any game i own on the highest settings.

I have to admit that i did spend a lot on my rig so i could max out settings but i had the cash to do so. It really should not be a requirement that you have to spend X amount of cash to be able to play certain games.

Being Personal computers you can build them how you want with thousands of different hardware configurations so you can never expect games to run the same on all systems.

There was the old adage of what is the point in buying new hardware to increase your fps when anything over 60 is wasted due to the refresh rates on many screens.

Since putting my rig together i have not played on my 360 once and i am trying to sell the thing.Quote

01-07-2009, 07:24:08

Rastalovich
Biggest thing I didn't like about Crysis was that I found if u got a large weapon, like a mounted weapon on a vehicle, u could kill the opponents from very far away, often without even needing to see them - just knowing they were there was enough. Then u went in afterwards to find little resistance.Quote

01-07-2009, 08:15:23

d1abl0
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Rastalovich'
Biggest thing I didn't like about Crysis was that I found if u got a large weapon, like a mounted weapon on a vehicle, u could kill the opponents from very far away, often without even needing to see them - just knowing they were there was enough. Then u went in afterwards to find little resistance.
Thats the thing that put me off buying crysis warhead. I found that on crysis you had the choice to use powers such as invisibility and strength but in most cases i just drove around in a military vehicle when i saw enemies i switched to the turret and shot in the general direction and killed everyone it was way to easy even on the harder difficulty levels.Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.