Graphics - what do gamers want?
Published: 25th July 2008 | Source: OC3D |
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 Why should we have to spend hundreds of ££'s on the fastest card we can buy when we know it will almost certainly be superceded by something even 'faster' in a few months time?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? | ![]() 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 |

Most Recent Comments
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.
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.
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.
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 breakthrough
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.
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 WoW
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.
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.


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.