Company of heroes.
WWII tactical 'RTS' with a whole new take on resource collection. I just got it, it's awesome.
Company of heroes.
WWII tactical 'RTS' with a whole new take on resource collection. I just got it, it's awesome.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
Dude, your video card sucks.
Check it out:
4200 vs 6800 ultra
6800 vs 7600gt
I couldn't even find a direct comparison of a 4200 vs. a 7600gt because the 4200 is so old so I had to rely on a comparison of a 4200 vs a 6800 in 3dmark03 combined with a 6800 vs a 7600gt in 3dmark06. A 7600gt would be 17 times faster than a 4200 by this irregular comparison. If the game uses pixel shaders heavily, the difference is even bigger.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
yea thats nostolgia talking. i could sit and play mario 3 for hours, cuz thats the best that was out at the time. but that was then, if i had access to todays 3d games then i probably would have played it a lot less.
anyways 2d had been around for what? 2 decades atleast, 3d is still young. still got plenty of room to improve. and certainly even primitive 3d games can be more immersive than 3d.
i still play starcraft everyonce in a while, bu thats a strategy game, so its not really about immersion. not that it wouldln't benifit from 3d. those 3d mods of starcraft in the works with vids/pics leaking out everyonce in a while make me drool.
i mean seriously, go back far enough and look how sh*t some games were. those little lcd screen portable game players from nintendo and other places that ran on button cells? no pixels, each sprite was a pixel basically so it was massively limited. oh the suckiness people settled for back in the day...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_%26_Watch
I really like some of the old Classic 3D games such as Quake and DukeNuken 3D. I Think modern game developers are focused crazier polygon count and rendering effects the game play.
Perhaps, but maybe he doesn't care for the 'plastic' look the Doom engine produces. I find it bit annoying myself. And Mario is still the better game... but I guess that's a different point.
Anyway, look at some of the newer 2D games like the Castlevania series by Capcom. Some great 2D art in those games that are every bit as eye pleasing as any 3D game.
apoppin
Lifer
consoles have been around longer than PCs.
there was 'cheap' 2D for the masses . . . very cheap if you count that you could play a great 2D arcade game all day for a quarter - if you were good.
there was a major 2D arms race . . . nintendo, atari, sega, 3do and many more now defunct companies . . . real talent that PIONEERED video games.
and the Doom3 engine doesn't have a "plastic" look per se.... it is up to the artists. e.g. Q4 is much less plactic-looking than D3. D3 engine is also getting a 'makeover'.
i loved Castlevania on Atari 7800 - even if that damn controller was squirrely.
i'd like to see that series done well for PC/consoles in 3D
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,078
- 136
Ummm, no.Originally posted by: apoppin
consoles have been around longer than PCs.
there was 'cheap' 2D for the masses . . . very cheap if you count that you could play a great 2D arcade game all day for a quarter - if you were good.
there was a major 2D arms race . . . nintendo, atari, sega, 3do and many more now defunct companies . . . real talent that PIONEERED video games.
and the Doom3 engine doesn't have a "plastic" look per se.... it is up to the artists. e.g. Q4 is much less plactic-looking than D3. D3 engine is also getting a 'makeover'.
i loved Castlevania on Atari 7800 - even if that damn controller was squirrely.
i'd like to see that series done well for PC/consoles in 3D
PC's have been around a little longer than console game systems. I can only assume you were born after 1980.
I also dont remember a Castlevania for any Atari system but then again, I never owned one. A friend had each Atari system as it came out and I played on those until I got an NES for myself. Then he always came to see me.
As I recall that was the first time any of us had seen Castlevania.
I do recall the arms race that happened. CDi and 3DO got stomped. Along with the Sega Saturn and NeoGeo home system. The Dreamcast was actually pretty nice but it was too little, too late. Shame too because the system itself had more potential than the Playstation.
I also have to agree that Quake 4 was a lot better looking and playing than Doom 3. But I had already been turned off to ID at that point and found more entertainment with Far Cry and (later on) FEAR.
Lately it seems like with both consoles and computers, the designers have been trying WAAY too hard to make the games pretty and not spending nearly enough time on FUN.
Which is funny because thats pretty much the opposite of what we saw with the NES/SNES, Sega Master System/Genesis, and all the Atari's.
EDIT: Makes you wonder whats wrong with gamers though. Because Sega's dead, Atari's dead, and Nintendo dies slowly every year.
Bateluer
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2001
- 27,730
- 8
- 0
You sure about that? I thought they were posting profits. They have a virtual stranglehold on the handheld market. They made a profit on every Gamecube sold, and they claim they will also make a profit on the Wii. Given the current situation with the PS3 and the overall stagnant nature of consoles (and PC games), I think the Wii has a pretty good chance of being a solid number 2 console. If they ship good adult games as well younger audience games, that position is almost assured.
I think my point is something more along the lines that a 3D arms race doesn't make games more innovative, creative, or fun. It merely creates a market for fancier and more expensive graphics processors that need elaborate cooling and high power--resulting in greater expense. Innovative and fun games don't need to have more polygons and shaders and all that junk.
I concede that my card is outdated. what irritates me is that there are no new games that are creative and interesting that I can play without upgrading my card. All the energy of the gaming business is headed down this path of 3D while less attention is payed to playability.
As with every endeavor in our modern world, casual users of a technology are marginalized until they are willing to fork out big $$$ to get into the cool stuff. For example:
Why can't I get a cheap camera with RAW images? There is not technical limitation, only artificial marketing.
Why can't I get a good, new playable computer game without needing an expensive video card?
Why can't cheap cellphones download ringtones? Technically there is no obstacle to that download.
Why don't economy cars have stability control? This is software. There are no realistic obstacles aside from market manipulation.
There are lots more examples, but computer gaming is just another one that irritates me.
I remember spending hours a day playing Ultima III. It was a great game. Do we have more fun with the games now because the games are 3d? I doubt it.
Yeah, I know, I am seriously crossing the line to curmudgeonly old man--oh well--it will happen to you too.
I concede that my card is outdated. what irritates me is that there are no new games that are creative and interesting that I can play without upgrading my card. All the energy of the gaming business is headed down this path of 3D while less attention is payed to playability.
As with every endeavor in our modern world, casual users of a technology are marginalized until they are willing to fork out big $$$ to get into the cool stuff. For example:
Why can't I get a cheap camera with RAW images? There is not technical limitation, only artificial marketing.
Why can't I get a good, new playable computer game without needing an expensive video card?
Why can't cheap cellphones download ringtones? Technically there is no obstacle to that download.
Why don't economy cars have stability control? This is software. There are no realistic obstacles aside from market manipulation.
There are lots more examples, but computer gaming is just another one that irritates me.
I remember spending hours a day playing Ultima III. It was a great game. Do we have more fun with the games now because the games are 3d? I doubt it.
Yeah, I know, I am seriously crossing the line to curmudgeonly old man--oh well--it will happen to you too.
Every recent 3D RTS game has had amazing graphics, but 3D games suffer (for lack of a better word) restraints based on your hardware. And in your case, the hardware sucks, so the settings lower, and the result is your terrible experiences. 3D games allow for variable resolutions, that on it's own is epic.
I do normally throttle back the eye candy and resolution. I just find that the games aren't as fun. It doesn't have anything to do with the pretty pictures and the beautiful steam rising from the volcano, or whatever it is.
I think my feeling may be something akin to watching movies purely for the special effects. I like a good story and characters in addition to eye candy.
Or, put another way, it would be like dating Lindsay Lohan. It would be pretty fun for a while, but eventually you get tired of the pretty image and look for a little bit more.
I think my feeling may be something akin to watching movies purely for the special effects. I like a good story and characters in addition to eye candy.
Or, put another way, it would be like dating Lindsay Lohan. It would be pretty fun for a while, but eventually you get tired of the pretty image and look for a little bit more.
Story and Characters have absolutely nothing to do with 3D game rendering, completely independant subjects. Regardless... WC3 and Warhammer both had excellent single player campaigns.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Ummm, no.Originally posted by: apoppin
consoles have been around longer than PCs.
there was 'cheap' 2D for the masses . . . very cheap if you count that you could play a great 2D arcade game all day for a quarter - if you were good.
there was a major 2D arms race . . . nintendo, atari, sega, 3do and many more now defunct companies . . . real talent that PIONEERED video games.
and the Doom3 engine doesn't have a "plastic" look per se.... it is up to the artists. e.g. Q4 is much less plactic-looking than D3. D3 engine is also getting a 'makeover'.
i loved Castlevania on Atari 7800 - even if that damn controller was squirrely.
i'd like to see that series done well for PC/consoles in 3D
PC's have been around a little longer than console game systems. I can only assume you were born after 1980.
I also dont remember a Castlevania for any Atari system but then again, I never owned one. A friend had each Atari system as it came out and I played on those until I got an NES for myself. Then he always came to see me.
As I recall that was the first time any of us had seen Castlevania.
I do recall the arms race that happened. CDi and 3DO got stomped. Along with the Sega Saturn and NeoGeo home system. The Dreamcast was actually pretty nice but it was too little, too late. Shame too because the system itself had more potential than the Playstation.
I also have to agree that Quake 4 was a lot better looking and playing than Doom 3. But I had already been turned off to ID at that point and found more entertainment with Far Cry and (later on) FEAR.
Lately it seems like with both consoles and computers, the designers have been trying WAAY too hard to make the games pretty and not spending nearly enough time on FUN.
Which is funny because thats pretty much the opposite of what we saw with the NES/SNES, Sega Master System/Genesis, and all the Atari's.
EDIT: Makes you wonder whats wrong with gamers though. Because Sega's dead, Atari's dead, and Nintendo dies slowly every year.
Quick . . . name a PC game before Pong
:Q
Pong was the first console . . . what was the first PC game?
But story and characters don't have anything to do with the use of 3D... for example Final Fantasy 6 and 7 both have excellent stories, and only one is 2D.
Also I think good 3D does, in itself, enhance a game. You said you like strategy games right? Look at that game I posted about earlier - Company of Heroes. If it wasn't 3D I couldn't zoom in and out for a clear view, I couldn't take advantage of the high ground because there would be no high ground, I couldn't blow shell holes in the middle of a field - and shell holes in the middle of a field are important, I can use them as cover for machine gun teams.
Adventure/Colossal Cave?
apoppin
Lifer
Pong . . . 1972 . . .for Magnavox Odyssey
Colossal Cave . . . 1976
i believe consoles predate PC games
:Q
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,078
- 136
Nintendo's sales drop with eath new generation. They sold more NES's than anything else. It has been speculated by market analysts that consumers want something more than just a game console. The ability to help play DVD's from the PS2 or email from the Xbox actually helped sales (supposedly).
Its great Nintendo is pulling a profit from each console sold, thats about the only thing thats keeping them alive.
However, if you really believe the Wii will do well then Nintendo might be OK.
Personally, I think they lost a big chunk of sales already just by using a stupid name.
EDIT:
In reference to Fike's complaint: You CAN get good, new, playable games. And from the very place you are sitting at right now. Its called the intraweb.
Theres a bunch of companies out there making web-sale-only games you can download immediately.
I just played Fate from Wild Games and Jets'n'Guns from Rake in the grass.
Both were cheap and lots of fun. Fate in particular had good replayability.
I think part of my point is that all the effort and innovation go into the appearance of the 3D rendering, instead of innovating good gameplay--certainly there may be exceptions.
As for dealing with high ground and related issues regarding strategy, you can display 3D concepts in 2D by using things like isometric drawing. I remember a cool game called Universal Military Simulator that probably came out in 1988 or something like that. It was a monochrome game drawn in a perspective or isometrically (I forget the exact differences between the drawing types, but I think it had to do with a disappearing point). It was very cool, you could basically configure every unit on the board with properties you defined. You could set a speed and attack and defend value, as well as morale and other stuff. By modern standards the Tron-like graphics were prehistoric, but it was fun to play.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,078
- 136
Then we should all go back to text-based war games. Graphics are not needed for these things. That just makes it easier to see.
(Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm a simplton and can only get my point across like that sometimes.)
And 3D is starting to be a requirement. Let me tell you why.
Its actually easier on the system. When you get massive amount of 2D sprites running around all over the place they eventually become more of a resourse hog than 3D objects. This is espcially important in war games where you may want to see battles of thousands of units. And what happens when you actually want to zoom out and see all those units? In 2D you would have to reload a lot of new data at each zoom level, which would means pauses (however slight).
But in 3D you can zoom in and out at will without pause. You can also ad or remove detail dynamically, further reducing the load on your system. In the end, 3D is easier to do.
All this is extremely important when you are actually trying to play the game, which was supposed to be our objective in the first place.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter