Clearly labeled, foolproof requirements for PC games...

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
I really dont like the fact that if I buy a GF3 4 or FX, games that truely utilize it wont be out for years. There has been a little DX8 fluff here or there, but no game has really actually made it a requirement yet. I dont think this is because there is too small a market for them, its funny how these very same games that require a TNT2 also require a 1ghz+ CPU, which is a total mismatch.

What if video card makers decided to adhere to much stricter standards, and make it loud and clear. Its done like this to a degree with DX, but not enough. I should be able to buy a card that says DX8, go to a store, and look for the big logo that says DX8. I should be able to tell DX7 games from DX8 games as easily as an xbox game from a playstation game. That way people know what theyre really getting, and next gen games will get the recognition they need...

I dunno, consoles have so little power compared to even a GF3 when it comes to raw speed, fill rate and poly rate, yet consoles take sooooo much better advantage of the hardware available, and create some amazing effects we wont be seeing for a while, even though our hardware is so much better.

It would actually require cooperation between video card makers, CPU makers and developers, something that console companies have recognized for a long time, and since gaming is basically driving the PC market, why cant they get their act together?

I always hear that developers make games for the lowest common denominator, but from everyone I've seen, if they have a GF2 MX or a TNT2 or anything like that, they simply dont play games at all.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
But then by that logic, why arent we still all playing on the original NES? As soon as a new console is released, games are lined up and ready.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Standardize alll x86 based PCs to one stict set of hardware and you can get the same amount of optimization in them as you see in the consoles.
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
What I don't understand is why ATI or Nvidia doesn't release a graphics engine based on the latest DX, and just let the modders go to work on it. Make a simple Quake or Unreal type shooter featuring DX9 graphics, and then consumers have a reason to go buy the latest cards. Just think of how big CS or Day of Defeat would be if they were a free download running the latest graphics technology. Right now, I have no reason to get an upgrade for my Geforce 4 Go, but if the card manufacturors were smart, they'd give me a reason besides 3dmark.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Thats what I'm saying. There are people that would be paying for the games if they were available, but theyre just not. I dont expect everything to be standardized to the letter, just grouped into a general generation. GF256, GF2, 2MX, 4MX, radeons, etc, can all be in one group, and all perform relatively the same with a resolution adjust here or there. Same with a 1.2-1.7 CPU etc...

I think if people could get more benefit for what theyre buying, theyd be more than willing to buy.