• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Games are requiring more powerful computers every year

I would guess it has something to do with other stuff, such as physics and environmental stuff?
 
both physics and environ. as well as a healthy dose of shading. and probably a bunch of lighting effects for that shading. textures arent small either usually, so the ram will help with that. more vertices make the models look better when mapped, so that may be something too. could be a million reasons, but i think it mostly comes down to the "eye candy" effect.
 
Looks good to me...beta sucked tho.

There is a lot more to graphics then just the pretty sparkly stuff. Physics, interactiveness, and so on play a big role
 
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Vanguard for example: http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/storeroom/misc/vg2.jpg
http://www.vanguardguru.com/gallery/imageview.php?screenshotID=174&typeID=2

Why does that require dual cores, 2 gigs of RAM, and a top end video card? It doesn't look any better than Everquest after a few expansions!!
Click to expand...

Games released 3 years ago piss all over that. Those are either alpha/beta shots or they suck. Try using screenshots of something like Oblivion or Crysis instead.
 
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Vanguard for example: http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/storeroom/misc/vg2.jpg
http://www.vanguardguru.com/gallery/imageview.php?screenshotID=174&typeID=2

Why does that require dual cores, 2 gigs of RAM, and a top end video card? It doesn't look any better than Everquest after a few expansions!!
Click to expand...

Games released 3 years ago piss all over that. Those are either alpha/beta shots or they suck. Try using screenshots of something like Oblivion or Crysis instead.
Click to expand...

even as MMOs go that is week WoW is 3 yeas old and looks better then that, and has had no real graphicial update,

Warhammer looks amazing
 
before i even entered the thread, i thought of "Vanguard." horrible looking game for today's standards. WoW uses faar less resources, but it looks far superior since the art and everything is better than Vanguard's. Vanguard just has piss poor artists and texture people.
 
diminishing returns.

take into account the number of polygons in a sphere.

at 6 polygons, you have a square, not very representative.

times that by 10x the processing power and you have 60, much better for a sphere

times that by another 10 and you have 600 polygons, virtually a perfect sphere.

times that by another 10 and you have 6000 polygons, 10x the processing power, but not much better of a sphere than the one before it when compared to 6 vs. 60 where there was a huge difference.
 
Vanguard just plain suck. After CTD every half hour, I deleted that 20 gigs of crap off my computer. Stay far away from this bugfest that was released 1 year too early.
 
Originally posted by: bennylong
Vanguard just plain suck. After CTD every half hour, I deleted that 20 gigs of crap off my computer. Stay far away from this bugfest that was released 1 year too early.
Click to expand...

wasnt their fault..they ran out of money.
 
Fire up an older game, say the original Half Life and then compare to something released recently. You'll see the difference especially if you turn on all the little things like AA, AF, highlights, etc.

Of course, I remember when RGB graphics looked incredible. 😀
 
Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
artificial intelligence also
Click to expand...

Vangard's an MMO....


Edit: wow, that game looks pretty bad for something "new". Maybe it's the draw distance and physics? Those can be murder (see Oblivion) on even modern hardware.
 
Originally posted by: Kelemvor
That' why consoles beat out PCs for gaming. You never have to upgrade them to play the games made for them.
Click to expand...

Must...resist...console vs. PC discussion... 😉
 
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Vanguard for example: http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/storeroom/misc/vg2.jpg
http://www.vanguardguru.com/gallery/imageview.php?screenshotID=174&typeID=2

Why does that require dual cores, 2 gigs of RAM, and a top end video card? It doesn't look any better than Everquest after a few expansions!!
Click to expand...

You're using an MMO for a comparison. And if you played Vanguard, you'll know that Vanguard FAR surpasses EQ2 in field of depth.. it goes on for miles. In EQ2, i often need to stand beside the broker for 30 secs before he even 'pops' up.
 
Looks like sh1t (Vanguard) but I can see why it takes a beefy system. High poly counts and loads of mapping/shading/etc probably. "High end" doesn't always equate to "looks good". I personally hate the graphic style of EQ2 and Vanguard. They're fugly. Give me something like WoW, Warhammer or Darkfall. Those games have style.
 
Originally posted by: Cattlegod
diminishing returns.

take into account the number of polygons in a sphere.

at 6 polygons, you have a square, not very representative.

times that by 10x the processing power and you have 60, much better for a sphere

times that by another 10 and you have 600 polygons, virtually a perfect sphere.

times that by another 10 and you have 6000 polygons, 10x the processing power, but not much better of a sphere than the one before it when compared to 6 vs. 60 where there was a huge difference.
Click to expand...

except that when the MEGA-sphere goes off there will me THAT MUCH MORE SHRAPNEL😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top