I'm sick & tired of increased GPU/memory speeds, how about some better features...DEVELOPERS, LISTEN UP!!

[Daovonnaex]

<<

<< look at sonic adventure 1 and 2 for dreamcast. More colorful, more robust than any pc game i've ever seen. >>


Never played Sonic, but I know that just about any X-Box or PS2 game looks more detailed than a PC game. >>


With luck, many XBox games will be ported to the PC.

 

[NFS4]

<<

<<

<< look at sonic adventure 1 and 2 for dreamcast. More colorful, more robust than any pc game i've ever seen. >>


Never played Sonic, but I know that just about any X-Box or PS2 game looks more detailed than a PC game. >>


With luck, many XBox games will be ported to the PC. >>


Bah, all I want is GT3

 

[RanDum72]

Developers should make two versions of a game and just bundle them together. One version should be for users with average PC configs while another version is for PC's with horsepower. Or, they can include a configuration utility than automatically loads the options suitable for certain PC configs. No need to cripple a game just because they want to target a wider audience.

 

[Degenerate]

I always thought that the "better looking models on consoles on TV is because of the poor resolution they run it at. YOu run any PC game at 480X.. or 640X i bet it would run smoother than cooking oil. NOw i think you designed a game with high detail (high enough so the the human models look "loke what you see on consol" and run it at 1024X then it would be dame slow.

 

[Degenerate]

I always thought that the "better looking models on consoles on TV is because of the poor resolution they run it at. YOu run any PC game at 480X.. or 640X i bet it would run smoother than cooking oil. NOw i think you designed a game with high detail (high enough so the the human models look "loke what you see on consol" and run it at 1024X then it would be dame slow.

 

[NFS4]

<< I always thought that the "better looking models on consoles on TV is because of the poor resolution they run it at. YOu run any PC game at 480X.. or 640X i bet it would run smoother than cooking oil. NOw i think you designed a game with high detail (high enough so the the human models look "loke what you see on consol" and run it at 1024X then it would be dame slow. >>


But we're also talking about a 733MHz PIII processor in the X-Box vs 2.2GHz Pentium 4's and 1.67GHz Athlon XP processors. We have more than enough horsepower under our hoods to deliver the same levels of graphics. Developers just aren't showcasing the features available to them.

 

[wviperw]

Here's hoping that that Doom 3 will bring in a new trend... Carmack's saying 1ghz processor/GF3 as average system... right?

 

[WarCon]

Why the heck can't we run an emulator for X-Box or Playstation 2 on a PC? What about the X-box is so spectacular that with more than twice the clock cycles available, a emulator can't be made? Think of the realm of games that would be open then. "Who says it has to run under Window?"

I even have an idea that would jazz the manufacturers of the gaming consoles. Make a dedicated card that you hook your CDRom too that acts as the initial descriminator to start the emulation process. Sell it and the emulator software for say $100 and then they have an additional market to sell games in.

The card could be switched on so the next boot, it controls the entire computer commands instead of booting from hard drive. I don't get why it couldn't be done and done very easily.

I know who could do it................I should send this idea to some of the German groups.............

 

[RayEarth]

This is main the reason I stopped upgrading my computer. In the past I use to upgrade to a new computer every year to keep my hardware up to date, then I realized that it was a waste of money because most of the games coming out just stinks, I often found myself going back to old games such as the monkey island series, betrayal at krondor, final fantasy 7, and these games don't need a powerful computer. I think my p3 900 with a geforce3 will do just fine for 2 more years, that's right, in 2 years there might be a 5ghz cpu, but I'll still have a 900mhz. The last game I got was escape from monkey island, and if that wasn't a 2001 game then nothing in 2001 was appealing to me. It's funny to see game magazines hype about so many games each year, I know their getting paid behind the back to say good things about certain games from certain developers. It's amazing they can pick out top 10 games and game of the year from such a wide selection of pure dung!

 

[Soccerman]

sorry I find it amuzing that NFS4 is obviously a console person..

and the fact that he's disappointed in wasting his money on a GF3 just sweetens it for me

get a PS2 if you want the games so bad. you'll save money, and when your done those games, come back to computers for a while, and tell me you don't like high resolution graphics?

this is one reason why I've always stuck a little bit behind the curve so to speak. while it might be nice to have the games silky smooth with all options on at high resolution, with a slightly out of date system (I'm on a Duron 866mhz /w Radeon DDR @ 166mhz), I can just bump down the resolution to something like 1024x768 and still play with most if not all options on. it requires a bit of tweaking, but its better than wasting my money on a brand new card whos features are only somewhat utilized on a benchmark (3DMark2K1) and a not so popular game (Aquanox).

what's that? Unreal 2? guess what? it was made to run on a GF2. I think my Radeon should handle it fairly well!

Doom3 on the other hand, will be a crappy game, like Quake 3, or RTCW, but it will be a handy benchmark (unless you have a good online connection and just have that itch to kill), of course, that's going to NEED a GF3 to run anything near smooth..

racing games? haven't you heard, there's one that's been under developement for a while that looks to be a great sim.. I can't remember what it's called becuase I barely follow the gaming scene enough to know what's coming up (except for the major releases, like Doom3 or Unreal 2, or Warcraft 3). Perhaps you should invest some of that $$ in a subscription to a PC gaming magazine (that's what they're good at, following games, their hardware 'reviews' simply stink).

again, have you tried expanding your Palette?

 

[NFS4]

Don't you just love it when people talk out of their ass (or just don't know what they are talking about) and make assumptions??:disgust:


<< sorry I find it amuzing that NFS4 is obviously a console person.. >>


First off, I don't own ANY console and HAVEN'T since my Atari 7200. I have played the PS2 about a total of 2 hours in my life (all GT3). I've played Playstation about a total of 3 hours. I've never played a N64, I've played a Dreamcast for about 30 mins total and I played with the XBOX for about 20 mins TOTAL.


<< and the fact that he's disappointed in wasting his money on a GF3 just sweetens it for me >>


I didn't pay for my GF3 genious!


<< get a PS2 if you want the games so bad. you'll save money, and when your done those games, come back to computers for a while, and tell me you don't like high resolution graphics? >>


I play my games at 1280x1024 on my LCD monitor. Really no difference to me than from 1024x768. It's not like it becomes a whole new game or something (even at 1600x1200). It's not that I WANT the games so bad (GT3 being the exception), it just that our hardware has the capabilities, LET US USE IT FOR CHRIST SAKE! Like stated above, have two versions of the game. Lock out "lower spec" machines from the GOODY GOODY HIGH TECH stuff that their machine can't use. Let the people with the goods have their eye candy.

Is that so much to ask?


<< Doom3 on the other hand, will be a crappy game, like Quake 3, or RTCW, but it will be a handy benchmark (unless you have a good online connection and just have that itch to kill), of course, that's going to NEED a GF3 to run anything near smooth.. >>


Oh please cut the crap. Like you even know what Doom3 is gonna be like. Are you some fortune teller or something. Hey I've got an idea, tell me what the Maryland Lotto4 numbers are going to be on Jan 19th, 2003.


<< racing games? haven't you heard, there's one that's been under developement for a while that looks to be a great sim.. I can't remember what it's called becuase I barely follow the gaming scene enough to know what's coming up (except for the major releases, like Doom3 or Unreal 2, or Warcraft 3). >>


If you'd stop talking out of your ass and did some research, you would find that World Sports Cars (the end all be all of racing sims) is about 2 years behind. The developers have stopped talking. The website has been dead forever (with only one single graphic on the page), the forums surrounding the game have turned into people furious at the developers' "quiet time" and with many people even doubting that it will ever come out. They have stopped doing interviews, and have stopped releasing screenshots. They keep moving the release date back and back. About a year and a half ago they said it was about 80% done, where the hell is the game then. I've given up hope myself.


<< Perhaps you should invest some of that $$ in a subscription to a PC gaming magazine (that's what they're good at, following games, their hardware 'reviews' simply stink).
>>


Why waste my money on print magazines when the info in them is out of date by a whole month anyway? I get my hardware/software reviews online.

 

[Soccerman]

I didn't pay for my GF3 genious!

does that make others who have any better off?

I play my games at 1280x1024 on my LCD monitor. Really no difference to me than from 1024x768. It's not like it becomes a whole new game or something (even at 1600x1200)

I didn't say it does, but it helps the graphics out a fair amount.. things feel more spacious.. if you don't care about the res, why do you run it at 1280x1024? why not 640x480 where things are always even more silky smooth? perhaps cause it doesn't look quite as nice? guess what? that's what you'd feel when moving from a console to a PC

Oh please cut the crap. Like you even know what Doom3 is gonna be like. Are you some fortune teller or something. Hey I've got an idea, tell me what the Maryland Lotto4 numbers are going to be on Jan 19th, 2003.

ok then, looking at iD's track record, did any of their games have any sort of meaningful storyline? not from what I remember (which isn't that much, but it includes Quake 2). iD is very good at making a solid game engine, which is why some games use it. that's also one reason why benchmarks happen to include Quake 3.

If you'd stop talking out of your ass and did some research, you would find that World Sports Cars (the end all be all of racing sims) is about 2 years behind. The developers have stopped talking. The website has been dead forever (with only one single graphic on the page), the forums surrounding the game have turned into people furious at the developers' "quiet time" and with many people even doubting that it will ever come out. They have stopped doing interviews, and have stopped releasing screenshots. They keep moving the release date back and back. About a year and a half ago they said it was about 80% done, where the hell is the game then. I've given up hope myself.

I admit, I haven't been keeping up to date with the latest games (hmm, didn't I say that in my last post?).

Why waste my money on print magazines when the info in them is out of date by a whole month anyway? I get my hardware/software reviews online.

but really, often the info on those magazines is more informative than what you get on the websites, even if it's a month out of date (at least, when it comes to software like games).

I know you're mad that I'm limiting progress somewhat by ONLY owning a Radeon. so what if I don't want to spend every last penny on getting the framerate high enough to enable all features (actually in todays games, all I miss really is the DX8 features :-( )

 

[NFS4]

<< does that make others who have any better off? >>


Why did you mention me then? I never said anything about being pissed with the cost of the GF3. It's the same way that it is SOOOOO obvious that I am a "console" guy. WRONG AGAIN. Stop making stuff up for me


<< I didn't say it does, but it helps the graphics out a fair amount.. things feel more spacious.. if you don't care about the res, why do you run it at 1280x1024? why not 640x480 where things are always even more silky smooth? perhaps cause it doesn't look quite as nice? guess what? that's what you'd feel when moving from a console to a PC >>


I play my games at the resolution b/c I CAN. I have the power to do so. With a console, you don't have that CHOICE. But with GT3, I don't even mind the resolution b/c the gameplay is great and the graphics are still excellent. After playing Project Gotham and DOA on the XBOX, it didn't even phase me what reslution the game was running at b/c the environments and character models were so diverse and detailed.




<< ok then, looking at iD's track record, did any of their games have any sort of meaningful storyline? not from what I remember (which isn't that much, but it includes Quake 2). iD is very good at making a solid game engine, which is why some games use it. that's also one reason why benchmarks happen to include Quake 3. >>


So a game has to have a story line to be fun and immersing? Give me a break. UT didn't have much of one and I enjoyed it. Sometimes, you just want to get into the action w/o a lot of BS script scrolling in your direction. Tribes 2 doesn't have much of a storyline...FUN GAME. Same for the original.




<< I admit, I haven't been keeping up to date with the latest games (hmm, didn't I say that in my last post?). >>


Well, if you don't know anything about it, why even bring the game up as it will probably never see the light of day? You're trying to compare an unfinished, unreleased game with no release date in sight (or feedback from the developers...2 guys mind you. Just TWO people working on this damn thing) to something like GT3. Whatever man.


<< I know you're mad that I'm limiting progress somewhat by ONLY owning a Radeon. so what if I don't want to spend every last penny on getting the framerate high enough to enable all features (actually in todays games, all I miss really is the DX8 features :-( ) >>


Who said anything about this being about YOU? This has nothing to do with YOU or any of the other gamers out there. It has to do with developer that simply WON'T just enable an option/version of a game that will lock out lower spec machines and allow people that have the horsepower (graphics/CPU) to run the game with the full potential of the graphics card and API

 

[WarCon]

What truly fun games have come out for the PC lately? I am a mech driver, race car enthusiast, killer of all things bad and to be honest I find myself going back and playing 2-3 year old games and wondering what the heck is wrong with software developers?

I think the answer lies in the fact that there is simply to much legacy crap(equipment and OS's) to support, that it simply isn't profitable to write for PC anymore. Console games only have one interface and when their hardware changes you don't have to support the old anymore (typically). Why wouldn't any and all self respecting programmers switch to writing exclusively for console games.

Last years best game out (Max Payne) lasts about 12 hours of game play and thats if you suck at it. Heck Doom was soo much longer. I long for some truly immersive enviroments again. Heck I play DXBall as much as anything anymore.........

 

[Bovinicus]

Developing games with legacy support is part of the problem, but another part is the increased developing time. Games take so much longer to develop than they used to. It sucks, but it is something we are going to have to live with.

 

[Soccerman]

sorry my mistake for mentioning your name (but it sure got someone's attention ;-)

I play my games at the resolution b/c I CAN. I have the power to do so. With a console, you don't have that CHOICE. But with GT3, I don't even mind the resolution b/c the gameplay is great and the graphics are still excellent. After playing Project Gotham and DOA on the XBOX, it didn't even phase me what reslution the game was running at b/c the environments and character models were so diverse and detailed.

oh so you don't mind playing NFSU, Quake 3, UT in 640x480? ok then..

I play at those resolutions becuase I WANT TO. I've run at 640x480, I know what I like. more detail looks nice alright, but I also want it on a higher res screen.. I couldn't ever stand Playstation's graphics, even the N64 was too low resolution to make out much detail. Dreamcast was fine (I think cause it could run a full 640x480), at least the games I saw. no doubt todays games on the XBOX, and Gamecube are running at 640x480 (I think the PS2 might be limited there, though I don't know). but guess what? I was watching these games on a TV, that was either 5 feet away, or small and closer up. either way, becuase of that, it's harder to see the individual pixels.

So a game has to have a story line to be fun and immersing? Give me a break. UT didn't have much of one and I enjoyed it. Sometimes, you just want to get into the action w/o a lot of BS script scrolling in your direction. Tribes 2 doesn't have much of a storyline...FUN GAME. Same for the original.

I've seen MGS2, and to be honest, i wasn't too impressed with the in game graphics that I saw (this was with a friend showing it to me). it was pretty detailed, but not beautiful. what makes the game stand out, is the fun factor and storyline.

as for Tribes 2, you don't need a storyline for a game made to be online. online play is usually fun on it's own, without a storyline, because it's dynamic. UT is actually pretty good in single player, if you run Practice sessions against bots. it still gets old quickly, but it's a HELL OF A LOT MORE of a game than Quake 3.. that is, unless you play quake 3 online (which I mentioned above).

Well, if you don't know anything about it, why even bring the game up as it will probably never see the light of day? You're trying to compare an unfinished, unreleased game with no release date in sight (or feedback from the developers...2 guys mind you. Just TWO people working on this damn thing) to something like GT3. Whatever man.

GT3 was not the end all be all of simulation. it was definately a fun game to play, and more realistic than alot of games on the console especially, but there are games on the computer (I think older ones) that definately beat it if you want a simulation game. I hear one of the NASCAR games still stresses the computer quite a bit. though I never was a fan of NASCAR..

Who said anything about this being about YOU? This has nothing to do with YOU or any of the other gamers out there. It has to do with developer that simply WON'T just enable an option/version of a game that will lock out lower spec machines and allow people that have the horsepower (graphics/CPU) to run the game with the full potential of the graphics card and API

well guess what, there are PROBABLY more people like ME than like YOU, therefor, if the developers want to sell more games, they develop them with computers like MINE in mind (it just happens that way, things are pretty complicated eh?).

 

[NFS4]

<< oh so you don't mind playing NFSU, Quake 3, UT in 640x480? ok then.. >>


What is this? A constant circle with you? Games like Quake3, NFS5, or UT don't have nearly the same character model details as console games (even with consoles running at 640x480). At least with consoles at that resolution, you have good character models and environments to fall back on which adds to the game. With a PC, you don't have that.


<< well guess what, there are PROBABLY more people like ME than like YOU, therefor, if the developers want to sell more games, they develop them with computers like MINE in mind (it just happens that way, things are pretty complicated eh?). >>


How many times do I have to say it??? TWO versions of the game:

1) Standard game, for "slower machines"
2) Extreme version for "high-end machine." The "extreme" version would have all of the standard features, plus support for the hardware/API features of the top of the line graphics cards. Have a lock-out feature that won't let you access this version without the proper hardware.

They can still sell as many games as before and keep the "extreme" person happy

 

[holdencommodore]

The only racing games that I have liked on PC were Need For Speed : High Stakes (although the dashboards is NFS1 SE were better), TOCA 2 and possibly Rally Championship 2000. But none of these have any of the physics that Gran Turismo has. And none of these games have 600 cars to choose from! It seems like alot of the "good" games are going to consoles... tis' a pity. I wish developers would see this BIG gap in the simulator category.

Cheers

 

[InsaneTBONE]

Go the Holden Commodore. I mention this is because anyone outside of Aus/NZ would have nfi what it is or the heritage. ;-)

 

[rbV5]

<< I guess I can't really blame ATi/NVIDIA, but I'm growing tired of increased GPU/memory speeds. The mofos are already pretty damn fast. I want some friggen awesome GRAPHICS CAPABILITIES >>



Put up, or shut up The awesome capabilities are already there. If you're bored, grab VS6, directx 8.1 SDK, and gMax or Milkshape and build us some demo's. Your not handcuffed by deadlines or hardware trade-offs, show us your stuff!

 

[jpprod]

As an (indie) game developer, I'm going to have to say something in defense.

(1 - 2 years is an ETERNITY in computer hardware)

Indeed, but it isn't an eternity in any sizable software project.

Game development of a modern PC AAA title - sometimes even when using a prepackaged engine like Q3, Unreal or Lithtech - takes at least 18 months. In that time, PC graphics accelerators go ahead 1.5-2 generations. Of course a game can be polished up with more modern gfx just before launch, but since the game project (like every software project) is already late and over-the-budget at that point, this very rarely happens.

My point is that you're barking up the wrong tree here. The current way of hardware driving the new graphical features and effects is healthy and really the only way to go. One cannot expect PC developers to deliver games utilizing a new piece of hardware to it's fullest within few months of it's launch, unless
1. PC graphics hardware developers supply developers with reference hardware months ahead of time. AFAIK nVidia does this to some extent, but still, the time between availability of reference hardware and hardware launch is far shorter than that in console world. Console developers are in much better position in regards to the hardware: even those developing launch titles have already had the development/reference hardware for several months at that point. And of course, every single feature of the hardware can be utilized to it's fullest.
2. Majority of players update their hardware, and buy their games instead of copying them

Besides, PC games really don't look that bad. IMO the best levels of RTCW look better than any console game I've seen, with the possible exception of the best bits of Rogue Squadron 2. Unreal 2, which is bound to come out in just a few months, looks far better than any current or upcoming console title.

 

[snipaaus]

NFS4, as cynical as this may sound, you have practically answered the question of why developers do this all by yourself.

"They can still sell as many games as before and keep the "extreme" person happy"

Yes, as many games as before. But not more. Why would they put in the extra effort of super high detailed, high polygon models for people with high spec PC's when you would have bought the game without them, saving them (the developers) time, money, and increasing their profit.

 

[sharkeeper]

More polygons, scotty! More polygons!

All the characters have too many flat edges! True form is a joke, the surrounding environment looks the same.

What we really need is 600 million triangles/sec and a 1.288 TB/S fillrate, TB SS storage, and NIC's with 1533 IIIb transceivers with a 10 Gbps full duplex connection to any site on the web! Time is of essence. You can't beat the clock! A man at the age of 36 is about 50% expired! :Q

Cheers!

 

[WerewolfX]

Hurrah for SharKeeper!

Sad part is in 10 years we may have exactly that then he will be ranting in the PB's

BTW nice Quote for a SIG SharKeeper.

 

[NFS4]

<< As an (indie) game developer, I'm going to have to say something in defense.

(1 - 2 years is an ETERNITY in computer hardware)

Indeed, but it isn't an eternity in any sizable software project.

Game development of a modern PC AAA title - sometimes even when using a prepackaged engine like Q3, Unreal or Lithtech - takes at least 18 months. In that time, PC graphics accelerators go ahead 1.5-2 generations. Of course a game can be polished up with more modern gfx just before launch, but since the game project (like every software project) is already late and over-the-budget at that point, this very rarely happens.

My point is that you're barking up the wrong tree here. The current way of hardware driving the new graphical features and effects is healthy and really the only way to go. One cannot expect PC developers to deliver games utilizing a new piece of hardware to it's fullest within few months of it's launch, unless
1. PC graphics hardware developers supply developers with reference hardware months ahead of time. AFAIK nVidia does this to some extent, but still, the time between availability of reference hardware and hardware launch is far shorter than that in console world. Console developers are in much better position in regards to the hardware: even those developing launch titles have already had the development/reference hardware for several months at that point. And of course, every single feature of the hardware can be utilized to it's fullest.
2. Majority of players update their hardware, and buy their games instead of copying them

Besides, PC games really don't look that bad. IMO the best levels of RTCW look better than any console game I've seen, with the possible exception of the best bits of Rogue Squadron 2. Unreal 2, which is bound to come out in just a few months, looks far better than any current or upcoming console title. >>



How long have developers had to develop games for the XBOX? Not very long. We didn't even hear about XBOX until about a year and half ago (maybe even a shorter time than that). But all of the games have much more detailed levels, character models, visuals, and special effects than ANY PC game. Halo is just awesome.

RTCW looks OK, but it's still the same old STRAIGHT LINES EVERYWHERE and drab visuals. I'd give anything to see some actual ROUND wheels in a game.