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

[Mem]

I see your point NFS4 however I still put playability of the game above graphics etc and I think software companies need to get back to the playability and gameplay factor of games in the past, like you use to have on the Amiga A500(for those old folks here who can remember that far back) which just had soething special and kept you playing for hours on end.

 

[Linux23]

<<
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. >>




don't why i found this line funny, but i do!

 

[sharkeeper]

If the motorcycles had round wheels in MR3, you would be able to reach light speed and become a virtual infinite mass, sucking everyone through your LAN connection. This would spell the end of wide area computing!

Cheers!

 

[SonicTron]

One of the big problems is that not everyone has a GeForce3 megaultra super highend $300 card or a Radeon 8500 wipes-the-floor just by turning it on type card. I know that most of my friends and such have video cards <= GeForce2MX, and TNT2 based or worst. Making a game that will both make your mega-cards look awesome and yet havin the game still play on your TNT2 is tough.

 

[NFS4]

<< I see your point NFS4 however I still put playability of the game above graphics etc and I think software companies need to get back to the playability and gameplay factor of games in the past, like you use to have on the Amiga A500(for those old folks here who can remember that far back) which just had soething special and kept you playing for hours on end. >>


Seeing as how consoles have been enjoying awesome graphics on the Dreamcast/PS2/XBOX/GC level, I don't think that it is asking much for some similar strives on the PC side instead of the same "relatively" blocky environments and characters. Gameplay is IMPORTANT, but graphics shouldn't be playing second fiddle to an older PS2 console.

 

[Mem]

<< Gameplay is IMPORTANT, but graphics shouldn't be playing second fiddle to an older PS2 console. >>



True but software companies cater for the wide audience rather then those with the fastest graphics cards.They are always playing catchup ,remember some games take years to make.

 

[NFS4]

<<

<< Gameplay is IMPORTANT, but graphics shouldn't be playing second fiddle to an older PS2 console. >>



True but software companies cater for the wide audience rather then those with the fastest graphics cards.They are always playing catchup ,remember some games take years to make.


>>


True, but it is a shame to see all of that power wasted. At this rate, we'll be waiting another 3 years to get PS2/XBOX level character models and environments.

 

[JellyBaby]

Heh, this thread is amusing. A lot of "spoiled kid" mentality here but some good points too.

I'm dating myself but I can remember a time when PC video was stuck at 320x240x256 for years. It seemed like forever before processors were powerful enough to do higher resolutions. We didn't complain - WE LIKED IT! Bah, who am I kidding, sure we complained...but only after the 2nd year and not very much.

 

[BFG10K]

Running at higher resolutions with a deeper color depth (compared to 32-bit) doesn't do anything for overall game quality/character model detail/world detail (tree leaves, water effects, grass, etc.).

Yes it does. The higher the resolution, the more closer to real life you get.

Quake 3 at 1024x768 is essentially the same damn game at 1600x1200, with fewer jaggies.

So is 640 x 480 to 1024 x 768. If you feel that way maybe you should play it at 320 x 240.

Do you really think that if you are running Max Payne at 1600x1200 now that it will just spring to life at 2048x1536x64?

No, but it'll get closer to real life as you raise the resolution higher and higher. Something you can't do with consoles.

Look at the character models of ANY X-Box or PS2 fighting game, and then look at the pitiful character models for PC games.

I have. Console games are absolutely pathetic compared to PC games. Most of them are low res, jerky as hell pathetic excuses for games. Look at any game that exists on both a console and the PC and you'll easily see the PC cane it in terms of looks and speed. Games like Rogue Squadron and Red Faction are pathetic excuses for games on consoles.

 

[Sid03]

sorry, but the characters in DOA3 look more like "real life" than ANY pc game. as well as the cars in GT3 or the environments in Final Fantasy X. it doesn't matter if you can run Max Payne at 10,000xwhatever resolution... it'll never look as good as the best games on the consoles.

and regarding gameplay, it's the same story... (outside of online play) games are just plain more fun on $300 consoles, no matter how much you spend on your pc.

 

[NFS4]

<< sorry, but the characters in DOA3 look more like "real life" than ANY pc game. as well as the cars in GT3 or the environments in Final Fantasy X. it doesn't matter if you can run Max Payne at 10,000xwhatever resolution... it'll never look as good as the best games on the consoles.

and regarding gameplay, it's the same story... (outside of online play) games are just plain more fun on $300 consoles, no matter how much you spend on your pc. >>


I concur. No auto games on the PC come close to matching the models in GT2, GT3, or Project Gotham. And no charcter models in PC games come close to matching the detail and life-like representation of the ones in DOA or just about any other game on modern consoles. No matter what resolution you run the PC at, straight lines are still straight lines. Last time I checked, humans aren't made of straight lines.

 

[aswedc]

A couple days ago at CompUSA I saw a man buy a TNT2 M64 card instead of a MX 200, because they both had '32MB' and the TNT2 was $15(!) dollars cheaper. CompUSA is even still selling those Rage Pro cards. As long as things like this are happening the developers will not advance at a decent rate.

 

[KrispyKremer]

<< I want some friggen awesome GRAPHICS CAPABILITIES. >>

You mean like an HDTV tuner/decoder onboard?

I've found it odd that there are so many that rush out to get the latest video card when released, yet the drivers will be buggy and no software will be able to take advantage of anything other than a little added speed.

When we can all play 1600x1200x32 with T&L and/or FSAA, what then? When we went from the 16-bit console era, we made the transition from 2d (platform and sidescrollers) to 3d. With this latest next-gen hardware, we're sorta filling in the gaps with added detail (hey man, nice textures!).

How long until we see Shrek-like or Final Fantasy (the movie) type graphics in real-time, 60+fps? How long before we prefer playing games on our 35-65"+ HDTV set instead of a "tiny" 21" or less computer monitor? Oh, right... the computer monitor will become the secondary monitor to the hdtv set.

Things will get faster from a graphics card standpoint, but I think companies like ATI and Nvidia will start to focus more on throughput and features. Well, I can hope anyway...

 

[RSI]

<< A couple days ago at CompUSA I saw a man buy a TNT2 M64 card instead of a MX 200, because they both had '32MB' and the TNT2 was $15(!) dollars cheaper. CompUSA is even still selling those Rage Pro cards. As long as things like this are happening the developers will not advance at a decent rate. >>

That's pretty funny.

I have a TNT2 (regular.. Ultra on the way), but I didn't pay for it.. hehe.

that guy was a dumbass to buy a TNT2 instead of a GeForce2 just to save $15. I can get a 64MB GeForce2 MX400 here for $70cdn.. that's like $50 US or so!

-RSI

 

[Howard]

<< No, but it'll get closer to real life as you raise the resolution higher and higher. Something you can't do with consoles. >>


Tell me why DVDs look like crap on normal TVs. Or don't they?

 

[raystorm]

I totally agree with you for the most part. I try not to mind the blocky environment in most pc games. Even Max Payne has very boxy looking environments (along with that super ugly half life looking jpeg background..blech). I just want to see realistic looking models with nice facial animations. Return to Castle Wolfenstein has very nice looking models..pretty much the best compared to many pc titles. Another one worth noting is Soul Reaver 2 for the PC.. it uses the PS2 models and the models have the BEST facial animations in a pc game. Every part of the models face animates..mouth, eyes, cheekbones ..etc.. which helps flesh out the emotions of the characters. I cant stand looking at models that have like no animation whatsoever (Max Payne's HIDEOUS character faces and their 2 frames of animation included).

I think the best we can hope for is ports of the Xbox's better titles since its so close to a PC hardware wise. I would love a PC version of Project Gotham racing with some new multiplayer modes. And I'm sure Halo will be superior also.. hopefully it will show up soon.

 

[WerewolfX]

<< A couple days ago at CompUSA I saw a man buy a TNT2 M64 card instead of a MX 200, because they both had '32MB' and the TNT2 was $15(!) dollars cheaper. CompUSA is even still selling those Rage Pro cards. As long as things like this are happening the developers will not advance at a decent rate >>



That poor misguided soul why on earth did you not smack the common sense into him.

It still is pretty fun though; not really sure why

 

[FrodoB]

It seemed like the majority of computers at Best Buy / Circuit City had TNT 2s in them last year. I haven't looked much lately, but I'd be willing to bet many of them have a GeForce 2 MX variant. THe people that buy these computers aren't going to be upgrading anything in their machines. Most people are clueless about their computers. Hell, some of my friends have been using computers for close to 10 years and still call me for stupid stuff like installing ram or even opening email attachments. Game developers have to cater to the lowest common hardware denominator to make money. Also, there is simply a severe lack of decent pc games nowadays. Some times I wonder why I ever upgraded my own machine. I spent a lot more time 5 - 10 years ago playing computer games. Those were the good days old days - Kings Quest series, Quest for Glory series, the original Master of Orion, Wolfenstein, Doom, Commander Keen, Duke Nukem 3D, the first two Wing Commander games, X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter, Judgement Rites, Sim City... the list goes on and on. Back then the games were great and I didn't have to upgrade my computer every 6 months to enjoy them.

 

[WerewolfX]

Thats it FrodoB!



<< Kings Quest series, Quest for Glory series, the original Master of Orion, Wolfenstein, Doom, Commander Keen, Duke Nukem 3D, the first two Wing Commander games, X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter, Judgement Rites, Sim City... the list goes on and on. Back then the games were great and I didn't have to upgrade my computer every 6 months to enjoy them >>



Dont forget Privateer, Elite, Strike commander (although that may just be me), the original X-wing & Tie fighter, Protostar, Renegade among others.

Hmm seems like im a bit of a Space/flight sim fan. To bad no really good ones have come out for a while.

 

[Bovinicus]

I think if you guys played console games 1-2 feet away from your TV you would be very dissatisfied with the quality of the graphics in the games. A lot of people never think of that fact when comparing graphics on the PC to graphics on a console. Hell, when you're that close to a TV you can see the scan lines!

 

[Linux23]

<< I think if you guys played console games 1-2 feet away from your TV you would be very dissatisfied with the quality of the graphics in the games. A lot of people never think of that fact when comparing graphics on the PC to graphics on a console. Hell, when you're that close to a TV you can see the scan lines! >>



depends on the tv. on a 40" plus tv with no line doubling circuitry, then i would agree it looks god awful. however on a nice tv with good line doubling, consoles look decent.

on my 56" HDTV, well, no console to date looks too hot on it.

i guess this could sum up PC vs. Console games:

PC games = Sharp graphics, dull character and object models
Console games = Duller graphics (depending on tv), but very impressive character models.

 

[FreshPrince]

This is why I'm still using my V5, no need to upgrade....hopefully when Unreal2 comes out in May, I'll have a reason to upgrade. Either that or buy an XBox when UnrealChampionship comes out

 

[Gstanfor]

Intel, VIA and the OEM's must carry a lot of the blame here.

Intel is still peddling the 810/815 as a graphics solution and VIA the ProSavage. Neither are worth a crumpet. Not to mention those wonderful P4's you can buy with TNT-2 M64's in them. Feel the power! It's not like GF2 Mx's cost that much more.

This is why chipsets such as nvidia's nforce and ATi's forthcoming chipset are important to the industry they help to raise the lowest common denominator, which is what needs to change for developers to improve their graphics significantly.

When you look at it that way it is fascinating that Intel refused nVidia a license to make nforce available for P3/P4. Wingz stated there was no benefit to be had. No benefit to who? the consumer or intel's coffers?

Greg

 

[Daemon_UK]

There is a real reason why there are no "XBOX" or "CONSOLE" type graphics or games because with the PC there is no base that is standard for a period of time.

Yes there is DX8, and hopefully developers are starting producing games that cater for this spec.

To be honest, I cant wait until there is one/two graphics card maker (nvidia and ?) and the product cycle of cards are 1/2 years. Then developers can truly make better games!!

Look at the worst offenders!

3DFX, for a long time no T/L and no 32-bit colour
KYRO, no T/L and most likely with KYRO 3 no pixel and vertex shaders.

To be honest, there should be a graphics card consortium that stop cards being made until they comply with a certain spec.

 

[Soccerman]

To be honest, I cant wait until there is one/two graphics card maker (nvidia and ?) and the product cycle of cards are 1/2 years. Then developers can truly make better games!!

to be honest, it is almost like that anyway at the moment. ATi and nVidia. guess what? we're already on a 1/2 year cycle (6 months). nVidia released the Ti series late last year, and will be releasing the NV25 early this year. ATi I think is even beginning to follow the 6 month cycle example. if they don't introduce a totally new core (the R300) now, then I think it'll be a sped up version of the R200 to compete with the NV25.

Look at the worst offenders!

3DFX, for a long time no T/L and no 32-bit colour

the no T&L thing is unforgiveable, but the no 32bit colour? have you even SEEN a 3dfx card run 16 bit? there's almost no reason to run 32 bit colour with that good a 16 bit (I know I've run a Voodoo 3, Banshee, and now the Radeon, the Radeon has by far the worst 16 bit of the 3, and I HAVE to run 32 bit in order to not see all sorts of banding and dithering).

KYRO, no T/L and most likely with KYRO 3 no pixel and vertex shaders.

considering the original Kyro was meant to compete with the Voodoo 3 (and could have, if they had not got the dreamcast order which took their time up), and the Kyro 2 is simply a sped up Kyro.. I guess we COULD say that the TNT2 is unforgiveable with no T&L.. but the Kyro 2 really should have had one. as for Kyro 3, WTF? we haven't even heard specs on it! I mean I think I know what to expect from it (4 pipes, DDR SDRAM = double the fillrate, and double the memory bandwidth to accomidate fillrate). it could have 2 texture units per pipeline, we don't know! it could have a DX8 T&L engine, again we don't know! what about Pixel and Vertex shaders? I don't know that either!