I wonder sometimes when I see animated movies and such whats really holding up games. Is it really the game designers holding the games back or is it our PC's limited processing/rendering capabilities.
So are our PC's the only thing really holding back games??
- Thread starter karma4jake
- Start date
Um, when you see the animated movies you're seeing stuff that was rendered over time on what were or still are supercomputers compared to our desktops.
A little from column A, a little from column B.
If games stayed at, say, 720x480 resolution there is still a huge scope for improving quality of graphics ( as anyone who has watched an animated DVD can tell you ), and plenty of overhead as well ( witness the games that run 200+ fps at 640x480 ) but there has been more focus on higher resolutions rather than image quality, something that is probably only going to get worse with the proliferation of high end LCD screens.
If games stayed at, say, 720x480 resolution there is still a huge scope for improving quality of graphics ( as anyone who has watched an animated DVD can tell you ), and plenty of overhead as well ( witness the games that run 200+ fps at 640x480 ) but there has been more focus on higher resolutions rather than image quality, something that is probably only going to get worse with the proliferation of high end LCD screens.
Thats what I'm saying though, is it just the power/price of our PC's thats holding us back? Nvidia and ATI seem to feel that their new cards are revolutionary but maybe they just mean revolutionary at a certain price point? At today's given supercomputer technology could they develop a game that would look 100% realistic such as some animated films?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
It is not so much the PC but the OS and the time required to process the information.
You would need to through together a large cluseter and coordinate the processing and the final output video streams.
As stated previously, what you see on the screen takes a long time to render and then a single shot is captured.
I have heard that it takes about 30 minutes mappower to generate 1 second of video.
(when this statement was made, I do not know).
You would need to through together a large cluseter and coordinate the processing and the final output video streams.
As stated previously, what you see on the screen takes a long time to render and then a single shot is captured.
I have heard that it takes about 30 minutes mappower to generate 1 second of video.
(when this statement was made, I do not know).
I understand jake, that what you mean is the graphics being held back, but since it wasn't stated in your thread title, it deserves to be said that plenty of us would be glad for the graphics status quo in exchange for a leap in creative content. It's amazing that I can pore over all the titles in a videogame store and not feel sorry about passing up most of them 
Having said that, I think that bunnyfubbles has pretty well stated the crux of the matter. Can you recall back to a time where a single "high res" (for the time) CAD image could take hours to render? In the arc of my lifetime it wasn't all that long ago, yet now we feel shortchanged if we're getting less than 70fps in our favorite games with maxed out details.
The technology has actually leapt ahead at a remarkable rate, and apparently is continuing to do so.
Having said that, I think that bunnyfubbles has pretty well stated the crux of the matter. Can you recall back to a time where a single "high res" (for the time) CAD image could take hours to render? In the arc of my lifetime it wasn't all that long ago, yet now we feel shortchanged if we're getting less than 70fps in our favorite games with maxed out details.
The technology has actually leapt ahead at a remarkable rate, and apparently is continuing to do so.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Hardware has always driven/encourage the S/W to excel/improve.
They go hand in hand some what.
A leading edge S/W app will work well with a given hardware package.
Other makers will want to go one step futher in the H/W battle.
Now that the S/W has target platforms, they can improve to utilize the H/W and demand more. Eventually the OS must be improved to use the H/W.
So the benifit cycle continues.
They go hand in hand some what.
A leading edge S/W app will work well with a given hardware package.
Other makers will want to go one step futher in the H/W battle.
Now that the S/W has target platforms, they can improve to utilize the H/W and demand more. Eventually the OS must be improved to use the H/W.
So the benifit cycle continues.
Considering how powerful personal PCs have become, I think the real problem is the lack of creativity in the game development industry. Seriously, how many clone type games have you seen lately?
I haven't upgraded for over a year now. I'm still running my AMD 2500+ Mobile overclocked at 2.4ghz. Until something comes out that really plays bad, I won't be upgrading.
Now, since the OP seems to be more concerned with graphics quality. Then yes, I'd say hardware is an issue. Though would having a super duper awesome graphics game really make it any better than the hundreds of clones that it copied? Do we need another Unreal Tournament game that has lifelike models and textures? Would it really improve anything? I doubt I'd even bother playing it...
Some of the best games are the really old ones that have crap graphics compared to today. XCom series, Baldur's Gate series, Fallout, things like that. Just look at the threads where folks posted their favorited old DOS games and still play them.
I haven't upgraded for over a year now. I'm still running my AMD 2500+ Mobile overclocked at 2.4ghz. Until something comes out that really plays bad, I won't be upgrading.
Now, since the OP seems to be more concerned with graphics quality. Then yes, I'd say hardware is an issue. Though would having a super duper awesome graphics game really make it any better than the hundreds of clones that it copied? Do we need another Unreal Tournament game that has lifelike models and textures? Would it really improve anything? I doubt I'd even bother playing it...
Some of the best games are the really old ones that have crap graphics compared to today. XCom series, Baldur's Gate series, Fallout, things like that. Just look at the threads where folks posted their favorited old DOS games and still play them.
You know I am a proud owner of Xcom for Dos on Cd. Now I really have to see what the fuss is about fallout, since I always passed it up on the store shelves.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
Unfortunately, the industry is moving too fast and leaving many gamers behind. There are still a ton of users stuck in geforce3's and radeon 8500's. They can't enjoy new games because they are 3 or 4 generations behind in hardware, but only 3 or 4 years behind. Generations are getting shorter, people were begging for new stuff from ATI only 6 months after the x800 line came out. Gamers are not going to upgrade every 6 months, or even every year. The gaming industry needs to slow down, or they'll soon find a lot fewer customers playing newer games.
You didn't get the X-Com collectors edition? I prefer the gameplay of UFO Defense, TFtD is cumbersome with the swapping between land and water weapons. Though Apocalypse had better destroyable environments. IE you could plant a few heavy explosives and put a proximity bomb near them. Once some dummy brain sucker ran past it, the bombs would level a huge section of the map. Cilivans be damn, that's impressive watching all destruction to get one little alien. (Or playing in real-time mode to run and pick up brainsucker pods before they hatched)
Animated movies take a very long time to render. Games must render immediately.
When animated movie quality rendering can happen immediately animated movie
quality is, or already has been, redefined. This happens gradually, and always has.
Imagination holds back most games. Culture holds back most imaginative games.
Have you even played new games on a GF3? GF3 runs WoW, Guild Wars, EVE Online, Doom 3, HL2 and even Far Cry just fine. Its not 100FPS but you _can_ play it and it _does_ look good.
No I sure didn't. I might look for it. I liked UFO defense, period. TFtD was a good romp in the sack to relive and expand the story but nothing beet the first. Never played Apocalypse tho. I will look for it!
Edit : thought apoc was the unreal version... but looked it up and it wasn't just a third TBS installment... and damn its expensive for the CE on amizon!
Gameplay has been going downhill fast over the last few years. That's why I keep revisiting some of the older games like KotOR, Planescape, Fallout, Gothic, etc. The modding community helps keep some of these older games fresh. FEAR, COD 2, Quake 4, NFS: MW, I played once through and never looked at them again.
warcrow
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2004
- 11,078
- 11
- 81
I didnt read through this entire thread, but I'm going to weigh in here with my opinion:
The movies you're seeing with incredible CG scanes are prerendered -not generated in real time like the games we play. When these guys finish working on their sequences they send them off to a huge rendering farm that takes a long time to create. We're talking hours and hours (depending on the scene). It just requires an amazing amount of calculations.
But the market for the componants in our machines is moving at a speed that only the market will allow. Meaning if people keep buying the newest, latest, and greatest VC every 6 months....then ever 6 months a new chipset is going to come out. Personally, I think the market is moving along quite quickly enough. So, if you're wondering what's holding us up, if you're asking us why we're not there yet, well its because:
The technology we need to render the same stuff really isnt that far off. We're getting to see games that have amazing detail and impressive technology incorporated into it (Normal maps for example) that really were only used in CG for movies, like you mentioned not too long ago. But, rendering this stuff in real time requires ALOT of calculating. To do that, we need fast componants and the supporting technologoes like Normal Mapping, Ansio, AA...and much more. That stuff is expensive to develop and offer in real time, so companies must put millions into R&D. Well, they need to make that money back by selling the componants that offer these new techs offer at higher prices and then turn around and reinvest money into more R&D. But, not everyone can buy these new cards -infact, the majority doesnt. So, as a developer, why would you developer a game that only 10-20% of youre market can really play (I'm guessing at those percentages)? I mean, when you can spend less money developing a game, less time, and make more money developing for a wider audience -its probably the better business decision. There are companies that defey these laws and do whatever they want (id software), but those are rare cases.
I'm rambling a bit, sorry. I hope this helps you understand a little more....
I picked it up for 19.99 at software etc many moons ago. The only problem is it requires a 16bit environment to play in, so Win 95-98. I didn't really try under an emulator to get it working though. As far as I know the only thing that the first two required was a vertical sync patch for W2K or XP.
Edit: Actually I think it would start up the installer for Apocalypse but it had some CD-rom detection issues and memory issues when you do the "system scan".
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
It doesn't look good at all, you are completely wrong. A GF3 playing HL2 or D3 is not going to have anywhere near the same experience as a new card playing them. In HL2 you can't even play in DX9 mode at all because a GF3 isn't a DX9 card. Quality will be low on all new games, IF you can even make them run. Technically, the lowest card anyone got D3 to run on was a voodoo2, and that game doesn't even look that good to begin with IMO.
100fps is not what matters. Most gamers' monitors cannot display 100fps, that's a waste. 60-80fps is fine, but in those FPS's you don't want lower than that, and you'd have to sacrifice lots of quality on a GF3 to make it work. Hell I had a 9700 Pro that was way better than a GF3 and it cried on a few new RTS's at lowest quality! I know for a fact those old cards aren't cutting it on newer games. It did run D3 at high quality though.
Games would take longer to create and cost a LOT more if they were expected to do graphics that good.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Ive thought about this and maybe if computers ran on a more efficient architecture, then development cycles for graphics cards wouldnt have to be so short. When farcry/doom3/hl2 came out the 9800 and 5900's were pretty taxed by these games, they might even lag with full settings and there were top of the line cards. Top of the line cards CANT lag, its not acceptable. So they need to keep releasing new cards every 6-12 months otherwise new games simply wouldnt be capable of running.
If pc's had some kind of standard for game coding like consoles do, and if they ran on somthing better than x86 then i think those people sitting two or three generations behind graphics card wise would have a lot less to worry about.
If pc's had some kind of standard for game coding like consoles do, and if they ran on somthing better than x86 then i think those people sitting two or three generations behind graphics card wise would have a lot less to worry about.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
Soviet, you have it backwards. You can't make games that require more hardware than is available. Game companies are the reason ATI keeps having shortages, they are selling out! We need to slow down. We are at an ok level now, and game companies need to focus more on gameplay than graphics. Gameplay is a huge selling point that they need to realize. No matter how good a game looks, if it's boring as hell it's going to suck.
I'd really like to write some 2D stuff with interesting new gameplay elements, in fact that's what i'm doing right now behind my browser window. Has anyone played elastomania? gish? That sort of thing. I have a rigid body dynamics engine, collision detection system, rendering, etc already done, but does anyone want to publish this stuff? Nope, I'll have to go indie and sell online, do my own marketing and everything.
Why? because if it doesn't have 4 DVDs, 50 gazillion polygons, supermegashadingbullshit and a pair of tits the game companies say it won't sell. Yet here we are with loads of people just wanting a solid fun game, never mind the graphics. If you were paranoid you might think there is a deal between graphics card companies and game compaines that games will require a card upgrade every ~2 years.
</drunkhacker>
Why? because if it doesn't have 4 DVDs, 50 gazillion polygons, supermegashadingbullshit and a pair of tits the game companies say it won't sell. Yet here we are with loads of people just wanting a solid fun game, never mind the graphics. If you were paranoid you might think there is a deal between graphics card companies and game compaines that games will require a card upgrade every ~2 years.
</drunkhacker>
Man I bought this new system to play really good pc games, and the industry churns out crap! Bah! Im done. No more pc game buying...
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
Exactly. I'm going to see how long this entire PC video/game industry is going to hold out before it crashes hard.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter