When todays games outperform our latest hardware!

[vertigofm]

I remember the days when a bleedingly fast new PC meant playing the latest and greatest PC games maxed out hiccup free. It seems those days are over however, after reading here:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/693/693483p1.html

About Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion,

Dan: Yeah? the PC version of the game is definitely going to need a burly machine to play well on high detail at high resolutions. What I played at the event ran pretty well with only a couple of hiccups in performance when there were a lot of characters on screen, but even then it wasn't unplayable by any means. That said, Bethesda told me that the specs of the machine I was playing on and it was a 3.2 GHz processor with 2.0 GB of RAM and an X1900 video card. That's a nice machine and it's all we've had the chance to play the game on. Who knows how the game will look or run on a machine with the minimum requirements? It's just something we're going to have to wait and see I guess.



Do you think that some games are pushing our systems a little too hard? Just because they have the technology to make it beautiful... Does it push away potential buyers because that technology is optimal for the top 1-3% of PC users? How many people really have ATI's 1900 card series and 2 gigs of RAM? Is enough enough or do you say keep pushing the limits and let the consumer worry about their system?

 

[PingSpike]

I think the fact that the rapid increase of hardware peformance has slowed somewhat has just made the fact that most game developers don't have well optimized 3d engines obvious. Before you could count on hardware outrunning the lack of optimization and efficancy minded coding, but since there has been a stagnation on the hardware front that old trick doesn't work anymore. At the same time, I can't blame developers TOO much. Software is a tough nut to crack, budgets are limited and its those breathtaking static screen shots that build all the first buzz about your title....even if they do get 4fps on the hardware that exists when they are released.

Hopefully though, we'll see them do a little soul searching. Maybe they'll decide to license more proven graphics engines rather then struggling to reinvent the wheel over and over again. And with developer man power freed from this we'll see more focus on gameplay innovations.

We'll have to wait and see on oblivion. That same article has one guy saying it still performed better and looked a hair better on PC then the xbox360. Of course they ran it on the latest hardware for the demostration, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be horribly bad on anything but. The game isn't out yet and we still don't have a lot of info on the midrange performance. Lets hope it scales a bit better then morrowind.

 

[KB]

I would rather play a good-looking game at below peak specs than play a bad looking game at top specs.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: vertigofm
I remember the days when a bleedingly fast new PC meant playing the latest and greatest PC games maxed out hiccup free. It seems those days are over however, after reading here:

Ummm, I don't know how old you are, but back in the day, the latest and greatest machine ALWAYS struggled to play the latest and greatest games with all the eye candy turned on. When QIII was release, playing at 1600x1200 was a pipe dream. It look several generations of video cards to actually have playable frame rates at that res.

 

[TheNewGuy8]

And lets not even TALK about Farcry. Computers TODAY have trouble with Farcry and that game is how old? 2 years?

 

[vertigofm]

What about Fear? My gosh.... I'm sorry but that engine may look good, but optomised like crap. If I can play Doom 3 on Ultra settings with 8Xaa and not a dip below 30, then fear shouldn't have trouble with 2X aa

 

[bountykiller]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Ummm, I don't know how old you are, but back in the day, the latest and greatest machine ALWAYS struggled to play the latest and greatest games with all the eye candy turned on. When QIII was release, playing at 1600x1200 was a pipe dream. It look several generations of video cards to actually have playable frame rates at that res.

This guy hit it on the money. From quake1 up until doom3, iD has always made games that are 6 months to a year ahead of the hardware to be able to run it with max settings. The hardware and game balance is essential for technology to continue to progress. They both compliment eachother and this consistent game of cat and mouse makes our lives better.

 

[vertigofm]

I think there is just too many crappy engines out- like Fear

and a few good ones- Doom 3, Source

 

[Skott]

I remember when it was hard getting enough high memory loaded in the old DOS games. Now its about getting enough video card to run them. 3D graphics sure has changed gaming. ::chuckle::

 

[TriggerHappy101]

If todays best gaming PC can't play that game - it is a poorly made game.

I mean look at the screen shots - looks like an xbox game.

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article...olls-iv-oblivion-20060224102254485.jpg

Look at the hands and the model, talk about blocky. The textures are gross.

 

[NaOH]

I remember I had a tnt2 ultra to play QIII. That card was out what, almost 10 years ago?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: AMDUALY
I remember I had a tnt2 ultra to play QIII. That card was out what, almost 10 years ago?

Yeah, and did you remember the big hit you took by enabling 32bit color?

 

[NaOH]

Yeah! 32 bit textures was the new rave. I returned my voodoo 3 ( remember the big scary purple box ) fo it.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: TheNewGuy8
And lets not even TALK about Farcry. Computers TODAY have trouble with Farcry and that game is how old? 2 years?

I don't know what you consider trouble. When FarCry came out, machines with high end Athlon XPs or Pentium 4s, 1GB of memory, and a 9700 Pro played the game very well at max details.

 

[Theguynextdoor]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: TheNewGuy8
And lets not even TALK about Farcry. Computers TODAY have trouble with Farcry and that game is how old? 2 years?

I don't know what you consider trouble. When FarCry came out, machines with high end Athlon XPs or Pentium 4s, 1GB of memory, and a 9700 Pro played the game very well at max details.

Turn on some AA and resolution.

I have a 6600GT coupled with a A64 3200.

I can play at max details and get very good FPS, but this is at 1024x768 and no AA.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: TriggerHappy101
If todays best gaming PC can't play that game - it is a poorly made game.

I mean look at the screen shots - looks like an xbox game.

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article...olls-iv-oblivion-20060224102254485.jpg

Look at the hands and the model, talk about blocky. The textures are gross.

That screenshot looks bad by no means, and that's one of the worst TES IV: Oblivion screens I've seen. The game looks amazing. Far better than F.E.A.R, or HL2, ect.

 

[alimoalem]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: TriggerHappy101
If todays best gaming PC can't play that game - it is a poorly made game.

I mean look at the screen shots - looks like an xbox game.

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article...olls-iv-oblivion-20060224102254485.jpg

Look at the hands and the model, talk about blocky. The textures are gross.

That screenshot looks bad by no means, and that's one of the worst TES IV: Oblivion screens I've seen. The game looks amazing. Far better than F.E.A.R, or HL2, ect.

not according to that pic

OP, think of this: if games are too good for today's hardware, gamers would be forced to buy the new, overpriced cards. if hardware is too good for the games, the consumer will buy the cheapest parts they need to run the game fine, meaning the hardware manufacturers lose. all they want is money

according to my economics teacher, "you're not a human to them; you're just a factor of production."

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Theguynextdoor

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: TheNewGuy8
And lets not even TALK about Farcry. Computers TODAY have trouble with Farcry and that game is how old? 2 years?

I don't know what you consider trouble. When FarCry came out, machines with high end Athlon XPs or Pentium 4s, 1GB of memory, and a 9700 Pro played the game very well at max details.

Turn on some AA and resolution.

I have a 6600GT coupled with a A64 3200.

I can play at max details and get very good FPS, but this is at 1024x768 and no AA.

No one played with high res and high aa on the newest gen games. Back then, 1024x768 0x aa and 0xaf were the norm.

 

[Pariah]

I don't think any game has ever shreaded new systems like MechWarrior 2 for DOS did when it was released in the mid 90's. The game actually had the "capability" to run at 1600x1200 with the proper VESA drivers. This was pre-3dfx so everything was run off the CPU, even at lower settings the game had horrid frame rates with the best hardware available. 1600x1200 wasn't fast enough to qualify for a slide show. Most new games today will run pretty well on highend setups at average or better settings.

 

[Brian48]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: AMDUALY
I remember I had a tnt2 ultra to play QIII. That card was out what, almost 10 years ago?

Yeah, and did you remember the big hit you took by enabling 32bit color?

Ah, memories. I was still living in CT back then. Yeah, I had a CL TNT2u when Q3 came out, but I don't recall a big hit when enabling 32bit color on it. I do remember leaving it on BiLinear and playing at 1024x768x32 though. At the time, it was the best video card for Q3, at least until the original 32mb GeForce GTS came out.

 

[vertigofm]

I just think if u look at Doom 3 and HL2, I think both look better than Fear- sure Fear has some better effects, but it shouldn't make it such a slow POS

 

[TanisHalfElven]

i don;t know why ppl bash fear all the time. really the engine is far superior to source (compare the shadows and the effect) and runs well on my computer with high setting (few adjusments ofcourse needed)
oblivion will run well too. you forget that nopt everyone want/needs to run it at 1600x1200. i'll play it at 800x600 (maybe even 640x480) and i hope to run it with all the eye candy up.
see ya.

ps. 10 days left.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

i don;t know why ppl bash fear all the time. really the engine is far superior to source (compare the shadows and the effect) and runs well on my computer with high setting (few adjusments ofcourse needed)
oblivion will run well too. you forget that nopt everyone want/needs to run it at 1600x1200. i'll play it at 800x600 (maybe even 640x480) and i hope to run it with all the eye candy up.
see ya.

ps. 10 days left.
also to the guy who posted the oblivion screenshot..dude have you ever played on an xbox ?

 

[Ike0069]

I think these new games are getting a little ridiculous in their requirements. But when I see nVidia and ATI promos on the game boxes and in the game start up, I understand why. Just the price of gaming on a PC.

 

[rstrohkirch]

I also believe the FEAR engine to be better then Source in stock form...it's just the level design and texture work in the retail game sucked ass.

What makes source better is the constant content that is given out for free and the engines ablitity to be upgraded as time goes by...free to the end user and immediately usable by the community.