OC3D Article: Graphics - what do gamers want?
- Thread starter FarFarAway
- Start date
FarFarAway
New member
name='chefinal' said:
Recouping R^D and initial distribution costs, getting yields up to a respectable level and of course knowing that people will buy it cause it's 'new'.
Then something comes out that people might see as 'better value' so the price gets dropped along with the profit margin, although this is oft recouped by a different manufacturing process or just higher chip yields.
Poor R&D on both hardware and software are to fault. However its not all doom and gloom for PC gaming, alright FPS players are converting to consoles in there droves, but RTS and mmorpg players will always prefer pc. At the end of the day you might slate it but the success of WoW has kept pc gaming profitable. 11 Million at nearly £10 a month, you work out the numbers, and there only just releasing it in Russia and South America. Theres great expectation for Warhammer Online as well, I have always preferred PC's but I have always like Role Playing (ask my GF 
) I think you chose your platform dependent on what game types you prefer, and were hitting this mark where consoles have hi jacked some of the more traditional PC genres, I think though with Digital Distribution and the mod squaders that PC gaming is a chore, and its not for everyone, but I love my PC, I love the fact that I built it with my own hands, using nothing but my cunning wit and use of fire and brimstone to give me my personal gaming machine ...I will now go put on my night elf costume and go shopping in morrisons...see if I can get frisked by the security guard (again) !!
) I think you chose your platform dependent on what game types you prefer, and were hitting this mark where consoles have hi jacked some of the more traditional PC genres, I think though with Digital Distribution and the mod squaders that PC gaming is a chore, and its not for everyone, but I love my PC, I love the fact that I built it with my own hands, using nothing but my cunning wit and use of fire and brimstone to give me my personal gaming machine ...I will now go put on my night elf costume and go shopping in morrisons...see if I can get frisked by the security guard (again) !!
Rastalovich
New member
name='Kempez' said:
Pricing, esp. in the uk, is dependent on their feeling on how much people will pay for the product. In excess of sourcing, production, r&d, competition considerations.
Prime example is US prices vS UK.
Rastalovich
New member
Does ASUS`s "boot within X seconds and ur on the net!" linux thing do dvd stuff ?
name='Duecut' said:
This made me smile, I used to have this kinda thing in my autoexec on my old 386 years ago. Games used to use to different memory protocals and you had to choice this at start up (think one version was Himem.sys and I cant remember the other)
Ahh those were the days. Don't forget smartdisk. Without that you're hard disk would run slower than a floppy drive lol
FarFarAway
New member
name='Rastalovich' said:
Oh agree totally, was just talking about pricing in general. Of course UK prices are inflated, but there's always a link initially to R&D and stuff
Very good article. If i can add something , i think the whole case should be around pro-gaming and today`s meaning of it <-- big companys are using this now to sell their products, best example is asus and their stupid advert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6CrodK3Hs
(Gentleman on left side (not rog) if he would be smarter enough he would decrase details in game and then kick some ass ;])
Many of you guys remember times doom/quake1/CS/starcraft or q3promode , remember configs that we used in FPP shoters, lowering details , most of this games could be runned on cheap machines , and gaming experiance was great , ppl who played really enjoyed it. You didnt need much just you and your skills and this was real gaming for me , having fun thats all. In short time after this game developers have started to make tournaments with many rewards and they have created "pro gamers". Now every second kid on this planet who have internet and is playing some games, he want to be pro. and here we have customer market.
In reality what we are recieving is floood of new gfx and mobos, bugged or without proper drivers and lacking off any support because their developers are focused on upcomming products leaving old one alone.Its cr4p isn`t it?
Another thing about games today, for me Crysis is a benchmark for new components ,not a game , anyway its boring after 2 hours. Some companys if they dont have decent idea to make interesting title , they are just adding details to make game more impressive(you can find here loots of influence from components manufactures).And its not just Crytek many others are doing this now, ask yourself how much time you spend with one new title now , and lets say with game 2-3 years ago....
At the end of a day we have a lots of poor titles and computer components that leaves you my signature on blue screen.
one more , i agree with Kerotan . i think open source can make games more playable and more immortal , not good graphic and high system requirements .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6CrodK3Hs
(Gentleman on left side (not rog) if he would be smarter enough he would decrase details in game and then kick some ass ;])
Many of you guys remember times doom/quake1/CS/starcraft or q3promode , remember configs that we used in FPP shoters, lowering details , most of this games could be runned on cheap machines , and gaming experiance was great , ppl who played really enjoyed it. You didnt need much just you and your skills and this was real gaming for me , having fun thats all. In short time after this game developers have started to make tournaments with many rewards and they have created "pro gamers". Now every second kid on this planet who have internet and is playing some games, he want to be pro. and here we have customer market.
In reality what we are recieving is floood of new gfx and mobos, bugged or without proper drivers and lacking off any support because their developers are focused on upcomming products leaving old one alone.Its cr4p isn`t it?
Another thing about games today, for me Crysis is a benchmark for new components ,not a game , anyway its boring after 2 hours. Some companys if they dont have decent idea to make interesting title , they are just adding details to make game more impressive(you can find here loots of influence from components manufactures).And its not just Crytek many others are doing this now, ask yourself how much time you spend with one new title now , and lets say with game 2-3 years ago....
At the end of a day we have a lots of poor titles and computer components that leaves you my signature on blue screen.
one more , i agree with Kerotan . i think open source can make games more playable and more immortal , not good graphic and high system requirements .
Your point is valid Kempez but I see a different side also.
As quoted by net usage statistics from xfire (one of the most popular) World of Warcraft and CSS are the most played games on any computer. There is a very good reason for this, they are brilliant for gameplay. WoW i've only played a bit (yes im a noob) but even i can see its potential. CSS I've been playing for over 3 years now and its ever changing, I play prodominantly on UKCS which have 3 server a 64slot, 46slot and 32slot and even at those high numbers you can tell the game changes because of single players leaving effecting the dynamics of the team. CSProMod uses Source graphics and 1.6 accuracy which is even better than source but you find a server
I believe those moaning about Crytek's inability to program Crysis should read the CPC article. He openly admits that the programming is bad because they were the first to go into the high end graphics engine rendering so were noobs and fluffed it. It wasn't for next gen hardware that wasn't out it was just badly programmed. The new Crysis has the updated engine (which you can also use on old Crysis) and uses all the tricks they have now learnt from doing Crysis and it runs on even mediocre computers at high settings.
As quoted by net usage statistics from xfire (one of the most popular) World of Warcraft and CSS are the most played games on any computer. There is a very good reason for this, they are brilliant for gameplay. WoW i've only played a bit (yes im a noob) but even i can see its potential. CSS I've been playing for over 3 years now and its ever changing, I play prodominantly on UKCS which have 3 server a 64slot, 46slot and 32slot and even at those high numbers you can tell the game changes because of single players leaving effecting the dynamics of the team. CSProMod uses Source graphics and 1.6 accuracy which is even better than source but you find a server
I believe those moaning about Crytek's inability to program Crysis should read the CPC article. He openly admits that the programming is bad because they were the first to go into the high end graphics engine rendering so were noobs and fluffed it. It wasn't for next gen hardware that wasn't out it was just badly programmed. The new Crysis has the updated engine (which you can also use on old Crysis) and uses all the tricks they have now learnt from doing Crysis and it runs on even mediocre computers at high settings.
Novaprospekt
New member
UTEngine
i dont know about others but i love Unreal engine
its so perfect that it even look good in a low grapic card:worship:
i dont know about others but i love Unreal engine
its so perfect that it even look good in a low grapic card:worship:
digitalblade
New member
Coders You Can Do It ! You're just paid not to...
Same as you.
Only that they should be shot for making that kid steel money from his parents so he can by hardware for driving a space shuttle justs so he can play CS. I got a lame friend that did same thing for game like WoW.
Bag coding is a problem, but please don't tell me those guys don't know how to code. And besides even if coding lacks how come game design lacks from it ??? Is this a joke? Give me a brake. Modern games are made for 6-8 hour game play which now requires from us the gamer-sheeps to go get the newest Video and what for? So we can see that new cool looking pixel shader. The game could have been coded with the option for you to use it or not. But guess what, the coders decided that you wanna use it or els you won't have the greatest experience of the game play that doesn't exist. But the true reason is - money from the manufacturers what else. If you could afford game for 70 $(50 Eu) surly, you can just go get a brand new Card for the double. Just so you can play the came for couple of days , makes scene, does it not? Before I used to play the same game with mounts. You had different ways more and more stuff if you get in to it. Now .... well as I sad, after that 6-8 game play you know there is a harder level types but the game was so line made. I really don't wanna wast my time. And what about expansions. Before of every good game we got an expansion. Because it was good we liked it, graphics were ok that didn't matter really, as long as you get in to the wonderful story and game play. Well that's alright now we got bigger stronger ff... well not faster but really Perfect looking games. But we just need to give more 200$ so we can actually see them run. In fact, if you try going low on the graphics you will get bad quality, but guess what if the game is modern coded you won't get a benefit if performance.
On an other hand we got the question can't there be a better coding ?
Should the coders perhaps find a better job for them, like inventing a light saber that cuts nothing ? Sure it will be cool, and useless.
Answer yes they can, they are just bayed better when they do it this way, that's how World rolls. Hate the game not the players right. Indeed we do. And I know coders can lower down reqs because there are some examples. Like Blizzard which the WoW patches (before the new EXP). I was surprised that in near 2007 the made patch that made game play on Pentium 3 better and it did. I had P3 back then and a low hard system, and what do you know now problems playing WoW on max. And they did it with a patch. True that game engine is old now. But Source Engine is just about enough visual quality I need and he is good indeed. Everyone explains " Oh the technologies are so new, we don't know how to code for them". Well I ask: "Why do you". How about you wait for the next gen Video and then code and test on it. Then those money-hungry ones should try making some drives that suit there products and then I can decide whether I want your Pixel Shader 6 so I can't see the lame textures, or I just wanna play the game with my old video without any of those new so lovely over 150 $ costing effects.
I guess after so much effort to code for the new DirectX there is no money for making a good game play. But not that anyone cares after they see that water lol water that looks like water ... was I playing a game or am I watching an interactive move, that never gonna get to the Oscars.
We had games with we could play from 200 MHz to 800MHz depending on the detail level. That's like 4 times lower playable systems then the recommended. And now, well try playing Crysis with Geforce 2. You get my point. Money talks, not mine, mine screams when it sees the new reqs of a game. And that about the use of x2 x4 core. Those cpus should be for real hard core work if a game cant be handled by a single core then it was made not to, just so you can enjoy the logo of Intel or AMD on the loggon screen. It will probably say s.t. like : " For best game experience, come give us money for one more core."
Same as you.
name='pafk0o' said:
Only that they should be shot for making that kid steel money from his parents so he can by hardware for driving a space shuttle justs so he can play CS. I got a lame friend that did same thing for game like WoW.
Bag coding is a problem, but please don't tell me those guys don't know how to code. And besides even if coding lacks how come game design lacks from it ??? Is this a joke? Give me a brake. Modern games are made for 6-8 hour game play which now requires from us the gamer-sheeps to go get the newest Video and what for? So we can see that new cool looking pixel shader. The game could have been coded with the option for you to use it or not. But guess what, the coders decided that you wanna use it or els you won't have the greatest experience of the game play that doesn't exist. But the true reason is - money from the manufacturers what else. If you could afford game for 70 $(50 Eu) surly, you can just go get a brand new Card for the double. Just so you can play the came for couple of days , makes scene, does it not? Before I used to play the same game with mounts. You had different ways more and more stuff if you get in to it. Now .... well as I sad, after that 6-8 game play you know there is a harder level types but the game was so line made. I really don't wanna wast my time. And what about expansions. Before of every good game we got an expansion. Because it was good we liked it, graphics were ok that didn't matter really, as long as you get in to the wonderful story and game play. Well that's alright now we got bigger stronger ff... well not faster but really Perfect looking games. But we just need to give more 200$ so we can actually see them run. In fact, if you try going low on the graphics you will get bad quality, but guess what if the game is modern coded you won't get a benefit if performance.
On an other hand we got the question can't there be a better coding ?
Should the coders perhaps find a better job for them, like inventing a light saber that cuts nothing ? Sure it will be cool, and useless.
Answer yes they can, they are just bayed better when they do it this way, that's how World rolls. Hate the game not the players right. Indeed we do. And I know coders can lower down reqs because there are some examples. Like Blizzard which the WoW patches (before the new EXP). I was surprised that in near 2007 the made patch that made game play on Pentium 3 better and it did. I had P3 back then and a low hard system, and what do you know now problems playing WoW on max. And they did it with a patch. True that game engine is old now. But Source Engine is just about enough visual quality I need and he is good indeed. Everyone explains " Oh the technologies are so new, we don't know how to code for them". Well I ask: "Why do you". How about you wait for the next gen Video and then code and test on it. Then those money-hungry ones should try making some drives that suit there products and then I can decide whether I want your Pixel Shader 6 so I can't see the lame textures, or I just wanna play the game with my old video without any of those new so lovely over 150 $ costing effects.
I guess after so much effort to code for the new DirectX there is no money for making a good game play. But not that anyone cares after they see that water lol water that looks like water ... was I playing a game or am I watching an interactive move, that never gonna get to the Oscars.
We had games with we could play from 200 MHz to 800MHz depending on the detail level. That's like 4 times lower playable systems then the recommended. And now, well try playing Crysis with Geforce 2. You get my point. Money talks, not mine, mine screams when it sees the new reqs of a game. And that about the use of x2 x4 core. Those cpus should be for real hard core work if a game cant be handled by a single core then it was made not to, just so you can enjoy the logo of Intel or AMD on the loggon screen. It will probably say s.t. like : " For best game experience, come give us money for one more core."
Rastalovich
New member
If u could return a game to the developers for a full refund, including ur postal costs, on the grounds of it being totally sh1t, iyo, games would get better.
Likewize if there was competition to windows that played windows games 100% and did all the desktop stuff, if they refunded u the same, windows would be better.
As it stands, u buy it.. they could give a crap what u think of it.
Likewize if there was competition to windows that played windows games 100% and did all the desktop stuff, if they refunded u the same, windows would be better.
As it stands, u buy it.. they could give a crap what u think of it.
Tbh i hate upgrading my pc becasue what do you do with the stuff your taking out?
you could try to sell it on but its usually too outdated for anyone to want.
When i first built my pc it was back in the summer of 2006.
i had a Asus M2n plus sli, Amd 64x2 5000+, 2gb ram and a 8600GTS. decent enough rig at the time and it was only a week old when i took it to Midlans and gave it a proper break in with 48 hours of nonstop gaming.
Now i had the feeling i had to upgrade this last summer so i splurged out £350 on a mobo and processor and a new psu (otherone failed ) but im still using the same graphics card and ram as i dont really play the high spec games.
im a CSS and WoW man i play games for the gameplay not the shiney extras and the speeds that are needed to play some of the games now are redicilous.
btw Xbox and ps3 suck wii is awsome at a party
you could try to sell it on but its usually too outdated for anyone to want.
When i first built my pc it was back in the summer of 2006.
i had a Asus M2n plus sli, Amd 64x2 5000+, 2gb ram and a 8600GTS. decent enough rig at the time and it was only a week old when i took it to Midlans and gave it a proper break in with 48 hours of nonstop gaming.
Now i had the feeling i had to upgrade this last summer so i splurged out £350 on a mobo and processor and a new psu (otherone failed
) but im still using the same graphics card and ram as i dont really play the high spec games.im a CSS and WoW man i play games for the gameplay not the shiney extras and the speeds that are needed to play some of the games now are redicilous.
btw Xbox and ps3 suck wii is awsome at a party
this is exactly why i spent most of yesterday trying to find a version of lemmings or gta (original) that would run on windows 7.
we find ourselves going straight back to the best gameplay, because once you have seen the amazing graphics, and completed a few levels, the game is just a bad version of one you already own and love.
graphics are at a point where they are fantastic, and nobody will complain about them being bad, so now we need to use technology to give us new concepts for gameplay, rather than for graphics.
games like spore and gta 4 would just not have been possible on older systems due to their massive gameplay element, not their graphics. this is what we need more of, and further advances in graphics can come after.
we find ourselves going straight back to the best gameplay, because once you have seen the amazing graphics, and completed a few levels, the game is just a bad version of one you already own and love.
graphics are at a point where they are fantastic, and nobody will complain about them being bad, so now we need to use technology to give us new concepts for gameplay, rather than for graphics.
games like spore and gta 4 would just not have been possible on older systems due to their massive gameplay element, not their graphics. this is what we need more of, and further advances in graphics can come after.
im a big fan of RTS games but there are none really that appeal to me right now so i find myself going back and playing age of empires 2 which was such an amazing game becasue it was so simply done and it was rated one of the best games of all time for GAMEPLAY i actually have a system devoted so i can play these old classics 
I think that alot of games devs rely too much on the wow factor now, and lose sight of the most important aspect of gaming, which is the playability factor. Graphics should take a back seat to playability as far as I am concerned. Having the experience of playing games from most of the major platforms since the early 80's, I do feel that we have lost the way. We are constantly craving more and more realism in our titles, but in doing so we often lose out on really nailing it with playability.
A prime example of this is Crysis in my opinion, I bought the game when it was released, and have never bothered to finish it. The first time I played it I was blown away with the visuals, but the game is just a tired rehash of yet another FPS. Regards gameplay, there was nothing new there, and it felt like the bubble had burst after the initial pleasure of the visuals had worn off.
On the other end of the spectrum, I played World of Goo the other day for the first time, and I was hooked in 10 minutes. The visuals are never going to be ground-breaking stuff, but the playability is there in bucketloads. There have been games like this, that buck the trend, appearing every now and then but not often enough.
A prime example of this is Crysis in my opinion, I bought the game when it was released, and have never bothered to finish it. The first time I played it I was blown away with the visuals, but the game is just a tired rehash of yet another FPS. Regards gameplay, there was nothing new there, and it felt like the bubble had burst after the initial pleasure of the visuals had worn off.
On the other end of the spectrum, I played World of Goo the other day for the first time, and I was hooked in 10 minutes. The visuals are never going to be ground-breaking stuff, but the playability is there in bucketloads. There have been games like this, that buck the trend, appearing every now and then but not often enough.
Rastalovich
New member
name='Dav0s' said:
It's a sad reflection on the gaming industry, particularly for pcs.
I reckon something akin to spore wouldn't be a problem for lesser systems, for that matter gta4. Problem we're facing here is gameplay vs esthetics. There have been some semi-standard looking games in the distant past that quite frankly survived on sheer gameplay, u take graphical massiveness out of the games and what's left doesn't prove that demanding.
It's too much of this use-of-an-engine for game devs afaic. They rely on the likes of Unreal, Gamebyro, to produce something they can work with to spawn their idea. Sure there have been some decent creations over the years, but I don't think we're touching what the pcs and consoles can do as a potential.
