Curse

Surena · Mar 27, 2008, 01:59 PM // 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I guess you got immerged so much into 3d graphics that you forgot what normal people are. Normal people have better things to do than being snobs about polygons and FPS.

Good job at failing to recognize why I reversed his retarded statement (oh noes, a hint!). I obviously hit the right spot.

Quote:

I'd like to hear what he's going to reply to you (or he won't because, may be, contrarily to you, he's not arrogant to bring his e-peen to the table of "I've got the biggest one!"?). Moore's law FTL?

Arrogant enough to exclude gamers from normal people. It's the ultimate point of failure to strengthen one's position by throwing stereotypes around.

Quote:

The "uber/l33t-gamers" are the ones asking for videogames to match their hardware and they use the commercial pressure to make sure that they're heard (and they're usually pretty vocal).

They don't. They already have plenty games to kill their hardware with. What these "uberleet-gamers" here want is a more detailed and graphically complex GW2 (which also scales down but not as "good" as GW1). It's what you fail to see.

Quote:

The mass silently drives the needs for videogames to have "normal specs" that match the "normal PC" that people don't open to add a PCI-e card (or is it AGP? how would he know since he doesn't even know what a bus is?)

The mass plays on consoles. The other mass has the right to own whatever hardware they have, but they shouldn't moan about specs or expect technology not to make progresses.

Blackhearted · Mar 27, 2008, 02:06 PM // 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Seriously, printout some representative screenshots of variety of games and show it to your mom and have her rate them. Don't expect her to take shaders 2.0 into account.

Sure, she may not know what shader model 2.0 is or whatever. But i can guarantee you she'll be able to see quite a big difference in graphical quality between duke 3d at whatever the top settings in it are and HL2 at max detail. Almost anyone but the blind can.

Quote:

average 1993 PC: all contemporary games run on it.

average 1996 PC: pretty much all games run on it.

average 1999 PC: most of games run on it.

average 2001 PC: okay amount of games run on it.

average 2003 PC: few games run on it.

average 2006 PC: pretty much no contemporary game runs on it.

average 2008 PC: there is no way you would run contemporary game on it.

Whatever happened between 1993 and 2008 is not fault of people (boohoo, those bad bad people refuse to throw away money for something that would be obsolete next year!), it is fault of game publishing companies which refused to take realities of market into account.

GW1 would never sell 4 million units if it ran only on "Chosen Few" computers.

Yes, it's game developers fault for not sticking us all with software renderers and letting us run games outside of a 240x180 desktop window. Yes, it's the devs fault for actually trying to push things forwards. riiight.

If anyone is to blame it's partly companies like intel who put huge gobs of money into cpu development and leave their gpu development funds merely as an afterthought. If they put some competency into the design and feature set of the mainstream onboard chipsets we wouldn't be having this issue. But despite what you believe it is also partly the fault of the buyer for not making sure they got a part in their system capable of playing a game if they wanted to.

Your little "obsolete next year" bit is also kinda stupid too. Since you're, in effect, saying that buying the whole pc in the first place was a waste of money. Cause it will be obsolete in a year too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I'll spare zwei2stein the trouble of quoting your own words to show you the paradox (almost hypocrisy). I'll point you to his own words:

1) he knows what FPS is; 2) he's only asking for the game to be playable (that is, like video at 24-30FPS?), not 60FPS.

BTW you seem soooooooooooo knowledgeable that you even quote "hardware from the 90s". Guess what. Most people use integrated graphics! Hey, unmount from your cloud of l33t-graphics-ness and step back to the ground of real Earth where people do not put 1/3rd of their computer upgrade money on the graphics!

Well done trolling this thread uber-gamer!

He's asking for good performance out of poor hardware. It just doesn't work like that. It's like going and buying a little 130hp honda and wondering why he can't go from 0 to 60mph in 5 seconds like a highend sports car.

And please, pull your head out of your ass. I don't even have a "1337" system myself, seeing as i have the same aforementioned 8600gt. Now, if i had like tri or quad SLI maybe then you'd have some grounds in this crap. But unfortunately i don't. to be honest i'm not more wealthy than most other people. I just wisely spend my pc upgrade money based on how much i have. Not just blindly run to dell and burn it there on inferior products.

Clarissa F · Mar 27, 2008, 02:22 PM // 14:22

my laptop: 2007 Dell inspiron e1705. Core2 duo t5600. 2 gig ram. ATI mobile radion 1400. Can play GW at 35-60 FPS.

Thing is, my old desktop played it just as well, with an old nvidia FX5200 card and under a gig of ram. On an Athlon XP. If you're playing any games, or even watching video or movies, shelling out 50-100 bucks for a graphics card is nothing. Hell, you can have the guys at Best Buy or wherever pop it in for little to no cost, if you don't have the ability to slide off a cover, pull out a card, put another in the slot(basic LEGO skills FTW), close it up, and watch as the comp installs the drivers, as XP recognizes all the recent cards out there.

If you don't want to spend a few bucks or take 5 minutes to install a card, you are lazy. You can't argue money, and you can't argue difficulty for not being able to use skills a kid with an Erector set has.

As for the OP: GW, or any MMO, wants their game to play on as many comps as possible. Making it so you need a dual-card set up on an Area 51 desktop system is not the way to get people to play your game. Hell, you can play WoW well on a Linux emulator. They will stick to what they did before; use their heads to get as much as possible out of the least taxing graphics engine they can use and not look dated.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 27, 2008, 02:30 PM // 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

average 1993 PC: all contemporary games run on it.

average 1996 PC: pretty much all games run on it.

average 1999 PC: most of games run on it.

average 2001 PC: okay amount of games run on it.

average 2003 PC: few games run on it.

average 2006 PC: pretty much no contemporary game runs on it.

average 2008 PC: there is no way you would run contemporary game on it.

That is just the worst freaking bullshit I've ever seen.

I was around back in the early nineties, gaming, and games like Castle Wolfenstein, Wing Commander and Tie Fighter caused HUGE firestorms on the UseNet because they required people to upgrade. "Buy a VGA card? WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY CGA?! Buy a 386?! FOR GAMING?! THATS RIDICULOUS!"

Games have always pushed the computing envelope. In fact, it's games which do push the computing envelope, applications sure don't.

And people have always complained when they couldn't run the latest and greatest on their old machines.

Quote:

Whatever happened between 1993 and 2008 is not fault of people (boohoo, those bad bad people refuse to throw away money for something that would be obsolete next year!), it is fault of game publishing companies which refused to take realities of market into account.

No, even if you had been right that games in 1993 didn't push the envelope, you're wrong wrt what drives the evolution: it's the gamers.

Gamers like nice graphics and good physics and pretty colors and nice textures, and will prefer to buy games which have that over games which do not.

The exception to this rule is games aimed at non-gamers, people who simply don't have the experience necessary to tell good graphics from bad - the Sims, World of Warcraft, and childrens games.

Quote:

GW1 would never sell 4 million units if it ran only on "Chosen Few" computers.

Perhaps not. But the main reason MMO's sell so well compared to normal single-player PC games is that they're not pirated.

Fril Estelin · Mar 27, 2008, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

games aimed at non-gamers

Big laugh of the day. (books for non-readers or software for non-users?)

Is there a digital equivalent to racism/xenophobia in terms of computer use?

StardustDreamz · Mar 27, 2008, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Quote:

Big laugh of the day. (books for non-readers or software for non-users?)

Is there a digital equivalent to racism/xenophobia in terms of computer use?

Congratulations on Godwinning the thread.

Anyway, the competing ideals here are elitism and populism, and neither is right or wrong. For people who want to advocate better graphics at the expense of losing some low-end machines (just an FYI, I had to turn down settings on my machine when GW came out, so it's not like it was always "low end") the main argument is that people are ignorant in their purchasing of computers and need to educate themselves so they stop getting ripped off.

The populist argument is that people don't want to learn about computers and that games should target a broad consumer base.

Personally I lean more towards the elitist crowd because making informed choices about your purchases is just a plain common sense thing to do. It wasn't that long ago when tinkering with electronics and building your own computer was normal. And, generally speaking, people who are technophobic about computers are still willing to put the effort into researching their TVs or stereo systems or cars. So the argument that game developers should cater to peoples' ignorance doesn't really fly that well with me.

You can't see me · Mar 27, 2008, 07:20 PM // 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhearted

Peoples level of ignorance surprises me. Their ability to pull random figures out of air and use them as decisive and factual ones is funny too. Guess we need to educate some on how cheap a ue3 compatible upgrade from a barely gw capable machine could be. especially if you keep your current os, monitor, mouse, keys, case, etc.

MMk. So we will use newegg for this. Sorry if you're not american, but i don't know foreign stores. Anwyay..

Motherboard: Eh, this is really upto you and what you need to be honest. Most here could do with a $50 budget board most likely. So i'll just mark down $50 to $100 here.

CPU: Athlon 64 x2 4400+ $72.99. not highend but more than capable of ue3. quite overclockable too.

Ram: 2Gb ddr2-800 dual channel kit value kit $36.99. budget ram? maybe. but it will do the job in a budget system.

Video: MSI Geforce 8600gt OC $85.99(-$20 MIR) Far from highend yet still reasonably capable. Plus 20 dollars back!

Well, well. that covers all the basics of what is merely an "upgrade" and what's our total here you ask?

i can't believe it. it's only about $300! and that's if you step up to a better $100~ motherboard! Wow, i must say, I'm rather surpisred at this. I just saved someone less knowledgeable on things 500 to 2750 dollars! and got them a pc capable of more than 30 fps all at the same time.

If I claimed my numbers were accurate, it would be a different story. The problem isn't the price, it's the fact that you end up paying more to run the games coming out these days than you do for the game itself, and something is off there.

Did I get some figures out of the air? Yes. But the numbers aren't what backs up the real fact of the matter. It's the fact that no average gamer wants to do upgrades to run a game that may not even be half as enjoyable as another older game that can run on his PC. Graphic pushers are shoving the gaming industry down the toilet by demanding such requirements that the average gamer can't run it, and forces them to either upgrade or stick to older games.

And by the way, yes, I am American. I pay taxes. I have a limited wage. I have expenses to cover. If I had an extra sum of money bigger than the game itself to throw at a game I'd buy to unwind from all this in the first place, I would, but that's not the situation for me, or a lot of others who would enjoy the game world and won't be able to if the dung heap of graphics demand with ignorance to people's actually ability to run things smoothly.

If you ran a business, you would go bankrupt managing it because of the lack of customer availability compared to other companies and the engines they use. Simple as that.

Blackhearted · Mar 27, 2008, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by You can't see me

If I claimed my numbers were accurate, it would be a different story. The problem isn't the price, it's the fact that you end up paying more to run the games coming out these days than you do for the game itself, and something is off there.

Did I get some figures out of the air? Yes. But the numbers aren't what backs up the real fact of the matter. It's the fact that no average gamer wants to do upgrades to run a game that may not even be half as enjoyable as another older game that can run on his PC. Graphic pushers are shoving the gaming industry down the toilet by demanding such requirements that the average gamer can't run it, and forces them to either upgrade or stick to older games.

And by the way, yes, I am American. I pay taxes. I have a limited wage. I have expenses to cover. If I had an extra sum of money bigger than the game itself to throw at a game I'd buy to unwind from all this in the first place, I would, but that's not the situation for me, or a lot of others who would enjoy the game world and won't be able to if the dung heap of graphics demand with ignorance to people's actually ability to run things smoothly.

If you ran a business, you would go bankrupt managing it because of the lack of customer availability compared to other companies and the engines they use. Simple as that.

More of this blaming the people who push gaming forward on why your pc can't run anything? Jesus, if the industry had it your way it'd still be stuck back on 486dx cpus and chugging on pseudo-3d games like doom and we'd never improve or get better stuff. And no matter what it's always going to cost more than the game itself does to play it anyway. Your pc didn't come bundled in the same box as gw did it? I didn't think so. But you bought the pc anyway. So how's the current gw any different from this argument?

Srsly, you people need to come up with something better than this same thing. Cause it really isn't those who push things forward who are to blame. Nor is it that "little extra" it may cost to play it. Cause that could apply anywhere and almost always will. Even on a console. Alot of it is actually on consumers who think their shiny new dell is invincible forever and refuse to upgrade it when it needs it and those who didn't tell dell they wanted actual 3d capabilities when they overpayed for thier pc. Another other part of it would be on intel for hampering the industry with their hideous gpus.

Lord Sojar · Mar 27, 2008, 11:29 PM // 23:29

No, ANET makes their own engines. This is irrelevant. You will now be processed...

Numa Pompilius · Mar 28, 2008, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Big laugh of the day. (books for non-readers or software for non-users?)

Stephen King and AoL.

semantic · Mar 28, 2008, 01:52 AM // 01:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Stephen King and AoL.

Fair point, but you have to admit there's a definite segment of the player base (which I assume you would refer to as 'gamers') that collects graphical elements in their games like so many virtual titles.

And you know things were different back in '93, despite people complaining about having to upgrade to SVGA. For one thing, upgrade paths were much simpler and for the most part linear.

You can't see me · Mar 28, 2008, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhearted

More of this blaming the people who push gaming forward on why your pc can't run anything? Jesus, if the industry had it your way it'd still be stuck back on 486dx cpus and chugging on pseudo-3d games like doom and we'd never improve or get better stuff. And no matter what it's always going to cost more than the game itself does to play it anyway. Your pc didn't come bundled in the same box as gw did it? I didn't think so. But you bought the pc anyway. So how's the current gw any different from this argument?

Srsly, you people need to come up with something better than this same thing. Cause it really isn't those who push things forward who are to blame. Nor is it that "little extra" it may cost to play it. Cause that could apply anywhere and almost always will. Even on a console. Alot of it is actually on consumers who think their shiny new dell is invincible forever and refuse to upgrade it when it needs it and those who didn't tell dell they wanted actual 3d capabilities when they overpayed for thier pc. Another other part of it would be on intel for hampering the industry with their hideous gpus.

You just don't understand the concept of pushing foward for everyone versus the concept of pushing foward and pushing people out. All technical gibberish aside, that's what this comes down to. The companies should be aiming at the first, not the second.

Blackhearted · Mar 28, 2008, 02:33 AM // 02:33

Yea, i guess i don't understand how you can push forward on something that actually pushes you backward..

Numa Pompilius · Mar 28, 2008, 03:06 AM // 03:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by semantic

you have to admit there's a definite segment of the player base (which I assume you would refer to as 'gamers') that collects graphical elements in their games like so many virtual titles.

I would assume so, yes, as I myself love good graphics. It's probably very shallow of me, but the reason I bought Guild Wars and not World of Warcraft was that I couldn't stand World of Warcrafts graphics.

But that was pretty much my point: it is the buyers who are driving the hardware arms race, by constantly wanting better graphics, better sound, better physics. Larger, faster, bigger... and better.

I don't personally see it as a problem. I wont be happy until the computer graphics in games is indistinguishable from high-definition footage.

zwei2stein · Mar 28, 2008, 06:48 AM // 06:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

I don't personally see it as a problem. I wont be happy until the computer graphics in games is indistinguishable from high-definition footage.

Assume you never heard of Offset? http://www.projectoffset.com/videos.php

Demo from 2005 is nearly indistinguishable from movie footage. Imagine what happened in 3 years.

Oh, and that trailer was filmed on 2005 contemporary HW. No supa-dupa machine.

---

Feel free to call bullshit on my performance chat, but that is how i experienced it. If you want to do research to prove me wrong, find out statistics for average PC and check minimum requirements for games, I am not that far off.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 28, 2008, 12:26 PM // 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Assume you never heard of Offset? http://www.projectoffset.com/videos.php

Demo from 2005 is nearly indistinguishable from movie footage. Imagine what happened in 3 years.

Oh, and that trailer was filmed on 2005 contemporary HW. No supa-dupa machine.

Yes, another step in the right direction, but personally I think even the CGI in a-list movies like X-Men3 and Transformers is insufficiently advanced - environments can be done quite well, but anything moving still stands out like a sore thumb (or, more accurately, like drawn cartoon characters) against the filmed actors - and computer games graphics trail movie CGI by ten years or so.
I'm sure I'll live to see truly believable CGI in games, however.

Saphrium · Mar 28, 2008, 03:29 PM // 15:29

It is absolutely impossible to fit U3 engine into GW underline design specs, why are we even having this post anyway?

Numa Pompilius · Mar 28, 2008, 06:56 PM // 18:56

@Saphirum: I think it was determined already in the first replies that the U3 engine isn't for GW but for some other NCSoft MMO, possibly Lineage 3, and the thread then evolved into a more general 3D graphics discussion.

Oh, and speaking of interesting 3D graphics, feast your eyes on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
Demo of the software available here:
http://www.facegen.com/modeller.htm

Eldin · Mar 28, 2008, 07:10 PM // 19:10

ANet says they will make GW2 be playable on lower end comps, but in general the specs will be upped a bit, so instead of a Pentium II being bare bones, Pentium III will be. Honestly it shouldn't be that much of a problem.

Also, though I dunno what to make of it, UT3 isn't that demanding. It's basically like one of Valve's source engine games, which I run on max settings at 40-50+ FPS on a single core 2.20 GHz Pentium 4 and a GeForce 7800...

Antheus · Mar 28, 2008, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Assume you never heard of Offset? http://www.projectoffset.com/videos.php

Demo from 2005 is nearly indistinguishable from movie footage. Imagine what happened in 3 years.

Oh, and that trailer was filmed on 2005 contemporary HW. No supa-dupa machine.

Can I play it? No? Right... Just another of million vaporware titles of coders who can make engines but couldn't make a half-decent game to save their lives.

The reason some titles started defining what gaming means is because they realized that it's the game that matters. So they got rid of coders making games for geeks, and got game designers making games for entertainment. And presto - we have EA and Vivendi defining what games are.

As for the hard-core market, that one is as big as it always was, hundreds of thousands. It's not growing or shrinking, it's just no longer financially possible to make games catering to them.

And as such, all games are getting "dumbed down" or Ursaned, by providing stylish graphics rather than ultra-fidelity for octa-SLI graphic cards.

The business reality meanwhile moves on, regardless of elitisits or populists.

PCs are now online gaming platform. Web 2.0, MySpace, Facebook games, flash games. Oh, and WoW.
Everything else is going on consoles. Development costs are 1/3 to 1/10 of PCs, there's almost no support needed, and market is well defined, so are the publishers.

Soon, PC gaming will be akin to Mac gaming. There will be literally a handful of titles, but the AAA market will move to consoles, which will perform all the functions that PCs to today with regard to entertainment.

The reason for this lies somewhere else - piracy. There is none on consoles (noteworthy), whereas anything not completely online on PC has 90%+ piracy rate these days.

And all of this has nothing to do with gamers in any way, it's just the way business works.