If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
"The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)" wrote in message ... On Aug 1, 12:34 pm, wrote: On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:26:54 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw" wrote: wrote in message .. . Is there really any evidence that DX11 will be that more compelling than DX10? And was DX10 really that much more compelling than DX9? I'm not trying to be overly skeptical here, as I look forward to new technology too, but I get the increasing sense (especially after eyeballing FC2 at DX10 at high resolutions with everything maxed) that we are "there" when it comes to graphic quality, and that game developers should be focusing on things like immersion, value to consumer, overall fun factor. Breaking away from the hyped corporate marketing-team inspired bull**** and focusing on how to appeal to gamers rather than buyers of well advertised crap. we are not 'there' in computer graphics. does a race game look like real life cars - in the same way a crappy low resolution AVI can ? - does a desert in fallout 3 look like a real life desert? does a character in a modern game look like a real person? no no and no. we are still in the 'looks like a cartoon 'era. Whether or not the graphics are "there" is a subjective discussion we could debate all day I suppose. I don't think it makes much sense to choose a specific game (i.e. Fallout 3 etc) and say because the artistic style of that game is not realistic enough to your tastes, that it is a benchmark for what current technology is capable of. While I've had plenty of fun with some of Bethesda's games, I wouldn't say realistic graphic style is their strong point. Many 3D artists are also into comics and related drawing styles, so a cartoony look often creeps into their work by design. To me, how much fun I have with a game is all that matters. "Good" graphics (which I define as not only visually appealing but also running consistently smooth on whatever machine I'm running it on) do not necessarily have to be realistic to be immersive to me. TF2 was a good example of cartoonish graphics that resulted in a game that I enjoyed. Arma2 is an example of a very ambitious attempt at realism which probably makes some tradeoffs in the fun-factor area in order to do so. Maybe I am one of those where a certain level of surrealism can enhance the gameplay. You mentioned race games.. I find the graphics in Grid to be as realistic as a racing *game* needs to be. Do they look like real cars? The answer probably depends on who you ask. If I want total realism, I should hope someone comes out with a contraption that is perfectly modeled like the inside of a car, which I can sit in...and, it has features built in that actually break my legs in real life if I slam into a wall too hard. Very realistic! Fun? I guess, if you want a true racing sim you gotta take the real life bumps and bruises along with it. Instead of playing first person shooters, lets just get real guns and go out in a field somewhere and shoot at each other. Granted there won't be any respawns when we die, but at least its realistic. Isn't the whole reason we are playing games to get away from reality a bit? Isn't exercising our imagination part of the fun? Is what we really are after is an interpretation of real life that plays off metaphors of reality, without requiring us to experience the less pleasant aspects of the same real life activity? This is why I don't think graphics need to be perfectly realistic, only immersive, and to me even graphics with varying levels of cartoonishness or surrealism can still be immersive. Your mileage may vary. If you truly believe what you're saying in this post then your whole argument about how PC gaming is so much better because the graphics capabilities of PCs is notably higher doesn't make any sense. You're absolutely right that graphics don't have to be top-of-the-line in order for a gaming experience to be great. From that perspective, PC games really have no advantage because anything above and beyond what consoles do is just gravy. Top end consoles games are plenty immersive, not just from a graphics perspective but from a game design and/or concept perspective as well. The whole "my PC is better than your console" mentality is really just absurd. Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just because I can. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
"The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)" wrote in message ... On Aug 1, 9:20 pm, "Tom" wrote: "Memnoch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:14:17 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll wrote: I would say that within the next 5 years or so, realtime graphics on PC will rival the first Toy Story movie. Many would say PC graphics have already surpassed Toy Story, but they confuse realistic artwork with technical graphics quality, and it just isn't true. Interesting that you mention Toy Story (2005). Compare that to say Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). Even 8 years later that film has phenomenal artwork. Games wise I think Toy Story has been surpassed and I don't think we are too far from equaling the Final Fantasy film. You mean 1995 for Toy Story :-). I agree with your statement though. I actually went and saw FFTSW at theatres, and though I was blown away by the graphics animation in that movie, still unrivalled even for any PC animation to this day, but the story was pretty weak so I thought it was not worth it. That and the fact it was a total box office bomb. I wondered if if the producers and distributors (Square and Columbia Pictures respectively) put any thought into the risk of making this movie. It cost nearly $140m to make (probably would be cheaper today with the newer graphics technologies), but it barely broke even, if at all, even with rentals included after the theatre gig was up. On opening weekend, there were only about 60-70 people in the whole theatre and it opened in over 2600 theatres nationwide. By week four, it was down to less than 150 theatres being shown. By week six, theatres gave up on it. It ranks right up there with some of the biggest budget bombs ever made. Two words: uncanny valley. You know, I really didn't experience that with FFTSW, as some may have, because I knew what to expect I guess. The story wasn't plausible and that's what took it away from me. I still thought the CG animation was astounding, at the time. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run atonly 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps.Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Aug 4, 10:50*am, "Tom" wrote:
"The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)" wrote in ... On Aug 1, 9:20 pm, "Tom" wrote: "Memnoch" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:14:17 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll wrote: I would say that within the next 5 years or so, realtime graphics on PC will rival the first Toy Story movie. *Many would say PC graphics have already surpassed Toy Story, but they confuse realistic artwork with technical graphics quality, and it just isn't true. Interesting that you mention Toy Story (2005). Compare that to say Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). Even 8 years later that film has phenomenal artwork. Games wise I think Toy Story has been surpassed and I don't think we are too far from equaling the Final Fantasy film. You mean 1995 for Toy Story :-). I agree with your statement though. I actually went and saw FFTSW at theatres, and though I was blown away by the graphics animation in that movie, still unrivalled even for any PC animation to this day, but the story was pretty weak so I thought it was not worth it. That and the fact it was a total box office bomb. I wondered if if the producers and distributors (Square and Columbia Pictures respectively) put any thought into the risk of making this movie. It cost nearly $140m to make (probably would be cheaper today with the newer graphics technologies), but it barely broke even, if at all, even with rentals included after the theatre gig was up. On opening weekend, there were only about 60-70 people in the whole theatre and it opened in over 2600 theatres nationwide. *By week four, it was down to less than 150 theatres being shown. By week six, theatres gave up on it. It ranks right up there with some of the biggest budget bombs ever made. Two words: uncanny valley. You know, I really didn't experience that with FFTSW, as some may have, because I knew what to expect I guess. The story wasn't plausible and that's what took it away from me. *I still thought the CG animation was astounding, at the time. The story is a whole other... well... story. It was just retarded. Plus, it didn't help that they didn't do a great job at setting up the characters or the world so it was like you were thrown into the middle of a novel without any clue as to how the first half went. I personally didn't mind the movie at all but before this thread I never read or heard any other people making any positive statements about it. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:
Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just because I can. I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first person game. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
"Tim O" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote: Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just because I can. I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first person game. Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run atonly 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps.Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Aug 4, 6:26*pm, Tim O wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote: Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just because I can. I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first person game. What? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote:
"Tim O" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote: Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just because I can. I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first person game. Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive. Let me connect the dots for you. You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb control out of the equation. You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls apart. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
"Tim O" wrote in message news On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote: "Tim O" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote: Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just because I can. I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first person game. Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive. Let me connect the dots for you. You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb control out of the equation. You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls apart. So? Almighty was initially the one who mentioned the hardware/immersion/gameplay aspects. Your reply doesn't come close to following what you initially replied to me about anyway. I simply concurred with Alimighty about the concepts of games and the immersion in them as well, using Fallout 3 as an example. You then picked one element (that is actually cool as hell anyway) out of F3, that somehow makes the game bad, as if the whole game plays that way. You can still shoot different body parts on the enemy in F3 without having to use VATS, equally as well. VATS is just an immersive element in the game and gives it nice aesthetics also. You choose to use it or not and it isn't a must use part of the game. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run atonly 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps.Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Aug 5, 5:27*am, Tim O wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote: "Tim O" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote: Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just because I can. I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first person game. Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive. *Let me connect the dots for you. You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb control out of the equation. You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls apart.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No your wrong about Fallout3 , the VATS is based upon old school turn based RPG type game elements and has nothing to do with compensation for gamepad, and who says 'gamepad' anymore?? Although I don't even use VATS anymore, Fallout3 was never intended to be a twitch FPS game, if you wanna see fluid FPS put in UT3 ,COD4,COD:WAW,L4D, they are lightning fast FPS and aren't hampered at all by controllers. Hell put it WAW in turn the X-Y to insane mode and see what I mean. Hell I just played L4D on my friends PC with a wired MS controller and did fine. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run atonly 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps.Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Aug 4, 6:26*pm, Tim O wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote: Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just because I can. I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first person game. I think he was more referencing the graphics capabilities but that's just my guess... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
30fps Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3 probably delayed until '08 due to programming issues - Xbox 360 version is likely in early '08 | AirRaid[_3_] | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | September 12th 07 04:52 PM |
what would it take to run these maxed at 60fps? | Spaceman | Nvidia Videocards | 1 | March 18th 06 02:47 PM |
hardware needed to run the best at 60fps? | Spaceman | Ati Videocards | 2 | March 14th 06 02:30 AM |
Iam getting 60fps with doom 3 and a Radeon 9600 pro ? | OCZ Guy | Ati Videocards | 6 | August 17th 04 10:08 PM |
Are their different versions of the dawn demo ?? as i have version as i have 1.0.2.0 ? | We Live For The One We Die For The One | Ati Videocards | 11 | September 26th 03 08:05 PM |