Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
No it's not my choice
it's the developers choice for not supporting my monitor setup.Otherwise they probably would of had another sale.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Don't Buy Global Agenda - [H] Editorial
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
- Status
No it's not my choice
it's the developers choice for not supporting my monitor setup.Otherwise they probably would of had another sale.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
And this should have been a say nothing situation... Whatever the intent, it comes across as childish and immature to complain when 3x30" monitors aren't supported in the way that someone doesn't like, and the solution is to tell people not to buy a game.
It's one thing to be childish and immature when shooting guns through hard drives
. It's another to tell thousands of people NOT to buy a game which might or might not have an affect on the lives of other people. Video game development is a pretty cut-throat industry from what I've heard. Poor sales kill companies and cost people their jobs. I'm ok with that if the game sucks, but this is different.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
No it's not my choice
Otherwise they probably would of had another sale.
I have a feeling that if Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 comes out and doesn't support Eyefinity, you'll still buy it even though it doesn't support your setup
.Here's a snippet from Kyle's rant:
If you don't want game developers telling you how you can and cannot use your hardware, don't buy its games. Hi-Rez Studios is singling out Eyefinity and other multi-display users and not allowing us guys to use the enthusiast computer hardware that we worked hard for. Do not buy its games. Pass along that message! Post it on forums. Post it in blogs. Put it on Facebook. Totally bitch out and Tweet it. But for god's sake don't buy games from companies that try to stifle your gaming experience.
Kyle's rant has NOTHING to do with what readers own or don't own. Its about Kyle believing that developers shouldn't have any say over what hardware they support and how they support it. Kyle disagrees with this particular decision, and he therefore thinks he's justified in crucifying this dev.
Is resorting to non sequiturs and ad hominems your way of indicating that you've run out of arguments?
Lulz, I've been waiting for somebody to point at my "n00b" status. Nice try, buddy
The [H] isn't a soap box. If Kyle doesn't want to buy the game, he doesn't need to buy it. He's not asking people to make their own decisions, he's expecting people to fall in line with his way of thinking.
As far as I'm concerned, if it turns out to be a good game I'll buy it, even if I had a multi-monitor setup that shits on the setup the guy in Sliver had. You see, I don't rub my dangly bits on my hardware in order to justify the financial outlay.
I didn't bring it up as an insult ,so drop the attitude. I mentioned it to point out that that length of time should have given you enough time to see how Kyle reacts to situations that effect him.
A few users in another topic were pointing out the issue to Kyle and explaining it, trying to draw his attention to it and have him make more people aware of it.
If you're going to continue to act like a donkey we're done talking. There are far more interesting people on this forum to talk to than you. Good night.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
I have a feeling that if Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 comes out and doesn't support Eyefinity, you'll still buy it even though it doesn't support your setup
#1 I wont buy SC2, not a big RTS.
#2 I will not play diablo3 it it doesnt support it. This is the main reason why I stopped playing Diablo2. It doesnt work on my monitor.
But I have faith it will since they are both DX10.1 titles and worked with ATI to make the games.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Well, whatever...the point being that if the game is good, people will buy it regardless of whether or not it runs on 3 screens or 1 screen. Not many people will NOT buy a game just because it doesn't support Eyefinity.
Enduring_Warrior
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,973
Dude is simpy obvious. It's all in the title. GLOBAL AGENDA. This is not a game it's propaganda.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
It's not that the game doesnt support it. Most game support high rez, its just a bit tricky to get to work with some systems and machines with multi-monitor support.
The thing the bugs me is that the developer blocked out multi-monitor setups because it is unfair for other people who dont own/use it.
I don't think multi-monitor is for everyone. I agree that a game will sell if its good period.
But blocking a certain group of people from playing the game on there pc to the max potential is just stupid.
I don't think anyone expect us Eyefinity users not buying a game because it lacks proper support for our resolution will kill a developer, but its good to let them know why we're not playing their title so its something they can take into consideration. If it was hard to add Eyefinity support I'd be more lenient, but if a rather poor developer like Rebellion can do it and call it easy than it can't be that much work.
I'll say again: Kyle is telling people not to buy it IF they care about the issue. He isn't saying no one should buy it.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
I don't agree with blocking it in single player.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Look at the title of the thread again...
People aren't going to read the whole article for the context. People are going to see that [H] says don't buy this game.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
Hmmm. I do see your point of view on it.
But it is not Kyles job to make people read the editorial...
If people wanna be lazy and come in and bitch about it...well honestly im sure 80% of the people who troll don't even read it
People take every word Kyle says too literally. He explained himself better somewhere in this topic. I have no idea where and at 2am have no interest in finding it.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
I'm not saying that he didn't. And I probably read it earlier as he responded to something I said in one of his posts.
But that doesn't change the fact that I disagree with him and the way he went about airing his grievances. I don't have a problem with Eyefinity. It's a little pricey for me. I find my 32" 1080P TV/Monitor gives me enough of an immersive experience for the price I want to spend. I don't begrudge anyone the right to spend money on their computer and enjoy it.
But that doesn't change the fact that I disagree with him and the way he went about airing his grievances. I don't have a problem with Eyefinity. It's a little pricey for me. I find my 32" 1080P TV/Monitor gives me enough of an immersive experience for the price I want to spend. I don't begrudge anyone the right to spend money on their computer and enjoy it.
Well, I bought Global Agenda and it's a fun game on 1680x1050. The free portion on the game gets repetitive but if you're playing with the same people on a regular basis, formulate plans etc via mic comm, it becomes a fun tactical game.
I just don't understand why wish the devs out of a job because they won't support eyefinity which not a lot of people have adopted yet. Seems a little childish.
I just don't understand why wish the devs out of a job because they won't support eyefinity which not a lot of people have adopted yet. Seems a little childish.
As someone who gets easily excited and "ranty" on issues Kyle's rants don't bother me. Listen to me rant on a few episodes of that podcast I have linked in my sig and you'll understand what I mean.
Now, I don't know if Global Agenda forces a fixed FOV regardless the users' aspect ratio or not - but it would seem to me that if they do, Eyefinity/multimonitor setups would actually be somewhat of a disadvantage.
However, a larger, say 120° FOV, is an advantage over a "standard" 75-90° FOV in several types of games - shooters included. It has very little/nothing to do with the pixel count. I'm really not sure how anyone can question this.
Shooters are usually about who sees who first, and the person with a wider FOV has a better chance of seeing someone first. Like waving a flashlight around in the dark trying to find something, one is more likely to find it quicker with a wider beam. Being able to see someone at +/-60°, while they can't see you at +/-45° is an advantage.
Either way, I think choosing to enforce/limit a fixed FOV is purely a design choice, and well within the rights of the designers to enforce or allow. You don't like their choice? You don't have to - but please don't try to act like a wider FOV isn't an advantage.
However, a larger, say 120° FOV, is an advantage over a "standard" 75-90° FOV in several types of games - shooters included. It has very little/nothing to do with the pixel count. I'm really not sure how anyone can question this.
Shooters are usually about who sees who first, and the person with a wider FOV has a better chance of seeing someone first. Like waving a flashlight around in the dark trying to find something, one is more likely to find it quicker with a wider beam. Being able to see someone at +/-60°, while they can't see you at +/-45° is an advantage.
Either way, I think choosing to enforce/limit a fixed FOV is purely a design choice, and well within the rights of the designers to enforce or allow. You don't like their choice? You don't have to - but please don't try to act like a wider FOV isn't an advantage.
Of course it is, however, the question is how much? Its not like Eyefinity is suddenly going to make someone like me be competitive in online FPS games. It might help me get a few more kills and avoid dying a couple times, but thats it.
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
I'm not sure i see the problem here. So let's brake this down. Stop me if you disagree with something here:
a) Assume that tech-site readers read articles before making decisions based purely off the title
b) Article states this:
c) HardOCP presents a game that, they argue, is controlling how you use your hardware. (this isn't a feature they left out, this is a feature they specifically do not support)
We now have a situation, where a reasonbly informed reader, must decide whether or not he cares if game developers control the reader's hardware. If he cares, hardocp argues that you shouldn't buy the game.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, i'm not understanding these arguments:
1) Less than 1% of users use eyefinity. So who cares?
I know this articles contains a lot of stuff on eyefinity, but eyefinity is not at the core of this article. Its irrelevant that kyle has a strange obsession with eyefinity. Eyefinity is a technology that a lot of people argue provides a better gaming experience. It immerses the player.
This game dev has specfically targeted this technology because it give an unfair advantage to players with eyefinity. So, here's the argument that the dev and kyle are disagreeing on
a) Multiplayer video games for the pc always have some form of compromise between fair play between players and immersion for a player. (A player more immersed via: wider fov, more natural controls, higher resolution and visiblity will have some inherent advantage over other players.)
b) Players have fun when they are more immersed in the game
c) Players have fun when they are in a fair competive game
game dev had decided c) is more important. Kyle points out that trying to support c) by actively cutting down b) is rediculous. It is impossible to administer properly and will always end up in some sort of weird computer discrimination:
edit: forgot this one 2) There are a lot more important articles kyle could have written instead of this one.
I suppose i could be doing a lot more important things myself right now rather than typing up this post. In fact... I dont really think we should be playing video games honestly. I dont think we're all gods that have some active vision of everything happening on earth. I don't think we all have the same reasoning for why we do things. Kyle saw something that bugged him. He wrote an article on it.
edit edit: 3) Kyle shouldn't be pushing his personal opinion on everyone and telling people to not buy this game
I've already assumed at the top of this post that people read his article before making a decision. If you're saying that people will not bother reading the article before boycotting this game then i will just have to disagree with you there, i have no evidence to backup this assumption unfortantely.
The article core arguement doesn't really have any opinions in it. Yes, the article is a little sloppy on the edges, with obvious love for eyefinity slapped on the sides (perhaps to get more reaction from the readers). But the core argument is really quite simple. This game doesn't have this feature, they actively do not include it. The game devs are actively limiting the game to not take full advantage of computer hardware. You shouldn't buy this game if this bugs you.
a) Assume that tech-site readers read articles before making decisions based purely off the title
b) Article states this:
c) HardOCP presents a game that, they argue, is controlling how you use your hardware. (this isn't a feature they left out, this is a feature they specifically do not support)
We now have a situation, where a reasonbly informed reader, must decide whether or not he cares if game developers control the reader's hardware. If he cares, hardocp argues that you shouldn't buy the game.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, i'm not understanding these arguments:
1) Less than 1% of users use eyefinity. So who cares?
I know this articles contains a lot of stuff on eyefinity, but eyefinity is not at the core of this article. Its irrelevant that kyle has a strange obsession with eyefinity. Eyefinity is a technology that a lot of people argue provides a better gaming experience. It immerses the player.
This game dev has specfically targeted this technology because it give an unfair advantage to players with eyefinity. So, here's the argument that the dev and kyle are disagreeing on
a) Multiplayer video games for the pc always have some form of compromise between fair play between players and immersion for a player. (A player more immersed via: wider fov, more natural controls, higher resolution and visiblity will have some inherent advantage over other players.)
b) Players have fun when they are more immersed in the game
c) Players have fun when they are in a fair competive game
game dev had decided c) is more important. Kyle points out that trying to support c) by actively cutting down b) is rediculous. It is impossible to administer properly and will always end up in some sort of weird computer discrimination:
I'm not sure if kyle actually says it, but i will also say that it is just plain moving backwards in the world of technology to disable this feature assuming eyefinity is as easy to implement as I have heard.
edit: forgot this one 2) There are a lot more important articles kyle could have written instead of this one.
I suppose i could be doing a lot more important things myself right now rather than typing up this post. In fact... I dont really think we should be playing video games honestly. I dont think we're all gods that have some active vision of everything happening on earth. I don't think we all have the same reasoning for why we do things. Kyle saw something that bugged him. He wrote an article on it.
edit edit: 3) Kyle shouldn't be pushing his personal opinion on everyone and telling people to not buy this game
I've already assumed at the top of this post that people read his article before making a decision. If you're saying that people will not bother reading the article before boycotting this game then i will just have to disagree with you there, i have no evidence to backup this assumption unfortantely.
The article core arguement doesn't really have any opinions in it. Yes, the article is a little sloppy on the edges, with obvious love for eyefinity slapped on the sides (perhaps to get more reaction from the readers). But the core argument is really quite simple. This game doesn't have this feature, they actively do not include it. The game devs are actively limiting the game to not take full advantage of computer hardware. You shouldn't buy this game if this bugs you.
Last edited:
Sure.. here's where I'd stop you:
As far as I can tell from reading the actual thread linked to within the editorial, there was no "malicious intent" or "specific targeting" of eyefinity et cetera on behalf of the devs. It's not as if, without prompting, they released a press release saying "We are not going to support Eyefinity, you better not use Eyefinity or you're cheating".
Instead, when asked by a player whether or not it would be supported, they said no, and then to help explain that answer, provided their reason for it.
I have a really, really hard time reading that as "specific targeting of a technology" as opposed to just "you asked, we answered". Chances are they never had plans to support custom fov regardless of whether or not Eyefinity even existed, because they believe custom fov's would create gameplay inbalances. It seems to boil down to just that, if you actually go look at the original statements as opposed to the various paraphrasings that have been thrown around in the editorial or the responses here in this thread.
I'd argue that currently, Eyefinity still isn't ubiquitous. It's still not accessible to a significant portion of gamers (or at least, it's reasonable to expect that most gamers don't have it and aren't going to in the very near future).
At the same time, I agree that there are reasons to push Eyefinity in the interests of making a cool technology move forward so that it's more likely that it will become ubiquitous.
That said, I don't think PvP-focused games (amongst which GA certainly falls) are the ideal place to be pushing this particular technology, because like it or not, in order to be useful, it requires support for an option (custom fov) which does have potentially game-affecting impact (we can debate the extent of such impact all day, but it's impossible to deny that there isn't some degree of such, small or not).
Just my $.02.
Edit:
Just figured I'd comment on this...
From my experiences as a moderator on a few different forums (neither related to GA nor [H]), there's actually a fairly significant number of people who don't really peruse articles very carefully - they'll mostly just look at the title and maybe skim some of the article. It's fairly easy to tell sometimes when someone replies to a thread with a long OP without reading it, and yet I've seen plenty of those kind of "impulse reaction" responses.
Last edited:
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
i was referring to this:
the technology being multi-display gaming.
They have specically looked at this technology, and actively said
"it would give an unfair advantage"
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
Yeah, its definitly arguable since i honestly have no idea how difficult it actually is to implement support for eyefinity.
Except that their reasoning isn't necessarily limited to multi-display gaming. After all, you could still technically run the game on an Eyefinity setup, you'd just be forced to use the same fov as a standard monitor (which obviously would be at the very least subpar, and probably more just unplayable, fully granted). Instead, they've decided that modifiable fov's give an unfair advantage in general, and as a consequence eyefinity will happen to give that unfair advantage when used because it essentially requires a modified fov to work "properly".
Now, if they had said "multi-display gaming gives an unfair advantage" while also allowing non-multi-display setups to customize their fov as they pleased, I would probably agree with you, but that's not what they've done. The key disagreement here is over fov, not specifically Eyefinity.
Last edited:
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
Yes, i will agree with you, after looking at the actual thread the review is based off of, it seems the whole thing may be more focused on locked FOV in general than anything about multi monitor:
So it seems like the original question was indeed more focused on FOV specifically.
However, i dont think this really affects my analysis of the review.
After all, all multimonitor support is based on variable FOV.
locking out FOV completely, is in effect locking out multimonitor support.
It does lock it out, and I (at least) wouldn't argue otherwise. I simply think that the editorial portrays the response in a much more malicious manner than what was actually said, and thus there are a lot of people reacting to it less on the facts and more on a twisted presentation of them - basically, some people here are reacting more in a sense of offense at being "accused of cheating by the short-sighted devs" and less to the actual question of "whether or not games should support variable fov or not (and why)".
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
Yeah, i see what you're saying. I'm honsetly kind of irritated that this article came up so late, and that it happens to be squarely focused on this game.
I guess in most other games if the issue was ever brought up and related to multi monitor setups no dev every actually responded with such a statement as Global Agenda has. But i mean, really, manual fov adjustment has been considered cheating for most games i have played (i haven't played that many).
I, personally, want complete controls of ALL video aspects in all of my games. FOV, resolution, aspect ratio. etc. It seems so strange to me that ultra wide monitors still aren't being mass produced, and that settings as basic as FOV angles aren't standard things in video options in games. I mean, common, people have different size monitors and sit and different distances from them. FOV should be custom set to accomodatee this. I guess most people really don't care though :/. oh well
Grimspoon
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 433
I think the FPS boost some people gain by playing at lower resolutions gives them an unfair advantage in this sort of game.
They should disallow gamers from playing at lower resolutions and ban those who dare to do so because those guys are definitely cheating as well.
They should disallow gamers from playing at lower resolutions and ban those who dare to do so because those guys are definitely cheating as well.
MrLonghair
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,764
I barely remember when EA/DICE refused widescreen support because of the advantage it gave those on widescreen monitors. That was over five years ago - I don't remember. Now it's 2010 and even cellphones come in widescreen.
What the freak?
What the freak?
I don't buy this kind of slippery-slope argument. Why? Because it's obvious that neither end of the spectrum is really a good option: if you allow any external factor that could impact gameplay, then you're forced to allow things like macroing, botting, and even aimbots/wallhacks (which I believe most reasonable people would agree is a bad thing, for at least some of those). On the other hand, if you allow nothing, then you're essentially just at the gaming console, which has its own problems (lack of a competitive component marketplace, lack of catering to various budget ranges, et cetera).
Thus it seems, at least to me, that there are some times when it just has to be a matter of what the devs chose to go with for any particular game in allowing some customizations and not others, and not so much a set "yes" or "no" to every single potential customization option.
Last edited:
technogiant
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 181
I think hardocp is barking up the wrong tree with this one....it is upto game developers to include what features they see as appropriate to their game or not.
Whether right or wrong the reason they have done it is to provide a fair environment and so be "INCLUSIVE" to gamers that do not have such setups.
If you really want to blow the trumpet for revolt why don't you call out all those games that bare the "Nvidia the way it's meant to be played" logo...you know those games that include "optomisations and features" designed specifically to "EXCLUDE" those with certain hardware profiles.
Whether right or wrong the reason they have done it is to provide a fair environment and so be "INCLUSIVE" to gamers that do not have such setups.
If you really want to blow the trumpet for revolt why don't you call out all those games that bare the "Nvidia the way it's meant to be played" logo...you know those games that include "optomisations and features" designed specifically to "EXCLUDE" those with certain hardware profiles.
Last edited:
At the risk of bringing down the IRE of HardOCP's upper echelon as well as half the user base that I've already t'd off I'll make this observation...
If we're just talking about resolution I don't see the problem. While I was one of the people that noticed a few games in the demo had no specific enhancements other than the larger display area option, the way Eyefinity works is more than just pushing pixels as I understood it at least.
There seemed to be some kind of cached rendering going on that allowed the side views to be rendered separately from the center screen. It was an entirely different effect from just running the game on a huge flat screen even if it could push that kind of resolution.
So how could anyone code a game to NOT use it when most of the games in the demo were developed BEFORE eyefinity was even released? It looked more like a driver trick that just allowed pre-rendered frames to be displayed on the side monitors. I'm suggesting that what you see on the side monitors was already there waiting in case you happened to turn that direction in the game. With Eyefinity, you get to see it without having to change your POV.
If we're just talking about resolution I don't see the problem. While I was one of the people that noticed a few games in the demo had no specific enhancements other than the larger display area option, the way Eyefinity works is more than just pushing pixels as I understood it at least.
There seemed to be some kind of cached rendering going on that allowed the side views to be rendered separately from the center screen. It was an entirely different effect from just running the game on a huge flat screen even if it could push that kind of resolution.
So how could anyone code a game to NOT use it when most of the games in the demo were developed BEFORE eyefinity was even released? It looked more like a driver trick that just allowed pre-rendered frames to be displayed on the side monitors. I'm suggesting that what you see on the side monitors was already there waiting in case you happened to turn that direction in the game. With Eyefinity, you get to see it without having to change your POV.
maleficarus
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 744
The human eye cannot see anything past 60 anyways so please dude, enough of the crap. 333 FPS? LOL The only time frames become important is unplayable (below 30) vs. playable (above 30).
Last edited:
You've understood it wrong. Eyefinity is simply a driver trick in that it tells the game that you have a one large resolution monitor and the game renders a frame at that resolution. The drivers then get the frame, chop it up and send it out to the respective monitors.
Game creators do not have to do anything special to support Multimonitors with such technology. Period.
What they do need is proper aspect ratio handling; and that carry's over to 4:3, 5:4, 16:10, 16:9 etc. Basically it just comes down to one simple math formula, is 16:9 wider than 4:3? Technically yes, so the correct way would be to give a 16:9 resolution more information on the side.
Now the method that the Global Agenda engine uses is everyone sees the same amount horizontally, but the wider your screen gets the more the top and bottom gets chopped off, which basically ruins eyefinity, gives you headaches etc.
FOV has often been restricted for gaming - ut2004 was 80 to 120 degrees if you wanted to play online. Obviously it gives an advantage, although in ut2004 people used to play with a fov that was too small (i.e. 80 on a screen designed for 90) as that made the enemies wider and hence a little easier to hit.
That said global agenda are wrong - obviously outside of competitive gaming you should be able to play with ultra wide fov if you wish.
As for the ban - well lets be honest only eye infinity users are gonna care, and they are such a small % of gamers that it's not going to hit sales, but good on Kyle for making some noise about it. The only way things will get better is if you shout loud enough to be heard. I'll not buy the game - not because of the ban, but because it didn't look that good
That said global agenda are wrong - obviously outside of competitive gaming you should be able to play with ultra wide fov if you wish.
As for the ban - well lets be honest only eye infinity users are gonna care, and they are such a small % of gamers that it's not going to hit sales, but good on Kyle for making some noise about it. The only way things will get better is if you shout loud enough to be heard. I'll not buy the game - not because of the ban, but because it didn't look that good
I don't know I see their point to realistically lock the FOV, what GA is doing though is locking FOV to one value. Which is a negative for everyone aside from the sheep.
maleficarus
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 744
Well seems Eyefinity is here to stay, at least the support is anyways:
http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-software.aspx
http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-software.aspx
- Status