Don't Buy Global Agenda - [H] Editorial

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't often post on non-hardware discussions, but this Eyefinity issue has gotten absurdly out of hand. First, the tone and stance of Kyle's editorial is extremely, and almost offensively, unprofessional. There are far, far worse transgressions game developers have made than simply not supporting a new fangled technology. I didn't see a boycott of BioShock 2 despite the Eyefinity and mouse issues. Nor do I see boycotts for excessive use of DRM or broken release.

Ah, you might say the difference is that Global Agenda is actively refusing the use of Eyefinity, claiming that it gives an unfair advantage. Well... IT DOES! Users with Eyefinity setups can see significantly more of the active game world, allowing such users a definite advantage over competitors. Now, as Global Agenda is an inherently multiplayer, competitive experience, HiRez studios certainly has a point in noting the unfair advantage Eyefinity creates, and in disabling it's use. If the game were not inherently competitive and online, this logic would be somewhat absurd, but HiRez studio absolutely has a valid point -- that said, the way they're implementing Vert really undermines this point. Doesn't make the lack of Eyefinity support any less logical, but it does make HiRez's whole stance a bit hypocritical. That said, either 16:9 or 4:3 would need to have their FOV cut down, so it seems the widescreen gamers are getting hit with the penalty (I suppose they ought to adjust FOV to make it widescreen a littler wider, but shorter, and 4:3 a little narrower but taller -- resulting in the same 'net POV').

You may not like HiRez's decision, but their is sound logic in it. Further, this is hardly analogous to supporting higher resolutions, as these do not expand the field of view. Further, Eyefinity is still a limited use technology, and out of the means and budget of the vast majority of gamers. I absolutely agree that this whole thing is a slippery slope, and as Eyefinity grows in popularity and use, HiRez may wish to revisit the issue. As it stands now, however, I don't have a problem with HiRez's decision.

I am, however, shocked and appalled that HardOCP has taken such a heavy handed approach to this issue, and calling for a complete boycott on the game is unprofessional and petty at best. Rather than attempting to convince HiRez studios that the decision is unwise, or simply informing gamers that Eyefinity support is a no-go within the contecxt of a review this is simply a disgruntled rant.

Just to make it clear, I have no intention whatsoever of playing Global Agenda, and have every intention of moving to Eyefinity setup on my i7, 5870 system as soon as funds allow.
 
Last edited:
airodus said:
I was the one that brought up the initial eyefinity concerns in beta and after release to HiRez. However, the issue goes far beyond eyefinity and triple monitor setups. The repercussions of Vert- apply to any widescreen display (the wider the resolution, the less you will see). The corollary to this is that the narrower your resolution, the more you will see. In fact, with current hardware, the best standard monitor to game on is the old 5:4 ones. You can push your advantage a little further by taking a widescreen monitor and running it in portrait mode (9:16 or 10:16). And you can actually take advantage of your eyefinity setup by running a 3 monitor high setup.

Now, this is absolutely silly and counter-intuitive. The current system is flawed and players can already take advantage of it. They might as well have it make sense.

Here is a report on the Widescreen Gaming forums that illustrates the issue:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=18370&start=0
Click to expand...
All the more weight to Kyle's editorial. Their loss.

In fact, it's amazing how short-sighted they are; they say they don't want to give widescreen gamers an unfair advantage yet do exactly that for 4:3 users by removing the top and bottom for widescreen users. That's idiocy, plain and simple.

I'd been considering giving the game a chance because of how much it had been pushed on Steam. They can forget it now.
 
Oh.
After seeing this youtube video of the game, i kinda like it and wanted to try it out..
But after reading the whole article, they can keep their low-res game to them selfs!

Thanks for making this article. And don't but their games! :)
 
The case is very simple. And i'm sure it's been said, but i'm not going to read 20 pages of comments... so my 2 pesos:

They are developing for the greatest common denominator the console.

Developing for anything else, like for instance the porting to PC, costs more money.

Supporting something that will be further limited to only a small percentage of gamers of that already smaller group that's already costing them more money is not likely to happen.

That developers think gamers are too stupid to handle them telling simple truth is the real problem.

We all know they are in it for the buck and that's just not the pc market. We all know that it's not popular to come out and say that. I for one, though, would be able to respect them if they'd be honest about it rather than try and say it's cheating. When in reality it's a feature they don't want to waste development dollars that in turn affect their wallets and their publisher's bonuses.

The day of game developers creating something awesome because of passion/desire are over. It's a greed culture right now, not an artisan one.

Kyle is right in his article to be unhappy. However, neither he nor the developer are talking about the real issue. Just the issues at the fringe.
 
MuriMuri said:
I don't often post on non-hardware discussions, but this Eyefinity issue has gotten absurdly out of hand. First, the tone and stance of Kyle's editorial is extremely, and almost offensively, unprofessional. There are far, far worse transgressions game developers have made than simply not supporting a new fangled technology...
Click to expand...

They are actively denying the use of the technology, and if this practice were more widespread, would slow innovation in the industry as a whole. Also, seeing more is not a significant advantage due to our plodding human reflexes. What use is there in seeing someone peripherally if, by the time you turn to face them, you're already dead?

All Kyle is saying is that developers who pay programmers and artists to NOT use up and coming technology should be punished. If his article was any different in tone, it would have no effect. It's just the way Kyle is.
 
MuriMuri said:
I don't often post on non-hardware discussions, but this Eyefinity issue has gotten absurdly out of hand. First, the tone and stance of Kyle's editorial is extremely, and almost offensively, unprofessional. There are far, far worse transgressions game developers have made than simply not supporting a new fangled technology. I didn't see a boycott of BioShock 2 despite the Eyefinity and mouse issues. Nor do I see boycotts for excessive use of DRM or broken release.

Ah, you might say the difference is that Global Agenda is actively refusing the use of Eyefinity, claiming that it gives an unfair advantage. Well... IT DOES! Users with Eyefinity setups can see significantly more of the active game world, allowing such users a definite advantage over competitors. Now, as Global Agenda is an inherently multiplayer, competitive experience, HiRez studios certainly has a point in noting the unfair advantage Eyefinity creates, and in disabling it's use. If the game were not inherently competitive and online, this logic would be somewhat absurd, but HiRez studio absolutely has a valid point -- that said, the way they're implementing Vert really undermines this point. Doesn't make the lack of Eyefinity support any less logical, but it does make HiRez's whole stance a bit hypocritical. That said, either 16:9 or 4:3 would need to have their FOV cut down, so it seems the widescreen gamers are getting hit with the penalty (I suppose they ought to adjust FOV to make it widescreen a littler wider, but shorter, and 4:3 a little narrower but taller -- resulting in the same 'net POV').

You may not like HiRez's decision, but their is sound logic in it. Further, this is hardly analogous to supporting higher resolutions, as these do not expand the field of view. Further, Eyefinity is still a limited use technology, and out of the means and budget of the vast majority of gamers. I absolutely agree that this whole thing is a slippery slope, and as Eyefinity grows in popularity and use, HiRez may wish to revisit the issue. As it stands now, however, I don't have a problem with HiRez's decision.

I am, however, shocked and appalled that HardOCP has taken such a heavy handed approach to this issue, and calling for a complete boycott on the game is unprofessional and petty at best. Rather than attempting to convince HiRez studios that the decision is unwise, or simply informing gamers that Eyefinity support is a no-go within the contecxt of a review this is simply a disgruntled rant.

Just to make it clear, I have no intention whatsoever of playing Global Agenda, and have every intention of moving to Eyefinity setup on my i7, 5870 system as soon as funds allow.
Click to expand...

Since you either didn't read my previous posts or didn't understand them, I'm going to ask you a question.

What aspect ratio (since that is what affects field of view) is the correct aspect ratio so someone won't have to worry about having an unfair advantage? Unless that question can be answered and backed up by logic and facts, the argument about unfair advantages is a false premise.

Not one person in this thread has yet to answer that question even though that is the crux of the argument for those defending the developer and by extension those who also think multi-monitor setups with proper field of view scaling are gaining an unfair advantage.
 
RGFrog said:
The case is very simple. And i'm sure it's been said, but i'm not going to read 20 pages of comments... so my 2 pesos:

They are developing for the greatest common denominator the console.

Developing for anything else, like for instance the porting to PC, costs more money.

Supporting something that will be further limited to only a small percentage of gamers of that already smaller group that's already costing them more money is not likely to happen.

That developers think gamers are too stupid to handle them telling simple truth is the real problem.

We all know they are in it for the buck and that's just not the pc market. We all know that it's not popular to come out and say that. I for one, though, would be able to respect them if they'd be honest about it rather than try and say it's cheating. When in reality it's a feature they don't want to waste development dollars that in turn affect their wallets and their publisher's bonuses.

The day of game developers creating something awesome because of passion/desire are over. It's a greed culture right now, not an artisan one.

Kyle is right in his article to be unhappy. However, neither he nor the developer are talking about the real issue. Just the issues at the fringe.
Click to expand...

People need to stop blaming consoles for everything. This is a PC only game and has nothing to do with the consoles.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Since you either didn't read my previous posts or didn't understand them, I'm going to ask you a question.

What aspect ratio (since that is what affects field of view) is the correct aspect ratio so someone won't have to worry about having an unfair advantage? Unless that question can be answered and backed up by logic and facts, the argument about unfair advantages is a false premise.

Not one person in this thread has yet to answer that question even though that is the crux of the argument for those defending the developer and by extension those who also think multi-monitor setups with proper field of view scaling are gaining an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...

The issue of an unfair advantage is moot. The developer decided it was, so the burden of proof is on those who want to use Eyefinity. They have to demonstrate why it isn't an advantage. I don't care one way or the other. Just making an observation.

The issue of unfair advantage or not is muddled by the context in which the issue is addressed, namely a rant. I don't care one way or the other, but the way the issue was addressed immediately makes me lean toward siding with the developer just due to the "unprofessional" way the situation was addressed. It's one thing to say, in the forum, I don't agree with the decision of Hi-Rez to not allow Eyefinity as it is a great way to enjoy a game. It's another to say, "Don't buy this game" on the front page of a fairly well-known PC website.
 
I'd rather see more heavyhandness on stupid things like matchmaking, day one DLC, more games removing dedicated servers as a feature, consolitis, and the shifting away from devs making games on PC's first before porting them to consoles, among a host of other issues that developers could be given the smack down on rather than something that affects such a small portion of the overall gaming community.

I'd rather see more "unprofessional" conduct towards perpetrators of those issues rather than this.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Since you either didn't read my previous posts or didn't understand them, I'm going to ask you a question.

What aspect ratio (since that is what affects field of view) is the correct aspect ratio so someone won't have to worry about having an unfair advantage? Unless that question can be answered and backed up by logic and facts, the argument about unfair advantages is a false premise.

Not one person in this thread has yet to answer that question even though that is the crux of the argument for those defending the developer and by extension those who also think multi-monitor setups with proper field of view scaling are gaining an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...

Sophistry at its best.

This might blow your mind, but perhaps there is a certain range of commonly used aspect ratios that are fairly equivalent with tiny advantages, and then outside that range are extreme multi-monitor aspect ratios that provide a much larger advantage. Hilarious that you would whine about "faulty premises" when your entire argument here hinges on pingeonholing a gray area judgment call as a black and white issue.
 
Just for reference a 3x30" landscape setup is 48:10 aspect ratio...I can't see how that wouldn't give an advantage in FOV. Don't you remember the whole argument with the 16:10 monitors vs. 4:3 in games like Battlefield 1942?

Check this out and click on "surround gaming" comparisons:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screenshots/
 
DaFox said:
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.
Click to expand...


If it's just more resolution then why buy three monitors? Why not just one big monitor. It certainly looked more like a fisheye view than an expanded view. The center monitor displayed what everyone sees with a single monitor setup. The two side monitors appeared to be rendering cached frames.

:cool:
 
hfx392 said:
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.
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly.

333cuxe.jpg


if me and you were holding a sniper rifle and camping in this spot, having someone telling you “hey someone is coming from the left/right door” is fair? better mouse, video card or bigger screen gives an advantage but it’s a different not stupid comparisons.

it’s an amazing tech, it’s helps in NFS Shift like Kyle said, and that kind of “help” is ok, but some (very few) games shouldn’t support it, and from the video,maybe Global Agenda is NOT one of them.
 
This might blow your mind, but perhaps there is a certain range of commonly used aspect ratios that are fairly equivalent with tiny advantages, and then outside that range are extreme multi-monitor aspect ratios that provide a much larger advantage. Hilarious that you would whine about "faulty premises" when your entire argument here hinges on pingeonholing a gray area judgment call as a black and white issue.
Click to expand...

Right, the issue here isn't determining whether there is or isn't a key or ideal aspect ratio, rather, if Eyefinity displays so much more information over all other available aspect ratios in the game as to be an unfair advantage. Remember that all gamers in Global Agenda are limited to the exact same horizontal FOV (if I understand this correctly), therefore, a true Eyefinity setup would dramatically expand the horizontal FOV for those users -- giving them an advantage over all other players. Again, as GA is a multiplayer, inherently competitive game, Eyefinity does represent a possible way for users to gain the upper hand. That HighRez has chosen to disable this feature seems fine to me, and I imagine they can easily revisit this if Eyefinity grows in popularity or a solution can be worked that doesn't affect game balance.

Anyway, my point was simpy that HighRez has a valid reason for disabling the use of Eyefinity, beyond technical shortcomings or simply not bothering to support it. The extreme response HardOCP has taken seems terribly unjustified, rather unlike HardOCP in general, and other devs have done far more to hold back the new technology floodgates with draconian DRM and massively buggy releases without HardOCP uttering nary a peep. The editorial is simply out of character for the site, and unnecessarily inflammatory.
 
firas said:
my thoughts exactly.

333cuxe.jpg


if me and you were holding a sniper rifle and camping in this spot, having someone telling you “hey someone is coming from the left/right door” is fair? better mouse, video card or bigger screen gives an advantage but it’s a different not stupid comparisons.

it’s an amazing tech, it’s helps in NFS Shift like Kyle said, and that kind of “help” is ok, but some (very few) games shouldn’t support it, and from the video,maybe Global Agenda is NOT one of them.
Click to expand...

Step back from the monitor. Now you can see the details on the the side screens. Oh wait while your eyes were adjusting I popped out and awped you from behind a pillar in the center screen. This has been proven time and again your eye's do not work like that. Stare at your computer screen without looking away u can not read off a letterboard to your left or right. if you detected action in the below or side hall it would be a blur from a fps perspective and if I had an awp you'd already be dead. even if you had magic contacts making you capable of auto adjusting constantly the advantage is minimal.
 
Last edited:
kirbyrj said:
The issue of an unfair advantage is moot. The developer decided it was, so the burden of proof is on those who want to use Eyefinity. They have to demonstrate why it isn't an advantage. I don't care one way or the other. Just making an observation.

The issue of unfair advantage or not is muddled by the context in which the issue is addressed, namely a rant. I don't care one way or the other, but the way the issue was addressed immediately makes me lean toward siding with the developer just due to the "unprofessional" way the situation was addressed. It's one thing to say, in the forum, I don't agree with the decision of Hi-Rez to not allow Eyefinity as it is a great way to enjoy a game. It's another to say, "Don't buy this game" on the front page of a fairly well-known PC website.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, pure and simple. Your logic would get you laughed out of just about any debate or gathering of logical minds. To say something is arbitrarily "unfair" and force others to prove it is unfair is a crock of shit and you know it. As the person making the statement that it's unfair, it is up to that person to prove that it is unfair; not the other way around.

I notice you completely ducked the question. I also noticed that your point of contention seems to be based on your feelings about how the subject matter was presented and not the content. That is illogical as is your reply to my post.

JCDenton said:
Sophistry at its best.

This might blow your mind, but perhaps there is a certain range of commonly used aspect ratios that are fairly equivalent with tiny advantages, and then outside that range are extreme multi-monitor aspect ratios that provide a much larger advantage. Hilarious that you would whine about "faulty premises" when your entire argument here hinges on pingeonholing a gray area judgment call as a black and white issue.
Click to expand...

Fairly equivalent is not the same as equivalent. Just because you're accustomed to something -- standard aspect ratios in this case -- doesn't mean they are the same. What makes your argument even worse is that standard widescreen aspect ratios were considered unfair not long ago and yet you are holding them up as an excuse to block multi-monitor setups as unfair. It's not my reasoning which is built on faulty premises.
 
Lots of comments on this one. Ever since Quake people have used high FOV values on standard monitors to gain extra view space. There was even a "fixed FOV" cvar in Quake 2 to prevent this, though I don't remember any servers setting it. In Quake 3, a lot of players play with a FOV of 110 as opposed to the default setting of 90.

Then Doom 3 came along, and we got the dreaded 60Hz refresh rate cap. I was not too fond of the whole "60 FPS is enough for everyone" when I'm used to running at 100Hz or more. I was able to adapt to Doom 3's 60Hz by finding a few cvar tricks to remove the visual stuttering when strafing left and right. It's a dark enough game to not look like I'm staring at a strobe light at 60Hz with vsync. Yes, I use a CRT because I do not like LCD screens. Until I can get the same clarity and refresh rates on something better than what I'm using now I'm sticking with CRT. Anyone who says that it's not noticeable, I can name three gamers including myself who can and do notice the difference in refresh rates and visual clarity. Everyone is different and that's why the whole "one-size-fits-all" mentality has got to go.

This bit with Global Agenda wouldn't affect me personally because I don't have Eyefinity, but this brings me right back to the "60 FPS is enough" logic. Why must people be punished for having better hardware? If someone pays for the technology, let them use it! When the transition was being made from dialup networking to broadband, you had HPB modem users and LBP cable users. Nobody wrote games to force the cable users to have simulated 200-400 ping response and packet loss that you'd have on a dialup connection. Those of us still stuck on dialup had to adapt and deal with it. You either learned to adapt to the LPB railgun masters, or you got fragged repeatedly. That's the old way of doing things. If someone else had a technological advantage, you learned to play better. Game companies should be supporting and encouraging people to use newer tech, not forcing users to the lowest common denominator. If someone else has Eyefinity and you don't, then save your money and go out and buy it. Voila, no more "unfair" advantage, problem solved. If you can't afford it, well, there's a thing called priorities.
 
JCDenton said:
Sophistry at its best.

This might blow your mind, but perhaps there is a certain range of commonly used aspect ratios that are fairly equivalent with tiny advantages, and then outside that range are extreme multi-monitor aspect ratios that provide a much larger advantage. Hilarious that you would whine about "faulty premises" when your entire argument here hinges on pingeonholing a gray area judgment call as a black and white issue.
Click to expand...

Whats the matter sport, can't afford a couple more of those 3007s?
 
piscian18 said:
Step back from the monitor. Now you can see the details on the the side screens. Oh wait while your eyes were adjusting I popped out and awped you from behind a pillar in the center screen. This has been proven time and again your eye's do not work like that. Stare at your computer screen without looking away can u not read off a letterboard to your left or right. if you detected action in the below or side hall it would be a blur from a fps perspective and if I had an awp you'd already be dead. even if you had magic contacts making you capable of auto adjusting constantly the advantage is minimal.
Click to expand...

Good response.

Staring at a video of it or even a picture allows your eyes to wander around and soak up the detail. But when your sitting there with that much screen space around your head you simply cannot resolve every detail from every screen. Your peripheral vision can pick up motion, but you still have to either turn your head or move the mouse, no different from another player with great audio who heard the noise and looked that way.

While you can pick up some details, you still have to move the FOV to look at it or use your weapon. I know a lot of players in Valve games (and others) who tweak their FOV to give them a fish eye effect just so they can see more...

I can agree with high res wanting to keep it "fair" for everyone, but excluding tech stating it gives an unfair advantage just sounds like they have never seen it in person and used it.

All game dev's should support it making the immersion deeper and the game more fun. I am surprised but some of the old games that work just fine with it... And depressed when something modern and nice fails...
 
Seriously, that is one embarrassing rant.

It has nothing to do with pixel count.

There's a reason non-standard FOV/AR are not allowed in most competitive game matches, and if the game maker decides such setups are undesirable and chooses to limit it, so be it.

Don't like it, don't buy it.

Maybe lay off the jack daniels before hitting the 'ole keyboard next time?
 
I can't believe I'm reading posters claiming that developers should be affecting the gameplay of the online games they are supposed to be maintaining. Do people actually use their head before they slam it on the keyboard to create these posts?

It's the developer's game, their rules. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't buy the game. But going all nerd rage and calling for a boycott? How childish.
 
I've played on an Eyefinity setup owned by a friend who works out of his house. 5870 with 3 x 22" Dell monitors in landscape mode. After about 20 minutes of playing Fallout 3 I was so immersed in the game with the extra view space I didn't notice the bezels anymore. The larger view space certainly made a difference in game play.

Now that I've experienced the benefits of Eyefinity I can stand fully behind Kyle with his opinion regarding Hi-Rez' statement of not implementing multi-monitor support because they believe it "it would give an unfair advantage". That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard.
 
heycarnut said:
Seriously, that is one embarrassing rant.

It has nothing to do with pixel count.

There's a reason non-standard FOV/AR are not allowed in most competitive game matches, and if the game maker decides such setups are undesirable and chooses to limit it, so be it.

Don't like it, don't buy it.

Maybe lay off the jack daniels before hitting the 'ole keyboard next time?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand exactly what the issue is. I apologize for using comparisons that most everyone will understand but we have a lot of readers that are more in tune with having a good immersive gaming experience rather than what code made it that way. Maybe I should have titled it "GA Hates Hor+ - EPIC FAIL"? :) That just would not have gotten the point across except maybe to 15%...

The technical merits of what is happening here is not really my issue, although you maybe understand it that way. My issue is with technology and hardware enthusiast being punished for being on the cutting edge, which in turn hurts the industry and stagnate innovation if what HR does he would become widespread.

And the ONLY time I drink Jack is when the stewardess runs out of good whiskey.
 
You're not paying attention and missing the point. The developer can do whatever they want. IT'S THEIR GAME. If you don't like it, YOU are the one who has to prove to them that it is in fact fair or else don't buy the game or play by their rules. Whether or not it is or is not fair in some objective way is irrelevant. This isn't an issue of logic...this is an issue of practicality. The only opinion that matters is the developer. If they reconsider and add Eyefinity support, it will be based on perceived pressure from sites like this and sales figures, and maybe if you present a good argument for why they should change their game. It doesn't seem like you are going to convince them that it is in fact fair, so you must resort to influencing the sales figures. That is the point I'm making. I'm not trying to wax eloquent about some esoteric bullshit. If you really wanted to impress me, you'd draw up a logical diagram so I could follow your argument because it is pretty obvious you are trying to impress us all using the term "logic" without applying it.

Plus, I didn't duck the question, I detailed below that post the fact that a high end Eyefinity setup has a 48:10 aspect ratio in landscape mode. There is significantly more peripheral vision, and while the eye might not be able to focus on what is going on, it can see the motion. Honestly, this is pretty obvious. It isn't hard to see why the developer would say that it is an unfair advantage. Just like back when widescreens first became popular and the people with 16:10 screens could see more on the periphery than the 4:3 crowd it was considered "unfair" by some people. This is just the next iteration. In this case the developer stepped in and made a decision limiting the use.

SmokeRngs said:
Bullshit, pure and simple. Your logic would get you laughed out of just about any debate or gathering of logical minds. To say something is arbitrarily "unfair" and force others to prove it is unfair is a crock of shit and you know it. As the person making the statement that it's unfair, it is up to that person to prove that it is unfair; not the other way around.

I notice you completely ducked the question. I also noticed that your point of contention seems to be based on your feelings about how the subject matter was presented and not the content. That is illogical as is your reply to my post.



Fairly equivalent is not the same as equivalent. Just because you're accustomed to something -- standard aspect ratios in this case -- doesn't mean they are the same. What makes your argument even worse is that standard widescreen aspect ratios were considered unfair not long ago and yet you are holding them up as an excuse to block multi-monitor setups as unfair. It's not my reasoning which is built on faulty premises.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goronmon View Post
It's the developer's game, their rules. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't buy the game."

Kyle_Bennet:
I thought that was exactly the message we had..... You confuse me.
Click to expand...

I think that is precisely the right message -- just not a full fledge boycott. If full Eyefinity support in game is a prerequisite for you, then you absolutely shouldn't buy it. But, to call for a straight boycott for all users is overkill. I think you pointing out that Global Agenda doesn't support Eyefinity is totally fine, but calling for a whole boycott isn't helpful.

Also, while I can certainly understand trying to make the argument more accessible, it is a little disingenuous not to directly address the FOV consideration, which is really the crux of HiRez's argument.

Anyway, I am totally and completely behind Eyefinity support -- and picked up a 5870 precisely to take advantage of it -- but I think HighRez has a good enough reason to not support the tech just yet. And, HighRez is absolutely not punishing those who support new technology, you can play the game just like everyone else, simply using one monitor. ;)

This is a bit like saying that we should boycott every game that doesn't support 3D. After all Avatar could do it, and so can some Nvidia cards, so shouldn't we boycott anything not supporting it? Nope. We should embrace and applaud those games and devs who do opt to support new technology, not single mindedly dismiss an entire game and developer simply for not being on the absolute cutting edge. Well, time to get back to my NES... ;)
 
Ok, I don't have time to read thru all 20 pages, but I will say this:

I can understand the devs point and can understand having a fixed aspect ratio for PvP type games in a tournement situation where competition is for cash or other prizes.

That being said, global agenda isn't exactly tournement style play for cash prizes, and so while I can understand the devs position, I also think its a bit harsh, and unwarented for the situation where people just want to have fun.
 
Well, my 2 cents:

If you want a fair, level and even competitive playing field, play Halo 3 on your console.

The PC should be constantly pushing the envelope and pushing people to get more and better technology. If you are restricting people from new technology, people won't buy it and there'll be no point for manufacturer's to make better, stopping progress altogether. If you allow for new things like this, you'll want to get it for advantage, cool factor, etc. If we disallowed pings <200ms back in the day so that dialup people had a fair shake at people with high speed, where would we be now?

While I'm all for fair play and sport, I believe that you should be striving for more and better so that new innovations are produced to compete for your dollar. I personally don't want to play new games for the NES and text my girlfriend on my Motorola StarTAC.
 
kirbyrj said:
snip
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is if we don't like something we should simply do nothing? If we do not get actively involved with helping change the pc industry, how can we sit back and justify the decline in pc gaming. The only reason we play pc games are to enhance our gaming experience be it keyboard and mouse to triple monitor gaming. If we are to stifle the technology we have, we are no better off than playing on the consoles.
 
kirbyrj said:
You're not paying attention and missing the point. The developer can do whatever they want. IT'S THEIR GAME. If you don't like it, YOU are the one who has to prove to them that it is in fact fair or else don't buy the game or play by their rules. Whether or not it is or is not fair in some objective way is irrelevant. This isn't an issue of logic...this is an issue of practicality. The only opinion that matters is the developer. If they reconsider and add Eyefinity support, it will be based on perceived pressure from sites like this and sales figures, and maybe if you present a good argument for why they should change their game. It doesn't seem like you are going to convince them that it is in fact fair, so you must resort to influencing the sales figures. That is the point I'm making. I'm not trying to wax eloquent about some esoteric bullshit. If you really wanted to impress me, you'd draw up a logical diagram so I could follow your argument because it is pretty obvious you are trying to impress us all using the term "logic" without applying it.

Plus, I didn't duck the question, I detailed below that post the fact that a high end Eyefinity setup has a 48:10 aspect ratio in landscape mode. There is significantly more peripheral vision, and while the eye might not be able to focus on what is going on, it can see the motion. Honestly, this is pretty obvious. It isn't hard to see why the developer would say that it is an unfair advantage. Just like back when widescreens first became popular and the people with 16:10 screens could see more on the periphery than the 4:3 crowd it was considered "unfair" by some people. This is just the next iteration. In this case the developer stepped in and made a decision limiting the use.
Click to expand...

You're the one missing the point even after I indicated exactly what it is. Just because something is said doesn't make it true. Just because the developer says it's unfair does not make it true and the burden of proof falls on them when called into question. The statement has been called into question and so far I have seen no proof. If you don't understand that, that's not my problem, but it is your problem when you are misinforming people.

You did dodge the question because you didn't answer it at all. You went out on a tangent which avoided the question and even hurt your standpoint. You're bringing up 4:3 and 16:10. Widescreen monitors have been out for years now and many games, competitive games even, have had support for widescreen aspect ratios and I don't hear complaints about them having an unfair advantage over people using 4:3 aspect ratio monitors even though that was the justification for some companies blocking the use of widescreen aspect ratios in their games. The argument held no merit then and it still doesn't hold any merit now.
 
kirbyrj said:
The developer can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

True only from a technical standpoint. If you want to stay in business you have to make decisions that will please your customers so that you can generate a profit. If not, you fail. Forcing constraints on people is typically not a good way to stay in business.

Kyle's point is a good one, and I'll explain why. A single-screen gamer like myself would never even know Eyefinity support did not exist without someone writing up an article about it. If I were to buy the game and play it, I would not be sitting here saying "oooh, I'm so glad they didn't put in support for Eyefinity. Take that you hardware geeks, no unfair advantage for you!" I would just play the game, and that is that. If someone else had Eyefinity, how would I even know? However, if I transitioned to a multi-monitor Eyefinity setup, or if I had one and wanted to use it with the game, I would be put off by the fact that I couldn't use it, and outright pissed when I found out it was an arbitrary decision and not a technical limitation.

Yes, the developer can decide to not support something, and potential customers can decide not to buy a game based on that decision. That's not as much of an issue as developers possibly starting a trend that could stagnate the development of new technologies. Gaming has pushed the PC forward more than anything else. Everyone wanted a Pentium computer to play Quake, not because they wanted to run a word processor faster. If other developers follow suit and hamstring Eyefinity and other similar technologies as they're getting off the ground, then the hardware developers have no reason to push forward with development. That's the larger issue here.
 
Sunder said:
Well, my 2 cents:

If you want a fair, level and even competitive playing field, play Halo 3 on your console.

The PC should be constantly pushing the envelope and pushing people to get more and better technology. If you are restricting people from new technology, people won't buy it and there'll be no point for manufacturer's to make better, stopping progress altogether. If you allow for new things like this, you'll want to get it for advantage, cool factor, etc. If we disallowed pings <200ms back in the day so that dialup people had a fair shake at people with high speed, where would we be now?

While I'm all for fair play and sport, I believe that you should be striving for more and better so that new innovations are produced to compete for your dollar. I personally don't want to play new games for the NES and text my girlfriend on my Motorola StarTAC.
Click to expand...

Why not have both? Let the PvP-focused games aim towards a fairly even gameplay environment using ubiquitous tech, and let the less competitive games push the envelope. Best of both worlds.
 
I really don't understand how an adjustable field of view is an unfair advantage. If the developer lets everyone adjust the field of view, a person with only 1 monitor could just as easily adjust the FOV if they wanted to. 2560x1600 resolution (single monitor) actually has more pixels than a dual display setup of 2 1600x1200 monitors.

I bought this game last week, and although I think it's lame that the developer is being dumb about shunning multimonitor support, it's not a big enough deal for me to feel any different about the game itself (which is pretty fun ;)).
 
Never heard of the game or even the studios, and wouldn't really care what they're going to do and support. But the reason for not supporting multimonitor setups or eyefinity is just laughable, giving unfair advantage? Jeez..
 
Wow, a lot of panties getting in a wad around here... :rolleyes:

look, it's simple: casual gamers want a level "fair" playing field, the fact that they now know others can't see more then they might very well give them MORE of a reason to buy and play the game.

We all know the "enthusiast" folks are getting less and less attention lately... YAWN... just deal with it already, find another hobby if it really gets you upset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top