"Current-gen will last until 2012", according to Crytek

Blazestorm said:
Scaling does need to exist, Source engine does scale amazingly well... looking at Steam hardware surveys you can see the number of people running high-end cards is low... if Valve released a game that couldn't run on anything lower than an 8800GTX, they would be cutting off 80% of their users.
Click to expand...

I think focusing on scaling is just about the best think Crytek can do. I haven't heard much about Cryengine 2.5/3, or wtfever it is, since I saw the tech demo when it was released, so I don't know how well it scales. At the time though, it seemed to me that they were trying to keep Cryengines graphics on the same level for PC gaming, while being able to automatically scale it back for consoles and maintain a decent amount of eye candy. I'm sure this would also translate into some low requirement medium settings on the PC.

Being able to release a game that can stress the PC enthusiasts hardware, while keeping the mainstream pc gamers happy, and be released on consoles seems to me like what gaming companies should be shooting for at this point. If CryEngine comes with the tools to automatically do this type of scaling, I'm pretty damned excited.

And BTW, I've never really thought of Crytek as the maker of Crysis. I think they will do far better as the maker of CryEngine, and last I heard there was a bunch of game companies that showed interest in using the engine. Let Crytek supply the tools and let other companies handle the storyline. If you ever used Sandbox 2, you know what I mean.
 
Blazestorm said:
I don't know why I think it's funny seeing Silus talk about graphic advancements and all that... and yet he's running an 8800GT with a 19" (1280 x 1024) screen...
Click to expand...

And...what does that have to do with anything ? Are you having the need to point the finger at someone and I was the "lucky" one, for no particular reason ?

Do I need to have the fastest computer on earth to appreciate more advanced technology, that would appear sooner (rather than later), if there are games that push the current hardware ?

Not to mention that the reason that I'm still running a 8800 GT, is also tied to the fact most companies stalled the industry, by using the same old engines, over and over and over, which hardly gives me reasons to upgrade. Had more companies used CryEngine 2, you can be sure that I would have much more reasons to upgrade (me and others too actually). But no, most games use UE3, which was developed around consoles, so it runs smoothly on any mid-low end PC. Source Engine is the same, but not because it was developed around consoles, but because it's OLD.

So yeah, your comment was quite pointless...

Blazestorm said:
Scaling does need to exist, Source engine does scale amazingly well... looking at Steam hardware surveys you can see the number of people running high-end cards is low... if Valve released a game that couldn't run on anything lower than an 8800GTX, they would be cutting off 80% of their users.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

It's saying more people run Radeon 9600's than GTX280's... and more people Radeon 9200's than GTX285's
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, you don't mention the number of GeForce 8800s at the top of the numbers for video cards. They are, to this day, quite capable of running almost EVERY game out there, even with high settings.

Blazestorm said:
So why should companies try to "push that envelope" for the 5% of people who are able to run the game at the settings it should be run at? I understand the argument that the advancement of game technology is what pushes the industry for video cards...
Click to expand...

It's not just video cards. Faster RAM, faster Hard-Drives and faster CPUs is also part of the deal. A game is one of the applications that takes advantage of EVERYTHING in a computer.

As for your 5%, I resort to the numbers of 8800s owners again, in the steam survey. Also HD 4800 series owners. Actually you could add the GTX 2xx numbers, HD 4800s, 8800s, 9800s, GeForce 9600s, HD 3870 and you have quite a large percentage of people, with extremely capable GPUs, that are being underutilized today, on most games. Hardly "just" 5%...
 
rampantandroid said:
Sorry dude, but he's right. PC gaming is becoming a niche market...consoles have outdone it as they are far easier to deal with. No owrrying about working on hardware from 2 years ago, you write the game for the 360/Ps3/whatever. And it just works. Buying a game? For a PC you have to wonder if you meet the reqs. For a console: does it say 360? If yes, buy. If no, then....well, go find the 360 section of the store.

I prefer PC gaming, but that said, I see why it's a niche market.
Click to expand...

I never argued that it wasn't a niche market, but my point was that if you want average graphics go buy a console. Don't game on pc, and then complain that it costs too much, or you can't run it at max settings.

There are plenty of PC gamers to make any developer a lot of money, but most of them have gone to consoles because

1. There are quite a bit more console gamers to buy the game
2. Console gamers will generally put up with crappier games. PC gamers will generally not.

So that means EA can put out a harry potter game that was thrown together in 6 months and still have it sell millions based on the name alone.
 
The "PC" (aka...spend thousands ungrading their computer to push every new game to the max) "gamers" on this thread are not true gamers....they are enthusiast.

I think we need to separate the gamer and the enthusiast....most PC gamers who's argument in the console vs pc debate generally spout the graphics side of the argument. I used to be a huge PC gamer, but then realized I spent more time and money trying to get a game to run at the max resolution than accually playing the game...

This all changed when I purchased an Xbox and started playing a game that looked decent (spare me the "games look like crap on consoles") and focusing on playing the game and not what it looks like, no hassels, seing by the store, pick it up, and can be playing in 15 minutes...Xbox live is a hell of lot better online community than anything the PC can offer, and that is with any game...

If you want to be an enthusiast and push the envelope, then more power to you, but do not get mad when the developers realize how most of the gaming community works and moves to were the money is.
 
XvMMvX said:
The "PC" (aka...spend thousands ungrading their computer to push every new game to the max) "gamers" on this thread are not true gamers....they are enthusiast.

I think we need to separate the gamer and the enthusiast....most PC gamers who's argument in the console vs pc debate generally spout the graphics side of the argument. I used to be a huge PC gamer, but then realized I spent more time and money trying to get a game to run at the max resolution than accually playing the game...

This all changed when I purchased an Xbox and started playing a game that looked decent (spare me the "games look like crap on consoles") and focusing on playing the game and not what it looks like, no hassels, seing by the store, pick it up, and can be playing in 15 minutes...Xbox live is a hell of lot better online community than anything the PC can offer, and that is with any game...
If you want to be an enthusiast and push the envelope, then more power to you, but do not get mad when the developers realize how most of the gaming community works and moves to were the money is.
Click to expand...

Anything else you just said in your post was immediately invalidated by that singe line.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by XvMMvX
The "PC" (aka...spend thousands ungrading their computer to push every new game to the max) "gamers" on this thread are not true gamers....they are enthusiast.

I think we need to separate the gamer and the enthusiast....most PC gamers who's argument in the console vs pc debate generally spout the graphics side of the argument. I used to be a huge PC gamer, but then realized I spent more time and money trying to get a game to run at the max resolution than accually playing the game...

This all changed when I purchased an Xbox and started playing a game that looked decent (spare me the "games look like crap on consoles") and focusing on playing the game and not what it looks like, no hassels, seing by the store, pick it up, and can be playing in 15 minutes...Xbox live is a hell of lot better online community than anything the PC can offer, and that is with any game...
If you want to be an enthusiast and push the envelope, then more power to you, but do not get mad when the developers realize how most of the gaming community works and moves to were the money is.
Click to expand...
Anything else you just said in your post was immediately invalidated by that singe line.
Click to expand...

According to whom, you? Spare me, name one online community that supports the number of players, games, and features that XBL offers.
 
Silus said:
As for your 5%, I resort to the numbers of 8800s owners again, in the steam survey. Also HD 4800 series owners. Actually you could add the GTX 2xx numbers, HD 4800s, 8800s, 9800s, GeForce 9600s, HD 3870 and you have quite a large percentage of people, with extremely capable GPUs, that are being underutilized today, on most games. Hardly "just" 5%...
Click to expand...

They're still mid-range $50-150 hardware... "extremely capable" at low resolutions? Even at 1920 x 1200 these cards will struggle with modern games.

5% was referring to GTX295, 4870x2, GTX280 etc. the high-end hardware...

And my comment about your setup is, an 8800Gt will not be able to run any modern game at even medium settings @ 2560 x 1600...

For the real enthusiasts, hardware still hasn't caught up to any modern game. I still get slow-down in TF2, even with an i7 @ 4.0ghz and 2 GTX260's in SLI... I took one out for some other driver issues and am now waiting for the next set of GPU's so I can play today's games at proper framerates (aka more than 60fps at minimum)

My point was, you're running mid-to-low range hardware, yet you're talking about all these advancements and it doesn't really affect you. Atleast in my opinion.

But whatever, you argue all you want, Crysis was a shitty game, good engine... CoD4 was a good game, with a good engine too. I'd rather have an engine that scales so I can play it on older hardware. like WoW, my little brother plays that on a second PC that has an XP 2500, with 512mb ram and a Radeon 9600... it runs fine at 1440 x 900 and medium/low settings...

Games should be focusing a lot more on the story, gameplay, etc. rather than fucking graphics that most of us turn down anyways so we can actually play the game.
 
XvMMvX said:
According to whom, you? Spare me, name one online community that supports the number of players, games, and features that XBL offers.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about the supposed features of XBL. I care about the community of people. Go into any clan server and you'll find more enjoyable people to play with than probably all of XBL. Let me name some reasons why PC>XBL

1. Far fewer little kids, and those that do exist don't yell racial slurs while playing
2. The community doesn't abandon games after 6 months. I still know people that play TFC and CnC Renegade
3. Are you seriously talking about # of players. 32 standard players in most servers of games, up to 40+ in CS, 64 in BF2

and what in the hell are you taking about "number of games". I hate to break this to you, but PC has more active games online than the xbox and 360 has combined

I could go on and on, but it seems obvious that you're a console fanboy.
 
:p
Baker said:
You are speculating out of your ass.

The only thing that Microsoft and Sony will do to compete with the Wii (as seen from the last several gaming conferences) will be more motion control stuff. When you compare the sales of games which come out for all 3 systems, 360 and PS3 usually sell better, due to having better graphics (Like Madden, etc)
...
If I were to speculate, I would say that 2012 is too early for the next round of consoles. Microsoft and Sony are just now getting their manufacturing costs down, and have been selling at a loss. I think 2014-15 will be the time frame for which the next gen consoles will be released or announced. From everything that has happened with this current generation, I would hope Sony and Microsoft learn from some of their previous mistakes. They need an AAA title during release, they need to make sure that they don't have a $599.99 price tag, they need to not rush a system out to the point it hurts quality, and they need to listen to their customers when it comes to features like BC,etc.
Click to expand...

Well the questions you should be asking yourself is, why would Sony and Microsoft even bother producing consoles at a loss when Nintendo made profit on every single unit they sold by using older tech? Secondly if PC gaming stagnates, be prepared to foot the bill for new tech in your console because the PC gamers won't be.

XvMMvX said:
The "PC" (aka...spend thousands ungrading their computer to push every new game to the max) "gamers" on this thread are not true gamers....they are enthusiast.

I think we need to separate the gamer and the enthusiast....most PC gamers who's argument in the console vs pc debate generally spout the graphics side of the argument. I used to be a huge PC gamer, but then realized I spent more time and money trying to get a game to run at the max resolution than accually playing the game...

This all changed when I purchased an Xbox and started playing a game that looked decent (spare me the "games look like crap on consoles") and focusing on playing the game and not what it looks like, no hassels, seing by the store, pick it up, and can be playing in 15 minutes...Xbox live is a hell of lot better online community than anything the PC can offer, and that is with any game...
If you want to be an enthusiast and push the envelope, then more power to you, but do not get mad when the developers realize how most of the gaming community works and moves to were the money is.
Click to expand...

You're doing it wrong, AND pretty much any game over the past 10 years.

XvMMvX said:
According to whom, you? Spare me, name one online community that supports the number of players, games, and features that XBL offers.
Click to expand...

WoW
 
Blazestorm said:
They're still mid-range $50-150 hardware... "extremely capable" at low resolutions? Even at 1920 x 1200 these cards will struggle with modern games.
Click to expand...

What is a modern game ? L4D ? CoD 4 ? All of these can be run at max settings and even high levels of AA @ high resolutions, in any of those cards

Blazestorm said:
5% was referring to GTX295, 4870x2, GTX280 etc. the high-end hardware...
Click to expand...

Which aren't the only capable cards in the market, so your point is moot.

Blazestorm said:
And my comment about your setup is, an 8800Gt will not be able to run any modern game at even medium settings @ 2560 x 1600...
Click to expand...

It's too bad that they don't have a test @ 2560x1600, but look at the 9800 GT doing so well @ 1920x1200 wiith 4 xAA...and CoD 4 is a "modern game"...

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15752/4

Blazestorm said:
For the real enthusiasts, hardware still hasn't caught up to any modern game. I still get slow-down in TF2, even with an i7 @ 4.0ghz and 2 GTX260's in SLI... I took one out for some other driver issues and am now waiting for the next set of GPU's so I can play today's games at proper framerates (aka more than 60fps at minimum)

My point was, you're running mid-to-low range hardware, yet you're talking about all these advancements and it doesn't really affect you. Atleast in my opinion.

But whatever, you argue all you want, Crysis was a shitty game, good engine... CoD4 was a good game, with a good engine too. I'd rather have an engine that scales so I can play it on older hardware. like WoW, my little brother plays that on a second PC that has an XP 2500, with 512mb ram and a Radeon 9600... it runs fine at 1440 x 900 and medium/low settings...
Click to expand...

Crysis is a shitty game and CoD4 is a good game ? Read below...

Blazestorm said:
Games should be focusing a lot more on the story, gameplay, etc. rather than fucking graphics that most of us turn down anyways so we can actually play the game.
Click to expand...

Yes, CoD 4 definitely has a lot of gameplay....:rolleyes:
Point and shoot...you can't even open doors. Great gameplay. Now Crysis, a game where you can choose how you accomplish a mission is "shitty", without gameplay...Is your definition of "gameplay" = "extremely linear" ?

That's precisely where we disagree then...
 
Conker said:
What the crytek guy was saying though was that it would be like the pre-playstation 2 era where the pc had its own world and the consoles had its own. Thats if it goes like the wii though. I think it is. Microsoft and Sony aren't going to go all out graphics again like it did this last time. Wii was the most successful with the least graphics but has the controls. Graphics will only get alittle better now but with all the add ons now next gen. PC will then get its own corner completely separated from consoles if it does go that route.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. MS and Sony would take a suicidal gamble if they try to make a Wii clone. Heck even Nintendo may fail trying to make a second Wii as it could have all just been a "fad".
 
Blazestorm said:
I don't know why I think it's funny seeing Silus talk about graphic advancements and all that... and yet he's running an 8800GT with a 19" (1280 x 1024) screen...

Scaling does need to exist, Source engine does scale amazingly well... looking at Steam hardware surveys you can see the number of people running high-end cards is low... if Valve released a game that couldn't run on anything lower than an 8800GTX, they would be cutting off 80% of their users.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

It's saying more people run Radeon 9600's than GTX280's... and more people Radeon 9200's than GTX285's

So why should companies try to "push that envelope" for the 5% of people who are able to run the game at the settings it should be run at? I understand the argument that the advancement of game technology is what pushes the industry for video cards...
Click to expand...

I tackled this in my long winded post, the answer is simple. Just because you make a game that can use the abilities of high end hardware doesn't mean that it excludes those with older hardware.

Most PC engines scale well, amongst the really easy things to scale are:

Screen resolution
Filtering (Tri/Bi/Aniso)
AA
AF
View distance
Grass/Flora distance
LOD (where lower quality models are available)
Texture resolution
Advanced Texture effects like Bump/Normal/Paralax mapping
Shadow Resolution
Reflection quality (mainly for water)
Particle effects

The idea that you NEED a pimped out rig to play something like Crysis is just wrong, you can play with all these settings turned down.

It might not look as good as high settings, but if you want high setting get of your arse and get a job, save your pennies like everyone else does.

my site back up now so you can read my blog about "max settings" which may interest some of you.

http://www.pcgamingstandards.com/Blog.aspx?blogid=3
 
I couldn't care less about the supposed features of XBL. I care about the community of people. Go into any clan server and you'll find more enjoyable people to play with than probably all of XBL. Let me name some reasons why PC>XBL
Click to expand...

Oh were to start....

1. Far fewer little kids, and those that do exist don't yell racial slurs while playing
Click to expand...

First of all, ever heard of a mute button? Second, on XBL you can party up with your friends and all enter the same game together and be on the same team with ease, name one online comunity that does that? On COD 4/5 I have a group of about 30 people that I play with, we start with six and then as people leave a game we invite friends so eventually we have a room FULL of friends...no random people.

2. The community doesn't abandon games after 6 months. I still know people that play TFC and CnC Renegade
Click to expand...

People still play Halo 2 on XBL...I don't know if I call it abandoning but people do move on.

3. Are you seriously talking about # of players. 32 standard players in most servers of games, up to 40+ in CS, 64 in BF2
Click to expand...

First of all you know I was talking about number of players in the entire community, not in a single game. Second, number of players in a game is all relative to map size, keep the map size in check and you see plenty of action with only 12 players, and on COD 4/5 you can go up to 18.

and what in the hell are you taking about "number of games". I hate to break this to you, but PC has more active games online than the xbox and 360 has combined
Click to expand...

What online comunity (single community) has more games than XBL? I can log on to one service and see what all of my friends are playing, invite them, etc etc etc....each game may have its own community, but you can't be on game A and see that said friend is play game b. Yes I know there are programs out there that you can create buddy list and everything but there is not a universal one and it is separate from the game.

I could go on and on, but it seems obvious that I'm a PC fanboy who spent his entire wad on my PC and now have to justify it and make myself feel good by telling you that you play on something that is inferior.
Click to expand...

FIFY


P.S. the person that mentioned WoW i give credit to, but again that is one game, but most people that play WoW pretty much do not play anything else.
 
XvMMvX said:
Oh were to start....



First of all, ever heard of a mute button? Second, on XBL you can party up with your friends and all enter the same game together and be on the same team with ease, name one online comunity that does that? On COD 4/5 I have a group of about 30 people that I play with, we start with six and then as people leave a game we invite friends so eventually we have a room FULL of friends...no random people.



People still play Halo 2 on XBL...I don't know if I call it abandoning but people do move on.



First of all you know I was talking about number of players in the entire community, not in a single game. Second, number of players in a game is all relative to map size, keep the map size in check and you see plenty of action with only 12 players, and on COD 4/5 you can go up to 18.



What online comunity (single community) has more games than XBL? I can log on to one service and see what all of my friends are playing, invite them, etc etc etc....each game may have its own community, but you can't be on game A and see that said friend is play game b. Yes I know there are programs out there that you can create buddy list and everything but there is not a universal one and it is separate from the game.



FIFY


P.S. the person that mentioned WoW i give credit to, but again that is one game, but most people that play WoW pretty much do not play anything else.
Click to expand...

lol I'm not even gonna bother. Enjoy muting half your team. Trust me, I game on all platforms, and XBL is the worst, even behind PSN. Like I said the features don't mean shit if the community is terrible.
 
Blazestorm said:
I don't know why I think it's funny seeing Silus talk about graphic advancements and all that... and yet he's running an 8800GT with a 19" (1280 x 1024) screen...

Scaling does need to exist, Source engine does scale amazingly well... looking at Steam hardware surveys you can see the number of people running high-end cards is low... if Valve released a game that couldn't run on anything lower than an 8800GTX, they would be cutting off 80% of their users.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

It's saying more people run Radeon 9600's than GTX280's... and more people Radeon 9200's than GTX285's

So why should companies try to "push that envelope" for the 5% of people who are able to run the game at the settings it should be run at? I understand the argument that the advancement of game technology is what pushes the industry for video cards...
Click to expand...

And how many of those with a Radeon 9600's upgraded their system long ago to something like a 8800gtx? steam survey doesnt show that doesnt it
 
lol I'm not even gonna bother. Enjoy muting half your team. Trust me, I game on all platforms, and XBL is the worst, even behind PSN. Like I said the features don't mean shit if the community is terrible.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you just said XBL was behind PSN?????? Even with the RROD problems, the XBox dominated the PS3 because XBL was better.

Yeah don't even bother, because you just failed.
 
XvMMvX said:
Oh were to start....



First of all, ever heard of a mute button? Second, on XBL you can party up with your friends and all enter the same game together and be on the same team with ease, name one online comunity that does that? On COD 4/5 I have a group of about 30 people that I play with, we start with six and then as people leave a game we invite friends so eventually we have a room FULL of friends...no random people.
Click to expand...

What if my mates are not online and i want to play with randoms?

XvMMvX said:
People still play Halo 2 on XBL...I don't know if I call it abandoning but people do move on.
Click to expand...

how many? one or two? thousands play battlefield 2 still, infact their is more people playing battlefield 2 now then bad company on the 360 and ps3

XvMMvX said:
First of all you know I was talking about number of players in the entire community, not in a single game. Second, number of players in a game is all relative to map size, keep the map size in check and you see plenty of action with only 12 players, and on COD 4/5 you can go up to 18.
Click to expand...

You dont see plenty of action in a medium size racing circuit with 8 players in the grid. after the first lap there is no duals as most of the cars are spread out by the time you finish the first or second lap.

Also, 24 players in bad company conquest mode = FAIL.


XvMMvX said:
What online comunity (single community) has more games than XBL? I can log on to one service and see what all of my friends are playing, invite them, etc etc etc....each game may have its own community, but you can't be on game A and see that said friend is play game b. Yes I know there are programs out there that you can create buddy list and everything but there is not a universal one and it is separate from the game.

.
Click to expand...

And thats why 360 games have a low player count compared to the PC. everything is fed through one channel ie xbox live. dedicated servers costs an arm and a leg and are RARE. most games you play with your mates are p2p and more laggier then a proper dedicated gaming server like the ones found on pc games.

Why do you think Bad company 2 will still have only 24 player servers? xbox live simply doesnt have the bandwidth to support a higher player count with all those things going on.
 
XvMMvX said:
Seriously, you just said XBL was behind PSN?????? Even with the RROD problems, the XBox dominated the PS3 because XBL was better.

Yeah don't even bother, because you just failed.
Click to expand...

Yea, in terms of community, it blows it away.
 
What if my mates are not online and i want to play with randoms?
Click to expand...

Yeah because when I play with randoms of BF:2 they are just excited to communicate and work together with me. Face it you know that if you join a BF2 server by yourself that everybody else on that server is either with their own clan or doing whatever they want and have no interested in communicating and working together with random people.

how many? one or two? thousands play battlefield 2 still, infact their is more people playing battlefield 2 now then bad company on the 360 and ps3
Click to expand...

Still plenty to get a good game going if you really wanted to play Halo 2, but like I said, people do move on with life and play the new games. There is probably 160k on COD:WaW and 65k on COD4 on XBL right now, no telling how many people are on Halo 3.

And thats why 360 games have a low player count compared to the PC. everything is fed through one channel ie xbox live. dedicated servers costs an arm and a leg and are RARE. most games you play with your mates are p2p and more laggier then a proper dedicated gaming server like the ones found on pc games.
Click to expand...

Weak argument, I play on XBL and do not have a single problem with lag.

You dont see plenty of action in a medium size racing circuit with 8 players in the grid. after the first lap there is no duals as most of the cars are spread out by the time you finish the first or second lap.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I can see how this could be on a racing game, but on FPS (which most people play) if the map is designed in relation to the number of players then the player count does not matter.
 
and dood no offense to mr. xbox fan but i don't like playing video games w/ my thumbs.
 
and dood no offense to mr. xbox fan but i don't like playing video games w/ my thumbs.
Click to expand...

Thats a whole other argument and one that is based upon personal preference, more power to you.
 
XvMMvX said:
Yeah because when I play with randoms of BF:2 they are just excited to communicate and work together with me. Face it you know that if you join a BF2 server by yourself that everybody else on that server is either with their own clan or doing whatever they want and have no interested in communicating and working together with random people.
Click to expand...

But you never mentioned about team work? you replied to the guy stating about the amount of racist kids you encounter online and thats what i mean. i dont get that shit on bf2 but do with bad company and all the other console games i play online in. Its why i hardly play with randoms anymore on the console.


XvMMvX said:
Still plenty to get a good game going if you really wanted to play Halo 2, but like I said, people do move on with life and play the new games. There is probably 160k on COD:WaW and 65k on COD4 on XBL right now, no telling how many people are on Halo 3.
Click to expand...

Both those games are popular but what about bad company? frontlines fuels of war? forza 2? etc etc. not many play those games online but still there is tons of people play COD2 on the pc for christ sakes: http://www.xfire.com/ > 3 million currently playing COD2 online and thats just xfire numbers.



XvMMvX said:
Weak argument, I play on XBL and do not have a single problem with lag.
Click to expand...
How is it weak?

XvMMvX said:
Fair enough, I can see how this could be on a racing game, but on FPS (which most people play) if the map is designed in relation to the number of players then the player count does not matter.
Click to expand...

Well thats why most fps games are twitchy run and gun shooters. because a game of a scale liek battlefield 2 wont work on consoles. yes frontlines tried to do it but it was a shit game and is dead now
 
LCDs and people thinking they HAVE to be at native resolution to enjoy a game is what killed graphics development forward for PC gaming if you ask me. Crysis played fine and was expected to play fine at medium settings at lower resolutions and still look awesome. NOT good enough for someone playing every game at 1900x1200ish and up res. It was ridiculous expectations for everyone with large monitors expecting every game to play at that resolution. Drives me insane.

That's why you game on a PC! Scalable if you need to be! Still better than a console. Replayed in the future at higher resolutions. Not any more.
 
I do not understand why people do not realize why the mass gaming market has attached itself to consoles and XBL.

If microsoft took XBL and something like Xfire and merged them into a PC gaming community and had developers create games that could scale from one spectrum to the next then they would have a powerful market that would be untouched by any. Consoles would die a slow and painful death, Microsoft could even market a PC build for this community (like the Xbox).

The party system etc on XBL is un rivaled, in PC gaming you can not even be sure that you will be on the same team.
 
XvMMvX said:
I do not understand why people do not realize why the mass gaming market has attached itself to consoles and XBL.

If microsoft took XBL and something like Xfire and merged them into a PC gaming community and had developers create games that could scale from one spectrum to the next then they would have a powerful market that would be untouched by any. Consoles would die a slow and painful death, Microsoft could even market a PC build for this community (like the Xbox).

The party system etc on XBL is un rivaled, in PC gaming you can not even be sure that you will be on the same team.
Click to expand...

You mean like Games for Windows, that was really succes...wait nvm.
 
Forealz said:
I'd rather upgrade and be constantly amazed
Click to expand...

That's_Corporate said:
I've never agreed with anything MORE than this statement.

Sure, dropping $650 on the 4870X2 sucked when I handed them my credit card. But I swear, the moment I fired it up and set AA and AF to levels I never thought possible in the newest titles, it was ALL worth it.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the logic behind this that a few others seem to be praising this thought about. Why upgrade if your not going to be amazed? If your amazed already, why do you need to upgrade?

"This game looks fucking great! I need to upgrade...to...get...um...something else?"
 
PrincessFrosty said:
I tackled this in my long winded post, the answer is simple. Just because you make a game that can use the abilities of high end hardware doesn't mean that it excludes those with older hardware.

Most PC engines scale well, amongst the really easy things to scale are:

Screen resolution
Filtering (Tri/Bi/Aniso)
AA
AF
View distance
Grass/Flora distance
LOD (where lower quality models are available)
Texture resolution
Advanced Texture effects like Bump/Normal/Paralax mapping
Shadow Resolution
Reflection quality (mainly for water)
Particle effects

The idea that you NEED a pimped out rig to play something like Crysis is just wrong, you can play with all these settings turned down.

It might not look as good as high settings, but if you want high setting get of your arse and get a job, save your pennies like everyone else does.

my site back up now so you can read my blog about "max settings" which may interest some of you.

http://www.pcgamingstandards.com/Blog.aspx?blogid=3
Click to expand...


Yep...I play Crysis with the specs in my signature, no troubles at all :)
 
I hope DX11 doesn't change anything. I just bought a DX10 card recently and don't want to buy another one.
 
dx11 will be shit because their will be hardly any games taking full advantage of it. the one way they can take full advantage of it is if they DONT port a console game into the pc's and thats RARE my friend
 
Netrat33 said:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the logic behind this that a few others seem to be praising this thought about. Why upgrade if your not going to be amazed? If your amazed already, why do you need to upgrade?

"This game looks fucking great! I need to upgrade...to...get...um...something else?"
Click to expand...

yup its why i dont care about these new dx11 cards. my 260gtx plays every pc game out now fine
 
jonneymendoza said:
yup its why i dont care about these new dx11 cards. my 260gtx plays every pc game out now fine
Click to expand...

I hear a lot of similar sentiments, usually conveyed much more belligerently, with regards to new tech. It's fine if you are content with the current hardware but I observe inadequacies every day and I'm running what most would consider high end hardware. My GTX280s can handle most anything at high levels of detail all while maintaining respectable framerates. However, games like Stalker: Clear Sky, the Crysis series, Arma 2 and Empire: Total War present scalability intended to stress even my machine. Even more titles present a challenge on the horizon.

Call of Pripyat and Napoleon: Total War were recently announced. Crysis 2 is assumed to be in the pipeline.We've seen gameplay footage of Supreme Commander 2 and Mass Effect 2. Codemasters is hard at work on two titles set to utilize DirectX 11 (F1 2010 and Dirt 2). There are plenty more but I won't belabor my point, which is that no matter how powerful the hardware, developers (sometimes fewer than others, regrettably) will always either try to challenge it or will have access to newer hardware whose performance they will try to maximize, rendering what we consider to be excessive, obsolete.

I'm quite happy with this arrangement. It's wonderful that you're happy with your purchase. That's what this hobby is about - gratification. I'm simply worried that people that say things like "I'm happy with my _____" are simply the more calm and respectable permutations of the kind I despise, the kind that may have possibly killed the Crysis franchise in its infancy and that have been responsible for driving many traditional PC developers to consoles, which have a more stagnant performance envelope. You can be perfectly happy with your hardware and still be interested in more, in seeing the hobby you love evolve, even if it means you may either have to enjoy it in a different way, such as lowering settings on newer games.
 
MiG31_Foxhound said:
I hear a lot of similar sentiments, usually conveyed much more belligerently, with regards to new tech. It's fine if you are content with the current hardware but I observe inadequacies every day and I'm running what most would consider high end hardware. My GTX280s can handle most anything at high levels of detail all while maintaining respectable framerates. However, games like Stalker: Clear Sky, the Crysis series, Arma 2 and Empire: Total War present scalability intended to stress even my machine. Even more titles present a challenge on the horizon.

Call of Pripyat and Napoleon: Total War were recently announced. Crysis 2 is assumed to be in the pipeline.We've seen gameplay footage of Supreme Commander 2 and Mass Effect 2. Codemasters is hard at work on two titles set to utilize DirectX 11 (F1 2010 and Dirt 2). There are plenty more but I won't belabor my point, which is that no matter how powerful the hardware, developers (sometimes fewer than others, regrettably) will always either try to challenge it or will have access to newer hardware whose performance they will try to maximize, rendering what we consider to be excessive, obsolete.

I'm quite happy with this arrangement. It's wonderful that you're happy with your purchase. That's what this hobby is about - gratification. I'm simply worried that people that say things like "I'm happy with my _____" are simply the more calm and respectable permutations of the kind I despise, the kind that may have possibly killed the Crysis franchise in its infancy and that have been responsible for driving many traditional PC developers to consoles, which have a more stagnant performance envelope. You can be perfectly happy with your hardware and still be interested in more, in seeing the hobby you love evolve, even if it means you may either have to enjoy it in a different way, such as lowering settings on newer games.
Click to expand...


mass effect 2, dirt2, bad company 2, assaisns creed 2, modern warfare 2 are all console ports and i bet you that you cna still play most of those ganmes i just listed with no problem at very high settings.

You see people dont get the point, developers wont push the graphical envelope on pc's anymore because you and other crysis haters all bashed that game when your 2 year old pc couldnt run it at max details in 50000x50000 resolution.

no1 is willing to take that risk anymore.
 
jonneymendoza said:
dx11 will be shit because their will be hardly any games taking full advantage of it. the one way they can take full advantage of it is if they DONT port a console game into the pc's and thats RARE my friend
Click to expand...

I agree

Regardless of what we think about DX11, how much we want to see more graphical advancement etc etc, ultimately what matters most is what the developers think. they are the one that make the games, and as things are right now, most game will be multiplatform games and that's what we're going to get.

There's hardly any incentive for them to develop an engine that utilizes DX11 when their engine have to be cross platform and none of the console can use any of that. We'll eventually see DX11 features, or even something more advance, but certainly not any time soon. Not till the next generation of console hits the market
 
The normal progression of each DirectX version is that it's not used for several years anyway so DX11 is completely irrelevent until it's gone through it's settling in period.

The Xbox360 can't run DirectX10 effects but theres PC gaming starting to make use of DX10, not a lot at the moment but DX10 had an unusually hard time being adopted because it was the first DirectX that wasn't backwards compatible, and it doesn't run in XP.

I dont think it's a huge stress to make use of new DirectX features for developers, a lot of them make their life easier, it's just about making games easier to produce as it is offering end users additional features.
 
jonneymendoza said:
no1 is willing to take that risk anymore.
Click to expand...


I dont think you can afford to these days. Good games cost a LOT of money to develop and if you dont get the sales afterword you just can not keep your company afloat. It seem like is more about keeping your shareholders happy and the money coming in to make sure the product going out in really good....
 
Being a console gamer since the seventies and PC gamer the eighties I came to the realization that the PC provides me the most entertainment. It consumes 95% of my gaming time. My 360, PS3 gather dust...well the PS3 gets used for Blue Ray :). I find them nothing more than watered down PCs. They have taken on traits which console gamers used against PC gaming. Patches, network issues etc. The are becoming less and less plug and play. They are even more foul with fees for DLC.

A lot of good points have been made about PC gaming here. Unfortunately I can't say the same for consoles since most exclusive console gamers pull their arguments out of their ass without any facts to back it up. I can't believe they still use "you have to upgrade $500 video cards constantly to keep up" argument. :rolleyes: Also correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't PC gaming ALWAYS been a niche market and console the masses? Nothing has changed in that aspect.

.....getting into a long post here which I didn't want to do.........

Long story short. PC gaming in the 80s and 90s was about upgrading and gamers wanted to do it. I bought a $1600 pc just to play one game, Warcraft 2. Developers like ID/Carmack created games that made people want to buy or upgrade their computer.

I think enough PC gamers have upgraded or gamers in general can afford to upgrade to a decent ATI video card now. Good gaming videocards are no longer $300+. You can get a good one for $100 or less.

The time is ripe for a developer to strike hard with a new PC gaming experience like ID "used" to do back in the day bu.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top