Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    MadDogMike is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,517

    Default

    I wasn't talking about higher polygon character models in the first place! I was talking about increasing the detail of the game world (the levels and objects within). A lot of games still feature sparse and angular environments, it really breaks the believability.

  2. #22
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadDogMike View Post
    The fact is that game developers won't keep writing games for those people with low end computers forever. Once the majority of people have upgraded, those who haven't are left behind. That's how it's always been. Look at Crysis, that game runs bad even on top of the range hardware. They're already starting to leave those people behind. Call me selfish, but I wish it would happen sooner.
    Lets travel ahead 100 years into the future. An average Joe walks off the street into a computer shop and buys a budget PC. It is 10 times as fast as any PC today, but its still not going to be anywhere near as good as a custom built games machine. It is a low end machine.

    Even if every PC in the world stopped working and everyone had to go out and buy a new one, even a dual core PC with 2GB of RAM chances are it still won't be able to run most of today's games very well. People will upgrade their computers, they already do, but what they are buying is still just cheap shit.

    I just recently upgraded to a Q6600, I had to replace the motherboard, RAM and PSU as well, I spent nearly 600, 200 more than what most people would spend on an entire system, and yet my computer is already obsolete. In 5 years time my computer will be a low end machine. Developers don't give minimum specs because people have 5 year old computers, they give minimum specs because people are buying low end computers now.

    Most people don't understand that the computers they are buying are cons, they are dazzled with big numbers and cheap prices (4GB of RAM sounds big, but if its running at 400MHz, then its shit for gaming. If someone came up to me and tried to boast that they had an 8500GS, I'd laugh at them knowing that my 3 year old 7900GT probably beats it).

    As I've already said, people don't understand that if you want a have decent computer, you have to pay a lot of money for it. They see big numbers, lots of extras and a flashy looking monitor and speakers and assume that the 300 PC in front of them will be good for gaming. But even if they knew the truth, do you really think that most people would spend thast amount of money? No they buy the cheap rubbish, and that is why developers build games that will run on lower spec machines, not because people are still using steam powered monsters from 10 years ago, but because most of the computers bought today are low spec.

    Quote Originally Posted by bipolargraph View Post
    For ~$800 (without the monitor) you can get an awesome system which is just as good.
    ......In America. Even then, I doubt its that good.

  3. #23
    Elcura is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadDogMike View Post
    I wasn't talking about higher polygon character models in the first place! I was talking about increasing the detail of the game world (the levels and objects within). A lot of games still feature sparse and angular environments, it really breaks the believability.
    I only said that because you quoted the guy saying games are not about being economical and fun but about looking good. I mentioned that a good would look good (as you said) if you increased the LoD in the background/environment by making it more active (again, more low poly = more density = more believablitiy).

  4. #24
    MadDogMike is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98abaile
    But even if they knew the truth, do you really think that most people would spend thast amount of money? No they buy the cheap rubbish, and that is why developers build games that will run on lower spec machines, not because people are still using steam powered monsters from 10 years ago, but because most of the computers bought today are low spec.
    We are both saying the same thing, just in different ways... all I'm saying is that some time in the future I wish developers would focus on the things that I mentioned on the first page.

    Then I get people in this thread telling me "but low end computers can't handle higher polycounts!" Well what I've just repeated saying a few times was that EVENTUALLY when these people who bought piece of shit computers will buy more up to date piece of shit computers, I think the developers should start raising polycounts and using procedural animation instead of just putting more layers of SHINE all over the place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elcura View Post
    I only said that because you quoted the guy saying games are not about being economical and fun but about looking good. I mentioned that a good would look good (as you said) if you increased the LoD in the background/environment by making it more active (again, more low poly = more density = more believablitiy).
    Ok, sorry, but it seems that people are misunderstanding me in this thread a lot and I'm getting tired of repeating the same things in different ways. :\

    I never said games were all about looking good either, I don't even believe that myself, I just said the topic of this thread was about graphics. I was just mentioning a few areas in the graphics department that I feel should be focused on by developers and people seem to think I'm talking about increasing the polycounts and forcing people to use anti-aliasing right now or something.

  5. #25
    bipolargraph is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Location
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abile
    ......In America. Even then, I doubt its that good.
    If you do live in the U.S/canada, it's much easier to get a decent computer at that price (if you get the items online).
    Here's a basic list for example (in us dollars):
    A mobo: ga-p35-dsr3l (~100)
    cpu: e8400 3.0ghz (200+)
    ram: corsair xms2 2gbs (CL4) (30+)
    vga: 8800GT (200-250)
    ~600 add a 100 bucks for a hard drive you get ~700
    Add a Case/psu/mouse/keyboard/etc. = No more than 800.

  6. #26
    Spurgu is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    In your pants. OO BOY
    Posts
    2,025

    Default

    I lol'd, not even 10 years ago games like diablo 2, starcraft, sims ect looked damn awesome and look where we are now.


    Just wait 10 more years.


  7. #27
    bipolargraph is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Location
    Posts
    2,177

    Default

    SSB/Dk64/LoZ: OoT on the n64 looked good to me back in 2000 (even though there was better stuff on the computer I think.)

  8. #28
    grandleo is offline Senior Member Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadDogMike View Post
    This thread is about making games look better, not making them more economical or more fun...
    re-read previous post. My point its much harder to create games than movies. In movies, creators may boast the number of how many polygons they had used just for example to create a pimple on a character.

    In games its much different, we have to rely on shaders, textures, and lighting. We also have to compromise about the users(majority) system. If we did create games for high end computers we would be looking at another daikatana scenario back in 97 or there won't be a large market for the games to sell.

    Anyway how a game looks does not depend on just on poly count alone. it also depends on the artist/director/developer/etc vision.

    True the number of polygons we used in games number to 100K to 1M when applying textures on the models(level 8+). We just adjust the game model's polygon count to if we can to just level 2-3.

  9. #29
    deuce22 is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,146

    Default

    The current gaming graphics will in time get a little better with our current systems and pcs. Just marginally like jyuu said in his original post, and it will remain that way until they're ground breaking technology.

    Or also, imo, the better and more creative way is to approach the game's design in a whole different way. For example, Okami on the ps2 and now Wii. When okami first came out, was definitely imo one of the best looking games. Even still now, going back, it's just so graphically beautiful. I mean instead of focusing on textures, lighting, and others. They played around with colors, and took things from a different approach. Creative and graphically beautiful.


  10. #30
    Jyuu's Avatar
    Jyuu is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,689

    Default

    All I'm saying is that we seem to have reached a cockblock real early in this generation.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162