It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I'm waiting for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIWJlz6-Eg
Finally a game designed for PCs with no worry about how crappy console hardware is going to run it.

Hadn't realised before, but from the video title it looks like they're using the Crysis 3 engine too.
Post edited January 19, 2013 by movieman523
avatar
SweatyGremlins: This is hardly a big deal for design. They can easily separate the gamepad players who wish to play with others using the pad, similar thing was done for the Killzone gun I think. However, would you believe it that I have played online fps games on PC with a pad and come out fine K\D wise?

You have also likely played against people using M&K on console and never known about it.

http://hexus.net/gaming/news/ps3/10275-unique-ps3-fragfx-controller-coming-uk/

Games that really punish gamepad users are Counterstrike style shooters.
avatar
Darkcloud: The percepted market for K&M input is far to small to bother with seperating the community and there is a diference when the use of K&M is unofficially implemented through some emulation device or when it is implemented officially.
Some games like Counterstrike Global Offensive are designed around M&K, but it gets released on PS3 with no support for these controls, UT3 had M&K on PS3 and people still play it I think, so I really don't see the point in nannying around.

Some of the emulated controllers are poor but not all, I'm a gamepad player myself, I don't find M&K comefortable, but it's silly limiting the functionality of a system.
Post edited January 19, 2013 by SweatyGremlins
avatar
movieman523: I'm waiting for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIWJlz6-Eg
Finally a game designed for PCs with no worry about how crappy console hardware is going to run it.

Hadn't realised before, but from the video title it looks like they're using the Crysis 3 engine too.
Gee that sure was a nice trailer... full of mostly pre-rendered shit.

Pretty sure that would run fine on a console.
totally agree with the op, getting sick of looking for increase requirments
avatar
jefequeso: On a related subject, despite some noticeable graphical weaknesses, I still think Serious Sam TFE HD is one of the most attractive games I've ever played, in its own clean minimalist way.
avatar
timppu: I'll do even better: IMHO the original Serious Sam (not HD) still looks very attractive even today, even though all the environments are barren desert. The last time I played it (and the second encounter) was last year, I haven't even seen the HD remakes.

However, the PS2 version of Serious Sam looks quite bad to me, and plays bad too.
I also think the originals still look really nice. Nicer than the remakes in some areas, actually.
avatar
djranis: totally agree with the op, getting sick of looking for increase requirments
I have a 3 yr old PC with an $80 graphics card. Haven't had to upgrade once and I can still play modern titles at better res than any console. So I'm not really buying the frequent upgrade argument.
Post edited January 19, 2013 by scampywiak
avatar
djranis: totally agree with the op, getting sick of looking for increase requirments
avatar
scampywiak: I have a 3 yr old PC with an $80 graphics card. Haven't had to upgrade once and I can still play modern titles at better res than any console. So I'm not really buying the frequent upgrade argument.
$80 graphics card?

What card?
The objective of graphics advancement isn't to create better, more realistic video games.

Why on earth would you want an ultra-realistic video game in the first place? ......games are an escape after all.

It is I suppose to create a working version of the matrix.

Or to get crysis running on a cheap tablet....
Post edited January 19, 2013 by Lionel212008
avatar
StingingVelvet: To some degree graphics reached "good enough" for me with Crysis like 5 years ago. Recently though it's being hammered into my skull. I've played three games recently, Far Cry 3, Max Payne 3 and Hitman: Absolution, which look AMAZING. Like, as lifelike as I think games ever need to look. Any more lifelike might actually look worse in a weird way.

Since budgets keep climbing and sales stay the same, it makes sense to stop at some point. Games like Minecraft, WoW and every indie game ever show that people care more about art design and gameplay than they do pure tech. I am definitely at a place now where I don't need graphics to look any better.

How about you? Eager for new consoles, hoping graphics take another leap? Looking to SLI two amazing new video cards this Fall so you can pump out the latest amazingness? Or are you good to go, like me, and hoping for a very small upgrade?
I remember playing Warcraft II and wondering if better graphics could ever be done. I could not picture in my mind at the time what better graphics would look like. It seems funny now.
avatar
Theoclymenus: PC gaming has changed so much since I bought my first PC back in 1998 and invested in the immortal Baldur's Gate, all the other IE games and Deus Ex : what an amazing era for PC gaming this was, and there was so much greatness which preceded it too.

Nowadays the industry seems jaded and cynical to me (a bit like the rest of the world) : release new game (e.g. Crysis - awesome game btw ) with amazing graphics which requires a new graphics card, which in turn requires a new motherboard and probably a new PC etc. etc. etc ....
It wasn't any different before 1998 though. I mean things like Wing Commander I, for example, were only playable at the most modern hardware available at the time. Or Quake. You needed to buy a CD-ROM eventually to keep up to date [Rebel Assault and onward], switch from EGA to VGA, from on board 8-bit sound to sound cards, etc. etc.

Exception were only, really the not as easily upgradeable systems - Commodore / Amiga / Atari and all the consoles before that; the PC always was an update race.
avatar
Lionel212008: The objective of graphics advancement isn't to create better, more realistic video games.

Why on earth would you want an ultra-realistic video game in the first place? ......games are an escape after all.
I really do think there is a point where they look too real. The "uncanny valley" as some people say.
avatar
Theoclymenus: PC gaming has changed so much since I bought my first PC back in 1998 and invested in the immortal Baldur's Gate, all the other IE games and Deus Ex : what an amazing era for PC gaming this was, and there was so much greatness which preceded it too.

Nowadays the industry seems jaded and cynical to me (a bit like the rest of the world) : release new game (e.g. Crysis - awesome game btw ) with amazing graphics which requires a new graphics card, which in turn requires a new motherboard and probably a new PC etc. etc. etc ....
avatar
Mnemon: It wasn't any different before 1998 though. I mean things like Wing Commander I, for example, were only playable at the most modern hardware available at the time. Or Quake. You needed to buy a CD-ROM eventually to keep up to date [Rebel Assault and onward], switch from EGA to VGA, from on board 8-bit sound to sound cards, etc. etc.

Exception were only, really the not as easily upgradeable systems - Commodore / Amiga / Atari and all the consoles before that; the PC always was an update race.
Yes, and the industry also used to care about optimization. I think that a lot of the games out there today, just ask for those requirements so they don't have to spend time optimizing things. Some cases are more egregious than others, but I'm reminded of that game, where they rendered water over the entire map with no regard for whether or not it was visible, which just killed performance. That would never have happened during the '90s because they had to care about performance.
avatar
hedwards: Yes, and the industry also used to care about optimization. I think that a lot of the games out there today, just ask for those requirements so they don't have to spend time optimizing things. Some cases are more egregious than others, but I'm reminded of that game, where they rendered water over the entire map with no regard for whether or not it was visible, which just killed performance. That would never have happened during the '90s because they had to care about performance.
True, and one does have to wonder why requirements have gone up so considerably when the games are all designed to run on the same hardware they did 7 years ago.

That said, a lot of ports look amazingly better than their console equivalents now-a-days. They certainly started throwing in the eye candy for PC users once PC ports became more profitable, optimized or not.
I agree.
I mean I've bought Far Cry 3 just know and it basically runs fine, if my PC doesn't crash. ^^ By the way it's pretty great even though I'm just starting.
It might be for me the game that replaces 3D shooter saying.. "I wish this was Crysis 1" (it even runs better than Crysis)

Man that Far Cry 3.. It's.. So green after that second one that I played, which was, so brown. "why are you burning everything it just makes everything browner"

What's the point with graphics? Wouldn't it just be easier to make a good story than some horrendous monster game engine which looks neat but it still isn't any fun to play.

I mean, who the fuck enjoys Graphics if the other aspects of the game is shit.
Since budget has been mentioned by the original poster and others...

I've wondered if a shift in the industry towards releasing resources such as models and textures to the public domain after some time could help to moderate game budgets. As it stands, each developer must "reinvent the wheel" for each game, spending large amounts of money to develop graphical assets from scratch, right? And assets simply "go to waste" after use in a single game (or sometimes series) and are not used again? Having a large pool of existing assets might cut development time and budget while shifting the focus to creating a unique visual style, further refining of the models and textures (eventually enriching the community pool), creating additional clothing/armor/whatever, etc.

The concept is similar to resource sharing in some mod communities. Modders who aren't obsessed with "permissions" sometimes release their work as "modding resources". For example, a dress model resource can be retextured by other modders to produce dresses in a variety of different colors and patterns, or the base model can tweaked by other modders to produce similar dresses with different sleeves or other parts. An object like a stove released as a resource can enrich the atmosphere of a plethora of mods.

Perhaps other game assets such as rulesets could be released in this fashion as well, in a manner similar to the Open Game License. Perhaps even certain code; think Linux and open source.

I'm not sure how this would interact with copyright and intellectual property. Perhaps mundane objects such as dresses, stoves, etc could be shared while objects like unique armors or monsters or other IP-specific items could be withheld from public release, but then what is the criteria that determines what is specific to an IP (as opposed to "just another dress" or "just another dragon")? It would have to be self-determined, I suppose; after all, such a system would be a voluntary sharing of resources in the first place.

Anyway, I haven't given it much thought beyond that, but I find the concept interesting, so I thought I'd share it. Feel free to ignore these ramblings, build on them, or tell me how the idea is utterly impossible/impractical/insane. ;-)
Post edited January 19, 2013 by ddmuse