Unreal engine 3?? LOLS
piece of unoptimized crap tbh
NCsoft buys unreal 3 engine.. could it be?
jamesrt2004
Blackhearted
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
UT3 Engine is still way worse.
GW engine runs smoothly on all my systems with details on middle settings, and is reasonably choppy (~15FPS) with everything except AA on max. (1248x980 resolution) UT3 Engine games run hellishly and even with everything on lowest setting and with 640x480 resolution they are unplayable with their 4-8 FPS. |
jamesrt2004
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevin
Considering GW has already been built upon the engine Anet is using... I doubt they'll switch and ditch; too much work would go down the drain.
On another note. Unreal III Engine < Crytek Engine |
even thought their both poor lol
Silly Warrior
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
I would imagine they have started work on the engine already and are using a modified GW one for GW2, so I suspect this is for something else.
|
JaiGaia
Read over the first few pages and my eyes started to hurt ... lolz ..
No seriously this is actually very logical~ NC soft announced last yr they were making some games for Sony Exclusively as sony was looking to get into the MMO market this can also be seen in some recent behind the scene upper level management moves that are goin on over there .... Epic and Sony have since been in a lil back door dealings since Epic [ owner of the UE3 engine] had a slight fall out with MSoft .... infact if not mistaken the PS3 is able to Utilize the Ue3 engine better than the Xbox 360 .... Anyhow parts of the PS3 are also made from the UE3 engine ... so in short
NC soft buys the engine to make the games that they contracted with SONY , infact some of these games were to be MMO's, which gives them a dev tool to create the games for a console platform since they are crossing over without having to figure out how to go from pc to platform or make an entirely new engine for a game all together.
last notes here i saw someone say earlier the cost was around 500,000 for the UE3 engine ..... Silicon Knights paid Epic 750,000 + so u were close but this engine is worth alot more as more and more use it .
No seriously this is actually very logical~ NC soft announced last yr they were making some games for Sony Exclusively as sony was looking to get into the MMO market this can also be seen in some recent behind the scene upper level management moves that are goin on over there .... Epic and Sony have since been in a lil back door dealings since Epic [ owner of the UE3 engine] had a slight fall out with MSoft .... infact if not mistaken the PS3 is able to Utilize the Ue3 engine better than the Xbox 360 .... Anyhow parts of the PS3 are also made from the UE3 engine ... so in short
NC soft buys the engine to make the games that they contracted with SONY , infact some of these games were to be MMO's, which gives them a dev tool to create the games for a console platform since they are crossing over without having to figure out how to go from pc to platform or make an entirely new engine for a game all together.
last notes here i saw someone say earlier the cost was around 500,000 for the UE3 engine ..... Silicon Knights paid Epic 750,000 + so u were close but this engine is worth alot more as more and more use it .
Alleji
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wetsparks
The game is 3d, as has been explained, and redesigning the engine will work.
|
Sure, you can walk over and under a bridge, but people standing on top of a bridge can bodyblock those attempting to walk under it.
What other "3D" features does guild wars have? Can you jump? No. Can you walk off a cliff? No. Everything is done with pathing. Terrain is either passable or unpassable, and this gets really awkward when you're trying to cut corners walking down a ramp, for example.
zwei2stein
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackhearted
I hate to break it to you but if your pc struggles on max settings on gw.... then your pc is to blame, not unreal engine 3. Even on a modest 8600gt, with a decent dual core, you can push a nice 50-60fps(or more, depending on the map) on 4(high) in ut3 on a moderate resolution(ex. 1280). Hell, even my old single core athlon 2400+(5 year old cpu) and low-end radeon x700(3 year old card) pushed more fps than yours set on 2(right between low and med) in 800x600 . Before you call an engine bad please take a look at the hardware you try to run it on. It'll make you look more intelligent that way. Cause in this case it's not the engines fault. The engine is very scalable, but it can't work miracles.
|
also, I hate to break it to you, but i could not care less about gaming hardware and no game is ever gonna make me buy it. And People like me are huge majority of gaming population, not minority as shader-jerking population thinks.
Nevin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jamesrt2004
nope unreal is actually MORE optimized then the crytek engine
even thought their both poor lol |
vs.
Unreal Engine III http://www.gametrailers.com/player/u...es/179565.html
Edit: I'm only talking about visuals, leaving the other three factors aside (optimization, performance, effects). UEIII and Cry2 are about tied as far as graphical effects go, UEIII is more optomized then Cry2- com'n it runs on an Xbox 360 (lawlawlawl can you say low end), performance really depends on the user's computer, but visually I think we all know who the winner is.
Blackhearted
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
Obviously, GWs engine can work miracles both in performance and visuals.
also, I hate to break it to you, but i could not care less about gaming hardware and no game is ever gonna make me buy it. And People like me are huge majority of gaming population, not minority as shader-jerking population thinks. |
Really though.. If you don't care about hardware then you really have no place to judge any game engine or its performance. Cause in order to properly judge a game engine you need adequate hardware to run it. Personally i think you're the type who'd be right on home on a console.
Firebaall
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JaiGaia
Read over the first few pages and my eyes started to hurt ... lolz ..
No seriously this is actually very logical~ NC soft announced last yr they were making some games for Sony Exclusively as sony was looking to get into the MMO market |
I seem to remember something called Everquest....
Splitisoda
No ty NCsoft, I can't run U3 and i obviously then wont be able to run GW2.
Shadow Kurd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Operative 14
One of the main hallmarks of GW is that it runs on a proprietary and unique game engine. I'm sure there will be some games made from those licenses, but not GW2.
 |
But is still pretty unique
Antheus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alleji
What other "3D" features does guild wars have? Can you jump? No. Can you walk off a cliff? No. Everything is done with pathing. Terrain is either passable or unpassable, and this gets really awkward when you're trying to cut corners walking down a ramp, for example. |
GW maps are 3D. The collision maps are 2D. That's the difference.
And since collisions are a very big deal(tm) in GW, everything is limited to what can be tested on them - but there's no reason why person couldn't jump around the objects. It's not in game since such accurate collision tests would be far too expensive.
As a comparison, WoW's servers do no collision testing whatsoever, and if you hack your client, you can map anywhere anytime. This is something that's not possible in GW, where you'd rubber band back.
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackhearted
Yea, it is rather unfortunate that people who use intel graphics and blame game devs for their poor performance are the majority..
Really though.. If you don't care about hardware then you really have no place to judge any game engine or its performance. Cause in order to properly judge a game engine you need adequate hardware to run it. Personally i think you're the type who'd be right on home on a console. |
Anet is definitely going right with their choice to stay away from this world of madness of who will get the most colors inside the same pixel, or who can put more pixels in a face that there are neurons in your head! GW has mass appeal because it's a well-programmed (and well-designed) game that has core artistic values. I'm looking forward to the feats of GW2 as Anet will undoubtedly surpass themselves.
By the way, I quickly looked for computer specs on the web:
- UT3: proc 2Ghz, 512Mo RAM, NVIDIA 6200+ or ATI Radeon 9600+ (128-256Mo V-RAM?)
- GW NF: proc (pentium III!) 1Ghz, 512Mo RAM, ATI Radeon 8500 or GeForce 3 Series (64Mo V-RAM)
GW NF's recommend spec is very close to UT3's minimum spec!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadow Kurd
Actually. The core of the game is built of Granny 3D --> http://www.radgametools.com/granny.html
But is still pretty unique |
Thanks!Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antheus
GW maps are 3D. The collision maps are 2D. That's the difference.
|
-Loki-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Twonaiver
Cryengine 2 > UT3 engine
|
Snow Bunny
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Faer
I thought it was said that, as with GW1, GW2 would be designed to scale well for those with older systems. If I'm not mistaken, and that is the case...
The U3 engine for GW2? Not so sure how that'd work out. |
Age
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by -Loki-
They said in an interview GW2 would be using an updated GW engine. Considering they are only just announcing this now, GW2 would probably bee too far in development to swap engines. Swapping engines is a huge deal.
|
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Age
I can't believe that you are all still talking about this after what Loki said in this post.
|
Just found this old but interesting article:
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2005/...ars_review_1/2
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2005/...ars_review_1/3
Quote:
|
Throughout the title, there is a 'glow' to the terrain and to the characters that makes the whole world seem a little ethereal. This is achieved by extracting bright areas from a scene, downsampling them, then blurring them, then sampling them back up and compositing them back into the scene. This can be done with anti-aliasing, and artists can also add extra haze or radial blur effects to create different moods in different areas of the world. ... When the lowest details settings are used (right), terrain textures are composited on the CPU rather than on the GPU, saving the graphics hardware for the rest of the scene, increasing performance. ... The shadows in the game look simply gorgeous. Character shadows are rendered to textures, and then a blur effect is added to soften the edges. Terrain shadows are calculated as lightmaps in realtime. |
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2005/...ars_review_1/4
warcrap
i think crytec engine is better..just look at aion.
arsie
I think it's a bit late to be licensing an engine when your beta is year-end.
You can't see me
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackhearted
Yea, it is rather unfortunate that people who use intel graphics and blame game devs for their poor performance are the majority..
Really though.. If you don't care about hardware then you really have no place to judge any game engine or its performance. Cause in order to properly judge a game engine you need adequate hardware to run it. Personally i think you're the type who'd be right on home on a console. |
You act like it's a one sided situation. Buy the hardware or get out. As much as you disbelieve it, most people don't want to spend Eight Hundred Dollars or more re-doing their old computer to run a fifty dollar game.
When creating an engine, quality, yes, is a factor. However, it means nothing if games cannot be run on the majority of computers owned by possible customers. Therefore, it is also the duty of the creators to make the engine User-Friendly in the sense that the majority can run it without upgrading. Guild Wars is a great example of a well done job for both ends.
Sorry, but the rest of us don't want to/may not be able to throw away that kind of money to just play a game. If an engine is only usable by those who would/can, it would be a very bad sales market, therefore, the engine would be a failure if it was only created on the platform of quality.
I don't care how realistic it looks. No one wants to go buy a three thousand dollar plus computer to run it.
Numa Pompilius
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
It's funny because when I read people mentioning Crysis (with its unbelievable graphics ... and hardware requirements! when it was out you'd have to buy a PC to go with it ... how mad is that?) I think of ... Oblivion! The orignal one, not the revamped one. Simple graphics, but what a game that was!
|
It is also a good example of a poorly optimized game, and a game whose gameplay was very unbalanced even though it only had "pve". Much the same was true of its predecessor, Morrowind.
Perhaps the most interesting facet of Oblivion was the 3D engine it used for its trees and foliage, namely Speedtree.
Incidentally there's a version of Speedtree for the Unreal III engine.
StardustDreamz
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by You can't see me
You act like it's a one sided situation. Buy the hardware or get out. As much as you disbelieve it, most people don't want to spend Eight Hundred Dollars or more re-doing their old computer to run a fifty dollar game.
|
Quote:
|
By the way, I quickly looked for computer specs on the web: - UT3: proc 2Ghz, 512Mo RAM, NVIDIA 6200+ or ATI Radeon 9600+ (128-256Mo V-RAM?) - GW NF: proc (pentium III!) 1Ghz, 512Mo RAM, ATI Radeon 8500 or GeForce 3 Series (64Mo V-RAM) |
I hope ArenaNet has some big improvements in store for GW2, visually. We don't need UE3 or Crysis level visuals, but I don't want Guild Wars 2 to only offer the same level of improvement that Nightfall did over Prophecies. Better foilage, cloth simulation, and terrain are things in particular I'm hoping to see, along with generally higher quality textures and higher poly models.
I'll add that I would be totally willing to accept a bit of a slowdown in gameplay speed to bring in more eyecandy. Guild Wars is already pretty fast when it comes to things like interrupts. That fast gameplay compared to other RPGs seems a little punishing when you are like me and seem to live very far away from GWs servers. Even 200ms of ping can be unplayable if you are playing an interrupt character.
Surena
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
Typical answer from an arrogant gamer. You know very little about graphics engine if you think it this way...
|
GW doesn't need a lot to perform well, yet you see people that with ultrabad rigs that sob because they can't max it out. You don't need to invest a lot to have a decent gamer pc, but then it's those kind of people that can invest 4000+ hours into the game but not several dozen hours in a job that might actually give them the $$$ to afford one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StardustDreamz
Spending eight hundred dollars will get you a high end gaming machine. For most people, spending less than a hundred dollars on a decent graphics card would mean being able to play modern games.
|
Quote:
| Throwing around big numbers is not only ignorant, but contributes to other people's ignorance. |
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
Oblivion was also extremely demanding of the hardware, to the point one can make pretty kick-ass computers choke by turning up the graphics quality. And I'm not sure why you consider this to be "simple"; it may not be quite as good as Crysis or BioShock, but it's outstanding in the rpg genre.
|
http://www.bethsoft.com/images/games...owind_02-B.jpg
(who remembers the floating prison and the flying boots?
)Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StardustDreamz
Spending eight hundred dollars will get you a high end gaming machine. For most people, spending less than a hundred dollars on a decent graphics card would mean being able to play modern games. Throwing around big numbers is not only ignorant, but contributes to other people's ignorance.
|
Quote:
| It's a bit misleading to compare a game which relies on fast action to an RPG like Guild Wars. Critical actions in FPS games are taking place tens to hundreds of times faster than in Guild Wars. UT3 is far more processor bound than it is graphics card bound. |
Quote:
|
I hope ArenaNet has some big improvements in store for GW2, visually. We don't need UE3 or Crysis level visuals, but I don't want Guild Wars 2 to only offer the same level of improvement that Nightfall did over Prophecies. Better foilage, cloth simulation, and terrain are things in particular I'm hoping to see, along with generally higher quality textures and higher poly models. I'll add that I would be totally willing to accept a bit of a slowdown in gameplay speed to bring in more eyecandy. Guild Wars is already pretty fast when it comes to things like interrupts. That fast gameplay compared to other RPGs seems a little punishing when you are like me and seem to live very far away from GWs servers. Even 200ms of ping can be unplayable if you are playing an interrupt character. |
enxa
I dont think its gonna happen for GW2.
When youre building a game, the first thing youre supposed to provide is an engine, only then can you proceed to build a game arround it. Doing it vice versa is like building a house from the roof down.
Unless they decided to put a years worth of work down the drain and redesign everything, for which they would opt for a new engine. But given that the release date is supposed to be 2009 (if im well informed) this i reckon wouldnt be possible to achieve (with any quality).
When youre building a game, the first thing youre supposed to provide is an engine, only then can you proceed to build a game arround it. Doing it vice versa is like building a house from the roof down.
Unless they decided to put a years worth of work down the drain and redesign everything, for which they would opt for a new engine. But given that the release date is supposed to be 2009 (if im well informed) this i reckon wouldnt be possible to achieve (with any quality).
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by enxa
When youre building a game, the first thing youre supposed to provide is an engine, only then can you proceed to build a game arround it. Doing it vice versa is like building a house from the roof down.
|
With an alpha in progress and a beta coming by the end of this year, I'm 99.99% sure that the graphics engine is already well-advanced, though probably not complete.
Blackhearted
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by You can't see me
You act like it's a one sided situation. Buy the hardware or get out. As much as you disbelieve it, most people don't want to spend Eight Hundred Dollars or more re-doing their old computer to run a fifty dollar game.
I don't care how realistic it looks. No one wants to go buy a three thousand dollar plus computer to run it. |
MMk. So we will use newegg for this. Sorry if you're not american, but i don't know foreign stores. Anwyay..
Motherboard: Eh, this is really upto you and what you need to be honest. Most here could do with a $50 budget board most likely. So i'll just mark down $50 to $100 here.
CPU: Athlon 64 x2 4400+ $72.99. not highend but more than capable of ue3. quite overclockable too.
Ram: 2Gb ddr2-800 dual channel kit value kit $36.99. budget ram? maybe. but it will do the job in a budget system.
Video: MSI Geforce 8600gt OC $85.99(-$20 MIR) Far from highend yet still reasonably capable. Plus 20 dollars back!
Well, well. that covers all the basics of what is merely an "upgrade" and what's our total here you ask?
i can't believe it. it's only about $300! and that's if you step up to a better $100~ motherboard! Wow, i must say, I'm rather surpisred at this. I just saved someone less knowledgeable on things 500 to 2750 dollars! and got them a pc capable of more than 30 fps all at the same time.
enxa
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
It's surely too late for Anet to change graphics engine but I wanted to correct you: the first thing you do is design your software, which leaves the door open to various options when it comes to implementation. I've seen a few big programs where you'd develop while trying different components, so as to choose the most suitable one for the task, and other projects where they had to change components due to unexpected technical constraints.
With an alpha in progress and a beta coming by the end of this year, I'm 99.99% sure that the graphics engine is already well-advanced, though probably not complete. |
Im not a programmer myself or anything of that sort, so what i said was pretty rough, but i believe, still partially true.
Scary
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lionhe4rt
According to the Dutch gaming website http://www.insidegamer.nl , NCsoft bought 2 licenses of the Unreal 3 engine, most probably meant to use for 2 new MMORPGs.
( http://www.insidegamer.nl/bedrijf/ui...nties-aan.html ) Anyway, this could mean that GW2 will run on the U3 engine. It would be great if that was the case! ) Of course, the chance is also big that these 2 licenses are meant for 2 other games . |
To me the graphics in GWen are very nice for a MMORPG.
With the comming of the UT3 engine (if it is true) the requirements shall go up
to..
And thats something GW is so kind of now.
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scary
With the comming of the UT3 engine (if it is true) the requirements shall go up
to.. |
zwei2stein
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackhearted
Peoples level of ignorance surprises me. Their ability to pull random figures out of air and use them as decisive and factual ones is funny too. Guess we need to educate some on how cheap a ue3 compatible upgrade from a barely gw capable machine could be. especially if you keep your current os, monitor, mouse, keys, case, etc.
MMk. So we will use newegg for this. Sorry if you're not american, but i don't know foreign stores. Anwyay.. Motherboard: Eh, this is really upto you and what you need to be honest. Most here could do with a $50 budget board most likely. So i'll just mark down $50 to $100 here. CPU: Athlon 64 x2 4400+ $72.99. not highend but more than capable of ue3. quite overclockable too. Ram: 2Gb ddr2-800 dual channel kit value kit $36.99. budget ram? maybe. but it will do the job in a budget system. Video: MSI Geforce 8600gt OC $85.99(-$20 MIR) Far from highend yet still reasonably capable. Plus 20 dollars back! Well, well. that covers all the basics of what is merely an "upgrade" and what's our total here you ask? i can't believe it. it's only about $300! and that's if you step up to a better $100~ motherboard! Wow, i must say, I'm rather surpisred at this. I just saved someone less knowledgeable on things 500 to 2750 dollars! and got them a pc capable of more than 30 fps all at the same time. |
All this adds 300$ to 30$ game. And if i have choice between what is essentially 330$ game looking a tad better and normal 30$ game, later one will win all the way. Especially when i know that whatever later one lacked in graphics budget went to playability and fun budget.
And for average consumer it will NOT be 300$ for reason Frill outlines few posts back. And it really does not matter if it is 100$ extra of 1000$ extra, it is still added cost to game. 130$ game is still a lot.
Hell, even if i could pirate that game and get it for free, it would not get it because it still would cost me X00$ anyway. And if i wont get it for free, i would definitely not buy it.
Here is another real deal: No-one cares about graphics. Not enough to spend X00$ on it. Show screenshots of games from past 15 years to someone. I bet you they would not see difference between Quake I and III. Some would label Duke3D as looking good and Doom3 as looking bad.
Noone cares about lens flares and stuff like that because normal people have better things to do than jerk over differently looking water. Its always just water to them. Duh.
Right now, PC games are in deep shit. They got there because developers listened to likes of you and continued graphics arms-race till they got to dead corner where no-one other than couple of geeks can run their games. Thank you very much for this brave new century of PC gaming.
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
Right now, PC games are in deep shit. They got there because developers listened to likes of you and continued graphics arms-race till they got to dead corner where no-one other than couple of geeks can run their games. Thank you very much for this brave new century of PC gaming.
|
), as long as it's not too tied to the console world. Decade after decade, people realise how they've been exploited thanks to Moore's law. It's totally stupid as a business directive (people complain about Microsoft hegemony, but not about Intel-AMD?) and slowly, but surely, this is changing. There'll always be this elitist world of gamers, who only know big numbers and the "woaw" factor (once again, how stupid can people be to buy a PC so that it can play Crysis? would anyone buy a new car so that it can run on this super-special-highway?)I miss the times when the real true challenge would be to have a full 3D demo with sound in 64K (one thousandth of what a 3D game uses now!). I'm pretty sure a bunch of these amazing guys ended up in companies like Anet, and they deserve it. I mean, look at what they can do in 8,5Mo:
http://www.scene.org/file_dl.php?url....zip&id=188816
I'd rather see nice physics at almost no cost, and most importantly arts in its best shape (see also the Screenshot Exposition forum and the Post your Spectacular Sights throughout Guild Wars thread). Of course, I'm talking visuals here, but it's as important as game mechanics/system.
Blackhearted
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
Whatever that costs are, here is the real deal:
All this adds 300$ to 30$ game. And if i have choice between what is essentially 330$ game looking a tad better and normal 30$ game, later one will win all the way. Especially when i know that whatever later one lacked in graphics budget went to playability and fun budget. And for average consumer it will NOT be 300$ for reason Frill outlines few posts back. And it really does not matter if it is 100$ extra of 1000$ extra, it is still added cost to game. 130$ game is still a lot. Hell, even if i could pirate that game and get it for free, it would not get it because it still would cost me X00$ anyway. And if i wont get it for free, i would definitely not buy it. |
Quote:
|
Here is another real deal: No-one cares about graphics. Not enough to spend X00$ on it. Show screenshots of games from past 15 years to someone. I bet you they would not see difference between Quake I and III. Some would label Duke3D as looking good and Doom3 as looking bad. Noone cares about lens flares and stuff like that because normal people have better things to do than jerk over differently looking water. Its always just water to them. Duh. |
Hm? What's that? i didn't, you say? yea, thats right. I only mentioned the FPS(That's frames per second, since you obviously don't know what that means). God damn, doesn't anyone know how to read anymore? It's really looking like they don't.
And while some may not care about graphics i'd be more than willing to say you'd be pretty damn hard pressed to find someone who actually thinks a pseudo-3d game like doom95/duke 3d looks better than doom3 or HL2. That's a bit too far of a stretch. Hell, even the technologically illiterate wouldn't go that far.
Quote:
| Right now, PC games are in deep shit. They got there because developers listened to likes of you and continued graphics arms-race till they got to dead corner where no-one other than couple of geeks can run their games. Thank you very much for this brave new century of PC gaming. |
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackhearted
God damn, doesn't anyone know how to read anymore?
... people like you who expect high fps on new software while using hardware from the 90s. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
is reasonably choppy (~15FPS)
... they are unplayable with their 4-8 FPS |
BTW you seem soooooooooooo knowledgeable that you even quote "hardware from the 90s". Guess what. Most people use integrated graphics! Hey, unmount from your cloud of l33t-graphics-ness and step back to the ground of real Earth where people do not put 1/3rd of their computer upgrade money on the graphics!
Well done trolling this thread uber-gamer!
Surena
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
Here is another real deal: No-one cares about graphics. Not enough to spend X00$ on it. Show screenshots of games from past 15 years to someone. I bet you they would not see difference between Quake I and III. Some would label Duke3D as looking good and Doom3 as looking bad.
|
Quote:
| Noone cares about lens flares and stuff like that because normal people have better things to do than jerk over differently looking water. Its always just water to them. Duh. |
Quote:
| Right now, PC games are in deep shit. They got there because developers listened to likes of you and continued graphics arms-race till they got to dead corner where no-one other than couple of geeks can run their games. Thank you very much for this brave new century of PC gaming. |
On the one hand it's the masses that count, on the other hand it's the gamers that brought this demise? You make no sense.
zwei2stein
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Blackhearted
That's not a really good thing to base your whole argument off of. Cause that could be used in anything. Like... let's say pc gw2 gets canned and becomes ps3 only title(HYPOTHETICALLY, before you say a word). That means for me(and many others) the game is no longer $50, but $50 plus like $500. See what i mean?
|
There is reason i never bought console. I aint gonna pay extra 500$ to play game, ever.
Quote:
| And while some may not care about graphics i'd be more than willing to say you'd be pretty damn hard pressed to find someone who actually thinks a pseudo-3d game like doom95/duke 3d looks better than doom3 or HL2. That's a bit too far of a stretch. Hell, even the technologically illiterate wouldn't go that far. |
Quote:
| Pc gaming is in trouble cause of people like you who expect high fps on new software while using hardware from the 90s. Not the other way around. Cause it's probably quite hard to keep things uptodate while still trying to cater to people using piss poor dell machines barely capable of even playing things from the ps1 era. |
average 1996 PC: pretty much all games run on it.
average 1999 PC: most of games run on it.
average 2001 PC: okay amount of games run on it.
average 2003 PC: few games run on it.
average 2006 PC: pretty much no contemporary game runs on it.
average 2008 PC: there is no way you would run contemporary game on it.
Whatever happened between 1993 and 2008 is not fault of people (boohoo, those bad bad people refuse to throw away money for something that would be obsolete next year!), it is fault of game publishing companies which refused to take realities of market into account.
GW1 would never sell 4 million units if it ran only on "Chosen Few" computers.
Nyree
People here in this thread seems to think that graphic engine means graphic design... But it doesn't. See Lineage 2, it uses Unreal Engine and it looks very different from Unreal. They can take the engine and design the graphics however they want.
About the performance, i still think that Unreal Engine is way better than the most of the engines out there in the market, i can play Unreal Tournament III and Gears of War in medium configuration with 30~35 FPS in my crappy outdated computer (AGP 8x GeForce 6800, 1.5GB RAM and Pentium 4) and Crysis i can't even run in my PC... i even remember been able to run the first Unreal of all in my old PC with a 8MB video card...
About the performance, i still think that Unreal Engine is way better than the most of the engines out there in the market, i can play Unreal Tournament III and Gears of War in medium configuration with 30~35 FPS in my crappy outdated computer (AGP 8x GeForce 6800, 1.5GB RAM and Pentium 4) and Crysis i can't even run in my PC... i even remember been able to run the first Unreal of all in my old PC with a 8MB video card...
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Surena
Normal people have better things to do than being snobs about lore and immersion.
|
Quote:
| people like you with old hardware |
Quote:
| On the one hand it's the masses that count, on the other hand it's the gamers that brought this demise? You make no sense. |
Anyway, you are not listening and you've derailed this discussion far enough. Self-centered-ness FTL. Mods may soon want to close it because of you.
Surena
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
average 1993 PC: all contemporary games run on it.
|
Your whole list is screwed. For every year mentioned you could name a games that didn't run on most computers. Quake 1 for instance, Unreal 1...
Quote:
| Whatever happened between 1993 and 2008 is not fault of people (boohoo, those bad bad people refuse to throw away money for something that would be obsolete next year!), it is fault of game publishing companies which refused to take realities of market into account. |
Quote:
| GW1 would never sell 4 million units if it ran only on "Chosen Few" computers. |
All I hear is "argumenting" against the absolute high-end. Nobody here demands GW2's requirements to be shifted into high-end range. Stop being delusional.
GW2 should aim for the performance sector for maximum details and that sector has never expanded so great as it does now and it has never been so easy to enter it.