Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2009 0:09:02 GMT -5
programmer lazyness - cos of the complexity of trying to get eye candy, it can make persons lazy and not think about ways to improve efficiency etc etc of the exisitng engine. - however - saying that take a walkthrough of the development notes (of actual maps) in Half-Life 2 Episodes 1 & 2 and you'll notice that some smarter dev's are more creative with how they acheive some affects without smashing your system - thats why like games such as Left For Dead , TF2 and Portal look great on a mid-high end box and yet still run quite nicely on a plain shitbox like my old comp (A64 3500 / 2gb / 7600GT) - this means that the game is developed well and is quite scalable Quoted for truth. Source is probably one of the most efficient and scalable gaming engines around, mainly because the programming is done in C++. While the visuals aren't quite as good as Crytek and others, it makes the best use of what you have available, which is probably why it's still around five years after it's first implementation in Half Life 2/Counter Strike: Source. --- And for anyone wondering about Windows 7... I'd recommend getting it, especially if your computer is currently running Vista. I've been using Win7 Professional 64-bit for a few months now (legitimately acquired through MSDNAA in August) on my desktop and laptop and haven't had any issues.
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Nov 1, 2009 0:57:10 GMT -5
Yup. Microsoft has dumped Vista faster than Ron would with Meat Cakes.
|
|
|
Post by Nulla on Nov 1, 2009 6:11:40 GMT -5
programmer lazyness - cos of the complexity of trying to get eye candy, it can make persons lazy and not think about ways to improve efficiency etc etc of the exisitng engine. - however - saying that take a walkthrough of the development notes (of actual maps) in Half-Life 2 Episodes 1 & 2 and you'll notice that some smarter dev's are more creative with how they acheive some affects without smashing your system - thats why like games such as Left For Dead , TF2 and Portal look great on a mid-high end box and yet still run quite nicely on a plain shitbox like my old comp (A64 3500 / 2gb / 7600GT) - this means that the game is developed well and is quite scalable Quoted for truth. Source is probably one of the most efficient and scalable gaming engines around, mainly because the programming is done in C++. While the visuals aren't quite as good as Crytek and others, it makes the best use of what you have available, which is probably why it's still around five years after it's first implementation in Half Life 2/Counter Strike: Source. --- And for anyone wondering about Windows 7... I'd recommend getting it, especially if your computer is currently running Vista. I've been using Win7 Professional 64-bit for a few months now (legitimately acquired through MSDNAA in August) on my desktop and laptop and haven't had any issues. actually - crytek did a good job of Crysis 1 - its quite scalable you just gotta know what to turn off (in both ways to make it good and to kill your comp! lol ) - it was quite playable on that same shitbox - you just had to tweak it nicely - the germans have some quite good hackers too as for windows 7 - im about to move out so i cant afford to get it right now, from my playing around with a xp only laptop i was quite impressed - win 7 is quite good for drivers of older hardware or specialised hardware in notebooks..... vista is naco - it makes my overclocked quadcore feel and run like my shitbox comp on a bad day with xp...... - i just wish microsoft would just give all the sorry arsed people what gave vista even the slightest chance a free copy of windows 7 home prem as a "im so sorry we fucked vista up so hard and ripped you guys off with it - pls dont go to mac" present! ^^ and my 500th post!!!!!!!11` wooo!
|
|
|
Post by ninjanaco on Nov 1, 2009 15:00:48 GMT -5
Well ... CoD:MW2 has a higher processor speed than my Mac, so... On the other hand, I can still play Civ II on the PC side of my Mac and will try playing a version of SimCity 2000. (Got the Mac version ages ago (back when it was still current- but since Mac OS X won't run classic apps...)
|
|
|
Post by Nulla on Nov 3, 2009 8:18:15 GMT -5
Well ... CoD:MW2 has a higher processor speed than my Mac, so... On the other hand, I can still play Civ II on the PC side of my Mac and will try playing a version of SimCity 2000. (Got the Mac version ages ago (back when it was still current- but since Mac OS X won't run classic apps...) its worth trying on ur mac anyway - you'll just have to tweak it a little
|
|
|
Post by Darth_Comrade on Nov 5, 2009 12:32:01 GMT -5
See, as long as PC Games are growing in popularity and people are becoming more and more technically proficient then they're going to demand more high end graphics and challenging games that not only impresses them but impresses their mates as well. Everyone wants to show off their machines nowadays...
The issue here really isn't about the companies wanting more money, alot of them are actually losing!
The problem lies with the public demand.
I mean, I don't know if any of you have played Empire: Total War yet, but you must've heard the new nickname it earned...Empire: Total Bugs!
It's had so many bugs when it was released despite the very impressive gameplay and astounding graphics. Even my machine fell victim to what I think must be some compatability issue with my Nvidia card...I've tried everything imagineable to fix it.
But Creative Assembly quickly responded to the criticisms it recieved and threw out their different updates and expansion packs with fixes and improvements.
Whether that saved them or not I'm not really sure...but it's an example of how we, the customers, are the ones demanding bigger and better everytime.
|
|
|
Post by ninjanaco on Nov 5, 2009 21:52:51 GMT -5
its worth trying on ur mac anyway - you'll just have to tweak it a little You can tweak a 2.16 GHz iMac to run like a 3.22 GHz computer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2009 0:32:03 GMT -5
actually - crytek did a good job of Crysis 1 - its quite scalable you just gotta know what to turn off (in both ways to make it good and to kill your comp! lol ) - it was quite playable on that same shitbox - you just had to tweak it nicely - the germans have some quite good hackers too I'm not saying the CryEngine isn't any good, far from it. I just think Source has a broader range of optimizations and scalability. My first self-built computer was worse than your 'shitbox' (love the name btw) and it played Half Life 2 Ep1 quite well on medium-high-ish (sad, I know), but when it came to Crysis, I barely got playable framerates, not matter what I tried. Grated, there are obviously technological differences between the engines' visual rendering and all that, but that always bugged me. It really isn't a big deal right now, not since I upgraded. The games are fun, and that's what matters. As an aside, I played the Left4Dead 2 Demo for the first time earlier today, and was very impressed with the visuals. Valve has made some great strides to keep the engine from feeling too dated, especially since HL2: Episode 2. But if you want to talk about something that deserves criticizing, GTAIV was a horrible port. It's a shame really, because GTAIII, Vice City, and San Andreas were better than their console counterparts. Visually, the game is great, and while I can max out all of the settings on my GTX260 Core216, it has a meager 40fps average. While still highly playable, it does lag from time to time. And it didn't help that the main storyline ending wasn't at all satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by Nulla on Nov 15, 2009 8:43:18 GMT -5
^^GTA4 is all about the CPU baby!! and yes it was quite a shithouse port from xbox, and the storyline was a bit weaker and less fun than the other GTA's - i quite enjoyed GTA3, VC, and SA - another example of lazy porting from console to PC is modern warefare 2, the multiplayer is like a spit in the face to PC online gamers - no dedicated server , no LAN, just bs matchmaking like the consoles...... and about my 'shitbox' - I used to do all my HD recording of KP on that box (with alot of difficulty and mucking around), but now i got 2 computers which are quite better than that, but unfortunately none of my local stations air the show anymore...... and as for L4D2............... demo with no gore restrictions is good, over the top much... but goood....... the censored version is sooooo bad its not funny, i feel sales going to go down the toilet here for L4D2 (unless the workaround works well )
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Nov 16, 2009 15:05:08 GMT -5
^^GTA4 is all about the CPU baby!! and yes it was quite a shithouse port from xbox, and the storyline was a bit weaker and less fun than the other GTA's - i quite enjoyed GTA3, VC, and SA - another example of lazy porting from console to PC is modern warefare 2, the multiplayer is like a spit in the face to PC online gamers - no dedicated server , no LAN, just bs matchmaking like the consoles...... and about my 'shitbox' - I used to do all my HD recording of KP on that box (with alot of difficulty and mucking around), but now i got 2 computers which are quite better than that, but unfortunately none of my local stations air the show anymore...... and as for L4D2............... demo with no gore restrictions is good, over the top much... but goood....... the censored version is sooooo bad its not funny, i feel sales going to go down the toilet here for L4D2 (unless the workaround works well ) EALA, with the Nacospeak version of Command and Conquer: Generals, modified it heavily to get around the Nacospeak censorship laws: instead of terrorists. the Nacospeak version had tin can robots who bled oil. The fans literally modded the game with a simple package so that the game matched its international counterpart. The same will happen for the Aussie version of Left 4 Dead 2. Edit: Nacospeak is meant to be 'Ger man,' but the crappy forum censored it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2009 17:02:52 GMT -5
^^GTA4 is all about the CPU baby!! and yes it was quite a shithouse port from xbox, and the storyline was a bit weaker and less fun than the other GTA's - i quite enjoyed GTA3, VC, and SA My processor is a Core2 Quad Q9550 (OC'd to 3.4Ghz) and has 8gigs of RAM to play with, so I was just assuming that the GTX260 was the primary bottleneck. But yeah, GTA IV is definitely a CPU hungry game, it consistently keeps all four cores around 90% utilization in open areas with the draw distance cranked up. Even though GTA IV wasn't all that great, I can't wait to see what Rockstar can do in upcoming GTA titles (especially if they're as open-ended as SA was) with the new engine. I just hope they optimize it a lot better next time. And with all of my talk about Crytek, I reinstalled Crysis on my current computer... I've forgotten how great the graphics were, even by today's standards. Though I have to say, it's a little pissy in Windows 7 when it comes to changing any settings. Edit: Nacospeak is meant to be 'Ger man,' but the crappy forum censored it. Ger man?
|
|
|
Post by Beaglebub on Nov 20, 2009 4:31:01 GMT -5
Just thought I'd rant about the ever-increasing system requirements in computer games and the cost it takes to match up with them. As many gamers here know, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be out in November. As those same gamers probably also know, as of this posting the system requirements of said game are not known. Given the stats for Call of Duty: World at War, however, I'm quite pessimistic. Why? Well, because even though I've had my 2.16 GHz dual Intel iMac for only two-and-a-half years, it seems far too many game designers think computers like mine are already obsolete. CoD:WaW, for example, needs about 3.0 GHz at minimum to run, you need a processor with at least 2.8 GHz to play, and I was quite surprised when The Sims 3 needed only 2.0 GHz processor speed, with is within the reach of my system. Of course, the game designers would say that they need the heavier system requirements to make the games better-looking and to add more features. But do they? Rome: Total War mods such as "Rome: Total Realism" and "Napoleonic Total War" show just what the R:TW engine can do, and do without the 500 extra mHz or doubling of RAM that Medieval II Total War requires. Why couldn't the Creative Assembly just tweak the R:TW engine for Medieval II and Empire? There's also the economic issue - a contemporary computer game will cost about $30-60, but a new computer with the latest specs? Several thousand dollars. Which is the more economical? Anyway, that's my rant about computer game system requirements. What do you think? Meow, I still got my Atari 2600 and a box of games. Things were lots simpler back then. Pong, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by ShadigoIzayoi on Nov 20, 2009 10:08:33 GMT -5
Just thought I'd rant about the ever-increasing system requirements in computer games and the cost it takes to match up with them. As many gamers here know, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be out in November. As those same gamers probably also know, as of this posting the system requirements of said game are not known. Given the stats for Call of Duty: World at War, however, I'm quite pessimistic. Why? Well, because even though I've had my 2.16 GHz dual Intel iMac for only two-and-a-half years, it seems far too many game designers think computers like mine are already obsolete. CoD:WaW, for example, needs about 3.0 GHz at minimum to run, you need a processor with at least 2.8 GHz to play, and I was quite surprised when The Sims 3 needed only 2.0 GHz processor speed, with is within the reach of my system. Of course, the game designers would say that they need the heavier system requirements to make the games better-looking and to add more features. But do they? Rome: Total War mods such as "Rome: Total Realism" and "Napoleonic Total War" show just what the R:TW engine can do, and do without the 500 extra mHz or doubling of RAM that Medieval II Total War requires. Why couldn't the Creative Assembly just tweak the R:TW engine for Medieval II and Empire? There's also the economic issue - a contemporary computer game will cost about $30-60, but a new computer with the latest specs? Several thousand dollars. Which is the more economical? Anyway, that's my rant about computer game system requirements. What do you think? Meow, I still got my Atari 2600 and a box of games. Things were lots simpler back then. Pong, anyone? I like my pong... I just want my pong WITH AWESOME AND HIGH-DEFINITION GRAPHICS!! ...and online multiplayer, and controls fit for the wii and... stuff... :-\
|
|