PDA

View Full Version : Games in the skies!



Loreleye
7th Jul 2003, 12:53
Ok, remember the times where a p 200 mz, where a pretty good PC?
I do, in 96 we bought a 486 4 ram, and 60 mz, in 98, we got a p 200, and in 200 a P3 500, 128 ram, and a 16 mb ati graphic card!
and that is the computer I have today! I think that the evolution is going to fast, this is not a bad comment to intel or amd, but to gamers and game developers, we dont need the lates graphic and not and not just the latest cards! this is an option each and every one of us have, but I dont see it that way, I have to get a better PC in order to get new games, since the developers create the games to run whit the latest hardware!!!!! either you like it or not!!!!! Or Im I wrong Ion Storm? I can say for sure that my comp wont run DX: IW, since I know that you guys are compeeting whit half life 2 and stuff, and have to get the most buyers to stay alive, to create new games, so in order to get that evil circle to stop, we gamers must think a bit, do we like this or not? is it a so call survivel of the fitess? that they who cant afford a high end computer are left behind?
Ok, I got more to say, but I have to stop now!

Big Ragu
7th Jul 2003, 18:39
Developers are trying to make games scale down to even the puniest computer. I know you will be able to run HL2 on crap computers, but not so sure about IW.

But that is one of the differences in consoles and PCs. We PC gamers sacrifice money (and time) so we can have the latest graphics. Consoles are cheaper, but will be inferior compared to PCs in a few months after their release.

Lawnboy360
7th Jul 2003, 19:51
But that is one of the differences in consoles and PCs. We PC gamers sacrifice money (and time) so we can have the latest graphics. Consoles are cheaper, but will be inferior compared to PCs in a few months after their release.

Carmack said that at some point (pretty soon) developers won't need to constantly come up with new engines, because gamers simply won't see any important difference, like for the movies people don't really notice the quality improvement between, say, "antz" and "stone age". It takes constantly higher efforts to get constantly smaller increases in graphic quality. Besides, even if consoles displayed at 1600*1200, it wouldn't make a huge difference on a TV.

operative x
7th Jul 2003, 23:20
I think that develpoers should follow the same path as valve. First they made half-life that had the latest graphics tech at that time then 5 years later they come out with something 10x better. Instead of every 2 years theres some extremely little improvement on graphics. They need to first make there game then the next time push the envelope extremely further. And also LOWER THE PRICES MY GOD FOR A GAME ITS $50! Atleast lower it to about $30-40. So if the game is good anyway and a million people buy the game they will have 30 million! Now your telling me thats not enough money for you companies?

Lawnboy360
8th Jul 2003, 01:04
I guess the answer is no. Especially on console, since, like, 15$ goes to the console maker (sony/microsoft/nintendo); that's were they get their profit, especially Microsoft, as they sell their console at loss. At release, Warcraft3 was 60$, and it didn't cause them any problem, so why wouldn't they? Besides, if only "one" game was lower, people would assume it's a budget title.

Loreleye
8th Jul 2003, 11:45
Your expection for improvement is only a result of the developement you see from the developers, not that you necessery needs that impovement in it selves, you just want more and more, you wont stop at this point in your eager for better graphics, they who says that obvouslyi, or however it is tyoed not got much money! Overflode creates greades!
I remember I saw an onouncement for quake on a magazine for some years ago, they where saying that the graphic was astunnish, and this is just so good, compared todays standards it is crap? I remember also that C&C where having photolike gameplay, C&C can you believe that? what made them think they had that?
Todays games are also far from it, and they wont stop, and no they wont stop, it will continue and continue.
You said that PC gamers uses more money then the cheap consoles, but that dont mean it should be that way man!
The only reason for why I plays the PC, is that I might like more strategic games then I can get on a console. And that I have to use a TV and I cant occupy the TV all day long, though I dont play all day long, but night long, kidding, but you see what I mean??


P.S. I have been poisoned from the eager for better games, so the older one have been to boring!

I dont realy play games all day long, I have a life outside the PC, but I never said that people at their PC all day is anything wrong!!!!!

So next time, stop an think before you just talk about the crap g4 mx cards, they are way better then you actually needs!!!!!

vick1000
13th Jul 2003, 23:54
That depends on your "needs",if I can afford my $3K PC,then
my needs will appear greater to me than someone that can
only afford a $800 PC.I paid $230 for my Gforce 4 Ti 4400
back in Feb. of 2002,and that's about what I'll spend on a
Radeon 9700 pro this Fall (probably).I feel I "need" a larger
Monitor,my 17" Flat CRT,is too small now,because the prices
on 19" Flat CRTs are around what I paid for this one now.
But the newer games will "run" on my current system,so
do I really "need" to upgrade anything?No,but I can afford it,
so I will,because I like my games to run smoothly at 1024x768x32
or higher,with some AF turned on,at 85 fps or better.Someone
who is used to 800x600x16 with blurry textures,at 45fps,might
not see a need to upgrade,but that's why the market is
segmented,and that's why there will always be the Gforce MXs
and Radeon 9000s on the market.

Loreleye
14th Jul 2003, 16:19
Ok, thanks for telling people just what I ment! You are the example I want. It is just cuz of you buying better graphic cards taht make it possible for the developers to create "better" games! So if we all stoped at e.g. g4 mx! then they could not create those games, They need money!
And so it is said, all this money aint all good! You have more useful places to put them!

vick1000
15th Jul 2003, 02:37
Originally posted by Loreleye
Ok, thanks for telling people just what I ment! You are the example I want. It is just cuz of you buying better graphic cards taht make it possible for the developers to create "better" games! So if we all stoped at e.g. g4 mx! then they could not create those games, They need money!
And so it is said, all this money aint all good! You have more useful places to put them!

Well,games happen to be my hobby,I choose to play games that
are visually pleasing,and I want those games to look the best
they can for my budget.Fortunately for me,I live in a somewhat
free country,and can make those decisions freely.

P.S. WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS YELLING!!!!!!!

An exclamation point denotes exclaiming the previous statment.

Loreleye
15th Jul 2003, 08:39
It is a bad habbit to put !!!! in the end of a sentence.
I know that you probably have the finances in order to be able to buy the latest! But we other, I do also, but I dont!! But we other might not want to do it, but yet be able to play some new games too! So I think that the producers could produce less totaly up to date games. I also think that could increase the level of how wel the games are. Just cuz to make better games, you cant just rely on new technology, you have to think in a new way!!!!!!
So I say to Ion Storm, do you take the challange?

P.S. Warren, dont cry. DX IW is much better then half life 2!! That is what I think though!
I do have half life, but deus ex is much better then half life, and im sure dx iw is much better then half life 2, might not on graphics, but thats not all to a game you know! I love the story of the first game, and Im sure the story is great in the second too! better then in half life 2!