Low resolution available?
Goldenwound
Join Date: 2002-02-25 Member: 241Members
Join Date: 2002-02-25 Member: 241Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Can this mod be played in 400x300 res?</div>I'm using a pretty old pc... pentium celeron 433mhz 64RAM SiS620 gfx card (pretty much useless). I only play games in 400x300 resolution since running with better graphics have severe impact on the performance. I've been checking looking at this mod quite often and I just want to know if this mod will allow me to run it in a software rendered 400x300 mode. There's quite a few mods that can't and that worries me.
Comments
On a little side note, I know you guys may be young/low on cash/cheap/whatever ...
but seriously, theres a time when you just <b>have</b> to upgrade. Get a part time job during the summer and save $10 or so a paycheck.
You cant seriously expect game companies and developers to <i>make</i> their games work for your older systems.
You can buy a 1ghz for around $800 now or something ...
Not saying you should go out and buy a 1ghz, but .. damn ...
I believe compatibility with older system is the number one reason why some games are succesful. There is a large and often underestimated number of people who refuse to upgrade or don't care about them. They expect a game to work on their system, no more no less, and will simply ignore games that don't.
IMHO this is the reason why games like, say, Starcraft or Dungeon Siege are bestsellers. They run on low-end systems, quite simple. HL is pretty low end; and it was and still is a huge success.
As a personal note, it makes me angry if developers expect me to spend hard earned money on otherwise useless hardware just so they can fool around with some fancy graphical gimmicks. I play games for gameplay, and I *demand* that engines scale down well.
It also startles me that many people just run behind what they believe is an upgrade trend they have to follow, when they could just refuse to upgrade and refuse to play games that don't run on current systems. It is *us*, the players, who make the trend. If we just refuse to play along, the upgrade race will *have* to slow down!
Now I've ranted enough... Since it uses the good old HL engine, I bet NS will be very playable on low end systems. And if it doesn't, as much as I crave to play it, I'll rather delete it than upgrade again.
My system: P3/500, 128Mb, Geforce4
You dont see too many dev teams wondering if thier game will work under DOS and Windows 3.11 on a 386SX system these days. There is a lower limit to what dev teams will, and will not figure into thier backwards compatibility.
I *demand* that <i>Halo</i> on the PC shouldve been out a long time ago, as well as <i>Duke Nukem: Forever</i>. But we all have something in common, demands are not often met.
Besides, if you dont want to upgrade, dont. It is your moolah after all.
No, but if my personal demands are not met, I just don't buy the game, or if I'm particularly disappointed, no game from the whole company that let me down.
Money is power. People who spend theirs carelessly forfeit this power.
Flayra is planning on getting Software support to work by the release. I believe that would include the abhorently low resolution of 400x300.
*EDIT* Clarification: What I mean is, aren't the API calls made by the engine? Why would a mod have to code stuff for this? *EDIT*
i think
feel free to correct me
The biggest problem with a res that low is that all the HUD stuff has to scale down so much that it looks terrible. For the life of me, I can't understand <b>how</b> anyone could stand to play a FPS game in a resolution that low, especially in software mode. Even my old Amiga did better than that on the (very) few 3d games that I had. Sorry, I'm honestly not trying to bash anybody that is confined to that bad a system. If I were in your shoes, however, even if a FPS mod were compatible with 400x300, I wouldn't want to play it like that.
"OMG! That giant green pixel nearly got me!"
The problem as I see it is that developers have to draw a line somewhere. We deal with this same issue at work. Do we downgrade our entire line of courseware products because of a small number of people who still insist on (or just don't know any better) running in 640x480 resolution all the time? Or, do we draw a line and make a slightly higher resolution a part of our minimum requirements? I can tell you exactly what our decision was, and it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Ultimately, we were going to produce the best quality product we could, while still not being <i>unreasonable</i> with our minimum requirements. We opted to stay at 800x600. But, as time has passed, more and more of our market has grown to use a higher average resolution. Before long, we will be faced with that decision again.
I'll be the first to admit that I was completely astounded at the number of reported very low res users in the recent survey. Whether this was a truly accurate result, I can't say, but even if it was, it was still a very low percentage relative to the people running 640x480 and higher. I don't think that anything in the game (I could very well be wrong about this) will <i>prevent</i> the game from running in a resolution that low, but I can't believe it would be fun or even reasonable to play like that.
<!--EDIT|Relic25|July 21 2002,11:47-->
Can you read the help pop-ups in CS? At all?
If you sit stubbornly still with your 4 year old system, then be prepared to watch the gaming community zoom off over the horizon.
If you demand that you want games to cater to your system requirements at all times, buy a console.
If you're unwilling or unable to upgrade, and not just for one game -this whole industry is moving away from older systems-, then play and be happy with the games that are good based solely on the gameplay. Nothing wrong with those games. Demanding that game developers stick to old pentium133 classed systems is ridiculous though. Game design is an art, and expanding visually is natural and to be expected. Don't gripe about it, deal with it. Better yet, enjoy it. I sure am.
I agree, CollateralDamage. You shouldn't buy the games then. Just don't come and gripe at the guys when they simply expanded/innovated/or improved on something just because your computer can't handle it. It's your problem, not theirs. Improving upon something (graphics) is no reason to hate a game or company. I <b>really</b> despise the fact that game developers are made out to be some big bad guys when they actually manage to do something right. "Hey, let's start a revolution and not buy any of their games anymore. Just because they moved on and didn't include me in their core audience." It's your choice to not upgrade your system... And it's only natural to continuously improve upon an art. As I said before, I have absolutely nothing against games with dated graphics that are still a blast to play. That's what games should be, right? Fun? I think we can all agree on that. But to criticize a company for doing good on other terms is just silly. As relic said, a line has to be drawn <i>somewhere</i>. And I'm sorry if that line isn't right where you want it to be... at your own personal preferred system range.
That said, NS should run perfectly fine on an older system. The software issue is something I'm not totally sure on though.
<!--EDIT|ken20banks|July 21 2002,14:24-->
Even mowing a few lawns will earn you that kind of money. Don't make me go off on a 'when I was your age' rant, as I can't stand all the eye rolling and excuses.
In terms of comparison with the relative ages of computers versus cars, your 5 year old PC is like driving a badly maintained '55 Bel Aire: you can't expect Chevy to continue making parts for you at this point, and need to consider catching up with the late 20th century, much less the 21st.
I'd recommend a mobo/CPU upgrade if you're running under 500MHz at the moment - an 800MHz chip with motherboard costs you very little (under 200 Canadian if you get it in the right place).
And if you have rich friends with computers, get them to tell their dad that their Radeon 7500 is too slow and they want an 8500, then buy the 7500 off them for 20 dollars. <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> (True story. It's going in my "new" self-made machine.)
No idea what relevance this has (if any), but I thought I'd share it with you all.
But yes, as everyone has pointed out here already, its a shame that people think that they can get new and revolutionary things made on old technology, but this isn't just the case. I mean if it were, there'd be no need for your 300mhz systems, as even the simple C64 would run doom 3 at 90fps... heh.
But the fact is, as technology improves, the game programmers use that technology to do bigger and better things with their games. WarCraft 3 doesn't not run on older systems because the developers hate you, it doesn't run because your system just can't do what the games needs to do to be WarCraft 3. Without that, then they are just making the same games over and over and over again...
[edit]
And that's not even to mention the visual quality that you get with higher resolutions and higher color depths (something HL is so old it doesn't even have heh)
I edited a picture from the rc3 pics thread to give an example of what you're missing:
<img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/uploads/post-1-43663-HalfLife95.jpg" border="0">
This is what you get in 800x600.
<img src="http://members.cox.net/doomaniac/ns_test/320x240example.jpg" border="0">
This is what you get in 320x240. A lot uglier, yes? :P
<!--EDIT|DOOManiac|July 21 2002,17:32-->
i'd love to respond, but this is clearly heading offtopic
Dahm this generation's lack of an educational system... dahm it!
I'll be wanting to play this in software mode too, but in the not-so-terrible resolution of 800x600.
NS will support all resolutions that HL supports (from 400x300 to 1600x1200) and, if all goes according to play, will support software rendering as well. We're having some compatibility problems with Direct3D and software rendering right now, but I expect will get them all fixed soon enough.
I believe compatibility with older system is the number one reason why some games are succesful. There is a large and often underestimated number of people who refuse to upgrade or don't care about them. They expect a game to work on their system, no more no less, and will simply ignore games that don't.
IMHO this is the reason why games like, say, Starcraft or Dungeon Siege are bestsellers. They run on low-end systems, quite simple. HL is pretty low end; and it was and still is a huge success.
As a personal note, it makes me angry if developers expect me to spend hard earned money on otherwise useless hardware just so they can fool around with some fancy graphical gimmicks. I play games for gameplay, and I *demand* that engines scale down well.
It also startles me that many people just run behind what they believe is an upgrade trend they have to follow, when they could just refuse to upgrade and refuse to play games that don't run on current systems. It is *us*, the players, who make the trend. If we just refuse to play along, the upgrade race will *have* to slow down!
Now I've ranted enough... Since it uses the good old HL engine, I bet NS will be very playable on low end systems. And if it doesn't, as much as I crave to play it, I'll rather delete it than upgrade again.
My system: P3/500, 128Mb, Geforce4<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
uh geforce 4? dont like upgrades!? lol
sry for getting of subject, it just didnt seem right to start a entire thread for this little question...
Let me try to express how this issue stands on my end:
What sparked my hostility was your "demand" that developers restrict themselves graphically/visually/whatever. As a level designer, I'm very passionate about making things look as visually pleasing as I possibly can. And I was a bit taken aback by your statement there. It seems so... strange hearing that someone <i>wouldn't</i> want it to look its best. And while this very team here has proven that an old engine does not necessariliy restrict you visually... a new high-end system makes it all the more possible, and you can take things so far beyond what one would imagine. That's why I'm so hyped about the newer engines like doom3 and ut2k3. It seems so incredible what one could do with one of those. While I won't play or buy a game unless it is damned fun... I also get immense enjoyment out of the sheer visual beauty of it all. Like when I first bought halflife. It was the first FPS I'd ever taken on beginning to end. I was astounded by the intro tram ride there. The visuals just blew me away. Of course, that tram ride is mere piddly squat in the the graphics department today, but I don't think I would have enjoyed the game as much as I did without the "coolness" factor I recieved from the visuals all throughout the game. And when I think about what is going to be possible with these newer engines, I'm dumbfounded. I honestly cannot wait to get my hands on them, or to just see the games in action. It's unreal.
That's the primary reason I am so confused over your position here. You said you'd like to respond... please do. I am truly interested in hearing why, exactly, you feel this way about advancements in the visual technology in games. I hope I was clear enough (doubt it) to convey that I'm viewing this from a purely artistic standpoint... and while I believe that there is certainly more to game design than pretty graphical gimmicks... I also believe that the visuals play a huge role in the game as well.
Please elaborate on your standpoint here, CD. I think we all may benefit from hearing eachother's sides of the story. Or something. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
<!--EDIT|ken20banks|July 21 2002,23:17-->
DOOManiac mentioned the C64; a wonderful example. On the C64, when a programmer encountered limits of the hardware, he couldn't just shrug and slap a new "Minimum Requirements" sticker on his box. He had to hack, to work hard to squeeze the latest bit of performance out of the existing hardware. Today this has mostly been replaced with a "well, buy a new xyz" attitude.
Of course I enjoy beautiful graphics. However, I don't enjoy them so much that I would spend hundreds of dollars (well, Euros in my case) every few months just to see them. I think they are just a gimmick, but those who have no problem with spending so much money to see them should of course get to see them.
My demand was that the engine downscales. I demand the option to tune down the visuals so much that I can get acceptable framerates on my hardware. Even better is when the engine does that automatically. There are some great engines which do that polygon shrinking dynamically, like Sacrifice or Operation Flashpoint.
My reluctance to spend money on new hardware stems from the fact that I don't feel like getting my money's worth. Sure, it can render even more polygons in less milliseconds, it can create a water surface which looks even more like the real thing. But I look at these things once, then forget them. I don't want to be excluded from (perhaps) innovative gameplay because a developer feels I absolutely *must* see his high-polygon models. That's where my refusal to play along kicks in. (And Warcraft 3... why does it have a 3D engine at all? Pure fashion choice, not backed up by gameplay.)
I feel that there's always a certain hardware which is "enough". I happily bought my first 3D accelator because the transition from 2D to 3D and the whole new world of gameplay *did* justify that. But the updates nowadays are pointless, running behind even higher resolutions and some silly light effects. There is no technical reason why a modern FPS game should *not* be playable on a Voodoo3000. Who can see the difference between 16bpp or 32bpp anyway?Again, look at Dungeon Siege. In my opinion it sells so well because it *does* support even hardware which is already considered old. This is what the consumer wants.
Catering to this "old" (how can 3 years be old? geez) hardware gives your game or your level creation a *much* broader target audience. Much more people who can enjoy it. Isn't that an asset worth to consider?
*edit* Trane, my worthless update to a Geforce4 only reassured me in my opinion. To gain anything from it I would now need a new CPU, a new motherboard, more memory... I'm fed up with it. I should have kept my Voodoo. At least the Voodoo had this graphic bug which made me look through walls in HL <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo--> *edit*
You want the nicest graphics, best gameplay and up to date technoligy in games .. yet you dont want to go out and get the hardware capabable of handling it.
If you dont want the nicest graphics or what ever - then dont buy the game.
There comes a point where you will just <b>have</b> to upgrade. Granted, it sucks, and yes its alot of money, but its just something that needs to be done. Companies come out with new hardware to appease PC gamers. They know we want better looking games all the time. As a gamer myself, I can tell you I'm completely happy with my G4 ti 4600. Its far better looking then my old Voodoo Banshee, ATI Rage Fury Pro, GF2 MX and GF2 GTS cards. However, each of these upgrades was better then the one before it.
I have no regrets about upgrading, because it just <i>has</i> to be done.
<!--EDIT|Silver Fox|July 22 2002,00:37-->