It's true, the gaming industry is moving on, I just look at the tech demos for recent space games and the graphics are jaw dropping, i think you can do all the demanding you want, but alot of people do upgrade, and thus most games will continue to move away from "old" hardware.
its all about the money, money is what makes the world go round. here is the thing, if the gaming industry made games that would fit the computers we have now, the gaming industry will start loosing business. if you cant make a game that is twice as good as your compitition your not ganna sell as many games. unfortunantly to make a better game u usualy need a better system. and computer companies are VERY happy to sell you that better system,
funny thought tho, imagine were the US economy would be if the gaming industries started making games that didnt require biger and bigger computers. i mean computer sales would drop 90% causing huge layoffs. then people would get worried all about it and start holding onto there money insted of spending itand the nation would literaly be crippled by the loss of those sales, funny aint it?
SilverFox, perhaps you should read my posts with less aggressiveness, so you don't misunderstand me.
I don't want the nicest graphics. I want the option to get bad graphics (with playable FPS) for little money. Why would you want to deny me this option? I certainly don't deny *you* your option of getting great graphics for big money.
None of this *has* to be this way. The upgrade race is not god-given. We shape the way the industry is. Once a majority of us refuses to take part in the race, it is over.
mark, I wouldn't mind this part of the industry coming to a halt. It's getting nowhere anyway.
There comes a point where making the game have sweet graphics on the newest systems and remain playable on something that's considered out of date is almost like making two games that happen to be compatible. U might have different sets of models, u have to tell each version a different way to render that models, textures ect. u have to write a lighting system that is fast and then u have to write one that looks good and then u might need to write yet a third to bridge the gap. You get the idea, catering to older systems takes more work.
<!--QuoteBegin--CollateralDamage+July 21 2002,23:59--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (CollateralDamage @ July 21 2002,23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->(And Warcraft 3... why does it have a 3D engine at all? Pure fashion choice, not backed up by gameplay.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> have you played warIII yet? its fricken awsome! the 3d engine was put there to improve gameplay. Now people who want to make custom maps can have cut scenes by moving the camera angle of the viewer. in battle you can get an edge by moving the camera angle. In game it adds to the story telling 100% by giving it a cinimatic view. It gives the heroes more of a personnality! imagine trying to watch a movie that only had a birds eye view the entire time! you would probably want your money back!
two years ago when i bought my PC it had an 8 meg S3 trio card in it, soon afterwards i upgraded that to an ATI xpert@play 2000 for the pocket killing bank destroying economy scuppering sum of £30. I still have the same computer and just upgraded my gfx card to an ATI Radeon 7000 for the horrific price of £50. So in two years i've spent £80 on upgrading my computer, and my computer will now run reasonably high spec games (example: MOHAA) with beautiful graphics. For heavens sake man, if you had put a pound/dollar/euro/whateva aside a week for the last x number of years youd had your computer you could afford to upgrade to something that would give you nice graphics and still a good fps. Yes the gameplay is the most important part of it, when i first started playing CS (forgive me lord for i have sinned) round the beta 5.2 stage I was playing on my familys PC in software mode but the gameplay was so damn good i didn't care, however as the betas progressed and the gfx got mroe advanced and I saw how fugly mine looked in comparison with my friends who were all rich kiddies and had the top of the range computers at the time, it started to distract me from the gameplay because it looked so damn BAD. The morale of this story is firstly, if youve got a slow PC dont buy gforce cards, do a little research into what the hardwares specifications are before you buy them, and secondly if you can afford to own a computer and be online then you can afford to save up for a little while and buy yourself upgrades.
-Postscript- I only own a PC of my own because my family runs a small computer business and therefore I get all my components at trade price and build computers myself. My entire system cost me at start just under £400 (celeron 600, 128 ram, 15" monitor)
<!--QuoteBegin--CollateralDamage+July 22 2002,04:36--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (CollateralDamage @ July 22 2002,04:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't want the nicest graphics. I want the option to get bad graphics (with playable FPS) for little money. Why would you want to deny me this option? I certainly don't deny *you* your option of getting great graphics for big money.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ah but unfortunately, it is still work. It takes a *LOT* of work to get an engine to do Software, Direct3D, and OpenGL modes all in one, plus there are some things you can't easily do with another so you have to hack it, sometimes making things run slower for the entire engine. And if you are wanting to tack on GLIDE support for old voodoo users, that's even more work. When you go the route of UT2k3 or Q3 and you support JUST openGL, or JUST d3d, there is a LOT less work (read: you get the game faster), and a lot less overhead in the code.
A whole lot of games ARE more scalable and backwards compatible, more than any other point in PC gaming at least as far back as DOOM. When Quake1 came out, if you couldn't run it, too bad. You couldn't scale down the polycount of the models to make it faster, nor could you turn the color depth down (it was already 256, heh). It required a good PC to run at all, not just to look pretty. But starting with quake3 pc games have been a whole lot more backwards compatible with older technology. They look like crap, but they run.
(I had a bit more to add here but at this point I got bored and realized I was late for class. So skipping ahead:)
As far as everybody stopping upgrading, I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I for one like upgrading. I really enjoy the happy feeling you get from putting in the newest 3D card, cpu, or whatever, and immediately seeing a speed and/or graphics boost taht immediately makes all the money you spent worth it.
I just wanted to mention that this whole issue is a lot more complex then simply upgrading or not upgrading.
There are many reasons why games continue escalating their technology, here's a list that of some that may not be obvious:
- It's hard to find people to work on a game with old technology. When you're working on something every day for years, you want to be working on something relevant, new and fresh. It's really hard to get game developers excited about 2D graphics these days, or older 3D graphics. Finding good artists and graphics programmers to work on old stuff can be difficult.
- When supporting old systems, it's not just a win, it's a tradeoff. You're allowing more players to potentially play your game, but at the same time you'll also be losing players that are turned off by "dated" graphics. Choosing your minimum system requirements requires a delicate touch, and depends on your company goals and your game and target audience in particular. It's a big tradeoff, and as such, there's no easy answer for everyone.
- It's a lot of work to support old systems. Game developers are generally not lazy, and they don't simply say "oh screw it, users just need to upgrade already". Most game developers, given a low-effort way to grow their target audience substantially, would do so. It's just not that easy in practice.
- I think there should be a give and take (in an ideal world). The developers shouldn't be expected to be heroes, and make something that scales perfectly from low-end systems to high-end systems, providing as much detail as possible. Nor should players be forced to have top of the line systems to play every game. Both sides should make concessions. Sometimes it's not a whole new systems, it really is just a $50 video card that will make a huge difference.
Oo! Warcraft 4 should be made with the option of having 16 color VGA graphics! So you can switch between something that will only run on a P3 with a GeForce 3 or 4, or you can choose to run it so that it'd run on any 386 or higher!
Of course, the catch is that you have no choices between the two. It's either 16 colors, and 2d graphics, or millions of colors and 3d graphics with l33t pixel shading and schtuff.
But of course, that way you can run the game on your machine, and I can run the game on mine! Sure, the graphics would be -worse- than HL in 400x300 by about 10 factors, but you'll still -run- it right? And that's what counts, right? (OMG! That little tiny blue pixel bled red pixels all over the green background! )
How in the world could anyone expect people to make games for older systems for the rest of eternity? Should Doom 3 run on the 486 under my bed?
you know you're not really getting your point across by exaggerating like that....... maybe this thread should better be locked before it gets out of hand
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, that 'You' I was refuring to was not 'you' as in CollateralDamage, but a 'you' as in the general populous.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn English. This gets me every time. A language with so many words, and it lacks a simple difference between a general and a personal addressing. And I did indeed miss your sarcasm too; perhaps you should have used smilies...
Oh well, many good points in this thread. Perhaps Flayra's give-and-take view makes the most sense. (Why do I always get this deus-ex-machina feeling when Flayra posts? <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> )
Moleculor, VGA would have 256 colours, 16 would be EGA :\
And you can draw beautiful things with 256 colours! I bet it's more than daVinci ever used!
realityisdeadEmployed by Raven Software after making ns_nothingJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 94Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin--CollateralDamage+July 22 2002,01:59--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (CollateralDamage @ July 22 2002,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason why I have this position is because I feel we, the game players, are being dragged into a technology race which we cannot win, but which still drains enormous amounts of money from us.
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*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bah, don't lock it. I'm going to ignore a lot of the posts after this quote here because I understand and agree with his views. At least in concept. I just don't think it's entirely possible.
See, what I thought you were referring to was to have the developers just... stick to older graphics and not move on or improve much in that department. Your suggestion that the engine be able to downscale is actually pretty interesting. It'd pretty much eliminate minimun requirements, etc. That'd be cooler than buttered popcorn.
Only thing is, I can't imagine how it would really be possible. A good example of how it IS possible is the model detail reductions that you talked about... I've seen those in action, and they do definitely seem to help. But, there will come a point where an older system simply will not be able to handle other things such as the memory required for the massive amount of detailed textures, the processing power needed for highly advanced physics and AI, the sheer amount of detail in levels, realtime lighting, etc etc etc..
I don't know... I like your idea in concept, but it just seems so unrealistic. If it -were- somehow possible, it would probably require an emormous amount of work getting a fully dynamic system like this to function properly in the first place... either that or they'd have to do a bunch of low-end and high-end duplicate artwork and coding. Something I don't think a lot of people would be willing or able to do.
LoD (the polygon reduction method by which far away objects use less polys and therefore put less strain on the GFX card) take strain off of the card at the expense of a bit of CPU power. It's always a trade off.
Games almost always have things built in that reduce system requirements. They're called options. High/Low detail. Show particle systems? [Yes/No]. Number of sound channels: 8. 16/32/64MB Textures.
In NWN you can choose 16 MB textures, a 640x480 low detail game world, and run it on something maybe a third of what my machine is. But there comes a point where if you degrade the graphics any further then the game becomes unplayable.
Everyone is always looking for a bigger, better AI to fight against in FPSes. That's why people make bots for TFC and CS. AI code takes CPU power. The more complex the AI, the more instructions per second it has to process. Same with everything else in games. The more complex, the more it's going to need to play the game.
The minimum requirements for C&C Red Alert (the original) were something like a Pentium 120. I played it on my 486/66 just fine. Sure, missions tended to take two, three hours to beat, but it was fine, if a bit slow. If you're willing to put up with very slow gaming, or jerky video, then you can play todays games... at low quality graphics and sound levels. (Even Baldurs Gate had an option or two that would reduce CPU usage. It'd make it harder to send your party halfway across the area you were on with a single click, but it was there.)
It's easy to think you can just start adding options, so a game can run on any system. Adding options has cost too though. Complexity cost. You want your game to work in practice, not just theory. Most people don't even change the options from the default, forget tweaking to maximize. Also, it's a lot easier to add options in a single-player game. You can't just add all these options in a competitive multiplayer game, or else people won't be competing fairly. The classic example is particle systems. I could turn off particle systems so that ambient steam doesn't ever obscure my target. Then you start imposing rules about which options are allowed, and which aren't, and these things are different for different tournaments and competitive formats.
Our solution: don't add any gameplay-altering graphics options, and separate the game into two modes. Casual mode is for public servers, tournament mode is for clans and tournaments.
<!--QuoteBegin--CollateralDamage+July 22 2002,02:59--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (CollateralDamage @ July 22 2002,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->*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<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was certainly wondering if your motherboard and processor actually did anything with the vid card... lol, u know u could just shell out 50$ for a used motherboard that supports your processor and has 4xAgp making your geforce 4 at least useable.... 50$ isnt tooooo much is it? but i guess it is just the concept.
<!--QuoteBegin--CollateralDamage+July 22 2002,01:59--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (CollateralDamage @ July 22 2002,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason why I have this position is because I feel we, the game players, are being dragged into a technology race which we cannot win, but which still drains enormous amounts of money from us.
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*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I stopped reading this post on page 3 but I feel the need to chime something in. There is no way that you have to upgrade every 6 months to be able to play currant games. Any system with a geforce 2 out there can run any currant games, boxed and released, at a reasonable level. There is no way you can expect to be able to run new technology on a machine 5 years after the fact. Do you see anyone shoving a dvd into a vhs player? Games are progressing with the improvement of technology and you can't expect a developer to change what they wanted their product to be for a small majority of the market. If you cannot run halflife at a reasonable resolution its time for an upgrade. If you cannot/don't want to upgrade then come to the realisation that you won't be able to play new games. Its not up to the developers to cater to your needs. Bah sorry for the flame, It just bugged me. Another thing, the leaps and bounds technology has made in 4 years makes those things obsolete.
BTW Collateral Davinchi could shade and mix colors. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
Anyone remember a little obscure game known as "Unreal Tournament" and how much performance varied between higher-end cards? (read: basically none) This game had HORRIBLE performance on mid-range cards and a shitload of compatibility issues (at least when it first came out) but it had an excellent software mode. So yeah, it was perfect for people without accelerator cards, but the CPU overhead basically screwed over any kind of performance gains that might be had on higher-end cards.
/me sees this topic beaten, limping away, then a level 1 leaps into its back. The topic crawls away and a level 4 shoots a few acid rockets. Still inching along, a level 5 tramples over the topic... and the topic still goes warily on, creeping down a dark hall in the NS_Forums level.
Anyways <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> The main problem is the majority of people WANT games to look better, and to make them look better, they have to raise the bar on what a computer needs to play them. It's like asking for a V8 engine to run in Model T Ford car, it won't happen <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
Why does everyone have to mention graphics here? There are loads of great games that dont need graphics, Championship Manager is just a database with pretty pictures.
Whats important is gameplay and there are lots of things that cant be done on old systems. We could go all the way back to the days of yore when games all looked like pacman... but then they all played like pacman, no AI, no real player immersion, no internet multiplay options nothing.
Think about how big windows is? Its requirements have gone up too.
Either you want to play games on your PC or you dont, if you do then you HAVE to upgrade to get the most out of it and play it as it should be played. If you dont then buy a console.
I want to upgrade my connection soon so that I can play online better, sure I could play with my 56k and lag up so much that Im always going to be behind the other players. I can normally beat people but thats only because of my experiance, 1 on 1 I almost always lose because everything is so much slower. Example, Im a really bad soldier in TFC, I can do everything but when it comes to DM I just cant cut the mustard. I always thought I just wasnt any good until I went to a lanparty, I beat our clans top soldier something like 300/50 to his 20/300+ (cos of self kills etc it doesnt tally exactly, oh and it was a long match) just because I had a really low ping.
My point is everthing needs upgrading, things arent just getting more complex so that they can rip us off, things are getting BETTER. The longer you stay in the stoneage the less youll be able to enjoy the latest advances in gaming... in anything actually. You cant do anything useful in photoshop if your running it with a terrible computer... or you can but it takes years to do anything.
I've never touch the insides of my computer a lot so i'm gunna ask... how to use a graphics card even if you bought one? do i need to get a technician in here just to put it in or is it easier than i think? (warranty expires if u open the shell i heard)
P.S. for those that's wondering... I cant work at the country i'm in (atleast not legally) so i'm stuck with this crap till i move back to NY... how much does a cheap card cost?
I'll give you a few canidates if you want to give me your price range. Its very easy to put a card in, but everyone can make mistakes so if you arn't comfortable with it I wouldn't do it. You also need to know if your motherboard supports agp graphics tell me what card you have currantly and if you don't know go to the start menu, (Bottem left) click on the RUN command. And type in dxdiag and it should say what card you have in one of the "boxes". Also if you could tell me your processer speed and how much ram you have (64,128,256 ect.) it would be helpful.
A few things you always need to know: -Touch as little as possible. -Make sure the Powersupply switch is off and it's unplugged. -Ground yourself. (Either get a grounding strip or touch something metal) -Save everything you take out, never know what could go wrong. -Be precise! Don't go banging around in there. The componants are very delicate.
Comments
funny thought tho, imagine were the US economy would be if the gaming industries started making games that didnt require biger and bigger computers. i mean computer sales would drop 90% causing huge layoffs. then people would get worried all about it and start holding onto there money insted of spending itand the nation would literaly be crippled by the loss of those sales, funny aint it?
I don't want the nicest graphics. I want the option to get bad graphics (with playable FPS) for little money. Why would you want to deny me this option? I certainly don't deny *you* your option of getting great graphics for big money.
None of this *has* to be this way. The upgrade race is not god-given. We shape the way the industry is. Once a majority of us refuses to take part in the race, it is over.
mark, I wouldn't mind this part of the industry coming to a halt. It's getting nowhere anyway.
have you played warIII yet? its fricken awsome! the 3d engine was put there to improve gameplay. Now people who want to make custom maps can have cut scenes by moving the camera angle of the viewer. in battle you can get an edge by moving the camera angle. In game it adds to the story telling 100% by giving it a cinimatic view. It gives the heroes more of a personnality! imagine trying to watch a movie that only had a birds eye view the entire time! you would probably want your money back!
The morale of this story is firstly, if youve got a slow PC dont buy gforce cards, do a little research into what the hardwares specifications are before you buy them, and secondly if you can afford to own a computer and be online then you can afford to save up for a little while and buy yourself upgrades.
-Postscript-
I only own a PC of my own because my family runs a small computer business and therefore I get all my components at trade price and build computers myself. My entire system cost me at start just under £400 (celeron 600, 128 ram, 15" monitor)
ah but unfortunately, it is still work. It takes a *LOT* of work to get an engine to do Software, Direct3D, and OpenGL modes all in one, plus there are some things you can't easily do with another so you have to hack it, sometimes making things run slower for the entire engine. And if you are wanting to tack on GLIDE support for old voodoo users, that's even more work. When you go the route of UT2k3 or Q3 and you support JUST openGL, or JUST d3d, there is a LOT less work (read: you get the game faster), and a lot less overhead in the code.
A whole lot of games ARE more scalable and backwards compatible, more than any other point in PC gaming at least as far back as DOOM. When Quake1 came out, if you couldn't run it, too bad. You couldn't scale down the polycount of the models to make it faster, nor could you turn the color depth down (it was already 256, heh). It required a good PC to run at all, not just to look pretty. But starting with quake3 pc games have been a whole lot more backwards compatible with older technology. They look like crap, but they run.
(I had a bit more to add here but at this point I got bored and realized I was late for class. So skipping ahead:)
As far as everybody stopping upgrading, I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I for one like upgrading. I really enjoy the happy feeling you get from putting in the newest 3D card, cpu, or whatever, and immediately seeing a speed and/or graphics boost taht immediately makes all the money you spent worth it.
<!--EDIT|DOOManiac|July 22 2002,10:45-->
There are many reasons why games continue escalating their technology, here's a list that of some that may not be obvious:
- It's hard to find people to work on a game with old technology. When you're working on something every day for years, you want to be working on something relevant, new and fresh. It's really hard to get game developers excited about 2D graphics these days, or older 3D graphics. Finding good artists and graphics programmers to work on old stuff can be difficult.
- When supporting old systems, it's not just a win, it's a tradeoff. You're allowing more players to potentially play your game, but at the same time you'll also be losing players that are turned off by "dated" graphics. Choosing your minimum system requirements requires a delicate touch, and depends on your company goals and your game and target audience in particular. It's a big tradeoff, and as such, there's no easy answer for everyone.
- It's a lot of work to support old systems. Game developers are generally not lazy, and they don't simply say "oh screw it, users just need to upgrade already". Most game developers, given a low-effort way to grow their target audience substantially, would do so. It's just not that easy in practice.
- I think there should be a give and take (in an ideal world). The developers shouldn't be expected to be heroes, and make something that scales perfectly from low-end systems to high-end systems, providing as much detail as possible. Nor should players be forced to have top of the line systems to play every game. Both sides should make concessions. Sometimes it's not a whole new systems, it really is just a $50 video card that will make a huge difference.
My comment was ment to be more or less sarcastic humor. Blast this damn internet and its interface!
Also, that 'You' I was refuring to was not 'you' as in CollateralDamage, but a 'you' as in the general populous.
<!--EDIT|Silver Fox|July 22 2002,08:59-->
Of course, the catch is that you have no choices between the two. It's either 16 colors, and 2d graphics, or millions of colors and 3d graphics with l33t pixel shading and schtuff.
But of course, that way you can run the game on your machine, and I can run the game on mine! Sure, the graphics would be -worse- than HL in 400x300 by about 10 factors, but you'll still -run- it right? And that's what counts, right? (OMG! That little tiny blue pixel bled red pixels all over the green background! )
How in the world could anyone expect people to make games for older systems for the rest of eternity? Should Doom 3 run on the 486 under my bed?
(BTW, I miss Starflight.)
<!--EDIT|Moleculor|July 22 2002,11:30-->
maybe this thread should better be locked before it gets out of hand
Damn English. This gets me every time. A language with so many words, and it lacks a simple difference between a general and a personal addressing. And I did indeed miss your sarcasm too; perhaps you should have used smilies...
<!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->
Oh well, many good points in this thread. Perhaps Flayra's give-and-take view makes the most sense. (Why do I always get this deus-ex-machina feeling when Flayra posts? <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> )
Moleculor, VGA would have 256 colours, 16 would be EGA :\
And you can draw beautiful things with 256 colours! I bet it's more than daVinci ever used!
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*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah, don't lock it. I'm going to ignore a lot of the posts after this quote here because I understand and agree with his views. At least in concept. I just don't think it's entirely possible.
See, what I thought you were referring to was to have the developers just... stick to older graphics and not move on or improve much in that department. Your suggestion that the engine be able to downscale is actually pretty interesting. It'd pretty much eliminate minimun requirements, etc. That'd be cooler than buttered popcorn.
Only thing is, I can't imagine how it would really be possible. A good example of how it IS possible is the model detail reductions that you talked about... I've seen those in action, and they do definitely seem to help. But, there will come a point where an older system simply will not be able to handle other things such as the memory required for the massive amount of detailed textures, the processing power needed for highly advanced physics and AI, the sheer amount of detail in levels, realtime lighting, etc etc etc..
I don't know... I like your idea in concept, but it just seems so unrealistic. If it -were- somehow possible, it would probably require an emormous amount of work getting a fully dynamic system like this to function properly in the first place... either that or they'd have to do a bunch of low-end and high-end duplicate artwork and coding. Something I don't think a lot of people would be willing or able to do.
*shrugs*
Dunno... <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
Games almost always have things built in that reduce system requirements. They're called options. High/Low detail. Show particle systems? [Yes/No]. Number of sound channels: 8. 16/32/64MB Textures.
In NWN you can choose 16 MB textures, a 640x480 low detail game world, and run it on something maybe a third of what my machine is. But there comes a point where if you degrade the graphics any further then the game becomes unplayable.
Everyone is always looking for a bigger, better AI to fight against in FPSes. That's why people make bots for TFC and CS. AI code takes CPU power. The more complex the AI, the more instructions per second it has to process. Same with everything else in games. The more complex, the more it's going to need to play the game.
The minimum requirements for C&C Red Alert (the original) were something like a Pentium 120. I played it on my 486/66 just fine. Sure, missions tended to take two, three hours to beat, but it was fine, if a bit slow. If you're willing to put up with very slow gaming, or jerky video, then you can play todays games... at low quality graphics and sound levels. (Even Baldurs Gate had an option or two that would reduce CPU usage. It'd make it harder to send your party halfway across the area you were on with a single click, but it was there.)
Our solution: don't add any gameplay-altering graphics options, and separate the game into two modes. Casual mode is for public servers, tournament mode is for clans and tournaments.
I was certainly wondering if your motherboard and processor actually did anything with the vid card... lol, u know u could just shell out 50$ for a used motherboard that supports your processor and has 4xAgp making your geforce 4 at least useable.... 50$ isnt tooooo much is it? but i guess it is just the concept.
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*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I stopped reading this post on page 3 but I feel the need to chime something in. There is no way that you have to upgrade every 6 months to be able to play currant games. Any system with a geforce 2 out there can run any currant games, boxed and released, at a reasonable level. There is no way you can expect to be able to run new technology on a machine 5 years after the fact. Do you see anyone shoving a dvd into a vhs player? Games are progressing with the improvement of technology and you can't expect a developer to change what they wanted their product to be for a small majority of the market. If you cannot run halflife at a reasonable resolution its time for an upgrade. If you cannot/don't want to upgrade then come to the realisation that you won't be able to play new games. Its not up to the developers to cater to your needs. Bah sorry for the flame, It just bugged me. Another thing, the leaps and bounds technology has made in 4 years makes those things obsolete.
BTW Collateral Davinchi could shade and mix colors. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
Anyways <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> The main problem is the majority of people WANT games to look better, and to make them look better, they have to raise the bar on what a computer needs to play them. It's like asking for a V8 engine to run in Model T Ford car, it won't happen <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
<!--EDIT|Comprox|July 23 2002,16:40-->
Whats important is gameplay and there are lots of things that cant be done on old systems.
We could go all the way back to the days of yore when games all looked like pacman... but then they all played like pacman, no AI, no real player immersion, no internet multiplay options nothing.
Think about how big windows is? Its requirements have gone up too.
Either you want to play games on your PC or you dont, if you do then you HAVE to upgrade to get the most out of it and play it as it should be played. If you dont then buy a console.
I want to upgrade my connection soon so that I can play online better, sure I could play with my 56k and lag up so much that Im always going to be behind the other players. I can normally beat people but thats only because of my experiance, 1 on 1 I almost always lose because everything is so much slower.
Example, Im a really bad soldier in TFC, I can do everything but when it comes to DM I just cant cut the mustard. I always thought I just wasnt any good until I went to a lanparty, I beat our clans top soldier something like 300/50 to his 20/300+ (cos of self kills etc it doesnt tally exactly, oh and it was a long match) just because I had a really low ping.
My point is everthing needs upgrading, things arent just getting more complex so that they can rip us off, things are getting BETTER. The longer you stay in the stoneage the less youll be able to enjoy the latest advances in gaming... in anything actually. You cant do anything useful in photoshop if your running it with a terrible computer... or you can but it takes years to do anything.
P.S. for those that's wondering... I cant work at the country i'm in (atleast not legally) so i'm stuck with this crap till i move back to NY... how much does a cheap card cost?
A few things you always need to know:
-Touch as little as possible.
-Make sure the Powersupply switch is off and it's unplugged.
-Ground yourself. (Either get a grounding strip or touch something metal)
-Save everything you take out, never know what could go wrong.
-Be precise! Don't go banging around in there. The componants are very delicate.