Simple Suggestions
Jrmilitia
Join Date: 2008-07-25 Member: 64692Members
Join Date: 2008-07-25 Member: 64692Members
<div class="IPBDescription">(Late to the NS scene)</div>Im new to NS but i found yalls website so im going to through a few of my thoughts out there. They have probaly already been debated and answered but Id rather not sift through years of forum files looking for answers to some quick questions.
1. Have UW ever considered becoming a part of Valve? i understand being independent means just that, you can do what you want with your product, but joining a larger stuido might have some financial benefits for your game that could show up in graphics, physics etc etc.
2. I did see some proposed system requirements somewhere on these forums ( yes i did a bit if looking ), and it said 256 gpu and 1.5 ghz processor or something like that, to me these seem extremly low end meaning that the graphics of NS2 arnt going to be that spectacular in comparison to other games around right now and even some of the older next-gen games that have been created. To me it seems that adding detailed graphics requiring a little faster processor and graphics cards would help the game sell to a larger audience of people who just see sample screens and vidoes of the game. IMO when they see those samples they should be thinking ¨wow that looks freaken sweet¨ not ¨wow, cool concept but it doesnt look that great¨
Just my questions, and i have no intentions of bashing anything yall at UW have done yall have created and amazing game with NS1 and im really excited for NS2 regardless of how it looks ( as long as its a smidgen better than NS1)
1. Have UW ever considered becoming a part of Valve? i understand being independent means just that, you can do what you want with your product, but joining a larger stuido might have some financial benefits for your game that could show up in graphics, physics etc etc.
2. I did see some proposed system requirements somewhere on these forums ( yes i did a bit if looking ), and it said 256 gpu and 1.5 ghz processor or something like that, to me these seem extremly low end meaning that the graphics of NS2 arnt going to be that spectacular in comparison to other games around right now and even some of the older next-gen games that have been created. To me it seems that adding detailed graphics requiring a little faster processor and graphics cards would help the game sell to a larger audience of people who just see sample screens and vidoes of the game. IMO when they see those samples they should be thinking ¨wow that looks freaken sweet¨ not ¨wow, cool concept but it doesnt look that great¨
Just my questions, and i have no intentions of bashing anything yall at UW have done yall have created and amazing game with NS1 and im really excited for NS2 regardless of how it looks ( as long as its a smidgen better than NS1)
Comments
They're building their own engine now.
Also, I believe the minimum specs are going to be
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->something around a 1.2 GHz Processor, 256MB RAM, a DirectX 9 level graphics card, Windows 2000/XP/ME/98, mouse, keyboard and of course, an internet connection.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
which are the same minimum specs for HL2: Ep1, which by all standards was a pretty good looking game, and I'm sure Max has some nice tricks up his sleeve to push their engine even further. Look how impressive NS1 was in comparison to the usual HL1 mods.
Btw the game is going to be multiplayer where graphics isnt all that important. At least in my opinion....
While true for some games, I have found a few where minimum = minimum to play. There have been a few instances where I had minimum hardware, and basically the frames were about 1fps and characters tended to warp into walls. However, I <i>think</i> the Valve minimum settings are to actually play the game. Perhaps make your eyes bleed a little, but at least no clipping through the walls.
I truly, truly hate people who think minimum = enough to render, but not play. I want to play it, not just boot to the main menu!
However, i agree, graphics REALLY arent an issue for me.
Personally;
The three games i play at the moment are Street Fighter III, StarCraft and Natural Selection.
I think StarCraft looks far better than StarCraft II.
I prefer the Half Life 1 engine to Source Engine, in terms of gameplay and movement. I love its graphics too.
I think most new games look like ######.
If anything, those new games that come out saying ZOMG BREAKTHRU GRAPHICS WAH WAH WAH. I dont really give a ###### about them, i want breakthrough gameplay, exciting features, etc.
The biggest mistake i think developers are making these days is trying to make games too realistic. The only recent games graphics i have actually liked, is Team Fortress 2's. They are absolutely stunning, and all game developers should take a lesson frmo this.
thats why you have OPTIONS, where you can lower the settings so it will suit your system,
ofc, it sucks playing crysis on medium settings when there is very high available, but i cant stand fps below 40.
with ns2 i think the graphics should edit:NOT be restricted, but still be scalable so the older computers can get playable fps too,
and if you (you who reads this) still have a p4 cpu + 5800/9800 gpu, maybe you should upgrade to dualcore? instead of wanting all new games to be less demanding.
you can get a really good system for next to nothing today with all the new stuff coming out so fast, choose previous generation hardware.
anyhow, give us some KICKASS graphics that need quad gpu to max out a la crysis (or atleast dual gpu)
cos ns2 is probly gonna last a while, and buying prev gen hardware in 3 years, will make it possible to max settings for a very low price
on another note, HTF can ns1 sometimes lag on my new comp??? (e6850@3.6 88gts320)
it should NOT even lag on my old comp, p4 3.2@3.5 78gs, but here i have an avarege of 45-50 fps
on the p4, it should run silky smooth like starcraft does, not to mention the new comp
I don't think they should shoot for high end graphics. I believe they could implement the option of higher end graphics, but hopefully they will keep the baseline low to maximize frame rates for the average player and not push away the casual players who don't keep their system up to date.
The one point I do agree with from weezl is to look ahead at the processing power of tomorrow. If the release date is more than threes year from now, perhaps it's a bit more reasonable to develop graphics in the same line of thought of Crysis. But if it's 1-2 years, I think the Source graphics are still solid. A little dated, but solid enough to get the job done without a frame rate drop as three skulks make a bee line for your face.
And, as Max said, they plan on making a great looking game. I'm sure they know what they're doing, unless they don't want us to buy NS2. But that would just be stupid on their part. Which if it's the case, then you can go on your litle temper tantrum while I simply spend my money elsewhere.
anyway, i didn't mean ns2 would come out in 3 years, i meant it will still be played in 3 years, like with ns1 long after its release, but it makes no differense for the argument...
point is, ns2 is developed with todays gen hardware in mind, in 2-3 years we will be like 3 generations ahead, going back even 2 steps means next gen compared with today.
and who plays games on a workstation? those comps have integrated graphics which cant even launch hl2, let alone be playable...
and hey, buying a computer is probably better for the enviroment than spending the money on gas <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
so dont save on the graphics, just make sure you can turn off all the eye-candy for the less fortunate office employees
thats why you have OPTIONS, where you can lower the settings so it will suit your system,
ofc, it sucks playing crysis on medium settings when there is very high available, but i cant stand fps below 40.
with ns2 i think the graphics should edit:NOT be restricted, but still be scalable so the older computers can get playable fps too,
and if you (you who reads this) still have a p4 cpu + 5800/9800 gpu, maybe you should upgrade to dualcore? instead of wanting all new games to be less demanding.
you can get a really good system for next to nothing today with all the new stuff coming out so fast, choose previous generation hardware.
anyhow, give us some KICKASS graphics that need quad gpu to max out a la crysis (or atleast dual gpu)
cos ns2 is probly gonna last a while, and buying prev gen hardware in 3 years, will make it possible to max settings for a very low price
on another note, HTF can ns1 sometimes lag on my new comp??? (e6850@3.6 88gts320)
it should NOT even lag on my old comp, p4 3.2@3.5 78gs, but here i have an avarege of 45-50 fps
on the p4, it should run silky smooth like starcraft does, not to mention the new comp<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think youre a bit over the top. Graphics dont really matter, gameplay does.
<!--quoteo(post=1684732:date=Jul 30 2008, 04:42 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Jul 30 2008, 04:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684732"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please bear in mind that most "budget" computer still have single core CPU and a Geforce 7 or 6. Most people don't build gaming machines from scratch like some of us, and so their simple workstations can't handle it. Or they simply don't see a need to upgrade when they could be spending that money on say gas or a vacation.
I don't think they should shoot for high end graphics. I believe they could implement the option of higher end graphics, but hopefully they will keep the baseline low to maximize frame rates for the average player and not push away the casual players who don't keep their system up to date.
The one point I do agree with from weezl is to look ahead at the processing power of tomorrow. If the release date is more than threes year from now, perhaps it's a bit more reasonable to develop graphics in the same line of thought of Crysis. But if it's 1-2 years, I think the Source graphics are still solid. A little dated, but solid enough to get the job done without a frame rate drop as three skulks make a bee line for your face.
And, as Max said, they plan on making a great looking game. I'm sure they know what they're doing, unless they don't want us to buy NS2. But that would just be stupid on their part. Which if it's the case, then you can go on your litle temper tantrum while I simply spend my money elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You want to play games, but you dont want to buy a gaming PC?
Thats like wanting to..... download fast, but not wanting to upgrade from 56k internet.
Thats like wanting to watch colour television, but dont want to buy a colour TV.
Horrible logic.
Thats like wanting to..... download fast, but not wanting to upgrade from 56k internet.
Thats like wanting to watch colour television, but dont want to buy a colour TV.
Horrible logic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The distinction of what a "gaming PC" is defined as is questionable. I happen to feel those that fall in the gaming PC distinction tend to be mid to high range systems according to today's hardware standards. However, there are still many people with the mid to budget systems that still want to kick back and play a couple games, and denying them that just because they don't want to fork out and extra 500+ for the next step up isn't right.
Of course, the out-of-date systems are not something that should be catered to. If you can make a system that scales even down to Windows 98 and Pentium 3s, all the more power to you. But, I'm sure most people will agree that if this degrades the goodness for the more up-to-date, at least within 3 year build times (so Pentium 4 and GeForce 6 or 7 at the bottom, dual core GeForce 8-9 at the top) then we'll be disappointed.
The key is to not <b>only</b> cater to the top-of-the-line computers. Sure you can make it shiny if they have the extra juice, but make it playable for us mere mortals.
And yes, the "temper tantrum" was meant to be sarcastic. Lighten up.
I love a game to focus on gameplay, but don't be stupid and think graphics are always second to it. They work together to create a unison of awesome (particularly in games like FPS's).
I think another major component is music too. Sets mood and such. Simple, but it can really make the difference in atmosphere and immersion, as well as being an awesome gameplay feature. Gotta love footsteps letting you know something around that corner.
So far we have:
1) Gameplay. Never compromise.
2) Graphics. We'd like to not look at ugly.
3) Music/Sound. Completing the senses since we can't taste, touch, or smell the game environment. Yet.
Of course, the out-of-date systems are not something that should be catered to. If you can make a system that scales even down to Windows 98 and Pentium 3s, all the more power to you. But, I'm sure most people will agree that if this degrades the goodness for the more up-to-date, at least within 3 year build times (so Pentium 4 and GeForce 6 or 7 at the bottom, dual core GeForce 8-9 at the top) then we'll be disappointed.
The key is to not <b>only</b> cater to the top-of-the-line computers. Sure you can make it shiny if they have the extra juice, but make it playable for us mere mortals.
And yes, the "temper tantrum" was meant to be sarcastic. Lighten up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well look, new games require good computers. Its that simple. Sure, the game will have scalability, noone ever suggested it wouldnt, but we want the game to be able to look very good, which in turn requires a good PC.
If you have a really ###### PC, and cant play what you want. Then you should get something that can play what you want, and if you arent willing to do this, you dont want to play the game enough.
You can get a ######ing good PC for less than $1000. Now, i dont care if you work at McDonalds and have to pay rent, bills and an education. $1000 really isnt that much, and if you really want to play the games, you will find a way to get that money.
I mean holy crap, everyone sees a Car as a standard necessity. Cars cost like $1000 for rego and insurance (at the very least) a year. So dont tell me you cant afford a $1000 computer when you have a car. Its just you have your priorities, and you chose other things over a computer game. Others, like myself, prefer not to have a waste of money car, and use their money on things they will actually enjoy, like my computer, holidays, going to nice restaurants and other enjoyable things.
<!--quoteo(post=1684802:date=Jul 31 2008, 12:54 AM:name=NovusAnimus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NovusAnimus @ Jul 31 2008, 12:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684802"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you guys are telling me NS would be just as fun if, instead of models and nice textures for all the marines and aliens and walls and stuff, we just had balls and blocks? Don't be ridiculous, graphics make up a very LARGE factor of how enjoyable a game is, whether you care to admit it or not. Now we've approached a point in graphics where the gains just don't justify the sacrifice in gameplay (Crysis); I think that's what you guys are really trying to say. This'll change though, as fads like the Wii will pass, and some 3 or 4 years down the road there will be a sudden explosion from the userbase asking for jawdropping graphics, and then it'll switch back to gameplay emphasis.
I love a game to focus on gameplay, but don't be stupid and think graphics are always second to it. They work together to create a unison of awesome (particularly in games like FPS's).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course NS wouldnt be as fun if the graphics were as you stated. However, i still think i'd enjoy it.
Of course graphics make up a large part of the game. There is a certain level of graphics which HELPS gameplay, by enhancing the feel of the game, and letting you know what things are at a quick glance. If everything was just a colored glob, itd be hard to know exactly what its trying to portray. The fact of the matter is, Half Life 1's graphics engine (i think) is enough, for any game. Anything more is an unnecessary bonus.
So many games are coming out now, boasting their new fantastical graphics. All of these games are horrible. The 3 greatest games ive ever played (StarCraft, NS and Street Fighter III) all have 'sub-par' graphics in todays terms, but ill be damned if any recent game has even come close to comparing to their greatness.
The only recent game i've liked is Portal. And that had nothing to do with the amazing graphics. I would've enjoyed it just as much, if not more on the Half Life 1 engine.
Also, for the record, i have an extremely good computer, getting 200-300fps on max settings with 16AA 16AF on 1680x1050 on any source game.
<!--quoteo(post=1684832:date=Jul 31 2008, 05:33 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Jul 31 2008, 05:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684832"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->good points Novus.
I think another major component is music too. Sets mood and such. Simple, but it can really make the difference in atmosphere and immersion, as well as being an awesome gameplay feature. Gotta love footsteps letting you know something around that corner.
So far we have:
1) Gameplay. Never compromise.
2) Graphics. We'd like to not look at ugly.
3) Music/Sound. Completing the senses since we can't taste, touch, or smell the game environment. Yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said. I think Music and Sound is more important than fantastic graphics.
Id far prefer a game with mediocre graphics with amazing sound than a great looking game with tacky sound.
Also, i know i sounded like a massive hipocrit from my first to second reply, saying that graphics matter, then saying you dont need good graphics. The point is, graphics need to be above a certain level for a game to be truely enjoyable. But people are really going overboard these days.
Art direction can make a big difference too. For example, i think Team Fortress 2 looks a ######load better than say... Crysis. But Crysis definately has far better graphics.
Not to mention, i think Warcraft 2 looks better than Warcraft 3.
....and i think DOS games look better than World of Warcraft.
Well said. I think Music and Sound is more important than fantastic graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hehe, tells a little about YOUR priorities^^
now i simply HAVE to know what kind of fabulous computer you have!