Holy crap, FocusedWolf was correct? MY HEAD JUST EXPLODED!
(I kid, of course.)
I don't understand a lot of the technobabble here, as most of my mapping knowledge has to do with bsp's and area portals and so on, but it shows that a lot of work is being done here.
And the YouTube comments below are nothing short of <i>hilarious</i>.
Thanks for the answer Max. Even though its not going to be an actual level it does help me get a better feel for the style and lighting for the levels.
Didnt we see this feature for a year around? i remember of a screenshot with exactly this feature, it was a compare between the hl1 engine and the new engine in wired mode and what be rendered... at hl1 you see the whole map was rendered and in ns2 engine only "what you render is what you see" (wow maybe a new acronym? WYRISWYS). Of course, the level looks great... but where is the NEWs ;-)
<!--quoteo(post=1759441:date=Mar 15 2010, 01:45 AM:name=snooops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooops @ Mar 15 2010, 01:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759441"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course, the level looks great... but where is the NEWs ;-)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The video seems like news to me. Why didn't it seem like news to you?
Guys guys, let's try keep this topic for once as pure as possible (so no insulting or trolling) and comment only about news we have seen and which this topic was originally greated for, thx.
Seems great now i would like to see if this engine will work with lower specs computers, cuz im playing with laptop :S, tho tf2 worked for me with high fps cfgs :).
Didnt we see this feature for a year around? i remember of a screenshot with exactly this feature, it was a compare between the hl1 engine and the new engine in wired mode and what be rendered... at hl1 you see the whole map was rendered and in ns2 engine only "what you render is what you see" (wow maybe a new acronym? WYRISWYS). Of course, the level looks great... but where is the NEWs ;-)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually goldSRC (HL1) does the same thing, but less effective. I can basically look around corners and also has trouble with grouped entities showing across the map and models/doors not blocking visibility, hence the need for vis blocking (putting walls in front of doors). But with Spark they have full control over this and many more things they want in the engine, still it was a helluva achievement to get NS1 running like it does on goldSRC in the first place...
I agree on the news part though, but at least we have new acronyms to throw around :P
Didn't HL1 Gold Src use a program like VVIS, for visibility computations? I know CS 1.6 Gold Src did, I would think that the computers back then wouldn't be able to Handle a Real-Time Algorithm.
<!--quoteo(post=1759424:date=Mar 15 2010, 05:42 AM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Mar 15 2010, 05:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759424"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This map is indeed part of the engine test, and not an actual NS2 level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>Damn.</b>
Are you saying that what would easily pass for a retail map for any AAA title is just a throw-away for you?..
I know right, how badass are they :D seriusly the map looked so great I never took it for a test map only. so are we testing the engine in team deathmatch mode? :D
Just because it's a Test Map doesn't mean it shouldn't look great. I know I make my test map look as good as I can, time efficiently, because I will be working(Debugging and Such) in them a lot.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1759464:date=Mar 15 2010, 04:00 PM:name=Anthoni)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Anthoni @ Mar 15 2010, 04:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759464"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Didn't HL1 Gold Src use a program like VVIS, for visibility computations? I know CS 1.6 Gold Src did, I would think that the computers back then wouldn't be able to Handle a Real-Time Algorithm.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah it uses precompiled vis portals, stand in one and it will draw what the engine thinks it can see from that vis portal using this precompiled visibility data. On the fly rendering will nicely eliminate the need for this compile process. I love spark for this real time shizzle! The hotswapping of textures you're working on (CTRL+S) is also pretty nice...
<!--quoteo(post=1759296:date=Mar 14 2010, 01:52 AM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 14 2010, 01:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759296"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is always nice to see something about NS2 but what I was more interested how does these new and old technologies work with low-end computers for example is it as demanding as NS1 or more like CS 1.6 (maybe lower)?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Seriously, those are your benchmarks? Why don't you just not be a cheapass and upgrade your computer at least once a decade.
You know, people complain about how 'PC gaming suxxx bcuz u haev to upgraid ur CPUs liek evree 2 weekz', but people like you aren't helping the industry any either... "I won't buy this game because I don't have SM2.0 instead it makes perfectly more sense to buy a new XBAWKZS LOLOL".
<!--quoteo(post=1759354:date=Mar 14 2010, 01:06 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Mar 14 2010, 01:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759354"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obviously this level is a work in progress but the entire time I was thinking to myself "the lighting cannot actually be like that, it'll get brighter soon" but it seemed to only ever get darker. A well lit environment is critical to gameplay and dark areas should be rare. If this is the actual maps lighting then I hope every possible command to adjust video settings is inside the game through menus in order to avoid more advanced players from editing .cfg or .ini files to gain an advantage.
I'm sure that sounds obvious, however, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 forces players to play with bloom on, unless you know to go into your settings.ini and switch it to false. It's ridiculous that a game made and published by established professionals wouldn't have that option available to everyone so I feel the need to bring it up here. In B:BC2 playing with bloom on is a significant disadvantage due to how levels are constructed with lots of desert/winter environments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should revive my thread on 'cheating' to maximize your perceived playability. And I'll harp again on something that I brought up before - what I see *WAY* too much of is the FPS 'pros' saying the game should be like X and should do Y when X and Y have little to nothing to do with healthy gameplay, and more to do with what they're simply used to, so they want nothing to change. "I don't want to learn a new movement technique, so it's imperative we put in bunnyhopping!!!!111". See also: skill monopolization. You're used to playing NS1 in a way that you can monopolize 'skill', so you want NS2 to be the same way so again, you can continue that monopoly. Change means you risk losing that monopoly and someone else mastering an ability before you.
At least, that's what a perceive is actually at the root of all this 'more like A, as demonstrated in B'. It makes more sense than someone saying an absurd-looking, idiotic 'feature' like bunnyhopping somehow fits the actual atmosphere of the game (which it doesn't, at all, in any way). So, saying NS2 needs to be bright and cheery because your FPS 'TEH SKILLZ' work best in bright cheery environments is just you being selfish.
Lighting and shadows haven't been successfully pulled off in FPS games very often, mostly because they don't try. People with ###### computers (ie: the first guy) just whine and complain about performance. 'Pros' just want to get every advantage possible (of course they use euphemisms like "maximizing my FPS") just turn off shadows to eliminate the ability of anyone to hide at all. Again this is all repeated in that one thread of mine. And when you have 30% of the playerbase playing with shadows off, the other 70% are forced to turn them off as well just to stay on level ground. This can be extended in other ways, like deleting sounds, sprites, running at minimal settings, replacing models with invisible ones, etc. It's just a couple steps from turning off shadows to playing with spiked models and fullbright skins.
So, of course, what happened to <b>absolutely brilliant</b> multiplayer games like Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow? It was ruined by ######bag 'pro' players looking to "maximize their FPS" doing everything they could, running gamma at +120, tweaking things to minimize the impact of poor lighting, so the crafty spies couldn't hide in the dark anymore, which was the <i>entire point of the game</i>. So yes, the game worked fine - what broke it wasn't shadows and fighting in dark areas - the asshat human element broke it.
TO THAT END, I think the game should have utterly draconian restrictions on this. Do we even need gamma tweaking anymore? Needing to adjust that went out of style along with CRTs. In fact, most games I tweak gamma DOWN to make it a bit more moody looking. Replacing sounds and models should be a no-go unless they're on an <b>approved whitelist of files</b>. Hell, the game should be made as resistant as possible to gamma tweaking in general via Rivatuner, Powerstrip, etc. or whatever. I proposed making critical things like the ammo counters on guns very bright already, so adjusting gamma would white it out entirely making you unable to read your ammo count. Do that with all HUD elements. Ambient sounds, deep shadows, big and small models all provide a realistic impact on the game. To adjust ANY OF THESE because of your 'preference' allows players to slowly get an unfair advantage. Individually, trivial. Together? Powerful. Now all players need to play like that to be on even grounds, and even still the 'pro' players will find more ways to get every advantage they can.
To this extent, if all NS players need to turn off shadows to play the game fairly, why did we even implement them in the first place?
I don't agree with your tone, Temphage, but your message seems all right.
However, don't assume people are done with CRT's. I prefer my CRT to my LCD simply because of higher quality and resolution. That's like saying people are done with anything that isn't widescreen; it's simply not true.
As a sidenote: Why did widescreen ever happen, anyway? Why not just make an overall bigger screen?
<!--quoteo(post=1759498:date=Mar 16 2010, 12:36 AM:name=BigText)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigText @ Mar 16 2010, 12:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759498"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a sidenote: Why did widescreen ever happen, anyway? Why not just make an overall bigger screen?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Artificially generated need for consumption of new goods is the main drive of economy.
<!--quoteo(post=1759498:date=Mar 15 2010, 10:36 PM:name=BigText)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigText @ Mar 15 2010, 10:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759498"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a sidenote: Why did widescreen ever happen, anyway? Why not just make an overall bigger screen?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Two reasons: smaller surface for a given screen diagonal (marketing). And the fact that your vision is "widescreen" (your horizontal vision being much better than your vertical one)
<!--quoteo(post=1759502:date=Mar 16 2010, 12:48 AM:name=Centurion)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Centurion @ Mar 16 2010, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759502"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->PS: I don't really know why, but I hate widescreen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ditto.
<!--quoteo(post=1759503:date=Mar 16 2010, 12:48 AM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Mar 16 2010, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759503"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Two reasons: smaller surface for a given screen diagonal (marketing). And the fact that your vision is "widescreen" (your horizontal vision being much better than your vertical one)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Could you elaborate on the first one? I heard it mentioned numerous times, but I can never make out the idea. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also the latter is a common misconception.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A bit more on-topic: complaining about lighting systems themselves is preposterous. Don't confuse need for uniform lighting in multi-player games with lighting in general.
Could you elaborate on the first one? I heard it mentioned numerous times, but I can never make out the idea. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also the latter is a common misconception.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A bit more on-topic: complaining about lighting systems themselves is preposterous. Don't confuse need for uniform lighting in multi-player games with lighting in general.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A 24" 16:9 monitor has the vertical height of a 19.6" 4:3 monitor. For the same real-estate as a 21" 4:3 monitor, you need a 25.7" 16:9 monitor.
Instead of using that real-estate, developers are forcing people to use 16:9 resolutions on their 4:3 monitors: check this out for sc2: <a href="http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/StarCraftRatios.gif" target="_blank">http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/uploads/...CraftRatios.gif</a> Instead of giving people the same real-estate area, they just cut data. The cut in game viewable area for a 4:3 monitor is 25%. Unacceptable. To not lose that 25%, 4:3 users will have to run their games at 16:9 modes to lop off 25% of their vertical vision.... which turns their monitors into the equivalent of a 15.4" screen!!!
Utter insanity. Let people use their monitors, give wide screen owners a little more horizontal area and 4:3 or 5:4 users more vertical area BUT KEEP THE EFFECTIVE VIEWABLE AREA IDENTICAL.
<!--quoteo(post=1759513:date=Mar 16 2010, 01:30 AM:name=CyberMantis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberMantis @ Mar 16 2010, 01:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A 24" 16:9 monitor has the vertical height of a 19.6" 4:3 monitor. For the same real-estate as a 21" 4:3 monitor, you need a 25.7" 16:9 monitor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, geometry, my old nemesis... Well. Pays to know we're enduring squint-o-vision because we're also being lied to.
<!--quoteo(post=1759513:date=Mar 16 2010, 01:30 AM:name=CyberMantis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberMantis @ Mar 16 2010, 01:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead of using that real-estate, developers are forcing people to use 16:9 resolutions on their 4:3 monitors:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's sloppy project management, and I have positively no idea how did Blizzard of all things manage to let it slip.
You are truly amazing and I loved reading every single word. It was hilarious and I appreciate the effort you put into that reply. Your logic basically boils down to "someone who wants no shadows is being selfish and they're just trying to gain an advantage." You then go on to say that you prefer your games to be darker and that you want draconian restrictions to prevent anyone from changing the settings from your preferred style. In case you missed it, the irony here is that you called me selfish.
You're 100% correct when you say that I'm use to playing a game that isn't dark. In classic "I'm Temphage and therefor I must make a long winded rant based off a series of indirect assumptions" style you take that to the extreme of everything being "bright and cheery for 'teh skillz'" and assume it's because I will sacrifice anything to gain an advantage. The truth is I don't like games that have poor lighting. I will always change the settings to what I prefer. Every time. If I can't I will refund the game, like I almost did with B:BC2 before I found the bloom command, I will find a way outside in-game menus to adjust the visual settings, or I won't play the game.
I think a better question regarding the whole lighting issue would be: "What qualifies as good lighting?"
If developers intended for a certain area to be dark because they want to give aliens a little help reaching melee range, would that be bad lighting? I wouldn't know, I guess.
If I remember correctly, DI is going to directly affect lighting in the game. Areas not touched by Dynamic Infestation will be well lit, as opposed to the Kharaa controlled areas, which will have some of the lighting shut down due to interference of the Nanite Grid.
So Sentrysteve, is that acceptable to you? Will DI influenced lighting, that will absolutely require the use of a flashlight regardless of gamma settings, give any qualms?
Mr. EpicJoin Date: 2003-08-01Member: 18660Members, Constellation
perhaps in areas of DI they could just use a bit more fog, like reduce all light values by 90% but leave enough to illuminate the fog enough to make it navigable.
Comments
(I kid, of course.)
I don't understand a lot of the technobabble here, as most of my mapping knowledge has to do with bsp's and area portals and so on, but it shows that a lot of work is being done here.
And the YouTube comments below are nothing short of <i>hilarious</i>.
Thanks for the answer Max. Even though its not going to be an actual level it does help me get a better feel for the style and lighting for the levels.
"looks good"
"good work!"
"great"
Didnt we see this feature for a year around? i remember of a screenshot with exactly this feature, it was a compare between the hl1 engine and the new engine in wired mode and what be rendered... at hl1 you see the whole map was rendered and in ns2 engine only "what you render is what you see" (wow maybe a new acronym? WYRISWYS).
Of course, the level looks great... but where is the NEWs ;-)
The video seems like news to me. Why didn't it seem like news to you?
now I wonder if it is perhaps a NAZI test map ? :P
now I wonder if it is perhaps a NAZI test map ? :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
maybe it's Hitler's Secret Bunker
Seems great now i would like to see if this engine will work with lower specs computers, cuz im playing with laptop :S, tho tf2 worked for me with high fps cfgs :).
as i recall there where some in NS1
and how would a situation like that work?
"looks good"
"good work!"
"great"
Didnt we see this feature for a year around? i remember of a screenshot with exactly this feature, it was a compare between the hl1 engine and the new engine in wired mode and what be rendered... at hl1 you see the whole map was rendered and in ns2 engine only "what you render is what you see" (wow maybe a new acronym? WYRISWYS).
Of course, the level looks great... but where is the NEWs ;-)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually goldSRC (HL1) does the same thing, but less effective. I can basically look around corners and also has trouble with grouped entities showing across the map and models/doors not blocking visibility, hence the need for vis blocking (putting walls in front of doors). But with Spark they have full control over this and many more things they want in the engine, still it was a helluva achievement to get NS1 running like it does on goldSRC in the first place...
I agree on the news part though, but at least we have new acronyms to throw around :P
<b>Damn.</b>
Are you saying that what would easily pass for a retail map for any AAA title is just a throw-away for you?..
seriusly the map looked so great I never took it for a test map only.
so are we testing the engine in team deathmatch mode? :D
Now it's official. They are working on a strictly Malkavian game engine!
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-faAQIjbJZE" target="_blank">Get pills against my orders!</a>
Yeah it uses precompiled vis portals, stand in one and it will draw what the engine thinks it can see from that vis portal using this precompiled visibility data. On the fly rendering will nicely eliminate the need for this compile process. I love spark for this real time shizzle! The hotswapping of textures you're working on (CTRL+S) is also pretty nice...
What? Seriously, those are your benchmarks? Why don't you just not be a cheapass and upgrade your computer at least once a decade.
You know, people complain about how 'PC gaming suxxx bcuz u haev to upgraid ur CPUs liek evree 2 weekz', but people like you aren't helping the industry any either... "I won't buy this game because I don't have SM2.0 instead it makes perfectly more sense to buy a new XBAWKZS LOLOL".
<!--quoteo(post=1759354:date=Mar 14 2010, 01:06 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Mar 14 2010, 01:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759354"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Obviously this level is a work in progress but the entire time I was thinking to myself "the lighting cannot actually be like that, it'll get brighter soon" but it seemed to only ever get darker. A well lit environment is critical to gameplay and dark areas should be rare. If this is the actual maps lighting then I hope every possible command to adjust video settings is inside the game through menus in order to avoid more advanced players from editing .cfg or .ini files to gain an advantage.
I'm sure that sounds obvious, however, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 forces players to play with bloom on, unless you know to go into your settings.ini and switch it to false. It's ridiculous that a game made and published by established professionals wouldn't have that option available to everyone so I feel the need to bring it up here. In B:BC2 playing with bloom on is a significant disadvantage due to how levels are constructed with lots of desert/winter environments.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should revive my thread on 'cheating' to maximize your perceived playability. And I'll harp again on something that I brought up before - what I see *WAY* too much of is the FPS 'pros' saying the game should be like X and should do Y when X and Y have little to nothing to do with healthy gameplay, and more to do with what they're simply used to, so they want nothing to change. "I don't want to learn a new movement technique, so it's imperative we put in bunnyhopping!!!!111". See also: skill monopolization. You're used to playing NS1 in a way that you can monopolize 'skill', so you want NS2 to be the same way so again, you can continue that monopoly. Change means you risk losing that monopoly and someone else mastering an ability before you.
At least, that's what a perceive is actually at the root of all this 'more like A, as demonstrated in B'. It makes more sense than someone saying an absurd-looking, idiotic 'feature' like bunnyhopping somehow fits the actual atmosphere of the game (which it doesn't, at all, in any way). So, saying NS2 needs to be bright and cheery because your FPS 'TEH SKILLZ' work best in bright cheery environments is just you being selfish.
Lighting and shadows haven't been successfully pulled off in FPS games very often, mostly because they don't try. People with ###### computers (ie: the first guy) just whine and complain about performance. 'Pros' just want to get every advantage possible (of course they use euphemisms like "maximizing my FPS") just turn off shadows to eliminate the ability of anyone to hide at all. Again this is all repeated in that one thread of mine. And when you have 30% of the playerbase playing with shadows off, the other 70% are forced to turn them off as well just to stay on level ground. This can be extended in other ways, like deleting sounds, sprites, running at minimal settings, replacing models with invisible ones, etc. It's just a couple steps from turning off shadows to playing with spiked models and fullbright skins.
So, of course, what happened to <b>absolutely brilliant</b> multiplayer games like Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow? It was ruined by ######bag 'pro' players looking to "maximize their FPS" doing everything they could, running gamma at +120, tweaking things to minimize the impact of poor lighting, so the crafty spies couldn't hide in the dark anymore, which was the <i>entire point of the game</i>. So yes, the game worked fine - what broke it wasn't shadows and fighting in dark areas - the asshat human element broke it.
TO THAT END, I think the game should have utterly draconian restrictions on this. Do we even need gamma tweaking anymore? Needing to adjust that went out of style along with CRTs. In fact, most games I tweak gamma DOWN to make it a bit more moody looking. Replacing sounds and models should be a no-go unless they're on an <b>approved whitelist of files</b>. Hell, the game should be made as resistant as possible to gamma tweaking in general via Rivatuner, Powerstrip, etc. or whatever. I proposed making critical things like the ammo counters on guns very bright already, so adjusting gamma would white it out entirely making you unable to read your ammo count. Do that with all HUD elements. Ambient sounds, deep shadows, big and small models all provide a realistic impact on the game. To adjust ANY OF THESE because of your 'preference' allows players to slowly get an unfair advantage. Individually, trivial. Together? Powerful. Now all players need to play like that to be on even grounds, and even still the 'pro' players will find more ways to get every advantage they can.
To this extent, if all NS players need to turn off shadows to play the game fairly, why did we even implement them in the first place?
I always played NS1 with nice shadows and darkness everywhere, which was why my K:D were terrible. That was what made it so fun for me though.
However, don't assume people are done with CRT's. I prefer my CRT to my LCD simply because of higher quality and resolution. That's like saying people are done with anything that isn't widescreen; it's simply not true.
As a sidenote: Why did widescreen ever happen, anyway? Why not just make an overall bigger screen?
Artificially generated need for consumption of new goods is the main drive of economy.
PS: I don't really know why, but I hate widescreen.
Two reasons: smaller surface for a given screen diagonal (marketing). And the fact that your vision is "widescreen" (your horizontal vision being much better than your vertical one)
Ditto.
<!--quoteo(post=1759503:date=Mar 16 2010, 12:48 AM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Mar 16 2010, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759503"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Two reasons: smaller surface for a given screen diagonal (marketing). And the fact that your vision is "widescreen" (your horizontal vision being much better than your vertical one)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you elaborate on the first one? I heard it mentioned numerous times, but I can never make out the idea. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also the latter is a common misconception.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A bit more on-topic: complaining about lighting systems themselves is preposterous. Don't confuse need for uniform lighting in multi-player games with lighting in general.
Could you elaborate on the first one? I heard it mentioned numerous times, but I can never make out the idea. <!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Also the latter is a common misconception.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A bit more on-topic: complaining about lighting systems themselves is preposterous. Don't confuse need for uniform lighting in multi-player games with lighting in general.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A 24" 16:9 monitor has the vertical height of a 19.6" 4:3 monitor.
For the same real-estate as a 21" 4:3 monitor, you need a 25.7" 16:9 monitor.
Instead of using that real-estate, developers are forcing people to use 16:9 resolutions on their 4:3 monitors:
check this out for sc2: <a href="http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/StarCraftRatios.gif" target="_blank">http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/uploads/...CraftRatios.gif</a>
Instead of giving people the same real-estate area, they just cut data.
The cut in game viewable area for a 4:3 monitor is 25%. Unacceptable. To not lose that 25%, 4:3 users will have to run their games at 16:9 modes to lop off 25% of their vertical vision.... which turns their monitors into the equivalent of a 15.4" screen!!!
Utter insanity. Let people use their monitors, give wide screen owners a little more horizontal area and 4:3 or 5:4 users more vertical area BUT KEEP THE EFFECTIVE VIEWABLE AREA IDENTICAL.
For the same real-estate as a 21" 4:3 monitor, you need a 25.7" 16:9 monitor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, geometry, my old nemesis... Well. Pays to know we're enduring squint-o-vision because we're also being lied to.
<!--quoteo(post=1759513:date=Mar 16 2010, 01:30 AM:name=CyberMantis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CyberMantis @ Mar 16 2010, 01:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759513"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead of using that real-estate, developers are forcing people to use 16:9 resolutions on their 4:3 monitors:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's sloppy project management, and I have positively no idea how did Blizzard of all things manage to let it slip.
You are truly amazing and I loved reading every single word. It was hilarious and I appreciate the effort you put into that reply. Your logic basically boils down to "someone who wants no shadows is being selfish and they're just trying to gain an advantage." You then go on to say that you prefer your games to be darker and that you want draconian restrictions to prevent anyone from changing the settings from your preferred style. In case you missed it, the irony here is that you called me selfish.
You're 100% correct when you say that I'm use to playing a game that isn't dark. In classic "I'm Temphage and therefor I must make a long winded rant based off a series of indirect assumptions" style you take that to the extreme of everything being "bright and cheery for 'teh skillz'" and assume it's because I will sacrifice anything to gain an advantage. The truth is I don't like games that have poor lighting. I will always change the settings to what I prefer. Every time. If I can't I will refund the game, like I almost did with B:BC2 before I found the bloom command, I will find a way outside in-game menus to adjust the visual settings, or I won't play the game.
If developers intended for a certain area to be dark because they want to give aliens a little help reaching melee range, would that be bad lighting? I wouldn't know, I guess.
If I remember correctly, DI is going to directly affect lighting in the game. Areas not touched by Dynamic Infestation will be well lit, as opposed to the Kharaa controlled areas, which will have some of the lighting shut down due to interference of the Nanite Grid.
So Sentrysteve, is that acceptable to you? Will DI influenced lighting, that will absolutely require the use of a flashlight regardless of gamma settings, give any qualms?