Games need to stop being so system intensive

[TheSomeone]

I played HL2: Lost Coast yesterday.

For months and months I've been hearing "This is a tech demo for SOOPER-COMPOOTERS" and "You HAVE to have an awesome machine for this."

Well, HL2: Lost Coast ran 4 times as good as the FEAR and COD2 demo...

Why? What is wrong with you developers? Why implement the latest mapping/lighting crap when my computer can't even run it? (And according to Steam's poll, it's above average) Why not focus a little bit more on art direction and a little bit less on "OMGJAWESOME" technology?

I was able to run Lost Coast with everything on high except anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, on 1280 x 1024 with only slight frame jumps, but I can't even get the COD2 demo to run smoothly on 800 x 600 medium settings.

And half-life 2 on high looks infinetly better than FEAR on low, so why even bother?

It just seems so stupid.

 

[Shamrock]

I played HL2: Lost Coast yesterday.

For months and months I've been hearing "This is a tech demo for SOOPER-COMPOOTERS" and "You HAVE to have an awesome machine for this."

Well, HL2: Lost Coast ran 4 times as good as the FEAR and COD2 demo...

Why? What is wrong with you developers? Why implement the latest mapping/lighting crap when my computer can't even run it? (And according to Steam's poll, it's above average) Why not focus a little bit more on art direction and a little bit less on "OMGJAWESOME" technology?

I was able to run Lost Coast with everything on high except anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, on 1280 x 1024 with only slight frame jumps, but I can't even get the COD2 demo to run smoothly on 800 x 600 medium settings.

And half-life 2 on high looks infinetly better than FEAR on low, so why even bother?

It just seems so stupid.

I think they need to really concentrate on gameplay and computer AI like F.E.A.R. did.

All in all I think the better the graphics get the worse the game gets for most companies that is.

By the way, could you possibly post your specs?
I run on a 7800GT now so everything runs perfect. But in the middle ages with that 9800 Pro, I had to run every possible game on medium-high without anything else running. I mean the games still look good, but what happened to those Doom 1 days where the gameplay was so good and the graphics so bad?

 

[Cole]

Why not focus a little bit more on art direction

*Points to Blizzard Entertainment*

 

[Warbie]

I completely agree.

 

[Prince of China]

Same here. I'm glad Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones will run fine on my current computer. I hope their next-generation PC games will be just as good.

 

[^Ben]

Sorry, we don't all have 386's

 

[Absinthe]

In complete agreement here. Honestly, I think it would be great if we stayed around the level of HL2's graphics (which is excellent and is pretty modest in terms of system requirements) for some time in order to work on other aspects. Wait for a larger base of players to catch up in terms of technology before you drive on ahead.

 

[Qonfused]

I agree. While the graphics, to me, play a serious role in the game, the gameplay is what ultimately makes me what to continue. But, with me, if the graphics are so bad, it seriously turns me off... even if the gameplay is awesome.

coughSANANDREAScough

 

[Ames]

Lost Coast is actually quite playable on a Intel Onboard Graphics chip.

 

[Absinthe]

I agree with that too. Basically, visuals do play a large part in a gaming experience. If you think they don't, then go back to playing on your Commodore. They are a factor in immersion and enjoyment. A large grandiose explosion is far more interesting than text detailing it. Of course, good visuals mean nothing without good art direction.

So... maintain a satisfactory level of visuals, and at the rate of progress we're going, I certainly think we can lay off for a bit.

 

[TheSomeone]

By the way, could you possibly post your specs?
I run on a 7800GT now so everything runs perfect. But in the middle ages with that 9800 Pro, I had to run every possible game on medium-high without anything else running. I mean the games still look good, but what happened to those Doom 1 days where the gameplay was so good and the graphics so bad?

Oh duh, I was going to.

2.7ghz Pentium 4
1 GB Corsair DDR
Radeon 9800

I run HL2 with everything on high, trillenear filtering and 2x anti-aliasing at 1200 x1024 with no hiccups.

 

[TheSomeone]

I agree with that too. Basically, visuals do play a large part in a gaming experience.

I totally agree with that, but more so in an "art direction" way than in a technical way. Look at HL2 and BF2, they run very well on my machine and both have excellent graphics, why bother with more right now?

 

[DrDevin]

Nothing is forcing you to play games on max settings. You can get by playing games on a 9600 if you want. I like games that require a lot of hardware so when I upgrade a year down the line I have some replay value with graphics I have never seen before.

I do completely agree though. I would like HL2 graphics with more optimization (like consoles which look better because of optimization not hardware improvements). It would allow developers to focus on gameplay. Not just another 100 generic shooter games with better graphics.

 

[Absinthe]

Nothing is forcing you to play games on max settings. You can get by playing games on a 9600 if you want. I like games that require a lot of hardware so when I upgrade a year down the line I have some replay value with graphics I have never seen before.

Ah, but held back if the graphics were, be necessary would an upgrade be?

Ponder this we should.

 

[WhiteZero]

Erm... games have always been system intensive. It's how things work.
Sorry that your can't afford a better system to run stuff.

 

[DrDevin]

Ah, but held back if the graphics were, be necessary would an upgrade be?

Ponder this we should.

If upgrade were need not, then PC would be worse then console no? Hardware being worse and not upgraded yet more variation among market be then graphics on 360 pwnt would the PC be. Chief advantage of upgradability would then be what? 486 and a console would be the result.

Talk not like yoda is best, understanding increases no?

 

[Vegeta897]

Ah, but held back if the graphics were, be necessary would an upgrade be?

Ponder this we should.

After decyphering this with some difficulty, my response is, no, that's not his point. His point is he wants something in return for upgrading his pc, whether it was necessary or not.

 

[TheSomeone]

Ah, but held back if the graphics were, be necessary would an upgrade be?

Ponder this we should.

You've been drinking too much of that green stuff.

</obscurereferencetousername>

 

[Warbie]

I find it annoying that games are being released today that need tomorrows hardware to run well.

'Silky smooth' gameplay is subjective - to me, if the frame rate drops below 60 at any point, it isn't 'silky smooth'. I was playing Quake 4 and FEAR on a friends beast of a machine (2*7800gt, FX chip etc etc) and often the frame rate was being pulled down into the 40's, and 30's on occasion (a £500 cpu bottlenecking his system - laugh or cry?). The fact that for most of the time the rate was through the roof means bugger all if it's going to hit 30 in a super intense fight i.e. when you need it.

The other problem is some of these games, FEAR being a great example, only look decent with the settings maxed at a decent res, and preferably with AA/AF. Try playing it at 1024 on medium settings and it looks like an absolute crock of shite (and still doesnt run that well)

//end moan

 

[WhiteZero]

I find it annoying that games are being released today that need tomorrows hardware to run well.

You need tomarrows hardware to run it on max settings. Big deal. It gives people something new to see when they upgrade down the road.

Morrowind did the same thing.

 

[Vegeta897]

Your last paragraph is spot on. I tried running FEAR with medium on 1024 and it ran like crap, and looked meh. Then I tried max on 800x600, and it was amazingly better looking.

 

[Warbie]

You need tomarrows hardware to run it on max settings. Big deal. It gives people something new to see when they upgrade down the road.

Morrowind did the same thing.

Not entirely true, especially when the best cpu money can buy can bottleneck your system in certain games. Sure, you could turn details off, or reduce texture res etc etc - but who pays £1000+ pounds to run a game (and usually one that's main selling point is its graphics) that doesn't look that good and has frames that drop into the 40's? (HL2 being an exception - running well on high settings and still looking decent at medium/low)

Try Quake 4 - it doesn't matter what pc you have, this will happen at points throughout the game. Whether the frame rate dropping to these levels annoys you or not is a different matter.

 

[Zeus]

you know what game really makes me mad, BF2. ultra long load times, and lots of lag.

good thing my new athlon 64 3700+ san diego processor is coming next week

 

[Steven]

Games do need to be less system intensive. They can't expect people to spend there hard earned money on computer hardware which will need to be replaced every too years due to games being more system intensive. Eventually people are going to get tired of this and stop buying new computer games. "You can turn off different effects though." Yes, you can but then it looks like a NES game.

 

[Malfunction]

I think developers should continue to push the limits, but continue to make the game playable for the mainstream pc gamer who doesn't have an x800/6800+ to play with. FEAR succeeded on the first part, but even at lower settings the game runs a little choppy, especially for looking really bad.

In my situation, my CPU is holding my 6800gt back a little bit, which is very noticeable in FEAR. I have an A64 3000+. Even in HL2 I can notice this. My problem is that to upgrade my CPU, I also have to upgrade my mobo, because my 3000+ is a s-754. On top of that, even if I did upgrade to 939, I couldn't go PCI-E/SLI because my 6800gt is AGP, and I'm not upgrading that already. So I'm stuck with this 3000+ for a while until I really notice it starts lagging behind on future games.

 

[WhiteZero]

wtf? No one is forcing you people to buy new systems. It's your decision to be a PC gamer. It's your decision to want to see/run the best new graphics in games.

And no, when you turn down the settings, it dosent look terrible. You apparently just don't know what to turn down. Like Soft Shadows or lower the deatil of shadows in general. Turn off AA and AF. Lower model detail. Turn down decals and effect.

Christ, developers shouldent hold back the progress of the quiality of graphics just because some people can't afford to have the newest hardware. Thats the most ludacris thing I've ever heard. It's been the same since the early days of PC gaming and it won't stop.

Welcome to the world of PC gaming, get used to it, and if not, go back to consoles. PC games are always on the leading edge, thats part of what makes it great.

 

[Asuka]

F.e.a.r wouldnt be the same game without all of its effects. So im all for supporting developers pushing pcs to the limit.

 

[Max_Payne]

**** guys, im still content playing wolfenstein 3d on my comp. (i bought a windows xp compatable version the other month.. )

PEACE

Mike:dozey:

 

[Absinthe]

wtf? No one is forcing you people to buy new systems. It's your decision to be a PC gamer. It's your decision to want to see/run the best new graphics in games.

We recognize that. It is, however, inconsiderate of a large majority of gamers.

Christ, developers shouldent hold back the progress of the quiality of graphics just because some people can't afford to have the newest hardware.

That's ridiculous. This isn't just some people. It's a lot. It's a huge size of the pie. This is like having to buy a top of the line TV because my DVD of Star Wars won't show all the special effects on a normal one.

Welcome to the world of PC gaming, get used to it, and if not, go back to consoles. PC games are always on the leading edge, thats part of what makes it great.

It's also going to be its undoing if it continues to charge astronimcal prices to get good bang from my buck.

 

[TheSomeone]

WAAA, IM RICH, IM SPOILED, TOO BAD IF U CANT PAY FOR UR GAMES AND I SPELL LUDACRIS

Hey what? I didn't sign a contract that said "you'll need to spend $1000 upgrading your PC every year to run games well." Don't stuff your money down my throat, you don't speak for everyone, you sure as hell don't speak for me, and I have a better computer than the majority according to surveys. Half-Life 2 looks amazing, plays amazing, and I didn't have to sell my ass on the street to be able to enjoy it.

There are some people, like me, who choose to spend all the money they havve on their education. And even with my school's financial aid paying me $20,000 worth of the tuition fee so I can stay at their school, my parents still labor in order to pay for the rest of it.

And "developers shouldent hold back the progress of the quiality of graphics just because some people can't afford to have the newest hardware?" You don't have to be so shallow that you judge the beauty of a game solely on its technology, you know. You don't have to pretend like everyone lives in big house in suburbland like you probably do either. I also find it extremely ironic that you spelled ludicrous like the rapper's name, total credibility right there.

 

[Sparta]

What games need more of today is art direction.

Like Mineral said, Blizzard has got it perfected. I mean the tech behind World of Warcraft is pretty average, but the game still looks stellar purely because of the art direction.

HL2 was the same. The Source engine aint the best looking engine out (come on, it aint) and its not the most technologically advanced either, but damn was it put to awesome use in HL2 thanks to some downright awesome art direction.

 

[TheSomeone]

What games need more of today is art direction.

I'm glad some people associate beauty with art rather than the numbers of green bills they spent on their machine.

 

[CyberPitz]

I agree that more art direction would be good, but I mean, stopping the creating of great looking games? People just need to stop caring so much about how a game looks. I played everything on my 9600XT, even if games looked ugly *BF2 ran everything lowest possible...I played it for 200 hours before I got my X800..* So yeah, I say let them make them as awesome looking as they want, just don't forget about the low specers.

 

[Venmoch]

Not to mention the whole "Graphics don't need to be uber to make a good game."

Anyone played Uplink? (You really should) Or Darwinia? They're addictive games without having super graphics. In fact Uplink is like virtual crack and has you dreaming IP numbers.

Graphics are nice. But currently graphics seem to be more important than the actual substance.

 

[lister]

HL2 has much better GFX & gameplay than most of game sout thgere. ie BF2 GFX really do suck, but the gameplay is awsome, thats why i keep playing it.

 

[Kyorisu]

Oh duh, I was going to.

2.7ghz Pentium 4
1 GB Corsair DDR
Radeon 9800

I run HL2 with everything on high, trillenear filtering and 2x anti-aliasing at 1200 x1024 with no hiccups.

My specs

Athlon 3000
1GB pc 4000 PQI DDR
Radeon 9600

I played Lost Coast on 800x600 all high and max AA/AF.

I upgrade once every 2 years. I never buy top of the line gear and I'm happy with my settings. I think some people are just graphic whores.

'Silky smooth' gameplay is subjective - to me, if the frame rate drops below 60 at any point, it isn't 'silky smooth'. I was playing Quake 4 and FEAR on a friends beast of a machine (2*7800gt, FX chip etc etc) and often the frame rate was being pulled down into the 40's, and 30's on occasion (a £500 cpu bottlenecking his system - laugh or cry?). The fact that for most of the time the rate was through the roof means bugger all if it's going to hit 30 in a super intense fight i.e. when you need it.

Stupidity of developers right there. Create your game and then optimize the the hell out of it until I get an fps on the highest level system above most monitors default refresh rate.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Graphics are nice. But currently graphics seem to be more important than the actual substance.

There's a certain group of developers that seem to believe graphics, polygons and textures is the main focus of gaming. I won't mention id software, raven or crytek but i'm sure you know who i'm talking about.

If those companies could a figure a way to make techdemos its own industry they'd be very profitable. At the moment they're masquerading as games developers and it makes me quite the flustered little nerd!! Carmack wouldn't know art direction if it crawled up his anus then exploded out of his head in a torrent of brain matter and other gib like things. Ummm.

Does the awe-inspiring work of valve or blizzard have no effect on the other drones in the industry? I'm staring at you epic and ut2007!! I don't care how many polygons that 50-cent-cum-marine character has. I just don't care. What interesting gameplay experience have you developed that doesn't involve mindless slaughter.

 

[jondy]

And "developers shouldent hold back the progress of the quiality of graphics just because some people can't afford to have the newest hardware?" You don't have to be so shallow that you judge the beauty of a game solely on its technology, you know. You don't have to pretend like everyone lives in big house in suburbland like you probably do either. I also find it extremely ironic that you spelled ludicrous like the rapper's name, total credibility right there.

But therein lies the contradiction; if you didn't give a damn about how a game looked, you'd let developers create games how they wanted and would run their software on low settings to let your system handle it.

What you want is for your low-end machine to be able to put out great graphics all the time.

While an engine like Source can put out good-looking enviroments because, for the most part, of the way it's built (precompiled lighting, projected shadows), engines that rely on stencil shadows to produce a whole scene's lighting (doom3, fear) simply can't do without the grunt. But those games wouldn't exist without that technology behind them, and if developers had chosen to hold back and use older technology, their core gameplay concepts wouldn't have held true.

 

[DrDevin]

But therein lies the contradiction; if you didn't give a damn about how a game looked, you'd let developers create games how they wanted and would run their software on low settings to let your system handle it.

What you want is for your low-end machine to be able to put out great graphics all the time.

While an engine like Source can put out good-looking enviroments because, for the most part, of the way it's built (precompiled lighting, projected shadows), engines that rely on stencil shadows to produce a whole scene's lighting (doom3, fear) simply can't do without the grunt. But those games wouldn't exist without that technology behind them, and if developers had chosen to hold back and use older technology, their core gameplay concepts wouldn't have held true.

Although I think developers should try to optimize a lot more or go for better art direction over pure graphical features, you are spot on.

Some technology requires a minimum hardware spec to run. Dynamic lighting and shadowing are the way of the future along with forms of HDR. These techniques require a certain level of hardware to work.

In a couple years I dont think people will complain about the performance of shadowing because every game will feature doom 3 style lighting and it will be very optimized and low end hardware will be able to run it fine.

It is just that the recent FPS games have heaped on technology that has never been used before (HDR, stencil shadows, dynamic lighting, normal mapping, parallax mapping, soft shadowing) and the hardware hasent caught up.

Take my 6600gt for an example. It is relatively similiar to a 9800xt but NVIDIA improved its ability to compute dynamic lights and it outperforms the 9800 by over 100% (in games featuring dynamic lighting/shadowing) despite similarities in other games performance. The next gen cards will be able to do these effects with less of a framrate hit.

 

[Cole]

Well I'll just stick with the majority of my gaming with Civ4 and Starcraft.