Better graphics: What's the point?
Paul
point of
improving graphics in an FPS? I would say that the recent engines, UT
and
Q3A, are perfectly adequate and anything better is nothing more than
planned
obsolescence by the gaming and graphics card industry. Right now the
graphics
are pretty damn good, but nobody during a game of deathwatch can afford
to stop and admire them. Some other points:
1) The quest for photo realism seems unnecessarily expensive for
the average gamer (with video cards approaching $600 and new
ones coming out every six months).
2) Photo realism may put the final nail in the coffin of FPS games.
There's
already a lot of concern over young men blasting teachers vicariously
through
their favorite shooter. Once the violence even gets more realistic,
watch out
for special interest groups dictating what's right and wrong!
3) The pacing of a FPS doesn't even lend itself to photo realism. Even
Carmack is quoted in the latest issue of CGW as saying "As the level
of realism increases, there will be some tension between the feel of
the game and the visual presentation. The fast, precision control of
an FPS is not realistic, and it will become a greater contrast to
everything
else in the [photo realistic, virtual] world."
Don't get me wrong. I'm looking forward to Doom 3 as much as anyone.
Still, I would prefer to see better game innovations, along the lines
UT had with it's pre installed mods and various game types, instead of
the expensive, superfluous, and potentially self destructive quest for
FPS photo realism. Anyone else feel this way?
-Paul
Thomas McGuire
graphics cards if they want a game to sell well, by the time GF3 features
are utilized as intended in games geforce 4/5 will be out.
I'd much, much rather see publishers/developers having more time to fix bugs
than just throw out unfinished games. At the end of the day graphics don't
get me going as much as good gameplay & stability
--
3D Spotlight Tweaking Editor
http://www.3dspotlight.com
ICQ 44025697
Got news ? ne...@3dspotlight.net
> In light of the eventual GeForce 3 roll out I have to >wonder what's the
point of improving graphics in an >FPS? I would say that the recent engines,
UT and
> Q3A, are perfectly adequate and anything better is >nothing more
thanplanned obsolescence by the gaming >and graphics card industry
Glock64
violent behaviour.
Paul <pa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3AA004E3...@nospam.com...
P<Inglo>
don't want to see improved graphics in games. What you seem to be
mostly referring to is the rendering of models in games. I could care
less if they can get a guy's cheek to twitch or have his eyes sparkling
and moving. But there is always room for making the environments more
detailed and advanced, more like movie special effects.
I also know I'd be uncomfortable if the day arrives when our game models
are wearing our own skins, with highly detailed realism. Movie makers
often speak of having their audience "suspend their disbelief," a first
person shooter should never make that attempt, I worry a little about
games like Counter-Strike or Tactical-Ops (which I've enjoyed) if they
get too realistic. I still think we're still a ways off from
photo-realism becoming a reality.
--
Steve P<Inglo>
(Back on ICQ, my thirst for advertising got
the better of me) #65545522
"Dude, that was Star Trek again."
"Huh?"
"'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,'
that was 'Wrath of Khan.'"
"Ah, well. Bible, 'Wrath of Khan,' what's the difference?"
"Paul" <pa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3AA004E3...@nospam.com...
ZeD
update most of the computer hardware just so u can use a few software
programs esp when it will be outdated in months
cheet
"Paul" <pa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3AA004E3...@nospam.com...
> In light of the eventual GeForce 3 roll out I have to wonder what's the
> point of
> improving graphics in an FPS?
Well if they didn't improve graphics we'd still be playing with 2d sprites.
> I would say that the recent engines, UT
> and
> Q3A, are perfectly adequate and anything better is nothing more than
> planned
> obsolescence by the gaming and graphics card industry.
Sure that's part of it. They make it better, like you just said, we buy it.
But hey! It's better right.
> Right now the
> graphics
> are pretty damn good, but nobody during a game of deathwatch can afford
> to stop and admire them. Some other points:
The overall feal of the game is tremendously affected by the realism and
style of the graphics. You don't have to stop and admire the surroundings.
You're in and part of the surroundings.
> 1) The quest for photo realism seems unnecessarily expensive for
> the average gamer (with video cards approaching $600 and new
> ones coming out every six months).
True. That's why you give it 6 months on the market then buy it. Stay a step
behing the latest and greatest. That way you're a step ahead on the price.
> 2) Photo realism may put the final nail in the coffin of FPS games
> There's
> already a lot of concern over young men blasting teachers vicariously
> through
> their favorite shooter. Once the violence even gets more realistic,
> watch out
> for special interest groups dictating what's right and wrong!
Luckily in the united states we have a thing called the Constitution which
protects the masses from the will of the few. It guarantees our right to
play this game. Anyway, some foolish comments about a game causing violent
behavior aren't enough to convince ligislators to believe that it's anything
but human nature. People have been killing people since the dawn of time.
Don't think computers have much to do with that.
> 3) The pacing of a FPS doesn't even lend itself to photo realism. Even
> Carmack is quoted in the latest issue of CGW as saying "As the level
> of realism increases, there will be some tension between the feel of
> the game and the visual presentation. The fast, precision control of
> an FPS is not realistic, and it will become a greater contrast to
> everything
> else in the [photo realistic, virtual] world."
Interesting. I rather fancy the idea of being somewhat of a runabout
superpower on the earth. I'd like to be able to turn a backflip over my
house and spin around a rail my neighbor's dog when it wakes me up at 3 in
the morning.
> Don't get me wrong. I'm looking forward to Doom 3 as much as anyone.
> Still, I would prefer to see better game innovations, along the lines
> UT had with it's pre installed mods and various game types, instead of
> the expensive, superfluous, and potentially self destructive quest for
> FPS photo realism. Anyone else feel this way?
>
> -Paul
Why bother putting all of those mods and game types on the game as soon as
it comes out? The community will make the best mods not id. That's probably
why id isn't worrying too much about the multiplayer aspect of New Doom.
They know the gaming community will whip up more than enough variety to
satisfy all the online fraggers.
Not to be argumentative or anything :)
cheeter
Jimbob
>In light of the eventual GeForce 3 roll out I have to wonder what's the
>point of
>improving graphics in an FPS? I would say that the recent engines, UT
>and
>Q3A, are perfectly adequate and anything better is nothing more than
>planned
>obsolescence by the gaming and graphics card industry.
Nah I remember playing Doom and being in awe of the graphics. Look at
it now and it looks extremely outdated.
>Right now the
>graphics
>are pretty damn good, but nobody during a game of deathwatch can afford
>to stop and admire them. Some other points:
>
Good graphics and sound add immensely to the "sucking you into the
game".
Whilst gameplay is important (the most important thing), the graphics
are important for your average gamer (myself included).
Just going off at a tangent for a moment, I'm also looking forward to
seeing what id do with sound in Doom3. I see they are claiming to be
taking it to the next level (or words to that effect).
Whilst this, again, isn't important for competitive gaming, for single
player it should add a lot.
Has anybody tried q3ngiarena3? Check out the thunder and lightning
effects in that. That had my imagination working overtime when I
played that the same night the Doom3 clips came out, trying to guess
what kind of thing they come out with in Doom3.
>1) The quest for photo realism seems unnecessarily expensive for
>the average gamer (with video cards approaching $600 and new
>ones coming out every six months).
>
Yeah but you don't *have* to pay that much for a video card. You can
run most of todays games on a $100 card (or less).
The people that pay that much aren't what I'd describe as your average
games.
Your average gamer is the one that has a lower spec card, pops in here
as a one off to ask what "Cannot start OpenGL" means, plays for a
while then grabs another game.
>2) Photo realism may put the final nail in the coffin of FPS games.
>There's
>already a lot of concern over young men blasting teachers vicariously
>through
>their favorite shooter. Once the violence even gets more realistic,
>watch out
>for special interest groups dictating what's right and wrong!
>
That's very true.
>3) The pacing of a FPS doesn't even lend itself to photo realism. Even
>Carmack is quoted in the latest issue of CGW as saying "As the level
>of realism increases, there will be some tension between the feel of
>the game and the visual presentation. The fast, precision control of
>an FPS is not realistic, and it will become a greater contrast to
>everything
>else in the [photo realistic, virtual] world."
>
I'm sure Carmack and the other developers will find a way around it so
it still feels good whilst looking good ;-)
>Don't get me wrong. I'm looking forward to Doom 3 as much as anyone.
>Still, I would prefer to see better game innovations, along the lines
>UT had with it's pre installed mods and various game types, instead of
>the expensive, superfluous, and potentially self destructive quest for
>FPS photo realism. Anyone else feel this way?
>
>-Paul
I'd like to see more innovation. While I currently enjoy FPS, you
can't beat finding a whole new game type you really enjoy.
I see Black and White is getting good reviews and apparently is very
innovative. More power to 'em :-)
--
Jimbob
email: jimb...@hotNOSPAMmail.com
ICQ: 94918227
Cy Edmunds
that price. We've seen it over and over. We aren't even close to the
saturation point yet -- i.e. where you can't tell real time gaming video
from HDTV. Even when that happens we will certainly be looking for 3D
rendering technology, tactitile feedback, smellavision, or whatever else
makes the game more immersive.
Also, I think you are confusing "photo realistic" quality with realistic
gameplay. Quake3 improved the graphics relative to Quake2 but simultaneously
reduced the realism (e.g. Orb). That's fine with me; I harbor no fantasies
about shooting real people anyway. With better graphics even stranger
targets could be drawn for me to shoot at.
Cycho{WoD}
"Paul" <pa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3AA004E3...@nospam.com...
Jimbob
<jimb...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:38:59 -0800, Paul <pa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In light of the eventual GeForce 3 roll out I have to wonder what's the
>>point of
>>improving graphics in an FPS? I would say that the recent engines, UT
>>and
>>Q3A, are perfectly adequate and anything better is nothing more than
>>planned
>>obsolescence by the gaming and graphics card industry.
>
>Nah I remember playing Doom and being in awe of the graphics. Look at
>it now and it looks extremely outdated.
>
Oops, the point I was trying to make there was that the current
graphics will always appear to be perfectly adequate until you see
what else is possible.
do...@replydirectothis.com
and GPU's.... tap tap tap...
McGrandpa [AGQx]
enjoyable FPS games with very realistic settings, terrain, sky, visual
effects will become more realistic and even superrealistic. It's been a
steady progression, and the results show a near exponential increase with
each step.
We are now talking full 3D holo capability, in a realistic sense for the
first time. John Carmack is excited, Jobs is excited, and from looking at
the vid myself, justifiably so!
Going from Doom2 to Quake1 was dramatic. Going from Quake2 to Quake3 was
also dramatic. What WE have recieved is a clearer picture of the artists
conception with each progression. Not to mention faster. We are simply
looking at a gaming future that is faster, brighter, more colorful, more
richly detailed, and far more interactive. I think it's going to be a lot
of FUN, and is THE reason I got into computer stuff more than 18 years ago!
Just think about something a moment here; the visual feasts that are
movies richly enhanced with CG. Couple the fixed visual capability with
already awesome sound abilities with full streaming possibilities (read
broadband here). Especially since the GPU's will do the vast majority of
visual rendering before anything ever goes to the cpu and out the NIC.
John and Steve were both right, it IS an exciting time for graphics!
Mike
--
Michael S. McCollum
"McGrandpa[AGQx]"
"Paul" <pa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3AA004E3...@nospam.com...
McGrandpa [AGQx]
exciting stuff. You of all people certainly recall what a stir 3Dfx caused
with the release of the Voodoo. And how excited ALL of us were. So, here
we are looking at the fine bleeding edge opening up another world of
possibilities. I agree, the software hasn't even caught up yet to the
GF2GTS!
But what I'm so excited about is the fact that the hardware has not reached
a plateau and levelled out, no...it's still going ballistic!!!!! And in
light of all THAT progress, look at what else it does for US, the end
consumer; processor prices are continually dropping, $ ofr gflop dropping at
a sharper rate than any other time in history, $ for ram AND for lower ns
dropping even faster! Now, getting a badass system is FAR less than when I
bought into Intel with the P233MMX four years ago! Mobos going for about
the same $, but FAR more in them! Memory, 2 orders of magnitude more for
the same $. And in all this, we are getting better hardware stability than
ANY time I can remember. Yessir, I'm quite happy about the entire industry
around desktop peecees!
Tom, perhaps you are finally getting to the place I got to;
I had to literally give up following that bleeding edge, tasting the red all
the way...*I* wasn't fast enough to take it in!!!
I also wanted to simply sit and ENJOY what I have for a while. Well, with
stepping back, catching my breath a bit and looking at the Big Picture
again, I DO get in and enjoy what I have, but also with gleeful anticipation
of things on the way. I can let the games I play force me to make an
upgrade again.
I haven't had to do THAT since I started playing Quake classic.
It will be hard to keep pace, Tom. Even for you! And I DO thank you for
all the work you have poured out to US man. Please don't stop! It's great
stuff!
--
Michael S. McCollum
"McGrandpa[AGQx]"
"Thomas McGuire" <tho...@3dspotlight.net> wrote in message
news:3HTn6.6153$PF4....@news.iol.ie...
Thomas McGuire
looks nice enough, that still don't detract from it being a dull reptitive
game though.
Ot too put it another way, how many games use their graphics engine to
aactually enhance the gameplay itself.
After seeing the Doom3 shos, sure they looked nice "but" they were all dark.
Sadly it seems ID has decided that "dark" = "atmosphere"
--
3D Spotlight Tweaking Editor
http://www.3dspotlight.com
ICQ 44025697
Got news ? ne...@3dspotlight.net
> Ah but Tom, you can't deny that we are on the verge of >some incredibly
joe crouse
about 7 months when i joined you all were all fired exicited about this or
that card you could barely contain yourselves
then when the geforce sdr came out you guys were ready to explode (=
P<Inglo>
They're all too f*king dark. Well not all, but too many of them. Part
of me thinks that it must be easier for the game designers, a lot of
imperfections can be hidden when the lights are out (and I'm not talking
about my sex life,) but as far a realism goes I don't know which side
that falls on. I know that's one reason I'm looking forward to Serious
Sam, which may be dull and repetitive but it looks like you'll be able
to see everything.
--
Steve P<Inglo>
(Back on ICQ, my thirst for advertising got
the better of me) #65545522
"Dude, that was Star Trek again."
"Huh?"
"'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,'
that was 'Wrath of Khan.'"
"Ah, well. Bible, 'Wrath of Khan,' what's the difference?"
"Thomas McGuire" <tho...@3dspotlight.net> wrote in message
news:9Y7o6.7859$PF4....@news.iol.ie...
McGrandpa [AGQx]
spot is that graphics is getting the attention and the real qkueaks are from
the less than optimal gameplay. I agree with that too. THAT can be much
better.
So, this NV20 will take more load off the CPU. And when the NV30 comes out,
it will keep even more load off the CPU. And system ram.
OK, so we meet in the middle here...we need BOTH!
--
Michael S. McCollum
"McGrandpa[AGQx]"
"Thomas McGuire" <tho...@3dspotlight.net> wrote in message
news:9Y7o6.7859$PF4....@news.iol.ie...
McGrandpa [AGQx]
meg. I used a Rendition Verite 1000 card. cheaper, and the two games I was
into ran great on it. Tombraider 1 and Quake.
--
Michael S. McCollum
"McGrandpa[AGQx]"
"joe crouse" <joecr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38C15903...@home.com...
Thomas McGuire
fully utilizes the features available. They've been saying this since
Geforce 1 came out. PR means nothing.
We will never "really" see this reduced CPU burden due to developers having
to support legacy hardware, e.g. why spend time coding for a feature that
only 15% of customers can utilize ? They won't of course.
Graphics can add to the gameplay, they do not make a game. There is no "meet
in the middle" its simple. Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay. If the graphics are
good thats a bonus.
--
3D Spotlight Tweaking Editor
http://www.3dspotlight.com
ICQ 44025697
Got news ? ne...@3dspotlight.net
joe crouse
Void If Removed
"Jimbob" <jimb...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:1kq0at8sil9q5p272...@4ax.com...
Yeah, I remember being totally blown away by the 7th Guest, and thinking
'how can graphics possibly get any better than this?'. Looks appalling now
=)
And never mind how bad the game sucked, it was the reason I first got a
cd-rom drive.
McGrandpa [AGQx]
that's reasonable!
--
Michael S. McCollum
"McGrandpa[AGQx]"
"Thomas McGuire" <tho...@3dspotlight.net> wrote in message
news:itho6.8053$PF4....@news.iol.ie...
McGrandpa [AGQx]
Playing CTF with others like Slayn and Vomit and MaDdOg.......
--
Michael S. McCollum
"McGrandpa[AGQx]"
"joe crouse" <joecr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38C1CE54...@home.com...
joe crouse
other that iactualy forgot. from college park i dissapeared for a while late
98-late 99 because of no internet connection at my home
then i came back as jrshoe for a while till i got my own internet connect
then i went back to joe crouse
McGrandpa [AGQx]
Former Marine gets an ATTITUDE whilst Quakin!
But it's better than him coppin a 'tude on the street!
Hey, I just ran that GLExcess demo.
My system is a P3-800, BE6-II v1.0, 2 ATA66 Maxtors 30 & 20 g, 384 megs
PC133 SDram, CL Annihilator 2 (Geforce2 GTS 32 meg), W98SE and all the
updates, SB Live! Value, LinkSys LNE10/100TX v4 NIC. This system cranks out
Q3A 1.27h real nice. A lot nicer than maybe I oughtta get to, considering
all the problems everyone is having with it. I just ran the demo127 and
came up with 60 fps., I run in 1024x768-32 bit, all textures high, text
compression ON, Lightmap, 32 bit everything, everything is ON and high.
AND, this is the FIRST time I've been able to play it like this and it be
smooth. Except in a MAJOR crowded server with a big room and everyone is in
it shooting everything they got in EXCESSIVE mod. THAT chugs all of us
down! Hah! But it's fun. OH, I got DX8a installed and NVidia 'leaked'
(whateverthat really means!) 6.88 drivers. I figure that maintaining 60 is
pretty good with everything cranked up like it is. Guess I need more ram
and faster chip/mobo to get much higher.
GAMEPLAY AND QUALITY GRAPHICS. Both are needed.
Have a good un Joe!
--
Michael S. McCollum
"McGrandpa[AGQx]"
"joe crouse" <joecr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AA852F6...@home.com...
Urungus
Possibly covers up the fact that they can't draw.. =)
(Not that I could do better...)
"Thomas McGuire" <tho...@3dspotlight.net> wrote in message
news:9Y7o6.7859$PF4....@news.iol.ie...