Are graphics getting to good for most peoples computers?

With some companies you can already see their graphics are 'too good for most', but other companies pride themselves on being able to reach a wider audience by scaling their graphics (like we've seen in SINS and SupCom). There will always be companies that go above and beyond to make their graphics as intensive as possible, but I think it will be a while before the companies that do appeal to a wider range of systems will phase out their lower end graphic options.

Depends entirely on what you like to play. I use a 5 year old computer for my primary gaming needs. I've dropped $150 into upgrades since I bought it. It still does wonderfully for brand-new games.

Then again, I've never made the mistake of trying to play Crysis on that machine. Funny, that. Crysis has the most beautiful graphics you've ever (or more likely never) seen. But its sales have been abysmal. When I play GalCiv2, I play it zoomed out so that all I can see is a bunch of icons. The movies are kinda neat, but I've seen games from 1998 with CGI about as good.

Mind you, I play GalCiv2. Until I feel like spending some extra money on a new machine, I'll never play Crysis. There will always be some developer who thinks they have to push the absolute limits of the latest machines and then some. And that developer will wonder why his sales are restricted to a tiny share of the market. Meanwhile, The Sims 2 is still going strong.

Awesome graphics gets you front-page photos and reviews in gaming magazines. Awesome gameplay is what gets you millions of sales. Too bad many game developers don't realize that.

Crysis hit over 1 million sales this past February when counting box sales. It's also not too far short of 2 million now when you consider box sales and online sales. Crysis has sold excellently, but the developer/publisher wanted to see Halo 3-like sales in the 3 to 5 million range. Considering the absurd requirements for Crysis, horrid plot/story, limited gameplay, and abysmal cheat-loaded multiplayer, they should be thrilled that they've sold as well as they have. Regardless of how good or bad Crysis sold, the developer/publisher is looking for any excuse to produce more console games and considered every single download of a no-cd patch or the full game as an instance of piracy and a lost sale--something that's obviously false.

Graphics are getting excellent, but most of it is designed to push overpriced high-end hardware. This is why a lot of developers wind up getting special cutting-edge hardware and discounts/freebies from Nvidia and ATI. There's a growing disparity between the high-end and low-end. This disparity is what hurts PC gaming.

I agree. I play games from my childhood still(atari, nes, vic-20) all the way to the newest games as long as they play well. I'm impressed by cool graphics, but if my computer can't run the game, then it's no good.

A lot of slow downs arent even graphical really. Sometimes it's physics, AI or poor coding. That's when it pisses me off - when a game doesnt even look as good as another one or it's not as sophisticated but there are major slowdowns.

That is a good thing but I am starting to notice that with the better graphics comes at the cost of needing a better computer or graphics card.

You have just noticed that? That has been true for decades. There have always been games that when first released push a card to its limits, only to be considered mediocre when new cards come out.

In my opinion, there will always be games that push cards to their limits, and those that work on all machines. Games like Crysis exist primarily to encourage video card companies to improve their cards, and people to upgrade their machines.

Games like GalCiv 2, on the other hand, exist to entertain people and provide an enjoyable experience for everybody. Therefore, it makes very good sense for a game like GalCiv 2 to run on a wide variety of games to appeal to the widest audience.

I don't think we're seeing the end of anything, BTW - the new DirectX 10 graphics are certainly revolutionary, but we are at the beginning of the revolution, not the end. The existing effects have a lot of room for improvement, and there will be more incredible advances to some.

Yes, high end graphics is rather niche. However, as our technology advances it will eventually become mainstream and another card will take its place in the high end graphics niche. That's the way it's been for many years, and that's the way it will be in the foreseeable future.

It's simply the continuous improvement of technology that has been going on for a long time that you have noticed.

PC parts such as CPUs and graphics cards have much better price to performance ratios nowadays, I don't really think PC graphics are getting too good for most people's computers as these two components are much easily acquired than they were a few years ago.

ATI and Nvidia have both hit hard at the budget market with a wide range of cards, and some of them are pretty damn good. ATI's HD3850 in particular is one hell of a card, I only played $300AU for it and it can run a very playable Crysis at High settings and others as well (such as Assassin's Creed).

Thats one of the good things about consoles... you can just buy one and be done with it... you dont have to worry about upgrading to play the newest games, and they still look great compared to PC releases of the same titles. I'll always love PC gaming though...

Not really. You buy a Nintendo, a few years later they come out with a super Nintendo, then a N64, then a Gamecube, then a Wii. They cycle slower than computers are, but if you include all the different consoles, you're "upgrading" more often than you'd need to with a PC.

nequa how many games in the last year have had "high" graphics settings that put a toll on a reasonable or budget gaming computer (let's say, E6400 or higher processor, 9600GT)

the trick is, don't say "Crysis"

go

Not really. You buy a Nintendo, a few years later they come out with a super Nintendo, then a N64, then a Gamecube, then a Wii. They cycle slower than computers are, but if you include all the different consoles, you're "upgrading" more often than you'd need to with a PC.

What..You just said they are cycling less...Consoles need to be replaced less often than pc parts. Also, console cost a fraction of the price of comparable pcs, and it's well known that Microsoft and Sony sold their hardware at a loss when they were first released.

What gets me is how games like F.E.A.R., Half Life 2 and even Bioshock can run fine and look decent on my old XP3000/GeForce6800 setup, yet games like Oblivion and Alpha Prime run like crap without having any better visuals than the others I mentioned. To me that just seems like there is a lot of sloppy, unoptimized code in some of those games.

My system being at best about 5 years old can still run most anything atleast on minimal settings, but I do find myself turning down a lot more Gfx options than I used to for most.

If you have a fat wallet, then I don't believe games outrunning your hardware will be a problem. It is the average(financially) person that has to decide if they want to pay 50 bucks or whatever to run a game like Crysis at severely reduced settings. A game which probably loses a lot of it's appeal without the pretty graphics.

F.E.A.R., Half Life 2 and even Bioshock can run fine and look decent on my old XP3000/GeForce6800 setup, yet games like Oblivion and Alpha Prime run like crap

One of these things is not like the other. Hint: what kind of environment is the former set in as opposed to the latter?

My system being at best about 5 years old can still run most anything atleast on minimal settings, but I do find myself turning down a lot more Gfx options than I used to for most.

Yeah, I was running on a 6800 not too long ago myself, and it could run pretty much everything on the market decently until very recently.

Consoles need to be replaced less often than pc parts.

Not really, as I've said I was running a 6800 not too long ago - it's what, almost four years old, I think? Depends on whether you want the latest, greatest card or if you just want to play games. If you just want to play games and don't care about always being cutting edge, the PC is much closer to the console in price and upgrade frequency.

It's really only the very high end systems that are so much more costly than consoles and need replacing so often. Basically, you're paying a lot more for bragging rights. If you just want to play games, then there's no need at all to upgrade with such expensive parts so frequently.

That's the nice thing about the PC: You can upgrade as much or as little as you want.

you dont have to worry about upgrading to play the newest games

Except when they release a new console

. The Xbox won't play Xbox 360 games.

ATI and Nvidia have both hit hard at the budget market with a wide range of cards, and some of them are pretty damn good. ATI's HD3850 in particular is one hell of a card, I only played $300AU for it and it can run a very playable Crysis at High settings and others as well (such as Assassin's Creed).

Yup. I myself go with nVidia, and I love their 9600 line of cards - a huge performance jump over the 8600, yet very affordable. It's the first card in a long time I thought was really worth the cost of upgrading from my 6800.

Game developers have always used the current high end hardware. Whatever is current at the time. There was a time when PC hardware did not increase in performance at nearly the rate it does now.

i have a mid range pc as well as an xbox 360, and it has to be said the xbox is so much simpler, i can get graphics on my xbox that are as good as or sometimes better than my computer with minimal fuss, and unlike my pc i dont get annoying frame rate issues, and as i said earlier i get better graphics on my xbox than i ever could on my pc (gears of war) for a fraction of the price. the only thing tat keeps me interested in the pc is games like sins and gal civ that cant be done on the console.

i get better graphics on my xbox than i ever could on my pc (gears of war)

What resolution are you running your computer on? That's quite likely the problem.

The thing that irks me is straight money comparisons on PC price vs. console price. Even if you have the greatest console ever, you still need a PC to go online, do your work, and all that other fun stuff, and if you get a gaming PC, it covers that stuff much better than a cheap PC (Bigger hard drive and better performance so you can spend less time loading), and even the cheapest PC still has a price tag.

Also, people look at dell prices rather than ibuypower or newegg prices when looking at computers, throwing off their math by quite a bit. You also have to look at the respective costs of games for PC vs console, eg sixty or eighty dollar games against 50 or less. The money you wind up paying for those games adds up.

I don't think it's really an issue unless you just have to have the latest game right away.

If you wait 6 months or a year, you can get what was the top of the line video card for a couple hundred, and probably find the game for a lot less, too. And another plus is that by waiting a while past the initial release, you get more mature implementations of the hardware, drivers, and the game.

I usually upgrade something on my PC every year: disk, graphics, CPU/RAM/mobo, and I don't find many games that don't run well. Yes, the hardware is more expensive than my son's Xbox360, but the choice isn't between getting a PC or a 360, it's whether or not to get a 360 in addition to the PC.

I personally think all this "PC vs. Consoles" argument is bunk; neither one is so expensive that you can only have one, and neither one is capable of replacing the other. Consoles don't have the suite of applications necessary (although they'll probably be a lot closer for the next generation), and a PC just isn't an appliance. What I mean by that is that you can't just take it out of the box, plug it in, and have it work.

xthetenth its not resolution, example i own cod4 for the pc, i have to play wih most settings turned off but it still looks decent, ive played it on the xbox and it looks 10 times better especially if played in hd.

I don't know if they're getting to good, but they may be getting too good.

For low end machines at least.

You might need to have two of them too.

i have a mid range pc as well as an xbox 360, and it has to be said the xbox is so much simpler, i can get graphics on my xbox that are as good as or sometimes better than my computer with minimal fuss, and unlike my pc i dont get annoying frame rate issues, and as i said earlier i get better graphics on my xbox than i ever could on my pc (gears of war) for a fraction of the price. the only thing tat keeps me interested in the pc is games like sins and gal civ that cant be done on the console.

Well, I'm not sure what kind of pc you're running and what kind of games you're playing other than Gears of War, but when my friends got their xboxes, they're games still didn't look as good as my pc games. And I've seen xbox and PS2 games have framerate issues as well. It's quite common among that generation of systems I find.

There are pros and cons about both PC gaming and console gaming. PC gaming requires more patience and usually more expertise, while console gaming is quicker and easier(normally). PC games are cheaper while console games are more expensive. A PC can do more and you have more choice as to what you want in your PC, where consoles are limited(though that's changing) and you're stuck with certain hardware and their hardware issues(ie: 360's dying left, right and centre).

It basically comes down to, do you want to sacrifice less trouble and less choice? Go console. More choice, more trouble? PC.

One of these things is not like the other. Hint: what kind of environment is the former set in as opposed to the latter?

I understand what your saying there. Alpha prime is though of the same ilk, looks a step down from the ones mentioned and runs the worst out of all of them. Oblivion's problem seems to be that it runs great for a while. Then one of a certain creature or something will all of a sudden bog it badly, while others don't. That's more why how I felt some of the code was less than optimal in that game. It was really random when the slowdowns would occur and why.

I really can't compare consoles to PCs. For me they are two separate entities with different purposes, even in games I choose for them. For consoles I want something I can jump into and play for 15 or 30 minutes and jump out of. Most my racing games are on consoles as an example. For PC games I want a deeper more involved experience, where you need focus and some time to really get into it. Some PC games I won't even load up unless I have a good hour or two set aside to play them.

xthetenth its not resolution, example i own cod4 for the pc, i have to play wih most settings turned off but it still looks decent, ive played it on the xbox and it looks 10 times better especially if played in hd.

Probably your computer's hardware. Your performance will depend greatly on the hardware you are using. I'm pretty sure I could outperform the 360 with my own computer.

I personally think all this "PC vs. Consoles" argument is bunk; neither one is so expensive that you can only have one, and neither one is capable of replacing the other. Consoles don't have the suite of applications necessary (although they'll probably be a lot closer for the next generation), and a PC just isn't an appliance. What I mean by that is that you can't just take it out of the box, plug it in, and have it work.

Agreed, except for one thing: The statement that "neither one is so expensive that you can only have one." That will depend greatly on a person's budget. People live in all kinds of income brackets, and I've talked to people who can barely afford their own rent. For some people, a computer or a console can be a large investment, and may take some months to save up the money.

It took me an entire year I think to build my current system up to what it is now. Piece by piece when I had the money. I'm still in college, so I'm in one of the lower income brackets.

I really can't compare consoles to PCs. For me they are two separate entities with different purposes, even in games I choose for them. For consoles I want something I can jump into and play for 15 or 30 minutes and jump out of. Most my racing games are on consoles as an example. For PC games I want a deeper more involved experience, where you need focus and some time to really get into it. Some PC games I won't even load up unless I have a good hour or two set aside to play them.

I would agree with this. Consoles are often for quick games (although there are exceptions), and PCs are generally for longer, more involved games (although there are exceptions).

It seems that a claim to fame for a computer game can be for its amazing grahpics. That is a good thing but I am starting to notice that with the better graphics comes at the cost of needing a better computer or graphics card. Its nice to reed the details off some cars bumber, but not if I am worries about my computer crashing. The reason I got Sins of a solar empire is because of how it does not need a ultra good computer for it to use. games that require high end computers is also alenating gamers how do not have a good syestem or a bug budget for a betteer one. When will graphis became to good for most?

Well, duh. PC games have been like this for the better part of 15 years, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who isn't a total newbie to PC gaming.

Then again, I've never made the mistake of trying to play Crysis on that machine. Funny, that. Crysis has the most beautiful graphics you've ever (or more likely never) seen. But its sales have been abysmal.

Yes, for two reasons:

One, because it's system requirements scared off many people.

Two, when you go beyond the graphics, the game really isn't that interesting. In fact, it can be downright tedious and annoying. Unfortunately, many game companies don't seem to realize that better graphics doesn't necessarily equate to a better game.

considered every single download of a no-cd patch or the full game as an instance of piracy and a lost sale--something that's obviously false.

Is THIS how they count the number of pirated copies of games they have? I thought maybe they were somehow checking the CD-keys to see how many fakes ones people were using. If they're using NO-CD hacks downloads to make their case, they're kidding themselves so badly it isn't even funny.

A lot of slow downs arent even graphical really. Sometimes it's physics, AI or poor coding. That's when it pisses me off

*cough*Battlefield 2142*cough*

Also, console cost a fraction of the price of comparable pcs, and it's well known that Microsoft and Sony sold their hardware at a loss when they were first released.

HAHAHAHA If PC manufacturers sold their parts at a loss, too, I doubt we'd ever have a discussion on which costs more, PCs or consoles.

Mad Cat

A lot of slow downs arent even graphical really. Sometimes it's physics, AI or poor coding. That's when it pisses me off

What drives me absolutely nuts is when some game uses software to paint shadows and uses older and slower algorithms to do it with. There are some very slow shadow painting algorithms that use a lot of CPU and create blocky looking shadows, which can cause even modern computers to choke. It's amazing that they're still used, and that companies don't realize that there are better ways of drawing shadows.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Are graphics getting to good for most peoples computers?