Are graphics getting to good for most peoples computers?

By Nequa Posted May 24, 2008 15:33:05

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?

0 Karma 33 Replies 2 Referrals

my computer is mid range, its a dual core i have an ati graphics card not sure which but i think x1300/x1500 but i was looking at the kinds of frame rates i should be getting in games with this type of card and i get sygnificantly higher,i think it must be something to do with dual core, because i can run sins with preety much all highest settings fine, even so with an hd tv many xbox games outperform my pc when you look at it on a cost basis and even graphical basis.

even so with an hd tv many xbox games outperform my pc when you look at it on a cost basis and even graphical basis.

Well, HD TVs can be expensive, especially if you're shooting for 1080p. You're now looking at getting a TV in addition to just the console.

"HD" essentially means "we finally got out of the TV equivalent of 640x480 and moved up to high resolutions that are similar to PC resolutions."

even so with an hd tv many xbox games outperform my pc when you look at it on a cost basis and even graphical basis.

What card are you using? You can use dxdiag to find out.

The Xbox 360, if I remember correctly, is a three core system.

Well, hopefully producers will begin to take a clue from successes like Sins and GCII: there are a lot of gamers out there who aren't interested in investing in high-end graphics.

Markets are usually self-adjusting. If many users buy games made for mid-range machines, producers will probably keep supplying them. On the other hand, its easier to make a graphically astounding game than to come up with innovative, well-crafted gameplay- and theres a big market for graphically astounding games in the console market.

On the other hand, its easier to make a graphically astounding game than to come up with innovative, well-crafted gameplay

Well, games like GalCiv 2 and Sins require a lot of talent, but games like Crysis require a lot man hours. A game like GalCiv 2 is like a small shop filled with innovative people, while a game like Crysis is more like a large factory.

The small shop is a lot more flexible and changing and can create lots of innovation, but the factory can output large amounts of material. Games with lots of details and especially MMORPGs require huge amounts of art.

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*

I havent even played 2142 yet, but BF2 alone has it's problems.

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

I know, it's brutal. There's just no excuse for crap like that.

OWell, games like GalCiv 2 and Sins require a lot of talent, but games like Crysis require a lot man hours. A game like GalCiv 2 is like a small shop filled with innovative people, while a game like Crysis is more like a large factory.

True, I meant that its more straightforward to make a game look amazing than to come up with innovative gameplay. You probably know before you start whether or not you have the resources to make a game that looks like Crysis, but not just anyone can poop golden eggs all day long like they're Will Wright. Its safer to go with a sure bet that will attract consumers than take a chance on a new formula. Hold the door for the next derivative shooter.

"Hey, but it has pixel shader 3.0, HDR, soft shadows and ..."

*Smacks fanboy upside the head*

mafutnyaos
I havent even played 2142 yet, but BF2 alone has it's problems.

Very true, but I could at the very least run BF2 DECENTLY. Of course, BF2 had completely different set of problems with how weapon accuracy was designed which, when combined with the buggy online hit detection, just made the game infuriating after so many hours of gameplay.

BF2142, however, was just so horrible that the beta / demo would only run on my X800XL vid card at 800x600. Meanwhile, the Orange Box games all run at 1280x960 with all the bells and whistles with no problems; hell, the I can even play the original HL2, which came out 8 months before BF2 at 1600x1200 at a steady 40 FPS.

Mad Cat

Ya, there's definitely no comparison when it comes to the optimization between BF2 and HL2. I can run BF2 almost entirely with full details on 1280x800 or 960 i think? on 3850 AGP but still, crazy aiming problems(that somehow the hardcore BF2'ers don't understand how bad it is compared to other games) and the crazy slowdown upon first load. HL2 is definitely a smoother play. I can play CS:S @ 1680x1050 with full details and AA @ 2 and AF @ 2. What a difference.

So I guess 2142 isn't worth picking up then? I had already picked up the 'Booster Pack' with Armored Fury and Euro Force, but it seems not many people play them which makes them useless.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

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

Are graphics getting to good for most peoples computers?