Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhilethe Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps

"The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)"
wrote in message
...
On Aug 1, 12:34 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:26:54 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"



wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

Is there really any evidence that DX11 will be that more compelling
than DX10? And was DX10 really that much more compelling than DX9?
I'm not trying to be overly skeptical here, as I look forward to new
technology too, but I get the increasing sense (especially after
eyeballing FC2 at DX10 at high resolutions with everything maxed) that
we are "there" when it comes to graphic quality, and that game
developers should be focusing on things like immersion, value to
consumer, overall fun factor. Breaking away from the hyped corporate
marketing-team inspired bull**** and focusing on how to appeal to
gamers rather than buyers of well advertised crap.

we are not 'there' in computer graphics.
does a race game look like real life cars - in the same way a crappy low
resolution AVI can ? - does a desert in fallout 3 look like a real life
desert?
does a character in a modern game look like a real person?
no no and no.
we are still in the 'looks like a cartoon 'era.

Whether or not the graphics are "there" is a subjective discussion we
could debate all day I suppose. I don't think it makes much sense to
choose a specific game (i.e. Fallout 3 etc) and say because the
artistic style of that game is not realistic enough to your tastes,
that it is a benchmark for what current technology is capable of.
While I've had plenty of fun with some of Bethesda's games, I wouldn't
say realistic graphic style is their strong point. Many 3D artists
are also into comics and related drawing styles, so a cartoony look
often creeps into their work by design.

To me, how much fun I have with a game is all that matters. "Good"
graphics (which I define as not only visually appealing but also
running consistently smooth on whatever machine I'm running it on) do
not necessarily have to be realistic to be immersive to me. TF2 was a
good example of cartoonish graphics that resulted in a game that I
enjoyed. Arma2 is an example of a very ambitious attempt at realism
which probably makes some tradeoffs in the fun-factor area in order to
do so.

Maybe I am one of those where a certain level of surrealism can
enhance the gameplay. You mentioned race games.. I find the graphics
in Grid to be as realistic as a racing *game* needs to be. Do they
look like real cars? The answer probably depends on who you ask. If
I want total realism, I should hope someone comes out with a
contraption that is perfectly modeled like the inside of a car, which
I can sit in...and, it has features built in that actually break my
legs in real life if I slam into a wall too hard. Very realistic!
Fun? I guess, if you want a true racing sim you gotta take the real
life bumps and bruises along with it. Instead of playing first person
shooters, lets just get real guns and go out in a field somewhere and
shoot at each other. Granted there won't be any respawns when we die,
but at least its realistic.

Isn't the whole reason we are playing games to get away from reality
a bit? Isn't exercising our imagination part of the fun? Is what we
really are after is an interpretation of real life that plays off
metaphors of reality, without requiring us to experience the less
pleasant aspects of the same real life activity?

This is why I don't think graphics need to be perfectly realistic,
only immersive, and to me even graphics with varying levels of
cartoonishness or surrealism can still be immersive. Your mileage may
vary.

If you truly believe what you're saying in this post then your whole
argument about how PC gaming is so much better because the graphics
capabilities of PCs is notably higher doesn't make any sense.

You're absolutely right that graphics don't have to be top-of-the-line
in order for a gaming experience to be great. From that perspective,
PC games really have no advantage because anything above and beyond
what consoles do is just gravy.

Top end consoles games are plenty immersive, not just from a graphics
perspective but from a game design and/or concept perspective as well.

The whole "my PC is better than your console" mentality is really just
absurd.

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

"The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)"
wrote in message
...
On Aug 1, 9:20 pm, "Tom" wrote:
"Memnoch" wrote in message

...

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:14:17 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll
wrote:

I would say that within the next 5 years or so, realtime graphics on
PC will rival the first Toy Story movie. Many would say PC graphics
have already surpassed Toy Story, but they confuse realistic artwork
with technical graphics quality, and it just isn't true.

Interesting that you mention Toy Story (2005). Compare that to say
Final
Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). Even 8 years later that film has
phenomenal artwork. Games wise I think Toy Story has been surpassed and
I
don't think we are too far from equaling the Final Fantasy film.

You mean 1995 for Toy Story :-). I agree with your statement though. I
actually went and saw FFTSW at theatres, and though I was blown away by
the
graphics animation in that movie, still unrivalled even for any PC
animation
to this day, but the story was pretty weak so I thought it was not worth
it.
That and the fact it was a total box office bomb. I wondered if if the
producers and distributors (Square and Columbia Pictures respectively)
put
any thought into the risk of making this movie. It cost nearly $140m to
make
(probably would be cheaper today with the newer graphics technologies),
but
it barely broke even, if at all, even with rentals included after the
theatre gig was up. On opening weekend, there were only about 60-70
people
in the whole theatre and it opened in over 2600 theatres nationwide. By
week four, it was down to less than 150 theatres being shown. By week
six,
theatres gave up on it.

It ranks right up there with some of the biggest budget bombs ever made.

Two words: uncanny valley.

You know, I really didn't experience that with FFTSW, as some may have,
because I knew what to expect I guess. The story wasn't plausible and that's
what took it away from me. I still thought the CG animation was astounding,
at the time.

On Aug 4, 10:50*am, "Tom" wrote:
"The Almighty N (Blig, Creamy and Jonah's owner)"
wrote in ...



On Aug 1, 9:20 pm, "Tom" wrote:
"Memnoch" wrote in message

. ..

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:14:17 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll
wrote:

I would say that within the next 5 years or so, realtime graphics on
PC will rival the first Toy Story movie. *Many would say PC graphics
have already surpassed Toy Story, but they confuse realistic artwork
with technical graphics quality, and it just isn't true.

Interesting that you mention Toy Story (2005). Compare that to say
Final
Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). Even 8 years later that film has
phenomenal artwork. Games wise I think Toy Story has been surpassed and
I
don't think we are too far from equaling the Final Fantasy film.

You mean 1995 for Toy Story :-). I agree with your statement though. I
actually went and saw FFTSW at theatres, and though I was blown away by
the
graphics animation in that movie, still unrivalled even for any PC
animation
to this day, but the story was pretty weak so I thought it was not worth
it.
That and the fact it was a total box office bomb. I wondered if if the
producers and distributors (Square and Columbia Pictures respectively)
put
any thought into the risk of making this movie. It cost nearly $140m to
make
(probably would be cheaper today with the newer graphics technologies),
but
it barely broke even, if at all, even with rentals included after the
theatre gig was up. On opening weekend, there were only about 60-70
people
in the whole theatre and it opened in over 2600 theatres nationwide. *By
week four, it was down to less than 150 theatres being shown. By week
six,
theatres gave up on it.

It ranks right up there with some of the biggest budget bombs ever made.

Two words: uncanny valley.

You know, I really didn't experience that with FFTSW, as some may have,
because I knew what to expect I guess. The story wasn't plausible and that's
what took it away from me. *I still thought the CG animation was astounding,
at the time.

The story is a whole other... well... story. It was just retarded.
Plus, it didn't help that they didn't do a great job at setting up the
characters or the world so it was like you were thrown into the middle
of a novel without any clue as to how the first half went.

I personally didn't mind the movie at all but before this thread I
never read or heard any other people making any positive statements
about it.

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

"Tim O" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC
version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion
and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive.

On Aug 4, 6:26*pm, Tim O wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:
Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

What?

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote:



"Tim O" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC
version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion
and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive.

Let me connect the dots for you.

You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is
hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks
the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while
you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb
control out of the equation.

You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the
PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your
argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls
apart.

"Tim O" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote:



"Tim O" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC
version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way
and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of
all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion
and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive.

Let me connect the dots for you.

You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is
hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks
the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while
you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb
control out of the equation.

You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the
PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your
argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls
apart.

So? Almighty was initially the one who mentioned the
hardware/immersion/gameplay aspects. Your reply doesn't come close to
following what you initially replied to me about anyway. I simply concurred
with Alimighty about the concepts of games and the immersion in them as
well, using Fallout 3 as an example. You then picked one element (that is
actually cool as hell anyway) out of F3, that somehow makes the game bad, as
if the whole game plays that way. You can still shoot different body parts
on the enemy in F3 without having to use VATS, equally as well. VATS is just
an immersive element in the game and gives it nice aesthetics also. You
choose to use it or not and it isn't a must use part of the game.

On Aug 5, 5:27*am, Tim O wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:33:27 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

"Tim O" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:

Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC
version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

Except I wasn't specific about game controls. Almighty mentioned immersion
and other factors in a game that makes a game immersive.

*Let me connect the dots for you.

You were talking about hardware, immersion and gameplay. A gamepad is
hardware, it makes gameplay more difficult for FPS games and breaks
the immersion. Fallout 3 used VATS to essentially pause gameplay while
you picked your target, taking the difficult of aiming with a thumb
control out of the equation.

You picked a worst case genre for comparison, one that was born on the
PC and created with PC controls in mind. For Street Fighter IV, your
argument works. For anything involving first person controls, it falls
apart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No your wrong about Fallout3 , the VATS is based upon old school turn
based RPG type game elements and has nothing to do with compensation
for gamepad, and who says 'gamepad' anymore??

Although I don't even use VATS anymore, Fallout3 was never intended to
be a twitch FPS game, if you wanna see fluid FPS put in
UT3 ,COD4,COD:WAW,L4D, they are lightning fast FPS and aren't hampered
at all by controllers. Hell put it WAW in turn the X-Y to insane mode
and see what I mean.

Hell I just played L4D on my friends PC with a wired MS controller and
did fine.

On Aug 4, 6:26*pm, Tim O wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:46:26 -0400, "Tom" wrote:
Excellent point! It's like saying Fallout 3 will be better on the PC version
because the hardware will blow the console version away. The story, (and
essentially) the gameplay as well as the characters play the same way and
that's what counts. I don't see getting immersed in a game because of all
that powerful hardware, while ignoring a conceptually great game, just
because I can.

I hate the controls. Fallout 3 is actually a bad example since it has
the VATS targeting to circumvent the weakness of a gamepad for a first
person game.

I think he was more referencing the graphics capabilities but that's
just my guess...