Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gaming Quality versus eyecandy/immersion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    and you were expecting..

    Originally posted by Shawn14316 View Post
    For someone not really bashing please explain what comparing it to ME is? About you caring about this or that no one cares if you do or don't. People are here to discuss stuff. So, when you say something prepare for someone to disagree and say something. You have the choice of responding or not.

    Alrighty on topic now. For me when it comes to 2d games graphics don't matter as long as it isn't worse then the Nintendo. For 3D games it does matter. Old eye sours like the psx and N64 console annoy me and take me out of the experience. While if game play sucks I of course would stop playing but if graphics are horrible I'm not going to feel like I'm in the game. I'm a 50/50 kinda person on this subject i guess.
    Alrighty then, first I'd say get over YOURself. Secondly, who said I'd said I wasn't bashing Vi$ta? My opinion (irregardless of its value) was also related to the discussion, then you and someone else decided to discuss my post as well. I expected responses, just like this one. So, I chose to respond to a response to my prior post, just as I am now. I don't see a problem in doing so, as it seems to be the purpose of forums (discussion).
    ~
    Don't try to talk down to anyone, its pretty weak especially when your argument isn't accurate.
    ~
    You should be expecting a response like this, according to your post.

    Intentsly
    (UT99~ [--]Torturia)

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by intentsly View Post
      ...The more people seem to take things personally....

      Intentsly
      (UT99~ [--]Torturia)
      No kidding... Vista sucks rocks...

      Comment


        #63
        Spot on!

        Originally posted by Deadscion View Post
        The big thing about Vista is the huge expense a player has to go through just to make the graphics work properly.
        What then? You don't get a huge difference to go with a huge computer bill.
        I can show you plenty of performance reports by reputable organizations proving Vista does not work as well as Windows XP.
        The point is, UT3 will work fine on your Windows XP, if you want to spend all that money for a little extra graphics go for it, but it is not necessary.
        In fact if you play UT3 on the obviously slower performing Windows Vista, gaming quality will suffer, right?
        Aye! Spot on!

        Originally posted by Deadscion View Post
        Vista bashing is too easy right now.
        I personally think Microsoft may pull their head out of their backside on this project eventully and have a good quality product.
        In the meantime, I would not touch Vista with your computer, let alone mine.
        Like I'd said, once it matures, then maybe I'd recommend duel booting it with XP. Totally agree!

        Intentsly
        (UT99~ [--]Torturia)

        Comment


          #64
          Last edited by intentsly : Today at 12:09 AM.

          Nice edit job. Taught me the lesson of quoting everything i am referring to.

          Comment


            #65
            oyvey

            Originally posted by Shawn14316 View Post
            Last edited by intentsly : Today at 12:09 AM.

            Nice edit job. Taught me the lesson of quoting everything i am referring to.
            Um, what time did you post your post? Mine was last edited @ 12:09AM *Yesterday. I show your post being posted (and not edited by the way) @ 04:30AM *Yesterday. I don't think we need to take much time to do the math. You appear to be just trying to cover up your tracks. I only edited my post for a minor word change. I did not change my tune, as you seem to be. Enough of the human torch bit, dude! Flame off!

            Intentsly
            (UT99~ [--]Torturia)

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by intentsly View Post
              ...The more people seem to take things personally....
              Personal? You have YOUR say, and it's "clinical", I have MINE and it's personal? You can just stow that **** right now, it'll only work on children.

              Not until recently have games required much of anything but a download to a better DX. So, I think that yes, this is a bit new to the state of affairs.
              You're wrong.

              Nice rig.
              Thanks, but not really all that nice anymore, at least not in comparison to some of the 5.9+ Vista rated HW out there. I'm going to fix that over the next 3 paychecks or so.

              I'm sure it is above par to what most people have. Especially having the required (for a time the only) level graphics hardware capable of running DX10. It must have made the switch quite easy for you.
              My point was that my gamer rig isn't anywhere "new", but was able to adapt to Vista quite well. Again, Vista runs fine on my current box. This isn't conjecture, or something I "heard", it's a fact.

              How can you say that you don't need Vi$ta, IF you want DX10?
              I didn't say any such thing. I think you willfully misunderstood. There's no reason for you to upgrade if you're happy where you are, and you don't have to make up **** to justify your decision.

              I never said anything about it being the center of the universe.
              Are you reading these posts before responding?

              I don't believe, in recent memory, any DX that forced a hardware upgrade in tandem with an OS upgrade.
              Things not only change from time to time, but every now and then something new pops up. Again, Vista and the HW needed to make it run well aren't expenses that are automatically deducted from your account. This being true, and it is, what's the big deal?

              I never said that anyone was forcing anyone to go and buy it.
              Yes, you did, it's quoted above. You seem intent in portraying yourself as a disgruntled "expert" on Vista who someone/somwhere is hell bent on convincing/forcing to buy into the horror that is Vista.

              If anything the spirit of my statement (bashing) was quite the opposite.
              Right!

              I never said that anyone had to do anything but upgrade their hardware for DX10, which they then, IF they want it, of course, HAVE to buy Vi$ta.
              Whuh? Were you just made of aware of the fact that DX10 is currently Vista only???

              The Vi$ta experience I alluded to was one that was pleasant and not sluggish or struggling for potential buyers, not for people who didn't do their homework and were disappointed by upgrading their OS to Vi$ta.
              So, I quess you're a demographics professional when aren't playing UT99, huh? Forgive me, but there's something disingenuous about your need to be seen as having your finger on the pulse of the ENTIRE industry.

              Show me a (non-Microsoft) website devoted to loving Vi$ta, please, since you seem to feel so strongly for it you must be a member?
              You WANT to see extremes of emotion where they don't exist. You might want to at least consider why you see this posture as a valid "debating" tactic. As for the rest, I'm not obliged to "show you" anything. But I am free to share my experiences, and one of them just happens to be with Vista.

              In the end, do I really care if you, I or anyone else is/becomes a Vi$ta user? Take a guess? Not really, I think once an OS matures (pronounced Service Packs) then may it be time to consider duel-booting to it.
              Good for you! Now all you need to remember is that you aren't, in anyway, superior for making this choice.

              Comment


                #67
                To bring this thread back into perspective, and not a Vista vs. XP argument, I recently re-installed 2k4. Whatever graphics settings I had on it before (a few months ago, before I reformatted my PC), my current settings were a lot higher. Seeing some maps (like the UCMP4 maps) for the first time under these new, higher-performance graphics, was stunning.

                But, on the start of the game, it reverted to a slideshow, and I ratcheted down my graphics again.

                So I guess for me performance is super important in FPS, since without it you just have a crappy experience. And who want to be immersed in **** anyway? Other genres have a different mix of requirements, but in FPS, adequate visuals are all you need. After that, it's all performance.

                Comment


                  #68
                  The only thing I have left to say is that as long as the game includes the ability to allow the most possible amount of players (being real midrange) then it should also include state of the art eyecandy. If not, the eye candy should be cut to allow for a larger player population.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Khmer Spirit View Post
                    Vista Ultimate runs just fine on my 18-month old 4400+, Lanparty UT Expert and 2gig of Corsair XMS Pro. The only FRU in my box that could be intepreted as new would by my 8800GTX 768meg vid card, and I had it before I jumped to Vista.
                    Oh, Vista runs fine on a fast 4400+, high end MB, and high end 2GB memory ?

                    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SHHHHHHI11I!!!1II1T ??? How can that be????

                    Comment


                      #70
                      I think it's normal to see an evolution in graphics. I'm not going back to Pac Man and that's it!

                      In any case, I want games in the future to completely wow us. Like, real-life water that reacts to gun shots and realistic sounds when bump into things or even fantastic sounds you've never heard before.

                      I know what would sell though. Imagine if they came out with an original UT99 but completely made for DX10/Shader Model 4 that would be multithreaded, and with the ability to use crossfire or SLI and have HDR, blah, blah. I mean, the movements would be the same but the graphics would just be a whole new world with like birds flying in the air and an environment that you can almost smell.

                      Like I said before, it would be funny to see a crazy circus map. Ah well, ideas that keep us dreaming anyway.

                      I think I might be happy testing the demo with my single core AMD 4000+, 2GB OCZ Platinum RAM and X1650 XT.

                      Usually, I'm behind somewhat on the upgrade cycle simply because I'd rather pay $150 for a processor or a video card. But, I don't want to pay $800 for a top of the line video card once it comes out only to see new video cards pounce it after only a year or whatever.

                      It's interesting how the gameplay is different all over the place though. BF2 is different than Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 which is different from Halo 2 etc. The UT series is still awesome though. Just the 2003 seemed a little quirky that's all. I could never pin my finger on it. I know I was called a ******** for slamming the game on the boards a few years ago and I couldn't believe it. I mean maybe the programmers weren't happy but the reality was it was just a little weird and something had to be said about it.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by coolpurplefan View Post
                        The UT series is still awesome though. Just the 2003 seemed a little quirky that's all. I could never pin my finger on it. I know I was called a ******** for slamming the game on the boards a few years ago and I couldn't believe it. I mean maybe the programmers weren't happy but the reality was it was just a little weird and something had to be said about it.
                        Then it's interesting that you contributed to disrupt the company that created an awesome serie...

                        Let me tell you something, I played UT99 and UT2003 offline a few years ago. Both were good, nice graphics, bots were skilled, they had nice teamwork and so on. As 90% of the UT players by then.
                        Now, what is really wrong about UT2003 up to the point that the game was trashed like that? I'm not BSing, I'd just like to know. And why do a lot of people say that UT2004 is bad either, when it was considered the multiplayer game of the year?

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by Benfica View Post
                          Then it's interesting that you contributed to disrupt the company that created an awesome serie...

                          Let me tell you something, I played UT99 and UT2003 offline a few years ago. Both were good, nice graphics, bots were skilled, they had nice teamwork and so on. As 90% of the UT players by then.
                          Now, what is really wrong about UT2003 up to the point that the game was trashed like that? I'm not BSing, I'd just like to know. And why do a lot of people say that UT2004 is bad either, when it was considered the multiplayer game of the year?
                          As I recall, I posted one negative message. All the other messages on UT2003 after the demo came out I think were practically all positive. I don't recall being able to "disrupt" a company with one single message on a forum that got quickly criticized in the first place. I don't recall games being holy like in the bible where you can't criticize them.

                          If you wanted religion, you found the wrong place.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            pot calling the kettle...

                            Originally posted by Khmer Spirit View Post
                            Good for you! Now all you need to remember is that you aren't, in anyway, superior for making this choice.
                            Nor are you superior for pointing out that I'm a human being and only pointing some things out that I feel to be true in my opinion/experience. Not much different than you pointing out what you feel is true or have experienced. Though I have not experienced Vi$ta, I still have an opinion about it, just as I've had with many an OS upgrade or hardware upgrade. This one seems to require both to have a better experience with it, which is why I'd said what I'd originally said about it.
                            ~
                            If nothing else, I agree to disagree with you.

                            Intentsly
                            (UT99~ [--]Torturia)

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X