Imagine the impact of DX10 on gaming.

[SCM]

The weapons in the Unreal games started to be downgraded starting with UT as they were more powerful in Unreal than in UT. The later games have ended up more 1v1 or DM action and that does suit some players, so the skills gap can be huge.

Thing is for those who like DM the games are liked, for those of us who preffered ctf and fast actioned, small, well made maps it doesn't. As the map size in the later games were more influenced by trying to replace quake on the cyber gaming circuit in the states than gameplay. They actually came out and aplogised for the maps a while back stating they weren't happy with what was made.

As think their sub contracted map maker got it wrong in terms of what we, the players, wanted.

As to UT2007 a new machine won't really be needed as most players turn down the graphics to get the edge online. You wont find many running at full as it will slow things down too much.

SCM

 

[ps3ud0]

I won't be going to UT2007 as it would require me to upgrade my machine too much

Join me in ET:QW - you know you want to!!!

ps3ud0

 

[dirtydog]

As to UT2007 a new machine won't really be needed as most players turn down the graphics to get the edge online. You wont find many running at full as it will slow things down too much.

SCM

I only played DM when I played UT2003/4 (which I did extensively for a few years, until about six months ago in fact).

My system is very out of date for modern games now, most especially in the graphics department. I doubt it would run UT2007 at more than say 30fps at 640x480. I have a P4 2.6C and 1GB PC3200 RAM (both of which are possibly adequate but...) I also have a Geforce4 Ti 4200 which while it runs UT2004 very well at 85fps with a few settings turned down, will be on its knees with 2K7 I reckon

 

[Fr0dders]

We had all this hype when DX9 came out. Where are all the heart-stopping DX9 games which look sooooo much better than DX8 games?

sorry but if you showed CS:S running on de_dust with HDR lighting in 2003 we'd have raved about it the way people are raving about DX10.

remember when we were all using Direct X 8, HL2 wasnt released yet, and we were still playing the betas of counter strike.

CS:S now with HDR lighting compared to CS beta. I'd say on that basis the raving was justified. Maybe the games that fully utilise DX10 wont be available on the DX10 release. but give it time ...

 

[mrk]

A gf4 may not even work with UT2007 considering its shader and complexity requirements

 

[dirtydog]

Was CS:S better because it was doing something that DX9 could do amazingly better than DX8?

I remember looking at the image comparisons between DX8 and DX9 on Half Life 2 and the differences are very subtle.

From reading the Firing Squad article, DX10 will *look* little or no better than DX9. It will have performance optimisations and other features but it said that the fancy screenshots we are seeing can be basically done already in DX9.

 

[dirtydog]

A gf4 may not even work with UT2007 considering its shader and complexity requirements

Quite It reminds me of when I first tried the UT2003 demo and I was running a Voodoo3 16MB. It ran but like a one-legged dog stuck in quicksand

 

[One More Solo]

A gf4 may not even work with UT2007 considering its shader and complexity requirements

They don't work with BF2 anyway do they?

 

[saffyre]

Im afraid I have to disagree that weve hit a plateau with regards to technology available and the graphics we are seeing in the latet games. Far from it, since technology is still unable to provide a total immersive environment yet...

ps3ud0

You are correct there....When you say totally immersive enviroment i assume you mean virtual reality (i.e the matrix).

Next gen graphics and physics we be along very soon and i don't think you will see much better than that for a good while. How much better can you really get than what we are seeing from next gen. Ok you can up the number of polygons and get some higher res textures in there and add some really fancy shaders. Above that what can you really do.

Even if you can simulate the real world very accurately in the visual and in the physical sense, we lack any way to effectively interact with a simulated world that complex. Whats the point in having this insanely complex world where all u can do is run about and look around with a mouse and keyboard (simplfied). So it really renders it pointless until we get some kind of virtual reality on the go.

From what I have read we have already been able to monitor brain activity and plug that data into a pc to allow a human to control a computer with their mind. This is however FAR from the kind of technology we would need for virtual reality so I think well be stuck with the next gen for a good while. Hence we have hit a plateau in gaming. Thats not to say gaming tech wont advance past that i just dont think it will for a good while.

 

[ps3ud0]

You are correct there....When you say totally immersive enviroment i assume you mean virtual reality (i.e the matrix).

Next gen graphics and physics we be along very soon and i don't think you will see much better than that for a good while. How much better can you really get than what we are seeing from next gen. Ok you can up the number of polygons and get some higher res textures in there and add some really fancy shaders. Above that what can you really do.

I was probably thinking more short term with games running multiple engines trying to model a particular component (like physics and graphics). We have far to go with our graphics representation since theres nothing out there that is remotely photo-realistic (yes we do have screen shots but nothing that runs and can be interacted with), even rendered movie CGI isnt good enough to fool us 100% of the time. With physics we are still at the tip of the iceberg and A.I. is in its infancy (if you excuse the dry pun) and so far they are nice touches (just like dolies)...

Even if you can simulate the real world very accurately in the visual and in the physical sense, we lack any way to effectively interact with a simulated world that complex. Whats the point in having this insanely complex world where all u can do is run about and look around with a mouse and keyboard (simplfied). So it really renders it pointless until we get some kind of virtual reality on the go.

From what I have read we have already been able to monitor brain activity and plug that data into a pc to allow a human to control a computer with their mind. This is however FAR from the kind of technology we would need for virtual reality so I think well be stuck with the next gen for a good while. Hence we have hit a plateau in gaming. Thats not to say gaming tech wont advance past that i just dont think it will for a good while.

Now with VR you need to have all of this and more to make it believable, but you would also need to consider A.I. (well A.L. hopefully) aswell as modelling all our senses aswell. These things just wont happen overnight and I doubt it will be as easy as it was to code for graphics. Believable interactivity is key for VR, where you just accept what is put before you and it accepts any inputs that you deem would be possible in real life and outputs your expectations...

Perhaps Ive gone off-topic, but yes we are nearing the end of making perfect graphics, but considering how long its taken to get here, I still think it will be a while (10+ years) before we really get there. With other technologies (Physics, A.L., sensory modelling etc...) we havent even got to a point in understanding how revolutionary they could be, for example the Nintendo Wii is this Christmas' hot product for the way it involves the player, but you can appreciate that it is still a rather crude tool in what it is trying to do - it will take an age to put all this together, think Ill see this in my lifetime, I think not...

The problem (and the question I leave you) is, who/what decides when the models and the coding we make are real, accurate and fulfill their remit. When you are looking to emulate real life (well a scenario) like VR will try and do, what is good enough? No doubt someone will invent individual 'Turing tests' for all these models to aspire to, but can you do one for 'life'?

I need to lie down - must have been possessed

ps3ud0

 

[PlacidCasual]

I guess the cost benefit of increasing graphic quality may plateau out refocussing game development on gameplay, I wait with baited breath.

To be honest there are no eye catching games that I play and the only current "beauty" that tempts me is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Maybe my tastes are not mainstream but somehow I doubt it.

 

[HangTime]

People need to realise that good graphics and good gameplay aren't mutually exclusive.

There have been plenty of average games with average graphics released over the years, so average games with excellent graphics would be an improvement

Yes, I'm sure we'd all love to see dozens of titles with innovative, diverse and entertaining gameplay released, but as the saying goes, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Given then choice between fancy graphics and average graphics, I'd take the former, all else being equal.

For the record, I'm not a person who is solely motivated by visuals. My favourite game, which I still play regularly, is the 10-year old relic Quakeworld - and even then I've got the graphics settings modified and turned right down for playability reasons!

 

[Mundu]

Every time I play a nice looking game with HDR I think oh er for the first few levels then I realize how boring the game is. Over the year I've had my new PC the game I've played the most must be Pro Evo 5. Not the nicest graphics but I loved it plus I could play with mates.

I then started thinking about consoles, 360 and PS3 and nothing really special hit me about them. Then I came to the Wii.

The first time I saw it's controller I thought it was a bit short of buttons and didn't bother to read about it. I then saw it in action and was instantly impressed. That control can work well for every game! FPS just as good as a mouse and is a controller. It doesn't cost a bomb but seems like good fun.

Most of my friends just want a PS3 because it's the PS3 and one of them reckons it's just a big gimmick that will get boring quickly but I think it really does have great potential and just typing this up has got me wanting to make a pre order!

Actually I have £250 I might just go and pre order it!

 

[caff]

If you want games that are enjoyable rather than pretty and dumb, the only way to tell developers this is by buying the enjoyable games.

Take an amazing, intelligent, story-driven game like Psychonauts - so shamefully overlooked by many.

People hark on about the 'good old days' without realising there was crap back then, and there's good stuff now. You just need to ignore the advertising and glitter and fluff, and play the independant, budget and high scoring independently-reviewed stuff.

This forum is not exactly the best forum to say this - as many people here are drawn in by spending money on high-end hardware and so want to see pretty stuff running on it. I like fast PC's - but I hate trashy entertainment.

 

[Psyk]

Take an amazing, intelligent, story-driven game like Psychonauts - so shamefully overlooked by many.

Psychonauts is on Steam now so there's no excuse not to get it (unless you hate Steam with a passion of course).

 

[caff]

Psychonauts is on Steam now so there's no excuse not to get it (unless you hate Steam with a passion of course).

Yup and only £10. I just completed it tonight - and its the first game thats brought a tear to my eye at the end for ages. Like any good film that leaves you wanting more. Tim Schafer is a genious. No wonder he won a Bafta for it!