Duke4.net Forums: Is that a bus?! - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Is that a bus?!

User is offline   MrBlackCat 

#61

View PostTrent, on 25 April 2011 - 04:28 AM, said:

When Pitchford responded to a question about how "bad" the graphics were he wasn't kidding when he said you have to sacrifice graphical fidelity in order to pull off highly interactive and environmentally detailed worlds. It's easy to sit in the arm chair and criticise developers for not pushing the boundaries in all areas and settling for sub-par elements but at the end of the day that's quite naive.

I agree with most everything in this post... I keep thinking of playing on the PS2, GTA3 and them being criticized about poor quality models and graphics/textures etc... Then I think of Tenchu games on PS2... excellent graphics but the areas are TINY in comparison to most games. GTA3 had a TON of stuff going on, so I never understood how they cold bash on it... on any system, there is a finite mount of resources available and you have to decided where your game is going to fall.

The Bus could probably be better without much sacrifice and I really think that is point to this thread. Maybe it will be...

My point is that I don't think it is fair to automatically assume that the developers don't care or are just sloppy. Not everything can be perfect, their has to be trade-offs and balance. (I agree the bus seems a little out of balance in this case)

View PostMicky C, on 25 April 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

With the PC version, can't they just ship the game with maximum quality content, and include options to reduce the graphics quality? It seems a shame to reduce resolutions and so on when there are people out there capable of playing the game with maxed settings.


They could do this, but I don't think there is a way you could reduce the quality of specific textures (that I know of), just the over all resolution which would lower everything. I know within game engines they do increase texture resolution based on distance to camera for instance.

Someone will know for sure though...

MrBlackCat

This post has been edited by MrBlackCat: 25 April 2011 - 12:48 PM

0

User is offline   Trent 

#62

View PostMicky C, on 25 April 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

With the PC version, can't they just ship the game with maximum quality content, and include options to reduce the graphics quality? It seems a shame to reduce resolutions and so on when there are people out there capable of playing the game with maxed settings.


How do you quantify "maximum quality content"? They can render textures out at what ever resolution they want, however you can't fit particularly many 4096x4096 textures in even 1.5gb of VRAM without even considering the geometry cost or render target cost. With the sheer number of textures it looks like DNF requires in memory at once, even shipping higher resolution textures for high end computers will mean many textures will still end up lower resolution than others. Effectively meaning no matter how high a resolution is average, people will always complain about certain textures not being as high quality as the rest. At least until all games move to a virtual texture method like Rage has.

This post has been edited by Trent: 25 April 2011 - 07:01 AM

0

User is online   Micky C 

  • Honored Donor

#63

I liked the philosophy and system Crysis 1 had with graphics, with all those options for different things. I don't know anything about how engines work, but in a perfect world DNF would have the same lighting, texture quality and poly count on models as crysis. Sure it's a demanding game even today, but that was 4 years ago, and you can't criticize a game for being as demanding as one released 4 years prior. Of course this isn't a perfect world and as such DNF isn't going to be perfect either, but maybe the sequel...
0

User is offline   MrBlackCat 

#64

View PostMicky C, on 25 April 2011 - 07:07 AM, said:

I liked the philosophy and system Crysis 1 had with graphics, with all those options for different things.

What kind of things?

The newest PC game I own is Quake III. I am not a modern gamer... I am "coming back" to play Duke Nukem Forever, but I am getting a PS3 for that... if it has LAN, I might buy new PC's and bring my network up to modern standards though.

I am curious as to how separated the graphics setting might be in todays games. My graphics card was some 3DFX card with like 16 Meg or so... but since you said that, I do remember their being some advanced graphic setting in Quake III as opposed to just resolution.

MrBlackCat

This post has been edited by MrBlackCat: 25 April 2011 - 07:52 AM

0

#65

View PostMicky C, on 25 April 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

With the PC version, can't they just ship the game with maximum quality content, and include options to reduce the graphics quality? It seems a shame to reduce resolutions and so on when there are people out there capable of playing the game with maxed settings.

Exactly! Why the FUCK do I have to care about memory limitations for shitty outdated consoles when my pc can run the entire nasa space station via 3g?
I can run 10 instances of Duke Nukem Forever at the same time and my cpu, gpu and ram would not even hit 50%
The pc version not only that it shouldn't get downgraded to match consoles but in fact it should get even higher textures and poly counts than it originally had when it left 3drealms.
I do not give a rotten shit from a DNF toilet on the consoles and their limitations, I have waited for this game half of my gaming life for pc and for PC I shall get it no matter what.
Who is a console fan can have it on the console and embrace it with it's console limitations, I am an oldschool pc gamer that has the latest and greatest pc and I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A SHIT about consoles because besides 5 or 6 exclusive first party games for the 360 and the ps3(which I would personally love to play) I get everything that consoles get and I get it with 10 times more graphical fidelity and the magic of mouse + keyboard control + Anisotrpic filtering and Antialaising settings.
And on top of everything there's also an increased chance that games will get mods on pc!
So in short I don't give a shit about consoles and their crappy corporatist LIVE subscriptions and their hardware limitations.
I've kept saying that 360 and Ps3 are shit from the first day they came out and I still say the same thing today when their life cycle has reached it's end.
All that this generation of consoles has done in the last 6 years was to ruin it for us Pc gamers and force devs to make limited multiplatform games that look outdated for PC standards even when they still look much better on pc than on the consoles.
Playing fps games with a gamepad is the crappiest idea ever thought by human kind...
In my book, playing an fps game with a gamepad is a clear form of involution.
When I was young I was playing fps games with mouse + keboard and I felt like I had a rifle in my hands.
Today's kids are playing fps games with a gamepad and they also think they have a rifle in their hands when they are actually holding a wooden slingshot.

This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 25 April 2011 - 08:32 AM

0

User is offline   MrBlackCat 

#66

View PostMr.Deviance, on 25 April 2011 - 08:13 AM, said:

Exactly! Why the FUCK do I have to care about memory limitations for shitty outdated consoles when my pc can run the entire nasa space station via 3g?
I can run 10 instances of Duke Nukem Forever at the same time and my cpu, gpu and ram would not even hit 50%
That is pretty bad-ass... My last PC Hardware Bible was through PII's, so I can't say for sure, but this sounds like a substantial exaggeration.

Mr.Deviance said:

The pc version not only that it shouldn't get downgraded to match consoles but in fact it should get even higher textures and poly counts than it originally had when it left 3drealms.

I agree... for an extreme and old reference, look at DooM on a Super Nintendo vs DooM on PC. :P

Mr.Deviance said:

I do not give a rotten shit from a DNF toilet on the consoles and their limitations, I have waited for this game half of my gaming life for pc and for PC I shall get it no matter what.
....
All that this generation of consoles has done in the last 6 years was to ruin it for us Pc gamers and force devs to make limited multiplatform games that look outdated for PC standards even when they still look much better on pc than on the consoles.


I look at consoles like this... It is my point of view that consoles expand the size of the game market to keep the PC gamers price down. To use Duke Nukem 3D as an example, which cost about $300,000 to develop back then, was made for PC only.
Now these titles are costing 10million+ maybe 20 million+ in some cases. I don't know exactly, that is perception based and I don't feel like looking it up, we know it is a LOT more than any $300,000.

While the prices of game have increased since Duke Nukem 3D, it has not been proportionate to the cost of making the games because of more sales from the increased market size gained from consoles... so to make the same proportion of profits, based on the same number of sales, Duke Nukem today would have to sell ten times as many (not happening), or cost like 10 times more. (would not sell many at $250) Put it on consoles, and you probably triple your sales...

The size of the customer base defines how much they can spend on developing a title. I don't see the PC game market being big enough to support VERY MANY titles to bring in the kind of money these guys need. Can you imagine the interest amount on a 20M loan over three years?

My point... I think without consoles, the cost of developing some of these titles could never be recouped, and therefore not made. Then we would be stuck (like already is happening) with "safe" titles and not much experimentation with new IP's and such... you can't afford to lose the modern development costs... if you cut back the lubricious profits these companies can make by eliminating console based profits, they won't survive even ONE experimental title that fails.

That is my perception, not the result of research... so maybe someone who has researched it will come in and correct or refine it.

Mr.Deviance... I do agree with you that developing for multiple platforms inclusive of PC does dilute PC options, but the market is driven by money, not idealism. The idealistic guys like 3D Realms just die off in modern times. I think the PC market would suffer without consoles because the titles would just be too expensive to develop based on the potential number of sales.

MrBlackCat

This post has been edited by MrBlackCat: 25 April 2011 - 09:04 AM

1

User is offline   Trent 

#67

Mr. Deviance, you've taken what was a technical discusion about memory usage by assets in games and turned it into "RAH RAH RAH I HATE FUCKING CONSOLES COS OF THE DLC AND THE PADS AND THE LIVE AND I HATE IT!" If you really don't give a shit about consoles then why are you so vociferously ranting about them? That generally means you care a lot, just in a bad way.

What sort of computer do you have where you can run ten instances of processing and memory intensive games at once? I didn't mention memory constraints to do with consoles, but rather PC's. The average PC gamer doesn't have more than a gig of ram free for games to use, most barely 512mb. Most gamers' computers are barely advanced enough to have 512mb dedicated VRAM. Even high end you don't get more than 1.5gb of VRAM to play with and THAT is where all the textures get stored. Doesn't matter how much physical RAM you have in your machine as it's the VRAM which really matters to graphical assets. Just because you have dual hexacore CPU's, triple way GTX580 SLI and 16gb of ram doesn't mean games are going to make use of such extravagant hardware any time soon, nor that you could even make use of any more or higher quality textures if they're maxing out the 1.5gb VRAM on your GPU as SLI doesn't add VRAM from multiple GPU's together.

Do you understand the way CPU's, GPU's and Memory work and do you understand the game development process at all? By that rant, I'm inclined to assume not. After all, saying the 360 and PS3 were shit "from the first day out" is saying that, back in 2005/2006, all PC gaming hardware was shit and not worth bothering with. Back then their hardware legitimately more capable than any off the shelf consumer PC hardware available at the time, not to mention much more affordable. You just have to skim over the hardware specs to understand that.

MrBlackCat is correct, without consoles "holding PC gaming back", the vast majority high end, technology pushing developers would not have the financial stability to spend millions pushing the boundaries on PC's even as much as they currently are. A lot of them wouldn't even be making games any more. It doesn't matter if you personally don't like consoles, but the fact is they are one of the main pillars of financial support for triple A developers.
0

User is offline   Striker 

  • Auramancer

#68

View PostTrent, on 25 April 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Even high end you don't get more than 1.5gb of VRAM

Not quite. NVIDIA cards can share system memory for use as Graphics Memory/VRAM. Just to give you an example - I'm running a GTX 460, with 1024mb of dedicated VRAM, but I have 2815mb of total available graphics memory. (1024mb VRAM + 1791mb Shared System Memory)
0

#69

View PostStrikerMan780, on 28 April 2011 - 04:43 AM, said:

Not quite. NVIDIA cards can share system memory for use as Graphics Memory/VRAM. Just to give you an example - I'm running a GTX 460, with 1024mb of dedicated VRAM, but I have 2815mb of total available graphics memory. (1024mb VRAM + 1791mb Shared System Memory)

Forget Trent man, he's on a high horse where he is actually lecturing me about pc hardware and game development.
Should I bother to tell him that I'm in a OC club since 4 years and I test the newest hardware and also have a personal hobby of buying the newest hardware since ages?
Or should I tell him that I love to mod games and learn their editors since quake 1 times and that I do have a huge knowledge of game development contrary to what he assumes about me?
I better not, would not want to bore him with these things...
It's so easy to assume you know everything about a person on a forum when you actually don't know a thing.
Each time I start a direct talk with somebody online I start from the premise that I don't know shit about about him and that it would be very counterproductive for me to start assuming I know what everybody's thinking in real life. I always wonder why can't everybody else do the same thing?
It would save so many useless debates and useless lecturing online...

This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 28 April 2011 - 05:07 AM

1

User is online   Micky C 

  • Honored Donor

#70

View PostStrikerMan780, on 28 April 2011 - 04:43 AM, said:

Not quite. NVIDIA cards can share system memory for use as Graphics Memory/VRAM. Just to give you an example - I'm running a GTX 460, with 1024mb of dedicated VRAM, but I have 2815mb of total available graphics memory. (1024mb VRAM + 1791mb Shared System Memory)


Are you saying that the GTX 460 can use the computer's normal ram in addition to its own dedicated ram for games? I was already thinking about getting that card, this might seal the deal.
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#71

View PostMicky C, on 28 April 2011 - 05:57 AM, said:

Are you saying that the GTX 460 can use the computer's normal ram in addition to its own dedicated ram for games? I was already thinking about getting that card, this might seal the deal.

I would generally recommend getting a card with 1GB of dedicated video ram rather than a 512MB one and sharing your PC's normal ram to try and make up for it. The price is usually not that much extra, and shared ram is considerably slower compared to the dedicated video ram. On top of that, the chances of you actually needing more than 1GB of video ram right now is quite slim. Keep in mind that games load and unload meshes and textures on the video card all the time, so you just want to make sure there is enough there for that purpose. To put it another way, the entire game doesn't have to fit into the video ram you have available. At 1GB, you already have twice as much as the 360 has in total, system ram included! Just something to think about ;).
0

User is offline   Fox Mulder 

#72

View PostMicky C, on 28 April 2011 - 05:57 AM, said:

Are you saying that the GTX 460 can use the computer's normal ram in addition to its own dedicated ram for games? I was already thinking about getting that card, this might seal the deal.


Get a GTX 560 Ti if you can afford it, Micky, I got one a few days ago and so far have been impressed with the amazing performance and nice features; it's the best bang for the buck right now. I got the N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II/OC from MSI. It replaces the GTX 460, but it has almost the same performance than a GTX 470 or a Radeon HD 6950.
0

User is offline   Person of Color 

  • Senior Unpaid Intern at Viceland

#73

View PostMicky C, on 28 April 2011 - 05:57 AM, said:

Are you saying that the GTX 460 can use the computer's normal ram in addition to its own dedicated ram for games? I was already thinking about getting that card, this might seal the deal.


That's a shit gimmick on all but the absolute lowest end of cards.
0

#74

View PostFox Mulder, on 28 April 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Get a GTX 560 Ti if you can afford it, Micky, I got one a few days ago and so far have been impressed with the amazing performance and nice features; it's the best bang for the buck right now. I got the N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II/OC from MSI. It replaces the GTX 460, but it has almost the same performance than a GTX 470 or a Radeon HD 6950.

Hey man, I have tested that card 1 month ago and benched it and overclocked it to destruction on my test bench and it truly is a great card.
It's an unexpected surprise from MSI, mostly due their twin frozr mega slick and mega cool system.
If you have a decent cpu and some decent ram it can run crysis 1 and 2 maxed out with a huge ass framerate even in 1920x1200.
At the moment I am running on a gtx 580 sli from msi and there's nothing on the market that can even nudge this rig.
I've also tested a 560 sli rig from msi and you are pretty much in the enthusiast level already.
Some powerful dx11 games need to hit the pc, or these graphics cards are only going to become more and more useless as time passes.
I expect this year's E3 to bring a new playstation and a new xbox generation so we can advance with graphics already....

This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 28 April 2011 - 01:05 PM

1

User is offline   Fox Mulder 

#75

View PostMr.Deviance, on 28 April 2011 - 01:00 PM, said:

At the moment I am running on a gtx 580 sli from msi and there's nothing on the market that can even nudge this rig.


Now I see why you can run 10 instances of DNF.

This post has been edited by Fox Mulder: 28 April 2011 - 11:15 PM

1

#76

View PostFox Mulder, on 28 April 2011 - 11:13 PM, said:

Now I see why you can run 10 instances of DNF.

Yeah from a graphics standpoint that would be why. Ofcourse I was just assuming it can run 10 times based on my previous experiences with other games where I've tried such experiments for my own curiosity.
You may never know how nvidia might shove their physx engine down gearbox's throats and change the entire equation just like it happened with Mafia 2...
From what I gather, DNF is not even using unreal engine 3 and judging by the texture res and polycounts of everything, it should run like a speeding bullet even on 2008 hardware.
My personal guess is that minimum requirements for it would require an nvidia 6600, 1 gb of ddr1 and the lowest end dual core (maybe even a singlecore cpu) and you can run the game on medium settings with like 25-45 fps.

This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 29 April 2011 - 06:32 AM

0

User is offline   Fox Mulder 

#77

View PostMr.Deviance, on 29 April 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

You may never know how nvidia might shove their physx engine down gearbox's throats and change the entire equation just like it happened with Mafia 2...


DNF will have it's own physics system based off Meqon physics code, AFAIK.
0

#78

View PostFox Mulder, on 29 April 2011 - 06:40 AM, said:

DNF will have it's own physics system based off Meqon physics code, AFAIK.

I know that but so did mafia 2.
Mafia 2 had a physics engine that was developed and polished over a period of 3 years and would have been a great rival for the euphoria physics engine that is used in gta4.
The physics engine from mafia 2 allowed you to smash the cars and bend them even more than you could in mafia 1 and the entire fighting animations of characters and pretty much everything was done using that physics engine.
When Mafia 2 was very close to get released, Nvidia decided to capitalize on that and went straight to 2k(same people that are going to publish DNF) and "made them an offer that they couldn't refuse" That offer revolved around Nvidia paying 2k a truckload of money in order to have the 2k Czech studio(mafia 2 devs) GIVE UP ON THEIR OWN HARD WORKED PHYSICS ENGINE, deactivate it and implement in just a few months time the physx and apex systems from nvidia in order for nvidia to sell more nvidia cards that season and win more ati/amd users over to the nvidia camp.
Now I am an nvidia fanboy but I still admit all of these unfair things when I see them.
Because of that, they've had to made scripted damage for the cars and change the fighting system with a scripted one...
Some modders have found their old engine and even managed to activate parts of it so you can get your cars properly damaged.
But let's not derail this topic too much with this.

This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 29 April 2011 - 06:51 AM

0

#79

Interesting

You marked me down for a compliment? Shouldn't have bothered

This post has been edited by Sinisterambo: 02 May 2011 - 05:05 AM

1

#80

So even though I hate to quote myself I can't help but notice how right I was with my minimum system requirements prediction that I posted in this topic on 29 April

View PostMr.Deviance, on 29 April 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

judging by the texture res and polycounts of everything, it should run like a speeding bullet even on 2008 hardware.
My personal guess is that minimum requirements for it would require an nvidia 6600, 1 gb of ddr1 and the lowest end dual core (maybe even a singlecore cpu) and you can run the game on medium settings with like 25-45 fps.

If you look at the official "minimum requirements" you will see I nailed them almost perfectly.
I nailed the 1gb of ram requirement, the cheap ass dual core requirement and it could be said that I nailed the video card too because a 7600 would give you 50-60 fps in the game while the 6600 would still give you 25-45 on medium settings like I said above.
If there isn't any retarded bug in the engine, everything should work exactly how I predicted.
0

User is offline   DavoX 

  • Honored Donor

#81

You sure are proud of your little prediction aren't you? ;)
0

User is online   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer

#82

All those guys who bought a new PC back in '09 for Duke will be happy they don't have to run out and upgrade before June.
0

User is offline   TerminX 

  • el fundador

  #83

View PostMr.Deviance, on 03 May 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

So even though I hate to quote myself I can't help but notice how right I was with my minimum system requirements prediction that I posted in this topic on 29 April

If you look at the official "minimum requirements" you will see I nailed them almost perfectly.
I nailed the 1gb of ram requirement, the cheap ass dual core requirement and it could be said that I nailed the video card too because a 7600 would give you 50-60 fps in the game while the 6600 would still give you 25-45 on medium settings like I said above.
If there isn't any retarded bug in the engine, everything should work exactly how I predicted.

Haha, since when does the minimum required configuration give you 50-60 fps? Oh, right, never.
0

User is offline   You 

#84

Anyone think I may need to upgrade my machine ;)
http://i.imgur.com/XeUwn.jpg

This post has been edited by You: 05 May 2011 - 01:24 PM

0

#85

View PostYou, on 05 May 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

Anyone think I may need to upgrade my machine ;)

Are you a time traveler from the past?
When the NGP will come out this year, we are going to double or more processing power in our pockets than you have in your entire pc...

This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 05 May 2011 - 02:36 PM

-1

User is offline   You 

#86

View PostMr.Deviance, on 05 May 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

Are you a time traveler from the past?
When the NGP will come out this year, we are going to double or more processing power in our pockets than you have in your entire pc...


Some of us haven't money to put petrol in our cars, never mind buy a new pc.
1

User is offline   MrBlackCat 

#87

Here is mine... I am thinking I have to upgrade to a Commodore 64... cause the VIC-20 isn't going to cut it even with the memory expansion cartridge installed. :huh:
http://uber-leet.com/commodore_vic_20_images/Commodore_Vic_20_Vic20_Vic-20_32_KB_Startup_Screen.gif
(Hehehe)

I still have a couple of 386 and 486 machines running right along with all my modern computers... like Pentium 1-233mhz machines. :o

MrBlackCat
1

User is offline   ferran275 

#88

View PostMrBlackCat, on 06 May 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

Here is mine... I am thinking I have to upgrade to a Commodore 64... cause the VIC-20 isn't going to cut it even with the memory expansion cartridge installed. :huh:
http://uber-leet.com/commodore_vic_20_images/Commodore_Vic_20_Vic20_Vic-20_32_KB_Startup_Screen.gif
(Hehehe)

I still have a couple of 386 and 486 machines running right along with all my modern computers... like Pentium 1-233mhz machines. :huh:

MrBlackCat

ummmmm......

uhhhh...

nevermind.... go for it buddy! :o
0

User is offline   MrBlackCat 

#89

View Postferran275, on 06 May 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:

ummmmm......

uhhhh...

nevermind.... go for it buddy! :o

Well MY P.C. will run it I am certain... Playstation (3) Console. :huh:

MrBlackCat
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#90

View PostYou, on 05 May 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

Anyone think I may need to upgrade my machine :o

I rekon the game would run, probably not very well though. It's worth seeing what happens when the demo comes out, you have nothing to lose by trying it. Drop all graphical settings to minimum (especially resolution) and disable post-processing/shadows if possible (even if you have to modify some ini file or access the console to do so). You might find it actually runs okay if you do that. I don't think the game's CPU requirements will be very high and they've already indicated that 1GB of ram is the minimum, so your video card is probably the biggest bottleneck you have on your system, upgrading that might be enough to get it running at a decent speed.

The polygon count doesn't seem very high, but the game seems quite heavy on fill-rate, so you want to reduce that as much as possible, like I said, you want to disable any post-processing effects (since that requires multiple full-screen render passes which eat fill-rate like crazy), shadows, and resolution. Other than that: good luck.
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Instead of reading this text, you could be playing Ion Fury! ;) © 2019 Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options