Why should you even CARE about graphics? That's really the least of my concerns.
Crysis is just ridiculous. My 8800 GTX barely handles it.
Another ridiculous comment...because
a) Crysis is well known to the THE single most demanding game ever made
I play Crysis with a $150 8800 and a 10 year old outdated computer that is about 10 times less powerful than your average Dual core laptop, and it ROCKS Crysis on medium settings. Considering that Crysis is DESIGNED to not run with high FPS on high settings on any computer in existence, the fact that they allowed an option to increase the settings to the point where it would break any computer was just put in to please people who want to use it as a benchmark.
c) If you turn Crysis settins down to low, you can run it on just about anything. In other words, Crysis does not have high system reqs, it just has high potential.
I'm using a GTS 8800 (Lament's GTX 8800 is slightly better) and my computer can't handle Crysis on highest setting either, if most of the graphical options have a 'normal', 'high' and 'very high' levels, I set it on an average of 'normal'-'high', it's crazy. I don't know anyone with a computer strong enough to run that game. They thought they were so smart when they came up with this game... it's not a big deal to make a game with graphics like that, it's just that there are barely any people who can get the maximum out of this game.
I agree that a game doesn't really need amazing, complicated graphics to be successful. Of course, it needs a basic level of quality, but that's it. When you think of it, even though Diablo 3 doesn't have amazing graphics, there were many things that were visually impressive like the explosion in the summoning of the Thousand Pounder, or the Siege beast fatalities. I remember one of the devs said "We try to make this game as visually interesting as possible", there are many ways to make a game pretty without making the 3D models more complicated
First of all, the weapons so far seem like they are the kind of thing you might pick up at a medieval hardware store. So polished isn't really befitting of them. I imagine the epic weapons later on will be shiny.
Second of all, I would rather them spend their time on content and have it release before 2010 than have them focus on graphics and release in 2011. Diablo fans want a game with depth and gory appeal, not glitz and glamor.
Third of all, too many flashy effects on such a small scale with such a high set pov would confuse things more than it would in an fps, where everything is right in your face.
Yeah, it's quite retarded seeing Blizzard making game that won't fail because of its over the top requirements. It's so retarded to see a game that needs a mediocre PC< that'd cost 500$ at best, rather than a 1600$ monster.
It's only fair, and pocket friendly. The details are fine. Since when did Diablo fans start giving a shit about graphics anyway?
I usually agree with you. But not here. The lack of shaders and depth of texture is a large part of why the game looks like WoW, a fact that I thought you despised as much as I do.
The only reasonable way to proceed is to include a more robust graphics options screen, where shaders, texture quality, and resolution can all be tweaked to fit one's own computer. If they could include a "turn off the stupid fucking oil painting please" option, I'd love to check that too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
I still agree with Dimebog's comment, it nailed it for me.
What kind of cards do those Alienware computers usually employ since BlizzCon used them. Typically Nvidia cards? I'm sure they overkilled for the demos but as long as my ATI 3870 plays it fine I'll be happy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.
- Homer Simpson
Yeah, it's quite retarded seeing Blizzard making game that won't fail because of its over the top requirements. It's so retarded to see a game that needs a mediocre PC< that'd cost 500$ at best, rather than a 1600$ monster.
It's only fair, and pocket friendly. The details are fine. Since when did Diablo fans start giving a shit about graphics anyway?
LOL!!! Seriously, I don't mind average at best graphics (although i would like better ones than the current), but you need to reevaluate what a good pc costs. if you are paying $1,600 for a desktop pc to play games on....you need help haha. you can build one for just over that $500 mark that can run any game beautifully.
3) Most shaders, such as metal shaders, or normal bump maps, etc, require such low performance specifications that your average laptop with integrated graphics card from 6 years ago can run them without any loss of framerate..
I hope that's an exaggeration, or you are very misinformed.
LOL!!! Seriously, I don't mind average at best graphics (although i would like better ones than the current), but you need to reevaluate what a good pc costs. if you are paying $1,600 for a desktop pc to play games on....you need help haha. you can build one for just over that $500 mark that can run any game beautifully.
yup
the thing with pc is that we have 4 graphic option: low, medium, high and the ultimate MAX settings
im very happy how well and beautifully my system runs my four UE3 games (bioshock, UT3, mass effect and gears of war)
but damn, how i wish i had an 1800x1200 lcd.....
i though it was common sense that crysis is just terribly optimized
Halo 1. Myth 3. Jedi Knight 3. Unreal 2004. Age of Mythology. My 12 year old mac with <650 mb of ram & a 533 Mhz processor can run them. All have shiny armor & metal – just for a little perspective on how demanding a simple sheen on metal is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
Blizzard isn't run by complete morons, they will include the potential for fancy stuff like metal sheen and volumetric clouds and a ton of other relatively unnecessary (but still cool) options and give the user the ability to disable them/tone them down until Diablo III runs well on their computer. My best guess as to why the metal shaders were absent from the demo was because it's exactly that- a pre-alpha (if I recall correctly) demo.
Also kind of off-topic: I think Crysis Warhead is awesome, primarily for the graphics of course, but I didn't find the game play half bad, they made it a little faster paced and less casual that Crysis and the online received MAJOR improvements(it isn't complete garbage now). Also, when people talk about the insane requirements of Crysis well first off I'll admit- terrible optimization. But Crytek set out to make a future proof engine, it's ahead of its time and I doubt anything at the moment can run it on maximum settings well short of a Quad SLI, overclocked extreme quad core with 4 GB DDR3 RAM unholy beast of a computer. Although My relatively modest 2.40 GHz Duo Core, 2 GB RAM, 8800 GTS 640mb can run it on mostly high some low settings and never freeze/skip/crash with smooth frame rates (haven't verified how much for sure, but it seems quite nice).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't try to be a great man, just be a man... and let history make its own judgment. -Zefram Cochrane, Star Trek
What possible evidence do you have for that zeyphon. They have displayed the game at the maximum settings with all graphics options enabled. Are you actually trying to suggest that they were playing on medium settings or something? They wouldn't show everyone the game if the graphics (at least in the small areas we have seen) weren't entirely complete and as impressive as possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
I didn't mean that they included the options and disabled them specifically for the demo, I meant they probably haven't been implemented into the game yet because it is pre-alpha and they wanted to concentrate their efforts on the gameplay aspect not whether or not the metal reacts to light realistically.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't try to be a great man, just be a man... and let history make its own judgment. -Zefram Cochrane, Star Trek
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Another ridiculous comment...because
a) Crysis is well known to the THE single most demanding game ever made
I play Crysis with a $150 8800 and a 10 year old outdated computer that is about 10 times less powerful than your average Dual core laptop, and it ROCKS Crysis on medium settings. Considering that Crysis is DESIGNED to not run with high FPS on high settings on any computer in existence, the fact that they allowed an option to increase the settings to the point where it would break any computer was just put in to please people who want to use it as a benchmark.
c) If you turn Crysis settins down to low, you can run it on just about anything. In other words, Crysis does not have high system reqs, it just has high potential.
I agree that a game doesn't really need amazing, complicated graphics to be successful. Of course, it needs a basic level of quality, but that's it. When you think of it, even though Diablo 3 doesn't have amazing graphics, there were many things that were visually impressive like the explosion in the summoning of the Thousand Pounder, or the Siege beast fatalities. I remember one of the devs said "We try to make this game as visually interesting as possible", there are many ways to make a game pretty without making the 3D models more complicated
Second of all, I would rather them spend their time on content and have it release before 2010 than have them focus on graphics and release in 2011. Diablo fans want a game with depth and gory appeal, not glitz and glamor.
Third of all, too many flashy effects on such a small scale with such a high set pov would confuse things more than it would in an fps, where everything is right in your face.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
I usually agree with you. But not here. The lack of shaders and depth of texture is a large part of why the game looks like WoW, a fact that I thought you despised as much as I do.
The only reasonable way to proceed is to include a more robust graphics options screen, where shaders, texture quality, and resolution can all be tweaked to fit one's own computer. If they could include a "turn off the stupid fucking oil painting please" option, I'd love to check that too.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
What kind of cards do those Alienware computers usually employ since BlizzCon used them. Typically Nvidia cards? I'm sure they overkilled for the demos but as long as my ATI 3870 plays it fine I'll be happy.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.
- Homer Simpson
LOL!!! Seriously, I don't mind average at best graphics (although i would like better ones than the current), but you need to reevaluate what a good pc costs. if you are paying $1,600 for a desktop pc to play games on....you need help haha. you can build one for just over that $500 mark that can run any game beautifully.
yup
the thing with pc is that we have 4 graphic option: low, medium, high and the ultimate MAX settings
im very happy how well and beautifully my system runs my four UE3 games (bioshock, UT3, mass effect and gears of war)
but damn, how i wish i had an 1800x1200 lcd.....
i though it was common sense that crysis is just terribly optimized
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
Also kind of off-topic: I think Crysis Warhead is awesome, primarily for the graphics of course, but I didn't find the game play half bad, they made it a little faster paced and less casual that Crysis and the online received MAJOR improvements(it isn't complete garbage now). Also, when people talk about the insane requirements of Crysis well first off I'll admit- terrible optimization. But Crytek set out to make a future proof engine, it's ahead of its time and I doubt anything at the moment can run it on maximum settings well short of a Quad SLI, overclocked extreme quad core with 4 GB DDR3 RAM unholy beast of a computer. Although My relatively modest 2.40 GHz Duo Core, 2 GB RAM, 8800 GTS 640mb can run it on mostly high some low settings and never freeze/skip/crash with smooth frame rates (haven't verified how much for sure, but it seems quite nice).
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3