PDA

View Full Version : PC Port - the merits of a direct port, and how it should be done



Willful Murder
11-21-2006, 09:09 AM
First off, the 360 version looks absolutely fantastic, so i personally have no gripes with a direct console to pc port. I want to play that game.

HOWEVER, and here is the massive caveat:

It needs to be a GOOD port that actually shows a degree of respect for the pc community, rather than scraps from the table of the more profitable and larger console market.

Splinter Cell Double Agent for pc was a direct slap in the face for everyone who plays pc games and had supported the company. It was disdainful.

It came off as an indifferent attempt to milk a little more money out of the franchise with no thought whatsoever to the pc consumers, who ended up with a crappy looking, buggy port with shameless performance on systems whose video cards alone cost more than a 360. They would have been better off, in my opion, just cancelling the pc version.

So my real worry, and i would be eternally grateful for some validation or statements to the contrary from a Ubisoft representative, my worry is that R6 Vegas will be the same thing. As others have said, the writing is on the wall; no news updates, from the amount of information released it is clear the pc market is the redheaded stepchild here, unexplained delays, etc.

Please, ubisoft make this one work, optimized and give this game the release it should have on the pc.

Please to all who will buy this version, if they show this market segment the same amount of respect they did with Double Agent, join me in never purchasing another product from ubisoft.

Deosl
11-21-2006, 10:01 AM
Hence you should always test out the freakin' demo before purchasing.

And the cries for a "ubi representative" is futile, what do you expect? Of course that person will raise your hopes up and say what ever you want to hear. It's their job to sell the product.
Like the PC community here has learned with Lockdown, WAIT and see what the other poor souls that we're foolish enough to buy has to say.

Just do what I do, always be sceptical to a Ubisoft title on the PC. Ask all the critical questions about the product, and if they don't respond like they do here, you know how the product will end up...

Their primary goal is max profits & according to Ubisoft consoles are the way to go. They'll be back when the technology has leaped many steps over the current-generation with Dx10 & what not.

But will we still be here is the question....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Rainbow Six Aggression (http://www.AGR-S.com)</span>
http://suprfile.com/src/1/4qe5pi7/rvs_santahat.jpg

RaP7oR.pT
11-21-2006, 10:08 AM
I hope you're all wrong (even though I think you're right) :S

braiog
11-21-2006, 10:16 AM
Well, yeah, if a Port meant you retained all the quality in graphics and gameplay but then altered it accordingly for PC's unique stances on game mechanics and control, then a port wouldn't be so bad a thing.

But XB360 has set hardware vs the "mutt" system of PC (this is why I'm SO PISSED that graphics software/hardware does not code to a standard, and our only choice is the level of performance)

As we saw with the XB360 2 PC port of SCDA, not only were these issues not addressed, game stability itself was ignored. It's that aspect of a PORT that I think most players are fearful of. And Ubi has a very poor track record of fixing what it breaks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.aaronmartone.com/misc/braiog_sig.jpg
Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.

bullgoose311
11-21-2006, 10:17 AM
I believe with both of you a hundred percent and am furious that more people havn't responded to this topic.

I joined the ubisoft community today just so I could reply and say that I WILL NOT buy another ubisoft product (even though I would love to buy R6 Vegas) until they prove to me they can make a descent port over to the PC which I'll know whether or not they did a couple months after the game is released and I've read the reviews. ]

Isn't the PC where they got their start in the first place with the original R6 and Splinter Cell? Anyways SCDA is the biggest waste of $50 I've ever spent and as a software engineer myself, I think Ubisoft should be ashamed. The game should have never been released.

I'm happy to find there's some people out there who share the same feelings and I hope I didn't sound like an idiot with my first forum post ever.

Willful Murder
11-21-2006, 10:18 AM
Actually the demo was the reason i decided not to buy Double Agent. Unfortunately as the demo was released after the game, many such poor souls did pick it up and ended up with "the shaft" instead of a pc game, as they had hoped. Unfortunately for them anyway, but i was kind of looking forward to that game myself.

Point is you are correct in that Ubisoft, as a business, will go where the money is. I'm just holding on to the naive assumption that they actually care about their consumer base, even the minority that represents PC owners, or whatever. Probably not.

As for DX10, i am skeptical that it represents the leap forward everyone says. The better shinier shadier graphics mentality is part of the problem i think. Games today are sold more on feature lists and screenshots than actual playability and the ever-elusive "fun".

I'll continue to play pc games, just because i prefer the control setup and the sort of games that are generally released for pc. Will i continue to buy ubisoft games if they continue to be little more than slapshod ****? Probably not.

Willful Murder
11-21-2006, 10:24 AM
Anyways SCDA is the biggest waste of $50 I've ever spent and as a software engineer myself, I think Ubisoft should be ashamed. The game should have never been released.


Indeed, Bullgoose, and the worst part is the game continues to be inexplicably delayed, and once it is finally out we'll likely have to wait 2 weeks or so longer before the reviews start trickling in, because sadly the pc being viewed as "oh yeah, and there are those people too i guess" mentality carries over to the big game reviewers, IGN, Gamespot and so forth.

We are on the wrong side of gaming...

KungFu_CIA
11-21-2006, 10:45 AM
This is one of those multifaceted issues that I could write a dissertation on, but I will spare everyone this and just emphasize one point:

Regardless of whether it is a console game, or a PC game... It all comes down to the developers and those above them and how they choose to design and execute a game from the very beginning more than whether or not it is a port, or even, how good (or bad) that port is in a lot of respects.

I believe this aspect is what bothers most R6 fans more than it being just a port in the sense if the game designed for the console was something closer to the original R6 PC games than most people wouldn't be as upset as they are now. They are upset, but this is more because the game itself has changed dramatically and gone too far in the mundane, arcade shoot'em up direction regardless if it appears on the console first before the PC.

I also believe there is no reason developers could not make a Rogue Spear, Raven Shield-type game for the console given the current console specs compared to the last generation. Hell, even last-gen consoles could have easily handled a game like RS (multiple teams; open-ended maps; operative customization; planning) because not only did the N64 do it, but because the original PC games didn't require that much hardware to run from the start... Yet had literally a ton of more features than any game to date save for Raven Shield which is the last iteration of the old Tom Clancy, Red Storm Entertainment games.

Again, IMO, it all comes down to the developers and creative directors above them who have arbitrarily decided "stupid sells" meaning games with dumbed down and simplistic game play is what they are going to deliver, regardless if this is actually what the consumer wants on any platform...

Because it always surprise people when I tell them even the Rainbow Six console players want more in-depth and tactical games than Vegas, and Lockdown because a majority of console players are not the stereotypical 12-18-year olds the industry thinks plays consoles. This is false data and needs to be updated to reflect who really is playing the console, let alone the PC because the PC has always been for the more mature, experienced gamer due to the high level of PC knowledge one must have to game on a PC compared to the console (this is why I believe there is no such thing as a "casual" PC gamer).

It is just a lack of vision and being able to take any risks (financially and artistically) if you are a mainstream developer/publisher because of how competitive the industry is right now.

Willful Murder
11-21-2006, 10:58 AM
KungFu_CIA (and by the way, it always feels hilarious to address someone on a forum), thats a great point, and even though i do not agree entirely, i see what you mean. I agree in the sense that games, due to console popularity, have undergone a shift towards the mundane and arcade oriented, and in some even more pathetic examples have attempted to refashion great franchises into "X-Treme" or "Hard Qore!" for the thick-necked frat crowd, see the prince of persia sequel, or in fact the previous two rainbow six console games.

On the other hand, i think the new system present in R6 Vegas shows a lot of promise for deep and tactical gameplay, even if more action oriented. I guess i just see it as a different sort of game than the originals, which i enjoyed each one of.

This may be a stupid question, but have you played GRAW on the PC? That is the closest i've seen to the original Rainbow six games out there.

braiog
11-21-2006, 11:42 AM
720 is merely 1280x720 and 1080 is 1920x1080, both of which are graphics playable by PC's higher video cards TODAY, with multiple AA and AF and settings set to HIGH/ENABLED.

If anything, PC is at 90% of the power of next-gen consoles. But, as with all PC tech, in 1-2 years time, cards like the 7950GX2 will be going for $200 and have NOTHING on the out-then DX10 cards that will be along the lines of 800-1Ghz GPU, 2-2.5Ghz Memory Clocks, PCIx16 (or the next slot type down the line), probably capable of outputting 2-3x the power the consoles can.

And consoles will have to wait 4-5 years til the next console comes out to catch up.

For me, it isn't the fact that you game on console or PC. Developers code for consoles MERELY because it's easy to test performance and quality on them. With a PC, we've no standards, and in as much, what works well on one rig could fail miserably on another. There is a lot of overheard that developers have to eat through to in order to get the expected performance.

I don't see it as a question of PC vs. Console. PC gamers are just looking to get support. And maybe we shouldn't be mad (or, AS mad) at developers for software as much as we should be upset with nVidia and ATI (and others) for not working with DirectX and OpenGL to a level of standards.

A level where if you MEET those standards, outside the hardware failing, the game WILL run with the specified features at the card's performance. It may be the very war ATI and nVidia have with each other that's hurting the PC community.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.aaronmartone.com/misc/braiog_sig.jpg
Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.

topeira
11-21-2006, 02:23 PM
have you played GRAW on the PC? That is the closest i've seen to the original Rainbow six games out there.

have u played SWAT4? it's closer. swat4 is a wonderfull game that is hurt cuz of lausy animation.
it has an awsome online and awsome custom mission so u never get tired of it. after 2.5 years i am still playing it.


WAIT and see what the other poor souls that we're foolish enough to buy has to say.

LOL. that's right. i am not buying without a demo or at least after trying the game on my machine... in any way i can...
the release of the PC ver was delayed to december 12th and that aint good news, either.

if this one fails i will be SO upset... and i preparing my self with a large box of tissues and a pillow to cry on when thig game comes out as poor as it sounds os far....

Cirap
11-21-2006, 04:33 PM
I had actually pre-ordered SCDA, and it arrived the same day the demo was released

smert as I was, I took 45minutes and downloaded the demo before I ripped open the game. and wadda ya know? the performance was awful! I sent the game back, ending up having to pay about $3 shipping it back... saved $47 at least.

I played the entire SP campaign at a friends' and must say I do not regret sending the game back

I was thinking about pre-ordering Vegas, but after seeing how the SCDA PC community has been pretty much ignored, and the huge flaws in the game itself, I've decided to wait for a demo. If they don't give us a demo, I'll probably download the game.... yeah, this will probably earn me a warning or even a ban from these boards, but forget I'm paying for a product I know absolutely nothing about!

I understand UBI wants to market the 360 version right now, but you can't neglect the PC community like this! at least post some vids or screens in the forumz, please!

braiog
11-21-2006, 04:47 PM
It's a matter of time before Ubi will realize that developing for PC is no longer financially feasible for them. Hopefully that'll be the day they also realize it was entirely due to their poor treatment of the community.

You reap what you sow.

PC community can be a good chunk of money, easily. But you're going to lose DROVES of the VERY PEOPLE who made that game series popular if you keep giving us the hand-me-downs.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.aaronmartone.com/misc/braiog_sig.jpg
Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.

TedSmith
11-21-2006, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by topeira:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">have you played GRAW on the PC? That is the closest i've seen to the original Rainbow six games out there.

have u played SWAT4? it's closer. swat4 is a wonderfull game that is hurt cuz of lausy animation.
it has an awsome online and awsome custom mission so u never get tired of it. after 2.5 years i am still playing it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SWAT 4's only real problems were in the pace of movement and in the restrictive RoE in single player and lack of a decent AC in multiplayer.

The first two are simply the result of it being a SWAT based game. Since they try to take perps alive, it slows the game down a lot, and also implies a slower movement speed as well. Remove the restrictive RoE, allowing players to play fully lethal and ramp up the speed of movement and it's pretty damn perfect HRT style game if you ask me.

bigrexxx
11-21-2006, 05:13 PM
even last-gen consoles could have easily handled a game like RS (multiple teams; open-ended maps; operative customization; planning) because not only did the N64 do it

Very true, the first time I played R6, it was on the first gen Playstation. It had 8 man teams, and you could choose a multiple of entry positions. if it was possible to do a tactical sim on console back then, why not now. I think the start of the end began with the release of Rs3 on Xbox, even with its linear maps, 1 four man team led by Ding, a choice something like 12 guns and still became the best selling FPS on xbox live, UBI went on a power trip and haven't looked back<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c4/V17907864/Bigrex4.jpg

Willful Murder
11-22-2006, 07:45 AM
True the recent console iterations of Rainbow six have been little better than the shameless Prince of Persia sequel, in terms of "X-treme"-ifying a great game or series to appeal to the pubescent toolsheds who saw Fast and the Furious 2 opening night, but i personally don't think R6 Vegas appears to be an example of this.

I think it looks like a spectacular game. It seems to me the perfect blend of what was great about the old rainbow six games, GRAW for PC, and the Gear of War cover system.

I don't mean to diminish anyone else's complaints, because this is just my opinion, but if the pc market gets the exact same experience as the 360 owners as has been said, with performance equivalent to that of comperable pc releases, ie will run at full steam with a top end system and scaleable for middle of the road systems, than i will sing Ubisoft's praises from my roof.

The truth of the matter is, apart from the relative lack of attention pc owners get in terms of release date information, screenshots, press releases, anything really, i hadn't had any complaints or worries -until Double Agent.

Truthfully, three splinter cell games may have carried that formula as far as i care to take it, so i won't lose any sleep over that missed opportunity. But i just hope the same thing doesn't happen here.

SFLUFAN
11-22-2006, 08:32 AM
I don't mean to diminish anyone else's complaints, because this is just my opinion, but if the pc market gets the exact same experience as the 360 owners as has been said, with performance equivalent to that of comperable pc releases, ie will run at full steam with a top end system and scaleable for middle of the road systems, than i will sing Ubisoft's praises from my roof.


Our main complaints do not involve graphics or perfomance or anything of that sort -- our complaints involve the type of game that it is.

It simply is NOT a Rainbow Six game, but a highly-polished action game. Any game that allows for regenerating health isn't a Rainbow Six game - period.

RookieCAF
11-22-2006, 09:53 AM
So long as there is a Demo released, I'm not concerned, I can vote with my money whether this is worthy or not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~Rookie

braiog
11-22-2006, 10:03 AM
It sounds like Ubi is attempting to cater to the younger generation that doesn't want challenging gameplay - just a lot of muzzle flashes and explosions.

Ubi "catered" to the same generation with the altered SvM mode and due to their failed integration, I'd estimate that at peak times, there are 20 people playing SCDA MP (and about 30 cursing a blue streak at any moment over the rampant disconnects and crashes to desktop)

50 people total... wow. Such a success....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.aaronmartone.com/misc/braiog_sig.jpg
Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.

topeira
11-22-2006, 10:41 AM
Does someone know when does the porting proccess begin? after the console version is done or before?
if the 360 version went gold 2 weeks ago, aprox, than was that the time the porting proccess began or did they began the porting before that?

KungFu_CIA
11-22-2006, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Willful Murder:
True the recent console iterations of Rainbow six have been little better than the shameless Prince of Persia sequel, in terms of "X-treme"-ifying a great game or series to appeal to the pubescent toolsheds who saw Fast and the Furious 2 opening night, but i personally don't think R6 Vegas appears to be an example of this.

I think it looks like a spectacular game. It seems to me the perfect blend of what was great about the old rainbow six games, GRAW for PC, and the Gear of War cover system.

I don't mean to diminish anyone else's complaints, because this is just my opinion, but if the pc market gets the exact same experience as the 360 owners as has been said, with performance equivalent to that of comperable pc releases, ie will run at full steam with a top end system and scaleable for middle of the road systems, than i will sing Ubisoft's praises from my roof.

The truth of the matter is, apart from the relative lack of attention pc owners get in terms of release date information, screenshots, press releases, anything really, i hadn't had any complaints or worries -until Double Agent.

Truthfully, three splinter cell games may have carried that formula as far as i care to take it, so i won't lose any sleep over that missed opportunity. But i just hope the same thing doesn't happen here.

One of the main issues PC gamers have is not only the direction the game has taken... A more simplistic gaming experience that focuses more on pulling the trigger than thinking... But the fact the game could and should be much more than this given today's current technology in comparison to when the original R6 games were released almost nine years ago on all platforms, but especially the PC.

The sad irony (for fans of the series) is the original, nine-year old games have MORE features in them and can run at full force on what are considered minimal systems specs these days.



Rainbow Six; Rogue Spear; Urban Ops; Covert Ops; Black Thorn

-Multiple Teams (up to eight men/women total)
-Complete Customization per Team Member (infinite combination of weapons and equipment across the eight men/women)
-Coordinated Go-Codes (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Zulu)
-Non-Linear maps (SP and MP)
-Observer Only Mode (made the game a CQB-RTS)
-Built-in Mission Recorder for Replays
-AAR (After Action Report) chat lobby in MP
-Eight player CO-OP in MP
-Randomized Tango spawns in SP TH, and CO-OP TH
-Custom Server Options (weapon restrictions; kit restrictions; number of Tangos; etc.)

The one thing the old games needed that Raven Shield brought to the table was automated dedicated MP servers which meant a 24/7 hosting experience with no need for the host to be logged on at all to play MP.

Compare this to Vegas:



Rainbow Six: Vegas

-Two team members in SP (can't even choose weapons and equipment)
-Four player CO-OP
-Linear, script-driven maps (SP)
-Static Tango spawns in CO-OP and SP TH
-Minimal Server Options (can't turn off GPS radar; no official clan support; no real kit restrictions; etc.)
Etc, etc.

The only real additions Vegas has for SP is the fiber optic camera... Which is two years late considering SWAT4 already had this at launch... And the tagging system which makes sure the AI does its job and doesn't just walk into a room and get slaughtered.

However, this is only two innovations/improvements in what should be a definitive leap in the series as far as features and progressing the series go.

There is no reason, IMO, for the kinds of omissions listed above when contemporary hardware on both consoles and PCs can easily handle what was given to use nine years ago in comparison.

The only reason most of the features have been removed is to supposedly make the game more accessible to a wider audience who just wants the primal experience of blasting bad guys without having to think about anything else. It was the meta experience of thinking like a real CT Operative/Squad Leader the original RSE games appeal was built on with "trigger spasms" being secondary to strategic planning and the execution of realistic tactics to win.

The original games were not perfect, but the core design was a contemporary firearms and HR simulation compared to Vegas, which is trying to be a "Jerry Bruckhemier meets Die Hard" gaming experience which are complete opposites in every sense of the word.

braiog
11-22-2006, 11:12 AM
The reason why the new games lacks focus and discipline is because it's catered towards the general masses rather than the vets. Ubi keeps costs down by developing for the XB360, who want a far less challenging or skill-requiring game, and instead want a mindless muzzle-flashing grenade-exploding experience.

If Ubi can just port this over then they feel they've catered to the PC community as well, when in fact, the buggy port will have been among the most disrespectful thing you can do.

There's a lack of emphasis on gameplay, and instead just a lot of eye candy and fireworks. Substance without meaning. It's what all the FPS-kiddies want. In time, if developers keep this up, all games will be FPS-ized.

There's nothing wrong with a good FPS, but some people DO want something different every once in a while. A nice tactical shooter shouldn't lose what features that made it popular.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.aaronmartone.com/misc/braiog_sig.jpg
Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.

KungFu_CIA
11-22-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by braiog:

There's nothing wrong with a good FPS, but some people DO want something different every once in a while. A nice tactical shooter shouldn't lose what features that made it popular.

I like games like Half-Life II, and Far Cry which aren't realistic, or tactical by any means...

But the whole point is these games never claimed be tactical, thinking shooters to begin with. In an ironic twist, HL-2 treats its audience with a lot more respect even though the game world is filled with aliens, gravity guns and zombies.

For example, in HL-2 you don't have borderline psychotic team mates yelling "yeehaw! Bagged another one!" every time they kill a Combine Soldier.

The characters (NPC) in HL-2 are written and portrayed very realistically like real people would react having to live in a dystopian, near apocalyptic setting where they are on the verge of extinction and are just tired of having to constantly fight. Fight for privacy, fight for basic necessities to live day to day, fight to stay alive.

Contrast this to Vegas' portrayal of so-called professional soldiers who get a perverse thrill out of killing terrorists and causing as much destruction as possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SFLUFAN
11-22-2006, 12:18 PM
That's because Valve treats its community as if they have at least half a brain...something which UbiSoft clearly does not anymore.

braiog
11-22-2006, 01:33 PM
Valve has a blank check to my bank account. Their reputation is so good, I'm practically resigned to buying every game that comes out of that company. And why not? Each one seems to be exceptionally well done. I LOVE Half-Life 2, and Episode I was fantastic (ran like a charm too) The day Episode II comes out, my money is theirs.

Just on the name merit alone. Ubi will never have that good a reputation.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.aaronmartone.com/misc/braiog_sig.jpg
Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.

big_perm
11-22-2006, 01:55 PM
The Source engine runs SO smooth too and it looks awesome IMO. I get 80+ FPS everything on high and the game just runs great. Love Valve too, they rock.

I just hope they start HL3 soon cuz I cant wait to see what that engine will do.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/big_ern/money.gif

SFLUFAN
11-22-2006, 01:56 PM
The Half-Life 2 Episodes are essentially Half-Life 3 (according to Gabe Newell). However, he has not ruled out a "true" Half-Life 3 using a far more updated version of the Source engine.

Tacamo
11-23-2006, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by braiog:
It sounds like Ubi is attempting to cater to the younger generation that doesn't want challenging gameplay - just a lot of muzzle flashes and explosions.

One of the same mistakes the music industry made and continues to make. Tha being them both catering to an audience with no more disposable income than what mommy and daddy supply or from low wage part-time jobs. Of course they're playing the numbers game. Yet it's only a matter of time before that crowd starts downloading console games. New systems coming out with integrated hard drives and internet support. Plus some telcos are offering fiber to the home with others building out VDSL infrastructure and the cablecos gearing up to launch DOCSIS 3.0 in a few years. They think warez are bad enough now on PC's, wait until someone makes it even easier to do on consoles. Then they might attempt to cater to a slightly older audience with disposible income in order to boost sales.

Considering how a lot of people in their 20's or 30's grew up with early consoles and/or arcade games there's a big chunk of the population right there. It's highly doubtful they all stopped playing once they starting paying for a car, college loans and/or mortgages.

Substance2006
11-23-2006, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by braiog:

maybe we shouldn't be mad (or, AS mad) at developers for software as much as we should be upset with nVidia and ATI (and others) for not working with DirectX and OpenGL to a level of standards.

A level where if you MEET those standards, outside the hardware failing, the game WILL run with the specified features at the card's performance. It may be the very war ATI and nVidia have with each other that's hurting the PC community.

The "War" you're talking about is the same war that Drives PC development and Drives down the cost of everyones hardware

(ever wonder why $400.00 hardware is reduced to $200.00 a YEAR later, its because the ongoing war)

Software developers (Game dev's) always are trying to push the envelope (they have professional rigs that most people dream of owning). It's their duty to aim towards the middle and get a decent profit margin. If they aim to high (GRAW PC, Farcry, etc...) they reduce the potential targets, if they aim to low (lockdown Aka PS2 port) then they please no one.

KungFu_CIA
11-23-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Substance2006:

Software developers (Game dev's) always are trying to push the envelope (they have professional rigs that most people dream of owning). It's their duty to aim towards the middle and get a decent profit margin. If they aim to high (GRAW PC, Farcry, etc...) they reduce the potential targets, if they aim to low (lockdown Aka PS2 port) then they please no one.

It is also the consumers themselves... And this includes us... Who drive this techwar (bad pun!) just as much as the hardware companies too.

As much as gamers (on all platforms) love to tout "game play over graphics" how true is this statement, really?

There are only a handful of games, right now, in 2006, that I would personally say the game play rises above mediocre, or average graphics...

But if we are going to be honest, I also want more visually pleasing (modern) looking games if I have the hardware to run them, or am willing to pay top dollar for the hardware to render those more realistic graphics which is what drives the hardware wars as well.

For example, look at the original R6 games (R6; Rogue Spear) and expansions.

The game play is great because there aren't any games like this on the market even nine years later... But the graphics are very, very primitive and they don't immerse you into the virtual world like more contemporary games obviously do.

These games are now considered nostalgic because of the game play, but game play only goes so far where even I want a first person weapon model on my screen and not just a disembodied cross hair floating through space; I want my avatar and those of my squad (AI or human) to look like real human CQB operators with smooth curves and uniform wrinkles (normal mapping) and not blocky Lego characters with stretched bitmaps for skin; I want debris from the environment (particle effects) to be present if I shoot up a wall, bookcase, glass pane, etc.

However, since we are speaking of the middle ground, I don't necessarily need HDR (any form) because from my perspective it doesn't really enhance the visual experience in any fundamental way beyond looking very artificial and "fake" compared to the "real" HDR the human eye sees when we go outside in a sunlit environment. This is just my personal opinion, but I also think hardware companies go overboard and try and force developers to include features just for the sake of including features when they could focus more on game play so the elusive balance of game play AND graphics could be met.

big_perm
11-23-2006, 10:59 AM
I agree with the HDR. I never liked it. Always looked so fake. Never really liked Bloom either.

HDR may have potential though. In 3dmark 2006 the HDR in the canyon actually looked pretty good. But that is the only place I ever thought it looked good.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/big_ern/money.gif

KungFu_CIA
11-23-2006, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by big_perm:
I agree with the HDR. I never liked it. Always looked so fake. Never really liked Bloom either.

Another poster on another PC game forum said something to this day I wholeheartedly agree with about HDR and other effects and was along the lines of...

"To many developers are trying to emulate how the real world works vs. how things should work in a video game to enhance the video game world that is created."

I think this is a great statement and it was directed at HDR because like Big_Perm said, it tends to look fake more often than not and from a resource stand point you don't need it in a virtual world like most games take place in where the effects of HDR wouldn't be that noticeable to begin with.