Why aren't devs taking advantage of pc hardware? pc games should be far ahead

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"] it's not so much about the lines of code it's about how good those lines are e.g: sonic 1-3JigglyWiggly_

ofc the original sonic games had graphic designers, most programmers have no art skillaz.

Voice-acting is not needed, look at zelda.
Marketing, Sonic had an insane amount of marketing.
You don't need well-known voice actors, just people with talent if you want voice acting.

all the money now is just spent on making high poly characters and making unrefined games. (Can you name a game quite as refined as Quake 3?)

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] Yes true, but what I'm saying is that back then you mostly just needed the code. Now you need graphic designers, voice-acting, more marketing, sound orchestras, well-known actors/actresses etc. that didn't exist as much before.FelipeInside

ofc the original sonic games had graphic designers, most programmers have no art skillaz.

Voice-acting is not needed, look at zelda.
Marketing, Sonic had an insane amount of marketing.
You don't need well-known voice actors, just people with talent if you want voice acting.

all the money now is just spent on making high poly characters and making unrefined games. (Can you name a game quite as refined as Quake 3?)

Oh and I do think some wii and gamecube games can still look fairly good in high resolutions because of their clean and colorful art style. Heck just look at Eternal Dark, it's over ten years old and still looks like this. RyviusARC

Truly an awesome game.

Looks great in higher resolutions too, I should finish it again on an emulator :)

Because not everyone has top of the line hardware?

Diablo 3 sold well also because it wasn't too demanding.

Depends on what the developer feels makes a good game - gameplay or graphics. Only a few like Crysis have been able to balance both. And I agree that because so many games are cross platform, they have to be made to run properly on every system. So, yes, consoles are holding back the PC.

Flight sims like DCS: Black Shark and FSX have fairly decent Recommended Requirements. But, the games usually aren't maxed out. Max everything out like details/AA and even some high-end PCs will be bogged down.

Flight sims like DCS: Black Shark and FSX have fairly decent Recommended Requirements. But, the games usually aren't maxed out. Max everything out like details/AA and even some high-end PCs will be bogged down.

jun_aka_pekto

[QUOTE="Postmortem123"]

The 720 will destroy all PC's with it's 7990 and $300 pricetag.

seanmcloughlin

p!ss off this isn't system wars

I doubt he's being serious :lol:Well I hope he isn't. These 720 rumored specs are so ridiculous. The 6670 sounded much more likely

Developers make games that most pcs can run. Most people don't have top of the line machines and aren't going to shell out a hundreds of dollars every year just so they can run games on ultra settings. To be honest games put graphics ahead of gameplay usually suck anyway.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Flight sims like DCS: Black Shark and FSX have fairly decent Recommended Requirements. But, the games usually aren't maxed out. Max everything out like details/AA and even some high-end PCs will be bogged down.

Zubinen

Well, I'm talking about resource "hogs." So, Rise of Flight qualifies as one too.

I don't have RoF though.

The main problem is the least common denominator in PC gaming: integrated graphics. They're way too weak. You'd think freebie integrated graphics would be equivalent to a 5770 by now.

The main problem is the least common denominator in PC gaming: integrated graphics. They're way too weak. You'd think freebie integrated graphics would be equivalent to a 5770 by now.

jun_aka_pekto

It takes a lot of time to make amazing grpahics. Most developers don't have the time or the money. Also the biggest budget games are usually exlcusives on the PS3/360 or multiplats where they are strained between several versions.

Because not everyone has top of the line hardware?

Diablo 3 sold well also because it wasn't too demanding.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Because not everyone has top of the line hardware?

Diablo 3 sold well also because it wasn't too demanding.

neo_87

well mostly the same

his config by default had only 1 sound play at at time...

Things are slowly brightening up for PC IMO. As long as the game runs in a smooth clip and looks good up close like Mass Effect 3, I'm happy. Multiplatform games don't look so bad now. I know many gamers hate EA for various reasons, but I find that their dev's ports usually run pretty good and look great after the bugs have been ironed out.

Concerning the pics of hi-res antialiased Gamcube and Wii screenshots, it's fairly easy to make cell-shaded graphics look great at a higher res because the geometry isn't as apparent, but the same outcome doesn't apply to the generic rendering style.

Like some have commented previously: it's not cheap to make good graphics, though with the improvements in game engines, I imagine that itwill be very soon, as engines like CryEngine 3 or the Arma III engine become licensable. While it's easier to implement great lighting and shaders, it will still take time and resources to create them.

Concerning consoles, some people just want to buy a $400 system once and be set for the next couple years. PC gaming has a rep for having a steep enterance fee, but that's slowly changing as todays mid-range budget cards are equivalent to yesterday's high-end. Essentially, an acceptable CPU and GPU can be had for at the most, 150$ each, making it easy to build a budget system capable of decent gaming for the same price as a console. If you really want to squeeze every penny, you can try ebay or craigslist, which will grant you even better savings. I got my GTX 560 ti for $125 there. If I'm not mistaken, I would spend nearly twice that on Newegg or Amazon.

Things are slowly brightening up for PC IMO. As long as the game runs in a smooth clip and looks good up close like Mass Effect 3, I'm happy. Multiplatform games don't look so bad now. I know many gamers hate EA for various reasons, but I find that their dev's ports usually run pretty good and look great after the bugs have been ironed out.

Concerning the pics of hi-res antialiased Gamcube and Wii screenshots, it's fairly easy to make cell-shaded graphics look great at a higher res because the geometry isn't as apparent, but the same outcome doesn't apply to the generic rendering style.

Like some have commented previously: it's not cheap to make good graphics, though with the improvements in game engines, I imagine that itwill be very soon, as engines like CryEngine 3 or the Arma III engine become licensable. While it's easier to implement great lighting and shaders, it will still take time and resources to create them.

Concerning consoles, some people just want to buy a $400 system once and be set for the next couple years. PC gaming has a rep for having a steep enterance fee, but that's slowly changing as todays mid-range budget cards are equivalent to yesterday's high-end. Essentially, an acceptable CPU and GPU can be had for at the most, 150$ each, making it easy to build a budget system capable of decent gaming for the same price as a console. If you really want to squeeze every penny, you can try ebay or craigslist, which will grant you even better savings. I got my GTX 560 ti for $125 there. If I'm not mistaken, I would spend nearly twice that on Newegg or Amazon.

thphaca

[QUOTE="thphaca"]

Things are slowly brightening up for PC IMO. As long as the game runs in a smooth clip and looks good up close like Mass Effect 3, I'm happy. Multiplatform games don't look so bad now. I know many gamers hate EA for various reasons, but I find that their dev's ports usually run pretty good and look great after the bugs have been ironed out.

Concerning the pics of hi-res antialiased Gamcube and Wii screenshots, it's fairly easy to make cell-shaded graphics look great at a higher res because the geometry isn't as apparent, but the same outcome doesn't apply to the generic rendering style.

Like some have commented previously: it's not cheap to make good graphics, though with the improvements in game engines, I imagine that itwill be very soon, as engines like CryEngine 3 or the Arma III engine become licensable. While it's easier to implement great lighting and shaders, it will still take time and resources to create them.

Concerning consoles, some people just want to buy a $400 system once and be set for the next couple years. PC gaming has a rep for having a steep enterance fee, but that's slowly changing as todays mid-range budget cards are equivalent to yesterday's high-end. Essentially, an acceptable CPU and GPU can be had for at the most, 150$ each, making it easy to build a budget system capable of decent gaming for the same price as a console. If you really want to squeeze every penny, you can try ebay or craigslist, which will grant you even better savings. I got my GTX 560 ti for $125 there. If I'm not mistaken, I would spend nearly twice that on Newegg or Amazon.

JigglyWiggly_

Lower requirements = larger install base. Pretty straight forward.

Things are slowly brightening up for PC IMO. As long as the game runs in a smooth clip and looks good up close like Mass Effect 3,thphaca

[QUOTE="thphaca"]

Things are slowly brightening up for PC IMO. As long as the game runs in a smooth clip and looks good up close like Mass Effect 3,dakan45

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Postmortem123"]

The 720 will destroy all PC's with it's 7990 and $300 pricetag.

Ben-Buja

p!ss off this isn't system wars

I doubt he's being serious :lol:Well I hope he isn't. These 720 rumored specs are so ridiculous. The 6670 sounded much more likely

Well considering too that by the time the 720 comes out I could be rocking SLI 980s.

It takes a lot of time to make amazing grpahics. Most developers don't have the time or the money. Also the biggest budget games are usually exlcusives on the PS3/360 or multiplats where they are strained between several versions.

Wasdie