What "We" Really Want

[Arlo]

Hey, Arlo, you're being dishonest here. Already more than one person has agreed, which makes using "we" valid. Because you disagree you chimed in. The fact that people look for the best graphics they can possibly get on their systems is indisputable. Do some honest research and you will discover this is true universally. The only people that do not want better graphics are parents looking for games for their kids, and people that miss Mario.

Actually, I'm being bluntly honest.

[Tank-Ace]

Hey, Arlo, you're being dishonest here. Already more than one person has agreed, which makes using "we" valid. Because you disagree you chimed in. The fact that people look for the best graphics they can possibly get on their systems is indisputable. Do some honest research and you will discover this is true universally. The only people that do not want better graphics are parents looking for games for their kids, and people that miss Mario.

I don't really care that much; at least about the particle effects. I'm too busy shooting at stuff to look how pretty the clouds look when he flys through them. And I fit neither of those descriptions.

[nrshida]

No one listens to "highly inflated opinions" like yours, either. Pretty much if you think it is important enough to add on the bbs, it isn't.

Here's my synopsis on this thread: you've apparently done some kind of graphics modeling course recently (probably a standard 3D modeling package), and read about trends in physics and graphics development on the internet and come here wearing your usual 'authority hat' to speak to us inferiorly informed peasants predicting the future and telling us what we want.

As with everything you do there is always some form of agenda, the wish to be in authority, in control. Doesn't matter whether it's about graphics, the new infantry you wanted (which you seemed to think HTC must immediately recruit you to do for them) or your soundpack, it's never a free contribution, you always have some kind of ulterior motive.

As others have said, this is clearly your wish and your vision of the direction graphics and VEs must go in. There are many other possibilities and these kind of marketing drives come and go in graphics, some stick, some fail.

Like Vudu said: do not presume to speak for anyone else on this forum but yourself.









 

[asterix]

The fact that people look for the best graphics they can possibly get on their systems is indisputable. Do some honest research and you will discover this is true universally. The only people that do not want better graphics are parents looking for games for their kids, and people that miss Mario.

I guess I must be another exeption that proves the rule then.  Minimum requirements is usually my benchmark. I even switch off the bump map terrain feature at times to see GV-s better. I like Vudu`s answers.

[Triton28]

This thread delivers.   

[Chalenge]

Here's my synopsis on this thread: . . .

Overactive imagination. . . again

I stand by what I said on graphics. Every comment to the contrary has so far been fueled by intellectual dishonesty, and little else. Gamers, for the most part, push the computer industry forward. Office applications don't usually generate a great need for everything a computer has to offer. So what is it that pushes video card companies to push forward with ever more powerful hardware? In the consumer level cards it's gamers. Game companies listen to the trends, and whether you like it or not (you do, but you are being dishonest about it) the trends are for better graphics. You can make negative comments until the cows come home, but it won't change the way things must be in the end. Any game that does not continue to evolve is dead. There are dead-end technologies like the Oculus technology that Facebook just bought. There have been many such technologies that fail to draw an audience. Graphics is not one of those technologies.

It has been really funny watching you all try to argue against it, but you're not fooling anyone.

[nrshida]

I stand by what I said on graphics. Every comment to the contrary has so far been fueled by intellectual dishonesty, and little else.

You don't know what you're talking about. Your historical observations aren't even accurate.

I'll reiterate what others have said: you do not and do not presume to speak for others on this forum.

[bustr]

Shida I said all that pages ago and shorter.

He's trying to get in before the change as the new maven of cool about game graphics.

Hitech has a code routine that performs a short inventory of our PC's as the game starts up. When we login to the arena the results file uploads. That's how he was able to make the comment about the exact number of players running non Shader 3.0 compliant video chipsets.

I will suspect our primary game demographics buys their PC\Laptop from Walmart, Sam's Club, Costco, Best Buy or equivalent on sale. Or there is no point to allow that inventory routine to be part of our game download. Hitech appears to be concerned about programming for who will pay $14.95 a month. Rather than use an Ego driven technophile cattle prod to force most of his customers out of the game for being un hip in the ways of bleeding edge game tecchiness.

Hitech has never impressed me when it comes to the realities of making money from his customer base, to do anything driven by his Ego in the negative sense. Aren't you glad the OP is not Hitech.........

[Ack-Ack]

There are dead-end technologies like the Oculus technology that Facebook just bought. There have been many such technologies that fail to draw an audience. Graphics is not one of those technologies.

Oculus Rift is a dead end technology that has failed to draw an audience?  Surely, you are kidding because that statement is the furthest from the truth.

ack-ack

[Chalenge]

No, I'm not kidding. If you need to spend money redirecting your efforts to support it it's time and money you will never recoup. I have been watching companies lose valuable resources already. Indies in particular should avoid it.

[Ack-Ack]

No, I'm not kidding. If you need to spend money redirecting your efforts to support it it's time and money you will never recoup. I have been watching companies lose valuable resources already. Indies in particular should avoid it.

Again, your statement doesn't reflect reality.  If it was 'dead end technology' it wouldn't be widely supported by the gaming industry like the Oculus Rift has.  It is the piece of hardware that is going to make VR a reality instead of some thing you see in a lab.

ack-ack

[Chalenge]

Ha! I know there are plenty of people that wish that were true. The reality is that few will want to wear technology in order to experience a virtual environment. There are many forms of failed technology that have drawn just as much interest from the industry before. The fad will fade.

[Tank-Ace]

Ha! I know there are plenty of people that wish that were true. The reality is that few will want to wear technology in order to experience a virtual environment. There are many forms of failed technology that have drawn just as much interest from the industry before. The fad will fade.

[nrshida]

The reality is that few will want to wear technology in order to experience a virtual environment. There are many forms of failed technology that have drawn just as much interest from the industry before. The fad will fade.

  What a maroon. Absolutely no depth of knowledge or vision.

Shida I said all that pages ago and shorter.

Yeah sorry, I've only been casually following this thread.

Hitech has never impressed me when it comes to the realities of making money from his customer base, to do anything driven by his Ego in the negative sense. Aren't you glad the OP is not Hitech.........

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that the essence of Aces High isn't superfluous eye candy. That's available elsewhere in abundance. I'm fairly happy with AH's graphics and I'm sure the new version will be even nicer-looking and more immersive but it's the flight model and nature of the Virtual Environment that interests me.

There's a lot of discussion about the need to conform to some 'standard' of trendy, flashy graphics which imho don't add anything to the experience. Just watch some Warthunder videos on YouTube. All that illustrates is that you can polish a turd providing you chrome-plate it first (if indeed you have some genuine interest in flight as opposed to simple AirQuake).

No one ever seems to campaign that these graphics-intensive games need to work on their simulation in order to stay viable.


HTC does a lot with a little, accommodating the user's machines. If you've ever been involved in computer graphics you appreciate the difficulty of doing that.

[bustr]

Only dealt with house written monkeybutt software used by mom and pop trucking companies on everything from win95 to xp that had to process SCAC codes visa dialup to update a mainframe through a wintel server interface. And run fax banks interfaced through Exchange server to service 5 and dime stores who only wanted to hand fax in their EDI transactions for the mainframe. In the late 90's there were still people in New York City who didn't trust computers enough to handle their daily transactions to EDI services. Then there were those 3000 or so servers I babysat for BofA.

Most of the world does not run on the bleeding edge of cool when it comes to technology. It only looks like it because of the Internet and the need to sell publications about the bleeding edge of cool. What percentage of the desktop clients this month worldwide were still XP?

There wouldn't be so much squeeling by the OP otherwise.

Like I said earlier. Jockeying to be the new maven of cool is all this is.