Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Outside the Box: Inside the Box
Dana
Member Posts: 2,415
Nathan Knaack is back. Today he looks at gamer hardware in this Inside the Box edition of Outside the Box. After an E3 hiatus, Nathan will continue his weekly series of MMORPG related columns.
| It finally happened. After years of upgrading my computer piece by piece, adding a new PCI sound card here or trading up for some bigger sticks of RAM there, it eventually had to die. When you Frankenstein any machine like that for long enough, the law of averages (or thermodynamic entropy, depending on how you look at it) clearly predicts that eventually things will break down. Not that I mind, though; I had been secreting away a cache fund for a new computer for quite some time, and after convincing my wife of the necessity of the expenditure, I merrily went shopping. |
You can read more here.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Comments
Another dilemna you didn't mention is the fast track to consoles that gaming companies are heading to. That's affecting my gameplay in a different way that I don't like. I like the flexibility of an interface and key commands I can adjust to my preferences.
As for graphics vs gameplay, that's a tough call for me. I suppose I would have to come down on the side of gameplay, since that's where the boys are.
I suppose it depends what hooks into whatever neurochemicals are important to you, but I can say for me that I would rather play a complex economic game such as Eve Online than a social PnP translation (or is it a Zork upgrade?
It's a bonus that Eve Online has this lovely ethereal beauty (at least if you, like me, grew up on exploratory SF). But I think the premise of the game, never having to render facial expressions or realistic body movement, makes the chaos-in-nature of a nebula a lot less demanding of versimilitude than the comic/manga toons in most MMOs.
And you can play EVE on a pretty low end GPU.
So here's one vote for plot over pretty.
But games and various sorts of entertainment (anyone remember the binary files on USENET?) have always driven the development of consumer hardware and the delivery of greater and greater bandwidth. We are doing things on the fly on a home desktop that are unimaginable thirty years ago, when it took a cluster of hefty VAX computers to do the primitive CGI effects for Star Wars: A New Hope (the real episode 1!).
As a geezerette (grrl gamer of 47) I would love to get the ever-newest thing -- but it would be out of date by the time the next game was released. Right now, it is *killing* me that I can't play Oblivion on my machine -- but what sane person is going to spend more for a game and the GPU to run it than they would on a whole desktop for a mundane type?
Oh, yeah...most of us...
*heh*
Shava
My machine is decent; I can run DDO on highest graphics settings now without more than the occasional stutter, usually right after zoning or logging in. The trial I've got for EVE doesn't skip a beat, either. (side note: It's not that decent, unfortunately... I'm unable to play any graphically-pretty game for more than 30 minutes without my computer shutting down.. Working on finding the solution to this problem)
All the same, gameplay trumps graphics every time. Graphics are good for the 'wow factor', for getting people to take a look. I'll admit that SWG graphics are a HUGE part of the reason I started playing that game. I like me some pretty. But I'd never have done more than "wow, pretty" if the skill system and the sheer variety of what you could do in SWG hadn't grabbed me. Even the license wasn't much of a draw, as I like Star Wars, but I'm hardly a big fan. I might be still playing if not for SOE failing time and again to actually improve the game, and slowly but surely destroying my chosen profession (Master Ranger, baybee!).
When I talk about ideal game stuff, my only mention of graphics is that they shouldn't suck. It's all about the immersion, the feeling of being part of a real world that I want. Graphics help with that a little, but my most immersive experiences have been in free-form roleplay in chatrooms.
So long as the graphics aren't actively hurtful to game play (glaring colors making it hard to see, etc.) then I'm good. If I can have awesome gameplay, and still have those moments when I reach a ridgeline overlooking a valley and feel compelled to stop for a screenshot, that's a big, big bonus. (Still have that shot, too.. It's titled "Overlooking Bela Vistal")
This is an interesting subject when I think about how a game like Eve, with it's stunning graphics and Asherons Call where I can fight 10 mobs at once, all run fine on my ancient machine, but other games which seem less demanding don't work well at all.
I tried Anarchy Online and Saga of Ryzom, but neither ran well enough to consider playing, and WoW just kept crashing my system.
I tend to think that game developers could have access to a large market if they would design games that can run on average machines. Not every developer of course, but a company that could put pout a decent game with moderate system requirements would do well.
And I do wish that developers would list the system requirements sooner. I can never preorder a game for fear it won't run on my system.
(AMD- Pentium 3700-4000+ (whatever I get the most bang for my $) a Radeon Xpress MBoard and PCI-X Graphics card, 1300 Megs of DDR 400(which I may kick up to 2 gigs) I still have everything else axcept my heatsink and cpu fan which will be all copper with a 120mm fan (I already have 6 more ultra quiet cooler master fans in my ALuminum full tower thats SIlver with Blue Lighting:)
While Graphics are inportant to a degree, a lot of games these days (i'm mainly talking none MMO's here) focus mainly on giving new graphics, throwing in better physics (and soon physics cards, if they aint already out... you can tell how bothered i am), but all they give in terms of game play is little more than we got from quake 1, command and conqure or any other old and well known genre clasic.
Personally i've pretty much given up hope with the games industry, despite once going to university to get bored to death by maths and programming to try and create games engines and otehr such things covered on the increasingly popular games courses available these days, worked in house QA for a games company at the bottom of the potential lader with my foot in the door. finished uni, quit playing computer games completly, and had no interest in pursuing that carear path. i returned to gaming a few years ago to play SWG with my fiance and we now play EQ2... but i digress (im good at that :P )
The industry its self, and the consumers (its a consumer driven industry, so we and they are the ones that dictates whats successful) seem infatuated with being fed the same old crap and buying into new graphics and things which "look" better, that are then ultimatly going to get bored of and move on. quite iconic of the shallow and disposable society that seems the norm these days. where apperance and conveniance rule supreme.
my moan over...
personally looks do matter, but only to a small extent. i have expectations and understand of what is and isn't possible to do easily, so from an MMO i do expect to see a certain default standard of graphics that most seem to provide. pushing the boundries for graphics usualy tends to give poor performance and subsiquently impedes game play. but other than reaching this low benchmark of 3d graphics its game play that truely matters to me. a good interface that seems to have learnt from the mistakes of the past and follows a good design practice where by the better the interface the more transparent (not literaly) it is. along with reason and prupose to the game.
So personally to me, the little things matter much more than shallow graphics that cost £500 in upgrades just to be bored of a month or two later. i'm happier with last gen graphics and good game play.
I'm a self admited techno-adict, I love my games but what I almost love more is my computers and techy toys in general...
Pink Motorolla Razr FTW !!!
But anyways, recently, even I've been getting a little down over the need to upgrade so much. Over the winter, I went way over board on a new home gaming system, deciding to go with a high end SLi rig. It now has an FX-60 (which is amazing btw), 2 gigs of LL Corsair ram, 2 74gig 10k raptor drives and 2 7800 GTX's.
Needless to say, it took some time to put together and more then a few bucks, but I'm happy with it. I also work part time at a computer/tech/game shop that helps TONS.
I also have an Frag Box that I ordered from Falcon Northwest a little over a year ago, you can check out their site here http://www.falcon-nw.com/, but those boys and girls can really put a system together. To this day it's just about as fast as the big rig I put together and I use it mostly for LAN Gaming. Super machine though, wish I could afford one of their desktops.
Besides that, I also have a little iBook G4 14" for regular school work, note taking in lectures and the such. Can't really beat it's portability but it's just about useless for gaming in every sense of the word.
I think I'm going to make an effort to NOT buy anything new for awhile, upgradding is kinda like a drug I found. The more and more I got sucked up into getting the newest processor , the fastest graphics cards, the lowest lantency ram... the more unhappy I was with the RIG I had. It was completely counter productive in the end.
Important Information regarding Posting and You
This game had good graphics, but an all new way to play, at least for the PC.
Graphically, I liked Oblivion lately, the problem is, evento the game looks great (I love games with SpeedTree technology), I didn't find many new things to do. It's still the same way to fight, same old quest system and so on. I got bored after 3 days. Yes there's a lot to do, but not innovative enough.
When I look at MMOs, I can see many differences in graphics, but the gameplay is all the same. Eventho I really liked SWG as it was released, it was something new. I don't like WoW because of it's strange cartoon-like graphics, yea it runs fine on my desktop, but it looks awefull and the gameplay isn't that good either. The lack of player customisation is also a turn-over for me.
In SWG I NEVER saw another char looking like mine, and I like that.
That's one of the reason why I'll play Age of Conan, end of the year. It has a good customisation for chars, it uses SpeedTree (you gotta admit the trees really look great), and there's new gameplay not seen in any other game (MMO) yet. Maybe it doesn't look as good as God & Heroes or Vanguard, but it definitly is something new, and that's all I want.
I know the game would run smoothly on my system, but I'll still update it, because Im a PC-freak.
By experience I can tell, you have a very different experience in MMO, if you don't have to pull down graphics to a minimum. SWG wasn't too bad at minimum graphics (it ran on a Duron 1.8Ghz and a GeForce 2) but I definitly prefered playing on a better system (Athlon64 3500+ GeForce 6800GT).
At the end I'll just ask, how many people enjoyed Ultima Online? and it was a BAD 3d iso view with BAD graphics.
For what little it's worth, I tried the 3D client on UO precisely once, back when 3rd Dawn first came out. My system and my connection were horrible, and it ran like a slide-show of the Johnson's vacation to Yellowstone. I've never, ever looked back.. And having seen the screen shots of the "updated" 3D client around the time of Age of Shadows, I'm especially glad I didn't.
UO2D all the way, baybee.
Absolutely no contest here.
I'm a "all go, no show" kinda guy. Give me substance over style. Give me gameplay over graphics. Don't get me wrong I like a nice looking game. But screenshots dont mean much to me, and you generally get over the "oooo and ahhhh" factor in like 10 minutes. After that all you have is the game.
And a pile 'O shit in a pretty wrapper is a pile 'O shit.
It's an old, old bit of conventional wisdom: flashing lights bring in the rubes, but the rides and games are where the money comes from.
Updated for MMORPGs, great graphics gets people to try a game, but great gameplay is necessary to keep them playing.
Interestingly, that means that MMORPGs have a different balance point than single-player games. A single-player game can load up on flashy graphics and ignore gameplay ("all sizzle and no steak") and they'll still make their cash because you've already paid for the game. MMORPGs, on the other hand, depend on ongoing play for their revenues (especially if they use the subscription model), so the gameplay absolutely cannot suck.
The question for MMORPGs, then, is how important graphics are. If your gameplay is good enough, can you skimp on graphics? Or are the flashing lights still necessary to bring in the rubes?
Speaking of hardware, long ago I figured out that the most financially sensible approach to computer buying (barring an "it's fried" disaster) is to skip generations.
Get a computer now, then use the heck out of it for around 3-4 years. In that time, about two generations of computers will pass, and you'll find that you can't run the latest programs (especially games) without upgrading, which means it's time to upgrade.
In the meantime, you replace peripherals -- more memory, a better sound card, and one or two generations of graphics cards. Programs that are more about number-crunching (Microsoft Excel, for example) will eventually give you problems but will still run, while games that rely on graphics will be OK as long as you keep on the trailing edge of graphics cards.
Speaking for myself, I'm one of those nuts who decided that springing for a new video card just to play Oblivion was worth it. I went from an Nvidia GeForce 3 Ti500 to a Radeon 7800 and wow. Things aren't exactly snappy with my 1.8 GHz processor, but dang, stuff is looking GOOD now. I can drag sliders a lot farther to the right on SWG and F.E.A.R. and so on than I could even dream about before. The eye candy doesn't quite turn these games into new games, though -- gameplay is still king.
Finally, I expect within a year or two I'll be forced to upgrade to a new machine anyway... and as a geezer, I'll be buying a box instead of spending time trying to wedge pieces together. The good news is that I expect my current Alienware machine to run like a champ until then. The bad news is that Dell bought Alienware.
Sigh.
In my former life working with a network manager, we had to pick machines as servers on a token-ring network. One of the rules we decided on was that there was no way in hell we would use Dell or Compaq machines -- as a customer-control tactic, both manufacturers used proprietary (i.e., non-standard and sole-source) parts, so trying to replace a part was expensive and time-consuming. We didn't like being manipulated like that.
So I've been sour on Dell (and what used to be Compaq) ever since. And now Dell is buying the manufacturer I really like.
Grrrrrr.
I'm a dedicated capitalist, but sometimes the whole "big fish eat little fish" thing just gets annoying.
--Flatfingers
/nod
I've heard that from several people, too, so I don't have quite the animus against Dell as I once did. I give them credit for stepping away from the Dark Side.
Still, I'm seriously debating whether to grab an Alienware box now before Dell decides to start "improving" the brand....
--Flatfingers
<p>Graphics Graphics Graphics, yep and the new consoles PS3, Nintendo, and the Xbox 360 are going online in a big way to meet the challange.
Its easier for companys to make their games with the set standards of the consoles, and the end user upgrades will be lessened and the same for everybody. Microsoft with their Media Center set up is already combining the PC, xbox 360, and online content.
The end of PC online gaming isn't here yet, but the handwriting is on the wall, I see Huxley a MMOFPS is scheduled for consoles in 2007 and I for one can't wait to try it out on a 37" HDTV with Xbox 360 wireless controllers and with four buddys in the room all playing off the same box, sound cranked up,... woot... grapics, sound, content, and online... its gonna be a heluva ride.
Inside my box while Outside looking in through Windows at Vistas.
R
</p>
I console (no pun intended) myself with the thought that as long as there are general-purpose computers, there will be people writing and selling games that run on general-purpose computers.
--Flatfingers
Now, on the issue of gameplay vs graphics. I am a game developer, and I happen to also be working on an MMO game. I believe that innovation and engaging gameplay are the way to go first, and worry about the pretty later. However, we are writing our game to require fully DirectX 9 compliant hardware. We are doing this to be able to take advantage of the shader capabilities and all of those things. And our basic reasoning for this is because DirectX 9 has been out for a number of years not, and if you are still running your GeForce 4 4200, it's time to upgrade that thing. We are not saying that you need a super expensive DirectX 9 card though. It's possible to get a nice, well performing DirectX 9 compliant graphics card for $150 (some for less, but $150 isn't too exorbient a price).
So basically, it comes down to the fact that graphics hardware, and computer hardware in general, is always advancing. I'm not so interested necessarily in being able to create realistic rendering, but I'm interested in the ability to use all of that processing power to create a game that is visually pleasing with a world that you can become engaged in. And when you figure all of this into the MMO scene, you've got to basically wake up and realize that $150 or so for a decent GPU isn't something you shouldn't be able to do when you're already dropping $14 a month to play the game anyway.
I didn't need to upgrade my GeForce 4 4200 to a GeForce 6800 until Oblivion. But then I don't play RTS games.
I love nice graphics, but I find when developers try to make the characters look too realistic, they look plastic. My main criteria for gaming is fluid movement of my character and the camera. Then comes a priority of little lag and no crashes. There has to be a good balance between nice graphics and gameplay. I also need a good storyline to keep me interested in continuing to play. Innovation means little if it doesn't offer the above.
SpeedTree FTW!
But Brynn, you actually bring up a really interesting distinction where graphics are concerned: framerate vs. pretty.
I find that my preferences are a little different from most folks -- rather than optimizing for framerate, I'm willing to accept < 30fps if it means that when I stand still for a second I'm seeing something really interesting.
A lot of the fun for me in first-person games (of whatever type) is the visual architecture. I like to explore all the nooks and crannies, and to see the forest or the city or the planet or whatever from unique perspectives. I also tend to prefer stealthy gameplay to flat-out, high-adrenalin action. (BFG? No thanks; this carefully sighted-in sniper rifle will do just fine....) So for me, a little jerkiness is OK because I'm usually not moving very fast. It's more important that whatever I'm looking at look good.
So here's the question: in most games, does this distinction in graphical interests matter when designing the gameplay?
Should it?
--Flatfingers
Heidi