The War
Headlines
Movies
Screenshots
Alliance Community
2011: We're Back!

Alliance: The Silent War

Community Forums for Alliance: The Silent War
It is currently Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:34 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:33 pm 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 2:54 pm
Posts: 592
Chaunsey wrote:
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Tell that to the millions upon millions of people who play World of Warcraft. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who play Halo 2.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who play Gears of War.
Tell that to the thousands of people who play FEAR.
Tell that to the thousands of people who will play UT2k7, STALKER, Crysis and all the rest of the awesomeness that will come out in 2007.



WOW=trash i hated it

halo= worst big name FPS in many years

fear= mediocre ay best, doom 3 is far better

havent played gears of war, and of course stalker and such arent out.



britney spears has sold millions of records, doesnt mean shes a good musician you know.

they cater to the simple players, people who arent looking for a real experience in a game, they're just looking for a twitch game.

some people want more.

interestingly enough, the average age of the players of twitch games is far lower than the age of players for more realistic games.

i cant even stand playing multiplayer in most of those twitch games cause all the immature little kids are annoying as hell, i like to play with mature gamers.
WoW isn't half bad but it still sucked i'm waiting for another mmo

halo was and still remains the most hyped peice of crap made in the last 10 years

i like fear but only the single player

and britney spears make my ears bleed

i think fear wants alliance to be just another cookie cutter fps but with more guns

_________________
Image
Image
Image
Sox's assistant and the number one grunt of the NZG
don't mess with a nation that needs medication


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:26 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: Houston, TX
I liked Halo though :(



I still try to beat it on Legendary in one sitting ;)





And from what Ive read, I think were getting off topic from grenades and the like...

_________________
Image
"Dream a little bit
This is the kush to your lighter"

The NZG Specialist, Stick Wielder, Shotgun Extraordinaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:50 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:38 pm
Posts: 192
halo wasnt so bad once it came out for the pc
i like wow, its not too bad
fear single player was pretty damn good in my mind, but multiplayer was a rushed piece of crap.
when i think multiplayer success, i think america's army, which is not only one of the more realistic fps out there, but is also a huge hit partially because its free and partially because it actually is pretty fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:15 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
i actually dont like AA, dunno i just didnt like it.


the whole qualifying for stuff to play online helped turn me off too.


when i want to play an AA type game, its cause im just looking for a quick fix of decent FPS action, if i wanted to put some time into it i wouldnt be playing AA in the first place.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:48 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Quote:
WOW=trash i hated it

halo= worst big name FPS in many years

fear= mediocre ay best, doom 3 is far better

havent played gears of war, and of course stalker and such arent out.

So you think you know better than the masses?

Anyone who says that FEAR is mediocre at best needs to put down the pot pipe. That's just because realism is the onyl way that you judge a game.

Sorry, realism isn't really an imminant trend in the next year for gaming. Have you considered taking up chess? It's very realistic.

Quote:
halo was and still remains the most hyped peice of crap made in the last 10 years

Fine Halo 2, which kicked Halo 1's ass.

Quote:
i like fear but only the single player

Your views are not shared by many. The game has over a thousand servers up at peak times.

Plus, there is tons of custom content out there, which, I believe, is part of the way that a game's popularity can be measured.

Quote:
and britney spears make my ears bleed

She used to look hella fine. But not anymore.

Quote:
i think fear wants alliance to be just another cookie cutter fps but with more guns

No, I'm defenitely also here for all the weapon customization and different ammo types.

Quote:
WOW=trash i hated it

OMfG! Cuz no fri aim and it leIK n0t realistic!!!111

Do you think that the only opinion that matters is yours?

The game has six million subsribers. Open your eyes. The point is that realism is not neccesary to make a game successful.

Quote:
all these conventions you speak of in gaming are products of limited technology.

Hahahaha, no.

Do you think that toay's devlopers don't have the technology to produce realistic games?

I've seen countless interviews and commentaries from the industries msot successful developers. No mention of realism.

Quote:
doom didnt have ironsights becuase it was not possible for the technology they had.

Yeah, doom bears no relevance to today's games. Sorry to burst your bubble but Doom is kind of like over a decade old.

Quote:
most "fake" things havin to do with the general environment are only the way they are because technology limits them.

Nope. If you define "technology" as hardware, then the technology to do realistic games has existed for over a decade. It's just a question of how you choose to use the hardware that you have to work with.

Quote:
we could not have real bullet physics before, because no one's PC could handle that kind of performance etc etc.

The neccesary CPU that since 2000.

Quote:
by the way, yes, it should be 1 or 2 shots and you're dead, i prefer games designed around a system like that.

Well, your point of view isn't shared by the majority of gamers. Just look at the best selling games. None of them are realistic. Clearly, releasism doesn't play a big role in sucess.

Quote:
and stop making dumb assumptions about what i have played or not, i prefer realistic games, that doesnt mean i dont play other games.

Sorry, but you were implying that the only thing that matters is realism.

Quote:
fear was so so, halo is the biggest pile of digital vomit ive ever laid hands on, battlefield was good in the first 2 games, but after that i didnt like it, doom 3 good, farcry good, both because they offered enhanced realism over many other games, even if that realism is only visual.

This is what we call a niche perspective.

Do you think that the 1 plus million people were idiots and that you're seeing something they didn't?

Quote:
half life 2 i loved, cause it has alot of realism in the environment, it feels like a living realistic environment.

As you may have noticed, Half Life 2 is anything but realistic. It involces aliens and supernatural forces. You can also surcive more than one grenade.

Flip flopper!

Quote:
for multiplayer my favorites have been OFP, RO, vietcong and the game i have put the most time into ever is world war 2 online, which is probably the most realistic shooter ever made, its not exactly a shooter though its a war sim. in some ways its not realistic but in so many others it is.

All of these games are only played by a very small portion of the gamers.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:12 pm 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 2:54 pm
Posts: 592
fear remember something just because everybody plays it doesn't make it good

just look at Jaws Unleashed one of the worst games made last year and it sold hundreds of thousands of copies.Most good games don't sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Heck, there are fantastic games that are lucky to sell tens of thousands of copies.


and look at GTR 2 the best racing game last year and it didn't sell for shit

just because everyone plays something doesn't make it good

_________________
Image
Image
Image
Sox's assistant and the number one grunt of the NZG
don't mess with a nation that needs medication


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:16 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
darkdragon wrote:
fear remember something just because everybody plays it doesn't make it good

just look at Jaws Unleashed one of the worst games made last year and it sold hundreds of thousands of copies.Most good games don't sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Heck, there are fantastic games that are lucky to sell tens of thousands of copies.


and look at GTR 2 the best racing game last year and it didn't sell for shit

just because everyone plays something doesn't make it good

Uhm, someone plays it. Words gets around. Or peoepl read reviews. Poeple aren't stupid. Those games are good, even if they aren't realistic. Accept teh!

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:25 pm 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 2:54 pm
Posts: 592
i'm guessing you've never played Jaws Unleashed :lol: you also don't seem to read all my posts or you'd know i think people are stupid most ppl are idiots

_________________
Image
Image
Image
Sox's assistant and the number one grunt of the NZG
don't mess with a nation that needs medication


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:18 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
darkdragon wrote:
i'm guessing you've never played Jaws Unleashed :lol: you also don't seem to read all my posts or you'd know i think people are stupid most ppl are idiots

Sure, dude. The whole world's comrpised of dumbasses and the only smart person is....
*drumrolll*

Darkdragon!

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:24 pm 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 2:54 pm
Posts: 592
never said i was the only smart one what i said is most ppl are idiots the average person goes through life ignorent but ignorence is truly bliss i'd give anything not to know the things i know

_________________
Image
Image
Image
Sox's assistant and the number one grunt of the NZG
don't mess with a nation that needs medication


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:01 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: Houston, TX
wow, this forum gets off topic easily... :roll:


*munches on donut*


get back to the talking of explosions and such, not arguing about opinion, this thread is being derailed :S

_________________
Image
"Dream a little bit
This is the kush to your lighter"

The NZG Specialist, Stick Wielder, Shotgun Extraordinaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:35 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Quote:
WOW=trash i hated it

halo= worst big name FPS in many years

fear= mediocre ay best, doom 3 is far better

havent played gears of war, and of course stalker and such arent out.

So you think you know better than the masses?

Anyone who says that FEAR is mediocre at best needs to put down the pot pipe. That's just because realism is the onyl way that you judge a game.

Sorry, realism isn't really an imminant trend in the next year for gaming. Have you considered taking up chess? It's very realistic.


i couldnt give a damn what the masses say, yes, i know better than the masses what is good to ME.

im simply saying your statements that realism is inherently not fun are wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
WOW=trash i hated it

OMfG! Cuz no fri aim and it leIK n0t realistic!!!111

Do you think that the only opinion that matters is yours?

The game has six million subsribers. Open your eyes. The point is that realism is not neccesary to make a game successful.



you know just cause you make some stupid 1337 speak sentence doesnt make you right.

when did i ever say my opinion is the only one that matters?

i dont care if WOW has 20 million subscribers, its boring, i cant stand it, its not about realism, thats a different style of game, i could get into the reasons why i hate WOW and mmorpg's in general, but thats for another time and not on topic to this thread, suffice it to say that for me WOW=trash, and thats all that matters TO ME.

just like what you like is all the matters to you.



Quote:
Quote:
all these conventions you speak of in gaming are products of limited technology.

Hahahaha, no.

Do you think that toay's devlopers don't have the technology to produce realistic games?

I've seen countless interviews and commentaries from the industries msot successful developers. No mention of realism.


no mention of realism? lol.

why did half life 2 implement a physics engine that generates a more believable environment?

realism

why are graphics made better?

realism

realism is an inherent goal in making certain types of video games.

and yes, developers do not have the tech, or do not want to bother with the extra trouble to make their games realistic.

the problem is there are alot of people out there who will buy any mediocre piece of crap on the market, and developers, like anyone else, will only do the work necessary to make money, doing extra work to really make something above and beyond isnt as economical these days, so we are not getting the industy's best from the big name companies.

the best ideas are being pushed by smaller companies who dont really have the funds to get them realized to their potential.

Quote:
Quote:
doom didnt have ironsights becuase it was not possible for the technology they had.

Yeah, doom bears no relevance to today's games. Sorry to burst your bubble but Doom is kind of like over a decade old.


-<the point



_____<your head



my point was that most games only arent realistic because the technology doesnt allow for it.

most games have numbers based physics instead of realistic physics algorithms because the average players comuter cant handle total physics realism yet.

games dont have realistic sized maps and no loading because our computers cant handle it yet.

etc etc etc, theres a million things that would make games more realistic and more fun, that just cant be done yet.

just like over a decade ago doom could not have ironsights, that was my point which you seemed to have missed entirely.

Quote:
Quote:
most "fake" things havin to do with the general environment are only the way they are because technology limits them.

Nope. If you define "technology" as hardware, then the technology to do realistic games has existed for over a decade. It's just a question of how you choose to use the hardware that you have to work with.



no, youre absolutely wrong here, technology will always be developing, and always giving us new things to help create better realism in games.

a decade ago we absolutely could not make realistic games.

was farcry possible a decade ago? no, and far cry is inherently more realistic than games were a decade ago, a decade from now games will be more realistic than they are now etc etc, realism is limited by technology.

Quote:
Quote:
we could not have real bullet physics before, because no one's PC could handle that kind of performance etc etc.

The neccesary CPU that since 2000.


thats right, but you have to make sacrifices, in 2000 you could not have realistic physics AND good graphics, one day our computers will be strong enough to have realistic physics, realistic graphics and everything inbetween.

in WWIIOL the graphics are behind but the game requires a computer as strong as the best graphics games out there, and thats because the realistic fatures in the game require a lot of resources from your PC.


Quote:
Quote:
by the way, yes, it should be 1 or 2 shots and you're dead, i prefer games designed around a system like that.

Well, your point of view isn't shared by the majority of gamers. Just look at the best selling games. None of them are realistic. Clearly, releasism doesn't play a big role in sucess.


my point of view is shared by a lot of gamers, usually the more hardcore gamers, the simple FPS's are better for casual gamers.

games like RO,WWIIOL,OFP and other realistic shooters cater to a more patient non twitch type of gamer that wants a more immersive and serious gaming experience.

but realism absolutely does have a hand in success, half life 2 is extremely popular, mostly because it has a realistic believable environment, characters etc.

even you are pushing for graphics features that help make the game more realistic.



Quote:
Quote:
and stop making dumb assumptions about what i have played or not, i prefer realistic games, that doesnt mean i dont play other games.

Sorry, but you were implying that the only thing that matters is realism.


not really, im saying that where it can be done more realistic, it should be.

Quote:
Quote:
fear was so so, halo is the biggest pile of digital vomit ive ever laid hands on, battlefield was good in the first 2 games, but after that i didnt like it, doom 3 good, farcry good, both because they offered enhanced realism over many other games, even if that realism is only visual.

This is what we call a niche perspective.

Do you think that the 1 plus million people were idiots and that you're seeing something they didn't?


maybe, maybe not, i dont really care whats popular, popular doesnt always mean good, and yes, sometims the masses really dont know whats good simply because they havent bother to look for whats better.

doesnt mean they're idiots, they just have low expectations, or just dont care.

on your last question though, yes, i obviously am seeing something they dont, i think thats quite obvious.

Quote:
Quote:
half life 2 i loved, cause it has alot of realism in the environment, it feels like a living realistic environment.

As you may have noticed, Half Life 2 is anything but realistic. It involces aliens and supernatural forces. You can also surcive more than one grenade.

Flip flopper!



realism has nothign to do with the story and such.

you can have fantasy stuff, but you should stribe to make it believable, a good game or movie presents the supernatural in a manner that people can relate to in real life.

and yes you can take multiple grenades, damage system is partly dependant on the style of game, and aswell HL2 is hardly perfect, its good, not perfect.

Quote:
Quote:
for multiplayer my favorites have been OFP, RO, vietcong and the game i have put the most time into ever is world war 2 online, which is probably the most realistic shooter ever made, its not exactly a shooter though its a war sim. in some ways its not realistic but in so many others it is.

All of these games are only played by a very small portion of the gamers.


so?


should i be playing the games everyone else plays just cause its the "popular" thing to do?


no, im playing what i like, and so far alliance is leaning towards the more realistic side of FPS, and i will continue to push for better realism like many here.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
darkdragon wrote:
fear remember something just because everybody plays it doesn't make it good

just look at Jaws Unleashed one of the worst games made last year and it sold hundreds of thousands of copies.Most good games don't sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Heck, there are fantastic games that are lucky to sell tens of thousands of copies.


and look at GTR 2 the best racing game last year and it didn't sell for shit

just because everyone plays something doesn't make it good

Uhm, someone plays it. Words gets around. Or peoepl read reviews. Poeple aren't stupid. Those games are good, even if they aren't realistic. Accept teh!


just because a game sells doesnt make it good, have you ever bought a game that you turned out not to like?

if 100,000 people buy a game but only 10% of them like it, or play it very long, then its not a very good game, you are using only sales as a guage of how good they are, and so you would take htat 100,000 sales and say its a good game.


people are wrong all the time, even millions of people

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:08 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Quote:
i couldnt give a damn what the masses say, yes, i know better than the masses what is good to ME.

So, I think it's fairly safe to say that your opnions shouldn't be given much weight.

Quote:
im simply saying your statements that realism is inherently not fun are wrong.

It's not that simple. Some realism can be good but too much is bad thing. Majority expectations dictate that the game obey cetain basic rules such as gravity but not many people like one shot deaths.

When was the last time you picked up a game magazine that complained about lack of realism.

I know what's going on in the gaming industry. And lack of realism is not a big issue.

Quote:
im simply saying your statements that realism is inherently not fun are wrong.

I jsut thinkt ttat the fact that your views on games contradict masive amouts of hard evidence is something to note. You say that realism is very important, but the most popular games don't emphasize realism (judging by your expections of realism atleast.) You then state that everyone of those games that have sold in the millions are bad.

Doesn't that seem a little odd?

Quote:
no mention of realism? lol.

why did half life 2 implement a physics engine that generates a more believable environment?

realism

why are graphics made better?

realism

That's not what you consider realism, according to oyour repvious posts. You want people to die in one hit and other stuff like that.

But, hey, I suppose if you conside the fact that those kidn of basic aspects constiute a focus on realism then I guess that all games are relistic because you don't float in the freakin air.

You're not entirely correct about the last part. It's an old fallacy about the gamingindustry. There are a lot of comapnies that are devoted out there. Like Monolith, the devlopers of FEAR. I could go on and on.

Quote:
my point was that most games only arent realistic because the technology doesnt allow for it.

You clearly don't know much about hardware so you're not realy qualified to say something like this.

Do you thinkt hat it takes thousands and thousands of CPU cycles to make someone die in one hit. Never mind that most people wouldn't enjoy such a type of game...

Quote:
most games have numbers based physics instead of realistic physics algorithms because the average players comuter cant handle total physics realism yet.

if you're referring to the Ageia Phys X system, then yes, it has yet to gain widespreaed popularity.

Quote:
games dont have realistic sized maps and no loading because our computers cant handle it yet.

See, this is a prime example of why you should really play a variety of games. So you don;t sound ignorant.

Soldner, although, a piece of crap, had huged maps (16 million square kilometers) and they were't tiles. It was very varied, with every kidn of geographical feature you could imagine.

Stalker's gameworld is huge and it has no loading time.

Parabellum (check my upcomming games thread) features multiplayer maps the size of whole cities.

Quote:
etc etc etc, theres a million things that would make games more realistic and more fun, that just cant be done yet.

No, games can't be perfect. And I assume that that's what you meant since you seem to think that realsim is all that matters.

You'll have to wait until 50 years later when we get some incredible Ultra high res display technology and other hyper advanced equipment.

What's the significance of this? You're pointing out that we can't do something that is wildly implasusible.

Quote:
no, youre absolutely wrong here, technology will always be developing, and always giving us new things to help create better realism in games.

Your standards will keep on increasing and you will never be satisfied.

Quote:
a decade ago we absolutely could not make realistic games.

..Your point being?

Quote:
thats right, but you have to make sacrifices, in 2000 you could not have realistic physics AND good graphics, one day our computers will be strong enough to have realistic physics, realistic graphics and everything inbetween.

That's changed withthe PhysX card.


I'm not going to bother with the rest of the post. But I really don't like how you're demeaning to mainstream gamers by calling their games "simlpe." Realism isn't the only source of depth. You're opinions don't represent the majortity. You represent the minorty.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:26 am 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 2:54 pm
Posts: 592
i wouldn't call the hardcore gamers the minority because without us the gaming industy would be dead right now

we demand or games not to be broken on release we demand games that are fun and we demand not to be told what to like by other ppl who think they know what they are talkin about

_________________
Image
Image
Image
Sox's assistant and the number one grunt of the NZG
don't mess with a nation that needs medication


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:30 am 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Quote:
i couldnt give a damn what the masses say, yes, i know better than the masses what is good to ME.

So, I think it's fairly safe to say that your opnions shouldn't be given much weight.



my opinion should be given the same weight as anyone elses, we all have different opinions.

aswell, remember, this isnt just a 100% money factor, to a certain degree developers, especially small groups like this, make a game based on their own ideas.

Quote:
Quote:
im simply saying your statements that realism is inherently not fun are wrong.

It's not that simple. Some realism can be good but too much is bad thing. Majority expectations dictate that the game obey cetain basic rules such as gravity but not many people like one shot deaths.

When was the last time you picked up a game magazine that complained about lack of realism.

I know what's going on in the gaming industry. And lack of realism is not a big issue.


magazine?

lol, i dont bother with magazines, they have a vested interest in making sure games are sold, bad or good, games need to be sold for them to make money.


i bet you thik the songs played on the radio are there cause they're the best too? lol


too much realism is only bad when its detrimental to the game, realism itself is a good thing.

Quote:
Quote:
im simply saying your statements that realism is inherently not fun are wrong.

I jsut thinkt ttat the fact that your views on games contradict masive amouts of hard evidence is something to note. You say that realism is very important, but the most popular games don't emphasize realism (judging by your expections of realism atleast.) You then state that everyone of those games that have sold in the millions are bad.

Doesn't that seem a little odd?


i didnt say they're all bad i play plenty of mainstream games, you're putting words in my mouth.

also there is no such thing as hard evidence on this subject because it is all up to a persons personal prefferance, there is no such thing as hard evidence of a game being good.



Quote:
Quote:
no mention of realism? lol.

why did half life 2 implement a physics engine that generates a more believable environment?

realism

why are graphics made better?

realism

That's not what you consider realism, according to oyour repvious posts. You want people to die in one hit and other stuff like that.

But, hey, I suppose if you conside the fact that those kidn of basic aspects constiute a focus on realism then I guess that all games are relistic because you don't float in the freakin air.

You're not entirely correct about the last part. It's an old fallacy about the gamingindustry. There are a lot of comapnies that are devoted out there. Like Monolith, the devlopers of FEAR. I could go on and on.


there are many different factors to what is realism.


and yes there are a lot of good dedicated developers out there, unfortunately they often get overshadowed by an industry that is self serving.

the little guys get very little time in the mainstream if they doint have big money behind them.

anything that comes from the big corporations that really dont give a damn like the devils themselves, EA, is automatically treated like gold.

if you think the industry is still trying to serve the gamer and put out good games as opposed to just making money ,you're kidding yourself, there's a reason why the only innovation is technologywise most of the time.

Quote:
Quote:
my point was that most games only arent realistic because the technology doesnt allow for it.

You clearly don't know much about hardware so you're not realy qualified to say something like this.

Do you thinkt hat it takes thousands and thousands of CPU cycles to make someone die in one hit. Never mind that most people wouldn't enjoy such a type of game...


it sounds to me like you dont know about hardware simply form the fact you're misrepresenting what im saying.

i never said it takes thousands of CPU cycles to make someone die in one hit, thats one of the simple changes.

however it depends on the damage system.

for example, most games use a simple system, like each person can take XXXX points of damage, and each gun does XXXX damage and each part of the body when hit reduces your damage by XXXX amount.

these are simple abstract table based systems.

now lets say instead that the game calculates the angle of impact, the joules of energy applied based on velocity, bullet weight, penetration and expansion.

and instead of hit points the game tracks your vital internals, blood levels, ATP, etc, so that when you get shot i calculated blood loss and the corresponding ATP loss, and also calculates your ability to stop the blood loss or not in time.


so to answer your question more in depth, in a table based system, no, it takes almost nothing to just say character gets hit= death.

in the second system, it requires possibly hundreds of lines of code to return a damage report packet to your client.

realism is limited by tech, because right now its not feasible to make a truely realistic and seamless open ended game that also has top of the line graphics and such.

Quote:
Quote:
most games have numbers based physics instead of realistic physics algorithms because the average players comuter cant handle total physics realism yet.

if you're referring to the Ageia Phys X system, then yes, it has yet to gain widespreaed popularity.


check out wwIIol if you havent, they've been doing real physics for over a half decade now.

there are no hitpoints, everything is done with artificial physics.

if you shoot a tank they dont count hitpoints, they count joules of energy, angle of impact, armor thickness rating according to the international standard for armor rating, and then the internals are all modeled so it tracks the bullet as it passes through the tank calculating the damage, all based on real physics, to each component.

now because of the realistic physics, and huge map with no levels or loading, the graphics are behind, but thats fine, gameplay is more important than graphics.

one day, when our computers are strong enough, we wont have to make the choice between graphics and physics or map size, we'll be able ot have it all.

one of the more exciting new pieces of hardware coming around now, that eventually should be standard for all gamers, is a physics card, basically its like your video card or sound card, but its sole purpose is to calculate physics for games, so that your CPU isnt burdened by it.

the implications of the proper implimentation of this tech could be huge for serious gamers.

Quote:
Quote:
games dont have realistic sized maps and no loading because our computers cant handle it yet.

See, this is a prime example of why you should really play a variety of games. So you don;t sound ignorant.

Soldner, although, a piece of crap, had huged maps (16 million square kilometers) and they were't tiles. It was very varied, with every kidn of geographical feature you could imagine.

Stalker's gameworld is huge and it has no loading time.

Parabellum (check my upcomming games thread) features multiplayer maps the size of whole cities.


yep, soldner tried to bite off more then they could chew i believe, and yes, some games are coming that are starting to have huge maps, its cool, one day we wont have to choice either/or graphics and map size, we'll be able ot have both.

for now, wwIIol still offers by far the largest map but i dont play much these days.

Quote:
Quote:
etc etc etc, theres a million things that would make games more realistic and more fun, that just cant be done yet.

No, games can't be perfect. And I assume that that's what you meant since you seem to think that realsim is all that matters.

You'll have to wait until 50 years later when we get some incredible Ultra high res display technology and other hyper advanced equipment.

What's the significance of this? You're pointing out that we can't do something that is wildly implasusible.


my point is realism is an inherent goal of in game development, one that should constantly be persued where its plausible.

now how that applies to the original discussion is that i was talking about how i would like explosions to be handled, which was that they obviously cant do it realistically yet, but that they should not also do the usual gmaey thing of having bodies fly all over the place cause of explosions.

Quote:
Quote:
no, youre absolutely wrong here, technology will always be developing, and always giving us new things to help create better realism in games.

Your standards will keep on increasing and you will never be satisfied.


well duh, are you satisfied with half life 1?

or have your expectations risen?

they have risen, of course we will never be satisfied, and neither should we, each generation of games has to offer better than the previous one.

Quote:
Quote:
a decade ago we absolutely could not make realistic games.

..Your point being?


my point being as the tech becomes available we should use it, it was you who was arguing my original point, now you're asking me what the point to my rebuttal of your questions is.

lol, we've come full circle and now its starting to get confusing.

Quote:
Quote:
thats right, but you have to make sacrifices, in 2000 you could not have realistic physics AND good graphics, one day our computers will be strong enough to have realistic physics, realistic graphics and everything inbetween.

That's changed withthe PhysX card.


yes, the physics card will be a major innovation for PC gaming.


Quote:
I'm not going to bother with the rest of the post. But I really don't like how you're demeaning to mainstream gamers by calling their games "simlpe." Realism isn't the only source of depth. You're opinions don't represent the majortity. You represent the minorty.



im not demeaning them, how is that demeaning?

halo is a simple game unreal is a simple game.

some people like that, good for them, i dont see how thats demeaning.

im simply explaining what i like, and i like more complex gaming experiences, like the silent hunter series, war games, simulations, detailed strategy games such as hearts of iron etc etc.

i never claimed to be in the majority either.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:08 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:07 am
Posts: 376
Location: Sweden
Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla... Get back to topic !!!

_________________
Visit the confirmed weaponlist at the fan-site www.campwars.com ... Squad will even be started to those who have the guts ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:13 pm 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 592
wait a second, you think that computers are powerfull enough right now to deliver a high level of realism.

right, so please design a game that will work on the best possible system atm that has these game specs

full liquid system - (every drop of rain or blood flows downhill into sewers)
full physics system
full richochet system
full spalling system for armor that includes THREE DIMENSIONAL penetrations (you can look into that hole that the shell just made and see the inside of the tank)
full lightin system (much like windwards)
full weather system (rain coming from clouds that has full characteristics ie freezing rain)
fully destroyable environments so every building on an entire 20km square map can be leveled to the GROUND.
full bullet physics - using a fast moving 3d bullet, so that it rotates and uses realistic physics to calculate the speed due to the ammount of force delivered from the gunpowerder, and also may slow the bullet due to the objects it passes through
full damage system for players ingame ALL ORGANS AND VESELS AND ARTERIES INCLUDED, that way any bullet that passes through your ingame character does its realistic damage.
fully interactive world, pick anaything up, put it down somewhere else, break the door down, and all of that is realtime, nothing scripted.

well il see you back in 24 hours when you realize its impossible to make a highly realistic game because the hardware cant keep up.

now if you take a look at the proc speeds(the pentium 2 is 233 mhz minimum, you can run win xp off that), bus speeds (133 mhz used to be good, now 1333 is the best), ammounts of ram (hey 4000 kb used to be god-like, now 12 gigs or twelve million killobites is top of the line.

yes hardware is advancing at a great pace, so if you look into games in ten to twenty years, they will probably be getting many of the things i posted above, at first it will be basic versions of those ideas, then more and more complex.

_________________
No sigs makes threads load faster!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:39 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 196
Grenades do not have enough energy to send a person flying.

Rockets? Depends on the rocket. However, it's more likely to either A.) Impale you or B.) Blow you to a fine pulp rather than send you flying like a ragdoll.

There was actually a U.S. soldier in the battle of Mogadishu that was hit in the torso with a RPG, it didn't explode and became lodged in him (effectively impaling him).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:46 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:13 pm
Posts: 196
Colt .45 Killer wrote:
wait a second, you think that computers are powerfull enough right now to deliver a high level of realism.

right, so please design a game that will work on the best possible system atm that has these game specs

full liquid system - (every drop of rain or blood flows downhill into sewers)
full physics system
full richochet system
full spalling system for armor that includes THREE DIMENSIONAL penetrations (you can look into that hole that the shell just made and see the inside of the tank)
full lightin system (much like windwards)
full weather system (rain coming from clouds that has full characteristics ie freezing rain)
fully destroyable environments so every building on an entire 20km square map can be leveled to the GROUND.
full bullet physics - using a fast moving 3d bullet, so that it rotates and uses realistic physics to calculate the speed due to the ammount of force delivered from the gunpowerder, and also may slow the bullet due to the objects it passes through
full damage system for players ingame ALL ORGANS AND VESELS AND ARTERIES INCLUDED, that way any bullet that passes through your ingame character does its realistic damage.
fully interactive world, pick anaything up, put it down somewhere else, break the door down, and all of that is realtime, nothing scripted.

well il see you back in 24 hours when you realize its impossible to make a highly realistic game because the hardware cant keep up.

now if you take a look at the proc speeds(the pentium 2 is 233 mhz minimum, you can run win xp off that), bus speeds (133 mhz used to be good, now 1333 is the best), ammounts of ram (hey 4000 kb used to be god-like, now 12 gigs or twelve million killobites is top of the line.

yes hardware is advancing at a great pace, so if you look into games in ten to twenty years, they will probably be getting many of the things i posted above, at first it will be basic versions of those ideas, then more and more complex.


I agree totally... it would be AWESOME to see even half that stuff in one game, and I would shell out good money to buy it... but it would simply be too difficult. Even most "physics engines" don't simulate physics very well, things go flying at ridiculous speeds and the weight just doesn't seem right.

Perhaps with about 10 literal years of coding, we could get a game like that, but realistically - you're right. It's going to be a while.

One thing I've always wanted so bad is to be able to destroy environments. Red Faction failed to deliver it in the way I wanted. IMO, if you fire at a wall long enough and with a big enough caliber, you should be able to make a doorway through the wall. If a badguy is behind cover other than heavy steel, if you shoot it enough, the cover will eventually break down. Wood crates should not stop bullets. Ricochets should occur and still do damage. Tracers should be able to cause fires.

IMO, when you get to the point where a single molotov can take down an entire apartment building without scripting IN-GAME... you have a hell of a good game.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group