TheHarlequin

Ok simmer down folks... Here is a interesting article of the list of the 21 augs you can get done by PC gamer; http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/11/25/deus-ex-...-augs-analysed/ Very interesting to say the least.

On one level I agree it prob time for a new engine. OTOH the engine is so well known not just by the devs but modders. It would set the modding community back a bit with an all new engine potentially. I don't think replacing the engine is needed as well. Gutting a few aspects and rewriting them may work better. For example with what OEI did with the nwn1 engine. Gutted the rendering, pathing and other parts but kept the aspects that worked or just needed tweaking. That would not only save zots for new features but dev time as well.

hmmm reading this thread as someone has has never played me1, 2 or the soon 3 I find it reassuring I spent my gaming time elsewhere. Seems I didn't miss a lot but a cliched scifi plot.

Got to say the Pats are simply dominating. If we can get past the mangled packers next week I think barring any team melt down the rest of the schedule is a no brainer to the play offs. I certainly think if we keep playing at this caliber the SB is certainly in our future. Be interesting over next few weeks who else get a playoff spot and who we may end up playing again. Also a personal thank you to the browns. After you slapped us around Brady and the team woke the hell up and been playing as if their life depended on it. All cylinders are cooking and it's been non-stop since that game so thank you!

I am hoping the AI and NPCs are not that dumb/easy as in the video. However I do agree it was a excellent video to show off the game. Generaly knowing how these things work I have to agree the PC was prob given god mode and maxed out implants just for the show. Would really make for a odd demo if a lucky shot killed the PC in the middle of a battle and they had to reload and retrace all their steps...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...mer-Demographic I interpreted 'most active' as largest in my first read though. I may have misunderstood. But my point is still valid as a whole I think that technicality aside. The issue with the female aspect, and why I didn't address it, is because they account EVERY kind of 'game' you can play on a PC. So all the girls playing nothing but the web version of tetris or those other free java game sites were counted as 'pc gamers' even if they played no other kind of game. So on that level some folks found that misleading. As when you say 'pc gamer' most ppl are thinking about a FPS or fallout not so much java applet games which they did in that study.

well, they should just look at Torchlight or DeathSpank. very good games that don't have to be photorealistic for people to enjoy them. you're picturing a pretty shallow gamer, who doesn't care about the story or characters. you do remember what happened when Half-Life came out, right? it set a new standard for FPS games, it killed single player campaigns in Q3 and Unreal, which were always about graphics The average gamer IS shallow considering the facts. Look at the demographics of the typical PC gamer. In a neilsen survey done in 2008 the largest group of PC gamers consisted of ages 12-17 You know what those kids grew up on... twitch, FPS with eye candy style games and to them that's a 'normal' game. There is a whole other generation after us gamers in our 30's and 40's growing up on the era of the FPS. So yes, I do think the majority of gamers are shallow simply for the lack of what they grew up on. Just as I grew up on games such as text adventures, rogue, gold box D&D games and civ1 these kids grew up with eye candy galore and twitch games like CoD and Unreal style games that downplay SP and it's all about FX and MP. In another generation I am not sure if 4X style 2D games will be anything more then a niche, indie market. I hope the thinking, deep RPG type games don't end up on life support after my (our) generation gets pushed out. However do you really think the current crop of 12-17 yr olds have the appreciation for our type of games generally speaking? I have my serious doubts. I'm not saying these kids are 'bad' its simply what they grew up on and been exposed to vs the previous gen. Vastly different.

Why wouldn't they? AFAIK they still have a decent relationship and nwn2 did really well. The writing was far better then the original. However EA may have other plans for bio. I thought I read somewhere EA is having them focus on making original IP's like ME and DA. So not sure how they will feel handing over a custom property to another dev house. If they are smart they will however with break off games. For example bio still works on DA and the story started in DA1 but they license obsid to work on a new story/location in DA between their own DA releases. Could create DA (or whatever IP) market burnout but OTOH could work out well if the quality is well done.

Thats one more then me!

oh I should say.. was poking around the official forums.. while not confirmed word on the street is the devs hinted earlier this may be a stream required game on the PC. Seems all the big PC games are going the way of stream...

Apparently that glass pannel said "LAB Transit" or some such, so it's possible Jensen was thrown onto train tracks. OUCH!... getting your arms severed by a monorail has to put a damper in your day.. just saying..

You can't compare both on developent cost. The entertainment industry doesn't follow the same model as the equipment one costwise. Fridges and equipment don't cost 100 times what they cost ten years ago to be developped. Maybe electronics could follow this model partially. The closest comparison with the video game industry seems to be the movie industry. One can see that in a mature market (movie), there are places for low budget films and for blockbusters. I can fully enjoy a movie that has 1/100 the budget of a movie like Avatar and won't go and see Avatar. Thus, I think that in ten years or maybe more or less, the video game industry can reach such balance too. In hindsight that was a better analogy then mine but you still got the point. However I disagree with your perception. As I said before the genie is out of the bottle. In 5 yrs or 50 yrs FX is still going to be a major selling point. And in no way are gamers going to settle for 90's era FX due to smaller teams, less dev time. At least thats the impression I am left with reading your post. As my analogy, yours isn't quite equal to the situation. You can have a crew of 6 or less make a really good quality, coffee house movie that certainly one can enjoy more then avatar or the like. However to program a modern game that will even be looked at you need engine programmers, animators, scripters, artists, sound engineers, Q&A folks and designers at the bare minimum. Granted some positions can be merged (designer and engine programmer or sound guy and Q&A) but the odds of finding a handful of people that can make a good indie film and one that can do all those game dev tasks is pretty hard. I don't know a individual that could write a game engine, do animation/model design, sound composing/editing and texturing/art assets. However I do know folks who can run a film camera, do film editing and direct/write. The reason games take so many people to make is because all the skills are highly technical and few single people can do 3 or 4 positions skillfully unlike filming. There ARE a few exceptions granted but overall I think the rarity of those folks makes my point. You need a half dozen programmers for the engine and another half dozen for animations and some for the art assets and a couple for music and so on. Even at its smallest there no way any kind of quality PC game can be made with the smallest film crew. I have seen decent indie films made with less then half a dozen people not including cast. There is no way a quality game would even make it out the door in any reasonable time frame with that number of devs on a modern pc game. Game dev is simply to complex for the 3 guys in their spare time in the garage these days. With all that said I do agree some kind of leveling off point is required and prob will naturally happen at some point. But 10 yrs is way to optimistic. Perhaps toward the end of our gaming days but not that soon IMO.

we're trying to figure out why the production costs have gone up. hardware is pretty much where it's always been in terms of prices. marketing? most probably the biggest money-sink. salaries? well, of course you need huge teams now. and I'm not sure but I'm guessing the gfx have a lot to do with it You have 40 to 100 full time people working on a game now a days vs the 4 guys in a garage working in their free time. So yes salaries. Considering the average computer animator/modeler makes $50K a year. And there are usually at least half a dozen of them. Then add the design guys, sound guys, scripting guys, PR team... its not surprising games take millions to make today.

I think the point isn't that people can't afford to upgrade their PC to play new games. it's the fact that publishers have to spend 5 times the money to make games both interesting and visually appealing nowadays- and after that they have to face the fact that they need to ship 10 times the amount of boxes to recuperate , compared to 1998. for example Again, one can say the same thing about my cooking hobby. 25 yrs ago we had much less technology in stoves, fridges and the like. Now they auto clean, dispense drinks, make ice, various heat controls only dreamed of 25 yrs ago. However the flip side of technology going forward is they cost more to make and thus cost more to buy or/and make a profit. Simply put thats how it is in ANY field of business. Technology gets better so you increase such in your product and it thus end up costing more on some level, then add inflation vs those items made 25 yrs ago and you see what direction it's going. The issue with PC games specifically is there was a lot more profit as their cost for PC games have remained about the $50. for over a decade yet production costs have gone up, what you eluded too above. Some games have jumped to $60. to help offset that but still a bit of a issue as they have to sell a lot more vs a game made by 4 guys in a garage in 1985, inflation aside. Unless one is advocating going back to the 4 guys in a garage model of business... Which I think we all know the odds of making it like that in todays market of mega-publishers who have the market sewn up is slim. But that's progress. PC's can do a lot more and publishers want to use all the processing/GPU power they never had in the 80's or 90's. Just like sex sells, so does eye candy. That's advertising 101. If you doubt that look at the first ads for Unreal 1. They were full mag spreads showing a screen shot of the landscape on max. Not game play, not story, just visual. Even nwn1 took a full page ad out in playboy with what.. a in-game succubus temping the reader to play. That's what sells to MOST people. (Before you get your panties in a bunch I said most, not all) if that wasn't the case ppl in advertising would have changed their strategy long ago. So while its fine in our little bubble on this board to talk about who cares about visuals, and they are over rated and the 6 other silly things I read people post about when it comes to FX. However, outside this bubble in reality it does matter and all the discussion here isn't going to change that fact. The genie is out of the bottle per se and its never going back. Game publishers will keep pushing the tech and hardware ppl will keep making more processing power. It's a cycle that has existed in PC game dev since the 70's and will continue.

PC gaming is the best. Blows consoles away. At this point consoles are scaled back PC's anyways with a gamepad rather then a keyboard/mouse. They are not even traditional consoles anymore, just a PC in a small box. I don't understand why console ppl buy consoles anymore, if you are going to play on a PC play a real PC and do much more with your investment then a static console that get outdated in 12 months.

As for Hassat's point, and here I am going to sound elitist however I am simply being a realist. Being a PC gamer requires a regular investment of hardware to keep up. If you can't afford that then perhaps this isn't a hobby for said person. Devs shouldn't worry about outdated hardware, their goal is to push forward with technology not stay static because some folks want to keep using a 5 yr old video card. Before the haters get all over my arse, we both know while not a popular truth it is just that. The truth. If it wasn't then we would all still be on single core 500mhz boxes with 256meg RAM playing 2D Ultima still. Also worth noting, As far as the industry is concerned, games drive hardware forward not the other way around. A lot of the common hardware we use today was due to hardware mfg pushing forward to run games better. All that said, and back to my original point, the hobby of PC gaming requires a continual investment. Some people can do that others can't. That the way the world works for good or ill. A more personal example of my point, I would love to have a Julia Child's kitchen to cook in. I simply can't afford a $50,000 all pro kitchen. Thus I engage my cooking hobby with what I can do with the tools I can afford. However I don't go around slamming the makers of kitchen equipment to stop developing and making better, and thus more expensive, equipment. I realize this hobby isn't one I can partake in on the level of Gordon Ramsey and I accept that. The hobby of PC gaming is the same. I find it futile those that cry about how that can't but a new video card or cpu every 18 months or so and yet want the newest games to still work well on their outdated box. Some hobbies require resources to fully partake in simple as that.

And DA's don't? Hell, my PC can't even run it higher than the lowest setting and it works for me... The graphic point got us in the mess the industry is today. More $ needed to get that top-notch, leaving 5- hour movies (CoD), and requiring much more sold copies than used to be meaning sequel after sequel (CoD) instead of original games. Fine by me if it stays with the FPS crowd, but do we really need to add it in with the RPG crowd? Are we really waiting too for 10- hour RPG's here? Seriously? And indie's seem to do fine despite the imminent need of graphics gamers seem to have... how'd you explain that? When did I say DA's didn't? Not sure how you made the leap from my talking about games in general to DA. I did say previously however the hype bioware is claiming FX wise does not equate to what I am seeing in screen shots. Am I saying the FX is poor? No. However neither is it meeting my expectations considering the comments coming from the devs either. My issue is they need to tone it down if these screens are any indication of what we are getting. They are vastly over selling what they seem to be able to deliver IMO. As for indies, one example, I bought King Arthurs RP wargame from a indie studio. The fx are top notch. My point made.

I think, again, you are reading to deep into what I am posted and not reading it for its surface value. I think some people post trying to be 'old skool' to look cool and edgy and elitist and 'look at me im not a sheep' reasons. I'd bet some of them posting wouldn't know what a text adventure or ANSI FX is if it bit them. As if they did they wouldn't be so eager to go back to such no matter how great the game play was. I think some people are under the misconception if you have good FX it takes zots away from the game play which is a fallacy. 2 different groups on the same dev team with 2 different skill sets working at the same time. I think some people look back at the past with rose color glasses and think of the good old days before high end fx and wish for days of yore however they are much more grand in ones mind then the reality Have some studios make good eye candy games yet horrible game play? Yes. Is it the defacto standard or common. I don't think so, not as much as some folks here post about or imply. In its era games like Kings Quest, Ultima, FO, BG, DX1, NWN2, FO3 all had suitable or even great fx for its time and excellent game play to boot. Even some of the imitators of the time were good as well. I think in the era of mindless shooters with great eye candy but repetitive game play gamers get blinded by that sea of games and forget there is a lot more then clone after clone of shooters or the like. The opinion there is this huge swath of great fx, poor game play games out there with only a diamond in the rough every 10 years as some imply is a myth is all I am saying In the end there is nothing wrong with wanting good fx. I am a hard core RPGer and *I* want good eye candy as well as good game play because I understand you CAN have both and why do I upgrade my box every 18 months if we are content playing rogue? Lets be realistic.

Since I cant rebuttal to the first aspect because Gorth deletes my replies as apparently my sarcastic tone back to you makes me a big meanie.. that said, ill just say the hands have been overly large since da1 so at least they are being consistent.

So are you saying *snip* What I am saying now is you spend way too much time analyzing my posts far deeper then you should. That said to answer in a nut shell there is no clear answer as it all depends on the poster in question. Some fall in #2 and others #3 simply put.

I agree. If bio is going to talk the talk... That said, I know it's all cool to pretend to be 'old skool' and act as if we went back to ANSI graphics it would be ok if the game play was good enough. However this is 2010 not 1990. FX -does- matter in todays market and most gamers do care about such. While they don't need to be bleeding edge they need to at least look the part and help with immersion. As someone who did grow up playing text adventures (Zork, Madness & the Minotaur, Dracula's Castle) and ANSI fx games (Rogue anyone?) I am quite happy leaving those to the past and enjoying some eye candy as well as good gameplay. Both are NOT mutually exclusive as much as some of the arm chair game devs here might think.

Fangirls are scary, yes. They can be yes... that aside, my issue with the screen shot is the models looks plastic.. fake.. like barbie dolls. Anyone on the bioware dev team hear of this new technology called bump mapping? It can fix this issue.. it really can... I know amazing right? And to think its only been around for 8 yrs or so...

Bioboards: a very disturbing corner of the internet. LMAO... too funny.

Thank you. The general goal is ~50 pages and my first draft is about 65% done. It's on the smallish side as its meant to be a guide book a tourist bring with them as they explore Salem. I am hoping to finish the last leg of the first draft within a weeks time. Why do you ask?

Indeed. In fact in FO1 doesn't one of the BoS for the most part call your PC such or something similar? They see themselves as the last vestige of pure old world breeding stock and thus the legit heirs to make these kind of decisions of who gets what from pre-war tech. As a result they see themselves as better then the masses in the wasteland. Hence why deal with them? they are dirty, inbreed, radioactive, uneducated trash in their view. Plus we have most of all the hi tech weapons so when you have the firepower you don't need to reach out to others, they need to fear you instead and get out of your way. (As least by their logic)