Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette indlæg
better graphics today is mostly like: we uses less downscaled versions of our original high quality textures and yes thats why the gamesize exploded by 10gigs. next year expect better "graphics"
that is at least the observation for annually released titles. namely CoD, all EA Sports games etc. this game here however doesn't fit in that role. I don't really like sneaky seaky games but I heard a lot of good things about Thief 2 which is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ old. so if they did a good job creating a Thief revival, people will buy better hardware in order to play this game. same was it at my time when quake came out, I had to buy a Diamond Monster 3D for I dont know a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of money.
But processor speeds then were much slower and, before 3d cards, the processor was doing all of the grunt work.
The thing about processor speeds doubling, is that when you've got a small number, doubling it, is still only a small performance increase.
15-20 years ago pretty much everyone who had a PC, even if they didn't play games, wanted it to be faster. It was a gravy train. If you've been in a coma and just woken up the news is those days are over.
e.g 200mhz to 400mhz is "doubling" speed but, it's still only a 200mhz increase. Imagine your pc has a E8400 in it @3600, what different do you thing @3800 will make? Hardly any, right? See a 200mhz jump is not big.
The next step 400mhz to 800mhz, is not the same, it's a 400mhz increment. Still relatively unnoticable given the Ghz we've got.
Eventually, if you keep doubling things, you grow faster than is really required. And that happened with processor speeds. Especially for most of the general public who don't play games. PCs have been fast enough for them for years.
Plus, the first 3d games were already styming themselves - When Carmack did the Quake engine it was rendered in software, it ran at a pitifully small resolution.
These games were chomping at the bit desperate for every clock cycle they could get.
Today that's very much not the case. Games are rarely targetted for the pinicle of PC performance but rather to catch as many of the gamer audience as they can.
Many recent games have been targetted for consoles which were significantly less powerful then even average gaming PCs.
Add to that that most gamers are running at 1080p max. Higher resolutions exist, but most
people aren't using them yet. They haven't really caught on. So, the resolution isn't rising year on year as it was decades ago, when they were trying to get above 320x240.
And we now have dedicated 3d graphics cards, with their own fast memory and processors that are doing most of the rendering grunt work anyway.
The game landscape has changed too - as some of those early innovators like Id have discovered, the age when you can impress someone with some fancy pants graphics and get them to buy a new PC and your game simply because the graphics are pretty is over.
Now you can't have a gaming company where one guy is the star, like Carmack, and the rest of you just cobble together a few levels. Things have moved on.
You look at the valve hardware survey and the mainstream gamer PC you can see at one time might have been dual core, 4gb, hd4850 was a common spec. Now it might be closer to i5 quad core / 8gb / gtx760. The spec the "average steam gamer" has is always getting better, but you'd be a fool not to target that mainstream.
If you're a game developer and you target a high spec and say "Years ago you used to upgrade every year and spend €2000 I don't understand people complaining" to your customers, you may as well drive your publishers money down to the coast and throw it into the sea because no one in 2014 is buying a game that requires them to spend €2000 on a pc.
The graphics have stagnated in the last 6-8 years because of these damn consoles, high end rigs were a overkill, people made those only to play games on those triple monitor sets, not for better graphics since a mid range rig ( e.g GTX x60/x70 + oc'ed i5 xxxxk ) could max out pratically any game in 1080p.
If game developers ignored the consoles and kept increasing graphics like they did in the past, we would now have mid range gpus with 20 tflops or something and graphics that would look like a Pixar movie...
Rememeber the first crysis? There was no gpu that could max it out when it was released so nvidia was forced to create a new graphics card, the 9800 GX2 to allow enthusiasts to play it in "high" (not even ultra lol), thats how things should be, the hardware had to follow the software, instead we are limiting the games graphics on pc because they also have to run on these stupid outdated consoles...
Then I thank God for consoles. Not everyone has ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bottomless pockets and time to upgrade their PC every damned year.
The only difference is that the hardware would be much more powerfull overall, including mid and low tier components, and a maxed out game like crisis 3 would be considered medium quality and playable on a low-mid range pc in that alrenative reality where pc gaming wasn't limited by the ps3 or x360...
Also, you didin't had to upgrade every year , even then, thats just a misconception created by console gamers... pcs would still last you 3 years but playing at high instead of "ultra"
I've always upgraded my rig every 3 years (sometimes the whole pc, other times just the graphics card and ram)
It didint felt too expensive since i just had to put like 1€ per day (1/3 of what a cigarette packet costs and people buy those daily) in my pc piggy bank, after 3 years + the extra money from the old components i had more than enought for a new mid or even high end pc and i've been doing that since the quake 3 arena times (around 2000 i think), but lately i've noticed that i had more processing power than what i actually needed for 1080p gaming, making me feel that i've wasted money since games rarely fully used my last 2 gpus, that's why i'm glad that now with games like thief 4, i can finally take advantage of my new gtx 770 (upgraded from a 560ti, still using my 3 year old pc with a i5 2500k)...
By the way, High then was pratically the "ultra" of today, it was intented for the averange pc gamer with a good rig while the ultra settings (in games like crysis 1) was just an extra graphical option that allowed the enthusiasts to fully take advantage of their 4-5k$ rigs.
E.g "high" would be skyrim maxed out and "ultra" is skyrim maked out + enb mods for those with a 690/titan sli rigs or something.
People get mad because they want to play every game at ultra with a "medium" computer...
It's because that mentality and the stupid consoles that maxed out games now days are pratically "medium" if you count the fact that most of todays games rarely use the total processing capabilities of "medium" priced gpus like a gtx 660 or 760, r9 270, etc even when maxed out...
Just because most people cant afford a 770 or 780, r9 280x, r9 290, etc, that doesn't mean that games shouldn't have more graphically intensive options for those who can instead...
Devs should have these gpus in mind when they create the ultra/max settings of their games, leave the medium/high quality for those who "pay" for med or high end componets or consoles
P.S this doesnt mean that medium or high should look like crap, just change the todays high to med and ultra/max to high and give us the better graphics you can with ultra...
I don't have a high end rig like yours but i'm alos happy that there will be more games like crysis 3 that will finally make my ( not too expensive but still more powerfull than these new gen consoles) gtx 770 worth it as well.
The GTX 660 was a good card, but certainly wasn't their top end card (£200-250 new), while the GTX 670 (£300-350), GTX 680 (£450-500) and GTX 690 (£800+) all cost considerably more.
I get the feeling that this is one of those games where the recommended requirements mean you only get 60 fps on min settings. There have been a lot of games like that over the years. That's why I'm waiting for everyone to review this rather than saving $5.
It always seems to be hit or miss with these big games. I'd be super happy if I could just hit the medium button and go to town with any game I meet the recommended specs for, but that's rarely the case.