Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:59 am Post subject:
Are first person shooter games more demanding than strategy?
I always wondered, are first person shooter games like call of duty, more demanding than strategy games like, RA3 when it comes to graphics? QUICK_EDIT
Shooters often look much prettier due to the low amount of what you see and therefore of what has to be displayed. Same with racing games. Strategy titles often look less good when you zoom in because it has to handle 50+ units exploding firing moving etc. So strategy often looks less good but is more demanding when it reaches certain scales. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
dude MW3 runs on Wii.
RA3 gets more demanding with more units, in the very first second where there is only a cv there might be a very little chance that MW3 is more demanding. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
When comparing games of the same generation, not so much (unless we look at the most demanding shooter games like Crysis, which generally requires more GPU power than pretty much any current strategy game). However, RA3 is much older than MW3's PC port and as such it most likely is less demanding graphically.
Strategy games often require more from the CPU than FPS games of the same age do though, since they need to perform various calculations regarding the hundreds of units on the map and handle complex logics like AI etc. Since Call of Duty games are pretty much direct console ports, I wouldn't be surprised if RA3 actually was more demanding in some cases than MW3 is (CoDs are one of the lightest FPS games out there since they've been made with the current-gen consoles in mind, and nowadays PC GPUs are a dozen (or dozens of?) times faster than the GPUs of the current-gen consoles).
Usually, I wouldn't go and generalize that games of one genre are more demanding than games of another genre, but instead compare individual games since there are large differences between the games of one genre on how demanding they are. For example, Crysis 3 requires much more GPU power than Black Ops II does when both are run at maximum settings. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
yea thanks rampastein for repeating what I said about the scale of units and adding some crap to it.
RA3 is infinitely more demanding than MW3. Build more units.
My crappy ass old PC in hte basement can run MW3 maxed out with 30+ fps. It can't run Tiberium Wars on high settings fluid tough. Oh but wait Tekka is about RA3 so this means nothing.
Ofc I can generalize these genres. A shooter can not get more demanding as you have no control over whats happening.
MW3 has the same demand on the Wii, the Wii just performs it worse.
RA3 and MW3 ARE from the same generation.
No need to thank me. Doubt you can comprehend as you compare graphics of CoD with anything else. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
Starcraft 2 has really bad performance issues, even on
good pc's with a fast cpu (i7/8core) you notice sometimes a little lag or framerate issue. and SC has graphics that should run on way older generation PC's without flaws, and graphics aren't the best either.
So it depends, i think, on which game has the better programming for the best performance, so it's hard to say, while in Crysis 3 even high end PC's tend to lag if everything is on ultra and you look for instance, at something really foggy with a lot light effects and such. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Agreed with blubb, SC2 isn't an optimised RTS game. While WoL was a good game for 2010, HOTS is a joke in terms of engine, looks like an amateur placeholder today. QUICK_EDIT
yea thanks rampastein for repeating what I said about the scale of units and adding some crap to it.
You're welcome.
OrangeNero wrote:
My crappy ass old PC in hte basement can run MW3 maxed out with 30+ fps. It can't run Tiberium Wars on high settings fluid tough.
FPS gamers usually want to have close to 60 FPS for uninterrupted aiming. Oh and I doubt what you're saying; I haven't played MW3, but its minimum system requirement for the GPU is a ATI Radeon X1950. I had one and it could max C&C3 without issues (although at 1080p and such high resolutions I would've likely had to lower the AA a bit; I played it at 1280x1024 back when I had that GPU).
OrangeNero wrote:
Ofc I can generalize these genres. A shooter can not get more demanding as you have no control over whats happening.
Sure, if you really like just building units endlessly without actually using them, you can make any RTS game (even Tiberian Sun included) more demanding than any FPS game out there. In almost all properly played games though, the units and bases are wiped out so fast that there rarely are massive amounts of units which would bring a powerful system to its knees (by powerful I mean powerful enough for playing the specific RTS game properly). Would you go ahead and tell someone that Tiberian Sun requires a more powerful system than for example Arma 3?
OrangeNero wrote:
RA3 and MW3 ARE from the same generation.
RA3 is from 2008, MW3 from 2011. In that time GPUs progressed two generations ahead (Radeon HD 4000 -> HD 6000, GeForce GTX 200 -> GeForce GTX 500).
blubb wrote:
So it depends, i think, on which game has the better programming for the best performance
heh changing out the generation just because you were unspecific eh? The games still are in the same generation it just happens not to be the graphic card generation but hey Nvidia didn't bother to update the drivers when MW3 released because its MW2 with tiny bit better water and textures and some other little changes. There goes your graphic card generation change.
No my generalization does not include Tiberian Sun as it is clearly too dated to apply. So I too was unspecific as I saw that as self understanding.
The 8000 series can run MW3 on high settings. Try running RA3 with them in a 4vs4 and you'll see. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
Well personally my computer plays any strategy game far smoother than an FPS. RA3, Starcraft 2, Shogun 2 Total War all play fantastically smooth yet most FPS from the last few years chug every now and then and I can't play on full settings. QUICK_EDIT
I wonder about the RTS - FPS hybrids like Natural Selection 2 (Wooo!) and Nuclear Dawn, which have to do both unit numbers and high poly stuff. QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Are first person shooter games more demanding than strategy?
