Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject:
Muldrake wrote:
I'd love to get this game, but I won't until I've built up my comp, and I won't until some more DX10 cards come out.
Why DX10 if I won't get Vista? Well, DX10 is the next evolution, and one day I'll get around to using it, I'm sure. But even if I don't, the DX10 cards can supposedly play DX9 stuff better than most DX9 cards.. so thats a plus.
And even if I don't intend on actually buying a DX10 card in the end, it'll hopefully push the price of the DX9 cards down a bit.. either way.. its better to wait..
But with SupCom, its not the graphics which are so intensive (at least it doesn't have to be), its the RAM and CPU which will be the major bottleneck. No suprise with the number of units it'll have on the battlefield..
That said.. I am tempted to get the UEF edition of the game from pre-order.. just because I want the funky poster
And those screens look beautiful, Arikado.. I have to say, if I get the game, I think I'll be loving the naval battles the most..
8600 maybe? they'll be out in a month. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
I intend to wait for it, although the 8600 Ultra looks worth while, but it won't be out until Q3 supposedly..
Either way, I'm pretty convinced on a nVidia.
If it won't be a DX10, it'll be the 7900GTO. _________________ If there is a problem on the forums, PM me. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject:
same here, though atis cards are red, and thus look prettier, thats not what its about.
and though i dont plan on using it anytime soon, SLI pwnz Crossfire. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
ATI have had the more powerful/more renderful (new word? ) graphics cards, with more pixel and vertex shaders than a counterpart nVidia card.
They handled things better than most nVidia cards, and from what rumour has, the new ATI cards will do just the same again to the nVidia counterparts in the DX10 battlefield.
I won't deny that the ATI's are good. But they have had some major flaws in the past, and it took ATI a damn long time to confront them.
Also, they're heavy power hogs. I know some people will consider that a great thing. I'm a student, and I pay my energy bill, thus less energy = less money = a good thing _________________ If there is a problem on the forums, PM me. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject:
Muldrake wrote:
ATI have had the more powerful/more renderful (new word? ) graphics cards, with more pixel and vertex shaders than a counterpart nVidia card.
They handled things better than most nVidia cards, and from what rumour has, the new ATI cards will do just the same again to the nVidia counterparts in the DX10 battlefield.
I won't deny that the ATI's are good. But they have had some major flaws in the past, and it took ATI a damn long time to confront them.
Also, they're heavy power hogs. I know some people will consider that a great thing. I'm a student, and I pay my energy bill, thus less energy = less money = a good thing
main thing that bugs me is the lousy support for some games. for example: my x700 doesnt play homeworld 2 and halo. my way older geforce 4 however, did. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
main thing that bugs me is the lousy support for some games. for example: my x700 doesnt play homeworld 2 and halo. my way older geforce 4 however, did.
I have an X700 Pro, and it plays Homeworld 2. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject:
pro also has a temp monitor, which the non-pro doesnt. theyre almost completely different cards.
the x700 sucks, whereas the x700 pro sucks less. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
yes i think the total lack of next gen graphics is a good reason to hate a game. i hate games that are reinforcing the myth that PCs are inferior in power to game consoles. i hate console gamers laughing and pointing at me coz i paid so much money for a PC and most upcoming PC games have PSP graphics while basically all the upcoming xbox 360 and PS3 games look like Unreal Engine 3 games. i hate paying loads of money to play next gen games on PC and then most of the next gen games go console exclusive. i hate that people are talking as if this game is the best the PC has to offer. it's a disgrace how bad almost all the PC games look. QUICK_EDIT
Are you serious?
PC gaming is dead in your eyes because games "are" enforcing a myth that I've never heard of. And console gamers are laughing at you personally? And console 'next-gen' applies to PC? And somehow the DS, with its inferior graphics and gimmicky screen, is besting the PSP, a portable PS2, in terms of sales. The Wii outselling the PS3. Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together-- mass hysteria.
Could it be gameplay? Of course not. It's all about the grafix and bloom.
Please remove your tin foil hat and go outside. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject:
Gameplay is more important, otherwise we wouldn't still be playing C&C games after all these years. Nowadays, the games should look nice (after all, the technology is there and should be used) but you don't need overkill. Besides, if the graphics were absolutely gorgeous you'd need Blue Gene to run it when displaying lots of units. You do realise that armies can gather to 1000 units. The closest I've got is 100 and it started getting slow (granted my laptop is actually below the minimum specs but it mostly runs fine). _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
yes i think the total lack of next gen graphics is a good reason to hate a game. i hate games that are reinforcing the myth that PCs are inferior in power to game consoles. i hate console gamers laughing and pointing at me coz i paid so much money for a PC and most upcoming PC games have PSP graphics while basically all the upcoming xbox 360 and PS3 games look like Unreal Engine 3 games. i hate paying loads of money to play next gen games on PC and then most of the next gen games go console exclusive. i hate that people are talking as if this game is the best the PC has to offer. it's a disgrace how bad almost all the PC games look.
One question, why the fuck are you making tools for C&C? It's using a primitive 3D format for units, prerendered graphics for everything else and is now old enough that current gen consoles could probably run all of the series with ease.
Also, care to point us in the direction of these 'PSP graphics' PC games? I have a PSP and I must say that no game I've played recently mirrors PSP games. QUICK_EDIT
yes i think the total lack of next gen graphics is a good reason to hate a game. i hate games that are reinforcing the myth that PCs are inferior in power to game consoles. i hate console gamers laughing and pointing at me coz i paid so much money for a PC and most upcoming PC games have PSP graphics while basically all the upcoming xbox 360 and PS3 games look like Unreal Engine 3 games. i hate paying loads of money to play next gen games on PC and then most of the next gen games go console exclusive. i hate that people are talking as if this game is the best the PC has to offer. it's a disgrace how bad almost all the PC games look.
Omg! you think like me!
but i still play game, i can say PC game today have very ugly graphic when compare spec they eat,look at obivion,gothic3,BF2 when you setting it graphic to be low it graphic doesn't look compare with UT2004,Doom3,Riddick in highest setting it look very beutiful and faster with same spec..what happen with PC game look like they point to graphic engine than theme design and gameplay....
oh yes i already play it demo this game make my com slow as hell...[with lowest graphic (that make my com look like crap)] an it interface is too big dont buy it if you have vga slower than GF7 series...[this only warn but who can stop you if you want to try?] i'm sur with your spec can get better graphic on C&c3 [ok i'm not cheer EA but i'm sur it will be real.]
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject:
Carnivean wrote:
ViPr wrote:
yes i think the total lack of next gen graphics is a good reason to hate a game. i hate games that are reinforcing the myth that PCs are inferior in power to game consoles. i hate console gamers laughing and pointing at me coz i paid so much money for a PC and most upcoming PC games have PSP graphics while basically all the upcoming xbox 360 and PS3 games look like Unreal Engine 3 games. i hate paying loads of money to play next gen games on PC and then most of the next gen games go console exclusive. i hate that people are talking as if this game is the best the PC has to offer. it's a disgrace how bad almost all the PC games look.
One question, why the ztype are you making tools for C&C? It's using a primitive 3D format for units, prerendered graphics for everything else and is now old enough that current gen consoles could probably run all of the series with ease.
Also, care to point us in the direction of these 'PSP graphics' PC games? I have a PSP and I must say that no game I've played recently mirrors PSP games.
because CNC may not have technologically advance graphics, but they were certainly effective. especially SHPs, you can add as much detail as you want, its still just a picture, and doesnt take any longer to load at the same size. same with voxels, though a little less. good amounts of detail can be added without much loss of framerate.
CNC simply looks good. somehow... _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
most upcoming PC games have PSP graphics while basically all the upcoming xbox 360 and PS3 games look like Unreal Engine 3 games
Can you name some? And I do mean more than one.
And, no, Supreme Commander does not look like a PSP game.
Your way of thinking is the cause to why new 2d games have little place in a gaming market today. They're replaced by 3d facsimiles with clunky animations and terrible controls because if it's not 'next-gen', it's not profitable.
Anyway, how's Supreme Commander so far, fellow Europeans? _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject:
I don't like it:
1)Laggy
2)I couldn't load the multiplayer game with anyone
3)You can't force fire units to actually shoot and HIT each other - beside artillery
4)It looks like sht on low settings
5)Boring Menu
6)You gonna play from sattelite view most of the time anyway _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Anyway, how's Supreme Commander so far, fellow Europeans?
Great. First 20 minutes of a game are a bit slow as you get control of resources and upgrade, it starts getting more interesting once you've got some forces going. And it's somehow running on this ageing laptop of mine. Brilliant. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
i prefer prerendered graphics. i hate real time polygon graphics unless they are Unreal Engine 3 quality.
yah i know voxels are not that great but they are superior to polygons in some ways.
Arikado i don't want to name some games. just go look at the gametrailers site and look at all the games that are for PC only. it looks like 90% of those games are not using per pixel lighting. while it's the opposite for Xbox360 and PS3. the ratio is so high it's ridiculous. QUICK_EDIT
You make a claim and you don't follow through? It even sounded like a fact and not your own personal opinion... ah well.
Quote:
i hate real time polygon graphics unless they are Unreal Engine 3 quality.
So the only PC games you'd enjoy, graphically, right now, is RoboBlitz and Rainbow 6: Vegas?
Also, most, if not all of your acclaimed trailers, were rendered from a PC build. Its not like the games are developed on a console. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You make a claim and you don't follow through? It even sounded like a fact and not your own personal opinion... ah well.
what are you talking about? it's my opinion that about 90% etc. i said it looks like that. that means opinion. and i think it's probably close to the fact also. and in case i'm wrong and they are actually using per pixel lighting, then it looks like they are not which is probably worse because then you get crap looking graphics AND it runs slower too.
Arikado wrote:
Quote:
i hate real time polygon graphics unless they are Unreal Engine 3 quality.
So the only PC games you'd enjoy, graphically, right now, is RoboBlitz and Rainbow 6: Vegas?
Also, most, if not all of your acclaimed trailers, were rendered from a PC build. Its not like the games are developed on a console.
what has that got to do with this? i know PCs are more powerful than consoles and better at running games which just makes me even more angry that the PC games look worse than console games. and even though those console games run on PC and were developed on PCs they will never be released to the public for PC just because of exclusivity deals which makes me want to smack their faces if i ever met them. QUICK_EDIT
even though those console games run on PC and were developed on PCs they will never be released to the public for PC
I doubt a developer company would be able to get a game running, at even 30 fps, on a non-dev system. Wouldn't be worth the effort in optimising anyways since there's a larger market for console games.
Just curious-- were you brought up with a console system?
Dammit, this is beyond offtopic. And all because of pixel shaders. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
ViPr, you're forgetting that Consoles are dedicated hardware. They don't need to be running a 256MB memory hogging Operating System. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
i honestly don't believe game consoles and PCs are that different in hardware anymore ( or capability) and i honestly don't see why an OS has to hog resources like that and if it does then it's probably because of some faults that should be fixed.
if you want to say we have to move to other hardware because microsoft has totally screwed up Windows and caused it to cripple PC hardware then i might be inclined to believe that but i cannot believe that PC hardware cannot run games and everything else better than a console. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:38 am Post subject:
xp does. i constantly have at least 320 MB occupied at idle. (with some minor background programs, good for maybe 50-70 MB) _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
actually now that i think about it, i think maybe it's not necessarily important how much RAM the OS uses just as long as it does not take RAM away from what the game wants to use. if you have loads of RAM that is more than enough for what your games use then is it not smarter for the OS to use some of the rest of it instead of using the hard disk more?
i mean maybe the OS is keeping lots of stuff in RAM so in case you want to use that stuff sometime, it will launch quickly instead of having to load from hard disk, and as long as it is not encroaching on potential game RAM then will there be any difference in game performance?
maybe if you had less RAM in your PC then the OS would choose to use less of it? or does it hog the same amount regardless and cause the games to suffer unnecessarily? or maybe it lets you choose how much it hogs although perhaps it makes it too complicated for most users to do that. QUICK_EDIT
Also, when making games for a console the developers only have to optimise it for one setup of hardware, so the game will be perfectly optimised for everyone. However, on a PC they have to compensate for people having different systems and chipsets etc, so the game won't necessarily work beautifully for everyone. _________________ Organised Rules.ini by Judeau QUICK_EDIT
Please stop this debate about Consoles and PC's. I wanted to read this topic to see wether SC was worth it, because I never trust hypes around games and all I found was some babbling I don't care about. QUICK_EDIT
Lack of examples voids every argument, if you can't point out good EXACT examples of the said ugly games with comparisons to console games - you're talking out your arse and should just shut up about your false arguements.
Oh and pointing out a vague trailer site reference is not an example, I suspect a decent number of the console trailers use prerendered scenes and have the little 'not actual game footage' disclaimer on them anyway.
And on topic, Supreme Commander is excellent, it can take anything up to an hour for things to actually heat up though - which is to be expected on the scale it's on. QUICK_EDIT
I'd love to get this game, but I won't until I've built up my comp, and I won't until some more DX10 cards come out.
Why DX10 if I won't get Vista? Well, DX10 is the next evolution, and one day I'll get around to using it, I'm sure. But even if I don't, the DX10 cards can supposedly play DX9 stuff better than most DX9 cards.. so thats a plus.
And even if I don't intend on actually buying a DX10 card in the end, it'll hopefully push the price of the DX9 cards down a bit.. either way.. its better to wait..
I hope you realise the futility of your situation. Firstly, of course dx10 cards will pay dx9 stuff better than dx9 cards, they are one step up. Secondly, if you wait to buy a DX9 card until the DX10's have pushed the price down, which is unlikely to be significant until there are multiple vista-oriented DX graphics cards, it will be out of date before you even get it out the box and you'll be wanting a new card for something else.
Think about it, the seroius hardware upgrades come out every 4 or 5 years so do what i do. Buy a new computer every 5 years or so. You can get a decent one for under £700 (£12.50 a month over 5 years, for me thats under 3 hours work a month saved) now and they will only get cheaper. That way you dont need to worry about upgrades or being able to play the latest games. No computer under 5 years old is ever so outdated by a game it needs to be completly replaced to play it and when you do buy a new computer you can ebay the old parts for a good £100 return. Upgrading every few months is for those who are so seriously crap at games they need the advantage a top of the range system affords them to compete with regular gamers. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject:
I've just played SupCom demo here. Let's be honest, guys... this game is booooring! Slow, not fluid... and it made me tired. C&C3 graphics and gameplay own SupCom, honestly. And thaf Dostya is far too much annoying... QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject:
The game is boring if you play against the easy AI. There's a hell of a lot of action against the tougher levels with endless fights for territory as you try and build an army or experimental units to turn the tide. I found TS to be slower than this, personally. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
I didn't like the lack of right-click-hold scrolling. I've gotten used to it in other RTS, and its a shame its not included.
And yeah, the zooming in and out constantly does get a bit tedious. A good feature when needed, but it'd be better if you didn't have to constantly rely on it. _________________ If there is a problem on the forums, PM me. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Location: In ur BIOS, Steeln ur Megahurtz!
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject:
Tratos wrote:
Muldrake wrote:
I'd love to get this game, but I won't until I've built up my comp, and I won't until some more DX10 cards come out.
Why DX10 if I won't get Vista? Well, DX10 is the next evolution, and one day I'll get around to using it, I'm sure. But even if I don't, the DX10 cards can supposedly play DX9 stuff better than most DX9 cards.. so thats a plus.
And even if I don't intend on actually buying a DX10 card in the end, it'll hopefully push the price of the DX9 cards down a bit.. either way.. its better to wait..
I hope you realise the futility of your situation. Firstly, of course dx10 cards will pay dx9 stuff better than dx9 cards, they are one step up. Secondly, if you wait to buy a DX9 card until the DX10's have pushed the price down, which is unlikely to be significant until there are multiple vista-oriented DX graphics cards, it will be out of date before you even get it out the box and you'll be wanting a new card for something else.
Think about it, the seroius hardware upgrades come out every 4 or 5 years so do what i do. Buy a new computer every 5 years or so. You can get a decent one for under £700 (£12.50 a month over 5 years, for me thats under 3 hours work a month saved) now and they will only get cheaper. That way you dont need to worry about upgrades or being able to play the latest games. No computer under 5 years old is ever so outdated by a game it needs to be completly replaced to play it and when you do buy a new computer you can ebay the old parts for a good £100 return. Upgrading every few months is for those who are so seriously crap at games they need the advantage a top of the range system affords them to compete with regular gamers.
i dont think having the most powerful card in the history of man kind means you're crap at games, but yes, upgrading every few months is excessive. i generally upgrade once in 3 years, though i think it'll be a little more often in the future, as i'm planning on following the study "game architecture and design" for both grapic designers and programmers, and as im not much of a programmer, an old PC with notepad won't really be sufficient. that, plus the fact im getting more and more interested in hardware as well. (so if you have some old crappy video cards/processors/whatever lying around... ) _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
I've played the demo and was awed, so I'm going to get it tomorrow when its released here.
My computer handles it perfectly fine, at the highest resolution my monitor supports. It really doesn't seem that resource intensive to me...
AS for upgrading, personally I upgrade my video card every year and a half or so; every few months would just be excessive.
And SupCom isn't boring to me, I love having the freedom to build gigantic armies. Plus, the hard AI is great if you want fast action. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Too lazy to quote:
@ Banshee: Personally, I like the music. I find it less annoying than that of TS which I never liked very much. And what do you bloody expect? 81km maps basically REQUIRE zoom to be playable, regardless of how the game would be designed.
@ Muldrake: Middle mouse, set up zoom so you can see as much as you'd need to and make use of the minimap extensively.
come on... You start to build and throw you're whole economy to it's knees - with no control what so ever!
A piece of advice - Learn the play the fscking game.
There are so many ways to get control over the economy... Upgrade your mass extractors past Tech I, build yourself some Tech II or III power plants and accompany them with fabricators - it's not bloody hard you know. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:19 am Post subject:
Depends - after you upgrade you're commander - not even 6+ mines are enough if he starts to build...
I MAY download the demo - if you prove what it is better than beta... _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:53 am Post subject:
Remember that buildings use less energy with power generators directly adjacent and power generators/mass generators are more efficient with their equivalent storage structures adjacent. You can get an extra 20% of mass or energy out of a structure just with nearby storage buildings.
Simple strategy, build mass extractors on all the nearby points with power generators next to them. Get a land factory and churn out engineers, sending them across the map to do the same everywhere you can. Upgrade the land factory and get loads of level 2 engineers, get some level 2 power generators and start upgrading your mass extractors as well as building defences/units/radar/different factories. Getting an air factory up is very helpful since you can set scout units on patrol to find any possible attack forces and (against the AI at least) you can start getting defences at the major bottlenecks in preparation for attacks.
Once I get level 3 tech, I just go and build as many support commanders as possible, build tech 3 power generators and mass fabricators then upgrade them to build quicker and generate resources. Long-range artillery defence is your friend now since they can prevent the enemy from getting any of their long-range units near you (which are the biggest threat they have, usually). Combat experimental units with other experimental units or tech 3 bombers/fighters (depending on whether they're ground or air).
I could ramble about the best way to play the game all day but you have to just persist and experiment, that's how I managed to survive. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 am Post subject:
And here comes the second part I hate - engineers... just, way too much micro-managment... I want to fight with army's not send those little Bastards where they are needed! _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
[Unneccessary bashing of the one who prefers graphics over fun removed.]
I had a several hour long match with a friend today, it ended up being a desperate dash around each side of a circle shaped map with our armies attempting to destroy the poorly defended base of left behind as the armies marched towards the enemy.
Quite fun. Last edited by Suiseiseki on Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:44 pm; edited 2 times in total QUICK_EDIT
Mkay, leave the flaming to elsewhere.. any more non SC posts will be deleted.. etc etc. _________________ If there is a problem on the forums, PM me. 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
