---

by Ming
In any case, it seems to me that hardcore FPS PC gamers aren't interested in trade-offs between frame rates and resolution, they want both cranked up to the max! That's why they'll buy graphics cards that cost more than an Xbox (yes, I know consoles are subsidised)...

---

This may be true, but that says to me that its really about having the biggest and the best, which is pretty shallow.

The thing about me is that i'm an optimizer, years ago I used to like to write tight assembler code, and always look to optimize to the max, which is why I dont go for the maxiumum power,maxium rez philosophy. Dont use what you dont need I say. An optimizer is always a conservationist of resources I suppose.

In my previous job i used to sell these things to people resembling drinking vessels (aka mugs) but that was when they were really really overpriced if you can get a decent priced one depending on budget then get one coz i thought they were pretty cool, when we buy our next pc we'll be having one

(Edited by Gooner 28/03/2003 20:30)

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)
This may be true, but that says to me that its really about having the biggest and the best, which is pretty shallow.

---

Well, I don't have a problem with that. Hell, I want the biggest and best too, just not quite prepared to stump up for it!

---

The thing about me is that i'm an optimizer, years ago I used to like to write tight assembler code, and always look to optimize to the max, which is why I dont go for the maxiumum power,maxium rez philosophy.

---

I think you'll find these chaps tend to be optimisers too, judging from all the stuff I've seen about how to squeeze and overclock the maximum performance out of their systems. I guess they just start with a higher base level than we do!

---

Dont use what you dont need I say.

---

That's the critical part, isn't it? How much performance do you really need? I once saw a talk from a chap at EA who was saying they looked forward to reaching what he called the "peak of perfection" for graphics and other tech whereby any improvement simply wouldn't be noticed by consumers any more.

---

by Funky Monkey
Dont use what you dont need I say.

---

Thats the problem, things move on so fast, that if you buy 'average', six months later things are starting to chug, so the temptation is to try and 'future proof' it, if only for a while.

Id never want to run games at ultra high resolutions, but id say how a system can run this years games at 1600x1200 is a resonable indication of how it will handle next years games 1024x768

How's this for scary? Just picked up Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance for the PC. Minimum disc space requirements: 3.8Gb, recommended: 6.9Gb! What I'm not too clear on is why the requirements are so humungous if it ran OK on a system with no hard disk whatsoever ie PS2. Now, I can accept a need for space for re-do textures etc to match system characteristics but 6.9Gb's worth?!?

Woah! That's umm nuts..

---

by Ming
How's this for scary? Just picked up Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance for the PC. Minimum disc space requirements: 3.8Gb, recommended: 6.9Gb! What I'm not too clear on is why the requirements are so humungous if it ran OK on a system with no hard disk whatsoever ie PS2. Now, I can accept a need for space for re-do textures etc to match system characteristics but 6.9Gb's worth?!?

---

---

by Ming

Well, I don't have a problem with that. Hell, I want the biggest and best too, just not quite prepared to stump up for it!

---

I think what I was trying to say was that if you have a system that plays game X at 60fps, whats the point of spending hundreds of pounds overclocking etc. to get it to run at 70fps. Its a macho thang, its not about the actual improvement in quality of the gameplay.

---

I think you'll find these chaps tend to be optimisers too, judging from all the stuff I've seen about how to squeeze and overclock the maximum performance out of their systems. I guess they just start with a higher base level than we do!

---

That's not really optimising, its tuning. Its about pushing the maximum performance from the system. Although I dont profess to know much about what the overclockers are up to thesedays.

When I talk about optimising, im coming from the angle of extracting the maximum performance from the best, most frugal way of achieving an end. If I sound anal on this point its cos I am! The PC has always been pretty pathetic when it comes to writing sleek code, it has power a plenty, and there is always an upgrade round the corner. Console coders have no such luxury. They have to make a game which performs perfectly with a fixed spec. Look at what was achieved on the Amiga or the Megadrive with an 8Mhz processor and some dedicated gfx hardware. Look at what is achieved with the original Playstation with a 33Mhz processor and some good gfx hardware.

That's where people learn to rewrite the rules, to find things that weren't possible before, when they have a fixed spec to use and they have to make the best of it.

I suppose im just an outdated guy who likes the elegance of really tight code, written to eek every last drop out of a piece of hardware instead of just using more powerful hardware in a less efficient, but easier way.

---

That's the critical part, isn't it? How much performance do you really need? I once saw a talk from a chap at EA who was saying they looked forward to reaching what he called the "peak of perfection" for graphics and other tech whereby any improvement simply wouldn't be noticed by consumers any more.

---

If you look at their megadrive games, EA never wrote code that really pushed the envelope, so for them to say that sort of thing doesnt surprise me much. First of all, that 'peak of perfection' is a myth for the next few decades at least. What he's talking about is the idea of hardware powerful enough that however sloppy you write code, you'll still end up with beautiful lifelike graphics. It's a similar rhetoric to Microsoft's. Even if you reached that peak of perfection all it would mean is that sloppy code would be the order of the day.

If you really had the kind of power he's talking about, then you'd always find some company more talented than EA would make better use of it. We have hugely powerful PCs thesedays, but you dont see anyone writing cutting edge games in Java.

I could bore you to death (and probably already have) on this subject, so i'll call it a day for now!

(Edited by Funky Monkey 06/04/2003 00:06)