GeekArmada - You pretty much misinterpreted everything I posted. That's fine, though, as lordkosc's initial post didn't reflect what I thought he meant either, which pretty much tanks my reply, which you based your reply off of.

In other words, it's a meaningless wash.

It would be nice if some Directx 10 content was added. The number of us using Vista and having Directx 10 video cards should be significant by the time the game is released.

This would also go a ways to delaying the game's graphics from becoming dated.

There won't be any DirectX 10 content in the initial release. We may add some post-release, however as part of an update.

Cool!

STALKER may be a first person shooter, but some of that more powerful processing power goes to creating the super whiz bag amazing A.I. and life like procedures performed by the characters in each zone before you enter them.


I would say it is the same, because while the image quality is sharper and shinier, they're really just creating more images on your monitor, and creating several thousand objects in an RTS game would be the equivalent of creating an explosive action packed scene in a game like FEAR.

If you've even seen the development commentary on the game FEAR, the developers actually mention that the team working on the graphics engine told the level designers that whenever there's water in the environment they couldn't have more then six enemies on the screen at once, otherwise the engine would chug. So naturally the level designers made sure to almost always have six person battles near water.


Back on topic as far as graphics. I'd be more worried that a year from now the game will be released and some people will turn their heads up at it in light of games like Crysis or Bioshock, which are of course first person shooters, but then also games like Supreme Commander, Spore, Empire Earth III, Universe at War, and a couple other RTS games that will look a little bit better. I mean heck, I already own the game so what do I care, but the average pc game buyer might take a look at the graphics and say, "That looks so 2007."

I think the graphics are fine. I run everything on the highest setting on my laptop and I think it looks great. The only games I buy for graphics are the FPS games since they are always the same. When you buy and FPS you know your just running around killing things so you want it to look and feel as realistic as possible.

RTS is a whole different genre. I play RTS games for the gameplay aspect not for immersion and graphics. I think SOSE is fun and it is only beta 1. I like watching ships open fire and destroy each other but that is not what makes it fun. It is fun because I am running an empire, researching and raining down on my enemies with massive capital ships. Anyway my 2 cents.

I dont think anyone has a real or I should say valid issues with the graphics. I think where some are getting concerned is in the animation area. I think they want to be able to zoom in to the ship and see the crew walking around and see all the turrets and what not firing and moving -etc...

Personally speaking I think they are high quality technically speaking. On matters of pure taste I did not like the old graphics for the TEC faction much because they did not fit my perceptions of what the faction stood for given the lore I read but that in and of itself is not a valid point. I'm however pleased with the new graphics as they are more in line with what I imagined.

I agree with you on the animation. I don't know if I want to see crew walking around but I would like to maybe see turrets moving or at a minimum recoil from a large battery firing. It adds just that little extra something.

Well here is the thing. I don't think we're talking about a High-End exclusive game, and up until this point I don't think any game is really.


I have 2 gaming machines.
+ A 4 years old machine: AMD 2500+ 1GB RAM Readon 9600Pro.
+ A new machine I built a few months ago: Core 2 Duo 6300 2GB RAM Geforce 7600GT.

And up until 3 months ago (when I acquired the new machine) I played all the high end game on that old machine of mine and they all ran perfectly fine and I was happy even I can not get the most out of those games, they're perfectly playable. Want some example? Oblivion, I played it for about years, beat the main story, explored every corners ...etc... I got a few FPS drop here and there, and certainly the detail was on mid low. But was I able to play and enjoy the game? Yes. Or X3: The Reunion. Beat the story line, built myself a huge big trading empire just like a person with a high end machine. The cons? The old machine can not handle the level of engagement if I jump into a Xenon or Khaak sectors.


Now, with this new machine. The first time I played Oblivion on it, I said: damn this looks good boys!!. And the FPS hiccup also disappeared. And now, playing X3 I can finally engage Xenon sector by myself instead of doing OOS like on the old machine.


So, the thing here is that we're talking about how a game can be played on a wide range of system. The people who has limited resource can still play the game, but also, the game should be able to ultulize the extra resource that may be given to it to enhance itself. I didn't say, neither prefer a game to be high-end exclusive, like you said, it's bad for sale. But neither I find agreement the agressive low end defense (i.e from Scheme) that a game should be made cartering for low end machine and it should not demand any more then that. Low end can play the game, high end can play the game as well, but it's quite reasonable that a high end machine should be able to provide a better experience. On the other hand, demanding a game should be play at the same level on a low end and a high machine, IMO, is much less reasonable.

Plus, it's not like Sin is released today or tomorrow, it's scheduled well into next year isn't it.

stupid forums, lol

my post above in red said this :

The main purpose of this thread was the animation capabilities of the ships, and the possible need of higher requirements to run them.

On the contrary... And I haven't seen so much "I want better graphics" on a strategy game forum for a long time.

There's a very important point to consider: laptops. Laptop sales are poised to pass desktop sales, and the vast majority of these are sold with integrated graphics. In the past, with GC2 in particular, Stardock has been great with releasing products that look pretty *and* perform well, so I'm looking forward to SINS following in that tradition.

I daresay that if your system only has Intel integrated graphics that you shouldn't expect to be able to run any real-time 3D game very well (and you'd better have vast quantities of RAM).