DescentBB

I wanted to run this poll to get the general consensus for High Octane on their new game. Here is my opinion on the matter. I did not buy Descent 3 until a few years after it was released because the system requirements were too high. I think a lot of people fell into this category and this may be a large factor on why the game didn't sell very well. I hope that High Octane will not make this mistake. I realize that most of the gaming review people are pushing for maxed out graphics but do they really represent the majority of end users? I sometimes wonder if the hardware manufactures are helping them financially when I keep seeing the phrase "dated graphics."

Kyouryuu said:
"Unfortunately, gone are the days where people would buy joysticks to play games."

How about people that would have to buy a new processor, motherboard, memory, case & graphics card to play a game? With the change in monitor connectors I may have to buy a monitor too. If the new game requires a faster computer than Descent 3, that will be the predicament I will be in. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot more than the minimum requirements for Descent 3 but I like reasonable frame rates.

To me it seems smart to sell a computer product that the majority of computer users can run. Is the latest eye candy really that important? I don't know about you but I get tired of buying new parts for my computer all the time. I just want to use the thing.

Thwart, you don't need to change your monitor connection unless you get a Flat Panel and want the digital connection.

double post

i voted for better graphics because they sell games. more players = better. but if better gameplay were a choice, that would be what i'd have voted for, not graphics.

thwart wrote:I did not buy Descent 3 until a few years after it was released because the system requirements were too high. I think a lot of people fell into this category and this may be a large factor on why the game didn't sell very well.

same for me back then, but that was 5 years ago when p2 300's were popular and p3 500's cost 2 grand. alot has changed since then, and these days computers are built so cheap and new technology comes out so often that alot of gamers upgrade every year or so. doom 3 is still running on a computer i built about a year ago, running great i might add and its the most graphically advanced game out right now to my knowledge. the minimum requirements are that big of a deal to most people these days. you can build a computer that meets doom3's minimum requirements by mowing lawns in the summertime now.

maybe high octane can strike a deal with logitech or saitek or someone to include a joystick in the bundle and charge like $65 or something. might get a few more people ot buy it if they didnt have to shell out another 30-40 bucks on a stick to play it.

What is highend this year will be mid range a year from now making the Dm3 requirements for eyecandy passe'.

Don't sweat the hardware. There are changes around the corner that will bring another larger peformance lurch.

Doom 3 requirements are not nearly as demanding relative to current technology as Descent 3 requirements were when it came out.

I'm suprised at how well doom 3 played on my 1.7ghz machine.

By the same token, it would probably be unacceptable for multiplayer. It seems like 60fps+ is the threshold for online/multiplayer for me.

Just a thought. I voted lower system reqs.

Yep, lesson to be learned from Doom is that you can have pretty graphics and great performance-- you just need a very long (or effective) detail slider.

Eye candy optional now, performance and candy later. I still run D3 at minimum detailas for one simple reason, it allows me to see through a BPs microwave, see through napalm, etc. I can see what is going on around me better because the screen is not cluttered with particle effects.

An adjustable system to support a wide array of computers, newer or older, is always the best way to go, and I think Doom 3 pulled it off great.

However there should have been a third option, gameplay. Not only should it have the 2 options but its got to offer something Doom 3 hasnt, and thats great gameplay.

All of that to me is important, gameplay and then graphics taking precidence.

It really shouldn't be that big of a deal these days, seeing how a number of modern games pull of very impressive scalling. Farcry allows putzs with GF4 MXs to play with almost no eyecandy, while letting 9800 Pro users count the fireflys flitting around them while they crouch in the rich foliage. Doom 3 also has such a system, and I think Half Life 2 will too.

Hummm. This poll isn't going the way I had hoped. Maybe High Octane will have a nice t-shirt

Missing 3rd option

GAMEPLAY...no vote here

not another forsaken

I think we have demonstrated that it's possible to have both- therefore this poll is pointless. I agree with Bubba- I want superior gameplay.

Another vote for gameplay here.

great graphics + no gameplay = tech demo.

Nice t-shirt JBOMB. How much?

I didn't mean to make this poll confusing. I just wanted to get an opinion on if it is better to sell a game to a wider audience (low system requirements) or to the high end users. Game play was assumed to be equal.

I read the posts saying that games can run on a wide range of hardware but that hasn't been my experience. Maybe things have changed. I haven't bought a new game in quite some time. I tried to look at the system requirements for Doom 3 just to see what the minimum was but it is not on their page???

My apologies to all. I was unaware that this poll existed. I will watch it more closely now.

Sincerely,
Zachary Briggs, Executive Producer
HighOctane Software

thwart wrote:I tried to look at the system requirements for Doom 3 just to see what the minimum was but it is not on their page???

http://www.idsoftware.com/games/doom/do ... ion=sysreq

Actually zbriggs you've already seen it. I only ran it for 10 days.

Doom 3 hardware requirements:

3D Hardware Accelerator Card Required - 64MB Hardware Accelerated video card (failed - I only have a 32mb card)

Pentium®IV 1.5 GHz or Athlon® XP 1500+ processoror higher (failed - I only have a 1ghz PIII)

384MB RAM (OK)

8x Speed CD-ROM drive (1200KB/sec sustained transfer rate) (OK)

2.2GB of uncompressed free hard disk space (OK)

16-bit sound card (OK)

mouse, keyboard (Oh please, who doesn't have a mouse and keyboard )

As you can see my origional rant was correct. I would have to fork over a lot to play that game. This was just an example of a new game's demand on hardware.

I don't think anyone is going to base a game of today around a 2 or 3 year old system, really what would be the point?
Those Doom 3 requirements are not really all that bad.
And I'm just curious , but what makes you think you'd sell the game to a wider audience if you made the system requirements less?

Bonz wrote:I don't think anyone is going to base a game of today around a 2 or 3 year old system, really what would be the point?

Maybe they should. A lot of users don't buy new systems every 2 to 3 years.

Bonz wrote:And I'm just curious , but what makes you think you'd sell the game to a wider audience if you made the system requirements less?

A user with a high end system can run a game with low system requirements and so can someone with a low end system. However if your game only runs on high end systems you have alienated part of your market.

I voted for the "lower requirements" option, simply because I'm one of those people who doesn't see the need to upgrade every year or so to keep up with top-of-the-line games. As thwart said, making the requirements as steep as, say, Doom 3 can alienate a significant portion of the gaming market. Another point to consider is that scaling the requirements isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sure, my computer could probably run Doom 3 at a decent framerate with every single effect turned off, but I wouldn't buy the game just to get the low-end graphics. I'd like to see more efficiency in game programming, where one doesn't need steep requirements to get a good-looking game. Those of us with average machines shouldn't be forced to use the lowest detail settings to play newer games. PC games have become incredibly bloated, from outrageous drive space requirements to very high graphics card and processor settings. A game that bucked that trend would be a welcome change.

(By the way, I think that good gameplay is a given. That's not the point of this poll.)

I'm one of those people who actually plays games on a computer with five-year-old technology, but I assumed I was in the minority as I don't actually know anyone with a slower computer.

Generally, I'd say that if you can knock the graphics up, you might as well do it because the people who are going to buy your games will usually want it. Most of them are more than capable of upgrading when they need to. (Some people buy new machines for just one game; it's unlikely that this one will even be so graphically intensive as to be that one game.)

Peculiarly enough, on that minimum requirements list for Doom 3 the only things my machine passes on is the CD-ROM drive, the sound card and the keyboard and mouse.

I have a 3+ year old system. Athlon 1ghz OC to 1.37, 512 megs of ram and a vanilla GF3 and I run Doom 3 at 800x600 with medium options and no complaints.

Without the advance of software technology we'd still be playing side scrollers, and thanks to Doom 3 we have now advanced into the next stage in the evolution of gaming and it looks a LOT better. All there is left is an advance in gameplay...

No, I do not upgrade every year to the top of the line. In fact I will keep this system for another year since it runs Doom3 just fine and presumably other hot games due to come out such as HL2 and Stalker. All you people who whine about slow computers dont need to run games at 60+ FPS. The tv has only 24 fps, and it looks just fine. So does a game that runs at 30. So quit your bitchin'.

Well, a game running at 30 is slightly dodgy, but I do it enough that I don't mind it too much. Once you start pulling 60 it's pretty neat though.

And the TV is weird. :] It really runs at 50 fps interlaced, which means that while it only fully refreshes 25 times a second it looks like it does more often. (Which everyone knows already, but anyway)

Doing similar tricks on computers... well... no-one's really tried it.

It's obvious that great gameplay is first and foremost. This poll was about graphics.