Jump to content

1024x768 refusal


JemyM

Recommended Posts

I might try tweaking Antiisotropic and Anti-alias on the "new" PC yet. I m also using Catalyst 3.7 drivers .. in fact the game told me that there were newer drivers available :laugh: I'm just waiting for my 19" TFT to show up so that I have a viewing area of vastness (always useful when your personal design projects revolve around bits of car!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its only natural that details are reduced with lower resolution, making it 'blurry' or 'pixelated'. Anti-aliasing is a way to adress the problems with jagged edges, which is more like fixing up a bad image rather than increasing the detail.

 

See the following image:

https://jemym.no-ip.com/resolution.jpg

 

Yes, it is not UFO, but I cant get a 1600x1200 shot in UFO, so I took the closest alternative: Dungeon Seige. Note that most of the detail is dissolved in the 1024x768 'blur'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest JPG's aren't the best format to be comparing image detail.

 

At the end of the day, Altar had to make decisions about what to implement and what to leave out. We don't know why they didn't add other supported Resolutions, perhaps it's because the gui elements didn't resize properly, because the game was coded to be in only 1024x768.

 

The game I think however is good enough that it doesn't detract from being in 1024x768 only. It's not exactly a small resolution as it is, and beside when you start getting into those high res's things get mightly small, and when you get older you'll be wishing they had done it in 640x480 with double height fonts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: I have this:

- AMD Athlon 1400 MHz

- 1024 DDR RAM

- ASUS GeForce 3 Deluxe (64 MB)

And the game run smooth for me, so you should have no trouble!

We have quite the same hardware SLAUGHTER

I have - P4 - 1.8Ghz ( Older Core will.)

1024 Ram

ASUS GeForce3 Ti500 (V8200Ti500)

that is the best GF3 Ever manufactured :laugh: Now it is on its final mission but ... what a machine it stil is ... So I am going to be just fine with the game speed ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the 1024x768 resolution problem is there, but you can't say it has screwed up the game just because YOU don't like playing on 1024x768. Sorry, but that's...

 

I know you have spent $3000+ to upgrade your PC, but it doesn't mean you can't play games which work on systems far less than that. So this pretty much depends on your opinion.

 

"why create a game that only a few can enjoy" - "A few"?! As it was said before, only "a few" can afford such and advanced PC. Remember, a computer game is always designed to be run on the lowest specs possible.

 

Sorry if I was a bit harsh/rude, but if you want ultra-l33t gfx, GET ANOTHER GAME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not like Im asking for a truckload of candy here.

 

The average gamer IS equipped with a 17" and play games at 1280x1024. And there HAVE been comments about 800x600 as well.

 

It is a matter of personal preference... The option to play one game like all other games.

 

Its just as bad as locking the keyboard setup, or permanently disable Eax, or dissallowing AA etc. etc.

 

All developers should be aware that a game should not be locked at any setting, that things such as video, sound and input should be freely changed by each player... and locking any of thoose will leave out players for a very bad reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, I can't believe this "preference" of yours is gonna keep you from playing UFO: Aftermath, you aren't a true fan of the game, don't blame the developers for this (by "this" I mean "not pleasing the wealthy minority"). Even if the game's not as customizable as you wanted, I repeat, you can't let this _minor_ detail prevent you from enjoying the fine game UFO:AM is.

 

PS: I dunno what other people think, but I guess you should get a better idea of what an "average gamer" is. (1280x1024?)

 

"...locking any of those (settings) will leave out players for a very bad reason." - By "players" do you mean you?

Again, sorry if I was rude or harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also very unhappy with the resolution being locked to 1024x768. Furthermore I don't like the graphics too much - imho they are a bit outdated (eg. the Cars).

 

But that doesn't keep me from playing since I am in bad need of a new X-Com game. :laugh:

 

I was very confused bout the locked resolution since one of the advantages of vector-graphics is that you are able to switch the resolution according to your system specs - low res for low performance - high res - u got the idea. Anyway - Ufo:Aftermath is a great game although it could have been better.

 

I think another half year of development would have made U:A the absolute killer game. Of course I could not stand an additional delay :P

 

Happy hunting,

 

Beef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1024x768 is low?

 

I run Dungeon Siege in 800x600 and it does NOT look like that screenshot. It's much more crisp looking. AA and AF mearly blur the screen to make jagged lines look smooth. You're then turning up the resolution to get rid of that smeared look. If you turn off those options, maybe you'll see that UFO:A doesn't look bad and actually has good texture design which eliminates the need for AA.

 

I think UFO aftermath has good graphics, other than a few bad models (ie, the cow). If you were to compare it to another RTS, say C&C Generals, you'll see that their models actually aren't even as good looking. Yes, I do know that they have more things to deal with on a larger map. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a poll a while back and the MOST common setting for people's PC's nowadays turned out to be 1024x768. That's just a quick post to answer whoever asked that question, though it's only the desktop reolution and not for any particular game.

 

I understand that players may want 800x600 if they have either machines that would run the game more efficiently at that resolution, or if they couldn't read the smalle text very clearly.

 

In the above mentioned poll, 1280x1024 was a second choice for screen size, even though it was behind 1024x768 by a long way. 800x600 was even further behind this though in third place.

 

Perhaps the next poll we should run is which screen size you all prefer to run your games at? I'm very much open to opinions on this, as even if it doesn't get anything changed in an upcoming patch for this game, it could well be helpful for a sequel.

 

I don't think there are going to be any strong agreements in this post as we each have our own preferences, and some of us can only guess what games look like at higher resolutions (grphics card limitations etc.), but I certainly agree that perhaps the game could have benefitted from the option of resolutions.

 

It would be nice if we could progress this topic now past the "Why I think this game is shutting out players" and the posts poking at people that disagree with each other in ways that could cause (offensive?) arguments.

 

If anyone's got another perspective to add, then please do, or post your opinion on the poll suggestion and otehr opinions for other parts of the game that could technically be improved without neccessarily rewrtigin the entire code structure (as perhaps a mod can be released by the fans in the future if a patch does not address these concerns). Just try not to overkill what's already been said :P

 

*Pete tries to be even-handed and vaguely enforcing whilst having all the impact value of a damp lettuce* :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont take this wrong Pete, but perhaps you prefer Macintosh as well?

Personal choice and options... is that just buzzwords that nobody cares about on the long run?

Is everyone fine with the same as everybody else?

 

 

The question would be:

Do you prefere your own options?

* Yes

* No

 

Thats the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a PC fan and I dislike Macs as I find them harder to crash, and only REALLY useful if you're doing graphic design a lot. A computer without so many errors worries me... god forbid someone should make a perfect computer... :laugh:

 

As for personal choice and options - we had a massive impact this time around in a great many aspects of the game. I think personal opinions are important and ALTAR have listened to the fans on many occasions and asked us what we thought about their ideas as they were going through the development process so that they could make a game that so many of us are enjoying.

 

A poll or series of polls addressing people's personal views on various subjects certainly wouldn't be a waste of time, as I'd be surprised if there wasn't going to be a sequel to this game. And since we've got one major forum devoted to the weekly poll, it's not going to be too difficult for ALTAR to get a good idea of what our opinions are.

 

As for "Do you prefere your own options?" - well everybody does, naturally, that's why there's always disagreement, but we're not trying to dismiss them out of hand either.

 

I possibly misunderstood what you were talking about, and most likely repeated my above post, but I ain't'nt perfect by any stretch of the imagination :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actual need of more resolution options can be discussed beyond all recognition, and everybody will stick to the solution that fits their monitor/graphiccard the most, and thus a such argument could go on forever.

 

The good part with 3d games, is that theese discussions are normally unneccessary, since 3d games can be rendered in any resolution of personal choice, as long as the 2d interface works as textures rather than being solid 2d bitmaps. Take Vampire: Redemption as an example of a nice hud that can be stretched and thereby all resolutions can be used:

https://www.planetvampire.com/wodmod/images...hot010204-1.jpg

 

But then there are the developers that decides. They decide that "one is good for all", or "most use * so we can as well ignore the rest". Its that kind of thinking I am against to the bone. In this case it lefts me with a game that looks far worse than it could have. Im my case, it actually turned me down so much that I havnt played more than the first map so far.

 

The worst part here, is that I have talked FOR UFO in many forums. I have used UFO as a reference of games that can as well be 3d today, since 3d looks as good as 2d, and also allow greater detail/resolution at the same time.

When it now couldnt change the resolution, I felt it as a smack in my face. :laugh:

 

So yes, I have serious issues with 'locked options', and if you dont want to listen to my ramble, you dont need to. Im just going to sit here and sob for awhile.

 

Best Regards

JemyM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with the game resolution is that I use a TFT screen, and it is optimised for 1280x1024. Lower resolutions are "stretched" across the screen and it doesn't do it very well.

 

This problem was fixed (just now, after a bit of experimentation) by changing the "Digital Flat Panel Options" (in the Nvidia detonator configuration panel - not sure what the ATI equivalent is) from Monitor Scaling to Display Adapter Scaling.

 

I now have picture of post-apocalyptic lovelyness :laugh:

 

Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the looks of the option panel for the resolution, it looks like other resolutions were originally going to be available. I think it is fair to assume that the developer had a good reason for not allowing these in the final version (presumably because of an glitch they couldn't fix in time for release). After all they'll want to appeal to the widest possible audience, including the graphics snob.

 

My guess would be this all comes down to the usual problems with game development; deadlines and budgets. If I was in the position of being given the option of 'you can have top quality graphics but the research tree size will be halved and you can only play on one continent' I think I'd leave things the same.

 

If you look a bit deeper than the immediate visual impact, there is a game of immense detail and depth. The time taken to produce this obviously reduces the time available to graphical development, although they have taken the time to ensure that the graphics are perfectly reasonable ( and in a genre of gaming not renowned for its graphical excellence). Put aside your predudices and play for an hour or two. You might be pleasantly surprised. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, but just to quickly side with JemyM's argument on one thing (what am I doing :P), surely the resolutions would have been thought about as soon as they started piecing the tactical game together with the global game? As soon as the interface was needed (pretty early on) it would have been thought about, so technically nothing else would have had to be cut out from time restraints.

 

The more I give myself time to think about it, the less it makes sense.

 

Doesn't mean I have a problemplayng it though, as I run everything at 1024x768 which is where we'll all disagree to some degree :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I agree it doesn't make sense to lock it in 1024x768. The only reason I can imagine for not allowing this is that they made a stupid mistake and 'forgot' to make the interface scaleable, and that by the time they realized this it was far too late to fix it in time.

 

It's unfortunate too because although the game doesn't look "bad" in 1024x768 it doesn't look that good either, it looks like it is several years old already. Hopefully they will add this ability in a patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They intended to include other modes in the game, but had to cut it due to time constraints towards the end. The problem is, as you say, that they have to make versions of the interface for each resolution mode. I hope they'll add more modes in a patch as well, but it will not be part of the first one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
  • Create New...