JemyM Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Having payed way past $3k on my machine with a top notch graphiccard and a 19" I refuse to play a game in 1024x768, and thats final. I am very sad to see that the developers spoiled their creation, and I had look'd forward to this game for a long time, but no... seriously... this is just a smack in my face. Now I should try to get this blurry mess out of my mind and dream about a patch, and what the game could have looked like if the developers had taken the advantages of '3d' seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaughter Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Well, if graphics is that important to you, then I guess you'll have to wait or never play it. But this isn't Doom 3 you know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Aye, but the thing you have to remember is that whilst ALTAR wanted to build a new game which took advantage of new technology, they're not seriously going to worry about producing effects that you need a $3000 machine to play the game on... Seriously, you can't have just forked out on a new machine that cost that much for UFO:A? Also, how many other games do you see out there that have a resolution higher than that? A handful perhaps? Grin and bear it like the rest of us (or save some money and trade in oyour 19" monitor for a 17" TFT monitor ). The game is still well worth it at the end of the day, and the graphics look fine from where I'm sitting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JemyM Posted October 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 There is one true point of 3d that cannot be competed with 2d: Chrystal clear graphics. Jagged Alliance 2, Baldurs Gate, Temple of Elemental Evil was in 1024x768, fine. They where 2d. But there is simply no excuse to lock a 3d game in lowres, specially if they actually put an effort on building nice models and used nice textures. I really, really thought that I would not see any more screwups of this kind, as its 2003 now you know, with lots of awesome 3d hardware around and 19" monitors for $200, but i guess I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 The point is though, that not everyone can afford a 19" monitor, or the higher spec graphics cards, or the fastest PC's on the planet. Why build a game that only a few people can play when you can make a game for everyone to enjoy? If you did the former, you would have a very poorly-selling game indeed, as strategy games just don't go hand-in-hand with crystal clear 3D graphics. For example - the most famous squad-based-strategy game in teh world is the original X-COM (UFO: Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense). It's still the most-played in the world and the most popular, getting into the "Top 100 Games of All Time" rankings across all the big websites and gaming magazines. It has a resolution of 320x200 or something like that and it's still a phenomenally great game with maximum replayability. Why should you need or want the best graphics in the world when you don't need them? To be honest, I was quite pleasantly surprised by how good the game looks compared to the screenshots that we've been seeing. Unlike other games developers, ALTAR haven't shown us their perfect 3D models and said "this is what it will look like" and then shown us something infinitely more ordinary - they've done the opposite and shown us what it will look like to most people around the world so we've known what to expect all along. This isn't a rant, just my view on strategy gaming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Cyann Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 I have to agree with u there Pete. Why make a game that only the players with stupidly good hardware can play alone. U miss out on a LOT of players that don't have the funds for that kind of setup.An come on tbh how many games take FULL use of ur setup atm??I only know of 1, with every other game u'll be wasting all that power for a good length of time, until some really cracking looking game comes along, but thats not gonna be for a while. An when i mean cracking looking i mean WAYY better than what we r seeing today. ALTAR wanted the game playable for a wide audienace, an i am sure that sometime there will be a setup program made to get it to a much higher res.U gotta remember there not jsut making games for YOUR setup, theres thousands/millions even of players out there, take that into acount next time u post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 But fair enough - I'm sure it's *technically* possible, (though unlikely to happen) that a simple patch could be made to whack the resolution up higher. I only assume that it's fixed at the one resolution so that they don't have to worry about interfaces ending up in odd places on the screen and transparent overlays not centering and stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Cyann Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Possibly, i am just saying i have seen 3rd party programs that can change the res to higher settings. But am sure there can be a fixaround for this, like some lill untreid solution.if u want loads of detail still jsut get a gfx tuner an whack all detail tohighest going then play in 1024, will have better looks but still thats only half ur problem Jemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JemyM Posted October 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 The question "why create a game that only a few can enjoy" sums up my issues. Locking resolution is a developer choice, that should not have been made, since it sacrifies a large amount of players for no appearent reason. I can see why graphics is tuned up, so it looks great but sacrifies thoose with slower cards, but I cannot see why graphic-options is removed as it is a simple option, that allows thoose with larger monitors to experience the game with greater detail, or at least avoid the gruesome pixeling. Even Quake 1 could be played in 1600x1200. Why shouldnt a game be equally enjoyable on everything from 14-21"? Why should people with better monitors have to play the game in total pixelated bluriness when there is no advantage of doing so, except that they do not need to scale the interface that should have been scaleable from the beginning? UFO: Enemy Unknown was before its time. There where no 3d or high-resolution games at that time, so it is as natural that the game was 320x200 that it is to find a resolution-mode-option in a modern game. Whatever they did on model/texture quality, it is wasted now, becouse of the locked resolution. There is no way to experience its quality, since its blurred like a crappy lowres jpeg. Does someone have a link to any decent graphics tuner? I remember that I ini-edited Etherlords, but the 2d interface was painted in 2d and did not scale, so that was the other game in the latest years I decided to skip out on, just becouse the developers wasted the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 just becouse the developers wasted the game. The whole point is that they didn't, you're just not having fun, and I must say you're very much in the minority for this particular reason - only one other person I know has mentioned this and they're still having fun on their 19" monitor. Me, I'm having tremendous fun playing the game rather than worrying how good the graphics are with a whole host of other people around the world. We'll pass this feedback on to ALTAR as with all the other feedback, but there's no need to keep going on like it's the end of the world *just* yet You've still got until 2004 according to the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaughter Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 I will agree with you that it was a bad choice of ALTAR to have only one resolusion JemyM. BUT, what is the problem. Are you never playing games because they are good, not worrying about the graphics. I still enjoy the X-Com games... And, have you tried the game at your rig? I read at the official forum about someone that had turned on full anti-aliasing and all the other high power options, and he said the graphics looked great! I've also read about people that had to turn that off to get the game to run... Anyway, as Pete says, we'll mention this to ALTAR. But there is no point in discussing this much more since we will not agree anyway. I play games because gameplay is great, not graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JemyM Posted October 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Actually, I am a fan of old games, and play lots of games in emulators, games with now dusty 2d art and low resolution. Graphics alone is not everything when it comes to a game. A limited 2k3 game is not to be compared with classic gaming, so that is not a valid excuse to limit a players ability to adjust his setting according to what hardware he uses. Especially not when it is a such simple matter as changing resolution settings in a 3d game. A 2d game - fine, since 2d bitmaps cannot be stretched, but a 3d game is rendered anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 YEAH ... It is not the BEST to have only ONE REZ ... But I suggest TURN ON ANISOTROPIC FILTERING and ANTI ALIASING and cannot tell the difference from 1280x1024 ... Really ... Try it ... Even GeForce3Ti500 is able to get results in 1024x768 ... But I do not mind myself - REMEMBER I STIL PLAY UFO 1 on my SONY E430 Trinitron "I LOVE THIS MONITOR" ... SO to all unhappy players TRY that AA&AF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JemyM Posted October 5, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 I have switched on both at x8. The game looks like 'under water'. Its very blurry.Signs cannot be read (the text is to blurry), you can barely determine if the characters carrying helmets, or if it its their hair. It took me awhile to see that the characters does NOT carry plastic shoulderpads, it is in fact armpatches. What irritates me the most is that its tough as hell identifying smaller objects on the ground. You can barely see what item the character is holding. Overall the game looks "muddled" and looks alot like Fallout, which is a very bad statement judging from the fact that there is five years between thoose games. Overall, to me, this makes the game look either old or as a game that lacks the professional finish that you expect from a modern game... and all this just becouse the developers decided 1024x768 is good enough for everyone, rendering all means of seeing the details in this game impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Okay, okay, we get the point. Don't over-do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Cyann Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Sounds like u got the settings the OTHER way round than x8, blurrey is -8. If it IS what u say it is then try going to texture aligment in the control settings an setting them to the far RIGHT, that should correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centauris Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Really I don`t see the problem. The game is NOT wasted just because someone can`t play in higher resolution. I agree that it was STUPID choice to implement only one resolution but that`s the way it is. I am only afraid will it run properly, have nice graphics and will be very addictive on my : Athlon 2000 XP+ (1,67 Ghz)256 DDr 333 mhzGF 4 64 MB DDR What do you think?1. Will the game run properly without slow-ups ?2. IS the game as addictive as X-Com? It is quite expensive for me so I don`t want a game that i can walk through in just few days! For example: I bought Neverwinter Nights and must say it is very very veeery looong game for few weeks maybe months (for me) so i was not dissapointed and i still haven`t finished the game What do you think about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaughter Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 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! 2: Yes, it is! As long as you don't expect it to be a new X-COm. It plays fairly diffrent, but is very addictive. I have been playing quite a bit since Friday, and I only have 7 bases, that cover most of Northern-America. I have MANY hour left yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centauris Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Very COOL thank you slaughter!I am thinking that ...when I will get the game maybe i`ll start playing on very difficult setting so i can enjoy the game for maaaany weeks If I won`t ber able to play I`ll just start on normal Anyway so I got far less ram than you but hopefully it will run smoothly with all high-coool-stuuff-graphics on ? Oh yea: I not it is not X-Com game but i just want it to be very very addictive OK thx for your help and I just wanted to say that the site and this forum ROCKS! thx for it guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaughter Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Yes, Pete have made a very cool site! And one more thing. I am playing the default difficulity (normal I think), and it is VERY hard. Just so you know... Oh, and it takes some hours to start loving the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerocz Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 OK, 1024x768 may seem as low and I know it, because I have 21" screen, but it's no tragedy. Try switching on functions like antiliasing or anisotropic filtering and I'm sure that in the end you'll get something nice to look at. BTW. : Why does Czech game come out in Czech Rep. long after other the other countries ??? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaughter Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Good question Nerocz... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JemyM Posted October 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 Just to clear things up. No, I am using the only way possible to run x8/x8. Anti-Aliasing is about fixing up a bad image. I used to do anti-aliasing by hand on my Amiga back in the old days.AA does not improve the actual detail in the image, it just blurs the image to make it look less pixelated. The problem is that the game now looks alot worse than it could have been. Simply becouse the developers shortcutted the production one-two days instead of implementing the most basic pieces of DX code... a resolution switcher. And thats what got me annoyed. Its like "Yeah, I know that the car looks ugly if you look at it from some directions, as we did not have time to paint the roof"... "Yeah, I know that it only take a day to fix, but we decided early that we shouldnt, so now we cant"... "Yeah, I know its stupid, but if you dont like it, dont drive it". etc etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethS Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 Tried this on both my home machines (both self-built) and it runs fine. One is my main usage PC designed to run Pro/E R20 (3D CAD so designed to crunch numbers) and the other is my "network server" which is mainly an MP3 storage (and space for my drawings).The lower spec PC is 800Mhz P3 with a Radeon 9000 Pro. The newer PC has something like a 9800 Pro with an AMD processor (fastest that was available at the time of build 6 months ago). Both PCs run Win2k Pro as I personally can't stand WinXP Pro. I've had a few glitches which I think are Catalyst related (refresh-like problems) but these are only on the older PC so may be speed/memory related. :angel: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
systems Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 I agree that they should let you pick other "unsupported" resolutions (as is done with Baldur's 2 and Icewind Dale). Incidentally, Baldur's 1 was 800x600 res. Is the "blurring" problem purely occuring with GeForce cards using anti-aliasing? I know 3 people all with Radeons using the Cat 3.7 drivers and it's perfect. Absolutely glorious, in fact (and I have a 20" monitor). My only problem is with screenshots - they all end up as black screens! [Edit: I'm using X16 anisotropic filtering and X6 anti-aliasing]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now