JemyM

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: http://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. 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

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.

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.

The jpg is saved in quality 100%, but I had to resize it so the size was equal regardless which monitor you use to look at it.

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: http://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'.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.