That screen shot for max settings were pretty shitty actually. The background looked pretty horrible. Mountains looked like they were all blurry like you said. The only thing i think looks cool there was the fence. The rest was meh.Nairbog said:
Why all the nerd rage against Vanguard
- Thread starter Shonuff
- Start date
Then go do that, cause you suck ass at producing video games these days.Aradune Mithara said:
Just for reference (and I don"t want to annoy you all with a scientific detailed explanation) there is no such thing as 20 FPS are ok, not even 30 FPS if for that.
The human eye reacts differently from person to person in front of the same screen, some see the screen flickering at 60 Hz on the old CRT monitors, some will never notice. Movies/tv use the "blur effect" (not doable for games) to achieve the fluid movement and they run at 25 fps.
Some players are able to play and easily tolerate 15 fps, others are having a hard time. My old PC ran wow at max setting with aax4 at 15-18 fps, I needed to scale it down a bit and take it to 20+ because for me it was disturbing, while a friend of mine had zero problems running it at 15 fps all the time.
Also when people are used at playing games at 50+ fps, going to 20 is a huge deal, not something really acceptable if they don"t play for a while "getting used" to that.
The "motion sickness effect" some players experience, especially in FPS games, is amplified at low framerate values.
In conclusion, 20 fps is not fine, not for everyone at least. The human eye on average stops noticing differences in values that range from 80 up to 120 fps depending on the person.
The human eye reacts differently from person to person in front of the same screen, some see the screen flickering at 60 Hz on the old CRT monitors, some will never notice. Movies/tv use the "blur effect" (not doable for games) to achieve the fluid movement and they run at 25 fps.
Some players are able to play and easily tolerate 15 fps, others are having a hard time. My old PC ran wow at max setting with aax4 at 15-18 fps, I needed to scale it down a bit and take it to 20+ because for me it was disturbing, while a friend of mine had zero problems running it at 15 fps all the time.
Also when people are used at playing games at 50+ fps, going to 20 is a huge deal, not something really acceptable if they don"t play for a while "getting used" to that.
The "motion sickness effect" some players experience, especially in FPS games, is amplified at low framerate values.
In conclusion, 20 fps is not fine, not for everyone at least. The human eye on average stops noticing differences in values that range from 80 up to 120 fps depending on the person.
I went from Everquest 2 months ago to Vanguard. You know how long it took me to get used of the slower framerate? like a day if that. It really bothers some people, and thats ok. Different people get bothered by different things. I am fine with it. I wish i had more ram though. 1 gig now days for anything is just horrible.Miele said:
I think that indicated he had both. So you dont have to tell him something he is already doing. duh.serrathen said:
I can"t speak much about EQ1 because I was not around when it launched. I will say that I definitely disagree with you on EQ2. EQ2 was complete shit optimization-wise when it launched. I built a brand new computer in 2004 that couldn"t play EQ2 for dick. Everyone I know who was excited about migrating from EQ1 to EQ2 upon release decided against it when they couldn"t run the game enough to enjoy it.Aradune Mithara said:
EQ2 was up against the release of WoW. We had two games coming out that were perhaps close to each other in anticipation, both with strong fanbases coming from previous games. WoW completely smashed EQ2 in subscription numbers and I accurately remember reading tons of posts from people who couldn"t run EQ2 or thought it stuttered too much and were suckered into the feeling of polish in WoW with its 70 fps in major cities with older machines. I tried my hardest to get friends to play EQ2 with me but no one would because their machines were too old and therefore suited for WoW. Granted, EQ2 had issues with the gameplay, combat, and class balance upon release as well.
Now you"ve got VG that"s released the same month as The Burning Crusade. Also have LOTRO in the future along with a few other games that are running smoother in beta than VG is in retail (due to their graphic style no doubt.) Once again, you have a game that runs for shit on computers that run every other game on the market fine. Couple that with the fact that VG (not unlike EQ2) did has issues with gameplay, combat and class balance.....you"re setting yourself up to perform poorly when up against the competitors.
Someone has been readingHow many frames per second can the human eye see?lately!Miele said:
I think they got some fighter jocks to notice changes in an image which would have resulted in a frame rate of like 200+ fps. Point being the human eye does not sample light at discrete intervals, it is continuous. So any medium you want to appear fluid you have to trick the eye. Motion blur and other stuff you mentioned.
Project offset has been mentioned several times on this board and it shows some excellent examples of full screen motion blur. From both camera and object movement.
Offset - Main
I"m curious about r.gun"s screenshots.kcxiv said:
In the first one (high performance), I see the WoW-esque fading out of the tower in the background. I think that does wonders to bring about perception. C"mon... who didn"t used to watch Bob Ross paint and he"d do that "mist" stuff to seperate layers of his painting.
In the following screenshots, the quality gets higher and higher, but the depth perception seems to vanish. It looks .... creepy.
Actually, those are hills, and in real life you don"t see every single 6 inch bump on a mountain from a mile away. So omg its more realistic so that means it"s better, right?kcxiv said:
I agree you picked the best engine for the time. I just think you tried to do too much with it.Aradune Mithara said:
Adamar"s LOTRO Screenshots
These are screenshots of a game that requires roughly half the computer specs that Vanguard does. Vanguard has it"s pretty moments, but LOTRO just looks and feels far more organic, especially since you can run it at over 15fps.
These are screenshots of a game that requires roughly half the computer specs that Vanguard does. Vanguard has it"s pretty moments, but LOTRO just looks and feels far more organic, especially since you can run it at over 15fps.
As a side note, during VG beta I used to get massive headaches. I just thought it was from playing too much on the computer as I hadn"t been in an MMO prior to that for several months. I just played single player games, surfed the net.. still used the computer a lot, but no headaches. But during VG I got massive headaches on a daily basis. Since I stopped playing and restarted WoW, I would say I have played more the last two months than I did during VG and I have zero problems.Miele said:
And no, I am not saying that Vanguard gives you tumors, but having graphical issues like poor framerate and stuttering/hitching can have side effects. Really never even put it together until now, but I am 99% sure that was the cause.
I must say...3/4 of those screenshots of LOTRO look better than anything I saw in VG, and better than any VG screenshot I"ve seen to date.Lonin said:
They are so uniform looking. They all look like they"re out of the same game, they all are believable and smooth. I can"t speak for the gameplay because I"ve never played LOTRO - but damn...those screenies are hot.
dunno, dont play that game. dont know how it works. I do know i am playing a game i do enjoy alot.Twobit Whore said:
I"ve posted now several times that I wish we could have launch a bit later, but that it was out our hands. Fiancial realties, being what they were, made that decison for us.Greyform said:
I think more people would like to know why the engine is in its current state. Not enough time to tweak it due to having to release early?Aradune Mithara said:
Only in the video game industry can a CEO of a company claim that the reason his product sucks is because the "financial realities" are out of his hands. If the financial responsibilities of a company don"t rest in the hands of the CEO, who"s hands do they rest in?Aradune Mithara said:
