Also keep in mind, the game isnt going to be out for what? Atleast 2 years? We're looking at budget quad/8 core processors? 64 bit OSes with RAM 30 bucks a gig? DDR4-5 on video cards and ddr3-4 RAM?
I have a minimum wage job with bills aplenty to pay. If I can set aside a few bucks a week (By a few I mean like $5) to keep my computer up to par, no one should seriously EXPECT to play state of the art games with a computer 2-3 years behind par.
your already 2-3 years behind par it seems. next type of core would be 6 they like going up in twos. The 64 bit Windows 7 will run really smooth as is snow leopard. Ram?...Ddr3 on my gaming rig for 100 for 4gigs. and then there already is GDDR5 ramon video cards. The next should Be GDDR6, and the next thing for mobos should be DDr4 either that or DDR3 only 4 gigs in a stick only for servers as of now but we might get that by then and theyll all be runing 2000MHz native. The videocards by then should have like GDDR6 4 gigs of ram on a card.. and SSD's down in price talking 100 for a 250 GB hard drive which is amazing considering what a SSD can do for you aka make your computer turn on in 10 seconds flat with all your items loaded. Run 4 in Raid 0 for 1Tb 600 MB/s read speeds anyone?...250 MB/s write speeds anyone?....and by that time processors will be at min 3 GHz they kinda already are with core i7. and the max nativ should be either 4.80 or 5 OC to about 8 on Liquid nitrogen 6 on Air cooling and 7 on liquid. Those are my predictions. your right htough technology advances quickly now we just gottakeep up with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Yes, I am talking about playing the video game with my friends. That's a very large part of the enjoyment for me.
@Entity, I wasn't talking about what will be available, I'm talking about what will be considered "Budget".
And Windows 7 does run very nicely, I've been using 64bit Ultimate for a while now.
You are right about the GDDR6/DDR4 issue, but that wasn't my point. My point was people are comparing D3 to the budget technology of 3+ years ago, and not the budget technology of today to release.
If you expect to be able to play the latest and greatest games, you should atleast have a budget computer appropriate to the era. (Meaning 2-3 year old medium end computer at the least!)
You don't seem to be aware of it, but no one gives a crap about that, because the majority don't have amazing computer. Blizzard even had surveys to see what the majority of its players' computer are like. They don't want to make a game half of the market can't even play.
Computers are expensive. There is absolutely no reason in hell for anyone but the dedicated to buy a top of the line computer. I don't even have a Dual Core, and I don't know of a single person that plays game that have dual cores. They all have singles. I don't know any true gamers, but they all do play PC games. So whats the deal? Most people shouldn't be able to play new game? Well let me tell you something...
Quote from "Tylith" »
10 YEARS? Even 5 years in the world of technology is eternity. 5 years ago they were JUST switching to DDR2, and dual core technology wasn't even on the market. I understand designing for LOWER BUDGET technology, but designing for OLD technology holds back programmers from making truly amazing games.
This is bullshit. It doesn't have any freakin' impact on how amazing a game be. You now what is a truly amazing advancement thats more and more needed these days? The ability for any computer to run a game. Yes, thats one of the few thing I actually call progress. An engine should be able to downgrade many of its elements so that very significantly weaker computer can run it. Thats advancement.
Forcing better and better graphics alone is NOT going forward. It won't make better games either, never will. It actually may make them worse, because they need to put an emphasis on look even more, and less time is dedicated to actual gameplay. Another true advancement would be to quicken this process by a lot.
But as far as the technology constantly getting better and better... in the end its not helping anyone. Its certainly not an advancement in any way in the world of gaming that computers become stronger every day.
So you rather wait 2 years for a game with better graphics?, As they will need to update it as it becomes better and better and then they need to finish the gameplay before finishing the graphics because they need it so they dont have to change anything before they put the finishing the final touches on graphics to get the best. And that means that the gameplay will lack.
Nah.. they can start development with really high requirements that only 1% of people could play.. and even with some kicky computer it wouldn't be so smooth all the times.
The development takes some years and computers are a lot faster.. meaning their game now runs perfectly.. and they can tone it down a bit so that masses can play it.
gameplay is by far the most important element of a game, closely followed by story. But to think graphics have no influence on how a game is reviewed is just stupid. Graphics don't make a game, correct. But for a game that already has potential, graphics can take it to the next level. Its not just about what computers the game can play on, its about staying competitive in a massive market of games. Graphics are one of those factors needed in order to keep the bar raised. Personally, I'm happy with how the graphics look on the game now. No, its nothing new and game breaking as far as graphics go, but its still a clean looking game. If they made d3 look like d2, everyone would be pissed wondering why they didn't do more with it visually. Theres already a thread with people complaining about the graphics as they are now.
Graphics and Gameplay are both important aspects of a good video game to me. By saying I expect high end graphics does not mean I don't expect high end gameplay.
I've said before, you aren't looking at a game you can play now, you are looking at a game you will be playing in 2 years.
And Jake, I'VE SAID BEFORE, I am not talking about expecting people to have the LATEST AND GREATEST, I'm talking people having budget computers appropriate to the era. If your computer is no more than 5 years old it will be compatible with dual core CPUs, and have a PCI-E slot. If you cant afford to buy a BRAND NEW computer, do what I do, set aside a few bucks a week and upgrade it when you can. You can have a decent computer without being rich.
It's like you have an Xbox and are bitching at Microsoft games for making games for Xbox360. If you want to play the newest games, you need to buy a damn 360 and not expect microsoft to make games that are compatible with your crappy old xbox.
Technology moves fast, if you expect to keep up with it (Play the NEWEST video games) expect to pay for it.
that depends on who you ask I didn't understand english when I first played D2, but it was still fun. I play alot of games with 0 story and it is nothing wrong with them. I think that that a game should either have a really good story, or no story at all.
A example of a game with a close to non-existant story is WoW The story in it is basically: "Characters from the other faction are your enemies, kill them. Demons are invading, kill them too."
Perhaps it has a deeper story, but then I didn't get it.
The story in WoW is very deep. There are novels to explain it. Every single dungeon, every raid, every zone, every race, every NPC had a deep and long history behind it.
that depends on who you ask I didn't understand english when I first played D2, but it was still fun. I play alot of games with 0 story and it is nothing wrong with them. I think that that a game should either have a really good story, or no story at all.
A example of a game with a close to non-existant story is WoW The story in it is basically: "Characters from the other faction are your enemies, kill them. Demons are invading, kill them too."
Perhaps it has a deeper story, but then I didn't get it.
True story doesn't have to be all. But a game has to be balanced by story, gameplay, graphics, replay value, etc.
Wow actually has a pretty lengthy in depth story that follows through the warcraft strategy games and after that.
Wow?... did we get into a discussion from what should be max player to whats most important in a game?.... Well in any case. If your talking about having the max player aka 8 in a game with high settings its not about grpahics its about speed for example your native speeds for your ram HDD or SSD if you happen to be rich enough to affor many of them, or the native speed for your CPU including its cores. But in terms of whats most important when it comes down to making a game is simple Gameplay. If the game your playing is simply not fun because of either bad story slow leveling gay skills then itt's just simply not a good game. Then comes the graphics cause it just enhances your experience while playing the game. If it had d2 graphics but the basis of D3 aka the way it plays the story the skills the classes id play it just cause its so good. I personally could care less about graphics but its an added pls that id love to be able to have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Notice the bold from Bashiok's quote below; pretty much confirming a limit of four to a game.
[...] we limit to 4 because we recognize that even in Diablo II 8 was way too many people, that anything above 4, even in Diablo II, made a terrible mess of the game.
I'm talking about ingame story A story that connects all quests and missions to one common goal. Most WoW stories are sidestories.
My point still stands, a good story is far from required to make a good game.
Yeah well the quests don't have any huge story. But the quests mainly relate to the smaller area that you are in at that moment. Some of them might have connections to earlier happenings. (dragons at wetlands etc) Also then there are the huge long quest lines that create the new story and also might be part of the old story.
Well anyways there is a lot of lore involved at wow
@Entity, I wasn't talking about what will be available, I'm talking about what will be considered "Budget".
And Windows 7 does run very nicely, I've been using 64bit Ultimate for a while now.
You are right about the GDDR6/DDR4 issue, but that wasn't my point. My point was people are comparing D3 to the budget technology of 3+ years ago, and not the budget technology of today to release.
The last 10 years is really pushing it already....but 20 years?!?!?!?! you do realize even diablo 1 cannot run on a pc from 1989 right?
Computers are expensive. There is absolutely no reason in hell for anyone but the dedicated to buy a top of the line computer. I don't even have a Dual Core, and I don't know of a single person that plays game that have dual cores. They all have singles. I don't know any true gamers, but they all do play PC games. So whats the deal? Most people shouldn't be able to play new game? Well let me tell you something...
This is bullshit. It doesn't have any freakin' impact on how amazing a game be. You now what is a truly amazing advancement thats more and more needed these days? The ability for any computer to run a game. Yes, thats one of the few thing I actually call progress. An engine should be able to downgrade many of its elements so that very significantly weaker computer can run it. Thats advancement.
Forcing better and better graphics alone is NOT going forward. It won't make better games either, never will. It actually may make them worse, because they need to put an emphasis on look even more, and less time is dedicated to actual gameplay. Another true advancement would be to quicken this process by a lot.
But as far as the technology constantly getting better and better... in the end its not helping anyone. Its certainly not an advancement in any way in the world of gaming that computers become stronger every day.
The development takes some years and computers are a lot faster.. meaning their game now runs perfectly.. and they can tone it down a bit so that masses can play it.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
I've said before, you aren't looking at a game you can play now, you are looking at a game you will be playing in 2 years.
And Jake, I'VE SAID BEFORE, I am not talking about expecting people to have the LATEST AND GREATEST, I'm talking people having budget computers appropriate to the era. If your computer is no more than 5 years old it will be compatible with dual core CPUs, and have a PCI-E slot. If you cant afford to buy a BRAND NEW computer, do what I do, set aside a few bucks a week and upgrade it when you can. You can have a decent computer without being rich.
It's like you have an Xbox and are bitching at Microsoft games for making games for Xbox360. If you want to play the newest games, you need to buy a damn 360 and not expect microsoft to make games that are compatible with your crappy old xbox.
Technology moves fast, if you expect to keep up with it (Play the NEWEST video games) expect to pay for it.
The story in WoW is very deep. There are novels to explain it. Every single dungeon, every raid, every zone, every race, every NPC had a deep and long history behind it.
True story doesn't have to be all. But a game has to be balanced by story, gameplay, graphics, replay value, etc.
Wow actually has a pretty lengthy in depth story that follows through the warcraft strategy games and after that.
Source
Well anyways there is a lot of lore involved at wow
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)