120 réponses à ce sujet

[The Masked Rog]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Atakuma wrote...


I realize I completely botched any point I was trying to make. I came off as a contrarian ass and I apologize.

Ehhh, you stated an opinion, and it's one I tend to agree with.

If there's a dramatic graphical difference between the PC and the console version, that's great, but I don't expect it.

Yet you subscribe to the "we are building each version to its particular platform's strengths" line go fig.

And to make a game play to PC's strengths you absolutely have to include DX11. A game obviously can't be properly optimized for PC without it. 

Atta boy put words in my mouth. Fact, the consoles are limited to direct x 9 and 512 megs of ram. High res textures prolly and advanced feature sets (like DX11 for example) aren't going to work well if at all on the 360 and PS3.

That being said, there's no reason why the PC version can't support said features if they truly want to cater to each platform and put out the best game they can.

BioWare hasn't a reputation for good graphics, so I don't really think they were thinking about graphics when they talk about developing to each platform's strengths but rather control scheme/UI and the like. They are however including DX11. But then so did Civilization V and I can't really spot the difference. I don't think DX11 is actually visible from screenshots outside of tech demos, which are specially made to showcase it. That said, BioWare is including DX11, so that's good right?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

The Masked Rog wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Atakuma wrote...


I realize I completely botched any point I was trying to make. I came off as a contrarian ass and I apologize.

Ehhh, you stated an opinion, and it's one I tend to agree with.

If there's a dramatic graphical difference between the PC and the console version, that's great, but I don't expect it.

Yet you subscribe to the "we are building each version to its particular platform's strengths" line go fig.

And to make a game play to PC's strengths you absolutely have to include DX11. A game obviously can't be properly optimized for PC without it. 

Atta boy put words in my mouth. Fact, the consoles are limited to direct x 9 and 512 megs of ram. High res textures prolly and advanced feature sets (like DX11 for example) aren't going to work well if at all on the 360 and PS3.

That being said, there's no reason why the PC version can't support said features if they truly want to cater to each platform and put out the best game they can.

BioWare hasn't a reputation for good graphics, so I don't really think they were thinking about graphics when they talk about developing to each platform's strengths but rather control scheme/UI and the like. They are however including DX11. But then so did Civilization V and I can't really spot the difference. I don't think DX11 is actually visible from screenshots outside of tech demos, which are specially made to showcase it. That said, BioWare is including DX11, so that's good right?

When a dev seriously impliments DX11 features you can tell, Metro 2033 and the latest AVP are prime examples of what DX11 can do to improve visuals.

Yep, I'm glad they're using DX11 for those that have the hardware for it. My question is how much of that are they using? And granted I do understand most are still on XP, hell I still was as well until 4-5 months ago. Still I'd still like to see higher res textures for areas in the PC version and better particle effects as well. I gave Origin's a pass on visuals due to the 5 year dev cycle, but at this point, being owned by EA, and wanting to publish AAA titles, having some AAA Visuals wouldn't hurt.

[Brockololly]

The Masked Rog wrote...
BioWare hasn't a reputation for good graphics, so I don't really think they were thinking about graphics when they talk about developing to each platform's strengths but rather control scheme/UI and the like.

Well, BG2 was my first RPG and back then BG2 in reviews was praised for its great graphics- and thats largely what caught my eye when first looking at the game. Its only recently wth BioWare's own engines that they get criticized for more pedestrian graphics.

As for DA2, its perfectly reasonable to expect significantly better graphics on a techinical level on the PC, beyond the change in art style, seeing as BioWare keeps trumpeting improved graphics as one of their big marketing bullet points.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
When a dev seriously impliments DX11 features you can tell, Metro 2033 and  the latest AVP are prime examples of what DX11 can do to improve  visuals.

Yep, I'm glad they're using DX11 for those that have  the hardware for it. My question is how much of that are they using? And granted I do understand most are still on XP, hell I still was as well  until 4-5 months ago. Still I'd still like to see higher res textures  for areas in the PC version and better particle effects as well. I gave  Origin's a pass on visuals due to the 5 year dev cycle, but at this  point, being owned by EA, and wanting to publish AAA titles, having some AAA Visuals wouldn't hurt.

Yeah, in a game like Metro 2033 you can really see the difference DX11 can make when you see the game in motion.

And while I'm happy for DX11, I'd like to see good high res textures available and those sort of basic features in there too. They can tesselate the ground as much as they want, but if the armor textures and object textures are a muddy mess, then its kind of a moot point.

Modifié par Brockololly, 29 décembre 2010 - 06:26 .

[Malistix]

its funny they place a DX10 vs 11 picture when the REAL deal is DX9 vs 11. It doesn't matter if the game fully supports DX11 or not it should still look better. When i look at the system requerements the GPU u need to fully utilize DX11 is a lot stronger.



If you look at the "recommended" 8800GTS/3850 you would assume a 5750 or 450GTX would be more then enough to run the DX11 settings.



However the recommended DX11 GPU is 460GTX/5850 which are both very recent and very strong videocards, this puts up hope that DX11 might actually look a lot better in DA2.



I guess will have to wait and see i googled for images and didn't find a single one for DA2 that shows DX11.

[mad825]

Malistix wrote...

its funny they place a DX10 vs 11 picture when the REAL deal is DX9 vs 11. It doesn't matter if the game fully supports DX11 or not it should still look better. When i look at the system requerements the GPU u need to fully utilize DX11 is a lot stronger.

If you look at the "recommended" 8800GTS/3850 you would assume a 5750 or 450GTX would be more then enough to run the DX11 settings.

However the recommended DX11 GPU is 460GTX/5850 which are both very recent and very strong videocards, this puts up hope that DX11 might actually look a lot better in DA2.

I guess will have to wait and see i googled for images and didn't find a single one for DA2 that shows DX11.

The "recommended" specs are always highly biased, depending on the resolution and grapical settings the GTS 450 will do fine.

it would also be dependent on the manufacture of the GPU. Is it a generic Nvidia card? most versions are overclocked or altered on the hardware level.

Modifié par mad825, 29 décembre 2010 - 06:45 .

[Nighteye2]

ViSeirA wrote...
I have to disagree with you on this one Sarah, 50% of Windows PCs are still running Win XP which just supports DX9, myself included, I won't stop using it till Microsoft stops supporting it and/or hardware vendros stop making drivers for it so it's entirely understandable why they wouldn't waste much resources implementing DirectX11 for 25% of the people who use Win7 and most of them won't be able to afford DX11 video cards anyway.

Can't afford? You can get DX11 cards really cheap these days. For less than €100. They can easily support entry-level DX11 cards with implementing DX11 features that run well on even the low-end DX11 cards.
.

[AtreiyaN7]

Nighteye2 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
I like my graphics maxed out, and both my video cards are DX11 capable. However, things like tessellation will still slow framerates down unless you have the really high-end nVidia/ATI cards. Of course, it's been a few months since the last article I read on the subject, so if any of the newer cards can provide acceptable framerates with all the eyecandy turned on, maybe someone can provide details. The only thing I remember from one article was that framerates on one DX11 card dropped to like 20 fps with the tessellation cranked up really high.

Cranked up really high, yes. But with moderate tesselation there wasn't much of a slowdown, and still a very good effect.

Well, what fun is it if you don't try to at least look at the game on max settings? *chuckle* I'd be interested in seeing tessellation implemented  in a game at a moderate level, but I expect it to still drop framerates a bit. These days I'm not all that happy if my framerates drop below 60 minimum, but I might make the trade-off with slightly lower rates if it's pretty enough.

I remember seeing tessellation in the Unigine Heaven demo, and you could really see the difference in the water and cobblestones. However, none of my current games use it as far as I know. I certainly can't find any tessellation-related options (unless they have it listed under another name).

EDIT: Ah, just saw the screenshot on the first page - that's a good example. It's nice to have curved objects truly look curved.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:19 .

[ViSeiRa]

Nighteye2 wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...
I have to disagree with you on this one Sarah, 50% of Windows PCs are still running Win XP which just supports DX9, myself included, I won't stop using it till Microsoft stops supporting it and/or hardware vendros stop making drivers for it so it's entirely understandable why they wouldn't waste much resources implementing DirectX11 for 25% of the people who use Win7 and most of them won't be able to afford DX11 video cards anyway.

Can't afford? You can get DX11 cards really cheap these days. For less than €100. They can easily support entry-level DX11 cards with implementing DX11 features that run well on even the low-end DX11 cards.
.

Not everyone has those 100 Euros to spare, also think of the of the sub 100$ grahpics cards performance when using DX11, they'll be down to their knees, I already have a DX11 card but I won't upgrade to WIN7 unless I see big improvement over the aged DX9... money vs. performace

[mad825]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Can't afford? You can get DX11 cards really cheap these days. For less than €100. They can easily support entry-level DX11 cards with implementing DX11 features that run well on even the low-end DX11 cards.
.

quite the contrary. DX11 cards are very expensive, it may be cheap to buy one but to run one can be expensive.

Modifié par mad825, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:26 .

[ViSeiRa]

mad825 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Can't afford? You can get DX11 cards really cheap these days. For less than €100. They can easily support entry-level DX11 cards with implementing DX11 features that run well on even the low-end DX11 cards.
.

quite the contry. DX11 cards are very expensive, it may be cheap to buy one but to run one can be expensive.

Yes, most DX11 cards can't run games on high settings with acceptable framerats, you'd have to set up SLI or Crossfire or get one of the REALLY expensive ones.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

ViSeirA wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...
I have to disagree with you on this one Sarah, 50% of Windows PCs are still running Win XP which just supports DX9, myself included, I won't stop using it till Microsoft stops supporting it and/or hardware vendros stop making drivers for it so it's entirely understandable why they wouldn't waste much resources implementing DirectX11 for 25% of the people who use Win7 and most of them won't be able to afford DX11 video cards anyway.

Can't afford? You can get DX11 cards really cheap these days. For less than €100. They can easily support entry-level DX11 cards with implementing DX11 features that run well on even the low-end DX11 cards.
.

Not everyone has those 100 Euros to spare, also think of the of the sub 100$ grahpics cards performance when using DX11, they'll be down to their knees, I already have a DX11 card but I won't upgrade to WIN7 unless I see big improvement over the aged DX9... money vs. performace

Just an FYI the GTX 460 is a solid DX11 part and its 160 dollars. I'm not sure what that translates into Euros. But I'm running two of said cards and handle everything I throw at them on maxed settings with above average frame rates.

They're not THAT expensive if you save some extra cash here and there and put it towards an upgrade.

[Nighteye2]

ViSeirA wrote...

mad825 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Can't afford? You can get DX11 cards really cheap these days. For less than €100. They can easily support entry-level DX11 cards with implementing DX11 features that run well on even the low-end DX11 cards.
.

quite the contry. DX11 cards are very expensive, it may be cheap to buy one but to run one can be expensive.

Yes, most DX11 cards can't run games on high settings with acceptable framerats, you'd have to set up SLI or Crossfire or get one of the REALLY expensive ones.

Only when high settings use DX11 heavily. The cheapest DX11 card outperforms the best DX9 card.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
And while I'm happy for DX11, I'd like to see good high res textures available and those sort of basic features in there too. They can tesselate the ground as much as they want, but if the armor textures and object textures are a muddy mess, then its kind of a moot point.

That's my issue with DX11 in general. It seems to offer a kind of... partial flourish in terms of the environment but it doesn't affect graphical fidelity of all models, which is a great ambiance effect if you go for that sort of thing but oherwise a letdown.

I will bet we will see the ME2 effect, where the high res textures are reserved for faces, and you can notice at max settings + 1900 displays that the close up model is low res by comparison.

[charmingcharlie]

ViSeirA wrote...
I have to disagree with you on this one Sarah, 50% of Windows PCs are still running Win XP which just supports
DX9, myself included, I won't stop using it till Microsoft stops supporting it and/or hardware vendros stop making drivers for it so it's entirely understandable why they wouldn't waste much resources implementing DirectX11 for 25% of the people who use Win7 and most of them won't be able to afford DX11 video cards anyway.

I am curious where you got this "50% of Windows PC's are still running Win XP" ?  The latest steam survey shows that Win XP usage is just slightly over 25% :-

]Windows 7 64 bit
34.18%


Windows XP 32 bit
25.49%


Windows Vista 32 bit
13.62%


Windows 7
11.34%


Windows Vista 64 bit
9.43%

That shows that  at least 68% of PC gamers have access to Dx10 (with regards to their OS).  If you are still using WIn XP then sorry but you are in a minority now.  In terms of Dx10/11 hardware it seems that Dx9 is now the
minority system with only 38% using a Dx9 card.  You can find these numbers at the steam hardware survey :-

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I currently don't own a Dx11 card myself at the moment I am still on a Dx10 card, why am I still on a Dx10 card ?  I will tell you, it's because there is sod all reason to actually get a Dx11 card.  Until software developers step up to the plate and actually start creating stuff which makes me want to buy the hardware then I can't see any point in me moving up to Dx11. 

So hell yeah Bioware go to town on Dx11 give me a reason to upgrade I dare you.  That is what PC gaming has always been about.  GIve us Dx11 screenshots and videos that make us want to go out and buy a Dx11 card

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:48 .

[ViSeiRa]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...
I have to disagree with you on this one Sarah, 50% of Windows PCs are still running Win XP which just supports DX9, myself included, I won't stop using it till Microsoft stops supporting it and/or hardware vendros stop making drivers for it so it's entirely understandable why they wouldn't waste much resources implementing DirectX11 for 25% of the people who use Win7 and most of them won't be able to afford DX11 video cards anyway.

Can't afford? You can get DX11 cards really cheap these days. For less than €100. They can easily support entry-level DX11 cards with implementing DX11 features that run well on even the low-end DX11 cards.
.

Not everyone has those 100 Euros to spare, also think of the of the sub 100$ grahpics cards performance when using DX11, they'll be down to their knees, I already have a DX11 card but I won't upgrade to WIN7 unless I see big improvement over the aged DX9... money vs. performace

Just an FYI the GTX 460 is a solid DX11 part and its 160 dollars. I'm not sure what that translates into Euros. But I'm running two of said cards and handle everything I throw at them on maxed settings with above average frame rates.

They're not THAT expensive if you save some extra cash here and there and put it towards an upgrade.

You're running too of them which means they cost about 320$, I live in Egypt and that means 1920 EGP, electroincs in general can be very expensive outside the US, I have an ATI Radeon 5850 which is a pretty good DX11 card but it cost me 1400 pounds... also as I said market share of operating systems is a big factor in the process.

[ViSeiRa]

charmingcharlie wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...
I have to disagree with you on this one Sarah, 50% of Windows PCs are still running Win XP which just supports
DX9, myself included, I won't stop using it till Microsoft stops supporting it and/or hardware vendros stop making drivers for it so it's entirely understandable why they wouldn't waste much resources implementing DirectX11 for 25% of the people who use Win7 and most of them won't be able to afford DX11 video cards anyway.

I am curious where you got this "50% of Windows PC's are still running Win XP" ?  The latest steam survey shows that Win XP usage is just slightly over 25% :-

]Windows 7 64 bit
34.18%


Windows XP 32 bit
25.49%


Windows Vista 32 bit
13.62%


Windows 7
11.34%


Windows Vista 64 bit
9.43%

That shows that  at least 68% of PC gamers have access to Dx10 (with regards to their OS).  If you are still using WIn XP then sorry but you are in a minority now.  In terms of Dx10/11 hardware it seems that Dx9 is now the
minority system with only 38% using a Dx9 card.  You can find these numbers at the steam hardware survey :-

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I currently don't own a Dx11 card myself at the moment I am still on a Dx10 card, why am I still on a Dx10 card ?  I will tell you, it's because there is sod all reason to actually get a Dx11 card.  Until software developers step up to the plate and actually start creating stuff which makes me want to buy the hardware then I can't see any point in me moving up to Dx11. 

So hell yeah Bioware go to town on Dx11 give me a reason to upgrade I dare you.  That is what PC gaming has always been about.  GIve us Dx11 screenshots and videos that make us want to go out and buy a Dx11 card

A survey? that is no where near actual numbers, that represents just a slice of the people who use PCs, check this out: link, XP still has 57% market share according to hitslink and 51% according to Statcounter.

And Yes I'm probably gonna use XP till 2014 or till I find some reason not to, software not being supported, DX11 really being utilized and so on..... 

Modifié par ViSeirA, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Tiax Rules All]

I have a GTX 480 card, tied together with a quad core processesor running at 3.8 Ghz and 8 gigs of high performance ram, with a quality 10,000 rpm HDD.



This is not everybody out there sure but there are gamers like me. I CAN play games at max settings and max resolutions and I can certainly tell you that the extra effort put into graphics and Dx11 features shines on a rig like mine.

It sounds like alot of people are like: "well my computer sucks so I dont give a crap about graphics" well, sucks for you guys but I DO want effort on graphics. PC has way more graphics potential but also has great scalability. It starts running slow for you? Turn down the setings.. Still running too slow or consoles look better? Then time for an upgrade or stop slowing down your computer with cheap porn site viruses...

Oh and Vista sucks, upgrade if you can Win 7 is superiour.

[Maugrim]

This is just an assumption but I bet the Steam Hardware survey results are a better representative sample for software/hardware usage among those who buy/play games other than those of the flash or solitare variety.

[charmingcharlie]

A survey? that is no where near actual numbers, that represents just a slice of the people who use PCs, check this out: link, XP still has 57% market share according to hitslink and 51% according to Statcounter.

And Yes I'm probably gonna use XP till 2014 or till I find some reason not to, software not being supported, DX11 really being utilized and so on..... 

Did you have to quote my whole post, you could have just quoted the important bit.  The figures I posted relate to PC's USED for gaming.  They are fairly representative of that steam community (you know all 30 million of them).  Your survey is for ALL PC's that is PC's in offices, doctors, dentists, factories.  In other words PC's that will never ever see a game installed on their system.

[In Exile]

charmingcharlie wrote...

I am curious where you got this "50% of Windows PC's are still running Win XP" ?  The latest steam survey shows that Win XP usage is just slightly over 25% :-

Steam gives you a biased survey insofar as it involves rather heavy PC gamer sample, which generally means you will find people with better hardware & software than usual.

That being said, game design should cater to this market, so I don't think the 50% on XP marketshare argument matters.

[Ryzaki]

I have a mid ranged rig and I think that Dx11 should use its full ability.



If you're gonna do something do it right.

[Nighteye2]

ViSeirA wrote...
A survey? that is no where near actual numbers, that represents just a slice of the people who use PCs, check this out: link, XP still has 57% market share according to hitslink and 51% according to Statcounter.

And Yes I'm probably gonna use XP till 2014 or till I find some reason not to, software not being supported, DX11 really being utilized and so on..... 

Forgive me for using your post to do it, but I feel I have to mention the chicken and the egg here...

[charmingcharlie]

In Exile wrote...

Steam gives you a biased survey insofar as it involves rather heavy PC gamer sample, which generally means you will find people with better hardware & software than usual

I would've thought that is the whole point, the people that will buy Dragon Age 2 on the PC are PC gamers really.  The casual market will simply buy Dragon Age 2 on the console of their choice anyway.  So the steam survey whilst "skewed" in favour of heavy PC gamers is representative of the market that Bioware is going to be selling their game too.  That market clearly shows Dx10/11 is dominant and Winxp usage accounts for only 1 in 4 users now.

I am actually sick and tired of maxing stuff out on my PC and my PC is nearly 5 years old.  I want an excuse to upgrade and so far no one is giving me an excuse.  A crap load of Dx11 screenshots and videos showing me graphics that make my eyes bleed would certainly get me straight off to my local PC emporium buying the parts to build a Dx11 machine..... But no we are meant to just carry on catering for the minority that use a 9 year old operating system

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 29 décembre 2010 - 09:18 .

[MKDAWUSS]

I can't wait until DX 20 hits the market