You're under the impression that if holstering weapons is put back in...loading screens will no longer be required. Is that right?
I can see where you would get that assumption, but its more the other way around. The lack of holstering weapons means that you need some kind of load screen between combat and non-combat areas.
So in a sense, your right, but only if the game could handle it.
No. You don't. Why would you? Where are you getting this idea?
Look at Palavan. The player transfers from the turian encampment to combat areas with husks with no loading screens.
Limitations are still alive and well for even the most modern PC and likely to remain around for the foreseeable future.
So this 'problem' is unlikely to be going anywhere.
Hardly. ARMA3 can currently load and run a 200km square island and simualte up to a 1,000 a.i. battle on my PC whilst I partake with friends co-operatively. Loading up the Citadel or Normandy without needing numerous loading screens is not beyond the wit of Bioware.
Hardly. ARMA3 can currently load and run a 200km square island and simualte up to a 1,000 a.i. battle on my PC whilst I partake with friends co-operatively. Loading up the Citadel or Normandy without needing numerous loading screens is not beyond the wit of Bioware.
Are you under the impression that all software that exists today and ever will exist will be limited to the complexity of ARMA3? Because that's the only scenario where your example makes even a modicum of sense.
I can assure you that simulations of seemingly simple things, such as a flowing liquid, can consume vastly more resources then your "200km square island with 1,000 AI battle." Yes, if all software continued to use the resources ME 3 uses for the rest of forever, loading screens would probably not be a problem much longer.
That is not the case.
I can assure you that simulations of seemingly simple things, such as a flowing liquid, can consume vastly more resources then your "200km square island with 1,000 AI battle."
I can assure you, as a civil engineer specialising in hydraulics (including two dimensional flow) you are talking out of your arse 
And regards ARMA3, i suggets you look it up and see what it involves before commentating on what resources it takes up.
My point is that if Mass Effect was designed to be run primarlily on the PC you would not need a single loading screen for the entirety of the citadel. The fact it was developed to run on the xboxx 360 with its limitations on memeory and processing power is the reason we have them.
In ME2 I have to wait for the loading animations to finish before I can resume the game; it's ridiculous.
I found removal of the holster option bizarrely annoying. Can't really tell you what that power added to my experience, but whatever it was, I didn't like it taken away.
I am not for total "combat/noncombat" area segregation. I like not knowing what kind of content an area will yield, or whether I'll have to use my gun or my mind for what's beyond the next door. I did really enjoy leisure time on the Citadel in my casual outfit, and I'm not against that. I just wouldn't mind more mixed environments in addition, even if they are not large. If that isn't practical or possible development-wise, I would understand.
Seconds spent climbing an empty eventless staircase are not much different to me than seconds spent waiting for an elevator loading screen to finish. Often I see people pushing for a return of many of ME1's elements because there was more freedom or uninterrupted open-range value, but I felt that while ME1's worldspaces could be larger and more transitionally seamless, they were also emptier and refreshed less often with new content. I accept that more reactive, content-rich worldspaces come at a price, and that this price is often fewer worldspaces, smaller worldspaces, or more loading screens.
That's fascinating. Are civil engineers concerned with the fluid looking absolutely perfect in a simulation, as an animator, computational physicist, or video game developer might be? Somehow, I don't think they would be.
I can assure you, as someone who has actually run comparable simulations and had computers crash because of it, that I am not. I can assure you that fluid simulations exist that are far more demanding than your 'ARMA 3.'
I can assure you, as a civil engineer specialising in hydraulics (including two dimensional flow) you are talking out of your arse
My point is that if Mass Effect was designed to be run primarlily on the PC you would not need a single loading screen for the entirety of the citadel. The fact it was developed to run on the xboxx 360 with its limitations on memeory and processing power is the reason we have them.
In ME2 I have to wait for the loading animations to finish before I can resume the game; it's ridiculous.
David talking out of his arse? What else is new? 
People have been able to fall out of the wall of Huerta Memorial and land in the Presidium Commons. The only reason we have loading screens between these areas (and things like the scanner on the Normandy) is because of the resource limitations of consoles.
That's fascinating. Are civil engineers concerned with the fluid looking absolutely perfect in a simulation, as an animator, computational physicist, or video game developer might be? Somehow, I don't think they would be.
I can assure you, as someone who has actually run comparable simulations and had computers crash because of it, that I am not. I can assure you that fluid simulations exist that are far more demanding than your 'ARMA 3.'
As fun as this is, what does a perfect fluid surface being simulated (and yes we have to model it accuately - how do you think coastal defences work) have to do with removal of loadingin screens in ME3 which are perfectly possible on todays hardware?
I get virtually instantaeneous lift sequences due to my SSD's - my only hold up are the bloody loading screen animations.
David talking out of his arse? What else is new?
People have been able to fall out of the wall of Huerta Memorial and land in the Presidium Commons. The only reason we have loading screens between these areas (and things like the scanner on the Normandy) is because of the resource limitations of consoles.
For the most part, yeah. If BW really wanted, and if ME was a PC exclusive, they could easily minimize or even eliminate the need for long loading screens in their games, especially on the Unreal 3 engine.
Poor console gamers. They get so much blame.
"You are holding back the whole class Kevin!!!"
If BioWare decided to stick to PC development, loading screens would almost certainly still exist. The developers would probably prioritize stepping up the graphics and such over eliminating loading screens.
Which is indeed exactly what they've done with...well, pretty much every game.
As fun as this is, what does a perfect fluid surface being simulated (and yes we have to model it accuately - how do you think coastal defences work) have to do with removal of loadingin screens in ME3 which are perfectly possible on todays hardware?
I get virtually instantaeneous lift sequences due to my SSD's - my only hold up are the bloody loading screen animations.
The question you should be asking is what it has to do with removal of ME 4 or ME 5's loading screens. Which is significantly less likely to be possible on today's hardware.
If BioWare decided to stick to PC development, loading screens would almost certainly still exist. The developers would probably prioritize stepping up the graphics and such over eliminating loading screens.
Which is indeed exactly what they've done with...well, pretty much every game.
Really now.
Play 'watch the laoding screen' on this:
on a game with graphics like this:
http://www.arma3.com...reenshot_01.jpg
OH GOD! THEY MADE US PLAY THAT AS 'TRAINING'!
Damn Army pay cuts, can't afford to send us out to the field anymore...
I've actually had to give a few ops in that for Platoon Development.
Video games and other software do exist and will exist that use more resources than your ARMA3.
This is a plain and simple fact I have no interest in attempting to debate. Pretty pictures are not going to convince me otherwise. (In any case, I've seen quite a few pictures and videos of other games in superior quality)
OH GOD! THEY MADE US PLAY THAT AS 'TRAINING'!
Damn Army pay cuts, can't afford to send us out to the field anymore...
I've actually had to give a few ops in that for Platoon Development.
Yeah it's based off VBS3, made by the same company.
If BioWare decided to stick to PC development, loading screens would almost certainly still exist. The developers would probably prioritize stepping up the graphics and such over eliminating loading screens.
Which is indeed exactly what they've done with...well, pretty much every game.
You see, it's comments like this that really show the ignorance behind your posts on this matter.
I'm not a PC techie, but I know enough about current trends in hardware to know that the tech is at a level where you can get much better graphics with very little loading time (if any). Tech like this almost exponentially increases within a matter of 2 years or so. And its getting faster.
It's not a one way street for either option. You can have your cake and eat it too in this regard. It's not mutually exclusive.
OH GOD! THEY MADE US PLAY THAT AS 'TRAINING'!
Damn Army pay cuts, can't afford to send us out to the field anymore...
I've actually had to give a few ops in that for Platoon Development.
I never had anything like that when I was in the Army. Of course that was over 20 years ago. Times sure have changed
Stick to your debits and credits, Bob.
Video games and other software do exist and will exist that use more resources than your ARMA3.
This is a plain and simple fact I have no interest in attempting to debate. Pretty pictures are not going to convince me otherwise. (In any case, I've seen quite a few pictures and videos of other games in superior quality)
This is a red herring, and you've changed your argument David/Bob BOBVID (how I've missed saying that!)
The argument isn't over whether there are more powerful games or graphics or tech Bobvid. You just changed the argument and made up a position, ascribed it to us, and attacked it.
No, lets get back on track. The argument is that you said that video games can't have better graphics without sacrificing loading time or vice versa. Which is completely untrue, as the previous example has mentioned. Not only are graphics getting better, but the hardware supporting and loading them is getting more powerful. So your assertion, in the argument that is being discussed here, is false.
I never had anything like that when I was in the Army. Of course that was over 20 years ago. Times sure have changed
They mostly do it as simulation training and communications familiarization. Plus its much cheaper than actually going into the field.
Why spend $30,000K going on a 2 week FTX for a Company, when you can spend $700 on a weekend of computer games to do the job for you? (I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying that this is the current logic for my unit. The crappy part is that I actually have to make the arrangements for this since I'm the LT with the most experience right now that isn't a PL.)
I don't know if you've ever heard of EST or not... much cheaper than going to a range...
You see, it's comments like this that really show the ignorance behind your posts on this matter.
I'm not a PC techie, but I know enough about current trends in hardware to know that the tech is at a level where you can get much better graphics with very little loading time (if any). Tech like this almost exponentially increases within a matter of 2 years or so. And its getting faster.
It's not a one way street for either option. You can have your cake and eat it too in this regard. It's not mutually exclusive.
You see, it's comments like this that really show the ignorance behind your posts on this matter.
Moore's Law was proposed in 1965, and has more or less held true since 1965. So your implication that this is somehow a revolutionary concept in computer science is...to say the least, mistaken. It's been around as long as video games have been around.
In reality, the general prediction is that the trend is slowing. I've even heard of a few predictions of it running into a wall as electronics continue to approach the quantum level.
So despite decades of hardware increasing in speed and decades of video games developed exclusively for PCs, loading screens are still very alive and well in 2014. I see no reason to believe that loading screens are on their way out soon.
Retour en haut
