Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Rdr4evr · 07-16-2004, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bltzkriegmcanon
First of all, you said
Unless I'm horridly mistaken, you never said in your original post, anything about running any game, be it Doom 3, HL2, or anything else that's come out in the last 5 years, or in the next 5 years. I made the assumption that you could've been talking about any of these games, and gave you an estimate of a system that could run games, and run most (meaning the past generations, this generation and even into the next generation) games well.

I figured you would think Im talking about DooM 3 considering the thread and the fact that it has the most horsepower of any game. But I should have been more clear, sorry.

Quote:

[i]Secondly, in your original post, you never mentioned anything about You only said run games. Now that you've become a little more specific about exactly what you want, then yes, I have to agree with you. There is no "rig" that can run Doom 3 on "maxed out settings" for $800. When you say "maxed out" I assume you mean the following:

Antisitropic Filtering of no less than 8x
Anti-Aliasing of no less than 8x
a resolution of 1600*1200
all in-game details set to maximum

However, you are correct in your rebuttal, there is no system that exists that can deliver the performance you're looking for at a price point of $800. Howerver, I, and many other experienced computer builders here on TFP do know of systems that can run a game like Doom 3 or HL2 or any other current/next generation games at a good resolution, with medium-high settings across the boards for around $800. It might bleed over that amount, but then, you weren't being specific in your earlier post, so why should I be any more specific than I was?

Judging from the content of your post, connotatively speaking, it is my belief that you think a "medium graphic setting" on a game like Doom 3 is a terrible thing. It's not. Far Cry, or Battlefield 1942, or UT2K4 or any other game that's come out recently or will come out in the future, having the game run on "medium graphic setting" won't result in a terribly noticeable difference in graphics quality. I think most people won't notice the difference in a game that's filtered billinearly, trilinearly, or even antisitropically, or see the difference in anti-aliasing, especially if that difference makes the difference between running a game at 15 FPS and 30+ FPS. I think most people wouldn't notice, much less complain about a difference in quality between graphical settings, especially due to increased frame rate. I think that the only way one can even tell the difference in image quality in most cases is to have a side-by-side comparison specifically detailing how a game looks at varying graphical settings. The minute differences of how a game looks at varying graphics settings are lost on about 90% of the people who might look at them, and those who are in that niche of 10%, who are in "the know" of what it takes to run games well, are more than willing to sacrifice that tiny bit of filtering, or anti-aliasing, and can live with a small bit of jagginess, if it means that the game they're playing will run at a good frame rate. When I suggest a price point of $800 for a computer that can "run" Doom 3, I mean specifically, you can play Doom 3 at a good resolution (1024*768 and higher) with most settings at medium or high, but not "maxed out", and run it at a solid framerate of 30-60 FPS.

See, you say that $800 is too much to pay for a single game, but I know that most people are gonna do much, much more than dedicate their system to just ONE game. There's most likely going to be productivity software, an operating system, some multi-media software, and files that use all of that software. This isn't to mention that a "rig" can be used for more than just one game, because whatever can play Doom 3 will be able to play all the mods and other games based on Doom 3's engine. Same goes for Half Life 2. [/B]

I see a major difference between Medium and High settings, you do not need to put them side to side, especiallly for a game like D3. I dont think you need to be in "the know" to notice a graphical difference in the settings.

As for using the system for other software as well is games, this is correct. I use Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects. My system is fine for this software and does not need upgrading, but these games that are constantly setting the bar higher and higher require a more powerful machine.

Quote:

[i]And, to relate to your point about "why I went back to consoles", guess what? All the games that cause you to spend $2000 to play just one game, and "$800 for a medium graphic setting" is too much to pay, well, look what you're putting into a gaming console. If you got it at launch, you probably paid $400 for it, since I'm running on the assumption you're talking about Doom 3, the only console that will be host to Doom 3 is Xbox, then I know it was $400 at launch. So that's $400. Next, you'd probably have bought at least 4 brand-new games for it, including Doom 3, so that's $200 more, totalling up to $600. Might as well add another controller, and Xbox Live! for $20 a month. So, if youve been subscribing to Xbox Live! since it's inception in about 2002, you'd have spent about $650 on that. Wow, amazing, you've already spent $1250 to get not even the most out of your Xbox. Here's the point of all these calculations: when Doom 3 hits the Xbox, it's most likely gonna look precisely like Doom 3 would on PC, but here's the thing, it's probably not gonna run at 60 FPS, and most likely, it's gonna drop framerate to 15 or less. A lot. Some value, huh? All that money spent on a console that's gonna run a game at lower frame rates and not look as good as it does on PC. [/B]

Your assumption is incorrect. I bought a Gamecube at launch for $199, 1 game for $49.99 and the rest of my games and memory cards were free, so that totals to $250.

Either way Im sure the next gen systems will out do the PC or atleast match it, so hopefully this will not be a concern.

EDIT: I believe the Xbox was $299 at launch.