«

[troop18546]

My valid point about graphics (sit back, cause this can take a while... None of this material is meant to be insulting or flaming or rulebreaking.):

Many people go around saying that graphics are the reason to buy and respect a game. Good graphics or superb graphics do not a good game make. First of all, the game is comprised firstly from the:

Story (if it ain't interesting - why play it?).
Controls (if they're unable to redefine as in old games - the game is worthless, unless it uses 2 buttons max. Who wants to have to look at a manual every sec to find out which button does what???).

Only the do we go to the graphics part. To some ppl graphics is all in a game, but if a game doesn't have the two mentioned above - it's a heap of cr4p. Needless to say...

To some of us, graphics mean less. As you stated, EoF, graphics aren't all THAT. Yes, they don't mean that much, but don't you think you would better play the same game with ENHANCED graphics? You'd probably say: "oh, no I like the old sh*tty graphics, cause they make my eyes bleed after playing my game for a few hrs". Maybe not, but some would definately say this.
Technology is enhancing and making better stuff, so that we wouldn't have to use the same sh*t over and over again or downgrade to primitive DOS or smth.
Sure, it takes a better PC for every next game to run, but do you want to spend you're whole life playing the SAME games or different games with the same graphics? Umm... NO.

So what if the game uses more HDD space for a game because of graphics, but if it saves (yes SAVES) your health - why not go for it?
You mentioned 1GB much... Pfff. Much is 5GB (F.E.A.R. uses that much diskspace). 1GB was much in 1996, but in 10 years, haven't you noticed a bit of a change in game space?

[Blood-Pigggy]

Oh cmon, it's nothing to complain about.
By a few years, a 5 gig game is going to be small, and 600 gig computers are going to be everyday.

In fact, we'll probably be complaining about the size of games then and say "why aren't they as small and compact as they were in 2006?"

It was the same with Doom and stuff, I remember when it took up a whopping ten megabytes! Some hard-drives were only twice as large as that!

[Eagle of Fire]

You mentioned 1GB much... Pfff. Much is 5GB (F.E.A.R. uses that much diskspace). 1GB was much in 1996, but in 10 years, haven't you noticed a bit of a change in game space?

To be frank, not at all. I still can't fit things I want in one CD, just like when I wanted to copy things on floppy back in the days. I still have to delete things on my HD to make place up all the time. I still get the "your HD is full, want to clean it?" automated Windows message when my HD go under 200 or 300 megs. I still... Well, you get the idea.

The main reason is because the software and games keep expanding at the same time than the HDs capacity. So no, I don't really see a difference.

I still have way more fun playing ADOM than I have in playing your new graphically glorified FPS or shooter which just got out. I still have way more fun playing Transport Tycoon Deluxe than Locomotion... And those games don't take up to 1/8 my HD all alone... Yet, they are timeless gems.

What I hate most when talking about this kind of issue is hearing people saying stupid things like "why do we need to keep playing with those old things?"... Meaning that if something it old, then it's not "hype" or "cool" anymore... Well, if you are that kind of people then by all means continue with your life and live it at 200 km/h... I myself prefer to slow down a little and really enjoy the view instead of simply passing by.

[Scatty]

Originally posted by troop18546@Mar 22 2006, 09:14 PM
So what if the game uses more HDD space for a game because of graphics, but if it saves (yes SAVES) your health - why not go for it?

One should be careful saying that newer games with better graphics are saving health. Only to think how WoW causes many people to forget to go out, to take food, even to forget own children so much that they could starve.
The larger todays games and the more "real" they appear through better graphics the easier they sway people from the real life outside. You can't state there was the same complete mania about playing games for Dos or even earlier for Amiga and C64 and ZX-80 or similar. Today's games can take up to months to complete, where earlier one would need 3-4 hours to finish one, go figure.

[Havell]

Originally posted by Don Andy@Mar 22 2006, 08:15 PM
Well, this may sound crazy, but I think the games could be smaller, they just don't want them to.

Look at this game: kkrieger

Its size: 96 kb

And this just by optimizing code and procedual creating.

If commercial companies would use similar methods, games could be a lot smaller.
Afaik a lot of content in Spore is created procedual. The game shouldn't be that big.

But of course, if every cool game would be just a few KB or even a few 100 MB, who would buy all the expensive 250 GB harddrives? Right, no one.

You get my point?

Of course, this all may sound like just another conspiracy theory, but that's exactly what it is :bleh:

The reason kkreiger is so small is the lack of textures, all are generated on the fly from equations. This may save HD space, but you need a absolutely silly amount of RAM to run it at a decent speed.

As for the size of new games, they will certainly get larger, as technology marchs on and as gaming gets to be bigger and bigger business, leading to bigger and bigger teams working on games.

Of course, someday we will reach a limit to the amount of data we can store on a computer, but with ongoing research into nanotechnology and suchlike, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

[troop18546]

Originally posted by Scatty+Mar 22 2006, 11:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scatty @ Mar 22 2006, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-troop18546@Mar 22 2006, 09:14 PM
So what if the game uses more HDD space for a game because of graphics, but if it saves (yes SAVES) your health - why not go for it?

One should be careful saying that newer games with better graphics are saving health. Only to think how WoW causes many people to forget to go out, to take food, even to forget own children so much that they could starve.
The larger todays games and the more "real" they appear through better graphics the easier they sway people from the real life outside. You can't state there was the same complete mania about playing games for Dos or even earlier for Amiga and C64 and ZX-80 or similar. Today's games can take up to months to complete, where earlier one would need 3-4 hours to finish one, go figure. [/b][/quote]
I meant "eye" health. :whistle: Bad graphics ruin a perfectly good couple of eyes. That's the only point in health. On the things you mentioned:I almost never want to eat anything when I'm at a PC, it just "recharges" my whole system. I am aware of the things you said, people dying of starvation playing games or people leaving babies alone for weeks, but that wasn't my point about health. :whistle:

[Eagle of Fire]

Playing PC games don't "recharge" your system. The truth is that you are so immersed and so interested in what you do that you kind of forget other things. The mind is a very powerfull tool, it can do a lot of unexpected things if you really want to do it.

Unfortunatly, in this case it won't make you "recharge", it will only make you weaker with time. It just that you will be attuned to certain aspects of your life which you would normally easily perceive. Such as the need of sleep or substenance.

If you have a weak mind, I suggest you don't try that at home without supervision.

[Stebbi]

i really dont care about the size of them i have enough of it :bleh:

[troop18546]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Mar 23 2006, 05:53 PM
Playing PC games don't "recharge" your system.

Not for me, I feel better when I've actually played a game or two at my PC. Not playing with my PC makes me weak. But I guess this works only for me.

@Stebbi: good 4 U.

[Stebbi]

Originally posted by troop18546@Mar 23 2006, 06:07 PM
@Stebbi: good 4 U.

Viiiiiiiiii