Anyone else worried about locking down graphical options to the server in SA?

[FrostDMG 398]

Its the zombie AI that needs the CPU, but that should be much less of a problem in the standalone as its going to be redone specially for brain dead loonies rather than specially trained soilders. (which is what the current AI is)

Anywho, where does it say they are going to lock HDR and Bloom? thought it was just view distance and object/terrain details that they wanted to lock down.

Arma 2 was also very CPU heavy, not just dayz...

[fluxley 2228]

Arma 2 was also very CPU heavy, not just dayz...

Yup, its the AI

[Hetstaine 10852]

I agree that if I want to spend my hard earned money on upgrading my PC then there should be a tangible benefit to doing so. I should not be held back in terms of graphics display because someone else does not have as a good a PC. I understand it is frustrating from your end and you may not have a job/be old enough to earn your own money, but if you put the effort into building a great setup, you should be able to reap the rewards and not be penalised for other people not having one.

Totally.

[Lepryy 54]

In which case they should upgrade their computers. The whole point of technology is that people have to keep up with it or get left behind. Sure there are some games out there that a really old computer can run, but they prolly had to get new computers at the time in order to play it (especially if that game was using the latest tech). Should someone with 10 year old computer be able to keep up with someone who just custom built one yesterday? Not really. Not if the new computer is using some of the latest tech.

If you dont meet the specifications then you shouldnt be complaining when you cant play the game.

This is why we have consoles. They are a standardised system spec for anyone to just buy, plug in and play. PCs are a different beast. The specifications of games are always changing. You either keep up or get left behind.

I disagree because why should someone have to break their wallet just to be able to play a game when they could just as easily turn down some settings and enjoy?

[Element47 2481]

And if they can't afford upgrading?

if tech was only made to include everybody who can afford it, we would still ride on horses and dwell in wooden huts.

[Lepryy 54]

You could always turn the resolution down.

I've heard that having anything above or below 100% will make your performance go down.

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

Set everything to Very High and High if it doesn't have the option, and PP and AA on. Don't like 3 frames a second on your 8800GT and Core 2 Duo? Too bad, because we need to reinforce the stereotype that only rich nerdy jerks with no life can afford PC gaming. Its not like Bohemia needs money to maintain updates for DayZ and ArmA 3, right?

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

Fair, perhaps, except for those who can't run the settings.

That's why I hoped it was being locked to server or difficulty settings. I didn't think they were doing it across the board.

[Talibambi 119]

I disagree because why should someone have to break their wallet just to be able to play a game when they could just as easily turn down some settings and enjoy?

Okay. You have your current computer. Lets say that you have that same exact computer in 10 years. Are you gonna be complaining if you cant even run the latest games at the lowest settings? Because thats the exact same scenario as what is going to happen if settings are done server side. Your computer is gonna run poorly. Just like what will happen with games where even the lowest settings exceed the capabilities of your machine.

Just compare the specifications of Crysis 1to Crysis 3.

As you can see. Even the MINIMUM specification for games INCREASES. Now if you cant meet these MINIMUM specs then its a gamble whether the game will run at all. You cant stay stagnant with PC technology and complain when games dont run on your machine. PC's need CONSTANT upgrading every few years in order to meet the new minimum specifications required by the latest technology intensive games.

You either upgrade, you deal with poor performance, or you dont play the game at all. These are the realities of the world we live in. You can disagree all you want. But whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

There is ONE exception to the ever increasing technology demands however (that I am aware of): Game Streaming

Edited April 16, 2013 by Talibambi

[Mos1ey 6301]

I've heard that having anything above or below 100% will make your performance go down.

Well trust me, that isn't true, lol.

[Blondedash 403]

you go pc gaming be ready to spend money hopefully dayz will go on console. all this does for pc is attract an older audience.

Edited April 16, 2013 by The ammo guy

[p4triot 207]

you go pc gaming be ready to spend money hopefully dayz will go on console. all this does for pc is attract an older audience.

That would be a lot better don't you think?

Problem is you're not right. Some grown up audience can't afford a new computer because they have lives to live (and pay for), but 12 yo kiddies have dad and mom to buy them an über pc to be used for nothing else than playing.

[rossums 2190]

There is a limit as to how they can/would limit it.

I think there should be a forced model render for things like trees and brush so they are ALWAYS rendered no matter what difficulty/graphics level you are on (Obviously quality will differ).

At the moment it is significantly easier to play on Low graphics. People can't hide behind big trees (Trees look tiny to you), people can't hide in grass (There is next to no grass to hide in).

As long as the Graphical level only affects the texture quality it won't be much of a problem at all.

They shouldn't have to cater for the lowest common denominator who insists on trying to play it with a 5 year old machine and refuses to upgrade.

Technology changes, I just hope they don't dumb it down too majorly for those with crappy systems.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Rossums

[p4triot 207]

There is a limit as to how they can/would limit it.

I think there should be a forced model render for things like trees and brush so they are ALWAYS rendered no matter what difficulty/graphics level you are on (Obviously quality will differ).

At the moment it is significantly easier to play on Low graphics. People can't hide behind big trees (Trees look tiny to you), people can't hide in grass (There is next to no grass to hide in).

As long as the Graphical level only affects the texture quality it won't be much of a problem at all.

They shouldn't have to cater for the lowest common denominator who insists on trying to play it with a 5 year old machine and refuses to upgrade.

Technology changes, I just hope they don't dumb it down too majorly for those with crappy systems.

This.

I don't want a game to tell me what specs I have to use but I also don't want players to turn down their specs to see players in the grass because they see no grass on their screens. There's no need to force high (or low) specs but to make them that if someone turns down some specs that may help them to spot others players/items easier, make the players/items harder to spot by half burying them and making them half invisible or whatever it takes.

As for the view range, if it is locked server side, I hope it is locked to much more than 1.6km, because Im tired to go running on a field and don't see where I am going....

Edited April 16, 2013 by p4triot

[dgeesio 1034]

what game makers need to remember is there is devs way of thinking something is good and then there is gamers view.

post processing shouldn't even be included its utter dogshit.

why many even add half of these graphical features is a mystery. most make the game look worse than when there off. most are used to hide or make things blurry or to not make things just look boring (bf3 prime eg with no blue filter on )

people who game often just want a clean looking game not a wiping the screen cause it looks like it has Vaseline on :lol: .