Better performance, but at what cost?

[Felixthefriendlycat 92]

Arma 2 is a pretty good looking game in my opinion. It is the realistic down to earth graphics with no excessive effects that make it very immersive and pleasant to play for a long time. Arma is one of those games that I would say has 'honest' graphics. What I mean by that is that what you see on screen actually is what it seems to be. Arma doesn't use a lot of tricks and effects to make the game look nice (except for post processing nonsense that should be left disabled). Arma 2's key features that make it feel nice to me are:

- Polygon count uniformly spread (all objects contain about the same level of detail).

- Correctly saturated material colors and lighting.

- Scale of the environment. Models at long range are still rendered in high quality.

- Sound mods like JSRS are more realistic and satisfying sounding than any other game I have played.

- Uniform spread of high res textures. Most games skimp on textures that you don't immediately notice, arma doesn't do this nearly as much which makes the experience just as good when you explore every corner of the world.

Now for the SA we all want the game to run better than the mod. Dean has already said that zombies are a major contributor to the horrible performance of the mod. Optimization is the thing we all want for SA. But it is important to stress what optimizing means for us. For me personally I want to see the game optimized at a code level. What I mean by that is I do not want to see quality being dumped down to increase performance.

The presentation of rocket at Rezzed indie game show somewhat worries me. Watch the video at 39:50

In the presentation he stated that most models on the ground would have very low poly count. That actually doesn't bother me because for what I saw it is about the same level of detail arma 2 has. However when he stated the weapons would have very low polygon count that started to worry me. Also I noticed trees from far away are rendered with lower textures which makes them look bad. Arma 2 is almost 4 years old now. I think it would be a real shame if SA would look worse than the mod just because they want more people with low end systems to play it. Do you guys agree with me on this? Or do you think dropping graphics in favor of performance is the right way to go.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Felixthefriendlycat

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

It already looks much nicer than the mod and more people will be able to experience it looking like that due to better optimisation.

If you look at most gameplay footage of the average player playing DayZ it looks like they're playing on a potato and many don't even have the high res textures for many of the models. Most simply turn all of their graphics options all the way down to get an acceptable frame rate. Only people lucky enough to have (very) decent rigs actually think Arma 2 looks nice, many have never seen it in all it's glory even though they can play other games on high settings. It's an issue that needs to be addressed.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Fraggle

[-Gews- 7443]

If you look at most gameplay footage of the average player playing DayZ it looks like they're playing on a potato and many don't even have the high res textures for many of the models. Most simply turn all of their graphics options all the way down to get an acceptable frame rate.

True that

I seriously doubt standalone will end up somehow looking WORSE than ArmA, I wouldn't worry about it.

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

MY EYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES. MAKE IT STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP.

[barrett_killz 229]

Don't be an egoist, other people want to play as well as you want.

[rn_max 202]

ArmA 2 DayZ looks pretty good on a high end machine, apart from the game breaker mid distance terrain lod textures, which resemble MS Flight Sim 2004 pixel scenery. From a distance of 200 - 500 metres, it truly can look like playing on a potato.

Some players run low settings because much of the terrain cover becomes useless, as they simply do not see it.

[Sutinen 635]

True what Fraggle said, I play all on lowest. I put every single option down as far as I can. Expect view distance, but I think that's forced in DayZ anyways. I run 60 fps in normal ArmA 2, 40 fps in DayZ with average-low players on the server and probably 20 fps plus severe server lag when it's full.

[Felixthefriendlycat 92]

Don't be an egoist, other people want to play as well as you want.

I am absolutely for better performance and the OPTION to set lower settings. However I have noticed for instance in Arma 3 that with the highest settings I can't get the same texture LOD distance I could with arma 2 on Chernarus (hooray for 'optimization' ). It is perfectly fine with me to have the option to play on crappy graphics but the thing is I do not want to see major drawbacks for the rest of us. For instance it doesn't matter how high you crank the graphics, the polygon count on the models will stay the same. That is a perfect example of intentional quality dumping for lower end pc users. The solution is to give people the option to have those crappy graphics (without having an advantage) and the higher end pc users the intended quality.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Felixthefriendlycat

[SoulHunter (DayZ) 233]

It would be a big shame if we would not have super-duper high res options and so. (Im not being sarcastic..) People can keep their options at lowest if they desire to, however I also want to be able to run it at the ultimate settings to experience an amazing quality in regards to textures/effects etc..

People here are talking like they never saw nor played any games of Arma series.. There is actually "options" that you can change to optimize the quality of textures and everything else if needed.. If there are people that try to run games on a potato, then thats their problem. No one should pity such people. Its not like a game being made in 2013 should be able to be ran on a PC made in 1990 nor 2000...

[strongtent 74]

The solution is to give people the option to have those crappy graphics (without having an advantage) and the higher end pc users the intended quality.

Or make it equal for all?

Edited June 25, 2013 by Strongtent

[SoulHunter (DayZ) 233]

Or make it equal for all?

So you are saying.. Colorless cubes everywhere ? No trees, no grass and almost nothing ? And then maybe everyone on this world could play the game "equally"..

Edited June 25, 2013 by SoulHunter

[SoulHunter (DayZ) 233]

The solution is to give people the option to have those crappy graphics (without having an advantage) and the higher end pc users the intended quality.

That's what has always been being done until now and also what everything should be done like as well.. Plain and simple LIKE HELL!

No need to argue more and more about it..

End of the convo... -.-

[colekern 1364]

I'm sorry, but... correct saturation? What? Arma has always been undersaturated. It's closer than most games, but still a bit too colorless at times. It already looks to be addressed in the sa though.

[SoulHunter (DayZ) 233]

I'm sorry, but... correct saturation? What? Arma has always been undersaturated. It's closer than most games, but still a bit too colorless at times. It already looks to be addressed in the sa though.

I guess he wants sth like this: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/115968-dayz-sweetfx-v13/

[zecele 211]

Well dean was running it on a pretty old laptop so i expect the performance is significantly better.

[strongtent 74]

So you are saying.. Colorless cubes everywhere ? No trees, no grass and almost nothing ? And then maybe everyone on this world could play the game "equally".

You're being a bit extreme.

*Also Rocket has stated that textures on certain things will have less fidelity because he wants a smooth experience for a majority as well as future support for things like the Oculus Rift, which is okay by me.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Strongtent

[Cap'n (DayZ) 1827]

Well, it would be a great shame if the game looked worse than the mod. Y'know, I don't think developers should get so hung up on making it acceptable for some of the lower end(I'm not talking low end, I'm talking "not suitable for PC gaming" rigs) people. A 6670 can coast by on medium(playable, on 60 fps) settings. A 6670 should be the absolute minimum. I don't want to see this game being turned into an awful looking game because a few kiddies complain that they can't run it on their mum's laptop Pentium GMA graphics.

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

For instance it doesn't matter how high you crank the graphics, the polygon count on the models will stay the same. That is a perfect example of intentional quality dumping for lower end pc users

No, that's just an elegant solution to the fact that there will be hundreds of thousands of items on a map at any given moment, something that never happens in Arma.

Also, think about their workflow. They want to create thousands of items to be used in-game. If each one of those items needs to be highly detailed (model-wise) it's thousands of hours of work for the modelers. Remember BIS isn't a massive studio and people are already itchy for content. Having simpler models will allow them to create many more items in a shorter period. The detail will come from the textures. If it's done well then the items can look great. Bethesda use a similar method for games like Skyrim and for the same reason. Their in-game items look great but if you inspect them closely you can see that the actual models themselves are fairly simple, it's the textures and/or bump-mapping that make them look sweet.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Fraggle

[barrett_killz 229]

Well dean was running it on a pretty old laptop so i expect the performance is significantly better.

Actually that was Alienware, you could notice it as a sign on the laptop's rear.

I am absolutely for better performance and the OPTION to set lower settings. However I have noticed for instance in Arma 3 that with the highest settings I can't get the same texture LOD distance I could with arma 2 on Chernarus (hooray for 'optimization' ). It is perfectly fine with me to have the option to play on crappy graphics but the thing is I do not want to see major drawbacks for the rest of us. For instance it doesn't matter how high you crank the graphics, the polygon count on the models will stay the same. That is a perfect example of intentional quality dumping for lower end pc users. The solution is to give people the option to have those crappy graphics (without having an advantage) and the higher end pc users the intended quality.

The engine has its limitations (regarding the video settings). If you have a Haswell CPU and a top-of-the-line GPU that doesn't mean you're the only one who wants to play the game, know what I mean?

[Elias (DayZ) 57]

For me, A2 and the DayZ-mod (and OFP:CWC before that) is all about gameplay. I remember the first time I played the OFP demo I was a bit dissapointed 'cause the graphics didn't look *that* good. But after 5 minutes of gameplay I was hooked and knew that imo it was the best game ever.

So, I hope the SA will look good, but for me it's the gameplay that's the most important.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Elias

[Target Practice (DayZ) 1335]

To those that are arguing that all objects need a shit-ton of polygons, I would argue that Bethesda have been using the 'low polygon count, high-res texture' trick for small items for ages, and it works just fine, and allows there to be hundreds of items on screen at once.

Whilst I'm lucky enough to have a decent gaming rig, and I'd love the standalone to look as breathtakingly pretty as my GTX 670 can handle without catching fire, I have to be realistic and understand that at the moment, my machine is ahead of the curve somewhat, and not every game is going to make the most of it's power. I won't lose sleep over that - as long as it doesn't look like a giant bag of inside-out asses, I'm willing to accept the odd rough edge if I look REALLY REALLY closely.

[RJTurneR 112]

I don't want to see this game being turned into an awful looking game because a few kiddies complain that they can't run it on their mum's laptop Pentium GMA graphics.

My line of thinking exactly. I am fortunate to have a good enough income that allowed me to build my own PC, and that will allow me to continue upgrading it hopefully. But I can understand a lot of people are quite restricted in terms of their budget or the ability to build a PC, etc.. Not all of those people complain though, my friend plays on a laptop, it does the job, not that well but at the same time he doesn't complain about it because he loves the DayZ for what it is.

There seems to be a majority that want developers to take them into account, and start making crappy looking games leaving those who invested and such on an island wondering what to do with their i7's and 700 series. We are heading towards the next generation in games, meaning new hardware will be hitting the market, new engines will be made for shiny new games, meaning that these games will lean towards being made to look almost real. Some people suffer from this, those that don't have the hardware to deal with it, but at the end of the day.. Whats new? It's the same arguement for years now.

[Target Practice (DayZ) 1335]

There's always got to be a balance - if PC gaming wants to remain the pinnacle of gaming, then technology needs to move forwards, and that means that slowly but surely older technology will become obsolete. Sure, we'd all love to just buy a PC now and still be playing cutting-edge games on it in ten years' time without upgrading anything, but that simply isn't realistic.

On the other hand, it's also important that we don't go back to where we were ten years ago when you could spend £1500 on a new PC and then find out that in six months time your system is very much middle-of-the-pack, because people will just go across to consoles, where they outlay £300 or so and are set for five to seven years.

Right now, I feel the balance is about right - a good, well-built gaming system might cost £1000-1200, but it's also going to last a long while (as long as you don't want to play Crysis 4 on full settings!) There are always going to be people who are complaining that they can't run DayZ on full settings at 60FPS on their integrated graphics cards, just like there will always be people that complain that DayZ doesn't make full use of their triple-SLI GTX Titan rig. Those people will always be around, and nothing you can do will change that - as long as the majority of systems bought/built in the last 3-5 years can run a given game on reasonable settings, that seems fair enough to me.

[tsandrey 379]

AFAIK The graphics will look better than Arma 2. They have volumetric clouds and new models in SA

[SoulHunter (DayZ) 233]

AFAIK The graphics will look better than Arma 2. They have volumetric clouds and new models in SA

I hope they would make the game so that it would look like the way DayZ looks like with SweetFX! :3

Edited June 26, 2013 by SoulHunter