PCs!? Bah! I fart in their general direction. Their mothers were a bunch of nerds with pocket protectors, and their fathers smelt of silicon. As gaming stations I say go away, or I shall taunt them a second time ...
Seriously though, I've heard a lot of people rant about controllers being the one thing that turns them off from consoles, and I'm the exact opposite. The mouse and keyboard always was just ... not kosher for gaming ... to me. The X-box controller is my favorite form of control. I guess mostly because keyboards have a whole bunch of other buttons you won't be using.
I still play the PC games, I just had to buy a usb controller to enjoy them more. I honestly have a better time playing adventure games with a controller... call me strange ...
Seriously though, I've heard a lot of people rant about controllers being the one thing that turns them off from consoles, and I'm the exact opposite. The mouse and keyboard always was just ... not kosher for gaming ... to me. The X-box controller is my favorite form of control. I guess mostly because keyboards have a whole bunch of other buttons you won't be using.
I still play the PC games, I just had to buy a usb controller to enjoy them more. I honestly have a better time playing adventure games with a controller... call me strange ...
I'm not fat ... I'm festively plump.
Sure thing Weirdo!Mr. Thomas Malloy wrote:call me strange ...
But seriously... I think if all PC games had a controller friendly option that would be awesome.
Nvidia has recently announced that it plans to hit the 1 billion transistor mark in its GPUs (Graphic Processing Units... of Video Cards for short) in as little as 3 years, saying that quality only seen in animated films like Final Fantasy and Shrek will be renederable in real-time o nour PCs within 5 years. This, coupled with 64 bit processing as quad core CPUs (which are in development) would usher in a new era of cinematic gaming.
I cannot wait!
-Cub. =o)
They also said this after the release of the Geforce2, the GeforceFX and the Geforce 7800GTX.Cubase wrote:Nvidia has recently announced ... would usher in a new era of cinematic gaming.
...not that I'm skeptical. Besides isn't the Tex Murphy series what most of us would refer to as 'Cinematic Gaming'?
Yes... it was when FMV was the medium... but since the move to CGI there has not been many cinematic qualities in modern games. I guess they favoured the low costs of production above the cinematic feel.i'm_melting_i'm_melting wrote:Besides isn't the Tex Murphy series what most of us would refer to as 'Cinematic Gaming'?
But now that they are reaching the a point where CGI can now move on the real-time graphics almost as good a pre-rendered we will see a new era of gaming.
Also, the comments made after the GF2, FX and 7 were all based on raw number crunching & speculation... but after the move to .90nm process technology and the introduction of the latest Wafer technology by IBM they have been able to consider such a large amount of transistors in their upcoming practical development roadmaps. Especially now that the GPU and CPU can offload a lot of the Physics calculation to PhysX processors.
Using Project Offset as an example (I think you pointed me in that direction in the first place) we can see it already happening... bearing in mind the game will not be released for another 2 years... but you can imagine what they can come up with in another 3 years on top of that.
Mark my words... it will happen... the gaming industry is just too damn important now.
-Cub. =o)
Well, we'll see Cubase. Not everyone is an Nvidia gamer and whether ATI and other chip makers adopt Nvidia's new technologies like they did with T+L remains to be seen.
Not only that, it is more important that software developers adopt the new technologies as well. Not forgetting APIs like openGL and DirectX that need to incorporate the new gfx card features so that games can utilize them.
All Nvidia's talk about .90nm chips and wafer technology still sounds like number crunching and speculation to me. Remember the first Pentium 4s? It took Intel a long time to catch up to AMD's level of performance through pure clock speed ramping due to the sheer latency of those chips. Now they have discovered a thermal problem with the latest P4s which means they will not clock higher than 3.8Ghz. As a result, they have reverted to development on the Pentium M - based on the P3 core (a revision of the ten year old 686 core) which has to be an embarrassing setback for Intel no matter how you look at it.
The proof is in the virtual pudding, my friend.
Not only that, it is more important that software developers adopt the new technologies as well. Not forgetting APIs like openGL and DirectX that need to incorporate the new gfx card features so that games can utilize them.
All Nvidia's talk about .90nm chips and wafer technology still sounds like number crunching and speculation to me. Remember the first Pentium 4s? It took Intel a long time to catch up to AMD's level of performance through pure clock speed ramping due to the sheer latency of those chips. Now they have discovered a thermal problem with the latest P4s which means they will not clock higher than 3.8Ghz. As a result, they have reverted to development on the Pentium M - based on the P3 core (a revision of the ten year old 686 core) which has to be an embarrassing setback for Intel no matter how you look at it.
The proof is in the virtual pudding, my friend.
Last edited by Cubase on November 05, 2005 • 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am not disagreeing with you... nor am I attempting to push Nvidia... I am not a fanboy... just quoting their claim.
Also... as a quick note, ATI was the first to actually incorporate the .90nm process into their GPUs with the X1 range... the GF7 range still uses .110nm.
Other chip makers were forced to adopt Nvidia's SM 3.0 after most newer games began programming shaders upon that model... being more efficient and with better capabilities allowing more floating point operations per second. Nvidia also was the first to bring hardware HDR ito the equation and now ATI has the ability to perform HDR with AA which Nvidia cannot.
It is not a matter of Nvidia deciding what new technology to implement and seeing whether or not game developers will adopt the processes thus forcing other chip makers to follow suit... not at all. On the contrary, game developers demand such technologies from chip manufacturers and it is up to the manufacturers to try and be the first to implement the technology to support the developers needs. I don't think they would waste their money on a technology or process that would not be adopted indefinitely. Such capabilities are present during game development in workstation cards and when a developers choose to adopt a particular technology (such as full-scene motion blurring) it is up to the card makers to meet these needs… and sometimes they get a head start (like with SM 3.0 which was still being implemented by CryTech (the makers of FarCry) before Nvidia had produced a working prototype of the process... they merely had a roadmap of the construction process in which the developers could program with until they had the ability to compile the processes).
ATI just happened to fall behind the 8-ball this generation and thus Nvidia Capitalised. I wish the same could be said during the R9800 vs. GFFX days in which Nvidia fell far behind in Shader calculation and fill-rate..
Also, it is not too hard for Microsoft to develop these technologies into the graphics foundation and DX10 (or WGF, whatever you want to call it) already has technology implemented into it that has not even been developed yet by the card manufacturers (such as full-scene dynamic radiosity... a feature only previously present as pre-render CPU calculation... but of course, this is early stages).
-Cub. =o)
Also... as a quick note, ATI was the first to actually incorporate the .90nm process into their GPUs with the X1 range... the GF7 range still uses .110nm.
Other chip makers were forced to adopt Nvidia's SM 3.0 after most newer games began programming shaders upon that model... being more efficient and with better capabilities allowing more floating point operations per second. Nvidia also was the first to bring hardware HDR ito the equation and now ATI has the ability to perform HDR with AA which Nvidia cannot.
It is not a matter of Nvidia deciding what new technology to implement and seeing whether or not game developers will adopt the processes thus forcing other chip makers to follow suit... not at all. On the contrary, game developers demand such technologies from chip manufacturers and it is up to the manufacturers to try and be the first to implement the technology to support the developers needs. I don't think they would waste their money on a technology or process that would not be adopted indefinitely. Such capabilities are present during game development in workstation cards and when a developers choose to adopt a particular technology (such as full-scene motion blurring) it is up to the card makers to meet these needs… and sometimes they get a head start (like with SM 3.0 which was still being implemented by CryTech (the makers of FarCry) before Nvidia had produced a working prototype of the process... they merely had a roadmap of the construction process in which the developers could program with until they had the ability to compile the processes).
ATI just happened to fall behind the 8-ball this generation and thus Nvidia Capitalised. I wish the same could be said during the R9800 vs. GFFX days in which Nvidia fell far behind in Shader calculation and fill-rate..
Also, it is not too hard for Microsoft to develop these technologies into the graphics foundation and DX10 (or WGF, whatever you want to call it) already has technology implemented into it that has not even been developed yet by the card manufacturers (such as full-scene dynamic radiosity... a feature only previously present as pre-render CPU calculation... but of course, this is early stages).
-Cub. =o)
Just as you say. But will people with Voodoo 1s still be able to play? 
I will sit back and wait for the CineGames(tm) to come out before I get hyped up. Around here we're used to waiting for things to happen... just like Aaron Conners.
They've backpedaled on that idea and it's now DX10 again.Cubase wrote:DX10 (or WGF, whatever you want to call it)
I will sit back and wait for the CineGames(tm) to come out before I get hyped up. Around here we're used to waiting for things to happen... just like Aaron Conners.
I'm avoiding Xbox stuff as much as possible. Nevermind that that's one of the major reasons people are HAVING to migrate to consoles because of Gates buying the competition and ripping content off the PC production line, over a course of time everything will run better on my PC and it breaks down a lot less often than this last batch of systems.
It's pretty ridiculous, repair jobs at the shop I own went through the ceiling about half a year after this console generation kicked off. These things just really suck for durability.
It's pretty ridiculous, repair jobs at the shop I own went through the ceiling about half a year after this console generation kicked off. These things just really suck for durability.