Vista DX10 a bad idea...Gabe - Valve Software

[SUBMAN1]

Here is an example of what I am talking about for increased FPS on DX9:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...129TX1K0000532

Want a serious performance boost in BioShock? Play it on DirectX 9. Sad, but true. As DirectX 9/10 hybrid games have trickled to market, we've been testing them to see whether the newer, Vista-only API library is worth its salt. We've done it with Company of Heroes, Lost Planet, and more. In every case, DirectX 9 performance was far better than that of DirectX 10.

DX9 vs DX10 on Bioshock. Can you tell the difference? I can't! Someone was talking about being a moron? :p I'd have to think someone else here is a moron! Here are the comparrison screenshots:

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=167789,00.jpg

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=167790,00.jpg


http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=167791,00.jpg




Anyway, this is the point I was trying to make. Not only will you get increased FPS playing games on DX9 - I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO!!!!

-S

[HunterICX]

most of the screenshots online and videos are pure fakes.
you can see in the movies that the effects added to the so called DX10 enchantmens can easily be reproduced by anyone with some Movie edditing skills.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

most of the screenshots online and videos are pure fakes.
you can see in the movies that the effects added to the so called DX10 enchantmens can easily be reproduced by anyone with some Movie edditing skills.

Maybe, but that is why I like reviews like the ExtemeTech ones. They tell it like it is! It's not a manufacturer DX10 movie job!

By the way, that game looks pretty slick. I think I will have to pick that up, except I will be gone all weekend! I guess I can play it next week.

If anyone wants the URL to the image quality comparrisons, here it is:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2174758,00.asp

-S

PS. I especially like this part:

After searching through the game for literally a couple of hours, playing alternately in DX9 and DX10, we took a battery of screenshots. We were looking for any place, any surface, any object, any effect in the game that showed a discernable difference between DX9 and DX10. We used a Vista machine with an AMD ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT graphics card, an Intel QX6700 CPU overclocked to 3.19 GHz, and 4GB of memory. We used the pertinent beta drivers released expressly for the game.


We were disappointed.


For instance, look at the screens labeled BioShock 1. They show a room filled with water from a kneeling position—a great shot across a soggy landscape. Can you tell which is which? The "2" pair of screens is in the same room, with a view through the warped glass of Rapture into the ocean. No major differences there, either. For the "3" screens, we looked at a different transparency, this time through a sliding glass door. Then, for "4" and "5", we focused on splashing water and on fog, two particle-heavy graphics effects.

[Skybird]

Wading through this thread I must conclude that GobalExplorer is wrong when he said that the good news is that MS won't succeed. Because the real good news for me is that I am not caring too much anymore for new games and games in general. Not needing to be affected by all this business pervertions is the best thing that can happen to you! I've seen the emerging of computer games from the very first beginnings on, when there was Pong and Nightracer and Galaxians, and from there i went to the present. Truth is - it starts to bore me. Innovations have become very rare, it always seems to be the same old stuff in just new and slightly better clothing - and these differences become more narrow with each develoepment cycle. 15 years ago, you eventually could see very big differences in visual presentation of games separated by let's say two years in design. Today, these differences are such that games three years of age evtnually still could look extremely well. Beyond a certain treshhold level, improvements in graphics become less and lesser important (and cannot compensate for lacking innovation anyway). Like you can take a square for a circle, but 8 corners look seriously more like a circle than a square with 4 cornbers only. However, if you compare 16 corners to 32 corners, the visual differences is no more that obvious than it was when jumping from 4 to 8 corners. It seems that today we have reached a level where we think about jumping from let's say 64 to 128 corners to built a circle. Like when you read a book, and your imagination and fantasy brings the evnts in the book to life, visual apperance also is only one ingredient in a game that makes it worthwhile for you. the real great games and sims I use(d) I kepot alive by imagination and immersion only, and often despite the fact that graphically they were/are outdated. It does not make them less enjoyable, and immersive. I have seen the video of Crysis, and compared it with Far Cry. Yes, it looks better. And no, the difference i do not see to be as important. some slighty adjusted game elemnts, maybe, even more violence in fact - to me it is not much more than just Far Cry.

No question that at release they nevertheless will try to make a revolution and a hype out of it.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wading through this thread I must conclude that GobalExplorer is wrong when he said that the good news is that MS won't succeed. Because the real good news for me is that I am not caring too much anymore for new games and games in general. Not needing to be affected by all this business pervertions is the best thing that can happen to you! I've seen the emerging of computer games from the very first beginnings on, when there was Pong and Nightracer and Galaxians, and from there i went to the present. Truth is - it starts to bore me. Innovations have become very rare, it always seems to be the same old stuff in just new and slightly better clothing - and these differences become more narrow with each develoepment cycle. 15 years ago, you eventually could see very big differences in visual presentation of games separated by let's say two years in design. Today, these differences are such that games three years of age evtnually still could look extremely well. Beyond a certain treshhold level, improvements in graphics become less and lesser important (and cannot compensate for lacking innovation anyway). Like you can take a square for a circle, but 8 corners look seriously more like a circle than a square with 4 cornbers only. However, if you compare 16 corners to 32 corners, the visual differences is no more that obvious than it was when jumping from 4 to 8 corners. It seems that today we have reached a level where we think about jumping from let's say 64 to 128 corners to built a circle. Like when you read a book, and your imagination and fantasy brings the evnts in the book to life, visual apperance also is only one ingredient in a game that makes it worthwhile for you. the real great games and sims I use(d) I kepot alive by imagination and immersion only, and often despite the fact that graphically they were/are outdated. It does not make them less enjoyable, and immersive. I have seen the video of Crysis, and compared it with Far Cry. Yes, it looks better. And no, the difference i do not see to be as important. some slighty adjusted game elemnts, maybe, even more violence in fact - to me it is not much more than just Far Cry.

No question that at release they nevertheless will try to make a revolution and a hype out of it.

I hear ya on that. Not much excites me in gaming anymore either. BioShock is probably the first game I feel I might want to go out and get. THis is simply becuase I was a big fan of the System SHock series and still I'd probably play through another round of System Shock 2 before I'd pick up on some brand new game.

In the past, I always had the best hardware, but now one of my friends went out and bought better hardware than me, has over 10K or 11K 3DMark 2006 score the other day, and quite frankly, I seem to have more fun playing with video editing than playing any current gen game, so I really didn't care. In the past, I'd pull $2K to $3K out to upgrade the main components just to be on top! :p

These days I don't care anymore. Is this what happens when you become so jaded as I / we are? I dunno. I've lost interest in gaming generally across the board. I still like it, but I don't wait with baited breath for each new release anymore. I get the feeling been there done that - exactly like you describe. The reason? Exactly like you describe - lack of innovation.

Armed Assault kind of brought things back a little, but I still don't have flashes from it like really great gameplay that sticks out in my mind from the past. Some examples that stick out in my mind are Falcon 4, System Shock 2 (1 was good too, but I recall SS 2 much more), Thief (the original - Thief 3 had its moments, as did Thief 2, but it wasn't as good as the original), Star Control, Starflight, Indepedence War II (and 1, but 2 was better), Battlezone (and 2 - the story was great, and it used my 3dfx board!), Wizardry (the original), Mech Warrior (the original - the music captivated me more than anything), EF2000, M1 Tank Platoon, Populace, 688i, Fleet Command, Ticonderoga, Doom 1 & 2, Wolfenstein 3D and RTCW, among others, but the list mainly of older ground breaking games. Not a whole lot new stands out - SHIII does comes to this list too, but you get the point.

BioSHock I have high hopes for one more time, but I'm not holding my breath. Story is important for lasting memories, and I think this game may be one of the handful to deliver a lasting memory. Now I'm rambling, but you get the point, and I think you are where I am at this point.

-S

PS. I never did like pong.