PDA

View Full Version : Direct X versions for PSO2



Nitro Vordex
Aug 6, 2011, 04:47 PM
Since they have such low requirements for PSO2, do you think that they'll have the option to choose between different Direct X versions? I only know of Vindictus that does this, but it seems to really help the lower end computers. Also, as a side note, any idea if PSO2 will take advantage of Direct X 11?

Zyrusticae
Aug 6, 2011, 04:54 PM
.......*Sigh!*.

DX versions make absolutely no difference unless you have a REALLY old card.

The only time DX versions actually matter is when a developer actually MAKES USE of features exclusive to newer versions of DX. If the game is poorly optimized one way or another, it doesn't matter what version of DX it is, it's poorly optimized.

Vindictus is a Source Engine game; it's one of the only games released recently that supports DX 8.1 to date, which is largely pointless nowadays since even integrated graphics now support DX9/SM 2.0.

And if you still have a pre-SM 2.0 card, IT'S TIME TO UPGRADE. Those cards are going on ten years old now. There is absolutely no excuse. In fact, I'm not even sure if it's possible to play modern games with a SM 1.1 card. I mean, seriously?

Ark22
Aug 6, 2011, 04:55 PM
PSO2...make use of Tessellations? PSSSHHH

Vashyron
Aug 6, 2011, 06:55 PM
99999999999999 Meseta Bet it will be DirectX 9 Only. :wacko:

Nitro Vordex
Aug 6, 2011, 07:04 PM
.......*Sigh!*.

DX versions make absolutely no difference unless you have a REALLY old card. Yeah okay. My brother's computer is not that great at all. Running Direct X 9 makes his game choke a bitch at like ten frames a second. Direct X 8 makes the game at least playable.


The only time DX versions actually matter is when a developer actually MAKES USE of features exclusive to newer versions of DX. If the game is poorly optimized one way or another, it doesn't matter what version of DX it is, it's poorly optimized.
That's good to know. Wasn't aware of that.


Vindictus is a Source Engine game; it's one of the only games released recently that supports DX 8.1 to date, which is largely pointless nowadays since even integrated graphics now support DX9/SM 2.0. Just because they support it doesn't mean they do it well.


And if you still have a pre-SM 2.0 card, IT'S TIME TO UPGRADE. Those cards are going on ten years old now. There is absolutely no excuse. In fact, I'm not even sure if it's possible to play modern games with a SM 1.1 card. I mean, seriously? Don't even know what that means.

Glad I got at least one useful paragraph out of that. You should really work the stick out of your ass, man. Makes you look like a jerk. :wacko:

Ark22
Aug 6, 2011, 07:22 PM
They may make it Switchable.

Zyrusticae
Aug 6, 2011, 08:24 PM
[troll statement]
Uh-huh.

See what I get for trying to help stop the spread of misinformation? :-?

But, seriously? Bro needs an upgrade. Actually, lemme guess - he's playing on a second-hand machine that still uses an AGP slot. I'm not even sure if he can upgrade - probably better off going to a new PC.

But really, when you play games on a machine that's from the PS2 era (and probably wasn't even that hot at that time), you kind of relinquish all rights to complain about performance.

Nitro Vordex
Aug 6, 2011, 11:24 PM
Uh-huh.

See what I get for trying to help stop the spread of misinformation? :-?

But, seriously? Bro needs an upgrade. Actually, lemme guess - he's playing on a second-hand machine that still uses an AGP slot. I'm not even sure if he can upgrade - probably better off going to a new PC.
So far off you look silly. Playing on some mini tower. Which pretty much upsets me because he had no knowledge of those things, you know, not made for playing games. So understandably, he mad.

I'd appreciate it if my posts didn't look like I was kissing ass, thanks.

Rizen
Aug 7, 2011, 01:00 AM
I think which Direct X version is the least of your problems in this situation. If there was an option for this and you had to reduce it down to say version 8....I think you should be looking at the over processing power of your machine rather than video.

I would highly recommend doing an upgrade for the computer or better yet replace the computer if you brother is having problems gaming. Even if it is a mini tower, you can still get parts pretty easy off sites like Newegg. Use what the machine is made for, do not try to make do something it is not suppose to do well. Pushing it to it's limit or over can cause a lot more issues than playing a game at a turtle's pace.

Any chance you can post specs or even the computer?

Nitro Vordex
Aug 7, 2011, 02:59 AM
I know what the issue is, the computer just isn't meant for gaming. He wasn't aware when he got it and of course he's upset about that. I've already talked to him quite a bit. Upgrading the computer wouldn't be cost effective, nor a good idea. He unfortunately spent money on a computer that was meant for office use, not gaming. I've researched it quite a bit, and it would be more trouble than it's worth.

RemiusTA
Aug 7, 2011, 07:01 PM
Since they have such low requirements for PSO2, do you think that they'll have the option to choose between different Direct X versions? I only know of Vindictus that does this, but it seems to really help the lower end computers. Also, as a side note, any idea if PSO2 will take advantage of Direct X 11?

Highly doubtful, and judging from the screenshots we've been getting, i dont think it would matter in the slightest.

PSO2's graphical engine just looks like an upgraded version of the PSU engine, honestly. There really isn't too much in PSO2 that isn't in PSU in some form, graphical wise. But i did hear Sakai say "High graphical mode" or something of the sort at the end of the press conference. Maybe its in coming news? Or it could be nothing or a misinterpretation


And Zyrusticae, you should really learn how to talk to people.

Ark22
Aug 7, 2011, 07:04 PM
Remuis speaks the damn truth. It basically looks like an amped up PSO with PSU characterization. In my opinion.

Malachite
Aug 7, 2011, 07:09 PM
It does look quite similar graphically to PSU, though looking at the amount of detail and model quality, I'd say it surpasses it quite a bit.

However, to say it looks like PSO in graphical quality... No.

http://elder-geek.com/wp-content/uploads/GavinGreene/2009/09/foto_phantasy_star_online_blue_burst.jpg

http://pso2.jp/gallery/screenshot/image/element/20110726/ss_20_l.jpg

Ark22
Aug 7, 2011, 07:12 PM
Lol PSO was a surpassing looking game of its time. I remember those days on DC like yesterday. Besides that, it looks like a lower graphic version of Star Ocean 4 in my opinion.

Malachite
Aug 7, 2011, 07:14 PM
It does.

Anyone ever think about graphic mods for PSO2 in the future? For almost every PC game, there's a mod that doubles or triples how good it looks. I'd love for this to be the case with PSO2.

Ark22
Aug 7, 2011, 07:19 PM
Maybe when they make a private server OR they just get bored and let us run mods :P. Most likely they will but it may cause framerate issue to other players..But that is my guess.

Malachite
Aug 7, 2011, 07:23 PM
Lol it would only cause issues with people with poor PCs. You wouldn't need a private server, either. Most online games don't care about graphic mods, seeing as they don't really disrupt the game in any way, for anyone.

RemiusTA
Aug 7, 2011, 07:27 PM
I shouldn't need a mod for my game to look good. And it took GTA4 all this time for that latest WTFgraphics mod to release.

PSO2 isn't a bad looking game, it just could look so much better. Sega isn't Square Enix or anybody, but they have traditionally been envelope pushers when it comes to good looking videogames. (Genesis sonic games, Sonic Adventure, PSO, Sonic Heroes looked amazing for its time, recent sonic games are hardware chokers)

Ark22
Aug 7, 2011, 07:29 PM
Phantasy star zero was The greatest looking game besides KH on the DS.

Rizen
Aug 7, 2011, 07:42 PM
It does look quite similar graphically to PSU, though looking at the amount of detail and model quality, I'd say it surpasses it quite a bit.

However, to say it looks like PSO in graphical quality... No.

http://elder-geek.com/wp-content/uploads/GavinGreene/2009/09/foto_phantasy_star_online_blue_burst.jpg

http://pso2.jp/gallery/screenshot/image/element/20110726/ss_20_l.jpg

Did anyone happened to noticed the HUmar in the Concept trailer using the Dance emote from PSU? I think that says quite a bit right there.

Mike
Aug 7, 2011, 07:44 PM
Did anyone happened to noticed the HUmar in the Concept trailer using the Dance emote from PSU? I think that says quite a bit right there.
The PSU dance emote has been in every Phantasy Star game since.

Ark22
Aug 7, 2011, 07:45 PM
Aka Sega is known for Recycling. I would know, I've been a valued customer since the first sega product with that missile game and 3D glasses.

Hrith
Aug 7, 2011, 07:47 PM
The PSU dance emote has been in every Phantasy Star game since.Since PSU?
Because the dance animations in PSO were different, and I miss them =/

Mike
Aug 7, 2011, 07:55 PM
Since PSU?
Because the dance animations in PSO were different, and I miss them =/
Yes. Granted there have only been four games since PSU came out but all four of them have had the PSU dances.

Rizen
Aug 7, 2011, 08:21 PM
What I was getting at with my statement is the fact that they very well could be using upgraded/altered PSU models for PSO2. I wouldn't be surprised either.

Vashyron
Aug 7, 2011, 08:39 PM
ALL the lobby emote animations they've shown in screenshots and videos is from PSU.

Canard de Bain
Sep 9, 2011, 09:39 AM
OpenGL is just better.

kyuuketsuki
Sep 9, 2011, 06:48 PM
OpenGL is just better.
Sadly, OpenGL3 was a huge disappointment and DirectX is the superior API for Windows gaming. OpenGL needs a major revision, which it never received due to professional CAD developers and the like being concerned about their applications losing support. So, in theory you're right, but in practice OpenGL isn't competitive for Windows games at the moment.

Edit: Okay so yes, OpenGL is pretty much officially superior. It's unfortunate that it's not going to displace DirectX in Windows games anytime soon (if ever) for a myriad of reasons (mostly Microsoft using its resources to push its API onto developers, and OpenGL's lagging behind DirectX for too long).

Canard de Bain
Sep 9, 2011, 07:22 PM
Seen Ogl 4.1?

kyuuketsuki
Sep 9, 2011, 07:27 PM
Seen Ogl 4.1?
I have not. Maybe I'm out of the loop, I'll google it.

Dinosaur
Sep 9, 2011, 07:37 PM
I recall the developers saying that they are reusing animations temporarily. This is most likely because they dont want to spill all the beans in their game or they're just not done with them yet.

Remember, alpha is used to test core game stability so i wouldnt be surprised if they updated other animations as well(id like to see the cast boosting animations look a bit more fluid). I also have some hope for gender or race specific weapon animations, too.

Alexvrb
Sep 9, 2011, 07:43 PM
Seen Ogl 4.1?Yeah. They've actually almost caught up to DX11, and I don't mean that as a jab. However, even Carmack, a programming genius and diehard OpenGL guy, has admitted DirectX is the superior API these days. He still uses OpenGL since all of his stuff is OpenGL (tools and all), but to me that just makes it that much more impressive to hear him say DirectX is better.

However, he does note that OpenGL works fine. There's nothing WRONG with OpenGL, and it has its place. But to say that it is superior to DX? Not quite. I can't blame Sega in the slightest for using DX. I just hope that they have 2+ render paths to cover lower-spec machines as well as to take advantage of newer hardware.

Oh, also, it is possible to use DX11 efficiently to produce BETTER performance than an equivalent (same graphical level/quality) DX10 path, given the right hardware. Of course you can also use DX11 to drive the visuals up instead, which is generally preferred, methinks. Especially since you can crank visuals down and/or or switch to a lower render path if performance is a problem.

Serephim
Sep 9, 2011, 10:15 PM
I believe the whole point of greater DX versions is lowering the amount of strain while offering better performance.

Them not using Dx11, or even giving the option to, would be asinine.

kyuuketsuki
Sep 9, 2011, 11:17 PM
I believe the whole point of greater DX versions is lowering the amount of strain while offering better performance.

Them not using Dx11, or even giving the option to, would be asinine.
Considering they're developing it exclusively for Windows, it would almost indeed be asinine not to use DX11. Generally, the reason games use DX9 commonly is that no console supports anything higher than DX9.0c. However, if they're looking to support a large range of hardware, they might use DX9 simply to support pre-DX11 videocards.

The point of API iterations is to add more features (such as tessellation in DX11), not just improve performance. DX11 does indeed have features that improve rendering performance, though, which is the main reason World of Warcraft (for example) was made to run DX11.

It'd be great if PSO2 is a DX11 game, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it's DX9.

Ezodagrom
Sep 10, 2011, 09:35 AM
In the alpha client, there's an option called "Shader Quality", which can be changed to "on" or "off".
With that option turned on, my 5 year old laptop (a Core 2 Duo T7200 at 2.0GHz and a Mobility Radeon X1600, graphics quite a bit below the alpha specs) runs the title screen at around 2 frames per second (the absolute minimum framerate to be able to play a game smoothly is 30fps). With that option turned off, the title screen runs at around 60~65fps.
This option makes a huge difference in performace.

Of course, I have no idea how well it runs in-game, it's something that I can only try if there really is going to be an open beta test. But, if my laptop is able to run the game at a decent enough framerate, those who have low-end PCs that are a bit below the alpha specs might be able to run it as well.

kyuuketsuki
Sep 10, 2011, 02:23 PM
In the alpha client, there's an option called "Shader Quality", which can be changed to "on" or "off".
With that option turned on, my 5 year old laptop (a Core 2 Duo T7200 at 2.0GHz and a Mobility Radeon X1600, graphics quite a bit below the alpha specs) runs the title screen at around 2 frames per second (the absolute minimum framerate to be able to play a game smoothly is 30fps). With that option turned off, the title screen runs at around 60~65fps.
This option makes a huge difference in performance.

Of course, I have no idea how well it runs in-game, it's something that I can only try if there really is going to be an open beta test. But, if my laptop is able to run the game at a decent enough framerate, those who have low-end PCs that are a bit below the alpha specs might be able to run it as well.
Honestly, even with all settings off/low, I'd be surprised if that ancient (no offense) mobility GPU can handle PSO2. But hey, you never know. The low graphics settings we've seen in the alpha vids look pretty damn low.

Canard de Bain
Sep 10, 2011, 02:46 PM
(the absolute minimum framerate to be able to play a game smoothly is 30fps). .

Only if you are spoiled and super-rich. I often play my RPG games at 10-15 FPS, but high quality.

lostinseganet
Sep 10, 2011, 02:54 PM
maybe pso 2 will come to onlive?

Ezodagrom
Sep 10, 2011, 02:57 PM
Honestly, even with all settings off/low, I'd be surprised if that ancient (no offense) mobility GPU can handle PSO2. But hey, you never know. The low graphics settings we've seen in the alpha vids look pretty damn low.
Doesn't really matter to me if that old laptop runs PSO2 or not, I have a proper desktop to play games (Phenom II X4 955 3.2GHz, Radeon HD6850).
But, whenever I get a chance to play PSO2 (be it in an open beta or once it is released), I'm still going to try it once on my laptop just to see if it could run PSO2 or not. :P
If it ends up being able to run PSO2 at a decent enough framerate, that means that those with low-end PCs/low-end graphics cards might not need to upgrade to be able to play PSO2.

Canard de Bain
Sep 10, 2011, 03:41 PM
Does anyone know if this game has the "Low framerate means you walk and attack slowly" effect as in PSU?

Mag-X
Sep 10, 2011, 04:04 PM
Hopefully, being designed for PCs (even old slow ones) from the start will mean they have proper frame skipping and not lock the game to 30 FPS.

Ezodagrom
Sep 10, 2011, 04:26 PM
Does anyone know if this game has the "Low framerate means you walk and attack slowly" effect as in PSU?
Don't know how it is ingame, but in the title screen the framerate is not locked.

kyuuketsuki
Sep 10, 2011, 05:20 PM
Only if you are spoiled and super-rich. I often play my RPG games at 10-15 FPS, but high quality.
That may be fine for single-player, slower-paced games, but playing a faster-paced online action-RPG like PSO2 @ 10 FPS is not going to go well. Really what people mean when they say 30 FPS is the absolute minimum, they mean that's the minimum FPS for it to look smooth and fluid. Anything less, especially down at 10-15 FPS, is going to be quite jerky.

It's cool if you can tolerate low frame rates, but it's not being "spoiled and super rich" to find low frame rate jerkiness to be intolerable (as I do, although sometimes I'll tolerate dipping into the mid-to-high 20's on a game if the tradeoff is running at the native resolution rather than an ugly scaled image or something).

Nitro Vordex
Sep 10, 2011, 08:42 PM
Only if you are spoiled and super-rich. I often play my RPG games at 10-15 FPS, but high quality.
Apparently spoiled and super rich now means being able to play a video game without it being slow as balls. If you play that at high settings with only 10-15 fps, and enjoy it, I honestly think there's something wrong with you. I always prefer sacrificing some graphical quality for engine stability.

Keilyn
Sep 10, 2011, 11:57 PM
In network games, the server synchronizes with its netspeed. You have a max client rate average at around 9000 bits in most MMORPGs and AoRPGs (Action-Oriented RPGs) and most servers have a tickrate of 60.

If you play with 10 - 15 FPS, you aren't synchronized to real time and you literally will skip frames in playing a network game. Its a no-brainer that you should strive always to get at least 60 Frames Per Second in any network game that you play to not be slower locally than the server itself.

Mag-X
Sep 11, 2011, 12:12 AM
At the most this game is going to require a $40 video card and a CPU that is 800 MHz slower than a $50 Celeron Dual Core. My old mid-range budget gaming PC from three years ago is going to blow this game away. You're not going to have to be anywhere near rich to play PSO2 smoothly.

Serephim
Sep 11, 2011, 12:17 AM
oh not this shit again oh my goodddddddd

Nitro Vordex
Sep 11, 2011, 03:21 AM
Oh my good?

Keilyn
Sep 11, 2011, 05:58 AM
Yeah. They've actually almost caught up to DX11, and I don't mean that as a jab. However, even Carmack, a programming genius and diehard OpenGL guy, has admitted DirectX is the superior API these days. He still uses OpenGL since all of his stuff is OpenGL (tools and all), but to me that just makes it that much more impressive to hear him say DirectX is better.

However, he does note that OpenGL works fine. There's nothing WRONG with OpenGL, and it has its place. But to say that it is superior to DX? Not quite. I can't blame Sega in the slightest for using DX. I just hope that they have 2+ render paths to cover lower-spec machines as well as to take advantage of newer hardware.

Oh, also, it is possible to use DX11 efficiently to produce BETTER performance than an equivalent (same graphical level/quality) DX10 path, given the right hardware. Of course you can also use DX11 to drive the visuals up instead, which is generally preferred, methinks. Especially since you can crank visuals down and/or or switch to a lower render path if performance is a problem.

Open GL destroyed Direct X 11 last year in releasing OpenGL 4.1. A month ago Open GL 4.2 was released and gave programmers more of what they wanted. Right now its more efficient.

So that you know, any Quake Engine Game as well a Doom Engine Game along with all Derivatives of the Quake Engine (like the Source Engine and Infinity Ward Engine) are native Open GL. A mid-range card can play a lot of titles at max settings as the Open GL optimization is much higher as all can be controlled by the programmer to display exactly what he wants you to see.

Direct X is pretty much the fast way out. Don't get me wrong, I like it exists and it allows a programmer to get away with programming a game without knowing much about graphics programming, but the trade-off is severe. It forces the renderer to be shared between Direct X 11 itself and the data pushed into it...which slows it down considerably.

When a game is not optimized and done well in Direct X, we end up with games like PSU where at 1280 x 720 @ 60 FPS takes MORE HARDWARE RESOURCES TO RUN, than the heavily optimized Direct X9c Guild Wars (which really was fantastic at how it was done) at 1920x1080..... (and yes I've tested this)...

Serephim
Sep 11, 2011, 04:22 PM
Oh my good?

god = god

good = good

goooooooooooddd = stfu


mainly because you crazys are about to get into a massive geek battle discussing stuff nobody cares about. Who gives a shit about OpenGL or DX11, I bet $500 none of you are programming with it, and neither of you work for the companies, and NOBODY would tell the difference between the two unless they're using a mac, which is the only reason i could see anyone ever giving 2 shits about dx11 vs openGL.


Without optimization EVERY game will suck, so moot point on everything. It's going to be as good as Sonic Team makes it, so arguing what they use is absolutely positively pointless. This game has potatoes for graphics anyway, it's not even TRYING to use alot of graphical power to begin with, it does not matter. BE QUIET already.

ShinMaruku
Sep 11, 2011, 04:31 PM
Direct X 11 or gtfo. Let's be serious this is an online game, it won't be pushing much. Stop treating it like it's Crysis.

Mag-X
Sep 11, 2011, 04:32 PM
You know what I think about DirectX vs Open GL? I don't care as long as it works. Anyway, the game doesn't look very visually impressive, and it targeted at old slow hardware. Old hardware = DX9. Old hardware = Windows XP, which can only do DX9.

Nitro Vordex
Sep 11, 2011, 04:54 PM
:mad:
Alright then we'll just close the whole forum so that we don't discuss anything anymore and go play Black Ops. Does that sound alright?

Canard de Bain
Sep 11, 2011, 04:57 PM
Direct X 11 or gtfo. Let's be serious this is an online game, it won't be pushing much. Stop treating it like it's Crysis.

Ever seen Vanguard: Saga of Heroes at its release?

FWIW: I program for Mono and use OGL.

Keilyn
Sep 11, 2011, 07:17 PM
Crysis was a work of Art and Science. The game itself and Engine powering it (A heavily modified Quake 3 Engine built on Open GL called CryEngine 2) both had implementations that NEVER had been attempted in a video game before. To this day there has been no replication to what Crysis I had, not even in Crysis Warhead or Crysis II.

Direct X is pretty much nearing its end. The only platform which uses Direct X 11 right now is Windows 7 for Windows Games. Xbox360 uses a modified DirectX9c for its native API.

Now if PSO-2 does not use Direct X 11 or use the latest open gl, I will skip the game completely as there are plenty of Direct X 11 games in production that will be released. PSO-2 on PC = "welcome to the big leagues" either "put up or shut up" ^_^ and the population is unforgiving in their games....

They find fault with a game in the light of competition in the first three months and they are smart enough to leave it behind. ^_^

kyuuketsuki
Sep 12, 2011, 01:22 AM
Crysis was a work of Art and Science. The game itself and Engine powering it (A heavily modified Quake 3 Engine built on Open GL called CryEngine 2) both had implementations that NEVER had been attempted in a video game before. To this day there has been no replication to what Crysis I had, not even in Crysis Warhead or Crysis II.That's great and all, but the gameplay itself was still rather boring and uninspired, no matter how pretty it was. I'd rather replay the original Halo on my PC with it's dated graphics than play Crysis.
Direct X is pretty much nearing its end. The only platform which uses Direct X 11 right now is Windows 7 for Windows Games. Xbox360 uses a modified DirectX9c for its native API. What a weird statement. The only way that could be true is if the PC games industry died entirely and the next Xbox didn't use a version of DirectX. Both of which aren't likely. Not to mention, even a die-hard OpenGL pusher like John Carmack of id jumped ship to DirectX not too long ago.

Now if PSO-2 does not use Direct X 11 or use the latest open gl, I will skip the game completely as there are plenty of Direct X 11 games in production that will be released. PSO-2 on PC = "welcome to the big leagues" either "put up or shut up" ^_^ and the population is unforgiving in their games....If the sort of people who won't play a game because of something like it not using the latest DirectX or OpenGL implementation aren't members of PSO2's community, I'll count that as a blessing, personally.

That said, I'd wager money there will be some sort of DirectX11 functionality in PSO2, even if only to get the rendering enhancements that will allow DirectX11 hardware to render faster, ala WoW. Would be a godsend for those on lower-end but recent hardware (like the integrated AMD APUs, for example).

Serephim
Sep 12, 2011, 01:35 AM
Alright then we'll just close the whole forum so that we don't discuss anything anymore and go play *shittygamedeleted* . Does that sound alright?

No, you can close this stupid argument and go find an e-harmony dating board or something so you guys can find something more fulfilling to do with your time. Im tired of every topic here turning into some shitty argument between people who think they're so smart just because they can use a search engine inbetween posts.




Crysis was a work of Art and Science. The game itself and Engine powering it (A heavily modified Quake 3 Engine built on Open GL called CryEngine 2) both had implementations that NEVER had been attempted in a video game before. To this day there has been no replication to what Crysis I had, not even in Crysis Warhead or Crysis II. Wonderful, too bad the game wasn't memorable for me in the slightest except for the part where i could shoot trees in half. The graphical techniques were amazing, i wish i could have seen them in a better game environment though. Volumetric lighting, great physics, tesselation, parallax mapping, blah blah. Halo had amazing effects too when it launched, but its multiplayer was fun as shit.

[spoiler-box]
Seriously though, not knocking the game, but i had more fun shooting props and screwing with the engine than i did shooting people. Im only reminded of when The Force Unleashed was shown with the DMM physics, and instead of me using it to slice stormtroopers into confetti and melt holes in doors, it was....well, rarely used at all.

But then GTA4 turns around, and takes Euphoria (the AI and animation engine) and makes infinitely better use of it. See, all that amazing technology doesn't make it a good game. It just makes it pretty to look at. They also took some pretty simple technology and applied it to the vehicles on the game so they deform correctly when struck. It's more fun to crash cars in GTA4 than most games that are MADE for you to crash into shit with. It's all about how you USE your technology.

Now Metal Gear Rising, on the other hand? That's an example of using your hardware and a few graphical techniques to your advantage. THAT is going to be a fun game. Why limit your tree-slicing techniques to mere trees and leaves? Why dont you make it part of the game? I wanna slice PEOPLE in half and leave bloody stumps everywhere I go, like Ninja Gaiden 2 except cranked up to eleven. THAT is gonna be an experience. But wait, why stop there?! Lets slice up CARS, BUILDINGS, and WATERMELONS too.

That's how you make a fun game experience. You take what you're given, and turn it into something that enhances everything you do.


PSO2 is taking Physix and applying it to very simple things -- clothing articles, hair, and breasts. And honestly, it's going a pretty long way, because it helps immensely with making the characters feel more fluid. Hopefully we'll see it used in some enemies as well.[/spoiler-box]

kyuuketsuki
Sep 12, 2011, 01:41 AM
Anyway, the game doesn't look very visually impressive, and it targeted at old slow hardware.
I dunno, I think the game looks great. Art direction, style, and the ultimate "look" are more important to a game looking good than simply using the latest-and-greatest DirectX/OpenGL/whatever wizardry. I like pretty effects, I really do, and I look forward to games pushing the graphical envelope... but, a pretty game with boring art and gameplay (e.g. Crysis) is still ultimately the inferior product, in my book.

Plus, I don't want the community for this game limited by requiring powerful hardware (like Final Fantasy XIV). Stupid from a business point of view, and also stupid for any fan to want, since limiting the community that way makes it less likely the game will have longevity.

Finally, I don't think Farmville, Runescape, Minecraft, or even WoW have had issues retaining a following despite not having the latest in graphics fluff, so I don't find the argument that PSO2 needs to be pushing graphical boundaries to be competitive terribly valid. Diablo 3 certainly isn't pushing graphical envelopes and (whatever your personal feelings on it) I would laugh at any suggestion it's not going to sell like hotcakes... at least initially.

Serephim
Sep 12, 2011, 01:47 AM
PC enthusiasts can bicker all they want, but yes you are absolutely right, it is ASININE from a business standpoint to make your game unplayable. Especially if it's an MMO.


PSO2 looks wonderful, it just doesn't look very graphically demanding. Which is not a bad thing. Which is also why im wondering why it's such a point of discussion which library they use to do the game with.

kyuuketsuki
Sep 12, 2011, 01:50 AM
PSO2 looks wonderful, it just doesn't look very graphically demanding. Which is not a bad thing.Feels odd to say so, but, agree 100%.
Which is also why im wondering why it's such a point of discussion which library they use to do the game with.I dunno... some people just get stuck on the details/technical junk and forget how to simply enjoy a game, I guess. And this is coming from someone who likes to get into the technical junk and would be termed a "PC enthusiast".

Nitro Vordex
Sep 12, 2011, 02:40 AM
Finally, I don't think Farmville, Runescape, Minecraft, or even WoW have had issues retaining a following despite not having the latest in graphics fluff, so I don't find the argument that PSO2 needs to be pushing graphical boundaries to be competitive terribly valid. Diablo 3 certainly isn't pushing graphical envelopes and (whatever your personal feelings on it) I would laugh at any suggestion it's not going to sell like hotcakes... at least initially.
Maybe you should think about the majority of the audience of those first two games. (being mothers and twelve year olds, respectfully. :wacko: )

Excited for Diablo 3. People always rip on the Source engine, but it's held up very well, in my personal opinion. TF2 looks fantastic on high settings, even with it's goofy cartoony art style. Vindictus, which also runs on the Source engine, looks fantastic as well, being the other side of the art spectrum; gritty, more detailed looking characters. (Though, the textures in that game can be kind of ugly sometimes, but maybe that's just because I can't quite run the game on all full settings yet. 8D )

Graphics do not make a game GOTY. Ever. But they do make a big difference in atmosphere, immersion, and just how plain easy it is on the eyes. The gameplay/graphics balance is always going to be a big issue.

Mag-X
Sep 12, 2011, 07:46 AM
I dunno, I think the game looks great. Art direction, style, and the ultimate "look" are more important to a game looking good than simply using the latest-and-greatest DirectX/OpenGL/whatever wizardry. I like pretty effects, I really do, and I look forward to games pushing the graphical envelope... but, a pretty game with boring art and gameplay (e.g. Crysis) is still ultimately the inferior product, in my book.

Um.. I agree. The game still looks visually unimpressive. I didn't say it looks bad, just not impressive. It looks pretty good for an MMO, but compared to modern PC games targeted at even mid-range hardware, it's nothing special. It looks like they spent their polygon and texture budget mostly where it counts, characters and enemies. The environments looks to be about the same as PSU. Anyway, my point was that the game is targeted at older hardware, and older hardware is going to be DirecX 9 and most likely running on Windows XP.

What I was getting at is that I'm really not understanding the people in this thread who are insisting that the game have a DirectX 11 option. Why? For what? Simply porting the game to DirectX 10 or 11 won't automatically make the game look any better. It isn't some magic API that sprinkles magic polygon dust on a game and makes it look like Crysis. All it would do is make the game run slower.

Personally, I've got a monster gaming PC with two high end DirectX 11 video cards in it, and I'm fine with this game using DirectX 9. Like I said, I don't really care what API it uses, as long as it works.

Canard de Bain
Sep 12, 2011, 08:51 AM
Tesselation or bust. That is scalable to hardware. :D

kyuuketsuki
Sep 12, 2011, 10:17 AM
It isn't some magic API that sprinkles magic polygon dust on a game and makes it look like Crysis.Yep.
All it would do is make the game run slower.DX11 actually makes things run faster, at least on DX11 hardware (assuming the graphics settings are equal otherwise).

Canard de Bain
Sep 12, 2011, 11:02 AM
Yep. All it would do is make the game run slower.[/quote]DX11 actually makes things run faster, at least on DX11 hardware (assuming the graphics settings are equal otherwise).[/QUOTE]

heheh. no

Serephim
Sep 12, 2011, 12:51 PM
I would not say this game doesn't look impressive. This game is actually damn beautiful.

The difference is, it's beautiful in a minimalist sort of way. PSO always looked like that to me. Even PSOI&II was out of its element on GCN, but Episide 2 made such good use of art detail that the areas and even JUNGLE areas (which are usually very hard to render) looked beautiful.

PSO2 looks great in a different kind of way. Like, an artist that makes a beautiful picture out of a crayola 64 pack. It uses PhysiX correctly, it has very pretty special effects, and the environments are very well planned out.

kyuuketsuki
Sep 12, 2011, 03:50 PM
heheh. no
Not sure what part of my post you're referring to (since my bad quote tags jacked things up), but if you're talking about the DX11 making certain parts of the rendering pipeline quicker, then... heheh, yes.

Mag-X
Sep 12, 2011, 04:19 PM
My experience has been that DirectX 11 makes games run noticeable slower, the same way DirectX 10 did. What games run better under DirectX 11?

Serephim
Sep 12, 2011, 04:33 PM
DX11 makes games run faster. I think the whole point is that it's better optimized.

Well, it's supposed to anyway. My PC has integrated graphics, but it still supports DX11 because i've got Windows 7, and i've never had anything get slower, persay.

Maybe it's because of your processor?

Mag-X
Sep 12, 2011, 04:41 PM
DX11 makes games run faster. I think the whole point is that it's better optimized.

Well, it's supposed to anyway. My PC has integrated graphics, but it still supports DX11 because i've got Windows 7, and i've never had anything get slower, persay.

Maybe it's because of your processor?

I have an i5 750 overclocked to 3.8GHz, 12GB of RAM and dual GeForce GTX 470s. If anything runs poorly on my PC, it ain't my problem.

Zyrusticae
Sep 12, 2011, 04:49 PM
DX11 does not make games run faster.

DX10 did not make games run faster (actually, every single example I've seen has been a decrease in rendering efficiency (re: FPS) per clock).

DX9 most certainly did not make games run faster. In fact, at launch, the cards that supported it could barely do so with playable frame rates.

The whole point of newer revisions of DX has been the feature set. Every single time. DX9 added support for SM 2.0 and HLSL (high-level shader language), and eventually SM 3.0, which set the starting point for the next-gen consoles (which still only support DX9, since, obviously, they can't be updated). DX10 introduced SM 4.0, which drastically increased how far the developers could push the shader tech, with much larger instruction sets.

DX11's big bits are the tessellation, the compute shaders, and the multicore rendering support. The latter would seem to be a big win, but it's actually not much of a change at all - developers have been doing it in-engine for years. Tessellation is pure visual quality enhancement. Likewise with the compute shaders. They only thing those will do is slow your frame rate further if you don't have the power to back it up.

You are far more likely to see increased frame rates with driver updates than anything else. There MAY have been some optimizations added with later DX revisions, but they are not exclusive to higher versions. Also, and this is really stating the obvious, but it still has to be said: if you saw a hardware upgrade, it was probably the hardware upgrade. That simple.

Mag-X
Sep 12, 2011, 05:23 PM
The whole point of newer revisions of DX has been the feature set.
Which brings me back to my point that none of these newer features is likely to be used in a game targeted at six to seven year old hardware. There is no point in porting the game to DirectX 11 just for the 5% of PC users with fully DirectX 11 capable systems, the majority of which probably won't know or care that PSO2 exists in the first place.

Zyrusticae
Sep 12, 2011, 05:42 PM
Indeed.

It is a very common misconception that higher = better with regards to DX, but it's just an API. No matter what they do to the API, it will have absolutely minimal impact compared to just plain ol' upgrading your hardware.

Now, that's not to say I wouldn't appreciate some high-end graphic features - but you can do a LOT with DX9 as it is. Hell, modded Oblivion lets you do some really fancy things with the shaders (bleach bypass, color grading, depth of field, reflections [for the water], horizon-based ambient occlusion or screen-space ambient occlusion and indirect lighting, and more besides), and it's purely a DX9 game. So even if you just want to see more eye candy, it's not necessary to gun for the higher feature sets.

And besides, refusing to play a game because it's not using DX11 features? So, what, you refuse to play 99% of the current market because they don't use tessellation and compute shaders?

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6097/thisisincrediblysilly88.png

Serephim
Sep 12, 2011, 06:32 PM
Good now everyone shut the hell up and join us with the boob talk. It seems to not draw as many stupid ass arguments.

kyuuketsuki
Sep 12, 2011, 06:36 PM
DX11 does not make games run faster.
*sigh*

World of Warcraft DX11 vs. DX9 (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-directx-11-performance,2793-7.html)

Battleforge DX11 vs DX9 (http://www.gamereplays.org/hardware/portals.php?show=news&news_id=547617)

Yes, there are optimizations to portions of the API that do, in fact, allow DX11-capable hardware to render certain things faster than with DX9 or 10. Of course, this doesn't mean you'll see a net gain if you enable fancy things like tessellation, but, with the same graphics settings (and assuming the game is coded to take advantage of the optimizations like they did with WoW and Battleforge), DX11 is faster (or more efficient, if you prefer) than DX9.

Good now everyone shut the hell up and join us with the boob talk. It seems to not draw as many stupid ass arguments.
I would, but people are simply wrong on this particular issue.

Zyrusticae
Sep 12, 2011, 06:50 PM
Well, that IS interesting. I have not seen these numbers before. It looks like DX11 actually bucks the trend of DX just piling more and more overhead on top of everything.

It is still completely useless for PSO2, however, as the game itself is the exact opposite of demanding. And, indeed, it seems they're targeting a large contingent of users with older PCs, who don't even have DX11-capable cards. (To date, according to the Steam Survey (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey), slightly more than 5% of all users have a DX11-capable card).

And besides that, saying you won't play PSO2 unless it uses DX11 features remains Incredibly Silly. I have to keep repeating that because, my goodness, is it absurd!

kyuuketsuki
Sep 12, 2011, 07:04 PM
It is still completely useless for PSO2, however, as the game itself is the exact opposite of demanding.Well, World or Warcraft isn't exactly demanding either. It's great for those with recent but low-end hardware like AMD's integrated APUs (as I said before), especially since things might get a bit demanding when you're fighting lots of monsters in a multi-party area. But yeah, it's not going to make a whole heck of a lot of difference for anyone with a fairly powerful DX11 card.

And besides that, saying you won't play PSO2 unless it uses DX11 features remains Incredibly Silly. I have to keep repeating that because, my goodness, is it absurd!
Don't disagree with you there.

Linka
Sep 12, 2011, 07:23 PM
so, random question on the topic of comps and if they can handle PSO2. i dun know jack about the fine details of computers, so...when i run mabinogi, it says something about my pc means it might be unstable...but in the few years ive had it, only one area gave me grief, and it was ah...i cant recall the place, but its from that new story arc about shakespear, and his Hamlet play...the area you go to do the Hamlet re-enactment missions. consistant lag for that.

will i have an issue with PSO2 at this level? or...ah...am i just basically SOL?

Mag-X
Sep 12, 2011, 08:34 PM
Interesting. Well, it's good to know DirectX 11 is actually worth something beyond eye candy. My experience with it has been about the same as with DirectX 10. It seems like developers just tack it on last minute while finishing up an already poor console port.


so, random question on the topic of comps and if they can handle PSO2. i dun know jack about the fine details of computers, so...when i run mabinogi, it says something about my pc means it might be unstable...but in the few years ive had it, only one area gave me grief, and it was ah...i cant recall the place, but its from that new story arc about shakespear, and his Hamlet play...the area you go to do the Hamlet re-enactment missions. consistant lag for that.

will i have an issue with PSO2 at this level? or...ah...am i just basically SOL?

Go here: http://www.pso-world.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187525
Read and post your PC's specs.

Linka
Sep 12, 2011, 08:54 PM
Mag-X, thats the issue. i dont know them. which is why i used Mabinogi as a reference point of comparison. like i said, i know nada about computer specs and stuff. i couldnt tell you the specs of my computer even if ye told me where to look for the info. if something works well enough, i dont bother messing with the finer details. considering my track record, doing so would end in disaster.

Alexvrb
Sep 12, 2011, 09:45 PM
*sigh*

World of Warcraft DX11 vs. DX9 (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-directx-11-performance,2793-7.html)

Battleforge DX11 vs DX9 (http://www.gamereplays.org/hardware/portals.php?show=news&news_id=547617)

Yes, there are optimizations to portions of the API that do, in fact, allow DX11-capable hardware to render certain things faster than with DX9 or 10. Of course, this doesn't mean you'll see a net gain if you enable fancy things like tessellation, but, with the same graphics settings (and assuming the game is coded to take advantage of the optimizations like they did with WoW and Battleforge), DX11 is faster (or more efficient, if you prefer) than DX9.

I would, but people are simply wrong on this particular issue.Thank you sir, you saved me quite a bit of effort. If they use DX11 for speed, this is the result. If they use it for increased eyecandy, performance advantages over older APIs start to fade, to the point where it can even be slower because of all the extra stuff turned on - but if it looks much better, it's not as simple as "DX11 is slower".

Also, DX11 is much better at multithreading. There's some good articles on the net but I don't feel like digging them up.

Ezodagrom
Sep 12, 2011, 10:12 PM
Mag-X, thats the issue. i dont know them. which is why i used Mabinogi as a reference point of comparison. like i said, i know nada about computer specs and stuff. i couldnt tell you the specs of my computer even if ye told me where to look for the info. if something works well enough, i dont bother messing with the finer details. considering my track record, doing so would end in disaster.
Install this application:
http://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/1.58-setup-en.exe

In the "CPU" tab, check the name in the top, and in the "Graphics" tab, check the name in the GPU section.
Those are the 2 most important components when it comes to games, here's a picture showing which names you need to check in the application:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/172/cpugraphics.jpg

velocity7
Sep 13, 2011, 12:21 PM
If there's anything I'd like DX11 support for in terms of PSO2, it's the multithreading. Would translate well to SLI and Crossfire setups, I'd think.

amtalx
Sep 13, 2011, 12:38 PM
SLI/Xfire seems like overkill for PSO2. That's like buying an i7 to play Doom.

Canard de Bain
Sep 13, 2011, 12:42 PM
SLI/Xfire seems like overkill for PSO2. That's like buying an i7 to play Doom.

errr , what if you play on a 6 monitor setup?

Mag-X
Sep 13, 2011, 02:21 PM
errr , what if you play on a 6 monitor setup?

They will probably hard code the resolutions you can pick again, so a six monitor set-up will be useless.

Zaix
Sep 13, 2011, 03:01 PM
If they ARE hard coded this time, at least there is a rather large selection actually. Judging from the alpha client, I'm thinking they are NOT hard coded this time, just from the sheer amount of choices.

(The selections I can choose from are: 640x480, 800x600, 1024x576, 1024x600, 1024x768, 1280x720, 1280x800, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1366x768, 1440x900, 1400x1050, 1600x900, 1600x1200, 1680x1050, 1920x1080, and 1920x1200)

Mag-X
Sep 13, 2011, 03:16 PM
I really hope they didn't since I use a weird resolution for overscan correction on my TV.