I feel like throwing up

This is a discussion on I feel like throwing up within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by Elysia Don't put me in the same category as graphics lovers. I'm quite different. Could you please ...

  1. #31
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Don't put me in the same category as graphics lovers. I'm quite different.
    Could you please then explain these quotes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    What? Wow + max graphics = awesome? That is an odd thing to say.
    But I suppose not everyone cares about graphics quality the same. I'd say it''s okay.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Nothing wrong with that. I was simply referring to that the graphics is out of date compared to modern standards. So anyone interested in graphics would find the best option in wow to be dull.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #32
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,548
    I interpreted "wow + max graphics = awesome" as wow's maximal graphical settings to be pure bliss, ie super awesome graphics. OK, not to that degree, but you get the idea.
    But there are many games out there with better graphics. Wow's graphics is quite outdated compared to that.
    So basically what I reacted on was that someone would call wow's graphics "good" compared to modern standards. And by this I mean by a comparison of detail and polygons, not "visual" quality (or how one perceives quality).

    Is wow's graphics good (visual quality)? Yes.
    Is it good in terms of polygons and details? No.
    I hope I got the point across.

    Bubba: You seems quite normal to me. Not one of those insane people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  3. #33
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,667
    I interpreted "wow + max graphics = awesome" as wow's maximal graphical settings to be pure bliss, ie super awesome graphics.
    Maybe it's awesome -- "bliss" -- because he can play without getting ........ing sick! Thanks for derailing the thread for nothing.

  4. #34
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,548
    Thanks for replying and caring.
    I made a comment. Other people replied. Am I solely guilty for derailing the thread? I think not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  5. #35
    In my head happyclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    391
    I do agree, Wow graphics is cartoony.

    What I mean by awesome is that with max settings, the colours are vibrant, you can see blades of grass, cracks in the cobblestone, the depth perception is realistic. I am not a gamer, so maybe these things aren't a big deal for real gamers, but they are for someone new like me.

    I find wow to be quite an immersive 3D world. I think it's a good precursor to photorealistic virtual reality.

    EDIT: And it's cartoony because it can be played by video cards which can support directx 9.0c. My video card is about 6 years old. If wow required directx 11, then not many people would be able to play it.

    I wonder if wow will eventually shift to a higher level of directx for better graphics.

    EDIT #2: Oh yeah, I am playing at 12 fps, yet it seems to play perfectly fine(although I haven't been in a situation with many characters on screen at the same time). I am currently on dial-up, but I don't think that's the reason for low fps, most probably weak graphics card.
    Last edited by happyclown; 08-08-2010 at 05:52 PM.
    OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.

  6. #36
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by happyclown View Post
    Oh yeah, I am playing at 12 fps
    Jolly! Make sure to mention that to your partners when they ask you to come along to help kill a mob.

    I am currently on dial-up
    And that too.

    And it's cartoony because it can be played by video cards which can support directx 9.0c.
    Not really. It's cartoony because that's the artistic style the authors wanted to give the game. You are right however that it is somewhat low-spec almost certainly because it was important to make this type of game (a mass rpg) accessible to as many people as possible.

    These distinctions are important not only for reasons of semantics. It's important, I feel, to evaluate the graphical output of a game in its own context. Games like Crisis or FarCry clearly position themselves as graphical intensive. That's their domain (I must say far more than actual gameplay which is a shame). Games like WoW need to think of real tradeoffs between graphics and the importance of being reachable to a much wider market.

    On the other hand, there are other aspects that interfere with the decision to produce top quality graphics. User perception of the game is one of them. Poor graphics never stopped Runescape from having become the larges MMORPG in history. Neither it stopped The Sims from having been the best selling game of all times. The case of Sims is particulary interesting because it clearly denotes that, at least for some game genres, what really matters is the graphical style, not so much the quality. Give the game an artistic feeling, give it an atmosphere, and you can often forget about squeezing every cycle of your GPU.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 08-08-2010 at 07:08 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #37
    Internet Superhero
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by happyclown View Post
    EDIT #2: Oh yeah, I am playing at 12 fps, yet it seems to play perfectly fine(although I haven't been in a situation with many characters on screen at the same time). I am currently on dial-up, but I don't think that's the reason for low fps, most probably weak graphics card.
    No your dial-up affects your latency, not your fps.

    12 FPS however is _abysmal_, no wonder you're feeling bad after playing, 12 FPS is like a slideshow. Also i imagine you are in the beginner areas, where there is little to no detail and almost no mobs. WoW is one of games where the FPS changes most according to where your character is. If/when you reach higher levels of the game it will become unplayable, the main cities in Outland and Northrend normally has 20-30 FPS lower than the starting areas. And most instances from lvl 60 and onwards are just as bad. Due to the ancient and peculiar engine it is one of the only games (save Crysis) that could bring my old SLI rig to it's knees given the right circumstances.

    Oh and what is up with the dial-up? I though the game required some kind of broadband, i know it needs at least 256 KB/s down pr. client.
    How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.

  8. #38
    In my head happyclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    391
    The game is telling me it's 12fps, maybe it's wrong? I am not a gamer, so wouldn't know what to expect, but I can say that the graphics are smooth and fluid. No lag, no slidshow. I've been surrounded by up to 10 or more characters(including AI), and they all move smoothly. Even when I turn rapidly, characters, buildings, trees, depth etc changes smoothly.

    I am actually on broadband, but I blew my quota after downloading 10gb of wow updates, so my speed has been throttled back to 64kbps.

    Since it is my computer that does the rendering etc, I think this speed would not be a problem for these types of online games. All the game needs to know about my character is it's x,y and z coordinates, as well as variables about levels and abilities. That's only a handful of variables that my computer needs to know to be able to place my character(and other characters) in the game environment. And these variables can easily be handled by dial-up speeds. I don't know.

    EDIT: But I suppose with many characters at once, my comp would need to be d/l and uploading large volume of variables continously, so I might be in trouble in that situation with dial-up speeds.
    Last edited by happyclown; 08-08-2010 at 07:55 PM.
    OS: Linux Mint 13(Maya) LTS 64 bit.

  9. #39
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by happyclown View Post
    The game is telling me it's 12fps, maybe it's wrong? I am not a gamer, so wouldn't know what to expect, but I can say that the graphics are smooth and fluid. No lag, no slidshow. I've been surrounded by up to 10 or more characters(including AI), and they all move smoothly. Even when I turn rapidly, characters, buildings, trees, depth etc changes smoothly.
    Ah, ok. So that's maybe just a bug in the thingy you using to display the frames per second. What you describe is something >=30 fps.

    That's only a handful of variables that my computer needs to know to be able to place my character(and other characters) in the game environment. And these variables can easily be handled by dial-up speeds. I don't know.
    Online games do everything in order to be conservative on the amount of data that needs to circulate between your computer and the server. But the amount of data that needs to be passed is far superior than what you describe. For instance, it also needs to send you data on every non static element of the game so they can be properly rendered in your screen, or processed on your side. Take the people you see walking or fighting for instance. That data had to travel your way. On crowded spaces you may experience latency. I don't know WoW, but its a fair bet to assume that combat is also bandwidth consuming. Especially if you are fighting with other people alongside you.

    64Kb/s will probably not hold you once you get into crowded areas or start fighting complex mobs or in group. In addition chatting is particularly bandwidth intensive. Even with the safe bet the text travels to and from your computer compressed, many people talking and showing up in your screen will consume a large portion of your allotted 64Kb/s. There's really few things that can be more bandwidth intensive than the chat window in your game.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  10. #40
    the hat of redundancy hat nvoigt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    3,139
    If you get sick from WoW's graphics in the starter areas today, my advice would be to quit. Sounds harsh, but find something you can enjoy. Because ~3 months from now when Cataclysm hits the shelves, graphics will become much better. That means more motion, more mirroring effects, cool water shaders. That looks stunning. But if you get motion sick, don't play the game now only to give it up a few months down the line. Find a good game for you now.

    (Please note that due to lag and more players, people may not be able to turn on all those graphic gimmicks when Cata goes live. But in Beta, with 20 people in a zone max, the new areas look really cool.)
    hth
    -nv

    She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."

    When in doubt, read the FAQ.
    Then ask a smart question.

  11. #41
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Neither it stopped The Sims from having been the best selling game of all times.
    Case in point. The Sims 2 had what I would consider one of the worst 3D graphic engines on the market. A mere roof on the house could bring the whole thing to its knees even on the high end computers of the day. Going to town was atrocious as was just about every other expansion pack that had to do with downtown. Load times were horribly long only to be able to spend mere minutes there until all of your Sim's bars were in the red and you had to send them home. Performance of the game downtown was next to abysmal. Any time the game had more than a couple of Sims on it the thing would slow to a crawl. I had to turn off the picture in picture effect b/c it lagged the game so bad when it came up. I also avoided throwing parties at my house b/c the more Sims you had in the house the worse the game performed. But none of this kept it from being a top selling game.

    As you can also see from this thread some people love the art style of Wow. I detest it. But that shows once again that video games are more like art than science. There is no formula for a great game or scientific method to produce a great game. And that, to me, is what makes the video game world both interesting and challenging.

  12. #42
    Internet Superhero
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by happyclown View Post
    The game is telling me it's 12fps, maybe it's wrong? I am not a gamer, so wouldn't know what to expect, but I can say that the graphics are smooth and fluid. No lag, no slidshow. I've been surrounded by up to 10 or more characters(including AI), and they all move smoothly. Even when I turn rapidly, characters, buildings, trees, depth etc changes smoothly.

    I am actually on broadband, but I blew my quota after downloading 10gb of wow updates, so my speed has been throttled back to 64kbps.

    Since it is my computer that does the rendering etc, I think this speed would not be a problem for these types of online games. All the game needs to know about my character is it's x,y and z coordinates, as well as variables about levels and abilities. That's only a handful of variables that my computer needs to know to be able to place my character(and other characters) in the game environment. And these variables can easily be handled by dial-up speeds. I don't know.

    EDIT: But I suppose with many characters at once, my comp would need to be d/l and uploading large volume of variables continously, so I might be in trouble in that situation with dial-up speeds.
    As Mario points out what you're describing certainly doesn't sound like 12 FPS, you're not by any chance using an UI mod to display the FPS? Is it constantly at 12 FPS?
    The right way to get your FPS on the screen is by pressing ctrl+r (God why can i still remember this stuff!)

    Regarding the bandwidth usage, you have to remember that it's not just x + y + z coordinates that has to be transmitted, every character has custom facial-features and different gear, which needs to be sent to the clients so they can be displayed correctly, then there's the chat and ofcourse all the player and NPC actions. It all adds up.

    Vanilla WoW was out in 2003 (i believe?), then many years later came Outland which had alot of new features and all new graphics, then came Northrend 2 years later which again has alot of new stuff in the graphics department. When you're in the starting areas you're effectively playing a game from 2003, move to Outland and it's a game from 2007, go to Northrend and you move into a fairly recent 2009 game, and now Cataclysm is coming with even more graphic improvements.

    If you have bad FPS in the original WoW areas and your latency is high, it will be hell when you reach higher levels, and it will only get worse.

    Get broadband, get a dedicated graphics card :-)
    How I need a drink, alcoholic in nature, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. CRecordset::Open() is throwing an exception
    By cpjust in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2008, 11:15 AM
  2. throwing memory around from exe to exe
    By jverkoey in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-26-2004, 09:00 AM
  3. throwing structures
    By subdene in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-08-2004, 04:26 PM
  4. Feel Guilty..
    By vasanth in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-22-2003, 02:00 PM
  5. feel free to laugh at my code!
    By JimJamJovi in forum C Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-11-2002, 03:40 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21