Delta Force Barracks Forums

Is New Technology Making War Games Better Or Worse?

mew - 7-10-2007 at 07:28 AM

Well the subject pretty much says it, Is New Technology Making War Games Better Or Worse? I would go with worse ways, because old technology is less exspensive but worse graphics, and more people could play because they don't require DSL or anything like that, But then there's the other side that newer technology is better, because there's less flaws better graphics, but then other people can't play it because it requires DSL or some other connection, so if we stick with newer technology I think we will lose most gamers. But hey thats my oppinion, please vote and tell me what you think. :)

IcIshoot - 7-10-2007 at 12:41 PM

better

but then I am on DSL and have a decent computer - And the ability to save up and upgrade if needed to play the newer games.

SAS private LoL - 7-10-2007 at 03:08 PM

Both.

In the past, there used to be good games, which didnt require a hefty connection to play or system reqiurements and graphics were good.
Example is Half Life.

Of course, today we look at them and think "geez, those graphics suck" but at the time, it was the latest and the best in gaming.

Nowadays, its more and more about cool looks, realistic graphics, sounds etc, but nothing about gameplay, net codes...
If anyone plays(ed) BF2, its the best example.
Also, its more and more about the money and sells than the game.
DiCE, who developed BF2, moved onto BF2142, which is the same game engine as BF2 with some tweaks. One could say, they just made their own mod for the game and its dieing out already after 8 months, while BF2 is still a popular game...

Thats my 2 cents...

front-liner - 7-10-2007 at 06:30 PM

Graphics are really just magnets for the weak-minded. I dont care how the graphics are for games - just so long as they arent big chunky pixels that take up the whole monitor. I really go for gameplay.

As for the new technology? I wouldnt really have a clue. I dont know what new technology you mean. Graphics? Physics? Something else?

dooodles - 7-11-2007 at 12:35 AM

iam going to have to say both i like the new graphics and stuff they really make the game a lot better but i fell that the game play IS slowly dropping. the new games are fun but the older games were a lot funnier to play just look and medal of honor

Assassin Xaero - 7-11-2007 at 03:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by front-liner
As for the new technology? I wouldnt really have a clue. I dont know what new technology you mean. Graphics? Physics? Something else?


I'm with you on that... I love FEAR, Quake 4, Doom 3, etc. because of the awesome weapons you get (BFG, lightning guns, partical weapons, etc.)... I guess that would be technology? I think in some games driveable vehicles ruin the multiplayer (especially JO). The maps are way too big, most people always call "dibs" on them or camp to take them, and you get all these weapons like rocket launchers and grenades, and some people only use those. I liked Call of Duty 2 because it is all rifles and hand grenades, no 'noob tubes'. If you are talking about technology used in making the games. I think if anyone says it has made them better, they should be beat with a stick. You cannot beat the old arcade games. Galaga, Asteroids, etc.

madskilla - 7-11-2007 at 05:33 AM

both.. i love the graphic advances but i hate the weak coding for ip play.. old games played on new technology render unbeatable performance in response and reaction... however new games on the newest technology still lag in response and reaction ... old code is solid and reliable.. new code is over loaded and uses prediction too much...

Distant Storm - 7-12-2007 at 01:30 AM

There is a fine line between war games i feel, Games like JOE i feel are abit too trying to be real but not acheiving it for my taste.

Games like LW ! Do not try to be so realistic in their aproach and make good game playing, until they can make a game that can simulate war to VR extent I don't feel they will be good enough

Front Liner

mew - 8-4-2007 at 12:29 PM

I never really thought about that Front-Liner lol :D but I guess I mean like Graphics, The way its played, but mostly Graphics and things like that.

Q-dad~TAG - 8-5-2007 at 01:03 PM

Worse, no second thought about it... Too many parameters to care about, and i'm not even really old...

Lt.Hamster NS - 8-5-2007 at 11:48 PM

id say both, like SAS said half life had good graphics back then, but now they look bad. like GTA 1

~CHAOS~ - 8-6-2007 at 06:35 AM

There is nothing we can do to stop the technology of the new games that are presented to the public now.

If they require you to upgrade your pc system I personally think its not fair for those who cannot afford it. On the other hand, this is the new age of gaming and companies like EA and Activision are "upping the style of gameplay".

I remember when I bought BF2 and to play it I had to purchase a new graphics card. I had the drive and desire to play it so I went to any length to do so. Call of Duty 2 was a great surprise to me because it didnt require upgrading your computer. It fit my "prefered" choice of gameplay which is non-vehicle gameplay.

In conclusion, when I was a kid I thought that atari pac man was god, then it was DragonSlayer, etc. So my answer is "BETTER" because we all are a part of Evolution and there is nothing we can do but to Evolve with the times. The entire reason that I play online pc games are for the Enjoyment of the Adventure.

Regards,
~?H??~

Assassin Xaero - 8-6-2007 at 06:39 AM

That is why I like some console games. If you wait a year or so it will be a lot cheaper, and if you already have the console, you don't have to worry about updating it to play the game. I still think first person shooters are better on computer. Pretty much all of the ones I've played on console have some type of auto aim. Soon, everyone will probably have to upgrade to Vista to play new computer games...

Carrion Wall - 8-6-2007 at 08:23 PM

god I hope not... vista is a great security platform... but unless you have at least over 2 gig's you'd better not be trying to play any first person shooters...

I tried installing and playing BHD on my new comp which came with vista and 1 gig of memory... and it lagged worse than my old comp, the one i use mostly still, and its got windows XP and only 640mb memory... which i'm gonna be upgrading soon so i have atleast 1.5 gigs :D

bs2 - 8-13-2007 at 06:21 PM

I think it's making games better, we're just used to those old classics. ;) Which is probably why anything new or original that comes out is loved. Sequels are much more harshly judged.

Both

mew - 10-22-2007 at 01:59 AM

I make acceptions for certain games like when DF:BHD came out I ran out and bought a new video card for it, but when it comes to Joint Ops, where you have to buy a video card for it AND upgrade your internet connection to DSL or higher which is about 30-40 bucks a month good luck at trying to get me to play that game unless your gonna literally hand me over your computer that can support it and you pay the fee's lol. And as for Vista, I'm stickin with Windows Xp till the stupid Vista phase goes by.

Assassin Xaero - 10-22-2007 at 02:46 AM

The only game that I've heard of that requires Vista is Halo 2. Which I'm pretty sure they did that to get people to buy Vista, because they know people would just to get an overrated games that is pretty much just Call of Duty in space.

Undecided

opusrex - 10-22-2007 at 03:10 AM

The question to me is incompleate, just as the real world applications are incompleate.

By this I will take an example. voice coms in game. Why the h311 are Recent FPS games tht basically require expensive graphics card and that are really designed for broadband still using type in in while I'm getting shot at chat?

I have a 6 button mouse that I can get at the local crapUSA for under $20 USD, and its a now brainer that I could map on for a PTT so I could actualy talk to my squaddies with out haveing to have to fire up a seperate program like TS or Vent.

It takes no super programing skills to create an on the fly real time voice com systemthat will add and subtract playes as the enter and exit vehicles, for fireteams and join squads. You can basically do this in Xbox live now and the code is built into DirectX9.0c, so why isn't it used as a real impovement in FPS's?

We don't need better graphics, thats just eye candy to the 12yos.

I like the improvments in net tech, but I believe its being undeutilized.

(BTW, not to be to harsh, but If you can't upgrade your system every few years, you should basically stick with consoles because that is the way the market is designed.)

The last really revolutionary FPS released IMHO was JO, all the stuff since has been basically about eye candy.

Xx_jet_xX - 10-22-2007 at 07:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Assassin Xaero
The only game that I've heard of that requires Vista is Halo 2. Which I'm pretty sure they did that to get people to buy Vista, because they know people would just to get an overrated games that is pretty much just Call of Duty in space.


Its not the first time MS made the Halo series proprietary for something else. Originaly Halo was being designed for PC. but MS was working on the Xbox and they bought Bungee and changed Halo to an Xbox release. anyone who was watching for when Bungee was going to finish it in 6 mos had to wait 2 years to get a PC copy once MS got ahold of it. Now they are releaseing H3 for vista only for more marketing.

Im running a Nvidia GF6200 and COD4 runs fine on my comp. What card are you running that you need to upgrade to a newer one that wont play newer games?

look at the minimum specs, nothing impressive there.

Newer games have great graphics that does help with the gameplay such as the dynamic lighting that casts shadows. that can be used to know if someones around a corner.

Driveable vehicles can be both good or bad its up to the mapmaker to make a good map with the vehicles.

As far as adding VOIP to games, why should a developer waste their time and money doing that when most groups playing will stick to ventrillo or teamspeak that they already have? and dont bother comparing PC to console here becasue you cant run TS or VT on a 360 so the devoloper has to add voice to the game as a feature to sell it.

Gameplay has not decreased much realy, theres not much to cause a decrease unless you meant the removing of jumping with a knife and being impossible to hit even though the bullets are dead on like in DF2. the main reason i left DF2.

2 much cheating in TS and Vent.

opusrex - 10-23-2007 at 02:25 AM

Lots of people will be on the same channel and then be on both sides on nova servers as a means of cooping.

Besides its not just VOIP. DirectX will allow for spatial brodcast and reception. that is, you can speak ingame and be heard and hear as you would in the real world. I don't know if any xbox games are doing that, but the code is there. Been working with the SDK for several months now.

inisfree - 10-25-2007 at 10:39 PM

We live in a world where updates and tech stuff are always improving..but us old guys are not. I like the stage I am at with bhd. There are few key strokes required and you can go online and have some fun. I tried a few on the newer games and you have to use just about every key on the board to play. That just takes the fun out of it for me. Most of the new games will come and go because you can't interact with them by building maps and mods . I might be an old moldy type of guy but I still can perform with the youngsters in bhd. Everything can be upgraded but the brain...I tried but the ram hurt to much going up the nose...cheers :P