[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;46800413]With KF2 and Metal Gear Solid V on the way, 2015 is already looking to be a alright year.[/QUOTE]
And maybe Serious Sam 4 will be announced. At least what I hope.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;46797875]lol what
[B]a pentium could calculate practically anything a game needs[/B]. GPUs are generally the gaming bottleneck, and as they improve(with each new generation), we can improve the graphics. Gameplay can always be calculated with no problem.
That nemesis system probably doesn't take up more than a few KB in RAM, either.
Also, some art styles require highly capable GPUs. It still falls under graphics and needs hardware to work hard, in certain circumstances.[/QUOTE]
As a comp. sci student I can 100% tell you that you have[I] no idea[/I] what you're talking about.
The CPU is the bottleneck of the entire computer. Nothing happens without the CPU somehow being involved in it. It's the literal heartbeat of a machine, (nearly) everything happens in accordance to it's instructions.
(small note: this is grossly simplified because CPUs are actually really complicated and boring to talk about. just know that they're the most important part of a computer)
[QUOTE=riki2cool;46797584]For example?[/QUOTE]
Dark Souls 2, Divinity: Original Sin, Wargame: Red Dragon, Wasteland 2, Door Kickers and the patches that fixed Total War: Rome 2
to name a few
sure if you ONLY play non-niche AAA swill it was a bad year
Shadow of Mordor, Alien Isolation, Wolfenstein
All amazing games.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46801109]Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Xenoblade Chronicles, etc[/QUOTE]
Really, the only new IP out of all of those is The Wonderful 101. Besides, I didn't mean they didn't have any new IPs, I just said they hardly released any. I should probably clarify that.
[QUOTE=Virtanen;46803097]Dark Souls 2, Divinity: Original Sin, Wargame: Red Dragon, Wasteland 2, Door Kickers and the patches that fixed Total War: Rome 2
to name a few
sure if you ONLY play non-niche AAA swill it was a bad year[/QUOTE]
Divinity: Original Sin, Wasteland 2 and Door Kickers are hardly AAA. They are just really high quality indie games that have a large following.
AAA?
more like F-F-F-
[QUOTE=cdr248;46803794]Divinity: Original Sin, Wasteland 2 and Door Kickers are hardly AAA. They are just really high quality indie games that have a large following.[/QUOTE]
That's a large part of the point I'm trying to make.
I think Advanced Warfare is kinda misrepresented on this list. I've had it and I've spent a good amount of time in it, and I honestly do think it's surprisingly refreshing; the single player, yes, has a lot of use-once-then-never-again gimmicks but that's because it's a Call of Duty single player campaign, and they're almost all like that now because the multiplayer's really the selling point of the game now.
Speaking of, I have no issues with the MP that stem from what they've changed (i.e. double jump and Exo movement / abilities); I think it's nice and there's a lot that is used - in any map, there's plenty of places only accessible with this jumping, etc.
[QUOTE=Saza;46803924]I think Advanced Warfare is kinda misrepresented on this list. I've had it and I've spent a good amount of time in it, and I honestly do think it's surprisingly refreshing; the single player, yes, has a lot of use-once-then-never-again gimmicks but that's because it's a Call of Duty single player campaign, and they're almost all like that now because the multiplayer's really the selling point of the game now.
Speaking of, I have no issues with the MP that stem from what they've changed (i.e. double jump and Exo movement / abilities); I think it's nice and there's a lot that is used - in any map, there's plenty of places only accessible with this jumping, etc.[/QUOTE]
It's on the list because like Assassins Creed it doesn't innovate nearly enough with each iteration. Yeah sure there's new maps/locations and new art, but they're retaining the exact same mechanics over and over again. They throw in a few new ones, too afraid to radically change what's already established because they don't want to alienate the original player base -- the story isn't strong enough to really justify that. I don't think most people play Assassin's Creed for the main story (Desmond) or Call of Duty for its story either, I think most are just in it for the action.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46806702]desmonds been dead for 4 games now
hell in unity you almost exclusively are in the time period, you get a videocall from the real world people once and every now and then they talk over what you're doing every few sequences[/QUOTE]
It was like a single video call as well, the rest were all voices every couple of sequences, plus at the start of the Co-Op missions and in the end of the game.
[QUOTE=bdd458;46806739]It was like a single video call as well, the rest were all voices every couple of sequences, plus at the start of the Co-Op missions and in the end of the game.[/QUOTE]
Why the fuck do they even bother with this shit at all if they're going to half ass it that hard. I mean at this point it's so blatant that not even [I]Ubisoft[/I] cares about their shitty story, so why not say fuck all of it and just give me a history assassination game with an assassin who is an assassin because he is an assassin. No secret assassin/templar orders, no precursors or whatever, no stupid bullshit future characters, just history and assassination.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46807366]damned if you do damned if you dont
the current way/ac4's way was pretty good, its there if you want it, but its not obstructing your experience like it did in 2/3[/QUOTE]
AC4's way pissed me off so much, just getting pulled out of game to wonder around an office in first person for a few minutes was the most annoying shit. Especially seeing as I was literally only playing the game for pirates.
Who actually still expects new call of dutys to get good? That game series became a cheap casual rip-off with something around the 6th part. The whole game series now is designed for casuals and noobs who think they're cool gamers. They don't change anything in their games because they're afraid to loose their fanbase.
"Add recoil and spread to weapons? Holy shit no, our casual fanbase might not be able to spray down people anymore, keep it as easy as it is." - That's call of duty now, nothing more. An easy crutch game where skill and experience don't matter at all, but money does.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46801341]Triple A doesn't mean annual sequels[/QUOTE]
???
CoD:4,5,6, MW, Blackops 3, 7,8, blackops 4
if that were the case then most AAA franchises wouldn't be AAA
[editline]28th December 2014[/editline]
i hope 2015 brings back RTS's now that the formulised shooter/slasher games have turned out to be flops
[QUOTE=Sableye;46810076]???
CoD:4,5,6, MW, Blackops 3, 7,8, blackops 4
if that were the case then most AAA franchises wouldn't be AAA
[editline]28th December 2014[/editline]
i hope 2015 brings back RTS's now that the formulised shooter/slasher games have turned out to be flops[/QUOTE]
Call of Duty and AssCreed aren't the only AAA games that exists. AAA is a term to especify games which are made using a lot of resources. GTA is a AAA game, for example, as is Battlefield, The Elder Scrolls, and many others.
leave it to PCClickbaitN to list 2 games from ubisoft and 1 that was delayed and call the entire year a failure, giving only a shotty, short article.
[QUOTE=kisaraji;46810123]Call of Duty and AssCreed aren't the only AAA games that exists. AAA is a term to especify games which are made using a lot of resources. GTA is a AAA game, for example, as is Battlefield, The Elder Scrolls, and many others.[/QUOTE]
I think the whole game community need to redefine some terms in relation to the size of game companies/devs.
Like, all I hear are either AAA games, or indie games.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46811183]then you aren't looking hard enough
you have aaa, then either aa or budget games, your indie-like games from big publishers who fund former indie devs to make something small, small games made by big teams (blood dragon, freedom cry) and then indie devs[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't look further than FP and a few other sites.
But I still only hear people call games AAA or indie. Occasionally, sometimes no classification.
Doesn't the term AAA mean a game that is generally all around balanced? Great game, big budget, and great reviews?
With an article like this, it makes it seem like AAA just means a game made by a company with lots of money. It get's to a point were games are called AAA before release.
AAA just purely refers to the size of the marketing budget.
A triple A title is seeing somewhere around half it's costs go to advertising, which ends up being a whole shit load of cash. Usually a cool 10 to 20 million minimum on their advertising budget.
These games get good reviews in part because they might be buying some reviews.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Khorn;46811292]I honestly don't look further than FP and a few other sites.
But I still only hear people call games AAA or indie. Occasionally, sometimes no classification.
Doesn't the term AAA mean a game that is generally all around balanced? Great game, big budget, and great reviews?
With an article like this, it makes it seem like AAA just means a game made by a company with lots of money. It get's to a point were games are called AAA before release.[/QUOTE]
Think of it like fancy brand products and store brand products in a supermarket. Red Bull has an enormous marketing budget and is also far more expensive than other energy drinks, but that doesn't means it's the best energy drink out there, nor that the price per quality is at all fair. I far prefer other brand energy drinks but red bull is the most sold and most loved simply because it's marketed to death, everybody knows about it, and it's expensive.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46811330]AAA just purely refers to the size of the marketing budget.
A triple A title is seeing somewhere around half it's costs go to advertising, which ends up being a whole shit load of cash. Usually a cool 10 to 20 million minimum on their advertising budget.
These games get good reviews in part because they might be buying some reviews.[/QUOTE]
Even if they bought reviews.
Didn't AAA originally mean a game that was all around well done? While an AA games was also well received by many, just lower in quality and/or budget?
[editline]28th December 2014[/editline]
The AAA term seems like it's become one of those stickers that you just peel and can slap on anything to make it seem great. Like those stickers for elementary school homework. "Wow", "Outstanding Work!" and now "AAA+++ homework, would correct again."
Alien: Isolation definetely saved this year to me.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;46797349]I don't think its been a bad year for games, its just been average. I imagine because developers of games are still learning how to best utilize the new technology and horsepower that they can now use free of the restrictions of aged hardware.
I still think that games have been pushing their weight above films in terms of quality, where the average Hollywood film has been content with a shitty and average 63/100 score on Metacritic for quite a few years now. Its just that we've had a spell where all these fantastic, raved about games have come out and its come to end and it feels disappointing in comparison.
Also, I'm sick of this "AAA game" buzzword bollocks.[/QUOTE]
More like "Publishers rushing to push devs to pushout their products with funding a proper QA team to do work." and "Publishers scraping the barrel for the earliest release date with a completed title"
Yeah, People have had enough time to get ready. There is no excuse for it. What I can say, from my best friend's words about it who has seen it first hand, I highly doubt this will be the last year of fuck ups. It's going to be even worse in 2015.
Nobody has learn anything from this shit.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46806702]desmonds been dead for 4 games now
hell in unity you almost exclusively are in the time period, you get a videocall from the real world people once and every now and then they talk over what you're doing every few sequences[/QUOTE]
Oh, I haven't played any since 2. Only watched a partial playthrough of 3, my bad.
[QUOTE=Stopper;46811893][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_%28game_industry%29[/url][/QUOTE]
I was gonna quote this article earlier, but it's a really badly written article.
I hardly bought anything this year. I only got Arma 3 DLC and payday 2, and those were on sale.
[QUOTE=kisaraji;46810123]Call of Duty and AssCreed aren't the only AAA games that exists. AAA is a term to especify games which are made using a lot of resources. GTA is a AAA game, for example, as is Battlefield, The Elder Scrolls, and many others.[/QUOTE]
It's resources used in both developement as well as marketing. It's one of the reasons people aare often not sure if nintendo games are AAA or not.
The funding the games get often falls below the line of traditional AAAs, but they tend to have huge marketing budgets.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Khorn;46811416]Even if they bought reviews.
Didn't AAA originally mean a game that was all around well done? While an AA games was also well received by many, just lower in quality and/or budget?
[editline]28th December 2014[/editline]
The AAA term seems like it's become one of those stickers that you just peel and can slap on anything to make it seem great. Like those stickers for elementary school homework. "Wow", "Outstanding Work!" and now "AAA+++ homework, would correct again."[/QUOTE]
Think of the game industry like the movie industry. The AAAs are the summer blockbusters. Huge budgets, big marketing budgets, placed in primetime. They are made by the big hollywood studios, as those are the only ones who can afford them.
Not to say, those big studios will just churm out AAAs, but they are often the only ones who can. Star citizen is essentially the first exception as it is an "indie" game with a +50m budget. That essentially makes SC a triple A as well, just an independant one.
Games that haven't been released yet shouldn't be called AAA.
Until the game is finished and reviewed by both professionals and peers, it should not be called an AAA game.
Even though I want SC to be great, I'll wait until it's fully released, before giving it any rating.
People need to stop calling games AAA, just because it's backed by big corporations and money. That part is only one part of the triple A's.
sorry for the 2-day bump but i really need to correct some posts. My original post in question:
[QUOTE=willtheoct;46797875]lol what
a pentium could calculate practically anything a game needs. GPUs are generally the gaming bottleneck, and as they improve(with each new generation), we can improve the graphics. Gameplay can always be calculated with no problem.
That nemesis system probably doesn't take up more than a few KB in RAM, either.
Also, some art styles require highly capable GPUs. It still falls under graphics and needs hardware to work hard, in certain circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Which garnered 50+ dumbs, so I think I should explain how this works.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;46801933]As a comp. sci student I can 100% tell you that you have[I] no idea[/I] what you're talking about.
The CPU is the bottleneck of the entire computer. Nothing happens without the CPU somehow being involved in it. It's the literal heartbeat of a machine, (nearly) everything happens in accordance to it's instructions.
(small note: this is grossly simplified because CPUs are actually really complicated and boring to talk about. just know that they're the most important part of a computer)[/QUOTE]
Congratulations on being a comp sci student, but I've got some real idiot friends also in compsci who know nothing about their entire curriculum... In my opinion, you need to graduate to have the creds.
A bottleneck is when there is a performance limit caused by hardware somewhere. The CPU is certainly the most [B]important[/B] part of a computer, but it is not the [B]bottleneck[/B].
So, let's see where the bottleneck is.
Your CPU, at runtime, in a game like Assassins Creed, should be in charge of the following tasks: AI(probably the most intensive part, since there may be 50 npcs with 100 instructions per frame), input, NPC generation, sound, and generic game logic such as what zones the player is in, and what states they should switch to and what values the characters should have. The CPU(north bridge?) can also be a bottleneck through passing off data to the GPU(but through the magic of optimization, that doesn't happen).
All of this could be done with a pentium 4. Seriously. If you want the P4 experience, turn off hyperthreading and additional cores; a P4 is just as fast as modern processors, but only one thread. It may hiccup now and then, but it can run it.
the GPU, however, is in charge of the following:
physics calculations including particles
generating vertices/tesselation - Geometry shader
multiplying received vertex data by a 4x4 matrix and applying equations to that (there may be around 100k vertices in a scene) - Vertex Shader
rasterizing the vertices into fragments(pixels) with values
interpolating values between all these fragments so that it is smoothed from one vertex to the next
depth tests/stencil tests/discarding fragments
running a bunch of instructions on every remaining fragment, including a few texture lookups. - Fragment Shader
Think about it: since the GPU does all of that stuff, why aren't graphics completely realistic? AAA companies go through huge lengths to make games look good. It's not because of lazy artists that games don't look real.
The answer: Well, GPUs are the bottleneck. A screen resolution+framerate+graphics detail that is 100% indistinguishable from real life would likely run at 0.0001 FPS.
As mentioned in this thread, yes, Dwarf fortress would probably be very CPU intensive and not suitable for low-end CPUs. There's always exceptions to the GPU-bottleneck rule.
ARMA is a multiplayer game, and I assume run through dedicated servers, which requires a powerhouse of a CPU, I do agree. But we're not talking servers here.
One additional note: You may notice while playing Minecraft that faster CPUs mean faster terrain generation. This is because minecraft is poorly made; A GPU with a compute shader would do it 1000x faster. This is why we offload that stuff to the GPU, and why GPUs end up being the bottleneck.
edit:
TLDR:
GPUs are really 1000 CPUs
They're designed to do the "bulk" of the work
We want to add more "bulk" but GPUs aren't good enough.
If we put any bulk on the CPU, it will shit itself
[QUOTE=AntonioR;46829971]I had colleagues at college who got a major's degree in CS and didn't even know how to install Windows, not to mention other things. People like that lower the value of college degrees in general.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but I only bring it up because so many people go into compsci and are suddenly "Computer masters" and then just repeat what someone told them about one subject without understanding the entire system. Graduates should understand the whole system though, so they aren't fixated on one component.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
