Im sorry but after playing crysis the graphics seem pretty bad. Not that i ever expected crysis level graphics but when if ever will there be any signifacant improvement or addon. Because most of the stuff so far has been pretty minor. And although the games beautiful i want even more eyecandy. Maybe some revammping of textures? this doesn't have to mean that all of a sudden people can't run this game thats what settings lower the Ultra are for anyway. Hell even i can't run crysis on all max most people can't. But are the sins developers thinking of ever adding anything new onto the current graphics engine?
I'm certainly not involved with the development of Sins (or any game for that matter) and I certainly don't know anything that Ironclad or Stardock might have planned, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any new graphical updates to Sins of a Solar Empire.
The graphics certainly aren't bad. I mean they're not bleeding edge thats for sure, but I find them pleasant enough. Then again, I still play Total Annihilation and Galactic Civilizations 1. Cutting edge 3D graphics are not crucial for my gaming experience. A lack of "crysis level graphics" doesn't really diminish Sins in my mind.
As far as SOASE 2... I don't have the faintest idea. Although I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility. Others may be able to shed some light on this.
The graphics are at this level to allow the most people possible the chance to play Sins. They chose not to make them look like Crysis for a reason..
After playing Crysis it should have been obvious that the number of computers capable of running Crysis divided by the number of computers capable of running Sins comes out to a very small fraction.
Bleeding edge graphics in a niche game is monumentally stupid. Bleeding edge graphics in a game like Crysis is just somewhat pointless. They'd have made twice as much money with half the budget if it had been more along the lines of HL2 in sys reqs.
Crysis is an FPS
Sins is an RTSThe issue with an RTS is that due to the fact there are lots of units on screen, each with their own phyisics and AI running vs an FPS where you are able to limit the active enemies on screen by clever level design and so on. If you compare sins to other strategy games though, you'll see that it's really not lacking at all. Look at starcraft 2 for example. If you actaully look closely at the models and textures from the screenshots that have been released, They aren't any better than what you see here in Sins. That's a game with a massive art budget.
The target market for sins was a for people with computers that were aging to be alble to buy the game and play it without having to worry if it'll run. There is a huge percentage of people out there that still run computers that are 4 years old older.
This is one of the few complaints about Sins that I just can't understand, the game looks jaw-droppingly good IMO.
I think it just comes down to whether you are a detail person or not, if you sit back and control large fleet groups or take static images Sins does look good. If however you spend any length of time zoomed in on individual units (which arguably Sins isn't designed for) then things aren't so good besides the particle effects that is.
I would suggest the OP is a detail person and see's lack of detail present in many but not all titles.
This is just an observation, not a dig or complaint at anyone.
Crytek probably had a budget somewhat larger than IC so what we need is a publisher to invest the same into the space RTS genre , someone tell Frogboy to get his cheque book out we have a new business plan for him!
Most PC developers look at the sales of games with steep requirements like Crysis, then look at the sales of games with modest requirements like World of Warcraft, and quickly figure out that eliminating 90% of all PCs sold from playing your game for eye candy is a monumentally stupid decision.
Considering that Sins is a year old now, and considering that there wouldn't be a lot of money in major graphics overhauls at this point, I wouldn't expect it. I would expect a Sins 2, eventually.
I've always though sins had good graphics that intentionally fit with the game. Close up, yeah, its not going to be staggeringly amazing (though it is pretty good). But no-one plays the game constantly zoomed in on a ship, so it doesnt matter. What's nice is that the interface looks good and the graphics are very well done for upper level zooms. No, they aren't as detailed, but it still looks pretty freaking cool when you view the game like a general ordering troops around. Bleeding edge graphics are fine, but limiting your target audience while increasing your art department tenfold is just stupid. If you look at the best selling games on pc, they're almost inevitably the ones that work well on a wide range of systems.
That said, if you want to have better graphics, there are several mods that retexture everything to do so. Look around and you shouldnt have trouble finding them. Also, if you look at previous patches you'll see that large amounts of the graphics have been updated to have higher resolutions, so there have been improvements, even if it isnt approaching the levels of crazy-awesome you'll see in some FPS games.
If you want better graphics in terms of the weapons and ship etc, use a mod, I believe either Bailknight's graphics mod is great and alos the volumetric explosions & damage effects by mansh00ter is great also
Misquoted sorry
Your point is mismade. When HL2 came out it had the most technically advanced graphics of the time and for some time to come. It was the Crysis of the day and its still maintbained those reasonable system specs. ITs all in the programing. I mean look at Grand Turismo 5 (prologue) that runns on a PS3 which is a system which is still below most computer rigs in terms of power. And its graphics are amazing i mean if you see Michael Schumacher driving with a side by side of Gran Turismo the only thing serperating the 2 is light inaccuracy the detail is basically the same ( obviously your eyes could see better in real life like on the track but in terms of HD video.) Battlefield 2 has some OK graphics but my computer couldn't handle it on max till 1.5 years after it came out. But its graphics are average. If loading and texturing is not efficently done that will result in alot of performance loss having good graphics doesn't mean that you have a super computer to run it.
The thing is your comparing 2 things that should not be compared. It would be currently impossible to run WOW with very good graphics the servers couldn't handle it and even if they could the users couldn't (depending on internet connection.) Sorry if i made it seem like i want crysis in an RTS that obviously not gonna happen anytime soon im just asking will there be improvement. Also Crysis was never ment to sell like WOW it was more of a exhibition to see what computers could really do and across lots of computer overclocking and building forums running Crysis is the benchmark set for builders i mean its own 3d Benchmark for crying out loud. WOW has been out much longer then crysis. The intended audiences are diffrent. The sizes of those audiences is much diffrent. WOW is revolutionary in terms of gameplay, Crysis is not. While you have a point its not as bad as you suggest.
Never ment to compare Crysis and SOASE sorry if i came across that way. Crysis doesn't do that clever hiding, thats why its so demanding to run. I don't think any RTS is much better probably the only one that is a little better would be World in Conflict and that has no where near as many units on screen.
So what's the point of this thread, then? Sins graphics are the way the are not because Ironclad was incapable of doing it flashier, but because this is how they need to be to create a game that's playable (and scalable) on a wide range of systems.
It is unlikely that you'll see crazy graphics that push system limits from Ironclad, as they'd much rather have more people playing their games.
Your point is mismade. When HL2 came out it had the most technically advanced graphics of the time and for some time to come. It was the Crysis of the day and its still maintbained those reasonable system specs.
Not true. The steam engine was fairly new, but hardly designed to be overaweingly impressive. That said, system reqs were relatively higher. However, they have remained consistent, and even at launch you could run it smoothly on a subpar machine. Compare that with Crysis, where even on an upper mid-grade machine you would have trouble at launch, or even now, playing above middle level graphics settings, let alone high or ultra high. The problem with games like crysis is that they look awesome, but do so at the cost of preventing anyone with a rig older than the games launch date from playing at above low graphics, if that. Doing so costs them a huge playerbase, despite the fact that it is a major game that was by all accounts exceedingly well done. Looking amazingly great is nice, but being able to play on a wide range of machines while looking ok or better is much more important to overall sales.
Yes but the argument here is that people think you HAVE too. As a programmer i can tell you out of experience that programming can make or break how the game runs even crysis could probably run smoother if they had a smarter programmer. The problem is everyone just assumes Good graphics=monster pc needed=most can't run it. You can have good graphics without a super computer its all about the programming its isn't a law of nature that can't be changed people need to stop just assuming these things.
And im not sure you really remember what a big acomplishment those graphics were in 2007. Back then this was ground breaking stuff.
There's a limit to this, however. It's not like programming is magic. There are many technical limitations, especially with memory addressing and 32-bit OS, which is what Sins has been bumping into quite a lot, actually.
As a programmer, you should be well aware of this.
Speaking of which, I would love to see a SOASE 64-bit version; perhaps that is something to look forward to with SOASE 2!
But to address the OP, outstanding graphics are not needed with this game IMO. When I play it, the vast majority of the time I'm zoomed out at a multi-planet level and even when I'm orchestrating a battle, I'm still looking at icons for ships, rather than the ships themselves. The only time I'm zooming in on the action, really, is when I'm watching a replay. Otherwise it's all icons and tactics!
Yeah, HL2 was not bleeding edge graphics. The Source engine is clean and stable, a monument to perfectionism instead of video card manufacturers. There were at least three competitive engines with equal or superior graphical performance, Crytek, Id Software and Epic all had major releases the same year. Far Cry even had real bumps for bumpy texture.
HL2 supported a six year old DirectX api at release, you didn't even need pixel shader. CryEngine actually was a tech demo before they turned it into a game.
Yes but the argument here is that people think you HAVE too. As a programmer i can tell you out of experience that programming can make or break how the game runs even crysis could probably run smoother if they had a smarter programmer. The problem is everyone just assumes Good graphics=monster pc needed=most can't run it. You can have good graphics without a super computer its all about the programming its isn't a law of nature that can't be changed people need to stop just assuming these things. And im not sure you really remember what a big acomplishment those graphics were in 2007. Back then this was ground breaking stuff.
I'm also a programmer, and I see where you are coming from. I remember playing the demo when they first released it and being blown away. The sequel, Crysis Warhead, apparently included sizeable improvements to the graphics engine's efficiency. However, the arguement that a game can't look good without a monster pc is not one I was trying to make. While its true that having a better pc can let you crank the settings to max, games like Half-Life 2 look good even on the lower settings. I personally feel Sins did a good job with the graphics.
The big issue is that unlike a FPS, in an RTS you have to take a different approach to making the game look good. You cant just hire an art team to go and spend a year and a half creating jaw-dropping textures for everything in game. Why? Doing so, especially with a small studio, would cost far too much for the results. Face it: most RTS genre games are played from a zoomed out perspective. So instead, you have to focus on making things look good on a wide variety of machines while zoomed out, which Sins did. This comes at the cost of bleeding edge graphics, because you have to accept that you're focusing on the big picture in a game like Sins, instead of the little one.
So if you're complaining because stuff doesnt look good when zoomed in, that's the reality of the situation. Spending a huge part of your art departments time working on close up textures and graphics optimizations isnt an efficient use of time. On the other hand, if you're complaining about how the graphics dont look astonishing when zoomed out, that's a different issue. Some of that can be addressed with mods, and the devs have updated the high end textures, but comparing the value added from the microexpansions and the patch rebalances, spending money completely overhauling the graphics is a waste of time, which as a programmer you can probably understand. That said, it would help if you posted some ideas or suggestions. Simply asking if the devs are going to redo more textures or add more special effects doesnt really help (though if you want more special effects, check out some of the starbase abilities in entrenchment).
probably the 2 biggest issues with sins right now (as i see it) is 1. the lack of 64-bit support and 2. (although i admit being a novice programmer) the proliferate use of floating point Types.
Personally I think this topic is based on selfishness. As Hack78 said, it is the way it is for a reason. Graphics do not make the game. Pessimism will get you nowhere fast, so dont complain about graphics. Not everyone can afford that fancy Alienware gaming computer or custom built computer that can handle anything thrown at it. *Thinks to self*: Dang I cant stand rich snobby people that complain.
Where did i complain about graphics of the game? I never complained. This game has great graphics but theres always room for improvement and i was asking whether there would improvement. Im not even asking for better graphics im merely asking if there will be an improvement. No one here is complaining and nor am i. I know and realize that this is a small studio and its a complete and utter waste of time to spend months on painstaking details and frankly im impressed with what they got. This thread is merely asking whether they were planning to improve at all at some point and what people thought of that. You don't need an Aleinware or custom built computer. I build my own computers and its not that complicated and for around 500-700 dollars i could easily build a computer that could run crysis on a reasonable setting. People need to stop just assuming that im just some rich bastard that doesn't care about other peoples situations. There was a time when i didn't even have a computer or many electronics in my house i understand where people who can't afford new computers are coming from. Nothing pisses me off more then people thinking im some rich snobby person.
+1!!!!
Really which system could handle 1 000+ vessels hitting each other..not to mention MOVING SHIPS since entrenchment for more than 5 minutes without overheating and blowing up!!!
good luck trying!!
Really sins owns on all levels (except diplomacy )
I don't understand why game developers keep makeing games with higher requirements in graphics, in a depressed economy.
Crysis can be played on an Nvidia 8600 gts no huge requirments and still look good. Company of hero's is another high quality game with low hardware requirments as was atari's act of war or Call of Duty 4.
All great games and there wasn't any hardware change to play the game. My point is the new games that are coming out don't look any where as near as good as those games and have higher hardware requirments.
Like GTA IV PC, I want to know what's in that game that so much different then the ps3 version and xbox 360 version i have. If IBM processors are that good, they should think about competiting with intel and amd.
Next game on the list would be Codename Panzer Cold War, same situation could of used a company of hero type engine and know one would of complained and they would of had a huge customer buy rate.
I'm sure the same is probably going to go for the new total war I just haven't bought it yet.
I think game developers should pick an engine or develop one that doesn't make you change out your pc hardware every 2 seconds. Alot of my friends are buying consoles because there sick of haveing to upgrade every two seconds.
Sins is a great game wouldn't, have it any other way. Graphics aren't really the issue with this game . It's more on the lines of gameplay .
Although i'm not going to leave graphics out completley there are somthings that could be changed with planets to make the game look more realistic.
Take a vote vs Graphics or Gameplay and see what comes out on top.
I would challenge the implication that Sins scales up to high-end systems, a wide range yes but a wide range with a cap on it I'm afraid.
You cannot seperate the two elements like that, the key advantage of modern titles and game development over previous generations is improvements in hardware allowing more advanced calculations which mostly translates to improved graphics. Later this year we may see the Black Mesa mod for HL2 which is essentially a modern port of the original HL, I suspect most people are not interested in the gameplay enhancements in that instance.
If you haven't got good gameplay you don't really have a game, graphical presentation of the game can always be improved there isnt a single game developed to date that wouldn't benefit from a graphical uplift.
What we really need is a goverment/state scrappage scheme for people using low end hardware, scrap your old PC and get $500 towards a new PC
We do it's called Ebay lol
I'm all for advancements in technology, but lately there makeing you switch out your processor in order to play a game. I don't know if you've noticed but processors aren't to cheap.
I just bought this today .
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?Sku=P450-4876
Plus i bought this last week.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4601609&Sku=B69-1054
minus the case bought a better one.
This should last me about 3 months then Modern warfare 2 will come out and probably require me to have some sort of 16 core processor.
Actually, as of late I've had to be peering up close at the capital ships as part of the work for a mod I'm working on (Counting turrets, lol), and I have to say that, at least there (And especially on the TEC), the graphics really are impressive. Oh, some sharpened up textures and some animated turrets and radars might have helped, but by and large, they really are quite pretty to look at.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
