Will it run/How will it run? [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Will it run/How will it run?

Shadowmoon
3 Aug 2010, 16:39
Specs:
------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 8/3/2010, 16:35:35
Machine name: ELLIOTT-PC
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: OEGStone
System Model: DG41RQ
BIOS: BIOS Date: 02/08/08 17:50:03 Ver: 08.00.10
Processor: Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E6300 @ 2.80GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 2010MB RAM
Page File: 1087MB used, 2931MB available
Windows Dir: C:\Windows
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
Card name: Intel(R) G41 Express Chipset
Manufacturer: Intel Corporation
Chip type: Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family
DAC type: Internal
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2E32&SUBSYS_D6138086&REV_03
Display Memory: 780 MB
Dedicated Memory: 32 MB
Shared Memory: 748 MB
Current Mode: 1366 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor
Monitor Model: Hanns.G HH181
...I'd like to know if it will run, and how it will run before I get the HD Radeon 5550, and if you don't mind, is the card I plan to get good or not.
Thanks.

Cathulhu
3 Aug 2010, 21:03
It will run. But you may need to reduce resolutions and/or effect settings. About the Radeon 5550, it looks like a waste of money. Only feasible if you don't want to play games on that card. Get a bit more money for a real one.

DjNabs
3 Aug 2010, 22:04
the game isn't out yet, so who knows? just wait for the demo and see yourself.

Shadowmoon
3 Aug 2010, 23:16
It will run. But you may need to reduce resolutions and/or effect settings. About the Radeon 5550, it looks like a waste of money. Only feasible if you don't want to play games on that card. Get a bit more money for a real one.
Thanks. Do you have any reccomendations on what card to get (maximum budget £100) i'll definitely test it out with the demo anyway.

KRD
3 Aug 2010, 23:44
Anything below an ATI Radeon HD5770 is probably not worth getting at this point. And in its price range, it's very much the best buy and a relatively solid investment for playing everything but the most graphically demanding games at high resolutions and maxed out details. Stays nicely cool compared to ATI's previous generation offerings, too, particularly when idle.

MtlAngelus
4 Aug 2010, 00:10
There's a demo on the way? Is it arriving before or after the game release?

Koenachtig
4 Aug 2010, 00:39
There's a demo on the way? Is it arriving before or after the game release?
After, correct me if I'm wrong.

Cathulhu
4 Aug 2010, 00:40
Demo will be available on launch day.

aydin690
4 Aug 2010, 01:20
Here's the official word:
Yes there will be a demo, but not until launch day. People will be able to download the demo and then if they like it they can activate the full game without having to download again.

MtlAngelus
4 Aug 2010, 04:43
Lame. I want to preorder but it would suck to do so only to find out it doesn't work in this thing. -_-
Ah well, at least it's cheap enough.

Akuryou13
4 Aug 2010, 07:02
is it really a question of if the game will run on that system, shadowmoon? those specs are rather nice for a low-end gaming rig. I mean, I wouldn't expect to play Crysis 2 on it, but worms? a 2D game with fairly standard graphics?

franpa
4 Aug 2010, 07:35
I actually would expect it to run at least on low resolutions. It does seem to have 32 mebaytes od dedicated video RAM which will give a pretty nice boost in performance.

aydin690
4 Aug 2010, 08:35
Lame. I want to preorder but it would suck to do so only to find out it doesn't work in this thing. -_-
Ah well, at least it's cheap enough.
I'm sorry sir but if you're worried about running worms, then i'm afraid you should ditch pc gaming altogether.

MtlAngelus
4 Aug 2010, 14:16
I'm sorry sir but if you're worried about running worms, then i'm afraid you should ditch pc gaming altogether.
And you should ditch giving advice because you are clearly an idiot.

Kalan
4 Aug 2010, 15:28
Anything below an ATI Radeon HD5770 is probably not worth getting at this point.
Not really. The aTI Radeon HD 4870 is cheap and it's worth getting... for now.

aydin690
4 Aug 2010, 18:09
And you should ditch giving advice because you are clearly an idiot.
So, i'm an idiot because i said you should ditch pc gaming if you're still gaming on the pc that you bought in 1995?

Akuryou13
4 Aug 2010, 18:23
So, i'm an idiot because i said you should ditch pc gaming if you're still gaming on the pc that you bought in 1995?oh. no no. I apologize for the misunderstanding the two of you seem to have had. It's not idiotic to think he should upgrade his computer if he expects to play modern games. That's actually pretty much common sense. No. You're an idiot because you came out of nowhere for the sole purpose of insulting someone you don't know without any provocation.
Sorry you misunderstood.

MRSAMPLE
4 Aug 2010, 19:37
I'm also afraid that the game will not run smoothly, I know it's worms, but only the gameplay is 2D, at close inspection the characters seem to be cell-shaded 3D, and the backgrounds are 3D too, cartoony 3D, but 3D anyways (hope is a cinematic like background, no actual 3D), I can see some heavy particle use, not only on explosions but also on the background, like the fog in the London stage, that will definatly lag on me :(
Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz
2 GB RAM
Nvidia Geforce 6200 256 MB (not the turbocache one)
Well, this is my system, and while I can play HalfLife2 without problems at maximun detail, I have experience serious lag from some recent "not demanding" games, like Torchlight by example, rendering them unplayable. It's all about my card (it sucksX2), but I can't upgrade it because my motherboard does not allow PCI-E cards, so I'm stuck by the moment. What do you think?? will it run?? will it run and lag?? or will it just lag?? xD

Cathulhu
4 Aug 2010, 19:41
Don't worry, the worms itself are not 3D, the backgrounds aren't 3D either, they just look like that.
Your videochip is weak, but should be powerful enough to run the game on low to medium settings.

Thurbo
4 Aug 2010, 20:14
Don't worry, the worms itself are not 3D, the backgrounds aren't 3D either, they just look like that.
Err... I'm sorry, no, it's the other way round: The backgrounds aren't 2D, they just look like that. Except Worms Open Warfare backgrounds which don't even have a cel-shading style.
Anyway it should run well. Your PC had to be very, very old if it couldn't run WR.

SupSuper
4 Aug 2010, 23:43
Technically it's all 3D but flat and viewed head-on :p either way your hardware isn't gonna give two tosses about how dimensional it is, just how detailed it is.

Kalan
4 Aug 2010, 23:47
Guys, incase you didn't read the system specs...
OS: Windows XP, Vista, 7
Processor: 1.25GHz AMD Athlon or Intel equivalent
Memory: 1GB
Graphics: 128MB Video Card (GeForce4 or equivalent card)
DirectX®: DirectX® 9 or above
Hard Drive: 2063MB
Sound: DirectX® 9.0c-compliant sound card
Other Requirements: Internet connection required
Here you go.
If you can't run this game (even on lowest graphics), you desperatly need an upgrade. :rolleyes:

bloopy
5 Aug 2010, 01:15
Memory: 1GB
Graphics: 128MB Video Card
My 7 year old system is equal to those minimum stats and I'll still be trying to play the game. :cool:

Thurbo
5 Aug 2010, 12:29
Technically it's all 3D but flat and viewed head-on :p either way your hardware isn't gonna give two tosses about how dimensional it is, just how detailed it is.
Really? :D Well I've no idea about how this works exactly but I've been thinking it's seperate, like a normal 2D Worms with a video running in the background with camera reacting to both levels :p
(This is at least how the DS version of Open Warfare 2 must have worked)

franpa
5 Aug 2010, 14:41
That would probably be because the DS isn't a ultra powerful computer.

Akuryou13
5 Aug 2010, 16:10
That would probably be because the DS isn't a ultra powerful computer.ultra powerful?! did you SEE those specs posted earlier? :p

Shadowmoon
5 Aug 2010, 16:55
I've been told that the Ati HD 5770 is too much for 1366x768 resolution, true or false?

Cathulhu
5 Aug 2010, 17:20
Well, for Worms it would be to much on every resolution^^.
But yes, it's strong enough to run newer games on even higher resolutions without problems. But that also means it doesn't run that hot and has reserves in case a game is a bit more demanding.

Shadowmoon
5 Aug 2010, 17:28
But it would be okay for my PC, correct?

franpa
5 Aug 2010, 17:40
ultra powerful?! did you SEE those specs posted earlier? :p
Would a DS (with an appropriate screen) be able to run games well at 640x480? Or would it lag noticeably?

Akuryou13
5 Aug 2010, 19:57
Would a DS (with an appropriate screen) be able to run games well at 640x480? Or would it lag noticeably?
couldn't tell you, actually. never have looked up the specs.

kayne
7 Aug 2010, 08:19
Guys, incase you didn't read the system specs...
OS: Windows XP, Vista, 7
Processor: 1.25GHz AMD Athlon or Intel equivalent
Memory: 1GB
Graphics: 128MB Video Card (GeForce4 or equivalent card)
DirectX®: DirectX® 9 or above
Hard Drive: 2063MB
Sound: DirectX® 9.0c-compliant sound card
Other Requirements: Internet connection required
Here you go.
If you can't run this game (even on lowest graphics), you desperatly need an upgrade. :rolleyes:
great fairly certain my netbook can run that lol worms on the go just what i needed...worms and colonization both runnable on the go for me....i really need to forget i came to this site tonight or im flunking for sure lol.

Psy-UK
7 Aug 2010, 18:51
It'll run better on my PC then WA does. Seriously, my computer can't handle the background effects in WA without dropping to <30 FPS yet I can run the likes of TF2, BFBC2 and Starcraft 2 all on full just fine. :S

SilPho
7 Aug 2010, 19:08
For what it's worth, I believe that frame rate problem in WA regarding the background effects is being fixed in the next beta update.

DrMelon
10 Aug 2010, 11:04
The reason for the slowdown in WA due to the backgrounds is likely due to DirectDraw being rather outdated.

CyberShadow
10 Aug 2010, 11:18
Actually, it's because hardware manufacturers don't care about preformance of older games.

SupSuper
10 Aug 2010, 12:44
Well there's notihng DirectDraw could do that Direct3D can't now.

franpa
10 Aug 2010, 18:26
No anti-aliasing for direct draw :)

Cathulhu
10 Aug 2010, 18:27
He meant it the other way. He meant that Direct3D can do everything that DirectDraw can and more of course.

CyberShadow
10 Aug 2010, 19:36
Well there's notihng DirectDraw could do that Direct3D can't now.
How about not using 3D technology (thus, higher resource and power usage) which is completely unnecessary in a fully-2D game? :)

bonz
10 Aug 2010, 21:52
How about not using 3D technology (thus, higher resource and power usage) which is completely unnecessary in a fully-2D game? :)
Heck, we don't even need DirectDraw...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_video_game#History
:rolleyes:

SupSuper
10 Aug 2010, 22:07
How about not using 3D technology (thus, higher resource and power usage) which is completely unnecessary in a fully-2D game? :)Because 3D technology now outperforms and outfeatures purely-2D technology by far, so emulating it actually uses "higher resource and power usage" than just ignoring an axis?

Unreal K9
10 Aug 2010, 23:44
You'll mostly likely be fine. If you get lag, turn off motion lag. Massive fps boost

CyberShadow
11 Aug 2010, 02:17
Because 3D technology now outperformsI doubt that (except for specific cases, as discussed above).and outfeaturesUmm... obviously? Also obviously nothing W:A needs.so emulating it actually uses "higher resource and power usage" than just ignoring an axis?Of course! 2D graphics involves just blitting (copying picture rectangles, sometimes with transparency), a very fast operation. Even though you can set up a parallel projection to get the same effect, doing everything through 3D involves a lot more work, both for the hardware and the software!

SupSuper
11 Aug 2010, 15:56
Of course! 2D graphics involves just blitting (copying picture rectangles, sometimes with transparency), a very fast operation. Even though you can set up a parallel projection to get the same effect, doing everything through 3D involves a lot more work, both for the hardware and the software!
Technically yes, but like you said, modern hardware is specifically designed and optimized for 3D operations, so purely 2D operations will miss out on that advantage and seem slower.
Not saying you should just port W:A to D3D straight away, but there's no reason other modern 2D games wouldn't. WR probably does even though it's mostly sprites.

CyberShadow
11 Aug 2010, 16:06
Technically yes, but like you said, modern hardware is specifically designed and optimized for 3D operations, so purely 2D operations will miss out on that advantage and seem slower.
Not saying you should just port W:A to D3D straight away, but there's no reason other modern 2D games wouldn't. WR probably does even though it's mostly sprites.
I did not say that. I only said that hardware manufacturers don't test hardware and drivers with old applications, so performance may be bad in corner cases, like W:A's background texture. These sort of things (incompatibility with corner cases) happen all the time with 3D applications as well - much more often in fact, due to the greater complexity and thus greatly increased variety of 3D apps. Considering that 2D is a subset of 3D, it'd be difficult to presume that an accelerated 3D application will outperform a similar 2D application.
You don't seem to realize just how much is still done with 2D acceleration right now. It is being used by operating systems, web browsers, VM software, etc.
Worms Reloaded uses scaled sprites (sprites which don't have a 1:1 correspondence to screen pixels) and what seems to be 3D backgrounds, so 2D acceleration would be inappropriate for it.
Edit: Worms Armageddon 4.0 will support 2D and 3D acceleration. If 3D acceleration is used, some additional eye candy will be available (like smooth zooming).

bonz
11 Aug 2010, 23:05
Edit: Worms Armageddon 4.0 will support 2D and 3D acceleration. If 3D acceleration is used, some additional eye candy will be available (like smooth zooming).
Oh! I like what I'm reading. :D
*drumroll*
What about lasers? And SOAR?
*rimshot*

CyberShadow
11 Aug 2010, 23:39
If you keep bugging me about it during 4.0's development, I might make them implementable as custom weapons ;)

MRSAMPLE
12 Aug 2010, 01:44
Edit: Worms Armageddon 4.0 will support 2D and 3D acceleration. If 3D acceleration is used, some additional eye candy will be available (like smooth zooming).
OMFG, when??
*end of offtop*

Akuryou13
12 Aug 2010, 03:26
*end of offtop*haha. haha. cute.
you must be new.

bonz
12 Aug 2010, 10:43
If you keep bugging me about it during 4.0's development, I might make them implementable as custom weapons ;)
Ohoho!
I like even more what I'm reading!
*switches to bugging mode*
*sets intensity from stun to kill*

CakeDoer
18 Aug 2010, 10:44
Radeon HD 5550? Are you kidding me?
For your budget, I suggest the GeForce GTS 250. By choosing NVIDIA, you actually get good driver support which boosts GPU performance.
Or, you can wait for the underclocked 400 series (as in the ones that have numbers between 450 and 400), which would definitely be the better option (you'd also get DX11).
You wouldn't wait much more than a month, I think.

d3rd3vil
18 Aug 2010, 11:31
Will there be a demo before the release?

franpa
18 Aug 2010, 12:40
both the Nvidia 400 and ATI 5000 series support Direct X 11 so don't talk as though Nvidia are the only ones that do, Nvidia do of course have the better driver support. A demo is planned either on launch day or soon after.

Cathulhu
18 Aug 2010, 20:35
Will there be a demo before the release?
No, but there will be a demo when the game is released. And if you like it, you don't have to download the full version, just activate the demo and you're ready to go. Demo and full version are the same.

KRD
19 Aug 2010, 03:26
Radeon HD 5550? Are you kidding me?
For your budget, I suggest the GeForce GTS 250. By choosing NVIDIA, you actually get good driver support which boosts GPU performance.
Or, you can wait for the underclocked 400 series (as in the ones that have numbers between 450 and 400), which would definitely be the better option (you'd also get DX11).
You wouldn't wait much more than a month, I think.
both the Nvidia 400 and ATI 5000 series support Direct X 11 so don't talk as though Nvidia are the only ones that do. Nvidia do of course have the better driver support. A demo is planned either on launch day or soon after.
Oh god, Nvidia fanboys really do get everywhere. Please back your statements about the drivers up with solid, recent research or I might have to resort to Franpa alerts.

franpa
19 Aug 2010, 06:00
OpenGL, ATI lack decent support for it.

CakeDoer
19 Aug 2010, 12:37
I have a Radeon HD 5870. I can definitely tell a difference. I also never said ATI don't support DX11 (in fact they were first to support it, months before NVIDIA did) but drivers really do make a difference: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/09/geforce_gtx_460_1gb_sli_vs_radeon_hd_5870_cfx/
And even though the Radeon 5870 outperforms GTX 460 in solo mode, it's funny how a 800$ CFX combo (which, additionally, is supposed to be ATI's flagship [single] card) is outperformed by a 400$ NVIDIA SLI combo. Doesn't that say something?
Also, Linux, ATI lack support for it at all.

franpa
19 Aug 2010, 13:10
Recent driver updates place the Geforce 460 ahead of the 5870 iirc in single GPU configurations for most software.

KRD
19 Aug 2010, 17:03
I have a Radeon HD 5870. I can definitely tell a difference. I also never said ATI don't support DX11 (in fact they were first to support it, months before NVIDIA did) but drivers really do make a difference: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/09/geforce_gtx_460_1gb_sli_vs_radeon_hd_5870_cfx/
And even though the Radeon 5870 outperforms GTX 460 in solo mode, it's funny how a 800$ CFX combo (which, additionally, is supposed to be ATI's flagship [single] card) is outperformed by a 400$ NVIDIA SLI combo. Doesn't that say something?
Also, Linux, ATI lack support for it at all.
You're using a short [and clearly biased, but let's leave that aside for a moment] article about SLI vs. CrossFire performance on two overclocked £180 cards at an enormous 2560×1600 resolution in three shooter games to indicate to someone wanting to play Worms Reloaded at 1366×768 for around £100 that they should go with Nvidia instead of ATI. Sure, the GeForce 460 cards seem to currently scale well in SLI mode compared to ATI's top single card offering, but this is strictly about driver optimisations in two card configurations, which really seems a little out of place here, wouldn't you agree?
Linux optimisation, likewise, seems hugely irrelevant in this case.
Recent driver updates place the Geforce 460 ahead of the 5870 iirc in single GPU configurations for most software.
Link please?
OpenGL, ATI lack decent support for it.
I'm not even going to reply to that.

CakeDoer
20 Aug 2010, 09:39
Since he is obviously just always going to play Worms Reloaded, he should get a GeForce 6500 or a Radeon X700, amirite?

Cathulhu
20 Aug 2010, 14:39
Buying such outdated video cards would be a waste of money. I'd invest in a newer PC. I did the same, from an Athlon XP 3200+ to a Phenom II Quadcore with 3.0GHz.

Akuryou13
20 Aug 2010, 16:43
Buying such outdated video cards would be a waste of money. I'd invest in a newer PC. I did the same, from an Athlon XP 3200+ to a Phenom II Quadcore with 3.0GHz.BRILLIANT!
why waste all that money on a video card when you can waste it on an ENTIRELY NEW COMPUTER!

MrAlBobo
20 Aug 2010, 19:18
Link please?
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
Not sure where he got the stats that the 460 was better, but the 470 does appear to be, just based on 3dmark benchmarks...
Not to mention that the 470 is roughly $100-200 cheaper then the 5870
Feel free to post some links showing otherwise, I really like the look of eyefinity, but i just can't justify it with the more expensive and apparently weaker card.
EDIT: found one on my own XD
http://www.techspot.com/review/283-geforce-gtx-400-vs-radeon-hd-5800/

KRD
20 Aug 2010, 19:55
Yeah, you don't really want to look at 3DMark scores alone. In everyday use in a machine intended for playing games, the Radeon HD 5870 should be a bit ahead of the Geforce 470, but you're correct in saying that right now, the price difference in the US is a little high. ATI should be dropping them soon, but then everyone thought they would have done it by now and they haven't. I'm waiting for the mess to clear up and in that price range, I'd be inclined to recommend doing the same.
The Geforce 470 and 480 cards are significantly hotter and demand more power than the 5xxx series Radeons, although personally, I don't really see Eyefinity as a deciding factor either. Just makes more sense to me to get a single, quality LCD with an IPS panel for $400 rather than three crappy TN panels for $600. And if you really do prefer Nvidia, the Geforce 460 should easily be able to run almost anything on that at 1920×1200, so no need for the louder 470 model.

MrAlBobo
20 Aug 2010, 20:12
For me anyways power draw and noise add nothing to my decision. The case fans on my computer are already very loud, and my headphones block just about all sound. I tend to crank up the fan speed on my graphics cards alot, and apparently the 470 with a fan speed of 70 will run on load at about 60 degrees.
The reason I am interested in eyefinity is the idea of a res of 5040x1050 is highly appealing. Ive done a bit of dual monitor gaming and I quite like the look of it, aside from that fact that with an even number of screens the most important part is between the borders.
Still, I don't intend to upgrade my 9800GTX+ for awhile now, it still runs everything I want to play. I just have a bit of an obsession with keeping an eye on the new fancy hardware :P

franpa
21 Aug 2010, 06:47
Yeah, you don't really want to look at 3DMark scores alone. In everyday use in a machine intended for playing games, the Radeon HD 5780 should be a bit ahead of the Geforce 470, but you're correct in saying that right now, the price difference in the US is a little high. ATI should be dropping them soon, but then everyone thought they would have done it by now and they haven't. I'm waiting for the mess to clear up and in that price range, I'd be inclined to recommend doing the same.
I believe a price drop will occur either October or November for ATI as they launch there 6,000 series in late October with general availability being November.
I'm waiting for that to happen before I consider an Nvidia card as it will put pressure on Nvidia to drop prices, hopefully.

CakeDoer
21 Aug 2010, 09:01
I just have a bit of an obsession with keeping an eye on the new fancy hardware :P
Same here, weird isn't it? You just have the urge to check about new releases. I still have my GTX 260 so I won't be upgrading any time soon. Though my Pentium D is getting old now... Will wait for Ivy Bridge to see what's on.

Cathulhu
21 Aug 2010, 11:20
BRILLIANT!
why waste all that money on a video card when you can waste it on an ENTIRELY NEW COMPUTER!
Because a PC that old is just a dead end. You can replace parts, but it doesn't get better. My PC was six years old and the videocard was dying. Instead of investing 100€ in a videocard that's equal to the broken one, i invested 500€ in a new PC that's insanely more powerful than my old one.

MASID_EUR
21 Aug 2010, 13:38
Hi! Does anyone have an idea if this configuration will work for "Reloaded"?
Thinkpad T-Series
Core2Duo P8600 (2,4GHz)
3GB Ram
Intel X4500HD Graphics
WinXP

SupSuper
21 Aug 2010, 16:28
Because a PC that old is just a dead end. You can replace parts, but it doesn't get better. My PC was six years old and the videocard was dying. Instead of investing 100€ in a videocard that's equal to the broken one, i invested 500€ in a new PC that's insanely more powerful than my old one.
Well given most people around here can't seem to afford 15 bucks for the game, I doubt they can afford 500 bucks on a new computer. Sure getting the most powerful system on the market will fix anything, but if they're asking for advice here they probably just want the most affordable solution to run Worms Reloaded (which isn't even a high-end game), not a lifetime guarantee.

Akuryou13
21 Aug 2010, 16:55
Because a PC that old is just a dead end. You can replace parts, but it doesn't get better. My PC was six years old and the videocard was dying. Instead of investing 100€ in a videocard that's equal to the broken one, i invested 500€ in a new PC that's insanely more powerful than my old one.well I'm certainly glad that you've proven to us that spending 5 times more on something is worth the investment.
next time why don't you explain how one comes by a fairy godmother with which to gain 5 times the money in our bank accounts? I think that would be a nice compliment to your previous argument.

Cathulhu
21 Aug 2010, 17:19
It's not like i have a cash cow myself. It took me 1-2 years to save the 500€ for a new PC, so don't give me that elitist crap.

Thurbo
21 Aug 2010, 17:48
It's still WORTH an investment, eh? After all, more powerful graphic cards isn't the only thing a new PC offers you and sometime you need to buy a new one anyhow to be able to play the newest games.

Akuryou13
21 Aug 2010, 19:07
It's not like i have a cash cow myself. It took me 1-2 years to save the 500€ for a new PC, so don't give me that elitist crap.so then your advice to him is to begin saving for a new PC now so that in 1-2 years time he can play Worms: Reloaded.
BRILLIANT!

CakeDoer
21 Aug 2010, 22:56
Buying such outdated video cards would be a waste of money. I'd invest in a newer PC. I did the same, from an Athlon XP 3200+ to a Phenom II Quadcore with 3.0GHz.
Maybe, just MAYBE I was being sarcastic. And even though sarcasm is not easily detectable on the internet, isn't poor spelling and intentional ignoring of grammar rules hint that I'm being sarcastic? Example:
so im pretty sure taking cocaine can have a positive effect on your life
EDIT: also what's with all the scott pilgrim avatars

MtlAngelus
21 Aug 2010, 22:59
EDIT: also what's with all the scott pilgrim avatars
They are awesome aren't they?

Akuryou13
21 Aug 2010, 23:52
EDIT: also what's with all the scott pilgrim avatarsthe better question is: why didn't everyone have them sooner?

Thurbo
22 Aug 2010, 01:15
Scott Pilgrim? Isn't that a comic? I assumed those avatars were from another odd Japanese RPG so I didn't care :p

MtlAngelus
22 Aug 2010, 01:43
Scott Pilgrim? Isn't that a comic? I assumed those avatars were from another odd Japanese RPG so I didn't care :p
It is a comic, but it was recently turned into a movie and also a videogame. Videogame is up on PSN, is awesome, will be out on XBLA later this month. Movie was out a week ago I think in the US but is doing poorly because people obviously have no taste or just hate Michael Cera too much.

SupSuper
22 Aug 2010, 02:13
Maybe, just MAYBE I was being sarcastic. And even though sarcasm is not easily detectable on the internet, isn't poor spelling and intentional ignoring of grammar rules hint that I'm being sarcastic? Example:
so im pretty sure taking cocaine can have a positive effect on your life
EDIT: also what's with all the scott pilgrim avatarsPoor spelling and grammar are pretty common around these parts, you'd have better luck getting sarcasm across using this: :rolleyes:
EDIT: Well the author published the sprites and they're pretty sweet.

Thurbo
22 Aug 2010, 02:25
lol, I just watched two videos on YouTube about the game and the movie. Poor graphics for a game developed in 2010 (I'm sure that's done intentionally though), remembers me of old gaming machine games.
When I watched the trailer... I didn't even know SP is meant to be humorous. Comics seem to have released in Germany not long ago thus it's probably rather unknown here. I recently found this ad in a magazine (lol Google really finds everything) (http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kws0xkYUQc1qagllmo1_500.jpg). Simply didn't appeal to me (mostly because of the lack of details in the style I think) so I didn't investigate.

MtlAngelus
22 Aug 2010, 03:35
Poor graphics for a game developed in 2010 (I'm sure that's done intentionally though), remembers me of old gaming machine games.
It has the best graphics I have seen in a really long time. I don't see how it being pixel art translates into poor graphics. That train of thought is idiotic at best.

Akuryou13
22 Aug 2010, 05:21
Poor graphics for a game developed in 2010.....WHAT?!
I saved the entire set of sprites for animation study the second I was linked to them, and you claim they're poor?! how?! what about it makes it poor? what aspect of the graphics are sub-par in any way? and what do you consider to be GOOD graphics in that sort of cartoony style?!

franpa
22 Aug 2010, 07:48
The movie was epic, very well done and hilarious.

Psy-UK
22 Aug 2010, 15:58
....WHAT?!
I saved the entire set of sprites for animation study the second I was linked to them, and you claim they're poor?! how?! what about it makes it poor? what aspect of the graphics are sub-par in any way? and what do you consider to be GOOD graphics in that sort of cartoony style?!
Because clearly the graphical technology involved is far more important that the art style!

Thurbo
22 Aug 2010, 19:30
and what do you consider to be GOOD graphics in that sort of cartoony style?!
Err... well... graphics of this (http://www.spieleradar.de/uploads/screenshots/12/clever-smart-a-movie-adventure-pc-3v5_resized_510_wm.jpg) cartoony adventure are hundred times better for example. Or this (http://www.adventuregamesite.de/-Screenshots-/Wispered_World/01.jpg) one. Even Worms looks better, I really don't see how you can say SP's very rough graphics are better than those.
If I understood it correctly, graphics look rough and old on purpose to be a reference to old games anyway, so I wonder if you are being sarcastic again :p

MtlAngelus
22 Aug 2010, 20:10
Err... well... graphics of this (http://www.spieleradar.de/uploads/screenshots/12/clever-smart-a-movie-adventure-pc-3v5_resized_510_wm.jpg) cartoony adventure are hundred times better for example. Or this (http://www.adventuregamesite.de/-Screenshots-/Wispered_World/01.jpg) one. Even Worms looks better, I really don't see how you can say SP's very rough graphics are better than those.
If I understood it correctly, graphics look rough and old on purpose to be a reference to old games anyway, so I wonder if you are being sarcastic again :p
No sarcasm whatsoever. Those examples you posted are not in any way better than the art in Scott Pilgrim. You seem to be asuming that because something looks more like a painting or cartoon it is automatically superior to something that is made in pixel art, and that is absolutely bogus.

Thurbo
22 Aug 2010, 20:25
Uhm... no? All I did was listening to my eyes who told me modern graphics look more beautiful.

MtlAngelus
22 Aug 2010, 21:24
Uhm... no? All I did was listening to my eyes who told me modern graphics look more beautiful.
Because you have trained your eyes to jump to that conclusion, yes, which was my point. Just the fact that you catalogue it as "modern" is ridiculous already. How do you define modern? Because, that kind of visual style you refer to as "modern" has been around since way before pixel art existed.

Plasma
22 Aug 2010, 21:31
Thurbo, are you trying to say a much-more-legitimate case of "I don't like low-res, 9-bit colour graphics, regardless of how detailed they are" while forgetting that it's just your opinion (the not-realising-it's-just-you part is really bad though when you consider that both best-selling game franchises by far use it on a regular basis), or do you have something specifically against the sprites in Scott Pilgrim itself?

Akuryou13
22 Aug 2010, 23:30
Err... well... graphics of this (http://www.spieleradar.de/uploads/screenshots/12/clever-smart-a-movie-adventure-pc-3v5_resized_510_wm.jpg) cartoony adventure are hundred times better for example. Or this (http://www.adventuregamesite.de/-Screenshots-/Wispered_World/01.jpg) one. Even Worms looks better, I really don't see how you can say SP's very rough graphics are better than those.
If I understood it correctly, graphics look rough and old on purpose to be a reference to old games anyway, so I wonder if you are being sarcastic again :p...those two aren't pixel art. they're full drawings. of COURSE full drawings look better than pixel art. there's more detail to them.
your examples are completely invalid. please try again only this time try to choose a style that's even remotely within the same genre as the scott pilgrim stuff.
also? your use of the term "modern" is nonsensical. scott pilgrim's art was made this year. that makes it as modern as it can get.

SupSuper
23 Aug 2010, 00:48
of COURSE full drawings look better than pixel art. there's more detail to them. That's his whole point. :p "Poor" was a bit much, but yes the whole game looks like a 90s arcade game in 2010, and yes it is intentional. It might be very good pixel art but it's still pixel art.

MtlAngelus
23 Aug 2010, 02:12
That's his whole point. :p "Poor" was a bit much, but yes the whole game looks like a 90s arcade game in 2010, and yes it is intentional. It might be very good pixel art but it's still pixel art.
I disagree, full drawings do not necesarily look better than pixel art. I don't see why pixelation and low resolution translate into looking worse or not as good. Pixel art in a videogame is just as good as doing high-resolution hand drawn sprites/prerendered/realtime 3d in 2d plane/whatever. It is a different style, but not by any means worse than the alternative. I also believe that the artwork in Scott Pilgrim oozes far more personality than those two examples posted above.

Akuryou13
23 Aug 2010, 04:35
That's his whole point. :p "Poor" was a bit much, but yes the whole game looks like a 90s arcade game in 2010, and yes it is intentional. It might be very good pixel art but it's still pixel art.that's like saying Princess and the Frog isn't as good as Toy Story 3 because Princess and the Frog uses a technique that could've been done in the 30s. it's asinine.

Thurbo
23 Aug 2010, 14:29
Yes, it's pixel art. I didn't say they did a bad job on them or it's not one of the best pixel arts (because it obviously is). I just said it's pixel art, a lower level of graphics, if you wish. Because actually, pixel arts are nothing but graphics, only rougher and not very detailed.
So what's your problem with my oppinion? You probably admire SP's graphics for what the developers were able to make out of it. That's totally understandable for me, actually I also admire that.
Still, if I say graphics can look a hundred times better nowadays, I'm right, right? Pixelated graphics always look worse, no matter how good the job you did on them was.
that's like saying Princess and the Frog isn't as good as Toy Story 3 because Princess and the Frog uses a technique that could've been done in the 30s. it's asinine.
No, that's not quite the same, since both 3D and 2D movies and games can look awesome. For example, if Scott Pilgrim was a 3D game, it would look like this (http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/793/793389/N64_Super_Smash_Bros_1180663530.jpg). The developers intentionally made it look worse than it could be thus the whole game's a homage to old video games.
I also believe that the artwork in Scott Pilgrim oozes far more personality than those two examples posted above.
I think they all have a lot of personality, like the first example (http://www.spieleradar.de/uploads/screenshots/12/clever-smart-a-movie-adventure-pc-3v5_resized_510_wm.jpg) of mine. As well as SP, it's based on a comic series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mort_%26_Phil). All in-game 2D graphics were drawn by the author/draughtsman himself, the developers only added effects and animated them. Also the style is one of the best I've ever seen. Do you see the sock nailed to the mirror in the screenshot? Or the egg timer in the cupboard of the laboratory? It's really humerous and unique, they didn't need to fall back on old graphics to create personality. And my eyes don't hurt while looking at it, too :p

SupSuper
23 Aug 2010, 16:18
Well personally I've never been of the mindset that "pixel art" is a style or technique any more than old 16-color sprites or low-poly models would be. It was a technical limitation of the time that got popularized because of nostalgia glasses or indy's limited skills or whatever.
In any case, that's not my point. Pixel art *is* technically inferior to any other art. You're intentionally limiting your palette and resolution to emulate an old look. It is inherently less detailed and lush and other artsy terms.
But the art for Scott Pilgrim still looks awesome, as wel as various other "pixelly" games like Metal Slug. That's not because it's "pixel art" but becaise of the artists. Because they poured a lot of detail and personality into it that a lot of modern games don't bother, regardless of their style. And I imagine if the same artists drew in high-resolution hand-drawn or whatever, they would do just the same and it would look just as good, if not better.
So basically I'm agreeing 50% with Thurbo (yes the game intentionally looks like a 90s arcade game which might be considered "worse") and 50% with MtlAngelus (yes the art for Scott Pilgrim looks awesome because the artists are really good), if that makes sense. :p

Akuryou13
23 Aug 2010, 17:15
Pixelated graphics always look worse, no matter how good the job you did on them was.yes (http://abysswolf.deviantart.com/art/Sinful-Rose-31055131?q=boost%3Apopular+in%3Adigitalart%2Fpixel art&qo=47) I can (http://fool.deviantart.com/art/iso-castle-75849130?q=boost%3Apopular+in%3Adigitalart%2Fpixel art&qo=2) see what (http://abysswolf.deviantart.com/art/Into-Werewolf-RETURNS-102483470?q=boost%3Apopular+in%3Adigitalart%2Fpixe lart&qo=0) you mean. (http://stridenoble.deviantart.com/art/Pixeltown-27892167?q=boost%3Apopular+in%3Adigitalart%2Fpixel art&qo=24)
and the following is for you as well, thurbo:
In any case, that's not my point. Pixel art *is* technically inferior to any other art. You're intentionally limiting your palette and resolution to emulate an old look. It is inherently less detailed and lush and other artsy terms.all I'm saying here, is that it's NOT limiting anything other than size. the sprites use as many colors and as much detail as the artist wanted them to use. modern technology doesn't require that he limit much of anything. With that new 8-bit GTA game that was on kotaku a few days ago, or with the new Mega Man games (9 and 10), they limited the graphics to go for a old school look, definitely. the scott pilgrim game, however, doesn't really limit anything except the size of the objects involved. the people and scenes are small, but still wonderfully crafted and cartoony. you said yourself that if he drew at full size it would look the same only with more details (details such as smoother lines and more definition to the features), but that's no different than if you drew on a 8x11 piece of paper or a 24x32 piece of paper.
the argument you two are presenting seems to be that bigger art is inherently better because it offers more room for detail. pixel art is tiny art, yes, but I can still paint a beautiful piece of art on a 4x6 canvas, even if it's not quite as detailed as it would be on a 40x60 canvas. why is pixel art worse because of its size while traditional work of similar scale is still beautiful. is this (http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=tiny+painting#/d2v35lf) a lesser work of art due to its size? or lack of color? it's not very detailed, so are you saying its ugly? because that's exactly what you're saying about pixel art.
ah. here's another example minus the size issue: which side is less skillful? http://probertson.deviantart.com/#/d2a53pn

bonz
23 Aug 2010, 18:46
Pixel art reminds me of Habbo Hotel, thus makes we wanna puke.:eek:
Seriously though, this trend of low-res pixel art is definitely restricting itself to achieve that oldschool nostalgia feeling.
The thing is, that it's much easier for high resolutions to use a 3D engine and wallpaper the polygons with textures from high-res digital camera photos of the real world.
Even vector-based 2D animations are much easier to produce.
If these artists would use a full HD resolution of 1920*1080 for their animations, they would look totally modern as well as awesome.

Thurbo
23 Aug 2010, 19:26
Yes, they limited the size. They know it looks worse than a game using modern technics. It was done on purpose because it's meant to be a homage to old video games and to the comic. Totally acceptable, I like that. But graphics still look worse, of course, they are absolutely supposed to look worse - limiting size = limiting quality, what do you think?! I really don't get your point.
The pictures on DeviantArt are really impressive (artists have done a really good job), but also would have looked better if it wasn't just pixel art. You know. All about impressing. Not really the picture itself but you automatically have to think about how much effort artists cost their images.
So basically I'm agreeing 50% with Thurbo (yes the game intentionally looks like a 90s arcade game which might be considered "worse") and 50% with MtlAngelus (yes the art for Scott Pilgrim looks awesome because the artists are really good), if that makes sense. :p
Then you are agreeing 100% with me. I said artists did a good job :p
Problem is they did a good job on pixel art.

SupSuper
23 Aug 2010, 20:02
yes (http://abysswolf.deviantart.com/art/Sinful-Rose-31055131?q=boost%3Apopular+in%3Adigitalart%2Fpixel art&qo=47) I can (http://fool.deviantart.com/art/iso-castle-75849130?q=boost%3Apopular+in%3Adigitalart%2Fpixel art&qo=2) see what (http://abysswolf.deviantart.com/art/Into-Werewolf-RETURNS-102483470?q=boost%3Apopular+in%3Adigitalart%2Fpixe lart&qo=0) you mean. (http://stridenoble.deviantart.com/art/Pixeltown-27892167?q=boost%3Apopular+in%3Adigitalart%2Fpixel art&qo=24)So you're saying none of those could possibly be better, and if someone also painstakingly did an entire castle or city in, say, lush high-res graphics (http://www.noupe.com/inspiration/mind-blowing-3d-rendering-artworks.html), it wouldn't look better?
words words wordsGlad to see you didn't read one word of what I posted, so I'll keep it short:
This isn't about skill. High resolutions look better than low resolutions, smoother lines look better than pixelly lines, bigger text looks better than small text, smooth shading looks better than cel-shading, HD looks better than SD, this (http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/the-secret-of-monkey-island-special-edition-screenshot.jpg) looks better than this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Rob_Jedi/Castle%20Molds%20Buildings/MonkeyIslandScummBar.png), this (http://xboxlivemedia.ign.com/xboxlive/image/article/109/1095917/earthworm-jim-hd-20100609111314594_640w.jpg) looks better than this (http://www.thespeedgamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/earthworm_jim_games_action_games-4506-screenshot.png), this (http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/sonic4_boycott.jpg) looks better than this (http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/ga/buzz/feature/vg16/sonic_1_screen.jpg). And yes, the left side looks smoother and therefore nicer (not more skillful) than the right side. It is not subjective. It is how technology works. It is how our eyes work. You're probably gonna keep missing my point though so I'll leave it at this.
Also the Scott Pilgrim game is obviously emulating a 90s arcade beat-em-up look, keeping with the comic/movie theme of parodying games of that era. It takes the original comic's smooth art style and turns it into pixelly low-res, it is an intetional downgrade. It is a limit, unless you think every PS3/360 game is limited to a aliased resized 640x360 resolution with a handful of colors.

bonz
23 Aug 2010, 20:04
I said artists did a good job :p
Problem is they did a good job on pixel art.
Thurbo, you are aware that in digital media, basically everything is pixel art, aren't you?
No anti-aliasing or fancy effects can help there.
These artist could do a god job everywhere.

Plasma
23 Aug 2010, 20:13
Aku... your examples are absolutely rubbish here. I mean, they're good art, but:
1: three of the five examples are not pixelated graphics whatsoever. They're full-scale, full-pallette graphics made pixel-by-pixel.
2: the other two don't address the size issue, which is probably the biggest issue. We're not saying having a one-pixel border is rubbish here.
3: the small canvas example is a rubbish comparison to a small pixel canvas. If you want detail on a smaller canvas, you use a smaller brush, like that person did. You can't do that on a pixel canvas.
4: you're completely ignoring that there's plenty of actual comparisons, especially as a result of the DS's small resolution size. Heck, there's an entire franchise of them!
Here's just one:
http://a.imageshack.us/img294/3974/dialgacompare.png
Left is the official artwork by the Pokemon head artist, Ken Sugimori (without alpha channel - the thick black border is supposed to be mostly transparent)
Right is the official sprite used in Pokemon Platinum and HeartGold (without animation)
Compare and contrast.

Thurbo
23 Aug 2010, 21:03
Thurbo, you are aware that in digital media, basically everything is pixel art, aren't you?
I don't know, I thought "pixel art" specifies exactly that sort of style SP's chosen. (Low resolution, lack of anti-aliasing and so on)
4: you're completely ignoring that there's plenty of actual comparisons, especially as a result of the DS's small resolution size. Heck, there's an entire franchise of them!
Here's just one:
http://a.imageshack.us/img294/3974/dialgacompare.png
Left is the official artwork by the Pokemon head artist, Ken Sugimori (without alpha channel - the thick black border is supposed to be mostly transparent)
Right is the official sprite used in Pokemon Platinum and HeartGold (without animation)
I've always been wondering why the pokémon look so pixelated at all? I mean, have you played, for example, Worms Open Warfare 2? Of course, the resolution is lower on the DS than on other platforms. But OW2 is one of the best looking 2D games on Nintendo's handheld since it makes use of anti-aliasing by adding transparent pixels to every in-game object thus the outlines look smoothed, not like Dialga in that image (if it's called Dialga in English as well).
Example 1 (http://www.thq.com/resources/screenshots/large/d1d49d5494303a84b88944d71e6e4811.jpg), 2 (http://media.gamerevolution.com/images/games/ds/worms_2_open_warfare/small/worms_2_open_warfare_001.jpg), 3 (http://dsmedia.ign.com/ds/image/article/786/786621/worms-open-warfare-2-20070509054531675.jpg) and 4 (http://nds-emulation.com/wp-content/worms-open-warefare23.jpg)

MtlAngelus
23 Aug 2010, 21:51
Well personally I've never been of the mindset that "pixel art" is a style or technique any more than old 16-color sprites or low-poly models would be. It was a technical limitation of the time that got popularized because of nostalgia glasses or indy's limited skills or whatever.
It is a hard point to defend, but pixel art is a style of it's own. There's a certain charm to it that cannot be achieved by high resolution animations. The lack of detail forces your mind to come up with the missing detail, and thus can be much more expresive than regular art because of that. On regular art, you are forced to give facial expresions to your characters for them to be expressive, but then the character's expression is cemented to what you drew, there is barely any room for interpretation, where is where pixel art shines. In pixel art, you are forced to convey emotions through simple movements or small pixel variations, and then it's entirely up to your mind to fill up the blanks, and it ends up in a potentialy much more expressive character that works differently for every person.
I'm not saying it's better, just that it does offer something different that traiditional animation cannot offer, and thus deserves it's place in videogames other than just being a nostalgia thing.

Pino
23 Aug 2010, 22:14
I'm sure your pc will be able to run a discussion between pixel art and ''smooth'' art

Plasma
23 Aug 2010, 22:30
I've always been wondering why the pokémon look so pixelated at all? I mean, have you played, for example, Worms Open Warfare 2? Of course, the resolution is lower on the DS than on other platforms. But OW2 is one of the best looking 2D games on Nintendo's handheld since it makes use of anti-aliasing by adding transparent pixels to every in-game object thus the outlines look smoothed, not like Dialga in that image (if it's called Dialga in English as well).
Because it doesn't look nearly as good! In the same sense that a proper-sized pixel-tailored image looks better than a regularly drawn one (see Aku's examples), an 80x80 pixel image usually looks better than a scaled hand-drawn one. And because of its size, it would take the same amount of effort either way.
For their non-handheld proper-resolution stuff (for example, the new Pokemon games' connect-to-PC minigame thing), The Pokemon Company always goes for proper images.
Open Warfare 2 can get away with it because its sprites are very basic and nondescript - Worms, after all, have next to no detail on them.

SupSuper
23 Aug 2010, 22:38
Actually Pokemon developers are just lazy.

Akuryou13
23 Aug 2010, 23:25
It is a hard point to defend, but pixel art is a style of it's own. There's a certain charm to it that cannot be achieved by high resolution animations. The lack of detail forces your mind to come up with the missing detail, and thus can be much more expresive than regular art because of that. On regular art, you are forced to give facial expresions to your characters for them to be expressive, but then the character's expression is cemented to what you drew, there is barely any room for interpretation, where is where pixel art shines. In pixel art, you are forced to convey emotions through simple movements or small pixel variations, and then it's entirely up to your mind to fill up the blanks, and it ends up in a potentialy much more expressive character that works differently for every person.
I'm not saying it's better, just that it does offer something different that traiditional animation cannot offer, and thus deserves it's place in videogames other than just being a nostalgia thing.THIS is what I was saying, Sup.
your examples of Sonic, Earthworm Jim and Monkey Island all look better, yes. I agree completely on that point. but the originals were made when technology WAS the reason we chose to do pixel art. we couldn't run fully-painted games on our computers, so pixel art was the best we could do.
Modern pixel art, however, isn't a limited thing. you can do whatever you like with it. If you want to paint the mona lisa with pixels, you can (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU). it's a style. you can choose to paint a beautiful painting with 3 colors if you so choose, and if you know what you're doing it can still look amazing. that's what I'm saying about pixel art. it isn't inherently worse just because it's grainy, as you're saying. It's simply a different choice in style. One that YOU may not find as appealing, but one that isn't factually worse than any other style of art.
Paul Robertson did an amazing job with his work in the Scott Pilgrim game and the effect is a really nice-looking game. not a nice-looking game for something using pixel art, just a nice looking game.
oh, and plasma. that pokemon comparison is crap. if you blow up a sprite that large it's going to look as terrible as if you blew up any other picture that much. I accept your 4 points about my argument being poor, but your example is a terrible one as it only serves to help their argument.
I've always been wondering why the pokémon look so pixelated at all? I mean, have you played, for example, Worms Open Warfare 2? Of course, the resolution is lower on the DS than on other platforms. But OW2 is one of the best looking 2D games on Nintendo's handheld since it makes use of anti-aliasing by adding transparent pixels to every in-game object thus the outlines look smoothed, not like Dialga in that image (if it's called Dialga in English as well).
Example 1 (http://www.thq.com/resources/screenshots/large/d1d49d5494303a84b88944d71e6e4811.jpg), 2 (http://media.gamerevolution.com/images/games/ds/worms_2_open_warfare/small/worms_2_open_warfare_001.jpg), 3 (http://dsmedia.ign.com/ds/image/article/786/786621/worms-open-warfare-2-20070509054531675.jpg) and 4 (http://nds-emulation.com/wp-content/worms-open-warefare23.jpg)surely the new pokemon use anti-aliased vectors as well? they're not sticking to the old over-sized sprites STILL, are they?! *googles* geez. those don't look much better than red and blue did. surely the resolution on the DS is higher than that...

Plasma
24 Aug 2010, 00:21
oh, and plasma. that pokemon comparison is crap. if you blow up a sprite that large it's going to look as terrible as if you blew up any other picture that much.
Okay what the hell? Aku, blown up sprites are EXACTLY what we are talking about here! Scott Pilgrim? More scaled up than the picture I posted!
surely the new pokemon use anti-aliased vectors as well? they're not sticking to the old over-sized sprites STILL, are they?! *googles* geez. those don't look much better than red and blue did. surely the resolution on the DS is higher than that...
Aku...
The DS has a screen size of 256x192. That's even smaller than what the NES was capable of.
You should know this.
Seriously, what is wrong with you today?

MtlAngelus
24 Aug 2010, 01:16
That pokemon one is just very crappy pixel art. Looks like a lazy job to me.
Edit: Consider 8-bit music as well. Is it worse because of its "lower quality"?
NO.
8-bit music is still awesome
Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtN4GizqEs&feature=search

Plasma
24 Aug 2010, 02:50
That pokemon one is just very crappy pixel art. Looks like a lazy job to me.
I chose the first Gen4 one I could think of. Considering it's the mascot Pokemon of one of the three games, there's no real way you can say it could've been better.
If you want to compare others, go nuts. (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Ndex)
Edit: Consider 8-bit music as well. Is it worse because of its "lower quality"?
NO.
YES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edL6I9cKZkI&p=D351F58936C2A924&playnext=1&index=16)
...okay, that's not an argument. Well, 8-bit music is somewhat different since it's far easier to make a likeable melody with. There's somewhat of a limit on how great it can be, but it's still easier to make and harder to screw up with. But with pixel art, that's not the case - it takes just as much effort and can be just as bad.

Akuryou13
24 Aug 2010, 03:54
Okay what the hell? Aku, blown up sprites are EXACTLY what we are talking about here! Scott Pilgrim? More scaled up than the picture I posted!no. we're talking about ACTUAL sprites. in their native size. which is what we're using as avatars, last I checked.
I'm not saying that particular sprite was bad, just that the way you displayed it was.
Aku...
The DS has a screen size of 256x192. That's even smaller than what the NES was capable of.
You should know this.
Seriously, what is wrong with you today?I'm sorry I don't know the screen resolution of nintendo consoles off-hand, but I'm not really sure why I should.
edit: So you're saying none of those could possibly be better, and if someone also painstakingly did an entire castle or city in, say, lush high-res graphics (http://www.noupe.com/inspiration/mind-blowing-3d-rendering-artworks.html), it wouldn't look better? for the record? None of those are better than any of my examples. they're just a different style of art. a more realistic style, so if you define "better" as being more realistic, then you're absolutely right. I've actually got a couple of those you posted on my favorites on dA. they're great works, but I've also got that castle I posted on my favorites. equally beautiful work. apparently you disagree with this, and that's fine. but it's all opinion on both sides, not fact.

franpa
24 Aug 2010, 09:48
That pokemon one is just very crappy pixel art. Looks like a lazy job to me.
Edit: Consider 8-bit music as well. Is it worse because of its "lower quality"?
NO.
8-bit music is still awesome
Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtN4GizqEs&feature=search
Wait what, is that an official OST? I didn't know it had an OST :O

CakeDoer
24 Aug 2010, 10:22
I'm going to have to stick up for pixel art. You can't compare pixel art and hand-drawn/smooth art by pumping the pixel art example five times its original size. And even though I like all kinds of art, the examples Aku gave are much better than those realistic, lifeless 3D work Sup gave as an example. Pixel art is the definition of detail. You can put more detail into pixel art than in any other drawing style. It's its charm. You can't duplicate it even in hand-drawn art.
Also that low resolution crap you were talking about, Thurbo, is an invalid argument. You can draw pixel art as high resolution as you want, but if you resize it, it's going to lose quality (of course, as with any other image).

bonz
24 Aug 2010, 11:50
Pixel art today is appealing to the retro nerd in us, giving us a warm, sentimental feeling when we remember back to the days of early computer games in our childhood.
That is, if we were children back then.
Kids who grew up with pentium processors, graphics acceleration and 3D engines will of course get their warm, sentimental feelings when they see such stuff, and most likely think that "pixel art" is completely stone-aged.
Back in the day, computer game producers were simply limited by the early hardware.
They definitely didn't deliberately do it that way because of an artistic style.
Compare it with early movie technology!
First it was just black & white and silent, because the technology wasn't there yet.
Producers surely dreamed of having colour and sound, just like in stage plays.
Besides, this recent (revival?) trend of "chiptune music" and "pixel art" doesn't really appeal that much to me, even though I'm old enough to have experienced back in the day.
I'm a fan the real, analog world, with distorted electric guitars and newspapers printed on paper.
(Of course, I do own a digital camera, because nowadays photography on real photo film is just a waste of money.)

Plasma
24 Aug 2010, 12:43
no. we're talking about ACTUAL sprites. in their native size. which is what we're using as avatars, last I checked.
...
Okay this oughta be good: How, exactly, did you manage to think that we were talking about proper-sized images? Did you miss where everyone was constantly saying things like "low-resolution" and "intentional limitation"? Did you think Scott Pilgrim only played in 1/5th of the TV screen? Did you think that "pixel art" is just another word for using a very small pallette? I really have no idea and I want to know!
Kids who grew up with pentium processors, graphics acceleration and 3D engines will of course get their warm, sentimental feelings when they see such stuff, and most likely think that "pixel art" is completely stone-aged.
Okay it could be just me but I don't think games are going to get significantly more advanced than 3D games in truecolour anytime soon.

Thurbo
24 Aug 2010, 14:37
no. we're talking about ACTUAL sprites. in their native size. which is what we're using as avatars, last I checked.
I'm not saying that particular sprite was bad, just that the way you displayed it was.
Yes, actually the pokémon is way smaller (DS screen isn't as big as your PC's screen you know)
But... I mean, have you ever looked at SP? The pixels are displayed tremendously, too.
You can put more detail into pixel art than in any other drawing style. It's its charm. You can't duplicate it even in hand-drawn art.
So... In plain English, you just said the lower resolutions are, the more detailed a picture is? Great, thanks for the tip!
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt52/Thurbo1/Graphics.png?t=1282656838
Also that low resolution crap you were talking about, Thurbo, is an invalid argument. You can draw pixel art as high resolution as you want, but if you resize it, it's going to lose quality (of course, as with any other image).
There you go! That's exactly what I'm talking about! If the resolution was smaller, they could have added even more pixels to the game - et voilá, it would have looked x times better ("x" is proportional to the resolution)!

MtlAngelus
24 Aug 2010, 14:39
Wait what, is that an official OST? I didn't know it had an OST :O
Nah, I'm pretty sure it was just ripped from the game. It just gets labeled as OST because it's part of the soundtrack of the game.

franpa
24 Aug 2010, 15:16
It's not from the game, I have the music from the game. Though if there was an Arcade version of the game...
edit: Okay, according to Wikipedia there is in fact a Sound Track/OST.

Akuryou13
24 Aug 2010, 17:23
Okay this oughta be good: How, exactly, did you manage to think that we were talking about proper-sized images? Did you miss where everyone was constantly saying things like "low-resolution" and "intentional limitation"? Did you think Scott Pilgrim only played in 1/5th of the TV screen? Did you think that "pixel art" is just another word for using a very small pallette? I really have no idea and I want to know!......you're going to be pedantic on every single point, aren't you?
you posted a pokemon sprite from a GAMEBOY at the size that it would appear if you'd rerouted your gameboy onto a 50" TV. and you're going to sit here and tell me that it isn't overblown and ugly?! ffs, are you intentionally this stupid or do you practice?
The scott pilgrim game is larger than that. significantly. it was made to be played on a TV. yes, it would still blow it up a fair bit depending on how large your TV is, and yes, it might end up looking crappy if your TV is large enough. I never said it wasn't possible to make pixel art look bad, in case you haven't noticed. hell, if that's what sup and thurbo were meaning originally, then I can completely concede the point and do so happily. your pokemon sprite, on the other hand? it looks fairly crappy even at its smallest. you'll note that sup said as much earlier about pokemon sprites being lazy. they're not that great no matter HOW you view them. now here you're trying to call ME stupid because you posted two images of the same thing side by side, one its normal size the way it was meant to be viewed and the other about 20 times normal size? I defy you to find me the work of art that you can blow up like that and retain a decent image quality.
go troll somewhere else for once, would you? you're just making yourself look even worse, and with you, that's an accomplishment.

Thurbo
24 Aug 2010, 18:26
So there's a limit for pixel art sizes? lol that starts amusing me. Especially because, from what I've seen from screenshots and trailers, SP already looks overblown (http://www.ps3blog.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ScottPilgrimVsTheWorldTheGame_Screenshot_World4_Fi ghtInTheGarden.jpg) and crappy (http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2010/03/Scott_Pilgrim_the_Videogame_19-479x300.jpg). I don't know if that is the smallest size you can play this game with but it doesn't really look nice to me.

Akuryou13
24 Aug 2010, 19:20
So there's a limit for pixel art sizes? lol that starts amusing me. Especially because, from what I've seen from screenshots and trailers, SP already looks overblown (http://www.ps3blog.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ScottPilgrimVsTheWorldTheGame_Screenshot_World4_Fi ghtInTheGarden.jpg) and crappy (http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2010/03/Scott_Pilgrim_the_Videogame_19-479x300.jpg). I don't know if that is the smallest size you can play this game with but it doesn't really look nice to me.oh yikes. those shots DO look awful. perhaps we've just seen different views of the game.

MtlAngelus
24 Aug 2010, 19:48
It's not from the game, I have the music from the game. Though if there was an Arcade version of the game...
edit: Okay, according to Wikipedia there is in fact a Sound Track/OST.
It is from the game. It's from the original MSX version of Metal Gear. I know because I played the damn thing recently on an MSX emulator.
So there's a limit for pixel art sizes? lol that starts amusing me. Especially because, from what I've seen from screenshots and trailers, SP already looks overblown (http://www.ps3blog.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ScottPilgrimVsTheWorldTheGame_Screenshot_World4_Fi ghtInTheGarden.jpg) and crappy (http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2010/03/Scott_Pilgrim_the_Videogame_19-479x300.jpg). I don't know if that is the smallest size you can play this game with but it doesn't really look nice to me.
oh yikes. those shots DO look awful. perhaps we've just seen different views of the game.
The first one looks fine, I don't know what's wrong with you two. The second one is merely one of the small "cutscenes", where it shows a few characters doing a few moves, sprites are blown up larger but it happens too fast and doesn't look bad in motion.

Akuryou13
24 Aug 2010, 22:15
The first one looks fine, I don't know what's wrong with you two. The second one is merely one of the small "cutscenes", where it shows a few characters doing a few moves, sprites are blown up larger but it happens too fast and doesn't look bad in motion.first one just looks like a poor jpg. looks fuzzy. second screen is similar bad jpeging, and the colors are blown out to hell and back. I think someone saved that one in ms paint.

MtlAngelus
24 Aug 2010, 22:22
Well, yes, but it should be fairly obvious that bad image compression does not happen when playing the game.

Paul.Power
24 Aug 2010, 22:29
I think you guys are missing the definition of art a bit here. Something doesn't have to look realistic to be good art. Otherwise no-one would like impressionism or cubism or abstract art or any of a hundred other different art forms. Saying that pixel art is bad art because it isn't as realistic, detailed or technically proficient as modern stuff is pretty daft. Calling it "bad art with style" is even dafter, because if it's got style then that kind of makes it good art by definition.
Granted by this point we're into the murky waters of subjectivity, but that beats trying to define what is and isn't good art objectively.
(And artists complain that scientists don't get art :p)
(Also, for what it's worth I still prefer WA's worm graphics to WR's ones, but I accept that it would require an unfeasible amount of artist-hours and suboptimal processor usage to make something similar today. Oh well. I guess it's like a cathedral in that sense).

Akuryou13
24 Aug 2010, 22:31
Well, yes, but it should be fairly obvious that bad image compression does not happen when playing the game.yes, well *I* realize that, but thurbo posted those images as his evidence that the game looks bad, so I was commenting on those images as he posted them. they look bad. my youtube experience says that's not the game's fault, but I was ignoring my common sense for a second to judge objectively.

franpa
25 Aug 2010, 06:51
first one just looks like a poor jpg. looks fuzzy. second screen is similar bad jpeging, and the colors are blown out to hell and back. I think someone saved that one in ms paint.
MS Paint doesn't distort colours unless you save in a file format that supports less colours like GIF.

Akuryou13
25 Aug 2010, 07:19
MS Paint doesn't distort colours unless you save in a file format that supports less colours like GIF.which is what I meant. paint has many ways to screw up colors. I'm guessing someone used one of them.

Thurbo
25 Aug 2010, 11:39
(Also, for what it's worth I still prefer WA's worm graphics to WR's ones, but I accept that it would require an unfeasible amount of artist-hours and suboptimal processor usage to make something similar today. Oh well. I guess it's like a cathedral in that sense).
So, WA was also pixel art? If I remember correctly, it looked a little better than SP...
Oh yes, it had smoothed outlines.
Anyway I perhaps need to play SP first to judge the graphics but I neither have an XBox nor a PS3 :(
Btw, I see a lot of charme in adventures from which I know artists have drawn all in-game graphics with loving care on paper and at the same time, it's more pretty to look at.

Akuryou13
25 Aug 2010, 16:20
So, WA was also pixel art? If I remember correctly, it looked a little better than SP...
Oh yes, it had smoothed outlines.yeah. worms used anti-aliased vectors for their sprites, so things were a little smoother.

Psy-UK
25 Aug 2010, 19:09
It turns out that this game runs at 0.5FPS in the menu for myself with an ATi 4870 and a Q6600. Oh dear! :P

CakeDoer
25 Aug 2010, 19:22
yeah. worms used anti-aliased vectors for their sprites, so things were a little smoother.
actually that's false, they used sprites that looked anti-aliased but weren't. They had a semi visible dark outline that made them look anti-aliased on a black/dark background.

Thurbo
25 Aug 2010, 19:41
So THAT'S why all backgrounds in Worms Armageddon/World Party are almost completely black...

Akuryou13
25 Aug 2010, 20:22
actually that's false, they used sprites that looked anti-aliased but weren't. They had a semi visible dark outline that made them look anti-aliased on a black/dark background.oh right. I'd actually forgotten about that.

bloopy
26 Aug 2010, 12:32
To answer the original question in this thread, the game runs rather well even for me. 1GB RAM, 128MB gfx memory, 1920x1080, default settings. FPS is up around 55-60 for the most part.
I doubt anyone has anything to worry about.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.