| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (35)

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 4:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, it does sound like Kyle @ [H] is a bit off base.

BUT...what you're describing sounds like a standard "vert minus" implementation of the fov / resolution handling routine. This is unfortunately something that is moderately common, despite the increasing prevalence of widescreen gaming, despite being long-reviled, and despite being EASY to implement. Numerous games do NOT use this method - it's a choice, whether deliberate or through ignorance. This would affect significantly more than 1% of users. I hesitate to speculate about widescreen penetration - but it's probably closer to 20-40%.

Also, while I'd support a "gameplay vs. eye candy" argument...it makes no sense to play a modern 3D game in 1024x768 unless you are (a) poor, (b) a minor, or (c) do not use your computer enough to justify anything more than a minimal investment in improving it. Tetris, sure, that works great at low res. The interface supports it. But modern 3D games follow an immersion paradigm. Deliberately playing at this low of a resolution significantly hampers the experience. Maybe because it relies a little too much on eye candy - but it is what it is, and shooting yourself in the foot to spite someone you don't even know *makes no sense*.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 4:29PM drunkenpandaren said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
"Surround gaming is finally becoming mainstream (every current generation ATI card is capable of it) and I think it is shortsighted to dismiss it."

That guy in the first post lost his credibility right there. Just because every ATI card supports it doesn't mean any of the users are using it. I wouldn't call it mainstream at all just because some people are using it.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 4:41PM Psychotic Storm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would be happy if they acknowledged that people do have 3 monitors and would rather play the game in some other monitor that their main without going to the windowed mode set custom resolution routine.

My citiq is for drawing not gaming :(

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 7:50PM JuliusSeizure said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just have my Cintiq set as my secondary monitor, not my primary. Problem avoided entirely!

PS- Cintiqs are also for web-browsing during gaming sessions. ;)
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 4:44PM Tizmah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This Kyle guy sounds like a whiney little brat who can only be satisfied with the BEST OF THE BEST. He needs a slap in the face big time.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 4:45PM Joshua Przygocki said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Most people cannot afford multiple monitors, and why would you want big black lines going through your game...

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 1:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
sorry but saying most does not cut it anymore why because it gives people plenty of room to say your wrong because there is no number.

i bought this http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_GeForce_3D_VisionBundle_us.html

for $598 it comes with glass/3d deivce for 3Ding and monitor

Screen Size 22’’ wide
Resolution 1680x1050
Brightness 300 cd/m²
Contrast Ratio DC 20000:1 (1000:1)
Response Time 5ms
Viewing Angle 170º / 160º (CR > 10)

i picked it up at newegg using the bill me later program and now i have two monitors.

although my other one is a tv
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 4:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good counterpoint. While the [H] crowd can choose to dislike the game and not buy it, to use a platform like he has and ask that everyone NOT buy the game is irresponsible.

I may have the money to spend on buying a nice video card, but I know most don't have the money to spend on multiple huge monitors.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 5:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In the interest of full disclosure I have not personally spoken with Kyle nor do I own Global Agenda (GA).

What I took from the HardOCP review wasn't wholly a case of lamentation of not supporting the most bleeding edge, whiz-bang tech on the market. Instead I took it as frustration with a developer who was going to dictate how our hardware may behave and a somewhat deceptive tone in when dealing with the community on the issue.

The notion of "advantage" rather than what I believe is not wanting to support niche/new technology really ticks me off. Someone could, for example run on a 32-40 LED/LCD/Plasma Display and conceivably have more pixels that 3x20" or 3x22" monitors could provide (as a hypothetical, I am not saying this is gospel).

As I discussed with a MMO/Console developer friend of mine the frustration for me isn't with Eyefinity or whatever ATI is hocking that day; it was the way it was presented by HiRez. It came off as disingenuous. Cheating? Please... Don't want to support the newest niche product - Fine, I totally understand and to a point support the notion of not spending valuable dev resources on it. But let's not blow smoke up anyone's arse and maybe like tell the truth at some point. This wouldn't even be a blip on anyone's radar if they had dropped the "cheating" excrement and just been honest about a technology limit and/or not wanting to go there.

It is tantamount to trying to make everyone "equal" - Where does it stop? Do we start downclocking the quad core folks since their CPU runs faster and combined with a better graphics card they get more frames? My laser mouse is more precise than the freebie OEM mouse that came with Joe's computer and I own a 1st Gen G15 so nerf me hard.

Based on that point of view I will be skipping GA. I don't have ATI/Eyefinity etc. ; I just refuse to spend $15 to be talked down to. I could care less about Eyefinity, quad-flux capacitor powered monitors that crap rainbows or any of that sheep dip. Honesty goes a long way. If you can't be honest with me I have no time for your game...

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 8:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Did you read this? Did you?

The "cheating" comment was in response to unlocking FoV customization. I believe having that extra vision could have much more of an effect than a couple thousand dpi for you mouse.
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 4:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I couldn't care less about multiple monitor support. Beyond this one Kyle guy's rant, though, the real debate seems to be over whether GA should use hor+ or vert-.

The "unfair advantage" argument is a bit flimsy. Either way you slice it, one aspect ratio is going to have a larger FoV than another. As I understand it, with vert-, which GA currently uses, the view is lengthened vertically to accommodate the screen/window/what have you. This means that 4:3 sees more above and below their character than 16:9. In a hor+ game, the view is instead widened horizontally, so 16:9 sees more to the sides than 4:3.

You could argue that vert- is the lesser of two evils: even in a game with emphasis on the z-axis, like GA with its jet packs, a taller FoV will confer less advantage than a wider one.

However, as 16:9, the standard HD ratio, becomes more common, some people see vert- as forcing them to choose between resolution and FoV.

The counter-argument to "lesser of two evils" is that more common widescreen becomes, the more people are disadvantaged by being restricted to vert-. Ideally, having the best hardware wouldn't provide a significant competitive advantage, but if investing in tech is going to give anyone the advantage, it should be the person who made the investment.

Why not just give gamers the option? If someone playing on a cube of a monitor wants to get the maximum FoV, they can just change their resolution- they'll see just as much of the battlefield as their higher-tech brethren, if rendered in fewer pixels. Sure, widescreen users could do the same if vert- were the only option, shrinking their window horizontally if they want that extra centimeter of vertical FoV. However, making both hor+ and vert- available opens the best of both worlds to those who are willing to pay for it, rather than disincentivizing hardware upgrades as current restrictions do.
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 5:33PM Wgraves said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
all i can think of is EVE in a 360deg FOV.... sooo pretty

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 5:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think HardOCPs review did more to turn people off their website then go about making any change to Global Agenda itself.

To the post above me. Saying that HiRez is trying to dictate how you use your hardware is just ridiculous. Giving a wider point of view would obviously be a huge advantage over the other players. This game, like many, is a competition. Get over the fact that you can't, through expenditure, gain an advantage. You will just have to practice and get your skills up like the rest of us.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 5:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I'd be fairly annoyed if (as some games do) it didn't work at all with multiple monitors, as long as I can get it to produce some meaningful output on a single monitor irrespective of whatever else is plugged in, I don't see the issue...

Love my multi-monitors, but even just dual-screen is a rare setup, let alone Eyefinity & co.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 6:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Kyle bennet is and has always been a total jackass. Of course he would boycott them like a big baby. He has mellowed out over the years but search his posts over at hardforum hes a total dick.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 6:14PM KDWhite said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good read,

My only thought is that I applaud those of us that strive (demand?) this type of performance from our beloved games?

If they didn't expect these types of improvements, where would be the incentive for developers to create/utilize newer technology?

While it may be something of a stretch for the 99% of us to sympathize with someone who has the cash flow to have a rig like that in the first place, I do see his point.

Demand moar!
Expect nothing,
love what you have.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 6:18PM Mistur said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Boycotting is silly.

But I do wish the developers would develop for larger reso/Multi Monitor setups. More people have multi monitors now then ever before.

One thing I have to say to the single monitor gamers that hate on the people with multiple. Give it a rest. Get some buddies to lend you the spare monitors or something. Playing a game with 3 or more monitors on a fun game just makes it more fun. Not everyone can do it, but then again not everyone can have a 24"+ monitors or the latest console or the latest game. But its the people who do use the latest and greatest tech that push tech developers to make new interesting tech. But hey maybe we should all use the minimum settings for a world of warcraft and everyone take 3 steps back in the current tech because some people want to spend their money on computer stuff.

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 7:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem with that logic is that if I start to multi-monitor, then there will be more people using multiple monitors than ever before.

The issue is want vs. need. All you *need* to sufficiently run a computer is one monitor. Until society dictates otherwise, multi-boxing is a luxury.

For the $200 I'd need for a 2nd monitor, I could buy 2 months worth of groceries. Which do you think is a better investment?
Reply

Posted: Feb 18th 2010 7:32PM Psychotic Storm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
With that logic why spend money on anything than bare essential?
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2010 1:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yea JoeMello04 i can see where you are coming from because if you have to choice between food and a new shiny food should be it. So im guessing this is more of a personal debut why because as time goes one you will get more money.

more than enough too not worry about food etc and you can buy your shines with so then you will be the person saying what monitors dont cost a lot
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW