24.02.2010, 21:22
philip.ed Wrote:Aza-Industries Wrote:philip.ed Wrote:Wrong! Oleg said graphics are as important as historical detail. Are you sure you know what SoW is....if so, please learn your history before posting. Now I'm taking all your posts with a pinch of salt m8 (although I was before)
I wasn't wrong.. I said the game isn't only about graphics.. did you read my whole post? Stop being a donkey on purpose.
I never once mentioned historical detail or how they would compare to the graphics.
Obviously you found nothing to fault in my post and started making up stuff so I'm wrong by your point of view.
If your going to keep arguing my knowledge of game mechanics and future technology projections maybe you should at least know what your talking about instead of just marking what I say as wrong just because you haven't studied this sort of thing like I have and assume no one knows more then you do.
here's an example if you still don't get it:
some guy of the street may be really good at art and can paint masterpieces where as I can't draw a straight line without a ruler, see how two people can have different skill sets?
Sorry, I keep forgetting you can read Oleg's imagination :roll: My post initially was right and is justified. Graphics, as Oleg said, are important and make the game accessible to people who aren't sure about the genre. I'm not saying your PC will run SoW, but you can't be so arrogant as to assume you are always right. I already showed you where you were wrong, and that opinion makes your whole post different; if you've been assuming SoW won't be about the graphics you've making wrong assumptions. It is about the graphics, just as it is about the historical detail. I have no doubt the best PC's today should run SoW well, but I'm going to wait and see what happens before I make predictions that aren't justified. I haven't even seen SoW's physics engine, so for all we know it could much more realistic than crysis.
I wasn't arrogant and I didn't assume anything. Do you actually read my posts? or are you just going to keep posting the same thing over and over again.
Also just because he said graphics are just important as historical detail that doesn't mean anything, how do you compare the two? at what ratio do you think perfect historical detail would equal a certain graphic quality? Good graphics are easier to produce these days and game engine are getting extremely efficient at utilizing hardware to its best capability.
To what are you referring when you said "I already showed where you were wrong" because that was never the case, I could just as easily say that I did the same to you instead of backing up my claims with knowledge like I have. Your still just saying the same thing and expressing no hint that you know much about the technologies behind graphics and computing instead your just saying I couldn't know what Oleg it thinking. You don't need to know what he is thinking to calculate the max performance criteria of software that is due to come out at a set rate withing a year or so.
Even if I had the best PC money can buy today that would be overkill as I have said in other threads its what you do with it that counts. People who go buy the best of the best often think they are "Pro" or something (in most cases they are not) where as I know enough to get high end but not ridiculous gear and make it run faster then most people can with there stupid super system. There a hundreds and hundreds of factors that effect performance and each one would give my PC a gain of a few percent more performance each time they are applied. I've done the exact same thing in the past to calculate how long my previous systems would be able to run everything perfectly all it takes is knowing where and what to study to figure this sort of stuff out.
If your going to reply again saying I am wrong I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to educate you because your clearly to narrow minded to understand that people are able to study or do research to gain a knowledge advantage over someone else in a particular topic.