Company News Is Troika Dead?

[Sol Invictus]

That's fair Saint but those games don't have much quality either, and games like NFSU as I stated have a built in motion blur feature that gives the game an illusion of smoothness. It is not acceptible for games like Bloodlines or HAlf Life 2, which have far more details, to be rendered in such low framerates.

The more things going on at once, the less likely you are to notice that the frame rate might not be optimal for what the human mind percieves as motion. There'd be too many things for the brain to track to notice that WHOOPS the frame rate dropped to 25FPS down from 30FPS temporarily or from 40FPS to 35FPS or even all the way down to 25FPS.

In a situation like a game, then you've also got your brain focusing on interacting with the scenario. So, until it gets down to 20FPS and below, you're probably not going to notice it unless you have that little counter up telling you that your frame rate is dropping.

In the end I think it comes down to the fact that I'm used to seeing an average of 60+fps in the games I play so 35fps just looks incredibly bad because my eyes and brain are conditioned to perceive better framerates. I think that's how most hardcore FPSers feel when they play the game and it looks slow.

 

[dojoteef]

Thank you for a least trying to be reasonable now, Exitium. I appreciate that.

You got me on that except for the fact that NFSU and other racing games do do that in order to provide an illusion of speed where the framerate is not high enough to convey it.

The one problem here, is that it is not for creating realism. Instead it is for creating the idea of motion blur; that when something is moving too fast for the eye to see, the mind interpolates it poorly, thus percieving a blur. It's an after effect that many developers have started developing ever since DX7 or 8 capabilities have come out, because it makes it much easier to do. With the TV and movies, the effect is subtle. It is meant to try and convey motion, instead of motion blur (except in the cases where they are going for that effect specifically).

However, because console games are far less detailed than their PC FPS counterparts, is it not logical to simply state that FPS games on the PC look choppy when played at similar framerates due to the detail present in the imagery?

I don't see how you can say that is true, mainly due to the fact that when consoles are first released they do tend to have better graphics quality than most PCs. The edge is lost over time because of the tendency to increase the processing power of the PC, while the console's processing power is set for life. So in those times when consoles look better than PCs, how do you justify your position? Also the fact that graphics quality is something that continually increases. Are you saying that the quality has now hit a threshold that requires more FPS? If so, what's going to happen when the latest consoles come out at the end of this year or the beginning of the next? They'll still be playing on TVs that are only fully updated 30 times a second.

 

[dojoteef]

In the end I think it comes down to the fact that I'm used to seeing an average of 60+fps in the games I play so 35fps just looks incredibly bad because my eyes and brain are conditioned to perceive better framerates. I think that's how most hardcore FPSers feel when they play the game and it looks slow.

Okay, now you are making sense. That's the point I was trying to convey to you. I think that's the reason why John Carmack decided to cap the framerate at 60fps for Doom 3. Anything would be overkill and would get people used to playing games at even higher fps.
Personally I think it would be best if they capped framerate at 30-35fps. That is more than enough to get a coherent motion image for a game and ultimately would allow people to increase graphic detail.

This fad all started when 3dfx made the Voodoo 2 and had the marketing people say that 60fps is what's required and anything lower is crap. People bought into that idea, and once they got used to it, going back down in fps became a big issue. At least that's what I think.

 

[Sol Invictus]

For whats its worth, I think most folks can detect flicker on a monitor upto around 70hz (the monitor refreshes the screen 70 times a second) for some people that will be lower, some higher, you own personal mileage will vary.

A game drawing higher than your monitor refresh is wasting frames you will not see. Now, the problem with n00bs claiming that movies are only 24-30 frames per second (FPS) being nice and smooth and such, is down to the phosphors of your screen, monitors are designed to be refreshed very very quickly, the phosphors consequently have a short 'glow' period after being passed over by the electron gun. A TV uses phosphors that glow for longer and dont' fade much before they get hit again. Its the fade of the phosphors that causes the flicker as they are illuminated and then fade before being hit again.

To note I don't think Bloodlines' main problem is that it runs at an average of 35fps. It's the fact that it runs erratically and ever so often drops below 10fps, so the game stutters for a second or so. Happens all the time. Hence, bad performance.

 

[Fez]

I agree about Exitium about the flicker on monitors, I can spot a monitor running on less than 70Hz easily and running at 60 or 50 Hz it looks terrible and is sore on the eyes, but on a TV it can run as low as 50Hz and it'll be comfortable and have no noticeable flicker, due to the difference in the build of a TV or monitor, they are not the same machine. Very similar, but not the same.

If you run a game at over 100FPS and then run at it 30 or even 50 or 60 FPS you will notice a difference in how smooth it is. I never used to believe it would make a difference, due to being told the one about "you can't see more than 24/25/30/whatever" so I went and tried it as an experiment, it turns out I was wrong and you can see the difference. I'm not saying a game is a disaster with a low framerate, but it is noticeable and it is different on console/TV and PC/monitor. There is a slight blurring with TVs compared with monitors, which gives a better appearance for the low framerate and I have asked TV engineers (and other technical nerdy types) this before and it is always agreed upon.

Thridly, people *do* complain about Bio's bugs. Heck, I've done it. I've done it on this site.

Didn't Bio ban a bunch of people for that? I remember you were banned from their forums and were not even told why. Seems like they don't like people to complain too loudly. No way to prove how Troika would have handled it though.

 

[Volourn]

"Didn't Bio ban a bunch of people for that? I remember you were banned from their forums and were not even told why. Seems like they don't like people to complain too loudly. No way to prove how Troika would have handled it though."

To my knowledge, Bioware has *never* banned ANYONE for complaining about bugs.

Just peruse their baords for half hour tops; and you'll see lots of complaining - about bugs, and otherwise - and, nothing happening to the people.

Though; I wasn't directly told why I was banned it was obvious it was because of back and forth 'argument' that Visc and I were having. Of course, when I asked them to unbanned me; they promptly did. It had nothing to do with bugs.

I'm sure BIO has banned people for the 'wrong reasons' (imo); but banning people simply becuase they complained baout bugs is stretching it consideirng they have entire boad sections devoted to bug reporting. That be a lot of bannings and non stop ones too.. <>

As for Troika, they'd handle it like this: Go BUG the publisher.

R00fles!

 

[Sol Invictus]

Why was Visceris banned?

 

[Volourn]

LOL

Which time are you referring to? He's been banned multiple times. The time with me, other times where he's basically called BIO or other posters stupid, dumb, retarded repeatedly. Also, for passing by the ban. Take your pick.

He's never been banned for sharing his opinion on bugs or otherwise; but how he expressed them.

Remember, the BIO boards are not the Codex. It's not open season.

 

[dojoteef]

Now, the problem with n00bs claiming that movies are only 24-30 frames per second (FPS) being nice and smooth and such, is down to the phosphors of your screen, monitors are designed to be refreshed very very quickly, the phosphors consequently have a short 'glow' period after being passed over by the electron gun. A TV uses phosphors that glow for longer and dont' fade much before they get hit again. Its the fade of the phosphors that causes the flicker as they are illuminated and then fade before being hit again.

Good point. It would be nice if they could set up a monitor that took that into account. If you are doing normal OS stuff, then it would have the quick fade, but if you are watching a fullscreen movie or playing a game, it would revert to the TV style longer phosphers. Of course that would require two sets of phosphers, which would increase prices dramatically.

Also, a lot of people have LCDs now, and they use a different mechanism. They toggle each pixel color, you can't turn a light element off. You get no flicker with the LCDs. Just some food for thought.

There is a slight blurring with TVs compared with monitors, which gives a better appearance for the low framerate and I have asked TV engineers (and other technical nerdy types) this before and it is always agreed upon.

There is no blurring done by the TV or the console. The blurring is done by the DVD, VHS, or TV broadcast. The TV will appear more blurry simply do to the larger pixel elements. The dot pitch and resolution are usually much worse than for monitors. With a monitor you are up close to the screen, so you need a better dot pitch, while with a TV you are usually much further away.

 

[Fez]

Good point. It would be nice if they could set up a monitor that took that into account.

There is no blurring done by the TV or the console.

WTF? Make up your mind, you either agree that the phosphor is different and affects the image or you don't. The image "appears" more blurry, but it isn't? that makes no sense, if it looks blurry, it is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If Troika is having problems; it's because of mismanagement. Just like Interplay. Period. Their route may have got there differently; but the situation (if it's true) is the same.
...

The problem is; is you guys are hypocrites. You laugh, you cheer, you celebrrate the demise of Interplay inspite all those who lost jobs because of it; inspite of Interplay's history of developing/publsihing great games INCLUDING Fallout yet you are slavsihly loal to a dev house that ahs released 3 games - none of which (except my bias in favor of Arcanum) makes them deserve such loyalty.

*sighs* The situations are totally different. Interplay, when the celebrataing of its demise started, canned TWO BIS games and BIS itself for no good reason. They could have produced those games, that's pretty much a fact. Instead they chose to make FOBOS and BGDA2. Anyway, Interplay that made Fallout was a different company. We weren't celebrating the demise of Fargo's Interplay, we were celebrating the demise of Caen's Interplay. Nobody here celebrated when BIS went down, that was a sad day, and that was one of the reasons for all the hate.

Then again, I'm not surprised consideirng it's the same 'ol Codex - Troika cna do no wrong and when they do it's somebody else's fault.

I hope there is a treatment for your dellusions. Check my Bloodlines review.

Troika makes a full fledge RT game. They rule.

Would it be too much to ask you to back your bullshit up?

Bio makes a D&D game. They are just trying to cash in.

Troika makes a D&D game. They love the business.

Yeah, because everyone knows that TB games sell like crazy these days. Nice try though.

Bio makes games that have bugs. They are evil, have poor support, and hate fans.

I don't recall many people complaining about Bio bugs though, and not because Bio games didn't have them. We've always bitched about their game design, not anything else.

Troika sends a press release bragging. They are marketing.

Which one would that be? Do you have a link handy or are you talking out of your ass again?

I like them; but they aren't deserving of being mourned (if it's even true) since their fall (if true) is occuring due to their own mistakes.

What a load of ... I don't even know what, but it's very, very stupid. So, if a person is hurt, he doesn't deserve to be mourned because it's his fucking fault? Please, Volly, focus, I *know* that you are not that stupid.

 

[Volourn]

"sighs* The situations are totally different. Interplay, when the celebrataing of its demise started, canned TWO BIS games and BIS itself for no good reason. They could have produced those games, that's pretty much a fact. Instead they chose to make FOBOS and BGDA2. Anyway, Interplay that made Fallout was a different company. We weren't celebrating the demise of Fargo's Interplay, we were celebrating the demise of Caen's Interplay. Nobody here celebrated when BIS went down, that was a sad day, and that was one of the reasons for all the hate."

Exuses, exuses. Everyone was celebrating that Inetrplay crashing depsite the fatc it meant that a lot of people were becoming bums. The bototm line here is that you guys like Troika so you mourn them (if this is true which I'm starting to have doubts about) like they're soemthing special and calling people like Rex evil because he's celebrating when you did the same exact thing.


"I hope there is a treatment for your dellusions. Check my Bloodlines review."

I did. It's the same as always. Always putting on as much a positve spin as you possibly can to lighten the blame on Troika's shoulders. The only part of the game that Troika seems to be universally blasted on is the frigged up ending sequence. Otherwise, everything is the publisher's fault. For the third striaght game.


"Would it be too much to ask you to back your bullshit up?"

The evidenc eis beofre you. The fact you guys have dared claim that BL's combat is better than BIO's pause n play system is delusional. i cna see why one would like FO or TOEE's combat more than the IE combat system; but BL? Ha. Whatever. Espicially for people who always make a big deal about "turn base being a must in RPGs".


"Yeah, because everyone knows that TB games sell like crazy these days. Nice try though."

Try telling that to Squaresoft. Of course, it's easy to ignore the fact that TOEE is also D&D and has the most popular D&D module in the plus side. Not to emntion, that tb does sale. Afterall, many people actaully believe BIO games are Tb yet they sell. R00fles! so, yeah, "tb" does sale.


"I don't recall many people complaining about Bio bugs though, and not because Bio games didn't have them. We've always bitched about their game design, not anything else."

Go to www.bioware.com and chekc out the bug support forums. Lots of people complaining. And, yes, people at the 'Codex have complained. In fact, whenever someone complains about TOEE's bugs one of the first thing out of yours, SP's, etc.'s typing is "NWN was buggy too!" Yet you sit there and claim you never complain about BIo's bugs? Yeah, uhuh, whatever.


"Which one would that be? Do you have a link handy or are you talking out of your ass again? "

This is easy. Without a link. 'From the Creators Of Fallout". Enough said. Game over. Troika didn't create FO. Period. Also, just look at the various press releases for TOEE and BL. Or better yet, Troika's official site for their hype.


"What a load of ... I don't even know what, but it's very, very stupid. So, if a person is hurt, he doesn't deserve to be mourned because it's his fucking fault?"

Here we go with the melodrama. I'm going to type this very slowly:

Troika. is. not. a. person. It. is. a. game. company. Unlike. you. I. will. not. treat. them. like. a. human. being.

Bototm line is when Troika came into being; it was a business. If they fall; it's because Troika screwed up. They were likely given some breaks due to Tim cain and Co's past history. They didn't follow through enough.

If they fail; it's their fault. It also means I got no mercy for Troika. I do feell bad for the employees; but I'm sure they'll likely bounce back.


"Please, Volly, focus, I *know* that you are not that stupid."

if being stupid means not treaing a company as a human being than i guess I am stupid. Either way, I'll survive.

Once again, if Troika fails; it's their fault.

If things are being blown out of proportion (which I'm starting to think is the case); and Troika succeeds in the end; all the more pwoer to them and they deserve it.

That is all. For now.

 

[dojoteef]

Good point. It would be nice if they could set up a monitor that took that into account.

There is no blurring done by the TV or the console.

WTF? Make up your mind, you either agree that the phosphor is different and affects the image or you don't. The image "appears" more blurry, but it isn't? that makes no sense, if it looks blurry, it is.

Fez stop acting like a moron. You don't know what you are talking about so shut up.

That first quote is regarding the fact that the phosphers light up for a longer period of time on a TV, thus reducing the effect of flicker. That has nothing to do with the second quote.

The second quote is about the blurring that is specifically added to video. If you pause a DVD on your computer in a high action scene you can see that blur. The TV does not add that.

The part of my post about the TV appearing more blurry has to do with the size of the pixels. For example look at these two images:

Up close on your monitor they look different, but if you step back 6-8 feet they'll look pretty identical. So if you sit as close to your TV as you do to your computer monitor it will seem blurry.

Posting stupid shit like you did, just makes you sound, well STUPID!



Anyway, I also wonder with the changing technology (such as plasma, lcd, oled, etc) now used for computer screens and TV screens how well these sorts of claims hold up.

 

[Shagnak]

Fez stop acting like a moron. You don't know what you are talking about so shut up.

That first quote is regarding the fact that the phosphers light up for a longer period of time on a TV, thus reducing the effect of flicker. That has nothing to do with the second quote.

The second quote is about the blurring that is specifically added to video. If you pause a DVD on your computer in a high action scene you can see that blur. The TV does not add that.

Err...pull your head in dojoteef.

The problem was that you quoted Fez essentially agreeing with you i.e. both agreeing that the picture on TVs look slightly blurry independent of whatever is sending the signal, due to many factors - whether this be to slow pixel renewal, low pixel definition, phosphors, whatever.

Then you disagree with that quote and say that "no blurring is done by the TV", in reference to "artificially added blurring" i.e. a blurring "effect" added specifically. You quoted wrongly, hence the confusion.

You pretend to speak with authority on many things, dojoteff, but it rather ruins it when you cannot construct a well-phrased argument and it looks (albeit, accidentally) slightly contradictory.

 

[Fez]

Oh no, the master dojoteef has spoken.

Don't be such a bigheaded cunt.

My point was that there is a visual difference froma PC game and some TV programme and people were not imagining it, and you show some images and say if you stand far away the look the same. Great. Thanks for the pantomime intended to insult me and humiliate me, very classy on your part. You seem to miss the point and instead decide to be pointlessly rude. When I wasn't even disagreeing with you.

And people call Volourn a troll. R00fles!

 

[dojoteef]

My point was that there is a visual difference froma PC game and some TV programme and people were not imagining it

Why would you mention anything like that then. It was already stated that TV shows have a blur built in. Niether I nor Exitium had any contention over that claim. Anyway, that has no bearing on the question of whether the framerates for console game are adequate for a computer game.

You seem to miss the point and instead decide to be pointlessly rude.

And I wasn't being pointlessly rude. I was replying in kind. When someone takes two unrelated quotes and puts them together, then says "WTF! Make up your mind", well forgive me for taking some offense.


As for you Shagnak. I wasn't misquoting Fez. You can see that from what he just posted. He was refering to the artificial blur and made it sound like it was the TV that did it. We weren't in agreement. I'm sorry that you can't understand my claims. Maybe I should dumb them down and put them in bold bite sized chunks like an Uwe Boll movie.

 

[Fez]

Maybe you should stop pretending you are an expert of everything and we should all bow down. I didn't even say you were wrong to start with. TVs and monitors are different. The definition is different and the scan rate is different. This makes the images look different. We all know about the film blur. Well done, you get an INTERWEB MEDAL.

If you have used computer images on a TV and a monitor you'd have seen the difference it isn't that hard to spot, even for us peasants/non jerks.

 

[Shagnak]

You can see that from what he just posted. He was refering to the artificial blur and made it sound like it was the TV that did it. We weren't in agreement.

I suggest you read it again. Comprehension is obviously not your strong point.

In the post in question, Fez was specifically agreeing with Exitium about monitor flicker, and how you can notice low refresh rates. This i unarguable, surely.

The bit you were disagreeing with was:

There is a slight blurring with TVs compared with monitors, which gives a better appearance for the low framerate and I have asked TV engineers (and other technical nerdy types) this before and it is always agreed upon.

He does not appear to be referring to some artificially induced blurring effect (i.e. induced by some sort of console tech - in fact no word "console"), but the general blurring effect you get in general i.e. independent of the origin of the input signal. I'm not certain how you can read it any other way. Monitors are less blurry than TVs. Right?

Either way, he has intimated his agreement with you. And you were rather knee-jerk assuming otherwise.

I'm sorry that you can't understand my claims. Maybe I should dumb them down and put them in bold bite sized chunks like an Uwe Boll movie.

Oh...that stings...
Given my love for B-movies and the general hate that anyone who likes genre movies should have towards Mr Boll you have hit the ULTIMATE low.



Okay...over-reaction.

I think you should define your "claims" better is all. And think more clearly. And think about things before you respond. You never know someone just might be agreeing with you!

 

[dojoteef]

I'm not pretending I'm an expert at everything. I'm only stating the facts as I know them.

I'm sorry if I hurt the feelings of either of you.

I think that sums it up.

 

[Shagnak]

Hahaha

Just realised what we were arguing about...

We are arguing about just exactly what were we arguing about

(or more exactly...what other people were arguing about. And you aren't even listening to the person whos intent we are disagreeing about!)

Fucken hilarious!

This sort of thing happens a lot here, no?

 

[Fez]

Meh, it's ok dojoteef, put it down to the difficulties of text communication, lacking in the subtleties of normal conversation.

*Ahem*

So what about that Trokia eh?

 

[EEVIAC]

Secondly, none of NWN's bugs are literal game enders.

Quick correction. NWN had its own Society Of Leopold-like gamestopper. The end of chapter two was bugged - the gates that Aribeth was standing behind wouldn't open, and you couldn't continue through the game without using console commands.

 

[Stark]

The evidenc eis beofre you. The fact you guys have dared claim that BL's combat is better than BIO's pause n play system is delusional.

what? where?

there were some posts on how pause and play is a poorer system to TB or RT, but I do not recall anyone specifically saying the system in BL is better.

FYI there're also those of us who did not show glee when Interplay went down.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Stark he probably wasn't referring to those people.

 

[Stark]

I'm just referring to Volourn's assertion of codex's supposed "double standard" in treating the demise of Troika and Interplay when in fact not all regulars danced in glee when Interplay went down. personally i couldn't care less about Interplay by then.

in anycase I side with VD. I can understand the hate for Caen's Interplay but I do not understand the glee exhibited by some of you over Troika's possible demise.