KurtC on 14/5/2009 at 00:21

---

i would like a good story than graphics, ofcourse i'm sure it will have a good engine and either way i'll be pleased with the game, i loved Thief the Dark project graphics :P.

damn i never thought i would live to see thief 4 :P , taffers are back :cheeky:

MaxDZ8 on 17/5/2009 at 09:02

---

You must be jocking, in 2002 I got my GeForce4, and it wasn't even close the first card I had. Personally I think it started to flower in 1999 with the TNT1, 2001 was the revolution, nowadays, it's just evolutionary. I'd like to tell a different story...

Story (useless rant) you can skip:
Thief1 was released in 1998, with 166Mhz as minimum requirement. At the time I think I was leaving the Quake2 ranks for something less time cosuming (not that I suceeded in that :rolleyes: ), Q2 ran just fine on my system, thief did not (CPU limited?). I had to painfully give up until an upgrade, about a year later, which allowed me to play Thief 1 in all its glory and finally enjoying it.

Thief2, in year 2000 required a 266Mhz processor minimum, was far out of reach for me. In 2001 I finally gave up for a not even so-new Pentium 800 with a GeForce2 (woaahhh! Giga-Texel-Shading!!!1) but for some reasons I didn't remember Thief2 didn't run well (I suppose getting Win2000 was a bad choice, but I didn't want to deal with 9x).
Anyway, for a reason or the other, I had to wait till the next PC to play Thief2, which luckly happened soon after as I figured out having a single PC for work and play isn't good. I ended on playing it on a 1800+ with Geforce4, and it was blazingly fast, but (ouch!) 2 damn years later.

Right now, whatever is Doom3 equivalent or Prey equivalent is fine to me. Rather than push for graphics, I'd be glad if they could go for a (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1857680#post1857680) wider, richer world. Graphics, you know, isn't cheap to produce. UT3 looks definetly too detailed even on my 24", let alone on the 21" I have on my "play PC" (which actually cannot run it decently).

If they could go for a game to sell at a lower price, I think it would be better. I am tired of game's price point. If they save on production costs and save on shelf price, the only people that is going to see more revenues is them. And anyway, it's going to be decent enough.
Ubisoft, with their "focus on wii" has made extremely strong profits... and although most wii games are crap to me, I still hope they may consider the idea (not of targeting the wii, but of a lower cost overrall).

malau on 18/5/2009 at 09:41

---

We'll just get what ALL developers of FP Games ALWAYS try to do and that is to push the envelope without compromise even if it fucks the gameplay up.

Expect it to run satisfactorily only on a Quad Core with 4Gb+ of RAM.

theBlackman on 18/5/2009 at 21:37

---

Graphics are not my main interest. I don't need a perfect picture (a feature movie graphic) to enjoy a game, and particularly this game.

The graphics probably will be hyped up ( perhaps at an expense that may well defeat the ability of the devs to put a super game together) but "EYECANDY" sells.

I still enjoy pure text games where there ARE NO GRAPHICS other than a text description on the screen.

Anyone remember Colossal Caverns and its many offshoots? Nothing, nada, a BLACK screen with white text. But that sucker made you think, use your imagination to fill out the rooms (like reading a book, for most of you under 30's, a book is a physical block of paper upon which there are words, and few pictures. You need to use your imagination to produce a picture in your mind of what the author is describing), :ebil: it was and is still a fun experience.

Taffer36 on 19/5/2009 at 02:30

---

It's for UT3. Amazing engine, that one. Amazing editor, too.