Teknohead wrote:

Don't you remember how people bitched when Q4 released or Doom 3 , im only getting spotty fps whaaaa...

now imagine how they would have bitched if they could not have startet the game at all...

Teknohead wrote:

I didnt use some games as an example  ie roboblitz  or others as i didn't want to list everything ... and they were willing to backwards code. If a developer does not want to backwards code why should they.

You've got a point, but from that depends the success of the sales and the dev company image of quality. It's their choice to do things good...or bad.
If the framework used for Lost Planet was too much biased for xbox360 architecture they simply shouldn't have put out a PC game, because it could pale in comparison of other games developed with PC in mind (I already heard a lot of these kind of remarks, even HL2 being better graphically than LP, which is kinda not wrong...)

As for the playstation reference it was only to highlight the fact that hardware changes. Ps1 became ps2 became ps3. Hardware limitations... it is no longer fast enough or pumps out enough pixels or triangles per second.

Wow! Sounds like you know a lot about programming and graphic tricks and still, you appears to think your games runs only thanks to hardware...
Furthermore triangles are not everything, neither pixel power processing is. Do you forget that artists are the first ones to make your game beautifuls and that a lot of game loks awesome even if running with oldest hardware? well, yes...
Oh...and if the PS3 was such a big necessity why does it sales so bad, and lately seen its sales drop under PS2 everywhere now? Well mostly because it has some big flaws that programmers have a hell of time to workaround, because there is not many games and no killer apps...and still some people jumped on it and bought it like it was truly important (you did bought one aren't you).
Well, gaming isn't a concept of picture sharpness but still you're of the ones only seeing that. Too bad for you.

Everyone wants something better If you want the newer one on console guess what you have to buy it. Same with pc if you want all the goodies you need the new harware.

No, a lot of people are aware of their hardware real capabilities and are able to compare similar products and so are content with what they have until it is really needed to upgrade. We explained this why a lot of time already.

And personnally playing anything at under 1600X res is ugly **** say what you want about that one.

With pleasure. It proves again our point. You're a graphic-sharpness geek with no taste and you're posting on a topic not concerning you. :D Furthermore, take a console game with its "low-res", just put it in really high-res and it becomes ugly! Every modeling and effects mistakes are made obvious in high-res, where they benefited of the blurriness from the low-res...

By the way I though we asked on another topic WHY SSE2 was an obligation for lost planet, which is equivalent to "we want a technical explanation not a simple yes/no+i'm sorry from a dev meeting".

Shingo-Y wrote:

Furthermore, take a console game with its "low-res", just put it in really high-res and it becomes ugly! Every modeling and effects mistakes are made obvious in high-res, where they benefited of the blurriness from the low-res...

By the way I though we asked on another topic WHY SSE2 was an obligation for lost planet, which is equivalent to "we want a technical explanation not a simple yes/no+i'm sorry from a dev meeting".

QFT about the console graphics and high res, but I'll take this even further and say there are alot of PC games that have the same effect. Playing with 2560 * 1600 and one will notice how bad some games are with textures and detail (Oblivion without QTP3 and BF2 in itself are particular bad).

OT I am puzzled by the lack of non-SSE2 support myself. Most games that are SSE2 specific have a non-SSE2 patch, batch file og executable that'll allow the game to work without it.

Perhaps they couldn't be bothered, or the performance hit is deemed to high to allow it, but it can defiantly be done no doubt about it. A detailed explanation would be a good thing to help many understand this, but support for non-SSE2 CPUs would be even better (and if the performance hit is too high, well then it is up to user and they will deal with it).

Jackalito wrote:

I think there are people here who wants everything. They want a great and modern game running smoothly with all graphic options cranked up even if they have a pc of 3 or more years old.

I've got a SSE2 compliant processor, but I don't have a PS3.0 VGA, and you know what? I'm not complaining about that. I know that my hardware is getting old to run nowadays games and that's all.

I'll upgrade my system as soon as I can.

Cheers from Spain :)

Good points Jackalito. The game could probably have been published with SM2.0 or even SM1.4 support as well. However there are even troubles with some SM3.0 card AFAIK.