Speed vs graphics preferences

Slarty · Post by **Slarty** » December 20th, 2007, 12:36 am

Since it seems Eschalon's very cool, detailed graphics are at least partly responsible for the relatively slow movement speed, perhaps this is a fairer question to ask.

Rune_74 · Post by **Rune_74** » December 20th, 2007, 1:13 am

I think this really depends on your machine....it runs at a fine pace on my machine....The character walks at a rate that would be normal for his size. I have no slowdown in combat or anything.

Part of what makes Eschalons atmosphere work is the detailed lighting etc...I'm not sure what some people are saying about slow movement though, since it seems smooth for me. On two different systems....granted both my systems are not old computers and they can run oblivion no prob.

realmzmaster · Post by **realmzmaster** » December 20th, 2007, 1:30 am

Since I have no problem with the speed issue. I voted for more detailed graphics, lighting etc. Game runs smoothly on my machine. I do not have the lastest or greatest machine, but like Rune_74, I can run Oblivion at the highest detail. Absolutely no problem with Titan Quest, NWN II or Dungeon Siege II. YMMV

farvardin · Post by **farvardin** » December 20th, 2007, 2:34 am

on my computer, oblivion, titan quest, loki and such, with the lowest settings, are unplayable (and ugly) because they are so slow... (guild war is running smoothly on the other hand, with average to high settings).

And Eschalon is running smoothly too, with no speed problem. My graphical card is nvidia 6100 (integrated hardware).
I can encounter some freeze during the game though (I've noticed it in the first linux beta), but it appeared twice or 3 times during 3 hours of play... (by freeze I mean it temporary froze for 10 or 15 seconds, and we could continue to play after that)

I think the great and detailled graphics are a part of the enjoyable mood given by Eschalon !

Randomizer · Post by **Randomizer** » December 20th, 2007, 3:04 am

Right now the game is border line for my machine with distinct slowing in town and fighting swarms of monsters.

Fixing the graphics so it requires less effort for the machines would be better. I don't want to upgrade just to play games.

Josia · Post by **Josia** » December 20th, 2007, 6:36 am

Effects and animations are bells and whistles to me for sure, but I also have no real problems with speed whatsoever. Therefore, I voted for the first option as well.

Forest · Post by **Forest** » December 20th, 2007, 6:49 am

It's must be optional!
The walking speed doesn't depend from graphics!

Slarty · Post by **Slarty** » December 20th, 2007, 9:47 am

The reason I did not give a third option, is that if you find the walking speed adequate on your computer, obviously you can vote for the first one.

My performance rating is fairly low and according to the game it's very good, but it's not at a 2 or 3 like somebody else mentioned. BW, what is the highest performance rating you can have without having speed adversely impacted?

dak · Post by **dak** » December 20th, 2007, 12:08 pm

Fixing the graphics so it requires less effort for the machines would be better. I don't want to upgrade just to play games.

Did you try setting it to 16 color mode, and low resolution from options menu ??

Dragonlady · Post by **Dragonlady** » December 20th, 2007, 2:46 pm

I have no trouble with walking when using my laptop, but when using my old G4 it is slow moving around in towns, countryside and dungeons its normal. Doesn't bother me.

Feidb · Post by **Feidb** » December 20th, 2007, 2:57 pm

I wouldn't be adverse to a little faster walking, or running, especially when covering a lot of ground, but for normal playing I didn't have much of a problem with it. I have an AMD Dual core running at 2.2 Ghz and a Radeon X700 card and I've never had the slightest hesitation or glitch with graphics. I really like the graphics. Of course, I'd like more detail, but that's okay.

I'd also like to see more freedom on the map to be able to roam freely through the forests instead of being limited to the walking path. However, it's not that big of a deal either.

realmzmaster · Post by **realmzmaster** » December 20th, 2007, 3:27 pm

What Randomizer said brings us to the crux of the problem. He said

Fixing the graphics so it requires less effort for the machines would be better. I don't want to upgrade just to play games.

The point is games have always pushed the edge of computer technology foward. One of the basic reasons for improve computer technology is because people wanted better graphics (eye candy) and sound along with excellent game play coupled with ease of use. No one is asking anyone to upgrade to play games. But, most moderate to serious gamers do. What you want is the designer to dumb down the graphics to fit your machine, which involves far more work (development time) and the number of sales he may receive do not cover the costs. No that is a quick ticket to oblivion. Far better he learn from his first game to make the second game better. (Which I am sure BW is doing.)

Many people here also play Oblivion by Bethesda Softworks. Oblivion requires a 3 Ghz, 1 GB Ram, Nvidia Geforce 6800 machine to run well. The same with Titan Quest, NWN2. If you want to play Oblivion you upgrade your machine. Nobody runs to Bethesda and saids dumb down your graphic engine. Just because Eschalon looks like an old school CRPG that is by design. Eschalon has many different, subtle impressive effects.

Many people want to compare Eschalon with Baldur's Gate in terms of technology. But most forget that when BG came out it was close to cutting edge with the Infinity Engine. Eschalon has more going on than BG did. Eschalon is an old school look in a new school package.

LethalBlade · Post by **LethalBlade** » December 20th, 2007, 7:59 pm

Definitely the first option. I have no slowdowns whatsoever, game runs perfectly. Eschalon has quite possibly the best graphics and effects of any current indie CRPG. It adds a lot to the atmosphere.

Besides, not for nothing, but if your PC is having trouble running Eschalon, it's probably from the stone age (time for a new one).

Shoveler · Post by **Shoveler** » December 21st, 2007, 4:26 pm

Agree with Lethal, if your machine can't hand this game then you obviously haven't upgraded in at least several years. That's your choice, but the rest of the world isn't gonna wait for you, or make significant changes to drag you kicking and screaming forward. Upgrade your machines already people, not just for this game, but for the many other cool games out there as well. The program isn't the problem here at all.

Laudimir · Post by **Laudimir** » December 22nd, 2007, 1:06 am

Out of curiosity, why does no one suggest increasing graphic disabling options, similar to other (commercial) games). This would help solve the problem-both groups get what they want, and the customer base is expanded (if only slightly).

Also, it appears that more mac users are having more speed hold-ups, possibly due to the aforementioned inefficiency of the blitz-max (if that is right) language.

Also, it seems to me that the whole "games have always pushed the graphical envelope" argument mostly only applies to commercial games since these larger developers have a larger consumer base (allowing them to spurn the less well-off consumers).

Just some thoughts.

The Drunken Lizard Pub

Speed vs graphics preferences

Which way would you prefer Eschalon to be?

Speed vs graphics preferences