My wishlist (primarily as a server tech guy) does not concern squeezing a bit more graphics out of the bus.
Personally, I would like to see that bandwidth used for other accellerators, such as SSL accelleration like nCipher provide.
Or how about a Java non-virtual machine?
I'm sure many games could benefit from a dedicated AI board, possibly using FPGA (field programmable gate arrays) so that some especially tricky AI functions could be off loaded from the CPU.
To put it short, we already have stunning graphics, which will continue to evolve no matter what you think about the tweaks to AGP.
What I hope the more imaginative of you are thinking, is what else could be done with this?
If you are going to buy property, then I would look for "Location,Location,Location". If I'm buying a game, I'm looking for "Gameplay,Gameplay,Gameplay" (if I ever start a games company, I'm going to gall it G3 for that very reason).
Does realism destroy games? Yes and No. It can if you end up with software of the quality that early games on CD had (remember the Amiga CD32 anyone). But would I go back from the games we have today, and hark for the nostalgia of yester year - NO! (well, apart from Elite on the BBC B). What matters is the style of play. Pretty graphics go a long way to creating atmosphere (System Shock 2 scared my girlfriend sensless), but in the end it is the mechanics that drag you in. Doom had the predicable masses, with the satisfaction of gunning down 200 enemies before breakfast. Unreal had the challenge of a few nimble and 'intelligent' enemies. The satisfaction is not in the absolute reality, but in the difference between expectation and what we receive. But this is an exercise of comparing apples with oranges.
In the end, the OPTION of extra realism is a tool, and a welcome one. It can be used to create beatiful games on top of superb mechanics, or to create some brochure wear that will be rejected by all but the suckers who judge a game by the cover art.
(BTW, what was the turkey of a game released on the CD32 back in 91/92)
My wishlist (primarily as a server tech guy) does not concern squeezing a bit more graphics out of the bus.
Personally, I would like to see that bandwidth used for other accellerators, such as SSL accelleration like nCipher provide. Or how about a Java non-virtual machine? I'm sure many games could benefit from a dedicated AI board, possibly using FPGA (field programmable gate arrays) so that some especially tricky AI functions could be off loaded from the CPU. To put it short, we already have stunning graphics, which will continue to evolve no matter what you think about the tweaks to AGP. What I hope the more imaginative of you are thinking, is what else could be done with this?
If you are going to buy property, then I would look for "Location,Location,Location". If I'm buying a game, I'm looking for "Gameplay,Gameplay,Gameplay" (if I ever start a games company, I'm going to gall it G3 for that very reason).
Does realism destroy games? Yes and No. It can if you end up with software of the quality that early games on CD had (remember the Amiga CD32 anyone). But would I go back from the games we have today, and hark for the nostalgia of yester year - NO! (well, apart from Elite on the BBC B). What matters is the style of play. Pretty graphics go a long way to creating atmosphere (System Shock 2 scared my girlfriend sensless), but in the end it is the mechanics that drag you in. Doom had the predicable masses, with the satisfaction of gunning down 200 enemies before breakfast. Unreal had the challenge of a few nimble and 'intelligent' enemies. The satisfaction is not in the absolute reality, but in the difference between expectation and what we receive. But this is an exercise of comparing apples with oranges.
In the end, the OPTION of extra realism is a tool, and a welcome one. It can be used to create beatiful games on top of superb mechanics, or to create some brochure wear that will be rejected by all but the suckers who judge a game by the cover art.
(BTW, what was the turkey of a game released on the CD32 back in 91/92)