Yeah racing sims is what brought this question to my mind. My workplace has a racing sim area which has the actuating seat and multiple monitor setup and by god thinking about it in a modern mech game just made me giggle at the thought.
Game developers could do it fairly straight forwardly but the demand for multidisplay functionality isnt really there. Supcom had a 2nd monitor option to render a 3d map but i cant think of any other games that do a separate function like that. Ac6 has a minimap? Fat chance getting something that cool and involved with a game you cant completely mod or make yourself though. Itd be really sick to see something like it on ac6 especially. I miss 4/4fa’s HUD.
Rendering more screens is more demand on the graphics card.
Also, not everyone has multiple screens or their screens laid out in a similar arrangement and/or the same resolutions.
Beyond these though, there shouldn’t be that much limitation to the idea.
I currently play Baldurs Gate 3 couch co-op split between two screens. There doesn’t seem to be a way to do it natively, since it recognizes each monitor individually, but doesn’t see their connections to each other. I have to do a borderless window and then drag one side of it to the other monitor.
Anyway, I wish there were more built-in options to spread a game across multiple screens. Years ago I used to play Rocket League across three monitors so I could see more of the field while playing.
First: Can your GPU handle that at better than low quality 20 fps? If you have a gpu that can handle 4K fine, then it “should” be able to do 3x 1080p monitors (because there are 4x as many pixels in 2160p than 1080p). Playstation and Xbox are pretty much right out of question (no custom controller support likely anyway), and 3x 1440p or 3x 4K is most likely out if you don’t have a top end GPU. Having a wider field of vision may need beefier CPU power to calculate bullet physics and other things in view as well.
Second: How many Armored Core players would have the money and need to buy a custom controller, a highend GPU and 3 monitors (assuming 1080p), back of the napkin math says 2200 CAD = 1620 USD? While support for crazy setups are nice but the developers aren’t really in a rush to add support for stuff that at most a few hundred people worldwide will make use of. Racing sim and other simulator fans have the audience there, I don’t know if ACVI is billing itself as less arcadey and more simulation.
However, if mod support is there, perhaps interested fanatics would add multimonitor, custom controller and HUD support.
So multiple people have mentioned mod support but I've never seen it myself in numerous low graphic and high graphic quality games. It looks like resolution is less a matter and more no want for it. 99% of games have no NEED for anything I said.
Immersion is supreme for so many whales though. Not only that, but people with 3060 series graphics cards or equivalent make up like ~15% (did I math right from the toilet?) of Steams userbase. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/?sort=name
I'm just surprised mech games, which are designed by their nature to be futuristic and have LOTS of HUD elements, wouldn't make use of multiple screens to declutter and immerse better. RTS games would also be great candidates for this QoL feature.
The argument requiring 4k resolution is moot too when you consider only 1-2 screens need it. A minimap and info screen can be rendered in near shitter quality.
It just seems like a case of where creating a game that uses multiple monitors in different resolutions seems like one of those weird programming hiccups that throws shit off or takes up too many resources. Otherwise I feel like making use of another screen for a HUD would be relatively easy. I'm no programmer though, hence the question. There's also balancing complaints where people who can afford multiple monitors have easier to see from peripheral maps, cooldowns, stats, etc.
As for money on controllers, gtfo lol. That's clearly not in the spirit of my question. I just kinda expected FromSoft after making billions to put in some neat odds and ends features into Armored Core which is also near and dear to their hearts.
I was immediately disappointed when there was no cockpit view but hey, it's Armored Core, not MechWarrior.
I’m not trying to throw shade on people wanting to spend money for an immersive experience, just that there are fewer of them with that setup and that number is what matters from a software sales perspective.
I’m simply stating why FromSoft wouldn’t be compelled to implement such a feature other than out of the goodness of their heart. People with insane setups spend a lot of money but FromSoft wouldn’t see a penny more than someone who buys and plays the same game with a simple setup.
I work at a company which doesn’t make games, but interacts with a lot of game devs, and employs a lot of ex-game devs; and everyone I work with is either glad they got out of game dev or glad they skipped it altogether.
I used to work for a very reasonable (smaller) game studio, and while it was fun, I still got a massive pay and quality-of-life improvement by changing careers away from making games.
Not shocking. I just hope people learn from this and react by not getting into the gaming industry until the shortage of workers forces it to change. Same thing with the entertainment industry outside of gaming at large.
The way the movie / tv industry treats most of its employees who aren't at the very top is just horrible, and if people didn't have such stars in their eyes for Hollywood and such, working conditions would be so much better all around, along with pay and mandatory breaks.
I've been in the entertainment industry, and so has my sister. It's amazingly how terrible people are treated, including crew and lower end actors, and all for a product that's not really necessary or all that important for the survival of the world. People don't think about it, but we've been around for MILLIONS of years without TV and Movies. Sure there were plays and such, but it doesn't take much for humanity to amuse itself. Simple conversations, board games, some sticks and balls... if the writer / actor strikes kept going on, and new content stopped coming out, it'd suck at first, but we'd get used to it.
I agree it's particularly dumb thing to complain about. You can land on Pluto. Well for posterity, I'm assuming they mean going to the planet and landing directly, which you can't do to any planet. You can land on Pluto, just not by flying directly to it. You can't really fly to any planet and land on it like that because when you're at the planet, selecting it has you bring up the planetary map to initiate landing/destinations.
Basically, if I'm anywhere in the galaxy I can select Pluto, plot a course, and land in it's orbit. Or, if I've landed on it before and visited a settlement, or made my own outpost, then I can select either of those.
You cannot fly from earth to Mars and then directly land on Mars. You can select a location near mars and then press a button to travel to it, likewise for any waypoints you can see.
At no point does the game or the marketing say that you can fly to planets without menus and land on the planet with a seamless transition, so I don't really understand what everyone is up in arms about. They told us long ago that cutscenes would be the transitions so frankly I'm just seeing people complain for making assumptions they were never promised. (unlike 2077 which actually did have some missed promises).
So yeah, "can't land" on Pluto without using the map menu... Just like literally everything else except waypoints in the game
Wouldn't it be relatively simple to have the ship be automatically stopped as soon as it gets at a certain distance from a land-able object and open some dialog asking whether you want to land / enter atmosphere or something like that to initiate a cutscene / loadscreen?
And if you say no, the ship's computer could make up some in-game excuse, such as needing to avoid the gravity well of the planet, for it to automatically turn around and move away from it.
I mean, I get that they probably didn't expect someone to spend the time to actually go and attempt physically reaching the planet, but after all the attention this thing is getting it could be an appropriate approach to take for when they do the full release, if only to shut people's mouths. It's just one small detail.
You can land on Pluto though you aren't really meant to. It's just there for decoration.
This is similar to how you can glitch outside of Whiterun in Skyrim, though doing that in the same worldspace as Whiterun will just let you be up close to the low-detail versions of the outer world, which you aren't really meant to do.
I played the game at the beginning of the year, it was OK, I'm glad I missed it at its worst. But, I don't think I will buy the DLC, maybe if it gets a significant discount for one of the Holiday Sales.
That being said, 2.0 sounds like it's going to fix the game in a lot of ways, basically making the game what it should have been from the start, I might start a new game if the reviews of the 2.0 system are really good.
That sounds like the smart option tbh, I am still not convinced 2.0 will address my biggest issues with the game like gear progression and inventory. Not really sold on the skill rework either, looks kinda as boring as before. Maybe I get the dlc eventually but there's no rush - it's not like they are making more dlcs for the game and need the money, and the sequel is already confirmed anyway.
I really wanted it to be great but for every high the game hit for me, it had double the amount of lows. I can't really be bothered to get hyped anymore for it.
For the best experience, and if you're only going to play through it once, Larian has released Enhanced Editions about a year after their last two releases. The same thing will probably happen here, so late next year could be good. If you play these kinds of games multiple times anyway, then it doesn't really matter. Even in the current state, it's an incredible game, so just go for it whenever.
gaming
Najstarsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.