Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

The "Put the Graphics Card Debate to Rest" Poll (Part III)Follow

#1 Dec 07 2010 at 12:14 PM Rating: Decent
How do you rate the graphics at the settings you play at? (From Limsa Lominsa Upper Decks Vantage)
5 Stars - Excellent :31 (38.8%)
4 Stars - Good :33 (41.2%)
3 Stars - Satisfactory :14 (17.5%)
2 Stars - Poor :2 (2.5%)
1 Star - Downright Ugly :0 (%)
Total:80


PART ONE OF THE POLL IS HERE: ffxiv.zam.com/forum.html?forum=152&mid=1291745528194803049&page=1

PART TWO OF THE POLL IS HERE: ffxiv.zam.com/forum.html?forum=152&mid=129174562812343465&page=1


Edited, Dec 7th 2010 2:20pm by charityneverfaileth

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 3:01pm by charityneverfaileth
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#2 Dec 07 2010 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
"Fair" - Can run at around 20-35 fps on high settings. Not good, not bad, just is. Very underwhelmed by the graphics, although they look nice (the textures/models on characters are good, but are significantly worse on the environment, and the difference is pretty noticeable), the poor optimization takes away so much.



Edited, Dec 7th 2010 12:17pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#3 Dec 07 2010 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
I see what you're trying to do, and I voted, but I think it's far too subjective to ask that question that way. You aren't factoring in that one person's "Great" is another person's "Good". Might as well be rating "How do cheeseburgers taste to you?"
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#4 Dec 07 2010 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
***
1,636 posts
I voted, but I'm not sure how you plan to relate the data since you cant track what each person paid/settings/opinion.
____________________________


#5 Dec 07 2010 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
I see what you're trying to do, and I voted, but I think it's far too subjective to ask that question that way. You aren't factoring in that one person's "Great" is another person's "Good". Might as well be rating "How do cheeseburgers taste to you?"


I'm open to suggestions if you think it could be better worded. It might skew the results, but it's not like the results are going to be statistically significant anyway considering the sample size. Like I said in the original post, this isn't going to change anybody's opinion, people are very set in their ways, but it will be nice to see what kind of correlations there are. And besides, I don't know how the poll is going to turn out. Might be that my opinion in the other thread we were talking about before this, was wrong. Will be interesting to see though.

Though I must say, this poll isn't any different than any other survey in that one person's great is another person's good or fair. But that doesn't stop people from doing opinion surveys to collect market and scientific data. All you can really get from a survey is a correlation anyway, and correlation isn't fact, it's just suggestive of what might be fact. For real surveys, the sample size is usually big enough that you can at least get an idea of what you're trying to find out. We won't get a big enough sample size here to make the data statistically significant, but I think it will at least give us a general idea of what people think. And all surveys based on opinion are subjective, can't get around that.

Also, there are two other polls that track the other relevant data. I can only post one poll per thread so I had to set up three different threads. The other polls are linked in the OP.

Cheers! :)


Edited, Dec 7th 2010 2:29pm by charityneverfaileth

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 2:31pm by charityneverfaileth
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#6 Dec 07 2010 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
charityneverfaileth wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
I see what you're trying to do, and I voted, but I think it's far too subjective to ask that question that way. You aren't factoring in that one person's "Great" is another person's "Good". Might as well be rating "How do cheeseburgers taste to you?"


I'm open to suggestions if you think it could be better worded. It might skew the results, but it's not like the results are going to be statistically significant anyway considering the sample size. Like I said in the original post, this isn't going to change anybody's opinion, people are very set in their ways, but it will be nice to see what kind of correlations there are. And besides, I don't know how the poll is going to turn out. Might be that my opinion in the other thread we were talking about before this, was wrong. Will be interesting to see though.

Also, there are two other polls that track the other relevant data. I can only post one poll per thread so I had to set up three different threads. The other polls are linked in the OP.

Cheers! :)


Unfortunately, I can't suggest a better way of wording it. The only way you'd get a reliable statistical extrapolation is if you can come up with a way of measuring it mathematically that is quantifiable. Perhaps a question of "What are your quality settings" paired with "What is your FPS under a given setting", then pick a static point; for example the adventurer's guild in a city. Even then, graphical settings can't take lag into account.

And for the record, I thought FFXI looked fine, whereas I've heard people say they think otherwise. So even when looking at the exact same picture, two people can disagree on their interpretation of it.

Unfortunately, I think there is no way to get statistically relevant data out of this type of opinion, beyond the results that "X % of people -believe- that their game looks ______."

Like I said, I see where you were going, but I don't really have any suggestions on how to quantify an objective measurement of how good graphics ACTUALLY look. Even in terms of FPS, some people are perfectly happy with 15-20 FPS and others would slit their wrists on anything under 30.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#7 Dec 07 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
charityneverfaileth wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
I see what you're trying to do, and I voted, but I think it's far too subjective to ask that question that way. You aren't factoring in that one person's "Great" is another person's "Good". Might as well be rating "How do cheeseburgers taste to you?"


I'm open to suggestions if you think it could be better worded. It might skew the results, but it's not like the results are going to be statistically significant anyway considering the sample size. Like I said in the original post, this isn't going to change anybody's opinion, people are very set in their ways, but it will be nice to see what kind of correlations there are. And besides, I don't know how the poll is going to turn out. Might be that my opinion in the other thread we were talking about before this, was wrong. Will be interesting to see though.

Also, there are two other polls that track the other relevant data. I can only post one poll per thread so I had to set up three different threads. The other polls are linked in the OP.

Cheers! :)


Unfortunately, I can't suggest a better way of wording it. The only way you'd get a reliable statistical extrapolation is if you can come up with a way of measuring it mathematically that is quantifiable. Perhaps a question of "What are your quality settings" paired with "What is your FPS under a given setting", then pick a static point; for example the adventurer's guild in a city. Even then, graphical settings can't take lag into account.

And for the record, I thought FFXI looked fine, whereas I've heard people say they think otherwise. So even when looking at the exact same picture, two people can disagree on their interpretation of it.

Unfortunately, I think there is no way to get statistically relevant data out of this type of opinion, beyond the results that "X % of people -believe- that their game looks ______."

Like I said, I see where you were going, but I don't really have any suggestions on how to quantify an objective measurement of how good graphics ACTUALLY look. Even in terms of FPS, some people are perfectly happy with 15-20 FPS and others would slit their wrists on anything under 30.


Yep, it's true. All the same, I am interested in seeing the results. It might not stand up in a court of law, or be scientifically valid, but it's interesting to me all the same. Cheers.
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#8 Dec 07 2010 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
charityneverfaileth wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
charityneverfaileth wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
I see what you're trying to do, and I voted, but I think it's far too subjective to ask that question that way. You aren't factoring in that one person's "Great" is another person's "Good". Might as well be rating "How do cheeseburgers taste to you?"


I'm open to suggestions if you think it could be better worded. It might skew the results, but it's not like the results are going to be statistically significant anyway considering the sample size. Like I said in the original post, this isn't going to change anybody's opinion, people are very set in their ways, but it will be nice to see what kind of correlations there are. And besides, I don't know how the poll is going to turn out. Might be that my opinion in the other thread we were talking about before this, was wrong. Will be interesting to see though.

Also, there are two other polls that track the other relevant data. I can only post one poll per thread so I had to set up three different threads. The other polls are linked in the OP.

Cheers! :)


Unfortunately, I can't suggest a better way of wording it. The only way you'd get a reliable statistical extrapolation is if you can come up with a way of measuring it mathematically that is quantifiable. Perhaps a question of "What are your quality settings" paired with "What is your FPS under a given setting", then pick a static point; for example the adventurer's guild in a city. Even then, graphical settings can't take lag into account.

And for the record, I thought FFXI looked fine, whereas I've heard people say they think otherwise. So even when looking at the exact same picture, two people can disagree on their interpretation of it.

Unfortunately, I think there is no way to get statistically relevant data out of this type of opinion, beyond the results that "X % of people -believe- that their game looks ______."

Like I said, I see where you were going, but I don't really have any suggestions on how to quantify an objective measurement of how good graphics ACTUALLY look. Even in terms of FPS, some people are perfectly happy with 15-20 FPS and others would slit their wrists on anything under 30.


Yep, it's true. All the same, I am interested in seeing the results. It might not stand up in a court of law, or be scientifically valid, but it's interesting to me all the same. Cheers.


Agreed. I love me some statistical data, even if its usefulness is negligible.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#9 Dec 07 2010 at 1:10 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
I picked good, because as I said in the other poll I can play near max settings... but for the amount of effort my GPUs put forth I'm not fully happy with the results.

Don't get me wrong, the game is beautiful especially in max setting screenshots. However I think draw distance is too close and they could have added a few more pretty effects even in DX9 if they'd coded a bit better. I don't expect crysis, it's an MMO afterall... but I don't expect above Crysis level performance hits when the game cuts corners like draw distance and the charcoal sketch shadows on player models in some instance.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#10 Dec 07 2010 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
I -did- expect DX11. The fact that they're using DX9 on a 2010 game makes me rage a bit.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#11 Dec 07 2010 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
I -did- expect DX11. The fact that they're using DX9 on a 2010 game makes me rage a bit.


I think that came down to their market share. They're already somewhat limited as to who can play because of the system requirements. If they forced people to be running windows 7 as well, they would probably lose more potential customers. I have 3 computers and only one of them is running windows 7. I already spent $700 upgrading my desktop to play this game. Another $150 for windows 7 might have been the tipping point for me, making me wait for cataclysm or the old republic. Probably a good number of others out there in the same situation. I don't know how heavily integrating DX code is in the graphics, but maybe we'll see it put in a few years down the road when windows 7 is more prevalent.
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#12 Dec 07 2010 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
***
1,083 posts
Having the 3 separate polls (even if they were all in one post) is sort of meaningless because you can't see where someone's performance falls vs. how much was paid (or what card they are using). Also missing is resolution you play at, since they is going to be as big a determining factor on performance as settings. You may choose in the second poll that you 'max' settings but if you're only on a 1280x1024 monitor (or less) then that doesn't mean much.
____________________________
Wada: "There may be some areas of testing that were lacking or too rigid."
#13 Dec 07 2010 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,098 posts
No choice but to choose excellent. Thanks to computer building guide at top of forum I've been very satisfied the card I played with from day one. No Graphics card surprises here.
____________________________





#14 Dec 07 2010 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
**
398 posts
Aren't PS3s limited to DX9 as well?

It'd be a lot of work to make a DX10 client AND a DX9 client, especially since the PS3 is where they are aiming to sell the most copies.
#15 Dec 07 2010 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Haha wow, first time I got subdefaulted. Wonder what it is that ticked people off so much. The 3 different threads thing? Maybe the title. Or my opinions on the matter. Or all 3. I can see why some people might get rubbed the wrong way by some of that stuff. Oh well, live and learn :)

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 5:02pm by charityneverfaileth
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#16 Dec 07 2010 at 4:06 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
320 posts
I am playing on a fairly middle-class laptop GPU.

I have everything max'd out except for anti-aliasing and stuff like that.

My graphics are pretty good.
____________________________


#17 Dec 07 2010 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
charityneverfaileth wrote:
Haha wow, first time I got subdefaulted. Wonder what it is that ticked people off so much. The 3 different threads thing? Maybe the title. Or my opinions on the matter. Or all 3. I can see why some people might get rubbed the wrong way by some of that stuff. Oh well, live and learn :)

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 5:02pm by charityneverfaileth


Rated you back up. Haters gonna hate.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#18 Dec 07 2010 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Thanks Mik :)

Oh and Phil, I wanted to say sorry for some of the cruddy things I've said to you. You're a good fella.
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#19 Dec 07 2010 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
**
782 posts
Quote:
Having the 3 separate polls (even if they were all in one post) is sort of meaningless because you can't see where someone's performance falls vs. how much was paid (or what card they are using). Also missing is resolution you play at, since they is going to be as big a determining factor on performance as settings. You may choose in the second poll that you 'max' settings but if you're only on a 1280x1024 monitor (or less) then that doesn't mean much.


Added question about resolution to form at URL below.

FWIW I setup a form for him using a Google spreadsheet and can be found here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dGpWYWlDQS1kaFRnaXRfYnk2RzJmaWc6MQ#gid=0

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 5:30pm by windexy
#20 Dec 07 2010 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
***
1,083 posts
windexy wrote:
Quote:
Having the 3 separate polls (even if they were all in one post) is sort of meaningless because you can't see where someone's performance falls vs. how much was paid (or what card they are using). Also missing is resolution you play at, since they is going to be as big a determining factor on performance as settings. You may choose in the second poll that you 'max' settings but if you're only on a 1280x1024 monitor (or less) then that doesn't mean much.


Added question about resolution to form at URL below.

FWIW I setup a form for him using a Google spreadsheet and can be found here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dGpWYWlDQS1kaFRnaXRfYnk2RzJmaWc6MQ#gid=0

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 5:30pm by windexy


That's great - how do you view the results?
____________________________
Wada: "There may be some areas of testing that were lacking or too rigid."
#21 Dec 07 2010 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
windexy wrote:
Quote:
Having the 3 separate polls (even if they were all in one post) is sort of meaningless because you can't see where someone's performance falls vs. how much was paid (or what card they are using). Also missing is resolution you play at, since they is going to be as big a determining factor on performance as settings. You may choose in the second poll that you 'max' settings but if you're only on a 1280x1024 monitor (or less) then that doesn't mean much.


Added question about resolution to form at URL below.

FWIW I setup a form for him using a Google spreadsheet and can be found here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dGpWYWlDQS1kaFRnaXRfYnk2RzJmaWc6MQ#gid=0

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 5:30pm by windexy


I see you edited your response, so I will edit mine and just explain myself, though whether it will cause the monkeys to get off my back or just throw more fecal matter in my face is anyone's guess.

So... Even though you can't match up the answers between the different polls you can make observations about the overall results.

For example.

If 40% of people spent less than $200 on a graphics card, but only 5% rated the graphics as less than satisfactory, then that tells us that, at minimum, somewhere between 35% and 40% of people will find the graphics to be at the very least satisfactory without paying more than $200 on a graphics card.

That's just one example of an observation that can be made. There are obviously more.

If there's fault in the math there, please correct it, but the statement itself shows, that regardless of what the math actually is, that useful and relevant observations can be made from disconnected data samples.

Many people compare data between different studies all of the time, and make correlations based on the results of each, without being able to pinpoint exact references between the data in the individual different studies. They use that data to support other evidence that may be present. In a perfect world scientists would have all of the data and references they need to make any conclusions they want. And in a perfect world, ZAM would give me the tools to make a more valid poll.

But it's not a perfect world, and even though your google forms poll is a good idea, it came after I posted these polls, not before, and since I can't delete my own posts, and just go with your method, which I admit, is better, I am stuck with what I have. If you want to get people to vote in your poll, go for it. I'd love to hear what you find out. But I am quite tired about people going on about how meaningless these polls are. Yes it could have been done better, but why people have to go to such extremes as to call people's efforts meaningless is beyond me. It's insulting, and you wouldn't appreciate it being done to you, as I noticed you changed the tune of your post when you got defaulted.

But as I read in an inspirational message I received recently, "Never explain yourself to anyone. The people who love you don't need it, and the people who don't won't believe you."


Edited, Dec 7th 2010 7:56pm by charityneverfaileth

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 8:03pm by charityneverfaileth
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 26 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (26)