First post, by MdaCgaEga
Hi! Here is a real effort post. I did the research mainly for myself, but maybe someone else is interested...
There was this strange time between the DX6 and DX7 era that lasted a long time and the 7th console generation era that mostly required DX9c cards (Sorry, FX and X600/800 owners!).
It seems to me, that relatively few games asked for a (slow selling) GF3 / 8500 type DX8 card... Despite the surprisingly successful original Xbox. Even on the console itself, relatively few games put the capabilities of the Xbox to good use, mostly Xbox (or Xbox/PC) exclusives.
By late 2005/2006 the long reign of the Xbox 360 and the PS3 began and in terms of graphics, PC ports mainly offered a higher resolution and not much else.
I find those few years (2004-2006) before the 7th console completely changed the market really interesting, since many new concepts were pioneered at that time.
Please be aware of the fact that the DirectX API is (at least theoretically) backwards compatible to earlier versions. Just because the game requires DX8 or later, there is no reason to assume that it will require hardware above the DX6/7 level.
Please be also aware of the fact that, like most of us, I am by no means an expert. All I know is a few buzz words I read somewhere online or in a magazine... I don't even know the difference between bump and normal mapping!
Still, I am interested in DX8 (or equivalent OGL) games that make good use of shaders: Mainly bump/normal mapping, parallax mapping, specular lights/highlights (is there a difference?), dynamic shadows... Anything that goes beyond flat textures with baked in lighting that were prevalent during the DX6/7 era.
As a general rule, anything that was also available on PS2 and runs fine on a GF4 MX aimed for DX6/7 level graphics and anything that was released on the original Xbox but not on the other 6th gen. consoles and requires at least a GF3/R8500 was more ambitious. There are of course exeptions.
Important: The minimum specifications mentioned on the box cannot always be trusted, sometimes games run just fine below the minimum specifications. Later patches can also change things considerably, HL 2 is a good example.
I am not too interested in strategy games and simulations. The focus here is definitely on action games and a few racing games.
Another thing: The release dates I found on Wikipedia and Mobygames are not always trustworthy.
Here are a few examples:
Games that run - according to the minimum specs on the box - on an Nvidia GeForce3 or ATI 8500 with 64MB of memory (albeit sometimes at a low framerate):
02.12.2003 Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (No mention of a DX7 render path on the box. Can this be true for a 2003 game?)
Very interesting but untested. I stink at playing this kind of game... The later games from the trilogy run with the same specs. Does it actually take advantage of advanced shader effects?
23.03.2004: Far Cry (DX7 render path available)
Was this the first game on the PC to really show off the new generation of hardware? The water still looks amazing and at certain locations (carrier) there's a lot of bump mapping and specular lighting going on! I never played the game past the jungle levels however, too boring and I hate checkpoints!
25.05.2004: Thief: Deadly Shadows
Has a bad reputation... But what about the visuals? It's one of the first games (or THE first game?) requiring something newer than a GF2 or equivalent card.
16.07.2004 Richard Burns Rally
I have to try this one sometimes...
03.08.2004 Doom 3 (DX7 render path available for GF4 MX cards. Really? Somehow I can't believe this...)
What a fantastic looking game! What a revolution! Specular and normal maps everywhere. The BFG edition looks much more "shiny" however. Stencil shadows look good but there are issues: Go ahead and aim the flashlight at a handrail: The projected shadows look completely wrong to me... The game took a lot of flak back in 2004. It did not deserve any of it, except that it should have had another name. It was not a Doom game and the title was misleading. Almost any other name would have better: What about "Super Turbo Turkey Puncher 3D"?
24.09.2004 Colin McRae Rally 2005
I wonder how this one compares to Richard Burns Rally...
03.12.2004 (PC) 01.06.2004 (XB) : The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay
Looks somewhat similar to Doom 3 but toned down and with less details overall. Still: Very impressive for the time!
28.03.2005: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (Option for Shader Model 1.1 or 3.0)
What a great looking game, much better than F.E.A.R! If you go for SM 1.1 you can admire several dynamic stencil shadows per object that give a decent illusion of soft shadows. Or activate the Shader Model 3.0 option and look at those soft, if somewhat low-res shadows! Parallax mapping on brick walls looks a little weird however, but at least it was there. I also don't care much about those bloom and HDR effects. Still: Maybe the only stealth game I actually like to play. Metal Gear Emo? Can love bloom on a battlefield? Cringy and out of place conversation during important missions? You don't get any of that c##p with Sam Fisher!
11.10.2005: Serious Sam 2
I am not sure... It's a good looking game but the focus seemed to be on speed and not on fancy effects.
18.10.2005: Quake 4
Very similar to Doom 3. Outdoor levels very brown and low-res, not the forte of the id Tech 4 engine. Indoor levels a little brighter than Doom 3. It's an alright game I guess... Next!
25.10.2005: Call of Duty 2
I played it but I can't remember. Did the game take good advantage of the new technology of the time?
31.10.2005 Star Wars: Battlefront II
Interesting: the almost identical first BF ran on lesser cards.
07.04.2006: Tomb Raider: Legend (Interesting: there is a DX9 render path available. According to the box you need at least a 5900 or a 9800XT card for this.)
This looks like the PS2 at a higher resolution. Unless you select 360 level graphics: Plenty of shiny surfaces, bump mapping and higher polygon count in this mode. The moving water looks weird but at least they tried. Interestingly, the option for advanced graphics is lacking in Tomb Raider: Anniversary that got a release the year after.
26.06.2006: Titan Quest
I played it back in 2006 but I absolutely can't remember anything about it.
11.06.2006: Prey (The ATI 8500 is not mentioned on the box, but I am pretty sure it's compatible too.)
Based on id Tech 4 but much more colorful than the amazing Doom 3 or Quake 4. I like the fact that they replaced the flashlight (and the presumably broken shadows it projects) with a lighter that does not project any shadows but emits a warm glow instead. Looks much better to me!
30.10.2006: Need for Speed: Carbon (The first game of the series with a need for something faster than a GF2... On the box it asks for a Ti4200 or later. Maybe Pixel Shader 1.3 is required?)
I played this on other systems. I like the colors, there is a bit of an 80s vibe going on. But I absolutely hate that terrible speed effect behind the car at speed.
These are all the major releases I found! A very short list indeed... Please let me know if something else comes to your mind. Especially if the game actually looks good...
And here are a few games that need - at least according to the minimum specs on the box - MORE than a 64MB GF3 or ATI 8500 card. Most of these games were created with a focus on 7th gen consoles.
18.10.2005: F.E.A.R (Minimum: 64MB Nvidia GF4 or ATI 9000 series, recommended: 256MB Nvidia 6600 series or ATI 9800 Pro. Wow!)
Plenty of shader effects are present (not sure anymore if there are soft shadows) but the overall art style was rather boring. I only played the first two missions and then I fell asleep... I don't really understand the hype surrounding this game!
21.10.2005: Battlefield 2 (Interesting: This one requires a 128MB card with pixel shader 1.4 support. That means it would run on a 8500 but not on a GF3 (PS 1.1)... Really? Steep requirements for a MP FPS!)
I never played this, should I? How does it look? The sometimes astonishingly bad quality of YT-videos does not allow a verdict...
09.03.2006: Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (Recommended: 256MB and Pixel Shader 2.0. 9600/9800 series ATI or 6000 series Nvidia card. Not sure about the relatively recent at the time Nvidia FX 5000 series cards...)
Never played it, should I? In regard of the visuals I mean... It should look amazing, in the light of such heavy requirements!
20.03.2006: Oblivion (Wants at least a 128MB FX/5000 or X600/800 series card.)
Parallax mapping is visible in the initial indoor tutorial level and maybe in other dungeons. But I didn't see them in outdoor levels. A fantastic looking game of course, especially the vast outdoor environment with those hazy mountain ranges in the distance. Yes, every location looks more or less the same, but the overall visual quality of the outdoor environment was unprecedented and set a new standard.
26.05.2006: Hitman: Blood Money (Pixel Shader 2.0 required. Minimum: GF FX/5000 or Radeon 9500)
I played the first level recently. All I remember is that it looked "realistic" or in other words very drab and colorless, almost monochromatic.
17.10.2006: Battlefield 2142 (Wants at least a 128MB 5700FX or 9500 card, quite a bit more than BF2...)
Never played it, should I? I am rather fascinated by soft shadows and shiny things. I am a simple mind I guess...
22.11.2006: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas (Wow, this one wants at least a 128MB Shader Moder 3.0 graphics card. Does that mean that it didn't run on FX series and X800 series cards? Already in 2006? Kind of cruel...)
I played the initial level in Mexico. Very atmospheric, has soft shadows and bump/normal mapping. I am a lousy player however and I hate the checkpoint system. Did not reach the Las Vegas level yet... Failed in the church during the tutorial level... Thinking about it: The same happened to me in RL...
There were plenty of major releases in 2004 and onward that only required a DX7 level card. Maybe with or without additional DX8 or DX9 render paths. By this time it was pretty much game over for cards that lacked hardware TnL however. The first Call of Duty is a good example for this.
Here are just a few late major DX7 (or even DX6) games...
16.03.2004 Unreal Tournament 2004 (Runs on a 32MB DX6 card, recommended: A 64MB card with hardware TnL)
The water looks too good for DX6/7... Shader effects can be programmed in software, at least to a certain degree. Maybe that's what they did here. Just a guess, I have to test it sometimes...)
21.09.2004 Star Wars: Battlefront
More advanced render paths available?
09.11.2004 Need for Speed: Underground 2
Probably no advanced render paths available. The game still looks amazing however! Is there a way to fully deactivate the HUD?
16.11.2004 Half Life 2: (Early versions run on DX6 cards, at very low texture resolutions however... Still, that's amazing for a top notch 2004 game!)
Well... Open the console and enter "mat_dxlevel 70", go to the graphics menu and set all the visuals to "high" and you will be surprised, how good the game still looks. Shader effects are obviously available for more advanced cards (see, the water almost looks like real water!), but rather as an enhancement and not as the main focus, like in Doom 3.
08.02.2005 Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II
More advanced render paths available?
15.11.2005 Need for Speed: Most Wanted
If the Underground games are too colorful for you: Here is the light brown version! I hate it.
Halo 1+2 on Xbox and later PC: I am not really familiar with these games. Were shader effects used to the same degree as for example in Doom 3?
Alright, I apologize for this long post! But judging from other, similar posts, there is a certain interest in DX8 and early DX9 games. Unfortunately, I don't own a GF3 card. My oldest DX8 feature level capable card is a GF4 Ti4600.
Did I miss something? Do you know of other good examples of early "next gen" games from the pre 7th console generation era? I am especially interested in games that can be played on an original GeForce 3 with 64MB.
Again: What a surprisingly short list of games! Sure, a high memory bandwidth is useful too, especially at higher resolutions. Still: I can only assume that early adopters were somewhat disappointed. A GeForce 256 (DDR, SDR not so much...) offered a much better return of investment, at least counted in number of quality games!
Another interesting idea for another thread would be a list of the first games that do not run on Nvidia GF FX (5000 series) or ATI X600/800 series cards but require a real DirectX 9.0c card instead.
Anyway, thanks for your attention!
