Killo Zapit on 28/1/2001 at 01:44

---

I love it that some one is doing a game styled after Ultima Underworld. ARX sounds pritty cool. Of course, when I first heard about Quake it souded pritty cool, and well, it wasnn't any neer as good as what I thought it would be. (For some reason, for a while I thought Quake woould have some RPG elements in it, but it didn't turn out that way). I actualy saw some screen shots of ARX a while ago, and well... er... the world looked good at least. :P I just can't bring my self to like the ploygon models... Then again, I can't bring myself to like ANY polygon models. :P

Er... anyway.

I hear there is no software renderer witch is to bad, because, well, "I like my polys pixeled, not blured". :P (Plus I don't even OWN a 3d card, and have no desire to get one, because, if you ask me, 3d cards are more troble then they are worth... for both the programer AND the user.)

On a side note, A while ago, (way before i found out about ARX,) I was working on a little TC for Half-life styled after Ultima Underworld. I stoped it though after running into a raely nasty bug witch I had no idea of how to fix. When I came across ARX, I was struck with how diffrent it was from my idea, but at the same time I was inspired. Mabey I will restart my stupid TC someday. Mabey I will even, if I figure out how, write my own 3d crap for it, but do to my little experence in such things I don't think I will. Blah I might write my own level editor though. Worldcraft-style ediors drive me up the wall. :P

Killo Zapit on 30/1/2001 at 06:44

---

I realy was iteeding to ask questions, but I couldn't think of any valid ones. :P

I guess I shouldn't say I like ALL polygon models.... just 99.9% of them. Not because I dislike the idea of ploygon models, I just think that in most games they are done realy REALY badly. Most of the time they look realy blocky for example. I know it must be hard to simulate the curve of the human head with out
useing so many polygons that the game slows down to a crawl, but most games I have seen use 4 ploygons for a head. I mean I am sure you guys can do better then THAT can't you?
I hope so.

I don't like 3d cards because for a few reasons:

1. Every one is a bit diffrent, witch means
that features might work diffrently on some,
and therefor cause silly bugs.

2. You basicly need to upgrade every two days to keep up. :P

3. Bluring. :P

4. Limitations in stuff like memory.

Plus I just don't think that 3d cards are even that nessasary. Half-life for example proved that software can look almost just as good as hardware. Hardware is a extra. Nothing more. I just don't think it should be a requirement.


Oh BTW I never realy thought that Quake would be a RPG as such, I just thought that it would be more... involved so to speak. I guess RPG elements would be a exageration. I thought Quake would be kinda like Half-life, or Hexen, with a bit more exploration. For example I read somewhere, don't ask me where, that the world of Quake was inside some kindof gem or something. That ad I saw screen shots of the knights. :P I never expected quake to be a honest stat-based Ultima Underwrold game, I did however expect it to have more of a real plot, have a interconected level stucture, and such. Of course thus was all back when quake was just started, ad not much real information was out there. I to this day feal almost like that was what it was intended to be, in the early consept stages.

Another consern I have about 3d games is that I don't think they are optimized vary well. I mean the Quake (Quake, Quake2, Hexen 2, Halflife, ect.) games I think are well optimized, with BSP trees and VIS crap, but I suspect that other 3d games useualy rely mostly on 3d card power and do not put forth any real effort to optimize the levels. I mean I have a 233mhz CPU. (I also have a 700mhz one but I rarely use that computer) Halflife runs fine on it (640x480 though) with no 3d card. Every other 3d game I try seams to ether not work at all, or go real real slow. To me personaly this seams silly as realy to me there are no games out there that seem to have any real new features (I honestly haven't tried quake 3 yet).

I guess what my point is for this whole post is I am afraid that ARX might become a game that is, like most games, too cought up in the standerd 3d flair. That like I think most 3d games, the developers will be cuaght up more in technology then gameplay, or even graphics. I think 3d games should be developed for LOWER end systems, not higher end ones, and in software, not hardware. Of course hardware sopport is nice, but if you aim low, and try to add all the features you want, and make it run a okay speed in a lower end system with no hardware, just think of what it can do in a higher end system WITH hardware? Thats all I realy came here to say.

Shadowcat on 30/1/2001 at 14:13

---

Actually, the extremely early designs for Quake *did* have some RPG-style leanings. It sounded far more interesting than the game ended up being.

And, um, a four-polygon head would be a pyramid. :)



------------------
--
Shadowcat
One of Many

Shadowcat on 30/1/2001 at 14:32

---

Well, they do aim low; it's just that low-end today still means a 3D card. 'Tis the way of the world. Frankly, it's getting difficult to buy a NON-3D-accelerated video card these days.

And regards your second comment, another perspective on that would be "just think how limited the high-end machines would be by a game that had to run on the low-end ones as well."

You hate low-polygon models, and then say that games should be designed for machines without the hardware needed to push about high-polygon models. Something of a self-defeating argument, no?

Admittedly you can take the path that Shiny took, and go for dynamic models that use as many polygons as the hardware can provide and still maintain the required frame-rate, but that's hard to do, and consequently a big increase to the development budget.

it's not only the graphics, though. Modern games that expect a reasonably grunty machine will put more cycles into A.I., audio, and general behind-the-scenes processing, and that kind of stuff is harder to scale down without losing fundamental features of the game.

Most games are targetted at a particular minimum level of CPU/RAM/Audio/Video, and the developers will be aiming higher each year in order to keep comnpetitive. Yes, it would be wonderful if the code was ultra-efficient as well, but either way it's difficult to avoid the (semi-regular) requirement for new hardware to support new games.



------------------
--
Shadowcat
One of Many

Forsythe on 31/1/2001 at 00:31

---

Hmm.. a number of points...
1) AIs acting stupid.
Generally speaking, you're running on the extreme low-end of the resources yardstick; I'd almost expect the game to cut down on the amount of CPU time it allots to AI in your case. Neverminding, of course, that HL is old tech by now.

2) Sound doesn't take very much CPU.
Not in sound-primitive games like HL or Quake it doesn't, no, but what about games like Thief where sound propagation is altered by walls, doors being opened or closed, and the like? Mucho, mucho CPU time there, then.

3) Non-standardized 3d-accelleration.
You're a month or three too late for this to be a valid argument, I'm afraid... of the two major players in this market (ie: 3dfx and TNT), 3dfx went belly-up recently.

Honestly, and I'm not being personally insulting here, you sound like someone who's either deathly afraid of change, or just tired of it after 20 years of being in the computer industry (and given your typing and spelling skills, I'm guessing it's the former as opposed to the latter)

I'd say it's time you either saved up for one or quit trying to convince all of us that the technology's not needed. Sure, it'd be <u>nice</u> if it weren't... but if you're running an MS-based OS, you're fighting a losing battle. It's not just the game engine that eats the resources, after all.