View Full Version : Has software (game engines) not caught up with PC hardware?(inspired by thief thread)
PingSpike
05-31-04, 05:14 PM
Some people brought this up in a thread about thief. IMO, I agree with them. Since games based on the somewhat old Q3 engine always seem to perform and scale well while still looking fairly impressive, it seems like it would be possible for manufactorers to put out a solid fast engine for all their games. Yet it doesn't always happen.
I've got a pretty speedy machine, nothing really fast...but some games just don't perform as they should on my machine, no matter what I do in way of drivers, etc. Morrowind runs way slower than it should for instance. Thief is another example. As near as I can figure, its just sloppy programming, or Xboxitis...the Xbox has less going on under the hood than the average PC, it would be nice if they could optimize the PC to run as well as the xbox counterpart instead of just doing a sloppy port to reap in some cash. I'm getting a little tired of it frankly, and I haven't even had to deal with it that much.
Just a little rant.
No, and I dont think they ever will. I think it is nearly impossible to code a game engine to take 100% full advantage of what the hardware has to offer. Especially in the PC game industry.
Lord_Zoltan
05-31-04, 08:56 PM
No, and I dont think they ever will. I think it is nearly impossible to code a game engine to take 100% full advantage of what the hardware has to offer. Especially in the PC game industry.
Hogwash, its possible, but it takes to much time, and considering it kills us pc gamers to wait 3 yrs already for a game to come out....
Its time, and by the time they are done a game, i mean 3 yrs average till game completion you have been working on some old and a bit of new technology. Its hard to do.
Zoltan
tomchong
05-31-04, 09:39 PM
well sse or 3dnow could be used much more to speed up killer games. you also have to remember that the xbox, although is optimized alot, is also only using a resolution of 640*480 a beleive, that would never be acceptable on a pc
Cool. I've always wondered things about this type. I know consoles use a whole lot of cheap things like running only at 30 fps, low resolution and they get free (poor) AA from the tv while computers don't. But with more and more HDtvs coming into use, do y'all think that will change? Maybe that's why only the xbox and PCs are the best choices for HD.
Also, another Q for those who truly knows the in and out of game engines. Couldn't a game company just license a current engine out (like UT2k4) and optimize it heavily? then down the road just add in some extra goodies? I know some developers try that, but I'm wondering how hard it is to do.
Mr. Chambers
06-01-04, 02:01 AM
Cool. I've always wondered things about this type. I know consoles use a whole lot of cheap things like running only at 30 fps, low resolution and they get free (poor) AA from the tv while computers don't. But with more and more HDtvs coming into use, do y'all think that will change? Maybe that's why only the xbox and PCs are the best choices for HD.
Also, another Q for those who truly knows the in and out of game engines. Couldn't a game company just license a current engine out (like UT2k4) and optimize it heavily? then down the road just add in some extra goodies? I know some developers try that, but I'm wondering how hard it is to do.
Game companies do that all the time. ID software makes ALOT of money from their Quake Engine's for example. There have been games based off Epic's Unreal Engine's as well.
about the sloppy code, i think programmers have just been kinda spoiled about the huge amount of space (gigs) and power avalible. think about it, back when 486s were around all the programmers were forced to keep everything efficient or the 650 mb harddrive wouldn't last to long. now we have gigs and gigs of space. i just got farcy and its 5 cds... utk2004 is 6. i mean of course the graphics are way better and way more interactive, but i think programmers can be a little more efficent
Ian Cody
06-01-04, 02:43 PM
i think that 486 comment is a little unfair, those werent rendering thousands of polygons a second, not to mention the number of colors, and shader effects...
But yes, games are too big!
micamica1217
06-01-04, 03:12 PM
about the sloppy code, i think programmers have just been kinda spoiled about the huge amount of space (gigs) and power avalible. think about it, back when 486s were around all the programmers were forced to keep everything efficient or the 650 mb harddrive wouldn't last to long. now we have gigs and gigs of space. i just got farcy and its 5 cds... utk2004 is 6. i mean of course the graphics are way better and way more interactive, but i think programmers can be a little more efficent
this "thief" game reminds me of the DE:IW game that came out both for the Xbox and the PC, like this thief.
the developers seemed to limit themselfs to small maps between load times, and poorer graphics (or framerate) because of the limited Xbox specs.
they also had to do coding that will work good on the Xbox, and it seemed they just did a sloppy/incomplete port for the PC at the last second.
just like Deus Xbox:Invisible Graphics.
I'll never buy a game again that was originaly done for the Xbox...
Doom3 should not fit this bill.
mica
I personally think that one of the biggest reason Doom 3 and Half Life 2's release delay has been that the current batch of video cards that where out until the past week (X800's and 6800's) where not capable of running the games the way that they where meant to be run. I think that the developers where wanting to release the games once the video card manufacture's had a chance to develope something that could run the game with full specs enabled. Why else do you think that ATI and Nvidia released such powerful cards with such a huge leap in capabilities. I mean, the X800XT nearly doubles the effective framerates of the 9800XT, and the 6800Ultra does in fact double what the 5900 series cards where doing in certain benchies.
i think that 486 comment is a little unfair, those werent rendering thousands of polygons a second, not to mention the number of colors, and shader effects...
But yes, games are too big!
its just an analogy (sp?) all i was trying to say is that programmers now adays are spoiled by the huge harddrives and fast processors that they really aren't writing as efficiently as the could
People were saying the same thing during the 486 era... And praising what programmers did with C64 or Amiga :D
PingSpike
06-02-04, 03:23 PM
Some interesting points here...sorry I haven't checked in on my own thread recently.
I disagree with TUK101 though. If HL2 and DooM3 were only playable on those new extremely fast, extremely expensive cards, iD and valve would be setting themselves up for poor sales and possibly bad reviews. You have to make a game run on at least mid range systems otherwise no one can play it. Not everyone buys the latest and greatest, in fact, most people don't.
stan03: I think the size thing isn't to big of an issue. I think its just the natural progression there. Higher quality images take more space. More complicated maps take more space. Despite the increase in actual file sizes, load times seem to have gotten better than what I remember them being in the 486 era. We're at the change over point now where CDs just aren't going to cut it as a distribution media any longer. DVDs are going to be a necessity within the next year or so I think.
Its really the engine thing to me. The engine for thief, from the graphics I've seen does not perform up to par with what it should. I'm just looking at iD's work and saying 'it can be done, and you guys just aren't doing it.' I'd say it was to man power intensive...but doesn't carmack do most of the code for engines himself? If one man can do it, why can't a team? I understand its probably harder to code the average quake 3 engine than it was the super mario brothers engine...but, if you can't make a good engine, license a good one. Its been done. I hate seeing a good game idea ****ed away with poor implementation.
Morrowind is another good example. Its a great game, but it just performs way below my system specs. And I've heard it pretty much doesn't matter how fast your machine is, the game just runs like crap. Its a great game otherwise, so why would they short change it like this.
I didnt neccesarilly mean that it "wouldnt" run on an average system. I just meant that I think that they had to go back and do some recoding to get all of those fancy graphics more capable of running at descent framerates on one. Really, they are coming out with what I figure will be some groundbreaking stuff with those two games and I just think that they needed the new generation of cards that are out now to be able to show it off the way that it is meant to be shown. I guess that time will tell. Remember when DII was first released, it didnt run all that well on a good portion of the cards that where mainstream at that time (ati cards, and some others) but it still sold pretty darned well I would say. I am probably all wrong, but like I said, time will tell.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.