PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
They still look better than Daikatana!
June 20th 2000, 08:23 CEST by andy

Not typical 'Crap material but this kind of thing really floats my boat so what the hell... Take a deep breath, drop your IQ a few notches and head over to this Shugashack story.



If your only interest in games is the finished product then you probably won't understand why anyone would want to look at thirty three screenshots of a QuakeIIIArena beta from early 1999. But if you like to follow the development process, or you're into making levels yourself, or even if you're just a nostalgic old fool like my good self, this is great stuff.

Around half the shots are easily recognisable as being unpolished versions of levels that made it into the final game. For example, beta3 (from q3dm7) and beta8 (from q3dm13) are almost identical in architecture to the finished levels, but look a bit rough and bland due to the lack of coloured sky and lighting effects.

The fogtastic beta10 (from q3tourney5) looks pleasantly different, with the low-lying green haze giving a very different atmosphere from the full orange fog of the finished version.

Other shots are from levels that either changed beyond all recognition or were abandoned, such as the very bouncy-looking beta13 (which may have ended up as q3dm16), the ugly beta15 and the awesome beta33. (Someone please tell me those arches are lurking somewhere in the game and I just missed them!)

Perhaps the biggest surprise, though, is in how different the space maps were back in ye olde days. The god-awful beta18 (from the fun but substandard q3dm19) and especially beta27 (from q3dm17) are done in a strange rock-like style, and are only recognisable from their layout. (Make sure you have a look at beta27 -- it's really weird!)

Oh, and you see where they've put that jump pad in the beta2 level? Great idea. Next level I make, I'm stealing that. ;-)

Fascinating stuff. Thanks to sCary for posting them, and I hope he doesn't mind me sending a load of 'Crap folk over there. (If his board gets dragged down by an influx of intelligent, thought-provoking comments, he knows who to blame...)

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: They still look better than Daikatana!

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-06-20 08:30:13
piramida@usa.net http://www.agsm.net
fifteenth. doh.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#2 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-06-20 08:37:54
piramida@usa.net http://www.agsm.net
Actually, I think I still have the screenshots from the pre-Quake1 hype days somewhere on my hd. I found them not so long ago and had some fun looking through them. The ones with the dragon especially. I remember how everyone was waiting for that next screenshot of ogre's leg or maybe even some action...

And then qtest came out and I was so dissapointed at first (hey, don't show me the turtle all the time, I have a mighty 486, wtf with that) that I switched back to DOOM... Untill I saw it going at whopping 20fps on a p120 and felt in love. These were the days :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#3 by "Apache"
2000-06-20 09:08:32
wow, those look like ass. I think I have a beta Unreal Tournament CD laying around someplace; you'd be amazed at how they chopped up a couple of the levels in the final build :)

I don't think epic would appreciate me posting them however.
#4 by "godZero"
2000-06-20 09:52:23
godzero@gmx.de
Apache, i have that ut beta too. there were some really nifty things in there which didn't make it to the final game. the thing i _really_ missed in the final version were hand movements, u know what i mean, this "c'mon, boys" kinda thing when holding a pulse gun. spinning automag arround your finger was also cool...i really don't know why they dumped that

i've seen that leaked q3 beta and i have to agree that q3tourney5 looked much better with green fog. the another level that was in there also looks much better then most of the q3 levels which made it into the final version.
#5 by "godZero"
2000-06-20 11:34:59
godzero@gmx.de
oops! after seeing these q3 beta screenies - it's not the one i saw. that was the very first one for mac. it only had two levels.
#6 by "godZero"
2000-06-20 12:03:18
godzero@gmx.de
oh, the intro in ut beta with that golden spinning logo (and one of the best tunes i've ever heard in _any_ game) are also not there in tha full version. why the hell did they dump the best song they had in there? Warren?
#7 by "ynohtnA"
2000-06-20 13:40:46
ynohtna@ynohtna.org http://www.ynohtna.org/
Actually, to be fair to sCary, the comments on his post (I'm not brave enough to venture into his forums, though) are rather intelligently noting the difference between the highly atmospheric preview pictures of Q3 and the bland cartoon game that was eventually released.

Just compare the following shots to the finished product...
<a href="http://3dshack.com/cgi-bin/pic.cgi?quake3/q26.jpg"></a><a href="http://3dshack.com/cgi-bin/pic.cgi?quake3/arena2.jpg"></a><a href="http://3dshack.com/cgi-bin/pic.cgi?quake3/5.jpg"></a>
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#8 by "BloodKnight"
2000-06-20 13:49:32
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
I remember playing the UT Beta at a major LAN party somewhere here in Toronto (yes I am from Canada).  It was called GamesCon, and hell, some of those levels did need major facelift.  The funny part was, it was because of lighting they looked bad.  You know that Assault map with that ship you have to raid?  I forgot the name, but anyways, in the beta, it was actually dark with few lights.  Now looking at it today, who would have known?
#9 by "Milamber"
2000-06-20 15:55:03
milamber@networx.net.au http://www.wagz.net
Any of you guys notice that there's a couple of shots of converted Quake 1 levels in there. I remember Willits mentioning in an interview that he also made a conversion of Q2dm1 that was never released, damn I'd like to get my hands on those maps.

-Mil
http://www.wagz.net
#10 by "Desiato"
2000-06-20 16:12:45
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com http://www.spew2.com
GodZero -- with some editing you can make any level load for the intro. I suggest copying over the beta intro complete with the music file -- and you'll be set!! Just check the ini files for the settings -- they're near the top.


Desiato
#11 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-06-20 20:15:47
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Looking at a game in development and comparing it to the final version is sort of lame.  I mean, it isn't done.  :)

Sure, maybe some levels had more stuff in them, or the models had more animations, etc ... but when push comes to shove and it's time to cut down on memory usage, the machette comes out and people start slashing.  :)
#12 by "Andy"
2000-06-20 20:19:06
andy@planetcrap.com
Hypothetically, I wonder... if there was someone who was so obnoxious that I chose never to respond to anything he said, would he start being more obnoxious just to try and provoke me? That would be really low.
#13 by "Nick"
2000-06-20 20:25:06
Anyone remember that shot of huge yellow pipe in Q3 preview in PCGamer? A lot of shots featured a lot of organics which were done with curves and were not part of the final game. Those curved surfaces were slowing stuff down too much methinks. It's a shame.
#14 by "flamethrower"
2000-06-20 21:53:16
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
Yeah, if QIIIA looked like the preview and played like Quake, ooh man, that'd rock. ;)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "Skid"
2000-06-20 22:08:33
http://www.planetquake.com/generations
"Take a deep breath, drop your IQ a few notches "

"(If his board gets dragged down by an influx of intelligent, thought-provoking comments, he knows who to blame...)"

Aww come on. I'm assuming you were intentionally being cheeky, but most of the arguments here are pretty much the same as what you would find on the Shack. Sure, most people here take the time to dress up their opinions, but that doesn't give you the right to look down on people who enjoy posting on the Shack.
#16 by "Darkseid"
2000-06-20 22:11:07
Darkseid-D@planetcrap.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
Andy, um, was that comment aimed at Warren ?

if so, what the fuck is your problem ?




Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#17 by "Paul"
2000-06-20 22:21:02
pab05f@mizzou.edu http://www.planethalflife.com/aerotic
this is why I like 3drealms current philosophy with Duke Forever. the surprise factor is very important to me.

- Paul
#18 by "DooBall"
2000-06-20 23:19:41
dooball@planetshogo.com http://www.dooball.NET
yes, quake 3 is good.
#19 by "flamethrower"
2000-06-20 23:44:58
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
<b>#11</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote...
<QUOTE>

Looking at a game in development and comparing it to the final version is sort of lame. I mean, it isn't done. :)

Sure, maybe some levels had more stuff in them, or the models had more animations, etc ... but when push comes to shove and it's time to cut down on memory usage, the machette comes out and people start slashing. :) </QUOTE>

Speaking to someone who was willing to fund a decent compouter, that sucks balls dude. It's typical of the bullshit issued by today's "heads up it's own arse" industry and id Software since Quake 2 has believed it. They were wrong to do so, with Q3, and I hope they do not make the same mistake again.

Doom pushed the edge. To be honest, on the lower specs of the machine, machines people had, it was more like a glimpse into the possibilities. On a very good 486 (or then a Pentium) it was a god. When Quake came out P200s were just becomming top of the range home consumer in the UK. Quake struggled on that, especially in the better resolutions my graphics card, 1024 on a Matrox Mystique was like flicking through photoalbum of architecture. Quake had been out quite a while before people could _really_ run it.

Quake II came out glass-smooth on a Voodoo2, but limitations were based on low memory, or processor pie. Even the mainstream PCs of the day didn't struggle in high resolutions. Samae in Quake III, it's been cut on a proportionally far smaller portion of my PCs canvas than any previous id game, I was machine-ahead of them the moment Q3 was out - much to my annoyance. :)

Animations rock. Models rock. Stuff rocks. I play games to see and do stuff. Where the fuck are my doohickeys? Make smaller maps for the modest machines, go to town on mine and let the fag bastards envy. We saw, in our past adverts for "extra stuff" for users of faster machines, or with more memory. Example, TA. It's one of the reasons it's still played today, because as the machines became more powerful so did it. It screams "bigger maps for 64 meg users". That was 1997. Have you seen similar ads today? The average PC is now shipping with 128 meg of ram (at least), when was the last time you saw ads that promised to fill and push that? Why are today's games not saying "Extra Shit for 256 meg users". Just fucking imagine if you had 256 meg to play with.

But no, today's games could have been played on last years machines. Because you cut all the cool fucking content out to sell (fail to sel) to the Deer Hunter croud you've lost the innovation, initative and edge. You've become complacent and greedy and feed to the lowest common denominator because PC Publishers have told you how it should be done. You might not have noticed, they're in a shit state too.

The truth is, whether you like it or not, the pc games developers show less eagerness to push the limitations of their format than their console counterparts.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#20 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-06-21 00:18:41
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Flamethrower :

So console developers are developing games that barely run and push the limits on the hardware?  That would be pretty stupid wouldn't it, considering that the hardware isn't going to change and the user isn't going to get anymore RAM in the future?

Whenever a game comes out that needs a beefier machine than the average guy has, people bitch.  Look at Wheel of Time.  Whether or not you liked the game is irrelevant, the fact is that it required a strong machine to drive it.  Every reviewer pinged on that, and the messageboards were filled with people complaining about the performance, and how could they speed it up.

So you're in a minority group.  As all hardcore gamers are ... Hardcore gamers MUST realize one day that they are a small, tiny fraction of the game buying market.  :)

"Whether I like it or not"?  I'd like to get extra stuff in games ... Who said I wouldn't?  ;)
#21 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-06-21 01:10:42
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#19</b> "flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>Speaking to someone who was willing to fund a decent compouter, that sucks balls dude. It's typical of the bullshit issued by today's "heads up it's own arse" industry and id Software since Quake 2 has believed it. They were wrong to do so, with Q3, and I hope they do not make the same mistake again. </QUOTE>

yer you tell em. You don't need people to play against, so what if only 1 in 5 gamers could play the game as long as you got the most bang from your current card fuck the rest of them ! Right on brother !

<QUOTE>Animations rock. Models rock. Stuff rocks. I play games to see and do stuff. Where the fuck are my doohickeys? Make smaller maps for the modest machines, go to town on mine and let the fag bastards envy. We saw, in our past adverts for "extra stuff" for users of faster machines, or with more memory. Example, TA. It's one of the reasons it's still played today, because as the machines became more powerful so did it. It screams "bigger maps for 64 meg users". That was 1997. Have you seen similar ads today? The average PC is now shipping with 128 meg of ram (at least), when was the last time you saw ads that promised to fill and push that? Why are today's games not saying "Extra Shit for 256 meg users". Just fucking imagine if you had 256 meg to play with. </QUOTE>

Why not put in extra stuff for 1 ghz machine with 500 mb memory ! Sure it may take an extra year to dev stuff that about 0.05% of customer base will ever use but isn't that cool !

<QUOTE>The truth is, whether you like it or not, the pc games developers show less eagerness to push the limitations of their format than their console counterparts. </QUOTE>

Err ... they can't push the limitations of their format as their format is fixed. They can run right up to edge but as soon as they cross it their game wont be able to be marketed as the console owner wont allow out a product that has problems with soem systems sometimes.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "BenT"
2000-06-21 02:56:05
bent@planetdreamcast.com http://www.planetdreamcast.com
Here are those original Q1 shots that someone mentioned above.

<a href="ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/.1/idgames/idstuff/quake/quakepix.zip">ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/.1/idgames/idstuff/quake/quakepix.zip</a>

<a href="ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/.1/idgames/idstuff/quake/quakepix.txt">ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/.1/idgames/idstuff/quake/quakepix.txt
</a>

Man, I still remember the day these came out, it took my friend's modem almost an half-hour to DL 'em. Then we viewed 'em in CSHOW, a program that couldn't even display JPEGs correctly. I think we played Doom then, and talked about how much id rocked. Those were the days. :)

BenT
#23 by "None-1a"
2000-06-21 03:31:22
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#19</b> "flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>Speaking to someone who was willing to fund a decent compouter, that sucks balls dude. It's typical of the bullshit issued by today's "heads up it's own arse" industry and id Software since Quake 2 has believed it. They were wrong to do so, with Q3, and I hope they do not make the same mistake again.

Doom pushed the edge. To be honest, on the lower specs of the machine, machines people had, it was more like a glimpse into the possibilities. On a very good 486 (or then a Pentium) it was a god. When Quake came out P200s were just becomming top of the range home consumer in the UK. Quake struggled on that, especially in the better resolutions my graphics card, 1024 on a Matrox Mystique was like flicking through photoalbum of architecture. Quake had been out quite a while before people could _really_ run it. </QUOTE>

I don't get it, at the time of Doom I had a friging 485 SX 25 and doom ran just great on it. Quake has always ran just fine at full res on a P233 (i'd assume the lower resulutons worked just great on a p200).

Also from aht your saying I should have been force to buy a GeForce 2 because QuakeIII would require per-pixel shaiding and a PIII866 just to run correctly. That ranks up there as the supidest thing I've ever heard here.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#24 by "Seven Tacos"
2000-06-21 04:32:12
kurto@asgaard.usu.edu
The arches in Q3CTF2 and in whichever DM map that CTF map is derived from look like the ones you are talking about.

Also it seems that Brandon James was the one who did the organics stuff. I remember hearing a quote that the rest of the team didn't have a lot of interest in finishing the maps so they died.
#25 by "godZero"
2000-06-21 08:36:49
godzero@gmx.de
Desiato:
<QUOTE>
GodZero -- with some editing you can make any level load for the intro. I suggest copying over the beta intro complete with the music file -- and you'll be set!! Just check the ini files for the settings -- they're near the top.
</QUOTE>

i know that, but i can't figure out which music file it is...
#26 by "Darkseid"
2000-06-21 19:15:36
Darkseid-D@planetcrap.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
/me snorts

doom played well on anything from a 386 sx 25 upwards. Know what, itruns exactly the same on a 1.2Ghz Geforce machine

cos the FPS were capped at 30 for internal timing reasons.


All the new hardware out today brings a new level to older games, Total Annihilation is vastly better now we have the horse power to play it full on. Quake and Quake2 are 'better' when you can crank the res and enjoy smooth responses and high fps.

thing is, Quake 3 is targetted at '2nd' generation cards, itll run nicely on a v2 and TNt ... for there are an AWFUL lot of those still out there. Not everyone has the cash to burn on GTS or V5s and 900Mhz Cpus. Those that do can crank the settings up and enjoy the games even more.

to bitch at id for aiming at a lower than your spec denominator... is quite frankly brattish and ungrateful. Far too many games say understate the min specs to sell units and youre bitching over this .. sheesh.


Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "L0cksm1th"
2000-06-21 19:26:25
l0cksm1th@rocketjump.co.uk http://www.rocketjump.co.uk
I think a few of you missed flamethrowers point.

Look at consoles that have been around a while.  Developers are constantly finding new tricks and working out ways to make games even better.

Look at the N64.  You had Mario, go take a look at Jet Force Gemini, or soon Perfect Dark.

If you've followed this console, you'd see what he means.  Developers really work hard on 'pushing the boundaries' or let me rephrase - 'making more out of what you've got'.

There are certain things in certain games on consoles that make you think 'hell, I didn't think this console could do this'.

Unfortunatly, you don't get that with pc's.  It's a case of, 'well I guess I need to upgrade'.

Developers for pc games, id with Quake 3 for example; have gotten lazy in this aspect of development.  They rely on the latest hardware setups to make their games technically better rather than work on ways to make it amazing with recent technologies.  Which can be done, but since the Pentium 3, they haven't bothered.

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#28 by "Diseased"
2000-06-21 21:02:23
diseasedanimal@yahoo.com http://www.notcoolenoughtohavea.com
I think the major problem with that Locksmith though is that as was said, consoles have one set of hardware to optimise for.  in PCs we have a number of different graphics boards, cpus, bus speeds, RAM types, etc.  I don't really think its feasible to force out much more without having glaring incompatiblity issues.  Sure you can optimise the hell out of perofrmance geared toward a Pentium/ Voodoo 2 rig, but then what about the tons of people that have AMDs or other cards?  Code optimisation is always something that's nice but comparing PCs to consoles is pretty unfair.
#29 by "flamethrower"
2000-06-21 21:54:57
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
<b>#21</b> "RahvinTaka" wrote...
<QUOTE>
yer you tell em. You don't need people to play against, so what if only 1 in 5 gamers could play the game as long as you got the most bang from your current card fuck the rest of them ! Right on brother !
</QUOTE>

1 in 5 gamers? Or 1 in 5 of the sheep who haven't been buying games (if they had, they wouldn't be in such a shit state now).

Voodoo3's are fast enough to run Quake III and UT and cost 80+. Memory is cheap.

Who the fuck is kidding who? 1 in 5? If 80% of the population have a spare 486 in a backroom some

<QUOTE>
Why not put in extra stuff for 1 ghz machine with 500 mb memory ! Sure it may take an extra year to dev stuff that about 0.05% of customer base will ever use but isn't that cool ! </QUOTE>

Bullshit and you know it. In 1997 TA was shipping with "stuff" for 64 meg users. How many games need 128 these days? What's a minimum spec of a PC these days? 6-700 mhz?

I want a game that runs on my 550 and rocks on a 1 ghz. Developers want to make games that run on a 220. In 64 meg. With a Voodoo2 card.

<b>#23</b> "None-1a" wrote...
<QUOTE>I don't get it, at the time of Doom I had a friging 485 SX 25 and doom ran just
great on it. Quake has always ran just fine at full res on a P233 (i'd assume
the lower resulutons worked just great on a p200). </QUOTE>

When Quake came out id were not talking about the P2, they were talking about the Pen Pro [read the readme]. The average machine back then was a 166, many people still had 486 (on which Quake ran "minimally") and very, very, few people had P200s, let alone P2s. But eventually they did, and as they did, Quake got better and better.

<QUOTE>Also from aht your saying I should have been force to buy a GeForce 2 because QuakeIII would require per-pixel shaiding and a PIII866 just to run correctly. That ranks up there as the supidest thing I've ever heard here.</QUOTE>

No, I'm saying if you have a P3-866 and GF2 then you should get more than a higher fucking resolution and a tiny fucking tweak here and there, you should be seeing something AMAZING, not a tad better. Do you think 866s & GF2 have been even in the LEAST bit pushed, oooh, ever? Is any game on the horizon likely to? Because if there is one I sure as shit don't know about it.

Console develoers make an effort to produce the best they can. Game developers do the best they can to make a half-decent game by patch fucking three [what, as many as HALF the games made today run anything like near well out of the box?]. I do NOT believe the code is in the least bit optimised for even the machines we have becaue fuxxsake it's barely even working. Strip it out, cut it down, see if it boots on a 233 and hope you hit the market at the right time.

(Yeah, Locksmif)
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#30 by "Diseased"
2000-06-21 22:45:06
diseasedanimal@yahoo.com http://www.notcoolenoughtohavea.com
Flamey do yourself and the PC game development industry a favor and quit playing PC games in favor of console games.  I don't think you fully understand the amount more shit a PC dev has to put up with in making a game that will work on a wide variety of platforms but still such that it runs acceptably on the minimum advertised spec machine.  

Fuck, I don't either but I don't go pointing fingers at the devs bitching about their inadequacies without realizing that their jobs are probably hella more difficult than that of a console developer's job.  It just doesn't seem worth the extra time and effort it would take to put in all these neat little extra features that noone without an 800+ MHz/ GTS will be able to enjoy.  Little things like that don't help sales much, and don't help the overall impression of the game enough to make them worthwhile.  At the end of the day it's all about sales.
#31 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-06-21 22:45:44
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Flamethrower :

<quote>I want a game that runs on my 550 and rocks on a 1 ghz. Developers want to make games that run on a 220. In 64 meg. With a Voodoo2 card. </quote>

This is the machine the average user has.  This is the target platform.  You are in the harcore minority.  No game developer is going to go out of his way to develop exclusive content for a miniscule portion of the gaming market.  Deal with it.
#32 by "flamethrower"
2000-06-21 23:49:52
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
<b>#31</b> "Warren Marshall" wrote...
<QUOTE>This is the machine the average user has. This is the target platform. You are in the harcore minority. No game developer is going to go out of his way to develop exclusive content for a miniscule portion of the gaming market. Deal with it. </QUOTE>

The average person isn't buying games, though. If someone can't afford to upgrade a SMALL amount of money on memory, or a reasonably SMALL amount of money on ONE good graphics card, what the hell chance have they got of buying games?

And as I said, right at the start, I think, <b>what's the harm in at least putting in a FEW levels for power players?</b>

It's been a classic tactic for years, but no, we're not <b>allowed</b> it anymore.

Hardcore is a type of porn. We're gaming fans, hobbyists. You're not targetting hobbyists but casual "I got me a PC for Christmas three years ago" and it's gone pear shaped, why? They ain't buying. Most of the classic games pushed the envelope. You've stopped doing it, you're suffering, and you'll blame anyone except yourselves. Every computer I've owned over the last twenty ears, every one, has had a "showcase" game. I cannot think of one, not one, game that showcases my current PC.

I need to get over nothing, chap, I'm not the one in a dying industry, I'm not the one wondering why my uninovative, low-spec games aren't selling. Roll on the X-Box, PC developers have lost the plot. :(

And Valve. They reckon TF2 is going to really scale up for the high-end. We'll see. I'd recommend you take a leaf out of their book, but you won't.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Space"
2000-06-22 00:05:30
From #31,
<QUOTE>No game developer is going to go out of his way to develop exclusive content for a miniscule portion of the gaming market.</QUOTE>

Not true, Nocturne was released when a PII-266 wasn't even mainstream, with min specs of PII-233 and 64MB RAM. (Which BTW is a load of crap. The game barely played on a PII-266/64MB RAM and a V3, and only decently on a PII-333/128 MB RAM and a Geforce) With a recomended system on a P2/P3 of 400MHz or faster and an AGP Video card. (TnT/TnT2) Which weren't mainstream at the time. I agree though, developers need to be realistic and develop for a 'mainstream' machine, but they need to plan ahead. put a few extra levels of detail. Just don't make the game so buggy that it crashes often like Vampire. It crashed at least once an hour because of some problem with a Geforce and AGP. (Thier fix, turn off AGP....) :)
#34 by "None-1a"
2000-06-22 00:27:48
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#29</b> "flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>No, I'm saying if you have a P3-866 and GF2 then you should get more than a higher fucking resolution and a tiny fucking tweak here and there, you should be seeing something AMAZING, not a tad better. Do you think 866s & GF2 have been even in the LEAST bit pushed, oooh, ever? Is any game on the horizon likely to? Because if there is one I sure as shit don't know about it. </QUOTE>

I don't know where your looking but there are pluntly of tweaks and higher resolutions in say QuakeIII. And yes the GeFroce and GeForce II cards will be pushed (check out the interview with Carmack in this months PC-Gamer, shoulds like he's planing on using full T&L, I'd also guess that shaders would be modified to use per pixel shaiding rather then the normal shit). Hell go into the options for SoF and click GOUL you'll see a hardware option (this option is for Gefroce based cards, only). I think you just not looking at the options screens here.

Second I'm a gamer I'm on a P233 (not PII that's Pentium Classic) with an 8 meg Voodoo 2, this system has served me well over the last two and a half years and has been able to run just about any thing I've throw at it. While the systems aging and needs an update It should not be unreasonable to expect at lest 25% of new games to run on this beast, QuakeIII runs fine, as well as UT, SoF, NFS: PU, in fact that only resent games I have not managed to get to work are Dank, and Dues Ex (Dank craches on level load and Dues Ex crash when I tred to use Glide, and will not let me select the V2 as a D3D device). Any you know every one of those games have detail options I can not take beyond LOW, so they scale just fine. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-06-22 00:37:16
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Flamethrower :

<quote>The average person isn't buying games, though. If someone can't afford to upgrade a SMALL amount of money on memory, or a reasonably SMALL amount of money on ONE good graphics card, what the hell chance have they got of buying games? </quote>

Yes, they are.  Do you honestly think that the millions of copies of Doom/Starcraft/etc that have sold, have been sold to people with high end, cutting edge machines?  Think it over ...

<quote>And as I said, right at the start, I think, what's the harm in at least putting in a FEW levels for power players? </quote>

The harm is that it takes more time.  And it's development time spent creating content that 99% of your players are never going to see or be able to use.  It doesn't make good business sense.

Hey, I'm not arguing with you that it's a bad idea ... I think it would be great to get extra content.  I'm just saying that from a developers point of view, it's not worth it.

<quote>Most of the classic games pushed the envelope. You've stopped doing it, you're suffering, and you'll blame anyone except yourselves. Every computer I've owned over the last twenty ears, every one, has had a "showcase" game. I cannot think of one, not one, game that showcases my current PC. </quote>

Maybe because hardware is accelerating faster than the software can keep up?  New video cards are coming out at a very quick pace these days.  Games which are in development for over a year can't stop and suddenly support a new fancy feature that a new card has decided to implement.  It will be the NEXT generation of games that does that.  Otherwise, well, games would never ship.  It takes long enough as it is, doesn't it?

<quote>I need to get over nothing, chap, I'm not the one in a dying industry, I'm not the one wondering why my uninovative, low-spec games aren't selling. Roll on the X-Box, PC developers have lost the plot. :( </quote>

You do realize that the X-Box is basically a PC right?  Moving over to X-Box development is not an issue for any PC developer.  And since we (Epic) are on the path to having a Playstation2 port of the UT engine, I don't have many worries.  ;)  If the PC dies, I'll see you on the other side ... but I don't see that happening.

Space
<quote>Not true, Nocturne was released when a PII-266 wasn't even mainstream, with min specs of PII-233 and 64MB RAM. (Which BTW is a load of crap. The game barely played on a PII-266/64MB RAM and a V3, and only decently on a PII-333/128 MB RAM and a Geforce) With a recomended system on a P2/P3 of 400MHz or faster and an AGP Video card. (TnT/TnT2) Which weren't mainstream at the time. I agree though, developers need to be realistic and develop for a 'mainstream' machine, but they need to plan ahead. put a few extra levels of detail. Just don't make the game so buggy that it crashes often like Vampire. It crashed at least once an hour because of some problem with a Geforce and AGP. (Thier fix, turn off AGP....)</quote>

Ok, change "No game developer ..." to "Not many game developers ...".  :)
#36 by "sprayNwipe"
2000-06-22 01:02:18
dteasdal@sceptre.net http://www.auran.com
<b>#32</b> "flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>
The average person isn't buying games, though. If someone can't afford to
upgrade a SMALL amount of money on memory, or a reasonably SMALL amount of money
on ONE good graphics card, what the hell chance have they got of buying games?
</QUOTE>

Yes, but the problem is that 80% of the people playing non-mass-market games (ie non-hardcore players) can afford it, but either can't install or don't know they need a new 3D card, or more memory

<quote>
And as I said, right at the start, I think, <B>what's the harm in at
least putting in a FEW levels for power players?</B>

It's been a classic
tactic for years, but no, we're not <B>allowed</B> it anymore.
</quote>

While I agree with Warren about development times (you try developing a whole game in 18 months, let alone extra bonus levels that only 10% of people will play), I think there are ways around it

The most obvious is using scaling technologies such as MRM. We're using MRM tech here, and for all our demos we have a slow PC running with around 4000 polys per frame, and a beast PC with a GeForce 2 running with 15000+ polys per frame, all with the same art assets, and more importantly, the same frame rate :)
The other way is to chuck stuff out after release to extend the life and generally improve on the released product. Note that I'm *not* talking about Origin-style "release the game incomplete" improvements, more of the Valve-style "release new maps and TFC" kind of thing

<quote>
I need to get over nothing, chap, I'm not the one in a dying
industry, I'm not the one wondering why my uninovative, low-spec games aren't
selling. Roll on the X-Box, PC developers have lost the plot. :(
</quote>

AHAHAHA! Are you serious? You think a 600Mhz, NV25-based box will whip the PC in 3 years time? The secret to the PC's success (and also it's achilles heel) is the fact that it is upgradable, and that the tech is always increasing.
Go back to 1995. Think of the PC you had then (probably a 486, or if you're hardcore, a P90). There is no chance in hell that it would have beaten the newest console at the time, the Playstation! A P90 getting 300,000 polys per second, ha!

Cut to a years time - we have 1.5Ghz PC's with NV25's when the X-Box comes out - with the same graphics card as well as a 600Mhz processor. And 1Ghz is the "family spec, sub $1000" maching. Not to mention all of the titles for the X-Box being PC and PS2 ports, and the only X-Box only titles being Halo/Other MS Games. Why on earth would I want an X-Box, when I can play the same games on my faster PC? This will be compounded in 3+ years when the X-Box tech gets old - why develop for a 600Mhz NV25 when we can develop for a 3Ghz NV40?

<quote>
And
Valve. They reckon TF2 is going to really scale up for the high-end. We'll see.
</QUOTE>
Valve are using MRM too, so I'm prepared to believe them at face value.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#37 by "L0cksm1th"
2000-06-22 01:43:28
l0cksm1th@rocketjump.co.uk http://www.rocketjump.co.uk
I wasn't meaning developers should optimize their games more for each an every setup there is.

What I meant was, they can change the way they do things on a general level.  Make things look better and using less resources.  Anyone remember demo coders from years ago (not game demos f00)?  Those guys did nothing but the impossible, and they did it well.  They managed to do things that both looked amazing and took less than a small whack on your system. That's real innovation.

Here's a bad example (but it's not the point so don't flame me :]).  id could have dropped shaders in favour of another technique which both looked stunning and hardly took up any rendering resources; but my guess is somebody thought 'Hey, I've got this shaders idea' and off they went and made it.

flamethrower:

(Yeah, Locksmif)

Why does everyone call me that?  :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#38 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-06-22 02:15:27
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#27</b> "L0cksm1th" wrote...
<QUOTE>Look at consoles that have been around a while. Developers are constantly finding new tricks and working out ways to make games even better. </QUOTE>

errr maybe because they can use the undocumented tricks. Doing this with a PC is likely to cause it to not run on a large number of machines.

<QUOTE>Developers for pc games, id with Quake 3 for example; have gotten lazy in this aspect of development. They rely on the latest hardware setups to make their games technically better rather than work on ways to make it amazing with recent technologies. Which can be done, but since the Pentium 3, they haven't bothered.</QUOTE>

Until you actually know what goes into a game you may want to hut your mouth as I can't imagine foot tastes so good ? id is one of the few mainstream companies that are pushing forward technologically. Most of their advances come from algorithmic advances and they just happen to target the audience with a representative computer.

<b>#32</b> "flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>
The average person isn't buying games, though. If someone can't afford to upgrade a SMALL amount of money on memory, or a reasonably SMALL amount of money on ONE good graphics card, what the hell chance have they got of buying games?</QUOTE>

Up their with your ignorance. You go there !

I think you will find very few people upgrade any significant amount from store bought computer. Yet a lot of these people will go back for a game or two a month. When enough games stop working they will go get a new computer or maybe upgrade - thou usually they left it too long to be worth upgrading.

<QUOTE>And as I said, right at the start, I think, <B>what's the harm in at least putting in a FEW levels for power players?</B> </QUOTE>

Why waste time for a miniscule amount of market who are going to complain regardless of what you do and would have bought game anyway ?

<QUOTE>It's been a classic tactic for years, but no, we're not <B>allowed</B> it anymore. </QUOTE>

err I doubt it. More likely they fucked up during design and had to scale back features but left a few in - just in case.

<QUOTE>Hardcore is a type of porn. We're gaming fans, hobbyists. You're not targetting hobbyists but casual "I got me a PC for Christmas three years ago" and it's gone pear shaped, why? They ain't buying. Most of the classic games pushed the envelope. You've stopped doing it, you're suffering, and you'll blame anyone except yourselves. Every computer I've owned over the last twenty ears, every one, has had a "showcase" game. I cannot think of one, not one, game that showcases my current PC. </QUOTE>

You should change your name to tantrum boy ! or perhaps BabyBoy ! or ...

Realistically I would target systems that are 18 months behind your planned release date. Not sure what the policy in companies is thou...

<QUOTE>I need to get over nothing, chap, I'm not the one in a dying industry, I'm not the one wondering why my uninovative, low-spec games aren't selling. Roll on the X-Box, PC developers have lost the plot. :( </QUOTE>

Sell your computer then. Don't whine. PC developers haven't lost the plot - they have to deal with a lot more technically difficult market - have to worry about scalability, compatability etc. It aint gonna change soon so go elsewhere.

<QUOTE>And Valve. They reckon TF2 is going to really scale up for the high-end. We'll see. I'd recommend you take a leaf out of their book, but you won't.</QUOTE>

who are you accusing here ? Regardless of what Valve do I don't think they will get what the aim for. The number of obvious cockups for someone who knows what to look for in their technology is astounding - especially their networking. However they will prolly get more market share because they have great content.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#39 by "G-Man"
2000-06-22 02:19:02
jonmars@shiftlock.org http://www.shiftlock.org
<b>#37</b> "L0cksm1th" wrote...
<QUOTE>

I wasn't meaning developers should optimize their games more for each an every setup there is.

What I meant was, they can change the way they do things on a general level. Make things look better and using less resources. Anyone remember demo coders from years ago (not game demos f00)? Those guys did nothing but the impossible, and they did it well. They managed to do things that both looked amazing and took less than a small whack on your system. That's real innovation.</QUOTE>
The reason demos managed to be so impressive was because they were coded in hand optimised assembly. However with today's smarter compilers there really aren't very many gains to dedicating your resources to inline assembly. I'd expect at most a 10% increase in rendering speeds, could be wrung out of the cpu, but it would be a major bitch. And you can forget about portability then.

Honestly if there are ANY optimizations that need to be made to increase rendering performance, it's on the driver side.

 - [g.man]<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#40 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-06-22 02:21:33
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#37</b> "L0cksm1th" wrote...
<QUOTE>What I meant was, they can change the way they do things on a general level. Make things look better and using less resources. Anyone remember demo coders from years ago (not game demos f00)? Those guys did nothing but the impossible, and they did it well. They managed to do things that both looked amazing and took less than a small whack on your system. That's real innovation. </QUOTE>

they are still around .. checkout www.demonews.com and www.demoscene.org

<QUOTE>Here's a bad example (but it's not the point so don't flame me :]). id could have dropped shaders in favour of another technique which both looked stunning and hardly took up any rendering resources; but my guess is somebody thought 'Hey, I've got this shaders idea' and off they went and made it.</QUOTE>

Actually shaders take up less resources and are more scalable hence why they did it. Not using shaders would have also meant longer content development times or else less groovy looking levels. They didn't come up with the shader idea either it has been around since early 90s. It is similar to technology that exists in most cartoon movies - Toy Story etc.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#41 by "None-1a"
2000-06-22 02:32:27
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#40</b> "RahvinTaka" wrote...
<QUOTE>It is similar to technology that exists in most cartoon movies - Toy Story etc. </QUOTE>

Simmaler in idea only (ie layering effects on top of each other), But most CGI stuff (that's Computer Generated Images just so no sone brings up Gamespy), uses the per pixel meathed no a triangel meathed used in QuakeIII (more than likly the number on reason Nvidia even put it in there, by why any one see the Nvidia Quake III level showing this stuff off).<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#42 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-06-22 02:39:42
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#41</b> "None-1a" wrote...
<QUOTE>Simmaler in idea only (ie layering effects on top of each other), But most CGI stuff (that's Computer Generated Images just so no sone brings up Gamespy), uses the per pixel meathed no a triangel meathed used in QuakeIII (more than likly the number on reason Nvidia even put it in there, by why any one see the Nvidia Quake III level showing this stuff off).</QUOTE>

There is/was per pixel stuff in there - just not usable yet so removed from any maps. (Or it may have been removed from whole descriptiong language). Shaders are basically procedural descriptions of surface appearance - they may be implemented differently but same techniques. Renderman and Q3 shaders look differently and both have stages/layers/whatever but that doesn't make a shader a shader :P<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#43 by "L0cksm1th"
2000-06-22 07:18:36
l0cksm1th@rocketjump.co.uk http://www.rocketjump.co.uk
My example with Quake 3 was fictional, I was just trying to examplify my point :)

RahvinTaka:
errr maybe because they can use the undocumented tricks. Doing this with a PC is likely to cause it to not run on a large number of machines.


Again, I'm misunderstood but I'll just quit now :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "None-1a"
2000-06-22 07:26:03
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
<b>#42</b> "RahvinTaka" wrote...
<QUOTE>There is/was per pixel stuff in there - just not usable yet so removed from any maps. (Or it may have been removed from whole descriptiong language). Shaders are basically procedural descriptions of surface appearance - they may be implemented differently but same techniques. Renderman and Q3 shaders look differently and both have stages/layers/whatever but that doesn't make a shader a shader :P</QUOTE>

Sorry didn't know about the per pixel stuff in Q3A, O man I I'm drooling just think'n about how Doom X is going to look as GeForce 2's. Hum, you know effect layers might have been a better name for them. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: They still look better than Daikatana!

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]