filipetolhuizen wrote on 2020-05-19, 17:52:

1996 was the golden year of PC gaming. Duke3D was by far my favorite, still is one of mine. Destruction Derby 2 and Jane's ATF were great as well. Quake was good and performed great for a polygon-based game on the available hardware at the time. Loved Monster Truck Madness and Hellbender as well. A-10 Cuba, Daytona USA, Virtua Squad... Just too many to list here

Aaaaaahhhhh!!! Daytona USA, Destruction Derby... Now I have to get these to play again. Thank you. (LOL)

Ah, I remember another game: "Spycraft - The Great Game". Another favorite of mine.

Garrett W wrote on 2020-05-19, 16:11:

Ah yes, the wonderful generalization of programmer bad,lazy.

Well, I spoke based on my experience working with other programmers. I can count in one hand the number of programmers with whom I worked closely that were writing proper code, in almost 20 years since I started working.

But when you release a game that requires an expensive high end graphics card as a minimum requirement, something is definitely wrong IMO.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-19, 23:23:

But when you release a game that requires an expensive high end graphics card as a minimum requirement, something is definitely wrong IMO.

so.... the original Doom? Doom craved a good high-end 486 system in 1993. Most of the IBM PC computer world were still on 386SXs or less, and there's that Ultima Underworld from the year earlier...

Also if GTAV's size complaint is the biggest issue......keep in mind that game came out in 2015 and has had 5 years of content additions at this point. The new COD's >120gb I hear, and we haven't had a UE5 game yet and no one really knows how big those will be!

I brought up The Terminator because "they don't make them like they used to" is BS when reminiscing via DOSBox brings quite a mandela effect about DOS stability and performance. There are a LOT of technically/playably flawed computer games no matter the era. If they didn't have problems, we wouldn't even have this forum. 😀

Or how about Magic Carpet? Descent? Quake? Terra Nova : SFC? Unreal? Friggin Carmack and Abrash were so lazy... Leaving all those 486 users without a viable way to play the game when Duke3D played just fine on my 486-100, what a bunch of incompetent coders!
And just to move away from FPSes and 3D games, ever seen SimCity 2000 on period correct hardware? Or Ultima VII? They are sooooo slow and jerky.
Personally, I'm not a fan of rose-tinted glasses and would rather not call an entire team of people lazy or incompetent.

Let's not mention Crysis either. SSAO is such a lazy bad/lazy way to do things.

Still haven't forgiven Crytek for not supporting my S3 Virge.

I think people are taking my comments in an extreme way.

I'm not saying they (programmers) should support very old hardware either, just make their games run as advertised on decent hardware everyone can buy. How many of us can afford the most powerful NVIDIA gpu available? The last gpu I bought was a nvidia gtx 750ti in 2014, I had even overclocked it, and yet it was not enough for rFactor 2. A game whose engine was a heavily modified version of F1 Challenge 99-02, sold by Image Space Incorporated. Since then, I gave up, never more bought a gpu and never will again.

Do you guys have any idea of how expensive these high end graphics cards are in Brazil? How much they costed five, ten years ago? Especially now, with the dollar worth six brazilian reais (USD 1,00 = R$ 6,00) so they are three times more expensive than it was ten years ago?

They should do better programming to run these modern games without the need of throwing away huge amount of money to buy an expensive graphics card and still deliver the graphics as they advertise. At the moment, it's like McDonald's: Their adverts shows their burgers in a perfect condition and tasty, but when you actually go to a McDonald's to eat one, these burgers are nothing like they advertised.

Finally, I want to say I am very sorry for derailing and going off-topic here, but I wanted to make my point clear, I am often misunderstood for being very direct and aggressive with my opinions. I understand people may disagree with me, but... buying a new gpu to play F1 2019, for example, is just not worth it for me. I'd rather play Grand Prix 2.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-20, 15:31:

I think people are taking my comments in an extreme way. […]
Show full quote

I think people are taking my comments in an extreme way.

I'm not saying they (programmers) should support very old hardware either, just make their games run as advertised on decent hardware everyone can buy. How many of us can afford the most powerful NVIDIA gpu available?

Do you guys have any idea of how expensive these high end graphics cards are in Brazil? How much they costed five, ten years ago? Especially now, with the dollar worth six brazilian reais (USD 1,00 = R$ 6,00) so they are three times more expensive than it was ten years ago?

They should do better programming to run these modern games without the need of throwing away huge amount of money to buy an expensive graphics card and still deliver the graphics as they advertise. At the moment, it's like McDonald's: Their adverts shows their burgers in a perfect condition and tasty, but when you actually go to a McDonald's to eat one, these burgers are nothing like they advertised.

Finally, I want to say I am very sorry for derailing and going off-topic here, but I wanted to make my point clear, I am often misunderstood for being very direct and aggressive with my opinions. I understand people may disagree with me, but... buying a new gpu to play F1 2019, for example, is just not worth it for me. I'd rather play Grand Prix 2.

Very well put.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-20, 15:31:

I think people are taking my comments in an extreme way.

Ok, maybe slightly extreme in my example of Crysis having to support a Virge... I used Crysis as an example because it infamously didn't run very well on the hardware available at the time... hence the phrase '... but can it run Crysis' which I'm hoping you are aware of and where that phrase comes from.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-20, 15:31:

I'm not saying they (programmers) should support very old hardware either, just make their games run as advertised on decent hardware everyone can buy. How many of us can afford the most powerful NVIDIA gpu available?

I can't afford to get the lastest or greatest either... but there isn't some conspiracy to write crap inefficient code so we all have to go out and buy the lastest and greatest. Just because you think it should run better doesn't mean the industry is incompitent and we don't know what we are all doing. Developers don't get paid if the games don't sell so if anything it is in the developers (actually publishers) interest to appeal to as many computer environments as possible. If they only wanted to sell to the rich... then perhaps the compentency may go astray somewhat if they can hood wink users into thinking there is no other way but the latest and greatest hardware. You'll find many programs (not just games) have a min/recommended spec to be able to run said program, most of the time this is there for a reason, not just made up to keep that capitalist wheel turning... by all means ignore it, but then don't expect a decent experiece (if it runs at all)... and don't say "well I think it should run, so it must be someone elses fault that it doesn't".

Sorry you had a bad experience working with some developers... but like Garret W said, don't paint everyone with the same brush assuming none of us know what we are doing... honestly... if only you knew.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-20, 15:31:

The last gpu I bought was a nvidia gtx 750ti in 2014

Well thats better than my home PC which is 2 x 5690 Xeons with 2 x GTX 690 (limited VRAM for most things these days) which is probably circa 2012 (if not before, I can't remember last time I upgraded tbh).

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-20, 15:31:

They should do better programming

You're still doing it. Without first hand knowledge of why the code is bad and how it can be improved how can you even say that?

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-20, 15:31:

Finally, I want to say I am very sorry for derailing and going off-topic here, but I wanted to make my point clear, I am often misunderstood for being very direct and aggressive with my opinions. I understand people may disagree with me, but... buying a new gpu to play F1 2019, for example, is just not worth it for me. I'd rather play Grand Prix 2.

You don't have to apologise (at least not to me)... thats the great thing about forums... conversation coupled with the ocassional flaming. I completely agree, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw blame around other peoples professionalism because I don't understand why that is the case. It's like saying, why can't my crappy little 1litre Fiat500 do 0-60 in 2.6secs like <insert super car here>... oh it must be the fiat enigneers haven't got a clue about how to design and build engines.

As a developer myself, it is borderline insulting have someone with <insert your programming experience here> decide that none of us have a clue about the industry in which many have worked and evolved over the past 40 odd years. Please don't assume you can generalise other peoples professions without understanding why the state of affairs is what it is.

And FYI. Critical sections of rendering pipelines in games are probably some of the most optimised code written today.... usually requiring teams of people (who know what they are doing) to design, implement and deploy. Prior to the recent development of some modern day technologies (machine learning/FEM/data mining etc) ...It's long been known that it is games that push the computing envelop... yes you don't need a beefy CPU to send emails or write word documents... but you'll need a beefy CPU/GPU if you want to that rendering any time soon... or train that neural network... or crunch/mine that data... or expect to get 60FPS at 4K with full on particles doing their thang.

And sorry don't mean to hone in on you, you're certinaly not the only one to say these things, when people do it does make me cringe slightly inside ... it's just that you kinda asked for it by being so vocal about it in your post. 😉

I'll leave it at that.

P.S I'm not a games developer myself... but I am a graphics developer and still have to occasionally get involved with real-time critical systems (realtime cricital means it needs to be done at realtime and cannot go wrong... if it goes wrong... people die)... so I would like to think there are others out there like me who pride themselevs on being able to do better programming than others who may work in this industry.. can't speak for everybody obviously.

Amazed that Davros and Garrett W were the only mentions of Descent. That was a freaking awesome release that blew my mind. Tomb Raider also stands out. Sadly I didn't get Duke for many years after. I really don't know why.

~TW

Yeah I should probably contribute rather than just troll Bruninho (no offence Bruninho 😉).

Wipeout 2097/XL would get my vote. That racing series changed my life and Wipeout 2097/XL was the best on the PC platform (Wip3out on PS was the best offering).

Descent, Duke Nukem 3D would certainly get my vote too. While Quake was a massive technological leap forward... I wasn't really feeling the story (if there is one) with it. I'm a massive Quake2 fan though.

And Z (bitmap brothers)... spent hours on that game.

tbh I didn't get a PC until '97, still had my Amiga in '96.

@spiroyster: I didn't get offended really, no problem.

I agree that like games, there are also certain apps with a system requirements that needs to be met to be run. But my point was specifically graphics cards for games only.

My complaints towards some programmers with whom I worked together IMO are justified, because some think that its just a matter of throwing some framework, libraries and call it a day. No, it's not. I know for a fact that writing optimized, slimmer code is way better for performance than just throwing other libraries on it. I mean, for example, from my experience as a front-end web designer, it's better to write something in vanilla javascript instead of throwing a jQuery library and call it a day, because some days later, my client will come back complaining that "the site is too slow"...

I knew I was generalising, and I admit it, mostly because I am currently working in a project for a big brazilian company, where I have to deal with legacy code, terribly written by other programmers before me and I have a deadline to met, to make it work with our modern, well written code. We ended up doing pretty much the same (write it badly, if it works, just works) and this is the reason why I am very pissed.

I'll also admit that I actually wanted to point the finger to some developers of the racing games I've played such as rFactor (ImageSpace Inc. & Studio 397), Assetto Corsa (Kunos Simulazioni) and iRacing (Motorsport Simulations). The demand for high end graphics cards is the reason why I had to quit competitive online racing championships.

Actually, rFactor's engine is based on another ISI title, F1 Challenge 99-02 (ISI built, EA Sports published, actually) while iRacing is based on Papyrus NASCAR Racing 2003. While the original titles ran very well, the modifications they did actually don't cut it for me. I can give that iRacing does way better than any other simulation with regards to physics and tyre model, and has good graphics, but their system requirements and business model just don't. When a simple racing game requires the most expensive graphics card available to run, I always have to think "their code must be terrible", because from my experience, ISI's rFactor 1 ran well at ~120fps here; when they handed the development of rFactor 2 to Studio 397, things have gone wrong. First they switched from DX9 to DX11, in a way both versions can't coexist in an online competition; second, the new version, with many updates under the hood and DX11, on the same hardware just gets about less than 50fps! How come? The engine is the same; the game settings are the same and whole game experience is the same; It just runs slower and has no big visible graphics improvement. And the DX9 version of the game was slightly better, but no one runs this version in online competitions.

To sum up, I think I have a legitimate reason to be gutted with certain game devs when they make a new version of the games I play or used to play. The Grand Prix series, mentioned here in this topic, is another example; You would think that you don't need a graphics card to play an heavily updated Grand Prix 4 locked at 60 fps, but you do. Geoff Crammond's GP series were well and fantastically developed by MicroProse on the first two versions (to this date, his AI is regarded as the best ever written for a racing game), then they handed GP3 and GP4 development to Hasbro and InfoGrames, respectively. GP3 wasn't bad actually, its just GP2 with improvements and its definitely a very good update - but GP4 was a completely new thing. To me, 1996's Grand Prix 2 was the best racing game ever, although it was based on 1994 season.

I can think of two at the top of my head. Quake and Neo Turf Masters.

TimWolf wrote on 2020-05-20, 17:19:

Amazed that Davros and Garrett W were the only mentions of Descent.

Probably because Descent 1 came out long before 1996 and Descent 2 didn't really add anything notable, just a bunch of superfluous weapons and the annoying guide-bot.

I think Descent 2 has better visual quality than Descent 1. The environment seems less bland.

Desomondo wrote on 2020-05-19, 20:46:

kolderman wrote on 2020-05-19, 02:25:

I would actually love a real "quake 2".

You and me both. My dream game would be a true Quake followup with modern real time lighting and shadowing. Aggressive monsters, mighty boom sticks, and not a single skill point, unlock, collectible, rune trial, or mastery challenge in sight. Just the player and the monsters "dancing" around each other in that sweet spot between their claws and grenades 😀

You are in luck, though I guess you are asking for engine improvements, but it should be improved just by the specs of the targeted machines.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1000410/WR … H_Aeon_of_Ruin/

Shagittarius wrote on 2020-05-21, 20:53:

You are in luck, though I guess you are asking for engine improvements, but it should be improved just by the specs of the targeted machines.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1000410/WR … H_Aeon_of_Ruin/

Well... I'll be keeping my eye on that one. Cheers! I've been digging these new retro-inspired FPS' of late, like Ion Fury, Amid Evil and Overload. Does any else find it adorably cute that 3D Realms name is attached to this? "Ain't afraid of no Quake" indeed.

Haha, I used to work at a gaming company and the amount of stink we were getting every time we released a new title was unbelievable. "This game looks too similar to the previous game from 2 years ago, there are already Nvidia RTX GPUs on the market, your game should support ray tracing" etc. (Obviously this was way before RTX but you get the gist.) From the business perspective it's very good to have your game running on the widest range of hardware possible, however the community is usually very vocal when an expensive game doesn't support the latest and greatest hardware features. This automatically raises the bar because supporting a range of systems that is too wide is not worth it in terms of schedule, testing PC games on a variety of hardware is a major pain in the butt.

So yeah, don't expect those AAA-titles to run well on your 5-year old hardware. Unless it's a console.

ShovelKnight wrote on 2020-05-22, 15:50:

Haha, I used to work at a gaming company and the amount of stink we were getting every time we released a new title was unbelievable. "This game looks too similar to the previous game from 2 years ago, there are already Nvidia RTX GPUs on the market, your game should support ray tracing" etc. (Obviously this was way before RTX but you get the gist.) From the business perspective it's very good to have your game running on the widest range of hardware possible, however the community is usually very vocal when an expensive game doesn't support the latest and greatest hardware features. This automatically raises the bar because supporting a range of systems that is too wide is not worth it in terms of schedule, testing PC games on a variety of hardware is a major pain in the butt.

So yeah, don't expect those AAA-titles to run well on your 5-year old hardware. Unless it's a console.

Actually my problem is not wanting it to run on 5 year old hardware. The problem is the minimum requirement being bloody expensive hardware (graphics cards in particular).

Just make it work with current generation of cheaper graphics card too, as advertised, it's enough. Not everyone can pay for the most powerful, expensive nvidia gpu just to play a game. The whole idea on my mind just does not make sense (buy a graphics card that costs more than the game itself just to play it, and that will be obsolete next year when a new version of the game may be released, requiring a newer gpu model). So I just quit and resorted to retro gaming. Less headache, more fun. But I am still annoyed with how the business of game development is still done in this aspect.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-22, 18:05:

The whole idea on my mind just does not make sense (buy a graphics card that costs more than the game itself just to play it, and that will be obsolete next year when a new version of the game may be released, requiring a newer gpu model). So I just quit and resorted to retro gaming. Less headache, more fun. But I am still annoyed with how the business of game development is still done in this aspect.

Well, I agree that the PC gaming industry is quite hostile towards casual gamers, to the point that most casual gamers should probably just quit playing games or switch to consoles (at least with a console it's guaranteed that it will run any game released for it, and the lifecycle of most consoles is 5+ years). For hardcore gamers buying a powerful GPU is very worthwhile because they will likely play tens or hundreds of games during its lifetime.

It's the same with vinyl records: most high quality releases cost 50+ euros, it doesn't make any sense to buy a cheap turntable to play expensive records, and if you don't want to buy a decent turntable, you should probably just stick with digital files.

ShovelKnight wrote on 2020-05-22, 18:52:

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-22, 18:05:

The whole idea on my mind just does not make sense (buy a graphics card that costs more than the game itself just to play it, and that will be obsolete next year when a new version of the game may be released, requiring a newer gpu model). So I just quit and resorted to retro gaming. Less headache, more fun. But I am still annoyed with how the business of game development is still done in this aspect.

Well, I agree that the PC gaming industry is quite hostile towards casual gamers, to the point that most casual gamers should probably just quit playing games or switch to consoles (at least with a console it's guaranteed that it will run any game released for it, and the lifecycle of most consoles is 5+ years). For hardcore gamers buying a powerful GPU is very worthwhile because they will likely play tens or hundreds of games during its lifetime.

It's the same with vinyl records: most high quality releases cost 50+ euros, it doesn't make any sense to buy a cheap turntable to play expensive records, and if you don't want to buy a decent turntable, you should probably just stick with digital files.

Actually, just to make something clear, I was a hardcore sim racer, entering competitions for a long time. When the upgrades were too expensive for me to continue doing that, I had to quit. I was never a casual gamer "per se". I think I am something between the casual gamer and the hardcore gamer. I had consoles when I was a kid (snes, atari, game gear...) but never actually wanted a Playstation or a Xbox and never had interest in buying one and never will, because they aren't what I really want.

Consoles aren't portable, you need a TV to play with them, you can't upgrade them, they are closed source. (I can foresee an argument where it is pretty much like a mac - it indeed does seem similar - but actually I can see and have a bit more of freedom with a mac).

And surely there are others like me in the same situation, that came from one or another (be it casual or hardcore), but don't want actually to complete the "transition", if you can get what I am saying. They want to stay in between. For these people, there are not many options. But I still think that in the actual days, with the technology and all that knowledge we have, it's very possible to make a game title work with more than just a cost-prohibitive graphics card, I see no point in buying one for just one racing game title in particular anymore. Probably there are others who think the same as me, but that's just me here.