View Full Version : Techreport comment on ATIs OpenGL Driver rewrite.
ChrisRay
30-Jul-2004, 20:03
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/7116
Has anyone seen this?
Regarding Doom 3 and our OpenGL drivers, I think it's fair to say that performance improvements are coming, but it's not likely that we're going to one day just release a completely new and redesigned driver. Over the last couple of years our policy has been to release frequent, incremental driver updates, and we expect this to continue since it has worked very well so far. It lets us roll out changes gradually, and respond quickly if we discover any problems. It also ensures that we can maintain our high standards of stability.
What this means. Your guess is as good as mine. But I am a bit dubious. I was really hoping for that OpenGL rewrite from scratch.
Jimmers
30-Jul-2004, 20:11
So long as OGL support gets better with every driver release, I guess there's really no need to complain. I've never really had a huge problem with the way ATI cards work with OGL games. Specifically in D3 though, after seeing [H]'s Doom hardware write up I don't thing people with hige end cards from either IHV will really have any problems.
I think they mean they are going to release the new driver in parts.
They wont just release a new opengl driver all at once. The bug reports they'd get from rewriten drivers would be nuts .
So i'm sure they will slowly start to release it .
I was really hoping for that OpenGL rewrite from scratch.
<AOL>Me too!</AOL>
Really, this has been hinted upon for so long, I can barely remember a Catalyst version where the first question wasn't "is this THE OpenGL driver?"... :?
Dave Baumann
30-Jul-2004, 20:30
The rewrite is still going on, but it will still take plenty of time to do effectively. There are several optimisations that can occur for Doom3 (which is all we are really taking abount in terms of "OpenGL performance" for the time being in the consumer space) and these will probably be done in conjunction with the overall rewrite.
AlStrong
30-Jul-2004, 20:38
so there's the big re-write and then other small optimizations being done in the meantime?
I guess that makes sense....
so there's the big re-write and then other small optimizations being done in the meantime?
I guess that makes sense....
Some of the code from the rewrite will properly be patched into the old driver. That means that we will see some of the performance increase before the new driver is actually released and that we might not see one big jump in performance but a few small ones.
Some thoughts about rewriting software from scratch... (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html)
It's a very sensible decision to gradually introduce changes.
AlStrong
30-Jul-2004, 21:02
oh.........
....and thanks for the link
maybe I'll skip some drivers and then make the jump and fool myself into thinking that it's a magic driver. :lol:
Dave Baumann
30-Jul-2004, 22:02
ATI's D3D driver was effectively a rewrite from R300 onwards - the OGL driver didn't get the same treatment though.
wrt ATI's "rumoured" OGL drivers, either Dave's been misinformed or I've been misinformed.
Star_Hunter
30-Jul-2004, 23:12
ATI's D3D driver was effectively a rewrite from R300 onwards - the OGL driver didn't get the same treatment though.
Which I think Ati now sees as a mistake...
I think starting from scratch can be a very good thing. Most first software versions are demos. Quite regulary, the internal name is still demo.exe or something alike. Quick and dirty, just as long as it looks nice and works more-or-less, most of the time. The second version is often the bugfix for the demo. The third version is another bugfix with the major complaints addressed as well. At that time you know what it should do, what your customers want and where the problems are. Throw it away, start from scratch and make a real version.
A version 4 that continues the old code is most of the time not manageable anymore, version 5 will probably never work. Which is more or less (AFAIK) what happened with the FireGL drivers...
Kombatant
31-Jul-2004, 00:07
wrt ATI's "rumoured" OGL drivers, either Dave's been misinformed or I've been misinformed.
Dave's well informed Ratch, I will verify it as well.
wrt ATI's "rumoured" OGL drivers, either Dave's been misinformed or I've been misinformed.
Dave's well informed Ratch, I will verify it as well.
Well the person I was told it from is far better informed than either of you so either I've been lied to or ...
well, going back over what Dave has said it kinda jives with what I've been told, but without revealing anything, Dave makes it seem ... err ... overly enthusiastic (trying hard not to say anything). I think the key word in his post is "can".
AlStrong
31-Jul-2004, 00:25
...or it's a big conspiracy and Ati is trying to throw us all off......
for some diabolical reason. :lol:
logen999
31-Jul-2004, 00:40
I think they mean they are going to release the new driver in parts.
They wont just release a new opengl driver all at once. The bug reports they'd get from rewriten drivers would be nuts .
So i'm sure they will slowly start to release it .
I’m no codepath programmer, but releasing a OGL rewrite in parts does not make it sound like you are rewriting it, it makes it sound like you are simply patching it to a point of it being significantly different then before.
A rewrite would constitute a special catalyst release (5.1’s?) that has been completely redone.
But that’s just what I think…
Well, i do hope they rewrite the OpenGL driver and make it work as it should. That would be the largest real gain. If that is what the quote at the top means, I don't know. As logen999 says: it doesn't sound like it.
Then there is Doom3. Personally, I don't care about the X800 being slower than the 8600, but I probably belong to a very tiny minority :D
So I would assume, that ATi will make an optimized Doom3 path, possibly with shader replacements. And that is exactly what you can do gradually.
bloodbob
31-Jul-2004, 02:51
Well unless their is gonna be about 10 catalyst releases between now and tuesday I think a few x800 pro users are gonna be unhappy. :cry:
But thankfully I'm not rich enough to worry about that.
alanity
31-Jul-2004, 03:09
Has anyone asked them why they weren't working on this months (or even years) ago? I'd really love to know the logic of not preparing yourself for what was obviously going to be a huge gaming event when you knew it was coming for all that time. Sadly right now the one theory that seems most likely is that drivers just aren't going to help them enough and they're desperately trying to stop people buying nvidia with empty promises. I really hope I'm wrong and I'd love it if they could persuade my that I am.
K.I.L.E.R
31-Jul-2004, 03:22
Why should they rewrite everything all at once?
They are rewriting everything, just incrementally.
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/7116
Has anyone seen this?
Regarding Doom 3 and our OpenGL drivers, I think it's fair to say that performance improvements are coming, but it's not likely that we're going to one day just release a completely new and redesigned driver. Over the last couple of years our policy has been to release frequent, incremental driver updates, and we expect this to continue since it has worked very well so far. It lets us roll out changes gradually, and respond quickly if we discover any problems. It also ensures that we can maintain our high standards of stability.
What this means. Your guess is as good as mine. But I am a bit dubious. I was really hoping for that OpenGL rewrite from scratch.
Has anyone asked them why they weren't working on this months (or even years) ago? I'd really love to know the logic of not preparing yourself for what was obviously going to be a huge gaming event when you knew it was coming for all that time. Sadly right now the one theory that seems most likely is that drivers just aren't going to help them enough and they're desperately trying to stop people buying nvidia with empty promises. I really hope I'm wrong and I'd love it if they could persuade my that I am.
there are only 2 reasons why doom3 is big right now.
1) its really good on nvidia hardware , which is something that hasn't been said for a long time on games with cutting edge graphics . 2) its id software. If it was any other game from a company with a sub par track record for fun single player games coupled with its lack of multiplayer out of the box and this game would have been burried.
There's only one reason I can think of to do a total rewrite: if the underlying structure of the code is really bad and needs to change. If not, then simple optimization and rewriting of the driver's various components will be entirely fine. The end result may be entirely new code, but it can be done incrementally and doesn't leave you with nothing for a long time.
trinibwoy
31-Jul-2004, 05:33
there are only 2 reasons why doom3 is big right now.
1) its really good on nvidia hardware , which is something that hasn't been said for a long time on games with cutting edge graphics . 2) its id software. If it was any other game from a company with a sub par track record for fun single player games coupled with its lack of multiplayer out of the box and this game would have been burried.
What utter rubbish. So an ATI victory in Doom3 would have diminished its importance? :roll: It would have been hyped even more and X800 owners would have been dancing with glee since Nvidia was expected to perform better.
there are only 2 reasons why doom3 is big right now.
1) its really good on nvidia hardware , which is something that hasn't been said for a long time on games with cutting edge graphics . 2) its id software. If it was any other game from a company with a sub par track record for fun single player games coupled with its lack of multiplayer out of the box and this game would have been burried.
What utter rubbish. So an ATI victory in Doom3 would have diminished it? :roll:
No a dead even split would have dimished it. If ati had a victory everyone that likes ati would be saying ati pwned nvidia on doom3 (like nvida fans are saying now)
Once the wow factor of the graphics wear out the game is not all that fun. Multiplayer is also not much fun as there are only 4 people playing. There were a few times we couldn't find each other for about 20 mins from hiding in the dark so well
trinibwoy
31-Jul-2004, 05:41
Once the wow factor of the graphics wear out the game is not all that fun. Multiplayer is also not much fun as there are only 4 people playing. There were a few times we couldn't find each other for about 20 mins from hiding in the dark so well
Sure you're not just saying that cause it runs better on daddy's GT? :lol:
Once the wow factor of the graphics wear out the game is not all that fun. Multiplayer is also not much fun as there are only 4 people playing. There were a few times we couldn't find each other for about 20 mins from hiding in the dark so well
Sure you're not just saying that cause it runs better on daddy's GT? :lol:
Beats me i don't have acess to it . Though i play at 1027x768 and 4x fsaa with 40+ fps on average. I can bump the res up some more but it doesn't loko right on my monitor
trinibwoy
31-Jul-2004, 06:11
Beats me i don't have acess to it . Though i play at 1027x768 and 4x fsaa with 40+ fps on average. I can bump the res up some more but it doesn't loko right on my monitor
Sorry for the OT but is that 40fps smooth? I'm not expecting to do much better on my 9800 at 1024x768 noAA (hopefully I can take it to 1280x1024).
Beats me i don't have acess to it . Though i play at 1027x768 and 4x fsaa with 40+ fps on average. I can bump the res up some more but it doesn't loko right on my monitor
Sorry for the OT but is that 40fps smooth? I'm not expecting to do much better on my 9800 at 1024x768 noAA (hopefully I can take it to 1280x1024). Yes its smooth. (x800xt pe) . I have no complaints at all with the performance of the game .
dan2097
31-Jul-2004, 08:36
So I would assume, that ATi will make an optimized Doom3 path, possibly with shader replacements. And that is exactly what you can do gradually.
Hmm I took the comments the opposite way as in almost saying they wern't going to make a doom 3 specific path. Am I completly wrong in thinking that if say they put the whole opengl driver team [insert jab about number of programmers here] at work for a month combing through doom 3 for sub optimal rendering commands and rewriting them with detection thus making a doom 3 path that you would in that scenario have a sudden doom3 performance boost (surely they could do that in the space on one driver release with their WHOLE opengl resources focused on it) followed only by gradual improvements through speeding up execution of general opengl commands on ATI hardware as part of the opengl rewrite?
Dave Baumann
31-Jul-2004, 09:31
well, going back over what Dave has said it kinda jives with what I've been told, but without revealing anything, Dave makes it seem ... err ... overly enthusiastic (trying hard not to say anything). I think the key word in his post is "can".
Errr, given the context of this thread, how so? You obviously aren't disagreeing that the rewrite is going to take some time, so how are these "incremental" improvements going to occur in the meantime?
Last I heard they had one reasonable optimisation in place, and at this point they have five avenues for investigation, which may or may not bear fruit.
There's only one reason I can think of to do a total rewrite: if the underlying structure of the code is really bad and needs to change.
AFAIK it is. It got all the historical code from previous boards and then when they bought FireGL a bunch of that was thrown in as well.
dan2097
31-Jul-2004, 10:09
Dave do you know whether ATI still has a driver optimization policy preventing app specifc optimizations? (it seems they may have revoked app specific fixs atleast in the case of fsaa)
Dave Baumann
31-Jul-2004, 12:52
The FSAA ones were not part of the "optimisation" policy, but were compatibility / support issues.
As a general rule I think the policy is still in place, but that doesn't mean they might not alter it in specific cases. For instance, if it is the case that their memory bus is programmable, then the particular requirements of Doom3 (with its multiple passes and multiple buffers) may not get the best performance from the generic settings that are used.
My suggestion to them was to provide a game profiling system that they could send some predefined app profiles (as NVIDIA does) which can also contain other app optimal information - this way they could provide app specific optimisation settings which the user can turn on/off if they wanted in order to get the "default" settings if thats what they wished for.
There's only one reason I can think of to do a total rewrite: if the underlying structure of the code is really bad and needs to change. If not, then simple optimization and rewriting of the driver's various components will be entirely fine. The end result may be entirely new code, but it can be done incrementally and doesn't leave you with nothing for a long time.
My sentiments exactly. The whole "rewrite" thing is merely a device used to imply that "ATi's OpenGL drivers are so bad they need to be rewritten"...;) (Ah, what a wonderful world it would be if technology PR was banned...:D)
It is the nature of all IHV 3d API drivers to change gradually over time, along with changes in the APIs they address, the games they support, and the 3d hardware they must support, not to exclude changing operating system support, cpu support, etc. In this respect, contrasted with even two years ago, I'm quite sure nVidia's current OpenGL drivers can be classified accurately as "rewritten," too...:D In that respect, all API drivers regardless of the authoring IHV exist in a perpetual rewrite loop which literally has nothing whatever to do with their general quality apart from the common desire to improve them on a continuous basis.
I think it's pretty amusing to read so many melodramatic "rewrite" comments about ATi's OpenGL drivers, comments which are based on a single, D3 pre-release benchmark run conducted under closed conditions by way of software currently unavailable for public review and inspection.
In light of ID's statement that the game itself will be capped to 60fps by default, such frame-rate contests as were conducted during the closed tests seem almost completely superfluous to the game itself, and therefore conducted for an entirely different purpose--since obviously ID Software believes so strongly that the game doesn't get a bit better beyond 60fps that they've actually capped the frame rate of D3 to a max of 60fps. So it doesn't seem to me that we have near enough data as of yet to make any kind of general pronouncements, let alone such sweeping conclusions ...:)
trinibwoy
31-Jul-2004, 20:22
Nice defense Walt. :roll: :D
there are only 2 reasons why doom3 is big right now.
1) its really good on nvidia hardware , which is something that hasn't been said for a long time on games with cutting edge graphics . 2) its id software. If it was any other game from a company with a sub par track record for fun single player games coupled with its lack of multiplayer out of the box and this game would have been burried.
What utter rubbish. So an ATI victory in Doom3 would have diminished its importance? :roll: It would have been hyped even more and X800 owners would have been dancing with glee since Nvidia was expected to perform better.
I'd agree with jvd on point two. id get away with murder, I mean, people got excited about Quake II. Quake II for christsakes! Quake was a demo of a 3D world (with nice, shallow MP), Quake II was a Voodoo showcase with neither good SP or MP. Quake III was UT with less game modes, but it had curves.
Doom and the Cult of Carmack drive id onwards in a very powerful way.
trinibwoy
31-Jul-2004, 20:48
Doom and the Cult of Carmack drive id onwards in a very powerful way.
Lol. OK. I've never played any of the Quake games though. But the mediocrity of Id's past endeavours shouldn't take away from the excellence that is Doom3 (from what I've seen so far).
Doom and the Cult of Carmack drive id onwards in a very powerful way.
Lol. OK. I've never played any of the Quake games though. But the mediocrity of Id's past endeavours shouldn't take away from the excellence that is Doom3 (from what I've seen so far).
I don't really see this as an excellence in terms of financials... as we said hundred times it's highly unlikely D3 will get even close to Q3's success: lack of MP, very specialized engine (indoor only, hard to mod) and very heavy competition from very good D3D-base engines.
trinibwoy
31-Jul-2004, 20:58
I don't really see this as an excellence in terms of financials... as we said hundred times it's highly unlikely D3 will get even close to Q3's success: lack of MP, very specialized engine (indoor only, hard to mod) and very heavy competition from very good D3D-base engines.
Well depending on your angle you can emphasize the flaws in anything. But to each their own. When you're playing Doom3 I'm sure all you'll be thinking about is Id's bottom line and the nuances of Doom3's implementation. I sure won't. Doom3 is a 'game' above and beyond all else after all. The engine behind it is a different matter. :wink:
And are the 'hard to mod' and 'indoor only' attributes just a guess or is that set in stone somewhere? From the trailers I've seen the engine seems to be doing a good job of rendering outdoor areas.
It's strange that nearly all Doom3 criticism is coming from the ATI camp (and from people who've never played it)....actually that's not so strange after all :lol:
Razor04
01-Aug-2004, 02:15
There's only one reason I can think of to do a total rewrite: if the underlying structure of the code is really bad and needs to change. If not, then simple optimization and rewriting of the driver's various components will be entirely fine. The end result may be entirely new code, but it can be done incrementally and doesn't leave you with nothing for a long time.
In light of ID's statement that the game itself will be capped to 60fps by default, such frame-rate contests as were conducted during the closed tests seem almost completely superfluous to the game itself, and therefore conducted for an entirely different purpose--since obviously ID Software believes so strongly that the game doesn't get a bit better beyond 60fps that they've actually capped the frame rate of D3 to a max of 60fps. So it doesn't seem to me that we have near enough data as of yet to make any kind of general pronouncements, let alone such sweeping conclusions ...:)
Umm I thought it was the physics engine that was capped to 60 "ticks" per second and not the graphics engine that was capped to 60 "frames" per second. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that this was the case but who knows with all the confusion that surrounded this issue in the past.
Well, it might be that things like physics, input, and AI (in addition to netcode) are handled in a separate thread to avoid rendering speeds being limited by the logic tick and vice-versa. . . I've seen this concept discussed, occasionally, but have never tried to implement something like that myself into my own projects. Indeed, other than for netcode, I'm unsure of which engines do something like this already (if any).
Quake was a demo of a 3D world (with nice, shallow MP),
Shallow MP? You're kidding, right? I still consider Quakeworld the TDM game that demanded the highest level of tactical awareness from the players. It was all about controlling the map, the movement of your enemies and denying weapons and power ups.
Since then we got only dumbed down crap. Games in which all weapons are useful and thus taking away from the tactical aspect of denying the enemy team weapons.
All your BS comment proves is that you have never played Quakeworld in a competitve enviroment. Basically, you don't know shit.
Quake III was UT with less game modes, but it had curves.
It had better gameplay, too. UT? Fuck it. Slow-assed game with lame weapons (snot gun and that pathetic bumble bee shooter and shit like that) and not even half as much fun as Q3. Alternate firing modes don't make involving or even tactical gameplay.
Doom and the Cult of Carmack drive id onwards in a very powerful way.
Quake 1 was a groundbreaking game, it single-handedly kick started competitive gaming. Quakeworld was possibly the most important release of the 90s. Quake was ever single bit as important as Doom.
Now, please name another company that managed to create two groundbreaking games.
It's strange that nearly all Doom3 criticism is coming from the ATI camp (and from people who've never played it)....actually that's not so strange after all I've played the game and its okay . Its not great at all . Its just an okay game . Have you played the game ?
Seems to me that all the praise is coming from the nvidia camp(and from people who've never played it)... actually thats not so strange after all. :shock:
Shallow MP? You're kidding, right? I still consider Quakeworld the TDM game that demanded the highest level of tactical awareness from the players. It was all about controlling the map, the movement of your enemies and denying weapons and power ups.
I never played quake world ? Is that on my quake disc ? Or is that a mod or a download ? Never heard of quake world .
I've played quake online and through lan. The single player was boring and the multiplayer was fun. But then again. If you read what I wrote my point was subpar single player games . Doom3 has shallow multiplayer 4 people max out of the box ? As I said if this was any other game from any other company with a track record (like id) or releasing subpar single player games and on top of that releasing the game with sub par multiplayer and it would be forgoten.
Quote:
Quake III was UT with less game modes, but it had curves.
It had better gameplay, too. UT? Fuck it. Slow-assed game with lame weapons (snot gun and that pathetic bumble bee shooter and shit like that) and not even half as much fun as Q3. Alternate firing modes don't make involving or even tactical gameplay.
I liked quake 3 alot but what single player was there ? Its great that id software can make a great multiplayer game. But quake 3 is not doom3 . Doom3 is all about the single player . Its multiplayer sucks .
Quake 1 was a groundbreaking game, it single-handedly kick started competitive gaming. Quakeworld was possibly the most important release of the 90s. Quake was ever single bit as important as Doom.
Was its single player any good ? cause as i said it was pretty bad single player .
Id software makes subpar single player games. YOu can not tell me one great single player id software game . They were all just okay or worse . They do make a hell of a multiplayer game.
But this is not a multiplayer game.
Now, please name another company that managed to create two groundbreaking games
Origins made 3 ground breaking games.
Ultima series , Wing comander , Ultima online .
Now please list how many good single player games id made.
I never played quake world ? Is that on my quake disc ? Or is that a mod or a download ? Never heard of quake world .
Quakeworld was the Internet specific version of Quake.
http://www.quakeworld.net/main-quakeworld.html#quakeworld_is
Again, I consider this to be one of the most important game releases of all times.
As I said if this was any other game from any other company with a track record (like id) or releasing subpar single player games and on top of that releasing the game with sub par multiplayer and it would be forgoten.
Most people would disagree with you that Doom 1+2 and Quake 1 were "sub par" single player games. I played through Quake on Nightmare difficulty at least a dozen times. Wicked fun and a great challenge and I still feel to this day that the map design was utterly excellent.
Quake was simply THE shit compared to other single player shooters back then. So just because it was not your kind of gameplay doesn't make it a sub par game.
I liked quake 3 alot but what single player was there ? Its great that id software can make a great multiplayer game. But quake 3 is not doom3 . Doom3 is all about the single player . Its multiplayer sucks .
You're making no sense whatsoever. Quake 3 was supposed to be a multiplayer game. Hence sucky single player. Doom 3 is supposed to be a single player game, hence a not particularly evolved multiplayer mode.
Now, what again was your problem? Oh, I remember... proving that id is irrelevant because their new engine doesn't perform to your ATi fanboi liking. Sorry, dude... won't happen.
You're criticizing a multiplayer game for having crappy single play and a single player game for having crappy multi play? Man, that's seriously fucked up. Ah well, whatever suits you.
Was its single player any good ? cause as i said it was pretty bad single player .
Yes, you're said a lot of things and most of them don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense so I'm not sure what you're point is right here.
Id software makes subpar single player games.
I disagree.
YOu can not tell me one great single player id software game . They were all just okay or worse .
Great single player games?
Wolfenstein, Doom, Doom 2, Quake.
Doom 3 remains to be seen.
But this is not a multiplayer game.
That doesn't keep you from blasting the game for having shallow multiplayer :lol:
***hands jvd a Magic Wand of Intellectual Consistency +3***
Quakeworld was the Internet specific version of Quake.
http://www.quakeworld.net/main-quakeworld.html#quakeworld_is
Again, I consider this to be one of the most important game releases of all times.
Yes online multiplayer.
Not single player
Most people would disagree with you that Doom 1+2 and Quake 1 were "sub par" single player games. I played through Quake on Nightmare difficulty at least a dozen times. Wicked fun and a great challenge and I still feel to this day that the map design was utterly excellent.
Hmm doom 1+2 . Kill tons of creatures by shooting as much as u can . Not a great game. Could be fun. But gets repetive and finding diffrent color keys gets annoying.
quake 1 was just boring. Only reason to play single player was to get better at multiplayer.
Quake was simply THE shit compared to other single player shooters back then. So just because it was not your kind of gameplay doesn't make it a sub par game.
Heh mabye the shit that came out of system shocks ass.
You're making no sense whatsoever. Quake 3 was supposed to be a multiplayer game. Hence sucky single player. Doom 3 is supposed to be a single player game, hence a not particularly evolved multiplayer mode.
I'm making perfect sense .
I said from the start that id had a track record of making sub par single player games.
Quake 3 was great because it was a multiplayer game only. It had no single player.
Doom 3 is almost the exact oppisite. It has a single player mode which is not ids strength and it has a sub par multiplayer mode.
I mean only 4 people at once ?
Now, what again was your problem? Oh, I remember... proving that id is irrelevant because their new engine doesn't perform to your ATi fanboi liking. Sorry, dude... won't happen.
Whats your problem? You upset because someone doesn't pray to the church of id ?
The game will be relevant becasue it performs well on nvidia hardware and its a id game.
If it was any other company that put it out (except mabye valve or billzard) and this game would have gotten swept under a rug as a game with pretty graphics but shallow game play.
You're criticizing a multiplayer game for having crappy single play and a single player game for having crappy multi play? Man, that's seriously fucked up. Ah well, whatever suits you.
If you say so.
Guess you can't read. I've been saying that id can't make a single player game.
They are good at multiplayer and left thier strength to do a game which is subpar because of that.
Yes, you're said a lot of things and most of them don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense so I'm not sure what you're point is right here.
that id software can't make a good single player game.
But it doesn't matter to you. Your an nvidiiot .
I disagree
Thats great. Your examples are doom 1+2 and quake . Yes find the blue key. Great game right there.
Great single player games?
Wolfenstein, Doom, Doom 2, Quake.
Doom 3 remains to be seen.
all just okay single player games.
That doesn't keep you from blasting the game for having shallow multiplayer
***hands jvd a Magic Wand of Intellectual Consistency +3***
Your an idiot you know that . I'm blasting id for not sticking to its strengths and puting out a multiplayer game.
Instead they put out a decent game called doom3.
And the only reason its relevent is because its id software and it performs well on nvidia hardware.
If doom3 was made by you and perfomed the same on both sets of video cards you would never see the amounts of post of hype around it .
That is what I've been saying.
YOu don't like it fine.
But don't you dare insult me again
The game will be relevant becasue it performs well on nvidia hardware and its a id game.
That's just dumb. While I'm sure that you would probably buy a game just because it plays well on an ati card, I imagine that most people probably don't think that way. Granted, a lot of people will consider doom3 a good game just because it's from id, but that's more valid of a reason than "it plays good on my favorite ihv's hardware."
But don't you dare insult me again
You're the one calling people "idiots" and "nvidiots." I guess that since you're a mod, it's ok for you to dish it out, but you can't take it. :roll: As much as I dislike jimmyjames and radar, it's becoming more and more evident why people like them think that b3d's biased towards ati. What with a mod running rampant calling everyone who disagrees with them nvidiots.
1st of all, good vs great vs "okay" is opinion. I'd wager that when all is said and done, jvd will be in the minority in terms of his lowball Doom3 assesment.
2nd, having never heard of quakeworld, jvd is without a doubt an utter newbie to 3D gaming.
Anyone who didn't shell out $400 beans in July of '97, on the glorious release of GLQuake, for a Diamond Monster 3D card just can't comment on the quality of Quake and Quake2.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who was a hardcore Doom fan upon initial release found Quake, and then Quake 2 to be the 2nd (and 3rd) coming. Quakeworld and the hallowed ground of GLQuakeworld absolutely smashed down the door to online multiplay.
Both single player and multiplayer were ground breaking achievements and represent two of the most amazing games I've played. Most "better" FPS single player games came after id broke such amazing new ground. In fact I can't think of any FPS, aside from Duke Nukem 3D, that came anywhere near Q1 or Q2 at the time of their release, in either single or multi-player fun. Keep in mind Unreal1 wasn't released until shortly after Q2. And talk of terrible single player, ugh. After the 1st 3 levels of Unreal (which were awesome) that game moreso than any id title, devolved into a complete game engine showcase with utterly no single player story. At least Q2 involved a "guns of navarone" premise.
K.I.L.E.R
01-Aug-2004, 06:25
People are trying to force their opinions on others again. :lol:
Why can't people tell opinion from fact?
I like chocolate ice cream.
NOOOOO! Vanilla is better.
NOOOOO! Chocolate is.
Dave Baumann! Members of B3D are making fun of me again.
;) :lol:
Doom and Baldur's Gate are the greatest games of all time.
Doom and Baldur's Gate are the greatest games of all time.
No they're not. This (http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_bridgeit_home.html) is the best game EVAR, because it runs the best on my mighty nvidia card!!! :P
Reverend
01-Aug-2004, 06:42
Great single player games?
Wolfenstein, Doom, Doom 2, Quake.
Doom 3 remains to be seen.
Well, at least one person has told me it (DOOM3) is the best game id Software has ever made. The again John Carmack is biased, I suppose.
Anyway, let's see how many companies complain about their employees arriving late for work, sleepy on the job or even don't turn up at all late next week.
*hopes the thread gets back on the topic of drivers or graphics tech*
That's just dumb. While I'm sure that you would probably buy a game just because it plays well on an ati card, I imagine that most people probably don't think that way. Granted, a lot of people will consider doom3 a good game just because it's from id, but that's more valid of a reason than "it plays good on my favorite ihv's hardware."
TOmb radir angel of darkeness was a crap game and ran much better on ati hardware.
Doom3 is just not a great game. Its an okay game. And if it came out from another company it wouldn ot matter.
You're the one calling people "idiots" and "nvidiots." I guess that since you're a mod, it's ok for you to dish it out, but you can't take it.
Perhaps you should reread the posts. I was insulted. I insulted back.
hard to mod
Where the world did you get that from? Tradionally id's game have been the easiest out there to mod so curious. To get maps done to the perfection they were aiming for the retail game would be hard but same thing is going to be true on any game without heavy usage of prefabs.
Heh btw those who think Quake 1 SP was better than any FPS out at the time, I don't know what you were smoking (Duke Nukem 3D was much better ;) Multiplayer on Quakeworld was great though (Aussies I found were also the best to play TF with back then, in the US seemed to be abundance of people who didn't have any idea how to strategize with people they've never met before)).
And for those of you haven't figured it out yet the System Shock series is the best games out there ;) Just need a System Shock 3 in the Doom 3 engine now.
mustrum
01-Aug-2004, 07:22
What happened to this place?
I used to come here when i am sick of rage3d, nvnews stupid fanboi crap.
Now it'S the same shit here as well?
It's a shame, really is. :cry:
The R420 and NV40 happened to this place.
hard to mod
Where the world did you get that from? Tradionally id's game have been the easiest out there to mod so curious. To get maps done to the perfection they were aiming for the retail game would be hard but same thing is going to be true on any game without heavy usage of prefabs.
I've always been quite partial to the Unreal Engine for its modding capabilities. That the script compiler was built into the editor and that the API was relatively easy to use made for quick, easy modding. There's no worries about knowing how to properly import/export functionality from DLLs and such. . . It's simply much more accessible to the amature programmer.
TOmb radir angel of darkeness was a crap game and ran much better on ati hardware.
So, did you buy it just because it ran better on ati hardware? Do you consider it good just because it ran better on ati hardware?
And if it came out from another company it wouldn ot matter.
That would be you're opinion. You're certainly entitled to it, but the whole argument is really irrelevent. The game is made by id, not another company. Any person that isn't blinded by fanyboyism will easily be able to make up their mind as to whether or not the game is good, based on the merits of the game itself. At least I know that I will.
Perhaps you should reread the posts. I was insulted. I insulted back.
He called you a fanatic, and made a quip about your intelligence. Big deal. I'm sure it's not the first time you've been called a fanatic, or had your intelligence called into question. If you're so emotionally vulnerable to being called names or other insults on a public forum, then maybe you shouldn't be so overly opinionated in your statements. When you make stupid statements like "The game will be relevant becasue it performs well on nvidia hardware," you're asking to be insulted.
By the way, instead of hurling back insults, maybe you should learn a little thing called tact. You're a mod, why don't you try acting like one.
hard to mod
Where the world did you get that from? Tradionally id's game have been the easiest out there to mod so curious. To get maps done to the perfection they were aiming for the retail game would be hard but same thing is going to be true on any game without heavy usage of prefabs.
I've always been quite partial to the Unreal Engine for its modding capabilities. That the script compiler was built into the editor and that the API was relatively easy to use made for quick, easy modding. There's no worries about knowing how to properly import/export functionality from DLLs and such. . . It's simply much more accessible to the amature programmer.
i hate the unreal engine. its the most unpredictable engine performance wise. nothing better then losing to newbs because your fps randomly drops to the 30s. and this happens all game long. god i despise epic.
i hate the unreal engine. its the most unpredictable engine performance wise. nothing better then losing to newbs because your fps randomly drops to the 30s. and this happens all game long. god i despise epic.
LOL! Once I saw you're name I pretty much knew what your post would be about. . .
jvd wrote:
TOmb radir angel of darkeness was a crap game and ran much better on ati hardware.
So, did you buy it just because it ran better on ati hardware? Do you consider it good just because it ran better on ati hardware?
Nope tried the demo and didn't care for it . Never spent the money on it .
That would be you're opinion. You're certainly entitled to it, but the whole argument is really irrelevent. The game is made by id, not another company. Any person that isn't blinded by fanyboyism will easily be able to make up their mind as to whether or not the game is good, based on the merits of the game itself. At least I know that I will.
of course it has to be me that is blinded by fanyboyism and not you ?
I am playing the game and i said its okay. Not great. And for refrence i can easily have a 6800gt if i want it . I'm lucky enough to be able to buy 2 video cards. I did it with my 9700pro and 5800ultra.
He called you a fanatic, and made a quip about your intelligence. Big deal. I'm sure it's not the first time you've been called a fanatic, or had your intelligence called into question ANd i told him not to do it again.
I'm sure its not the first time he's been told that .
When you make stupid statements like "The game will be relevant becasue it performs well on nvidia hardware," you're asking to be insulted.
Perhaps you should quote me word by word. Instead of the half assed job your doing and you will see its not a stupid comment. Unless of course your fanyboyism is blind siding you .
By the way, instead of hurling back insults, maybe you should learn a little thing called tact. You're a mod, why don't you try acting like one.
Yea i mod the console forum.
Doesn't mean I have to like being insult and doesn't mean I don't have the right to defend myself.
Heh. Some people make me laugh. I'm going to start calling people fanyboys wehenever they say somethign i don't like
Nope tried the demo and didn't care for it . Never spent the money on it .
So why bring it up? I don't recall the ati fanboys hyping tomb raider and calling it great because it ran better on ati's cards. So, what does that have anything to do with your statement about doom3 being called good because it runs better on nvidia hardware? Does it back up your statement at all?
of course it has to be me that is blinded by fanyboyism and not you ?
Did I call you a f@nboy? I don't think so. Maybe you should read a little closer. The only way that you could interpret what I said as calling you a f@nboy is if you aren't "able to make up your mind as to whether or not the game is good, based on the merits of the game itself."
I am playing the game and i said its okay. Not great. And for refrence i can easily have a 6800gt if i want it . I'm lucky enough to be able to buy 2 video cards. I did it with my 9700pro and 5800ultra.
Good for you. I don't really care what card you can play it on. You can play it on every card known to man, and it's still going to be the same game. The question is, can you judge a game based on the game itself? If so, then good for you. You think the game's okay, but not great. If you can't, then you are a f@nboy.
Perhaps you should quote me word by word. Instead of the half assed job your doing and you will see its not a stupid comment. Unless of course your fanyboyism is blind siding you .
It's a stupid comment, regardless of context.
Typical response from you though, questioning my fanboyism. Not once did I mention anything that could even be interpreted as my own fanboyism towards any company, yet you somehow find a way to make it an issue.
By the way, since I'm such a f@nboy, you should be able to tell me what video card I have. So, what company am I an f@nboy for?
Yea i mod the console forum.
Doesn't mean I have to like being insult and doesn't mean I don't have the right to defend myself.
Pathetic. Someone calls you a name and you feel the need to "defend yourself."
Heh. Some people make me laugh. I'm going to start calling people fanyboys wehenever they say somethign i don't like
I'm glad all of the mods at b3d don't act or think like you. Otherwise, this place would be a step below some of the worst forums I've seen.
K.I.L.E.R
01-Aug-2004, 08:36
Doesn't mean I have to like being insult and doesn't mean I don't have the right to defend myself.
From words? :lol:
Come on JVD, you of all people should know better.
That type of attitude would be expected from someone like me. :wink:
I've always been quite partial to the Unreal Engine for its modding capabilities. That the script compiler was built into the editor and that the API was relatively easy to use made for quick, easy modding. There's no worries about knowing how to properly import/export functionality from DLLs and such. . . It's simply much more accessible to the amature programmer.
I agree it might be easier to an amateur but I found it a pain to work with after a while and much preferred modding in Quake 2 myself (just feels nicer working with the language I'm used to doing the majority of my coding normally in). There was some stuff I found much easier to do in the Unreal Engine's just found the language a pain for some reason to work in (haven't worked with it since UT so can't quite remember what it was I disliked).
Heh, and a lot of the games where they weren't easy to mod were fun to mod as well. But then again all the fun in those games were in reverse engineering the file formats.
But lets get back on to ATI and their OpenGL drivers. I would be definately fine with them using application specific optimizations as long as they tell us about it and give us the options to disable them somehow. Of course prefer they spend time improving the issues in the driver. Seems it shouldn't be that hard for them to profile whats wrong in the OpenGL driver in comparison to the DirectX Driver.
Edit: Actually thinking back on my modding with UT I don't seem to recall actually disliking Unreal Scripting. I think it was just my general feelings swaying from modding at the time. Heh, cause I just remembered there were some things that really impressed me with Unreal Scripting (how easy it was to create GUI's mainly).
Dave Baumann
01-Aug-2004, 09:38
Jvd - you should only be modding the console forum.
K.I.L.E.R
01-Aug-2004, 10:45
Jvd - you should only be modding the console forum.
HAHAHAHA!!! Jvd was told off by Dave. Na! Na! :P
trinibwoy
01-Aug-2004, 13:43
You're criticizing a multiplayer game for having crappy single play and a single player game for having crappy multi play? Man, that's seriously fucked up.
:shock: :lol:
i hate the unreal engine. its the most unpredictable engine performance wise. nothing better then losing to newbs because your fps randomly drops to the 30s. and this happens all game long. god i despise epic.
You a professional comedian by any chance? :lol:
I am feeling some things with respect to the "ATis OGL driver sucks" matter should be clarified...
ATis OGL driver does not generally suck ppl, it sucks compared to the very high standards of the ATi D3D driver (industry leader IMO). I am a CAT beta-tester and with the latest BETA that also includes the new CP (which is gonna set new standards when it's released) all of my OGL games play with zero probs. I was hearing complaints about COD performance and i recently purchased the game (to keep me warm while waiting for D3 and HL2). I can say that i was playing at max details at 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 8xAF and two hundreds of FPS most of the time with my X800 Pro. So to conclude, i think ATis OGL driver is bad compared to their D3D driver but some of you make it sound as if it's complete POS...which is not
thegrommit
01-Aug-2004, 18:42
I am feeling some things with respect to the "ATis OGL driver sucks" matter should be clarified...
ATis OGL driver does not generally suck ppl, it sucks compared to the very high standards of the ATi D3D driver (industry leader IMO).
I wouldn't go that far. I'm stuck with the Cat 4.4's as they're the only ones that don't mess up Thief3 too much. The leaked Cat 4.8's fix that problem, but produce checkerboards in place of shadows for Raven Shield - one of ATI's "Get In The Game" titles.
In my experience, ATI's D3D drivers are no better or worse than Nvidia's.
Colourless
01-Aug-2004, 20:02
Both DX:IW and Thief 3 had 'issues' initially with ATI cards... TWIMTBP related perhaps... not saying intentional...
Jvd - you should only be modding the console forum.
Thats what I said Dave. I just told a guy not to insult me. As he managed to insult me 3 times in a post only becasue I feel doom3 is not a great game having played it for about 12 hours in total now .
It had better gameplay, too. UT? Fuck it. Slow-assed game with lame weapons (snot gun and that pathetic bumble bee shooter and shit like that) and not even half as much fun as Q3. Alternate firing modes don't make involving or even tactical gameplay.
Any game in which you suck will appear slow to you. In my experience, UT was always a much faster game than Quake3, but then I played UT a whole lot more than Quake3. It feels slow to walk over to the other side of the map to grab the flag, only to be killed when you arrive and then have to restart. But when you control the translocator and get to the other side in ten seconds and can climb the tower on the outside and do all kinds of funky tricks to surprise the enemy in their own nest, the game feels a whole lot faster and is a lot more fun to play. And as lame the bio rifle appears to someone who's not skilled with it, it can be a helluva powerful weapon if your good at it. The only weapon that sucked in UT was the ripper (which was cool in the single player Unreal to shoot around corners, but only turned out as a spammer weapon in UT), which they fortunately removed in UT2003.
Richteralan
01-Aug-2004, 23:35
I played both Quake 3 and UT2003 and now U2XMP/UT2004.
In general Quake 3 is faster in pace. period. :lol:
P.S. oh yes, if you are looking for some strategic playing in FPS shooter, please try U2XMP.
It had better gameplay, too. UT? Fuck it. Slow-assed game with lame weapons (snot gun and that pathetic bumble bee shooter and shit like that) and not even half as much fun as Q3. Alternate firing modes don't make involving or even tactical gameplay.
Any game in which you suck will appear slow to you. In my experience, UT was always a much faster game than Quake3, but then I played UT a whole lot more than Quake3. It feels slow to walk over to the other side of the map to grab the flag, only to be killed when you arrive and then have to restart. But when you control the translocator and get to the other side in ten seconds and can climb the tower on the outside and do all kinds of funky tricks to surprise the enemy in their own nest, the game feels a whole lot faster and is a lot more fun to play. And as lame the bio rifle appears to someone who's not skilled with it, it can be a helluva powerful weapon if your good at it. The only weapon that sucked in UT was the ripper (which was cool in the single player Unreal to shoot around corners, but only turned out as a spammer weapon in UT), which they fortunately removed in UT2003.
Hehe, yep thats true games tend to be slow when a player doesn't know how to play em. Both games are fast, UT is a bit faster in my opinion but UT is alot more fun with all the wall jumps and stuff, just kick ass special moves takes alot more skill to play UT, Quake 3 is only good for deathmatches.
The worst aspect of Q3A is how it has been seemingly newbified, but actually just plain castrated by the trio of shallow maps, weak-ass armours and the greatest of all evil, the "Woodpecker of Death" (aka machinegun), right from the get-go.
Q3A would have eaten UT for breakfast if it didn't fall on the floor between two chairs, simultaneously annoying oldskool quakers and scaring away newbies who got pw33n3d in seconds flat by all-aim players whoring the hitscan weapons.
Too bad CPMA came so late. :?
hard to mod
Where the world did you get that from? Tradionally id's game have been the easiest out there to mod so curious. To get maps done to the perfection they were aiming for the retail game would be hard but same thing is going to be true on any game without heavy usage of prefabs.
Traditionally doesn't mean shit here, my friend.
The technique they use for graphics itself requires much more skill, modding experience.
Besides this, as I've said, there a lot of other engines which runs equally weel on any hw, much better suited for large outdoor scenes which is crucial to make a successful online MP and all these competitors are D3D-based.
I hope next few months they'll release some kinda patch + SDK to fix these things.
It had better gameplay, too. UT? Fuck it. Slow-assed game with lame weapons (snot gun and that pathetic bumble bee shooter and shit like that) and not even half as much fun as Q3. Alternate firing modes don't make involving or even tactical gameplay.
Any game in which you suck will appear slow to you. In my experience, UT was always a much faster game than Quake3, but then I played UT a whole lot more than Quake3. It feels slow to walk over to the other side of the map to grab the flag, only to be killed when you arrive and then have to restart. But when you control the translocator and get to the other side in ten seconds and can climb the tower on the outside and do all kinds of funky tricks to surprise the enemy in their own nest, the game feels a whole lot faster and is a lot more fun to play. And as lame the bio rifle appears to someone who's not skilled with it, it can be a helluva powerful weapon if your good at it. The only weapon that sucked in UT was the ripper (which was cool in the single player Unreal to shoot around corners, but only turned out as a spammer weapon in UT), which they fortunately removed in UT2003.
Well said.
On the other hand I used to play Q3 a lot and that seems faster, true but the new UT generation just overwhelmingly much better than ANY Q3-based MP. I'm still playing 2-3 hours UT2k4 every weekend plus 1-2 nights an hour per week - since its release!
UT2k4 engine makes unperdictable fps falls??? That's BS, dear hovz - either your machine sux or you are sux in this game. :P
Hmm doom 1+2 . Kill tons of creatures by shooting as much as u can . Not a great game. Could be fun. But gets repetive and finding diffrent color keys gets annoying.
quake 1 was just boring. Only reason to play single player was to get better at multiplayer.
that id software can't make a good single player game.
Thats great. Your examples are doom 1+2 and quake . Yes find the blue key. Great game right there.
Great single player games?
Wolfenstein, Doom, Doom 2, Quake.
Doom 3 remains to be seen.
all just okay single player games.
"Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
Any game in which you suck will appear slow to you. In my experience, UT was always a much faster game than Quake3, but then I played UT a whole lot more than Quake3.
No, that's not it. I understand what you are trying to say but that's simply not the case. Doom 3 was faster paced and a lot of maps features stuff like jump pads that sped things up even more.
UT2k3 OTOH was a lot faster than the original UT. I actually felt that UT2k3 was a pretty good game compared to it's POS of a predecessor. I find it rather funny that Epic "Q3ified" UT.
Neither Q3 nor UT ever approached the utter perfection of Quakeworld but Q3 was a whole lot closer to Quakeworld than UT was and that made Q3 the better game by a long shot.
The technique they use for graphics itself requires much more skill, modding experience.
And other comparable engines don't? Really modding is only going to get harder as time progresses like it has been this entire time.
From the coding side of things Doom 3 should be as easy to mod likely as Quake.
3D Modeling skills, artwork, map building have of course increase in difficulty. But you can do some pretty fun stuff without having to make new models, artwork, and just building simple maps.
Examples: Side Scrollers, Pinball, Pong (hehe :P), etc
Wait a minute. . . Is QuakeWorld just deathmatch?
QuakeWorld supported mods as well. It required some minor modifications but I played lots of QuakeWorld TF back in the day.
Neither Q3 nor UT ever approached the utter perfection of Quakeworld
Just have to say I agree so damn much with that statement. Plus by the time I was used to Q2 multiplayer Q3 seemed screwy with its weird physics :P
Wait a minute. . . Is QuakeWorld just deathmatch?QW was mainly the multiplayer (network) code (front and backend), right?
Wait a minute. . . Is QuakeWorld just deathmatch?
Quakeworld is a server/client architecture. Originally it supported Quake DM and TDM because that was all there was. Later came Mods like Rocket Arena, Team Fortress, CTF etc. Quakeworld made it possible.
Ah. . . From your previous posts I had gotten the impression that it was an incredible multiplayer game. Based on what I know now, it seems that the reality is that it is a framework for modders to create perfection in gameplay. Can't one do the same with other engines?
QuakeWorld was just Carmacks experiment with writing better networking code for multiplayer over the internet. Doing mods with QuakeWorld was the same as mods with Quake (just minor changes). Both used QuakeC.
It had better gameplay, too. UT? Fuck it. Slow-assed game with lame weapons (snot gun and that pathetic bumble bee shooter and shit like that) and not even half as much fun as Q3. Alternate firing modes don't make involving or even tactical gameplay.
Any game in which you suck will appear slow to you. In my experience, UT was always a much faster game than Quake3, but then I played UT a whole lot more than Quake3. It feels slow to walk over to the other side of the map to grab the flag, only to be killed when you arrive and then have to restart. But when you control the translocator and get to the other side in ten seconds and can climb the tower on the outside and do all kinds of funky tricks to surprise the enemy in their own nest, the game feels a whole lot faster and is a lot more fun to play. And as lame the bio rifle appears to someone who's not skilled with it, it can be a helluva powerful weapon if your good at it. The only weapon that sucked in UT was the ripper (which was cool in the single player Unreal to shoot around corners, but only turned out as a spammer weapon in UT), which they fortunately removed in UT2003.
Well said.
On the other hand I used to play Q3 a lot and that seems faster, true but the new UT generation just overwhelmingly much better than ANY Q3-based MP. I'm still playing 2-3 hours UT2k4 every weekend plus 1-2 nights an hour per week - since its release!
UT2k4 engine makes unperdictable fps falls??? That's BS, dear hovz - either your machine sux or you are sux in this game. :P
well my p4 2.6c and 9800 pro with 1gb of dual ddr 400 isnt top of the line by todays standards, but i dont think its a sucky system. not everyone has the money to upgrade every 6 months. oh and i can garuntee you i would zero you in a 1v1 where the fps doesnt drop every 10 seconds.
Gabrobot
02-Aug-2004, 08:03
What drivers do you have? UT2004 runs sweet on my 9800 Pro...hell, it does a nice job on my other system...a P3 866Mhz, Radeon 7200!
Ah. . . From your previous posts I had gotten the impression that it was an incredible multiplayer game.
Well, 'QuakeWorld' is the general term of reference for Quake 1 DM/TF/CTF/etc, all the game-modes and mods that share Quake's physics, which a decent number of die-hards consider the apex of gaming.
I am feeling some things with respect to the "ATis OGL driver sucks" matter should be clarified...
ATis OGL driver does not generally suck ppl, it sucks compared to the very high standards of the ATi D3D driver (industry leader IMO).
I wouldn't go that far. I'm stuck with the Cat 4.4's as they're the only ones that don't mess up Thief3 too much. The leaked Cat 4.8's fix that problem, but produce checkerboards in place of shadows for Raven Shield - one of ATI's "Get In The Game" titles.
In my experience, ATI's D3D drivers are no better or worse than Nvidia's.
Hmm...which card do you own ? i haven't tried Raven shield with the latest Beta, but i am not sure the leaked 4.8 Beta are the same with the ones we r testing ATM. However, Thief 3 is still one game, and i can only think of a couple more that have issues with latest official drivers. And as for performance...well i strongly believe ATi are doing the best overall job as far as the D3D driver is concerned.
Ah. . . From your previous posts I had gotten the impression that it was an incredible multiplayer game.
Well, 'QuakeWorld' is the general term of reference for Quake 1 DM/TF/CTF/etc, all the game-modes and mods that share Quake's physics, which a decent number of die-hards consider the apex of gaming.
As mentioned earlier. Quakeworld is Quake 1 with completely rewritten network code.
The most important difference is that QW uses UDP instead of TCP to communicate with client. Another _very_ important thing is that QW uses client side prediction to essentially remove lag from you own movements/actions.
As for apex of gaming: When it comes to pace and intensity nothing beats QW 1on1s.
Cheers
Gubbi
suicuique
02-Aug-2004, 11:39
But don't you dare insult me again
You have a serious problem.
Seek professional assistance.
And regard this a compaint about your behavior on these boards.
I've never posted much on these boards, but I am a faithful long time lurker since this site exists. And you, sir, are a disgrace to this site.
regards, alex
thegrommit
02-Aug-2004, 15:42
Hmm...which card do you own ? i haven't tried Raven shield with the latest Beta, but i am not sure the leaked 4.8 Beta are the same with the ones we r testing ATM. However, Thief 3 is still one game, and i can only think of a couple more that have issues with latest official drivers. And as for performance...well i strongly believe ATi are doing the best overall job as far as the D3D driver is concerned.
It's a stock 9800 non-pro. There's a thread on Rage3d where someone else has reported the same problem (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1333021605&postcount=1767) using the Cat 4.7's. It's a similar effect to the one in these screenshots (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1333054147&postcount=1782). As it only occurs on player shadows, Spyres assertion that it's a faulty card is somewhat suspect. Remember, this is a game that's been out for over a year, the last patch for which came out in March. It's a pretty stable target.
As for Thief3, it happens to be a fairly high profile title - one that Nvidia owners have been able to play without issues since release. A period that spans two Catalyst releases (ignoring the 4.5's which were released around the same time).
Quake was a demo of a 3D world (with nice, shallow MP),
Shallow MP? You're kidding, right? I still consider Quakeworld the TDM game that demanded the highest level of tactical awareness from the players. It was all about controlling the map, the movement of your enemies and denying weapons and power ups.
Since then we got only dumbed down crap. Games in which all weapons are useful and thus taking away from the tactical aspect of denying the enemy team weapons.
All your BS comment proves is that you have never played Quakeworld in a competitve enviroment. Basically, you don't know shit.
No, it shows I don't agree with you. Welcome to the Internet.
K.I.L.E.R
02-Aug-2004, 16:20
Quake was a demo of a 3D world (with nice, shallow MP),
Shallow MP? You're kidding, right? I still consider Quakeworld the TDM game that demanded the highest level of tactical awareness from the players. It was all about controlling the map, the movement of your enemies and denying weapons and power ups.
Since then we got only dumbed down crap. Games in which all weapons are useful and thus taking away from the tactical aspect of denying the enemy team weapons.
All your BS comment proves is that you have never played Quakeworld in a competitve enviroment. Basically, you don't know shit.
No, it shows I don't agree with you. Welcome to the Internet.
Best quote eva!!! :lol:
No, it shows I don't agree with you. Welcome to the Internet.
This is not a matter of opinion. Calling Quake's MP shallow is just BS because it is objectively WRONG. Same for your "demo of a 3D world" comment. Compared to most other contemporate shooters, Quake had very solid gameplay.
If you had said you didn't like it - ok. That would have been your opinion. But making objectively false statements is not an "opinion". You're obviously ignorant about Quake's MP so maybe you shouldn't have an "opinion" about something you don't know the first thing about.
If you make such a statement, it should be substantiated or at least be plausible. Simply making some outlandish claim and then pulling some "dude, that's MY OPINION, man" Hippie shit is ridiculous.
Joe DeFuria
02-Aug-2004, 16:59
Calling Quake's MP shallow is just BS because it is objectively WRONG.
Um, as a casual oberserver here, calling Quake's MP shallow IS an opinion.
Saying that opinion is objectively wrong, makes you guilty of what you're accusing him of.
And in related news...
I think pretty much all straight, non team based "deathmatch" type game modes are shallow.
I think pretty much all straight, non team based "deathmatch" type game modes are shallow.
Well, it maybe shallow, but I think there's something of purity in deathmatches, particularily duels. The most basic essense of FPS gaming, (find the enemy, kill the enemy) is most perfectly expressed in deathmatch duels. I never got much into the FPS scene, certainly not competitively, but I remember getting very good in the Arena gametype in Rune (third-person hack/slash). I really enjoyed it because it was purely a contest of timing, of understanding the weapons, and of aggressive maneuvering. This purity kinda overides the lack of gameplay depth. Of course, this (like deathmatch) is a 100% subjective experience. Many people prefer greater depth in the overall gameplay, wanting more than just search and destroy -- which is why gametypes like capture the flag, jailbreak, UT2004's Onslaught, and others are so popular.
Where the world did you get that from? Tradionally id's game have been the easiest out there to mod so curious. To get maps done to the perfection they were aiming for the retail game would be hard but same thing is going to be true on any game without heavy usage of prefabs.
Having authored mods on both engines, I would say Unreal has the better support of the two. Our mod was featured on both ID Q2 expansion CD and Epics GOTY99 UT addition so I feel like I actually have some experience to make the call :) That being said neither was prefect. Q2/3 had what I thought was un-needed restrictions where as Unreal's replication for network games is a pain to deal with. They both have good points and bad points.
DoS,
good points. But how dare you make an On Topic post :)
Q3 vrs UT?
Not this again? Been there done that right? Ok for me I thought they were both good. I did not like how the maps had the same gothic theme repeated over and over (except for the space maps). I thought UT was slower which I did not care for and its network code feels "laggy-weird", but I liked how it had many different styles of maps to play, plus it has more than just DM/CTF. Trying to say one was better then the other is just like saying one of the IHV is better than the other........
The most basic essense of FPS gaming, (find the enemy, kill the enemy) is most perfectly expressed in deathmatch duels. I never got much into the FPS scene, certainly not competitively, but I remember getting very good in the Arena gametype in Rune (third-person hack/slash). I really enjoyed it because it was purely a contest of timing, of understanding the weapons, and of aggressive maneuvering. This purity kinda overides the lack of gameplay depth.
Off Topic Shameless Plug
Ostsol,
Have you tried the ChaosUT2:Evolution mod yet? One of the areas it features is Melee fighting and the Duel Gametype where you can go one on one with your favorite melee weapon:
http://www.chaoticdreams.org/ce/ChaosUT2Evolution/temp2004/melee2.jpg
Each melee weapon has its own animation set (swings) and damage attributes. You can also play with UT2k4, Chaos or a mix of different weapons for that RA feeling. The goal here was to capature some of the elements that made Rune and JK's mode fun and bring that in new engine. Give it a whirl :)
Yeah, I tried a bit of that, though the weapon speeds seemed kinda slow and the ranges kinda odd. I was used to Rune, though, so my judgement is probably just biased. I'll have to try it again, some time.
Yeah, I tried a bit of that, though the weapon speeds seemed kinda slow and the ranges kinda odd. I was used to Rune, though, so my judgement is probably just biased. I'll have to try it again, some time.
Fair enough. The UT2k3/4 engines dont support this type of stuff nativly so we had to add in many workarounds to get it to work. Bet meh :)
aaronspink
02-Aug-2004, 22:01
Now, please name another company that managed to create two groundbreaking games.
Atari
Nintendo
Sega
Maxis
Origin
Cyan Worlds
Microsoft
Sierra
Jordan Mechner
I can go on...
There are a lot of people that have created ground breaking games although Nintendo and Atari are by far in the lead.
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
sexualrug
02-Aug-2004, 22:16
I would also include blizzard in there.
Richteralan
02-Aug-2004, 22:19
I would also include blizzard in there.
blizzard did produce some good games but not groundbreaking. :wink:
I would also include blizzard in there.
Blizzard never made a groundbreaking game. They never even made a creative game. In fact, Blizzard never did anything that others hadn't done years earlier.
Ripping off other peoples' ideas and polishing them until you got a kick ass game is Blizzard's thing and they do it quite well.
Blizzard is the archetypical copycat developer.
trinibwoy
02-Aug-2004, 22:46
I would also include blizzard in there.
blizzard did produce some good games but not groundbreaking. :wink:
I would say warcraft/starcraft and diablo2 count as groundbreaking.
[quote=L233]
Now, please name another company that managed to create two groundbreaking games.
Atari
Nintendo
Sega
Atari doesn't exist anymore as a company. You're probably referring to their ancient console stuff. Maybe I should have narrowed down my question a bit because when you're a pioneer in a virgin industry then pretty much all you do is "groundbreaking". Kinda pointless even mentioning it.
Nintendo... ok.
What groundbreaking game was made by Sega? I'm pretty ignorant about console stuff.
[quote]Maxis
Origin
Cyan Worlds
Cyan Worlds? Myst and... ?
Origin and Maxxis... ok, true.
Microsoft
Sierra
Sierra is a publisher. So is MS, except for stuff like FS and their Xbox developement.
I would say warcraft/starcraft and diablo2 count as groundbreaking.
Great games but hardly groundbreaking. Everything had already been done before.
What groundbreaking game was made by Sega? I'm pretty ignorant about console stuff.
Phantsy star , phatnsy star online (first online rpg for consoles) , shinning force , virtual fighter , virtual cop , virtual racing.
Just to name a few
Chalnoth
02-Aug-2004, 22:54
Q3 vrs UT?
Not this again? Been there done that right? Ok for me I thought they were both good. I did not like how the maps had the same gothic theme repeated over and over (except for the space maps). I thought UT was slower which I did not care for and its network code feels "laggy-weird", but I liked how it had many different styles of maps to play, plus it has more than just DM/CTF. Trying to say one was better then the other is just like saying one of the IHV is better than the other........
Side comment on this:
I really think that the netcode preference between Q3 and the original UT was really due to personal preference. I started playing online FPS's with the original Unreal. It was the first game I had that I could actually play online and get somewhere (with the original Quake, Quake2, and Half-life I was essentially never able to get a stable/playable connection, for some reason).
So, having first gotten used to the original Unreal's netcode, which evolved as I played it, I thought UT's netcode was great. I tried Quake3, but had a really hard time adjusting to its different netcode. I was far, far better at UT than I ever was at Quake3. Personally, then, I felt that UT's netcode was far superior, particularly for me playing on a modem, than Quake3. I find that opinion reversed with pretty much everybody who started playing online FPS's with Quake or Quake2, however, so I'm sure it's a matter of personal preference.
Currently, though, I've pretty much stopped playing random online FPS games, as I get tired of random dorks.
Phantsy star , phatnsy star online (first online rpg for consoles) , shinning force , virtual fighter , virtual cop , virtual racing.
Well, as I said I know little about consoles.
What makes Phantasy Star groundbreaking compared to other console RPGs? Honestly, I wouldn't know. ame for Shining Force.
What makes PSO groundbreaking? I'm not sure that implementing an old and tried idea (online RPG) on a new plattform can be considered "groundbreaking".
Virtua Fighter was the first 3D beat em up?
What made Virtual Cop groundbreaking? It was some sort of light gun shoot em up thingy, right? I remember playing these back in the 80s....
What made Virtua Racing groundbreaking compared to the myriads of other racing games?
:wink: What makes Phantasy Star groundbreaking compared to other console RPGs? Honestly, I wouldn't know. ame for Shining Force.
phantasy star was the story line (Which was later ripped off in a ff game) and its battle system. Shinning force was the first tatics type game.
What makes PSO groundbreaking? I'm not sure that implementing an old and tried idea (online RPG) on a new plattform can be considered "groundbreaking".
THe set up . 4 players in an online world completing the single player game . Sorta like diablo 2 but with 3d graphics and ground breaking combat systems :-)
Virtua Fighter was the first 3D beat em up?
yup and in the smithsoniom (sp>)
What made Virtual Cop groundbreaking? It was some sort of light gun shoot em up thingy, right? I remember playing these back in the 80s....
First 3d shooter with branching story line .
What made Virtua Racing groundbreaking compared to the myriads of other racing games?
First 3d racing game.
YOu might argue that adding 3d to something doesn't make it ground breaking. But then that would mean id software never made a ground breaking game ever
Chalnoth
03-Aug-2004, 04:37
Whether a game was ground-breaking or not is totally up to opinion.
Personally, I think one of the most ground-breaking games on the PC was Baldur's Gate, since it revitalized RPG's on the PC. Similarly, so was Fallout, due to the openness in gameplay.
But that's just my opinion. If you really want to get down to it and do the research, I'm sure you'll find that there hasn't been one singularly original idea in gaming. Every new game that has been introduced has built upon what has come before. True originality just doesn't exist. Original-looking titles typically take features from one place, and enter them into a new context.
I would say warcraft/starcraft and diablo2 count as groundbreaking.
Heh curious why you say Diablo 2? It was Diablo 1 fixed up as far as I could tell (and I actually preferred the first one and had no interest really in that gameplay by the time the second one turned up)
Currently, though, I've pretty much stopped playing random online FPS games, as I get tired of random dorks.
Heh so true
Chalnoth
03-Aug-2004, 07:08
Well, Diablo II did introduce a number of things. Perhaps largest among them was the ability to play on Battle.net with other players without having to deal with tons of cheaters. This was made possible by Blizzard hosting a number of servers for people to play on for free. I think that idea alone was pretty ground-breaking, and really enhanced the game.
As far as how the game was actually played, well, Diablo II had vastly more replay value due to much more varied environments and monsters, fewer "there's no way I can kill that!" monsters, longer game, more items, unique skills for each class, and a number of other little things.
The only thing that really disturbs me about Diablo II is that some people claim it counts as an RPG game. It's really an action game with some RPG elements.
This was made possible by Blizzard hosting a number of servers for people to play on for free. I think that idea alone was pretty ground-breaking, and really enhanced the game.
Eh? So you meant all the online free multiplayer services which were just like Battle.Net (example MPlayer) that came before weren't ground breaking? Diablo set the stage up with Battle.net which was definately important for games to have easy access to others built inside the game instead of outside it. I don't think Blizzard providing servers is groundbreaking but was more of a requirement of trying to deal with cheating. Still then there were cheaters. But, whatever its all opinions :P
As far as how the game was actually played, well, Diablo II had vastly more replay value due to much more varied environments and monsters, fewer "there's no way I can kill that!" monsters, longer game, more items, unique skills for each class, and a number of other little things.
The only thing that really disturbs me about Diablo II is that some people claim it counts as an RPG game. It's really an action game with some RPG elements.
Hehe yeah it was a larger hack and slash than the original but the different environments and monsters were all exactly the same except for different sprites, special effects, and names :P That just bothered me because it was the same game with spruced up graphics and made longer (I enjoyed being able to get to Diablo in a fairly short amount of time in comparison to Diablo 2 from scratch).
Chalnoth
03-Aug-2004, 07:37
Eh? So you meant all the online free multiplayer services which were just like Battle.Net (example MPlayer) that came before weren't ground breaking? Diablo set the stage up with Battle.net which was definately important for games to have easy access to others built inside the game instead of outside it. I don't think Blizzard providing servers is groundbreaking but was more of a requirement of trying to deal with cheating. Still then there were cheaters. But, whatever its all opinions :P
Other games have typically depended upon players to set up their own servers. Battle.net itself wasn't new, but the ability for thousands of people to play on Blizzard's servers for free definitely was.
Hehe yeah it was a larger hack and slash than the original but the different environments and monsters were all exactly the same except for different sprites, special effects, and names :P That just bothered me because it was the same game with spruced up graphics and made longer (I enjoyed being able to get to Diablo in a fairly short amount of time in comparison to Diablo 2 from scratch).
But it's not. First of all, the way you play through the game can change dramatically depending upon the class you choose and the skills you choose within that class. Secondly, different opponents have different strengths and weaknesses, often requiring different strategies in different zones.
How much have you actually played Diablo II, anyway?
Heathen
03-Aug-2004, 09:12
Atari doesn't exist anymore as a company. You're probably referring to their ancient console stuff. Maybe I should have narrowed down my question a bit because when you're a pioneer in a virgin industry then pretty much all you do is "groundbreaking". Kinda pointless even mentioning it.
so you decuide to move the goalposts after quite a few goals were scored? Interesting technique...
No, it shows I don't agree with you. Welcome to the Internet.
This is not a matter of opinion. Calling Quake's MP shallow is just BS because it is objectively WRONG. Same for your "demo of a 3D world" comment. Compared to most other contemporate shooters, Quake had very solid gameplay.
If you had said you didn't like it - ok. That would have been your opinion. But making objectively false statements is not an "opinion". You're obviously ignorant about Quake's MP so maybe you shouldn't have an "opinion" about something you don't know the first thing about.
If you make such a statement, it should be substantiated or at least be plausible. Simply making some outlandish claim and then pulling some "dude, that's MY OPINION, man" Hippie shit is ridiculous.
You're a strange one, I'll give you that. Oh, and the ideas you're expressing here are wrong, and that's simply from an English point of view.
Thowllly
03-Aug-2004, 12:14
What made Virtua Racing groundbreaking compared to the myriads of other racing games?
First 3d racing game.
I played both Stunt Car Racer...
http://img24.exs.cx/img24/7808/stuntcarracer.png
and Indianapolis 500...
http://img49.exs.cx/img49/4836/Indianapolis500.png
...before Virtua Racing was released.
so you decuide to move the goalposts after quite a few goals were scored? Interesting technique...
That's why I wrote "maybe I should have".
My question didn't exist in a vaccuum, you know? It is pretty obvious from the context that I was referring to at least somewhat contemporate game developers and not some game developer from the dawn of time when a dot jumping across the screen was considered "groundbreaking".
Dave Baumann
03-Aug-2004, 12:39
I played both Stunt Car Racer...
http://img24.exs.cx/img24/7808/stuntcarracer.png
Oh, man, that brings back some memories.
Why hasn't anyone done a decent modern day clone?
Geoff keeps saying he wants to have another go at it. I've heard at least three times that he's started work on it but still no sign... fantastic game, I'd buy that again in a second. I was playing it on the ST emulator on my last flight back from the US.
Hard Drivin' (1988) was the first 'real 3D' racing game, I believe. Couple of years ahead of VR. (There were vector ones in the very early days which if not 'real 3D' might have been very close).
Geoff keeps saying he wants to have another go at it. I've heard at least three times that he's started work on it but still no sign... fantastic game, I'd buy that again in a second. I was playing it on the ST emulator on my last flight back from the US.
Hard Drivin' (1988) was the first 'real 3D' racing game, I believe. Couple of years ahead of VR. (There were vector ones in the very early days which if not 'real 3D' might have been very close).
I'm pretty sure vr was the first 3d racer. Perhaps it was the first 3d racer using polygons ?
Hard Drivin' was. There wasn't anything 'new' about VR except that the spec of the Model 1 board, which was a lot higher than anything in the arcades previously. There were probably about a dozen racing games with polys by then on various computers and in the arcades.
Virtua Racing (http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=V&game_id=10337)
Hard Drivin' (http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=H&game_id=8072) (this says 1989, MAME claims 1988). Another hint is the note on the bottom that says "This was the first driving simulator to use 3-D polygon graphics." ;)
I didn't like either much though. Now, Daytona's a real driving game... of course, the 2 hours free play six of us got for getting the installers a pizza helped :D. Daytona may be the first textured racer, although klov claims Ridge Racer is 1993 and Daytona 1994.
I'm pretty sure vr was the first 3d racer. Perhaps it was the first 3d racer using polygons ?
According to Mobygames.com, Virtua Racing was released in 1994. There were many fully 3D racing games before that. Some have been named already... Stunt Car Racer, Hard Driving, Indionapolis. And weren't the Test Drive games from the 80s 3D? And I am pretty sure there was at least one motor bike racing games that was fully 3D earlier than 1994.
I'm actually not sure about some of the other SEGA games you deem "groundbreaking". Adding a branching storyline (surely not a new concept) to a niche genre like light-gun shoot 'em ups isn't really breaking new grounds, it's refining what's already there. It's not like Virtual Cop is one of these games that people will quote as having had a profound impact on anything.
Why hasn't anyone done a decent modern day clone?
TrackMania is mildly entertaining, but more from a building-crazy-tracks-and-trying-to-finish-them perspective than the actual driving, and CrashDay looks pretty cool too but isn't finished yet.
No, the Test Drive games were (like Outrun, etc.) semi-3D games. They used a line-run algorithm to generate the road. They might have had 3D cars rather than sprite cars, though I can't remember as they were crap.
No, the Test Drive games were (like Outrun, etc.) semi-3D games. They used a line-run algorithm to generate the road. They might have had 3D cars rather than sprite cars, though I can't remember as they were crap.
Seems like Test Drive 3 was the first real 3D one. It still predates Virtua Racing, tho.
olivier
03-Aug-2004, 14:28
Ah. . . From your previous posts I had gotten the impression that it was an incredible multiplayer game.
Well, 'QuakeWorld' is the general term of reference for Quake 1 DM/TF/CTF/etc, all the game-modes and mods that share Quake's physics, which a decent number of die-hards consider the apex of gaming.
it was the apex of gaming
long live to qwtf !!!
humm wait i've lose 4 years of my life.
humm wait i've lose 4 years of my life.
I know that feeling. I lost a large percentage of the evenings of 2003 to Warcraft III.
Well I stand corrected . I was only like 8 when that game came out so forgive me haha
I'm actually not sure about some of the other SEGA games you deem "groundbreaking". Adding a branching storyline (surely not a new concept) to a niche genre like light-gun shoot 'em ups isn't really breaking new grounds, it's refining what's already there. It's not like Virtual Cop is one of these games that people will quote as having had a profound impact on anything.
Well what is ground breaking ?
Ground breaking is something that isn't done before and then is done and copied to hell.
humm wait i've lose 4 years of my life.
I know that feeling. I lost a large percentage of the evenings of 2003 to Warcraft III.
The big "problems" for me have been Civilization 1-3 and the Baldurs Gate series + expansions. Not for me but indirectly through my girlfriend.
For some reason, they don't like it when you sit in front of the computer for 4-5 hours every evening while answering all questions such as "can you do ..... ?" with "yes, i'm just going to...."
olivier
03-Aug-2004, 16:02
Not for me but indirectly through my girlfriend.
girlfriend was my remedy to gaming problem :P and gaming was my remedy to girlfriend problem :D
For some reason, they don't like it when you sit in front of the computer for 4-5 hours every evening while answering all questions such as "can you do ..... ?" with "yes, i'm just going to...."
Strangely, it depends. Warcraft III got accepted after a while - except I always get shouted at for telling people I'll ring them back in a few minutes - but Christmas' KOTOR-ing caused a few strops.
Well I stand corrected . I was only like 8 when that game came out so forgive me
"You have learnt much, but you are not a Jedi yet."
Randell
03-Aug-2004, 17:17
Strangely, it depends. Warcraft III got accepted after a while - except I always get shouted at for telling people I'll ring them back in a few minutes - but Christmas' KOTOR-ing caused a few strops.
hmm when the wife threatened to take away the Xbox from the kids as they were being stroppy, she wasn't amused when I said 'hang on there, I haven't finished Full Spectrum Warrior yet!'
How much have you actually played Diablo II, anyway?
About 40 hours or so when it first came out with at least trying out a few of the different classes for a good amount of time. Result was I just didn't feel like I was having as much fun as I did in Diablo 1 and actually felt bored for some reason. It was a prettier, less fun Diablo to me and the class differences didn't feel that great (I'm sure the game was completely different knowing Blizzard 2 months after I stopped playing it as well due to Blizzard having a tendency to rework the balance in their patches don't know since I wasn't playing it after 2 weeks). I still think it just happens to be a more refined Diablo nothing really breakthrough over the first one.
Anyways thats enough on Diablo :P I think the first one just burned me out over that gameplay by the time Diablo 2 came around.
Really I'm an unusual person though, I loved Baldur's Gate 1 and couldn't really get into Baldur's Gate 2 (Planescape Torment on the otherhand was good). I've never been one really fond of a sequel that is the same thing but bigger, with better graphics, and more choices. Needs something actually more impressive to me that is different fairly substantially (hence I disliked Starcraft but liked WC3 but I thought Blizzard should have kept to their original idea which sounded much better but they decided to compromise on their ideas for the crazy starcraft fans and came up with a product that they didn't like and that still compromised their ideas and several similar issues with FPS for the past couple years).
Not for me but indirectly through my girlfriend.
girlfriend was my remedy to gaming problem :P and gaming was my remedy to girlfriend problem :D
Heh, I hear you there
With respect to the matter of Blizzard and ground breaking games i ll say anyone who says they didn't make any is smoking crack or have never played the games...
STARCRAFT was and still is the best multiplayer RTS game out there. The way they managed to balance three completely different races (philosophy - style of playing) and gave players a good chance to win any opponent with any race is unique. From time to time we still play Starcraft at a friends home-Network and the game continues to suprise me. The tactical element is so strong in the game, it's awesome. Of course any1 who disagrees doesn't know what he's talking about :P
aaronspink
04-Aug-2004, 09:18
Atari doesn't exist anymore as a company. You're probably referring to their ancient console stuff. Maybe I should have narrowed down my question a bit because when you're a pioneer in a virgin industry then pretty much all you do is "groundbreaking". Kinda pointless even mentioning it.
Atari Games existed until about 2001 and made PC/Console/Arcade games throughout that time, many of which I've put a lot of money into.
Cyan Worlds? Myst and... ?
The Manhole, the first entertainment product ever on the new medium of CD-ROM.
Sierra is a publisher. So is MS, except for stuff like FS and their Xbox developement.
IIRC, Sierra didn't start off as a publisher and I'm pretty sure they did King's Quest and some other ground breaking games.
MS certaintly isn't just a publisher: Bungie, Big Huge Games, FASA Interactive, and at least 2 other "studios" which I can't remember off the top of my head. Bungie certainly had a ground breaking game or two and FASA Interactive was certainly ground breaking with their Battle Tech and Red Planet games. And then there is MS Flight Simulator. In fact, MS probably designs, develops, and release more games in a year than most publishers publish in a year.
Oh, and I forgot one, Peter Molyneux ( Black And White and Population ).
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
With respect to the matter of Blizzard and ground breaking games i ll say anyone who says they didn't make any is smoking crack or have never played the games...
Ah, here we get into semantics. I would say 'groundbreaking' usually requires 'original', but many people would argue that 'raising the bar' qualifies as groundbreaking as well.
Even I - as a huge fan of Blizzard - am unconvinced if they've ever been particularly original, but they are the best there is at taking existing ideas, applying infinite amounts of polish, and balancing the gameplay superbly.
Starcraft is probably the least original (big) game they've done, as the only innovative feature there was to have 3 balanced races. Otherwise it's largely just "Warcraft II in space". (Of course, Warcraft II was certainly pretty imaginitive given the environment at the time).
IIRC, Sierra didn't start off as a publisher and I'm pretty sure they did King's Quest and some other ground breaking games.
I believe Kings Quest was designed by Roberta Williams of Sierra. Not sure if she's there now.
With respect to the matter of Blizzard and ground breaking games i ll say anyone who says they didn't make any is smoking crack or have never played the games...
STARCRAFT was and still is the best multiplayer RTS game out there. The way they managed to balance three completely different races (philosophy - style of playing) and gave players a good chance to win any opponent with any race is unique. From time to time we still play Starcraft at a friends home-Network and the game continues to suprise me. The tactical element is so strong in the game, it's awesome. Of course any1 who disagrees doesn't know what he's talking about :P
StarCraft is an enormously overrated RTS which pales in comparison to a true titan like Total Annihilation, a game that actually WAS innovative.
Innovative? Yes. Pretty? Certainly. Fun? Hugely. Balanced? Not on your life.
Great but flawed, I would say. In particular, single player is poor especially in skirmish, which is where I prefer to play.
With respect to the matter of Blizzard and ground breaking games i ll say anyone who says they didn't make any is smoking crack or have never played the games...
groundbreaking: pioneering, original, innovative
Sorry, no.
Not once has Blizzard made a game that could even remotely be considered groundbreaking. And I bet they never will. They have always been an excellent copycat developer.
Innovative? Yes. Pretty? Certainly. Fun? Hugely. Balanced? Not on your life.
Great but flawed, I would say. In particular, single player is poor especially in skirmish, which is where I prefer to play.
On the mission front, I'd agree. It was not a patch on Starcraft (and there I have to praise SC, it was a very good mission RTS), but on the skirmish front TA wins hands down. The fact that you can download different AI's kept the game fresh.
The two sides were perfectly balanced. Yes, the game had its fair share of excess units, but neither side was better than the other, at least not if you played at the top levels which knew the unit combos. I know some people used to think the Flash rush was the be all and end all of gamplay, but they'd obviously never played the really good players.
The fact that you can download different AI's kept the game fresh.
You can? Where from?
the game had its fair share of excess units, but neither side was better than the other
That was my major complaint - far too many useless units. At least in all the Blizzard RTS' there's virtually nothing that you can't make use of at some point in the game. That's certainly very true in WC3 - a good player can make almost any unit work in combo with the right other unit.
We also in general found that ARM was quite a bit stronger than Core, and that defence was sufficiently stronger than offence to frequently generate stalemates. Of course, I wasn't playing online so we probably settled into the wrong local minima.
Too many units impairs the novice player by causing general confusion as to what is effective and what isn't. However, I suspect that veteran players simply ignored the excess units, having already developed their own evaluations of all, or most of the options available. They know which units are effective and when they are effective. The same thing goes for basically all other RTS games. The only difference is the number of units one might have to evaluate.
I've been visiting this forum quite often by now but haven't had a chance to write anything. I made an account today to reply in this thread regarding Blizzard and The StarCraft/WarCraft series.
I maybe quite ignorant about the history of electronic game (say, 10+ yrs ago) but I gotta tell you, at least where I used to leave, the StarCraft: Brood War was not only a ground-breaking, but also a history-writing game that has changed a whole country's culture. Many people there may not even know what "Doom 3" is - especially true if one is over +30 - but nearly everyone, yes including your grandmas and great grandmas, knows what "StarCraft" is.
And you guessed right, it's South Korea. Although I moved to the States since then (been here for about 5 yrs), but I can't forget the dramatic cultural transition at that time in Korea and the effect that still can't be ignored. If Korea has any strength in IT/hardware industry, you can say that Blizzard's games have had a huge impact on it. Before the Starcraft series became popular, computer was a rare thing (read: for nerds) in South Korea, not to mention the Internet. People go to work/school, and hang out at a bar or their friends houses, or going to play basketball/tennis, etc..
Everything changed when the StarCraft:Brood War was introduced. It was an explosion. Everyone acquired a computer and started to arm themselves with high-speed Internet. The game itself was sold over 3 million copies in South Korea alone. Considering the total population of South Korea is about 45 millions, 3 million is a truly incredible number. If you count in pirated versions, you can quite possibly say every single household in South Korea has a copy of StarCraft or StarCraft: Brood War.
Korea's high-speed Internet use rate is currently unreachable world No. 1.
(>1 million in year 2002, by population)
http://www.internetworldstats.com/articles/art030.htm
Without a doubt, people's life started revolving around computers, the Internet, and Games. Guys and girls date in Internet cafes, kids gathering in Internet cafes to play game, older people have their alumni meetings in Internet cafes.
There were dozens of StarCraft tournaments nation-wide where some top-players can easily make their living. There still are. (for a game older than 6 yrs!) Korea is probably the world's first country where a "Progamer" was born. A lot of foreign gamers (especially StarCraft and WarCraft players) relocated to Korea. It helds the world's one of the largest gaming event (WCG). Most of the major hardware vendors sponser one or more professional gaming teams. (Intel, AMD, ATI, Samsung, you name it) All of above wouldn't have been possible without StarCraft: Brood War.
Sorry about a long post, and I realize that people arguing about the StarCraft or Blizzard are mainly concerned about the "internal" history of gaming technology, in which renovative games affecting other games, etc, but I couldn't resist to tell you about the "external" effect a game brought to a small country. And honestly I can't imagine such a hugely successful game not having a "ground-breaking" factor. Unless we have a different definition of "ground-breaking" (very possible) or we're just fighting a word game. (who cares what the exact definiton of "ground-breaking" is)
lop
K.I.L.E.R
05-Aug-2004, 00:53
That's your opinion, I believe Doom 3 is the most groundbreaking RTS.
That's your opinion, I believe Doom 3 is the most groundbreaking RTS.
RT for sure :P
That's your opinion, I believe Doom 3 is the most groundbreaking RTS.
RT for sure :P
Nah, RTS --> Real-Time Shooter. :)
That's your opinion, I believe Doom 3 is the most groundbreaking RTS.
RT for sure :P
Nah, RTS --> Real-Time Shooter. :)
:x point for you
@lopri
Interesting posting but I still fail to see how that makes Starcraft a groundbreaking game. The game itself did not break new ground, it just happened to become some sort of killer application for the Korean Market.
SMS was a killer app for the European cell phone market but the services itself was neither particularly sophisticated not technologically groundbreaking. In fact, it was something so fucking trivial that carriers initially offered free SMS until they noticed they people really used it a lot.
Or how about Tetris on Nintendo Gameboy? It was a classical killer app which really broke this toy into market segments that used to be completely unreceptive to video games. Without Tetris the Gameboy handheld prolly wouldn't have been half as successful. Even my grandparents own Gameboys. But does that mean that Nintendo's version of Tetris for Gameboy was groundbreaking? No, it wasn't. It was just one of dozens of Tetris clones/convertions of a 5 year old game.
Also, I think you are grossly exaggerating when you write stuff like "If Korea has any strength in IT/hardware industry, you can say that Blizzard's games have had a huge impact on it", because I just doubt that industrial conglomerates (which dominate Korean high tech industry), like Samsung, readjusted their strategy from offering cheap copycat products to becoming a technology leader back in the 1990s had ANYTHING to do with fucking Starcraft. Sorry, but that's just too outlandish a claim.
Just how the hell was that supposed to work? Some Samsung big-shots decided over a co-op game of Broodwar to stop sucking and to become one of the world's most dynamic technology companies? Did the CEO of Samsung decide that he didn't want to build pathetic cheapo TVs anymore but rather Protoss super laser death ray guns?
Richteralan
05-Aug-2004, 05:39
many people play a game doesn't necessarily make it a groundbreaking game.
gamers sometimes tend to be very conservative... :wink:
K.I.L.E.R
05-Aug-2004, 06:03
"Groundbreaking" like most other things is based on someone's opinion/belief.
What you see as "groundbreaking" isn't what I see as "groundbreaking".
I disagree with the opinions of everyone in this thread about what's the best game.
Seoul, Korea 2004
Over 50% of Broadband Penetration
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/korea/
3 Cable channels dedicated to StarCraft: Brood War
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020466,39158652,00.htm
WCG, conceived and semi-owned by Samsung
StarCraft: Brood War - Official Game 4 years in a row (Expect the same in year 2005 and 2006)
WarCraft 3 - Official Game 2 years in a row (Will possibly last longer than SC)
http://www.worldcybergames.com/
Seeing is believing. Do a google.
lop
K.I.L.E.R
05-Aug-2004, 06:52
Still doesn't change my mind Lopri. AFAIC those numbers could say that half the world is playing SC:BW. It doesn't change my mind.
BTW: I'm not questioning the numbers, just the fact you are trying to force your opinions on others.
A very very rude thing to do.
When did I try to change your mind?!?! :shock:
I'm showing the facts. Wasn't trying such a stupid thing.
Seeing numbers makes you upset?!?!
A Fact is a fact, don't get offended.
K.I.L.E.R
05-Aug-2004, 07:18
When did I try to change your mind?!?! :shock:
I'm showing the facts. Wasn't trying such a stupid thing.
Seeing numbers makes you upset?!?!
A Fact is a fact, don't get offended.
Why are you throwing down random numbers then?
I apologise if all you were doing was typing out statistics non related to anything anyone has been talking about in this thread.
I was offended because I thought you were using those numbers to try and prove SC:BW is groundbreaking when others obviously believe otherwise.
martrox
05-Aug-2004, 09:29
OK, people, lets get this thread back on track.....If you want to discuss games, do it in the gaming forum......
The fact that you can download different AI's kept the game fresh.
You can? Where from?
AI Central (http://www.planetannihilation.com/aicentral)
I've been visiting this forum quite often by now but haven't had a chance to write anything. I made an account today to reply in this thread regarding Blizzard and The StarCraft/WarCraft series.
I maybe quite ignorant about the history of electronic game (say, 10+ yrs ago) but I gotta tell you, at least where I used to leave, the StarCraft: Brood War was not only a ground-breaking, but also a history-writing game that has changed a whole country's culture. Many people there may not even know what "Doom 3" is - especially true if one is over +30 - but nearly everyone, yes including your grandmas and great grandmas, knows what "StarCraft" is.
And you guessed right, it's South Korea. Although I moved to the States since then (been here for about 5 yrs), but I can't forget the dramatic cultural transition at that time in Korea and the effect that still can't be ignored. If Korea has any strength in IT/hardware industry, you can say that Blizzard's games have had a huge impact on it. Before the Starcraft series became popular, computer was a rare thing (read: for nerds) in South Korea, not to mention the Internet. People go to work/school, and hang out at a bar or their friends houses, or going to play basketball/tennis, etc..
Everything changed when the StarCraft:Brood War was introduced. It was an explosion. Everyone acquired a computer and started to arm themselves with high-speed Internet. The game itself was sold over 3 million copies in South Korea alone. Considering the total population of South Korea is about 45 millions, 3 million is a truly incredible number. If you count in pirated versions, you can quite possibly say every single household in South Korea has a copy of StarCraft or StarCraft: Brood War.
Korea's high-speed Internet use rate is currently unreachable world No. 1.
(>1 million in year 2002, by population)
http://www.internetworldstats.com/articles/art030.htm
Without a doubt, people's life started revolving around computers, the Internet, and Games. Guys and girls date in Internet cafes, kids gathering in Internet cafes to play game, older people have their alumni meetings in Internet cafes.
There were dozens of StarCraft tournaments nation-wide where some top-players can easily make their living. There still are. (for a game older than 6 yrs!) Korea is probably the world's first country where a "Progamer" was born. A lot of foreign gamers (especially StarCraft and WarCraft players) relocated to Korea. It helds the world's one of the largest gaming event (WCG). Most of the major hardware vendors sponser one or more professional gaming teams. (Intel, AMD, ATI, Samsung, you name it) All of above wouldn't have been possible without StarCraft: Brood War.
Sorry about a long post, and I realize that people arguing about the StarCraft or Blizzard are mainly concerned about the "internal" history of gaming technology, in which renovative games affecting other games, etc, but I couldn't resist to tell you about the "external" effect a game brought to a small country. And honestly I can't imagine such a hugely successful game not having a "ground-breaking" factor. Unless we have a different definition of "ground-breaking" (very possible) or we're just fighting a word game. (who cares what the exact definiton of "ground-breaking" is)
lop
thank you :D
those were the things i had in mind when i made the post about SC...now if that's not ground breaking...
Quitch, you are entitled to your opinion, however stating that TA was "THE REAL THING" and that Starcraft was just an overrated game is crazy. SC was huge and still is, and for a game to be ground breaking it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ORIGINAL, at least in the traditional sense.
@lopri
Interesting posting but I still fail to see how that makes Starcraft a groundbreaking game. The game itself did not break new ground, it just happened to become some sort of killer application for the Korean Market.
sorry, but SC was not just a killer app for the Korean Market. I believe (correct me if i am wrong) the game is the best-selling PC game ever. Again i can't see why you are seeing "groundbreaking" as a synonym to original. SC still is the only RTS game that has managed to balance 3 completely different races and also is very very deep strategically. Every click counts, battles and games can be decided on decisions you make on an instant of time. i have yet to find another RTS so deep without beeing overly complex. i won't even go into the 3 different races thing...
As you said it has to do with semantics and the way i see it SC is the most groundbreaking multiplayer RTS game ever made.
martrox
05-Aug-2004, 12:54
One more post off topic and I'll lock this thread......
I've always liked the Lemon Shark myself.
Oops... :lol:
Richteralan
06-Aug-2004, 16:46
I've always liked the Lemon Shark myself.
Oops... :lol:
:lol:
oops....off topic...thread locked..
CS sounds like a groundbreaking game, too... :lol: god it got zillions of players... :lol:
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.