1. Re: graphical engines
C. K. Lester wrote:
>At 12:41 PM 4/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>Greetings
>>
>>I think that anyone who tries to wring the last remaining bit of capability
>>out of any hardware device through the composition of superior coding is
>>fine in my books, and this means especially Gamers, whose reputation and
>>often livelihood depends upon being able to do so. This is, in fact, very
>>close to what constitutes that ephemeral thing known as QUALITY.
>>
>>I welcome the feed-back, as always
>>thanks
>>Norm
>
>I'm questioning the need for highly-optimized code these days, considering
>the power of the hardware available. I would say a majority of hardcore
>gamers have the PII(I) or similar chips, tons of RAM, and good video... I'm
>not saying we can bloat without care, but I think what programmers need to
>concentrate on these days is playability/concept. What do you guys think?
I think that's mostly true; for example, it used to be that you could
only fit so many GIFs on your hard drive. While the size of hard
drives has increased, I don't think the overall size of GIFs has as
well. Similarly, a word processor only needs so much power (unless
you go the popular route and throw in every new trick and option
imaginable). So in a real sense, we do have more raw power available
to us today; optimization is not as big a deal as it used to be.
However, I don't think this applies that well to games (I'll explain
ahead...)
>
>My other question is, can EUPHORIA be used to write that killer game?
IMHO, no. Don't get me wrong, Eu is a great language, and is very
fast, but to be blunt it just isn't enough.
Games, because they're mostly attempts at emulating reality, will
probably never be satisfied with whatever the current levels of
computing power are. You can improve a game in numerous ways by
attempting to squeeze out every ounce of speed; the benefits for
doing that with a word processor, though, might very well be
non-existant.
Take the area of 3D games. I don't really think a killer game that
relies on graphics for half of it's punch can be done in Euphoria.
Or rather, so little Euphoria would be used I don't think it could
legitimately be called a Euphoria program. This is an arena where
we're still relying on *hardware* acceleration for the best results;
there's no way native Euphoria (or even, from what I can see, a
program that is mostly Euphoria) can match that.
>
>Finally, I know there's TONS of room in the Linux community for the next
>great thing, but I figure the DOS/Windoze market is a little harder to
>enter, considering the powerhouses of EA, Interplay, etc...
I agree. The Wintel market is still somewhat flexible, but much of
it is pretty well set. There's no need for a killer word processor
or browser. In the gaming realm (as opposed to simple business-type
applications), you have more of a chance, but probably not in the
same way: I would think that the most feasible way to break into
the Wintel game market is via a new gaming concept, not squeezing
more power out of the machine (unless you can actually surpass the
skills of the big companies.)
I believe a game of unmatched creativity and genius--not necessarily
raw power--will be The Next Big Thing. Something that's not just
another FPS/RTS/flight-sim/Sierra-adventure. Of course, coming up
with the key creative idea might in many ways be harder than simply
making a program run faster. But I also think Euphoria could easily
be the language of choice for developing such a game; it excels in
simplicity and expression, and I believe it's AI potential and
inherent flexibility are still untapped.
Rod Jackson
