1. Re: graphical engines
- Posted by Greg Phillips <i.shoot at REDNECKS.COM>
Apr 20, 1999
-
Last edited Apr 21, 1999
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
Hardcore gamers, fair enough, but what about people like me, with an old pentium
120, 48mb ram, and a 2mb video card? We still make up quite a large chunk of
the market, and if we can't run the games....
> 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 personally think graphics have nothing to do with playability. For example, a
brand new, 6 cd, shooter game is fine and dandy, with stunning graphics,
accurate physics models, environmental sound and full motion video cutscenes,
but so far as playability, it may seriously lack. I'd rather play Sierra's
Hero's Quest 1, or any of their old adventure games, over the next big first
person adventure/shoot-em-up game. Why? Playability. Blasting the hell out of
aliens or zombies or robots or demons gets old after a while.
>
>
> My other question is, can EUPHORIA be used to write that killer game?
>
> 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...
>
> What do YOU think?
> -ck
