Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: "Max" Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.freetalk.english Subject: Re: Yaroze dev continuing Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:04:35 +0100 Organization: PlayStation Net Yaroze (SCEE) Lines: 108 Message-ID: <9ktudj$4at16@www.netyaroze-europe.com> References: <9hq70s$odf4@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9hqc3f$odf6@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9hqda2$p4m2@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9kn06t$qtb1@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9kn0ts$qtb3@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9kp379$qtb10@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9kpm6i$qtb20@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9krbmu$3h37@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9krf4t$3h39@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9krl1v$3h315@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <3b796603.1552801720@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <9krsdt$4at1@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <3b71802a.2684379@www.netyaroze-europe.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-746.arcanine.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Which brings me to this point: Has anyone seen the minimum and recomended specification for Max Payne??? Talk about not giving a shit about half the PC ownership. Max Steven Osman wrote in message news:3b71802a.2684379@www.netyaroze-europe.com... > I'll buy your argument, but to a point... > > You were talking about the greatness of the old machines in that they > were all homogeneous, then saying that you also appreciate the upward > compatibility you get by writing to them. > > In effect, what you're doing is setting a starting point and assuming > that people who end up getting the better machines will also be able > to run your software. How is that different from picking a "very > undemanding" environment as a starting point? > > What I'm saying is that, if you choose (like way too many games out > there do) to require a supercomputer with a video card that has half a > gig of texture memory alone, you're asking for trouble. I can't > believe that setting your standards to last year's model isn't > acceptable for most games... That's how you end up in the trap: > > "Should I program for *everyone* and risk losing some hard-core > gamers, or should I program for hard-core gamers who will have the > latest and greatest..." Or... should you try to use those clever > tricks that you were talking about... > > So who is really to blame? Is it the problem really due to the > environment and the hardware, or are the hard-core gamers to blame who > go out and buy everything the second it comes out -- and thus make the > industry have to sell-out just to make it that much sexier. > > Is that a choice that people in the industry aren't making today? I > mean, isn't it part of the decision of what consoles you want to > target? Perhaps where you want to set your lowest common denominator? > (I am well aware of the politics involved in this decision too, > though... It's not a sheer machine power thing -- from the demos of > Munch's Oddyssee, I really cannot believe that the PS2 couldn't handle > it). > > And is that really the issue? Let's compare the launch PSX titles to > the games that are coming out on the exact same hardware today? > Perhaps it's just that the developers bothered to work a little harder > with the same hardware instead of just being lazy and making sure you > always had hardware that was 10 times more powerful than their games > required -- so that they could avoid the extra effort of doing it > right. One of my "software engineering" professors jokingly said > once, that if you software isn't fast enough nowadays, don't worry -- > wait a few months and buy a faster computer. The scary part is, under > the joke, I honestly believe that she meant it, she just didn't want > to go on record. > > All that being said, there are two things that I should admit: > > 1. I never play PC games. I work on my PC's, and that's about all. I > have a 36" tv and prefer using it, sitting on my couch to sitting on > my desk. > 2. I'm very glad that the console life cycle is a 5 year one. I think > it's great that new hardware comes out only once in 5 years, and you > don't find developers requiring you to always buy a new piece of > hardware for each game. Every time I look at a PC game, I find that I > have to upgrade this or that to get it working. > > In summary, I really don't know what I'm talking about, . > > Sauce > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:21:14 +0100, "Jon Prestidge (Jon@surfed.to)" > wrote: > > >> Isn't that the whole point of using DirectX in MS platforms anyway? > > > >even if you have libraries that sort-out all the hardware differences, you > >still don't know if it will run fast-enough on some peoples' PCs. > >You have to decide whether to write a prog very undemanding on system > >resource so that it'll run on most PCs or whether to take avantage of the > >power of the faster ones and exclude many users, or try some clever > >switching-in of extra poly detail and frames per second depending the power > >of the PC it happens to be run on. > > > >... and DirectX is by MS so I'm reluctant to use it unless I'm getting paid > >to do so (i.e. as a job). > > > >Last time I checked PCs didn't even have a contiguous address space...if > >that's still true that's good enough reason to avaid the whole sorry PC mess > >(unless you're paid to work on them). > > > >> Anyway, that being said, I personally don't feel that the "other" > >> console developer belongs in the industry... > > > >... the 'other' developer need not be in any industry ... they can free from > >industry, happy in the ham sector. > > > > > >Jon > > >