Enemy Nations ... Rehashing ..
Willis Stephen
I downloaded the enemy nations demo. Boy it sure is slow for something
that's supposed to run on a 486 /66. Its even slow on a p100. To me its
like a lame version of Red Alert. All the ideas are stolen from other
games, the pictures aren't particularyly good. Its such a rip off of
ideas, I can't beleive Westwood isn't suing them. I guess the fact that
its obviously inferior to Westwood games in so many ways (map display,
pictures, sound, speed, creativity, and esp scrolling) that westwood isn't
too concerned. Myself I don't see what the fuss is about. The game is
basically a generic and inferior rip off of Red Alert, with a few MOO or
CIV ideas thrown in the mix. I suppose it could be much better if it ran
more efficiently, had a few new ideas, looked more pleasing on the screen,
had less annoying sounds ... ).
It almost looks like some programmers got ahold of some generic game
making code, and used some wizard to create a game with tons of overhead
(to be expected when compiling generic code), and few or no original
ideas. A cheap and quick way to make some money off of other people's
ideas. And these poor programmers are now getting ripped off by Head
Games. While I don't agree the the Head Games strategy, and I feel that
the programmers etc deserve to be paid, it almost looks like the people
who are getting ripped off, are themselves ripping others off.
Stephen
Geoff Goldberg
wil...@qlink.queensu.ca (Willis Stephen) wrote:
As a member of the Enemy Nations programming team, I would like to take this opportunity
to apologize humbly to Stephen and everyone else on the net for ripping you off. As
further pennance, I will now flog myself with a didgeree-doo.
- Geoff Goldberg
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr)
On 12 May 1997 16:40:26 GMT, wil...@qlink.queensu.ca (Willis Stephen)
wrote:
>I downloaded the enemy nations demo. Boy it sure is slow for something
>that's supposed to run on a 486 /66. Its even slow on a p100.
What resolution did you run at? You need to run at 640x480 on a 486/66
(same as Red Alert).
>To me its like a lame version of Red Alert. All the ideas are stolen from other
>games, the pictures aren't particularyly good. Its such a rip off of
>ideas, I can't beleive Westwood isn't suing them.
This is really interesting. Are you sure it was Enemy Nations that you
played because it is not that similiar to Red Alert. And the art is
higher res by far than any other real-time game out there.
> Myself I don't see what the fuss is about. The game is
>basically a generic and inferior rip off of Red Alert, with a few MOO or
>CIV ideas thrown in the mix. I suppose it could be much better if it ran
>more efficiently, had a few new ideas, looked more pleasing on the screen,
>had less annoying sounds ... ).
Could you be more specific? I've run RA next to EN and there is no
comparison in the art and the games are very different with a lot more
depth in EN.
>It almost looks like some programmers got ahold of some generic game
>making code, and used some wizard to create a game with tons of overhead
>(to be expected when compiling generic code), and few or no original
>ideas. A cheap and quick way to make some money off of other people's
>ideas.
Now on this you're way off base. No other real-time game offers
anything more than 640x480x8 while we have tested up to 1280x1024x24
and 1600x1200x8 and we run at 24 fps at those resolutions on high-end
CPUs.
Enemy Nations was written from the ground up and took 20 months to
create. I don't know what your programming background is but we render
pixels in fewer clocks than any other game I know of.
And add to that we do all this on contoured ground, which no other
real-time game is even willing to try because it takes so many clock
cycles.
> And these poor programmers are now getting ripped off by Head
>Games. While I don't agree the the Head Games strategy, and I feel that
>the programmers etc deserve to be paid, it almost looks like the people
>who are getting ripped off, are themselves ripping others off.
And exactly how are we ripping people off? You downloaded the demo,
didn't like the game, and therefore have spent nothing.
- dave
=====
David Thielen
www.windward.net
home of Enemy Nations (Red Alert meets Civilization)
My e-mail address is dave@{see web address above}
Tim Chown
Willis Stephen wrote:
>
> I downloaded the enemy nations demo. Boy it sure is slow for something
> that's supposed to run on a 486 /66. Its even slow on a p100.
The Windward minimum specs are a joke - the minimum should really
be a 32Mb P133, not a 8Mb(?) 486/66. Playing on less than a 133
will only cause frustration. I feel if Windward had been more
honest with the specs, less people would be upset with the
performance. If you buy EN for a 486/66 then chances are you'll
be wanting to return it because it is very choppy to play.
> To me its
> like a lame version of Red Alert. All the ideas are stolen from other
> games, the pictures aren't particularyly good. Its such a rip off of
> ideas, I can't beleive Westwood isn't suing them.
You're comparing first glances. There are so many features in EN
that Red Alert doesn't have that the list would go on for a long time,
and many of those features mean you need an above average PC to
run it (remember, 32Mb P133 is now entry level, perhaps less).
Terrain levels - RA is flat, EN has real hills.
Line of sight - RA has none, EN has sight obstructed by hills/trees.
Multiplayer - EN allows save games and free joining/leaving
Research - none in RA, 50+ things in EN
Graphics - RA has 640x480x256, EN goes up to whatever you want.
Terrain - EN terrain affects movement speeds
Economy - RA has one ore, EN has 4+3 resources and interdependencies.
Maps - EN has a random map every game.
Bear in mind the AI has all these extra factors to consider. That's
why EN has the option of running the AI on a separate machine.
All these factors make EN more rewarding than RA for someone who
likes the SimCity/Settlers type of game. If you want raw action
buy RA, if you want a very deep and rich game (esp. multiplayer)
try EN.
--
Tim Chown | The Games Domain Review 600+ reviews!
Strategy Editor | http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview (USA)
stra...@gamesdomain.com | http://www.gamesdomain.co.uk/gdreview (UK)
md...@northland.lib.mi.us
In article <5l7h5q$n...@knot.queensu.ca>, wil...@qlink.queensu.ca says...
>
>I downloaded the enemy nations demo. Boy it sure is slow for something
>like a lame version of Red Alert. All the ideas are stolen from other
>games, the pictures aren't particularyly good. Its such a rip off of
>its obviously inferior to Westwood games in so many ways (map display,
>pictures, sound, speed, creativity, and esp scrolling) that westwood isn't
>basically a generic and inferior rip off of Red Alert, with a few MOO or
>CIV ideas thrown in the mix. I suppose it could be much better if it ran
>more efficiently, had a few new ideas, looked more pleasing on the screen,
>had less annoying sounds ... ).
>
>making code, and used some wizard to create a game with tons of overhead
>(to be expected when compiling generic code), and few or no original
>ideas. A cheap and quick way to make some money off of other people's
>Games. While I don't agree the the Head Games strategy, and I feel that
>the programmers etc deserve to be paid, it almost looks like the people
>who are getting ripped off, are themselves ripping others off.
>
Hmm, Stephen have you even been hanging around this newsgroup for more than
a couple weeks? If you had, you might have been in on some of the discussion s by
Dave Thielen about the game. As for the whole of your comments- you are just way
off base on them. BTW, the released version is good- so I don't agree with your
judgment on the demo either.
Mike
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr)
On 13 May 1997 10:48:11 GMT, Alan Clucas
<acl...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Tim Chown <stra...@gamesdomain.com> wrote:
>: Willis Stephen wrote:
>: > I downloaded the enemy nations demo. Boy it sure is slow for something
>: > that's supposed to run on a 486 /66. Its even slow on a p100.
>
>: The Windward minimum specs are a joke - the minimum should really
>: be a 32Mb P133, not a 8Mb(?) 486/66. Playing on less than a 133
>: will only cause frustration. I feel if Windward had been more
>: honest with the specs, less people would be upset with the
>: performance. If you buy EN for a 486/66 then chances are you'll
>: be wanting to return it because it is very choppy to play.
>
>I have bought EN and happily played it on a 486/80 with 16 Meg. I have not
>returned the game. At 640x480x8 it is very smooth (this is pretty graphics
>card dependant, a PCI system is needed) and I prefer to play it at
>800x600x8, which is still acceptable. I have to admit playing it on a faster
>machine is nicer, but only due to the better resolutions
BINGO - that could be why Tim doesn't like 640x480. If you have a ISA
or slow video card - forget it even on a P/200.
>[snip]
>
>: Terrain levels - RA is flat, EN has real hills.
>: Line of sight - RA has none, EN has sight obstructed by hills/trees.
>: Multiplayer - EN allows save games and free joining/leaving
>: Research - none in RA, 50+ things in EN
>: Graphics - RA has 640x480x256, EN goes up to whatever you want.
>: Terrain - EN terrain affects movement speeds
>: Economy - RA has one ore, EN has 4+3 resources and interdependencies.
>: Maps - EN has a random map every game.
>
>: Bear in mind the AI has all these extra factors to consider. That's
>: why EN has the option of running the AI on a separate machine.
>
>Just a quick question for David T. Is the AI run as seperate threads? eg. on
>a multi processor system do we benefit. I know that the sound is, but that
>is all. I don't have a MP machine, but we can dream...
Yep. My main development system is a NT system with 2 processors and
it can drop each AI on a seperate processor.
>: All these factors make EN more rewarding than RA for someone who
>: likes the SimCity/Settlers type of game. If you want raw action
>: buy RA, if you want a very deep and rich game (esp. multiplayer)
>: try EN.
>
>I have to agree, it is the thinking persons redalert, more thought is
>required, and there are a lot more decisions involved, which is what makes
>it more fun for me than redalert. I play redalert when I want a quick bash
>at something, like I would play Doom or Quake, I play EN when I want a more
>involving game.
>
>I still have my niggles with it, water units do seem pretty useless, I have
>yet to come across any AI that has built boats, or any map which made it
>useful (let alone necessary) to build them, it would be really nice to all
>start off on islands. The AI also never seems to build base defences,
>although I am not sure they won't.
I've seen that AI build both boats and defenses.
Tim Chown
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) wrote:
>
> BINGO - that could be why Tim doesn't like 640x480. If you have a ISA
> or slow video card - forget it even on a P/200.
It's a PCI Diamond Stealth DRAM - nothing great but not complete
rubbish :-) The slowdown is more marked 2-3 hours into a game.
I think the whole issue of "minimum specs" is a very interesting
one - a company wants to attract all the buyers it can by saying
something will run on their machine, yet not have people moan
when it turns out that it doesn't! It's also hard to appreciate
the performance until you see the game on something faster. I just
got my paws on a loan Pentium 2 ... :-)
do we benefit. I know that the sound is, but that
> Yep. My main development system is a NT system with 2 processors and
> it can drop each AI on a seperate processor.
I understood from what was said before that the EN AI has a fixed
timeslice and this is the same whether you have 1, 2, or more
opponents. So in theory one opponent will be much smarter?
> >I still have my niggles with it, water units do seem pretty useless, I have
> >yet to come across any AI that has built boats, or any map which made it
> >useful (let alone necessary) to build them,
The map variation can be wild sometimes. I had one map which was
around 50% water (or so it seemed). There were also numerous
mountains. That was a fun game. EN2 should probably allow you
to tailor your map with sliders for water, hills, woods, etc.
cheers,
Gregory Breslin
:>As a member of the Enemy Nations programming team, I would like to take this opportunity
:>to apologize humbly to Stephen and everyone else on the net for ripping you off. As
:>further pennance, I will now flog myself with a didgeree-doo.
:>
:>- Geoff Goldberg
Geoff,
Do you have the e minor didgeridoo or the f#major
didgeridoo?
And while I'm at it, woodgeridoo the ai for these gennelmen?
Greg
p.s. Good game, thanks :)
Gregory Breslin
Mt Gravatt, 4122
Queensland, Australia.
Alan Clucas
Tim Chown <stra...@gamesdomain.com> wrote:
: David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) wrote:
: > Yep. My main development system is a NT system with 2 processors and
: > it can drop each AI on a seperate processor.
Try playing a full game at 640x480x8 on a 486... with all the AI on the same
machine. :)
: > >I still have my niggles with it, water units do seem pretty useless, I have
: > >yet to come across any AI that has built boats, or any map which made it
: > >useful (let alone necessary) to build them,
: The map variation can be wild sometimes. I had one map which was
: around 50% water (or so it seemed). There were also numerous
: mountains. That was a fun game. EN2 should probably allow you
: to tailor your map with sliders for water, hills, woods, etc.
A very nice idea, how about the same for truck routing. A minimum load
slider, and priority sliders for deliveries to the various types of
building, eg. new buildings(or repairs)/manufacturing
vehicles/refineries/power plants (why are their oil ones?)/smelter etc...
Alan
Alan Clucas
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) <postm...@cyberpromo.com> wrote:
: >I still have my niggles with it, water units do seem pretty useless, I have
: >yet to come across any AI that has built boats, or any map which made it
: >useful (let alone necessary) to build them, it would be really nice to all
: >start off on islands. The AI also never seems to build base defences,
: >although I am not sure they won't.
: I've seen that AI build both boats and defenses.
Having said that yesterday, in last nights game, I had a very large city,
playing on a large map against 4 AI's (moderate), and the only attack that
bothered me, was when the dumped a couple of boat loads of infantry on the
coast, which I hadn't defended. Soon wiped them out with the Boss's and
Cannons I had lying around just waiting to assault them.
I am going to have to try playing on Difficult, they still don't even seem
remotly tough opponents, I had a couple of groups of 15 mixed vehicles
waltzing through their villages, and they hardly got hurt, I think I lost
one vehicle and sent about 3 back for repairs... hardly challenging, they
still did't seem to build much in the way of fortifications.
Another gripe; I think that the art for the buttons at 8 bit, ought to have
been specially done. Currently it has been nicely transformed from the 24
bit originals, but some of the buttons, close up look a bit odd due to
trying to copy the shading from the 24 bit art. I have taken to playing at
800x600x16, which on a 17" monitor at zoom 2 looks pretty easy to find
stuff, just zooming in occasionally to admire the buildings. My favourite is
the apartment with the arched roof, which I believe has a swimming pool
under it. I still build those sometimes, even when the larger buildings are
avaliable :)
Alan
Geoff Goldberg
bres...@dyson.brisnet.org.au (Gregory Breslin) wrote:
>:>As a member of the Enemy Nations programming team, I would like to take this opportunity
>:>to apologize humbly to Stephen and everyone else on the net for ripping you off. As
>:>further pennance, I will now flog myself with a didgeree-doo.
>:>
>:>- Geoff Goldberg
>:>
>
>Geoff,
>Do you have the e minor didgeridoo or the f#major
>didgeridoo?
Ah, so that's how it's spelled. My spell-checker doesn't have "didgeridoo" and it's been a
while since I've seen Rolf Harris on the telly <g>. Actually, I have the John Major
didgeridoo, but it only plays one note.
>And while I'm at it, woodgeridoo the ai for these gennelmen?
Well, I developed the graphics engine, so I wouldn't, but I'm amazed you found a rhyme for
didgeridoo! Besides, I think Eric Dybsand did a superb job on the AI.
>
> Greg
>p.s. Good game, thanks :)
Glad you enjoy it - thanks Greg
- Geoff
Christopher Johnson
Willis Stephen wrote:
> I downloaded the enemy nations demo. Boy it sure is slow for something
>
Maybe you have a different version of Red Alert, Civ 2 and MOO2 than I
do, but your comments really show a lack of time spent with the EN, in
my opinion. No real time strategy game has provided the graphics and
multiplayer gameplay that is present in the full/retail version of EN.
To imply that Red Alert has the gameplay of even the tutorial missions
in EN would be a gross overstatement. I have a P133 with 32 MB RAM and
have had nothing but fun playing EN. It IS a resource hog, but the
programmers make that explicit up front.
There are parts of EN that can be improved, but to call the game a "rip
off" of Red Alert is to incorrectly praise Red Alert and to diminish the
depth of EN. I purchased Red Alert prior to EN and was board with the
game. RA does not have a centemeter of the depth of EN in almost every
facet of game play.
So, in short, I would understand if Civ2 or MOO2 players were not
satisfied with EN, but RA players??!! Just doesn't make sense to me.
Chris
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr)
>David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) wrote:
>>
>> BINGO - that could be why Tim doesn't like 640x480. If you have a ISA
>> or slow video card - forget it even on a P/200.
>
>It's a PCI Diamond Stealth DRAM - nothing great but not complete
>rubbish :-) The slowdown is more marked 2-3 hours into a game.
>I think the whole issue of "minimum specs" is a very interesting
>one - a company wants to attract all the buyers it can by saying
>something will run on their machine, yet not have people moan
>when it turns out that it doesn't! It's also hard to appreciate
>the performance until you see the game on something faster. I just
>got my paws on a loan Pentium 2 ... :-)
>do we benefit. I know that the sound is, but that
>
>> Yep. My main development system is a NT system with 2 processors and
>> it can drop each AI on a seperate processor.
>
>I understood from what was said before that the EN AI has a fixed
>timeslice and this is the same whether you have 1, 2, or more
>opponents. So in theory one opponent will be much smarter?
It time slices between the AIs and main thread. They don't have a
fixed slice so much as all the AIs get what's left over. But if you
have multiple processors then it gets spread out more.
And yes, CPU cycles is smarts for the AI.
>> >I still have my niggles with it, water units do seem pretty useless, I have
>> >yet to come across any AI that has built boats, or any map which made it
>> >useful (let alone necessary) to build them,
>
>The map variation can be wild sometimes. I had one map which was
>around 50% water (or so it seemed). There were also numerous
>mountains. That was a fun game. EN2 should probably allow you
>to tailor your map with sliders for water, hills, woods, etc.
We'll definitely have a lot more map control in EN2.
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr)
On 14 May 1997 12:45:35 GMT, Alan Clucas
<acl...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Tim Chown <stra...@gamesdomain.com> wrote:
>: David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) wrote:
>
>: > Yep. My main development system is a NT system with 2 processors and
>: > it can drop each AI on a seperate processor.
>
>Try playing a full game at 640x480x8 on a 486... with all the AI on the same
>machine. :)
Got one and have used it for testing.
>: > >I still have my niggles with it, water units do seem pretty useless, I have
>: > >yet to come across any AI that has built boats, or any map which made it
>: > >useful (let alone necessary) to build them,
>
>: The map variation can be wild sometimes. I had one map which was
>: around 50% water (or so it seemed). There were also numerous
>: mountains. That was a fun game. EN2 should probably allow you
>: to tailor your map with sliders for water, hills, woods, etc.
>
>A very nice idea, how about the same for truck routing. A minimum load
>slider, and priority sliders for deliveries to the various types of
>building, eg. new buildings(or repairs)/manufacturing
>vehicles/refineries/power plants (why are their oil ones?)/smelter etc...
good idea!
thanks - dave
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr)
On 14 May 1997 12:41:34 GMT, Alan Clucas
<acl...@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) <postm...@cyberpromo.com> wrote:
>
>: >I still have my niggles with it, water units do seem pretty useless, I have
>: >yet to come across any AI that has built boats, or any map which made it
>: >useful (let alone necessary) to build them, it would be really nice to all
>: >start off on islands. The AI also never seems to build base defences,
>: >although I am not sure they won't.
>
>: I've seen that AI build both boats and defenses.
>
>Having said that yesterday, in last nights game, I had a very large city,
>playing on a large map against 4 AI's (moderate), and the only attack that
>bothered me, was when the dumped a couple of boat loads of infantry on the
>coast, which I hadn't defended. Soon wiped them out with the Boss's and
>Cannons I had lying around just waiting to assault them.
>
>I am going to have to try playing on Difficult, they still don't even seem
>remotly tough opponents, I had a couple of groups of 15 mixed vehicles
>waltzing through their villages, and they hardly got hurt, I think I lost
>one vehicle and sent about 3 back for repairs... hardly challenging, they
>still did't seem to build much in the way of fortifications.
>
>Another gripe; I think that the art for the buttons at 8 bit, ought to have
>been specially done. Currently it has been nicely transformed from the 24
>bit originals, but some of the buttons, close up look a bit odd due to
>trying to copy the shading from the 24 bit art. I have taken to playing at
>800x600x16, which on a 17" monitor at zoom 2 looks pretty easy to find
>stuff, just zooming in occasionally to admire the buildings. My favourite is
>the apartment with the arched roof, which I believe has a swimming pool
>under it. I still build those sometimes, even when the larger buildings are
>avaliable :)
I agree. We're going to size and then dither them on the fly next
time.
Tim Chown
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 May 1997 08:26:08 +0000, Tim Chown
> <stra...@gamesdomain.com> wrote:
>> >I understood from what was said before that the EN AI has a fixed
> >timeslice and this is the same whether you have 1, 2, or more
> >opponents. So in theory one opponent will be much smarter?
>
> It time slices between the AIs and main thread. They don't have a
> fixed slice so much as all the AIs get what's left over. But if you
> have multiple processors then it gets spread out more.
>
> And yes, CPU cycles is smarts for the AI.
So the answer is that the more opponents you have, the "dumber" each
one gets? I can understand the AI problem in a real-time game,
but people looking for a harder game by picking lots of enemies
should appreciate this. The interesting followup to that implication
is that as the game goes on, any suriving AI players might get a
bit smarter :-)
Eric Dybsand
Tim Chown wrote:
>
> David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) wrote:
> >
> > It time slices between the AIs and main thread. They don't have a
> > fixed slice so much as all the AIs get what's left over. But if you
> > have multiple processors then it gets spread out more.
> >
> > And yes, CPU cycles is smarts for the AI.
>
> So the answer is that the more opponents you have, the "dumber" each
> one gets? I can understand the AI problem in a real-time game,
> but people looking for a harder game by picking lots of enemies
> should appreciate this. The interesting followup to that implication
> is that as the game goes on, any suriving AI players might get a
> bit smarter :-)
>
Tim,
As an EN player, I can suggest that "people looking for a harder game"
would have their most success getting one, against a single AIP on a
small world with the minimum civilian start and the Difficult or
Impossible difficulty setting. Of course the success of the AIP is
subject to the resouces that the AIP gets in its starting block.
Like any human player, if the AIP is scarce in any one of the big
three resources or lumber at the start, then that AIP's development
of its colony will be adversely impacted. However, if the resources
are plentiful and near-by, then the AIP will play at its best.
I have had numerous EN multiplayer games against humans, who played
like chump AIPs, simply because their starting block contained few
resources and they were out of a "big 3" at the beginning and were
simply never able to recover before they were crushed by other human
players or a resource-rich AIP.
As the EN AI programmer, I can say that as more AIPs are playing in
a game of EN, then each AIP gets less CPU to use, than if there were
fewer AIPs. This is because the overall CPU budget for AIPs does
not increase just because the number of AIPs increases.
However, your suggested implication that "that as the game goes on,
any suriving AI players might get a bit smarter" is hopeful thinking
at best. Having more CPU, leads to the AIPs being more responsive,
not necessarily more smarter.
Regards,
Eric
--
Fenris Wolf -- Rebel Moon Trilogy -- Player Slayer
Windward Studios -- Enemy Nations -- AI Programmer
Eric Dybsand http://pw2.netcom.com/~edybs
Glacier Edge Technology email: ed...@ix.netcom.com
Glendale, Colorado, USA
Gregg Charlton
Tim Chown wrote:
>
> You're comparing first glances. There are so many features in EN
> that Red Alert doesn't have that the list would go on for a long time,
> and many of those features mean you need an above average PC to
> run it (remember, 32Mb P133 is now entry level, perhaps less).
A P-133 may be entry level today but not everyone is going to scrap
their old machine every two years. Those of us with families to support
are lucky to get a new system every four years or so. To me it's a bit
annoying to see a strategy game released with such a massive hardware
requirement.
>
> Terrain levels - RA is flat, EN has real hills.
> Line of sight - RA has none, EN has sight obstructed by hills/trees.
> Multiplayer - EN allows save games and free joining/leaving
> Research - none in RA, 50+ things in EN
> Graphics - RA has 640x480x256, EN goes up to whatever you want.
> Terrain - EN terrain affects movement speeds
> Economy - RA has one ore, EN has 4+3 resources and interdependencies.
> Maps - EN has a random map every game.
Doesn't M.A.X. have many of these features? MAX also allows turn-based
play as well. To me, this makes it the far more innovative of the two
Red Alert spinoffs. Also, it runs great on my archaic P-60 with 16 MB.
Gregg Charlton
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr)
>Tim Chown wrote:
>>
>> You're comparing first glances. There are so many features in EN
>> that Red Alert doesn't have that the list would go on for a long time,
>> and many of those features mean you need an above average PC to
>> run it (remember, 32Mb P133 is now entry level, perhaps less).
>
>A P-133 may be entry level today but not everyone is going to scrap
>their old machine every two years. Those of us with families to support
>are lucky to get a new system every four years or so. To me it's a bit
>annoying to see a strategy game released with such a massive hardware
>requirement.
It's a definite problem. Most people who purchase games (80+ %) bought
a machine within the previous 6 months. And if we don't deliver
bleeding edge to them then they go elsewhere.
On the flip side, we don't want to leave the other 20% with nothing to
buy.
So we set it to scale. But it will play better on a faster system -
that's always the case for a real-time game.
Daniel Hayden
Regarding the gentleman's post about the high system requirements for
some games: If technology never moved on, we would all still be playing
pong! I for one *like* the incredible new games with the high system
requirements. As far as buying a new system every two years, I don't. I
just swap out the motherboard every couple of years.
Tim Chown
Bear in mind too that developers need to second guess the PC hardware
that will be available 18 months down the line. I think it's good
that some developers push the envelope. I think it's bad when they're
not as honest as they might be with min specs. Some people are happy
with EN on a decent 486/66 - good luck to them :-)
Sure we all have families to support, and every so often all of us
are (briefly) near the leading edge. I tend to upgrade piece by
piece and stay about 1 year behind entry level, and most strategy
games are fine with this. EN is the only game that really makes
my 32Mb P100 struggle.
Tim
David Thielen (not real e-mail addr) wrote:
>
phelper
>games are fine with this. EN is the only game that really makes
>my 32Mb P100 struggle.
Dang.. I found in UNPLAYABLE on my 80MB P-100...
Very playable on a P2-266 with 80MB though <g>
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
phelper@onramp dot net
http://rampages.onramp.net/~phelper
"First you wanna kill me,
now you wanna kiss me...blow."
Support the anti-Spam amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/