Lazy Game Programmers.
May i start my rant in regards to Serious Sam: I installed it, and it ran really badly on my rig. (Which gets 50-60fps in CS) I turned all the texture detail, resolution etc down, and it still ran badly.
May i start my rant in regards to Serious Sam:
I installed it, and it ran really badly on my rig. (Which gets 50-60fps in CS)
I turned all the texture detail, resolution etc down, and it still ran badly.
Now people may say "oh this game rocks, it runs great on my Athlon 1.2Ghz"
I see it as shite programming.
A game, that runs poorly even what ALL the settings are set low, which makes it look no better than a 5 year old game, compared to a game that looks great and runs great - for example Half-Life.
"Oh no, no no no, the half life game engine doesnt support as many polygons, and is no where near as advanced"
SO????
can you SEE A DIFFERENCE ?!??!
can you fück.
The only difference you see is speed.
So the ppl who are bringing out really slow *but new* game engines should stop and think about getting it RIGHT, not getting it done.
Classic example:
V-Rally2 - Installed it, played it, ran at 80fps constantly, looked great, very realistic, great.
Colin McRae rally 2 - Installed it, played it, ran at 15fps, looked piss, nothing felt right, car didnt handle right, shite.
Why is this??
Because the ppl who made CMR2 knew that they could make this game as slow as they liked because it would run OK on ninja spec PC's.
Lazy attitude.
== End Rant ==
Basic System Specs:
AMD K6-III 450
Asus P5A-B 100Mhz
192Mib PC100 RAM
nVidia Riva TNT2 M64 32Mb
Ensoniq PCI Audio Sound Card
48X CD-ROM
Windows 98 SE / Whistler Beta2
------------------
In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland,
starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought
like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.
[This message has been edited by DavidNewbould (edited 11 April 2001).]
I installed it, and it ran really badly on my rig. (Which gets 50-60fps in CS)
I turned all the texture detail, resolution etc down, and it still ran badly.
Now people may say "oh this game rocks, it runs great on my Athlon 1.2Ghz"
I see it as shite programming.
A game, that runs poorly even what ALL the settings are set low, which makes it look no better than a 5 year old game, compared to a game that looks great and runs great - for example Half-Life.
"Oh no, no no no, the half life game engine doesnt support as many polygons, and is no where near as advanced"
SO????
can you SEE A DIFFERENCE ?!??!
can you fück.
The only difference you see is speed.
So the ppl who are bringing out really slow *but new* game engines should stop and think about getting it RIGHT, not getting it done.
Classic example:
V-Rally2 - Installed it, played it, ran at 80fps constantly, looked great, very realistic, great.
Colin McRae rally 2 - Installed it, played it, ran at 15fps, looked piss, nothing felt right, car didnt handle right, shite.
Why is this??
Because the ppl who made CMR2 knew that they could make this game as slow as they liked because it would run OK on ninja spec PC's.
Lazy attitude.
== End Rant ==
Basic System Specs:
AMD K6-III 450
Asus P5A-B 100Mhz
192Mib PC100 RAM
nVidia Riva TNT2 M64 32Mb
Ensoniq PCI Audio Sound Card
48X CD-ROM
Windows 98 SE / Whistler Beta2
------------------
In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland,
starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought
like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.
[This message has been edited by DavidNewbould (edited 11 April 2001).]
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Is it really.
It's funny then, how my system out-preforms a PC with the same RAM, same CPU, but with a GeForce2 GTS
Yes, mine runs games faster.
How?!??!
Because its tweaked, tuned.
This is a software change, NOT hardware, which enables mine to be faster.
Next point?
It's funny then, how my system out-preforms a PC with the same RAM, same CPU, but with a GeForce2 GTS
Yes, mine runs games faster.
How?!??!
Because its tweaked, tuned.
This is a software change, NOT hardware, which enables mine to be faster.
Next point?
So you're basically moaning because your PC is underpowered and new games with great engines are simply too complex to run on it?
HalfLife is built on the Quake I engine, so it's pretty obvious that it is going to run quickly on most PCs. They did some fancy pants additions to the engine, but it's old technology (not knocking the game, it's still great).
Serious Sam renders huge out door areas, can handle hundreds of bad guys on screen at once, and has more effects than you can shake a stick at (lens flares, particle systems, physics and so-on).
It's always going to be the case that the latest games with tons of eye-candy will require a fairly hefty system in order to run at decent frame rates.
Serious Sam isn't out in the UK yet, and I'm playing through an 'eval' version that I downloaded. What are the minimum specs for the game? I would guess that your CPU speed is probably right on the limit, and your graphics card isn't going to be helping things out much either.
I know not everyone can afford top end systems (like my 1GHz P3, 512MB CAS2 RAM and GeForce 2 Ultra) but if you haven't got the hardware to run the game, it's hardly the programmers fault.
Maybe you think they should stop all these advances in graphics and AI technology and go back to text adventures?
HalfLife is built on the Quake I engine, so it's pretty obvious that it is going to run quickly on most PCs. They did some fancy pants additions to the engine, but it's old technology (not knocking the game, it's still great).
Serious Sam renders huge out door areas, can handle hundreds of bad guys on screen at once, and has more effects than you can shake a stick at (lens flares, particle systems, physics and so-on).
It's always going to be the case that the latest games with tons of eye-candy will require a fairly hefty system in order to run at decent frame rates.
Serious Sam isn't out in the UK yet, and I'm playing through an 'eval' version that I downloaded. What are the minimum specs for the game? I would guess that your CPU speed is probably right on the limit, and your graphics card isn't going to be helping things out much either.
I know not everyone can afford top end systems (like my 1GHz P3, 512MB CAS2 RAM and GeForce 2 Ultra) but if you haven't got the hardware to run the game, it's hardly the programmers fault.
Maybe you think they should stop all these advances in graphics and AI technology and go back to text adventures?
Ah, but would he be able to render:
***************************
Bad Luck!
You're Dead!
Try Again
***************************
***************************
Bad Luck!
You're Dead!
Try Again
***************************
Yes, some game programmers are getting lazy, (much like some OS programmers not badly written, the graphics engine is excellent, the network code is nice, it's just that the amount it has to render is going to make it go slow on such an old graphics card. I suspect your problem may possibly come from the fact that your card only has 16MB of memory on board.
Quote:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"It's funny then, how my system out-preforms a PC with the same RAM, same CPU, but with a GeForce2 GTS ..... Because its tweaked, tuned.This is a software change, NOT hardware, which enables mine to be faster."</font>
Which particular machine with a GF2 GTS are you comparing it to? Clearly, whoever that is has done something seriously wrong to their machine to make it under-perform like that.
I have a Duron 750 and a GeForce2 MX, which according to you, should run only a little faster than your machine (ie. chug), yet with all details maxed out, this game runs SMOOOOOOTH even with 50 odd enemies on-screen.
I seriously recommend to you to upgrade your graphics card to at least an MX, or failing that a TNT2 Ultra (get a card with 32MB memory on board at least). They're cheap cards and your current card is "the weakest link" in your otherwise pretty good system.
Regards
Xiven
Quote:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"It's funny then, how my system out-preforms a PC with the same RAM, same CPU, but with a GeForce2 GTS ..... Because its tweaked, tuned.This is a software change, NOT hardware, which enables mine to be faster."</font>
Which particular machine with a GF2 GTS are you comparing it to? Clearly, whoever that is has done something seriously wrong to their machine to make it under-perform like that.
I have a Duron 750 and a GeForce2 MX, which according to you, should run only a little faster than your machine (ie. chug), yet with all details maxed out, this game runs SMOOOOOOTH even with 50 odd enemies on-screen.
I seriously recommend to you to upgrade your graphics card to at least an MX, or failing that a TNT2 Ultra (get a card with 32MB memory on board at least). They're cheap cards and your current card is "the weakest link" in your otherwise pretty good system.
Regards
Xiven
I play this on a voodoo 3 2000 pci, cel 500, 128mb ram and this game rocks with all settings turned up get 65-70 fps.
Yeah, Ive played the game once, and love the mindless action. My only complaint was that it was too short. If you play the game straight through w/o dying, it can be done in under 6 hours.
Some systems it will run better on than other systems.
Oh yeah, the K-6 cpus suck for gaming. Plain and simple. Its mainly because of the lack of L1 and/or L2 cache. I think that is more the problem than the video card in this case.
Socket 7 and high-end gaming dont fly well from what Ive seen.
In the manual, it says an 800MHz cpu or faster is required for optimal gaming. Its a stellar game. And its mostly because its a brand-spankin' NEW gaming engine.
Id like to see you program a first person shooter with that many enemies coming at you and run it on a 300MHz cpu. And that video card will run fine for other, older games, but like the Voodoo 3 line its growing a bit long in the tooth.
Also, ITS ONE FRICKIN' GAME!
Id be much more concerned with the system if most of my games wouldnt play.
I heartily agree with what everyone else has posted.
Bottom line: If you dont like it, dont play it.
Some systems it will run better on than other systems.
Oh yeah, the K-6 cpus suck for gaming. Plain and simple. Its mainly because of the lack of L1 and/or L2 cache. I think that is more the problem than the video card in this case.
Socket 7 and high-end gaming dont fly well from what Ive seen.
In the manual, it says an 800MHz cpu or faster is required for optimal gaming. Its a stellar game. And its mostly because its a brand-spankin' NEW gaming engine.
Id like to see you program a first person shooter with that many enemies coming at you and run it on a 300MHz cpu. And that video card will run fine for other, older games, but like the Voodoo 3 line its growing a bit long in the tooth.
Also, ITS ONE FRICKIN' GAME!
Id be much more concerned with the system if most of my games wouldnt play.
I heartily agree with what everyone else has posted.
Bottom line: If you dont like it, dont play it.
*sigh*
You're missing the point.
My card has 32Mb of onboard memory ffs as well.
My K6-III 450 has 256KB of L2 cache.
And im afraid Half-Life looks way better than serious sam at the settings needed for it to run above 10fps.
The GTS system i was referring to was a friends, K6-III 450, 192MB ram, GeForce2 GTS - runs TFC at about 30-50 fps, while mine runs at 40-60.
You're missing the point.
My card has 32Mb of onboard memory ffs as well.
My K6-III 450 has 256KB of L2 cache.
And im afraid Half-Life looks way better than serious sam at the settings needed for it to run above 10fps.
The GTS system i was referring to was a friends, K6-III 450, 192MB ram, GeForce2 GTS - runs TFC at about 30-50 fps, while mine runs at 40-60.
Okay, I stand corrected on the memory issue.
BTW the Half-Life engine really isn't the best one to be doing benchmarking on. Try Quake 3 on your machine and his.
Out of interest, how does Serious Sam perform on his machine?
Lastly, as I said before, there must be something really wrong with his setup if your graphics card beats his. No amount of tweaking the settings is gonna make that much of a difference.
--
Xiven
BTW the Half-Life engine really isn't the best one to be doing benchmarking on. Try Quake 3 on your machine and his.
Out of interest, how does Serious Sam perform on his machine?
Lastly, as I said before, there must be something really wrong with his setup if your graphics card beats his. No amount of tweaking the settings is gonna make that much of a difference.
--
Xiven
Well, still, the K-6 line in its whole have not been good gaming cpus. Even the Celeron performs better than the K-6's 2 or 3. The Cyrix chips are the only ones who are even worse, and possibly the Transmeta Crusoe chip, but I havent seen anything about that.
Not to say the K-6's are bad, but gaming was not the top thing on AMD's mind when they put it out. Its also on "old" techology--Socket 7. And yes, being that HL is based on Quake and partially on Quake 2, if Im not mistaken, thats not gonna be the best benchmarking tool to use. Ive run it, though not on Win2k with this low of ram, on a 400MHz P2 and 64MB of ram and a Voodoo 3 3000. And it still ran pretty good.
Look, as much as it would be nice to not have to upgrade somewhere along the line to take advantage of the software out there, thats not gonna fly. Lets face it, in 5 years, a 1.5 GHz cpu is gonna mean jack---as in being like the 486 is in comparison to the 1.5 GHz P4.
The Serious engine is a hefty one, and if you dont have a fairly hefty system, your not gonna have as smooth playing as someone with a 1.2GHz T-Bird. Duh.
If you are really gonna play that game, you'd do well to get a new mobo and processor, like a Duron, which is cheap but more on par with the Pentium 3 at around half the cost.
Also, Socket 7 chipsets dont have the muscle to push around games like Serious Sam.
Once again, if you dont like it, dont play it. Sheesh, dont play something thats more trouble than its worth for you.
Not to say the K-6's are bad, but gaming was not the top thing on AMD's mind when they put it out. Its also on "old" techology--Socket 7. And yes, being that HL is based on Quake and partially on Quake 2, if Im not mistaken, thats not gonna be the best benchmarking tool to use. Ive run it, though not on Win2k with this low of ram, on a 400MHz P2 and 64MB of ram and a Voodoo 3 3000. And it still ran pretty good.
Look, as much as it would be nice to not have to upgrade somewhere along the line to take advantage of the software out there, thats not gonna fly. Lets face it, in 5 years, a 1.5 GHz cpu is gonna mean jack---as in being like the 486 is in comparison to the 1.5 GHz P4.
The Serious engine is a hefty one, and if you dont have a fairly hefty system, your not gonna have as smooth playing as someone with a 1.2GHz T-Bird. Duh.
If you are really gonna play that game, you'd do well to get a new mobo and processor, like a Duron, which is cheap but more on par with the Pentium 3 at around half the cost.
Also, Socket 7 chipsets dont have the muscle to push around games like Serious Sam.
Once again, if you dont like it, dont play it. Sheesh, dont play something thats more trouble than its worth for you.
Well, the GeForce 2 GTS is a waste on that machine anyway. It will not adequately keep up with the card. I bet that all of your Q3 benchmark scores are very similar from 640x480 up to 1280x1024. The card is working fine, it's just that the CPU doesn't have much to give. Also, I have a Celeron 300a@472 with 256MB RAM and an old GeForce SDR, and it runs SS very well. I use 8x6@16bit on this PC, but it will run 32bit just fine. All this in Win2K, the OS that some peeps say runs games slower than Win98 and WinME.
Here's another thing, what version of drivers are you using? It may help (actually, more of a help for the GF2GTS owner) to get version 7.x drivers. I use the 7.58 dets on both of the PCs (my main one being a P3 800 with 384MB RAM and a GeForce2 Pro 64MB).
In short, the game runs very well on my machines, and on several other's that I know of. But I am glad that you have single-handedly narrowed the problem down to "lazy programming", rather than outdated hardware as being the problem.
------------------
Regards,
clutch
Here's another thing, what version of drivers are you using? It may help (actually, more of a help for the GF2GTS owner) to get version 7.x drivers. I use the 7.58 dets on both of the PCs (my main one being a P3 800 with 384MB RAM and a GeForce2 Pro 64MB).
In short, the game runs very well on my machines, and on several other's that I know of. But I am glad that you have single-handedly narrowed the problem down to "lazy programming", rather than outdated hardware as being the problem.
------------------
Regards,
clutch
Quote:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by clutch:
In short, the game runs very well on my machines, and on several other's that I know of. But I am glad that you have single-handedly narrowed the problem down to "lazy programming", rather than outdated hardware as being the problem.
</font>
Good one, clutch. I agree.
In short, the game runs very well on my machines, and on several other's that I know of. But I am glad that you have single-handedly narrowed the problem down to "lazy programming", rather than outdated hardware as being the problem.
</font>
Good one, clutch. I agree.
Hardware isn't the issue here.
I'm just trying to say, that game programmers dont give a **** about tweaking the game theyre making, because they know that ppl will upgrade to play.
I am using 5.32 Dets btw - these are the fastest for my card (TNT2 family).
Anyway, all im saying is that programmers should think about designing a game to run well on lower end machines, this way it'll incorporate a wider market and keep the high-spec ppl happy, as the game will run even faster.
------------------
In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland,
starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought
like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.
I'm just trying to say, that game programmers dont give a **** about tweaking the game theyre making, because they know that ppl will upgrade to play.
I am using 5.32 Dets btw - these are the fastest for my card (TNT2 family).
Anyway, all im saying is that programmers should think about designing a game to run well on lower end machines, this way it'll incorporate a wider market and keep the high-spec ppl happy, as the game will run even faster.
------------------
In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland,
starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought
like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.
I can see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's valid. The reason being is these games are designed for people in a certain demographic. They like to see all the "eye candy" and have superior functionality. This comes at a price. This game would run perfectly fine on just about any PC bought new in the last 18 months provided it has a decent video card. Making a game that will appeal to a market segment known for its "power user" base and then optimizing it to run on 2+ year old hardware is not feasible, especially in a $20 game. The cost of the game is on target with "Deer Hunter" and "Barbie's Crack Shack", yet far superior in terms of functionality and includes several multiplayer modes (although the drive-by mode in BCS is cool ).
------------------
Regards,
clutch
------------------
Regards,
clutch
Yes.
I can respect the fact that ppl pay a lot of money for fast machines, and want to see them reaching their full potential, in terms of eye candy.
But this eye candy can be achieved in different ways, aside ripping up polygon counts etc
Programmers should investigate more efficient ways of doing this.
------------------
In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland,
starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought
like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.
I can respect the fact that ppl pay a lot of money for fast machines, and want to see them reaching their full potential, in terms of eye candy.
But this eye candy can be achieved in different ways, aside ripping up polygon counts etc
Programmers should investigate more efficient ways of doing this.
------------------
In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland,
starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought
like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.
They are; things like "Hardware T&L" and "Programmable Pixel Shaders" come to mind. In addition, hardware vendors try harder as well, like ATI and their "Hyper Z" implementation to speed up the rendering process. The main problem is that whatever can't be done in hardware, has to be done in the CPU. And your CPU isn't going to give as much as most (and it was never known to either). But then again, you always have "3DNow!"...
------------------
Regards,
clutch
------------------
Regards,
clutch
most of these CANT be reached without the massive game engines they use. A perfect example is Tribes 2, this game would run worse than **** on your system because of the massive requirements used by it. Could Dynamix made the engine less intensive yes they couldve, but if they did you wouldnt be able to have such expansive enviornments the SUPER FINE detail the vehicles and the bases and the items have. There is NO WAY that such games as this, or upcoming titles like Doom 3 could even come close to achieving graphics levels or details like they have without massive engines or hihg polygon counts. Face it a TNT2 is a 3rd generation video card and a K6-III 450 just doesnt have the power to hold its own now. I have a PII400 and a Geforce 2 MX and I know there isnt much i can do to make it better besides upgrading my mobo and processor. So im getting a Athlon 1.33/266 and new motherboard so i can play these games that demand the power of systems like that.
I happen to work for a game company and I think that DavidNewbould's "Lazy Programmers" is a bunch of crap!!
Regardless of what anyone says, money drives the game. If your game runs long, and runs out of money, I don't care how good the programmers are, the first thing to go is optimizations for older hardware. Does this suck? YES. Unfortunately the turn over on games is getting shorter and shorter and to go out and buy a fully optimized and bug free game is almost unheard of.
The point is, it takes a LOT to get a game from design document to retail shelves, and if it doesn't work on your machine at full speed well tough. There are so many hardware combinations around today that there is no way a game can be optimized for all of these. So you take the most popular cards and go from there. We do the best we can with the given amount of time. There is nothing worse than seeing a game you have put your heart into for over a year and get shipped with known bugs, and optimization problems. But when time and money dictate schedule, quality usually is the first thing to take the hit.
~end rant~
PS. I have a TNT2 M64 card as well and there is a huge performance difference from it to the Geforce and GeForce2 cards. I have had almost every flavor of nVidia card in my machine at one point in time.
------------------
System Specs:
Asus P2B-D
Dual PIII 700MHz
1 Gig PC100 CAS 2 RAM
Hercules GeForce2 Pro 64MB Video Card
Promise Ultra66 Controller
WD 15.3 GB HDD ATA66 7200 RPM
WD 20.5GB HDD ATA66 7200 RPM
Asus 50x CD-ROM
Sony 4x4x24 CD-RW
SB Live! Platinum 5.1
Razor Boomslang 2000 USB Mouse
Wacom 6x9 Intuous Art Tablet
SuperMicro SC-750A Case w/ 400 Watt PS
Regardless of what anyone says, money drives the game. If your game runs long, and runs out of money, I don't care how good the programmers are, the first thing to go is optimizations for older hardware. Does this suck? YES. Unfortunately the turn over on games is getting shorter and shorter and to go out and buy a fully optimized and bug free game is almost unheard of.
The point is, it takes a LOT to get a game from design document to retail shelves, and if it doesn't work on your machine at full speed well tough. There are so many hardware combinations around today that there is no way a game can be optimized for all of these. So you take the most popular cards and go from there. We do the best we can with the given amount of time. There is nothing worse than seeing a game you have put your heart into for over a year and get shipped with known bugs, and optimization problems. But when time and money dictate schedule, quality usually is the first thing to take the hit.
~end rant~
PS. I have a TNT2 M64 card as well and there is a huge performance difference from it to the Geforce and GeForce2 cards. I have had almost every flavor of nVidia card in my machine at one point in time.
------------------
System Specs:
Asus P2B-D
Dual PIII 700MHz
1 Gig PC100 CAS 2 RAM
Hercules GeForce2 Pro 64MB Video Card
Promise Ultra66 Controller
WD 15.3 GB HDD ATA66 7200 RPM
WD 20.5GB HDD ATA66 7200 RPM
Asus 50x CD-ROM
Sony 4x4x24 CD-RW
SB Live! Platinum 5.1
Razor Boomslang 2000 USB Mouse
Wacom 6x9 Intuous Art Tablet
SuperMicro SC-750A Case w/ 400 Watt PS
Okay, off the Serious Sam box, here are the minimum requirements:
AMD K6-3 400MHz or Intel Celeron 300A
64MB RAM
Fully Open GL compliant 3D accelerator
100% Windows compatible sound card
Win95 OSR2,Win98/ME/NT4.0 SP5/2k
150MB HDD space
Recommended:
Athlon or P3 550MHz
128MB RAM
GeForce 256,GeForce 2, Power VR Kyro,S3 Savage 2000,Voodoo5, ATI Radeon
450MB HDD space
Creative Labs sound card
David, if you'll look, your cpu is barely above the minimum for the K6 cpu, so yes, you will not have the best speed that a GHz+ rig will have. Its not lazy programming. In order to move forward in a fashionable way, the older technology has to be left behind, or you might have to get a game with several cd's when your brand in' new box needs only the info on the first cd.
Heres the solution for smooth game play: Get a new mobo and cpu. Either that or shut up about this "lazy programming" crap!
Do you honestly want programmers to support all the technology back to the 86 cpu (Intel 8086) era? I sure dont.
AMD K6-3 400MHz or Intel Celeron 300A
64MB RAM
Fully Open GL compliant 3D accelerator
100% Windows compatible sound card
Win95 OSR2,Win98/ME/NT4.0 SP5/2k
150MB HDD space
Recommended:
Athlon or P3 550MHz
128MB RAM
GeForce 256,GeForce 2, Power VR Kyro,S3 Savage 2000,Voodoo5, ATI Radeon
450MB HDD space
Creative Labs sound card
David, if you'll look, your cpu is barely above the minimum for the K6 cpu, so yes, you will not have the best speed that a GHz+ rig will have. Its not lazy programming. In order to move forward in a fashionable way, the older technology has to be left behind, or you might have to get a game with several cd's when your brand in' new box needs only the info on the first cd.
Heres the solution for smooth game play: Get a new mobo and cpu. Either that or shut up about this "lazy programming" crap!
Do you honestly want programmers to support all the technology back to the 86 cpu (Intel 8086) era? I sure dont.
Argh!
Listen, i can understand technology is moving forward, all im saying is slow down!!!! Game developers are requesting more and more faster and faster - faster than a lot of people can upgrade.
Eye candy can be achieved in faster and more efficient ways than they are currently - NOT T&L and such things, but basic techniques.
Sheesh...
------------------
In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland,
starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought
like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.
Listen, i can understand technology is moving forward, all im saying is slow down!!!! Game developers are requesting more and more faster and faster - faster than a lot of people can upgrade.
Eye candy can be achieved in faster and more efficient ways than they are currently - NOT T&L and such things, but basic techniques.
Sheesh...
------------------
In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland,
starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought
like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.
