🚀 go-pugleaf

Followups set to c.s.i.p.games.action and c.s.i.p.h.video only.

ken...@rmii.com (Kendall Gelner) wrote: 

>It seems like over time, almost any game will support Direct3D - 
>simply because it can't be easy to write X number of versions of the 
>game, it'd be like trying to write games for 14 different consoles.  

The only thing that really worries me with game developers using 
chipset specific APIs is that in that way they're forcing a _hardware_ 
standard on us. I don't care if the direct support is for Virge, Verite 
or Voodoo, I still see it as a _very_ bad thing in the long run. Will I 
be able to play Voodoo-specific version of Tomb Raider or EF2000 with 
the 3D accelerator I buy in 1998 to replace my aging Righteous3D card? 
Probably not, unless it's hardware compatible with the Voodoo.

>On the other hand, such madness has lasted for years in the PC gaming 
>world - just look at the multitude of sound cards.  Perhaps Direct3D 
>will become the "Standard Soundblaster Support" of the 3D APIs - 

Well, I think that analogy is flawed. Supporting 3D chipsets directly 
is forcing (several) hardware standard(s) on us, just like 
Soundblaster. Using something like Direct3D is somewhat like using 
"Miles drivers" for sound cards, ie. the performance may not be as good 
and take advantage of all the extra features of all sound cards out 
there, but _any_ new sound card that had the drivers would get support 
instantly.

Are for instance Laguna, Real3D or Pyramid3D hardware compatible with 
either Verite or Voodoo? I think not.

This is also the reason why I rather choose a 3D accelerator based on 
how well it performs with universal 3D APIs, not direct ports (not to 
say these two things are not related).