🚀 go-pugleaf

gt6...@prism.gatech.edu (John) writes:
>Bill Clinton <ttp0581> writes:

	You are not by any chance THAT William, are you?  Or won't you TELL?
;-)


>>> >Actually, I think it was Ultima 7 that actually forced you to use a 386 
>>> >and everyone thought Origin would go bankrupt on. If I recall, you could 
>>> >play WC on a 286.

	Nope - 386's became the norm way before Ultima 7.  Infact it wasn't
long after Ultima 7 that 386's became discontinued by Intel.
	As for WC on a 286... sure, you could - but how many WANTED to play it
on a 386? :-)


>>> Hi, Origin and ex-Origin fans!

	Hi! (from someone of the latter category).


>>Strike Commander started the controversy over 486 upgrade from 386. 
>>U7 started the whole thing with upgrading from 286 to 386 since you 
>>needed the expanded memory capabilities not available to 286's. Strike 
>>Commander CAN run on a 386, just it is really slow.

>Nope, you're all wrong.  The controversy started before that.

	We are talking about when the games came out that asked people to
push the limits, not when the "plans were released" for those games.


>Originally, Richard Garriot did *ALL* of his game development on
>and for the Apple II.  Back in 1988 he realized that while he really
>really wanted to remain loyal to the Apple II community, it was
>keeping him from developing his games any further.  I think his last
>Ultima game developed with an Apple II had something like a 127
>tile limit (ie. no pseudo-animation of cycling tiles to make torches
>look like they're burning, really limited water moving effects, not
>enough memory to do things like dusk and dawn, etc), and his first
>IBM PC developed game had something like 1000.

	A bit of added background history here: Ultima 6 WAS released on the
lowly C64, AFTER it came out on the PC.  And I thought it looked darn well too.
Just the disk access being te problem, but then again anyone with a C64 and
some LARGE late c64 games got used to that.


>At Dragon Con in 88 he gave a talk about the future of Origin
>games, and basically said "Instead of developing games for the low
>end user, and making everyone with a better system deal with the least
>common denominator, we've decided that we will develop for the high
>end system that has stereo sound, great graphics, speed and disk space.
>If you have a low end system, you'll still be able to play, but you'll
>lose some detail, sound, and features depending on how far down the
>list of capabilities your system has."
>I pretty much agree with him.  If you're going to develop your game, you
>should definitely take advantage of as many system features as you can,
>and not develop for the lowest common denominator.  Technology moves on,
>and people move with it.  That means games have to do so too.  And along
>the way,  you stay as backward compatable as the software will reasonably
>allow (without becomming unplayable, etc).

	Sure.  Only one problem with that logic: when you program for something
with "unfathomable" limitations, your programming tends to get sloppy.  Need I
point out Origin's prime examples for this fact?  Or should I also add the fact
that Origin, under Chris Robert's leadership/programming talents, released the
game "Space Rogue" on the C64 (which infact I thought looked and played way
much better than the PC version [with EGA graphics]), and it being the
culmination of great programming and effort being put in a piece of software,
as well as a shining example of what CAN be done if someone REALLY puts their
mind to achieving something?  After seeing the game (and consequently buying it
- it still remains one of my all time greatest games... I just wish someone
would expand on that premise/idea with something newer and more involving: how
about an RPG like System Shock with the combination of a space sim like Wing
Commander "X" all in one? - or was that what Privateer and Strike Commander were
MEANT to be?) I wondered how they had pulled such a great job.
	Too bad the future after that did not mirror the past.


>Afterall, where would Origin games be if Wing Commander and System Shock
>were both designed, implimented, and capable of running on an Apple II?

	The C64 is not that much different to the Apple II; Space Rogue would
have given you a MAJOR clue that Wing Commander was on the way even though no
one had heard anything about that game.  And Bloodwych also did the same in
the RPG scene, though admitedly it was NOT done by Origin.
	In other words, you don't HAVE to imagine - the proof is there staring
right at you.


>I think their business would be in much more jeopardy in that case..because
>their games would all suck (Not to say that the simple games, like
>loadrunner, etc, aren't fun.. that's just not the part of the game market
>we're talking about).

	Really?  If I had the time I would site you over 20 examples of games
on EACH "lowly" machine that are far better than MOST of the graphic
extravaganzas of today.  It does not really matter HOW a game looks, just as
long as it holds your attention and plays great.  Why else do you think that
M.U.D.s are still in existence today?


>In a sense, ID Games did the same thing.  Can you
>imagine how pitiful Doom's game play would be if it was backward compatable
>to anyone who still only has a PC with 1 or 2 5.25" floppy drives, 256k,
>and a CGA monitor? (don't laugh, there are still people out there who
>have them, and who do just fine with that system for what they use it for).

	Agreed, but you must also KNOW that not everyone likes DOOM.  I sure
as hell don't... just going around shooting anything that moves is just
plain BORING - no matter HOW good it looks.
	Can you think of any other reason, apart from in a SMALL part being the
limitation of hardware today, why Virtual Reality hasn't caught on like
theorists predicted?  Like fire faster through a dried bush-forest?  It is
because over 90%, if not absolutely every game out there for the VR systems is
just like Doom.
	So be careful when you make generalizations.  I am not taking anything
away from ID - they tapped into a popular market.  That is not to say that it 
is the ONLY market.


>You could make the case that they've gone from one extreme to the other.
>That may be so, but I think they keep the rest of the game industry on
>their toes by doing so.

	I won't fault you there.  You need people pushing the limits of
technology and expectations - which is why things like Wolfenstein, Wing
Commander, Eye of the Beholder became instant Classics (and that is just in the software computer scene - can you imagine how boring the world would be if we
still drove around in 1920's Model T Fords?)
	The thing is, if they are going to do something, they should do it
RIGHT!  One would have thought that after WC Academy, Privateer, and in some
ways Strike Commander (some because I hear they fixed their problems with the
CD version), they would had learned thier lessons.  Maybe Richard Garriot was
the heart of Origin: his absence has caused the company to stand foolhardy in
front of an oncoming avalanche - and how many survive THOSE!? :-)


>And I definitely like it.  Maybe I'll change
>my mind when a 486dx33 with fast bus speeds becomes 'too slow and
>featureless' to run Origin games.

	What - you mean it hasn't started happening already?


>But I don't see that happening for a
>while.

	I must admit that your "while" holds the same meaning as "briefly"
in my book.


>And I'm already hoping to upgrade by the middle of next year.

	Well, not every person in the world has such available financial-
-security taps as you.  No offence intended.


>(not just to run games tho.. )
>John

	Now if you are going to buy a Pentium to "not just run games", I sure
would like to know for what other purposes you plan to use it for (except for
running windows, of course. ;-) )

	We are sick of being treated like toddlers by the service/entertainment
giants!  One day the line will snap and the giants will fall, in their turn,
with a mighty crash (Origin is already wobbling... if WC3 becomes a turkey like
their last few releases, you can start digging their grave).

						- Falcon