🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, ka...@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna) says:

>Origin is constantly referred to as a company that likes to "push the 
>limits": they write games designed to take advantage of faster 
>processors, etc.  Whenever anyone complains about a game being slow, the 
>response seems to be <shake the head> "Well, we try to push the envelope".


I think Ultima 8 was more of a test of the limits of Ultima fans.


-- 
=============================================================================
Dave A. Lartigue ||                Featured in 57 killfiles!
===================          Finger me to find out the current year!
The opinions expressed above aren't necessarily those of the MIT Robotics Lab

In article <3cq2gt$o...@netnews.upenn.edu>, ka...@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna) writes:
>Origin is constantly referred to as a company that likes to "push the 
>limits": they write games designed to take advantage of faster 
>processors, etc.  Whenever anyone complains about a game being slow, the 
>response seems to be <shake the head> "Well, we try to push the envelope".
>
>My feeling . . .  Sometimes Origin needs to spot the difference between 
>taking advantage of faster processors and needing faster processors.
>
Can you say Wing Commander 3?

A 486 DX2/50? They are nuts! What is this processor needed for?
For the super dazzling spaceflight simulator? Nope. Its needed to
play to movies! (And before we see any flames to this post, this
isn't intended to be a gripe about high end games.....)

I am a die hard WC fan, and as such I went out an bought it, even though
I only have a 386/40 (ugh!), a machine which they say this program will
not work on. Now, accepting that I have a relatively slow machine, here
is the results of playing WC3 on an 'unsupported' machine:

1) The movie playback is pretty bad. The screen will freeze every few seconds
if there is alot going on in the picture. The reason? The processor (I assume)
is needed to uncompress all the picture and sound data. My question to Origin,
This multimedia player looks like it was developed in house. Is it? If not,
why didn't they use one of the standard multi-media kits out there that
would actually work on a 386/40?

2) Disk access takes forever. This is because its doing ALOT of it.  When you
fly a mission, from the time you sit down in the cockpit to the time when
you get your clearance on my machine is THREE MINUTES!!!!!

3) Space combat is actually fairly playable. If you set the detail on low
and turn off some of the gizzies, you can actually play it. When you have more
than one captial ship on the screen, the frame rate drops to a crawl, but
if you accept that you're running it on a 386/40, its dealable.


My point: Origin wants to push the limits. I'll accept that a 386/40 does not
fit into their plan. (I REALLY am not intending to start another flame war
here....). It just seems to me that if you are making a flight simulator that
pushes the limits, it would push the limits in the simulator part. When I 
originally bought it, knowing full well my system probably couldn't handle it,
I thought  "Well, that probably means the space combat will be slow and jerky,
but I'll still be able to see the movies...."

Anyways, the impression I got was that Origin orignally intended this
game to run on a 486/33 (which is only slightly faster for games than my
little machine if it has no VLB). The end result was something that almost works
on a 486/33, but doesn't. Thats not pushing the limits, thats copping out.

On 15 Dec 1994, Animesh Karna wrote:

> Origin is constantly referred to as a company that likes to "push the 
> limits": they write games designed to take advantage of faster 
> processors, etc.  Whenever anyone complains about a game being slow, the 
> response seems to be <shake the head> "Well, we try to push the envelope".
> 
> My feeling . . .  Sometimes Origin needs to spot the difference between 
> taking advantage of faster processors and needing faster processors.
> 
> When I played "Ultima 8", I saw a "needing faster processors" but not 
> "taking advantage of . . ."  I look at that game, and I have to wonder: 
> WHAT is so amazing there?  It isn't particularly complex, it's animation 
> isn't that great (Flashback had super-smooth animation and ran nicely on 
> a '386), it's not a particularly big world, etc.  So, why was it so 
> slow?  Why was it so biiiig?  Why did it need 4-megs of RAM?  I don't get 
> it.  
> 
> To be fair to Origin, I just started playing "System Shock".  My machine 
> (a 486sx 33) is plenty fast enough for smooth performance with Doom.  I'm 
> getting really good performance with System Shock as well, but not as 
> smooth and fast as I had gotten with Doom (though it isn't bad either).  
> But, I get looking up and down, crouching and crawling, bridges I can go 
> over and under, etc.  This is a "take advantage of" game, as opposed to a 
> "needing" game.
> 
> 


AMEN, finally someone who feels the same about Origin as me!  Granted 
some of their games are "pushing the envelope like WCIII, other games 
like System Shock, while good seem to show laziness on the part of the 
programmers.  Soon I'm going to need a Pentium to even run their "updated 
version" of Pac Man.  Doom still kills System Shock for the simple reason 
that the you can enjoy it on the 486 that you bought a year.  Let's hope 
that Ultima 9 can run on a 486, without needing a Pentium to enjoy it.  
How many times have you read an article on a Origin game saying, "Well, 
it will work on a high end 486...with the graphics on super low, playing 
in a 1" window, without the sound on."?
SHEESH

>PS One complaint about Shock. If Shodan is so all powerful on that 
>station, why doesn't he disable life support. Hmmm? He'd get rid of
>his little problem, but then the story would end rather quickly.
>Oh well. 

I hate cynics :-) I always wondered why he didn't just jettison one of the 
groves while you were in it. 

>I believe in your opinion to a point. Doom definitely plays faster than 
>Shock on a comparable machine. But Shock is a true RPG while Doom; 
>well Doom is a glorified video game. Except for finding secret passages 
>and weapons, Doom doesn't compare to Shock in complexity. 
>In Shock, you've gotta think about the storyline, read and analyze all
>data, and use what you've learned to solve puzzles. I'm not a game
>programmer, but I think System Shock does push the envelope in regards
>to simulating a "real world" situation

I really think that Origin's programmers could optimize this a bit more 
though, maybe they really are pushing the limits but I have a feeling that 
programmers for big companies are being rushed. A game has to be released as 
quickly as possible (However many delays there are!) and perhaps now there is 
less time for optimization?  
	I can't wait to see how Quake runs on your average 486 I have a feeling that 
this will not be anywhere near full speed. System shock cannot be compared to 
Doom as you say. I much prefer System Shock's style it has much more depth to 
it and of course I am a sucker for any sort of Cyberpunk theme. 

<ono/-

  ______________________________________
/* Hey have YOU finished System Shock yet ? */
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <Pine.SGI.3.90.941219...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, "wootton kenneth ( bse meng)" <kwo...@gl.umbc.edu> says:

>AMEN, finally someone who feels the same about Origin as me!  Granted 
>some of their games are "pushing the envelope like WCIII, other games 
>like System Shock, while good seem to show laziness on the part of the 
>programmers.  Soon I'm going to need a Pentium to even run their "updated 
>version" of Pac Man.  Doom still kills System Shock for the simple reason 
>that the you can enjoy it on the 486 that you bought a year.  Let's hope 
>that Ultima 9 can run on a 486, without needing a Pentium to enjoy it.  
>How many times have you read an article on a Origin game saying, "Well, 
>it will work on a high end 486...with the graphics on super low, playing 
>in a 1" window, without the sound on."?
>SHEESH
>

I believe in your opinion to a point. Doom definitely plays faster than 
Shock on a comparable machine. But Shock is a true RPG while Doom; 
well Doom is a glorified video game. Except for finding secret passages 
and weapons, Doom doesn't compare to Shock in complexity. 
In Shock, you've gotta think about the storyline, read and analyze all
data, and use what you've learned to solve puzzles. I'm not a game
programmer, but I think System Shock does push the envelope in regards
to simulating a "real world" situation.

Actually a lot of performance problems with Origin games could be 
solved by adding more RAM to your existing system. Last year, I bought
U8 when I had 8 megabytes of RAM, and it ran s-l-o-w-l-y. Shortly
thereafter, I increased my memory to 16 and I saw a marked increase. 
I felt it was a better investment than spending a lot more on a
Pentium system ( good thing too, when looked at in hindsight ).
It seems that Origin games are very dependent on extended memory.

willi
wh...@cornell.edu

PS One complaint about Shock. If Shodan is so all powerful on that 
station, why doesn't he disable life support. Hmmm? He'd get rid of
his little problem, but then the story would end rather quickly.
Oh well. 

On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Conor Hunt wrote:

> 
> 
> >PS One complaint about Shock. If Shodan is so all powerful on that 
> >station, why doesn't he disable life support. Hmmm? He'd get rid of
> >his little problem, but then the story would end rather quickly.
> >Oh well. 
> 
> I hate cynics :-) I always wondered why he didn't just jettison one of the 
> groves while you were in it. 
> 
> >I believe in your opinion to a point. Doom definitely plays faster than 
> >Shock on a comparable machine. But Shock is a true RPG while Doom; 
> >well Doom is a glorified video game. Except for finding secret passages 
> >and weapons, Doom doesn't compare to Shock in complexity. 
> >In Shock, you've gotta think about the storyline, read and analyze all
> >data, and use what you've learned to solve puzzles. I'm not a game
> >programmer, but I think System Shock does push the envelope in regards
> >to simulating a "real world" situation
> 
> I really think that Origin's programmers could optimize this a bit more 
> though, maybe they really are pushing the limits but I have a feeling that 
> programmers for big companies are being rushed. A game has to be released as 
> quickly as possible (However many delays there are!) and perhaps now there is 
> less time for optimization?  
> 	I can't wait to see how Quake runs on your average 486 I have a feeling that 
> this will not be anywhere near full speed. System shock cannot be compared to 
> Doom as you say. I much prefer System Shock's style it has much more depth to 
> it and of course I am a sucker for any sort of Cyberpunk theme. 
> 
> <ono/-
> 
>   ______________________________________
> /* Hey have YOU finished System Shock yet ? */
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 


I just thought I'd reenter this discussion to clear some things up.  
I was not in any way trying to knock System Shock.  Although I have not 
tried the real version, I played the demo and it ran pretty decent on my 
486/33 SX with 8 Megabytes of ram.  I was simply stating the point that, 
in general, Origin games need a very fast processor to run them.  
Although it seems that part of the reason for this is that they are 
"pushing the limit", I feel that they could make their games run on 
slower machines.  Is it laziness?  Do they REALLY take the time to try 
and make their games playable for anyone?  It doesn't seem like it.  I 
used Doom in comparison with SS because ID has given me every reason to 
beleive that they do.  I would just like to see some of that from Origin.

						Ken
						kwo...@umbc8.umbc.edu

I just can't wait to play Ultima 9.......in about 4 or 5 years when I can 
afford that supercomputer.

: I just thought I'd reenter this discussion to clear some things up.  
: I was not in any way trying to knock System Shock.  Although I have not 
: tried the real version, I played the demo and it ran pretty decent on my 
: 486/33 SX with 8 Megabytes of ram.  I was simply stating the point that, 
: in general, Origin games need a very fast processor to run them.  
: Although it seems that part of the reason for this is that they are 
: "pushing the limit", I feel that they could make their games run on 
: slower machines.  Is it laziness?  Do they REALLY take the time to try 
: and make their games playable for anyone?  It doesn't seem like it.  I 
: used Doom in comparison with SS because ID has given me every reason to 
: beleive that they do.  I would just like to see some of that from Origin.

I've been playing SShock on my 486sx33, and it runs pretty well!  It's 
not as fast as Doom, but it's not THAT MUCH slower.  And, in return, we 
get real bridges, tilting, crouching, etc.  I have no problem with this.  
When I played Doom the first time, it was on a slow machine, and I 
groaned "Oh, I wish I had a 486" (Doom was what finally got me to 
upgrade).  Sure, it needed the faster processor, but I had no question 
why.  Look at the screens: that processor power is not being wasted!  
SShock was a little slower than Doom, but, as I listed above, I could see 
why.  I didn't feel like this was being wasted either.

I got WC3 working reasonably well on my 33 Mhz box (for those of you 
still struggling: GET A VLB VGA board!  It has made a tremendous 
difference).  Sure, I wish it could run on a slower machine, but, once 
again, I can see where all the muscle it needs is going to!

Games like Ultima 8, however, had me wondering.  It was horribly slow, 
but I didn't see ANYTHING that warranted that.  It looked nice, had nice 
sound effects, and good animation, but I've seen other games with all 
this that ran much faster.  This one had me feeling like the processor 
power was being wasted, and that "Oh, we're just trying to push the 
limits" was a cop-out for not optimizing their code.

BTW, someone else mentioned that SShock was written by Looking Glass and 
not Origin.  That is true, and can make a big difference (my favorite 
Sierra games all seemed to come from Dynamix).