Guest Big Time Software Posted September 21, 1999 Share Posted September 21, 1999 Just read a stinging review of Bravehart up on cdmag.com today. One of the big problems was that it was barely able to run, even on beefy systems. Here is an interesting tidbit that I found explains our position on being realistic about what the hardware can and can not do... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Many disgruntled owners of Braveheart accuse Eidos of corporate greed, rushing the game into production before it was fully developed. Given the apparent dedication of the Red Lemon design team to creating Braveheart, it is reasonable to assume they wouldn't rush it out the door except under pressure. However, a former Red Lemmon staff member attributes Braveheart's problems to an over-ambitious design. To run Braveheart as envisioned, he says, gamers would need a computer powerful enough to run a small planet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The article then went on to say how for larger battles they had to make one figure represent many men. Sound familiar? Point here is that we started out with an ambitious game design BUT one that was FIRMLY rooted in the reality of today's computers. One can dream about what a game should look like, but dreaming only gets developer's in trouble. Just keep this in mind when you think "gosh, I really wish you guys could do x, y, AND z" Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted September 21, 1999 Share Posted September 21, 1999 I think the problems with Braveheart have less to do with hardware and more do with a lack of focus on the part of the developers. The best games I have played have been the ones with a tight, well-implemented focus. Battlecruiser 3000, Braveheart et al. -- if you try to do too much you will fail to do any of it well. The fact that the game has insane hardware requirements is just a result of poor (unrealistic) focus. A game can be broad and ambitious and still be 'tight' -- it just means that the developers knew what to leave and what to cut. That's what experience in software release (games or otherwise) helps teach you. I agree with BTS, and my gut feeling is that they are going the right direction (even if they don't add dead bodies. :=) ) Sage [This message has been edited by sage (edited 09-21-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerShark Posted September 21, 1999 Share Posted September 21, 1999 I have no troubles when a high-spec machine is needed to run a certain game, as long as the player has the option to change the graphic and detail-settings to a playable degree. When a game is really really good i'll be playing it for some years, and fortunately i have the option (also known as money ) to buy a great pc every year. I hate it though when a game get's 3d-accelerated graphics because it simply won't run in software mode (lousy programming). When "M1 Tank Platoon 2" came out i could barely run it (i had a voodoo1, 64mb ram and a p1 166mhz). Since over a year now i have a p2 333mhz,128 mb ram and a TNT2 32mb card, and the game runs smooth as silk in full detail. Because i could lower the settings back then i enjoyed it, and since i still have great graphics 2 years after it, i still enjoy it. When i bought iPanzer '44 (don't start flaming me) some years ago...the graphics sucked and so did the framrate. Now 2 years later, the graphics still suck and don't ask me about the fps. In other words...lousy programming. I support BT for their PoV..BUT when all is done in a proper way, i don't mind. Take Care, PanzerShark ps. Braveheart is, although the programmers say it isn't, just badly programmed. Sometimes i have battles as large as...somthing large...and the fps are above 25. Sometimes i have very small battles (1-5th of the former battle) and my fps drop to under 10. This has nothing to do with a "capable-of-running-a-small-planet-computer"...unless that's a anagram for "i-stink-at-programming". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krm Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 I played Braveheart on a P3 450, 64ram, Voodoo 2 12mb, and found it ran reasonably well. Loading times were a little long, but in 3d battle mode, it was smoothe enough. Played a battle with 67 of my own men against about 30 AI troops. I couldn't tell if there was that many men or not, but it looked like it. I wasn't overly impressed with the game, but I wouldn't have complained about the performance. However, in 3d mode, I found everything but the men were poorly represented. Trees looked terrible, and the fighting just didn't look good, to me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Ah, interesting perspective from people that have played the game. Totally agree with the BC3000 problem some developers have. Try to add everything under the sun and you will never have a game that is of release quality. However, this lack of focus can be partly compounded by asking too much of the hardware. Say for example that Charles and wanted to have a 1:1 representation of men on the battlefield. This does have some broad design ramifications, and decent programming ones, but wouldn't even get to that stage because the polygon count would halt the game. Point here is that even a tightly designed game, that tries to do too much hardware wise, is going to fail in some significant way. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Falcon 4 is another example of where they appear to have tried to push things too far. The flight dynamics are well done and in 1 on 1 combat the game runs fine, but as soon as you enter the dynamic campaign, the heart of the game, framerates drop down to around 8-14 frames per second, and this was on a P2-350, pretty high end when the game was released. Now, on a P3-600 the framerate is still around only 14-16 fps. I seriously think this thing wont run how is should for another 12 months (and I havnt even mentioned the bugs!).... Good game, but it attempted pushed things too far and inevitably hurt itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Sure you can argue with your hardware, I do it all the time! "Come on, you stupid piece of crap, RUN! Oh, you wanna be that way, eh? Well, how 'bout I Ctrl+Alt+Del your sorry ass?! DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 One word...Open GL I have Halflife and I've never seen a 3D Shooter run as well as it does on OpenGL. Course I'm sure programming is definately another reason for it. ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 Doug, Beautiful man, just beautiful. That's one of the funniest posts yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted September 22, 1999 Share Posted September 22, 1999 For a good argument with hardware, check this out. http://www.techradioshow.com/Files/badday.mpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 I AGREE DOUG THAT WAS BEAUTIFUL...sounds familiar... ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts