games better if coded like in the 80's 90's ?

[turrican3]

I just want to know if you think we could have better games if they was programmed like in the 80's or 90's without directx or opengl or things like that ??????

[TCD]

No.

[Cloudane]

Depends in what way.

Literally just programmed like the 80s but otherwise being like a modern game would mean they'd probably have better framerates etc since it'd all be done at a lower level (like various OSes in the days of machine code!) - but modern games already take an average of something like 5 years to develop. Without tools like DX or GL, they'd take more like 15-20+

If you mean as if we were still on the restrictions of machines like the Amiga and would games be more imaginative as a result, oh no doubt. Nobody seems to come up with anything new and innovative (like, say, "Lemmings" was) these days, it's all remakes rehashes and clones made with the sole objective of bettering the graphics that came before them. Just like some of the best TV was made on a shoestring budget (forcing the producers to concentrate on story and characters rather than getting distracted with creating special effects), so it also was with games.

[Zetr0]

@turrican3

in a lot of ways DirectX and OpenGL API's empower the programmer to unlock the potential of the hardware. infact it means a programmer doesn't need to be hardware specific in their programming.

In more ways than I can count this API approach has benefited programers emensly - dont get me wrong.... API's have processing overheads, although by todays standards these overhead cycles are insignificant - but a while back these overheads could impact a system - hence why some cards ran better on different API's (DirectX / OpenGL etc)


However, the truth is, if you had infinate time - patience and hardware reference library - one could code more efficent routines then that of generic API, with infinate time one could learn all the tricks and talents of the hardware to eek the best performance - in fact as infinate time goes, you would eventually rid-yourself of the shackles to the operating system and code your own - hardware specific version.

the benefit of this would be an amazing software that ran far beyond expect ideas for the existing hardware....

The only problem to this.... is that you will have to wait for an infinity to get to use it, and for every year, there new hardware thats nearly twice as fast.


I would say that I see a lot of skill and refinment comming along with console programming, I am very impressed with the almost unbelievable skill in programming on the PS2 (Burnout Revenge) and Original XBox (DooM 3) - PersonallyI feel the Original XBox had atleast another 4 years worth of commercial Life in it... but... well you M$oft

Anyway such refinements that are needed to eek out visual and processing performance takes time and money.... and most of the time for most of the applications its not needed...

[gimbal]

100% agreed.

In many ways the PSX and PS2 were very much alike the Amiga - it took YEARS for the developers to unlock the true potential of those wonderful devices.

Also in many ways the Nintendo devs are doing the same thing, squeezing every last bit of processing power out of "underpowered" devices such as the DS and the Wii. If I look at a game like Monster Hunter 3, I am *truly* impressed.

[killergorilla]

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

No.

[Retro1234]

A lot of new games are very borring and all of the same genre.
Street Fighter went back to 2D - They should bring back Arcade machines.

[killergorilla]

A lot of old games are very boring and all of the same genre.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

A lot of new games are very borring and all of the same genre.

Is that due to how they are coded?

[Retro1234]

Actully theres a lot of Classic Arcade games with different ideas -None of these new games will be remembered in 5 years

Just wantabe nerds living out there fantasys in GTA 23

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

Is that due to how they are coded?

No

[TCD]

We already have a 'new games suck' thread (or more of them) here btw

[deicidal]

I do agree modern games have gone a bit 3d obsessed, 2d games had a simple pleasure that Nintendo do seem to have cottened onto

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by deicidal

I do agree modern games have gone a bit 3d obsessed, 2d games had a simple pleasure that Nintendo do seem to have cottened onto

Luckily its partly turning around again - 2D is coming back into fashion but this time with the additional capabilities of an hardware accelerated environment. Its quite cool what some indy developers have come up with in terms of combining physics and 2D games for example.

[Cloudane]

I think one thing I like about Amiga games is that most of them you can just pick up and play. In two meanings of the phrase 'pick up and play':

One being that you can just fire it straight up and play for 10 minutes and feel like it was worthwhile. I don't know many new games like that... most of them require a more substantial time investment per sitting to accomplish anything.

The other meaning being that you can start playing a new game straight away and just 'get' it, without having to spend several hours/levels learning how the game works. It's almost unfair to use Final Fantasy as an example (decent RPGs are not, by definition, pick-up-and-play) but in FF13 you spend the first *10 hours* being introduced to the battle system.

Some modern games are pick-up-n-play, but many more have this huge amount of complication.

It's not a matter of how it's programmed though, it's just how gaming has gone, it's moved on from casual to hardcore.

Less of this "thinking" business in games I say

[Electra]

It should be all about the game play. I'd prefer to have games that look a little less "perfect" graphics wise but with excellent gameplay. Oh and something that doesn't cost £40 and is over in 8 hours. I loved halo ODST but 8 hours later, the single player was finished.

In comparison, I played the likes on zalaga on the bbc for hours and hours and the same for hybris, player manager and goal.

[TCD]

I thought as much when I saw the thread title... Can anyone give a point why games that are 'coded like in the 80's 90's' would be better than what we get today?

@Electra
I guess Hybris is looping (endless), but you can easily play 'through' it in one or one and a half hours...

[Cloudane]

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

I thought as much when I saw the thread title... Can anyone give a point why games that are 'coded like in the 80's 90's' would be better than what we get today?

The problem is it's a fairly unclear question.

Coded in plain C / assembler?
Coded to produce 2D scrolling graphics?
Coded in 2 months?
All of the above?

Taking it literally, as in coded in assembler (for example) I think some games would be "better" because they'd be coded a lot more efficiently so they'd load quicker, have better framerates and so on. However this advantage would probably be balanced out by the fact that the average game would take 50 years to code, so in short, no.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by Cloudane

so in short, no.

[wilshy]

If a game is good, a game is good.

[deicidal]

A game would be more efficient if it was written in assembler but you would be opening a whole can of worms on the pc with the infinite hardware configurations.