Is computer evolution slower then ever?

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by funK

Sorry, but this completely bullshit: unless you're playing your PS4 on a really bad 540i TV from 16 years ago, too, the graphics between the two is not even close to comparable, see GTAV as an example:

Clearly there must something wrong with my eyes, because I could barely tell the difference. Or was it because they are all playing on YouTube? The good part was at the end - 1 minute 43 seconds to load on the PS3? That's awful! But 43 seconds on the XBOX-ONE isn't that much better (my ancient PC loads Tomb Raider in 10 seconds).

But the real letdown is - GTA? It was boring in 1997, can't imagine that it's gotten any better since. And the video seems to confirm it. Oh yeah awesome graphics, but your character is still just running up an uninteresting hill or swimming in a fake sea.

I have a setup that is much better than that - so realistic that it's not just like being there - it is there! Graphic resolution so high you can't see the pixels even with a microscope, frame rates close to the speed of light, physics calculated at subatomic particle level, immersion so good its beyond virtual reality. And to run the game I just have to open my front door and step into it!

My point is - the quality of a computer game is not determined by how 'realistic' the graphics are. If I wanted realism I would just step outside. What I want is a fantasy world with its own rules in a universe that has more meaning. I don't care if everything is made of little blocks and my character can only jump left and right at one height and distance - so long as there is something interesting to see and do. I like 'gritty' graphics where every pixel has been placed for best effect (and needs to be because there are so few of them). I want something different from real life, not a poor simulation of it.

These modern 3D games appear to be little more than window dressing over the same old 'run around and shoot things' genre. Surely with all the computer 'evolution' we are told is happening, we can do better than this?

[Foebane]

I agree with Bruce Abbott about real-life vs realistic games, but then again, he lives in Middle-Earth!

My favourite era of videogames has always been the PC FPS games of the mid-to-late 1990s to around 2004-6, thereabouts: games both primitive enough to be seen as retro 1980s arcade, yet nowhere near as realistic as the PS4/PS5-like stuff that goes for ultra-realism at the cost of innovation.

[Minuous]

I don't see how FPS crap from the 1990s and 2000s qualifies as "retro 1980s arcade".

[grond]

I am with Bruce on the console generation comparison. I never had any Xbox or Playstation so, with the rather low quality youtube video as a reference, I had to look up whether the Xbox 360 or the Xbox One was the earlier machine because I couldn't tell for sure just from the videos. A lot of the visual difference seemed to come from different gamma settings or colour schemes. At least the Playstation naming scheme is clear.

Yes, graphics became better (it does become obvious after a while) but I also came to the conclusion that the games just seem to be the same. It's nothing like a comparison of "Defender of the Crown" on Amiga and C64 (about the same time between the two as between console generations) where there is a night and day difference between graphics (Amiga obviously much better than C64) and gameplay (C64 much better than Amiga, so I hear). That is to say: if I had played that game on PS3, I wouldn't care to play it again on the PS4 or buy a PS4 to play it with more detailed shrubbery around the player character unless the game content was very good (like watching your favourite movie again). The question isn't "do I need the newer console to have a better gaming experience", the question merely is "is this game any good?"

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Minuous

I don't see how FPS crap from the 1990s and 2000s qualifies as "retro 1980s arcade".

I've never seen how anyone can play a game where the player's avatar is a little guy viewed from the side on platforms or a maze from above, and the player can see EVERYTHING for a massive distance around the avatar, leading to no surprises whatsoever (I'm looking at you, Alien Breed).

But with FPS games, the suspense is far more palpable as you have a LIMITED view ahead and monsters can jump out from around a corner and surprise you. First-Person is what made Doom and its ilk so popular to the present day, and why even the makers of Alien Breed switched to First-Person for the sequels.

Why can you and the other 80s and early 90s retro gamers like you, Minuous, not get that?

[fxgogo]

From a average consumers point of view, present day computers, tablets, phones etc are very overpowered. Most people could do what they need with tech from 10 years ago.

We have a very wasteful approach to designing and coding our software that forces obsolescence. Lots of layers of abstration, platforms and infrustructures that slow machines down needlessly.

But as a 3D artist, I can not wait for faster processors. Actually I have found that having a bunch of slower machines to render on is way faster than one super fast machine.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Foebane

I've never seen how anyone can play a game where the player's avatar is a little guy viewed from the side on platforms or a maze from above, and the player can see EVERYTHING for a massive distance around the avatar, leading to no surprises whatsoever (I'm looking at you, Alien Breed).

But you can't see everything, only a small part of the total playing area. Top-down games like Alien Breed and The Chaos Engine give the player a bird's eye view of the immediate surroundings. Some platform games expect you take 'leaps of faith' at the edges of the screen, while others confine you to a single room at a time. Then there are games like Dune 2, where you have to 'explore' an area to make it visible. These features not only change your perspective but also the strategies and structure of the game, providing the fantasy elements and 'alternate universe' rules I talked about which can make gameplay more interesting.

In Alien Breed you can see the enemies out there waiting to kill you, but you can't see how to get to them or how to escape through the maze. Solving the maze puzzles is what this game is all about. Many other '2D' games have similar puzzle elements. Just because they are not 'realistic' doesn't make them less interesting. Nobody ever complained that chess isn't a realistic simulation of a military battle.

But with FPS games, the suspense is far more palpable as you have a LIMITED view ahead and monsters can jump out from around a corner and surprise you.

The restricted view of FPS games is frustratingly limited. While this may may be closer to 'reality' it is not as satisfying because the human mind doesn't actually work that way. We only see a little bit of the world around us at a time, then build up a 'virtual reality' model in our mind of what is out there - filling in the gaps from our memory and experiences, and applying continuity to the narrowly focused snapshots we take of it. As a result our 'picture' of the world is far richer than the limited view our eyes can take in.

Top-down, side, and isometric views are in same ways closer to our internal view of the world. They help us to make that map in our minds as we progress through the game. It's not realistic, but it satisfies our desire for something beyond the limitations of reality.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Why can you and the other 80s and early 90s retro gamers like you, Minuous, not get that?

Taste is subjective, what you like might not be liked by another. And what another likes might not be liked by you. It really is that simple
So, I do understand what you mean when you're talking about FPS games. I just often like 2D shooting/action games better.

[masteries]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

I mean, let's compare it like this.

- If you compare games from 1980 and 1990 - HUGE difference
- If you compare games from 1990 and 2000 - HUGE difference
- If you compare games from 2000 and 2010 - same as above

Now, if you look, for example, at Skyrim (that was released in 2011), and any new game for the past few years, I don't see any huge difference.
Yeah, the textures are bigger res, the resolutions are bigger, framerate is better, but overall I feel that progress last decade is very minor in comparison to previous decades.
Same for software....
-----------------

I feel almost same about hardware.
Last decade is just adding a few Mhz, or processors over time, more space, more Ram, better graphics... there's nothing "ground braking" for a very long time...
Man! Even our beloved Amiga lived not even a full decade (from start to end), and what was going on from 1985 to 1994 with all various computers and consoles, and these crazy positive times, and I am thinking now, that even retro scene, that started to become really huge at 2010-2011, already outlived whole Amiga era... how crazy is that?
Where is crazy scene now?

I might be missing something huge, but I just can't deny the feel, that (computer evolution) time is slower then ever.

Really, the high end hardware from 2011 is very, very capable by itself, and very computationally powerful to deliver very good game experiences.


If you think on it, a Radeon HD 6870 is DirectX 11 capable. Not 1080p suitable for all games (but StarCraft 2 runs very well at 1080p with this card), but mainly 720p. As an example, I played some part of Dark Souls 3 with this card at this resolution; prior to upgrade to a RX 480. And the game works very well at 720p, high resolution texture and a decent framerate.


On past times, it turned impossible to play Doom, on your relatively recently acquired Amiga 500 or Atari STE (imagine that you bought the 16 bits computer at 1990 or 1991) and two years later the technology evolves a lot.





Obviously, current hardware is better, and can deliver better experiences;
but the required amount of professional hard work in order to achieve very noticeable advantage is humongous... a few studios are capable of this investment. You need to add another couple of years of development and another big number of million dollars to increase a bit the overall quality and complexity of the game you are working on.


Currently, technology is also evolving, but recently past technologies are still very capable, and still very computationally efficient.



These are good times, due to you can acquire a very good hardware today, and still use the same investment over 10 years or more.




Its the product quality curve, at a point, you need to add an exponential amount of resources to increase ,less than linearly, the overall quality and complexity.

[masteries]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Top-down, side, and isometric views are in same ways closer to our internal view of the world. They help us to make that map in our minds as we progress through the game. It's not realistic, but it satisfies our desire for something beyond the limitations of reality.

This is a very interesting reasoning, and these sort of things are part of the "magical" feeling from the 8 / 16 bits era games.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

But you can't see everything, only a small part of the total playing area. Top-down games like Alien Breed and The Chaos Engine give the player a bird's eye view of the immediate surroundings. Some platform games expect you take 'leaps of faith' at the edges of the screen, while others confine you to a single room at a time. Then there are games like Dune 2, where you have to 'explore' an area to make it visible. These features not only change your perspective but also the strategies and structure of the game, providing the fantasy elements and 'alternate universe' rules I talked about which can make gameplay more interesting.

In Alien Breed you can see the enemies out there waiting to kill you, but you can't see how to get to them or how to escape through the maze. Solving the maze puzzles is what this game is all about. Many other '2D' games have similar puzzle elements. Just because they are not 'realistic' doesn't make them less interesting. Nobody ever complained that chess isn't a realistic simulation of a military battle.

The restricted view of FPS games is frustratingly limited. While this may may be closer to 'reality' it is not as satisfying because the human mind doesn't actually work that way. We only see a little bit of the world around us at a time, then build up a 'virtual reality' model in our mind of what is out there - filling in the gaps from our memory and experiences, and applying continuity to the narrowly focused snapshots we take of it. As a result our 'picture' of the world is far richer than the limited view our eyes can take in.

Top-down, side, and isometric views are in same ways closer to our internal view of the world. They help us to make that map in our minds as we progress through the game. It's not realistic, but it satisfies our desire for something beyond the limitations of reality.

Leaps of faith are an EXTREMELY CHEAP TRICK. Players of Jet Set Willy discovered that the hard way when they jumped into the next screen and were killed over and over again until game over. I don't care if it was a bug, it still happened and should be discouraged from happening.

Dune 2? Never played that, although I understand it was the prototype for Command & Conquer, of which I have played a lot of, except for the later games that used a 3D engine. I am particularly fond of Red Alert and Red Alert 2 in particular.

I never liked Chess. That game is too obsessed with "capturing" the enemy king, as opposed to just taking him out, as you naturally would. I could never complete a game of Chess because I never got to the "Checkmate" stage, I just wanted to take out the bastard.

Reality is ALWAYS more satisfying.

Originally Posted by roondar

Taste is subjective, what you like might not be liked by another. And what another likes might not be liked by you. It really is that simple
So, I do understand what you mean when you're talking about FPS games. I just often like 2D shooting/action games better.

Fair enough, I just don't agree.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by masteries

This is a very interesting reasoning, and these sort of things are part of the "magical" feeling from the 8 / 16 bits era games.

Not really.

[chip]

"Reality is always more satisfying" is a weird sentence made by a computer addicted IMHO

For me all this Amiga world is "ANOTHER WORLD" which i like more than reality

Otherwise i would spend my time with other "real" activities

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Fair enough, I just don't agree.

Well, yeah - that's how opinions work . As long as we all understand that they're not facts but rather opinions, having different ones only makes the world more interesting

[grond]

When it comes to 3D graphics, it's now a bit like it was with audio 20+ years ago: you surely noticed a big difference between waveform synthesis and 8 bit samples and again a big difference when stepping up from 8 bit to 16bit audio but who really cares whether his gaming or office PC has 16bit or 24bit audio? or 48 kHz or 192 kHz sample rate? There are only so many floating point operations you can use in a meaningful way to colour a pixel on the screen...

[phx]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Fair enough, I just don't agree.

You're probably in the minority, at least on this forum.

It is also my impression that most "realistic" 3D games are quite boring, because there is not much of a game behind to motivate me for longer periods. The only FPS I'm playing from time to time is DayZ, because of the complex survival aspect and the interaction with other players.

I agree with Minuous that older 3D games aged quite badly. Their only charm was the new technique, when they appeared. But as the games itself are boring, nothing is left. This is completely different with many good 2D games of that time.

[Minuous]

Well, I never really liked that style of game now or at the time either. Apart from Xybots of course :-)

[Dunny]

Guys, guys.

People like things you don't. Let them. It literally has zero impact on your life.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Guys, guys.

People like things you don't. Let them. It literally has zero impact on your life.

Yeah, imagine how dull life would be if we all only liked the exact same things. I like it that each of us has their own quirks

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by phx

You're probably in the minority, at least on this forum.

That's the problem: I love discussing the technical side of the Amiga, but I hate how the gaming aspects (and practically ZERO Demoscene) litter the conversation eventually. I never found those sort of 2D games appealing.

It is also my impression that most "realistic" 3D games are quite boring, because there is not much of a game behind to motivate me for longer periods.

Newsflash: The PC has NEVER had a "realistic" 3D game, FPS or otherwise, EVER. They all still look like CGI at best, and a retro game when older. And do please cite "boring" games.

I agree with Minuous that older 3D games aged quite badly. Their only charm was the new technique, when they appeared. But as the games itself are boring, nothing is left. This is completely different with many good 2D games of that time.

Do please cite various 2D examples, cos otherwise, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, how "2D is better than 3D".