Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do You Think Modern Games are Inefficiently Programmed?

Tags:
  • Performance
  • Games
  • CPUs
  • GPUs
  • PC Gaming
Last response: in Video Games
Share
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 6:31:01 PM

Take a look at modern games. It is totally reasonable that they require more GPU performance, because they have the capability of rendering much nicer graphics. But let's ignore graphics and keep them at the same level. When comparing old to modern games, many of them are very similar in terms of what is done, yet the new ones require a lot more CPU power.

Take Call of Duty for example, there is Call of Duty 1-3 which of course ran on less CPU power than Call of Duty 9 or 10 or whatever it is today, yet the game is still very similar - go around shooting people. Same running style, same weapon style, and everything.

Not sure where I am going with this really, but think about a game like Roller Coaster Tycoon which was initiallt programmed in raw Assembly. That is why that game, which had to calculate the thoughts of thousands of people, ran so efficiently. I feel as if today people are not being very efficient in optimizing games to use up less CPU power, or maybe there is some reason why?

More about : modern games inefficiently programmed

September 25, 2014 6:34:36 PM

Yep, it feels like the graphics aren't getting any better but the horsepower to run them is...I Agree
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 6:45:21 PM

Most of the games today are just poor console ports with minimal effort put in to optimizing the games for pc
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 6:46:40 PM

Supreme PC said:
Yep, it feels like the graphics aren't getting any better but the horsepower to run them is...I Agree


Exactly what I think, those are the words I was trying to pull out.
m
0
l
a c 198 à CPUs
September 25, 2014 7:22:59 PM

turkey3_scratch said:
Take a look at modern games. It is totally reasonable that they require more GPU performance, because they have the capability of rendering much nicer graphics. But let's ignore graphics and keep them at the same level. When comparing old to modern games, many of them are very similar in terms of what is done, yet the new ones require a lot more CPU power.

Take Call of Duty for example, there is Call of Duty 1-3 which of course ran on less CPU power than Call of Duty 9 or 10 or whatever it is today, yet the game is still very similar - go around shooting people. Same running style, same weapon style, and everything.

Not sure where I am going with this really, but think about a game like Roller Coaster Tycoon which was initiallt programmed in raw Assembly. That is why that game, which had to calculate the thoughts of thousands of people, ran so efficiently. I feel as if today people are not being very efficient in optimizing games to use up less CPU power, or maybe there is some reason why?


I have many friends in the industry, so what I'm about to say is second hand and somewhat anecdotal.

Game development is not a lucrative career. There are many outliers of course, but most studios manage to turn a steady but otherwise unimpressive profit when compared to large enterprise software companies. Even though sales volumes are higher than ever, the sales lifecycle has been compressed. Most highly advertised AAA titles will see the bulk of their sales within the first few days of release with the vast majority coming within the first few weeks. After a couple of months, sales taper off and the studio shifts to other projects.

Compression of the product lifecycle has led to developers incentivizing progress over planning, and schedule over quality. Take Battlefield 4 for example, released 6 months earlier than it should have been simply to try and beat another product to the holiday punch. The game was released 11 months ago and still has many, many glaring issues. Some are slated to be fixed in an upcoming patch but others have no resolution in sight.

The general sentiment of most developers is that game development is extremely demanding and not very rewarding. This has resulted in skilled and competent developers, especially those who have expertise in niche areas such as vector optimization, fleeing the industry for greener pastures.

Most studios don't spend too much time on performance tuning or refining the user experience because they don't have to. Vocal users will bitch and cry about it on the support forums for a few weeks and then either get used to it or give up. Meanwhile, the slightly off-putting performance and usability issues will get drowned out through marketing of key features. Eventually, the problems will be glossed over and forgotten until the next iteration in the series is released and the process starts all over again.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 7:29:03 PM

Pinhedd said:
turkey3_scratch said:
Take a look at modern games. It is totally reasonable that they require more GPU performance, because they have the capability of rendering much nicer graphics. But let's ignore graphics and keep them at the same level. When comparing old to modern games, many of them are very similar in terms of what is done, yet the new ones require a lot more CPU power.

Take Call of Duty for example, there is Call of Duty 1-3 which of course ran on less CPU power than Call of Duty 9 or 10 or whatever it is today, yet the game is still very similar - go around shooting people. Same running style, same weapon style, and everything.

Not sure where I am going with this really, but think about a game like Roller Coaster Tycoon which was initiallt programmed in raw Assembly. That is why that game, which had to calculate the thoughts of thousands of people, ran so efficiently. I feel as if today people are not being very efficient in optimizing games to use up less CPU power, or maybe there is some reason why?


I have many friends in the industry, so what I'm about to say is second hand and somewhat anecdotal.

Game development is not a lucrative career. There are many outliers of course, but most studios manage to turn a steady but otherwise unimpressive profit when compared to large enterprise software companies. Even though sales volumes are higher than ever, the sales lifecycle has been compressed. Most highly advertised AAA titles will see the bulk of their sales within the first few days of release with the vast majority coming within the first few weeks. After a couple of months, sales taper off and the studio shifts to other projects.

Compression of the product lifecycle has led to developers incentivizing progress over planning, and schedule over quality. Take Battlefield 4 for example, released 6 months earlier than it should have been simply to try and beat another product to the holiday punch. The game was released 11 months ago and still has many, many glaring issues. Some are slated to be fixed in an upcoming patch but others have no resolution in sight.

The general sentiment of most developers is that game development is extremely demanding and not very rewarding. This has resulted in skilled and competent developers, especially those who have expertise in niche areas such as vector optimization, fleeing the industry for greener pastures.

Most studios don't spend too much time on performance tuning or refining the user experience because they don't have to. Vocal users will bitch and cry about it on the support forums for a few weeks and then either get used to it or give up. Meanwhile, the slightly off-putting performance and usability issues will get drowned out through marketing of key features. Eventually, the problems will be glossed over and forgotten until the next iteration in the series is released and the process starts all over again.


:(  what happened to the heart that used to be put into games?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 7:30:57 PM

Its because in the later years, developers reached a point that inceasing the poly count doesn't change much, and almost all of the horsepower required is going to effects like ambient oclussion, deph of field, anti aliasing, hdr, etc. Developers are constantly developing new effects that look better but also consumes more power.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 7:31:56 PM

mlga91 said:
Its because in the later years, developers reached a point that inceasing the poly count doesn't change much, and almost all of the horsepower required is going to effects like ambient oclussion, deph of field, anti aliasing, hdr, etc. Developers are constantly developing new effects that look better but also consumes more power.


Wouldn't that be more GPU power than CPU power?
m
0
l
!