Dugeon lords: and you wonder why PC games are dying!

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

hi all...
I wandered by the best Buy game rack, of the new computer games
just released. my eye caught the DUNGEON LORDS game.
I was looking forwards to *this* one. The only pc game on the horizon
that i look for, other than this one, is that OBLIVION
elderscrolls game.

I better go read reviews first, I Have Learned!

on gamespot, there were user reviews. i quote some snippits from some
of them.


--------"Rip-off"
If I were D.W. Bradley, I'd be ashamed and embarrassed to be associated
with this title. Okay so I'm at the "Character Creation" screen
right? I see buttons that say "Face" "Hair Color" "Skin Tone"
etc ... but guess what, you can't even do that. So forget trying to
use any of the "extra" features, because it's all grayed out in
game. Another one of my fav is when the Quest Log doesn't update
after you've completed a quest.

-----"Disappointing"
Any enjoyment out this game was constatnly challanged by number of bugs
and missing features. Games released these days are rarely finished
product. Most of the times developers release patches and fixes long
after the game is released and sold in stores. This is more or less
acceptable practice in the industry but in case of Dungeon Lords there
are simply too many bugs and missing features to pass it as acceptable.
While missing features like lack of furniture in the buildings or
certain skills not working might cause some annoyance, the quest bugs
can significantly hamper your play, or even grind it to a complete
halt.

-----Disastrous"
A great game totally destroyed by a bad publisher . The issue is, the
game is pretty much an early beta of the supposed final version all of
us were supposed to get. Loads of missing features such as charactor
customization, auto map, and a map. Even in the help tip box where it
says to press M for map, there is nothing there. Game bugs add more
problem which ranges from poor AI, bugged objective like meeting this
person and doesn't progress, and missions that even though you
completed, the game still thinks you haven't completed it yet. Another
poor feature is the graphics and models in the game. Character would
stand there like a tree, waters look like an ice rink, and enviroment
would just be so empty.

----"Rip-off"
First, DreamCatcher release an "Official Demo" that is so bad that the
fans label it "Only a pre-alpha".

---- Shame on them for releasing this. The beginning character setup
program does not even work all the way. You can not physically alter
your characters appearance. Now considering that this is one of the
first things that you have to do how did this get overlooked. Obviously
it was not overlooked they just did not take the time to get it to
work. In the short time that I played this (more like fought with this)
My computer crashed three times, my character actually got stuck on a
rock, and all the sound just stopped. Completed quests aren't even
deleted from your to do list.





hmmmm....

and ya wonder why consoles are getting ever more the popular! problem
is...is that even many of the console games come out superhyped, even
the good ones like Fable for Xbox!

then there is
http://www.nerologic.com/
they have TWO SNES emulators to give to you, plus dozens of rpg games,
many japanese games have a translation patch so that
one might play the dragon quest series, or legend of
mana....etc..etc...


the psx 1 has a zillion rpgs, the whole final fantasy series, for
one.


why oh why are my worst game nightmares come to frutation?! why is my
"negativity' confirmed?!

I might now not ever buy another new pc game again, except for
Oblivion?! I have many many old games still unplayed, i better go
play them.


I thougth that Dreamcatcher was *once* a very good company?!

freestone
36 answers Last reply
More about dugeon lords games dying
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    I hate to burst everyone's bubble here (well, that's not really true)
    but Dungeon Lords is a very good game. Go figure.

    Yeah it says it has features it doesn't actually have such as repair,
    identify, facial hair customization, junk, etc. but I don't care about
    that, I care about what is in the game and it has a lot of good stuff.
    It's not great like Wiz8, BG2, or PST but it's much better than most of
    the other stuff out there. It's hard to compare games but Gothic 2
    would be the closest comparison -- I enjoyed both but probably DL
    better though I could see Gothic 2 taking the nod here.

    Ridicule my view if you wish but I don't ridicule yours. If you don't
    like it because it has "missing features" then that's fine or if you
    believe that it has more "bugs" than an average crpg then it's just a
    large difference of opinion which is fine.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    NFLed wrote:
    >
    > It's not great like Wiz8,
    >

    Not even close! But hey, maybe they'll finish DL and release a proper
    patch.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    freestonew wrote:
    <snippity>
    > why oh why are my worst game nightmares come to frutation?! why is my
    > "negativity' confirmed?!
    >
    > I might now not ever buy another new pc game again, except for
    > Oblivion?! I have many many old games still unplayed, i better go
    > play them.

    Yup... we're long past the golden-age where companies released games as
    polished and bug-free as Daggerfall :p

    > I thougth that Dreamcatcher was *once* a very good company?!

    Err... no.

    --
    Remove the mess to reply.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Nostromo" <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in message
    news:o82va1haj80ri6n3r75ajfk8ppqs3bqvm9@4ax.com...

    > (though I'm a bit easier to please with most games). If you like RTSs
    > Michael, have you played Rise of Nations:T&P or Star Wolves? I really like
    > them both, but that might not do it for you...;-) (SWs is a RTS/RPG hybrid
    > with dubious translation from Russian, but quite well done otherwise)

    I agree with Michael also, but I've gotta comment here on the Star Wolves!
    Hahahahahhahaa.... (deep breath) hahahahahahhahahahhahahah

    Ceo-

    P.s. I liked it too, but the "dubiouse" translations.... I dunno, more like
    comedic and confusing!
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Cataleptic" <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:BdIre.7201$U4.1044691@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > freestonew wrote:
    >> I might now not ever buy another new pc game again, except for
    >> Oblivion?! I have many many old games still unplayed, i better go
    >> play them.
    >
    > Yup... we're long past the golden-age where companies released games as
    > polished and bug-free as Daggerfall :p

    That's not fair, Daggerfall was completely new, no one had every tried its
    like before. Even after release patching it to 100% bug free stage would
    have been impossible.

    Ceo-
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Or rather the developers. I mean 5 years on and that's how far they
    got. And
    they didn't even create a new engine for the game. They modified the
    one from
    Wizards & Warriors by all accounts. <boggle> "

    I didn't enjoy the W&W engine. The DL engine works very well.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 14 Jun 2005 17:05:57 -0700, "NFLed" <NFLed@aol.com> wrote:

    >I hate to burst everyone's bubble here (well, that's not really true)
    >but Dungeon Lords is a very good game. Go figure.

    It is but seriously flawed which is the annoying part. I did a system rebuild
    a few weeks ago, and since then Boiling Point and GTA: SA were released. I
    haven't even bothered re-installing Dungeon Lords. I want to finish it but
    there is just better stuff out there at the moment IMHO.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:31:27 -0400, "Chris B." <nospam@xyxyxy.com> wrote:

    >NFLed wrote:
    >>
    >> It's not great like Wiz8,
    >>
    >
    >Not even close! But hey, maybe they'll finish DL and release a proper
    >patch.

    It wouldn't really be a patch, more of an expansion disk. Imagine if Half Life
    had been released without all the Xen levels.......err, scratch that. ;-)
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:21:52 +0800, "Ceowulf" <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet> wrote:

    >"Cataleptic" <cat.the.mess@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
    >news:BdIre.7201$U4.1044691@news.xtra.co.nz...
    >> freestonew wrote:
    >>> I might now not ever buy another new pc game again, except for
    >>> Oblivion?! I have many many old games still unplayed, i better go
    >>> play them.
    >>
    >> Yup... we're long past the golden-age where companies released games as
    >> polished and bug-free as Daggerfall :p
    >
    >That's not fair, Daggerfall was completely new, no one had every tried its
    >like before. Even after release patching it to 100% bug free stage would
    >have been impossible.

    And another example of a flawed game being extremely good fun to play despite
    its problems. Did get totally pissed off with the random dungeons though but
    the hand crafted ones were really well done.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "freestonew" <freestonew@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:

    > why oh why are my worst game nightmares come to frutation?! why is my
    > "negativity' confirmed?!

    Well they are still patching it. There's hope. Not a lot of hope but hope.

    > I might now not ever buy another new pc game again, except for
    > Oblivion?! I have many many old games still unplayed, i better go
    > play them.

    How do you know Oblivion won't be garbage? :)

    > I thougth that Dreamcatcher was *once* a very good company?!

    They are mostly adventure games. They don't have a lot of expertise in the
    RPG genre.


    --

    Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    you are so correct. I was posting something very similar but stupid
    google groups timed out and lost my long post.
    Yes, PC gaming is killing itself. Other than MMORPGs, the PC game
    industry is totally dead.
    I wonder if games are released early because publishers need money
    since games don't sell well, or games don't sell well because games are
    release early.
    In any case, you are 100% correct
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:36:36 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com>
    wrote:

    >Considering PC Gaming has been dyng for, ooh, 15 years or so, it's
    >incredible it's still lurching along.

    Considering all the unfinished buggy garbage that gets released on the
    PC, it is incredible indeed. I will rephrase a bit. If anything does
    kill PC gaming, it *will* be PC gaming, not the Nintendos and
    Playstations.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:

    > you are so correct. I was posting something very similar but stupid
    > google groups timed out and lost my long post.
    > Yes, PC gaming is killing itself. Other than MMORPGs, the PC game
    > industry is totally dead.
    > I wonder if games are released early because publishers need money
    > since games don't sell well, or games don't sell well because games are
    > release early.
    > In any case, you are 100% correct

    Not really. I seem to recall some major blockbuster games that came out
    this past fall, like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. And I love how you exclude
    MMORPGs, which are, PC GAMES. Duh.


    --

    Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Memnoch <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> Spake Unto
    All:

    >>I hate to burst everyone's bubble here (well, that's not really true)
    >>but Dungeon Lords is a very good game. Go figure.
    >
    >It is but seriously flawed which is the annoying part.

    So it's nothing at all like the demo, then.

    Because the demo stunk to high heaven.

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Cataleptic wrote:
    > Mike S. wrote:
    > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:36:36 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>Considering PC Gaming has been dyng for, ooh, 15 years or so, it's
    > >>incredible it's still lurching along.
    > >
    > > Considering all the unfinished buggy garbage that gets released on the
    > > PC, it is incredible indeed. I will rephrase a bit. If anything does
    > > kill PC gaming, it *will* be PC gaming, not the Nintendos and
    > > Playstations.
    >
    > I disagree. Certainly, a consistent level of uninspired, buggy, or just
    > plain dull games my well spell the end of 'big' PC gaming (i.e. outfits
    > like EA and their ilk)... if only because the *console* market ends up
    > completely dominating the relevant genres (I can't wait for NFL 2008! Oh
    > wait... yes I can), and becoming the producer's (and consumer's)
    > platform of choice for insipid drek... but as long as people have PCs,
    > there will be a PC gaming market.
    >
    > It may well be that in 10 years time, the PC gaming audience will
    > consist entirely of hardcore gamers buying niche-market RPGs, RTSs and
    > TBSs, and who know what other TLA genres, produced by indie developers
    > putting out mid- to low-buget titles. But that's how it started, isn't it?
    >
    > Big deal if the locust-swarm of big-corporate media ends up starving
    > itself in the once-verdant fields of desktop PC gaming. If the best
    > they've got to offer us is 28 different Sims expansion packs and
    > Starforce 3, I don't have much sympathy.
    >
    > --
    > Remove the mess to reply.

    I guess pc gaming is a bit like those superstores that end up selling a
    hammer retail cheaper than the small town hardware store owner can buy
    wholesale: but is this hammer any good?!

    there will always be those rare gamers Who Know how and where a good
    game can be found. [probably on the internet!]

    I knew a guy, when i was in the air force, who had a surefire way to
    critique
    the new movies at the base theater. he would wait till all of the
    barracks
    people came back and if they liked it, he would not go, but if they
    hated the new movie, he knew that he would enjoy it! he was always
    right. i could never try that, myself, as i always worked on the
    evening shift.

    there will always be good games, but rarer. maybe after the 3rd patch
    and even a fan-made patch, the dungeon lords might be good to try.
    just depressing to me that i looked a bit forwards to this here game
    only to see my worst fears confirmed!

    problem is, with consoles, is that they will ALSO some day suffer from
    that problem of rushed buggy games!

    all apples rot someday, eat them whill you can: the might and magic
    series that went out with a whimper as the company "fired" all of the
    delvelopers half way through the game creation of IX!! then pitched a
    half finished game out of the door to us all. but that company was one
    of the leaders
    with Xeen and even might and magic VI!

    freestone
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    The worst example comes from those games that come out all buggy and
    then the company doesn't even bother to release patches.
    Like it or not, quality in a console game is 100000 times better than
    that of PC games. For every console game that has a critical bug, you
    have 99% of the PC games at release.
    When you read reviews of console games, if there is a complaint about
    some bug it's probably something like 'collision detection' or 'camera
    movement' . Hardly ever do you see game stopping bugs (for obvious
    reasons, many people can't patch a console game).
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mike S. wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:36:36 +0100, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Considering PC Gaming has been dyng for, ooh, 15 years or so, it's
    >>incredible it's still lurching along.
    >
    > Considering all the unfinished buggy garbage that gets released on the
    > PC, it is incredible indeed. I will rephrase a bit. If anything does
    > kill PC gaming, it *will* be PC gaming, not the Nintendos and
    > Playstations.

    I disagree. Certainly, a consistent level of uninspired, buggy, or just
    plain dull games my well spell the end of 'big' PC gaming (i.e. outfits
    like EA and their ilk)... if only because the *console* market ends up
    completely dominating the relevant genres (I can't wait for NFL 2008! Oh
    wait... yes I can), and becoming the producer's (and consumer's)
    platform of choice for insipid drek... but as long as people have PCs,
    there will be a PC gaming market.

    It may well be that in 10 years time, the PC gaming audience will
    consist entirely of hardcore gamers buying niche-market RPGs, RTSs and
    TBSs, and who know what other TLA genres, produced by indie developers
    putting out mid- to low-buget titles. But that's how it started, isn't it?

    Big deal if the locust-swarm of big-corporate media ends up starving
    itself in the once-verdant fields of desktop PC gaming. If the best
    they've got to offer us is 28 different Sims expansion packs and
    Starforce 3, I don't have much sympathy.

    --
    Remove the mess to reply.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:03:16 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
    <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >Thusly Memnoch <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> Spake Unto
    >All:
    >
    >>>I hate to burst everyone's bubble here (well, that's not really true)
    >>>but Dungeon Lords is a very good game. Go figure.
    >>
    >>It is but seriously flawed which is the annoying part.
    >
    >So it's nothing at all like the demo, then.
    >
    >Because the demo stunk to high heaven.

    In truth I bought the game because of the demo rather than in spite of it. I
    was secure in the knowledge that a few of the problem that minifested in the
    demo would be fixed come release date and since the world was so small if you
    didn't use the trick of getting monsters to push you over the mountains you
    wouldn't be aware of any other problems. How wrong I was.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> writes:

    > "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
    >
    >>Other than MMORPGs, the PC game industry is totally dead.

    > And I love how you exclude MMORPGs, which are, PC GAMES. Duh.

    Reading comprehending much?
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> writes:

    > The worst example comes from those games that come out all buggy and
    > then the company doesn't even bother to release patches.

    Actually the worst example comes from games that shipped infected by
    viruses. IIRC the old "War of the Worlds" game had that.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 17 Jun 2005 11:53:36 -0700, "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >The worst example comes from those games that come out all buggy and
    >then the company doesn't even bother to release patches.
    >Like it or not, quality in a console game is 100000 times better than
    >that of PC games. For every console game that has a critical bug, you
    >have 99% of the PC games at release.
    >When you read reviews of console games, if there is a complaint about
    >some bug it's probably something like 'collision detection' or 'camera
    >movement' . Hardly ever do you see game stopping bugs (for obvious
    >reasons, many people can't patch a console game).

    The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system to
    work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations that
    can make up the average gamers PC these days.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:00:15 GMT, Memnoch
    <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:

    >The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system to
    >work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations that
    >can make up the average gamers PC these days.

    Most game bugs in PC games that I read about right here on usenet are
    due to *lack of testing* and affect all PCs equally. Console game
    manufactures take QA far more seriously. The kinds of bugs you are
    describing are hardware related and are excusable, but do not make up
    the bulk of the bugs in today's PC games.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mike S. wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:00:15 GMT, Memnoch
    > <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system to
    >>work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations that
    >>can make up the average gamers PC these days.
    >
    >
    > Most game bugs in PC games that I read about right here on usenet are
    > due to *lack of testing* and affect all PCs equally. Console game
    > manufactures take QA far more seriously. The kinds of bugs you are
    > describing are hardware related and are excusable, but do not make up
    > the bulk of the bugs in today's PC games.

    HAHAHAHAHAHHA...Console games not buggy...that is a good one. Console
    games are getting worse with the bugs too.

    Q&A is ignored no matter the platform
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:56:26 -0400, Mike S. <mike@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:00:15 GMT, Memnoch
    ><memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
    >
    >>The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system to
    >>work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations that
    >>can make up the average gamers PC these days.
    >
    >Most game bugs in PC games that I read about right here on usenet are
    >due to *lack of testing* and affect all PCs equally. Console game
    >manufactures take QA far more seriously. The kinds of bugs you are
    >describing are hardware related and are excusable, but do not make up
    >the bulk of the bugs in today's PC games.

    No, indeed. Some of the bugs in Dungeon Lords were quite obvious. Like the one
    where you could sell your lockpicks over and over without losing any of them.
    How this could not have bene picked up in testing is beyond me. And if it was,
    why was it not fixed prior to release. I'm afraid D.W. Bradleys image may be
    tarnished beyond repair. Unless by some miracle he brings out Wizardry 9 and
    it kicks arse its over for him.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:so29b11mkt7961kpuc6lj488fcusp0c3o0@4ax.com...
    > On 17 Jun 2005 11:53:36 -0700, "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >

    >
    > The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system to
    > work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations
    > that
    > can make up the average gamers PC these days.

    Actually, that's not true. By using the lower standard of the current
    Graphical APIs (DirectX, OpenGL) and not using any hardware dependent
    functions, one can make a game that runs on most PC and still look nice.
    Those PC that cannot run a game/application written in such manner normally
    has some obscure hardware or is really old and outdated (namely:
    Discardable). I myself is a programmer and is constantly required to create
    apps to be able to run on very old hardware (as old as the Cyrix / P 100).
    I've just wrote a DirectDraw game to be run on these machine. I achieved
    this by using as low as DirectDraw 3.0 APIs (which I'm sure ALL my targeted
    machines supports) and carefully manage the resource (32MB RAM). Any machine
    that have higher standard enjoy the benefit of smoother performance.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Sorry, accidentally pressed send before I finished typing.

    Now, for morden PC gaming, Graphical wise, there are mainly 2 ways: OpenGL
    or DirectX. I'm not familiar with OpenGL, so I'll comment on DX only. Most
    Modern. PC can support at least DX7.0 and above. If someone created a game
    using purely DX7 API, his game should be able to run on at least 90% of
    current PC. Now take one step further, using DX8 API, you still have 80% of
    the current PC being able to run your game. There are still many games that
    using DX8 and is still pretty good looking (Painkiller).

    Things will only be messy if the programmer trying to squeeze that 4~5 extra
    frames on an already running 120 fps machine. They resulting in using
    hardware dependence codes and API to achieve that really uneccessory extras.
    This will cause incompatibility. I always shoke my head in disagree when
    during the Quake 3 era, they are claiming that their engines can churn out
    180 fps and be proud of it. There is no use in such a frame rate. Human eye
    can only detect movement at 1/16 seconds, or 16 fps and 30 fps is more than
    smooth enough. For fast FPS game, I'd say 60 fps will be good enough that
    you'll never miss your opponent strafing at your side and you can steadily
    put a bullet in between his eyes at this frame rate, so why wasting extra
    calculation time to produce frame rates thet you can't even percieve? These
    clock cycle is better used to do other calculation like enhancing physics
    and visuals. Doom 3 is the only one, so far, done this right. It limits
    frame rate at a targeted fps and spend the extra clocks to produce a
    stunning visual and better AI/Physics. It even runs smoothly on my AthlonXP
    1600+ at medium high setting.

    The game designers have to have hundreds (or thousands, if you insist) of
    different configurations in their mind only if they are going to use
    hardware dependent codes (Guess these old school programmers are those
    remnent of the old DOS era). As long as you stick to good and clean
    programming habbits, and not relying on hardware dependency, you only have a
    few configurations to be worry of. The most they need to do is 3 settings:
    High end PCs, Mid-range (common) PCs, and low end PCs. In some case they can
    even ignore the low end. Hey, if you can't afford the hardware, go play
    Solitare.

    So far, I have played many games without problem while I keep seeing people
    (mostly the same people) complaining about the game crashing on them. When
    tracing the source, most of the time it leads back to their machines are not
    on par of today's standard, or they neglect to take good care of their PC
    (update drivers, cleaning virus/trojan/spyware, not deframenting their
    harddisks, skipping CHKDSK at start up when there are problems, having old
    legacy hardwares that will cuase problem not just with games, but many newer
    version of software, etc, or some even trying to run Doom3 on an average
    office PC that using built in display...) Also, we got a feeling that the
    game are being incompetable in a lot of PC, but that is just an illusion
    created by ALL of the people having problem ARE complaining while NONE of
    those run it successfully ARE commenting on their success (since they take
    it for granted, and it is INDEED granted - it should run). So if everybody
    is commenting on a game that used to be known BUGGY, you found that the
    ratio of people having problem to people running successfully is way way low
    (inherently buggy games like Dung Lords are exception). Its just that those
    having problems are voicing their difficulties while successful people are
    keeping quiet and hiding in the dark.

    Regards.
    (p/s: bad graphical driver is a main source of pains in nowadays game
    incompetability, but that's not the designers' fault, and not for them to
    worry, right?)


    "Choykw" <Newsreader@Newsgroup.com> wrote in message
    news:42b62571$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
    >
    > "Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    > news:so29b11mkt7961kpuc6lj488fcusp0c3o0@4ax.com...
    >> On 17 Jun 2005 11:53:36 -0700, "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >
    >>
    >> The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system
    >> to
    >> work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations
    >> that
    >> can make up the average gamers PC these days.
    >
    > Actually, that's not true. By using the lower standard of the current
    > Graphical APIs (DirectX, OpenGL) and not using any hardware dependent
    > functions, one can make a game that runs on most PC and still look nice.
    > Those PC that cannot run a game/application written in such manner
    > normally has some obscure hardware or is really old and outdated (namely:
    > Discardable). I myself is a programmer and is constantly required to
    > create apps to be able to run on very old hardware (as old as the Cyrix /
    > P 100). I've just wrote a DirectDraw game to be run on these machine. I
    > achieved this by using as low as DirectDraw 3.0 APIs (which I'm sure ALL
    > my targeted machines supports) and carefully manage the resource (32MB
    > RAM). Any machine that have higher standard enjoy the benefit of smoother
    > performance.
    >
    >
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Agree. I have the feeling that they didn't even test run it (Dung Lords)
    while in progress. They just hit Compile after typed in the code and if
    there is no warning or error, they just leave it and continue typing in the
    codes. Some of the bugs are so obvious that, it's so HARD to be not seeing
    them.

    "Mike S." <mike@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:6nj9b1pcpjuu57e55bav8he4lmf5nnpj1h@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:00:15 GMT, Memnoch
    > <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
    >
    >>The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system to
    >>work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations
    >>that
    >>can make up the average gamers PC these days.
    >
    > Most game bugs in PC games that I read about right here on usenet are
    > due to *lack of testing* and affect all PCs equally. Console game
    > manufactures take QA far more seriously. The kinds of bugs you are
    > describing are hardware related and are excusable, but do not make up
    > the bulk of the bugs in today's PC games.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    yes. It will take many many positive review for we to ever buy any games
    tagged with a Heuristic Park or D.W. Bradley brand.


    "Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:tnkab19b5bth0sb7a403gv9moqjdcinc3l@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:56:26 -0400, Mike S. <mike@nowhere.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:00:15 GMT, Memnoch
    >><memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system
    >>>to
    >>>work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations
    >>>that
    >>>can make up the average gamers PC these days.
    >>
    >>Most game bugs in PC games that I read about right here on usenet are
    >>due to *lack of testing* and affect all PCs equally. Console game
    >>manufactures take QA far more seriously. The kinds of bugs you are
    >>describing are hardware related and are excusable, but do not make up
    >>the bulk of the bugs in today's PC games.
    >
    > No, indeed. Some of the bugs in Dungeon Lords were quite obvious. Like the
    > one
    > where you could sell your lockpicks over and over without losing any of
    > them.
    > How this could not have bene picked up in testing is beyond me. And if it
    > was,
    > why was it not fixed prior to release. I'm afraid D.W. Bradleys image may
    > be
    > tarnished beyond repair. Unless by some miracle he brings out Wizardry 9
    > and
    > it kicks arse its over for him.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Choykw <Newsreader@Newsgroup.com> wrote:
    >I've just wrote a DirectDraw game to be run on these machine. I achieved
    >this by using as low as DirectDraw 3.0 APIs (which I'm sure ALL my targeted
    >machines supports) and carefully manage the resource (32MB RAM). Any machine
    >that have higher standard enjoy the benefit of smoother performance.

    Actually, your game may not run on future versions of Windows, which
    are dropping support for older DirectX APIs. I'm not sure if it'll even
    work on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, which has dropped support
    already for the oldest DirectX APIs.

    Ross Ridge

    --
    l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
    [oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
    -()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
    db //
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Choykw" <Newsreader@Newsgroup.com> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
    <snip>
    >This will cause incompatibility. I always shoke my head in disagree >when during the Quake 3 era, they are claiming that their engines can >churn out 180 fps and be proud of it. There is no use in such a >frame rate. Human eye can only detect movement at 1/16 seconds, or 16 >fps and 30 fps is more than smooth enough.

    Just remember one thing, we don't all have the same eyes.

    Am I going to assume that because _I_ don't see a difference over 30fps
    that no one can?

    No.

    When interlaced monitors were common, I couldn't use interlaced modes at
    all or i'd have a splitting headache within 5 minutes.
    Other people had no problem using them.

    I can't use a monitor set at anything less than 75Hz these days, or I
    get sick.
    Other people are just fine at 50 or 60.

    It's not psychosomatic either, should you be thinking that.
    As I found when playing CoH under winXP and getting sick because unknown
    to me CoH had changed the refresh to 60Hz and XP allowed it to (even
    though it was supposedly locked by XP.)

    Under 98se the refresh rate stays where it's supposed to, XP required a
    3rd party app (refreshlock) to achieve the same result.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:01:26 -0600, James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >Mike S. wrote:
    >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 21:00:15 GMT, Memnoch
    >> <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system to
    >>>work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations that
    >>>can make up the average gamers PC these days.
    >>
    >>
    >> Most game bugs in PC games that I read about right here on usenet are
    >> due to *lack of testing* and affect all PCs equally. Console game
    >> manufactures take QA far more seriously. The kinds of bugs you are
    >> describing are hardware related and are excusable, but do not make up
    >> the bulk of the bugs in today's PC games.
    >
    >HAHAHAHAHAHHA...Console games not buggy...that is a good one. Console
    >games are getting worse with the bugs too.
    >
    >Q&A is ignored no matter the platform

    Even if that is true the situation would have to be better on the consoles
    than on the PC.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:09:51 +0800, "Choykw" <Newsreader@Newsgroup.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    >news:so29b11mkt7961kpuc6lj488fcusp0c3o0@4ax.com...
    >> On 17 Jun 2005 11:53:36 -0700, "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >
    >>
    >> The obvious reason here is that console developers have a closed system to
    >> work with. They don't have to worry about the thousands of combinations
    >> that
    >> can make up the average gamers PC these days.
    >
    >Actually, that's not true. By using the lower standard of the current
    >Graphical APIs (DirectX, OpenGL) and not using any hardware dependent
    >functions, one can make a game that runs on most PC and still look nice.
    >Those PC that cannot run a game/application written in such manner normally
    >has some obscure hardware or is really old and outdated (namely:
    >Discardable). I myself is a programmer and is constantly required to create
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Now I believe you. Didn't do a stint at Heurstic Park by any chance? ;-)

    >apps to be able to run on very old hardware (as old as the Cyrix / P 100).
    >I've just wrote a DirectDraw game to be run on these machine. I achieved
    >this by using as low as DirectDraw 3.0 APIs (which I'm sure ALL my targeted
    >machines supports) and carefully manage the resource (32MB RAM). Any machine
    >that have higher standard enjoy the benefit of smoother performance.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:21:58 +0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross
    Ridge) wrote:

    >Choykw <Newsreader@Newsgroup.com> wrote:
    >>I've just wrote a DirectDraw game to be run on these machine. I achieved
    >>this by using as low as DirectDraw 3.0 APIs (which I'm sure ALL my targeted
    >>machines supports) and carefully manage the resource (32MB RAM). Any machine
    >>that have higher standard enjoy the benefit of smoother performance.
    >
    >Actually, your game may not run on future versions of Windows, which
    >are dropping support for older DirectX APIs. I'm not sure if it'll even
    >work on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, which has dropped support
    >already for the oldest DirectX APIs.

    Along with a lot of other stuff which makes some 32bit software unusable. I am
    staying away from this till it matures. Maybe after they have a service pack
    under their belt I might take a look.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net> Spake Unto All:

    >Just remember one thing, we don't all have the same eyes.
    >
    >Am I going to assume that because _I_ don't see a difference over 30fps
    >that no one can?

    FWIW, people aimed for 100+ frames per second not because they
    actually needed that, but because they didn't want the framerate to
    ever, even in the hardest fighting, drop below 50 frames per second.

    "Back in the day" I had bad hardware, and typically got 40 fps but in
    heavy fighting it'd drop to 15-17, meaning I never became a
    railgun-god, but had to stick to guns with splatter damage.

    >I can't use a monitor set at anything less than 75Hz these days, or I
    >get sick.
    >Other people are just fine at 50 or 60.

    Refreshrate isn't the same as framerate.

    I can easily tell the difference between 72 and 85Hz, but would be
    hard pressed to tell the difference between 40 and 100 fps.

    "We also found that for university students, total time spent in the recent past
    on video games has a potential detrimental effect on grades."
    -- Anderson & Dill makes a Discovery, in 'Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts,
    Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life'. 2004.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> looked up from reading
    the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
    signs say:

    >Thusly Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>Just remember one thing, we don't all have the same eyes.
    >>
    >>Am I going to assume that because _I_ don't see a difference over 30fps
    >>that no one can?
    >
    >FWIW, people aimed for 100+ frames per second not because they
    >actually needed that, but because they didn't want the framerate to
    >ever, even in the hardest fighting, drop below 50 frames per second.
    >
    >"Back in the day" I had bad hardware, and typically got 40 fps but in
    >heavy fighting it'd drop to 15-17, meaning I never became a
    >railgun-god, but had to stick to guns with splatter damage.
    >
    >>I can't use a monitor set at anything less than 75Hz these days, or I
    >>get sick.
    >>Other people are just fine at 50 or 60.
    >
    >Refreshrate isn't the same as framerate.

    Oh I know that, but my experience with refreshrate means I won't
    discount the possibility that some people can actually see the
    difference in framerate.

    >I can easily tell the difference between 72 and 85Hz, but would be
    >hard pressed to tell the difference between 40 and 100 fps.

    I couldn't see it at all - in some games that have a lot of framerate
    jump i'll lock the rate at 25-30 and that's just fine for me.

    It may not be fine for others though.

    Framerate makes little or no difference to me, but refreshrate does.
    Refreshrate makes no difference to other people but framerate seems to.

    They might actually be able to see a difference, or they might be
    convincing themselves that they can when they can actually see a
    framerate counter.

    Doesn't affect me either way.

    I'd much rather be the way I am and require high refresh/low frame than
    to be stuck trying to have very high framerates in every game.

    I don't really see much (or any depending on game) difference between 16
    and 32 bit color either.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Xocyll" <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote in message
    news:173kb1pevm1fng8mo752qs1brtalkq19p2@4ax.com...

    >
    > I don't really see much (or any depending on game) difference between 16
    > and 32 bit color either.
    >

    If you really want to experiance the difference of 16 or 32 bit color, try
    to get a copy of 3DMark2001, in the first test, where ther is a pickup truck
    shooting rockets on the giant robot, in 16 bit you'll see dithering (small
    patterns to simulate certain color or, in this case, transparency) in the
    smoke when the truck fires the rocket. the reason here being 16 bits doesn't
    support transparency. 16 bits color normally uses rgb555 or rgb565 encoding,
    while 32 bits uses argb8888 where the 'a' means alpha - for transparency.

    in term of color richness, 16 and 32 bits (or even 24 bit though not
    commonly used in game) there are not much different unless you enlarge the
    pictures and compare the color.


    > Xocyll
    > --
    > I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    > a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    > Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    > FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games Video Games