On 4/16/2011 12:16 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/04/15 23:15, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
>> On 4/14/2011 8:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2011 16:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> Uh.. They = developers, something = anything using the damn graphics
>>>> card,
>>>> in this case games.
>>>
>>> So you're complaining that games under Linux on the PC don't run as well
>>> as games on the xbox? Or games under Windows don't run as well as on the
>>> xbox?
>>>
>> Sigh.. Lets try this again.
>>
>> 1. Development platform - PC with some flavor of Windows.
>> 2. Destination platform - xBox, running a stripped down form of Windows.
>> 3. Port platform - The same Windows used in #1.
>>
>> So.. What the hell happens between 2 and 3, which makes it run like
>> shit, and require 2 cores, more memory, etc.?
>>
>> The issue has nothing to do with Linux, which is a whole different
>> problem, mostly resulting from the fact that OpenGL tends to run
>> "behind" DirectX, when it comes to some things, due to the way hardware
>> developers do their job (or, more often are paid to not do so).
>
> During 1, the devlopment is aimed at the console.
>
> Between 1 and 2, there is LOTS of optimistion specificaly aimed at the
> xbox. Also, the console resolution is usualy somewhat low. When the xbox
> was new, it was mostly connected to normal resolution TV sets...
>
> When going to 3, the user wants greatly beter graphics. You want 32 bits
> colours, at least 1600x1200 resolution, over 30 fps, greater vewing
> distances, perfect anti aliasing,...
>
>
> Alain
No, I want the damn thing to bloody run. Given that I can't even "lower" 
the specifications of the game so it matches the performance it had on 
the console...

And, seriously, some of the BS I see is like the case with Bioshock 2, 
where their "optimization" was to cram flash animations into the 
"vending machine" system, and run those on a separate thread, something 
that probably helped them with all the "improvements" in graphics, but 
which effectively made the "main" game run well, the vendors run like 
hell, even if you deleted all the damn flash files (or renamed them, so 
it couldn't find and load them), but at least made it possible to play, 
and the game completely unplayable *if* you had a single core, and 
didn't realize that nuking the flash files would fix it.

Seriously? This was necessary, or even helpful? lol

No, often the problem is just that they "re-optimize" the stuff for the 
PC to the point where it runs like shit even of the hardware that 
supposedly "supports" all the still they tweaked.

Hmm. Another example. Assassin's Creed. Their "recommendation" is for a 
higher speed than I have, but not two cores. The *only* problems I ran 
into was some "slight" lag during combat, which made some of the fights 
a bit.. annoying. But, like Bioshock II, which *does* say you should be 
using duel cores for best operation, it isn't strictly necessary, even 
with most of the graphics tuned a bit above "default". So.. Why, again, 
is Force Unleashed such crap? Because, according to people that did get 
it installed, it runs like crap no matter what card you have, how much 
memory is installed, or how many cores, or what settings you use. They 
simply screwed up the port to the PC so badly that no sane person would 
play it, without *way* over building the machine they put it on, never 
mind trying it with the "recommended" hardware.

This is, imho, completely ridiculous.

Post a reply to this message