nintendo in trouble, cutting production and avoiding "complex" games

[DrSpike]

True, but I don't think a strategy of focusing on games that are complicated in relation to monopoly but not as complicated (and long) as current best sellers will pay dividends.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The one big problem with that is game developers have no idea what hardware configurations that the games will be run on. Now, of course, the operating system is supposed to provide an identical virtual machine for all other programs to run under, but that's just in theory. Windows has never been good at that, plus DirectX is like a gigantic hole in your virtual machine. Sure, it speeds up the games by allowing direct access to hardware, but of course insulation from hardware is one of the main purposes of an operating system. Yay MS.

Well thats interesting. Its Microsoft, as much as anyone else, that has an interest in assuring additional PC sales. To the extent that making PC games more user friendly will result in more PC gamers, and thus in more people inclined to a shorter replacement cycle for their PC's, it would seem that MS would have a strong incentive to improve Windows in that regard.

I was thinking more along the following lines though - why couldnt say a big manufacturer like Dell reach an agreement with several software publishers that all standard Dells will have certain configurations - and then the publisher could test on that configuration and label it "dell certified" or something. If that is too hard, how about designating certain Dells as "gaming standard machines" and then issuing certificates relative to that standard. Im trying to think of a way that the market might move toward at least some degree of standardization, driven by market forces.

[Urban Ranger]

If you do that, don't you end up with a console of some sort? A Playstation is exactly the same as another one, so it's easier to write games for them.

[DrSpike]

Do we really need identical PC's? Sure UR is right, in practice things are a little messy, but I don't think you can make a good case for the pc gaming industry being really held back by the mishmash of standards. 99% of the time games work as they should, and the majority of the other 1% the user could fix the problem if they had a clue.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Windows has never been good at that, plus DirectX is like a gigantic hole in your virtual machine. Sure, it speeds up the games by allowing direct access to hardware, but of course insulation from hardware is one of the main purposes of an operating system. Yay MS.

Do you have any idea why DirectX is called a Hardware Abstraction Layer.
Direct access to the hardware is provided by the drivers, not DirectX.
DirectX merely acts as a uniform graphical device, then figures out all of the "direct access" stuff itself. As far as gamedevs are concerned, every DirectX device of the same DX generation is the same.

You've clearly no idea what DirectX is, or how it works, so why don't you can it?

The purpose of the OS isn't to insulate from the hardware, it's to operate the system. Hence the name.

And DirectX does insulate from the hardware -- it provides a HAL for gamedevs and uses drivers to access the hardware directly.

[Nubclear]

Is it just me, or does it seem that lately UR has been throwing an anti-microsoft temper tantrum?

[Asher]

"lately"?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Asher
"lately"?

Well yeah, he's always been anti-microsoft, but lately he's just been making a HUGE fit (huge even for him) against Microsot.

Its a bit disturbing actually

[DrSpike]

Interesting. So does Direct X work to do what UR wanted, act to mitigate the profusion of different hardware configurations?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Interesting. So does Direct X work to do what UR wanted, act to mitigate the profusion of different hardware configurations?

and to do what i want by the way.

I dont want console type games played with joystick or whatever, but i do think the automatic compatibility is a selling point. In addition to the console market, there are plenty of people who own PC's and dont buy games, or buy few of them, and the compatibility roulette has to be one hurdle. In that sense making the PC more console like would be a good thing.

One in a hundred? of the last 8 or so games i bought, 2 wouldnt run at all. Im no PC expert, but im not clueless either. (and both of these games did NOT challenge the specs of my PC at all)

And quite frankly, the endless improvability of the PC doesnt help me that much either. Im not interested in console games, but then im also not interested in bleeding edge FPS's either. Id like to buy my TBS and RTS games without having to worry whether they'll actually run on my namebrand PC.

[DrSpike]

Well I play a lot of games, and I don't think I've ever (Win95 onwards) found one that I couldn't get to work.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
edit.......

In addition to the console market, there are plenty of people who own PC's and dont buy games, or buy few of them,.........edit

well i think the numbers on this are rather scary, scary because it makes us look like a real minority. The numbers i've got are a bit old but something like less than 10% of pc's that are sold then have their owners go out and buy games(not including the bundled software). I guess alot of this can be attributed to pc's in the work place? I'm not sure, maybe its something more sinister like most people think playing games is naff?(they are missing out i think).

As for the nintendo situation it just sounds a little like a last gasp knee-jerk reaction to the worse than expected sales of the cube? As more complex games get released for the xbox(the HD is an advantage in this area), it will be interesting to see what Sony and Nintendo will do, and if this cry of 'simple is better' will be reflected in new console sales. For myself i would rather play games like 'Knights of the Republic' and 'Morrowind' than another streetfighter or spaceinvaiders-with-bells-on clone.
But then again maybe thats cause i'm a 'niche' gamer and like strategy games over action ones?

[Asher]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Interesting. So does Direct X work to do what UR wanted, act to mitigate the profusion of different hardware configurations?

That's precisely what it does.

DirectX existed as a way to encourage developers to switch from DOS to Windows. The bait? Instead of having to code for 5-6 different soundcards, 5-6 different videocards, they wrote to one virtual video card and one virtual soundcard, the drivers actually dealt with the hardware.

DirectX is called a Hardware Abstraction Layer for this reason.

UR is fundamentally confused about what DirectX is, yet he still rants about it.

Actually, whenever UR says anything about a Windows-related product, expect it to be nothing more than bullshit and ignorance.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Do you have any idea why DirectX is called a Hardware Abstraction Layer.

What it is called and what it does are two different things. Besides, isn't hardware abstraction one of the things that an OS should do? Or, in other words, what happens to Windows machines without DirectX, e.g. 3.x, early versions of NT, etc.? Eh, do they really access hardware directly?

Originally posted by Asher
Direct access to the hardware is provided by the drivers, not DirectX.

No, no, no. You got it wrong. You need to write your own code to directly access the hardware, bypassing the drivers.

Originally posted by Asher
DirectX merely acts as a uniform graphical device, then figures out all of the "direct access" stuff itself. As far as gamedevs are concerned, every DirectX device of the same DX generation is the same.

Oh really? So why bother having DirectX, as I pointed out above?

Originally posted by Asher
You've clearly no idea what DirectX is, or how it works, so why don't you can it?

I see you are still angry from being blown away in other threads (e.g. HTML/CSS).

Originally posted by Asher
The purpose of the OS isn't to insulate from the hardware, it's to operate the system. Hence the name.

When will you take your first OS course, Glonkie?

Originally posted by Asher
And DirectX does insulate from the hardware -- it provides a HAL for gamedevs and uses drivers to access the hardware directly.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Actually, whenever UR says anything about a Windows-related product, expect it to be nothing more than bullshit and ignorance.

Prove it, or retract such utter drivel.

[Asher]

Why don't you come back and play once you've actually developed something with DirectX, UR...

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What it is called and what it does are two different things. Besides, isn't hardware abstraction one of the things that an OS should do? Or, in other words, what happens to Windows machines without DirectX, e.g. 3.x, early versions of NT, etc.? Eh, do they really access hardware directly?

No, they do not -- you had to go through the OS to do everything, and it was painfully slow for gaming.

DirectX provides an interface, indeed an abstracted interface, which does allow direct access to the hardware, through the drivers.

You cannot write directly to the hardware except what the drivers permit you to, and the code that tells the drivers what to do is DirectX. The programmer just tells DirectX what it wants done, and DirectX sends the appropriate hardware calls to the appropriate drivers.

No, no, no. You got it wrong. You need to write your own code to directly access the hardware, bypassing the drivers.

This is totally incorrect, anyone who has spent 5 minutes with DirectX before could tell you that.

I'm not going to bother going into great detail, but I strongly suggest you go buy a book or at least look up tutorials online on the DirectX infrastructure and how it works.

Personally, I've worked through a 900+ page book called Special Effects Programming with Direct X (8.0) last summer, and the closest thing that comes close to accessing the hardware directly is using PS or VS code, and even in that case it's regulated by DirectX. And in 9.0, it's abstracted even further with HLSL (Higher Level Shading Language), which is generic across all cards.

Oh really? So why bother having DirectX, as I pointed out above?

DirectX makes game development radically simpler on the PC. Instead of writing code for S3 cards, for ATI cards, for Nvidia cards, for Intel cards, etc -- you write for one card.

Here's how it works: Game -> DirectX -> Hardware. If you eliminated DirectX, you'd need to write code individually for each card, like Carmack has to do for modern OpenGL extensions or how all game devs had to do it in the DOS days.

Why do you think virtually every Windows game now is DirectX based, if it's as useless as you imply?

I see you are still angry from being blown away in other threads (e.g. HTML/CSS).

No, UR, you were blown away in all of those threads, including this one. You're just too pigheaded and rooted in ignorance to know or care.

When will you take your first OS course, Glonkie?

Last year -- and unlike you, mine was on modern OSes. Not to mention I've got a couple years of DirectX programming experience, and you've got, what, 0 minutes?

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Um. No...

Gamedevs use DirectX to access the hardware. It insulates from the hardware, providing an abstraction and access layer far faster than going through Windows itself.

Prove it, or retract such utter drivel.

How have I not proved it? I consistently shoot down your bullshit, just like this thread.

You've no idea what you're talking about, and it's patently obvious, and you still sit there on your high horse talking down. Somebody has a complex...

So to finally shut you up, I'll give you some help:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/de...stand_6z3n.asp

Microsoft® Direct3D® provides device independence through the hardware abstraction layer (HAL). The HAL is a device-specific interface, provided by the device manufacturer, that Direct3D uses to work directly with the display hardware. Applications never interact with the HAL. Rather, with the infrastructure that the HAL provides, Direct3D exposes a consistent set of interfaces and methods that an application uses to display graphics. The device manufacturer implements the HAL in a combination of 16-bit and 32-bit code under Microsoft Windows®. Under Windows NT® and Windows 2000, the HAL is always implemented in 32-bit code. The HAL can be part of the display driver or a separate dynamic-link library (DLL) that communicates with the display driver through a private interface that driver's creator defines.

The Direct3D HAL is implemented by the chip manufacturer, board producer, or original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The HAL implements only device-dependent code and performs no emulation. If a function is not performed by the hardware, the HAL does not report it as a hardware capability. Additionally, the HAL does not validate parameters; Direct3D does this before the HAL is invoked.

In DirectX 8.0, the HAL can have three different vertex processing modes: software vertex processing, hardware vertex processing, and mixed vertex processing on the same device. The pure device mode is a variant of the HAL device. The pure device type supports hardware vertex processing only, and allows only a small subset of the device state to be queried by the application. Additionally, the pure device is available only on adapters that have a minimum level of capabilities.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well I play a lot of games, and I don't think I've ever (Win95 onwards) found one that I couldn't get to work.

Okie doke - if i ever have a problem i cant fix, I'll come here, and ask for Dr. Spike to help me

One game was Age of Kings - couldnt get anything to happen - called the MS help people (Its THEIR game, as well as THEIR OS) and it turned out there was a conflict between the copy protection on the CD and the CD drive my PC came equiped with. NOTHING TO BE DONE, per MS. So I took it back to EB.

Well now Ive got an EB credit, and nothing in the store that grabs me. So I buy a used copy of Rising Sun, the Talonsoft game. Afterall havent gotten a Wargame in awhile, and im interested in the Pacific war - even if im really more in the mood for a strategic game, or a naval game, rather than an operational scale game with a land focus. And the thing wont go beyond the intro movie. Never figured out what happened. I suppose I could have made more of an effort to get help, but since it wasnt a game I was absolutely interested in, I gave up and returned it as well. Used the credit for SMAC, which ran fine.

All in all it means i take every game purchase as a spin of the roulette wheel, especially now that EB has revoked its old return policy. Given my old PC im only buying bargain bin games anyway now, but I'll be VERY cautious about plunking down $40 US or more on a game that may very well not run with no recourse other then selling it at a major discount.

[lord of the mark]

note my issues were with circa 1999 games on a windows 98 machine. Is the situation significantly better for more recent games on a Win XP machine?

[DrSpike]

Tbh I have friends who always seem to get strange compatibility problems. I find that keeping your drivers and Direct X (whatever it does ) up to date, and reinstalling the OS every now and again keeps everything running fine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Tbh I have friends who always seem to get strange compatibility problems. I find that keeping your drivers and Direct X (whatever it does ) up to date, and reinstalling the OS every now and again keeps everything running fine.

reinstall the OS

With a balky CD writer backing up the hard drive is a bear Im hoping not to have to reinstall the OS anytime soon - when we upgraded from WIN95 to Win 98 i lost Princess of the Mark's current save of Logical Journey of the Zoombini Brothers - dont want that to happen again

Now I could try to get to the bottom of the CD writer problem, but the last time i messed with it took down the original internal (read only) CD drive as well - so Im not eager to mess with it again until we have a new PC.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


reinstall the OS

With a balky CD writer backing up the hard drive is a bear Im hoping not to have to reinstall the OS anytime soon - when we upgraded from WIN95 to Win 98 i lost Princess of the Mark's current save of Logical Journey of the Zoombini Brothers - dont want that to happen again

Now I could try to get to the bottom of the CD writer problem, but the last time i messed with it took down the original internal (read only) CD drive as well - so Im not eager to mess with it again until we have a new PC.

Well, never reinstalling your OS always seems to create problems in the long run. I have my drive partitioned into 2 sections, with 1 for the OS and games/programs. Then, anything you want to keep, like save games for example, can be moved to the other partition before you format the one with the OS on and reinstall.

Win2k is not so bad without a reinstall (I've done 1 since I got it), but in the Win98 days I used to reinstall 3 times a year.

[Grumbold]

Yep I regularly reinstall my PC. Amazng how a lot of those games that have issues suddenly start working properly afterward.

[lord of the mark]

ok, so the answer is to partition the hard drive. I'll look into that.

[DrSpike]

It's dead easy. You can use the DOS utility fdisk if its a new drive, or the later versions of Partition Magic (for example, there may be other programs) will IIRC partition an existing drive without you losing the data stored there.

[Asher]

Wonder where Urban Ranger disappeared to.

[geeslaka]

He found something better to do than try to argue with someone who has earplugs in.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by geeslaka
He found something better to do than try to argue with someone who has earplugs in.

Well unfortunately, since my area of expertise is not computer science, I need an independent third geek to act as umpire before I can tell who has won.

It looks like Asher did though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by geeslaka
He found something better to do than try to argue with someone who has earplugs in.

Give me a break, he's the one with earplugs in.

He fundamentally doesn't understand DirectX, and has obviously never programmed with it, yet he still felt it was his place to rant about how much he doesn't like how it works. When he's totally wrong.

The reason he's not replying now is because he may have realized DirectX solves the problem he had, rather elegantly, and he feels somewhat embarassed.

He always tries to let threads die when he loses, he pretends like he just stopped reading them, but he only keeps replying until his position is shattered.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Asher
He always tries to let threads die when he loses, he pretends like he just stopped reading them, but he only keeps replying until his position is shattered.

Come now Asher. Sometimes I get caught up in a heated debate, go to bed, and when I wake up the thread is seemingly gone. I was so caught up in the debate I forgot the thread title (sometimes even the forum it was in!) so I just let it slide.

[Asher]

No, no, no, UR always does this. It's not just every now and then.

Edit: See, he posted in the thread just above this one 40 minutes ago.