If Quake was suggested for any game reasons (gameplay, fun factor, rape factor etc) then it would be reasonable, but suggesting that a game is crap because of it's system requirments (or the efficiency of it's BSP) and then stating that a game which faced Quake in many flame wars at the time (Duke Nukem) was better simply because of it's system requirements would certainly appear to be bait for a flame.
Efficient code doesn't mean that you can code anything to run at 72fps on last years hardware - it means that what you program performs it's task by consuming the least number of resources! And that's certainly what Quake did!
Simply because an engine which featured true, arbitrary 6 DOF 3D together with perspective correct texture mapping and shadow map lighting (unprecedented as far as I recall) didn't run fast on a 486 doesn't mean it is inefficient.
But then I do remember my Pentium 100 (substantially less than $4000) running qtest the full game brilliantly - not at 640x480 admittedly, but then again, like most games at the time, you ran it in a lower resolution - but once you got a Voodoo card and GLQuake...well 640x480 was super smooth.
PS. Do you also have no tolerance for correct spelling? Efficiant lol!
I know this is flamebait, but really it seems to be aiming for the title of World Championship uber flamebait - Carmack and Abrash wouldn't care...but I just had to respond!
To suggest that Quake (which is certainly a testament to efficent coding) is "that badly programmed mess called quake" can only be flamebait (the ignorance required to type it for real is unimaginable!).
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm....yeah I noticed.
If Quake was suggested for any game reasons (gameplay, fun factor, rape factor etc) then it would be reasonable, but suggesting that a game is crap because of it's system requirments (or the efficiency of it's BSP) and then stating that a game which faced Quake in many flame wars at the time (Duke Nukem) was better simply because of it's system requirements would certainly appear to be bait for a flame.
Efficient code doesn't mean that you can code anything to run at 72fps on last years hardware - it means that what you program performs it's task by consuming the least number of resources! And that's certainly what Quake did!
Simply because an engine which featured true, arbitrary 6 DOF 3D together with perspective correct texture mapping and shadow map lighting (unprecedented as far as I recall) didn't run fast on a 486 doesn't mean it is inefficient.
But then I do remember my Pentium 100 (substantially less than $4000) running qtest the full game brilliantly - not at 640x480 admittedly, but then again, like most games at the time, you ran it in a lower resolution - but once you got a Voodoo card and GLQuake...well 640x480 was super smooth.
PS. Do you also have no tolerance for correct spelling? Efficiant lol!
I know this is flamebait, but really it seems to be aiming for the title of World Championship uber flamebait - Carmack and Abrash wouldn't care...but I just had to respond!
To suggest that Quake (which is certainly a testament to efficent coding) is "that badly programmed mess called quake" can only be flamebait (the ignorance required to type it for real is unimaginable!).
Just imagine if they make portable hard disks that are low power, so we can use them for a whole day! ::sells spare batteries in anticipation::
Woops, cocked that up! I blame Submit and Preview being right next to each other slighly more than my own crapness.
Available here on scene.org who have a complete archive of Assembly entries and most other demo compos.
http://www.scene.org/file.php?file=/parties/2002/a ssembly02/gamedev/porrasturvat_by_taat.zip&fileinf o