by AlienKinetics » Nov 14, 2003 @ 8:48am
Hi Dan,
I'll reply, since you have quoted my site and my views.
First up, read the quote: "...Quake II style..."
Note the word "style" used a number of times. Im not at all interested in porting Quake to _any_ platform. Im interested in creating a easy-to-use engine that is highly portable.
RE: Bobbetecs tools. Im pretty sure they are expanding lightmap surfaces to ROM, which is the GBA's strong point. GBA RAM is limited (ERAM 256kb) so, there is no chance of implementing a texture cache or converting map's to fixed point at run time. But, that said, I haven't seen any Bobbetec screen shots that show anything more complex than Yeti3D and the demo'ed MD2 model is a small low poly spider.
Seems like a number of these BSP/Portal engines left no processor time for models and AI.
The unamed Quake "style" engine didn't have the Quake shadows, therefore, IMHO, it didn't look at all like Quake. Which brings us back to my quote, which I wrote after I had looked into both these Quake "style" engines.
My "moddy" comment has todo with the fact that Quake has darker shadows than Quake II's spot lights. Spot lights are easier to render in CUBE style engines, and therefore would do the game more justice, as the PS1 port proved. Yep, I know the PS1 version is a cut back version, yet it still manages to preset a decent version of Quake II.
RE: Quake II's memory usage. Yep, you are right. But, remember Im talking about Quake II style renderings. Not porting Quake II.
Anyway, at the end of the day. The Quake engine isn't any easier to develope with than was when 30 odd million dollars was blown on developing DAIKATANA.
So, why would any company spend that much money developing a new game for portable devices? Most GBA companies can barely afford low end wages, let alone developing a game using Quake "style" technology.
Also, the size of Quake maps is a major issue for mobile phone games that rely on customers downloading new maps for a small fee. Yeti3d maps are ~64kb uncompressed.
Anyway, these are my views. Yep, I've seen your PocketPC ports and I hope you can get the frame rate somewhat higher. The GP32 Quake port is also running at lower than perfect speeds.
Consider this. What companies are going to employ coders to develope AI in ARM assembly language?
Because to me it looks like the only way to get these engines up to speed would be spend a lot of money employing ARM coders to develop code. Which rules out employing the right C/C++ AI coders for the job.
Wouldn't it be easier and _cheaper_ to just develop for the xBox/PS2?????????
And, why would a developer port a successful Quake "style" game from xBox/PS2 to a portable unit, when there is more money to be made in sequels & MOD's?
Yep, porting Quake I/II to the PocketPC is a major achievment, but its a bigger one to actually write a new game using the ported engine.
Regards
Derek Evans
When viewed real-time I'm sure you could make out what's going on.
