next »

[Alex May]

I'm increasingly finding that console games are really bad at that too. Can't remember the last console game I played this generation that was full 60fps the whole way through. Even 30fps seems too much for most games to keep up with these days.

[raigan]

either the limits are too low for the vast majority of computers, missing out on potential, or you have to exclude low performance PCs.

You need to make sure your game runs well on whatever you've chosen as the min spec PC. Using that as the base-line for limits isn't "missing out on potential", it's ensuring that everyone gets the same experience. Of course you can adjust the graphics/particles/etc, but in terms of simulation the game must be identical across all computers.. otherwise someone's going to get the unhappy message "Error: Your computer can't handle level 3, game over"!

Liero/etc are fun anecdotes but they're pretty borderline cases. AFAIK Doom had limits all over the place but there were still tons of wads made.

I just feel like imposing limits is part of designing the game and/or engine -- for instance, N levels have a maximum size (21x33 tiles i think). Perhaps people on higher-end PCs are "missing out" since they could theoretically handle huge levels, but really that's sort of a weird way of looking at it -- the game is based around single-screen levels, a limit that actually seems to help creativity.

I guess this is a difference in philosophy, I don't think SMB3 is any worse of a game for staying the same all these years. Definitely I'm biased though since we're working on a game that targets OpenGL 1.2

[Mikademus]

I like games not to have built in limits so that years later you can use your entire machine to play them. I'm sure Total Annihilation supports map and army sizes that would have never run when it was launched. Or who can forget how much more fun Liero was when you turned off reload times, and spammed the entire arena with projectiles?

I agree with avoiding artificial limits, but that's not really what he was talking about. Say you're making a RTS that will never have more than 300 units at once. If you can optimise the game for a static pool, then why allow 999999 units if that incurs overhead or whatnot when 999699 of that potential will never be used?

Because you don't know that. Someone might use it. Years later someone might still revitalize your game with a crazy level design or something. If you put a needless, arbitrary hard limit you're effectively limiting your game to one point in time and creativity.

Read the source post again: you know that the game will never use more than n entities, and allowing more will cost performance. Therefore you optimise for n entities. If your game is intended to allow 3rd party modding, then the situation is different. However, raigan is also correct with "imposing limits is part of designing the game and/or engine".

[Will Vale]

Limits are good for creativity too - they help you focus on making the best of what you have. I always enjoyed Frank Miller's Batman stuff more than say Sin City, for example.

[Core Xii]

You can self-impose limits doesn't mean you have to actually implement them in code.

[raigan]

I'm increasingly finding that console games are really bad at that too. Can't remember the last console game I played this generation that was full 60fps the whole way through. Even 30fps seems too much for most games to keep up with these days.

WipeoutHD is the only one I can think of, and they sort of "cheated" (good solution though!): http://www.digitalfoundry.org/blog/?tag=wipeout-hd

[Alex May]

Yes, I heard about that - impressive stuff and I'd sacrifice graphical fidelity for a fixed 60hz frame rate pretty much any day. Shadow of the Colossus excepted.

[Ivan]

Haha yeah, except that when you play WipeoutHD split-screen, it halves the framerate to 30.