Altered Reality, on 26 July 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:
Yeah, key word being PSEUDO. I'm all about historical accuracy, and creating an imaginary version of the past with the only goal of making the real past look better than it really was brings my piss to a boil. It's no different than what Stalin did when he modified historical photographs in order to make people remember past events differently than they happened.
It's not about "making the past look better than it was", it's about taking the best out of past and present in order to make a better game.
For instance we all know that DN3D was dubbed down in terms of detailing just before release in order to make it play better on lower specs systems.
We also all remember what it was to run a usermap with a lot of sprites seen at the same time or with a huge visibility. It ran terrible. And in my case, it ran terrible even if I ran the game in 320*200 with details set to low.
Another example could be mirrors and how laggy they'd make the game, or Shadow Warrior's RoR system, which as a result meant devs had to limit their use of it.
The original DN3D limited itself to making maps that were FAR from reaching the wall limit in order for them to play well on all systems.
The advantage of not worrying about DOS compatibility is you can do anything you want without having to worry about optimization or specs. This is a godsend for a PC dev.
Should they really limit the game by a HUGE margin only so that a couple of people may run it in fucking DOSbox (which in itself is ALSO making the past look better; because you run Blood in 800*600 lagless in Dosbox on your computer nowadays doesn't mean you could have done the same on your computer at the time...) and for the sake of "historical accuracy" ?
There is no historical accuracy worth caring about, because historically speaking, 3DR and Monolith could have done a LOT more with their ROR systems, they didn't because otherwise only a handful of people with high end computer (for the time) could have hoped to even launch the first map. But they could have. They didn't so more people could play their games.
I remember Wieder talking about 3DR experiencing with TROR over TROR over TROR, with Build, after the release of Atomic Edition. I remember Wieder saying something like "there was as much TROR as your computer could handle". You can't say this next game isn't accurate because it doesn't run in DOS specs from the early 90's. 3DR's next Build game wouldn't have, either. And this
is the next 3DR Build game.
Let's also not forget that the minimum specs for Build games kept getting more demanding between 95 and 98, so where is the "historical" limit? Limiting yourself to Exhumed minimum specs wouldn't be accurate because those aren't the same as Shadow Warrior's. Limiting yourself to Shadow Warrior's minimum specs wouldn't be accurate either because 3DR's next Build game featuring "as much TROR as your computer could stomach", had it ever been made, would have required much higher specs, too. And this was past 97,
it probably wouldn't even have had a DOS executable since everyone was onto windows95/98 at this point.
If done right this is the chance to remind everyone Build FPS are the best and to show what Build can truely stomach. Noone would want to sacrifice that for "historical accuracy" that doesn't even hold.
This is chance to have 3DR's next Build game, the one which, in my opinion, we should have had in the late 90's, the one they should have kept betting on instead of changing engine.