where can you download it???

 

Sir.

Welcome to the demoscene. Insane stuff like this, is normal.

where can you download it???

from pouet.net?

 

I remember seeing a couple of apps from the 64 KB competition i believe.

 

Mud, who do you feel about games like these that are obviously optimized, compared to say, Crysis? *waits for WoT*

 

Not bad... I was under the impression xbox360 could also pull similar stunts, or not ? (such as highly detailled nature, with an insanely small storage space usage, possibly even under a megabyte or 2. ill have to look for the specific article i read about it)

Even back in '99, this was crazy already, so all the better. The latest productions certainly have turned into amazing feats.

All this makes uTorrent look very bloated ;p

 

It had been there ever since... ehh... 2002 or something. It's old. ;p The game itself is quite short, and not that amazing. It's also not optimized for performance. You'll see that the system requirement is quite high for a game in its time. Definitely not comparable to Crysis.

 

Mud, who do you feel about games like these that are obviously optimized, compared to say, Crysis? *waits for WoT*

I feel optimization like this should have been done years ago.

The demoscene has a history of being code competitions. As such, there is a emphasis on packing as much as you can in as little space as possible. Or, wringing as much visual oomph out of a piece of hardware as you can.

This should have been done years ago, in the PC game industry. And now, we are paying the price.

Game like Crysis are a disease. They allow for sloppy code, complete and utter bloat, and insane system requirements, to be considered normal. If you notice some trends, you'll see how system requirements have increased, with little actual justification. Of course, there are severe examples of this:

* FEAR: Perseus Mandate: bloated
* Stranglehold: Insane system requirements
* Bioshock: Insane system requirements
* Need for Speed Most Wanted > recent versions: Console ports
* Splinter Cell Double Agent/Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas - console ports
* Colin McRae Rally DIRT - Insane system requirements.

Notice the pattern? There is a decreased level of coding standards in the industry then there was in say, 1993-1998. Doom I and Doom II, were perfect examples of how to optimize a game. ID Software hired a expert in program optimization to show them how to best optimize thier software renderer. And Doom 3: It is extremely scalable, and its from the same dev team. So, there shows something: ID Software has been about code quality. They tried thier best to deliver products that are of decent code quality.

Not to mention, with Crysis, many of its special effects can be done much more efficiently. SSAO can be done in 4K. Whats stopping Crytek from thinking about code optimization? Nooo, they had to completely bloat thier game. And as a result, many gamers find it excusable, to use it as a benchmark. When it is not. When benchmarking, it is best to exploit all of the hardware to the best of its ability, so that there is fairer scores. Which means, wringing as much visual power as you can out of the target hardware.

Thusly, many development studios should look to the demoscene now and take a long hard look at themselves. They should wake up, and learn how to code properly. And not take shortcuts, like with Guitar Hero III. A dual core processor as a minimum requirement? Purlease. They need to kick themselves in the balls and do a better job. They really can do a better job than they are now.

Part of the problem is $$$. Developers like EA are focused only on profits. They hardly give a rat's ass about code quality. Frankly, EA should GTFO of the industry for polluting it with thier half-baked code. In the past though, EA had standards. Need for Speed on the PlayStation rocked. Many past games rocked. When they became more concerned about profits, thier standards slipped. Since thier minds have been colluded by money, thier coding standards slipped. And now because of that, system requirements are now through the roof with thier software. And frankly, if the demoscene can do a better job than them, they are nothing but idiots. Because they no longer focus on the game experience, but rather the amount of money they earn each quarter. And unfortunately, most games today are now unoptimized, and bloated. With no real reason. The demoscene proved time and time again, it is possible to optimize well.

Why now the current game studios aren't doing this? They are more concerned about thier bottom line rather than have passion for what they are doing. And that is what sets apart the demoscene from the game industry. They have passion, the game industry now, does not.

That is the problem.

There is a lack of passion for games. Its all a matter of profits now.

Which means, we, the end users, suffer for that. The glory days are gone, all thanks to the corporate dollar. Least with the demoscene, we can see what hardware is really capable of. Which means, with the PC game industry, they need to take a very good hard look at themselves, and see that the games are the focus. Not the money involved.

So, in summary:
* The demoscene should be a benchmark of what standards the game industry should adopt in code design
* The glory days of gaming are long dead.
* PC game industry is all about $$$, not code
* PC game developers now should be ashamed of themselves
* The demoscene is doing things right, PC game coders are doing it wrong, since they have lost thier focus and no longer care about optimization
* Thus, we pay the price for thier failures.
* There must be a interest in optimization, or there is zero point of saying how well your game pushes your hardware. Because then, its not really pushing it, isn't it?
* DX10 and other things are mostly hipe. Its proven that creativity knows no limits, and no APIs.

Definitely not comparable to Crysis.

Nothing is. It is a disgrace.

 

Nothing is. It is a disgrace.

Indeed Crysis is more unoptimized than this game, but what I meant is that this game doesn't win over Crysis in terms of performance and system requirements despite that. Why? Because this game is completely unplayable on a Celeron 1.7GHz processor coupled with a GeForce 5200. It runs extremely slow.

How do I know that? Because I tried it many years ago.

 

A post talking about this game in particular, how it works, explain it for people who aren't already aware of what it does and ect :
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=537

 

Because this game is completely unplayable on a Celeron 1.7GHz processor coupled with a GeForce 5200.

If you are going to argue with me over this issue, please do it right.

Celeron's have horrible FPUs. The GeForce FX 5200 has bastardised Shader Model 2.0 support. Not a good combination at all for gaming.

 

I know they weren't good. But hey, they were the budget mid-range setup by the time this demo was out. And imagine how it was then? Now how does Crysis run on a budget mid-range setup from last year?

 

Crysis runs slow on every rig. If enjoyment of this game's intended graphics is aailable to only a very small elite (highrange rigs), why bother comparing it with already OLD highly optimized demowares of 100 KILOBYTES that were released half a decade ago ?

 

That's what I meant. Plus... Crysis doesn't run that slow on a Celeron 420 processor coupled with a 8600GT.

Now I still remember that back then, the price I paid for the Celeron 420 rig could only net me the Celeron 1.7GHz rig with a GeForce 5200...
Gosh dern, GeForce Ti 4200's were more expensive and rare than 5200 in the country back then, and I wanted to play MGS2 so baaaddd... and then that game was very buggy with the 5200...

...and I ended up discovering that hex-edit hack to unlock MGS2 on modern nVidia cards. It gave quite a boost, too. But hey... looking back now, it looks like every generation has its own problems. And when I look at it, MGS2 back then is just like Crysis now.

 

DX10 and other things are mostly hipe. Its proven that creativity knows no limits, and no APIs

whoa! what a phrase nice one! i will remember that

 

The game itself is quite short, and not that amazing. It's also not optimized for performance. You'll see that the system requirement is quite high for a game in its time. Definitely not comparable to Crysis.

dude, it's a 100kb exe. what the hell were you expecting? oO

yes its old, i saw it in emutalk about 3 years ago. couldnt run it because of my old gfx card. but now i could ran it its cool, but i got stuck in a pillar, i couldnt move XD teh bugz. plus closing it made my computer breathless. took 3 minutes to everything come back to normal. :|

 

Ahh... I was expecting something else? It's just some data that was compressed to death, that's all. I just want to tell people that the size is due to the compression algorithm they wrote, and that the game itself is nothing ground-breaking. The compression is quite amazing, though. It's a good rival for UHARC.

In my own opinions, anything that is well-optimized should be able to run on the EeePC. ;p

 

Ahh... I was expecting something else?

......I would love to see you try something better. I dare you.

 

Thank you for reaffirming how much you despise excellent technical demos praised all over the internet, and how none of them achievements is worth a praise, according to your 'quality standards' (whatever these 'are').

The size is a constraint for these demos. Nothing can beat quality, excellently optimized code.
So, 400 kilobytes made to fit in 100kb is 'cheating', rap? These bad boys from the scene do incredible stuff also only in 4 KILOBYTES (4096 bytes). A mere empty .doc file already takes more space than that, so seriously, why is Crysis mentioned as the standard according to which every game/demo should be compared against ?

* The demoscene should be a benchmark of what standards the game industry should adopt in code design
* PC game developers now should be ashamed of themselves

Amen. Twice.

 

Mud, that glorious helping of WoT made my day.

And by the way, if a game is compressed that much, some data must be lost along the way. ive yet to hear of some algorithm that can compress that much losslessly

 

From the same producers: http://forums.ngemu.com/pc-games-screenshots/88679-scene.html
Yeah i remember this when it was released.
Demoscene has great stuff to show.

And about bad coded games, dont ever try Age of Conan.
That game cant run 30+fps on an E8400+HD3850+4GB....
At least i didnt buy it, i borrowed for a week from a friend who gave up the game...on the very 1st week!

 

mudlord, see we do agree on some things, while I am not the coder like you, perhaps had I been interested in tech like this had it existed in the 80s, I might have been an emulation coder, but that's past tense. I understand where you are coming from and agree 100%. I'm unimpressed with the programming coming out of Electronic Arts, but considering how poorly they treat their employees, I'm not surprised there's crappy coding being written.

The funny part is it hurts their bottom line, the higher the requirements, the less people can buy the game. I feel fortunate to have the system I own. It's a nice computer, but there are *poorly written* games that may not work on it. I won't buy them. I won't pirate them either. I have too many games to play as is, I can refrain from buying games that will run poorly on my PC.

In fact I've actually been playing with my Wii, PS2, and Charline's XBOX recently, because I actually have more fun with them. I even haven't played emulation that much lately. I've had to recharge my Nintendo DS 4 times in the last month just from playing Brain Age and Catz 2...scary!

I'm getting less and less interested in PC gaming all the time, and it's thanks to companies like EA.

 

.kkrieger is an absolute testament to ingenuity. Even for its age it still looks tremendous.

 

You know, Para you make a good point.

Cavet Yerli of Crytek said that "too many people pirate their games"

well, why pay for something that doesn't work?

 

And about bad coded games, dont ever try Age of Conan.
That game cant run 30+fps on an E8400+HD3850+4GB....
At least i didnt buy it, i borrowed for a week from a friend who gave up the game...on the very 1st week!

The game isn't made very well, but that's pushing it. I've seen people with way slower pc play the game just fine. =/ You probably just used settings that were killing the game, like using too much shadows (which is the main problem, everything else is pretty easy to run. The game is smooth for me, and I certainly don't have a impressive PC, hell no. Even worse, a friend of mine with a old budget card (like a 7300 or 7400 or something?) plays the game fine too.).

(not saying the game doesn't need optimization, simply that it's not as bad as you make it seem)

 

......I would love to see you try something better. I dare you.

I would like for you to look back and read that I wasn't dissing it for what it was trying to do. I was only dissing it for the fact that it wasn't optimized, BUT that was not the purpose of the thing now, was it?

Thank you for reaffirming how much you despise excellent technical demos praised all over the internet, and how none of them achievements is worth a praise, according to your 'quality standards' (whatever these 'are').

May I ask why we would give it a praise for "optimized" game whereas it was only optimized for size?

The size is a constraint for these demos. Nothing can beat quality, excellently optimized code.
So, 400 kilobytes made to fit in 100kb is 'cheating', rap? These bad boys from the scene do incredible stuff also only in 4 KILOBYTES (4096 bytes). A mere empty .doc file already takes more space than that, so seriously, why is Crysis mentioned as the standard according to which every game/demo should be compared against ?

Because someone said so? I wasn't the one who wanted to compare it to Crysis.

My point is... it's nice to show that a 3D game is possible with 96K, but to say that the game itself is also more optimized (a.k.a. run faster) than Crysis, then I disagree. So you think it'd be better to have a 96K game that wouldn't run on a Celeron processor, than having a 4096K game that WOULD run on the same processor? Is size such a constraint now, or is system requirement more of a constraint? I'm only hearing people complaining about Crysis' system requirements and not about the actual size of the game itself.

So before you have any other idea, please keep in mind that I DO appreciate the size of this demo, but I DON'T appreciate its system requirement.

P.S.: And I have had a bad experience with this thing back in those days... when a single-core low-end system is costing as much as a mid-range dual-core or quad-core system at the moment. Even now, I'm still pushing more for system requirement rather than size.