First major 64 bit game - far-cry.

[KillaKilla]

Anand's article.

I find it notable that all the noticeable changes were 64-bit independent. Note that the performance changes were without the graphics improvement - the IQ improvement's performance hit is not being offset by 64-bit.

Perhaps this is a bad omen for 64-bit gaming - meager improvement over 32-bit even when the OS and the game are both 64-bit. Or maybe a bad compile, whereas [maybe] games designed in 64-bit with newer instruction sets will perform better?

Or perhaps it's good - a fairly major game released in 64-bit.

 

[Roshambo]

64 bit = bullshit.

Hell, most game developers have problems with doing much noteworthy in 32 bit environments without having the ability to fuck up in greater scale. The "improvements" don't matter much since it would just mean that the programmers could have a bit more leeway for unoptimized code. Therefore, subsequent releases with the "64" will run like ass on more conventional titles, and the industry will be in the same state it is today with bloated, crappy code put onto machines that have been put through upgrade schedules based upon incompetence.

It really is little more than a hyped grab for cash, and in development it just puts more development emphasis on graphics and relatively little on the gameplay.

Kind of like Far Cry, itself. With almost nothing for storyline interaction in the game itself, it is perfect material for Uwe Boll to butcher in his typical fashion, and unlike Alone in the Dark, it wouldn't really matter.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Storywise and such, Far Cry was just crap. However, I still feel it is the best ORIGINAL FPS of the year. Halo 2 was great for multiplayer but the Single Player was just a plain letdown, and Half Life 2 was great but then again, it wasn't radically different from Halflife which we got like 7 years ago gameplay wise.

Considering the great graphics of the game though, it was a good start to try and show off 64bits advantages, although what I saw was pretty much purely cosmetic. Still, 32bit didn't really show much over 16bit back in the day either. Once some original games designed with 64bit in mind come around, then we'll see the difference!

 

[Sander]

Like what? As Roshambo said, 64-bit has few concrete advantages, it just gives you a bit more space for unoptimized code, and....well, that's about it. It's more a big hype, not really useful.

 

[PhoenixRising]

yea, that's true, but imagine how long our recent favorite games would take to make if they were trying to optimize the code and still make it run on a large number of configurations? Considering how complex coding is in today's games, it would probably take just as long to just optimize the game as to make it, and when the only benefits would be something that performs better or on crappier equipment, is it REALLY worth it?

 

[Roshambo]

... when the only benefits would be something that performs better or on crappier equipment, is it REALLY worth it?

Yes, why bother having it so that many more can run your game, and with fewer flaws in it than most other games? Or are we supposed to not care about that anymore? What happened to releasing the game when it was finished, versus finishing it for Christmas despite whatever quality it is in?

Clean code and QA are two dying aspects of today's industry.

 

[Sander]

yea, that's true, but imagine how long our recent favorite games would take to make if they were trying to optimize the code and still make it run on a large number of configurations? Considering how complex coding is in today's games, it would probably take just as long to just optimize the game as to make it, and when the only benefits would be something that performs better or on crappier equipment, is it REALLY worth it?

Hunh?
You're not making any sense. 64 bit will only make it run on a smaller number of configurations, since 32 bit architectures can't support 64 bit, but 64 bit architectures can support 32 bit. Also, optimizing is still needed with 64-bit technology.