Samsai, you're so wrong, it's painful. Would you kill all the gaming consoles and the old PCs just because they're old? There are many platforms that still have users and developers. Here's a short list:

- Color Computer still has an active community [External Link], a lot of resources [External Link], new development [External Link], their ongoing CoCoFESTs [External Link], podcasts [External Link], and even CoCoTALK [External Link] - a talk show about the Tandy Color Computer.

- AtariAge [External Link] brings together Atari fans and developers in periodic events, their forums [External Link] are packed with tens of thousands of discussions, so no wonder the AtariBox [External Link] is still in development - because there's a huge active fan base that would welcome it if it's done right.

- The Spectrum world also has a huge community, and the new ZX Spectrum Next [External Link] is an awesome PC that can handle old and new code as well.

Now the x86 PCs shouldn't be treated any different. There are tons of software that work great on them, and especially for gamers it's great to experience retro games on old platforms, which is why we can easily find PC restoration projects on YouTube and other places, from LGR [External Link] and the 8-Bit Guy [External Link], to various others.

Apart from the historic and retro coolness I mentioned here, there are new PCs with 2-4GB of RAM which are better off with a 32-bit OS because their 64-bit counterparts would require more RAM for the very same activities. Here's an article I wrote on DistroWatch: 32-bit support prematurely obsoleted [External Link].

The graph you posted here is just as useful as the DistroWatch ranking. Most people don't know how to properly choose technology, so the usage is irrelevant because it's terribly flawed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Oh well, if you read the whole thread you probably noticed my recent posts and why I think 32-builds could prove to be useful in more than one way.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Read my previous posts (page 12).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They are clearly not aiming for running the game on such old hardware, but some valuable feedback coming from people having it could help the game's optimizations. And the easiest way to enable this kind of testing is by having 32-bit builds. Who knows where it leads? :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I mentioned our old computers, and most of them are 32-bit. I'm sure you can easily imagine an old P4 CPU like Willamette, Northwood and even the first batch of Prescott (not its later "E0" revision) having 2GB-4GB of RAM and a 256MB/512MB graphics card - because hard-core gamers had those back in the day. So going back to an old gaming rig with Ion Maiden would be sweet.

A few of my earlier questions were partially covered by the following interview, but it would still be great to know the game runs (and further evolves) on older hardware. :)
View video on youtube.com

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Almost 3 weeks have passed since this news popped out. I wonder what's the lowest spec PC used to play Ion Maiden in a decent manner. And considering the developers keep shooting for performance improvements, I wonder if there's any structured way and place to go to report the findings of running Ion Maiden on gradually slower PCs.

Not that there should be a point in trying to run the game on an old Pentium II, but it would be seriously cool if you could do that, at lower resolution, with a Voodoo graphics accelerator or something pushed as far as the technology can offer for that period of hardware possibilities. Or maybe a Pentium III with 256MB of RAM? It's still insanely far below the 2GB of RAM minimum requirement, but it would be cool to know exactly what's the lowest hardware and software requirement possible, because many people still have some old PCs catching dust, and reviving them for a new retro game would add more greatness to the feeling.

Now with Build being so CPU-intensive and Ion Maiden having much larger sprites and other we're probably better off running Ion Maiden on a reasonably good Pentium 4 with a decent graphics card, but I still wonder why DirectX 11 is a requirement. For instance, both the GeForce 8600 GT and Radeon HD 4670 are DirectX 10 cards. But wouldn't DirectX 9 be enough? That goes way back to the Windows 98 era, up to Windows XP, and I bet there still are some old and crusty PCs that sit around doing nothing with Windows XP on them. :P Firing up those oldies with a modern game would be awesome.

So what kind of PCs have you people tried Ion Maiden on so far?

Oh, and the 64-bit requirement seems a bit funny for a game based on EDuke32. :D We do have 32-bit builds, so why not a 32-bit Ion Maiden? At least at some point in the future. Is 64-bit really required for a 256-color palette retro game?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Interesting, I didn't expect fresh news [External Link] about the Duke Nukem For(n)ever issues. :P So maybe some time in the future we'll see a proper Duke Nukem 3D successor.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Here's why I think DN3D:R was considerably more work than creating a new game on an old engine:

1. The graphics and effects must be modern, but the players need to feel like it's the old stuff brought up in higher definition. While this is easier for static art, it becomes difficult with in-game characters, which have to resemble their old counterparts. For instance, I dislike almost all the 3D models (monsters) in the Duke 3D High Resolution Pack [External Link]. They just don't feel right to me. I might be a lot more picky than most people, but I'm sure there are others who would've liked better models.

2. DN3D:R didn't aim strictly at pumping up the graphics on the original game, but also bring something new to the table. With Duke Nukem Forever out of the picture for so long and high expectations from the gamers, it's a tough job already to make the game believable with completely revamped art. And then you have to please the masses with everything new you bring to the table, so they don't get upset for ruining their beloved game. Sure it was a fan-made remake, but some gamers can be quite brutal if they don't like what they get.

3. DN3D:R is also about movement - as a 3D shooter. That engine must've been carefully configured to reflect the way Duke moved in the Build environment. I suspect it's not easy to make Duke move exactly the same, but I think they tried to replicate the physics as much as possible, because that's part of the experience that the fans expect to feel right.

Now about Ion Mainden, I won't say it's easy to make - just easier than. It requires time, patience, talent, skill, just like other games. But the good thing is:

1. It's new, so there's no need to conform to hard expectations (textures, models, effects, movement) other than to make it fun.

2. With a retro engine, the textures and models don't need to be pixel-perfect and the gamers are also less demanding by comparing this game with a modern one.

Now what requires a lot of work and it's quite hard as well, is the creative part - designing levels, textures, sprites and a good difficulty balance. But again, the good thing is none of this has to be like any other game. And the number of developers and designers knowing Build doesn't matter considering 3D Realms has enough of them in the know. :D

I don't have first hand experience with any of their work, so it's a lot of speculation here. But it's still educated speculation. And I miss DN3D:R and I will Forever (pun intended) hold a grudge on Gearbox if they don't grow a pair and work together with 3D Realms on Duke Nukem 3D: Reloaded.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Rebuilding an old game on a new engine takes a lot more effort than the other way around. You need great textures and great visual effects to begin with, because that's the first thing people see. But then there's the need for accuracy in terms of maps and gameplay, which are essential for remakes and "reloaded" stuff. If it doesn't have the proper identity, it's a failure. So a new game on any engine seems a lot easier by comparison.

But I don't see any of these games as cash grabs. From what I've seen on both games that we're talking about here, it's easy to see there was a lot of work involved and I appreciate that. I just mentioned DN3D:R here because it's Frederik Schreiber's gang involved in both projects. Gearbox deserves the mighty foot for killing DN3D:R.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I feel guilty to point this out here, especially with Duke in another camp, but what I really want is Duke Nukem 3D: Reloaded. Frederik Schreiber did a good job at promoting it and I feel like Gearbox only deserves redemption if they will allow that title to come out as originally planned.

Ion Maiden? Cool name, interesting gameplay, good old retro feeling, but buying it? Maybe later. I don't like Early Crapcess, nor can I understand how someone can advertise Linux support but fails to package the game accordingly. I wish them good luck, and I hope the game will be great.

View this comment - View article - View full comments