How do you program without 3D asks CJ? Look at Baldur's Gate. No 3D whatsoever and sold very well. Starcraft ditto. 2D is not dead. Besides, I prefer the isometric to the first person view, so I'm biased. :P

Oh wait, you mean software rendering of 3D worlds... uhmmm, it pretty much is, I'm afraid, or at least, it's a last resort. Why? Sloooooow... Unless of course you're making a game for the mid-90's... If it's an RPG, umm, it might work, but nowadays, I don't think it can. It needs to be fantastically good on all other levels for it to compensate in an increasingly eye candy hungry world.

[This message has been edited by Jeranon (edited November 10, 1999).]

Take "outcast" as an example: This is a 3D game that takes a different approach to 3D rendering. Because of this, the renderer is largely (entirely?) software.

I don't think SW rendering is dead per-se, new features will appear first in SW, only to be included in next generation HW. I DO believe, however, that 3D cards are a lot more mainstream than you suggest - Even the lamest gfx card today have some degree of 3D support, and even the most hardcore 3D accelerators (TNT2, VoodooIII, Geeforce) cost way less than a new processor).

/Niels

But for others it doesn't have to be so, other people especially hoby programmers who are programming for the thrill of the "journey" as much as the end product (Like me would much rather take it slower and actually code software rendering into their programs, and when they do it well the effects can be quite worthwhile, especially that they know that almost every joe can ??download?? their game from the internet and play it without the need to buy an expensive piece of hardware.

Another reason for coding software rendering into a game is so that the programmer learns a lot about what they are actually programming about and so when they finally get a "real" programming job they will know how the concepts work and so they will be better for it. I know that it isn't so easy to program in 3d, matrices aren't that easy as well, but when you get the 3d theory into your head, remember it, and use it in programming then you will retain that knowledge for later and thus it will help you out when you are stuck on something about which no tutorials exist.

But still, do we really need all these fancy 3d graphics? I mean from what I have seen 3d graphics have not gone far since quake , or quake 2, they have improved in quake3 a bit but still there have been no overwhelming technologies or new ideas into the sea of 3d programming for quite some time...

We will need some innovation soon!

------------------
-Dom:)
Visit - http://www.eisa.net.au/~sdgrab/index.html

/Niels

All those hunting games that are targeted at people who arn't computer enthusiasts cost $20. They'd never sell to their target audience at $50.

If someone is going to buy 5+ fifty dollar games a year, it's hard to believe that they won't invest less than $100 for a decent videocard.

That being said, you take a pretty big performance hit just developing a Windows native game (opposed to DOS) with or without hardware acceleration. For most people it's worth it to avoid dealing with the hardware in general. It's concievable someone could write all kinds of 3-D hardware drivers in DOS and port OpenGL and get a game that'll run faster on less memory, but it's not worth it to most people. It's up to you to decide where you want to take performance hits, whether its a higher Benchmark machine, or sticking to 256 color display.

2) It is true that alot of new computers come with standard 3d acceleration, but alot of people out there can't afford an new computer.

3) Sure they will take John Carmack's opinion seriously- but we're not all as 'important' to the game industry as he is are we? ;-)

[This message has been edited by Eternity (edited November 10, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Jeranon (edited November 10, 1999).]