Widescreen Gaming Forum

So thanks to Steam and all the wonderful documentation found on the net, I've been playing older games and learning how to run them optimally.

There is an area of contention though with regards to software vs hardware rendering and which is necessarily better.

Is there consensus on some of these games and which rendering method one should use?

(Quake Engine)
Quake (see, I've heard/seen that OpenGL makes everything blurry due to texture filtering)
Hexen II

(id Tech 2)
Quake II
Heretic II

(Unreal Engine 1)
Unreal
Unreal Tournament
Deus Ex

(GoldSrc)
Half-Life

Hardware rendering is almost always better, assuming it works and doesn't make the system choke. If texture filtering makes stuff look blurry, the textures were very likely low res to begin with.

That said, for Id's games, you should be using source ports to make the game better than was ever originally possible. In the case of the Steam versions of Quake 1&2, it's the only way to get music working. Here's a reference I wrote:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Id_Super_Pack

I don't like or use source ports because I like to enjoy the games the best they were natively.

And I have music for those games both because I own original copies, and because a nice fellow on the Steam forums hosted the disc images of music only for them.



The feedback I've been getting is that at least for Quake 1, hardware rendering is perhaps not all better. The textures get all blurry, and the underwater distortion doesn't work right. I've seen both those myself, and am trying to find other examples of better or worse so I can make an informed decision on which mode to play.

GLHexen II also suffers from at least the water distortion problem.

That's a pretty arbitrary way to limit yourself. It's not like the source ports I'm talking about change the games' artwork or gameplay - it just means better resolution, smoother frame rates, and better texture filtering and rendering techniques than was originally possible. Plus a whole bunch of other nice things like mouselook, surround sound, proper widescreen support, digital soundtrack support (no disc switching), Internet multiplayer, and more. You're basically saying you prefer not having these things for no other reason but that it wasn't originally possible.

Also, Quake did not support OpenGL out of the box, so if you're using hardware acceleration on it, you're already going above "native" support.

It does affect the artwork by way of changing the look of the game. Anything that changes the look of the game beyond what was possible then is a no-no for me.

Mouselook I can enable in every old game I've tried so far, without a source port. Doom Heretic Hexen Quake etc etc etc

Stereo sound is already being upmixed. Widescreen I might be interested in, but I don't mind if it's not there on these games where it never was.

GLQuake is an official update to the game. I'm not suggesting I only play unpatched version 1.00 games. It's a matter of regular Quake vs GLQuake. or running Hexen2.exe vs GLHexen2.exe

Improving the look on a technical level is not "changing the artwork." The artwork is exactly the same as it always was - it's just rendered using better techniques. It's like watching a Blu-Ray instead of the VHS that was originally available - same source material, just a better representation of it, and therefore a better experience.

You can't mouselook in any official version of Doom, Heretic, and Hexen. It's just not possible - you can turn left and right with the mouse, but you can't really look up and down at all - there's a hack that sort of fakes the appearance, but it's completely useless (all it does is shift the FOV up or down and distort it), and can only be done with the keyboard, and doesn't work in the Doom games at all. And while Quake and Hexen II have it, it feels slightly rough out of the box, to me.

Upmixed stereo is not surround. In surround, you can hear what's behind you, behind you. Upmixed stereo does not allow this.

And does it matter whether GLQuake is official or not? According to you, it's a flawed update - it makes the textures blurrier. But DarkPlaces, an unofficial update, makes the textures stay sharp at all kinds of angles and distances. If official means the look is changed for the worse, and unofficial means the look is changed for the better, why draw the line at "official" updates? It's a completely arbitrary restriction, and your gaming experience will be worse for it.

if source ports not affecting the performance (which is already perfect for me) then they're changing the look. and I want the look from the time. home movies aren't an apt comparison. vhs -> dvd -> blu-ray is all catching up to look of film on movie screens/etc. the films were not shot and designed for VHS. games WERE designed for specific limitations and resources.

doom was never intended to run at 1600x1200 or something ridiculous. neither is chrono trigger, or sonic the hedgehog

why would i want to look up and down in id tech 1 games? they're not fully 3d, there's so rarely anything there. I can turn with the mouse, and that's all one needs. the games auto aim vertically as well

so I can hear things the developers never intended, with whats behind me and such? then I don't want it. the game wasn't designed that way. altering the game distances it from what the game was and is supposed to be. it's no longer id games' DOOM. it's someone else's idea of something DOOM-like

yes it matters. it's the developers vision. things are designed WITH certain limitations in place. removing those limitations changes the game.

altering the game arbitrarily on your own to look more modern is a worse gaming experience, IMO. it's not a modern game. it should look dated. where does anyone choose to draw the line? why not add HDR to Quake?

My line in the sand is actually one of the two least arbitrary and complicated positions to take. "The best the game can be from it's time" the other would be to make the game look the best possible, period. Anything in between is arbitrary and some person's random subjective decision to decide when to say enough is enough.

I don't alter my books, my music, or my films to add to them either. (like colorized versions of originally B&W films). I enjoy them with the best possible means available to me, and that's it. it's stunningly simple and I'm hardly the only person who believes in it


edit: altering the game is okay when it concerns not the look or sound or feel or gameplay (the artistic creation), but other areas, like say the installation or actual running of it. ie, playing DOOM on a windows 7 machine, vs a DOS one. or removing draconian DRM restrictions on games you own or something

edit2: I think the extent of any non-official game altering tools/software/patches I have on my PC is the novert.com executable. though it was hardly a bother to play without it. (I just learned of it, after 15 years of playing these games without, though it is from that era).

if source ports not affecting the performance (which is already perfect for me) then they're changing the look.

They're only changing the look in a good way, in the same sense that running a game at a higher resolution changes the look in a good way. What does it matter whether the higher resolution was originally possible or not? It doesn't.

doom was never intended to run at 1600x1200 or something ridiculous.

1600x1200 just makes it better than the designers intended. Not to say that this will make it look as good as a game that *was* intended to run at 1600x1200, but why limit a games' graphical quality to what the devs intended?

why would i want to look up and down in id tech 1 games? they're not fully 3d, there's so rarely anything there.

It helps a LOT in, say, Final Doom. And Doom is more 3D than you might think - it has limitations that Quake did not, but it makes enough use of 3D that looking up and down can frequently enable you to see things that you otherwise couldn't. That said, I can completely understand why a gameplay purist would prefer not to use mouselook.

so I can hear things the developers never intended, with whats behind me and such? then I don't want it. the game wasn't designed that way.

You're not hearing anything that wasn't in the game in the first place. You're just hearing it behind you instead of from no particular direction.

altering the game distances it from what the game was and is supposed to be. it's no longer d games' DOOM. it's someone else's idea of something DOOM-like

It's still DOOM. The artwork is all there, the gameplay is all there, every single shred of Id's ideas and creativity remains present. To claim that something is lost when you run DOOM at a high resolution, let alone act as though it's transformed into something completely different that Id had nothing to do with, is absurd.

yes it matters. it's the developers vision. things are designed WITH certain limitations in place. removing those limitations changes the game.

Removing those limitations after the design has already been completed changes nothing. The developer's vision remains intact, only now you can see certain parts of it more clearly.

altering the game arbitrarily on your own to look more modern is a worse gaming experience, IMO. it's not a modern game. it should look dated.

DOOM looks plenty dated running in GZDoom. You've still got low res textures, flat enemies, primitive lighting effects, etc.

where does anyone choose to draw the line? why not add HDR to Quake?

Because HDR would mean introducing artistic decisions that were never part of Id's design. Key phrase here is "artistic decisions" - you can't just say "let there be HDR" and watch magic happen. You'd have to go through each level and put it in yourself.

My line in the sand is actually one of the two least arbitrary and complicated positions to take. "The best the game can be from it's time"

It might not be complicated, but it is an arbitrary limitation. Allowing for GLQuake doesn't help your position either, since Quake was not designed for it.

I don't alter my books, my music, or my films to add to them either. (like colorized versions of originally B&W films).

Colorized film is not a good analogy - that not only involves making artistic decisions, but it overrides the crew's artistic decisions. Source ports do neither of these things by default.

GLQuake is an id developed official product right from that time. jeez, it's basically a licensed patch. it's what carmack and the others created. it's not a fan patch. it's not a source port.

colorizing B&W films is no different from running altered hi-rez versions of old games or adding 3D sound where there was not before. both, some might say, allow for a truer or clearer artist's vision where technology didn't allow previously. both are artistic changes. and to me, unless done or enabled by the artist (director/ developer /etc), I don't care for it.

and since the argument has whittled down to being "source ports benefit with higher resolutions" - if that's all they're tangibly gonna offer over the original build, I'm quite content not using them.

i shouldn't even have to touch on how artistic changes can become gameplay changes (ie, with higher resolution you can distinguish far away objects/enemies/environment where you couldn't before)

GLQuake is an id developed official product right from that time.

It was developed *AFTER* the game was finished. After all the artwork was created. After everything was designed, and not with 3D acceleration in mind. Everything you have said against source ports applies to GLQuake equally.

it's not a fan patch. it's not a source port.

There is zero difference between GLQuake and a source port. What does it matter whether Id did it after the fact or a fan did it after the fact, especially when the fan's offerings are better?

colorizing B&W films is no different from running altered hi-rez versions of old games

If you're going to render the terms "altered" and "versions" meaningless by applying them to something as trivial as increasing the rendered resolution, then yeah, there is a pretty big difference. Colorizing film actually does destroy the artistic integrity - you aren't just adding something that wasn't there before, you are taking away as well. Increasing the resolution on the other hand does not compromise, override, or replace any artistic decisions that anyone made.

both are artistic changes.

That is complete nonsense. Nobody ever deliberately limited the screen resolution of their game for artistic purposes. Only practical purposes, such as the technology not being available.

and since the argument has whittled down to being "source ports benefit with higher resolutions" - if that's all they're tangibly gonna offer over the original build, I'm quite content not using them.

So first you say you're rejecting it for improving too much, and now you're saying you reject it for not improving it enough. I say you don't really believe either of these things - you're simply rejecting a boon out of stubbornness and are making up the reasons as you go.

i shouldn't even have to touch on how artistic changes can become gameplay changes (ie, with higher resolution you can distinguish far away objects/enemies/environment where you couldn't before)

Doom's draw distance and level design were never so far that you weren't supposed to be able to distinguish things. You might not have been able to see all the details of an enemy, but you could certainly recognize their color and general shape. Being able to see every pixel of a Cacodemon from far away, instead of a roundish mass of red, does not compromise the art or affect gameplay.