NC> Most games may play well, look good, sound good: but 
 NC> the whole industry relies on sheer hardware power to 
 NC> make up for there crap bloated coding. Otherwise 
 NC> everyone would be able to have a platform that is 
 NC> 'current' for more than three weeks, at the current 
 NC> time you have to upgrade constantly to cope with the 
 NC> bloated, sloppy code that software houses chuck out to the consumer.
  It's not "bloated code" at all.  It's called "extra detail!"  If you want 
something that requires a P60 to play, then be prepared to play Quake I all 
over again.  If you want a game that looks good, play Quake II - but it 
requires more.
  Take a look at those games, for example.  You might think that Quake II is 
"sloppy" for its higher requirements.  But consider the optimizations: 10-15% 
from converting QuakeC to DLLs; 'areaportals' allow for larger rooms; frame 
interpolation allows for smoother animation with the same 10 FPS animation 
code.  It runs beautifully; if you doubt that, take a look at Hexen II to 
compare.  It only uses a "Quake 1.5" engine, and I have to run it in 512x384 
to get the same FPS I do in Quake II at 640x480, despite the greater detail.
  I think you're just more annoyed that it's hard to keep up with graphic 
enhancements on the PC!  The only reason PSX games seem to be improving 
graphically is because Sony adds effects to the graphics libraries, and 
coders have had 3 years to get things right (which they still don't always 
do, BTW).  If that had been the case for PCs, we would probably all have been 
using non-3D-accelerated P90s with 16 MB of RAM; not a pretty sight compared 
to today.
 NC> I'm sure it looks great, sounds great and plays great, 
 NC> it can still be sloppyily coded, taking up far too much 
 NC> resources for what is presented to you on screen.
  If that was the case, then the PSX version was sloppily coded too!
 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------