Originally posted by John Reynolds
Look at how he constantly ducked my questions and/or changed the subject earlier in this thread. Trying to have a discussion with such people is a waste of time.
I did answer your question and you have never responded to my last reply to you which was the following:
It's in the ability of the code that the developer chooses for the game. How much time is taken to develope the code. I think D3 Alpha runs faster and looks better than Halo on either Nvidia or ATi cards and it is a darn alpha for goodness sake!
And yet plenty of others feel the same too. So many are disappointed about Halo becuase they remember the experience on the XBoX and were eagerly awaiting a better one on their more powerful PC's. Well, it came up short didn't it. Yes, it uses PS 2.0... big deal. It's a completed product while in Alpha stage, D3 offers better graphics and performance... in ALPHA. How is that possible? Becuase Carmack and his team are putting the time into developing the code.
Just because a great game comes out with a great engine, does in no way mean that the derivatives of that game are guaranteeing the same success. It is all in how the code is developed.
So when you say "if an IHV cheats the popular ones used as benchmarks then those benchmarks are worthless", it doesn't mean jack because though 90% of the games may have a connection to the game by way of the engine, it does not mean it will be maximized properly like the successor.