Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 547 posts

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#171

Post by Version467 »

Kaytaro wrote: post #136
Version467 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? That doesn't seem right. We absolutely have ambitious games on pc that bring generational leaps in graphical fidelity. Like the Witcher 3, which was absolutely stunning when it first released. Similarly (although originally a console exclusive) Red Dead Redemption 2 looks incredible on PC. We also have releases like Hellblade: Senuas Sacrifice which pushed the limit of what was possible to achieve with limited r…

Witcher 3 is 8 years old and considered an old persons game. I learned that the hard way when I tried talking to my nephew about video games. In all seriousness, most of your examples I would consider part of the previous era of gaming, which ended with Fortnite’s explosion. Hyper realistic games will continue to be developed of course, but the overall industry trend is moving towards mobile-friendly graphics, which…

I agree that Witcher 3 doesn't count as "current gen" anymore, but it wasn't meant to represent that. I picked my examples to show that we've seen high fidelity games throughout the last decade. All of those games pushed the boundaries of what's possible in some way and I don't think we've seen a decline of that at all.

There are just so many more games now that it might seem like that.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#172

Post by paxys »

dumdumchan wrote: post #112
Version467 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you compared it to screenshots from Far Cry 1, or to your memory of the game? Far Cry 1 was a beautfiul game, absolutely, but the new iteration clearly does look a lot better than the original.

They peaked at far cry 2 and it has been down hill ever since

Far Cry 3 was miles better than the first two. In fact it was because of the success of 3 that every later game was just a copy of it, and the franchise stagnated.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#173

Post by debugnik »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #147
debugnik wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda, Amazon purchased the code and forked it as Lumberyard. Then they realised their own studios didn't want to use it and their game-dev projects failed, so they donated the engine to the Linux Foundation. But the engine didn't even support Linux yet, so they spawned a new Open 3D Foundation for it, and renamed the engine Open 3D. I haven't heard of anyone using it seriously yet.

Actually, before Lumberyard was released, Crytek had already open-sourced Cryengine and gave it away under a pay-what-you-want model until the engine's 5.5 release.

Source-available is not open-source; I know people care increasingly less but having access to the source is not enough for it to be "open".

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#174

Post by derrikcurran »

Closi wrote: post #138
Version467 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? That doesn't seem right. We absolutely have ambitious games on pc that bring generational leaps in graphical fidelity. Like the Witcher 3, which was absolutely stunning when it first released. Similarly (although originally a console exclusive) Red Dead Redemption 2 looks incredible on PC. We also have releases like Hellblade: Senuas Sacrifice which pushed the limit of what was possible to achieve with limited r…

Parent comment said PC-exclusive, Witcher 3 and RDR2 are examples where the PC port came out way after the console release and they are both fairly old games at this point.

Witcher 3 came out on PC at the same time as consoles. CDPR has a long history with PC gaming and they tend to emphasize the PC experience. They also own GOG which is a PC game store/platform. RDR2 on the other hand was indeed a timed console exclusive.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#175

Post by nerdix »

cubefox wrote: post #12

I remember when Far Cry came out. Around the time, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 were the most anticipated games for quite a while, mostly because they promised graphics far ahead of anything released so far. But as they were delayed multiple times, Far Cry stole a lot of their thunder when it came out months before them, with similarly impressive graphics. We don't see technically ambitious PC exclusive games like this any…

The PC gaming market is actually bigger now than it was back then.

The difference is that consoles didn't really start to become viable for the FPS genre until the Xbox/PS2 generation (and even then it was really just Halo).

So an FPS was PC exclusive by default with only the biggest games getting a clumsy console port or spinoff years later (like FarCry Instincts). Consoles became a first class citizen in the world of FPSes with the 360/PS3 generation in the mid-2000s. That's why FarCry 1 (2004) was a PC exclusive but FarCry 2 (2008) released on consoles and PC at the same time.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#176

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

realitythreek wrote: post #121
psychphysic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a risk those closed source projects would be sued following the release because they disclosed some forgotten sin? I'm thinking mostly of anti competitive practices from Windows.

There’s a bunch of costs to releasing closed source code as open source. Generally they’d have to have a team of developers review it, they’d need their lawyers to review it and any licenses. That every company that had licensed code used would also need to go through their own process. At any time, one of them could say no and the process stops. So you’re basically paying for everyone’s time and possibly to relicens…

Yep, it's a huge time sink even in the best case scenario, let alone with ancient software encumbered by transfer of ownership through multiple corporate custodians.

It's not that unusual for it to not even be wholly owned by a single entity due to licensing requirements.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#177

Post by pizzapill »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #169
dahart wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any good reason why the sources need to stay closed if they aren't going to make any further gains, financial or otherwise, from this product and its ecosystem? I can think of lots of reasons. From a competitive point of view, you might risk having a big enough resurgence that it eats into the business of your replacement. From a technical point of view, it may reveal parts of the sausage making, or expose…

I'd guess something big as Windows 9x contains A LOT of licensed third party code which would be a nightmare to get permission for. Try finding five dozen rights holders after thirty years...

This is the usual argument you hear when it comes to old Games. It often would take way to long time to "clean" them up from 3rd party contributions/licenses etc. For a OS this is a impossible task.

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#178

Post by mediumsmart »

cahoot_bird wrote: post #77

I remember there is a bug with the hang glider that if you move down and up you gain momentum Back in the day far cry 1 was ultra realistic graphics. The game was fun to play, the most annoying thing is if you throw a rock or grenade where they can see if your stealth meter in instantly goes to zero and they start shooting you. I played it a lot, hehe.

:) me too - guiding trigens towards the mercs from a patrol boat with rockets.

Coming out of the bunker was amazing and then the realization that it would be a guided tour because "Doyle" :|

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#179

Post by realitythreek »

drewcoo wrote: post #154
psychphysic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a risk those closed source projects would be sued following the release because they disclosed some forgotten sin? I'm thinking mostly of anti competitive practices from Windows.

> anti competitive practices from Windows You would more likely be amazed by all the dumb hacks in the system for backward compatibility, mostly for other companies' software. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20050824-11/?p=34...

It seems dumb and it is dumb, but it’s also an important feature of Windows that your terrible app from the 90s can still run today with minor changes generally. Less so if it’s win16 but anything win32 is good to go.

Also, Linux has a similar philosophy as Linus has eloquently described in the past. [1]

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75

Re: Far Cry 1.34 source code (2006)

#180

Post by hesdeadjim »

someplaceguy wrote: post #162
maccard wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to remove all the calls to the SDK too.

Why is that? Wouldn't the calling code be written (and thus copyrighted) by the company that wrote the game rather than the one that created the SDK?

Depends, if it’s code calling a console SDK API then you are bound by terms of the NDA to not publicly share it — forever. Even just function names!

More realistically, a drop of source code is basically painting a big target on your company to get sued by a troll. I’ve wanted to release my game’s source but am terrified of this.

Post reply on HN