Discussion about game engines - split from unrelated poll

[Leonardo]

The poll should have more options.

Agreed. I wish there was one option about what game engine CA are using for ToB, which is the game that intrests me at most.

From what I understand ToB uses a 32-bit game engine and I am not interested in buying a 32-bit game. I have relative fresh experience between a 32-bit game and a 64-bit and that's Skyrim as I have both games.

The differences between Skyrim Legendary Edition (SLE) 32-bit and Skyrim Special Edition (SSE) 64-bit are huge. A 32-bit engine uses DX9, while a 64-bit engine uses DX11 with better graphics and stability IMO.

[Flinn]

Agreed. I wish there was one option about what game engine CA are using for ToB, which is the game that intrests me at most.

From what I understand ToB uses a 32-bit game engine and I am not interested in buying a 32-bit game. I have relative fresh experience between a 32-bit game and a 64-bit and that's Skyrim as I have both games.

The differences between Skyrim Legendary Edition (SLE) 32-bit and Skyrim Special Edition (SSE) 64-bit are huge. A 32-bit engine uses DX9, while a 64-bit engine uses DX11 with better graphics and stability IMO.

can you please explain me what a technicality like 32 or 64 bit has to do with the historical setting of the games? I think that the poll question is rather straightforward

[Leonardo]

can you please explain me what a technicality like 32 or 64 bit has to do with the historical setting of the games? I think that the poll question is rather straightforward

If a game are using a 32-bit engine then the historical settings for that game might be suffering as a 32-bit engine has its limitation, while a 64-bit engine doesn't seems to have any limitations, not signficant anyway.

In other words, I should worded my post differently and mention that I wish there were another option like "I like the historical settings, but there are other things I hestitate to buy the game. Please elaborate...". Something like that.

[Diocle]

If a game are using a 32-bit engine then the historical settings for that game might be suffering as a 32-bit engine has its limitation, while a 64-bit engine doesn't seems to have any limitations, not signficant anyway.

In other words, I should worded my post differently and mention that I wish there were another option like "I like the historical settings, but there are other things I hestitate to buy the game. Please elaborate...". Something like that.

In my opinion, for historical purpose, a good old 32-bit engine is perfect and far superior to the modern 64-bit engines based on Warscape, as you can easily verify, playing the historical Mods for RTW and Med2, as Roma Surrectum, Somnium Apostatae Juliani, or even Europa Barbarorum, or Invasio Barbarorum II, For King and Country, Stainless Steel and many more, while modern 64-bit engines such as Attila and Rome2 simply cannot generate any historical accuracy for the horrible technical limitations inherent of such engines.

But if you were just talking of the aesthetic quality of units and environments in 64-bit engines, well, you might be in some way right.

[izzi]

If I remember correctly, with a 32bit engine you have a memory limitation of 4gb (for both the RAM and gpu). So with a 64 bit, you can fully utilize more memory both on the RAM and GPU. But it also depends of the developers have programmed it that way, that it fully utilizes a lot of memory and gpu and even cpu cores. And normally, it doesn't matter if you have 32 or 64 bit engine when using dx 9, 11 or 12. It really depends on which gpu you are using and if the engine is programmed that way to utilize dx 9, 11 or 12 (texture/shader quality).

[Leonardo]

In my opinion, for historical purpose, a good old 32-bit engine is perfect and far superior to the modern 64-bit engines based on Warscape, as you can easily verify, playing the historical Mods for RTW and Med2, as Roma Surrectum, Somnium Apostatae Juliani, or even Europa Barbarorum, or Invasio Barbarorum II, For King and Country, Stainless Steel and many more, while modern 64-bit engines such as Attila and Rome2 simply cannot generate any historical accuracy for the horrible technical limitations inherent of such engines.

But if you were just talking of the aesthetic quality of units and environments in 64-bit engines, well, you might be in some way right.

I didn't know that about the older games with a 32-bit engine, but then the Warscape engine is a 32-bit engine right.

If I remember correctly, with a 32bit engine you have a memory limitation of 4gb (for both the RAM and gpu). So with a 64 bit, you can fully utilize more memory both on the RAM and GPU. But it also depends of the developers have programmed it that way, that it fully utilizes a lot of memory and gpu and even cpu cores. And normally, it doesn't matter if you have 32 or 64 bit engine when using dx 9, 11 or 12. It really depends on which gpu you are using and if the engine is programmed that way to utilize dx 9, 11 or 12 (texture/shader quality).

That's my point about using a 32-bit vs a 64-bit engine for a game.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

If a game are using a 32-bit engine then the historical settings for that game might be suffering as a 32-bit engine has its limitation, while a 64-bit engine doesn't seems to have any limitations, not signficant anyway.

In other words, I should worded my post differently and mention that I wish there were another option like "I like the historical settings, but there are other things I hestitate to buy the game. Please elaborate...". Something like that.

You could have worded it a bit differently indeed, since Historical authenticity has nothing to do with the engine. But I understand that you were talking about graphics and performance. That's not our subject here though, right ?

Just a few things about the engine, so to understand the differences.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Warhammer 1-2 are 64bit though, just saying guys. Furthermore Warscape was indeed 32bit till Attila and TOB is actually a modified version of Attila, so still 32bit. But Warhammer 1-2 are based on 64bit Warsape versions. Now about performance, 64bit is an improvement on 32bit. Whereas 32bit allowed for up to 4 GB RAM usage, 64bit allows up to 192 GB of RAM on Windows professional (more than enough). Plus I strongly agree with @izzi. It also depends on how the developers coded and tweaked the engine. So it doesn't matter if a game is able to utilize more memory if isn't programmed correctly and from my experience all TW titles are badly-written, since they utilize much more resources than they should and immensely stress the cores without any specific reason.

[Diocle]

Sorry guys for the confusion! Actually Attila and Rome 2, as Shogun, Napoleon and Empire are 32-bit engines.

Sorry again, even though my point still stands: the old 32-bit engines of the old titles have produced better games from the point of view of historical accuracy, so, I think the problem is Warscape engine, which seems unable to produce games with the requirements needed for some kind of historical autenticity.

I've read that Warhammer with its 64-bit engine has been a great progress compared to the previous 32-bit games but all in all, even though better in functioning, the gaming features are very close to those of the presvious titles like Attila and Rome 2, that is, if you love gaming in history either on 32-bit engine or running a more modern 64-bit engine you can't expect any real improvement concerning history on the basis of Warscape engine.

[AnthoniusII]

I run W7 Ultimate 64bit with 8 GB RAM but on an 6 years old 4core 2.33GHz Prossesor. Rome II and Attila are too heavy for that PC.
No matter of any PC's performance , historical accuracy including the timeframe set up is another story.
Remember that RTW1 had Pharaonic Egyptians. Was the game's fault or a fault of those that "desided" to re-write history putting Pharaonic soldiers 2000 years later?
Ussing this example i come back to the latest historical titles. The set up of Rome II and Attila cover some interesting periods that never lost interest by all players. That easily can be proven if you see that many RTW1 and M2TW ones cover similar history times. The problem with the last historical games was not the timeframe they covered but a repeat of RTW's Pharaonic mistake , this time not only with imaginary units/warriors but with other features critical to historical games like sieges etc. In Attila barbarians have artilery units, pikes like Macedonian Phalanx and other "Pharaonic" features . But this time there is NO EXCUSE. Why? Because among those that made those games was a well known and warded former modder that supposed that fixed all these nonsence!
What is an historical game with unwalled cities?
What is an historical game without proper SAI (siege AI)?
What is an historical game without proper "Diplomacy"?
If graphics are all we need in a historical game then PCs performance is all we need to talk about.
Is it though? If yes then why hardcore TW players turned their back to the latest TW historical titles is such degree that CA/SEGA turned to fantacy?
CA/SEGA announced a ROME II upgrade with a feature that existed from RTW1!
Question that emerges: Why this feature and others that exist in previus TW games were not incuded from the start?
What about Shogun II? Will CA/SEGA replace that cow shaped horses with a version of ROME II's ones that are the only real advance comparing to older TW game?
Lets go back to Attila. We live in dangerus times and CA/SEGA tents to forget that. In splitting Christianity in two major sides THAT WERE NOT EXIST before 1054 puts the game of the religius famatism cutting edge that was not nessesary.
Lets not pretend we are blind. Too many kids "learn" history through games ignoring history books! When CA/SEGA comes with a game and adds a feature that devides people by their beliefs is very dangerus and reveal lack of responsibillity by the developers. So ... what is a historical game by definition ? Is it only the time frame it cover leaving all the rest in luck ?

[Flinn]

Discussion split from here