The Haus

Hun-Speak

Click here for other Hun-Speak columns.

February 25, 2001 -- How About We Stick to the Facts?

Today in an editorial on CGO called Quake III is Not That Important, Jason Cross wonders aloud why Quake III Arena is often the only benchmark used for testing video cards. In the article he makes many valid points. He shows the need for a Direct3D benchmark as well as the need for benchmarks to reflect a wider range of video games other than "OpenGL-based first-person shooters from id Software." Had he stopped there, I would have uttered a hearty, "Amen! Preach on, my brother!" Sadly, the article continued.

I sensed impending danger when I read this comment:

A video card that performs exceptionally well in The Sims would benefit a hell of a lot more people than one that blazes in Quake 3, after all.

This brought up the inevitable question in my mind: Do people who play The Sims really care that much about video card performance? Seeing as the minimum requirement is a two-meg SVGA card, I doubt many Sims players will be standing in line to get their hands on a GeForce3. But still, the author has a legitimate point--a wider range of gaming benchmarks would be A Good Thing. Once again, had he stopped here, I might have looked at him kind of funny about bringing up The Sims, but no harm done.

Then came the whopper. Out of nowhere, an ad hominem attack.

I guess it doesn't really surprise me that Quake 3 performance gets so much attention from the hardcore gaming community, especially online. After all, these are the same guys who put far too much emphasis on the game itself, devoting dozens of webpages to it and judging every single other game by comparing it to Quake 3. These guys are apparently oblivious to the fact that there are a couple dozen games this year that have outsold it, and many of them are just plain better games. Hardcore id Software fans are like any other die-hard fan, I guess. They've got blinders on.

OK. You lost me. You had me at the beginning and got me again at the end, but this was unnecessary. His logic appears to be:

A classic ad hominem attack.

I will not disagree that the endless Quake III Arena vs. Unreal Tournament arguments that were vomited onto the web last year were utterly worthless. As a matter of fact, I even wrote about it. But to say that fanboy-ism is even partially the reason why Quake III Arena is used as a benchmark so often has no basis in fact.

Even some of the "stats" he uses to make his point are little more than an attack against the game itself. Stats like "easily 90% of them [3D games] use Direct3D," "If less than a quarter of all the games that use licensed engines use Quake 3 technology, why is it the prominent, often sole representation of hardware performance?" Even if you could verify these stats, they are still irrelevant. Even if no other game used the Quake III Arena engine, it would in no way diminish its viability as a benchmarking platform.

The reasons why Quake III Arena is used as the primary benchmark for new video cards are the following:

  1. It taxes the video system effectively
  2. Its results are easily reproducible
  3. It is a popular game among people who would be among the first to get the latest and greatest hardware
  4. No other current game has an adequate benchmarking feature. Unreal Tournament comes close, but it is far more processor-dependant than it is video-dependant.

Once again, I, like Mr. Cross, would love to see more games add benchmarking features so that a broader spectrum of gamers can determine what card is best for their needs. I'm certain that most hardware review sites would agree with us. However, the simple attack against Quake III fans was unjustified and irrelevant. Just because this article was an opinion piece does not give him any excuses. Opinions should be based on facts too.