Duke4.net Forums: Release date in Feb 2011? I don't think so... - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Release date in Feb 2011? I don't think so...

#61

Raziel, Mr.Deviance....I may not know as much as you too. Hell, I don't even know if what you both spew is correct or not, but there is one thing I do know.

After playing games since I was little starting from the Atari 2600 to the modern day systems I have come to realize two things.

1. Graphics are not everything.
I have seen games have the best graphics money can buy and yet suck majorly all because they lacked all the other elements that make games fun such as: Story, Gameplay, multiplayer(if possible), design, and many more. I have also seen the reverse where games have crappy graphics, but are fun because it does everything right.

2. This "standard" that you mentioned Raziel is nothing more than the shallow views of the "modern gamer" such as yourself. If all you care about is the engine strength or the numbers or anything of that jargon that you spat out mean more to you than how the game plays then I feel sorry for you and for everyone that agrees with you.

If you really want to compare games, let's compare Duke Nukem's graphics to games like B-17 Bomber on Atari 2600. How about Super Mario Bros 3 on NES? Goldeneye on Nintendo 64?

For once get that Modern Warfare "realism" out of your ass and pay attention, because this is an old schooler talking here.

Let's make another comparison. Let's compare two games that are in competition. Saints Row and GTA. Saints Row 2 looks nothing like GTA 4, yet why is SR2 more fun than GTA4? No, put down your calculator, this is not a math problem. It's obvious. SR2 is fun while GTA4 is...well, not as fun.

Half-Life 2. By today's, or should I say Raziel's, "standards" this game is dated. The engine is old by 6 years and many games can do just as good if not better, so why is this game still awesome? Again, see answer above. The source engine has been used in MANY games from Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, and many more and these games are still going strong today.

Crysis is one of those games that its ONLY gimmick is the graphics. That's it. Story sucks, gameplay sucks, voice acting sucks, everything sucks, but the graphics. Hardly realistic either since I have never seen a machine gun take down a tree. Gatling gun maybe. Have you heard anybody say "Crysis' story is so thrilling to play that it beats out the competition. It's Shakespeare in game form."

These newer generation of gamers have become so shallow that they are unwilling to play a game because it "doesn't look good." They missed out on such jewels such as Psychonauts.

Yeah graphics are important, but they are not the end all and be all. What about the A.I.? The engine you two speak up do more than just render graphics you know, but you two already know this, right?

So, Raziel, Mr.Deviance...the next time you guys want to fight over engine strength or how the graphics look in DNF how about instead you shove you dicks into your mouths. This way we don't have to listen to you too babble like a two kids fighting over a toy in a sandbox and you both will find the satisfaction you both are looking for. To quote Adam Sessler.

Yeah, this game is not going to have the best graphics in world. Yeah, this games does have to live up to 12 years of scrutiny. Yes, this game is going to have problems (what game doesn't?) I am willing to accept that. I just want the game to be fun even at the cost of "up to date" graphics.

If all you two are going to do is sit here and whine like you do, then don't play the game, don't come to the forum anymore, don't even think about Duke Nukem anymore. Yeah you have the right to voice an opinion, but you also have the right to shut up. If all you are going to do is come to the forum and bash the game to its very foundation, then you are nothing more than a troll that thinks its "cool" to be different.
0

#62

Total bullshit guys and you know it.

So what if it is based around Unreal engine 1 ?

Mr . PROGRAMMER Half Life 1 was based off of Quake 1 .

Did you like those graphics? Yes you did, mr. Bayonetta.

Go to hell , you and your bullshit stories , programmer my ass.
0

User is offline   Martin 

#63

Yup. These forums do have a bunch of old farts that love to whine. Mr Deviance even took a long post of mine, replied to all the little points I made separately and out of context, and then ended it with something like "This is the LAST time I spend over an hour replying to a huge post". I seriously lol'd. It gave me great joy to think he wasted that much of his life for nothing.

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

Raziel, Mr.Deviance....I may not know as much as you too. Hell, I don't even know if what you both spew is correct or not, but there is one thing I do know.

Etc...


Best new member! Though I enjoyed GTA IV more than Saints Row 2 (found the latter kind of buggy), I agree with most of your other points. Tech fags who no longer actually play anything other than testing their own shitty Mapper32 levels, then insist on projecting some false image that they are programming geniuses and that everybody should listen to what they say, whine about how shit DNF is when they haven't played it (whilst people who have played it say it rocks)... gtfo. Get some sunlight or something. Duke would think we're all fags, but he'd kill you guys way before he killed us.
0

User is offline   DavoX 

  • Honored Donor

#64

GODDAMNIT WHY DO PEOPLE STILL SAY IT'S BASED ON UNREAL 1 !!!¿¿¿?????
0

User is offline   Sebastian 

#65

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

1. Graphics are not everything.

Again, nobody is arguing this...

Luther Blissett: Seriously, calm down and stop trying to offend everyone who disagrees with you. If you can't bring anything constructive to the discussion then just stay out of it.

This post has been edited by Rusty Nails: 02 October 2010 - 11:03 AM

0

User is offline   DavoX 

  • Honored Donor

#66

Also it's been explicitly said that there's only the netcode and script left of the Unreal Code.
0

User is offline   Dan_Death 

#67

All I know is, I couldn't care less about the graphics. They look great to me, even if it didn't, that wouldn't stop me from playing it. It's Duke for fuck's sake. Plus, it probably has great gameplay, and hours of screwing around with interactive things.
But anyway, I want my damn demo :| I won't have my gaming PC with me around February, not until May.

This post has been edited by Dan_Death: 02 October 2010 - 12:09 PM

0

User is offline   DavoX 

  • Honored Donor

#68

LOL at people claiming that duke doesn't use X feature when in reality we've only seen a handful of footage.
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#69

View PostDavoX, on Oct 2 2010, 10:51 AM, said:

GODDAMNIT WHY DO PEOPLE STILL SAY IT'S BASED ON UNREAL 1 !!!¿¿¿?????

Because it is -> http://wiki.beyondun...gine_Versions/1

Keep in mind you can actually do a lot to improve an older engine. Also, you may not realize this, but even Unreal Engine 3 still has portions of Unreal 1 code in it... The fact is, if you take Unreal 1 now, rewrote its rendering to have shadows, vertex/fragment shaders, some full framebuffer effects and use static-meshes to add detail to your levels, you can actually get something that looks pretty modern - and that's what I'm seeing in DNF. Yes, it's not UE3, but would most players ever notice? Probably not... I would wager that only the smartest, most observant players would figure it out, especially since the team at 3DR did a really good job to hide that fact.

They've also written their own character animation system, so pretty much anything that involves a moving character is brand new code from 3DR. I quite like what they did to put Duke's presence in the game, that would be one side-effect of their modern character animation system, in fact, I've never seen that kind of thing done well, but they seemed to have gotten it working perfectly in DNF.

Just to reiterate, no one is saying that the game will be bad. I've just stated my observation that it still appears to be running UE1. That's not necessarily a bad thing since Unreal actually has a really solid base to build from.

View PostLuther Blissett, on Oct 2 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

Total bullshit guys and you know it.

I thought you weren't going to come back to this forum until after DNF ships? Oh well, I did tell my boss this isn't an ideal world, how true that is.

Total bullshit? I don't think so... Quit living in denial because it is indisputable fact that the game runs on either Unreal 1 or Unreal 2's engine. Broussard himself said that is the case and that they've written their own renderer to modernize the engine.

The actual confusion was caused by a comment made by Broussard saying they branched when Unreal 2 got static-meshes. What actually happened was that Unreal 1 got static-meshes which was a prototype feature intended for Unreal 2. They weren't actually using the Unreal 2 branch, what they were using was Unreal 1 with a few prototype Unreal 2 features.

View PostLuther Blissett, on Oct 2 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

So what if it is based around Unreal engine 1 ?
Mr . PROGRAMMER Half Life 1 was based off of Quake 1 .
Did you like those graphics? Yes you did, mr. Bayonetta.

I'm not arguing with that, if you actually bothered reading my posts properly you would know that. Look at what they did with DarkPlaces which is based on Quake 1 as well, I think that looks quite amazing, better than Half Life 1.

But as modern as it looks, DarkPlaces is not a modern engine... The same is true for Duke Nukem Forever. You can live in denial as much as you want, but that is what you get when you work on a game for such a long time.

View PostLuther Blissett, on Oct 2 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

Go to hell , you and your bullshit stories , programmer my ass.

Well, the fact is, I turned out to be spot on with my observation that the game was still running on UE1. All you're doing now is looking like an idiot by being stubborn about it and refusing to accept I was correct... The facts are right here -> http://wiki.beyondun...gine_Versions/1

I also find it amusing that you think you have grounds for saying I'm not a programmer. It doesn't matter how much you claim I'm not, I am, and your words aren't going to change that fact. Oh, and I'm not just a programmer, I'm a technical lead - so on that note, I think you can go to hell instead.


Raz.
0

User is offline   DavoX 

  • Honored Donor

#70

View PostRaziel, on Oct 2 2010, 11:43 PM, said:

Because it is -> http://wiki.beyondun...gine_Versions/1

Keep in mind you can actually do a lot to improve an older engine. Also, you may not realize this, but even Unreal Engine 3 still has portions of Unreal 1 code in it... The fact is, if you take Unreal 1 now, rewrote its rendering to have shadows, vertex/fragment shaders, some full framebuffer effects and use static-meshes to add detail to your levels, you can actually get something that looks pretty modern - and that's what I'm seeing in DNF. Yes, it's not UE3, but would most players ever notice? Probably not... I would wager that only the smartest, most observant players would figure it out, especially since the team at 3DR did a really good job to hide that fact.


I'm sorry but NO. For DNF to BE RIGHT NOW an unreal 1 engine game, it should have MOST of the original code in it. Since 90% of the code was rewritten, changed, and rewritten again, it's no longer Unreal 1. I could accept your argument if you said "It WAS an unreal 1 engine game", but no... even if the "core" or "base" of Unreal 1 is good, this doesn't apply anymore as the "core" and "base" of it no longer exists probably.

Also, how can you say it "appears to have unreal 1 engine" ? You mean it's a low poly piece of shit? I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make any sense. It used unreal 1 engine BEFORE, not anymore. If you truly see Unreal 1 in the DNF demos you need glasses man.
0

User is offline   Striker 

  • Auramancer

#71

Ugh... This is ridiculous.

By the way, this shot makes it FUCKING obvious that there IS a Terrain system in DNF. Terrain systems have been commonplace in engines for a very long time, even as far back as Terminal Velocity.

Also, it runs on the DNF Engine, which some could say is a heavily modified Unreal 2.5 engine. Only thing is, nearly ALL of 2.5's code is stripped, leaving only the Netcode and UnrealScript systems.
Posted Image

Oh, this one too.
Posted Image

This post has been edited by StrikerMan780: 02 October 2010 - 08:19 PM

0

#72

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

Raziel, Mr.Deviance....I may not know as much as you too. Hell, I don't even know if what you both spew is correct or not...

Then your whole post was useless to begin with and you probably just registered here to insult me, raziel and others that you publicly assume, might know more than you.

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

Saints Row 2 looks nothing like GTA 4, yet why is SR2 more fun than GTA4? No, put down your calculator, this is not a math problem. It's obvious. SR2 is fun while GTA4 is...well, not as fun.

No It's not obvious at all. Just because you say it's obvious, that doesn't make it obvious.
I find Saints Row 2 to be a sub-par game that happens to have small plus in it's nice character editor, while I find Gta4 a very fun game with lots of functional and fun gameplay that can make me lose many hours screwing about, even when I'm not doing missions.

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

Crysis is one of those games that its ONLY gimmick is the graphics. That's it. Story sucks, gameplay sucks, voice acting sucks, everything sucks, but the graphics. Hardly realistic either since I have never seen a machine gun take down a tree. Gatling gun maybe.

Crysis is what you said but in reverse with the exception of the graphics which are the best out there, even to this day!
That might not be a hard fact for you but that's my opinion, so deal with it.

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

Have you heard anybody say "Crysis' story is so thrilling to play that it beats out the competition. It's Shakespeare in game form."

Aww, I see... So you are one of those people that form their opinions based on what others say... Ok! Good to know for the future!

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

What about the A.I.? The engine you two speak up do more than just render graphics you know, but you two already know this, right?

A.I subsystem has been rewritten.
You should research more before you start being arrogant because of things that were already known...

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

So, Raziel, Mr.Deviance...the next time you guys want to fight over engine strength or how the graphics look in DNF how about instead you shove you dicks into your mouths. This way we don't have to listen to you too babble like a two kids fighting over a toy in a sandbox and you both will find the satisfaction you both are looking for. To quote Adam Sessler.

How about we don't shove them into our mouths and we both shove them into yours instead?
Think they will both fit at the same time, or do you think we might need an exacto knife to draw you a bigger mouth?
To quote one of my hitman associates.

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

If all you two are going to do is sit here and whine like you do, then don't play the game, don't come to the forum anymore, don't even think about Duke Nukem anymore.

How about YOU don't come to the forum anymore and YOU stop thinking about us if you don't like our posts!
I don't like "people" that tell me what I should do when I don't ask for their opinions, so this applies to you too.

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

Yeah you have the right to voice an opinion, but you also have the right to shut up. If all you are going to do is come to the forum and bash the game to its very foundation, then you are nothing more than a troll that thinks its "cool" to be different.

So now you are telling me my rights or what? You are an ignorant, arrogant prick! Did you know that?
If your aim was to provoke us, then all you get is this post from me, sorry to disappoint.

This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 02 October 2010 - 09:59 PM

0

User is offline   Raziel 

#73

View PostDavoX, on Oct 2 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

I'm sorry but NO. For DNF to BE RIGHT NOW an unreal 1 engine game, it should have MOST of the original code in it. Since 90% of the code was rewritten, changed, and rewritten again, it's no longer Unreal 1. I could accept your argument if you said "It WAS an unreal 1 engine game", but no... even if the "core" or "base" of Unreal 1 is good, this doesn't apply anymore as the "core" and "base" of it no longer exists probably.

I don't disagree there, it all depends on your point of view. Duke Nukem Forever has it's own engine in the sense that they heavily modified the Unreal 1 engine, rewriting the renderer, putting in a physics engine, new character animation system, new sound system, new AI system, etc. So in that sense we agree, the original Unreal engine can obviously not produce the same kind of content as we're seeing in DNF now.

Having said that, even if 90% of it was rewritten, you can tell they're still using the same basic constructs to build their levels as the Unreal series of engines. That basically means that the editor has not been completely replaced with something brand new and the level structure is still quite similar to what was there before. In that sense, at its core, it is still using the Unreal engine. I think BeyondUnreal puts it really well: "Duke Nukem Forever is NOT using Unreal Engine 2. It's still a based on heavily modified Unreal Engine 1 build 613"

The key words in there being 'heavily modified' - that means it's not the same as Unreal 1. But to argue and say it wasn't based on Unreal 1 would be incorrect. So, what I'm saying is exactly what you're saying, I just happen to be looking slightly deeper under the covers


View PostDavoX, on Oct 2 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

Also, how can you say it "appears to have unreal 1 engine" ? You mean it's a low poly piece of shit? I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make any sense. It used unreal 1 engine BEFORE, not anymore. If you truly see Unreal 1 in the DNF demos you need glasses man.

This argument is, for the most part, the result of people misinterpreting what I'm saying, I never said it's a low-poly piece of shit... They're using many static-meshes to increase the level of detail in the game (I think I've said this like 5 times now and I'm amazed that it's still not sinking in). A static mesh can be any model created using any 3D program, and you can place these meshes anywhere to add additional detail to your levels, it's not brain surgery, it's basic engine design. So no, I strongly disagree with this statement and it is yet another example of people putting words in my mouth. I never once said the game looked crap, so stop saying that I did.

All I said was that you can notice the roots of the Unreal 1 engine in the game, it's subtle and the team has done a great job of hiding it, but it is there. That doesn't make it a bad looking game, nor does it mean the game won't be fun. I've simply posted an observation, you say there's no way I could possibly see it was using Unreal 1's engine as a base, but the fact is, I could, and I was right. So from my point of view, I think you're the one needing glasses.

If you happen to disagree with my analysis, that's fine, I won't hold it against you to have your own opinion, all I'm asking is for you to do the same. If you don't have the integrity to allow me to have my own opinion, at least start an argument based on the truth of what I said, don't start putting words into my mouth and using that as a base for an argument please.
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#74

View PostStrikerMan780, on Oct 2 2010, 09:16 PM, said:

By the way, this shot makes it FUCKING obvious that there IS a Terrain system in DNF.

Yes, you're right... I find it really strange that they chose not to use it for the majority of the places which could have used it.

View PostStrikerMan780, on Oct 2 2010, 09:16 PM, said:

Also, it runs on the DNF Engine, which some could say is a heavily modified Unreal 2.5 engine. Only thing is, nearly ALL of 2.5's code is stripped, leaving only the Netcode and UnrealScript systems

Well, some could say that, but they'd be wrong. The engine is much more capable than Unreal 2.5, but it definitely wasn't using that as a base. Bioshock does use UE2.5 as far as I know (with a new renderer of course).

Raz.
0

#75

View PostRusty Nails, on Oct 2 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

Again, nobody is arguing this...

Luther Blissett: Seriously, calm down and stop trying to offend everyone who disagrees with you. If you can't bring anything constructive to the discussion then just stay out of it.


I brought in info.

I will recap

- DNF will kick ass
- Bayonetta graphics suck, and the game is heavily scripted.
- FFXIII graphics suck, and the game is heavily scripted.
- R was spouting shit and to prove him wrong all you had to do was look for Damien Azrael posts on GBX's DNF forums or look at a few screenshots.

Basically that's it. I just stopped insulting him because i got a request from a guy that gets all my respect.
If you need further explanations please drop me a PM, i will happily write you back.
0

User is offline   Parkar 

  • Honored Donor

#76

I still don't wee what makes you so sure it doesn't use UE2 as it's base.

Please correct me if my summary is wrong but this is waht I gathered from your argument:

DNF is not based on UE 2 beacasue from the video it apears that:

1. The game appears to be built using the same basic brushes you build ue 1 levels but decorated by static meshes
2. No terrain (as seen we can scratch this point)
3. Link to a wiki page that claims that it uses UE1.

UE2 is pretty much this compared to UE1:

1. Levels built using the same basic brushes as UE1 but decorated with static meshes.
2. Has terrain.

George said the engine was broken of from updates around the version used in Unreal 2. Someone else can probably dig out the exact quote. Even if they didn't update to the base of UE 2 I don't see how that has any relevance at all in terms of what to expect.

So I guess my question is what is it that we could expect from the game if it was based on UE2 that we shouldn't expect if it is based on UE1?

And don't say more dynamic environments, UE 2 is no more dynamic then UE1.


Text from now on is very much speculation but based on the information about the engine we have gathered over the years:

The DNF engine uses a fully dynamic deferred rendering light solution. This is different to any of the UE versions (Yes even UE3 uses prebuilt lighting as the main part of the light solution). My guess of why they went this route is that they wanted the engine to be more dynamic but still scale well with a lot of light sources(parts of the game does take place in Vegas). In other words I believe the engine is better suited at dynamic levels then UE3 in terms of moving parts of a level around or destroying it. This is purely speculation though and UE3 does handle stuff like this fairly well but you will run into problems with the prebuilt lighting that will need clever workarounds to get the same nice looking graphics as with a fully static environment.

All of this could be done on the UE1 base just as well as on the UE 2 base. Of course there would be more work to do on the UE1 base as it is older but the fundamental limitations of the two is pretty much the same.

Edit: I do believe Raziel is right about some people expecting to much from the engine but it's not based on the game being based on UE2. Dynamically destructible environments etc is probably not going to happen for instance.

This post has been edited by Parkar: 03 October 2010 - 05:51 AM

0

User is offline   DavoX 

  • Honored Donor

#77

View PostRaziel, on Oct 3 2010, 02:57 AM, said:

This argument is, for the most part, the result of people misinterpreting what I'm saying, I never said it's a low-poly piece of shit... They're using many static-meshes to increase the level of detail in the game (I think I've said this like 5 times now and I'm amazed that it's still not sinking in). A static mesh can be any model created using any 3D program, and you can place these meshes anywhere to add additional detail to your levels, it's not brain surgery, it's basic engine design. So no, I strongly disagree with this statement and it is yet another example of people putting words in my mouth. I never once said the game looked crap, so stop saying that I did.


I know all that, I've been making levels for Unreal and now I work in the Videgames industry as a level designer. Thing is... a LOT of games use the BSP + Static meshes approach not only Unreal engine 1. If you take away the models in practically every game that uses any version of Unreal engine, you'll see that it's all a blocky low poly crap. OF COURSE there will be models to enhance the aesthetics, even Unreal Tournament 3 has this, does that mean that Unreal Engine 3 is using Unreal engine 1? ;)

You didn't say that it looks like crap, but you did say that it reminded you of a 10 year old game, so if you make such confusing statements, don't expect everyone to suddenly agree with you.

Bottom line is, DNF uses BSP + Static meshes and a bunch of features that weren't in Unreal engine 1 before. It's just pointless to say "it was unreal engine 1 based!" as it's basically a new engine now.
0

#78

View PostDavoX, on Oct 3 2010, 07:13 AM, said:

I know all that, I've been making levels for Unreal and now I work in the Videgames industry as a level designer. Thing is... a LOT of games use the BSP + Static meshes approach not only Unreal engine 1. If you take away the models in practically every game that uses any version of Unreal engine, you'll see that it's all a blocky low poly crap. OF COURSE there will be models to enhance the aesthetics, even Unreal Tournament 3 has this, does that mean that Unreal Engine 3 is using Unreal engine 1? ;)

You didn't say that it looks like crap, but you did say that it reminded you of a 10 year old game, so if you make such confusing statements, don't expect everyone to suddenly agree with you.

Bottom line is, DNF uses BSP + Static meshes and a bunch of features that weren't in Unreal engine 1 before. It's just pointless to say "it was unreal engine 1 based!" as it's basically a new engine now.

He doesn't want to listen, he has links that show where the engine was in 2005, which are supposed to prove we are wrong lol...
0

User is offline   Raziel 

#79

View PostDavoX, on Oct 3 2010, 06:13 AM, said:

I know all that, I've been making levels for Unreal and now I work in the Videgames industry as a level designer. Thing is... a LOT of games use the BSP + Static meshes approach not only Unreal engine 1. If you take away the models in practically every game that uses any version of Unreal engine, you'll see that it's all a blocky low poly crap. OF COURSE there will be models to enhance the aesthetics, even Unreal Tournament 3 has this, does that mean that Unreal Engine 3 is using Unreal engine 1? ;)

Indeed, that's correct. It's not an uncommon way to do things, it does make things a little more inflexible though since you can't really shift BSP-based geometry around - and that is the point I was trying to make by comparing it to Bayonetta, like you probably won't see things like that being done in DNF. In its defense, BSP based geometry is really fast for collision detection since you can cut down the number of surfaces that need to be checked against to only a hand full at most since you're only doing collision detection with the convex segment you are actually in (if that makes sense).

Now... if you wanna get technical, Unreal Engine 2 was based on Unreal 1, and Unreal Engine 3 was based on Unreal Engine 2 - So therefore UE3 == UE1 ? Hmmm, *scratches head*, I think I'll let that one slide...

View PostDavoX, on Oct 3 2010, 06:13 AM, said:

You didn't say that it looks like crap, but you did say that it reminded you of a 10 year old game, so if you make such confusing statements, don't expect everyone to suddenly agree with you.

I said the way in which the levels are built is similar to Unreal 1 if you take away the static meshes, shaders and frame-buffer effects, and no matter how I look at it, that statement remains true.

View PostDavoX, on Oct 3 2010, 06:13 AM, said:

Bottom line is, DNF uses BSP + Static meshes and a bunch of features that weren't in Unreal engine 1 before. It's just pointless to say "it was unreal engine 1 based!" as it's basically a new engine now.

I agree that it is a new engine in the same way Half Life had its own engine, but you can't really say Half Life is not a Quake-based game. As for it being pointless, it depends on your point of view, if all you want to do is play the game and have a ball doing so, yes, it might be pointless. But I'm interested in 3D engines, so from my point of view I wouldn't classify it as pointless since a person can tell a lot about a game and its design from looking at its origins.

I don't believe the basic core or constructs of the engine would have been changed, so we can assume that DNF is portal based, probably using the same carving method for level design (conceptually, levels start solid in UE rather than empty, it avoids issues like the ones in Quake where your levels couldn't have a leak in it), also, it's reasonable to expect that they're using the same static mesh implementation etc. etc. We can also tell that the character animation system is completely rewritten from scratch. So, rather than it being good, bad or pointless, I would actually say it's interesting.

Raz.
0

User is offline   DavoX 

  • Honored Donor

#80

I'd also like to see another source other than some BeyondUnreal wikipedia that probably can be edited by anyone.
0

#81

on GBX forums devs said UE 2.5 (very heavily modified, to the point where its another engine...think Quake-->Goldsrc-->Source...and they said this in Gurty interview too).

And George said something like that too in the past.
0

#82

View PostLuther Blissett, on Oct 3 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

I brought in info.

I will recap

- DNF will kick ass
- Bayonetta graphics suck, and the game is heavily scripted.
- FFXIII graphics suck, and the game is heavily scripted.
- R was spouting shit and to prove him wrong all you had to do was look for Damien Azrael posts on GBX's DNF forums or look at a few screenshots.

Basically that's it. I just stopped insulting him because i got a request from a guy that gets all my respect.
If you need further explanations please drop me a PM, i will happily write you back.


to be honest i think fxiii had better graphics than crysis... but sadly yes it is heavily scripted which is a pain in the arse cause it could have been a fantastic game. but heavily scripted doesnt make the game bad. its just bad luck that i dont like 100% scripted games. thats probably also the reason why i like the game after the main story. cause that is where the game really opens up and you start controlling more things yourself.
0

#83

View PostJhect, on Oct 6 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

to be honest i think fxiii had better graphics than crysis... but sadly yes it is heavily scripted which is a pain in the arse cause it could have been a fantastic game. but heavily scripted doesnt make the game bad. its just bad luck that i dont like 100% scripted games. thats probably also the reason why i like the game after the main story. cause that is where the game really opens up and you start controlling more things yourself.


I was not the one who said scripted games are bad.

Re read the entire topic. I was using R assumptions on the games HE mentioned. Since he said DNF looked scripted , the went on and brought to the table 3 heavily scripted games ( XIII, Bayonetta, GOW2)

And FFXIII doesn't have better graphics than Crysis, just more lights and pre rendered effects.

BTW i liked FFXIII, you just don't compare it to Crysis when talking about engine power.
0

#84

View PostJamesCassidy, on Oct 2 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

Graphics are not everything.

Crysis is one of those games that its ONLY gimmick is the graphics. That's it. Story sucks, gameplay sucks, voice acting sucks, everything sucks, but the graphics. Hardly realistic either since I have never seen a machine gun take down a tree. Gatling gun maybe. Have you heard anybody say "Crysis' story is so thrilling to play that it beats out the competition. It's Shakespeare in game form."

These newer generation of gamers have become so shallow that they are unwilling to play a game because it "doesn't look good." They missed out on such jewels such as Psychonauts.

Yeah graphics are important.

Errrrr Did you say everything in Crysis sucked apart from graphics? BULLSHIT! the gameplay is really really fun, I had THE most fun in 2007 while playing Crysis. This new generation of gamers is great! I know of thousands of games that are in no way shallow, and the people how play aren't shallow ethier.

Yes people say "Oh I won't play that because it doesn't look good." Well yeah of course. As you said graphics are important. I'm not a graphics fanboy but I'd say it isn't unreasonable to expect both good graphics AND gameplay together in this generation of game engine power.

Graphics are in their own way just as important as gameplay, acually I think visuals are a better term because imagine a game with graphics so terrible you can't see and anything. Secondly a game with dated graphics (NOT DNF) just looks silly.

This post has been edited by blackharted: 07 October 2010 - 07:18 AM

0

#85

Yeah Crysis gameplay was totally kick ass. You had lots of freedom and the whole thing just felt epic from start to end.

Too bad many people just used it as a benchmark ;)
0

#86

View PostLuther Blissett, on Oct 7 2010, 07:15 AM, said:

Yeah Crysis gameplay was totally kick ass. You had lots of freedom and the whole thing just felt epic from start to end.

Too bad many people just used it as a benchmark ;)

You don't think a game that felt epic from start to finish with lots of freedom should be used as benchmark? ;)
0

User is offline   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#87

View Postblackharted, on Oct 7 2010, 08:32 AM, said:

You don't think a game that felt epic from start to finish with lots of freedom should be used as benchmark? ;)


He's referring to people seeing it as nothing more than a heavy weight for a computers hardware. Not that it was a good game. A lot of people didnt see it as a good game.
0

#88

View PostCommando Nukem, on Oct 7 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

He's referring to people seeing it as nothing more than a heavy weight for a computers hardware. Not that it was a good game. A lot of people didnt see it as a good game.

Expect it was
0

#89

When Crysis first came out and I first played it, for me it was the most cinematic and ambiental FPS game that I've played since F.E.A.R and Hl2 ,which for me were also top notch when they came out.
All the Crysis haters are people that couldn't run it maxed out without stuttering because of their old rigs and when they saw that it refuses to run well on their shit pc's, they formed an international hate club and started posting shit about the game, everywhere they went! For the most part, they've managed to spread lies and shit about the game and get other people believe this shit too.
To hate Crysis and bash it stupidly, isn't just a simple debate anymore, it's an international sport for some people
IMO, Crysis haters and Gta4 haters are the same people in many cases, though GTA4 did have some serious bugs when it first came out but as time went by and patches came out that got fixed .

This post has been edited by Mr.Deviance: 07 October 2010 - 08:11 PM

0

User is offline   Laokin 

#90

View PostRaziel, on Oct 1 2010, 05:30 AM, said:

Well actually, I completely disagree with DNF having better graphics and technology when compared to Bayonetta or Final Fantasy XIII. And no, I don't smoke crack... I've just seen the screenshots, video leaks, and PAX gameplay footage. Also, I am a graphics programmer so I tend to analyse game engines better than the average gamer does. On that note, I am about to point out some really ugly facts about the DNF engine so I suggest you stop reading now if you don't want the illusion killed for you.

So anyway, the actual engine seems very dated regardless of what you are led to believe... while some people (Broussard included) say it's running on Unreal 2's tech, I have to say I have a really hard time believing that. Even though there are levels which would have benefited from a real terrain engine (such as the one readily available in Unreal 2), they have still opted to use a more or less flat (unreal 1 style) terrain for mountainous areas with some polygon boulders and mountains on it to make things look more detailed than they actually are. Just look at the PAX footage carefully and you'll see what I mean. Here's a link so you won't have to search too far - skip 20 seconds into the video and have a look: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7TR_Vzu6MSY

Now I don't care which planet you're from, the terrain looks like something you'd crank out in Unreal 1's engine, it's more or less a flat brush for the ground with some polygon boulders and mountains on it to add detail... Sure, the polygonal models they've added are quite detailed, it also has pixel shaders, shadows and full framebuffer effects added to it, but at the end of the day, this tech looks dated whichever way you look at it. So I don't think it matches the the graphics in games like Bayonetta and FF13. They are basically using a few modern techniques to simulate a next-gen look rather than actually being a true next-gen game.

Compare that to something like Bayonetta where you have a completely dynamic environment with collapsing structures and boulders flying around with debris all around you while your character runs on top of the boulders, meanwhile the engine has no trouble keeping up with all this wonderful stuff that's happening. Heck, I remember half the level falling away at some point in the game with me looking over the edge thinking, 'where the hell did the level just go?' And there were a few portals where you'd walk through and the entire environment (music included) would instantly change without a single frame being dropped. Things like this is not all that hard to do given todays technology, but it's still impressive, the kind of dynamics I would expect to see in games shipping these days. Well, usually it's not that hard to do, unless you're running on old tech that just wasn't built to support that kind of thing, and I'm starting to think that's what happened to DNF.

So far everything I've seen has been very static in DNF, again, very much like something cranked out using Unreal 1 tech. Just about the only things actually moving is the animated characters and objects wired up to the physics engine. Meanwhile, I can see them using scripted events extensively in the game... all enemy ambushes, some explosions + flying soldiers while walking through hallways, appearances of enemy UFOs, etc. Scripted events is definitely not something unseen in most modern games, but come on, scripting it to this degree? It's basically as scripted as DooM III was and that was really scripted!!! There is more stuff I can comment on, but they're just hunches rather than things I can back up until the game ships, so I intend to drop the topic at this point.

Anyway, I'm not criticizing the team behind the game, I think they did a wonderful job given the technology they were using. But the game engine is very dated, I didn't see it before because the 3D Realms team did such a good job of hiding the engine's limitations. But I've been noticing it recently while rewatching some of the footage of the game. I hate to say it, but I think this thing is running on tech much closer to Unreal 1's engine than most people think it is.

I didn't want to say anything, but people keep thinking DNF is going to be the ultimate game running on the best tech with the best graphics, and unfortunately I just don't think that's the case. I do think the game will look good and be fun as hell to play though, so I don't think any of this really matters a hell of a lot. But I do think it is important to note that it is indeed quite dated tech, even if it is Unreal 2's engine driving it (which, as I've stated before, I have serious doubts about).


Raz.


Some one has to call it -- BULL SHIT. See, I just called it. You obviously don't understand a thing about basic game design -- and if you are a graphics programmer, you have no Idea how they utilize your own work.

Where to start -- FIRST, almost no AAA linear FPS games have terrain built from a generator of any kind. They are BSP/Meshes exactly like UT3. This means it's actually on par with UT3. Which puts it in the domain of Gears of War. If you notice, that game suffers from the exact same linear flat level design you so professionally predict as being Unreal 1 tech.

Level design =/= engine tech. Secondly, if you were a graphics programmer, you wouldn't be talking about Level Design or Scripted events, since neither of those things have a single thing to do with graphics.

DNF has bump mapping/spec mapping, dynamic lights -- higher resolution textures than your ever so prized bayonetta, On par Polygon Counts with games on UT3 engine, Depth of Field, Per Pixel Shading -- it's completely in the ball park of today's graphics league. Nothing you said had a single thing to do with graphics.

If you want to talk about scripting and such, DNF will be no Different from Halo Reach. In fact, it probably does have better graphics than Reach, and Reach is beautiful.

Just wait till the first official batch of HD screenshots.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/hal...12/?full_size=1 Halo Reach as it is Launched.

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploa...hot_sep08_1.jpg DNF as it were in 2008, before the studio closure and polish passes.

WTF crack are you smoking?

I hate people who talk about level design/artistic direction and confuse them for technical specifics for actual graphics comparisons. No question that DNF is not even Unreal II, it's a completely NEW built from the ground up for DNF, Graphics Rendering API. As confirmed by GB previously anyway. No question.

So again, I'm calling you out on that b/s post.


*EDIT*

I read his post and rage posted. Didn't even read the rest after that, I'm glad to see you guys can smell b/s as good as me. Good Job *golf clap*

Double Edit.

It appears to me that Raz doesn't even know what a game engine is. A game Engine is the CULMINATION of sub systems into one product. A game engine consists of:

Netcode
Renderer
Physics Engine
Animation Engine
Scripting Engine
Mapping Engine.

Everyone of these was rewritten for DNF -- bar the netcode and the scripting. (because they didn't need to be updated, they haven't changed much over the years..... like a screw driver.)

The Renderer is the ONLY part responsible for graphics. Period. So if you are talking about graphics tech, that is the Render API -- which is completely new. So again, it's not running old tech, in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

You are clueless, arguing a point you can't argue -- and when graphically DNF looks better than games releasing now -- you simply can't be right.

And for the people who said they saw no difference between Halo 1 and Reach, allow me to take you on a tour.

Halo CE
Posted Image
Halo 2
Posted Image
Halo 3
Posted Image
Halo 4 (Reach)
Posted Image

If you can't see a difference, I'm gonna have to say -- you're fucking blind. The art style hasn't changed a bit, which is why it feels familiar -- the graphics on the other hand, have improved dramatically.

Halo Reach has a completely new Graphics API. The rest were just upgrades to CE.

/rest my case.

P.S.

Doom 3 Engine = Quake 1 engine. Rage Engine = Quake 1 Engine.

UT3 = U1 engine.

Crytek 2 = Crytek 1.

They are all the same exact code base as their original version -- they just update the render api, and physics collision detection. That's it. Doom III's beta when minimized said "Quake 3 Arena" in the splash.

And Raz apparently already knows this, which makes the entirety of his argument, semantics. As he has already admitted UT3 = U1, and if that were the case -- what's the point in arguing what DNF used as a base, when all UT3 engine games are modern AAA graphic power houses -- and has the same core as the Duke.


This is why he's a troll, he picked an argument he himself doesn't even agree with.

Pwnt.

This post has been edited by Laokin: 10 October 2010 - 10:55 AM

0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks not owned by Voidpoint, LLC are the sole property of their respective owners. Play Ion Fury! ;) © Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options