PDA

View Full Version : Testimonial by Senior Level Designer about DX3



IceBallz
29th Nov 2007, 08:48
Copied : """ We’re working on an existing franchise, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to come out with a certified copy: gamers would see right through that! We’re going to take what’s good about it – after all, the first game came out several years ago, and games and gamers have changed a lot since – and develop it so that people find it even more interesting. """

My answer : I have not changed a little bit from my love to the first game. It's true games and gamers have changed. But the question is still. If we really have changed so much, or if this could be something we have learned to like. Becurse there was not coming out other game like Deus Ex 1. My idea is to keep Deus Ex 3 so close to Deus Ex 1 then possible. Don't listen to the grafic freaks out there. Just give us a huge game and a interactive game. Grafics don't really make any Deus Ex game. Just think about it.

StormFront
29th Nov 2007, 08:59
Grafics don't really make any Deus Ex game. Just think about it.


Wrong, wrong, wrong....:mad2:

IceBallz
29th Nov 2007, 10:21
No it's not wrong, dude. :mad: Think about it. :confused: The grafics dont give you anything, that will make the game intresting and last longer. :scratch: If the great grafics takes all of your power from other prosessors calculations. :nut: Look about Splinter Cell series. Splinter Cell 1 was a linebreaker, #2 was a great sequal part to #1, #3 had some more moves and gadgets and #4 was a mulitible upgrade of grafics and effects. But the last part #4 of this series was to short and to easy in gameplay time. :mad2: Well i loved the grafics in Splinter Cell : Double Agent, but superduper grafics don't fit a game that should be hyper interactive and super huge with choose of way in gameplay. Look on Stalker. The grafics dont use over advanced shaders and other effects. But it have the small little extra, that is enuff to the adventure player. If you like hyped grafics, play Call of Duty 4 : online or Quake series. Becurse online games are always different to the previous game played. I don't want, that Deus Ex 3 will be a passage game. There you can't choose your own way open minded. Becurse all programming have been, to get hyped grafics and all gametime will be shorted down. :eek: Becurse, the game producers have set all space in the DVD to hyped grafics. But lost everything of the size of maps and AI.

I can play without superduper hyped grafics. Then get grafics that are thin and have loads of brain behind it, to save power to other more imported calculations in game. To save working power to other calculations in game. Like rebuild the Pentagon building or ex, WTC buildings in New York in full scale in game, with fully active AI's of size of 100-300 ppl. Just think about it. What you want ?!!? A short interactive film or a great game that last in years. Like Deus Ex 1 did. Just think what places you can rebuild with todays "easy" grafics and still have a superduper game of 2000. If you still think that hyped grafics will make a great Deus Ex 3. You never played Deus Ex 1, when it was released 1995. That was the linebreaking with Deus Ex and should still be, so far from Deus Ex : IW that you can come. Screw hyped grafics and give us a game that last to 2010 or more. :mad2:

StormFront
29th Nov 2007, 12:02
No it's not wrong, dude. :mad: Think about it. :confused: The grafics dont give you anything, that will make the game intresting and last longer. :scratch: If the great grafics takes all of your power from other prosessors calculations. :nut: Look about Splinter Cell series. Splinter Cell 1 was a linebreaker, #2 was a great sequal part to #1, #3 had some more moves and gadgets and #4 was a mulitible upgrade of grafics and effects. But the last part #4 of this series was to short and to easy in gameplay time. :mad2: Well i loved the grafics in Splinter Cell : Double Agent, but superduper grafics don't fit a game that should be hyper interactive and super huge with choose of way in gameplay. Look on Stalker. The grafics dont use over advanced shaders and other effects. But it have the small little extra, that is enuff to the adventure player. If you like hyped grafics, play Call of Duty 4 : online or Quake series. Becurse online games are always different to the previous game played. I don't want, that Deus Ex 3 will be a passage game. There you can't choose your own way open minded. Becurse all programming have been, to get hyped grafics and all gametime will be shorted down. :eek: Becurse, the game producers have set all space in the DVD to hyped grafics. But lost everything of the size of maps and AI.

I can play without superduper hyped grafics. Then get grafics that are thin and have loads of brain behind it, to save power to other more imported calculations in game. To save working power to other calculations in game. Like rebuild the Pentagon building or ex, WTC buildings in New York in full scale in game, with fully active AI's of size of 100-300 ppl. Just think about it. What you want ?!!? A short interactive film or a great game that last in years. Like Deus Ex 1 did. Just think what places you can rebuild with todays "easy" grafics and still have a superduper game of 2000. If you still think that hyped grafics will make a great Deus Ex 3. You never played Deus Ex 1, when it was released 1995. That was the linebreaking with Deus Ex and should still be, so far from Deus Ex : IW that you can come. Screw hyped grafics and give us a game that last to 2010 or more. :mad2:

Mate I genuinely don't mean to be insulting but please tell me that English is not your first language. I have no idea what half of that said...

But for starters Deus Ex was released in 2000 not 1995 and, as I have said in another post, was in a cutting edge engine for the time. No one ever designs a game to look ugly. No one. Ever. It is an idiotic premise.

What is more idiotic is that people think that designing graphical content would somehow detract from creating gameplay. This is staggeringly naive and shows a total lack of grasp regarding how games are developed (and imagining that graphics "takes all of your power from other prosessors calculations" is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER heard). With the technology available to designers today it would be idiotic to expect them to make an ugly game while imagining that this will "add more content": the entire notion is farcical.

To get an idea if what is going to go into this game all you need do is look at some of the releases regading the studio. When Montral studio was formed earlier this year it was announced that they would be hiring some "350 staff to develop several next generation games". This game is going to be all about the graphics, so get used to it.

While graphics have never made a game solely on their own merits, they are now an integral part of the experience. With 360 and PS3 being the dominant markets this will only become more true over time not less. Time to wake up and smell the upgrade, PC users....

humbug
29th Nov 2007, 14:24
I would have to say nice graphics are good, however if many hours where poured creating tip top graphics good surely that would detract from developing a decent story and gameplay?

Kneo24
29th Nov 2007, 14:41
Wrong, wrong, wrong....:mad2:

No, you clearly are wrong here. Yes, top of the line appeals to people who rate games solely on their graphics. These people aren't true gamers anyway. I think the point they were trying to make (which was pretty obvious) was that gameplay is more important than the graphics.

StormFront
29th Nov 2007, 15:10
I would have to say nice graphics are good, however if many hours where poured creating tip top graphics good surely that would detract from developing a decent story and gameplay?

And again I say, with all due respect this shows how much you know about game development.

Good graphics are an integral part of the overall package now.


No, you clearly are wrong here. Yes, top of the line appeals to people who rate games solely on their graphics. These people aren't true gamers anyway. I think the point they were trying to make (which was pretty obvious) was that gameplay is more important than the graphics.

No, I am not. If you want a pissing contest about who is the "true" (:mad2: ) gamer between you and I then bring it, but I warn you: you will lose.

Gameplay is not more important than graphics, if only becasue "gameplay" is a flatly useless word. What exactly do you meant by this? Plot? Narrative? Interface? Control mech? What?

This argument has been around since the first blitted sprites began replacing pixels and it is always silly. Not to use the technology available to you would be retarded in the extreme. If a game came out now using a 2D, side scrolling engine a la Metal Slug but claimed to be a sequal to Oblivion you would ridicule it. If Deus Ex 3 came out in the Wolfenstien 3D engine you would go mad and rightly so.

Graphics add copious levels of immersion to a game and immersion is the key thing in any narrative driven construct. To say otherwise is nonsensical.

Now there is another argument to be had about devs over-reaching themselves and sacrifising content to implement gimmicky features (or in the case of the 360 becasue it is space limited) but that is different. A good engine such as Ueng3 is in fact very stream lined and affords a dev team an incredible set of tools in which to build their world. In fact in Ueng3 most of the GFX are actualy created by the art teams, so powerful is the level editor. This means that the coders, scripters and level designers would in no way be "wasting time" making things pretty.

Can people get some sense and some knowledge about themselves before they start hammering on about things?

Dave W
29th Nov 2007, 16:10
Graphics don't make a game, and certainly aren't as important as 'gameplay'. But they are important, because if you buy a modern game you expect to play a game that looks modern.

StormFront
29th Nov 2007, 16:47
Graphics don't make a game, and certainly aren't as important as 'gameplay'. But they are important, because if you buy a modern game you expect to play a game that looks modern.


:thumbsup:

Kneo24
29th Nov 2007, 17:14
Look, if all that matters to you is how pretty a game looks, you're probably not even playing the game to it's fullest extent anyway. I can only assume you're one of these people since you went on the defensive so fast. Have fun not playing a game.

StormFront
29th Nov 2007, 18:05
Look, if all that matters to you is how pretty a game looks, you're probably not even playing the game to it's fullest extent anyway. I can only assume you're one of these people since you went on the defensive so fast. Have fun not playing a game.

Good grief, how slow are you? Seriously! Where have I said that "ALL THAT MATTERS IN A GAME IS THE GRAPHICS"?!

WHERE?! Point it out to me. Right now. Come on...

Oh that's right I didn't. But don't let mere fact get in the way or your trolling. You have fun now.

If you are gonna come to a forum and make posts commenting on others opinions READ THEIR DAMNED POSTS FIRST!


Graphics are an iportant [part of games. Always have, always will be. In this day good graphics are comparatively easy to do so they SHOULD be done as de facto.

PRODUCING A GRAPHICALLY IMPRESSIVE GAME DOES NOT BY DEFAULT LIMIT ITS CONTENT

Is that clear enough? Would you like help with the longer words?

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Dave W
29th Nov 2007, 18:11
Look, if all that matters to you is how pretty a game looks, you're probably not even playing the game to it's fullest extent anyway. I can only assume you're one of these people since you went on the defensive so fast. Have fun not playing a game.

I like good gameplay, that's why I play Deus Ex. I also like pretty graphics, that's why I'm working on New Vision. Do those high resolution textures change the game? No, they just make it nicer to look at when running on 1680X1050.

StormFront
29th Nov 2007, 18:34
I like good gameplay, that's why I play Deus Ex. I also like pretty graphics, that's why I'm working on New Vision. Do those high resolution textures change the game? No, they just make it nicer to look at when running on 1680X1050.

/me takes a pill....

Thank you Dave W

I am hereby nominating you as my official translator. I am clearly speaking Hindi or something....

Innuendo13
29th Nov 2007, 20:06
I play computer games for over 10 years now, and one thing a have learned is that graphics doesn't mean a thing!!! Just look at Fallout, Counter Strike, Starcraft. These games are immortal, people will play them in 10 years and they won't mind the graphic.

IceBallz
29th Nov 2007, 21:17
Well you think i talk about crappy grafics. No, but to effort all power on hyped grafics are not the most imported in Deus Ex gameplay. Like it NOT been in example, Stalker. Like me see on it. Stalker only have some small grafical effects that makes it look real nice and enuff. It's the story and choose of take loads of paths in the game. That is what makes Stalker standing before Deus Ex 3, today. It's that small thing i want Eidos to beat. They have the growd enigine at Eidos Montreal and that is just one big step to great game value. But it still don't mean that you can set over pressure on the grafics in the game manufactoring. Becurse it's still not the most imported of value to a real Deus Ex gameplay. It's like it always use to be on this game forums. It's always the low age gamers, that are always after great - GRAFICS, GRAFICS, GRAFICS.

Like they are after blood and core. REALLY, i mean it for sure !!!

But for real Deus Ex fanatics and old school gamers, it's still the size of the game and story. That makes a real Deus Ex go into a real gamers historybook. Like i guess, all real oldschool gamers out there knows about the first Deus Ex. Not for it's great grafics (becurse Deus Ex was not a god in graphics). But for it's open story and size of maps of that time.

That was the breakingpoint of Deus Ex and it should make it again. Not on grafical ways, but on story and choise of path in game. The interactivity and size of maps. That is the big point i want to tell you. :mad2: GODAMNIT !!! :nut:

Dave W
29th Nov 2007, 21:27
Well, uh, Counter Strike Source?

Of course people will still play them. But if someone is buying a new game, they want new graphics. I've already said it, but it's worth restating. Right or not, if Deus Ex 3 had the same graphics as the original no where near as many people would buy it. People don't upgrade their PC's to experience the latest graphics from the year 2000.

IceBallz, it's spelt graphics.

IceBallz
29th Nov 2007, 21:31
Well, uh, Counter Strike Source?

Of course people will still play them. But if someone is buying a new game, they want new graphics. I've already said it, but it's worth restating. Right or not, if Deus Ex 3 had the same graphics as the original no where near as many people would buy it. People don't upgrade their PC's to experience the latest graphics from the year 2000.

IceBallz, it's spelt graphics.

Well what you think about the graphics in Stalker ? Is it to little for your taste ?

eightbits
29th Nov 2007, 22:30
Yeah, there is a big misunderstanding here about game development. Graphics for the game are developed separately and in parallel with the story and content.

You start writing the story.

Then you choose the game engine. You develop some minimal graphics so the area and content team can start laying out the environment.

While the content team is working, the graphics artists are polishing the graphics for almost the entire development time!

The statement that graphic quality does not hinder content is exactly correct. It doesn't have to, but sometimes it does because of resource allocation within the studio. This is a management issue, not a game design limitation.

They will license a modern game engine that is already developed and drop their story and custom graphics into it. That's the way this works and it's a good thing. It speeds up development time and it will give excellent graphics to boot while barely making a dent in the content of the game. As long as that model is followed all that remains is to make sure the managers are given the correct amount of resources and do their jobs correctly. I have no doubts about the talent of the techs working on the game.

Kneo24
29th Nov 2007, 22:57
*snip*

Look, you clearly had a hard time understanding what the OP was stating, so I summed it up for you. The point is that awesome graphics do not make a game and that they hope that they spend more time on the gameplay aspects than the graphical aspects. I agree with him and said that a true gamer would feel the same way. After all, doesn't gameplay bring replay value?

You became uppity and went on this long rant on how wrong I am about that opinion. I could only conclude from that that you were a graphics whore. And you're still being uppity. So perhaps you could try yanking that pole from your rectum and calm down a little.

StormFront
29th Nov 2007, 23:10
Look, you clearly had a hard time understanding what the OP was stating, so I summed it up for you. The point is that awesome graphics do not make a game and that they hope that they spend more time on the gameplay aspects than the graphical aspects. I agree with him and said that a true gamer would feel the same way. After all, doesn't gameplay bring replay value?

You became uppity and went on this long rant on how wrong I am about that opinion. I could only conclude from that that you were a graphics whore. And you're still being uppity. So perhaps you could try yanking that pole from your rectum and calm down a little.

You are the most odd little boy... Enjoy your stay...

/me puts troll snacks away...

Dave W
30th Nov 2007, 00:48
Iceballz, I don't quite understand the point you're making. The graphics are alright.

Kneo, the OP was wrong in that respect because the guys who create the nice graphics aren't the guys making the levels. The level designers make the layout and populate it with art assets from the rest of the team. Graphics barely ever take precedence over any gameplay elements, unless we're talking EA.

Techguy
30th Nov 2007, 03:17
I can relate to the OP.

Hell, call me nuts but i'd be first in line if they ever made another game truly like the original Deus Ex/Thief/SShock games even if they were all done on the old Dark Engine.. well maybe not.. at least something with 32bit colour.. it's nicer to look at lol.

My gaming days got started with Hangman on a TRS80 and Atari 2600's, Coleco and Intellivision. A high polycount is just that... gameplay/story is where it's at! :) It's a good thing books don't need to have platinum covers and gold leaf pages to be good reads eh?

Kneo24
30th Nov 2007, 21:40
Kneo, the OP was wrong in that respect because the guys who create the nice graphics aren't the guys making the levels. The level designers make the layout and populate it with art assets from the rest of the team. Graphics barely ever take precedence over any gameplay elements, unless we're talking EA.

He's wrong in that aspect, but is right at the same time. He's wrong because he doesn't quite understand how it works. He's right if you take the time to factor in that it seems like teams (not just people running around EA) tend to spend more time on the looks of the game than how it plays. It probably is the issue of resource allocation. They'll spend more resources on making it look pretty than spending an equal amount on making it look good, but also making it play good.

StormFront
30th Nov 2007, 21:45
He's wrong in that aspect, but is right at the same time. He's wrong because he doesn't quite understand how it works. He's right if you take the time to factor in that it seems like teams (not just people running around EA) tend to spend more time on the looks of the game than how it plays. It probably is the issue of resource allocation. They'll spend more resources on making it look pretty than spending an equal amount on making it look good, but also making it play good.

Simply not true. The reason we get games that are all looks and no content is not beacuse the devs lost their way and got hooked on GFX. It is because the devs were talentless SOBs who didn't have any ideas to start with.

There is no example where the OPs idea holds true.

Kneo24
30th Nov 2007, 21:54
Simply not true. The reason we get games that are all looks and no content is not beacuse the devs lost their way and got hooked on GFX. It is because the devs were talentless SOBs who didn't have any ideas to start with.

There is no example where the OPs idea holds true.

That is potentially 100% the truth, but I'm not sure. I can't imagine every developer to be purely worthless . Although Gearbox did just call other developers cry babies because they couldn't work with the Unreal Engine 3.

Dave W
30th Nov 2007, 22:56
The reason games come out that are graphics and no story really isn't because of graphics. It's due to talentless game designers or stupid publishers that just want the same - over and over (EA, for instace).

Graphics are responsible for games being shorter. Not the gameplay sucking.

IceBallz
6th Dec 2007, 09:08
The reason games come out that are graphics and no story really isn't because of graphics. It's due to talentless game designers or stupid publishers that just want the same - over and over (EA, for instace).

Graphics are responsible for games being shorter. Not the gameplay sucking.

So true.

pKp
6th Dec 2007, 12:04
Okay, people...remember when DX1 got out ? I was stunned at how beautiful it was. The graphics were, for me an important part of the experience, because they were immersive.
(Side note : good graphics != a lot of polygons. It takes dedication and artistic talent for a game to be really beautiful).

The problem is NOT with the devs here, it's with the the management : a lot of suits wrongly think that if a game isn't superdupertechnologic, with the latest Foo technology and Bar engine, it won't sell. So what do we get ? Gorgeous-looking hairballs (Crysis, anyone ?).

But here, it would be a tragic mistake. I mean, we're talking about a license that's almost mythical amongst gamers for its innovative gameplay and its gripping storyline. Making it another Crysis (or, for all that matters, another IW), would be a really, really tragic managerial decision.

I'm very afraid that it's likely to happen, alas :/

*Waits for miracle*

StormFront
6th Dec 2007, 12:52
Well actually Crysis is a very good game, but so few of you cheap skate CP owners will pony up and UPGRADE! lol:rasp:

As to DX bein g a top end game when it was released: You are entirely corerct but the luddite pessimists who troll this board are so obssessed with their GFX fixation that they conveniently overlook this. DX used the UEnG Advanced when it launched and it was at the top of the class when it came to graphics and yet it was one of the longest FP games ever made and had the best story line and content.

Stick that in your "graphics are evil" pipe and smoke it.

(all this aside, I am starting to question the sanity of a group of people who are rallying against a medium the they claim to love. They want computer games but they don't want technically impressive ones. That kind of idiotic attitude is just anathema for this industry...)

IceBallz
6th Dec 2007, 14:34
Crysis is a masterpiece in graphics. I agree on that. But it's still a linear game, with minimal size of storyline and only one ending of story. All NPC and AI's is always placed in same spots. When you have played the game to the end. You will not play it again, to make another path in story (becurse there are none). You will not play it again, for change of placement of NPC and AI's (becurse there are no change). You will only play it again, to shoot things to pieces and see it all fall down to dust. That's the feeling of CRYTEK and the thoghts about CRYSIS. But most of us real Deus Ex fanatics, don't search a game like that in Deus Ex 3. It's depends loads on the programmers, at Eidos. That they don't even make a try to break something that they fully can't do. Like make a copy of Crysis or like TimeShift. I think STALKER had enuff good graphics and i think they dont have same resources, like Eidos have. So, keep it simple and clean. Keep it in Eidos style.

Eidos makes great games and use latest graphic engines. I know. But to make Deus Ex 3, too advance and packed with graphics. That really not are a must in games like this one is. Then they should not put it there. Instead to lay in great graphical effects in game that is all waste of expensive time. It's better to put the expensive time to creat wide storyline and greater maps. PERIOD.

StormFront
6th Dec 2007, 14:53
Crysis is a masterpiece in graphics. I agree on that. But it's still a linear game, with minimal size of storyline and only one ending of story. All NPC and AI's is always placed in same spots. When you have played the game to the end. You will not play it again, to make another path in story (becurse there are none). You will not play it again, for change of placement of NPC and AI's (becurse there are no change). You will only play it again, to shoot things to pieces and see it all fall down to dust. That's the feeling of CRYTEK and the thoghts about CRYSIS. But most of us real Deus Ex fanatics, don't search a game like that in Deus Ex 3. It's depends loads on the programmers, at Eidos. That they don't even make a try to break something that they fully can't do. Like make a copy of Crysis or like TimeShift. I think STALKER had enuff good graphics and i think they dont have same resources, like Eidos have. So, keep it simple and clean. Keep it in Eidos style.

Eidos makes great games and use latest graphic engines. I know. But to make Deus Ex 3, too advance and packed with graphics. That really not are a must in games like this one is. Then they should not put it there. Instead to lay in great graphical effects in game that is all waste of expensive time. It's better to put the expensive time to creat wide storyline and greater maps. PERIOD.


No. You are just wrong: PERIOD.

Xcom
6th Dec 2007, 15:20
Okay, okay, calm down.

Just out of curiosity, what systems spec. do you all have?

From what I read, you need an obscenely pimped out rig to even attempt playing Crysis. In fact, some say that there isn't even hardware on the market that can run it in high settings/high resolution. :scratch:

StormFront
6th Dec 2007, 15:28
Okay, okay, calm down.

Just out of curiosity, what systems spec. do you all have?

From what I read, you need an obscenely pimped out rig to even attempt playing Crysis. In fact, some say that there isn't even hardware on the market that can run it in high settings/high resolution. :scratch:

The hardware needed to run it on Very High (DX10) is not yet available, but it can be run very well on High settings at decent resolution with good PC hardware.

I run it at 1280 x 1024 all High details (max DX9) and 4xAA. I average 35-45 FPS (except the last level as it is borked) and it was amazing.

Claims that it is linear are missleading. Sure the story does nto change but the sheer size of the landscape allows for MANY replays using utterly different tactics. The only real complaint is that it is pretty short, but when measured against content that does not hold up.

And when you can run it at high detail: by god it's good. Makes everything else seem a little silly and childish...

MagnumJoe
6th Dec 2007, 18:04
Simply simply simply,
Simply simply simply,

Priorities:
1- Gameplay (including storyline, ideas... whatever).
2- Graphics.

Demilitarized
6th Dec 2007, 18:47
Do developers ever release their design doc to the public? They must have one by now. Do they plan to improve the enguine before they begin building the game? These are the important answers we need.

StormFront
6th Dec 2007, 19:18
Simply simply simply,
Simply simply simply,

Priorities:
1- Gameplay (including storyline, ideas... whatever).
2- Graphics.

Again I gotta disagree. No. 1 should be Gameplay AND graphics.

I cannot stand one without the otehr and I wont accept it. Make it as scalable as you like, I don't care. When DX3 launches I will have a very good sytem, so bring it on.

MagnumJoe
6th Dec 2007, 20:43
Again I gotta disagree. No. 1 should be Gameplay AND graphics.

I cannot stand one without the otehr and I wont accept it. Make it as scalable as you like, I don't care. When DX3 launches I will have a very good sytem, so bring it on.

You mean, to you they are equal in importance?
You mean that if one is less than the other, regardless which ons it is, you won't accept it?

If it's so, then i can agree with you, or understand your point.

But graphics over gameplay, this is stupid.

IceBallz
6th Dec 2007, 21:53
My spec is :

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+
1.79 Ghz, 1,50 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX (Will buy a nVidia GeForce 8800GTX, 768MB) After this xmas...

:)

Bluey71
6th Dec 2007, 22:28
Okay, people...remember when DX1 got out ? I was stunned at how beautiful it was. The graphics were, for me an important part of the experience, because they were immersive.
(Side note : good graphics != a lot of polygons. It takes dedication and artistic talent for a game to be really beautiful).

The problem is NOT with the devs here, it's with the the management : a lot of suits wrongly think that if a game isn't superdupertechnologic, with the latest Foo technology and Bar engine, it won't sell. So what do we get ? Gorgeous-looking hairballs (Crysis, anyone ?).

But here, it would be a tragic mistake. I mean, we're talking about a license that's almost mythical amongst gamers for its innovative gameplay and its gripping storyline. Making it another Crysis (or, for all that matters, another IW), would be a really, really tragic managerial decision.

I'm very afraid that it's likely to happen, alas :/

*Waits for miracle*



LOL pKp Im with you!

You are absolutely right about the suits and GFX - and Crysis is the perfect example. Someone I know completed Crysis in 6 hours, yes it looked pretty - but only for a short while lol.

Is that real value for money?

Sadly you are probably also right about the prospects for DX3, its a pattern that has developed over the past few years, across games development, to the point now where gamers will pay a premium price ,for less content. Certainly less content than games from 5 years ago. Although now the eye candy looks a lot more shiny which is the hook being used to sell todays games.

StormFront
6th Dec 2007, 23:08
Okay, okay, calm down.

Just out of curiosity, what systems spec. do you all have?

From what I read, you need an obscenely pimped out rig to even attempt playing Crysis. In fact, some say that there isn't even hardware on the market that can run it in high settings/high resolution. :scratch:

I suppose I should ask though I fear the answer: What are YOUR system specs, XCOM?


You mean, to you they are equal in importance?
You mean that if one is less than the other, regardless which ons it is, you won't accept it?

If it's so, then i can agree with you, or understand your point.

But graphics over gameplay, this is stupid.

Well done. I think you are no more than the 4th person here to actually fully understand one of my posts!


My spec is :

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+
1.79 Ghz, 1,50 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX (Will buy a nVidia GeForce 8800GTX, 768MB) After this xmas...

:)

I'm astonished. The way you have been "talking" <cough> I expected a Pentium I with 32MB of ram and a Lightspeed 128...:nut:

Xcom
6th Dec 2007, 23:50
I suppose I should ask though I fear the answer: What are YOUR system specs, XCOM?

Rubbish. I don't even remember any more.

IceBallz
7th Dec 2007, 06:17
Yeah? There you see, StormFront. I'am not sitting over here with a crappy computer. :)

Actually I want great graphics. But in really smooth working engine and smooth new scriptings to it. But to scream after greatest graphics of the year is useless, instead of just great graphics and focus on interactivity in game. Like fully living NPC's in loads, smart NPC and great random spawn of all NPC's, big maps or buildings, less loadings into new parts, great and intresting story, huge size of different paths to take in maps and the storyline, alliances to make with other NPC crews in game, loads of modifications to weapons, etc, etc, etc... You name it... That takes loads of time to program. When all of this are ready and fully constructed. It maybe being some space left and time to work more with graphics. But to start with graphics and not the gameplay and wide of storyline. Is crazy and not at all, something i was waiting from the devs to Deus Ex 3.

You maybe start to catch my thoughts, now ?!?

StormFront
7th Dec 2007, 06:50
Rubbish. I don't even remember any more.

Okay, that's a worry my friend :eek: You and I need to have a serious chat!:D


Yeah? There you see, StormFront. I'am not sitting over here with a crappy computer. :)

Actually I want great graphics. But in really smooth working engine and smooth new scriptings to it. But to scream after greatest graphics of the year is useless, instead of just great graphics and focus on interactivity in game. Like fully living NPC's in loads, smart NPC and great random spawn of all NPC's, big maps or buildings, less loadings into new parts, great and intresting story, huge size of different paths to take in maps and the storyline, alliances to make with other NPC crews in game, loads of modifications to weapons, etc, etc, etc... You name it... That takes loads of time to program. When all of this are ready and fully constructed. It maybe being some space left and time to work more with graphics. But to start with graphics and not the gameplay and wide of storyline. Is crazy and not at all, something i was waiting from the devs to Deus Ex 3.

You maybe start to catch my thoughts, now ?!?


Fair play.

One thing you are dead right with, and it is something that always irkes me in games, is volumes of NPCs. I am sick-to-bloody-death of seeing "cities" and "streets" populated by 3 or 4 models; it's just damned silly. We definetly have the power to render entire crowds these days (anyone else played the Tokyo level of Kane & Lynch? WOW!:eek: ) and I think that this is something that is desperately needed. My disbelief is becoming harder and harder to suspend these days; this is the main reason I always cry out for better GFX (obviously GFX alone to not make immerson, but they sure do help!)

pKp
7th Dec 2007, 08:31
I am sick-to-bloody-death of seeing "cities" and "streets" populated by 3 or 4 models; it's just damned silly. We definetly have the power to render entire crowds these days (anyone else played the Tokyo level of Kane & Lynch? WOW!:eek: ) and I think that this is something that is desperately needed. My disbelief is becoming harder and harder to suspend these days; this is the main reason I always cry out for better GFX (obviously GFX alone to not make immerson, but they sure do help!)
Dead Rising, anyone ?

Also, it doesn't help when, even in recent games, you find the same drug dealer, or the same bum, at EVERY CORNER IN THE CITY, barfing his scripted random line. Seriously, people. Make them interact. Make them DO things. Make us feel like we're in a world with PEOPLE in it. That's one of the things Oblivion did kinda well. And Hitman 4 was great in this respect, even if it had its flaws.

ThatDeadDude
7th Dec 2007, 13:17
Also, it doesn't help when, even in recent games, you find the same drug dealer, or the same bum, at EVERY CORNER IN THE CITY, barfing his scripted random line. Seriously, people. Make them interact. Make them DO things. Make us feel like we're in a world with PEOPLE in it. That's one of the things Oblivion did kinda well. And Hitman 4 was great in this respect, even if it had its flaws.

I think that's the main issue. Just think of a map with, say, 50 individual NPCs. Then try coming up with meaningful dialogue for every single one of them. You can go the option of making 14 people say exactly the same thing, or you can spend 3 years just recording the voice acting. I think that's the reason there're so few characters generally. They want the immersion of not having every single character the same, but its impractical to have that for large numbers of NPCs. With some RPGs it's not too bad, especially when all except major characters don't actually have voice actors, but in DX they record for everyone.

StormFront
7th Dec 2007, 13:59
I think that's the main issue. Just think of a map with, say, 50 individual NPCs. Then try coming up with meaningful dialogue for every single one of them. You can go the option of making 14 people say exactly the same thing, or you can spend 3 years just recording the voice acting. I think that's the reason there're so few characters generally. They want the immersion of not having every single character the same, but its impractical to have that for large numbers of NPCs. With some RPGs it's not too bad, especially when all except major characters don't actually have voice actors, but in DX they record for everyone.


I just hope that they change that this time and put lots of NPCs in who you cannot interact with. It's a weird gaming convention that we want to talk with everyone we see in a game. If you were try that in real life you just wouldn't get very far.

Why can't there just be "faceless public" wandering around (assuming that such a thing fits the setting of course)?

ThatDeadDude
7th Dec 2007, 21:07
Hehe, yeah maybe. It may be unrealistic to not get most people just telling you to sod off, but I like talking to everyone. In fact, it's one of my top reasons for liking RPG-esque games. Maybe it says something about my real social life...:rolleyes:

Woggy
7th Dec 2007, 23:46
I enjoy talking to as many people as possible too. I'd hate the majority of NPCs to be random, faceless, 'Buzz off!' type of characters. Thats a waste of resources - it doesn't make the game fun.

StormFront
8th Dec 2007, 00:05
I enjoy talking to as many people as possible too. I'd hate the majority of NPCs to be random, faceless, 'Buzz off!' type of characters. Thats a waste of resources - it doesn't make the game fun.

I'd argue that it does as it makes it more believable.

Obviously the situations that such a thing is implemented is key. In a small environment where there are only a few characters (within buildings or other contained spaces) then sure, you want to interact. Outside in the public spaces is a different issue. Think how much better Hong Kong would have been in DX if the seething crowds that actually populate such a city were simulated. You should be shoulder to shoulder, jostling your way to your target, uninterested in the mass of bodies that surrounds you.

Contrivances such as we have seen in the first 2 games where the world in which our avatar walks is hideously under-populated will just not hold any water now. The Hitman 4 (or is it 5?) engine has shown us that crowds are a reaslistic venture (in Kane & lynch too), Assassins Creed has also made steps that way and Splinter Cell Conviction will be doing the same again but on a bigger scale come Q1 next year.

This needs to happen or the game will just look dumb (but only if such situations are present - and i sincerely hope they are)

Igoe
8th Dec 2007, 08:50
Having the right amount of NPCs depends on the game. Looking at the Mardi Gras level from Hitman: Bloodmoney, it's certanly POSSIBLE to have massively crowded streets and "wade-through-the-crowd" areas. The problem is balance. With hundreds of NPCs in an area its impossible to write for all of them. Fewer NPCs means richer conversations and deeper characters. Harvey himself stated he'd rather have made DX 75% shorter to give more emphasis on the characters. While I'm sure we're all glad this didn't happen, I don't think any of you would have complained if the characters were all more complex and realistic. I'm sure the developers know the limits of their engine and will put in the right amount of NPCs. To me the lack of NPCs in certain areas made the game more fun. Being in a deserted area, someplace where you can't help but feel you're not supposed to be, adds to the sneaking aspect and overall darker mood.

What I'd REALLY like to see are NPCs that actually use their augs. If the so called special agents are so special, why is it that none of them use any but the most simplistic cloak or bullet shield? I never saw Gunther use his mecha-augs. and the only aug I ever saw Walton use was cloak. I had 3 nano-augmented buddies in DXIW and not a one of them used an aug in combat. If there are....others...in DX3, I would very much like to see them utilize their assets.

gamer0004
8th Dec 2007, 12:34
Please, no random NPC's. I'd like to have an Oblivion system.
There should be some people that talk a lot, a few people who say a few sentences and when you keep on talking they''l excuse themselves and move on and some NPC's who ignore you or say things like "buzz off".

IceBallz
8th Dec 2007, 13:29
What i ment with my randomly stuff. Was that the NPC's should be living a life. Move around the map and do stuff. Not standing there like some idiots. And enemy AI or NPC should be randomly set out on maps there you have to fight trought the map of guards. So you never know what corner they are standing behind, when you play the game next time. Maybe even make some of these, move and patrol.

StormFront
8th Dec 2007, 13:43
Please, no random NPC's. I'd like to have an Oblivion system.
There should be some people that talk a lot, a few people who say a few sentences and when you keep on talking they''l excuse themselves and move on and some NPC's who ignore you or say things like "buzz off".

I disagree again because Oblivion was the worst for this. Sure it had some uninvolveds, but the entire CONTINENT of Cyrodil was populated by about 100 people. It's just laughable. Gamers have to just get over themselves and realise that if they want immersive, believable worlds, then those worlds will be filled with people who will not give one damn about them.

For every one person you can talk to there should be 100 you cannot. This is just the way it is. Sure you can bug them and you may get a response (puzzled look, random abuse, whatever) but they need to be there.

The DX universe needs this more than most. It is at the very least to be set in the near future so population of ANY space is going to be huge and changing every second. When humans fill spaces they becaome almost tidal, washing through an area, continuously changing. This should be pretty easy to simulate on modern hardware.

Again this only applies in relevant areas. Private, indoor locations or obscure, hard to reach ones should clearly be more sparsely populated.

If however, I have to play one more game where the "teeming metropolis" I am walking through is apparently populated by 5 people, all of whom are conveniently there to help/hinder me I'll bloody scream. It's just inexcusably lazy on the part of the devs...

gamer0004
10th Dec 2007, 16:43
I disagree again because Oblivion was the worst for this. Sure it had some uninvolveds, but the entire CONTINENT of Cyrodil was populated by about 100 people. It's just laughable. Gamers have to just get over themselves and realise that if they want immersive, believable worlds, then those worlds will be filled with people who will not give one damn about them.

For every one person you can talk to there should be 100 you cannot. This is just the way it is. Sure you can bug them and you may get a response (puzzled look, random abuse, whatever) but they need to be there.

The DX universe needs this more than most. It is at the very least to be set in the near future so population of ANY space is going to be huge and changing every second. When humans fill spaces they becaome almost tidal, washing through an area, continuously changing. This should be pretty easy to simulate on modern hardware.

Again this only applies in relevant areas. Private, indoor locations or obscure, hard to reach ones should clearly be more sparsely populated.

If however, I have to play one more game where the "teeming metropolis" I am walking through is apparently populated by 5 people, all of whom are conveniently there to help/hinder me I'll bloody scream. It's just inexcusably lazy on the part of the devs...

In Oblivion it was perfectely fine. The setting is much like the Medievals, and back then there weren't many people and you've got to realise that the Oblivion world wasn't very big. It's even smaller than most villages. There were more than enough people in the city's to be realistic.
But I do agree with you that there should be more people in DX3.
There should be a system like I said earlier, but combined with the system in Morrowind. So every guy you can talk to says some "special" things (things only he/she says and noboy else), and when they've said that they just say the regular things. And the people who say a few sentences don't say those regular things and the NPC's who ignore you or say things like "buzz off" don't do that either..

StormFront
10th Dec 2007, 16:54
In Oblivion it was perfectely fine. The setting is much like the Medievals, and back then there weren't many people and you've got to realise that the Oblivion world wasn't very big. It's even smaller than most villages. There were more than enough people in the city's to be realistic.


Offtopic but Oblivion's headcount was a definite issue. Cyrodil is the capitol of the whole world and yet it was empty. There are simply not enough people there to be able to run any industry, supply or manufacture any goods or even offer population growth (oh, and where the hell are the kids?!).

Where were all the crops being grown? Were are the animal farms that produce all the meat? Where are the traders that import everything?

It just made no sense at all. There should have been 100 times the amount of people in order for that country to be even fractionally believable

/offtopic

WhatsHisFace
11th Dec 2007, 03:49
Development teams have different departments for different things. More effort put into art doesn't necessarily mean less time put into gameplay design.

Still, if the choice comes down to characters with a million polygons vs. complex levels with many different ways through them, of course graphics should lose that battle.

Invisible War taught us that already.

Woggy
11th Dec 2007, 06:46
I don't want RPG-style random NPCs that say nothing useful.
How Deus Ex did it was great. Nearly every person had something different to say, apart from the soldiers and that. I don't care if the world is a bit sparse. It worked in the first one because well, it was always late at night. Being shoulder to shoulder in Hong Kong might be cool at first, but would get annoying quickly. I just want to walk through, comon its a game!

gamer0004
11th Dec 2007, 14:00
Offtopic but Oblivion's headcount was a definite issue. Cyrodil is the capitol of the whole world and yet it was empty. There are simply not enough people there to be able to run any industry, supply or manufacture any goods or even offer population growth (oh, and where the hell are the kids?!).

Where were all the crops being grown? Were are the animal farms that produce all the meat? Where are the traders that import everything?

It just made no sense at all. There should have been 100 times the amount of people in order for that country to be even fractionally believable

/offtopic
There weren't many animal farms those days.Imperial city for instance is a very small city, not even a square mile. That's not a problem of too few NPC's but too small environment (even though it's still very large for a game).
There weren't many crops either. These days there are miles of crops in every direction, but there weren't back then. Back then every farmer had his own crop that produced enough food for him and his familiy to live and he had to pay some of it to his boss (don't know what it's called in English).
There weren't many people back then -> few crops. There were way less people on the street, and even nowadays there are in some smaller city's/villages as little people on the street as in Oblvion.
The Imperial "city" is just too small for loads of people.

pKp
11th Dec 2007, 23:05
I disagree again because Oblivion was the worst for this. Sure it had some uninvolveds, but the entire CONTINENT of Cyrodil was populated by about 100 people. It's just laughable. Gamers have to just get over themselves and realise that if they want immersive, believable worlds, then those worlds will be filled with people who will not give one damn about them.

[snip]

For every one person you can talk to there should be 100 you cannot. This is just the way it is. Sure you can bug them and you may get a response (puzzled look, random abuse, whatever) but they need to be there.
Again this only applies in relevant areas. Private, indoor locations or obscure, hard to reach ones should clearly be more sparsely populated.

Completely agree with you.



When humans fill spaces they becaome almost tidal, washing through an area, continuously changing. This should be pretty easy to simulate on modern hardware.

Have you played Dead Rising ? :cool:

StormFront
12th Dec 2007, 10:18
Completely agree with you.


Have you played Dead Rising ? :cool:

No as it is on 360 and therefore evil. I have seen it being played and have played Kane & Lynch which employs similar trickery. Good ideas throughout.:)

Tyrant Worm
12th Dec 2007, 18:30
No as it is on 360 and therefore evil. I have seen it being played and have played Kane & Lynch which employs similar trickery. Good ideas throughout.:)

Just because it's on the 360 doesn't make it evil:mad2: . It IS possible to make this game as complex as Deus Ex 1 and have it on modern consoles. Look at the inventory system for Oblivion! Everything was accessible with one button in a system VERY similar to that of Deus Ex. Look at the character interaction from Mass Effect - the most advanced dialogue I've every seen. Hell, the even the level design for console games has caught up. This is possible. Sure, it won't look as great on a console as on a PC, but it will still work.

StormFront
12th Dec 2007, 22:44
Just because it's on the 360 doesn't make it evil:mad2:

Ermmm... well..... :whistle:

Just because it's on the 360 doesn't make it It IS possible to make this game as complex as Deus Ex 1 and have it on modern consoles. Look at the inventory system for Oblivion! Everything was accessible with one button in a system VERY similar to that of Deus Ex. Look at the character interaction from Mass Effect - the most advanced dialogue I've every seen. Hell, the even the level design for console games has caught up. This is possible. Sure, it won't look as great on a console as on a PC, but it will still work.[/QUOTE]


Sure, I agree. Current gen consoles are far more capable than previous ones in more ways than just graphics. There is no real reason why games developed for the 360 should turn out bad when they end up on PC... but they do everytime...:(

JulianP
25th Dec 2007, 20:46
Just because it's on the 360 doesn't make it evil:mad2: . It IS possible to make this game as complex as Deus Ex 1 and have it on modern consoles. Look at the inventory system for Oblivion! Everything was accessible with one button in a system VERY similar to that of Deus Ex. Look at the character interaction from Mass Effect - the most advanced dialogue I've every seen. Hell, the even the level design for console games has caught up. This is possible. Sure, it won't look as great on a console as on a PC, but it will still work.
It is possible, yes. But judging from previous experiences, multiplatform games which have been made with the consoles primarily in mind have been horrible on the PC. The popular opinion is that Morrowind's inventory was better. If they decide to use an inventory, they should make optimized interfaces for it depending on what system the game is played on. Unlike Oblivion which had the same interface on the consoles and PC and frankly, the consolised interface was horrible on the PC when compared to the one in Morrowind. And as far as dialogue goes, in my books Baldur's Gate is still number 1. ;) But then again, these are all a matter of preference and therefore arguing about them is more or less useless.


Sure, I agree. Current gen consoles are far more capable than previous ones in more ways than just graphics. There is no real reason why games developed for the 360 should turn out bad when they end up on PC... but they do everytime...:(Indeed. Just goes to show how much the developers/publishers care about the PC gaming audience. ;(

imported_van_HellSing
25th Dec 2007, 21:21
Baldur's Gate dialogue has nothing on Planescape: Torment's dialogue ;).

JulianP
25th Dec 2007, 23:47
Baldur's Gate dialogue has nothing on Planescape: Torment's dialogue ;).
Funny you should say that, I just started playing it (PS:T) today. For some reason I didn't get to play it when it came out, so I it's about damn time I got to it. :D

MaxxQ1
26th Dec 2007, 05:01
Baldur's Gate dialogue has nothing on Planescape: Torment's dialogue ;).

Before I ever played PS:T, I would have agreed with BG being the best.

Then I played PS:T.

'Nuff said...

khris
7th Jan 2008, 05:32
4 or 5 years later you'll play DX 3 you will not remember the graphics, but you will remember the feel of the game, the gameplays, the story, the characters, the experiences, the music, etc...

Graphics are actually great enough I what is great is all about the visual art direction of the game. Graphics & Visual Art Direction (visual style of the game) are two different things, don't you think?

Maybe I'm wrong... lol.

gamer0004
7th Jan 2008, 08:38
About the NPCs: there shouldn't be too much. That's good for the atmosphere. In DX you often felt lonely, even though there were NPCs to talk to. At night there aren't many people on the street, except in some parts of the city.

vecima
7th Jan 2008, 17:17
I'd have to side with the "some npcs should talk to you, and some shouldn't give you the time of day" side of the argument here.

take a trip to New York City (where our first DX started) and try having a meaningful conversation with everyone you see. the simple truth is some people are jerks, others are just busy, some people are shy, and some people won't talk to you because half the people who would stop what they're doing to have a long conversation with a complete stranger are "crazy".

take a look at half-life 2. I'm not saying it should be limited to this, but a fair number of people walking around and largely ignoring you is realistic. at least SOME of the npcs SHOULD be too busy to talk to you. my biggest problem with npcs in both DX games is why was everyone just standing around? some people were placed in areas where they were doing something, but aside from that people were just standing there. and they never left their own personal stand zone. people should be walking to and fro with purpose. after all they have a world to run, no? only hobos and kids should be hanging around for more than a few minutes. some of this depends on the setting and situation of the world. if we're shown a public park in a free country then we'd expect to see kids playing, joggers jogging, people walking pets (assuming there are pets in this future), etc. maybe some of these people who aren't late for work would stop and talk to you, and maybe some would say things like "listen, i don't know you.", "I'm busy", "I'm on my break, buzz off" (another thing - people on their break shouldn't stay on their break for 50 strait hours, unless their a hobo lying about having a job).

MaxxQ1
7th Jan 2008, 17:53
I'm currently playing "The Witcher", and it seems to have a pretty good NPC system. The first thing I noticed about the NPCs in the game is that there are TONS of them. I can't go in a straight line from point A to point B, because my character is constantly having to dodge other people. That city is BUSY. Most have a life - going to and going home from work, visiting friends, shopping in the marketplace, and when it rains, they all take cover under awnings or second-floor overhangs, and complain about leaving the laundry hanging out, or laughing at another NPC who LEFT her laundry hanging to dry. Kids are playing in the street, dogs and cats living together...errr, wrong reference. Some kids will even follow you around, making comments about you, the annoying little rugrats.:D Stray dogs will do the same thing, occasionally following you around and either siffing at you, or growling, sometimes barking.

Anyway, as your character is walking around, you pick up snippets of conversation between NPCs, sometimes with them making a comment about YOU. If you attempt to talk to them, most will have a particular thing to say, not necessarily helpful OR nice. Of course, merchants are always willing to talk, as well as necessary NPCs. In some cases, the NPC will just say something and move on, in others, you go into a conversation cut-scene, which don't seem to have any use other than to provide a conversation not related to the actual mission/quest.

That said, last night, in two cases, I had to find a specific NPC, but wasn't told who they were, and no clue was given as to their whereabouts. I basically had to wander the city, asking random NPCs if they were the one I was looking for. For the most part, they had no clue what I was talking about, but in some cases, I almost got into trouble, almost getting arrested in one case, and almost getting slapped in another.

I said all that to make the point that a well-populated city is possible, and technology now can allow lots of random interaction similar to what you would find in a real city.

Tyrant Worm
7th Jan 2008, 19:43
I disagree again because Oblivion was the worst for this. Sure it had some uninvolveds, but the entire CONTINENT of Cyrodil was populated by about 100 people. It's just laughable. Gamers have to just get over themselves and realise that if they want immersive, believable worlds, then those worlds will be filled with people who will not give one damn about them.

For every one person you can talk to there should be 100 you cannot. This is just the way it is. Sure you can bug them and you may get a response (puzzled look, random abuse, whatever) but they need to be there.

The DX universe needs this more than most. It is at the very least to be set in the near future so population of ANY space is going to be huge and changing every second. When humans fill spaces they becaome almost tidal, washing through an area, continuously changing. This should be pretty easy to simulate on modern hardware.

Again this only applies in relevant areas. Private, indoor locations or obscure, hard to reach ones should clearly be more sparsely populated.

If however, I have to play one more game where the "teeming metropolis" I am walking through is apparently populated by 5 people, all of whom are conveniently there to help/hinder me I'll bloody scream. It's just inexcusably lazy on the part of the devs...


Cyrodil had over 1000 NPC's. While certaintly not enough to justify a continent, it is still a rather substantial achievement.
http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1035/The-Elder-Scrolls-IV-Oblivion/p2/

GundamXXX
8th Jan 2008, 09:18
I think its all very clear

To make a good game you dont need good graphics and vica versa
But a good game with good graphics sure makes it easy on th eyes!

I'd rather play Unreal 2 (wich sucked) with highest settings etc etc then Wolfenstein 3D (wich was cool) see where Im going? But then again
Id rather play Unreal Tournament (original wich bad graphics) then UT2k4 (wich I hate the gameplay off)

People basicly want and need a combination of both. Its that simple. And in these days its not hard to make a shiny pretty game so Ill be amazed if they put the emphsism(?) on graphics, especially if they already have an engine (wich is most likely the UE3 engine, Source engine or Havok engine) wich is waiting for mintor tweaks. Waiting for minot tweaks means that the dev's of the engine (meaning other people then the game dev's) are laying the last hands on the engine so people on Eidos Montreal can do their job better

Maybe abit of ranting but I felt like i :P

gamer0004
8th Jan 2008, 13:52
especially if they already have an engine (wich is most likely the UE3 engine, Source engine or Havok engine) wich is waiting for mintor tweaks.

They're using the Crystal [Dynamics] engine... Just google ;)

GundamXXX
8th Jan 2008, 20:54
They're using the Crystal [Dynamics] engine... Just google ;)

Yea saw that later on :P

But still not as impressive imo, but Im a Unreal fanboy :/

vecima
10th Jan 2008, 05:52
I don't like how unreal looks for some reason.

Source is a great engine - it looks pretty good, has the best physics so far, and runs incredibly, even on older systems, leaving plenty of overhead for AI, and any extra code for RPG elements...

but yes, they've already chosen the C.D. engine... oh well.

matches81
10th Jan 2008, 12:07
I have to agree with StormFront.
Graphics alone don't make a game good, but they definitely add a lot to the immersion. When DX1 was released it looked pretty good for the time, and we were used to seeing graphics like that, therefore they didn't hinder the immersion. Nowadays we're used to drastically better visuals, and everything that falls short of our expectations will most probably hinder the immersion.
And good visuals don't necessarily mean short game, crappy gameplay and bad story. There are enough games showing that. Stalker for example looks pretty much fantastic, yet manages to offer great gameplay and lots of content. Also, the story isn't bad at all.
Deus Ex 3 won't be developed with the premise of "don't waste time making it look great", because that would be stupid. Game development teams (hopefully) have departments for each area of the game, so not "wasting time on the visuals" essentially means telling your artists to go home. Also: Great visuals sell games. No matter how you look at it afterwards, fancy screenshots and in-game videos are far easier to sell to the people than trying to convince them that your game doesn't look good, but sure plays awesome.

About the NPC "issue":
I again agree with StormFront here. Almost every RPG fails to deliver a properly populated world. Somebody said Oblivion did that. Sorry, but walking over a market place with 2 to 3 people on it at any time of the day is just ridiculous. Having 5 meter wide streets with nobody on them looks aweful, too. Yes, population counts in medieval times were a lot smaller than they are today, but even back then a town easily could have 1000 residents, a capital could reach 10.000 or more. Saying that Oblivion provides a believable amount of NPCs is just ridiculous.
Besides that: Yes, farms were smaller back then, but they existed in numbers big enough to support the rest of the population that were not farmers. Everything else is nonsensical. ;)
That said: I agree that there should be loads of NPCs in supposedly populated areas that don't care for the player enough to even merit an answer. And if the character looks at least a bit like JC Denton, most NPCs should look baffled when spoken to, walk a bit faster and try to get away as soon as possible without running. That's what a normal guy on the street would do when being adressed by a big guy in a black trenchcoat and sunglasses. If you have settings in the game that would be well populated in real life there is no excuse to have 5 NPCs strolling around. You can just add 200 generic NPCs that only wander about, ignoring the player or reacting in a generic manner ("buzz off!" "I'm busy." and the likes). That just adds to the atmosphere of a place that should be crowded. I absolutely hate it when I get the objective to talk to a specific NPC in a supposedly hip bar, get there and can tell with the first look at the scene which one of the guys is the one I'm supposed to talk to, because there are only 3 other guys there that simply don't fit the idea (for example a barkeeper, a bum and a hooker, right next to the guy that just has "important NPC" written all over him).

Mythrander101
17th Jan 2008, 07:38
Greetings,

I would like to begin by saying that I agree with several things StormFront has said even though he comes across as a complete jerk, and there are also a few things in which I think he is in error. Nevertheless, here are some of my opinions on topics that have been discussed in this lengthy... er... topic...

1. NPCs. Yes, they are a huge part of a game, and are one of the defining factors of a game's immersion value. I agree that most games are lacking in NPC populations, but that is only because devs are lazy and/or don't have the time nor will to make the game more realistic. Yes, I want to see more NPCs in DX3 because that is a defining role of realism, and will assist in the immersion. There should be a variety of NPCs ranging from "Shove off" to "Oh, I see you've been checking out that building or that person, let me give you some interesting information." (Not that things would happen like that but you get the gist.) I want to see pedestrians doing pedestrian things like window shopping or exiting/entering vehicles and driving off, or walking down a sidewalk talking on a cell phone (Like that doesn't happen IRL:mad2: ), or a handicap using a wheelchair ramp to enter a building. (When was the last time you saw THAT in a game?) Things of that everyday nature. Naturally, these only need be applied if such situations warrant that activity.

Originally Posted by Woggy:
"I enjoy talking to as many people as possible too. I'd hate the majority of NPCs to be random, faceless, 'Buzz off!' type of characters. Thats a waste of resources - it doesn't make the game fun."

I'd like to argue that it DOES make the game fun. What are the chances that if you walked up to a stranger in a grocery store or mall setting and said, "Hi, I'm supposed to find this warehouse that has a generator I need to sabotage, can you tell me how to get there?" and then they promptly gave you specific directions to your objective. What kind of fun or sense of realism is that? Chances are your stranger would give you an odd look and either walk away or be like "WTF are you talking about. Leave me alone." Realism.

2. Graphics vs 'Gameplay'. Hey! We all like sparkly, fancy shmancy, photo quality graphics, who doesn't? But, as was previously stated, they don't make the game a great game anymore than sticking feathers up your arse make you a chicken. I love DX because of it's immersion value, it's replay value, it's causing-one-to-think value. Graphics are 'meh' by today's standards, but what of it? Today's games are pretty much guaranteed to come with amazing graphics anyway, the real question is now posed by the game companies saying "Are you willing to fork over the $$$ to upgrade your system to see all the nice shiny things we can do?" Yes, I upgraded to play HL2 and Oblivion, and was rewarded.

To me, saying that graphics make a great game is like saying the looks of your desktop's computer case makes your computer run better. Quite honestly, you'll think I'm loony for saying this but, I would rather play a game with DX1 quality immersiveness and sub-par, 'meh' graphics than a game with sub-par, 'meh' immersiveness and HL2 or Crysis graphics.

I would also like to note that DX3 should and I think MUST have weather conditions. Rain, Fog (Would love fog, especially to the point where you and NPCs make wakes in the fog as you move.), maybe snow, they would all add to the realism, the immersiveness of the game.

If Eidos is intelligent, and I think they are even though IW was a debacle in it's own way, they'll focus more on the immersive, thought provoking quality that made Deus Ex great, rather than the guaranteed good graphics which will come standard with the game.

Mythrander101

matches81
17th Jan 2008, 10:31
2. Graphics vs 'Gameplay'. Hey! We all like sparkly, fancy shmancy, photo quality graphics, who doesn't? But, as was previously stated, they don't make the game a great game anymore than sticking feathers up your arse make you a chicken. I love DX because of it's immersion value, it's replay value, it's causing-one-to-think value. Graphics are 'meh' by today's standards, but what of it? Today's games are pretty much guaranteed to come with amazing graphics anyway, the real question is now posed by the game companies saying "Are you willing to fork over the $$$ to upgrade your system to see all the nice shiny things we can do?" Yes, I upgraded to play HL2 and Oblivion, and was rewarded.

To me, saying that graphics make a great game is like saying the looks of your desktop's computer case makes your computer run better. Quite honestly, you'll think I'm loony for saying this but, I would rather play a game with DX1 quality immersiveness and sub-par, 'meh' graphics than a game with sub-par, 'meh' immersiveness and HL2 or Crysis graphics.

I would also like to note that DX3 should and I think MUST have weather conditions. Rain, Fog (Would love fog, especially to the point where you and NPCs make wakes in the fog as you move.), maybe snow, they would all add to the realism, the immersiveness of the game.

If Eidos is intelligent, and I think they are even though IW was a debacle in it's own way, they'll focus more on the immersive, thought provoking quality that made Deus Ex great, rather than the guaranteed good graphics which will come standard with the game.

Mythrander101
So, basically, graphics aren't important, but DX3 must have weather conditions up to fog that behaves physically correct?
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but for me good graphics consist of more than just a few fancy eye-candy effects. The main part of good graphics is the overall impression a scene leaves. If the scene looks good mostly but there are lots of small spots that don't "fit", you'll have bad graphics and a lot of immersion is lost. I can still be immersed in games that are 10 years old or older, because they manage to convey a consistent picture and have "good visuals". As you said: DX3 will probably be released with a lot of fancy shining stuff in the effects department, but for me it is more important that a consistens picture is delivered. And in that way, graphics can be the difference between a fun, little time-killer and an absolutely awesome uber-game. They are really important for immersion, because together with good dialog, story, world, handling and sound, they are the main aspect for immersion. A simply ugly game never will be immersive.

Mythrander101
17th Jan 2008, 15:32
So, basically, graphics aren't important, but DX3 must have weather conditions up to fog that behaves physically correct?
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but for me good graphics consist of more than just a few fancy eye-candy effects. The main part of good graphics is the overall impression a scene leaves. If the scene looks good mostly but there are lots of small spots that don't "fit", you'll have bad graphics and a lot of immersion is lost. I can still be immersed in games that are 10 years old or older, because they manage to convey a consistent picture and have "good visuals". As you said: DX3 will probably be released with a lot of fancy shining stuff in the effects department, but for me it is more important that a consistens picture is delivered. And in that way, graphics can be the difference between a fun, little time-killer and an absolutely awesome uber-game. They are really important for immersion, because together with good dialog, story, world, handling and sound, they are the main aspect for immersion. A simply ugly game never will be immersive.

You're missing my point. I'm not a stickler for graphics, but BECAUSE DX3 will have good graphics weather SHOULD be implemented for the immersive factor. I'm not saying that I want crappy graphics, I'm saying that I want the dev team to focus more on what-made-DX-great than the already given good graphics. Yes, they need to make the graphics consistent and believable and whatnot, but I'm guessing that it shouldn't take as long to accomplish that than it would to focus on plot, 'gameplay', and the immersive factors.