PDA

View Full Version : Game engine & physics



Pages : [1] 2

StormFront
30th Nov 2007, 16:29
Deus Ex 3 Engine Revealed (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=176735)

I just dont understand...:scratch: :eek:

Actually THIS (http://www.developmag.com/interviews/104/QA-Stephane-DAstous-Eidos-Montreal) link might be of more interest.

Still a dumb idea....

Xcom
30th Nov 2007, 16:43
Thanks for posting.

StormFront
30th Nov 2007, 16:46
Thanks for posting.

'S'aright. Interested to see what others think of this though. Not exactly my "engine of choice", but at least it is free I suppose...:confused:

Techguy
30th Nov 2007, 17:23
Well, that answers a question I had in another thread. Didn't expect that. At least we can more or less expect DX3 to look/run better than IW did :)

Kneo24
30th Nov 2007, 21:43
It makes sense to me. If other current projects in the company are using that engine, why not use it across the board? It makes it easier to swap coders around when necessary. It may not be the best choice for engines, but it does save the company costs in other areas. As long as they can do what they need to do with this engine, then I don't see any problem using it.

StormFront
30th Nov 2007, 21:48
It makes sense to me. If other current projects in the company are using that engine, why not use it across the board? It makes it easier to swap coders around when necessary. It may not be the best choice for engines, but it does save the company costs in other areas. As long as they can do what they need to do with this engine, then I don't see any problem using it.

It makes fiscal sense, sure. Not having to shell out for your starter engine is a great idea. The only obvious concern is that the engine is very limited and, flatly, a little bit sucky going by what it has done so far.

Tomb Raider: Legend may have saved the TR franchise, but as a PC game it was a nightmare. Hideously unoptimised, a massive resource hog and, flatly, a lot less good lookng than its counterparts.

Sure they have stated that they will be "developing" the engine, which is a good sign, but they only have 2 years to knock this game together, so I find myself wondering....

Kneo24
30th Nov 2007, 21:57
I agree there. Developing the engine just takes so much time. Not just to code it, but to go through a bug stomping process. Let's take Source for examble. Valve has been updating the engine for years now, but in between the major updates to the engine, we only ever see bug fixes. And the major updates to the engine are usually graphical.

I wonder what direction will be taken by Eidos. Will they improve the engine so the graphical aspects are better, or will they improve it so you can do more things in game? Will they even find a middle ground?

Godot
1st Dec 2007, 04:02
A nextgen version of the engine used in Project Snowblind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Snowblind)should be ok assuming they iron out the various hyperthreading and multicore bugs that plagued the PC version.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/abucketformonsieur/1142012932-00.jpg

StormFront
1st Dec 2007, 09:46
A nextgen version of the engine used in Project Snowblind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Snowblind)should be ok assuming they iron out the various hyperthreading and multicore bugs that plagued the PC version.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee189/abucketformonsieur/1142012932-00.jpg


Project Snowblind used Ueng 2 - LAST gen technology....:confused:

Godot
1st Dec 2007, 10:12
Project Snowblind used Ueng 2 - LAST gen technology....:confused:
It was certainly last gen tech, but are you sure it was Ueng2? :confused:

The game's Wikipedia article says that the game's developer, Crystal Dynamics, used their own "GexOmen" engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Snowblind

StormFront
1st Dec 2007, 10:43
It was certainly last gen tech, but are you sure it was Ueng2? :confused:

The game's Wikipedia article says that the game's developer, Crystal Dynamics, used their own "GexOmen" engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Snowblind

Sorry I missread your post - thought you said Project Snowblind WAS a next gen engine. Doh...

As to being Ueng 2 - I thought that GexOmen was a modified Ueng2 Engine. Might be talking crap of course.

As to using that engine - Gotta say it was one of the ugliest engines of its time. The character models were simply dire and the fake lighting was hideous

Necros
1st Dec 2007, 14:23
Yeah, it's weird but I'm not gonna bury the game just yet. It is an unusual choice but I'll wait for the first screens with my judgement. Just because it was used for a TPS it doesn't mean it can't be good for an FPS/RPG too, with heavy tweaking of course. And hopefully the devs there aren't newbies, so they might pull it off. :)

humbug
3rd Dec 2007, 15:47
There is a rumor going around that the next TR game is going to be rated mature, whether this is true remains to be seen. Anyhow if this is the case I should imagine the the graphics will be less 'fluffy' and probably a more suitable engine for Dues EX. If this is how it works? I'm no expert in how graphics are created from engines, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

WhatsHisFace
14th Dec 2007, 04:21
In the latest "Play Magazine", Crystal Dynamics (engine creator) have THIS to say about a few of the engine enhancements...


Commenting on one of Lara's locations, PLAY says, "In the level where Lara explores Southern Mexico, she leaves footprints in the mud, but it's raining so they wash away. The bodies she leaves behind in combat encounters will stay, however, as will the debris from any destruction she causes."

On an immersive and epic environment and weather system, Eric Lindstrom says, "we developed a hybrid lighting model that combines dynamic lights with carefully created light maps to make our world look stunning in ways that none of the available methods could achieve alone."

Crystal Dynamics have also given Lara full motion capture "to bring a more natural fluidity to her movements, with proper weight and secondary motion." Moreover, when Lara kneels on a muddy outcrop, only her knee will be covered in dirt and this will gradually dissipate as she continues on her journey.

The game has been tentatively pencilled in for a 2008 release and is expected to court Xbox 360, Sony PS3 and Windows PC.

It's a good step up. Surely not the full extent of the engine updates but certainly a good sign of things to come. :D

Nathan2000
14th Dec 2007, 16:11
Personally, I'm not worried about graphics quality. Not one bit. I'm sure, it will be good. If it doesn't have super-duper effects, it won't make any difference.
The only question, that concerns me is: Will there be any level editor for that engine available? Will we be able to create mods? With Unreal Engine 3 it would be obvious, but now?

Dave W
14th Dec 2007, 22:57
With Unreal Engine 3 it would be obvious, but now?

Exactly, like the one that came with IW.
Wait, I mean the one that came with Bioshock.
I mean...uh..

The SDK hasn't been confirmed or ruled out yet. Just wait.

CarloGervasi
14th Dec 2007, 23:38
Really should have went with something else.

WhatsHisFace
15th Dec 2007, 04:15
Really should have went with something else.
The one benefit they have from working with an in-house engine is that they will have all the support they need at their fingertips and whatever changes they need to make can be done without loads of paperwork.

Silicon-Knights lawsuits avoided.

pKp
15th Dec 2007, 14:09
Yeah, good for them. They'll tweak it to tailor it to the game's needs.

And frankly, I think we're coming to times where having high resolution texture and photorealistic will be a given, and the only way for devs to cut it will be to really work on the graphical aspect, rather than cramming in more polygons - something DX1 did kinda well.

Dave W
15th Dec 2007, 15:19
Really should have went with something else.

Uh, why? Please reason your posts, because that makes no sense. Why should they buy a new engine when they have one that's perfectly capable for free?

Nathan2000
15th Dec 2007, 16:19
Exactly, like the one that came with IW.
Wait, I mean the one that came with Bioshock.
I mean...uh..
Maybe you mean the editor that came with Devastation. Or Gears of War. Or RoboBlitz. Or America's Army. Or Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Brothers in Arms, Dead Man's Hand, Pariah, Postal 2, X-Com Enforcer and dozens of other games.

BTW, I heard somewhere, that DX2 devs wanted to release SDK as well, but they didn't make it before ION Storm was dissolved. I may be wrong, though.

The SDK hasn't been confirmed or ruled out yet. Just wait.
Have no choice. But waiting is so nerve-racking!

StormFront
16th Dec 2007, 09:13
Uh, why? Please reason your posts, because that makes no sense. Why should they buy a new engine when they have one that's perfectly capable for free?

Because the engine in question has not proved itself to be perfectly capable at any point. On what are you basing the assumption that it is?

TR:Legend was notoriously badly written on PC. There were armies of technical issues from day one and many of them were simply never fixed (unfixable?). The engine does not offer anything particularly useful or impressive, it is merely free. I acknowledge that they have stated their intention to "upgrade" it, but altering poor existing code fundamentally takes longer than writing new code.

midna1
16th Dec 2007, 22:12
They dont need to make the graphics too amazing. But you need the proper gameplay with branching decisions, choice and consequence. Ion Storm raised the bar very high for gameplay. Good luck. :lol:

StormFront
16th Dec 2007, 23:27
They dont need to make the graphics too amazing. But you need the proper gameplay with branching decisions, choice and consequence. Ion Storm raised the bar very high for gameplay. Good luck. :lol:

And again with the "gamelplay", that great undefined quantity.

If we all say gameplay enough we will sound like real gamers, not half arsed 360 owners with no clue

I will choose to ignore your comments about GFX as you are clearly uninformed...

/end drunken abuse <giggle>

gamer0004
17th Dec 2007, 13:44
Why don't you understand what people mean with "Gameplay"?
Yeah, there are parts of games hard to classify as "Gameplay" or "Graphics" or "Sound". Footsteps in DX were great for the gameplay but it was great sound too. Physics can be great for gameplay and great as graphics.
Gameplay is everything that influences the game play-wise. A photo has great graphics but zero gameplay (because there is no interactivity with whatever is displayed in the photo). A game with no graphics can't exsist because you need graphics to be able to play a game (unless it's some kind of sound-based game for blind people). Graphics are important, but when the gameplay sucks the game isn't fun. When the gameplay is great but the graphics aren't very good (euphemism) the game can still be fun to play (like DX). So that's why gameplay is more important than graphics, although graphics (and sound too, don't forget that one!) is still quite important.

StormFront
17th Dec 2007, 14:20
Why don't you understand what people mean with "Gameplay"?
Yeah, there are parts of games hard to classify as "Gameplay" or "Graphics" or "Sound". Footsteps in DX were great for the gameplay but it was great sound too. Physics can be great for gameplay and great as graphics.
Gameplay is everything that influences the game play-wise. A photo has great graphics but zero gameplay (because there is no interactivity with whatever is displayed in the photo). A game with no graphics can't exsist because you need graphics to be able to play a game (unless it's some kind of sound-based game for blind people). Graphics are important, but when the gameplay sucks the game isn't fun. When the gameplay is great but the graphics aren't very good (euphemism) the game can still be fun to play (like DX). So that's why gameplay is more important than graphics, although graphics (and sound too, don't forget that one!) is still quite important.


I fully understand what is meant by gameplay, don't be obtuse.

My point is that gameplay is entirely subjective and therefore totally worthless as a measure of the quality of a game. What I consider to be a good gameplay mechanic can and likely will differ from what most other people think. Just about everyone I know thinks that Mario Kart on the SNES was one of the best games ever whereas I think it was a bloody aweful game. They bought into the (highly odd) control mech: I didn't. They would therefore rate its "gameplay" value as high where as I wouldn't

"Gameplay" isn't quantifiable porperly like soup or Kansas. It is simply a measure of how you enjoyed a given experiencve and how immersive you found it. Therefore people whittering on and on that gameplay is more important than graphics is just a nonesense. If we are to talk about the good and bad in games and try and present arguments or proposals as to what we do and do not wish to see in upcoming titles, we need to to move away from terms such as gameplay. I believe there are more important things to consider such as the style of the artwork, the level design, the graphics and voice acting. As long as the world is believable, immersive and absorbing I will at be bale to enjoy it and therefore find this "gameplay" holy grail everyone is so obsessed by. Just rattling on that it needs good "gameplay" is unhelpful as it does not actually mean anything in and of itself.

RÆPËR
17th Dec 2007, 16:42
Well, atleast there is crystal space 3d, which is an sdk for the crystal engine. I don't know if it will be compatible with the same one they are using, but if it is...this leaves major room for expansion from the DX community.

RÆPËR
18th Dec 2007, 04:45
I heard they are using the crystal engine because it is the in house engine for eidos, and they want to develop it more. I would love to see DX3 be more than just a "test game." I would rather see the new unreal engine, rendering is unbelievable. Another option would be the Source engine (by Valve) because it already has amazing physics programmed into it. According to the Montreal Eidos website, they are looking for a physics programmer, wouldn't it be cheaper and quicker to just buy rights to the Source engine from Valve?

StormFront
18th Dec 2007, 06:50
I heard they are using the crystal engine because it is the in house engine for eidos, and they want to develop it more. I would love to see DX3 be more than just a "test game." I would rather see the new unreal engine, rendering is unbelievable. Another option would be the Source engine (by Valve) because it already has amazing physics programmed into it. According to the Montreal Eidos website, they are looking for a physics programmer, wouldn't it be cheaper and quicker to just buy rights to the Source engine from Valve?

Not to be an arse, but there are already 2 or 3 threads discussing this - did we need a third?

Anyway, even if you have an "out fo the box" physics SDK, you still need a physics programmer to deploy it.

Liscensing UEng3 costs something in the region of $250,000 so a programmer is definetly cheaper than that. As for Source: I cannot express how glad I am that they did not use that stinking piece of crap. The engine is utterly bereft of any useful features and is still to this day incapabable of rendering anything aproaching a large scale environment. Crystal is a FAR better choice than Source: Hell the Minesweeper engine is a better choice than Source...

Dave W
18th Dec 2007, 16:16
The advantage with Source is that it'd be easy to customise it. Although the SDK tools are on par with the original Deus Ex (i.e. a complete arse to use - compiling models in Source is horrible.) But yes, the renderer is terrible (normal and specular maps just don't work well). It wouldn't be bad at rendering Deus Ex-like levels though - typically human structures which is heavily reliant on BSP.

WhatsHisFace
18th Dec 2007, 23:21
Not to be an arse, but there are already 2 or 3 threads discussing this - did we need a third?

Anyway, even if you have an "out fo the box" physics SDK, you still need a physics programmer to deploy it.

Liscensing UEng3 costs something in the region of $250,000 so a programmer is definetly cheaper than that. As for Source: I cannot express how glad I am that they did not use that stinking piece of crap. The engine is utterly bereft of any useful features and is still to this day incapabable of rendering anything aproaching a large scale environment. Crystal is a FAR better choice than Source: Hell the Minesweeper engine is a better choice than Source...
Thank you. All this time I thought I was the only one who didn't have dreams powered by the Source engine. Even when it released in the wake of Farcry and Doom 3, it was garbage. It's seen enhancements over time, but not the overhaul it needs.

Anyway, the Crystal engine with an all-new renderer and some Montreal-enhancements ought to be fine. Project Snowblind forged a decent base for Deus Ex to be built on.

minus0ne
19th Dec 2007, 23:35
Deus Ex 3 Engine Revealed (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=176735)

I just dont understand...:scratch: :eek:

Actually THIS (http://www.developmag.com/interviews/104/QA-Stephane-DAstous-Eidos-Montreal) link might be of more interest.

Still a dumb idea....
Why is it a dumb idea? Please explain the reasoning behind your opinion. I seriously don't see how licensing a perfectly customizable, well-performing 'engine' is a bad decision. Here's why;

- They won't have to spend half the production cycle building an engine from the ground up. But they still have a great degree of control over expanding the engine for DX3. They can start making the game right now.
- It's an in-house engine. The devs know it in-and-out.
- TRL looked pretty stunning (and that was developed on an special build of this engine, just as EM will make a special version of it for DX3)

It's like some people don't know the difference between the engine and the game content. The engine does NOT dictate the use of first/third person, it doesn't dictate the locations (or types of locations, perhaps only in size) and they can basically augment it as they see fit. I'm glad they didn't go for UE3 or Source; Source was what brought a FP-RPG (!) like VTMB down, UE3 is totally unproven (unless you actually believe Gears of War for PC is a good game, there's a reason Epic got sued by a devhouse because UE3 didn't deliver in the slightest). I highly doubt they chose this engine so Eidos can benefit from it in future projects (that would not make fiscal sense).

StormFront
20th Dec 2007, 01:56
Why is it a dumb idea? Please explain the reasoning behind your opinion. I seriously don't see how licensing a perfectly customizable, well-performing 'engine' is a bad decision. Here's why;

- They won't have to spend half the production cycle building an engine from the ground up. But they still have a great degree of control over expanding the engine for DX3. They can start making the game right now.
- It's an in-house engine. The devs know it in-and-out.
- TRL looked pretty stunning (and that was developed on an special build of this engine, just as EM will make a special version of it for DX3)

It's like some people don't know the difference between the engine and the game content. The engine does NOT dictate the use of first/third person, it doesn't dictate the locations (or types of locations, perhaps only in size) and they can basically augment it as they see fit. I'm glad they didn't go for UE3 or Source; Source was what brought a FP-RPG (!) like VTMB down, UE3 is totally unproven (unless you actually believe Gears of War for PC is a good game, there's a reason Epic got sued by a devhouse because UE3 didn't deliver in the slightest). I highly doubt they chose this engine so Eidos can benefit from it in future projects (that would not make fiscal sense).

And it's also like some people don't know how to, you know, READ THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Look around this has been discussed a lot and in good depth. Don't turn up late to a thread and just quote the first post, you look daft...

EDIT: No I had to add more, your post is just so stunningly idiotic:

- Yes, they will have to spend a lot of the production cycle building the engine up as they have already said they will do this. Again: READ.
- It's not an in house engine really as this Dev team just got damned well hired so they have never used it before. Again: READ
- TRL may have looked good but it performed like a rabid, 2 legged dog. The most powerful, bleeding edge machines of the time could not run it. It took an armful of patching and an entire generation of tech before TRL was even viable.
- One thing we agree on: SOURCE sucks...
- UE3 is far from unproven. Again if you'd wind yer neck in and look around for a moment you would see that there are alot of games using UEng 3 and all are doing very well. The idiots who tried to sue EPIC have yet to manage to make a case, but hey: don;t let mere facts stand in the way of badly written rhetoric

minus0ne
20th Dec 2007, 19:35
And it's also like some people don't know how to, you know, READ THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Look around this has been discussed a lot and in good depth. Don't turn up late to a thread and just quote the first post, you look daft...
In good depth? LMAO, sorry but that's just not true. I browsed through the thread. I don't see how I can't comment on the first post, or how that makes me look daft (see if I care). You barely mentioned the points above (if at all) and still haven't given much of an argument to support your opinion (although your last edited post is finally going somewhere).

EDIT: No I had to add more, your post is just so stunningly idiotic:

- Yes, they will have to spend a lot of the production cycle building the engine up as they have already said they will do this. Again: READ.
I meant as opposed to building an engine from the ground up, I thought that was clear ;)

- It's not an in house engine really as this Dev team just got damned well hired so they have never used it before. Again: READ
It's in-house because it's an Eidos studio. In-house also means it's free. We still don't know exactly who's working on it, as they've only hired less than half the people that'll be working on it (and they can easily hire people who have experience with this engine).

- TRL may have looked good but it performed like a rabid, 2 legged dog. The most powerful, bleeding edge machines of the time could not run it. It took an armful of patching and an entire generation of tech before TRL was even viable.
Actually it played nicely on my 3.2Ghz (P4!) and x1900xtx machine, granted, with the "next-gen" setting turned off (and still looked very nice). But that was not to blame on the engine, but on the coders who modified the engine. This dev team can learn from their mistakes (!) and build a proper customized engine (also, this team will have DOUBLE the time the TRL devs had, that also means more thorough bug testing and QA).

- One thing we agree on: SOURCE sucks...
Good ;)

- UE3 is far from unproven. Again if you'd wind yer neck in and look around for a moment you would see that there are alot of games using UEng 3 and all are doing very well
Far from unproven? Heh. There have been a few console games (which are bug free because well, all the hardware is the same ;) ), but if the PC games so far are an indication, UE3 sucks for PC (or at the very least, is pretty hard to get right for devs). BioShock was extremely bug ridden as was Gears of War. What made BioShock a good game despite this, had nothing to do with the engine, but with the art direction and solid (though repetitive) gameplay
and decent story. UT3 is developed by Epic themselves, so yeah, that'd be embarrassing if they didn't manage to utilize their own engine properly. Please name me all these supposed UE3 licensed success stories, because I can't find them.

The idiots who tried to sue EPIC have yet to manage to make a case, but hey: don;t let mere facts stand in the way of badly written rhetoric
Idiots? Right, well at least they're successful idiots then. They were the first to license the engine, and then had to wait more than a year to actually get their hands on it, contrary to their contract. Also, UE3 promised more than it could deliver. And they're not the first or last devhouse to criticize Epic for UE3, it seems only Epic knows its secrets and doesn't share them easily (even to licensees). Proclaiming your opinion as fact doesn't make it so, you know. And licensing UE3 doesn't guarantee a good game, in fact, it doesn't seem to help at all.

StormFront
20th Dec 2007, 20:06
Far from unproven? Heh. There have been a few console games (which are bug free because well, all the hardware is the same ;) ), but if the PC games so far are an indication, UE3 sucks for PC (or at the very least, is pretty hard to get right for devs). BioShock was extremely bug ridden as was Gears of War. What made BioShock a good game despite this, had nothing to do with the engine, but with the art direction and solid (though repetitive) gameplay
and decent story. UT3 is developed by Epic themselves, so yeah, that'd be embarrassing if they didn't manage to utilize their own engine properly. Please name me all these supposed UE3 licensed success stories, because I can't find them.

Ahh... now I see the problem. You either don't have the machine to run UEng 3 or you are simply listening to the hype on the whiny forum boards out there.
UEng 3 games:
-Bioshock - Without doubt one of the worst games I have ever played, but technically speaking it ran flawlessly, all features maxed, DX10 enabled, 1600x1200, frame limiter maxed solid.
-UT3 - Actually the most buggy UENG3 release so far. In D10 thereis a lot of hitching in certain maps but that aside it runs perectly, again at max DX10 details
-Gears of War - Not one single problem to be seen. Max detail and resolution, DX10 enabled. Flawless.
-Monster Madness:Battle for Suburbia - Very weak game but has zero performance or compatability problems.
-Rainbow Six: Vegas - Again not a good game, but no performance problems.
-Blacksite: Area 51 - Hard to believe this uses UENg3 given it is so butt ugly, but bad game aside, it again runs flawlessly.
-MOH:Airbourne - Again zero issues.

And these are just the games that I have played that use the engine. Don't just listen to hype from people with crap hardware and no technical skills. Their problems are entirely their own.

I'm not even gonna list the console games that use it (Mostly 'cos could care less about them) so look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_engine_3#Unreal_Engine_3)




Idiots? Right, well at least they're successful idiots then. They were the first to license the engine, and then had to wait more than a year to actually get their hands on it, contrary to their contract. Also, UE3 promised more than it could deliver. And they're not the first or last devhouse to criticize Epic for UE3, it seems only Epic knows its secrets and doesn't share them easily (even to licensees). Proclaiming your opinion as fact doesn't make it so, you know. And licensing UE3 doesn't guarantee a good game, in fact, it doesn't seem to help at all.

Again, listening to hype. A company that completely dropped the ball, realised they could not deliver as promised so found someone else to take the blame.

Go look at how that case is doing. Go on... ;)

Facts are, oddly, far more useful than hype touted by whinging people....

WhatsHisFace
21st Dec 2007, 02:21
-Bioshock - Without doubt one of the worst games I have ever played, but technically speaking it ran flawlessly, all features maxed, DX10 enabled, 1600x1200, frame limiter maxed solid.

You're going to hell.

Laputin Man
21st Dec 2007, 02:28
You're going to hell.

:lol: I actually got a good laugh out of that :lmao:

Sorry Storm, just struck me as funny.

StormFront
21st Dec 2007, 10:42
You're going to hell.


:lol: I actually got a good laugh out of that :lmao:

Sorry Storm, just struck me as funny.

LOL. Don't worry, I giggled too. :D

I realise that a lot of people have very strong opinions about Bioshock but, as with all delusions, they'll come round one day and it's our job to be their for them when they do. We must help our fellow gamers in their time of weakness and need. Feel the love brothers...



:lol:

minus0ne
21st Dec 2007, 19:11
Ahh... now I see the problem. You either don't have the machine to run UEng 3 or you are simply listening to the hype on the whiny forum boards out there.
I don't visit "whiny forum boards" save for this one and TTLG. DX forums, on average, seem a little less low-brow than most gaming forums (yes, that's complementing your excellent tastes in games :D ). I already mentioned my machine's specs and BioShock ran well (fps wise), except for the CTDs and general buggedness that plagued gameplay (save often became my mantra). Granted, I have an ATI card, which seemed to cause more problems than nVidia owners, but hey, lots of people have ATI cards. Congratulations on your flawless playthrough, but just have a look at the patch changelogs and see what sort of crap others like me had to go through. And I doubt you played BioShock on release since there were tons of gameplay bugs EVERYONE had to suffer. Even on 'next-gen' hardware there were major issues (like the Vista/DX10 audio stuttering bug and the lack of widescreen support).

Also, by your reasoning, it's perfectly fine for DX3 to run crap on anything but the absolute latest hardware, which isn't something most DX players are looking forward to.

UEng 3 games:
-Bioshock - Without doubt one of the worst games I have ever played, but technically speaking it ran flawlessly, all features maxed, DX10 enabled, 1600x1200, frame limiter maxed solid.
And without VSync I'm sure it all looked like utter crap ;)


-UT3 - Actually the most buggy UENG3 release so far. In D10 thereis a lot of hitching in certain maps but that aside it runs perectly, again at max DX10 details
I wouldn't know, but don't you think it's saying something if they can't properly code their own engine?

-Gears of War - Not one single problem to be seen. Max detail and resolution, DX10 enabled. Flawless.
Well now I know you're full of it.

-Monster Madness:Battle for Suburbia - Very weak game but has zero performance or compatability problems.
-Rainbow Six: Vegas - Again not a good game, but no performance problems.
-Blacksite: Area 51 - Hard to believe this uses UENg3 given it is so butt ugly, but bad game aside, it again runs flawlessly.
-MOH:Airbourne - Again zero issues.
Luckily I wouldn't know as I haven't played them, but you're not exactly selling your own argument here (crap game - but.. - crap game - but..).

And these are just the games that I have played that use the engine. Don't just listen to hype from people with crap hardware and no technical skills. Their problems are entirely their own.
Again, do you even know the difference between gamebreaking BUGS and incompatability with common hardware (both serious issues you know).

I'm not even gonna list the console games that use it (Mostly 'cos could care less about them) so look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_engine_3#Unreal_Engine_3)
Same here (with the not caring). At the risk of repeating myself, I don't care how UE3 performs on consoles since it's all the same hardware (and is no indication of how it performs on PCs).

Again, listening to hype. A company that completely dropped the ball, realised they could not deliver as promised so found someone else to take the blame.
:nut: So my opinion/view is hype and yours is fact. How very convenient ;)


Go look at how that case is doing. Go on... ;)
I'm not passionate enough about internet discussion to fly to the US and wait for a verdict, but you seem to have plenty of time, be my guest.


Facts are, oddly, far more useful than hype touted by whinging people....
..

:lol:
My, you crack yourself up, little buddy.

SageSavage
21st Dec 2007, 19:41
And I doubt you played BioShock on release since there were tons of gameplay bugs EVERYONE had to suffer.I know this is offtopic and I won't comment on the StormFront-stuff either but I have to say that I haven't suffered any showstoppers in the unpatched Bioshock. I dislike parts of the gameplay design and the way 2kGames/Irrational are dealing with their customers but except some minor issues like that strange ragdoll-behaviour, Bioshock ran fine and without any lockups on my machine. I've read tons of tech-complaints from angry gamers though.

StormFront
22nd Dec 2007, 00:06
I don't visit "whiny forum boards" save for this one and TTLG. DX forums, on average, seem a little less low-brow than most gaming forums (yes, that's complementing your excellent tastes in games :D ). I already mentioned my machine's specs and BioShock ran well (fps wise), except for the CTDs and general buggedness that plagued gameplay (save often became my mantra). Granted, I have an ATI card, which seemed to cause more problems than nVidia owners, but hey, lots of people have ATI cards. Congratulations on your flawless playthrough, but just have a look at the patch changelogs and see what sort of crap others like me had to go through. And I doubt you played BioShock on release since there were tons of gameplay bugs EVERYONE had to suffer. Even on 'next-gen' hardware there were major issues (like the Vista/DX10 audio stuttering bug and the lack of widescreen support).

Also, by your reasoning, it's perfectly fine for DX3 to run crap on anything but the absolute latest hardware, which isn't something most DX players are looking forward to.

And without VSync I'm sure it all looked like utter crap ;)


I wouldn't know, but don't you think it's saying something if they can't properly code their own engine?

Well now I know you're full of it.

Luckily I wouldn't know as I haven't played them, but you're not exactly selling your own argument here (crap game - but.. - crap game - but..).

Again, do you even know the difference between gamebreaking BUGS and incompatability with common hardware (both serious issues you know).

Same here (with the not caring). At the risk of repeating myself, I don't care how UE3 performs on consoles since it's all the same hardware (and is no indication of how it performs on PCs).

:nut: So my opinion/view is hype and yours is fact. How very convenient ;)

I'm not passionate enough about internet discussion to fly to the US and wait for a verdict, but you seem to have plenty of time, be my guest.

..

My, you crack yourself up, little buddy.

Just typed a reply to you but you are not worth getting banned for, son. You are an ignorant troll with no knowledge of games, programming or PC hardware and are just looking for fight so you can get a little Internet HardMan chubby on.

Take it elsewhere, no one is impressed. In the meantime welcome to my ignore list. Have a nice stay...:D

exmachinad
22nd Dec 2007, 00:14
I'm sure DX3 will look good enough for me when it is released. Graphics are the least of my worries about a game.

Now a lot of ppl will say how an outstanding good looking engine can "immerse" the player in a game. I suppose it helps, of course, but in my opinion, graphics are just the last layer of a game when I'm playing it.

There are so many more things to a game, well developed plot, dialogue, gameplay - that controversy word :D -, player's choice, A.I., soundtrack ... that in fact graphics, for me I enphasize ;) , is the element less helpful for immersion (yes, I do consider soundtrack more than grahics :nut: ).

DX wasn't that good looking when it was released in 2000, but it is still better than a lot of games nowadays.

TR Legend, for instance, don't look great too, but is a very fun game to play and entertaining, IMO, taking in account all the other aspects of a game, except graphics.

What I do consider is if I have fun and like to play a game, and not just look at a game. That's the difference about graphics and gameply, IMHO. You can just stare at the screen and behold the graphics, while the gameplay needs you in the active control of a character exploring the game world.

All in all.. they will have time to develop the engine, I suppose. :rolleyes: :cool:

SageSavage
22nd Dec 2007, 09:57
I want all parts of the game to be top notch - which includes the graphics.

brambi
22nd Dec 2007, 13:06
Thanks for posting.

I really appreciate it, that you read all the posts here and listen to people.

Dave W
22nd Dec 2007, 23:57
And I doubt you played BioShock on release since there were tons of gameplay bugs EVERYONE had to suffer.
I played it one day before release (in the UK anyway, 2 days or so after US release). I went through all of it, didn't notice any gameplay bugs at all and thourougly enjoyed the game. So sorry, but no.

StormFront
23rd Dec 2007, 00:19
I played it one day before release (in the UK anyway, 2 days or so after US release). I went through all of it, didn't notice any gameplay bugs at all and thourougly enjoyed the game. So sorry, but no.

Dave W, I am appalled young man! Using logic, reason, personal experience and facts to argue a point? Shame on you young man!

Have the inter-tubes taught you nothing?!

See me after class...

Kneo24
23rd Dec 2007, 19:20
And without VSync I'm sure it all looked like utter crap ;)

It sounds like to me that you aren't quite sure of exactly what VSync does. (*Hint:* People only enable it if they have to.)

Red
23rd Dec 2007, 22:28
Vsync eliminates horizontal "choppiness" (tearing?) of the image. That happens mostly when the gameplay framerate is different from the refresh rate of the monitor.

That "choppiness" is easier to spot on CRT monitors, while the phenomena is quite subtle on LCD monitors.

StormFront
24th Dec 2007, 07:09
Vsync eliminates horizontal "choppiness" (tearing?) of the image. That happens mostly when the gameplay framerate is different from the refresh rate of the monitor.

That "choppiness" is easier to spot on CRT monitors, while the phenomena is quite subtle on LCD monitors.


...:confused: Really not sure why you posted this...?

Oh, FWIW, this "phenomena" (you don't really mean that word...) does not occur on TFT monitors as they do not have a refresh rate as such...

Red
24th Dec 2007, 11:25
And I really don't know how you manage to breathe in your life, since you ***** about pretty much anything anyone writes/says.

The desync was quite noticeable on first LCDs which had poor refresh (update) rate. (Well, it's not a refresh rate per se, since individual pixels are merely waiting for an update signal)

dark_angel_7
24th Dec 2007, 13:57
Yeesh. CD's engine is very capable and powered Tomb Raider Anniversary which was actually a decent game for the PC. Sure it might not be a fully powered next-gen game but graphics arent everything and its time people realized that.

Smoke Screen
24th Dec 2007, 17:35
Well,hatepostings aside,my guess why they choose this engine has pure
economical reasons. Why spending another couple hundred grant for a
licence if a adaptable engine is inhouse available ? Why not spend the money
on a longer devtime and finetuned content ?
Im sure they have thought this through and the suits gave them an ok not
because "it was cool to smoke blow and have a nice conversation".
Im not a pro,they are. We didnt even know what this game is about. Its called
DX3 ok,but thats it. We will see what the devteam has in mind in a couple month i guess.

Kneo24
25th Dec 2007, 04:01
Vsync eliminates horizontal "choppiness" (tearing?) of the image. That happens mostly when the gameplay framerate is different from the refresh rate of the monitor.

That "choppiness" is easier to spot on CRT monitors, while the phenomena is quite subtle on LCD monitors.

Yeah... That just supports my whole "you only enable VSYNC when you need to" statement.

minus0ne
28th Dec 2007, 02:10
Just typed a reply to you but you are not worth getting banned for, son. You are an ignorant troll with no knowledge of games, programming or PC hardware and are just looking for fight so you can get a little Internet HardMan chubby on.
Looking for a fight? I was arguing the dev team had their reasons for choosing this engine. You obviously can't stand people with opposing views, and take internet discussion far too personally. If you can't reply to my post without getting yourself banned then your time on this forum will most likely be short-lived. Have fun adding people to your 'ignore list'.

I played it one day before release (in the UK anyway, 2 days or so after US release). I went through all of it, didn't notice any gameplay bugs at all and thourougly enjoyed the game. So sorry, but no.
OT: Not everyone, maybe. Speaking from personal experience, I didn't enjoy my first playthrough that much (especially the false widescreen resolutions, which didn't scale FOV at all, that got old fast), though it was a fun game, I'll give you that. My point however was, that the engine doesn't make or break the game. The CD engine doesn't limit the devs in making a great game, and had they chosen UE3 it would not have guaranteed a good game.

It sounds like to me that you aren't quite sure of exactly what VSync does. (*Hint:* People only enable it if they have to.)
Hint: I was being sarcastic. And semi-offended/jealous that though he had a smooth playthrough, he disliked the game :o . I thought the smiley was pretty obvious.

And I'm still not convinced why it's OK for any game to only be bug-free on anything but the very latest hardware (which seems to be what SF is implying). Granted there's a limit to where a game can be scaled back to, but reality shows the large majority of gamers are on average not in possession of the very latest hardware, so devs should keep this in mind.

Smoke Screen
28th Dec 2007, 04:50
And I'm still not convinced why it's OK for any game to only be bug-free on anything but the very latest hardware (which seems to be what SF is implying). Granted there's a limit to where a game can be scaled back to, but reality shows the large majority of gamers are on average not in possession of the very latest hardware, so devs should keep this in mind.

Indeed. However,i guess its probably the other way round to put the player
under pressure to buy some new hardware: You wanna play that game ? Well,than buy this and buy that too....
In fact,the meaning of "stricly next-gen" means exactly that i fear. I guess we
are lucky if we see a DirectX9-Renderpath in DX3 - for old Hardware.

Red
28th Dec 2007, 11:47
I doubt that project which is planned for release in 2 years from now would include D3D9 render-path... Although the engine is tuned to it and it could be done. But somehow I feel that the domination of DirectX 9c is coming to an end.

On the other hand, since the game will be multiplatform, it's very possible that it'll be backwards compatible with current renderers.

the resolute girl
28th Dec 2007, 16:17
----
seeing how Mafiasoft Vista performs I would say DX9 isn't done yet. Even Carmack says there is absolutely no incentive apart from staying on the "cutting edge" (aka marketing wise) to invest in DX10 rendering paths. Crysis showed that the limitations for the DX9 path were artificialy planted (I suspect MS + EA) and can be disabled anytime.
-----
about the engine:
I DO care what engine they use, it has at least to be able to do the following things:

- weather (would be nice)

- dynamic shadows (stealth play !!!!)

- a good sound engine
(I want proper sound propagation across rooms and a properly mixed soundtrack to it, not what Bioshock did, how could they get awards for that mess regarding sound)

- animation, ragdoll, blending, body awareness
(Thief3 struggled and failed. Chronicles of Rid**** and Crysis show you how it's DONE: body awareness. see your hands and feet. have animations for grabbing and add melee to it.I DON'T WANNA BE A FLOATING TORSO like in Bioshock)

- skills, talents, experience, attributes, .....
(If you wanna see a very, very, very good menue design, integration and skill system that hides behind flawless action see TheWitcher, for me they pulled it off. it's RPG and Action in one)

- decide for or against cutscenes/flashbacks
and then STAY with it. either do the interactive Valve cutscenes (can be good) or just go for plot advancing little movies. But if you mix them together you better take care they have a consistent design and look.

- upgrades, mods, combinations, choices
the choices I do in a game and "how" i play it should not only be reflected in the story but missions, locations, NPCs, equipment as well. I want the game to have replay value, give us hidden caches, easter eggs and the incentive to either retry a section or play the whole game again just 'cause we want find that special side-mission you only get if you choose to ........ (insert awesome cyberpunk story here)

I can certainly say that if you go the Bioshock - route (dumbing down, cutting away much loved systems in favor of mentally challenged gamers, no real replay value and a rushed finale with 2 endings which seemed tagged on)
you will maybe make some hype and get some money but you won't revive the franchise. That's enough from a business perspective but if you wanna establish a good name for your company and a loyal following for your game, you should go for the

Witcher/DeusEx1/SystemShock/BaldursGate/Fallout depth of story, gameplay and features......

- another thing: ONE of the most famous things of DX1 for me was that you could solve almost EVERY mission without killing anyone. I wanna see that extended from stealth action gameplay to diplomacy and social "skill". meaning if you are a bloody murderer, ppl will be intimidated or just run away. I wanna have the possibility to lie to ppl as well.

How you wanna achieve a good DX3 in a short amount of time is a riddle to me, I mean TheWitcher has replay value for 6 runthroughs at least and CDPR had 4 years to finish it.

good luck !!!

Red
28th Dec 2007, 17:08
How you wanna achieve a good DX3 in a short amount of time is a riddle to me

Well, they already have the kickstart by not having to build game engine from scratch. I believe that the team is competent enough to make a very good game.

Although, still, 2 years might be a bit too short timespan to do that... I hope that they will receive extra time (from Eidos) to finetune the game, rather than releasing an unfinished/unstable/bugful game.

Smoke Screen
28th Dec 2007, 21:07
I doubt that project which is planned for release in 2 years from now would include D3D9 render-path... Although the engine is tuned to it and it could be done. But somehow I feel that the domination of DirectX 9c is coming to an end.
On the other hand, since the game will be multiplatform, it's very possible that it'll be backwards compatible with current renderers.

It better is,cause D3D10 also means Vista,and simply put Vista sucks big time.
But well,probably,hopefully, with Service Pack x it gets much better in two years.

the resolute girl@: ACK. 2nd that.

imported_van_HellSing
28th Dec 2007, 22:32
About body awareness - for some strange reason, it actually takes me out of the game when I look down and see my character's feet. It sort of reminds me that I'm supposed to have this external, in-game body, that I'm playing a character, not being the character, kind of posessing the body. Strangely enough, seeing my character's hands i.e. holding a weapon doesn't do that, neither does playing third person perspective games (in tpp, it's more like, say, watching a movie and identifying yourself with the main character).

Same goes for shadows. In Thief: DS it was strange and awkward to see my characters shadow, especially that it was bound to the view cam, so the torso stayed level while I moved around.

minus0ne
29th Dec 2007, 04:40
I doubt that project which is planned for release in 2 years from now would include D3D9 render-path... Although the engine is tuned to it and it could be done. But somehow I feel that the domination of DirectX 9c is coming to an end.

On the other hand, since the game will be multiplatform, it's very possible that it'll be backwards compatible with current renderers.
Actually a lot of critically acclaimed devs are questioning the wisdom of developing for DX10, as resolute girl already said, John Carmack being one of the better known ones;
http://www.dailytech.com/John+Carmack+Speaks+on+DX10+Vista+Xbox+360+PS3+Wii/article5665.htm

Those in awe of the potential offered by DX10 may want to hold off on that shiny graphics card purchase, as Carmack says that there isn’t a huge need for new hardware just yet, as current hardware is more than adequate. “All the high-end video cards right now -- video cards across the board --are great nowadays,” he said. “Personally, I wouldn’t jump at something like DX10 right now. I would let things settle out a little bit and wait until there’s a really strong need for it.”

Those wishing to take the plunge into DX10 will also have to do so while upgrading to Windows Vista. Carmack, however, isn’t all that excited about upgrading to the new OS: “We only have a couple of people running Vista at our company. It’s again, one of those things that there is no strong pull for us to go there. If anything, it’s going to be reluctantly like, ‘Well, a lot of the market is there, so we’ll move to Vista.’”

Carmack then said that he’s quite satisfied with Windows XP, going as far to say that Microsoft is ‘artificially’ forcing gamers to move to Windows Vista for DX10. “Nothing is going to help a new game by going to a new operating system. There were some clear wins going from Windows 95 to Windows XP for games, but there really aren’t any for Vista. They’re artificially doing that by tying DX10 so close it, which is really nothing about the OS ... They’re really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it,” he said.
There really isn't a whole lot of difference between D3D9 and D3D10. Crysis has shown that they actually had to artificially downgrade the D3D9 version to make the 'difference' with D3D10 noticeable (and lots of "DX10" features were perfectly doable in D3D9). And, as you say, they're developing cross-platform (the 360 runs a modded DX9) so they actually have to make it compatible with DX9 hardware.

- another thing: ONE of the most famous things of DX1 for me was that you could solve almost EVERY mission without killing anyone.
Agreed. Not every game has to glorify/glamorize guns and killing, especially not a game of DX caliber (heh). Though hopefully this time the devs will discriminate between going all-stealth (avoiding all enemies), semi-stealth (only knocking out enemies) and killing enemies. Killing enemies will probably be rewarding and easy as it is in most games - in the sense that it doesn't require much planning (like observing patrol routes) and usually rewards the player with ammo or a weapon or item. Only knocking out enemies shouldn't be interpreted as killing them (as it was in DX1) by the game script, but should take more time/planning however still reap a reward. All-stealth is the hardest and most time consuming (also because you'll have to do without the extra ammo/items and find alternative routes as you won't get as many keys).

I wanna see that extended from stealth action gameplay to diplomacy and social "skill". meaning if you are a bloody murderer, ppl will be intimidated or just run away. I wanna have the possibility to lie to ppl as well.
I don't want a social feat/skill (ie like you have a swimming skill), but I think I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean some sort of reputation system or some kind of 'alignment' system ala Fable?

How you wanna achieve a good DX3 in a short amount of time is a riddle to me, I mean TheWitcher has replay value for 6 runthroughs at least and CDPR had 4 years to finish it.
2 years is anything but a short amount of time, especially for games, and especially these days. Longer production cycles are only practical for smaller games (and smaller dev teams), but they usually tend to hurt more than help for larger games. Once the proof of concept stage has been passed it shouldn't take more than a year to have a working alpha version with 90% of the game content in place (placeholder elements included), otherwise it's bound to become an aimless and flawed game (many a devhouse went bust during the dotcomboom in trying to make these 5 year production 'supergames'). I wouldn't put The Witcher on par with Deus Ex though, and aside from both being a type of rpg, they don't have much in common. It might be very much replayable, but that's just one of the things that made DX great game, and producing that quality doesn't necessarily hinge on a 4 year production cycle.

the resolute girl
29th Dec 2007, 08:03
I meant a kind of dynamic reputation system not only regarding Factions (like: neutral, friendly, hostile.....maybe something more original) but other NPCs/game characters as well and additionaly inside conversations as well.
example:

you are in district R of town, it is controlled by Faction B
you arrested/lied to/killed(?) Person X
you are neutral to Faction A

now you meet Person Y on the street.
His the brother/employee/apostle of Person X (see above)

now numerous variables come into play for this character:

faction status is neutral ->
faction reputation is neutral ->
can engage in talk, maybe sell/buy something

Person Y has social ties to Person X you killed/arrested/lied to ->
this gives you negative social reputation with him to different extents

say lied to -> he can lie as well or just don't tell you anything or argue
say arrested -> he could try to alert your enemies to your location
say killed -> if it's possible he could try to engage in combat or threaten you, he could try to alert your enemies

BUT since the faction status is still neutral he has to give you faction services if necessary, say buy/sell stuff.
if faction status would be friendly but your social reputation would be bad other combinations get unlocked and so on....

further surroundings and environment should come into play. please no combat/no-combat zones. If I wanna do bad stuff to civilians I should be able to but the game should offer consequences for these actions. But NPCs should act "logical" meaning if you engage in a fight they will try to stay alive, no matter if it's forbidden or not. Further someone out to kill you could wait as long as you are in the presence of law enforcement or with help. This means that above conversation could happen in YOUR territory and therefore the NPC maybe would talk to you, out of fear of you. And he would maybe threaten you but not start a fight.

Alignment.....don't know exactly how you mean it but if there are factions in the game I would like to see a little more complex mechanics like described above where I could have troubles with Organization X but because I helped one of their minions already 2 times and he's not a very high ranking officer he will still be neutral/friendly to me....

...and so on and so on...

Problem with Bioshock was they did not take the brilliant but clunky systems of SS2, refined and mutated them into an up to date version, they've just CUT them. If you wanna make a good DX3 game you must take what DX1 had an make it BETTER, not cut it away, like in......too many buttons, let's have everything context-sensitive. So stealth, conversations, skills, inventory, ammo types, alignment, reputation, story choices and endings, maybe even social skill (much talking - better responses), environmental interaction apart from shootin' stuff (hacking, stealing (?), ...). AFTER you did the skeleton and the basics you can concentrate on the feeling of shootin' and combat AI which seems to be the only thing that matters nowadays.

Not that I didn't like mining obstacle courses for the NSF or shooting tranquil darts in their lazy patrolling buttocks but I want this game to set itself apart. And sloppy execution of gameplay is bad even if your story and visuals are awesome (BioShock).

well, happy new year EIDOS + message board

SageSavage
29th Dec 2007, 11:22
(...) knocking out enemies shouldn't be interpreted as killing them (as it was in DX1) by the game script, but should take more time/planning however still reap a reward.Yeah, that bugged me too.

All-stealth is the hardest and most time consuming (also because you'll have to do without the extra ammo/items and find alternative routes as you won't get as many keys).I'd like to have the ability/skill to pick pockets.

Harakiribert
29th Dec 2007, 11:49
I'd like to have the ability/skill to pick pockets.

That's interesting. I would need to get into melee range and then depending on the skill level you have a certain percentage of finding items.

But on the other hand you must take care that you don't put too much RPG in DX3.

Necros
30th Dec 2007, 01:45
-Bioshock - Without doubt one of the worst games I have ever played, but technically speaking it ran flawlessly, all features maxed, DX10 enabled, 1600x1200, frame limiter maxed solid.
First of all, I think it's a good game though not as good as I hoped it would be. I didn't have many problems, only a few, it crashed once or twice too but no really major problems. But others did have issues with it, so I guess you were amongst the lucky ones.

-UT3 - Actually the most buggy UENG3 release so far. In D10 thereis a lot of hitching in certain maps but that aside it runs perectly, again at max DX10 details
Well, there were a few minor bugs but calling it the most buggy release is just dumb. :D

-Gears of War - Not one single problem to be seen. Max detail and resolution, DX10 enabled. Flawless.
Yeah, like minus0ne said, you're full of it. It was a very buggy game that crashed for a lot of people and had many issues. But I have to say it was very well optimized and ran great on my old rig too (I've upgraded it a bit since then, it had a Celeron CPU running @ 2,8GHz, 6600GT and 768MB RAM).

-Rainbow Six: Vegas - Again not a good game, but no performance problems.
It was a good tactical shooter, though not as complex as the earlier versions but good nonetheless. I don't remember big bugs but it had some small issues and I think the optimization could've been better.

-MOH:Airbourne - Again zero issues.
Maybe this game had the least problems but it had some, though again minor stuff. And it looked like crap, so no wonder why it ran well.

You didn't mention Stranglehold which also looked like crap and had a lot of bugs too. I haven't played with Blacksite yet but I think I can agree with you on that...
On the other hand there's Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway which will be the best looking UE3 game so far, it's just beautiful. :cool:

I like UE3 a lot and I would have loved to see DX3 using that tech but after seeing screens from TR:U I'm not worried, this engine will be great too. :cool: And the guys at EM are perfectly capable to improve on it too, so I don't see why we shouldn't be happy.

On the Silicon Knights issue I agree with you however. I think that company is just trying to blame Epic for their incompetence. Randy Pitchford (head of Gearbox) said: "I've seen some of the stuff on the internet about the problems and I don't know if these developers are maybe new, or not used to using other people's technology or if they've gotten too many inexperienced developers or they're just cry-babies." I think something like this is the truth, it's one thing to have the tech, you have to know how to use it, how to work with it. And it just doesn't make sense to me why Epic would hold stuff back from the others, they aren't that stupid...

GundamXXX
8th Jan 2008, 09:41
Totally ruined one of my posts in another thread this news :|

Why...why use a free engine from wich Tomb Raider has come or going to come? Tomb Raider engines were never that good! ... I simply cant get my head around it :P

I mean might aswell go for the Serious 2 Engine used for Serious Sam 2!

I think they should have gone with UE or Source, maybe even Crytek Engine.... *drools of UE*



EDIT: After goin through the thread more I came to the conclusion people are bloody stupid
"Epic cant even manage their own engine"
How stupid can you get? Its a BRAND NEW engine on a BRAND NEW Operating System (Vista) on a BRAND NEW DirectX (being 10)
I mean you people do know that DX9 and DX10 arent even closely related right? Its like saying all the Final Fantasy's are sequals!
Just because the UE2 is great doesnt mean everything went of a great start. The first game on the UE2 license (Devestation I believe) sucked. Bugs etc etc UT2k3 sucked (maybe not many bugs but it wasnt what anyone expected) and was made by Epic but every other game was good after the first few failures. Bug free and beautifull graphics and no problems with them. I could run the games on my old pc!

So before whining about engines. First learn, then practice, then learn what you practice, then think, then practice what you thought about and learn it and only THEN open your mouth. Because ignorance isnt a bliss, its a common malfunction




And also "Its an in-house engine" is no excuse in my opinion. I wouldnt be surprised if the UE are the most common engines around thus the new dev's would very likely have some experience in it

gamer0004
8th Jan 2008, 13:58
I'm no expert on DirectX, but there's not THAT much difference between DX10 and 9. Sure, it can use quite a few new functions, and it might me a bigger difference than between other DX's (I do not know that exactely). But not that much difference.
Anyway, why would you want the Crytek engine? The only good thing about that is the jungle and the physics. But I don't need physics that are that good. I think they made a good decision. Like I said, I'm no expert on engines, but there are some advantages (like rendering open environments well I believe? And it saves a lot of money, of course).
One thing is sure, however: it's better than making a new engine :P

Necros
8th Jan 2008, 16:51
Yeah, the Crytek engine? Come on... That needs really strong PCs and it's not that special. I mean I'm sure UE3 will look just like that or better soon. And also the most important thing is the design, just look at BioShock for example, it doesn't have the best graphics but it's very beautiful anyway because of the artists work. Now check out Crysis, lot's of effects and sharp textures. Cool but not that beautiful.

And the physics will be very good in the new TR engine, so I wouldn't worry about that, also from what I've seen/read so far, it's gonna look great, so with some extra work from Eidos Montreal we won't have to worry about this part of the game.

Smoke Screen
8th Jan 2008, 19:24
Now check out Crysis, lot's of effects and sharp textures.

Well,most of Crysis eyecatching looks are simply multilayered shaders.
It looks awfull in "Low" with no shaders but best textures. In fact i fear
the whole game was designed to advertise NVidia Triple-SLI....;)

Kneo24
8th Jan 2008, 19:51
Right now, there isn't much of a difference between DX9 and DX10. However, I think 10.1 or 10.2 might bring new things to the table, so we'll see then. However, to take advantage of that stuff, you'll need a video card that supports 10.1, etc...

GundamXXX
8th Jan 2008, 21:01
Actually DX10 and 9 and very diffrent, wich is the reason why it cant run on a system without Vista. Simple.

And I just used the Crytek engine as an example because face it, its one of the best out there, Necros just because the graphics in Crysis arent good doesnt mean the engine is bad, just means we dont have the machines to run it yet ;)

And the only thing we may have an advantage on is that as far as I know the Tomb Raider engine isnt card based (i.e. UE = Nvidia Crytek = Nvidia Source = Ati etc) wich is a good thing

But if its up to me just do the UE2 engine so I can run it on my crappy pc :lmao:

SageSavage
8th Jan 2008, 22:25
I've just began to play around with Sandbox 2 (CryEngine2) and whoever said this enigne is bad or Crysis graphics weren't good just made a fool out of himself. Sandbox 2 is a bit buggy at the moment but apart from that it's plain awesome. I can't say if it's the best engine available but it's definatley top notch and the devs keep supplying us with great tutorials for it.

Kneo24
9th Jan 2008, 04:04
Just because you state that DX9 and DX10 are very different doesn't make it so. The backend, yes, but visually, currently there is little difference (as shown by Crysis).

And the only reason you need Vista to run DX10 is because M$ decided to lock it out of the older OS's. I'm sure it wouldn't be much work for M$ to allow DX10 to work with XP, but if they did that, people wouldn't have a reason to buy their POS OS that they call Vista.

GundamXXX
9th Jan 2008, 05:40
the visuals dont depend on DX10 but more on the graphiccard
I have DX10 but a crap onboard gfxcard.
And the reason why they differ is because DX10 isnt a newer version of DX9 but because its a totally, new, built from the ground up version and XP doesnt have the power to run it

And I do agree on the last bit omewhat.. Vista sucks :P

Kneo24
9th Jan 2008, 10:48
http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_5.html - copy and paste the link and scroll to the bottom (tweakguide doesn't allow hot-linking).

The screenshots show that the differences between DX9 and DX10 are very small. The guy is using an 8800GTS, hardly a crappy card.

Smoke Screen
10th Jan 2008, 23:19
And the only reason you need Vista to run DX10 is because M$ decided to lock it out of the older OS's.

I guess thats right. It signals if ure a "serious" gamer u need vista.



I'm sure it wouldn't be much work for M$ to allow DX10 to work with XP, but if they did that, people wouldn't have a reason to buy their POS OS that they call Vista.

Well,im not sure if it would be easy. However M$ clearly intentional misses the
chance here to establish a recaped XP,preferably 64Bit,as the main-OS on Desktops in privat use. I personally skip Vista,stay with XP,and look towards Vistas follower Windows 7. Probably they get things right this time.

matches81
11th Jan 2008, 12:23
I personally don't see anything wrong with the choice of the engine. It's an in-house engine (although from another dev team), so they either have guys with experience in their team to begin with, or will have no problem getting almost instant support. Getting an engine from a team you have close ties to is a good thing in my book.
Whether TR:L looked good or not is a matter of taste. Saying it looked bad or awful or something like that is just a lie or only based on personal dislike for the game itself. Also, it doesn't say much about the engine used, because looks always will depend more on the artist than on the engine. An engine can limit what an artist can do, but every engine will only look as good as the art used with it. You can pretty easily have a game with UE3 look crap by having an ugly map with awful lighting, for example.
I don't think the Source engine sucks. It might not be a current-gen engine anymore, but back when it was first delivered it sure was a really nice engine. Also, the animation system seems to be quite good. Took other engines quite a while to catch up with that. Quoting VTMB as a failure for the Source engine isn't fair, IMHO. VTMB was a bugfest, yes. But I doubt that was due to the engine used. No engine will fix fubar'd animations by itself for example, or quest bugs...
A good example of how less of an influence an engine has to have on a game is The Witcher. Noone would look at the Witcher and scream "NWN!" instantly, and most people are rather surprised that it uses that engine, although vastly modified.

That said, I hope they can extend the Crystal Dynamics engine in the ways they want. I don't know how well that engine performs, because honestly I have never played TR:L, but even that can change drastically. I don't know what Crystal Dynamics are up to right now, but I think it isn't unreasonable to assume they're probably optimizing the engine, too, so it's not up to Eidos Montreal alone to do that.


And the reason why they differ is because DX10 isnt a newer version of DX9 but because its a totally, new, built from the ground up version and XP doesnt have the power to run it
By the time DX10 was introduced I was programming for DX9 myself and read some of the MS introduction for DX10. It isn't built from scratch or something like that, it's just streamlined. Support for fixed function pipeline finally has been dropped, and all sorts of other deprecated things have been removed. Some other things changed, too. And they've drawn a line and for once didn't care about backwards compatibility, which imho was needed, but also results in a longer time until DX10 or its successors will be widely used. But saying it was built from scratch doesn't hit it.
Also, "XP doesnt have the power to run it" is simply wrong. Where do you get that idea? A simple piece of evidence against that claim would be OpenGL, which offers just the same features as DX10 does in terms of graphics programming, but runs just fine under XP. The only reason DX10 is not available for XP is that MS doesn't want it to be. As others have said: There's hardly a reason to switch to Vista right now, except for DX10. Take that away and nobody would actually need Vista. DX10 is a simple incentive for the hardcore gamers to switch to Vista sooner.

GundamXXX
14th Jan 2008, 05:57
By the time DX10 was introduced I was programming for DX9 myself and read some of the MS introduction for DX10. It isn't built from scratch or something like that, it's just streamlined. Support for fixed function pipeline finally has been dropped, and all sorts of other deprecated things have been removed. Some other things changed, too. And they've drawn a line and for once didn't care about backwards compatibility, which imho was needed, but also results in a longer time until DX10 or its successors will be widely used. But saying it was built from scratch doesn't hit it.
Also, "XP doesnt have the power to run it" is simply wrong. Where do you get that idea? A simple piece of evidence against that claim would be OpenGL, which offers just the same features as DX10 does in terms of graphics programming, but runs just fine under XP. The only reason DX10 is not available for XP is that MS doesn't want it to be. As others have said: There's hardly a reason to switch to Vista right now, except for DX10. Take that away and nobody would actually need Vista. DX10 is a simple incentive for the hardcore gamers to switch to Vista sooner.

Well thats what I heard from a programmer and I trust his vision on it.
If Im wrong I sincerly apoligise, but fact is....its still Vista only :P

Kneo24
14th Jan 2008, 10:04
There is a person (or group of people) working on porting DX10 over to XP so you can play DX10 games on XP. The project is still in the alpha stages. You can read more about it here (http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp-from-alky-project/).

Smoke Screen
14th Jan 2008, 22:27
There is a person (or group of people) working on porting DX10 over to XP so you can play DX10 games on XP. The project is still in the alpha stages. You can read more about it here (http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp-from-alky-project/).

Its dead.

matches81
15th Jan 2008, 02:21
Yesterday I purchased Tomb Raider - Legend for 10€. I began playing with version 1.0 of the game and the performance with "next-gen content" on was just awful: really drastic frame-rate drops at about every longer corridor or, good lord, a larger area. After installing version 1.2 it got much better, actually the game now never drops into unconvenient regions performance-wise. Definite gain. Btw I'm using an 8800GTX 768MB, Core 2 Duo E6600 and 2GB RAM, so no crappy machine.
It doesn't look absolutely stunning when compared to other, especially current, titles, but it manages to have some beautiful areas. I think I'll check out that Tomb Raider - Anniversary title. It uses the same engine, so I'm interested how that goes.

PS: If somebody wonders why I'm even posting this: I wanted to check out the engine (especially its performance). So far, not too good, but the patch represented a big gain, so I'm interested how the next version fares (TR - Anniversary).

Xcom
15th Jan 2008, 02:50
so I'm interested how the next version fares (TR - Anniversary).

TR Anniversary was (I think purposely) dumbed down to allow larger audience to play it on low specs machines. It looks reasonably pretty, will run like Energizer bunny on your PC, but it doesn't have next-gen at all. I am only saying this because I don't believe TRA will provide fair indication of how engine performs or what it's capable of. We'll probably have to wait for Underworld to get an idea.

Legend was the first game made with this engine. It's no surprise it had some issues, but Crystal has been working on it non-stop.

matches81
15th Jan 2008, 03:53
Okay, I just finished the TRA demo. So far I've seen no "dumbing down" except for the missing flash light. Other than that it's just more like the old Tomb Raiders, I actually managed to get stuck for a little, scratching my head. Was always bad with those "spot the ledge" things :)

Anyway, you're right about the next-gen thing. It's about as next-gen as Legend was. Still, it performs a lot better on my machine. Legend was pretty shocking performance-wise. Anniversary is in the range of what I would have expected. The department where those two Tomb Raider titles lacked the most visually were the characters, but I don't know whether that's due to the engine or other reasons. I don't see anything utterly wrong with the Tomb Raider engine (is it called Crystal Engine, I thought I read something like that?) currently. Perhaps Underworld will take the visuals a whole step further. That should probably show how the engine fares a bit better.

SageSavage
15th Jan 2008, 07:00
SCi plans to delay TR:Underground in order to get a better impact by reeasing it around christmas...
Sadly one of Crystal Dynamics designers passed away. He worked on previous TR titles. I don't know which impact that will have.

guru7892
22nd Jan 2008, 08:46
ok, I know I heard its the same one you guys used for tomb raiders something and what-not (sorry, never got into tomb raider), but what is it? why are you using it? what are the planed tech implimentations? (any third party engines like havok or physX)

also what engine did you derive your Tomb Raider engine from (or did you make it ground up?)

I mean if Carmack gonna talk smack about mega-textures, UE3 is gonna boast high-poly actors and static meshes, and Valve gonna rail on about shaders and facial animations...

(although you arn't really going commercial with your engine, so I can't blame you for not talking, I also can't balme you for signing an NDA (if you did jsut say so))

Xcom
22nd Jan 2008, 09:27
This is from Crystal's website:



We believe that next gen technology coupled with strong tools support is the key to building next gen games. Crystal Dynamics employs a common next generation engine across the studio, supporting game specific additions and specializations. Here are a couple of our guiding principals we follow:

Powerful Tools: As the content requirements for game teams are increasing dramatically, the need for powerful tools to streamline workflow is key. Our goal for tools is to provide data driven solutions with minimized iteration time. For many resources this includes live editing on all target platforms.

Game Focused: Engine features are driven by existing game teams needs. Our shared technology group works directly with the internal game teams on a day to day basis. Philosophically we are a studio working on multiple games, rather than separate games using shared technology.

Almost all of our technology is developed in house, with a current focus on XBox 360, and Playstation 3 technology. Here is a sampling of some notable features:

Streaming: Asynchrous streaming of all resources is fully supported, allowing entire worlds to be traversed without loading screens.

Rendering: A lot of development is going on for next gen rendering including full dynamic lighting, shadowing, and shader work.

Physics: Our robust in house physics system supports a wide range of features including full rigid body dynamics with multiple constraint types, boyancy, and vehicles, among other things.

Animation: The animation system is data driven and supports many features including multiple simulatious blends and interpolation, cloth simulation, IK solutions, and a data driven way to support higher order animation states.

Audio: We have many powerful features in audio, including physics driven sound, dynamic music systems, and multiple simultaneous audio streams.

AI: Some of the notable features of our AI include a robust path planning system which can be automatically generated from world mesh, and an advanced scripting system for scripting nearly any part of the world.

Cinematics: We support a highly interactive cinematic system for authoring detailed cinematics realtime using in game assets in combination with streaming cinematic data.

WhatsHisFace
22nd Jan 2008, 19:59
The recent Tomb Raider games were developed with the PS2 as the lead platform. Don't take the visuals out on the engine, it's the PS2's fault.

gamer0004
22nd Jan 2008, 20:31
@Xcom: thanks for the information.
The engine sounds quite good, although this is purely marketing, of course.

G.A.Pster
28th Jan 2008, 03:15
Hmm, frankly I think it’s a mistake to use it.
......
But, I don’t really know much about engines I’m just basing my opinions on the TR games.

RedFeather1975
28th Jan 2008, 04:00
I am not familiar with the Tomb Raider game in question, but if this engine can support physics and collision well enough to facilitate emergent game play in DX3, it's fine by me. :)

DXeXodus
18th Aug 2008, 06:58
Incase you are scared that the Crystal Dynamics engine falls short graphically:

http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/9182/1536_0001.jpg

http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/9182/1536_0003.jpg

http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/9182/1536_0007.jpg

http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/9182/1536_0012.jpg

http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/9182/1536_0013.jpg

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6957.html

And they are tweaking this engine specifically for DX3. So I'm happy.

Necros
18th Aug 2008, 07:55
:eek: Holy ***** that looks awesome! :cool: Oh, come one guys, throw out a screenshot from the game, it doesn't matter if it's still unfinished, in the pre-alpha/beta whatever stage. :nut:

Larington
18th Aug 2008, 18:54
Necros - That depends on who sees the screenshot, problem is that not everyone is as mature and understanding of the nature of games development as the members of this forum are, certain angry internet types will inevitably be judgemental.

Jerion
18th Aug 2008, 23:24
The engine only plays a minor part in how good the game looks, guys. 70-90% of the look of the game will come from the artists. From what I've seen, It DX3 has the potential To have photo-realistic ( or damn close) graphics, with large, sprawling maps.

Basically the engine takes all the content you throw at it, and puts it all together. :)

The engine does have a large role in the quality of the game's physics, though.

DXeXodus
19th Aug 2008, 04:18
^^Agreed. It is just good to see that the engine is in fact capable of generating beautiful graphics. And we havn't really seen anything to conclude that Deus Ex 3 will have near photo-realistic graphics.

Fen
19th Aug 2008, 10:33
WOW!

If Deus Ex 3 looks as good as that, itll be sooo awsome.

DXeXodus
19th Aug 2008, 10:47
WOW!

If Deus Ex 3 looks as good as that, itll be sooo awsome.

It will look better!
Disclaimer: The above statement is a result of the posters positive outlook and is not to be regarded as true by any means.

:p

Necros
19th Aug 2008, 12:24
It will look better!
I think so too, the team has more time to finish the game, so they can improve the graphics too. And Stephane D'Astous talked about this too (improving the engine) in some interviews. :)

CJRamze
21st Aug 2008, 01:11
Looking at those picture's even if It looked a little worse I'd still be impressed and happy!
Hopefully with an engine that powerful they can have large level designs aswell,

I do not want a repeat of IW's level designs!

minus0ne
21st Aug 2008, 03:31
^^Agreed. It is just good to see that the engine is in fact capable of generating beautiful graphics. And we havn't really seen anything to conclude that Deus Ex 3 will have near photo-realistic graphics.
Photo-realism that crosses the uncanny valley probably won't exist till 2020 (according to AMD), so perhaps that'll have to wait for DX5 :D

Until then the devs shouldn't push for pure realism eye-candy, but rather try to give each game a distinctive graphical style. If you look at all the great games since the mid 1990s, pretty much 99% has a distinctive feel and look to it, from Monkey Island to Grim Fandango, Half-Life, Super Mario or Thief (and of course even Deus Ex has it's own gritty and ominous look and atmosphere).

Necros
21st Aug 2008, 08:46
so perhaps that'll have to wait for DX5 :D
I hope it will be Deus Ex 6 or 7 by that time. :o :D

imported_van_HellSing
21st Aug 2008, 09:52
Looking at those picture's even if It looked a little worse I'd still be impressed and happy!
Hopefully with an engine that powerful they can have large level designs aswell,

I do not want a repeat of IW's level designs!

One of the features of the new engine Eidos boasts about is streaming, which means content gets loaded into memory on the fly, with few or no "load times".

Crystal Dynamics already did that kind of stuff earlier with the first Soul Reaver game, the world was continous with no loading times. The closest that game came to seams in the world was where you'd run through a winding corridoor a few seconds, or play the animation of opening a door.

The later, more graphically robust iterations of the engine didn't manage to continue the streaming feature, It's nice to see that Crystal returns to the idea now.

Freddo
22nd Aug 2008, 00:58
The engine only plays a minor part in how good the game looks, guys. 70-90% of the look of the game will come from the artists. From what I've seen, It DX3 has the potential To have photo-realistic ( or damn close) graphics, with large, sprawling maps.

Basically the engine takes all the content you throw at it, and puts it all together. :)
Indeed. Some people seem to be quick to yell that if the Unreal 3 engine is used the game will automatically look awesome, but that's obviously not the case. The looks is in the hand of the artists.

I'm quite certain that the TR: Underworld engine is good enough for a DX game.

K^2
22nd Aug 2008, 01:25
The most important part is artists and graphics coders working together. Often, an artist has no idea how to make something look right. Coder might know, or even be able to put in a separate shader for that.

DXeXodus
22nd Aug 2008, 04:14
I'm quite certain that the TR: Underworld engine is good enough for a DX game.

Thats what I like to hear. i agree. The engine looks beautiful and the best part is the fact that it is an in-house engine so the support is right at their fingertips.

I'm not a huge fan of the new Unreal Engine anyway, although, what they are doing with it for Mirrors Edge is awesome.

http://pici.se/pictures/UjBwGmkke.jpg

J.CDenton
22nd Aug 2008, 08:52
Miror's Edge looks like awesome.

I'm afraid however Deux Ex 3 is not using Direct X 10. I hope the render will be great anyway.

imported_van_HellSing
22nd Aug 2008, 10:06
I'm afraid however Deux Ex 3 is not using Direct X 10

Why would it need to? DirectX 10 is overrated. Most of the time it doesn't look better in games than DX9, slightly different at best. Microsoft wants you to believe you need DX10, but it's really only a ploy to sell you the piece of crap that is Vista. ****

EDIT: btw, newest Underworld trailer (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/38461.html). It's amazing how real-time, in-engine graphics today look better than prerendered cutscenes from a few years back...

TrickyVein
23rd Aug 2008, 21:45
Some people seem to be quick to yell that if the Unreal 3 engine is used the game will automatically look awesome, but that's obviously not the case. The looks is in the hand of the artists.

Agreed - UT3 made me shake and scratch my head at the misplaced detail and design on even more simpler objects like a support beam.

More realism does not mean better looks/experience - nay! in fact, the more real a game becomes the more one notices that the game is in fact not real, and only trying to look it - a perfectly realized cartoon universe will always be more immersive just for its consistency then any other one - I'm NOT saying that Deus Ex 3 should be a cartoon however...

Freddo
24th Aug 2008, 04:19
More realism does not mean better looks/experience - nay! in fact, the more real a game becomes the more one notices that the game is in fact not real, and only trying to look it - a perfectly realized cartoon universe will always be more immersive just for its consistency then any other one - I'm NOT saying that Deus Ex 3 should be a cartoon however...
Good point. For example, I vastly prefer game faces when the face textures are drawn (not necessarily cartoony), instead of using a photo.

Jerion
24th Aug 2008, 05:03
Why would it need to? DirectX 10 is overrated. Most of the time it doesn't look better in games than DX9, slightly different at best. Microsoft wants you to believe you need DX10, but it's really only a ploy to sell you the piece of crap that is Vista. ****

EDIT: btw, newest Underworld trailer (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/38461.html). It's amazing how real-time, in-engine graphics today look better than prerendered cutscenes from a few years back...

If anything, people should forget about DX10 and focus on the up and coming Open GL 3...;)

Freddo
24th Aug 2008, 12:40
If anything, people should forget about DX10 and focus on the up and coming Open GL 3...;)
The OpenGL 3.0 specifications were released last week and many people were disappointed by it, claiming that it doesn't focus enough on game functions and doesn't bring much news, and should instead be called OpenGL 2.2.

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=504547

Jerion
24th Aug 2008, 22:27
The OpenGL 3.0 specifications were released last week and many people were disappointed by it, claiming that it doesn't focus enough on game functions and doesn't bring much news, and should instead be called OpenGL 2.2.

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=504547

:eek:

They're right that it should be called OpenGL 2.2.

Yargo
31st Oct 2008, 20:14
So I downloaded the Tomb Raider Underworld demo to check out the engine performance and what not. I'm no expert on game inner workings/ development so correct me if I'm wrong. Here are some things That I found right and wrong with the demo so far.
First off, after falling a couple times I noticed that you bounce rather peculiarly when you die from a fall.
Second, When I was attacked I had several AI problems, where the tiger I was fighting just jumped up and down in place. :scratch:
Another glitch I found was while crouching under a fallen tree while wielding my guns my arms had a odd spasm.
The third person view was terrible and glitchy.
A lot of my movements were jumpy and unrealistic. Like jumping, turning a 180, etc.
A good thing about the engine is that the graphics were decent, even on my nvidia 7900gs. (I plan on upgrading SOON)
And the environment was fairly large though I suspect some loading was going on while there was a cutscene.

So... try out the demo and give me your thoughts. Again I'm no expert so don't hesitate to correct me. :D
Heres a link to the demo
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55667

Lady_Of_The_Vine
31st Oct 2008, 20:31
Hope you don't mind me suggesting, but I think this would have been better posted in the Demo thread:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=81548


I am currently downloading the TR:U playable demo right now. 20 minutes download time left to wait/75% complete... then I'll go play and let you know what I think. :thumbsup:

Yargo
31st Oct 2008, 20:34
Hope you don't mind me suggesting, but I think this would have been better posted in the Demo thread:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=81548


I am currently downloading the TR:U playable demo right now. 20 minutes download time left to wait/75% complete... then I'll go play and let you know what I think. :thumbsup:

But its not a DX3 demo. :rasp:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
31st Oct 2008, 20:38
Yes, I know. :)
It's just that isn't about DX3 per se.
Maybe it should go in a thread about the engine/graphics?

Anyway, yeah.... I'll be playing the demo soon. Download 80% as we speak! :cool:



Second, When I was attacked I had several AI problems, where the tiger I was fighting just jumped up and down in place. :scratch:


Do you mean like Tigger (Winnie The Pooh) jumps? How cute, hehe! :D


http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc159/eternaltreasure/tigger_bounce_2.gif

Yargo
31st Oct 2008, 20:40
Yes, I know. :)

Anyway, yeah.... I'll be playing the demo soon. Download 80% as we speak! :cool:

Cool beans, I look forward to your findings :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
31st Oct 2008, 20:41
I bet the graphics are yummy though!? I can't wait.... :D

Yargo
31st Oct 2008, 20:44
I bet the graphics are yummy though!? I can't wait.... :D

Like I mentioned before I'm running a 7900gs so I am by far no judge of graphics:(

Lady_Of_The_Vine
31st Oct 2008, 23:02
Okay, its running like a dream for me. :cool:
I liked the realistic sea swell at the beginning when you go for a swim.
The scenery is gorgeous and the parrots are cute too.
Lara controls better, I like the auto-grip and even the grapple seems more responsive that in TR:A.

I'm enjoying the dreamy ambient music too. :)

I've not long since arrived at Bhogavati/Shiva temple... just trying to work out the winch bridge and pole puzzles. :o

As usual, this game is just fun with no realism really, hence Lara's continued confusion about her role as an archaeologist.
I mean, what lover of ancient artefacts would go around smashing up urns, hehe? :nut:
I'll never take Lara seriously unless Eidos decide to mould her character more in keeping with her profession.

I'm not comfortable with the usual vision/angle changes in-game... but then I never have been. Especially when you have to perform a leap/jump to grab a ledge.
Otherwise, an enjoyable game to pass the time (if you have some spare).

EDIT: Solved it, and that was the end of the demo. Wish it had been a little longer.

spm1138
31st Oct 2008, 23:42
Some or most of that stuff should be alterable by the DX3 team, particularly if they are able to pick the brains of the team who developed it - and you'd hope they would be since it's in-house instead of coming from Epic.

AI for example I'd expect to be totally reworked.

Almost anything you don't like is probably optional, including the physics engine.

Stuff that would be worrying would be like poor graphical performance etc. etc. but you say that angle is good. I'll have a look.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
31st Oct 2008, 23:46
Yeah, graphical performance works fine for me. Nice 'n' smooth, no stuttering or glitches. :)

Jerion
1st Nov 2008, 02:32
So I downloaded the Tomb Raider Underworld demo to check out the engine performance and what not. I'm no expert on game inner workings/ development so correct me if I'm wrong. Here are some things That I found right and wrong with the demo so far.
First off, after falling a couple times I noticed that you bounce rather peculiarly when you die from a fall.
Second, When I was attacked I had several AI problems, where the tiger I was fighting just jumped up and down in place. :scratch:
Another glitch I found was while crouching under a fallen tree while wielding my guns my arms had a odd spasm.
The third person view was terrible and glitchy.
A lot of my movements were jumpy and unrealistic. Like jumping, turning a 180, etc.
A good thing about the engine is that the graphics were decent, even on my nvidia 7900gs. (I plan on upgrading SOON)
And the environment was fairly large though I suspect some loading was going on while there was a cutscene.

So... try out the demo and give me your thoughts. Again I'm no expert so don't hesitate to correct me. :D
Heres a link to the demo
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55667

All of those things,expect for the loading time and graphics performance (to a degree), are bugs with the TRU, not the engine.

Still, looks pretty fun.

imported_van_HellSing
1st Nov 2008, 02:43
About loading while a cutscene is played, that's an old Crystal Dynamics trick, they used that in the first Soul Reaver game.

There were no loading screens there, however certain areas were connected by long, winding corridoors - by the time you ran through the corridoor, the next section had loaded.

Another trick was using doors - each time you opened a door leading into a new section, an animation was played of your character opening the door, walking through, then closing it, during which time the data was loaded.

Overall, while you could notice the loadings, it was much more seamless than the use of loading screens.

MrP
1st Nov 2008, 05:59
So the DX3 engine is slated to be somewhat modified from the TR:U one anyway, isn't it? :scratch:

Hope you don't mind me suggesting, but I think this would have been better posted in the Demo thread section

T,FTFY. ;)

http://forums.eidosgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=260


Okay, its running like a dream for me. :cool:
Guess you can thank the person who built your computer for that. :cool: :D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Nov 2008, 10:30
T,FTFY. ;)
http://forums.eidosgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=260


Yes, we know about this. Thank you.
The engine for TR:U is going to be the same used for DX3. That's why I suggested that this thread may be better suited in either the demo discussion thread, or the DX3 engine thread. ;)

Mr. Perfect
1st Nov 2008, 15:49
So what hardware is it "running like a dream" on? What detail settings did you use?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Nov 2008, 17:08
^
CPU: Intel Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 @2.40GHz
2.00GB of RAM
Graphics: ATI Radeon X1950
Microsoft Windows XP

In-game resolution: 1680 x 1050
Texture detail: High
All effects enabled

MrP
1st Nov 2008, 17:50
Graphics: ATI Radeon X1950XTX

Big difference (http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=442&card2=466) ;)

... and it was a Core2Duo, fwiw. Quads weren't out then. http://www.wizdforums.co.uk/images/smilies/secret.gif

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Nov 2008, 18:52
Haha, okay... you know I don't have much interest with specs. :p
Sorry for the 'quad' error. My computer details listed it twice, so I thought that meant it was a quad?
Heck, what do I know? :nut:

Computers are like cars to me. Not bothered about the engine and stuff, just so long as it works and its FAST, hehe. :D

AaronJ
1st Nov 2008, 19:35
About loading while a cutscene is played, that's an old Crystal Dynamics trick, they used that in the first Soul Reaver game.

There were no loading screens there, however certain areas were connected by long, winding corridoors - by the time you ran through the corridoor, the next section had loaded.

Another trick was using doors - each time you opened a door leading into a new section, an animation was played of your character opening the door, walking through, then closing it, during which time the data was loaded.

Overall, while you could notice the loadings, it was much more seamless than the use of loading screens.

That's genius. Gotta love CD.

LeatherJacket
1st Nov 2008, 19:56
There are a few other tricks some games use to buy more time to stream the level data. Jak 1 tripped the player character whenever the required data was not fully streamed. What would Adam do ? :D

Mr. Perfect
1st Nov 2008, 20:18
Hey, those are good results for that hardware. I have something similar, maybe all I'll need to do is grab a new video card when the game comes out to really crank it up. :cool:

Jerion
1st Nov 2008, 21:41
There are a few other tricks to buy more time to stream the level data through various tricks. Jak 1 tripped the player character whenever the required data was not fully streamed. What would Adam do ? :D

Have a smoke. ;)

LeatherJacket
1st Nov 2008, 22:27
Have a smoke. ;)

Haha.

René
1st Nov 2008, 23:28
Just a note: DX3 is already very different from TRU and will get even moreso over the next year... :)

3nails4you
1st Nov 2008, 23:37
Just a note: DX3 is already very different from TRU and will get even moreso over the next year... :)

I'd hope so, considering TR is just jumping puzzles and jumping around shooting. ;)

Yargo
2nd Nov 2008, 01:02
My biggest concern is the bouncing when you fall to your death although I believe that is related to the physics engine. :scratch:

LeatherJacket
2nd Nov 2008, 06:55
DX IW had horrible ragdoll physics. I hope they use something much better! Don't want Barett to go cartwheeling if you kill him through headshots :D

K^2
2nd Nov 2008, 11:10
So far, my biggest complaint about the engine is the use of shadow maps rather than shadow volumes. It really makes no difference for TRU, except for occasional self-shadowing artifact, but in DX3 it might break the mood somewhat.

This also explains why shadows are no longer a stealth element. When shadow volumes are used, like in the IW and Thief III engines, it is easy enough to check whether player is inside a shadow. With shadow maps, however, there is no particularly easy way of doing it without running into some serious overhead.

So the no-shadow checks on stealth isn't due to anything guys at Montreal came up with. It'd be up to core CD team to put in shadow volumes, and my guess they deemed it an unnecessary waste of time to actually do that when shadow maps work well enough for TRU.

LeatherJacket
2nd Nov 2008, 11:41
Interesting point about steath and shadow maps, K^2. However I think occlusion query while updating the shadow map(s) can be used to get the visibility of the player by rendering the player last. Computing visibility based on the last couple of frames' of occlusion query results should be okay. Shadow maps is the future anyways.

Though I agree that hard edge shadows set the right mood for a Deus Ex game.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Nov 2008, 15:14
My biggest concern is the bouncing when you fall to your death although I believe that is related to the physics engine. :scratch:
Just to say that I experienced no bouncing or other over-stated ragdoll physics when playing TR:U. :)

Yargo
2nd Nov 2008, 16:04
Just to say that I experienced no bouncing or other over-stated ragdoll physics when playing TR:U. :)

I'll try re-installing it and doing another run through. We'll see how it goes. Could just be my hardware :scratch:

Athlon 64 x2 5200+
Asus M2N- Sli deluxe
3 GB of DDR2 800
Nvidia 7900gs (needs upgrading BADLY)

Yargo
2nd Nov 2008, 17:01
Alright I gave it another run through here are some things I noticed.
The skybox in the beginning is fairly obvious which bothers me. Another problem is again the glitch while crouching with guns drawn at the first place that you need to crouch right before the temple. You tend to spaz out :nut:. I also found the head shot thing kind of gimmicky and the tiger I shot with it disappeared afterwards. I hope these things get fixed for DX3. (fingers crossed)

K^2
2nd Nov 2008, 21:11
Good skybox is more of an artists challenge. I'm sure guys at Montreal will be able to draw a better skybox.

And there are a bunch of camera problems, of course. What did you expect from a TR game? Camera logistics for something like that is a nightmare, and it works as well as I could expect it to. But we really don't need to worry about that. DX3 is almost entirely first person, so we don't have to worry about.

On the physics, yes, ragdoll isn't perfect. Primarily, what it lacks is friction. Both the viscous friction in the joints and the friction with surface. That said, there are few games that do much better.

Really, tech of CD is solid enough for DX3. It supports everything it needs to support. The rest is up to the artists.

DXeXodus
3rd Nov 2008, 04:04
Thread merged into our existing engine thread.

Lazarus Ledd
3rd Nov 2008, 18:40
That's genius. Gotta love CD.


One of the features of the new engine Eidos boasts about is streaming, which means content gets loaded into memory on the fly, with few or no "load times".

Crystal Dynamics already did that kind of stuff earlier with the first Soul Reaver game, the world was continous with no loading times. The closest that game came to seams in the world was where you'd run through a winding corridoor a few seconds, or play the animation of opening a door.

The later, more graphically robust iterations of the engine didn't manage to continue the streaming feature, It's nice to see that Crystal returns to the idea now.

Resident evil series used stairway and door animation to hide "loading" =)

Yargo
4th Nov 2008, 18:31
I don't think Deus ex is much of a cut-scene game. I hope this engine doesn't change the way you play the game.

imported_van_HellSing
4th Nov 2008, 18:43
There's plenty of room for that kind of loading sequences - you can do them while conversations take place, or think about the helicopter takeoff from DX1, something like that could be used as well. The subway is another option: board a train, let it ride through a tunnel and the engine can load stuff in the meantime.

spm1138
4th Nov 2008, 18:54
I heard from a developer making a different game that these days you could "blend" ragdoll and traditional animation to avoid the whole "corpses flailing all over the place like boneless things" thing.

Dunno if that's a feature of ragdoll or UE3 engine though.

Yargo
4th Nov 2008, 19:13
There's plenty of room for that kind of loading sequences - you can do them while conversations take place, or think about the helicopter takeoff from DX1, something like that could be used as well. The subway is another option: board a train, let it ride through a tunnel and the engine can load stuff in the meantime.

yes but all of those are almost as interrupting as a loading screen and the helicopter, train, elevator, and boat in DX1 still go to loading screens. What I'm saying is that I would prefer a loading screen to cut-scenes that take you out of the player position and seats you as a viewer. Although I admit the Elevator could serve as a loading device, A vehicle would be less realistic because it would not adequately show time lapse.

As a kind of self argument breaker, they did not say no loading screens but less of them

Jerion
4th Nov 2008, 19:17
As a kind of self argument breaker, they did not say no loading screens but less of them

I think what they said was that they would need loading screens/sequences when traveling between the various huge maps, but inside each of those maps there would be no need for loading times.

Yargo
4th Nov 2008, 19:20
I think what they said was that they would need loading screens/sequences when traveling between the various huge maps, but inside each of those maps there would be no need for loading times.

Yup! I have no problem with that, just don't do the cut-scenes like in the TR:U demo/game

imported_van_HellSing
4th Nov 2008, 19:28
yes but all of those are almost as interrupting as a loading screen
I'd argue against that based on my experience with Soul Reaver.


and the helicopter, train, elevator, and boat in DX1 still go to loading screens.

Uh, yes, they do. But hello, DX3 uses a completely different engine, one that supports content streaming.


What I'm saying is that I would prefer a loading screen to cut-scenes that take you out of the player position and seats you as a viewer.
The transport sequences from DX1 didn't bother me at all, contrary, they provided a sense of closure for each chapter.


Although I admit the Elevator could serve as a loading device, A vehicle would be less realistic because it would not adequately show time lapse.
Enter a vehicle, it shows it driving/flying/whatever away during which the engine loads content, fade to black, fade in to new location, exit the vehicle. Isn't that better than a loading screen which completely takes you out of the game?


As a kind of self argument breaker, they did not say no loading screens but less of them
What Kieranator said.

Yargo
4th Nov 2008, 19:48
I'd argue against that based on my experience with Soul Reaver.

Whats it like in Soul Reaver? I played a demo once, way back when, where I saw no content streaming. I am just curious and mean no offense. I like conversations that you participate in as a player. In games like Crysis, the cut-scene takes you out of the player to the conversation or sneaks up to listen in for you, and this is what I considered when responding. :D

imported_van_HellSing
4th Nov 2008, 22:57
Well, Soul Reaver had the non-interactive type of cutscenes, but it wasn't really the sort of game where dialogue options are needed. I don't know if any loading took place during the conversations there.

As I wrote, the two main methods of loading were during short, in-engine "door opening" cutscenes and running through winding corridoors. And it worked really well - aside from starting the game up, there were no loading screens through the entire game. While you could notice the tricks they used if you thought about it, having loadings concealed within the gameplay immensely helped in the immersion imho.

Yargo
5th Nov 2008, 01:56
Well, Soul Reaver had the non-interactive type of cutscenes, but it wasn't really the sort of game where dialogue options are needed. I don't know if any loading took place during the conversations there.

As I wrote, the two main methods of loading were during short, in-engine "door opening" cutscenes and running through winding corridoors. And it worked really well - aside from starting the game up, there were no loading screens through the entire game. While you could notice the tricks they used if you thought about it, having loadings concealed within the gameplay immensely helped in the immersion imho.

Bet alleys will be popular load zones!

rhalibus
9th Dec 2008, 01:55
I just played the Tomb Raider: Underworld demo, which we all know showcases one potential of the Crystal Dynamics engine.

At 1680x1050 (with high textures) the game is silky smooth, and the graphics are rich and beautiful (esp. the water effects). The levels are also huge and expansive, and the character models are expressive with convincing animations. All of this would support the argument that DX3 could pull off all of the above with panache.

The main challenges I had with the demo was the character control and camera movement. While I'm not too worried about the camera because of the mostly 1st-person viewpoint, I'm still a bit concerned about the difficulty of actually controlling Lara Croft--not just with jumping or straddling, but with actual basic movement (strafing, jumping, etc.).

I guess I'm asking Eidos to please make sure that, whatever RPG and adventure elements are put into DX3, the 1st-person control is still as smooth and responsive as any twitch-based FPS.

One of the reasons I'm still playing the original Deus Ex today is because of how easily I could control JC Denton as if he was an extension of myself...

Anyway, just an observation and a thought. :)

Mr. Perfect
9th Dec 2008, 04:18
At 1680x1050 (with high textures) the game is silky smooth, and the graphics are rich and beautiful (esp. the water effects).

We'd need to know what hardware that was on to make comparisons.

rhalibus
10th Dec 2008, 09:38
Sorry. a Dell XPS w/ a Q6600 Quad-core CPU and an nVidia 8800 GT, with 3GB of RAM. Oh, and a Dell mousepad. :)

And that's all I'll say about my machine lest people think I'm moving away from the topic. In short, TR:U graphics good, control needs work. :)

Necros
10th Dec 2008, 12:28
The transport sequences from DX1 didn't bother me at all, contrary, they provided a sense of closure for each chapter.
:thumb:

In short, TR:U graphics good, control needs work. :)
You could say that about all of the Tomb Raider games. :) Let's hope EM won't make the same mistake.

Laokin
11th Dec 2008, 23:57
:thumb:

You could say that about all of the Tomb Raider games. :) Let's hope EM won't make the same mistake.

Well, comparing the movement from a 3rd person platforming adventure game to that of a FPS should never happen. DX3 at it's CORE is a FPS. It looks like/plays like must be like. Even with RPG elements, it's still recognizable as a FPS.

That said, FPS's almost all move the same and it would be more than safe to assume EM can't mess that up.

pauldenton
1st Mar 2009, 18:01
As the title says, will DX 3 be the first game AFAIK to feature Boob Jiggle?

also i would be interested in the kind of hair physics if any?

All in the name of realistic immersion off course!

This actually is a serious note, i think how sexy a NPC may appear may effect how you react to them as it would in the real world therefore impacting on the game itself!

some examples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMHMrGiWmF4&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&index=3&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYmLbKEqwQM&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&playnext=1&index=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZWVa_sqPhs&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&index=2&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ph8pLK6BVM

Jerion
1st Mar 2009, 18:05
Not likely. That looks like it belongs in a Tomb Raider game, IMO.

Dijj
1st Mar 2009, 18:05
havent you played soul calibur?

pauldenton
1st Mar 2009, 18:15
havent you played soul calibur?


Nope, but thanks for the info, did it have any potential impact on how you may have played the game?

edit,

OK found an example of soul calibur body physics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmtIopU7PM8

So DX 3 would not be the first, but i feel it still has more potential,
potential to sway your decisions in the game.

El_Bel
1st Mar 2009, 18:36
Dude whats with the anime girls. You made my stomach turn.

remmus
1st Mar 2009, 18:46
As the title says, will DX 3 be the first game AFAIK to feature Boob Jiggle?

also i would be interested in the kind of hair physics if any?

All in the name of realistic immersion off course!

This actually is a serious note, i think how sexy a NPC may appear may effect how you react to them as it would in the real world therefore impacting on the game itself!

some examples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMHMrGiWmF4&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&index=3&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYmLbKEqwQM&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&playnext=1&index=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZWVa_sqPhs&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&index=2&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ph8pLK6BVM

wtf...this is such a drunken post...that or this ain´t a human being....*gasp* the forum is infiltrated by a evil A.I! run!

Dijj
1st Mar 2009, 18:55
Dude whats with the anime girls. You made my stomach turn.

dont worry im not into that
but you cant deny that the two elements that make up soul calibur are huge jiggling boobies, and cheap moves.

remmus
1st Mar 2009, 18:57
[QUOTE=pauldenton;947809]
This is something you may see if your mother, sister or girlfriend comes running towards you etc - fact!

QUOTE]

nope, nope, and nope...because all three have brains and deasnc.

Hey I don´t mind a woman with a nice set of breasts....aslong as there natural that is....and the woman has a brain as smart as the breasts are big.

pauldenton
1st Mar 2009, 19:04
Wow i didn't realise this post would bring out so many people who have `issues` over the human form, better close your eyes when you go out this summer!

remmus
1st Mar 2009, 19:07
Wow i didn't realise this post would bring out so many people who have `issues` over the human form, better close your eyes when you go out this summer!

you mean the inhuman form...seriusly...breast jiggle....I rather have a few more bites worth of story of some more detail into scenery, if you want beutiful ladies with fake boobs then check out some porn and leave the game to be what is primary about, sweet action and dark stories.

Dijj
1st Mar 2009, 19:07
Wow i didn't realise this post would bring out so many people who have `issues` over the human form, better close your eyes when you go out this summer!

ahahaha well what do you expect?
its a forum :lmao:

pauldenton
1st Mar 2009, 19:22
you mean the inhuman form...seriusly...breast jiggle....I rather have a few more bites worth of story of some more detail into scenery, if you want beutiful ladies with fake boobs then check out some porn and leave the game to be what is primary about, sweet action and dark stories.

And if i want to see someone cry - as mentioned to be included in DX 3, i could just watch any number of films that feature someone crying - why `waste` resources on such a feature?

Because it's about emotional immersion and i feel a sexual/attractiveness side could play a part to that end or at least i am thinking of the posibilitioes which i feel so far have not been explored in a way that could enhance the story/immersiveness.

We have had sex scenes in games such as Max Payne 2 and mafia and obvious though limited sexuality in Lara Croft and Soul Caliber, but they added nothing much in the way of gameplay or outcome.

I feel it could be an area worth exploring, i would like to hear more views on how this could be expanded upon where it makes an impact in the game.

Remember also that sexual attractiveness is a powerfull tool in espionage.

Is it possible to incorporate such things in new ways and make it worthwhile?

remmus
1st Mar 2009, 19:27
Is it possible to incorporate such things and make it worthwhile?

if you want to attrack horny 13 year olds thats play the game just fort the jiggle then yes....problem is if anything I would love to see a game that keeps the focus on gamerplay and not how many girls with gravity defying juggs you can squeeze in.


seriusly either your a troll or a Hillbilly who havent touched a book in years.


and if you have girlfriend I´m sure she is beutiful...but dum as a door

Mindmute
1st Mar 2009, 19:44
This thread reminded me of this (http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/3506/dimfallissue016if2.jpg).

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Mar 2009, 19:52
As the title says, will DX 3 be the first game AFAIK to feature Boob Jiggle?

also i would be interested in the kind of hair physics if any?

All in the name of realistic immersion off course!

This actually is a serious note, i think how sexy a NPC may appear may effect how you react to them as it would in the real world therefore impacting on the game itself!

some examples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMHMrGiWmF4&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&index=3&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYmLbKEqwQM&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&playnext=1&index=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZWVa_sqPhs&feature=PlayList&p=A6A3FAD9FDBC2794&index=2&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ph8pLK6BVM


I've merged into the 'Game Engine & Physics' thread. ;)

pauldenton
1st Mar 2009, 20:17
I've merged into the 'Game Engine & Physics' thread. ;)

So where have the replies gone?

Someone was good enough to mention that a certain game - i forget now!! already featured Boob jiggle and i gave a much more detailed explaination of what i was trying to get accross with the thread - now all gone!

Mindmute
1st Mar 2009, 20:23
So where have the replies gone?

Someone was good enough to mention that a certain game - i forget now!! already featured Boob jiggle and i gave a much more detailed explaination of what i was trying to get accross with the thread - now all gone!

Thanks!

Before you go about claiming that she got rid of your "discussion" check the posts directly before the one where she said she merged the two threads.

You're welcome!

pauldenton
1st Mar 2009, 20:57
if you want to attrack horny 13 year olds thats play the game just fort the jiggle then yes....problem is if anything I would love to see a game that keeps the focus on gamerplay and not how many girls with gravity defying juggs you can squeeze in.


seriusly either your a troll or a Hillbilly who havent touched a book in years.


and if you have girlfriend I´m sure she is beutiful...but dum as a door

If 13 year olds wanted to only play the game initially for the boob jiggle and went on to enjoy the depth of the game then i have no problem with that, in fact it would simply boost sales and take almost no developement time to implement while adding realism, unless you think womens breasts are made of rock and never move?

It looks like you have come up with a very good reason to incorporate it, even if it wasn't the direction i was heading in - which appears to have gone way over your head.

Let me know when you understand the post and the point i was making.

pauldenton
1st Mar 2009, 21:03
Before you go about claiming that she got rid of your "discussion" check the posts directly before the one where she said she merged the two threads.

You're welcome!

It looks like i have made a mistake and i apologize to MyImmortal for that, i am having all kinds of issues with missing threads right now on this forum, that i don't fully understand.

Hopefully i will get to the bottom of it shortly.

ilweran
1st Mar 2009, 21:29
but you cant deny that the two elements that make up soul calibur are huge jiggling boobies, and cheap moves.

I'm thought Dead or Alive got there first, could be wrong as it's not a genre I've spent a lot of time playing - got beaten by my mother at Soul Calibur a few too many times :rolleyes:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Mar 2009, 01:16
It looks like i have made a mistake and i apologize to MyImmortal for that, i am having all kinds of issues with missing threads right now on this forum, that i don't fully understand.

Hopefully i will get to the bottom of it shortly.

Thank you for the apology and I graciously accept. :)

Not sure about 'missing' threads in general though. None of us mods have deleted threads, though some (ie. those relating more to DX or DX:IW) may get moved to another area of the Eidos sub-forums.

Larington
2nd Mar 2009, 18:34
I must confess, I've found some of the thread merging thats been going on overzealous, but maybe thats why I'm not a mod and others are. (Shrugs)

As to games that try to depict sex in a not entirely stupid way, try masq (Obviously Not Safe For Work/NSFW):
http://www.alteraction.com/

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Mar 2009, 18:52
I must confess, I've found some of the thread merging thats been going on overzealous...


In what way? Merging only takes place when appropriate to do so. I haven't noticed any mod being overzealous about it - that includes myself, I hasten to add. :)

Now, I know a lot of you boys will no doubt disagree with me, but a discussion about 'jiggling boobies' really belongs in this existing thread about game engine physics, believe it or not. :p

K^2
2nd Mar 2009, 19:28
It belongs as much in Physics thread as it does in the Fashion thread. So maybe you should merge these two now as well.

In other words, I'm with Larington on this.

Perhaps another reason why I dislike this particular merge is because Physics is my work, and I don't like mixing work stuff and fun stuff.

Jerion
2nd Mar 2009, 19:32
It belongs as much in Physics thread as it does in the Fashion thread. So maybe you should merge these two now as well.

In other words, I'm with Larington on this.

Perhaps another reason why I dislike this particular merge is because Physics is my work, and I don't like mixing work stuff and fun stuff.

Well if it also belongs in another thread, then it's really like the kid of those two threads. Especially considering the focus of that thread. So if it's gotta go live with one parent, I guess physics wins out this time.

...meaning that it's a geek kid, so it gets interested in physics. You should be flattered, K^2. It's really taken after you. :)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Mar 2009, 19:35
It belongs as much in Physics thread as it does in the Fashion thread. So maybe you should merge these two now as well.


You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but as the topic was relating to the motion/movement of jiggling boobs, rather than what might have covered them... I'm inclined to stick with the physics thread option, rather than the fashion one, thank you. :)

WhatsHisFace
2nd Mar 2009, 19:49
We have established that breasts are the harmonious interpolation of physics and fashion. Now I can observe pornographic material in public, claiming it's an art form, and a science. I bet I could even win the inevitable subsequent court case brought upon by this discovery and my intended course of action with it.

This board has made life good again.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Mar 2009, 19:58
I'm happy for you! :D

FrankCSIS
3rd Mar 2009, 01:25
Wasn't there a thread somewhere asking what makes the player care about game characters? Considering where he was getting at, it'd be more appropriate there. I'll say, the approach was a bit dubious, what with jiggling boobs, but I'm quite sure this is what the man was ultimately hinting at.

Jerion
3rd Mar 2009, 01:38
I remember that thread. I don't dare dig it up though. :eek:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Mar 2009, 02:18
Wasn't there a thread somewhere asking what makes the player care about game characters? Considering where he was getting at, it'd be more appropriate there. I'll say, the approach was a bit dubious, what with jiggling boobs, but I'm quite sure this is what the man was ultimately hinting at.


If we check the points that were originally put forward:

1. Will DX3 to be first to feature boob jiggle?
2. Also interested in the kind of hair physics.
3. More boob jiggling - links to video examples.

I don't read any hints that the topic was about 'caring for characters'. Caring suggests 'emotion' not 'motion'.
So, I still believe it was correct to merge into this 'game/physics' discussion thread.

Obviously, if pauldenton was trying to discuss caring about characters, he's free to reintroduce his comments in the correct/relevant thread. :)

FrankCSIS
3rd Mar 2009, 02:30
I was half-jesting with you, but since you see fit to challenge my understanding, I shall defend it ;)

In the original post:


This actually is a serious note, i think how sexy a NPC may appear may effect how you react to them as it would in the real world therefore impacting on the game itself!

Followed a few posts later by:


Because it's about emotional immersion and i feel a sexual/attractiveness side could play a part to that end or at least i am thinking of the posibilitioes which i feel so far have not been explored in a way that could enhance the story/immersiveness.

The physics of juggling boobs, true enough, but in his clumsiness what he tried to say is that physical perception of certain characters could change the way we react to them, perhaps even on an emotional level.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Mar 2009, 03:05
I was half-jesting with you, but since you see fit to challenge my understanding, I shall defend it ;)
The physics of juggling boobs, true enough, but in his clumsiness what he tried to say is that physical perception of certain characters could change the way we react to them, perhaps even on an emotional level.

I wasn't challenging your understanding... I was simply clarifying my own.
Still, I have no wish to continue an off-topic debate as to whether or not the merge was justified/correct, or if I get the popularity vote or not. :)

As I have already suggested, pauldenton is free to reintroduce what he may have been trying to say (if it wasn't about game physics) in a more appropriate thread.
So, for example, if he wishes to discuss attraction for a love interest he might meet in the game then that can go in this thread: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=80933
Or perhaps he wishes to discuss sexual attraction with a lady of the night, then this thread should be suitable: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=82205
Just offering up some suggestions. :)

I hope we can let this topic get back on track now: "game engine & physics".

K^2
3rd Mar 2009, 03:10
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but as the topic was relating to the motion/movement of jiggling boobs, rather than what might have covered them... I'm inclined to stick with the physics thread option, rather than the fashion one, thank you. :)
But the motion depends entirely on what is covering them! The actual implementation has some physics in it, sure, but when the OP asked about the jiggling, he's essentially asking, "What kind of bras are the girls wearing?" And that is certainly a fashion question. You should understand that better than most people here.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Mar 2009, 03:29
LOL, so now its about bras! :D
How about you suggest to OP that he simply reposts in the "fashion" thread?
To save you time, its right here:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=85308

You boys can talk about DX3 bras in there to your heart's content. Enjoy. :cool:

jamhaw
3rd Mar 2009, 03:35
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but as the topic was relating to the motion/movement of jiggling boobs, rather than what might have covered them... I'm inclined to stick with the physics thread option, rather than the fashion one, thank you. :)

That's because they weren't supposed to be covered, geeze. ;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Mar 2009, 03:48
That's because they weren't supposed to be covered, geeze. ;)
Sorry? Not following this one. ;)
I never said they were or weren't supposed to be.
That quote of mine is in response to another member who thought OP's thread should have gone in the existing fashion thread. As there was no mention of clothing, I was saying that I believed the topic was best merged into game physics thread.

K^2
3rd Mar 2009, 04:18
I think jamhaw is trying to say that he would have preferred this to be merged into the thread discussing possibilities of adult themes in DX3, where we could discuss the physics of the breasts without also needing to concern ourselves with fashion.

And I can see his point, too. The first video demonstrating the concept comes from a game where covering of the aforementioned areas is entirely optional. So this belongs in that thread as much as it belongs here and over in fashion one.

Then again, maybe boobs, especially jiggling ones, deserve their own topic. They are rather important after all. Many people have them. Many people like them. They have important visual and physical qualities that may be discussed in length. And they bring up a lot of social, moral, and sometimes even religious questions. I think we should have a thread dedicated just to them.

pauldenton
3rd Mar 2009, 05:55
The physics of juggling boobs, true enough, but in his clumsiness what he tried to say is that physical perception of certain characters could change the way we react to them, perhaps even on an emotional level.

Indeed, I thought my comments and follow up comments were explaination enough, quite strait forward and to the point while leaving further comentators some slack to expand upon this theme.

It's not strictly a post about physics as such, but how physics and beauty with the right dialogue and plot can increase emotional connection, through beauty/sexyness of movement -
Hair, breasts etc and how this could impact the game on a deeper level, such as the choices we may make in a game.

I have a few examples in mind but rather than just blurt them out, i wanted to see if anyone could build on the theme and impress with other ideas i had not considered - there are some great minds on this forum and i await some feedback that is worthy of the subject.

I had posed the question and stated a long time ago when this forum opened on how physics could impact a story and always wanted to expand on that as i feel physics is a more powerful tool in gameplay etc than many realise
and this was just one of the angles that came to me.

Perhaps the mistake i made was the attention grabbing though totally relevant method i used - rather than get the attention i had hoped for, it seems to have thrown a few poeple of the trail - perhaps that is my own fault!

But it is a shame no one has really expanded on this theme in the thread on a subject which i feel could be significant - especially as physics and graphics become more and more realistic/emersive - and 3D screens may expand even further on this.

I still hold out some hope that people who actually understand the idea behind the original post will expand upon this idea that i feel `could` offer something worthwhile to the emotional depth of the game?

Or could it?

K^2
3rd Mar 2009, 07:38
So basically, you come in here and defend the moderator's action to merge threads. Wonderful.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Mar 2009, 08:23
So basically, you come in here and defend the moderator's action to merge threads. Wonderful.

Wonderful indeed. :cool: And, as the original poster, that is his prerogotive. :D

Okay, can we get back on topic... in whatever thread that topic relates to. Thank you. :)

Jerion
3rd Mar 2009, 08:25
So basically, you come in here and defend the moderator's action to merge threads. Wonderful.

That is his prerogative as the OP.

Don't be getting all self-righteous on us now. :D You're one of the few voices around here that actually posts with clear thought and good reasoning.

K^2
3rd Mar 2009, 08:33
I only wish I was that sophisticated.

Alright, I'm going to let the topic of jiggling physics be. I have to write a rigid body simulation, and all this talk of soft, squishy objects is distracting me.

Larington
3rd Mar 2009, 14:49
I'm not going to claim that the thread merging was wrong in and of itself, but I've found myself wondering once or twice if its really necessary. Thats basically what I'm trying to get at.

For one thing it can cause confusion the moment that 'moved:' bit disappears from the top of the thread list and the inevitable "what happened to my thread?" can end up derailing two discussions rather than one.

Anyway, back on topic, ooh look, jigglies.

WhatsHisFace
3rd Mar 2009, 15:08
Well, just so that we don't have another page dedicated to talking about what should be discussed on said page, this thread mentions "game engine."

I for one, am not pleased with the choice for the game engine. I can understand why they chose it (free, practically in-house support) but I don't think it's worth it. This engine was built for the PS2, and no matter how much Eidos Montreal (or Crystal Dynamics) modify it, it's still going to reek of old code. Just look at the latest Tomb Raider game.

http://www.ps2vicio.com/imagenes1/PS3/Tomb_Raider_Underworld/Tomb_Raider_Underworld_17.jpg

I'd say that Lara's model looks passable, but everything else in this game looks like some kind of mutant PS2 game. The lighting is horrific, the textures are sub-par, the world is painfully under detailed and crossing this with a Deus Ex (or what should be a Deus Ex) design isn't going to mesh.

They should have just licensed the proven Unreal engine, or better yet, the "X-Ray Engine" used in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as it already has all the implements they'd need to make a proper Deus Ex game and then some.

Larington
3rd Mar 2009, 15:19
"The lighting is horrific, the textures are sub-par, the world is painfully under detailed"

In what way? That looks fine to me.
You can't just say, thats rubbish without qualifying what you mean by that... That is unless you want those people to try and improve on what they've done and end up going in a completely different direction from what you actually mean. Theres a reason why development agreements emerge in traditional software development, otherwise the client has no idea what they'll get in the final product 3 years later.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Mar 2009, 15:47
WhatsHisFace, may I ask where did you get that image from? Is it a screenshot direct from the game or via a third-party source?
Only I've played TR:U and the graphics are much, MUCH better than the image you've given portrays. So, just wondering... :)

K^2
3rd Mar 2009, 15:57
Yeah. Try downloading a demo of TRU. It looks much better when you play it.

I agree, however, that it is far from the best engine they could have picked. It is plagued by problems. First, optimization. You'll see all the same complaints you saw with IW. "Why am I getting only 15 FPS on this high-mid-range machine?" "Why can't I run it without Shader V3?" The only one that wouldn't be an issue as much is loading time. At least, CD got the streaming part right. Unfortunately, it results in extremely inefficient use of memory. Deja vu? Finally, the collision detection in TRU is abysmal. I can only hope that it is due to poorly defined geometry. But better physics geometry will come with another performance hit. And even then, we might have clipping issues. So it's bad all around. I don't know why they couldn't have licensed the engine. I would have loved to see DX3 built on something like HL2 or the new Unreal engine.

El_Bel
3rd Mar 2009, 16:46
Maybe they want to patch up the engine, so the whole company can use it.

WhatsHisFace
3rd Mar 2009, 17:24
WhatsHisFace, may I ask where did you get that image from? Is it a screenshot direct from the game or via a third-party source?
Only I've played TR:U and the graphics are much, MUCH better than the image you've given portrays. So, just wondering... :)

I got it from a magical website that has screenshots from Tomb Raider Underworld that somehow manages to logarithmically make the game look worse while still being a screenshot of the game.

Look, I'm sure the game looks better in motion. Most games tend to. But this is a still image of TR:U, and essentially is what the game looks like. It's not like when in motion it becomes Crysis or Resident Evil 5. This is, within basic margins, what the game looks like, and shows what the Deus Ex 3 engine will primarily be capable of.

3nails4you
3rd Mar 2009, 17:36
I fail to see how the game engine inhibits a lot of this. In basically any engine, textures can be replaced with better ones. Lighting is done on an individual map basis. So really, it's up to the makers of the game rather than the engine itself as to how "pretty" you want your game to be.

As for myself, I can care less about the latest greatest graphics. I want good performance and a deep, interesting story. Flashy graphics are a distraction from the important stuff (maybe why we love DX1?). IMO and everything.

And the HL2 engine (Source/OB, whatever) would have some severe limitations for a game like DX3. It's made for either small free-roam maps or slightly larger totally linear ones. While that engine is perfect for games like TF2, HL2, CSS, etc. (all of which I play a lot and LOVE), it simply wouldn't work for this sort of game.

3nails4you
3rd Mar 2009, 17:39
Also, that's a screen of what it looks like ON THE PS2. Remember, the PS2 came out in like 1999. So putting newer games on it will either not work or the performance with greatly decrease. PC's, 360's, and PS3's have new hardware, not 10 year old stuff, keep in mind, so everything will run a bit smoother. Also, I couldn't STAND stalker, lol. Just not fun. Couldn't get into the story and did not at all like the way the guns handled or anything. :\ I dunno, didn't enjoy it.

WhatsHisFace
3rd Mar 2009, 17:40
And the HL2 engine (Source/OB, whatever) would have some severe limitations for a game like DX3. It's made for either small free-roam maps or slightly larger totally linear ones. While that engine is perfect for games like TF2, HL2, CSS, etc. (all of which I play a lot and LOVE), it simply wouldn't work for this sort of game.I personally would not want a Source-powered Deus Ex 3 either, but in it's defense, the Source engine was engine was used in "Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines" which was a very well respected Deus Ex clone.

And the levels in Left 4 Dead, while nothing as sizeable as Liberty Island, were quite large, and easily as vast as any other level in the game.

K^2
3rd Mar 2009, 18:36
And the HL2 engine (Source/OB, whatever) would have some severe limitations for a game like DX3. It's made for either small free-roam maps or slightly larger totally linear ones. While that engine is perfect for games like TF2, HL2, CSS, etc. (all of which I play a lot and LOVE), it simply wouldn't work for this sort of game.
HL2 has levels that are much, much larger than any level in the original DX. And having played with the source codes, I can tell you with certainty that it can be tweaked to work perfectly with DX game.

There might be engines better for DX3 than the Source Engine, but between it and the CD engine, it is not even a competition. CD engine is not built for a first person game. It just isn't. You'll see what I'm talking about when the DX3 rolls out. I don't think it will ruin the game, but you will notice the problems.

gamer0004
3rd Mar 2009, 18:37
I fail to see how the game engine inhibits a lot of this. In basically any engine, textures can be replaced with better ones. Lighting is done on an individual map basis. So really, it's up to the makers of the game rather than the engine itself as to how "pretty" you want your game to be.


You shouldn't think everything is possible with any given engine. Some engines just don't support high-res textures, others can't do it without damaging the performance. Same with lighting. It all depends on how the engine was coded. Imagine trying to feature HDR, AA and all that kind of stuff in the Unreal 1 engine. Impossible.

Larington
3rd Mar 2009, 18:44
Never underestimate the potential of having a team of talented programmers doing, err, whatever it is that programmers do exactly...

K^2
3rd Mar 2009, 18:59
You'd be surprised how very few talented programmers there are out there. Especially in game dev teams, for some reason. I don't trust them any further than I can throw them. I have seen the CD engine. From here on, it can only get worse. With some luck, it will end up being just the same, and some problems will be offset by increasing poly count on collision meshes. Then we'll have a game that plays fluidly enough not to be distracting. That's as much as I can hope for.

pauldenton
3rd Mar 2009, 23:05
So basically, you come in here and defend the moderator's action to merge threads. Wonderful.

Not in the slightest, I don't know what gives you that idea?

In fact i expressed my displeasure regarding the merging of this thread and others directly to the mod, but see the subject matter as possibly something more important than the fact that the thread was merged.

Lets move past the merging - which is a separate issue and discuss the original topic.

Which unfortunately seems to have been sidetracked due to the thread merging!!!! aaarrrrrggghhhh!

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Mar 2009, 23:23
...which unfortunately seems to have been sidetracked due to the thread merging!!!! aaarrrrrggghhhh!

LMAO :D

K^2
3rd Mar 2009, 23:25
I don't know if there is a lot to be said on the topic. Personally, I can only contribute by saying that I do enjoy seeing girls' breasts with a bit of a bounce to them. I suppose, it can work as one of these little things that add to the game in a subtle way. But it does need to be subtle, otherwise it will be a distraction.

Erm... /topic?

Spyhopping
3rd Mar 2009, 23:57
A bloke might reconsider how he treats a woman NPC depending on her 'appeal', but I just see it as a gimmicky thing. There are much better ways of making women more seductive/adding to their realism.
For example, something that I see as needing extra focus in games is the way eyes are created. Most of the time they are either shooting around in the characters head like spinning glass eyes or stuck dead center. A bit of liquid reflection and colourful depth would go a long way.

What are jiggling boobs going to give to the depth and scope of it? Bugger all! Leave it! :rasp:

pauldenton
4th Mar 2009, 06:57
A bloke might reconsider how he treats a woman NPC depending on her 'appeal', but I just see it as a gimmicky thing. There are much better ways of making women more seductive/adding to their realism.
For example, something that I see as needing extra focus in games is the way eyes are created. Most of the time they are either shooting around in the characters head like spinning glass eyes or stuck dead center. A bit of liquid reflection and colourful depth would go a long way.

What are jiggling boobs going to give to the depth and scope of it? Bugger all! Leave it! :rasp:

Yes good quality eyes are critical, and i would point those interested to `mass effect` as a good example of quality eyes - at least in the dialogue scenes, i mentioned this also long ago, but kind of take it for granted now that most people want this feature and realise its importance, plus it has been done well and to good effect already.

I don't see anything as gimmicky if it adds to the desired effect, and i believe it would, these things all work better in combination to remove the past limitations of the game world, adding ever more realism and immersion.

Your `much better ways` argument is flawed, as much better would clearly include a combination of all realism effects when possible, rather than limiting yourself to one!

Question from spyhopping


What are jiggling boobs going to give to the depth and scope of it? Bugger all! Leave it! :rasp:

Answer from spyhopping!!!


A bloke might reconsider how he treats a woman NPC depending on her 'appeal',:

Do you not find the natural way that breasts and hair move appealing? or at the very least a realistic approximation of such more emersive than rock hair and rock breasts that never move regardless of movement?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Mar 2009, 08:24
LOL, still distracted by the physics of jiggling boobs? :D
Just don't forget there are plenty of female gamers out there who will just want to get on with playing the damn game! :p So, I hope the devs aren't going to go in this direction. Personally, I find it more intriguing to be attracted to the mind. So if "seduction" is going on in DX3 - I hope it relies heavily on that character's intelligence and charisma etc rather than just physical attraction.

Jerion
4th Mar 2009, 08:31
Well, just so that we don't have another page dedicated to talking about what should be discussed on said page, this thread mentions "game engine."

I for one, am not pleased with the choice for the game engine. I can understand why they chose it (free, practically in-house support) but I don't think it's worth it. This engine was built for the PS2, and no matter how much Eidos Montreal (or Crystal Dynamics) modify it, it's still going to reek of old code. Just look at the latest Tomb Raider game.

http://www.ps2vicio.com/imagenes1/PS3/Tomb_Raider_Underworld/Tomb_Raider_Underworld_17.jpg

I'd say that Lara's model looks passable, but everything else in this game looks like some kind of mutant PS2 game. The lighting is horrific, the textures are sub-par, the world is painfully under detailed and crossing this with a Deus Ex (or what should be a Deus Ex) design isn't going to mesh.

They should have just licensed the proven Unreal engine, or better yet, the "X-Ray Engine" used in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as it already has all the implements they'd need to make a proper Deus Ex game and then some.

I would say that yes, it does look like a PS2 game when being played on a PS2. On a less powerful platform the graphics are going to be reduced from what they look like on the high end consoles and PCs.

Besides, those are attributes of artwork, not the engine. You could make a game with the Crytek 2 engine and it wouldn't look any better than that if you didn't put enough effort into the maps, models, textures and shaders. And judging by the screenshots we've seen so far (and those are fairly old already), I'd say we don't have to worry about these problems. Especially since the game is being built primarily for PC, not less powerful consoles.

pauldenton
4th Mar 2009, 10:28
LOL, still distracted by the physics of jiggling boobs? :D

I will remind you that most men are indeed distracted by the sexual attraction of the female body and have been since time began, which is the whole point of the thread, in case you hadn't noticed, it is also a powerful asset that women can use to their advantage.



Just don't forget there are plenty of female gamers out there who will just want to get on with playing the damn game! :p So, I hope the devs aren't going to go in this direction. Personally, I find it more intriguing to be attracted to the mind. So if "seduction" is going on in DX3 - I hope it relies heavily on that character's intelligence and charisma etc rather than just physical attraction.

I certainly have not forgot that there are women who also play games,
but i will list several points in reply to your patronising post.

1. many women are gay, or have you forgot about them?

2. you are playing the role of a man so the story can justify using the sexual alure of women and it's effect within the game.

3. who is to say that the sexual allure if succumbed to may give the main charature a dissadvantage, there could be a cost involved, where playing smart would be rewarded!

4. Many non gay women may remain oblivious to the effect if it is subtle, as it wouldn't seduce you in any way. nothing is stopping you from just `getting on with the game`

5. In the same way that when the main male charature in a movie who's perspective you may have, is being seduced, it does not stop you from getting on with watching the film - it is simply a part of the story.

6. boobs jiggle and hair moves - it's a fact of life and quite natural, sexual allure is also an extremely powerful fact of life and i find exploring it's possiblities in the game enviroment an interesting concept if it can add to the emersiveness, even if it is just for realism.

7. as with 3 but this time the focus is on `choice` either choose a sexy friendly NPC who may even be useful to help you distract the guards or a non sexy one but with better fighting or hacking skills? It is a choice, if you don't like it, don't chose it!

There are many possibilities -

Open you mind.

Jerion
4th Mar 2009, 10:31
Be careful not to turn this into a gay vs. straight discussion. This isn't the place for it.

pauldenton
4th Mar 2009, 11:21
Be careful not to turn this into a gay vs. straight discussion. This isn't the place for it.

I agree, so why did you start one?

Before you mentioned it, nothing could have been further from my mind!

Jerion
4th Mar 2009, 11:39
I didn't. There are some people on these forums that I'm sure would jump on it. That post was to them, not you. :)

A number of my posts in the last month have backfired on me. It's such a shame that so much context and subtlely is lost in pure text messages. :hmm:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Mar 2009, 11:42
but i will list several points in reply to your patronising post....


There was nothing patronising about my post, seriously. I only see this in yours. ;)


Anyway, on to hair rendering/physics which is interesting to discuss further:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uyr2cHDfSc&feature=related - good facial and nice eyes too. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAuOtkyR17Q&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj2UdZ-G0vg

Larington
4th Mar 2009, 14:07
That last hair demo was clearly the best, it looks like it just needs tweaking, probably increasing the weight of the strands of hair so they don't move around too much.
The other first and second don't work at all, as far as I can tell, the first one in particular isn't moving naturally, the movement is too uniform.

Spyhopping
4th Mar 2009, 15:49
6. boobs jiggle and hair moves - it's a fact of life and quite natural

Will that mean jiggly beer bellies also? :rasp:

About hair animations- a lot of hair movements in games are way over the top. It would be a great addition if it was subtle.

K^2
4th Mar 2009, 17:41
There is very little to discuss about physics and rendering of hair. Hair is simulated as a collection of chains of slightly repulsive point masses connected by tight springs. Trivial.

Rendering is just slightly more advanced. You want to use simulated hairs as guides on a multi-layer mesh. Each layer is to be rendered with some transparency. The shader needs to be modified to take into account the cylindrical shape of each hair. That is, the azimuthal angle is irrelevant in diffuse and specular models. That's it. Nothing to it.

Boobs, on another hand, are a much greater challenge. First of all, rendering believable skin is extremely difficult on its own. Real skin is slightly translucent, which isn't apparent normally, but affects the way that it has to be lit. If you don't account for it, no matter what you do, skin will look like plastic.

Physics is no less complex. You have to account for volume changes, pressure, skin tension, and uneven mass distribution. A proper simulation of a woman's breast is incredibly intricate and requires significant research.

And the biggest challenge, of course, is that a lot of men capable of writing the simulation properly have only seen them in the movies.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Mar 2009, 20:02
Will that mean jiggly beer bellies also? :rasp:

This made me laugh. :D

gamer0004
6th Mar 2009, 18:47
I've downloaded the demo, and performance isn't so bad actually. My PC is now 3 years old and runs it pretty well, with everything on high, 4×AA and 4× filtering. The shadows do look horrible though, especially on the water.

It is also remarkable how much the TRU menu looks like the IW menu. It uses the same kind of sounds as well.

K^2
6th Mar 2009, 19:16
Shadows are done via shadow mapping. It tends to look pretty bad regardless of how much work you put in it. On the plus side, they don't eat up nearly as much CPU resources as shadow volumes do. And in a game where shadows are used purely to make scenery look a bit more dynamic, it is perfectly fine to simplify them like that.

The thing that bugs me a little is that these are probably what killed the concept of shadow stealth. From purely mechanical perspective, it is really easy to make shadow occlusion checks when you run shadow volumes. There is no overhead. With shadow maps, you generate a lot of overhead to check for whether something is in a shadow or not. And if you do "rough" checks that are faster, they'll have poor correlations with what you see. Id est, you might think you are in a shadow, because that's how it renders, but the game engine would not think so, and you'd get easily spotted.

G-Machine
6th Mar 2009, 23:20
How unbelievably dissapointing, how can a dark and moody atmosphere be created when all the characters will look like cartoons? Not cool.

Jerion
6th Mar 2009, 23:25
How unbelievably dissapointing, how can a dark and moody atmosphere be created when all the characters will look like cartoons? Not cool.

Huh? :scratch: There will still be shadows in the game, the visual style is very different from TRU...

G-Machine
6th Mar 2009, 23:40
It's not that it's just I'm not a fan of the engine itself, I don't like the look of the character models in the Tomb Raider game is all.

René
6th Mar 2009, 23:44
^^ The engine is just a bunch of tools and does not dictate the game's artistic direction! :)

G-Machine
6th Mar 2009, 23:46
U could convince me otherwise by posting a screenshot....??

Blade_hunter
6th Mar 2009, 23:47
Yep I've seen many engines used in different forms and with different graphic styles, I just hope DX 3 will feature partial door opening that would be fun IMO ^^

Jerion
6th Mar 2009, 23:59
U could convince me otherwise by posting a screenshot....??

It's the nature of how game engines work. If you really want a screenshot though, there's a whole thread full of older ones from last year. Here's three:

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2351/dx3screenshotlab01.jpg
http://www.nowgamer.com/static/images/games/3906/31298_DX3_Screenshot_ServerRoom_02.jpg
http://www.nowgamer.com/static/images/games/3906/31300_DX3_Screenshot_Sewer_03.jpg

...yes, we're all waiting for new ones.

G-Machine
7th Mar 2009, 02:51
Hadn't seen those screenies before, now I'm a lot more reassured. So excited about this game, Dues Ex 1, System Shock 2, and Thief 1 & 2 are my favorite games. I hope Dues Ex 3 is an evolution of those styles of gameplay, from what I'v read on the forum I'm worried but couldn't be happier at the same time. Strange feeling. Cheers for the screenshots Mr K.

K^2
7th Mar 2009, 04:38
The CD engine is very versatile as far as the looks go. It relies on Shaders to give materials a certain look. It can run everything from realistic shading to toon shading. TR games have always been a bit bright and colorful, but that will not reflect on DX3's looks. EM team can get any ambiance they desire by adjusting textures and Shaders.

File format for maps and characters in the CD engine actually allows control of which shaders are used for each triangle set, and how many textures are passed to the shader. So you can have simple surfaces with your basic texture, or you can have a surface rendered with a normal, light, reflection, and environment map, making it look like whatever you have in mind.

Shadows are also not a problem. Yes, dynamic shadows don't look all that great, but most of the level's ambiance is reached with static shadowing and lighting. All of that will still be available to the DX3 team.

I have some issues with the CD engine, but these are things that will affect the frame rate on mid-range machines, loading times, and maybe some physics glitches. I don't expect it to be really bad. It just isn't the engine I would have chosen. But graphics are certainly not a problem. I can't promise you that DX3 will look stunning, but any problems with the looks, if there are any, will not be due to the engine.

Blade_hunter
7th Mar 2009, 09:07
What engine you will chose for DX3 ? Even me I think there is better engines, but does Eidos wanted to use DX 3 to improve the TRU's engine with some specificities ?

Jerion
7th Mar 2009, 09:13
What engine you will chose for DX3 ? Even me I think there is better engines, but does Eidos wanted to use DX 3 to improve the TRU's engine with some specificities ?

Yeah, I'm curious as well. What engine would you have chosen, K^2?

CryEngine 2? UEngine 3? Tech 5?

AaronJ
7th Mar 2009, 17:55
Yeah, I'm curious as well. What engine would you have chosen, K^2?

CryEngine 2? UEngine 3? Tech 5?

I think a lot of people here would have chosen UE3 right off the bat.

René
7th Mar 2009, 18:37
Really I wouldn't worry about the tech. The TRU engine as a base is good but the dev team is also making significant upgrades to it. There's the DX3 dev team, plus a team of dedicated engineers just working on the engine and its tools, plus a team of engineers in Crystal making improvements. DX3 will not resemble TRU at all. The engine is fine but the gameplay and artistic direction set things apart.