PDA

View Full Version : Deus Ex 3 - level loading format



Overtime
25th Aug 2008, 09:07
Hey,

So I was looking at fallout 3 the other day and it got me thinking about how the level layout in Deus Ex 3 would look like. DX1 was in fact a linear game but the gameplay wasn't, if you know what i mean.

I dont want the same format for DX3. I think it would be cool to have a system where areas can be revisited freely using your own plane/heli etc. You could shuttle between the areas to complete missions. Like Fallout 1&2.

Each area would be fairly large with plenty of sections that are inaccessible till later in the game. (A bit like Hong Kong)

I think the freedom to travel, acquire new coordinates to new levels would add a fun element to the game. It will also allow you to build a relationship with the NPC's if you can visit them several times. This would be a good way to add in secret areas. You also have freedom to create a varying story adding replayability. eg, finding an area changes the direction of the story and affects the game and NPC. (I know, easier said then done, but there needs to be significant innovations if DX3 is going to live up to its name)

What kind of level layout would you find interesting?

Fen
25th Aug 2008, 09:18
To be honest, Id rather the game follow a linear path but each area to be as complex as possible. The problem with those go where you want to go games, is that theres always going to be one main place where your going to need to go, and the rest is just fluff. I have no problem with revisiting places after youve been there before, but the game should follow a linear path.

DXeXodus
25th Aug 2008, 11:13
Agreed. I like the idea of having a linear story line that is sub-divided into once-off non-linear levels.

Freddo
25th Aug 2008, 11:57
To be honest, Id rather the game follow a linear path but each area to be as complex as possible.
Agreed.

While I would absolutely love a cyberpunk CRPG that would be a mix of Deus Ex and The Elder Scrolls that takes place in one huge explorable city (kinda like Hong Kong in DX but 20+ times larger, at least) with various political factions (cop, mob, thief, religious anticybernetic nutcase, hacker, corporate spy and so on), side quests and full of life; I don't feel it's the direction that Deus Ex should take.

Overtime
25th Aug 2008, 12:04
Agreed.

While I would absolutely love a cyberpunk CRPG that would be a mix of Deus Ex and The Elder Scrolls that takes place in one huge explorable city (kinda like Hong Kong in DX but 20+ times larger, at least) with various political factions (cop, mob, thief, religious anticybernetic nutcase, hacker, corporate spy and so on), side quests and full of life; I don't feel it's the direction that Deus Ex should take.

What im saying is that you could have, say, 10 main "cities" which are very large with many factions and you could fast travel between them on a map. It's not one large city or an Elder Scrolls type map with the player being able to walk from one city to another.

DXeXodus
25th Aug 2008, 12:06
What im saying is that you could have, say, 10 main "cities" which are very large with many factions and you could fast travel between them on a map. It's not one large city or an Elder Scrolls type map with the player being able to walk from one city to another.

Kind of like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines? It used a taxi system to move between cities. Not sure if I'm digging this for a Deus Ex game. Just my opinion though.

Overtime
25th Aug 2008, 13:26
Kind of like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines? It used a taxi system to move between cities. Not sure if I'm digging this for a Deus Ex game. Just my opinion though.

I havent played that game...

Im just trying to incorporate things that i liked in DX1 into this system. For instance, i loved going back to UNATCO and talking to the same people at different points in the game.
I loved Hong Kong and Hells kitchen because there were civilians around which made it more immersive.

Im not saying there should be only x number of cities and everything happens i them, but rather you have a set number of hubs where you can go to restock and talk to people to see what they say once the story has progressed. You can then go to other locations such as military bases if the story requires you to go there. Hubs would be a good place to revisit because to could find information in one hub or base that allows you to enter a restricted area in another.

Further, if there is a sense of urgency at any point in the game, they could force you to follow a more linear direction.

However, i see what your getting at. For me, the most important part of DX3 will be the storyline. If it follows the same level formate as DX1 but with a storyline as good as that, then i'll be happy!

ikenstein
25th Aug 2008, 13:46
i think of everything from leaving unatco to coming back to unatco as 1 level. so going all the way from battery park, through the subways with the rooks, through the mole people tunnels, through the helecopter base through the airport onto the plane and getting leberdev is 1 level. i feel that levels that big are more imersive.

but there were levels like the wang chi market that were a bit like the way bloodlines does stuff as well, so i dont no which is better...

Igoe
25th Aug 2008, 20:58
I think the general consensus here is DX did it right.

Large, expansive levels connected by side maps.

There needs to be, of course, 4-5 "hub" worlds, but not "hub" in the VTM:B sense. I mean larger, more complex maps that serve as the crossroads for the lesser connecting maps, and can be visited several times in succession (ideally after varying time periods)

DX was setup like this. Liberty Island, UNATCO, Hell's Kitchen, and the Wan Chai Marketplace all served as "hub" worlds. They provided a nexus for secondary maps of various sizes, were visted on multiple occasions separated by time and side missions, and were all quite big and full of interesting nooks and crannies to explore.

DXIW took the "hub" idea a bit too far, where almost every level was a "hub"

You spend X amount of time at X location, exhausted your side missions, completed a main objective, and moved onto the next hub.

What I would LIKE to see (warning: opinions ahoy) is a mix of the good and the bad.

You can't, of course, have complete freedom to move as you choose, that's just not DX style. But you do need the ability to return to certain hubs at least once or twice, so that players can explore at will. Hell's kitchen was a perfect example. You had plenty of time to explore the level and soak it all in before you even touched on a main objective. Later on you RETURN to the same hub, after a period of time, to witness the changes.

Being able to see a map evolve and change over the course of the game is a good way to drive home the exploration element. Players will be more apt to take chances once they are familiar with an area. If you notice a billboard with a foyer several times as you traverse an area, once you acquire a pair of binoculars or a vision enhancing aug, you will be more apt to say "OH! I remember that billboard! Now I can see what's up there!"

The converse to this, however, is once you start trying to drive home the plot and story, you need a series of one-punch levels to make your player progress and add a sense of urgency. DX also did a very good job of this. Once you leave Paris, it's pretty much a string of one-shot missions and main objectives to familiarize you with the ultimate goal and prepare you for the final fight.

TL,DR;

Several pseudo-hub areas connected by shorter side levels in the beginning, one-shot, plot-driven levels towards the end.

Larington
25th Aug 2008, 21:12
I'm still very fond of the system they use for travelling in the bulk of the blade runner game, you travel around in your squad car using a map to travel between key areas until you get into trouble and have to start moving around through underground passages and suddenly realise that actually, a lot of the city is linked up this way as well.

Spoiler tag inserted just in case anyone hasn't played it yet.

minus0ne
26th Aug 2008, 02:33
Kind of like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines? It used a taxi system to move between cities. Not sure if I'm digging this for a Deus Ex game. Just my opinion though.
DX3 could use public transportation (like the subway used once in the original), possibly even unmanned taxis (there are already a lot of trials at major airports here, even with unmanned busses). The transportation itself could lead to interesting encounters (and serve as an intermediary content streaming point, making travel seamless). Perhaps the player can at some point, attain the possibility of employing a driver/pilot.


I think the general consensus here is DX did it right.

Large, expansive levels connected by side maps.

There needs to be, of course, 4-5 "hub" worlds, but not "hub" in the VTM:B sense. I mean larger, more complex maps that serve as the crossroads for the lesser connecting maps, and can be visited several times in succession (ideally after varying time periods)

DX was setup like this. Liberty Island, UNATCO, Hell's Kitchen, and the Wan Chai Marketplace all served as "hub" worlds. They provided a nexus for secondary maps of various sizes, were visted on multiple occasions separated by time and side missions, and were all quite big and full of interesting nooks and crannies to explore.

DXIW took the "hub" idea a bit too far, where almost every level was a "hub"

You spend X amount of time at X location, exhausted your side missions, completed a main objective, and moved onto the next hub.

Actually, the hubs in DX weren't always the 'same' map, it varied as you move through the plot. I liked how DX did it, but at the same time it was just an innovative solution at the time, with some ackward side-effects. Seeing as though the DX3 engine supports seamless streaming, I sort of expect a bit more this time around (and I sort of like the idea of being able to move back and forth through hubs without unrealistic plot-device-like restrictions placed on me).

"Sorry, this road is closed off for construction work at the moment."
"But... but I'm a secret agent government type turned triple agent trying to save the world! Can't I just jump over the bloody pylons?"
"No, you can't. Now move along." :mad2:

Whereas Mass Effect is just basically one big hub and a lot of small dungeons (entire planets, but still, devoid of any significant or memorable content), DX3 should strive to keep immersion and try to make several larger hubs that feel natural (ie they could exist in the real world by then, almost), but keep the possibility of surprising the player with more remote locations (and smaller hubs).

However Eidos Montreal shouldn't feel obliged to do it exactly the way DX did it, but instead should use the best option available to them at this time. DX was a great game despite the technical limitations of the time, DX3 shouldn't be embarrassed to be great thanks to today's technical possibilities.

K^2
26th Aug 2008, 02:37
I think that's what IW was shooting for. They just couldn't manage the tech of it. I don't think we have a lot to worry about this time.

DXeXodus
26th Aug 2008, 04:34
I think that's what IW was shooting for. They just couldn't manage the tech of it. I don't think we have a lot to worry about this time.

I agree. And the TRU engine is apparantly much better for this kind of game IMO. Also, we don't need to worry about a weak console pulling the game down as in the case of Invisible War. Now we have much more pwerful consoles. So all should be fine.

Jerion
26th Aug 2008, 08:58
I agree. And the TRU engine is apparently much better for this kind of game IMO. Also, we don't need to worry about a weak console pulling the game down as in the case of Invisible War. Now we have much more powerful consoles. So all should be fine.

Pretty much- console and PC hardware is drastically more powerful than it was back in 2003, so the limit is pretty much the dev team's imaginations.

TrickyVein
26th Aug 2008, 23:33
I'm still very fond of the system they use for travelling in the bulk of the blade runner game, you travel around in your squad car using a map to travel between key areas

I never knew where to go after finding my mug in the moon photo with the other replicants - had to meet someone outside the city somewhere, never could find it...

blade runner's city was a bit frustrating to navigate sometimes, at least, it was very unclear as to what exactly you had to do next in order to advance.

Some of the better parts of DX1 and 2 were being able to just stack crates and find secret areas, break into shops and people's apartments and find all sorts of cool crap.

it made DX so much more repayable and attractive because it was more than just a linear goal oriented game - you could talk to whoever and do whatever you wanted. Being able to explore took the edge off of constant advancement in the main plot.

I fully champion mini stories and side excursions in any game - the larger and more interactive the people and places, the more I'll play it.

rockyrr
25th Sep 2008, 11:51
What im saying is that you could have, say, 10 main "cities" which are very large with many factions and you could fast travel between them on a map. It's not one large city or an Elder Scrolls type map with the player being able to walk from one city to another.

I think this is a good idea... but I yust hope the game will be at least 50% good as DX1 :nut:

jordan_a
25th Sep 2008, 12:35
Some guys here have guessed it I see... :D

DXeXodus
25th Sep 2008, 12:41
Lol... you are such a tease.

jordan_a
25th Sep 2008, 12:42
Hey I can't go any further but the essence of DX3 is in this thread. :D

3N4C3R
25th Sep 2008, 14:55
Hey I can't go any further but the essence of DX3 is in this thread. :D

I for one really enjoyed the fact that Deus Ex 1 allowed you to revisit only as the plot allowed it. It kind of goes against the whole conspiracy theory under the radar mentality when you can just go city to city as you pleased. DX1 had you on the run for your life after the intro missions.

It would have broken the atmosphere completely to have been able to go back to NY anytime I wanted. I was in Hong Kong on the run! As for the level changing as the plot changed, I didn't really have a problem with that. If it was non-related to furthering the story or side-missions then JC himself wouldn't have been interested so who cares anyways.

I disagree that DX3 should be a sandbox and hope that Eidos keeps the whole 'on the run and gun to learn the truth' atmosphere.

foxberg
25th Sep 2008, 15:55
this is what I think. The game should follow a linear path at least at the beginning. You shouldn't be just aimlessly going from city to city at the beginning. As the game develops and you go places you should have an opportunity to visit some places you went before. but not as a mandatory linear development but as as option, a choice you'd make during the game. Maybe some guy you decided not to whack earlier would offer you a ride to another city or maybe a favor you did for some would allow you to hack a plain or a train, or whatever, and go back to some place you've been to before. Again, this shouldn't have a crucial effect on the game but maybe would allow you to score more credits or find a secret area not accessible before, or find some proto weapon you could be able to use much later in the game to score some extra stuff or get to some unreachable otherwise places. I hope you get the drift.

Azrepheal
25th Sep 2008, 18:43
I disagree that DX3 should be a sandbox and hope that Eidos keeps the whole 'on the run and gun to learn the truth' atmosphere.

mmmm partial agreement. But I dont think it should be on the run ALL the time. I think a mixture of the two is needed - certainly when theres an impending disaster approaching or your killswitch has been activated, you are motivated to go an sort it out moderately quickly. But Deux Ex is not a simple game, its clever and demands a degree of intelligence - in DX3 you shouldnt just be told what is going on, you should have to actually try to work some stuff out for yourself. And I think these pauses in the action ("Look around, see if anyone in the area has heard anything") would be useful for doing sidequests. Not to mention more realistic...

"JC! Get to Tracer Tong! Your killswitch is counting down AS WE SPEAK!!"
"Well... yeah, but theres these two chicks and they can't get into the club without me..."

rhalibus
25th Sep 2008, 19:56
I believe that a series of connected levels (like Hong Kong), each seperated by a solid narrative focal point, is the essence of Deus Ex--you can explore each area, but the story still moves forward and some levels are changed utterly as the story progresses. So you get the freedom of exploration plus a cohesive narrative. Not many games have ever done both of these at once.

Larington
25th Sep 2008, 19:57
Thinking about it, I'm going to go with an altogether different response: Do whatever fits the story and characterisation, rather than aiming to do either a mostly linear game or mostly open ended travel permitting game, do whichever most suits the set up and environment of the setting for the game.

Both approaches can work, have their advantages and have their weaknesses, so its up to Eidos Montreals DX3 team to decide which is most appropriate.

DXeXodus
26th Sep 2008, 03:56
I obviously love the way that DX1 did it, but based on two of Jordan's sentences I believe we are looking at some sort of sandbox game with limited options based on where you are in the story.

He has mentioned that freedom is one of the main themes in the game, and now says that the essence is in this thread.

It's just my feeling, but that's what I believe we are going to see in DX3, which, come to think of it, could actually be really good.

[EDIT] Oh well, we will know in just under two weeks anyway.

Romeo
26th Sep 2008, 05:04
Not necessarily. The general trend these days is to release small chunks of information, rather than all at once. You might get a general goal, maybe some plot details, maybe some screens, weapons, locations, characters, no idea. It's all a diceroll.

Havenkel
29th Jan 2009, 16:24
I've heard from one of the stickies that the transition from indoor environments to outdoor environments will be seamless thanks to something or another. Does this mean that there will be no loading in this game, or is it just a candycoated way of saying that you can go inside a building on one map without loading?

The real question is this: Will Deus Ex 3 have somewhat large and completely explorable maps, like a very small GTA game, or will it have the same types of map designs as the earlier games?

3nails4you
29th Jan 2009, 16:34
My guess is that it will be similar to the previous games, but where you used to hit the loading screen, a load will be going on in the background slowly the whole time you are playing. This way, by the time you get there, it has already loaded in the background, or something like that. It will make the processing need a lot more juice, but with current technology this should be fairly easily implementable. Then it might load, you know, half as much or even not at all until you leave the city for the next one.

rhalibus
29th Jan 2009, 21:45
Fallout 3 did a great job with transitions: going from a detailed outdoors level to the indoors of a house took a fraction of a second to load. Not only that, NPC's could actually follow you inside, so you couldn't hide from them between levels. With today's background loading technology included in many engines, you can really have a seamless world. I haven't found any information about how the Crystal Dynamics Engine handles background loading, but it would be great for DX3...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Jan 2009, 22:59
I've heard from one of the stickies that the transition from indoor environments to outdoor environments will be seamless thanks to something or another. Does this mean that there will be no loading in this game, or is it just a candycoated way of saying that you can go inside a building on one map without loading?

The real question is this: Will Deus Ex 3 have somewhat large and completely explorable maps, like a very small GTA game, or will it have the same types of map designs as the earlier games?

I've merged your post into existing thread. :)

acce245
30th Jan 2009, 05:04
I think, ideally, a mash up of Mafia (A fully rendered world) mashed up with GTA IV (for the openness of messing with any people any way you see fit), mashed up with Fallout (for the non-linear missions tie-ins, as well as a nifty combat engine and free-roam world), mixed with hitman contracts style buildings, and keeping with the original ideas for notes/hud/hacking as found in the pc version of DX1 (the F1/F3 type menus), would be optimal.

One big improvement would be to make everything interactive (every window, every door, every brick would have a lockpick/breaking point; every lamp would be able to be shot out; every table/chair/bed/desk could be broken; every bullet hole remains because they are not graphics, but actually holes.)

Nail this, and they get game of the millenium, no question.

GmanPro
30th Jan 2009, 05:11
I agree that having every object in the world be interactive to a degree would be totally awesome. But they have to actually work with it. In FO3 almost every world object could be moved around using real physics. Which is sorta cool at first, but then your like "ok, isn't there anything else I can actually DO with this crap?". And don't say that you could collect junk to make mines n whatnot, because that's not at all what I mean.

Jerion
30th Jan 2009, 05:39
^^ Bingo.


Add in utterly destructible environments and I'm happy. Of course I doubt THAT will happen. :D

Spiffmeister
30th Jan 2009, 15:42
I'd imaging it would be the same as the first and second games :O . Maybe the levels aren't linear though? Such as if you follow one faction you might go to Hong Kong were as by following another you'd go to New York.

Daedalus Ciarán
7th Jun 2009, 11:10
I'd hope DX3 will follow the same mode as DX1, and not end up like GTA (which by the end was too big to really be worth traveling through and was more tedious than fun). However, I don't think we'll be restricted in when and where we're able to go. Wasn't it mentioned in a press release that you would have your own in game apartment? Why mention that if you're not going to be going back to it time and again out of choice?

I'd say the Devs are making the game more of a sandbox and less linear, presumably because they feel that we want more choice in the game, and more freedom than DX1 provided. Which is what has been said before; "improve on the DX1 formula which let us do things the way we wanted." I think we'll get that, just not in the way we meant.

Of course I could be all wrong and the apartment's just in there for twenty minutes of game time and after that you're pushed on by the plot never to return.

Paper
14th Jun 2009, 22:05
I don't really mind how the level format is done however I did very much like how it was done in DX1, in that the levels were linear however there was a great deal of optional paths to take as well as revisiting in the early parts of the game. As long as the game keeps the option of numerous paths to take eg. Lockpick/multitool etc. Ill be happy.

This is kinda off topic but I really like how the entirety of Deus Ex took place at night time, it made the game atmospheric. I hope the same atmosphere is kept or enhanced in DX3.

Pyronox
15th Jun 2009, 17:15
Seamless loading pl0x.

And if you really HAVE to load, Assassin's Creed matrixish loading ftw!

TrickyVein
11th Jul 2009, 03:04
Fallout 3 did a great job with transitions: going from a detailed outdoors level to the indoors of a house took a fraction of a second to load. Not only that, NPC's could actually follow you inside, so you couldn't hide from them between levels. With today's background loading technology included in many engines, you can really have a seamless world. I haven't found any information about how the Crystal Dynamics Engine handles background loading, but it would be great for DX3...

watching npc's fade in and out of existence was silly. I would rather not watch this than have characters follow me through doors. Dunno for sure, but in underworld, it seemed like loading took place whenever an in game movie played - finish part of level => take out camcorder and read script (level loads) => continue playing. Maybe? Course, Deus Ex has never really had in game movies. No, that would be strange and quite out of place.

One of the benefits of loading screens and playing across multiple maps all within the same level is that the environment artist can do the physically impossible and make interior rooms larger than their actual exterior dimensions. Take paul's apartment, for instance.

Jerion
11th Jul 2009, 03:58
One of the benefits of loading screens and playing across multiple maps all within the same level is that the environment artist can do the physically impossible and make interior rooms larger than their actual exterior dimensions. Take paul's apartment, for instance.

If you ask me, that's more of a cheat than a benefit; it lets the artist design the exterior area with little thought to how everything would fit inside the structures. The entire Hells Kitchen block (discounting the NSF HQ area) is an example of this. It's much better to design the exterior and interior to take the physical size of each into account, so you don't have interior-exterior sizing problems like Fallout 3 did. It's easier to mentally map out an area if the interiors and exteriors line up. In Deus Ex it was done pretty well so that it wasn't too noticeable, but there were some areas that simply didn't make sense (Like the 'Ton). F3 is far, far worse, especially when you're trying to gauge how far you've traveled via the subway tunnels. It makes me glad that DX3 doesn't use this system.

WhatsHisFace
11th Jul 2009, 05:50
[edit] oh well, we will know in just under two weeks anyway.

yes!!! Only two more weeks until we get an official "there is nothing to show" post!!!!!!!!!!

serrath
11th Jul 2009, 06:50
Some guys here have guessed it I see... :D

Who's this clown?

Has he got the inside scoop? Why can't he spell Ambrosia?

SemiAnonymous
11th Jul 2009, 07:31
yes!!! Only two more weeks until we get an official "there is nothing to show" post!!!!!!!!!!

Either sarcasm transcending to a new, incredible level or you missed the date on the post.

TrickyVein
11th Jul 2009, 15:23
If you ask me, that's more of a cheat than a benefit; it lets the artist design the exterior area with little thought to how everything would fit inside the structures. The entire Hells Kitchen block (discounting the NSF HQ area) is an example of this. It's much better to design the exterior and interior to take the physical size of each into account, so you don't have interior-exterior sizing problems like Fallout 3 did. It's easier to mentally map out an area if the interiors and exteriors line up. In Deus Ex it was done pretty well so that it wasn't too noticeable, but there were some areas that simply didn't make sense (Like the 'Ton). F3 is far, far worse, especially when you're trying to gauge how far you've traveled via the subway tunnels. It makes me glad that DX3 doesn't use this system.

I do agree that this really should not be allowed to happen - more thought put into the level design and dimensions could overcome this problem, and it would make for better level construction overall.

gamer0004
11th Jul 2009, 17:45
If you ask me, that's more of a cheat than a benefit; it lets the artist design the exterior area with little thought to how everything would fit inside the structures. The entire Hells Kitchen block (discounting the NSF HQ area) is an example of this. It's much better to design the exterior and interior to take the physical size of each into account, so you don't have interior-exterior sizing problems like Fallout 3 did. It's easier to mentally map out an area if the interiors and exteriors line up. In Deus Ex it was done pretty well so that it wasn't too noticeable, but there were some areas that simply didn't make sense (Like the 'Ton). F3 is far, far worse, especially when you're trying to gauge how far you've traveled via the subway tunnels. It makes me glad that DX3 doesn't use this system.

I always thought this was much more obvious in the superfreighter maps. Is de 'Ton really that much bugger from the inside? I always thought it fitted the building just fine.

WhatsHisFace
11th Jul 2009, 18:42
When Deus Ex actually had the interiors modeled in with the exteriors, the interiors came out huge. The buildings in France were just... gigantic.

Jerion
11th Jul 2009, 22:15
When Deus Ex actually had the interiors modeled in with the exteriors, the interiors came out huge. The buildings in France were just... gigantic.

As they should be. The 'Ton was a little smaller than it should have been, as were all the buidlings in Hells Kitchen.


Who's this clown?

Has he got the inside scoop? Why can't he spell Ambrosia?

Jordan is the only other person from this forum outside Eidos besides yours truly to get a thorough behind-the-scenes look at DX3. He made a trip to the studio in the summer of '08, if I remember correctly.

Dunno why he can't spell.

serrath
12th Jul 2009, 00:40
Jordan is the only other person from this forum outside Eidos besides yours truly to get a thorough behind-the-scenes look at DX3. He made a trip to the studio in the summer of '08, if I remember correctly.

Dunno why he can't spell.


So... I can just go to EM and they'll show me DX3?


Just figured he oughta be able to spell Ambrosia if he gets to see DX3.... lucky zymeweasel...

WhatsHisFace
12th Jul 2009, 02:36
So... I can just go to EM and they'll show me DX3?
Do you really want to go all the way out to Montreal to see a crossover between Bioshock and Gears of War?

K^2
12th Jul 2009, 03:42
Personally, I'd be very interested to just have a walk around the studio to see how they put things together. I lost a lot of interest in DX3 specifically, but I still have a lot of interest in game development in general. And while I disagree with a lot of design choices made for DX3, they do seem to be putting solid work into the under-the-hood portions. So it'd definitely be worth a trip.

serrath
12th Jul 2009, 05:25
Do you really want to go all the way out to Montreal to see a crossover between Bioshock and Gears of War?

Well I certainly wouldn't want to go all the way to Montreal to find out they won't let me see it.

K^2
12th Jul 2009, 06:24
You would need to talk to Rene about it in advance.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Jul 2009, 11:19
I'd love to visit the studio and meet the dev team... perhaps I should think about taking a holiday in Montreal soon. *dream on*

Spyhopping
12th Jul 2009, 11:51
I've got my mind set on visiting some mountains in Canada this year. It's only a small country, perhaps I should pop in :p

Belboz
14th Jul 2009, 05:39
If its the same engine as tomb raider : underworld as we've been told then its very large areas that only load what you can see and a bit you can't due to level fogging

K^2
14th Jul 2009, 06:37
That part shouldn't be too different. Really, the only part that seriously worries me in the engine department is that TRU had some collision detection problems. These are bad enough when you are jumping, but if collision glitches happen when you are crawling through the ducts, it'd be absolutely frustrating. Hopefully, that's something that guys at EM can polish to a nice shine.

There are a bunch of small issues, of course. Like the fact that there is little in terms of rendering optimizations. But as long as level designers use loading zones correctly, it shouldn't be something you'd even be aware of while playing.

Archy
24th Jul 2009, 21:03
I've got my mind set on visiting some mountains in Canada this year. It's only a small country, perhaps I should pop in :p

Canada's the world's 2nd largest country. So say that again.

I dare you.

Snake04
25th Jul 2009, 11:13
I Want The Game To Be Like Dx1

gamer0004
25th Jul 2009, 11:58
Canada's the world's 2nd largest country. So say that again.

I dare you.

Really? I would think China and Russia are larger...

K^2
25th Jul 2009, 17:31
Canada's the world's 2nd largest country. So say that again.

I dare you.
Canada is just a small country. I'm from Russia, by the way.

Malah
25th Jul 2009, 21:30
Canada is just a small country. I'm from Russia, by the way.
With a GDP of over $1.2 trillion, Canada is definitely not "just a small country"

The two are actually quite similar. One has a long history of killing human rights activists and journalists, the other of killing baby seals. :whistle:

-

PlasmaSnake101
25th Jul 2009, 23:05
With a GDP of over $1.2 trillion, Canada is definitely not "just a small country"

The two are actually quite similar. One has a long history of killing human rights activists and journalists, the other of killing baby seals. :whistle:

-

I kill all three, but that's because I'm an excessive American

Also, what does this have to do with loading.

I War for teh winz!:D

Lets try to make it more efficient than GTA4, it's hard flying in New York when the buildings are invisible. :mad2:
For some reason I expect it to be like Oblivion... I don't know why.

K^2
26th Jul 2009, 05:27
With a GDP of over $1.2 trillion, Canada is definitely not "just a small country"
Russia's GDP was over $2 trillion. So I still feel perfectly justified in calling Canada just a small country.

And you can't tell me that killing baby seals and journalists is the same thing. What did baby seals every do to anyone? You, people, are animals.


P.S. I hope you know that I'm just kidding around.

gamer0004
26th Jul 2009, 10:12
Russia's GDP was over $2 trillion. So I still feel perfectly justified in calling Canada just a small country.

And you can't tell me that killing baby seals and journalists is the same thing. What did baby seals every do to anyone? You, people, are animals.


P.S. I hope you know that I'm just kidding around.

:lmao: Even the Netherlands have a GDP of $0,7 trillion.
Without killing baby seals. Or journalists. But including selling drugs to the whole world.

Irate_Iguana
26th Jul 2009, 11:30
:lmao: Even the Netherlands have a GDP of $0,7 trillion.
Without killing baby seals. Or journalists. But including selling drugs to the whole world.

That's not true! We don't sell drugs to the entire world. Depends on the type of drug. For instance Africans can't afford XTC and Americans don't want Opium.

gamer0004
26th Jul 2009, 12:20
That's not true! We don't sell drugs to the entire world. Depends on the type of drug. For instance Africans can't afford XTC and Americans don't want Opium.

Yeah, but Americans do want Weed, and we import and export basically every drug ever invented (including the illegal ones). I wonder how much higher our GDP is when all that illegal stuff is included.

K^2
26th Jul 2009, 14:28
What I find really odd is how Europe is all in one place, and yet people manage to complain that some things are "far away". I've been to New York, Florida, California, and Hawaii last year. All that on a grad student's stipend. The entire Europe spans less space. I could have made it from Portugal to China and maybe even back.

And then somebody from England says something along the lines of, "I haven't been there, it's too far away." You're on a tiny little island, people. NOTHING is far away. And most countries in Europe I can drive through without stopping for a bathroom break.

SageSavage
26th Jul 2009, 14:36
If I'd want to drive through Germany from the extreme south to the extreme north via car I'd need something between 8 and 12 hours and that really is just a very little part of Europe.

K^2
26th Jul 2009, 17:30
In the North-South direction, that's pretty much it for Europe, unless you plan to visit Greece or southern parts of Italy. East to West there is maybe 3-4 times more than that.

The distance from here to NYC is a bit less, but time-wise it works out the same, because even at 145 you risk getting pulled over. I was probably going about 130 on average, and it's not that difficult to make the trip in a day. So in 3-4 days you can drive pretty much anywhere in Europe, weather permitting. If you plan in advance, go off peak, and chose destinations carefully, are there a lot of places you can't have a round trip tickets to for under 200 euro? If you don't care where and when to go, you can do it for a third of that, if not less.

gamer0004
26th Jul 2009, 18:01
There is a difference between absolute distances and relative distance. Going from Holland to Italy feels like travelling quite far, while travelling the same distance in the US doesn't feel far at all.

SageSavage
26th Jul 2009, 18:33
In the North-South direction, that's pretty much it for Europe, unless you plan to visit Greece or southern parts of Italy. East to West there is maybe 3-4 times more than that.

The distance from here to NYC is a bit less, but time-wise it works out the same, because even at 145 you risk getting pulled over. I was probably going about 130 on average, and it's not that difficult to make the trip in a day. So in 3-4 days you can drive pretty much anywhere in Europe, weather permitting. If you plan in advance, go off peak, and chose destinations carefully, are there a lot of places you can't have a round trip tickets to for under 200 euro? If you don't care where and when to go, you can do it for a third of that, if not less.

If we talk about Europe then yes, this definately includes Greece/Italy/Malta in the South and Finland in the North and with 200€ you get a standard oneway railway trip from southern Germany to northern Germany and that's about it then... Ironically, you may be able to save a bit if you go there by car but even then it's quite expensive with the current price for fuel.

gamer0004
26th Jul 2009, 20:57
Also, the roads in Europe aren't anything like the huge straight highways of the US.

K^2
27th Jul 2009, 22:02
US Highways are built by the military and maintained on their coin, so that's why. And yes, I'm aware.

You guys are getting gypped on travel costs. Still, I managed to travel quite a bit on a stipend. So if you actually have a job, you should have no problem of going pretty much anywhere in the world even with your ridiculous European prices.

Spyhopping
28th Jul 2009, 02:15
It costs enough as it is to get around the UK by train. I recently got a return ticket 150 miles down the country for the same price I'm booking a return Eurostar journey to Paris.

Get stupidly fit and you can cycle and bivvy/camp round Europe almost for free.

SageSavage
28th Jul 2009, 06:02
Or you can walk the Earth but don't strangle yourself, if you're getting bored.