Cinimatic Combat or Classic ?

[connnnn]

Huxley is using the Unreal 3 engine. That doesn't have anything to do with the gameplay, though... Red Orchestra uses the Unreal 2.5 engine and it's one of the most realism-intense games around. Speaking of the engine, I doubt anyone's pc will be able to handle that many players on screen at once anyways... they have yet to explain how all that will factor in to these massive battle areas. It's not as though it's going to be 1 big cluster of 200 people running head-on into another cluster of 200. Maybe the front line is spread way far out, and there's terrain keeping areas separated from each other. Or maybe it's just really wide open areas with distance fog/clipping. I just don't see any PC in existence any time in the next few years that will be able to render 400 players in the U3 engine at once, let alone enough people with that kind of hardware that would pay for this game.

Either way, they've said repeatedly (and it's been said dozens of times on this forum) that the developers want a faster-paced FPS style gameplay similar to Quake/UT but on a larger scale (and not necessarily AS over the top). Claiming that the developers want a realistic battle simulation is simply a delusion. Why would they want to go head to head with both BF2141 AND ET:Quake Wars, both of which are most likely going to come out before Huxley? By taking the faster-paced angle they are differentiating themselves from the other large battle-based games in the market.

[Felix12g]

And they fill a niche that's been sorely lacking the past years. Providing a game that many FPS gamers (Including myself) have been awaiting.

They're going to need some seriously dumbed down graphics for people who need to set it all down to low, even with a 5v5 battle. But that's just because this engine looks so nice. The 100v100 battles won't be as bad as you might imagine, games have long had LOD to help with distance and rendering as well as just changing models to look better when they only fill 12 pixels of your screen. (IE at a distance) You can have a 60k poly model fully beautiful while you're planting a shotgun blast in his face at close range, but push that model back 100m and you can have the lod set to display a 300 poly model that you won't be able to tell the difference between. I've screwed around with it in Torque a bit and the only problems I've had are the higher LODs as you get closer, but then again it's not my job (Yet) and my models aren't the best.

And if you think you're going to see all 100 people at once, that's still only 30000 polys at 100m or whatever. The main problems you're going to run into is all the particle systems as well as the weapon fire flying back and forth as well as the other "pretty" effects they add to make it look, well, pretty. These can be turned off I would hope and allow players to have a higher FPS.

The graphics may be stunning and/or realistic but there's no way the gameplay will be, thankfully.

[SeeJay]

Thank god I am playin this on the Xbox 360. I dont have to worry about, "Will my video card be able to play this?" I am a PC gamer too and know this problem, but its just nice to not worry about those kinda things with the console.

[connnnn]

The Unreal 2.5 engine is fairly CPU-intensive. Most maps that people complain about lag from are because their CPU's don't like rendering all 10+ people jumping around shooting stuff in 1 area. The things like static meshes and environmental effects that can be turned off aren't really a problem.

Of course the whole trick will be optimization. Most of the UT2k4 maps that have caused problems (original versions of Roughinery, Deck, Pistola for example) were made much more efficient by simply reworking the zoning and portal usage. But if you build a cubic room with 1 texture on walls/ceilings and have 10 bots jumping around with weapons shooting, you're going to get the same amount of frame drop as you would in a map with a wide open mid, because it's having to calculate all 10 peoples' worth of stuff at once that causes problems for most people.

Basically, if they plan to stick 50+ players in 1 smallish area, there could be problems unless they really pay attention to the mapping and optimization.

[TheVermin23]

Originally Posted by SeeJay

Thank god I am playin this on the Xbox 360. I dont have to worry about, "Will my video card be able to play this?" I am a PC gamer too and know this problem, but its just nice to not worry about those kinda things with the console.

i can buy the necesary video card and a handful of ram for less than the price of x360. problem solved. plus i get to adjust my graphics setting. and all the other good PC stuff.

[SeeJay]

Yes you can, but PC games are starting to become very demanding on your system. Even I had to buy myself a brand new video card for CoD2 and FEAR. Because they are becoming more demanding, you will have to constantly buy a better video card. With a console, you never have to worry about the increase of system demand. I was actually sweatin bullets with Rome Total War cause I was like, "God damn you better play for me you son of a bitch!" Actually to play that game with no lag on Multiplayer, I had to freakin set everything except unit detail on low. Atleast I never was the reason for lag problems.

[TheVermin23]

they aren't 'starting' to be. the pattern is still the same.

you really dont' have to buy one THAT often.

how can i explain this...
it's like-
what if a year after xbox came out, they started making x360 quality games. you could still run them, but with a little less graphical quality than thier potential, til you bought a replacement part inside your xbox. but there was still normal titles out there. if you want to play next gen already, you could buy that part.

i bought my PC based on FFXI specs as a minimum, a little before it came out. and i was able to play half-life 2 just fine.


another way of saying it-
PC makes advances in graphical quality in real time. technology invented- technology available to use. with consoles you have to wait like 5 years for them to release a new version, which in 1 year is old technology. the waiting period for 'next-gen' is less on PC.

basically all your saying is that you're settling for less quality, for a cheaper price. can't blame you really. not everyone can afford top of the line games coupled with system updates. enjoy your x360 graphics right now, because they're going to be outdated in less than a year. that's technology for you. always gotta change with it, or your obsolete. but you can't change the parts on consoles(yet?)

if i'm not all that clear, could someone please help me explain?

[connnnn]

Why turn this into another console vs pc thread?

The bottom line is that each one has its advantages... otherwise they wouldn't both still be around.

What's interesting to me is how microsoft is trying to reduce differentiation between consoles and PC, while Nintendo is still trying to keep it as a totally separate universe, and even further the gap.

[TheVermin23]

ah thank you connnn for the change of pace.

they are trying hard to make them the same, and i think next-gen they'll have it down pretty good. it's something i look forward to.

[Felix12g]

They've all got different focus point for their consoles. Nintendo has been falling behind in the console race since the n64. If you want proof, you can find it in journals and reviews for business if you really want. The point stands that after n64 the microsoft and sony were the top consoles with nintendo coming in a far third. Back then it had been deemed to expensive to continue and try to market a CD based console, which sony eagerly took up for themselves and released the playstation while nintendo stuck with the cartridges.

Microsoft has been gearing towards a single entertainment center that takes the place of consoles, PCs and any electronics needed for TV. Their main focus with the xbox was to get their foot into the console market with PC-like hardware. And they did limit themselves on what they developed for the xbox so it wouldn't seem like a PC. With the x360 they're taking another step to enhance their hardware and introduce functionality slowly, still with the goal of a single system for all entertainment needs.

Sony has continued to push for new and differnet hardware in their consoles (While still screwing people over for RAM) and so far as people can tell that's been their downfall with the ps3. Very expensive drives let alone the expensive discs for the blue ray, buggy hardware in their selling-point chipset (Which was based on specialization while the x360 was based on general use) and so far people haven't been impressed. The CPU arcitecture itself would make it hard for developers to wring out as much from the system because you have to go down to the manual processes for some things to optimize it how you need it.

Lastly Nintendo. Alot of people (Reviewers etc), myself included, were forecasting that this would be Nintendo's last console and without hearing about very nice specs to keep up with those of the ps3 and x360 it seemed like that was it. But instead nintendo has gone back to the roots of games and has gone a whole new direction compared with the "pretty and shitty" games for the other consoles.


One thing you have to remember about consoles vs pc on the strictly game development side:

PCs have many and varying ways for hardware to be set up. Compatability between drivers, operating systems, hardware and software versions requires alot of extra coding and bug testing for a PC game over a console.

The reason consoles are able to get so much from such old hardware is that the hardware itself doesn't change. A graphic trick from one game to make it look better and perform better works just as well on the next game. It's similar to Half Life's engine. After 9 years people have gotten to know the code very well and are able to wring some very neat mods from it with things you wouldn't think an engine that old could handle.

These days you get alot of the same functionality from consoles as you do PCs so the line of which is better is starting to blur. But on the simple fact that console's hardware doesn't change you lose the basic freedom and ability to change and grow with what comes out in the years to follow. You aren't dishing out $50-120 now. Depending on what you choose you're dishing out enough for a semi-decent computer. Back in july I had a $900 pc with very close to top of the line hardware set aside for Huxley.

[Savag3Shadow]

Well, I just don't want an MMO version of UT 2000-whatever.

[SeeJay]

The only problem I see with the PS3 will be the blue ray. That will be its biggest problem if they fuck that up. Their last media project (that lil tape like device that was better than the VHS but never marketed right) never did well. If blue ray is as successful as they say then they could be in line for a kick ass system. I cant wait for their new games to come out too. the lure of PS3 will be all their hot games are comin out like DMC4 and MGS3 or 4 whatever, and its gona have the most powerful system surpassing that of 360 and the Wii.

Felixs lil bit about Nintendo is true, by the end of 2004 or somethin close to that year they were no longer making profit from the Gamecube. I think the only market they were thriving off of was the dominated hand held games. That was until PSP came along and is a big contendor. ATM Nintendo is winning the hand held war but only in foreign nations.

[Felix12g]

A $60 game will have another $25 tacked on because of the blue ray disc it's printed on. That's for the small ones.

[brycenation]

whatever happends , its gonna be decent . from the videos n screenshots you can see there is alot of work beign put into this game . and the beta testing will sort that out anyway

[Ebok]

Bunny hopping needs to be gone or nerfed. Acutally in ut2007 they said they are reducing bunny hopping. hopefully they are getting smart :P bunny hopping is the devil and shouldn't be in a mmo ^^ if they get rid of that then all should be fine =P

[connnnn]

There's been a thread on this before... bunny hopping gets you killed faster than just about anything else except for running in straight lines. How do you take out "bunny hopping" without taking out regular jumping? It's impossible... as long as there's a jump command you'll have people bashing the spacebar.

[Dementus]

Damn straight! Only idiots bunnyhop on UT, only fools think UT is all bunny hopping. There is a big difference between using 'dodge' on UT and bunny hopping.

[Felix12g]

Jumping also makes a game a bit more three dimensional. If all that you ever face are people running at you with their heads always at the same height, how difficult is that. A game needs to be more than slugs smashing into each other.