Mirrors Edge 2 on Frostbite 2: "You'll see that" Says EA - Polidicks

Very basic representation of how destruction would add to Mirror's Edge 2 [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/coverlol.png[/img] It's a fast paced game and destructible cover would just encourage more movement, without having to leave levels empty Plus Frostbite 2 isn't great just because of destruction

[QUOTE=fishyfish777;30332274]Grow up. I was talking about the effect of sales from the lower pc market not being able to run this in exchange for a relatively questionably unnecessary engine upgrade warranting the circumstances, not whining.[/QUOTE] Stop being dumb.

[QUOTE=fishyfish777;30331162]Aside from making it horribly unoptimized, what advantages could the Mirror's edge series possibly need out of Frostbite? I don't want to not be able to run Mirror's edge at more than 15fps on all low a la bad company 2 just because there's some explody scenes in the game or something. [editline]f[/editline] It just seems like an unnecessary convention to include terrain destruction in a running game.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot. Frostbite 2 is a whole game engine, not just terrain destruction.

I'm pretty sure frostbite included a load of pretty good shit for character model animations. Good animations are essential for a game where there are probably going to be a load of enemies running around doing flips and shit.

I don't understand how people think that mirror's edge was a failed experiment, I thought it was a really enjoyable game, I don't get people's problems with it.

The thing here is that I'm wondering what's the purpose of using Frostbite 2 for a linear game like Mirror's Edge - I mean, Mirror's Edge is a pretty linear game. The lightmap system that exists in Unreal is good enough - (not to mention the lighting was rendered using Autodesk Beast - it's one of the reasons why Mirror's Edge doesn't look like your generic Unreal games) there's no need for their gridded method to near-instant radiosity. However, the fact that DICE is using this engine may offer a few clues about what's being changed from the original ME. Perhaps there will be some sort of inclusion of dynamic Time-of-Day thanks to that near-instant radiosity addition. The new animation system, while I don't see that much of use for it in first-person, could offer some use to third-person characters, especially if ME2 was going to have multiplayer.

[QUOTE=fishyfish777;30331162]Aside from making it horribly unoptimized, what advantages could the Mirror's edge series possibly need out of Frostbite? I don't want to not be able to run Mirror's edge at more than 15fps on all low a la bad company 2 just because there's some explody scenes in the game or something. [editline]f[/editline] [b]It just seems like an unnecessary convention to include terrain destruction in a running game.[/b][/QUOTE] At which point does it say anything about explosions or destruction?

[QUOTE=Aurora93;30340794]The thing here is that I'm wondering what's the purpose of using Frostbite 2 for a linear game like Mirror's Edge - I mean, Mirror's Edge is a pretty linear game. The lightmap system that exists in Unreal is good enough - (not to mention the lighting was rendered using Autodesk Beast - it's one of the reasons why Mirror's Edge doesn't look like your generic Unreal games) there's no need for their gridded method to near-instant radiosity. However, the fact that DICE is using this engine may offer a few clues about what's being changed from the original ME. Perhaps there will be some sort of inclusion of dynamic Time-of-Day thanks to that near-instant radiosity addition. The new animation system, while I don't see that much of use for it in first-person, could offer some use to third-person characters, especially if ME2 was going to have multiplayer.[/QUOTE] The animation system will actually benefit the first person view. Here, watch the Battlefield 3 multiplayer trailer and see what I mean: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPu7-LtLKmU[/media] 0:23-0:27, 0:30-0:31, and 0:34-0:36 are good examples

Mirror's Edge left me pretty damn disappointed. The premise was cool, the art style was unique, and running system was very well done, but the game left [i]a lot[/i] to be desired when it came to the story, voice acting, and level design. To me, Mirror's Edge was a game that had a lot of potential, but fell short because of bad writing and claustrophobic levels. If the point of the game is to never stop moving, then setting the entire second half of the story in little cramped offices and ships and warehouses was a very bad design move. In a game like Mirror's Edge, you should never have to stop or backtrack in order to try and figure out where you're supposed to go, nor should you have to inch your way through long stretches of crawling, shimmying, or generally moving slowly. Same goes for fighting: you should never have to stop and fight your way through bad guys. With the combat system being as clumsy as it is, the poor level design only made the trial-and-error process of finding the right path even more frustrating. Mirror's Edge 2 would have to bring a lot to the table to reignite my interest. It needs more than a fancy new engine to address the problems that held back the first one.

Well, I don't think that the architectural destruction feature will be put to use. Imagine if it was though. Maybe Blues could be blowing away routes for Runners to use :v:

There aren't many games I can say this about, but the first one was an absolute pleasure to play start to finish, and its ideas are some of the most creative in a genre where games usually don't stray too far from whatever phase the genre is in.

[QUOTE=Aurora93;30340895]Well, I don't think that the architectural destruction feature will be put to use. Imagine if it was though. Maybe Blues could be blowing away routes for Runners to use :v:[/QUOTE] Architectural destruction is not an engine feature, it's a feature of Battlefield 3. Why do people always think this way? "If X has a feature means it's a part of the game engine" It's like if you'd take the Gamebryo engine, it powers CIV IV. Does it mean it's a turn based strategy game engine? No because there is no such a thing, and it also powers the TES series since Morrowind and Fallout 3 and NV. Do the games look anyhow similar? No. Obviously there is a connection between the game engine's capability and the features you'd include on it, but the way if thinking "if it's powered by Frostbite means it has destruction" is completely wrong.

[QUOTE=STeel;30340958]Architectural destruction is not an engine feature, it's a feature of Battlefield 3.[/QUOTE] AFAIK it's actually an engine feature, just labelled as "Frostbite Destruction" or something like that, it even has it's own version history [editline]8th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=STeel;30340958]It's like if you'd take GTA:SA and TES IV: Oblivion. Both run on Gamebryo. Oblivion has reflective water, does GTA:SA have it?[/QUOTE] different versions [editline]8th June 2011[/editline] just because it's an engine feature doesn't mean it has to be used anyway Unreal Engine 3 AFAIK has geometric impostors for crowd simulations, does that mean that all games that use UE3 use it?

Oh god real time multiplayer please EA

[QUOTE=Aurora93;30341001]AFAIK it's actually an engine feature, just labelled as "Frostbite Destruction" or something like that, it even has it's own version history [editline]8th June 2011[/editline] different versions [editline]8th June 2011[/editline] just because it's an engine feature doesn't mean it has to be used anyway Unreal Engine 3 AFAIK has geometric impostors for crowd simulations, does that mean that all games that use UE3 use it?[/QUOTE] Regardless of how does DICE use it, it's still an asset, a feature that ships alongside the game engine, but it's not a direct part of the game engine. You can code 'destruction' into a different engine as well. And the last part of your post just strengthens what I said.

I loved the story in Mirror's Edge but the gameplay was so god damn boring I still haven't finished it.

It's a feature of an engine. It is no way core to the engine, but it's still technically an attachment to the engine that doesn't necessarily have to be there - games can ship without it. I'm just saying IF they wanted to use it, that's all.

[QUOTE=nikomo;30341250]I loved the story in Mirror's Edge but the gameplay was so god damn boring I still haven't finished it.[/QUOTE] Personally the gameplay only started getting repetitive for me only towards the end, where it... ended. So I thought it was a fun game. Only thing that really bothered me was the cutscenes and overall the way the storyline was delivered [editline]9th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Aurora93;30341291]It's a feature of an engine. It is no way core to the engine, but it's still technically an attachment to the engine that doesn't necessarily have to be there - games can ship without it. I'm just saying IF they wanted to use it, that's all.[/QUOTE] Yeah sure, and I'm not denying that. I'm talking about how people think that if it uses Frostbite, automatically means the devs chose it because the game will have destruction. Hence the analogy (which I later fixed) with Gamebryo-based games.

fuck YES i LOVED the 1 the only thing that i dident like is that it was way too short

[QUOTE=werewolf0020;30341363]fuck YES i LOVED the 1 the only thing that i dident like is that it was way too short[/QUOTE] And that it had, like, the most abrupt and anticlimactic ending of pretty much any game ever made? "Welp, that's it. You beat the bad guy."

I do agree with plenty of what you're saying BDA, but at the same time there were only a few points where you had to stop and look to see where you had to go. A good majority of it literally was run and go. The story was decent for what it was and if you didn't expect anything from it, it became a small game with a decent experience which was somewhat unique. It was a success but not in ways many would consider. That said, I can't see what else they could do in ME2 apart from extend the story a bit further.

Yeah, your analogy isn't fixed yet. Firaxis doesn't own or control Gamebryo and it's updates - they merely re-purposed the engine in their own way for Civ IV. Nor does Bethesda own Gamebryo. Likewise, they re-purposed the engine for their own needs without branding it something completely different. DICE is different as they made their own engine and have been advertising the destruction as features of their own engine. Of course it's not necessary to use it, but from what it appears to be, they advertise it as a feature of an engine, which probably makes it one. (of course, in other cases with people declaring new features of engines that aren't originally theirs, people could be modifying engines so much that they just brand it an entirely new engine of their own, e.g. GoldSrc being a heavily modified Q1 engine) And I think it would be good feature to advertise as part of their engine, as some other developer may want to take advantage of it.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;30341583]I couldn't possibly care less about story and voice acting if we could skip the scenes[/QUOTE] hit space on cutscenes and turn down the dialouge volume and turn off captions

[QUOTE=Aurora93;30341547]Yeah, your analogy isn't fixed yet. Firaxis doesn't own or control Gamebryo and it's updates - they merely re-purposed the engine in their own way for Civ IV. Nor does Bethesda own Gamebryo. Likewise, they re-purposed the engine for their own needs without branding it something completely different. DICE is different as they made their own engine and have been advertising the destruction as features of their own engine. Of course it's not necessary to use it, but from what it appears to be, they advertise it as a feature of an engine, which probably makes it one. (of course, in other cases with people declaring new features of engines that aren't originally theirs, people could be modifying engines so much that they just brand it an entirely new engine of their own, e.g. GoldSrc being a heavily modified Q1 engine) And I think it would be good feature to advertise as part of their engine, as some other developer may want to take advantage of it.[/QUOTE] My analogy was referring by how two completely different games are powered by the same engine, and I was making this analogy to show how a game engine is not a set of fixed features.(Although in some cases the developer may make a game engine optimized only for his own uses) You are right that the destruction that's included in BF3 is advertised with it's engine, can't argue with that. But again, what I'm trying to counter is the mindset of "if it's based on the same engine with a game with destruction, means it will have destruction." For example, the first post in this thread.

[QUOTE=MasterG;30341619]Totally, the whole game was leading up to "Overthrow the evil oppressors who give us bright and clean cities!" and then it just ended with "Everything went fine!" Also, what happened to all the henchmen shooting at you on the rooftop as you jump to the helicopter? Did they all just decide to go back downstairs when the helicopter started to crash?[/QUOTE] Yeah, you just kinda take down the big wrestler in a business suit and Jackknife, and then that's it. Did it even explain who was in charge of the oppressive government? And the city, for as limited in freedom as it may be, still seems to be a really nice, modern city. People are walking around all over the place, and one can only guess what's actually in the courier packages. For all we know the couriers might be misled about what's in them, and they're really trafficking drugs or something, and that's why the police are after them.

I really hope it won't be free-roaming. It's the type of game that when it has borders it's really tempting to see more, but then the sequel opens those borders and it turns out to be boring as fuck, and that's because when it was closed borders the devs focused on those specific parts to be really detailed, which is why you expect the rest to be just as detailed, and then it isn't.(And it ends up being just all over the place)

[QUOTE=STeel;30341963]I really hope it won't be free-roaming. It's the type of game that when it has borders it's really tempting to see more, but then the sequel opens those borders and it turns out to be boring as fuck, and that's because when it was closed borders the devs focused on those specific parts to be really detailed, which is why you expect the rest to be just as detailed, and then it isn't.(And it ends up being just all over the place)[/QUOTE] If they could manage to make it really detailed, I'd be alright with free-roam. Like the city in LA Noire for example, that had a really good level of detail and uniqueness throughout the whole city.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30342090]If they could manage to make it really detailed, I'd be alright with free-roam. Like the city in LA Noire for example, that had a really good level of detail and uniqueness throughout the whole city.[/QUOTE] I agree, it can be made into a very decent effort. But the history of such attempts isn't very optimistic for this. Most linear games that had open world sequels because of the reason I specified above almost always ended as a failure. One major atmosphere spoiler for me is a major difference in level of detail between the free roaming and the mission, like, while free roaming you can't access anything aside from a few places, with the rest being the generic setting. Then you suddenly enter a mission and you get all these specific buildings through which you run and they're all extremely detailed for the sake of the mission. Basically what usually happens is that the devs still focus on the missions, but this time with a dull open world you'd wish you never had. And again, this doesn't [i]HAVE[/i] to be like that, but it just usually ends up like that.

[QUOTE=STeel;30342126]I agree, it can be made into a very decent effort. But the history of such attempts isn't very optimistic for this. Most linear games that had open world sequels because of the reason I specified above almost always ended as a failure.[/QUOTE] Fine point. I'd prefer a similar game with better level design and decent closure for the story.

[QUOTE=STeel;30341680]My analogy was referring by how two completely different games are powered by the same engine, and I was making this analogy to show how a game engine is not a set of fixed features.(Although in some cases the developer may make a game engine optimized only for his own uses) You are right that the destruction that's included in BF3 is advertised with it's engine, can't argue with that. But again, what I'm trying to counter is the mindset of "if it's based on the same engine with a game with destruction, means it will have destruction." For example, the first post in this thread.[/QUOTE] DICE advertised Frostbite as having the Destruction feature. It seems very unlikely that they would use the architectural destruction thing, but it was just a what-if scenario.