[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41183793]what I'm saying is any developer making any type of game right now would make a superior game on Source than they would on Frostbite 2[/QUOTE]
Alright, at this point I'm fairly convinced you're talking out of your ass.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;41184312]Alright, at this point I'm fairly convinced you're talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, do you love awful framerate and bad graphics? because you're free to enjoy those things but the general consensus within the industry is that they're not good.
[editline]25th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41184132]Did you seriously just say that ANY game, if developed on Source, would be better somehow? An incredibly dated engine that could NEVER have huge maps and proper vehicle support? Why would developers have longer development time if they worked on source?[/QUOTE]
huge maps, proper vehicle support. sounds kind of like Titanfall.
Barely bigger than your average "big" cod map is now a huge map.
See what you all need to realize is that Battlefront is being developed by DICEs new studio in LA, not the their Swedish one that is currently working on Battlefield 4 and its expansions.
[QUOTE=RocketRacer;41180845]Frostbyte(2) is a bad engine? Please name me another game engine that is better than Frostbyte, excluding CryEngine.[/QUOTE]
I'd call UE4, RAGE and FOX Engine.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;41185575]I'd call UE4, RAGE and FOX Engine.[/QUOTE]
We don't know how FOX handles right now though, there's not been any hands on as far as I know.
Certainly looks pretty, and probably sounds amazing, Kojima has a thing for good sound design, it only makes sense his engine would help that.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41184132]Did you seriously just say that ANY game, if developed on Source, would be better somehow? An incredibly dated engine that could NEVER have huge maps and proper vehicle support? Why would developers have longer development time if they worked on source?[/QUOTE]
Hey, Empires was awesome, guy.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41184132]Did you seriously just say that ANY game, if developed on Source, would be better somehow? An incredibly dated engine that could NEVER have huge maps and proper vehicle support? Why would developers have longer development time if they worked on source?[/QUOTE]
did you seriously just say that it is impossible to implement huge maps and proper vehicle support in source? as if developers are somehow limited to the modder's sdk? i mean, it's not like they have access to the full source code or anything, right?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41185625]We don't know how FOX handles right now though, there's not been any hands on as far as I know.
Certainly looks pretty, and probably sounds amazing, Kojima has a thing for good sound design, it only makes sense his engine would help that.[/QUOTE]
the specs the demos have run on are very low end and the upcoming games using it are on basically every platform. I watched a 90 minute presentation of the engine and as far as I'm concerned it's unrivaled in every facet.
[editline]25th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chrille;41186379]did you seriously just say that it is impossible to implement huge maps and proper vehicle support in source? as if developers are somehow limited to the modder's sdk? i mean, it's not like they have access to the full source code or anything, right?[/QUOTE]
also no vehicles. because we all know that garrysmod has zero vehicles in it.
bruhmis, do you even know what you're rambling on about?
CoD MW2 and up don't have instant kill guns. Unless you play hardcore mode.
BF3 doesn't have instant kill guns except for some rifles and the occasional headshot.
Source is an inferior engine to Frostbite 2 and I know that from a few things. Many programmers will say this. Then, from a gameplay standpoint, Frostbite 2 has run like a dream on ultra settings on my fairly strong rig where as I've seen some of the recent Crytek games(Far Cry 3/Crysis 2/3) stutter and have some problems in those engines.
Where the fuck you got "terrible framerate" for Frostbite 2 from is beyond me, but I know you'll continue to post on like no one else can say anything to you.
I understand disliking EA. What you're doing is just ridiculous.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41189629]bruhmis, do you even know what you're rambling on about?
CoD MW2 and up don't have instant kill guns. Unless you play hardcore mode.
BF3 doesn't have instant kill guns except for some rifles and the occasional headshot.
Source is an inferior engine to Frostbite 2 and I know that from a few things. Many programmers will say this. Then, from a gameplay standpoint, Frostbite 2 has run like a dream on ultra settings on my fairly strong rig where as I've seen some of the recent Crytek games(Far Cry 3/Crysis 2/3) stutter and have some problems in those engines.
Where the fuck you got "terrible framerate" for Frostbite 2 from is beyond me, but I know you'll continue to post on like no one else can say anything to you.
I understand disliking EA. What you're doing is just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
BF3 is harder to run than Metro: last light. metro last light looks drastically better. and the same can be said about many games just with varying results on different rigs. bf3 had more instant deaths than fucking demon's souls. not that I'm claiming at all that bf3 is a consistent experience, because there was a time where I was in a portable AA and got about 500 hitmarkers on a guy and he literally stopped, stood still while I was spraying him, and typed ''I swear I'm not hacking''. but in the rare-ish occasions when the game functions properly an M16, which is all anyone uses, will send you to your grave before you can even react to the obtuse damage indicators.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41189726]BF3 is harder to run than Metro: last light. metro last light looks drastically better. and the same can be said about many games just with varying results on different rigs. bf3 had more instant deaths than fucking demon's souls. not that I'm claiming at all that bf3 is a consistent experience, because there was a time where I was in a portable AA and got about 500 hitmarkers on a guy and he literally stopped, stood still while I was spraying him, and typed ''I swear I'm not hacking''. but in the rare-ish occasions when the game functions properly an M16, which is all anyone uses, will send you to your grave before you can even react to the obtuse damage indicators.[/QUOTE]
Having both those games on my computer right now, they both run fine, and I notice significantly more shadow related slowdowns in Metro than I do in BF3.
There is obviously something wrong with your client and your game if that's the experience you have
but that is not indicative of it being a bad engine by any means.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41189726]BF3 is harder to run than Metro: last light. metro last light looks drastically better. and the same can be said about many games just with varying results on different rigs. bf3 had more instant deaths than fucking demon's souls. not that I'm claiming at all that bf3 is a consistent experience, because there was a time where I was in a portable AA and got about 500 hitmarkers on a guy and he literally stopped, stood still while I was spraying him, and typed ''I swear I'm not hacking''. but in the rare-ish occasions when the game functions properly an M16, which is all anyone uses, will send you to your grave before you can even react to the obtuse damage indicators.[/QUOTE]
You're comparing the graphical quality of a single player linear shooter where the levels are small self contained environments to a 64 player game with immense and open maps which seamlessly operate with at least a dozen air and land vehicles and intensive environmental interaction. No fucking shit you're going to get better performance with a slow paced corridor shooter like Metro.
why are you all still responding to this guy
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41189747]Having both those games on my computer right now, they both run fine, and I notice significantly more shadow related slowdowns in Metro than I do in BF3.
There is obviously something wrong with your client and your game if that's the experience you have
but that is not indicative of it being a bad engine by any means.[/QUOTE]
uuh, no. it has nothing to do with mine because mine runs at a solid 60. this is irrelevant to the vast majority who do not have absolutely top of the line hardware, and even less relevant to those playing on consoles. the game doesn't run good for what it looks like. there's nothing fancy about it. it's average textures, immensely over saturated post effects and lots of square shapes. the destruction is also heavily toned down compared to bad company 2. I know how BF3 runs on a wide array of hardware because it's a benchmarking standard and many people share their performance in it.
[editline]25th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;41189880]You're comparing the graphical quality of a single player linear shooter where the levels are small self contained environments to a 64 player game with immense and open maps which seamlessly operate with at least a dozen air and land vehicles and intensive environmental interaction. No fucking shit you're going to get better performance with a slow paced corridor shooter like Metro.[/QUOTE]
''intense environmental interaction''. you mean trees falling over? sure the engine manages large player counts well. but that's about all it does. ID Tech 5 could do a much better job of the entirety of BF3.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41190154]uuh, no. it has nothing to do with mine because mine runs at a solid 60. this is irrelevant to the vast majority who do not have absolutely top of the line hardware, and even less relevant to those playing on consoles. the game doesn't run good for what it looks like. there's nothing fancy about it. it's average textures, immensely over saturated post effects and lots of square shapes. the destruction is also heavily toned down compared to bad company 2. I know how BF3 runs on a wide array of hardware because it's a benchmarking standard and many people share their performance in it.
[editline]25th June 2013[/editline]
''intense environmental interaction''. you mean trees falling over? sure the engine manages large player counts well. but that's about all it does. ID Tech 5 could do a much better job of the entirety of BF3.[/QUOTE]
you saying "it looks mediocre" doesn't mean it looks mediocre. The game looks pretty damn good for what it is, and while I'm not a fan of the design choices they've made on many maps, they have made pretty maps, and a pretty game to play.
As for how it plays, I haven't had an issue, and I have a budget power rig, that I've upgraded. I can't, and you can't, talk about how it plays for other people or how it looks from an objective stand point.
Gulf of Oman map is a pretty boring map, until you realize what the destruction lets you do and how it lets you approach the map. It makes the map a far less boring and bland map due to this, and it also runs incredibly well for the level of destruction acheivable.
I literally don't know of a game that plays like this, runs like this, and lets you do that, just like that, without problems(in my experience).
any further discussion with you seems like it'll just come down to you telling me I'm wrong based on mostly subjective criteria, and arguing about how an engine that is pretty solid is terrible and terrible people use it and etc putting this in less of an argument, and more of a weird rant that doesn't really ring true.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41190154]
''intense environmental interaction''. you mean trees falling over? sure the engine manages large player counts well. but that's about all it does. [B]ID Tech 5 could do a much better job of the entirety of BF3[/B].[/QUOTE]
Better than Frostbite 2 maybe, and that's only if you discount the whole multiplayer aspect, which is kinda the most important thing.
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;41190360]Better than Frostbite 2 maybe, and that's only if you discount the whole multiplayer aspect, which is kinda the most important thing.[/QUOTE]
... you just called an engine single player.
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41190292]you saying "it looks mediocre" doesn't mean it looks mediocre. The game looks pretty damn good for what it is, and while I'm not a fan of the design choices they've made on many maps, they have made pretty maps, and a pretty game to play.
As for how it plays, I haven't had an issue, and I have a budget power rig, that I've upgraded. I can't, and you can't, talk about how it plays for other people or how it looks from an objective stand point.
Gulf of Oman map is a pretty boring map, until you realize what the destruction lets you do and how it lets you approach the map. It makes the map a far less boring and bland map due to this, and it also runs incredibly well for the level of destruction acheivable.
I literally don't know of a game that plays like this, runs like this, and lets you do that, just like that, without problems(in my experience).
any further discussion with you seems like it'll just come down to you telling me I'm wrong based on mostly subjective criteria, and arguing about how an engine that is pretty solid is terrible and terrible people use it and etc putting this in less of an argument, and more of a weird rant that doesn't really ring true.[/QUOTE]
what about that game looks good to you? in all honesty, what is ''pretty'' about BF3. the only thing that isn't notably below average is the view models and weapon textures.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41191112]... you just called an engine single player.
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
what about that game looks good to you? in all honesty, what is ''pretty'' about BF3. the only thing that isn't notably below average is the view models and weapon textures.[/QUOTE]
"what is beauty"
"what looks good"
that's hard for anyone to put in any terms usually
it looks good, it sells realism for the most part and when i'm playing it, i have no complaints of the graphics.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41191112] what about that game looks good to you? in all honesty, what is ''pretty'' about BF3. the only thing that isn't notably below average is the view models and weapon textures.[/QUOTE]Question, Bruhmis, how do you rank the Creation engine on your mighty list? Skyrim looked pretty fucking good from the get-go on the highest settings. (I'm specifically ignoring graphic mods for now) Since you're essentially arguing which pig in lipstick is the prettiest, I want to know where that engine ranks.
Looks like a 9/10
[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8240/8472098194_d875edb86a_z.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181422]unreal engine 3, Source Engine, RED engine, RAGE, FOX engine, ID Tech 5(even ID tech 4 is better), Dunia engine, Glacier 2, Chrome 5, Naught Dog Engine, Spark, Unity3D, 4A engine. frostbite 2 is one of the worst engines I'm aware of including those from the late 90s so that really wasn't a tough question at all.[/QUOTE]
'let me just... let me just name some engines with wildly different capabilities right up. yeah. that would make me look like I know what i'm talking about'
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41191112]... you just called an engine single player.[/QUOTE]
yeah because the 4a engine doesn't have networking capabilities. way to call that guy out dude! too bad you were wrong even then
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182195]9 maps is still an extremely small number, and you're not taking into account that 3 of those maps are played about once every 4 months. seriously, launch BF3 and try to play on Tehran Highway right now...[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41191112]what about that game looks good to you? in all honesty, what is ''pretty'' about BF3. the only thing that isn't notably below average is the view models and weapon textures.[/QUOTE]
what the fuck is the average to you then ?
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181608]the level designing capabilities of the engine are strictly limited, this is visible by the fact that every game that uses the engine has levels that are almost all generic, flat and square. try to think of a structure on BF3 that really stood out, you can't. because there wasn't one. every map was a bunch of square buildings, some pixely-leaf trees and some lens flares and bad post effects to cover everything up. I would attribute this to DICE's level designers if it wasn't for the fact that the same can be said about every other frostbite 2 game. furthermore, a game that uses frostbite 2 will run half as good as a game that looks immensely better on a different engine. if you can get 45 FPS on medium settings in BF3 you can get a solid 60 on basically everything else.not because the game is just so good looking, because it isn't. lens flares and squares aren't hard to render.[/QUOTE]
none of this is based on correct information and you just said it was the engine's fault that the game can't have interesting architecture? lol
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181608] also the fact that multiplatform development is clearly a struggle with frostbite 2, if you play all 3 versions of BF3 one after the other on the same build you'll see massive differences, platform specific bugs that are often game breaking, weapon balance that exists only on PS3 or vehicle tweaks that never made it to consoles. when there's so many vastly superior alternatives I don't understand how people still think this engine is even relevant.[/QUOTE]
"here let me just attack the game instead because i know nothing about the way frostbite 2 (or any engine) works"
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182341]do you not understand who EA is and what they're responsible for? there's a difference between predicting the future and understanding the past. developers of successful AAA games don't get full development times anymore. 2 years tops is what they'll get, and that's not enough.[/QUOTE]
Bruhmis - ordinary forum poster or game industry analyst ? the mystery begins
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41181472]there is not a single positive thing you can say about that engine aside from ''at least it's not XNA''. it's bad, and people need to accept that. DICE and EA hail at this industry changing super engine and everyone just believes it. it's poorly coded and has more flaws than anything else commercially available. you're just calling it ''great'' with no background information on because EA told it was great so therefore it's great. you ARE confused about the term because you listed mirror's edge as the last time DICE made something that wasn't battlefield even though it came out 2 years before medal of honor.[/QUOTE]
Bruhmis - ordinary forum poster or senior programmer specializing in realtime rendering? the mystery continues
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41183793]what I'm saying is any developer making any type of game right now would make a superior game on Source than they would on Frostbite 2.[/QUOTE]
'help I don't understand the fact that different engines have different focuses and saying any engine is better in every case is so fucking stupid'
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41183793]you're telling me it's ''in development'' and implying that it'll improve dramatically over time. I can take your word on that, but if it ever hopes to be an engine worth using then it's progress right now would have to be like 30% complete.[/QUOTE]
'yes let me just just attribute percentages to something as fluid and complex as an engine. I know what i'm talking about. yes.'
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41183793]you're a developer, so I think it's safe to assume that you know 2 years is not even close to enough to make a game like Battlefront 3. and you needn't look any further than the history of EA title release dates to know 2 years is all they're going to get.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41184711]I'm sorry, do you love awful framerate and bad graphics?[/QUOTE]
sorry but where are you getting this bad graphics garbage from? you're not supporting your claims with anything technical other than 'wow bad code lmao (which, by the way, XNA isn't an engine - it's a framework)' (not that you were able give any technical information in the first place, lol)
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41184711]huge maps, proper vehicle support. sounds kind of like Titanfall.[/QUOTE]
'help i don't understand the advantages of bsp occlusion and where it might fall short'
'I also don't understand the advantages of CSG geometry and why it might fall short'
'I also don't understand the fact that Respawn rewrote the renderer to get away from source'
also yes, milkandcooki was sort of right - bsp gets murdered by any sort of realtime occlusion when you're looking at large scale maps (not impossible mind you, it'd just be pretty stupid to attempt it when there's a lot of literally better alternatives for what you're looking for)
Guise, no realy, BF3 graphics are pretty bad. I'm srs.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pNOxynC1Dc[/media]
Bruhmis, quit talking out your ass.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;41194074]Question, Bruhmis, how do you rank the Creation engine on your mighty list? Skyrim looked pretty fucking good from the get-go on the highest settings. (I'm specifically ignoring graphic mods for now) Since you're essentially arguing which pig in lipstick is the prettiest, I want to know where that engine ranks.[/QUOTE]
''Creation engine'' never really rectified any of gamebryo's problems. the game stutters unplayably for many people, and though the level of detail is high, anything more than 5 meters away from you fades into horrendously low res blurriness. I would rather have a game that's consistently mediocre looking than a game like skyrim, where everything up close looks good and everything a stone's throw away looks like utter shit. and the fact that the game wasn't multi threaded is kind of pathetic.
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Juniez;41195057]....[/QUOTE]
1: yeah, because 2 things that aren't complete clones of one another are absolutely incomparable. the guy said name a better engine, he didn't say ''name an engine that is exactly like frostbite 2 in
every facet except better''.
2: oh, I didn't know 4A engine and ID Tech 5 were the same thing, good job reading.
3: average to me would be left 4 dead 2, Dead Island, Red orchestra 2 etc.
4: no, in fact I went out of my way to say the opposite of that. I would have assumed it was only a problem with BF3 if I haden't played 2 other frostbite 2 games by 2 completely different developers with the same flaws.
5: yeah, it's obviously unrelated to criticism of the engine when I'm pointing out the poorly executed multiplatform development of it's most prolific game.
6:ok
7:''saying any engine is better in every case is so fucking stupid'' you literally just said there is no such thing as something being better than something else...
8:approximate percentage of the completion of the engine since according to that guy it's a work in progress. are you mentally ill? he says it's a work in progress and I respond by saying if it is it's far from finished and you jump on it like it means anything, and I'm apparently misinformed for having an opinion of the completion of a game engine. keep nit picking though, you're making yourself look like a genius.
9: the game looks generic, period. it has average textures, largely below average level design, awful post effects and average lighting.
10: it doesn't matter what they rewrote, because the guy claimed vehicles and large maps could *NEVER* be in any source game PERIOD.
Jeeze people, just ignore him. He clearly has no clue to what he is talking about and is being too much of a jackass to realize that.
I'm looking forward to it.
Dice would do a better job than EA.
[QUOTE=Delta616;41197461]Jeeze people, just ignore him. He clearly has no clue to what he is talking about and is being too much of a jackass to realize that.[/QUOTE]
stupid non fanboys having opinions
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41197951]stupid non fanboys having opinions[/QUOTE]
It's beyond me how having knowledge of game engines makes me a fanboy.
Just report and move on people, this guy is isn't worth it.
[QUOTE=Delta616;41198184]It's beyond me how having knowledge of game engines makes me a fanboy.
Just report and move on people, this guy is isn't worth it.[/QUOTE]
Well, it was a long and fun run. Now let's get back to the topic...
[B]Don't you even fucking dare to ruin Battlefront, DICE.[/B]
[QUOTE=RocketRacer;41201468]Well, it was a long and fun run. Now let's get back to the topic...
[B]Don't you even fucking dare to ruin Battlefront, DICE.[/B][/QUOTE]
i don't get why people keep saying this. what could they possibly do to ruin a game that they are the perfect developer for
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
