[QUOTE=God of Ashes;41201566]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[/QUOTE]
Well, they might believe in this in such a way, when they will make the game and people won't like it.
[I]I don't know.[/I]
[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]
''doesn't agree with me, report''
[QUOTE=God of Ashes;41201566]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[/QUOTE]
well, they did screw up BF3 a bit (mainly by relying on so much third party software for their engine that they couldn't enable modding capabilities or even bloody VOIP, even if they wanted to), but I don't think it's worth getting our breeches in a bunch over it just yet. They've hardly said a damn thing about it besides who's developing is and a vague statement about not wanting it to be Battlefield with a SW skin.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41203032]''shitthreading, report''[/QUOTE]
There I corrected that for you.
[QUOTE=MoarToast;41203672]well, they did screw up BF3 a bit (mainly by relying on so much third party software for their engine that they couldn't enable modding capabilities or even bloody VOIP, even if they wanted to), but I don't think it's worth getting our breeches in a bunch over it just yet. They've hardly said a damn thing about it besides who's developing is and a vague statement about not wanting it to be Battlefield with a SW skin.[/QUOTE]
they've hardly said a damn thing because they're literally just getting started
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
and i thought bf3 was a very fun game
[QUOTE=God of Ashes;41203889]they've hardly said a damn thing because they're literally just getting started
[editline]26th June 2013[/editline]
and i thought bf3 was a very fun game[/QUOTE]
oh I know, I'm not blaming them for not saying anything specific about it, I'm just saying that the lack of info means it's nigh impossible to judge it "fairly" beyond just waiting to see what comes of it.
and I agree that BF3 was actually pretty fun, but a lot of people think it betrayed what the BF series was and was a bit too unfocused and unbalanced. it also didn't help their PR much when they kept flip-flopping on the reason for no mod tools, and then gave a crappy excuse for not giving an option to remove the obnoxious blue filter (which also came with an implied smug insult towards the person who first modded it out, even if it wasn't actually intended as such)
Again, that doesn't signify much for Battlefront, but I can see why people might be skeptical. I just think it's way too early to get uppity and start flinging our poo at them.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41182402]your english skills really aren't sufficient for a debate. you're confused and you're misreading or not reading at all.[/QUOTE]
Move out of my country now.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41197054]
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.[/QUOTE]
1. ID tech 5 - an engine that was made to debut an entirely different way to store and fetch textures vs Unity - an engine that was made to be affordable and easy to use with a unique 'component' system? yeah, they're pretty incomparable. like you have engines made for sandbox games, linear singleplayer games, some aren't even for x86. the only thing that holds them together is 'hurp they're engines'
2. doesn't make you any less wrong - engines can be singleplayer. good job getting the point though!
3. then you should have no problem with frostbite 2, an engine that supports much more modern rendering features
4. well you wouldn't need to assume anything if you knew how environment art worked! but you've got no idea, lol
5. oh yeah because weapon balance is totally the engine's fault
6. ok
7. despite the clever sarcasm, you're (or I am, since you're trying to quote me I guess) exactly right in any reasonable realtime engine - there's less modern and older techniques for occlusion/ rendering / ai, but they all have their distinct advantages and disadvantages - with older techniques the pros lie mostly in the performance but they fall short in their capabilities
8. so when would you gauge an engine as a finished product? because it's very much ready to ship and had been for years if you look at its predecessors like FB1, 1.5 - all they're doing is upgrading their already completed base (so I guess if you really felt the itch to attribute a percentage to everything, 100%+ would be your starting point)
9. 'average, largely below average, awful , average. generic engine code. wow technical. twenty percent realism. yeah'
10. yeah maybe if they rewrote their occlusion to a realtime one but then it would lose the advantages of bsp wouldn't it? one might even have issues with calling it source at that point
[QUOTE=Juniez;41206959]1. ID tech 5 - an engine that was made to debut an entirely different way to store and fetch textures vs Unity - an engine that was made to be affordable and easy to use with a unique 'component' system? yeah, they're pretty incomparable. like you have engines made for sandbox games, linear singleplayer games, some aren't even for x86. the only thing that holds them together is 'hurp they're engines'
2. doesn't make you any less wrong - engines can be singleplayer. good job getting the point though!
3. then you should have no problem with frostbite 2, an engine that supports much more modern rendering features
4. well you wouldn't need to assume anything if you knew how environment art worked! but you've got no idea, lol
5. oh yeah because weapon balance is totally the engine's fault
6. ok
7. despite the clever sarcasm, you're (or I am, since you're trying to quote me I guess) exactly right in any reasonable realtime engine - there's less modern and older techniques for occlusion/ rendering / ai, but they all have their distinct advantages and disadvantages - with older techniques the pros lie mostly in the performance but they fall short in their capabilities
8. so when would you gauge an engine as a finished product? because it's very much ready to ship and had been for years if you look at its predecessors like FB1, 1.5 - all they're doing is upgrading their already completed base (so I guess if you really felt the itch to attribute a percentage to everything, 100%+ would be your starting point)
9. 'average, largely below average, awful , average. generic engine code. wow technical. twenty percent realism. yeah'
10. yeah maybe if they rewrote their occlusion to a realtime one but then it would lose the advantages of bsp wouldn't it? one might even have issues with calling it source at that point[/QUOTE]
1: he asked me to name an engine that was better, so I named all the engines I can think of that do what they were designed to do better than frostbite 2 does what it was designed to do
2: engines can have no capability for multiplayer, but not only is ID Tech 5 not one of them (even fucking RAGE has co-op and multiplayer), but almost any engine with no network capabilities can be modified to include them. even skyrim has a multiplayer mod.
3: I haven't used frostbite 2 to make a game, there is no Bruhmis exclusive dev kit for the engine, so if you're trying to tell me it's just a fluke that every game that uses it looks awful then that's possible but I don't see where you're getting this from.
4: I've made several maps with Hammer. hammer is bad, I'm bad at using it, and I know I could make a more detailed, better map than anything in BF3 within a month.
5: if you actually read you'll see I was making note of the fact that poor multiplatform development led to inconsistencies on different versions of the game, weapon balance being among those inconsistencies.
8: they weren't my words. his argument was that frostbite isn't finished, and I acknowledged his theory and simply stated that by his logic it'll take an immense amount of work to get it up to standards.
10: he said vehicles would never be possible in source. I can tell you right now that it would take me 20 minutes to set up a garrysmod server where people could fly jets and helicopters, drive cars and tanks and even ride bikes. that's just what people have done with lua scripts, not even the source code that a developer would have.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41207250]1: he asked me to name an engine that was better, so I named all the engines I can think of that do what they were designed to do better than frostbite 2 does what it was designed to do
2: engines can have no capability for multiplayer, but not only is ID Tech 5 not one of them (even fucking RAGE has co-op and multiplayer), but almost any engine with no network capabilities can be modified to include them. even skyrim has a multiplayer mod.
3: I haven't used frostbite 2 to make a game, there is no Bruhmis exclusive dev kit for the engine, so if you're trying to tell me it's just a fluke that every game that uses it looks awful then that's possible but I don't see where you're getting this from.
4: I've made several maps with Hammer. hammer is bad, I'm bad at using it, and I know I could make a more detailed, better map than anything in BF3 within a month.
5: if you actually read you'll see I was making note of the fact that poor multiplatform development led to inconsistencies on different versions of the game, weapon balance being among those inconsistencies.
8: they weren't my words. his argument was that frostbite isn't finished, and I acknowledged his theory and simply stated that by his logic it'll take an immense amount of work to get it up to standards.
10: he said vehicles would never be possible in source. I can tell you right now that it would take me 20 minutes to set up a garrysmod server where people could fly jets and helicopters, drive cars and tanks and even ride bikes. that's just what people have done with lua scripts, not even the source code that a developer would have.[/QUOTE]
1. well unless you have any [B]any [/B][I]any [/I][sp]any[/sp] remotely technical facts to back your statements up, your claims don't mean anything other than 'well i think that's how it works ??'
2. anything can be modified to be anything else - doesn't mean it should speak for the capabilities of any engine. (it also doesn't mean it's easy to do so and you might as well pick an engine that actually supports the features. because that's what engines do. they save people time)
3. because if you've seen any slides on its engine features you'd know of its features ? there's even a video on the last page if reading isn't your thing
4. and I was a mapper for NMRiH and Ivan's Secrets, and no, no you can't. Also you had trouble with hammer out of all editors?? the editor whose only upside is its simple (and by extension, easy) geometry creation and its fast prototyping? lmao
5. you're probably right and this is a legitimate criticism, although unavoidable by the way things are packaged in FB2 (kind of like if you had to update the entire GCF every time there was an update), to which the upside is that its loading times are shorter (than they would have been otherwise with maps of BF3's size) (yes of course they're longer when you compare them to engines like source or 4A)
8. no, his words were that it was a work in progress. doesn't mean it's incomplete or inadequate in any way, just that features are being added continually. looks like you misinterpreted him
9. still no technical anything from your side other than well it [i]looks[/i] bad!! (it doesn't. like it [i]factually [/i]doesn't lack any modern rendering features and on top of that it has many that others don't have)
10. I never said everything he said ever was right, just that the fundamental design of BSP makes it very inefficient to process larger areas. having / not having vehicles doesn't make an engine better or worse in any way
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41207250]4: I've made several maps with Hammer. hammer is bad, I'm bad at using it, and I know I could make a more detailed, better map than anything in BF3 within a month.[/QUOTE]
That's it. Game over. You're out. [witty ejection comment].
If you can't even work fucking Hammer, you have no grounds to be basing your opinions of these engines from a technical standpoint. Even the most simple of the 12 year olds can use Hammer, just look at our Mapping section from time to time!
You also don't seem to understand just how complicated level design actually is. Go ahead, prove to use that you can make a more detailed, better (??? what's your metric here smart-ass) map than anything in BF3. I assure you, you won't be able to do so in a month by yourself. Also what editor and engine are you talking about here? Because if it's Source and Hammer, it is a totally impossible goal. You could make a very nice looking map in them, yes, but it won't ever be able to be as detailed as a BF3 map without the map being too small to actually play. The engine is just limited and the editor is not flexibile enough.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41211715]That's it. Game over. You're out. [witty ejection comment].
If you can't even work fucking Hammer, you have no grounds to be basing your opinions of these engines from a technical standpoint. Even the most simple of the 12 year olds can use Hammer, just look at our Mapping section from time to time!
You also don't seem to understand just how complicated level design actually is. Go ahead, prove to use that you can make a more detailed, better (??? what's your metric here smart-ass) map than anything in BF3. I assure you, you won't be able to do so in a month by yourself. Also what editor and engine are you talking about here? Because if it's Source and Hammer, it is a totally impossible goal. You could make a very nice looking map in them, yes, but it won't ever be able to be as detailed as a BF3 map without the map being too small to actually play. The engine is just limited and the editor is not flexibile enough.[/QUOTE]
that statement might be true if BF3's maps were detailed in any way, but they're flat and have nothing on them. and congrats on criticizing the hammer skills of someone who has a combined time spent using hammer of about 6 hours.
"flat and have nothing on them."
[img]http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2012/10/battlefield-3---aftermath---epicenter-4.jpg[/img]
Do you honestly believe the shit your fingers are typing away on your keyboard?
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41212057]that statement might be true if BF3's maps were detailed in any way, but they're flat and have nothing on them. and congrats on criticizing the hammer skills of someone who has a combined time spent using hammer of about 6 hours.[/QUOTE]
Okay you'd have "flat and nothing on them" if you were talking about the big, empty areas around Operation Firestorm, the desert map in AK and some of the bigger Endgame maps. But almost every other map has a lot of detail, and variance in the landscape.
Oh, and in six hours of using Hammer, me and many others were making levels that had some content, nothing amazing, but more than nothing. Hammer really isn't hard, get on our level scrub.
[QUOTE=Sharp_Shooter;41212196]"flat and have nothing on them."
[img]http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2012/10/battlefield-3---aftermath---epicenter-4.jpg[/img]
Do you honestly believe the shit your fingers are typing away on your keyboard?[/QUOTE]
Beat me to it. It's not even just that though. This is one of the flattest maps in the game, and it's still got plenty of shit:
[t]http://www.newgamernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/battlefield-3-armored-kill-bandar-desert.jpg[/t]
And then there's Alborz Mountain which is "Skyrim: The Multiplayer Map"
[t]http://www.abload.de/img/bf32012-09-2017-05-30ffa9c.png[/t]
Then there's Karkand, Capsian Border, Operation Firestorm, Sharqui Peninsula...if [I]nothing else[/I], Battlefield 3 is a very detailed game.
Actually, do me a favour. Describe to me, or show me what you consider good level design to be, what you consider to not be "flat" and "empty". Just find a picture or describe the levels you seem so sure Frostbite is incapable of.
I think I scared him off.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41212261]Actually, do me a favour. Describe to me, or show me what you consider good level design to be, what you consider to not be "flat" and "empty". Just find a picture or describe the levels you seem so sure Frostbite is incapable of.
I think I scared him off.[/QUOTE]
I bet he'll show us a Mario map. One of the first ones.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;41170208]I bet it will just be battlefield with laser guns.[/QUOTE]
Hell, thats what I wanted out of the original Battlefronts.
The original was fun, but sitting next to Battlefield 1942 it lacked something...
I think the DICE team can definitely bring a Battlefront that will make star wars fans jump for joy.
[editline]28th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;41212057]that statement might be true if BF3's maps were detailed in any way, but they're flat and have nothing on them. and congrats on criticizing the hammer skills of someone who has a combined time spent using hammer of about 6 hours.[/QUOTE]
So you've never played battlefield?
I know map designers who have been designing for years. And when I say years I mean, they had been mapping for a couple of years before I met them and mapped all through Half Life 2. Meaning, they probably have close to 10 years of mapping experience, and they would still struggle to create a map like you find in Battlefield 3 by themselves in a month.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
