[QUOTE=Zeke129;31040960]If this is their true excuse, there's obviously some serious issues with the way the engine is coded since other engines can handle immense detail without requiring weeks to compile a map[/QUOTE]
Or they use a render farm which with a row of heavy duty computer couple thousand dollar studio designed graphics cards could cut that down to maybe a day.
They're not saying it isn't possible, they're saying that modders will have a bitch of time doing anything apart from extremely simple script programming.
[QUOTE=Swilly;31041781]Or they use a render farm which with a row of heavy duty computer couple thousand dollar studio designed graphics cards could cut that down to maybe a day.
They're not saying it isn't possible, they're saying that modders will have a bitch of time doing anything apart from extremely simple script programming.[/QUOTE]
If they have to do it that way then they are obviously fucking retarded and made a piece of shit engine.
Go back and look at Crysis again. Fully modable and you can even edit maps fully and play them instantly.
I like how half of the people in this thread have no fucking clue. There's literally no reason that it should take so long to produce levels, there's no light compiling, no visibility compiling, nothing at all should need compiling because if it did, how would they edit levels in real time? (I've seen it on a video.) They're just trying to pull a bullshit excuse that tech savvy people might believe, but it's not working. Maybe when they've milked the game with shit map packs (albeit free on pc, they still sucked and took too long) we'll see some sort of modding sdk. Not releasing mod tools is like acknowledging that it'll be dead in a year or two.
[editline]11th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;31032636]that doesn't make any sense, lightmaps are for static objects[/QUOTE]
Plus there aren't any in BF3, it's not 2004 anymore.
Well except Epic Games and Valve still think it is...
[QUOTE=Legend286;31045092]I like how half of the people in this thread have no fucking clue. There's literally no reason that it should take so long to produce levels, there's no light compiling, no visibility compiling, nothing at all should need compiling because if it did, how would they edit levels in real time? (I've seen it on a video.) They're just trying to pull a bullshit excuse that tech savvy people might believe, but it's not working. Maybe when they've milked the game with shit map packs (albeit free on pc, they still sucked and took too long) we'll see some sort of modding sdk. Not releasing mod tools is like acknowledging that it'll be dead in a year or two.
[editline]11th July 2011[/editline]
Plus there aren't any in BF3, it's not 2004 anymore.
Well except Epic Games and Valve still think it is...[/QUOTE]
There is nothing run with light maps :v:
And note:If it was in real time....I can see why there aren't modding tools even more so now.
Also, you guys are horrible at arguing this. I like the ModDB discussion much better because atleast then all of those people know what they're talking about. And hey, guess what, the first 5 pages are people saying that they understood why mod tools weren't being released.
You forget documentation, ease of use, smoothness of use.
Documentation being the biggest problem.
[QUOTE=Swilly;31062698]
You forget documentation, ease of use, smoothness of use.
Documentation being the biggest problem.[/QUOTE]
excuses
[QUOTE=thisispain;31062815]excuses[/QUOTE]
DICE isn't that large, modders would get stuck with EA support.
Is that what you want?
[QUOTE=Legend286;31045092]I like how half of the people in this thread have no fucking clue. There's literally no reason that it should take so long to produce levels, there's no light compiling, no visibility compiling, nothing at all should need compiling because if it did, how would they edit levels in real time? (I've seen it on a video.) They're just trying to pull a bullshit excuse that tech savvy people might believe, but it's not working. Maybe when they've milked the game with shit map packs (albeit free on pc, they still sucked and took too long) we'll see some sort of modding sdk. Not releasing mod tools is like acknowledging that it'll be dead in a year or two.
[editline]11th July 2011[/editline]
Plus there aren't any in BF3, it's not 2004 anymore.
Well except Epic Games and Valve still think it is...[/QUOTE]
You made me change my mind a bit, despite having given benefit of the doubt to DICE. I do recall SIGGRAPH papers from DICE saying that their biggest goal with Frostbite was to make everything real-time.
Here is the SIGGRAPH presentation slide saying it:
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/sigbf3.jpg[/img]
So in most ways, if not all, this engine is better in it's development pipeline than BF2, and BF2 still has modding capabilities. I think the only complication left is the amount of middle-ware they would have to get a license for so they could put it in a SDK.
[QUOTE=Hostel;31063684]You made me change my mind a bit, despite having given benefit of the doubt to DICE. I do recall SIGGRAPH papers from DICE saying that their biggest goal with Frostbite was to make everything real-time.
Here is the SIGGRAPH presentation slide saying it:
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/sigbf3.jpg[/img]
So in most ways, if not all, this engine is better in it's development pipeline than BF2, and BF2 still has modding capabilities. I think the only complication left is the amount of middle-ware they would have to get a license for so they could put it in a SDK.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure seen as they've already licensed the middleware it doesn't matter, why would modders need to use the animation system, or anything the engine uses... If you give modders a level SDK they don't need to be able to access engine-specific stuff. It's like with Valve, if Havok wasn't locked away in the engine side of things they'd have to pay a distribution license to them, regardless whether it's modified a lot (which it's really not, in all fairness...)
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;31029062]you only play the singleplayer? lol because if you do, don't buy the game at all.
multiplayer is where it's at. and sniping for that matter, it's gonna be awesome.
[editline]10th July 2011[/editline]
i'm expecting at least 20-40hours of fun time in multiplayer.
don't care for singleplayer that much so it doesn't count.[/QUOTE]Singleplayer will take 3 hours and then MP will get boring in 3 because it's the same modern warfare stuff that's been done for YEARS.
[QUOTE=The golden;31118703]I guess I'm not the only one who is not really amazed by this game.
I'm getting fucking tired of the desert and modern warfare bullshit. It's eye-clawingly boring.[/QUOTE]
I guess we have forgotten that the game actually spans across more place than just the middle east.
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/lushbf3.jpg[/img]
Oh hey, Paris.
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/parisbf3.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=The golden;31118703]I'm getting fucking tired of the [b]desert[/b] and modern warfare bullshit. It's eye-clawingly boring.[/QUOTE]
Don't try to cover yourself. As far as the modern warfare issue, I won't argue with that. It's going to take one hell of a game for it to fit into the modern warfare genre.
[QUOTE=Hostel;31122565]Don't try to cover yourself. As far as the modern warfare issue, I won't argue with that. It's going to take one hell of a game for it to fit into the modern warfare genre.[/QUOTE]
I doubt it will make any sense why Paris is in the game. It's the same problem with MW3 supposedly going to India at one point in the game. It just doesn't seem to be logical.
It's because people are getting bored as fuck of deserts and Eastern Europe.
What they don't realize is that it's a lot more than the environment that makes it boring.
How about war in Asia?
[QUOTE=The very best;30936068]When will devs realize that mod tools keep games alive.[/QUOTE]
EA: "lol no not wen we relees all dis dlc!!"
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31124555]It's because people are getting bored as fuck of deserts and Eastern Europe.
What they don't realize is that it's a lot more than the environment that makes it boring.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, anyways I'm just sick of all these modern warfare games being released in the past few years, they're all incredibly generic, and Battlefield 3 will fit right in. Call of Duty 4 was probably the most innovative modern warfare game at its time of release (create-a-class, killstreaks and stuff to be specific), but all modern warfare games since then haven't really offered much innovation.
I'm considering Battlefield 3 for the sake of it being Battlefield, but I'm not too sure. As far as I can see, there is nothing really innovating in this over previous Battlefield games. It just sounds like they are taking features out of Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2, polishing each feature a little bit then putting everything into a blender.
[QUOTE=sa2fan;31126319]How about war in Asia?[/QUOTE]
Australia would be an interesting battlefield if done correctly.
EA being the nazis they are with power. They want utter and complete control over their game, they don't want the community to do anything and they want the power of everything.
Greed and Power.
snip, assumed quote was talking about something else
I don't think EA is being the devil like were all making it out to be. Its just this hole issue is rather annoying and shit. But there is nothing we can really do?
At least HL3 won't be a modern warfare shooter.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;31129233]So aparently business decisions are motivated by greed. Do you even know why a business exists? To provide a service and run a profit. I think it's safe to say that most, if not all business decisions by a business is to gain profit, whether from the short term or long term.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just surprised by the response. Of course "greed" is a factor, but game publishing is a business and you shouldn't expect anything different compared to another business.[/QUOTE]
Being the ONLY game company that FORCES you to run on their servers on consoles when they can easily use Microsoft or whoevers' servers is being a power nazi.
This does suck, but you know what's disgusting? There's idiots that actually won't buy this game JUST because of this.
[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;31149249]Being the ONLY game company that FORCES you to run on their servers on consoles when they can easily use Microsoft or whoevers' servers is being a power nazi.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I got the context wrong. Okay I agree with this. I thought I was in the thread about the game not coming to Steam :/
[editline]16th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=NINTENDUDECT;31149584]This does suck, but you know what's disgusting? There's idiots that actually won't buy this game JUST because of this.[/QUOTE]
Obviously a game like Battlefield 3 wouldn't find this fitting, but more games should do a Halo 3 / Reach approach and feature an in-game editor that's easy to use.
I had so much fun with custom maps and game modes in Halo 3, and there was so much variety because of how creative the community was. There are other games that use something like that of course, such as Trackmania.
Mod tools help keep games alive. Contrary to popular belief, most studios would rather their games lost popularity later on in the game, so that they will buy new titles.
You're on the forum of a mod, and therefore biased pretty much by default.
[QUOTE=nicatronTg;31149807]Mod tools help keep games alive. Contrary to popular belief, most studios would rather their games lost popularity later on in the game, so that they will buy new titles.
You're on the forum of a mod, and therefore biased pretty much by default.[/QUOTE]
Smartest thing I've read in this thread.
On a related note, Valve probably introduced the Mann Co. store to maximise revenue, especially as many people already had it and as a stand-alone it was cheap ($20). It saved the need for a Team Fortress 3, which would of been unpopular with the community considering how established TF2 is. Making TF2 go free would of been a strategy to win in un-confident potential customers, and would of increased confidence of those consumers which may make them buy from the Mann. Co Store. if Team Fortess 2 still had a price, Valve would of never got that money.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;31149886]On a related note, Valve probably introduced the Mann Co. store to maximise revenue, especially as many people already had it and as a stand-alone it was cheap ($20). It saved the need for a Team Fortress 3, which would of been unpopular with the community considering how established TF2 is. Making TF2 go free would of been a strategy to win in un-confident potential customers, and would of increased confidence of those consumers which may make them buy from the Mann. Co Store. if Team Fortess 2 still had a price, Valve would of never got that money.[/QUOTE]
You're saying this as if everyone didn't know the mann co store was there to earn Valve loadsa money. I mean, have you seen those prices? It's insane!
I have yet to hear a single person praise the mann co store. It's just not that heavily trash talked because 98% of the items in it can be obtained without purchase.
Man I loooove the way as PC Gamers we think ourselves higher than consolers, and yet we still buy a load of bullshit if the right person says it.
I really don't understand the logic in progress = less user friendliness.
If anything games should (and they are) get easier to be made whilst being easier to maintain.
Not a single bit of logic implies that games will be harder and harder to make modable as technology grows.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
