• PopCap working with Frostbite 2 engine
    65 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38741734]Also the general new thing of using the word engine as a marketing buzzword to people who really don't know what they are talking about.[/QUOTE] It's comparable to the "bit wars" and "blast processing".
Battlefield 3 had an annoying blue filter shade? Oh, that must represent the capabilities of the FB2 engine. We had yet to see the extent of Frostbite 2's capabilities, we got a glimpse of it in BF3's alpha, but many things we're cut due to instabilities.
Why do you guys give a shit about some slight blue colour filter anyway? Why do gamers always bitch about the smallest things..
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;38741643]Yeah but then again I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THIS BUILDING FALLING DOWN YOU HAVE TO SPEAK LOUDER.[/QUOTE] I'm still annoyed that there was virtually none of that in Battlefield 3.
This went downhill fast. OnT: I wonder if it will be used for a casual game?
FB2 would be cool if they actually put an emphasis on good looking destruction, otherwise it's just another good looking engine
[QUOTE=JerryK;38743353]FB2 would be cool if they actually put an emphasis on good looking destruction, otherwise it's just another good looking engine[/QUOTE] Making such things "look" good is usually a matter of the artist though, but making it work good and easy to do surely is part of the "engine". Again, with the many variations of ways this can be done, it doesn't really take a good engine to do. If by good looking destruction you're simply refering to the places players can't reach anyway, those can be archieved by simple sampled animations, with no further requirements on the developers or the artists part. However, Unreal Engine 3 has some other kind of destruction, where you specify certain "pieces" of a polygon to be broken once enough force has been applied. It's not the most difficult or complex of ways to do it, but it works really well and looks good.
[QUOTE=Delta616;38742367]Battlefield 3 had an annoying blue filter shade? Oh, that must represent the capabilities of the FB2 engine. We had yet to see the extent of Frostbite 2's capabilities, we got a glimpse of it in BF3's alpha, but many things we're cut due to instabilities.[/QUOTE] IMO I thought that Battlefield 3 and Need for speed:The Run showed us most of what they promised would be in FB2.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38740032]Man, EA even wants casual titles to use their mediocre engine.[/QUOTE] bf3 is hardcore? wow.
[QUOTE=Em See;38750368]bf3 is hardcore? wow.[/QUOTE] Let's not start this. I think we can all agree that most, if not all, modern games are not your typical "hardcore" intense shooting experience. For that, you'll need to find some old-school shooter.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38740032]Man, EA even wants casual titles to use their mediocre engine.[/QUOTE] How dare you jump on the hate bandwagon!
[QUOTE=Appolox;38741784]It has to be baked because "consoles" also it has good optimization because the light is not calculated in real time and as you know it requires quite a bit of power to calculate all the rays and bounces then put ambient occlusion and dynamic shadows, not a single console now can handle this, only computers.[/QUOTE] No, modern personal computers can't handle these calculations in real time either, which is why every game with complex shadow and light effects has those maps baked onto the game map.
[QUOTE=STeel;38750654]No, modern personal computers can't handle these calculations in real time either, which is why every game with complex shadow and light effects has those maps baked onto the game map.[/QUOTE] How about CryEngine? I'd read engine specifications but I can get straight answer here, I know that baking light into lightmaps also helps lower end pc's to run it, I only saw UE4 demos to have full dynamic lighting and global illumination realtime.
[QUOTE=jonex3;38749767]IMO I thought that Battlefield 3 and Need for speed:The Run showed us most of what they promised would be in FB2.[/QUOTE] I looked at The Run [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTtW7wNvFco"](non-Nintendo systems)[/URL] with "maxed out configurations on GeForce GTX 460", it said that the game was a console port instead of starting on the PC platform. I agree about it looking like an ugly game for Frostbite 2, the PC port of The Run has no support for Anti-Aliasing which makes it worse Might as well play it on a Wii or 3DS
[QUOTE=Appolox;38750988]How about CryEngine? I'd read engine specifications but I can get straight answer here, I know that baking light into lightmaps also helps lower end pc's to run it, I only saw UE4 demos to have full dynamic lighting and global illumination realtime.[/QUOTE] CryEngine 3 on consoles have real-time GI as far as i know, sure looked that way when I played Crysis on the PS3.
[QUOTE=paul simon;38751189]CryEngine 3 on consoles have real-time GI as far as i know, sure looked that way when I played Crysis on the PS3.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm wrong I forgot about that. So I'll retract this to most games use baked maps with these calculations. I still insist though that the maps prebaked unto levels are more precise than what can be generated in real time.
I love it how the people posting screenshots of 'DUMB BLUE TINT FROSTBITE' give 2 game examples and spam images from them to make it look like a lot.
[QUOTE=Blackbird88;38741240]Also all UE3 games are brown, guys. Here is proof. [IMG]http://cdn.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/17410/0000006710.1920x1080.jpg?t=1294852247[/IMG][/QUOTE] to be honest, this is a very unique example, because they completely ripped out UE3 native lightning system and baked in a completely third party alternative. That said, frostbite seems like something that might force Epic to stat making decent games again. Not just engine updates :P That said, the standard callsign of a UE3 games isn't brown. But a sort of plasticness. [QUOTE=Appolox;38750988]How about CryEngine? I'd read engine specifications but I can get straight answer here, I know that baking light into lightmaps also helps lower end pc's to run it, I only saw UE4 demos to have full dynamic lighting and global illumination realtime.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of scattering and raytracing calcs that are far better to do with a precalc baked in lightning, which gives a much nicer result than a standard raster shadow. Essentially to say it this way - direct lightning - easy to do real time. Indirect lightning and bounces - far far better to do with baked in.
[QUOTE=STeel;38752170]Yeah I'm wrong I forgot about that. So I'll retract this to most games use baked maps with these calculations. I still insist though that the maps prebaked unto levels are more precise than what can be generated in real time.[/QUOTE] Because of lightmap nature, direct shadows look very crappy with baked maps, unless the baked maps are high resolution which kinda defeats the purpose of reducing load. But for indirect and AO it's not too bad.
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;38740072]Peggle EXTREME[/QUOTE] HARDCORE.
[QUOTE=STeel;38752170]Yeah I'm wrong I forgot about that. So I'll retract this to most games use baked maps with these calculations. I still insist though that the maps prebaked unto levels are more precise than what can be generated in real time.[/QUOTE] Of course it is, look at Mirrors Edge for instance. "Global Illumination: the video game" :v: [editline]8th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=itisjuly;38753620]Because of lightmap nature, direct shadows look very crappy with baked maps, unless the baked maps are high resolution which kinda defeats the purpose of reducing load. But for indirect and AO it's not too bad.[/QUOTE] There is such a thing as combining real-time shadows and lightmaps. Use lightmaps for the soft, indirect illumination, and use real time dynamic ones for regular shadowing. Loads of games do this.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;38752449]to be honest, this is a very unique example, because they completely ripped out UE3 native lightning system and baked in a completely third party alternative.[/QUOTE] you can get the same look out of vanilla udk these days [QUOTE=wraithcat;38752449]That said, the standard callsign of a UE3 games isn't brown. But a sort of plasticness.[/QUOTE] shitty artists not understanding how to construct a good looking shader
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;38741643]Yeah but then again I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THIS BUILDING FALLING DOWN YOU HAVE TO SPEAK LOUDER.[/QUOTE] My issue with the engine is that it's marketed as that. But what do we get? It's been five years since the engine was released and what do they have to show for it? You can blow up walls and roofs sometimes. Took them till CQB expansion to add explodeable floors. [editline]8th December 2012[/editline] I wouldn't call UE3 a plasticy engine, it's just that everything looks like it's made of metal, or some odd form of carbon fiber.
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;38755764]ughh ue3 has such washed out colors[/QUOTE] Considering how that is merely UE3 as a base, they replaced most of the tech with third party shit.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;38741396]Frostbite is a shitty engine because everything has to be compiled and then cooked. Making it very hard to roll out patches as they will have to replace large amounts of redundant content.[/QUOTE] Want to know how Source engine maps work too?
[QUOTE=rodent-man;38757429]Want to know how Source engine maps work too?[/QUOTE] They work the same way.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38758129]They work the same way.[/QUOTE] Exactly.
any game ON ANY ENGINE can be unique if YOU know how to use it its up to the artist and the people on it about how to use it
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;38740072]Peggle EXTREME[/QUOTE] ? [IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/C8QO1s.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Uberpro;38742412]Why do you guys give a shit about some slight blue colour filter anyway? Why do gamers always bitch about the smallest things..[/QUOTE] because it looks like shit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.