Things to come...
Post Reply
Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Andrei on Fri Feb 25th at 8:53am 2005


I was talking in general when I said the stuff about the storyline.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by KingNic on Fri Feb 25th at 12:02pm 2005


? quote:
I think you're being overly dramatic. Think about what is made using the unreal engine(s). The ONLY reason Epic can still make these things while their games flat out suck (because of content) is because the power they give to other developers. Not to mention, they make a crap load of money every time someone uses their engine to develop a game.

I have to disagree with your comment on Epic's games. Yes they have had a few slips - Unreal Tournament 2003 comes to mind but they have several VERY high quality games under their belt - The origional Unreal, Unreal Tournament and Unreal Tournament 2004 are all classic games with fantastic replayability. As far as general Multiplayer modes based on Deathmatch go, they have the best games available. None of the deathmatch modes for other games such as Half-Life or Half-Life 2 come close to UT2004s Deathmatch. While Quake III's deathmatch mode was better than UT99s deathmatch mode, UT excelled at other modes such as CTF and Domination.

Unreal Engine 3 is simply taking advantage of the huge leap in graphics technology that came about with the launch of the latest generation of graphics cards. The engine isn't even coming out for another 2 years at least anyway

[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Myrk- on Fri Feb 25th at 6:54pm 2005


? quoting Andrei
And it seems great engines have replaced gameplay and the decent storyline that makes you play on. People who keep going on and on about how great X will look/looks and niglect what's realy important make me sick.

What are you smoking? You haven't even played the game yet! Though I would have to agree to an extent... HL2 did have a crap storyline.

[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Gwil on Fri Feb 25th at 7:00pm 2005


HL2 crap storyline? Considering it borrows heavily from one of the most influential socio-political novels of the 20th century, I thought it worked quite well.

Once again though, Valve stuffed up the ending and missed lots of potential openings and ideas they could have capitalised on for a better, more cohesive storyline. The overall plot was a bit shaky - but the atmosphere created by "Civil Protection" , opression, constant loudspeaker announcements and the crushing of civil liberty and erasing of memory was superb.

Orwell himself would have been proud. [addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by satchmo on Fri Feb 25th at 7:13pm 2005


HL2 has one of the most imaginative plot in all of FPS games. Not only was it a game, but it has some social commentary too. When was the last time you played a computer game that carries more weight than a marine shooting mutated monsters?
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Nickelplate on Fri Feb 25th at 7:49pm 2005


half-life was a work of art. Marc Laidlaw, who wrote the storyline, is an EXCELLENT writer. If anyone recalls seeing a book texture that says "The 37th Mandala, Marc Laidlaw," while mapping, you may already be familiar with one of his titles. I got this gook on ebay and enjoyed it immensely. I would recommend his books to all. [addsig]



Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Andrei on Fri Feb 25th at 8:51pm 2005


? quote:

What are you smoking? You haven't even played the game yet! Though I would have to agree to an extent... HL2 did have a crap storyline.



Doesn't anyone get it that i'm refering to the previous unreal which everyone praised for its shiny engine but it took 2 years for all of them to realise just how awful the storyline is? I am also refering to the fact that most game reviews tend to focus on graphics and physics and that the storyline is often shoved aside. And I don't quite remember saying that HL2 has a crap storyline.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by KingNic on Fri Feb 25th at 10:15pm 2005


Andrei, I completely agree. But look at Doom 3 - the exact same thing has happened.

And Unreal 2 was not developed by Epic who own the Unreal Liscense.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by satchmo on Sat Feb 26th at 3:20am 2005


Unreal II: The Awakening has a s**tty plot. It's nothing more than an excuse to land in various planets and proceed to shoot everything that moves. However, I was kinda sad when it ended, and Aida got killed on the spaceship. I'd like to bone her before she died. [addsig]



Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Andrei on Sat Feb 26th at 11:11am 2005


? quote:
I'd like to bone her before she died.


You animal, you .
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by MJ on Sat Feb 26th at 11:17am 2005


hmm i might start taking up unreal mapping after seeing those screens :]...




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Andrei on Sat Feb 26th at 11:55am 2005


Might be worth learning unrealED .
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Agent Smith on Sat Feb 26th at 2:33pm 2005


I've done some mapping in UnrealEd for the Unreal engine for UT 2003 and I have to say that both HL2 and UT have strong points. God knows why they don't get together and create a super game. Anyway, here are the primary differences I noticed between the editors, and why a combination would be perfect.

Terrain and terrain editing is absolutely beautiful in UT. It was so inovative and really limitless that it was absolutely perfect for anything you could come up with. HL2 on the other hand had the dodgiest, buggiest and downright most inflexible terrain editor. It's limitations almost outweigh most of the good of it.

Brush construction in HL2 is so simple yet you can create most of the structures you'll need without having to use a modelling program. Texture application is also fantastic and easy to use. UT on the other hand relied heavily on static meshes because it was extremely hard to create anything detailed solely out of brushes. The interface is clunky and any fine work seems to take ages. Texture application is also difficult and time consuming.

HL2 editing, whilst generally easier and quicker, lacks well thought out tools and the existing tools are limited. UT editing, whilst having some incredible tools and technology, is time consuming and clunky to use.

Conclusion, combine the two together so that the hybrid contains all the best features of both, creating a super editor/game.

I have a dream...
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by ReNo on Sat Feb 26th at 5:20pm 2005


I think after finishing a couple of maps for Source, I'm gonna try my hand at a few other editors. Having experience in only one editor is probably going to be a bit of a weak point when trying to get hired.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by KungFuSquirrel on Sat Feb 26th at 5:50pm 2005


Knowing any editor or technology will help you in the long run, as the basic concepts apply across all engines - good design is always good design.

That said, Worldcraft/Hammer is very seldomly used compared to Radiant and UnrealEd, so definitely familiarize yourself with one or both of them. Even if you just know how the basics work, that'll save a lot of time if/when you start somewhere using that technology.

I personally recommend Radiant as the most down-and-dirty powerful editor with the greatest amount of geometry control on the market today. But your milage may vary [addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Sat Feb 26th at 6:28pm 2005


I'm really not impressed by these screens, and with each new iteration of FPS engines I'm less and less pleased. When are people going to decide that graphics aren't everything and start focusing on other aspects of FPS design such as AI? From my limited knowledge I can guess that the three biggest recent visual innovations have been real curves (Q3), dynamic shadows (D3), and reflective and bump mapped surfaces (D3, HL2). None of these are particularly impressive and once you move beyond the wow factor what are you left with? I'd be much happier if next-gen games did more than just up the model detail and improve upon those three things already mentioned.

How about weather modeling, where during a map the weather can go from sunny to rainy to cloudy with the appropriate visual changes? Or maybe realistic and adaptive AI that presents a real challenge? How about AI that learns and adapts to your actions and eliminates your main strategy, forcing you to change tactics? Or one that can correctly manipulate the environment (open closed doors, create and destroy barriers)? Or perhaps developers could avoid going for extreme high end detail and focused instead on tons and tons of content? Maybe they could have dynamic levels, dynamic storylines, or even dynamic battles going on around you?

I was glad that HL2 went in different directions in their innovations away from pure graphical power (tons of physics and realistic facial animation) but there's still plenty of stuff that could be done outside of the realm of pure visuals.

[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by French Toast on Sat Feb 26th at 6:32pm 2005


I know in Morrowind Game of the Year, the environment goes from sunny/rainy/cloudy whatever, but the rest of that game is pretty snotty now. Good gameley though... [addsig]



Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by Cassius on Sat Feb 26th at 7:18pm 2005


Well, Yak, this engine seems to offer two improvements that neither D3 or HL2 really delivered: more polygons and a lighting system that actually looks like real light.

It's a damn shame I'll have to learn UnrealEd to use this. Maybe we should persuade a team of coders to make UnrealHammer

But really, God knows some new game with even better graphics will be unveiled before U3 is released, and the argument over "WUTS TEH BEST GAEM ENGINE LOL!!1" will resume in full force.





Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by KingNic on Sat Feb 26th at 7:22pm 2005


ReNo, learn UnrealED. Your skills from Worldcraft translate directly into Radient and you could get mapping at full pace within a few hours of practise with Radient. All you're learning with Radient is different shortcuts and where the various tools are in the menu's.

UnrealED uses a COMPLETELY different method of building maps and it could take you several weeks or months to get up to scratch in UnrealED. If you learn UnrealED then you will have experience of both Additive and Subtractive level building - you'll have skills that will instantly transfer to any in-house level editor.
[addsig]




Quote
Re: Things to come...
Posted by KungFuSquirrel on Sat Feb 26th at 8:32pm 2005


? quote:

But really, God knows some new game with even better graphics will be unveiled before U3 is released, and the argument over "WUTS TEH BEST GAEM ENGINE LOL!!1" will resume in full force.


It's the old leapfrog effect. Quake, Quake II. Unreal, Unreal Tournament. Quake III. UT2K3/4. Doom3. Unreal Engine 3. Id's next tech. Epic's next tech. Yadda yadda.

More companies now are using proprietary tech, so there's a few more in the mix, but id and Epic are still the dominating forces in engine licenses and likely will be for some time to come.

Yak, you might be surprised at the sort of AI capability that is available in D3, but just wasn't really shown in the game. Hopefully some of the licensed products will make better use of this. [addsig]





Post Reply