|
|
| Page 4 of 5 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004 06:48 Post subject: |
|
 |
Thats one of my favourite things about the cryengine, it only had one loading point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004 07:03 Post subject: |
|
|
animal are u purposly trying to make yourself look retarded? source doesnt need to have a million load points. but for hl2 to have 1 longass load point (longer than battlefield vietnam) is worse than having a stop start point which lasts about 4 seconds. vampire doesnt have loadsa load times. Deus ex has this stop start system but was a LOT longer but i dont remember any1 complaining about this. deal with it. And i dont see why u need a "good" computer to play farcry. the way i see it is, the textures etc. on half life 2 were better than far crys (doesnt matter if its down to valve it STILL supported it) and wasnt demanding on comps. why do u need a ghz comp extra to achieve very similar results, and whats worse is this was released 9 months ago. meaning it was even more demanding on comps and shows it wasnt optimised at all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004 14:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Thats one of my favourite things about the cryengine, it only had one loading point. |
yes good reason !!!
hl2 loadtimes are bugy and long !
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004 21:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sublime wrote: | | animal are u purposly trying to make yourself look retarded? source doesnt need to have a million load points. but for hl2 to have 1 longass load point (longer than battlefield vietnam) is worse than having a stop start point which lasts about 4 seconds. vampire doesnt have loadsa load times. Deus ex has this stop start system but was a LOT longer but i dont remember any1 complaining about this. deal with it. |
I'm afraid it's you who looks retarded.
Vampire loads every building FFS, that really ruins immersion. I don't need to remind you about it's performance either.
The point is that it's far better to have one load point then 10. It's a limitation of the engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004 22:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Little loading is extremely important in my oppinion in a game engine and in a game.
Beeing able to walk around basicly everywhere, from outside to inside and inside to outside is just magical. Every developer that wants to build their own engine shuld try to archive this as a main goal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Griffon
Banned
Posts: 1875
Location: Belarus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004 22:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| pallebrun wrote: | The cryengine is so amazing because making HUGE outdoor maps running awesome with such details is one badass archivment and no engine is even close to be able to do that or have been. There is a reason why you never see any games with as detailed outdoor maps as in farcry, it's simple very hard to do. That's why most engines only have great indoors.
I would like to see both the doom3 engine and source have the amount of vegetations and detail seen in farcry outdoors, i can guarantee you that both will choke like mad 
So with awesome outdoor maps that no other engine can rival as of now and good enough indoor maps with great lightning and ofcourse a brilliant AI the cryengine is without a doubt the best engine out there.
|
This is good enough reason to vote for Cryengine. If any of the other games can replicate the size of maps without loading then maybe i'll consider the other aspects. I dont think it would be to hard for Cryengine to replicate small/cramped stages, with extra details. Personally I get a hard on when I can walk for 5 minutes in any direction, hop in a vehicle and then drive for onother 5 minutes, without being 'steered' by the game in any particular direction.
| pallebrun wrote: | Little loading is extremely important in my oppinion in a game engine and in a game.
Beeing able to walk around basicly everywhere, from outside to inside and inside to outside is just magical. Every developer that wants to build their own engine shuld try to archive this as a main goal. |
pallebrun, i like the way you think.
I dont think it would be too hard to make a game which is incredibly detailed and extrimly interactive, with super physics and Hollywood lighting, but it takes place in a 500 squere foot apartment. If u want to leave from kitchen to living room you load for 2 minutes. But if u make a game where you can leave this apartment, enter another one across the hall, jump out of the window, get in a helicopter, fly for 20 minutes to onother city which is as much detailed as the first, then you will have trully build an uber engine. I know that the limitations are grounded in the hardware/technology we have, but i think that would be the ultimate goal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004 23:03 Post subject: |
|
|
I also hate the way you can use load points as safe zones, because the AI can't chase you across them. This ruins tension in alot of games.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 04:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | Doom 3 engine wins by a long shot. It is capable of better graphics, has a better physics engine, and is still capable of so much more. |
Mchart I don't know what you've been smoking, but I want some.
Doom 3 has a better physics engine than HL2? As demonstrated by what? The ability to ultra-realistically shoot around a soda can that bounces like it weighs 5 pounds? Or the ability to move barrels by punching them? We had that in Doom I. As for the other "techdemo" physics in Doom 3 (i.e. the beams suspended from the crane in the beginning), Source is capable of that and a lot more. Not to mention Doom 3's physics require heavy scripting whereas HL2 is relatively spontaneous in that respect.
As for coolness factor/creativity, HL2 wins. Hands Down. Sure, you can fly around on an island and shoot guns and have no load times, but being able to pick up every item in the fucking game? Count me in. All Source could use at present point are completely destructable environments (As was attempted by Red Faction.)
Overall look of the graphics:
HL2: Mediocre shaders, great texture capabilities (As shown off by Valve team)
Doom 3: The crack whore of Next-Gen FPS: Enough shaders to make Wolfenstein 3d look like CGI.
FarCry: Decent shaders, good enough lighting, result < HL2
UT2k4: Good lighting, shaders, texture capabilities, though a bit out of date.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 04:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| Accelleron wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | Doom 3 engine wins by a long shot. It is capable of better graphics, has a better physics engine, and is still capable of so much more. |
Mchart I don't know what you've been smoking, but I want some.
Doom 3 has a better physics engine than HL2? As demonstrated by what? The ability to ultra-realistically shoot around a soda can that bounces like it weighs 5 pounds? Or the ability to move barrels by punching them? We had that in Doom I. As for the other "techdemo" physics in Doom 3 (i.e. the beams suspended from the crane in the beginning), Source is capable of that and a lot more. Not to mention Doom 3's physics require heavy scripting whereas HL2 is relatively spontaneous in that respect.
As for coolness factor/creativity, HL2 wins. Hands Down. Sure, you can fly around on an island and shoot guns and have no load times, but being able to pick up every item in the fucking game? Count me in. All Source could use at present point are completely destructable environments (As was attempted by Red Faction.)
Overall look of the graphics:
HL2: Mediocre shaders, great texture capabilities (As shown off by Valve team)
Doom 3: The crack whore of Next-Gen FPS: Enough shaders to make Wolfenstein 3d look like CGI.
FarCry: Decent shaders, good enough lighting, result < HL2
UT2k4: Good lighting, shaders, texture capabilities, though a bit out of date. |
Once again you are juding the engine on the game, not the actual tech specs of the engine. Doom3 uses per polygon physics, source uses havoc. Havoc uses boxes.
Your statement also proves my point, once you remove the textures for the situation, since textures are not involved in how the engine actually works.
Last edited by Mchart on Wed, 1st Dec 2004 05:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 04:58 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 05:01 Post subject: |
|
|
If I see one more post saying source engine is better, You better have something better to say then -
It has better physics! ( This is false, doom3 engine uses per polygon type physics, which means more possibilities)
It has better graphics! (Give it a break, youll never win this one)
It has better textures! (Not part of the engine moron, and this even applies to physics, physics isnt part of the actual engine)
It has better Gameplay! (Your stupid go away.)
| Quote: | | I was able to create a ten times bigger landscape than this one here without any problems. |
I really would like to see what you have to say.. How .. How could you think the source engine is better? Not one thing about it, is better. Im guessing you all judged the games, not the engine. There is no arguement, everything is clear as day, the doom3 engine is better. Now im not sure about stalker or fear, or even crytek engine for that matter. But one thing is for sure, doom3 engine is better then the source engine.
I will also add that in all those screenshots, the machine the map was being run on, was almost constantly above 30 fps, which IS playable. You keep watching that forum, because pretty soon those non-textured maps, WILL be textured, with LOTS of purdy things added to them, and if you arent satisfied now, you sure as hell better be then.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 05:22 Post subject: |
|
|
What does that last pic show besides how fugly would it look if someone attempted to create large map in a wrong engine? What about those scyscrapers? What exactly does that show? 30 fps in a simple map with no textures? Please explain what you think they show, instead of flamin' like a child.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 05:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| nerrd wrote: | | What does that last pic show besides how fugly would it look if someone attempted to create large map in a wrong engine? What about those scyscrapers? What exactly does that show? 30 fps in a simple map with no textures? Please explain what you think they show, instead of flamin' like a child. |
Im guessing you didnt read a word I said. Those shots show the engine can render the distance, and once you have that down (which doom3 engine does) it is very easy to render a bunch of other things. The building screenshot shows this good, because even once you add textures, that wont limit the engine. How much you see via textures is just limited by your computer. It is very clear you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and clear that you have no idea how the engine actually renders things.
If you would have read that thread at all which I linked you to, you would also see why I quoted something, and I will quote it again.
| Quote: | | I was able to create a ten times bigger landscape than this one here without any problems. |
That means doom3 engine is capable of a farther draw distance then even what we see in farcry. Now you ask, can it do it at acceptable framerates? Well from what that dude said, at TEN TIMES larger then what that screenshot shows, he was still getting a healthy 30fps. You could very easily add a shitload of foilage, and the engine would be fine.
I also dont know if you did not notice this on purpose, or just because you didnt notice it. But in that skyscraper level, take a look at those shadows please. Yeah, once the correct light positions and level of brightness for the lights gets coded in, that will look absolutely grand.
To sum it all up. You could take what you have in that first screenshot there, and put it on the scale of that last screenshot then take that and times it by 10, and the game would still be running at 30+ fps.
Last edited by Mchart on Wed, 1st Dec 2004 05:50; edited 3 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 05:35 Post subject: |
|
|
This thread needs some sort of message explaining to people what a game engine actually is though. Because 208 people here obviously have no idea what a game engine actually is. If they did, they would have voted for either doom3 engine or crytek engine. As for me flaming, I suggest you take a look at your own post which has no real value in explaining on why your source engine is so much better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 06:00 Post subject: |
|
|
How do you figure that after you add any detail to that outdoor map it would be fine? You dont have to be a game designer to figure out that once you bump the textures up the fps drops. Not to mention adding any objects.
And I guess you never ready my post because I never said source was better than anything. And besides, what does your adolescence flaming has to do with me not making my point clear? You make no fucking sence my friend. I really wish you could enlighten me with your "alleged" wisdom, possibly to change my mind. But Ill listen to a voice of reason not a angry fanboy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 13:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Mchart...
http://520083573508-0001.bei.t-online.de/mystuff/scale.jpg
that pic just shows how ugly doom3 engine is outdoors. The textures suck. OK, maybe whoever did that map just hadn't the time to add great textures. But the landscape is horrible. Even hl1 engine could render that landscape there, it's blocky and simply ugly.
and for this one...
http://www.infosprite.com/members/W01f/shadowsoft.JPG
looks nice. But far cry can do that one easily... just 20 times bigger with the same amount of texture detail AND a shitload of foliage. Then also add dynamic AI and a destroyable landscape a la red faction (yes, crytek can do that, far cry just didn't have it implented in level design). You're right about source engine though...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 14:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | If I see one more post saying source engine is better, You better have something better to say then -
It has better physics! ( This is false, doom3 engine uses per polygon type physics, which means more possibilities)
It has better graphics! (Give it a break, youll never win this one)
It has better textures! (Not part of the engine moron, and this even applies to physics, physics isnt part of the actual engine)
It has better Gameplay! (Your stupid go away.) |
Lol lay off the crack man, the only thing you do in Doom3 is shoot monster and seek PDA´s to open doors. Don´t tell me that HL2 doesn´t have better gameplay than D3, that´s retarded...... you may like it more in D3, but the gameplay is definitley better in HL2, DEFINITLEY, and more diverse as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 14:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pizda2 wrote: |
Lol lay off the crack man, the only thing you do in Doom3 is shoot monster and find PDA´s to open doors. Don´t tell me that HL2 doesn´t have better gameplay than HL2 that´s retarded...... you may like it better but the gameplay is definitley better in HL2, DEFINITLEY, and more diverse as well. |
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
do I need to spell that out to you?
plus: the physics in hl2 were done by a licensed havok engine, which is not part of the source engine!
yes, hl2 was fun, and i enjoyed it very much, but you can also see how you can f**k up with a good engine: vampire bloodlines, which is sluggish and buggy. and takes years to load, too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 14:21 Post subject: |
|
|
| raptor51 wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: |
Lol lay off the crack man, the only thing you do in Doom3 is shoot monster and find PDA´s to open doors. Don´t tell me that HL2 doesn´t have better gameplay than HL2 that´s retarded...... you may like it better but the gameplay is definitley better in HL2, DEFINITLEY, and more diverse as well. |
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
do I need to spell that out to you?
plus: the physics in hl2 were done by a licensed havok engine, which is not part of the source engine!
yes, hl2 was fun, and i enjoyed it very much, but you can also see how you can f**k up with a good engine: vampire bloodlines, which is sluggish and buggy. and takes years to load, too. |
wtf are you talking about????? I was just saying that HL2 has better gameplay than D3 that's it. I couldn't care less which engine is better, and ENGINE = GAMEPLAY is complete BS to me. I rate HL1 better than D3, guess which engine HL1 uses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004 14:31 Post subject: |
|
|
doom 3 rulz !!!
nice pics, good job man !
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 2nd Dec 2004 02:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Take a gander up at sublimes signature asshole.
Might I also add that I still havent seen one post from you which shows me why your source engine is so much better then the doom3 engine.
Last edited by Mchart on Thu, 2nd Dec 2004 02:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 2nd Dec 2004 02:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pizda2 wrote: | | raptor51 wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: |
Lol lay off the crack man, the only thing you do in Doom3 is shoot monster and find PDA´s to open doors. Don´t tell me that HL2 doesn´t have better gameplay than HL2 that´s retarded...... you may like it better but the gameplay is definitley better in HL2, DEFINITLEY, and more diverse as well. |
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
do I need to spell that out to you?
plus: the physics in hl2 were done by a licensed havok engine, which is not part of the source engine!
yes, hl2 was fun, and i enjoyed it very much, but you can also see how you can f**k up with a good engine: vampire bloodlines, which is sluggish and buggy. and takes years to load, too. |
wtf are you talking about????? I was just saying that HL2 has better gameplay than D3 that's it. I couldn't care less which engine is better, and ENGINE = GAMEPLAY is complete BS to me. I rate HL1 better than D3, guess which engine HL1 uses. |
Then go away, because this is a thread about which engine is better, not which game is better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 2nd Dec 2004 03:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pizda2 wrote: | | raptor51 wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: |
Lol lay off the crack man, the only thing you do in Doom3 is shoot monster and find PDA´s to open doors. Don´t tell me that HL2 doesn´t have better gameplay than HL2 that´s retarded...... you may like it better but the gameplay is definitley better in HL2, DEFINITLEY, and more diverse as well. |
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
do I need to spell that out to you?
plus: the physics in hl2 were done by a licensed havok engine, which is not part of the source engine!
yes, hl2 was fun, and i enjoyed it very much, but you can also see how you can f**k up with a good engine: vampire bloodlines, which is sluggish and buggy. and takes years to load, too. |
wtf are you talking about????? I was just saying that HL2 has better gameplay than D3 that's it. I couldn't care less which engine is better, and ENGINE = GAMEPLAY is complete BS to me. I rate HL1 better than D3, guess which engine HL1 uses. |
'!=' stands for 'Not equal to'
and HL1 uses a revamped version of the Quake 2 engine, btw.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 2nd Dec 2004 04:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pizda2 wrote: | | raptor51 wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: |
Lol lay off the crack man, the only thing you do in Doom3 is shoot monster and find PDA´s to open doors. Don´t tell me that HL2 doesn´t have better gameplay than HL2 that´s retarded...... you may like it better but the gameplay is definitley better in HL2, DEFINITLEY, and more diverse as well. |
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
do I need to spell that out to you?
plus: the physics in hl2 were done by a licensed havok engine, which is not part of the source engine!
yes, hl2 was fun, and i enjoyed it very much, but you can also see how you can f**k up with a good engine: vampire bloodlines, which is sluggish and buggy. and takes years to load, too. |
wtf are you talking about????? I was just saying that HL2 has better gameplay than D3 that's it. I couldn't care less which engine is better, and ENGINE = GAMEPLAY is complete BS to me. I rate HL1 better than D3, guess which engine HL1 uses. |
We can all see SOMEONE in here has never touched a line of C++ code... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 2nd Dec 2004 12:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: | | raptor51 wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: |
Lol lay off the crack man, the only thing you do in Doom3 is shoot monster and find PDA´s to open doors. Don´t tell me that HL2 doesn´t have better gameplay than HL2 that´s retarded...... you may like it better but the gameplay is definitley better in HL2, DEFINITLEY, and more diverse as well. |
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
do I need to spell that out to you?
plus: the physics in hl2 were done by a licensed havok engine, which is not part of the source engine!
yes, hl2 was fun, and i enjoyed it very much, but you can also see how you can f**k up with a good engine: vampire bloodlines, which is sluggish and buggy. and takes years to load, too. |
wtf are you talking about????? I was just saying that HL2 has better gameplay than D3 that's it. I couldn't care less which engine is better, and ENGINE = GAMEPLAY is complete BS to me. I rate HL1 better than D3, guess which engine HL1 uses. |
Then go away, because this is a thread about which engine is better, not which game is better. |
Though you did mention gameplay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
