The Game
- Thread starter Briosafreak
- Start date
The BIS devs where working on it and they said it was turning out to be cool and all I say is that we as fans should believe the developers ffs.Odin said:
Firstly, Doom3 was developed for gf3 type of cards and will even run on a xbox, so it's not a high high end engine. Secondly I was just pointing out that a good 3d engine can look good and what I see from the screenshots the fallout3 enginge was about to become exactly this. A good 3d engine.Saint_Proverbius said:
Saint_Proverbius said:
Stop posting pictures that are not from the game. If you cant provide a screenshot of what you mean, then you might want to check it out yourself. The handdrawn locations from Fallout 1 + 2 are superb but with a good 3d egnine you can do equal, hell even better locations. Think about lightning and shadows, realtime rendred.. the released screenshots are HALFWAY finished and I can only dream about what it would've looked like finished.
And they still look like Fallout even in 3d and their current state.
Saint_Proverbius
Vault Senior Citizen
kumquat3 said:
It's not personal opinion to state that there's no art deco moderne in those screenshots while the buildings in Fallout used this architecture extensively. That's a statement of fact.
Legshot said:
Okay, you sir, are a fucking moron. It's a damned good thing that the world currency isn't based on ignorance, because every time you open your mouth, it'd be devalued that much more.
That image is from the game, it is not handdrawn, and the model used for that movie is the same 3D model used to make the tile for the Cathedral location. Everything you see in Fallout and Fallout 2 came from 3D models.
And your point is that they can screw off on the style of the setting as long as the shadows look good? What the hell kind of happy horseshit is that?
Slaughter said:
It just takes someone who is observant enough to know how the mechanics work, knows how to design games at least on a basic scale, and what makes games fun.
No, he wasn't. That is, unless you mean he was involved in a site that involved the word "Vault" in it. To avoid confusion, might I suggest you refrain from using redneck vernacular if that is in fact what you did?
Let's see...I have experience in and around the game industry for quite some time. About two decades, mostly playing or working as an Imm on various early online games. I learned the mechanics aned what worked and what didn't, with both online and single-player games. I went on along with my mentor to work at a notable development house, became extremely bitter at what happened to the development house, then sent a bag of dog shit to the EA board room through "special courier".
I've also been following Interplay ever since Wasteland and Bard' Tale, especially since I have and have had friends and prior associates working there. It really now is Inertplay.
Yes, the question of cluelessness is answered. You might note that I had corrected Danien's rather...addled recollection of what occured, and that he's still using the same stupid "empirical evidence" dodge. The reason for discussing the design in such a manner is that we've seen what does and doesn't work, and it did look quite doubtful that BIS could have the time and resources to make their own engine, much less that they would be able to do the impossible of putting in TB and RT together with the same basic components without any dire problems or exploits. There's a problem when development of a game meets a developer's pride, it's a dangerous combination, which Chuck displayed quite obviously as well.
Either your memory is a bitch or you don't remember that the fans weren't too thrilled because both modes of combat turned into shit. It then pretty much appealed to those who liked to blow shit up in RT, but still the game failed mainly because of the crappy combat system.
It was also said to be the source for Arcanum's problems all around, and it is easy to see why that is. When Sierra said that there has to be RT gameplay, it fucked with the mechanics, character system, and much more to an extent of making both a bit flawed. It is stupid to think that RT and TB can just work together, it takes so many more considerations like map design, AI, pathfinding, etc. Usually, the elements for both are designed best when alone, else they have to kludge the elements into working together or build two entirely different systems alongside each other. That still doesn't alleviate the issues involving map design, item balance, etc.
It is impossible to put them together without flaws. Even at the best case scenario, it would take a very long time and still have problems. Danien was one of those on the BIS forums who said that essentially we "only have empirical evidence" on how it was quite unlikely that BIS couldn't do RT/TB together even halfway to how those who have been developing combat systems for yeard, when they haven't even released a working combat system of their own.
Funny, weren't you just saying some stupid thing and also tried to use X-COM : Apoc as proof?
IRONY!
That's charming. And clueless. It was from the fans speaking up that FOT and other games have become better than they were slated to be originally. Hell, I'd hate to see Lionheart's original design docs if the devs didn't get a kick up the ass, although it was quite understandable that some BIS members might have been a little loathe to work with Reflexive people.
Gwydion said:Slaughter said:Personally I didn't care about them making FOOS, as long as it would help bring us Fallout 3.
And it ended up helping to kill FO3 when IP moved critical team members from Van Buren to POS. Which, oddly enough, sounds very similar to what Rosh, et al predicted would happen.
What? I know how Titus/IPLY does things and how they are hell bent on fucking Interplay into the dirt, floating from one licensed console title to another? Amazing.
Saint_Proverbius
Vault Senior Citizen
Roshambo said:
I've always found it amazing that gamers think that game designers are somehow more special than they are. The reality of the matter is that the only fundamental difference between the gamer and the game designer is that one was sitting at a quality assurance desk when another designer left the company while the other has job security.
I'll leave it up to Slaughter to figure out which is which.
Hehe, cute gift. I take it they sent a "You're fired" note back?
Anyway, then I guess you have some good basis for your views. I was genuinely interested.
Well, they seemed to think they could do it themselves. That being said, it doesn't have to mean anything. And I can hardly debate that they would have a tough time pulling it off. Takes time making those engines, and the games suffer under it. And it would suffer under two combat systems too.
The combat system worked fairly well in Apocalypse. It was not very flawed. Both RT and TB fans are mostly happy with that part. There are however a endless list of other stuff that did not work out too well, and that fans hated.
Don't know much about Arcanum, but I believe you. And as I said, even though Apocalypse did it well, most games will not. The things you mention are all issues.
You can get them to work together fairly well, but as you say it takes huge amounts of time, and isn't really worth it.
Indeed I were, and I still mean that Apocalypse did a good job with it. I don't think it is a good idea to have both though, since it takes, as you say, way too much time to implement.
Yes, it is good that people speak up against things they don't like. That is not the point. The point is that you don't have to say: "You are a bunch of fucking loosers, are you really so fucking stupid you don't understand that this is wrong?". If people behaved in a slightly civil manner, it would have been much better in my opinion.
I mean, I share your views on the people developing POS, especially after reading the GameSpy interview about it, but there is no reason to call them every curse you know because of that. It will get you nowhere, it will only piss off the wrong people and make sure they never listen to you.
What? I know how Titus/IPLY does things and how they are hell bent on fucking Interplay into the dirt, floating from one licensed console title to another? Amazing.
I am pretty sure it was BIS employees that commented that this would be a good things, just for those reasons. Wasn't it? Anyway, it was obviously not the case, so I can hardly disagree with you there. And given what have happened it seems to have been a naive thing to believe it would help the development. But it was someone from BIS that said so, was it not?
Saint_Proverbius said:
If game designers were anything but normal people, or had a "grater understanding", I'm sure we would have had many more good games. So no, I don't believe that.
BUT, many gamers are not realistic. Take the UFO:Aftermath boards, where I naturally roam quite a bit. People come in there complaining about feature X missing, and feature Y would have been better like this. That is a good thing, and they are right in many cases. They have a better grasp of what would have worked well in many cases then the developers do.
Problem is that many have no grasp on reality. They believe you can make games on air and love, and that the developers decide everything about the game. They don't understand the economic side at all.
So, anyway, I don't believe that the developers are much better than us at judging what would be good in a game and not, but they know a bit more about what is "behind the scenes". You need to make money on a game, and you can't do that by making a game for only the hardcore fans in most cases. But I'll not deny that the hardcore fans are often right. And reason I asked for your backgrounds was because I was genuinely interested in if you had a background in the industry.
And that wasn't the issue at hand anyway. It was how one treat people, both publishers, developers and other fans. And if one's treatment involves treating everyone as dirt, you're not getting far in my opinion. At least, when I have dealt with the publishers of UFO:Aftermath (Cenega and Tri Synergy), I always treat them with respect. I tell them very clearly what I disagree with, but I never curse them and so on.
Then again, Cenega and Tri Synergy are smaller publishers, and will probably not work with beasts like the large publishers are. But the way some Fallout fans have treated Interplay leaves them no reason to like us or care for us.
As for you two, your arguments are good, but the language you have used sometimes seem to harm your case more than your sound arguments help it. Haven't seen all that much bad language lately, but it was there before I seem to remember. And the total lack of respect for others are still there
Saint_Proverbius said:ElPolloDiablo said:
I haven't seen anything close to the detail in those screenshots as was seen in areas of Fallout like the Cathedral. In fact, those buildings don't look Art Deco Moderne at all. They have the vertical breaks, which is nice. However, where is the scuplted moldings like the faces on the sides of the buildings? Where's the streamlined rounded corners? Eh?
Here's what I'm talking about, taken from one of the Fallout design docs:
Those things are PRECISELY the atmosphere elements we were talking about, those that are hard to do in 3D.. So, where are they?
this is hard to do in 3d? Hard as in tough on the fps count? (frames per second)
I'm pretty sure there are (almost) more polygons on the fo3 outside-prison screenshot than the model of the cathedral...
It might be the same cathedral model but it doesn't look particularly detail-decorated ingame...
In 3d it might not render as fast on a 133mhz anymore but given decent enough specs, perhaps 1ghz+ 1.5ghz+ with a decent 64+mb video card, or so, it ought to run fairly well...
Hell, FOT with higher resolution and millions more color 2d didn't even run particularly well on my old 500mhz...
You just can't make up what's hard on computer power like that... FOT had so many wonderfully smooth animations but if you tried to put all of them on the same screen you'd probably have a hard time on a 2ghz... The anims in FO and FOT were made of still images and this is essentially textures. Textures takes up Tons of video memory and that gets problematic as there simply isn't enough of it on standard cards. This means you need to be very careful with how many and even what characters etc you put in each scene or you'll clog it up and end up in a dull swapping between regular memory and video memory, or god forbid the harddrive... The switch to 3d animations simply stored in regular memory keeps the video memory so tight you can fit much more content on the same screen and can still expect decent frame rates.
Of course why not make animations (character and other) in 3d and everything static (land and buildings) in 2d then? I don't really know the answer to that. I've seen it done in a few games, mainly adventure games, and mostly it worked pretty well.
If I should make a wild guess it'd be around transparency blending being still a big issue in performance - overlapping textures will need alpha blending in many casses.
But it might be something else...
It might just be 50/50 on the performance as the poly count makes up for the no longer necessary textures... For instance a Face like on the cathedral would perhaps only need 1 tiny (gray) texture for all the polys... And then with little visual difference it makes no real huge difference if you do it in 2d or 3d.
about other engines:
Changing to Doom3/HL2 engine most likely wouldn't do a thing to the frame rate.... The doom3/HL2 and whatever engines are not "faster" per se, not much faster anyway, if at all...
All those amazing new things that keeps you gasping and making you think the actual engines are sooo much faster (which is bull) are called "Effects" and most of these "effect addons" are totally superflous to a game like fallout. The standard for the highest possible frame rates have already been set pretty much years ago... You just don't get much faster than that and what little you can gain is completely in optimization of "what you can see"; like fog and sectors that shields visibility and whatever... The things used to increase performance in these games most likely wouldn't ever work for a bird view like Fallout has in the first place... So I think its sort of pointless to discuss what another engine could do for fallout...
edit: bad link
Saint_Proverbius said:
LOL getting personal when you're running out of arguments huh? THe only one who's ignorant against is you.
NO 3d only 2D is good -> ignorance
NO rl ony TB is good -> ignorance
And cutscene screenshots are not what I mean with in game screenshots.
Hell you said it yourself, all the fallout stuff comes from 3D models ...>> 3 D << modells
Edit: WHERE I ask you WHERE is YOUR point that when EVERYTHING in Fallout comes from 3D modells ANYWAY you cant do a 3D engine powered Fallout? That, Sir, makes NO sense...
Saint_Proverbius said:
LOL and this, Sir, disqualifies you totally. John Carmack, a game designer for example, is not different then the average forum troll who might think he was burn with the knowledge of all things?
Yeeah suuuure....
Francisco M L S G S
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Hi my name is Francisco and although i've been watching the forum for a while, i have only registered myself today.
I don't know who said it but I agree with him... it's impossible in this game to have the option to choose TB or RT. It just doesn't work. It surely didn't work with XCOM Apocalypse: one simple mission would take too many turns because the maps were too large and you had to search for that last hiding alien turn after turn... now imagine one complex mission where the maps here XXXL. I prefer TB but I went for RT in XCOM Apocalypse for that reason.
But this is totally different than XCA... compare XCA with FOT not with FO3
As everybody knows, the combat in FO1/2 was TB and was great in 1996 and and can be even better now. Don't fix it if it isn't broken... of course now there's nobody to fix it.
I don't know who said it but I agree with him... it's impossible in this game to have the option to choose TB or RT. It just doesn't work. It surely didn't work with XCOM Apocalypse: one simple mission would take too many turns because the maps were too large and you had to search for that last hiding alien turn after turn... now imagine one complex mission where the maps here XXXL. I prefer TB but I went for RT in XCOM Apocalypse for that reason.
But this is totally different than XCA... compare XCA with FOT not with FO3
As everybody knows, the combat in FO1/2 was TB and was great in 1996 and and can be even better now. Don't fix it if it isn't broken... of course now there's nobody to fix it.
Raymondo2000
It Wandered In From the Wastes
John Carmack is a programmer, co-owner and technical director at Id software. NOT a designer.
Well I've got the popcorn....
But try to refrain from calling each other names or other stuff, you want to do that do it like rise said. In PM's..
And I know SP and Rosh knows what they are talking about, but I don't mind a good discussion..
But try to refrain from calling each other names or other stuff, you want to do that do it like rise said. In PM's..
And I know SP and Rosh knows what they are talking about, but I don't mind a good discussion..
Crazed-One
First time out of the vault
So at this point, I would imagine that the work that was completed will be picked up/bought by another developer or rogue team. It would just be foolish to not use what has been developed. I mean if i had a cool chopper half-built I wouldnt toss it in the dump nor let it sit and rust till it had no value.
DrKupo: we do not endorse piracy, so consider this a warning..