collapse

* Notice

Important notice (31 July): We have recently recovered from a nearly two day downtime due to an attack. No data was lost or stolen but the server has been reinstalled as a precaution. Please let us know if you encounter any issues. We apologise for the unacceptable inconvenience. Please read here for more information.

Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: End-game, or the lack thereof  (Read 20957 times)

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #210 on: May 27, 2013, 10:23:08 pm »
As to the "realism" of graphics engine, I think we're reaching the point of strong diminishing returns. The Unreal 3 Engine was released many years ago now (si-ix? Seven?), and that's one of the most popular, useful, and realistic-looking engines I've yet seen. Sure, you can still obviously tell it's a computer rendering of a world, but it does everything you need it do (good lighting effects, high resolution support, you can do lip-syncing, and it doesn't take up a hell of a lot of processing power, etc). What more do we really need in a computer game? Sure, it'll be nice someday to have full 3-D holographic interfaces, so we can live in our own little "worlds" of computer gaming, but I am already extremely impressed with the U3 Engine.

To be honest I'm fine if its 2D , as long as it is well drawn and designed and the gameplay is good.

Offline mouser9169

  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
  • Reputation: +7/-10
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #211 on: May 28, 2013, 05:03:47 am »
I kind of disagree with the notion of 'hobby engine' , as long as an engine gives access to source code level  it can be used professionally, Torque was used for AAA titles in the past and is open source so it is extendable, C4 on the other hand wasn't and isn't open source, OGRE-based was used successfully in Torchlight as you mentioned. 

I'm curious to know what 'AAA' titles were produced with Torque. None of the games I know come close, and the best I know of (Tribes?) used a highly modified codebase (based on a very early version of the engine). C4 is available with a source license, so is as extensible as any other engine (and every review I've read had praised the code for neatness and modularity) - 'open' vs. 'closed' source is irrelevant as long as the development team has access to the source code.

If you honestly don't see the difference between the hobby class engines and the AAA ones, I don't know what to tell you, other than there's a reason companies will happily shell out [well] over a million bucks for source code access to a AAA game engine, over paying a few thousand dollars for a 'hobby' grade one. They obviously feel they're getting some value for that money. It isn't just graphics: it's the physics engine, the network stack, the scalability (this is a big one), stability, database hooks, etc...

Torchlight was nice (I've had a blast playing it), but it's not a AAA game by any stretch. It's better than the stuff you get at Big Fish Games (though for only slightly more money), but it's not quite major league either. Maybe a single A title?
Insanity Mod: If you're not dying, I'm not trying.

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #212 on: May 28, 2013, 03:41:11 pm »
I kind of disagree with the notion of 'hobby engine' , as long as an engine gives access to source code level  it can be used professionally, Torque was used for AAA titles in the past and is open source so it is extendable, C4 on the other hand wasn't and isn't open source, OGRE-based was used successfully in Torchlight as you mentioned. 

I'm curious to know what 'AAA' titles were produced with Torque. None of the games I know come close, and the best I know of (Tribes?) used a highly modified codebase (based on a very early version of the engine). C4 is available with a source license, so is as extensible as any other engine (and every review I've read had praised the code for neatness and modularity) - 'open' vs. 'closed' source is irrelevant as long as the development team has access to the source code.

If you honestly don't see the difference between the hobby class engines and the AAA ones, I don't know what to tell you, other than there's a reason companies will happily shell out [well] over a million bucks for source code access to a AAA game engine, over paying a few thousand dollars for a 'hobby' grade one. They obviously feel they're getting some value for that money. It isn't just graphics: it's the physics engine, the network stack, the scalability (this is a big one), stability, database hooks, etc...


If you want a list of games go look at their webpage, its not that hard to find. none of these games are that awesome but some are AAA grade.
The engine is the same engine used for Tribes, saying that it isn't is like saying that Unreal wasn't used in DUST because it was modified.

For the rest , All of the things you mentioned shouldn't be an issue for an engine that was used in an MMO, and in most game engines nowadays they are not that much of an issue because of the resources out there.

what about Unity? it is mostly used by Indie or Hobbiest and yet it is also used for AAA titles at times and far less expensive option than Unreal.. are you going to argue that it has less quality?

There is some kind of myth around the Game Development community, especially the hobby based one, that more expensive = better, and yet sports-car-expensive Software such as Maya are often heavily clunky and bug filled(and if you have an ATI card you are really screwed) while software like Blender don't wait a year to get their bugs fixed and have everything Maya has to offer and more(which is why Autodesk probably decided to integrate Python API so they can try to port over these features).







 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal