TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 366

Thread: Deus Ex 3 confirmed

  1. #101
    Cuddly little misanthropic hate machine
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: someplace better than this
    I'd love for a sequence to take place in Japan. But maybe that's because Redsun 2020 disappointed me.

  2. #102
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Yeah, I think the A's in AAA are referring to budget, and aside from probably being a term of art that's doesn't care what anyone's opinion is or not, I think it's fair. It tells you what sort of expectations you can have, for better and worse.

    Re: Japan, even in the first one, I was thinking Tokyo has a much greater cyberpunk vibe than Hong Kong; it's practically the Mecca of the cyberpunk genre historically speaking.

  3. #103
    Member
    Registered: Mar 1999
    Location: I can't find myself
    Quote Originally Posted by Subjective Effect View Post
    I'm not so sure this is a prequel guys. I know that there is that date in the trailer but the rest of it doesn't really fit. In DX 1 + 2 was there any mention of augmented people being discriminated against in the way the trailer images suggest? If not doesn't that imply this game is set after DX2?
    There wasn't any explicit mention, but the bartender in Hell's Kitchen gets really defensive when you mention her cybernetic arms.

    And, iirc, there's a mention somewhere about how the early augmented agents gave up some of their humanity in order to serve better, which is a sentiment that could easily be retconned into being PR spin in order to fight discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scots Taffer
    I'm sick and tired of saying it, but we just need companies to license the fuck out of engines for a while and you'll get some mileage with games that can break the mold a little, trying new and innovative things because they don't have to spend just as much time on doing shit all over again that is often done better by other companies that spent years doing it.
    I actually feel exactly the opposite. So many companies plan on doing big innovative games using licensed engines, then spend a year hammering on the licensed code trying to make it do what they want and end up giving up halfway through and either nerfing or removing altogether many of the features that would have made the game revolutionary in the first place.

    I'd rather developers spend that first year programming an engine from the ground up that will do nearly everything they want it to do. To go for the obvious examples: Stalker vs. BioShock.

    GSC may have removed a few features from their original design doc in order to make release, but they still got mostly there. Now imagine if they'd licensed Unreal. Sure, it would have looked a lot prettier, and maybe ran a tad smoother, but it wouldn't have been half the experience it was on release. Whereas, I think you'll agree, BioShock is clearly NOT the game that Irrational initially said they were setting out to release. Much of that is undoubtedly due to "saying yes to the player," but other elements like variable air pressure and water that dynamically collects and eventually fills rooms seem more likely to be caused by engine limitations.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
    I'd rather developers spend that first year programming an engine from the ground up that will do nearly everything they want it to do. To go for the obvious examples: Stalker vs. BioShock.
    So you'd rather companies spend twice as long making a game without most of the features they advertised?

  5. #105
    Cuddly little misanthropic hate machine
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: someplace better than this
    If they avoid using Unreal 3 tech I'll be happy. Fuck UE3. Worst big-name engine in years. Though to be fair I suppose part of it is Epic purpousely sabatoges the versions they license out so they can stay competitive.

  6. #106
    Member
    Registered: Mar 1999
    Location: I can't find myself
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    So you'd rather companies spend twice as long making a game without most of the features they advertised?
    Versus taking half as long with NONE of the features they advertised? Yes.

  7. #107
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2001
    Location: Dark Earth, Grey Skies
    I think it would be pretty awesome if they jumped over DXIW entirely in terms of plot. DX1 leaves off really without options for creating a cyberpunk environment because all of the endings are world altering, whereas cyberpunk sort of implies a total decay of culture an society in a world that hasn't been held up by it's governments and is left to the wolves of industry.

    DX1 sort of starts of cyberpunkishy, but bridges quickly to something much bigger and broader with all the conspiracy business. I think that since that's done, they could definitely just focus on a cyberpunk era game and ground it solidly in that. I feel like an interesting possibility for a follow up to DX is instead of having all of the ending (as in DXIW) you basically get none, like Denton tried to interface with Helios and the A51 blew up and global infrastructure like, half-collapsed (instead of collapsing up, like in IW.) At that point people have "realized" the dangers of augements (in the same way that we "realized" the dangers of Arabic people after 9/11) and are harshy descriminating against them, while opportunisitic corporations are rising to take advantage of the global upheaveal.

    And that would all set the tone for the story... but doesn't actually give a story. I think fighting the big bad company is sort of old by now, it'd be nice to see a game where you're jsut struggling to survive, like, being oppressed but with the whole cyberpunk twist. Maybe a little bit of vigilante "fuck up the medical companies who made me born this way" stuff to spice it up, but nothing too over the top. I'd like to see a subdued game in this kind of context... for once...

  8. #108
    Taking a break
    Registered: Dec 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    I was thinking Tokyo has a much greater cyberpunk vibe than Hong Kong; it's practically the Mecca of the cyberpunk genre historically speaking.
    facepalm.jpg

  9. #109
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2000
    Location: sup
    Quote Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
    I actually feel exactly the opposite. So many companies plan on doing big innovative games using licensed engines, then spend a year hammering on the licensed code trying to make it do what they want and end up giving up halfway through and either nerfing or removing altogether many of the features that would have made the game revolutionary in the first place.

    I'd rather developers spend that first year programming an engine from the ground up that will do nearly everything they want it to do. To go for the obvious examples: Stalker vs. BioShock.

    GSC may have removed a few features from their original design doc in order to make release, but they still got mostly there. Now imagine if they'd licensed Unreal. Sure, it would have looked a lot prettier, and maybe ran a tad smoother, but it wouldn't have been half the experience it was on release. Whereas, I think you'll agree, BioShock is clearly NOT the game that Irrational initially said they were setting out to release. Much of that is undoubtedly due to "saying yes to the player," but other elements like variable air pressure and water that dynamically collects and eventually fills rooms seem more likely to be caused by engine limitations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
    Versus taking half as long with NONE of the features they advertised? Yes.
    This is true and a very valid point, which I did consider when I made my post. Ultimately I fear that for most "ambitious, innovative and genre-breaking" games that try to build from the ground up, unless they are remarkably productive and resilient to external pressures - such as not-so-friendly suits from publishers pointing at the current expenses - then they will ultimately always have to cut measures away from their original design doc in order to achieve a working engine and game that delivers on every level.

    I suppose a supplementary point to my "working with an established engine" is to think long and hard about what engines are out there and what best meets the needs of your desired game. Often it seems like development troubles exist when they choose an engine based on a primary feature - such as visuals - but then have to work everything from the kitchen sink to toilet in order to make those pretty visuals mesh well with physics and all the rest of it.

  10. #110
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2006
    Location: Vienna, Austria
    true.
    let's look at the witcher.
    the Aurora engine was made for RPGs, quest/skill trees, statistics, easy pathfinding and good inclusion of backgrounds/art. animations were limited and other stuff not present.

    they managed to artificialy add a enhanced DX9 path with better effects, higher poly-models, the DOF effect, better AI, a weather system,....etc

    all of this made the game very HW demanding and the limitations of the former Aurora architecture still shine thru now and then. can't climb low obstacles, medium maps, long loading times, etc....overall they have an good-looking but sometimes still clunky game which does not scale well to lower systems.

    If they would have taken the FPS/Action approach and build a full 3D/physics/lightning/vehicles engine to give the visuals, environments, mapsize and animations, navigation, interaction with props more emphasis I fear we would have had a kick-ass action game with broken quests, more logical leaps and a "so-so" inventory and less story-decisions

    all the corners they had to cut and things they had to tone down are less gameplay-destroying then a broken sidequest/main storyline or not enough different ways of interaction between characters.

    i think the middle ground they found is brilliant and for an first game it's more I could ever hope for. I hope they stay around longer, I expect nothing than utter genius from that team if they happen to do another project together.

    so I would plead for more diversity in game engines and longer release cycles as well. more modular programming, more standardized interfaces and languages which make it easier to patch 2 engines or just parts of it together. longer release cycles, more updates/enhancements as the graphic/sound cards get better.

    therefore the Valve approach is the best IMO.

  11. #111
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: Most awesome city of Poznan
    Quote Originally Posted by mothra View Post
    true.
    let's look at the witcher.
    the Aurora engine was made for RPGs, quest/skill trees, statistics, easy pathfinding and good inclusion of backgrounds/art. animations were limited and other stuff not present.

    they managed to artificialy add a enhanced DX9 path with better effects, higher poly-models, the DOF effect, better AI, a weather system,....etc

    all of this made the game very HW demanding and the limitations of the former Aurora architecture still shine thru now and then. can't climb low obstacles, medium maps, long loading times, etc....overall they have an good-looking but sometimes still clunky game which does not scale well to lower systems.

    If they would have taken the FPS/Action approach and build a full 3D/physics/lightning/vehicles engine to give the visuals, environments, mapsize and animations, navigation, interaction with props more emphasis I fear we would have had a kick-ass action game with broken quests, more logical leaps and a "so-so" inventory and less story-decisions

    all the corners they had to cut and things they had to tone down are less gameplay-destroying then a broken sidequest/main storyline or not enough different ways of interaction between characters.

    i think the middle ground they found is brilliant and for an first game it's more I could ever hope for. I hope they stay around longer, I expect nothing than utter genius from that team if they happen to do another project together.

    so I would plead for more diversity in game engines and longer release cycles as well. more modular programming, more standardized interfaces and languages which make it easier to patch 2 engines or just parts of it together. longer release cycles, more updates/enhancements as the graphic/sound cards get better.

    therefore the Valve approach is the best IMO.
    I'll call you when I finish building a shrine dedicated to you.

  12. #112
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    But guys, it depends entirely on what you want to do with the game. If there is an engine out there that will do it then why not use it? Look at TDS and the choice of engine - Unreal was not suitable for it and so had to be hacked to hell and back, yet if you look at what The Dark Mod guys have got out of the Doom3 engine it's clear (to me at least) that the D3 engine should have been used for TDS.

    And has using the Unreal 2 engine really caused problems for BioShock? I was under the impression that it was design choices, not engine restrictions, that have resulted in the poorer feature set.

    DX1 showed that you can have an older, ulgier engine and still make a good game. As far as I'm concerned the only gameplay flaws that might be due to the engine were the running backwards people and the supersenses of the AI when you snipe from a hidden position.

    I can't imagine what they would want in this game that is not catered for by an existing engine.

  13. #113
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2006
    Location: Vienna, Austria
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikael Grizzly View Post
    I'll call you when I finish building a shrine dedicated to you.
    I just bought WIEDZMIN (polish version of theWitcher) over ebay.

    gonna play it in original polish with english subtitles.
    That's how in love I am with that game.

  14. #114
    ZylonBane
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: ZylonBane
    Quote Originally Posted by Subjective Effect View Post
    it's clear (to me at least) that the D3 engine should have been used for TDS.
    I really don't see how the Descent 3 engine would have been appropriate.

    (I know you couldn't possibly have been referring to Doom 3, because that was released several months after Deadly Shadows)

  15. #115
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    Quote Originally Posted by ZylonBane View Post
    I really don't see how the Descent 3 engine would have been appropriate.
    I dunno, game would've been awesome trippy!


    Confession: TDS is the only Thief game I completed, twice. And I liked it, a lot.

  16. #116
    Cuddly little misanthropic hate machine
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: someplace better than this
    Around here that's like denying the Holocaust or admitting to pedophilia.

  17. #117
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    Ah, forgot to mention: Played it on the Xbox.

  18. #118
    ZylonBane
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: ZylonBane
    Console 'tard alert.

  19. #119
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by ZylonBane View Post
    (I know you couldn't possibly have been referring to Doom 3, because that was released several months after Deadly Shadows)
    So what? I'm just saying that D3 would have been a more appropriate engine. We know why they used Unreal but I'm sure you'll agree that it was not a good engine choice.

  20. #120
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    Quote Originally Posted by ZylonBane View Post
    Console 'tard alert.
    Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

  21. #121
    Level 10,000 achieved
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Finland

    RE: D3 would have been a more appropriate engine

    So... they should've seen into the future and decided to put the game on hold till Doom 3 came out? That's like saying George Lucas should've waited with making Star Wars till he had 3D technology to make the space battle scenes.

    If you're "just saying" then it's ok, but it sounded like you were critizising Ion's choice of engine based on totally crazy hindsight facts.

    N'Al, making fun of kids with Downs. Nice.

  22. #122
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    I'm criticisingly they choice of engine because it was a bad choice. I'm not suggesting that they should have waited or seen into the future just that the Unreal engine was not suitable for the task given. I mention D3 because of all the engines around, even at the moment, it still seems to be the one best suited.

    That it came out the same year as TDS is just a sad coincidence. Makes me think "What if?"

  23. #123
    ZylonBane
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: ZylonBane
    Quote Originally Posted by Subjective Effect View Post
    I'm criticisingly they choice of engine because it was a bad choice.
    It's only a bad choice if there was something better available (which the Doom 3 engine was not).

    In any case, the problem was them trying to rewrite the renderer from scratch, and all the other incompetent crap they did. Ion Storm Austin just didn't have very good programmers on board for TDS and IW.

  24. #124
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    It's a bad choice because it doesn't work and there are alternative approaches like writing an engine that does what you want.

  25. #125
    ZylonBane
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: ZylonBane
    Quote Originally Posted by Subjective Effect View Post
    It's a bad choice because it doesn't work and there are alternative approaches like writing an engine that does what you want.
    Are you even listening? What customization they did to the Unreal engine turned out in the end to be their biggest development liability. Clearly they didn't have the resources to develop a usable engine from scratch.

    Your initial comment is nonsensical anyway. The Unreal engine can't possibly be blamed for the clunky player movement, the puffy models, the stiff animation, the loot beacons and atomic frob highlight, or any other engine-related flaws. The blame for that all falls on Ion Storm. An engine is only as good as what you put into it.

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •