70 replies to this topic

[kuma8877]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 27 September 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

with the same Assets and modelsm serverbased calculation and same Devs the game not looking or playing different in UE4 What can created the UE4 what the cryengine not can created????Meleefight ? no problem for the Cryengine, Lighteffects and Outdoor Enviroment Effects=cryengine better (seeing Arek Survival in UE4)...Not the Engine is the problem from MWO

One of the things you're missing between the different engines, is the talent pool available that has a good working knowledge with the engine. Where do you pull talent to work in CE? Devs with talent/experience, will be at either Amazon working with Lumberyard, or at CIG working on Star Citizen. It wasn't a big talent pool to begin with, even when CE was slightly more prominent in the industry. Many, many devs (many very talented devs) have done good work in the framework of UE throughout the years. A lot more experienced talent to pull from.

That in and of it's self is a huge difference between the two.

[LordNothing]

correlation yes, causation no. games that are open tend to have less toxic communities. but toxicity comes from players that are too broken to handle gaming in the first place. even the best games and communities seem to have these kinds of players.

[El Bandito]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 27 September 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

with the same Assets and modelsm serverbased calculation and same Devs the game not looking or playing different in UE4 What can created the UE4 what the cryengine not can created????Meleefight ? no problem for the Cryengine, Lighteffects and Outdoor Enviroment Effects=cryengine better (seeing Arek Survival in UE4)...Not the Engine is the problem from MWO

Cry engine is a mess in terms of coding. Even now, PGI can't get select fire to work. Unreal is easier to work with.

Edited by El Bandito, 27 September 2017 - 04:38 PM.

[Athom83]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 27 September 2017 - 11:28 AM, said:

with the same Assets and modelsm serverbased calculation and same Devs the game not looking or playing different in UE4 What can created the UE4 what the cryengine not can created????Meleefight ? no problem for the Cryengine, Lighteffects and Outdoor Enviroment Effects=cryengine better (seeing Arek Survival in UE4)...Not the Engine is the problem from MWO

CryEngine is better for games that rely on prettiness to survive. Unreal is more about the gameplay. There are various nuances to it, but basically with similar coding the game based on the Unreal will perform better and can be pushed farther complexity wise while the CryEngine game will look far prettier.

Slight edit; and as others have said, it also has to do with the ease of use each engine has. CryEngine is a lot more complex than Unreal, and even PGI has stated how surprised they were at how easy Unreal was to code for coming from CryEngine. CryEngine is so complex, the only ones who really understood it well enough to do really complex and amazing things with it was its creator CryTek (and by extension Ubisoft as they could use CryTek assets when needed).

Edited by Athom83, 27 September 2017 - 06:08 PM.

[Vellron2005]

JC Daxion, on 26 September 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

People always talk about openness and the lack of often, in this game and others. It seems like this is not an issue that PGI only has to deal with. I read this interesting article,. about the subject, and boy was it intersting.


Do you think that openness leads to more toxic or less toxic environments?

https://www.pcgamesn...-randall-tweets

I think there is a simple distinction between openness and toxicity.

You CAN be open, but don't have to be toxic about it!

Example:

You experienced a 0:12 stomp.

A normal "open person's" reaction is kinda like this: Well that sucked. We should have flanked / defended / pushed. We'll do better next time. Player "xyz" I asked you to do this, but you did not. I think we would have done better if you listened.

A TOXIC person would be like: What a crap team of idiots! You cost us the game! I told you a-holes to flank / defend / push, but nooo, you had to be idiots and not listen! You, "xyz", you are such a trash player! You flacking noob! You cost us the game you moron!

Get the difference?

There's a nice way and an evil way to state your opinion. You have a right to an opinion, and you have a right to express it. You DO NOT have a right to be an a-hole about it.

[Ghogiel]

Sounds like someone pretending that the reality of software development is some secret voodoo that the world at large has no clue about and can't figure out that Ill informed plebs exist to comment on everything ever.

[Johnny Z]

Brain Cancer, on 27 September 2017 - 02:55 PM, said:

I think toxicity develops from dissonance.

That is, you start with a developer statement on "we're making this game".

Perhaps the statement resonates with potential players, so they play.

Over time, a developer can drift from the original "mission statement". Worse, they may seem to (or straight up DO) contradict it in the name of The Vision. This causes dissonance between playerbase and developer.

Dissonance causes players to feel hurt. They hit back and become toxic. PGI has been VERY good at causing dissonant events in the process of development, and has amputated players as they become toxic. This means less potential toxicness, but it also dampens the feeling players have in being part of game development. They contribute less, financially and otherwise as a developer continues to follow their ideas and tends to ignore more of the playerbase.

Apathy and pain are poor ways to boost your game population or convince them to buy another Mechpack.

Haters gonna hate. If it isn't one thing its another. Quite simple really.

[The Mysterious Fox]

yes and no, openness is good but it is still secondary to the game design, bad ideas leads to nothing but anger and frustration then of course people will become more toxic over time ie...we need more maps and get rid of incursion, escort, assault and conquest.

Edited by The Mysterious Fox, 28 September 2017 - 01:03 AM.

[AJBennett]

Openness can breed toxicity when (ie)"...we're going to do X" isn't tempered with "...okay we tried X and there was a problem, we're working to sort it out before we do it again...", basically you can't be open without being honest as well...i/m/h/o.

...a good example would this latest Event Browser thing, lots of players contacted support with the EXACT same issue, PGI STILL hasn't even acknowledged that there was something wonky despite the large number of tickets they got on it and the number of players excluded from participating by the bug...just the usual "crickets" and "wasn't the event fun...new Mechs coming!" Not saying anything has caused even more players to put their wallets away (..from personal conversations).

Edited by AJBennett, 28 September 2017 - 07:12 AM.

[Wildstreak]

Blaming it all on developers at times is probably justified but it is not always the developers fault.
A perfect example happened to me this week.