29 replies to this topic

[Col Forbin]

Now I don't know what the political and financial realities are regarding using a licensed game engine, but I've been wondering about the CryEngine choice.

I don't know if any of you have played Battlefield 3, but the Frostbite 2 they developed has some great features that would fit well within this game.

I think Frostbite 2 (going off my BF3 experience) would have been a much better choice for the following reasons:



a) Ballistics: Ballistic weapons have, you know, actual ballistics. As in they are affected by gravity, and travel in a parabola. The straight line ballistics in MWO induce cringing everytime I watch. Real ballistics would definitely up the "simulator" credibility, while at the same time require much more skill to pull off long-range sniping, which are both good things in my book. As an added bonus it would add a great distinction in feel between energy and ballistics weapons.

Environmental Destruction: Being able to destroy walls and buildings not only looks cool; it also adds a cool tactical element to seeking cover. For example, hiding behind a car wasn't the best idea unless you were facing off against some small arms fire, a building would buy you a little more time, a hill or giant boulder was pretty safe.

c) Proven large-scale multiplayer performance: Frostbite 2 in BF3 does 32 versus 32 matches all day long without breaking a sweat. More importantly this includes loads of vehicles. A tank and a mech aren't that much different in reality. I understand that PGI wants a Mech-only experience but Frostbite 2 has all the ingredients to include infantry, tanks, and aerospace fighters if they wanted to expand the game in the future.


Anyways, those are my thoughts: Discuss.


P.S. If you're going to come on this this thread with some knee-jerk, anti-FPS, CoD rant, please don't. Read what I'm saying.

Edited by Col Forbin, 20 November 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Ballistic slugs currently travel in a parabolic arc, PPCs do not, though. You have to aim up for Gauss and AC slugs to hit where you want them to hit at range.

Environmental destruction is not at all prohibited in Cry3, they haven't written it into the game yet because of funds and time.

Cry3 is NOT a proven multiplayer engine, that is spot-on. From what I've gathered, they chose Cry3 to make a beautiful MW game because all prior MW games were just Polygon Warrior with crappy skins thrown on. At least they are working directly with CryTek on a regular basis onthis, and all ths joint-development work and the improvements they are making will also be integrated into future Cry productions.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 20 November 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[MrPenguin]

Cryengine 3 is much cheaper and is far more powerful.

Its definitely got its quirk and optimization issues, but its a beautiful engine with a good price and.. well.. i like using it :3

As for frostbite 2... I'm fairly sure you can't actually get a license for it unless your under EA. Perhaps someone else could clarify on this?

Edited by MrPenguin, 20 November 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[Dax Frey]

cryengine has some very cool features for development that Frostbite 2 does not have. plus...Cryengine3 is hands down the best overall engine in terms of price, performance, and features...its a great value at its price point. It was an obvious choice for what they wanted to do

Edited by Dax Frey, 20 November 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[buckX]

Point by point:

A. MWO definitely has the capacity for that. Ballistic weapons used to drop with distance (except gauss? can't recall). It was removed a while back (or at least reduced a lot), but I don't remember seeing notes on it. It does make them a lot more usable, so I don't mind that much. Keep in mind that the drops should be tiny. We're viewing stuff on a mech scale, but drop still happens at the speed we're used to on a human scale. An AC5 has a missile speed of 900m/s. Lets assume you're shooting 450m away, which is a reasonably long shot in mwo. That bullet will have dropped just over a meter. Considering these mechs are all 10-15m tall, that's actually fairly trivial.

B. This isn't an engine limitation, it's an implementation issue. They did introduce a couple of breakable trees a month or so back, there just has been very little of it. I'm guessing it's low priority.

C. I don't think we've seen enough to know if this is an issue. Certainly their 8v8 maps don't phase my 18 month old laptop in the slightest.

Edited by buckX, 20 November 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Havyek]

Whatever the case, the game was done using the Cry3 engine, too late now.

[MrPenguin]

Also, have you seen how big you can make maps on cryengine 3?

Theirs actually a game prototype that show cases it. The guy was able to fly on a planet, with the planet fully rendered. Then fly off into space into another planet. All with out loading times. Everything existed in that space. And it was HUGE.

[Vassago Rain]

Why would you not use the most powerful, pretty engine for your game?

[Col Forbin]

buckX, on 20 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Point by point:

A. MWO definitely has the capacity for that. Ballistic weapons used to drop with distance (except gauss? can't recall). It was removed a while back (or at least reduced a lot), but I don't remember seeing notes on it. It does make them a lot more usable, so I don't mind that much. Keep in mind that the drops should be tiny. We're viewing stuff on a mech scale, but drop still happens at the speed we're used to on a human scale. An AC5 has a missile speed of 900m/s. Lets assume you're shooting 450m away, which is a reasonably long shot in mwo. That bullet will have dropped just over a meter. Considering these mechs are all 10-15m tall, that's actually fairly trivial.

B. This isn't an engine limitation, it's an implementation issue. They did introduce a couple of breakable trees a month or so back, there just has been very little of it. I'm guessing it's low priority.

C. I don't think we've seen enough to know if this is an issue. Certainly their 8v8 maps don't phase my 18 month old laptop in the slightest.

A) I understand it is a subtle thing.... but the human brain is pretty damn good at picking out those subtleties, and shouting "FAKE!" inside your head.

Where are the breakable trees? I want to smash em!

Vassago Rain, on 20 November 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Why would you not use the most powerful, pretty engine for your game?

Are you saying BF3 isn't a pretty game? If you are, I would respectfully disagree.

BDU Havoc, on 20 November 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Whatever the case, the game was done using the Cry3 engine, too late now.

I understand that, just postulating.... I spend way too much time thinking about this game lol!

[Vassago Rain]

Col Forbin, on 20 November 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

A) I understand it is a subtle thing.... but the human brain is pretty damn good at picking out those subtleties, and shouting "FAKE!" inside your head.

Where are the breakable trees? I want to smash em!



Are you saying BF3 isn't a pretty game? If you are, I would respectfully disagree.



I understand that, just postulating.... I spend way too much time thinking about this game lol!

Battlefield looks bad. So does CoD.
I like my modern games to look like they were made this decade, and not created to run on console hardware from 2005.

[Mister Blastman]

MrPenguin, on 20 November 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Also, have you seen how big you can make maps on cryengine 3?

Theirs actually a game prototype that show cases it. The guy was able to fly on a planet, with the planet fully rendered. Then fly off into space into another planet. All with out loading times. Everything existed in that space. And it was HUGE.

Where is this?

[Thorn Hallis]

We had that discussion allready a year ago. If I remember right Frostbite 2 engine was out of question because either of price or EA wouldn't license it.

[Heffay]

Col Forbin, on 20 November 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Where are the breakable trees? I want to smash em!

The engine can handle it. It's probably a pretty low priority right now.

Edited by Heffay, 20 November 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[Corwin111]

Col Forbin, on 20 November 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Now I don't know what the political and financial realities are regarding using a licensed game engine, but I've been wondering about the CryEngine choice.

I don't know if any of you have played Battlefield 3, but the Frostbite 2 they developed has some great features that would fit well within this game.

I think Frostbite 2 (going off my BF3 experience) would have been a much better choice for the following reasons:



a) Ballistics: Ballistic weapons have, you know, actual ballistics. As in they are affected by gravity, and travel in a parabola. The straight line ballistics in MWO induce cringing everytime I watch. Real ballistics would definitely up the "simulator" credibility, while at the same time require much more skill to pull off long-range sniping, which are both good things in my book. As an added bonus it would add a great distinction in feel between energy and ballistics weapons.

Environmental Destruction: Being able to destroy walls and buildings not only looks cool; it also adds a cool tactical element to seeking cover. For example, hiding behind a car wasn't the best idea unless you were facing off against some small arms fire, a building would buy you a little more time, a hill or giant boulder was pretty safe.

c) Proven large-scale multiplayer performance: Frostbite 2 in BF3 does 32 versus 32 matches all day long without breaking a sweat. More importantly this includes loads of vehicles. A tank and a mech aren't that much different in reality. I understand that PGI wants a Mech-only experience but Frostbite 2 has all the ingredients to include infantry, tanks, and aerospace fighters if they wanted to expand the game in the future.


Anyways, those are my thoughts: Discuss.


P.S. If you're going to come on this this thread with some knee-jerk, anti-FPS, CoD rant, please don't. Read what I'm saying.

Cryengine3:

- Pros: It's cheap

- Cons: it's crap


Frostbite 2:

- Pros: It's not crap.

- Cons: It's not cheap.


That's pretty much the long and short of it.

Edited by Corwin111, 20 November 2012 - 10:32 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Corwin111, on 20 November 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Cryengine3:

- Pros: It's cheap

- Cons: it's crap


Frostbite 2:

- Pros: It's not crap.

- Cons: It's not cheap.


That's pretty much the long and short of it.

Cryengine 3.

Your game will look like it was made this decade.
You can have superhuge maps.

Frostbite.

You can add 200 different layers of glare and bloom, to disguise that the engine was made to run on xbox 360.
Must make a deal with EA (the devil) to obtain it.

[Havyek]

Vassago Rain, on 20 November 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Cryengine 3.

Your game will look like it was made this decade.
You can have superhuge maps.

Frostbite.

You can add 200 different layers of glare and bloom, to disguise that the engine was made to run on xbox 360.
Must make a deal with EA (the devil) to obtain it.

Aww, EA isn't that bad.


Hey, aren't they the ones that killed the awesome MPBT:3025 beta in favour of the latest Tiger Woods golf game?

[Minos Murdoc]

BDU Havoc, on 20 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Aww, EA isn't that bad.

Er... are you sure? Having worked in games industry and know a lot of people still there, most would say EA good company to work for shame about the games, IP's & studios they have been killing other the last 5years or so.

[T Hawk]

Col Forbin, on 20 November 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Now I don't know what the political and financial realities are regarding using a licensed game engine, but I've been wondering about the CryEngine choice.

I don't know if any of you have played Battlefield 3, but the Frostbite 2 they developed has some great features that would fit well within this game.

I think Frostbite 2 (going off my BF3 experience) would have been a much better choice for the following reasons:



a) Ballistics: Ballistic weapons have, you know, actual ballistics. As in they are affected by gravity, and travel in a parabola. The straight line ballistics in MWO induce cringing everytime I watch. Real ballistics would definitely up the "simulator" credibility, while at the same time require much more skill to pull off long-range sniping, which are both good things in my book. As an added bonus it would add a great distinction in feel between energy and ballistics weapons.

Environmental Destruction: Being able to destroy walls and buildings not only looks cool; it also adds a cool tactical element to seeking cover. For example, hiding behind a car wasn't the best idea unless you were facing off against some small arms fire, a building would buy you a little more time, a hill or giant boulder was pretty safe.

c) Proven large-scale multiplayer performance: Frostbite 2 in BF3 does 32 versus 32 matches all day long without breaking a sweat. More importantly this includes loads of vehicles. A tank and a mech aren't that much different in reality. I understand that PGI wants a Mech-only experience but Frostbite 2 has all the ingredients to include infantry, tanks, and aerospace fighters if they wanted to expand the game in the future.


Anyways, those are my thoughts: Discuss.


P.S. If you're going to come on this this thread with some knee-jerk, anti-FPS, CoD rant, please don't. Read what I'm saying.

My conclusion: You don't know anything about CryEngine. If you haven't used or read up on it yourself, don't even try to bring such a thing to discussion. CryEngine is used in MMORPGs, so it is capable of size in any angle. CryEngine does have destruction. CryEngine does NOT have straight line ballistics as you claim.

I use CryEngine myself and let me just tell you: It has everything BF3s engine has plus a lot more. It is the most advanced engine out there.

[Lee Ving]

tl;dr Woo, lets use an EA Games engine so that we can get charged to change loadouts.

[syngyne]

buckX, on 20 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

A. MWO definitely has the capacity for that. Ballistic weapons used to drop with distance (except gauss? can't recall). It was removed a while back (or at least reduced a lot), but I don't remember seeing notes on it.

They still drop, but (if I'm remembering right) they don't start dropping until they're past optimal range.