174 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

 Taking cues from Skyrim isn't enough. They need to:

-get rid of Hawke.
-quit trying to copy Mass Effect.
-get rid of the Samurai button pressing awesomeness.
-include original lore, not a rehash of Tolkein. 

[DreamwareStudio]

Elhanan wrote...

If one has not seen/ read the story of DA2 to the the end of Act II, then they are doing themselves a disservice, IMO. This would be like watching the old Mission Impossible team assemble a team w/o seeing them actually perform the mission. Plus the battles of Kirkwall and the Qunari are real game highlights for me.

And I love the graphics of DAO, as I must have taken dozens of screenies over the course of a year; many at Ostagar before and after the blankets of snow.This includes one facet of DAO I do prefer; the prior Death moves, as these screenshot moments became etched into memory, too.

If Act II is great, they should not have done it such a disservice with Act I.  I've seen conflicting reports as well that Act III is a major problem and others state the story doesn't get rolling until then.  Were DA 2 a better game I might care to find out.  Honestly, I feel it would be a disservice to continue.  As it is, with what I've seen thus far, I'm not vested enough to care about what happens to any of the characters, including Hawke, and whether Act II or III is any good.

Modifié par google_calasade, 25 décembre 2011 - 08:06 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

CenturyCrow wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
But I do need to ask why you people are so afraid of an OPTIONAL multiplayer mode? How exactly will Mass Effect 3 flop because of the added OPTIONAL multiplayer modes?

I think you're missing the complaint. Nobody is afraid of an optional multiplayer mode; nor is it certain that ME 3 will succeed or fail based on the inclusion of multiplayer. There's people who favor single player games, people who favor multiplayer games and some who like both. Certainly the lines are blurring in games and some games have mini-games within them.

ME and ME 2 are single player games and I'd like to finish the series with a single player game. DA 2 is as far as I'll go with that series.

To use your term 'optional.' Just because BW includes an OPTIONAL Spreadsheet and WordProcessor in their games doesn't mean I'd be interested in using them. The fact that BW is looking at Skyrim for DA and is adding multiplayer, sounds like they are trying to make the next installment into an absurd multifunction game that does a lot of everything but nothing well. There's a risk of BW diluting the type of game they're known for creating, namely single player story driven games. If anything, Skyrim is a good example of staying with the single player format instead of diluting it with multiplayer.

Do you really think that Activision is going to mess with the COD formula because Skyrim is so successful?

Are you not still getting a single player game in ME3, I mean to my knowledge Bioware havent cut the single player aspect of Mass Effect in favor of Multiplayer so what is the problem? How does adding multiplayer somehow "taint" the single player experience? You still get the single player experience you know and love and Bioware gets to try something new in the Multiplayer department.

I think a lot of people have a problem with the idea of an optional multiplayer because it reflects indecision and lack of clear vision by Bioware/EA.  What I get from the majority of posts is that people want Bioware/EA to stay consistent and offer a game that does one thing (RPG) well rather than a hodgepodge that tries to be everything but ends up doing nothing particularly well.

[Russalka]

Neverwinter Nights style multiplayer alongside a toolset would not be bad at all, in my opinion.

[Zanallen]

google_calasade wrote...

If Act II is great, they should not have done it such a disservice with Act I.  I've seen conflicting reports as well that Act III is a major problem and others state the story doesn't get rolling until then.  Were DA 2 a better game I might care to find out.  As it is, with Act I being what it is, I feel it would be a disservice to continue.  I'm just not vested enough to care if Act II or III is any good.

What's funny about act 1 is that Bioware was attempting to bring back the feel of the beginning of BG2. That being, the party is doing a bunch of sidequests with no real connection in an attempt to earn enough money to continue their actual quest.

BG2 - Earn money to pay thieves' guild to help in busting out Imoen and pursuing Irenicus.

DA2 - Earn money to buy your way into Deep Roads expedition in order to restore your family fortune (Which is a lot more than the paltry 50 gold, btw).

[Zanallen]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You can repeat that as often as you like, but that does not make it true. If they gave full attention to the SP instead and it still does not perform then the team is really in bad shape. However, given the trend we see in the industry, chances are that MP will draw away attention from SP and thus SP may suffer. Including MP does not always result in the game being more successful. Skyrim is a good example. Despite not having MP or even despite not having a voiced PC, did not make it a commercial failure. It even sold much more than its predecessors, so it even drew more fans than the franchise already had. Given those facts, encouraging BW not to go the MP route makes sense. See the the difference?

Have a great X-mas, BTW.

But the team is giving their full attention to the SP campaign. The MP is being crafted by a separate team put together solely for that purpose. From what I have read, it seems like that team also had a separate budget, or at least the overall budget of ME3 was increased to allow for the creation of MP. From what I have read, that manpower and monetary resources would not be available to the SP campaign if MP was not on the table. That money and those workers would not have been allocated to ME3 and instead placed into a separate project.

But no, multiplayer is not required for a game to be good. However, I don't believe MP to be automatically detrimental either.

And the Bethesda games have always sold more than Bioware games. I assume it has something to do with the open world freedom being more important than a well crafted story or companions for most people.

[DreamwareStudio]

Zanallen wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

If Act II is great, they should not have done it such a disservice with Act I.  I've seen conflicting reports as well that Act III is a major problem and others state the story doesn't get rolling until then.  Were DA 2 a better game I might care to find out.  As it is, with Act I being what it is, I feel it would be a disservice to continue.  I'm just not vested enough to care if Act II or III is any good.

What's funny about act 1 is that Bioware was attempting to bring back the feel of the beginning of BG2. That being, the party is doing a bunch of sidequests with no real connection in an attempt to earn enough money to continue their actual quest.

BG2 - Earn money to pay thieves' guild to help in busting out Imoen and pursuing Irenicus.

DA2 - Earn money to buy your way into Deep Roads expedition in order to restore your family fortune (Which is a lot more than the paltry 50 gold, btw).

If that's what they were going for, they failed.

Irenicus' dungeon had me intrigued.  Who was Irenicus?  Why were my PC, Imoen, Jaheira, and Minsc there?  What the hell was Irenicus doing with dryads?  There were things that immediately caught my interest, and each held a promise of something more rewarding once the party got out of the dungeon.  Once outside, Imoen was whisked away.  With each progression, the story sucked me in deeper.

Unfortunately, that interest did not happen with DA 2.  A lot of the difference has to do with when Baldur's Gate 2 came out, it was cutting edge, and because of Baldur's Gate I, I knew I was in for a wild ride.  DA 2 was not cutting edge, obviously rushed and rather bland, so  I just never got that feeling of anticipating something great happening.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Zanallen wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

If Act II is great, they should not have done it such a disservice with Act I.  I've seen conflicting reports as well that Act III is a major problem and others state the story doesn't get rolling until then.  Were DA 2 a better game I might care to find out.  As it is, with Act I being what it is, I feel it would be a disservice to continue.  I'm just not vested enough to care if Act II or III is any good.

What's funny about act 1 is that Bioware was attempting to bring back the feel of the beginning of BG2. That being, the party is doing a bunch of sidequests with no real connection in an attempt to earn enough money to continue their actual quest.

BG2 - Earn money to pay thieves' guild to help in busting out Imoen and pursuing Irenicus.

DA2 - Earn money to buy your way into Deep Roads expedition in order to restore your family fortune (Which is a lot more than the paltry 50 gold, btw).

Yes I noticed this as well and it did make me wonder if the Dragon Age team actually have any idea of what they are doing any more, I did notice a lot of elements that tried to mirror elements of their earlier games (BG2 in particular) only to fail and miss the point completely, almost like they are trying to recapture the greatness of their earlier games yet cant exactly pin down what it was about those games that made them great.

[Zanallen]

google_calasade wrote...

If that's what they were going for, they failed.

Irenicus' dungeon had me intrigued.  Who was Irenicus?  Why were my PC, Imoen, Jaheira, and Minsc there?  What the hell was Irenicus doing with dryads?  There were things that immediately caught my interest, and each held a promise of something more rewarding once the party got out of the dungeon.  Once outside, Imoen was whisked away.  With each progression, the story sucked me in deeper.

Unfortunately, that interest did not happen with DA 2.  A lot of the difference has to do with when Baldur's Gate 2 came out, it was cutting edge, and because of Baldur's Gate I, I knew I was in for a wild ride.  DA 2 was not cutting edge, obviously rushed and rather bland, so  I just never got that feeling of anticipating something great happening.

Eh, different strokes for different folks I guess. The opening of BG2 did absolutely nothing for me. I hated Imoen in BG1 and so didn't care about her at all in the sequel. Even I didn't have that preconception about her, there wasn't enough interaction with her before her capture to make me care. Similar to Bethany/Carver's death in the prologue of DA2. As for Irenicus, sure he abducted me and my companions and did something to me, but I escaped and he was in a mage prison. Why should I care enough to want to break into said prison to pursue him? The entire first act of the game hinges on you caring somewhat about these two characters and it failed miserably for me.

[Zanallen]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Yes I noticed this as well and it did make me wonder if the Dragon Age team actually have any idea of what they are doing any more, I did notice a lot of elements that tried to mirror elements of their earlier games (BG2 in particular) only to fail and miss the point completely, almost like they are trying to recapture the greatness of their earlier games yet cant exactly pin down what it was about those games that made them great.

I figure it has something to do with that "spiritual successor to BG" thing that they used for Origins. DAO obviously wasn't anything like BG or BG2, so they decided to take a similar motivation and plot structure from BG2 and rework it into DA2.

[bussinrounds]

Russalka wrote...

Neverwinter Nights style multiplayer alongside a toolset would not be bad at all, in my opinion.

  They won't do this anymore because they don't want games to last for years and years.  They want your 60$+ every year.

    Look at sports games, realisticly they shouldn't come out EVERY year.  They should provide roster updates (for a small fee per year )   This way they could actually have some time to implement worthwile changes, instead of being rushed and using the excuse of only having a small window until next year.

   But as we know, It's always about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with everything.

[Get Magna Carter]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Kabanya101 wrote...

Time to get everything straight:

1. The developers of Dragon Age were checking out Skyrim. That does not mean they will steal any ideas or copy anything.

2. There will not be multiplayer.
           A. When EA sees the disaster that will come with ME3, they will stop it
           B. How are you going to add MP/Co-op? Only possibility would  be to play as companion

3. The sequel will be mainly copied off of Origins and not DA2.


DA2 was a complete disaster. The only thing that was improved in DA2 was the battle animations for the mage and the updated graphics. Some characters were good, but mostly missing depth.

Yeah I wouldnt count on it, are those supposed to be facts or blind hopes that are about to be crushed come the release of DA3? Odds are Origins wont make a return, the protagonist will still be voiced and the dialogue wheel will return, hell at this point I think you can count yourself if Hawke doesnt return as the Protagonist and that is a major IF.

But I do need to ask why you people are so afraid of an OPTIONAL multiplayer mode? How exactly will Mass Effect 3 flop because of the added OPTIONAL multiplayer modes?

Did anyone say ME3 would itself fail because of multiplayer?
There are a number of games which are succesful as singleplayer games but have been failures in multiplayer
(If a month after release, nobody is going online to play it then its a failure).
So it is possible to have a disaster in multiplayer but still have an overall failure (making the multiplayer a waste of resources)

[Elhanan]

bussinrounds wrote...

They won't do this anymore because they don't want games to last for years and years.  They want your 60$+ every year.

    Look at sports games, realisticly they shouldn't come out EVERY year.  They should provide roster updates (for a small fee per year )   This way they could actually have some time to implement worthwile changes, instead of being rushed and using the excuse of only having a small window until next year.

   But as we know, It's always about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with everything.

This being stated on free Forums....

[naughty99]

slimgrin wrote...

 Taking cues from Skyrim isn't enough. They need to:

-get rid of Hawke.
-quit trying to copy Mass Effect.
-get rid of the Samurai button pressing awesomeness.
-include original lore, not a rehash of Tolkein. 

Call me a cheap date, but I would be absolutely thrilled if the only changes to DA3 were:

-lots and lots of sidequests (not the reverse FedEx stuff where you find something in a chest and some random person gives you gold)
-tons of handcrafted unique dungeons
-a couple of joinable factions
-deeper, more balanced and fun crafting system that makes crafting a viable alternative to relying on found potions and items
-better inventory and loot system (no more Staff of Cold with +5 fire damage)
-different endings and branching path quests depending on, for example, whether you help the Apostates or the Orlesian Grey Wardens
-some kind of really cool resolution to the Morrigan baby story, depending on your savegame from DA:O
-more choices in character creation (different races)

Like it or not, the engine is going to be based on DA2's engine, and they are not going to scrap the whole thing and start over with DA:O Part 2. Nor are they going to make it open world. 

I also doubt they will support modders with a modding tool but if that turns out to be the case I would be ecstatic.

Modifié par naughty99, 26 décembre 2011 - 12:14 .

[bussinrounds]

Elhanan wrote...

bussinrounds wrote...

They won't do this anymore because they don't want games to last for years and years.  They want your 60$+ every year.

    Look at sports games, realisticly they shouldn't come out EVERY year.  They should provide roster updates (for a small fee per year )   This way they could actually have some time to implement worthwile changes, instead of being rushed and using the excuse of only having a small window until next year.

   But as we know, It's always about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with everything.

This being stated on free Forums....

 

[CenturyCrow]

naughty99 wrote...
Like it or not, the engine is going to be based on DA2's engine, and they are not going to scrap the whole thing and start over with DA:O Part 2. Nor are they going to make it open world.

Unless you're actually working for BW or EA and breaking the NDA, you're speculating like the rest of us.

I posted this earlier in this thread. Maximum PC has an article about the best gaming engines. They speculate that Frostbite 2 (BF3) could be used for DA 3, which would make sense if it's more mulitplayer oriented. From a graphics viewpoint, it would be better than most shooters and RPGs out there. Since I don't have BF3, I have no idea how good the graphics are on the PC nor if it ports well to the consoles. But that would be a great turn around for PCers who have had to deal with poor console ports for some time.

Strengths: Built from the ground up to take care of high-end PC hardware, Frostbite 2 is far and away the most advanced graphical engine available at the moment. Frostbite 2 is perhaps the only engine to fully take advantage of both DX11 capabilities and 64-bit processing power, giving high end PCs a much deserved performance showpiece. The most impressive aspects of the engine are the volumetric effects, ambient occlusion, and light and shadow mapping. These powerful shader and rendering tools and effects create the most photorealistic screenshots to date, and even more impressive results in motion.

www.maximumpc.com/article/features/gamers_start_your_engines_6_top_gaming_engines_face

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 26 décembre 2011 - 12:20 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

This is not a popular opinion, but I think rather than Skyrim, BioWare ought to look at Fallout or even Sports Games for inspiration. Skyrim's lessons and strengths relate to world and environmental building, none of which BioWare places any real importance on.

What they can learn from Fallout or Sports Games, however, is how to develop a character system without making it seem bloated. A lot of stats and attributes (particularly in Dragon Age 2) seem opaque in regards to the logic behind it, or to their purpose. Cunning increases Defence? Wtf? What the hell is Fire Damage and how does it differ from Regular Damage? Is it just SFX or does it actually have a purpose?

When people complain about stat systems, it's usually not because they don't understand it or that it's too complex (I refuse to believe RPGs are a genre for "higher intellects", things like 2d6 and AoO are not rocket science), it's because it's difficult to understand what the purpose of this stat or that stat, actually is. Either because it isn't properly demonstrated by the game, or because it doesn't have a lot of importance.

How many people complained about the stats in Mass Effect, how stupid it was and how much better it was in Mass Effect 2? Did these same people look at Fallout 3/New Vegas and just give up on CC because their brains literally couldn't wrap around the concept of numbers? (OH NOES! IT'S NUMBERS!! MY BRIAN HURTZ! GIMME EXTREME SHEPARD PLX!!)

I highly doubt it. But what Fallout 3 and New Vegas did, was able to put those stats and numbers in a context that makes sense, that's transparent and not opaque. The presentation and design of how the stats worked allowed the player to clearly understand and see the effect of raising this attribute, raising this skill or picking that Perk.

But why Sports Games, then? Because BioWare can't go from being forever tied to D&D + Diablo combinations without understanding the logic behind it, to SPECIAL's method without looking like they're copying the competition. Sports Games provide the same logical grounding in it's stat systems without looking nerdy or bloated, because they all relate to a facet of the character which people can understand.



Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of baskbetball would understand what all (or most) of those stats do.

So the idea is to create a system with as many stats and numbers as necessary, but put them into a context that's transparent and easy to understand. Cutting crap because they seem "complex" without really understanding why for sake of accessibility just makes things worse.

OTOH, if they wanted to cut stuff out for the sake of making things easy (why develop moderately complex character systems to begin with? people are dumb hurr durr) which would likely be something EA would push for, then maybe Skyrim isn't so bad to look at for inspiration after all. It's streamlined and "dumbed down" but for the most part, it works.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 26 décembre 2011 - 02:15 .

[Oooh shiny]

mrcrusty wrote...

This is not a popular opinion, but I think rather than Skyrim, BioWare ought to look at Fallout or even Sports Games for inspiration. Skyrim's lessons and strengths relate to world and environmental building, none of which BioWare places any real importance on.

What they can learn from Fallout or Sports Games, however, is how to develop a character system without making it seem bloated. A lot of stats and attributes (particularly in Dragon Age 2) seem opaque in regards to the logic behind it, or to their purpose. Cunning increases Defence? Wtf? What the hell is Fire Damage and how does it differ from Regular Damage? Is it just SFX or does it actually have a purpose?

When people complain about stat systems, it's usually not because they don't understand it or that it's too complex (I refuse to believe RPGs are a genre for "higher intellects", things like 2d6 and AoO are not rocket science), it's because it's difficult to understand what the purpose of this stat or that stat, actually is. Either because it isn't properly demonstrated by the game, or because it doesn't have a lot of importance.

How many people complained about the stats in Mass Effect, how stupid it was and how much better it was in Mass Effect 2? Did these same people look at Fallout 3/New Vegas and just give up on CC because their brains literally couldn't wrap around the concept of numbers? (OH NOES! IT'S NUMBERS!! MY BRIAN HURTZ! GIMME EXTREME SHEPARD PLX!!)

I highly doubt it. But what Fallout 3 and New Vegas did, was able to put those stats and numbers in a context that makes sense, that's transparent and not opaque. The presentation and design of how the stats worked allowed the player to clearly understand and see the effect of raising this attribute, raising this skill or picking that Perk.

But why Sports Games, then? Because BioWare can't go from being forever tied to D&D + Diablo combinations without understanding the logic behind it, to SPECIAL's method without looking like they're copying the competition. Sports Games provide the same logical grounding in it's stat systems without looking nerdy or bloated, because they all relate to a facet of the character which people can understand.

*SNIP*

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of baskbetball would understand what all (or most) of those stats do.

So the idea is to create a system with as many stats and numbers as necessary, but put them into a context that's transparent and easy to understand. Cutting crap because they seem "complex" without really understanding why for sake of accessibility just makes things worse.

OTOH, if they wanted to cut stuff out for the sake of making things easy (why develop moderately complex character systems to begin with? people are dumb hurr durr) which would likely be something EA would push for, then maybe Skyrim isn't so bad to look at for inspiration after all. It's streamlined and "dumbed down" but for the most part, it works.

I think that's^ genius with the only caveat that none of it detract from the story or characters. The reason I spend more time on BioWare games than Bethesda games is due entirely to the story and characters alongside solid (although not excellent) gameplay. As much fun as I'm having with Skyrim my only complaint is that you could take the story away entirely and the game would still be fun. 

What you've outlined would be an excellent avenue toward making a DA3 deep and involving on more levels than ever Origins was and I hope Bioware is listening.

[naughty99]

CenturyCrow wrote...

naughty99 wrote...
Like it or not, the engine is going to be based on DA2's engine, and they are not going to scrap the whole thing and start over with DA:O Part 2. Nor are they going to make it open world.

Unless you're actually working for BW or EA and breaking the NDA, you're speculating like the rest of us.

What I meant is that DA2 is their starting point. Following completion of DA2, the same dev team met and looked at what worked, what they would like to improve, etc.

They might iterate on DA2's engine with new middleware or implement a brand new third party engine as you suggested, but there is simply no way they are going to go back and use the old Eclipse Engine from Origins.

Modifié par naughty99, 26 décembre 2011 - 08:06 .

[CenturyCrow]

naughty99 wrote...
What I meant is that DA2 is their starting point. Following completion of DA2, the same dev team met and looked at what worked, what they would like to improve, etc.

I have no idea what their starting point would be (maybe reviewing Origins would be a good place start). If they're looking at Skyrim and the reaction to DA2, they may take a different tack. And there is still a few things still unresolved from both DA:O and DA 2 with Flemeth and Morrigan.

I still think there was another DA 2 or story outline in there that was replaced with Hawke's story. I (and others) still think DA 2 was aimed at the button masher console masses who never heard of BW before. And I think BW could have made 2 game variations–button masher for the masses and the old story driven single player that a lot of people expected. To me this is somewhat confirmed in the ME 3 mode system (Action Mode, Story Mode, RPG mode) so button mashers can skip the story and mash to glory and not see any dialogue except for the cut scenes.

That's why some people wonder what will happen when you try to stick too many things into a  'series' that seems to have lost it's direction. You try to appeal to everyone and you get a Frankenstein assembly of parts that nobody likes–a single player, multiplayer, action game, story game, RPG, one size fits all. The ONE thing that would get people to take notice, won't (likely) be included, The Toolset.

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 26 décembre 2011 - 03:11 .

[Morroian]

naughty99 wrote...

They might iterate on DA2's engine with new middleware or implement a brand new third party engine as you suggested,
but there is simply no way they are going to go back and use the old Eclipse Engine from Origins.

DA2 uses the same engine as DAO, they simply changed the art style. 

[naughty99]

Morroian wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

They might iterate on DA2's engine with new middleware or implement a brand new third party engine as you suggested,
but there is simply no way they are going to go back and use the old Eclipse Engine from Origins.

DA2 uses the same engine as DAO, they simply changed the art style. 

 
One is called the "Eclipse Engine" and the other is called the "Lycium Engine" - is this just marketing or are they actually different engines?

[Chromie]

naughty99 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

They might iterate on DA2's engine with new middleware or implement a brand new third party engine as you suggested,
but there is simply no way they are going to go back and use the old Eclipse Engine from Origins.

DA2 uses the same engine as DAO, they simply changed the art style. 

 
One is called the "Eclipse Engine" and the other is called the "Lycium Engine" - is this just marketing or are they actually different engines?

I believe market. Just like Skyrim uses the "Creation Engine" even though it's just a modded Gamebryo.

[naughty99]

Ringo12 wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

They might iterate on DA2's engine with new middleware or implement a brand new third party engine as you suggested,
but there is simply no way they are going to go back and use the old Eclipse Engine from Origins.

DA2 uses the same engine as DAO, they simply changed the art style. 

 
One is called the "Eclipse Engine" and the other is called the "Lycium Engine" - is this just marketing or are they actually different engines?

I believe market. Just like Skyrim uses the "Creation Engine" even though it's just a modded Gamebryo.

If so, at least in the case of the Creation Engine, it has been modified sufficiently that there are quite a few aspects of the game that would be impossible to implement on the version used for Oblivion.

In this sense, if we were speaking of TES 6 or FO4, there is simply no way that Bethesda would go back and start over using Oblivion's engine and level design tool. 

This is what I meant when I referred to DA2 as the starting point for DA3's development, rather than DA:O. 

Modifié par naughty99, 26 décembre 2011 - 10:40 .

[Zanallen]

naughty99 wrote...

One is called the "Eclipse Engine" and the other is called the "Lycium Engine" - is this just marketing or are they actually different engines?

"While it might appear to run on a new
engine, Dragon Age 2 employs an evolved version of Origins' Eclipse
engine (now called the Lycium engine internally)."

Its basically Eclipse 2.0.