513 réponses à ce sujet

[ligernull]

sassyJacen wrote...

Oh this sounds so cool!! hopefully it will come to xbox 360, if it can handel skyrim it can handel anything!
Hmmm, you think bioware has spent time with the folks at bethseda?:-/

That's what I want to know: Any word on what platforms DA3 will be on? I'm sure it will be on whatever next gen consoles are out next year, but nobody wants to buy a whole new machine for one game.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

ligernull wrote...

sassyJacen wrote...

Oh this sounds so cool!! hopefully it will come to xbox 360, if it can handel skyrim it can handel anything!
Hmmm, you think bioware has spent time with the folks at bethseda?:-/

That's what I want to know: Any word on what platforms DA3 will be on? I'm sure it will be on whatever next gen consoles are out next year, but nobody wants to buy a whole new machine for one game.

Xbox 360, PS3, PC.

I doubt they will even bother porting it to new consoles.

[Heimdall]

ligernull wrote...

sassyJacen wrote...

Oh this sounds so cool!! hopefully it will come to xbox 360, if it can handel skyrim it can handel anything!
Hmmm, you think bioware has spent time with the folks at bethseda?:-/

That's what I want to know: Any word on what platforms DA3 will be on? I'm sure it will be on whatever next gen consoles are out next year, but nobody wants to buy a whole new machine for one game.

I'd bet on current consoles but part of me fears they'll push it to the next generation.

[Malsumis]

axl99 wrote...
Sure the UDK and CryEngine3 can deliver similar results, but we're talking about realtime simulated results here. In any case, it's always nice to hear the devs aren't using an antiquidated, user-unfriendly engine for their game.

/back on topic

CryEngine 3 is superior to Frostbyte 2 in everyway, if your on PC. For consoles the difference will be marginal between the two.

[Allan Schumacher]

In what ways is it superior? (I have no visibility on it at all)

[Malsumis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In what ways is it superior? (I have no visibility on it at all)

Graphically.

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

Check Squadron 42/Star Citizen.

www.youtube.com/watch

It's ability to scale, for another example, the difference between what CryEngine and Frostbyte can achieve on both consoles and PC. CryEngine wasn't nerfed for console(not trying to flame), they just made it highly scalable.

The sdk is free for people to use for non-commercial projects, which should(key word there) make it easier to mod games using that engine.

They also have an excellent site to help beginners.

www.crydev.net/

I'm not saying frostbyte 2 is crap, far from it(I think it's a good move from eclipse/Lycium). It's just from what has been shown from both engines, CryEngine 3 looks and sounds superior, especially when on PC.

Though ultimately it will be how developers use those tools that matter most.

[Maytrows]

Is PC lead platform for DA3 or is it a Console?

[Atakuma]

Maytrows wrote...

Is PC lead platform for DA3 or is it a Console?

There's no information on that, though it will most likely be console.

Modifié par Atakuma, 24 octobre 2012 - 05:50 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Malsumis wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In what ways is it superior? (I have no visibility on it at all)

Graphically.

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

Check Squadron 42/Star Citizen.

www.youtube.com/watch

It's ability to scale, for another example, the difference between what CryEngine and Frostbyte can achieve on both consoles and PC. CryEngine wasn't nerfed for console(not trying to flame), they just made it highly scalable.

The sdk is free for people to use for non-commercial projects, which should(key word there) make it easier to mod games using that engine.

They also have an excellent site to help beginners.

www.crydev.net/

I'm not saying frostbyte 2 is crap, far from it(I think it's a good move from eclipse/Lycium). It's just from what has been shown from both engines, CryEngine 3 looks and sounds superior, especially when on PC.

Though ultimately it will be how developers use those tools that matter most.

You sir, are talking out of your rear. You make only two points in this post that are worth mentioning, the last being that the SDK is free for all to use, which doesn't make the engine itself superior in anyway to Frostbite 2.

Graphically, CryEngine 3 is superior. I doubt anyone would try to dispute that. But keep in mind that the last game we saw running Frostbite 2 was BF3, and that was before Crysis 3 was ever shown. It makes sense that Crysis 3 would look better, it's coming out later. Battlefield 4 will be running on an updated version of Frostbite 2. Stay tuned.

Frostbite 2 scales incredibly well and still looks great on the consoles. Battlefield 3 runs smoothly on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, maintaining 30fps almost all the time. Crysis 2 rarely ever runs at 30fps. It''s usually somewhere between 20-25fps, even in multiplayer where framerate matters the most. Both engines do a decent job with scaling, but Frostbite 2 wins in this area.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:41 .

[DanIsNotVegan]

I know that there's probably no reason to worry, but knowing the engine used in EA's Skate 3... you hopefully understand my concern.www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par DanIsNotVegan, 28 octobre 2012 - 04:14 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

DanIsNotVegan wrote...

I know that there's probably no reason to worry, but knowing the engine used in EA's Skate 3... you hopefully understand my concern.www.youtube.com/watch

It's all up to Bioware. The engine itself is very capable.

[TacticalAce]

Guys you are arguing over top graphical engines to date, there are no other engines to date that look as good as those. So arguing Cryengine 3 vs Frostbite 2 is like arguing that Ferrari is better then a Lamborghini. They are the best of the best compared to all of the lower ended engines.

I do agree without a doubt right now the cryengine 3 looks better then frostbite 2. Having that said frostbite is utterly amazing, Im actually lucky enough to max BF3 and my eyes melt everytime I see it.

I know that DA3 wont be on the level of BF3 but you can pretty much guarantee that it will look much better then DAO. We will notice the visual greatness most when we engage in cutscenes and conversations.

[Gnaeus.Silvanus]

So NO SUPPORT for WINDOWS XP?

[Malsumis]

the last being that the SDK is free for all to use, which doesn't make the engine itself superior in anyway to Frostbite 2.

Actually it does. Not if your a console user, but well I don't care about that.

Graphically, CryEngine 3 is superior

Glad we agree.

Battlefield 4 will be running on an updated version of Frostbite 2. Stay tuned.

Dice won't match CryEngine 3 until Frostbite 3(even then doubtful). But bio are not using Frostbite 3, they are using Frostbite 2.

Frostbite 2 scales incredibly well and still looks great on the consoles. Battlefield 3 runs smoothly on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, maintaining 30fps almost all the time. Crysis 2 rarely ever runs at 30fps. It''s usually somewhere between 20-25fps, even in multiplayer where framerate matters the most. Both engines do a decent job with scaling, b Frostbite 2 wins in this area.

Back scaling in frostbite 2 might be better(don't play console), but that does not match the CryEngine 3's ability to upscale. CryEngine 3's ability to upscale, far outreaches Frostbites 2 ability to do the same.

CryEngine 3 is a next gen engine. Frostbyte 2 is a current gen engine. It's a simple as that.

Modifié par Malsumis, 01 novembre 2012 - 08:08 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Back scaling in frostbite 2 might be better(don't play console), but that does not match the CryEngine 3's ability to upscale. CryEngine 3's ability to upscale, far outreaches Frostbites 2 ability to do the same.

I'm sorry you've lost me somewhat here.

[Malsumis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Back scaling in frostbite 2 might be better(don't play console), but that does not match the CryEngine 3's ability to upscale. CryEngine 3's ability to upscale, far outreaches Frostbites 2 ability to do the same.

I'm sorry you've lost me somewhat here.

Frostbite 2 ability to downscale graphics to achieve good FPS on current gen consoles might be better(again this is not something I don't know) than CryEngine 3.

However when it comes to using the PC to it's best/fullest/potential, CryEngine 3 can do a much better job than Frostbite 2.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just curious, what are you basing your statements on? You showed some Youtube videos but I'd like to read more on the technical specifications for CryEngine's scalability.

I just get confused because you started using terms like "Back scaling and upscaling" and I'm confused what is motivating your statements that Frostbite may be better at "downscaling" but isn't as good at "upscaling?"

I think what you're trying to say is, on a scale of 1 - 2 with 1 being current gen consoles, 2 being top end PC, you think Frostbite 2 might be a 1.5 that can go back to 1 really easily, with Crytek being a 2 that maybe struggles to go back to 1, but that isn't really "upscaling" rather than just a more full featured engine.


Although this gets a bit beside the point. The biggest advantages to us using Frostbite extend beyond the graphical fidelity it provides over Eclipse. That's just a bonus.

[Fortlowe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just curious, what are you basing your statements on? You showed some Youtube videos but I'd like to read more on the technical specifications for CryEngine's scalability.

I just get confused because you started using terms like "Back scaling and upscaling" and I'm confused what is motivating your statements that Frostbite may be better at "downscaling" but isn't as good at "upscaling?"

I think what you're trying to say is, on a scale of 1 - 2 with 1 being current gen consoles, 2 being top end PC, you think Frostbite 2 might be a 1.5 that can go back to 1 really easily, with Crytek being a 2 that maybe struggles to go back to 1, but that isn't really "upscaling" rather than just a more full featured engine.


Although this gets a bit beside the point. The biggest advantages to us using Frostbite extend beyond the graphical fidelity it provides over Eclipse. That's just a bonus.

What kinds of gameplay advantages does Frostbite 2 offer? Honestly, I'm excited about the engine, but beyond the graphical boost it'll obviously provide, I really have no clue. 

I saw in another thread where some experimentation involving companion banter was mentioned, and I know the enviornments will be far larger than before, but does Frostbite do everything Eclipse does, only better or is there some give and take?

[Allan Schumacher]

I was more thinking memory/streaming and stuff like that. The memory streaming system itself should allow for significantly larger levels. There may be aspects for things like combat that I unfortunately don't have much visibility into.

In terms of game mechanics, Frostbite does not do everything that Eclipse can do (and I'm just speaking from a digital acting point of view). Which is what we're spending a lot of our time on adding to the engine. The lower goal is to have the same development functionality as DA2 (same level of conversation editor, cutscene editors, etc. etc.), but obviously there is room and opportunity to expand those systems as we implement them. There has been some areas that have been expanded upon for sure, and David is hinting at some with his comments, but I'm hesitant to give more details than that

[hoorayforicecream]

Fortlowe wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just curious, what are you basing your statements on? You showed some Youtube videos but I'd like to read more on the technical specifications for CryEngine's scalability.

I just get confused because you started using terms like "Back scaling and upscaling" and I'm confused what is motivating your statements that Frostbite may be better at "downscaling" but isn't as good at "upscaling?"

I think what you're trying to say is, on a scale of 1 - 2 with 1 being current gen consoles, 2 being top end PC, you think Frostbite 2 might be a 1.5 that can go back to 1 really easily, with Crytek being a 2 that maybe struggles to go back to 1, but that isn't really "upscaling" rather than just a more full featured engine.


Although this gets a bit beside the point. The biggest advantages to us using Frostbite extend beyond the graphical fidelity it provides over Eclipse. That's just a bonus.

What kinds of gameplay advantages does Frostbite 2 offer? Honestly, I'm excited about the engine, but beyond the graphical boost it'll obviously provide, I really have no clue. 

I saw in another thread where some experimentation involving companion banter was mentioned, and I know the enviornments will be far larger than before, but does Frostbite do everything Eclipse does, only better or is there some give and take?

Gameplay isn't really something that an engine provides. The engine provides ease of building gameplay features, but not the gameplay itself. There is work that needs to be done in order to make things work, and there will be things that Eclipse did better (or at least easier... the engineers essentially need to rebuild the conversation system, for example). The things that Frostbite 2 offers that are much easier than building them into eclipse would be things like dynamic lighting, multiplayer support, better shader support, a different rendering engine (I know that several of the writers expressed happiness at how much better Frostbite is able to render dark skin tones than Eclipse), and things to that effect.

Often, the greatest benefit to a new engine is the pipeline and the tools available. It could greatly improve iteration time through a variety of aspects (build time, asset production, tool features, modularity, etc.), and that's the primary goal of any engine upgrade.

For actual gameplay features, you'll have to look to the gameplay engineers and see what they are able to build with the engine. I suspect that we'll see more of it once they have something to show.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I, too, am curious. So far, the only engine features I have heard talked about mos frequently are graphic capabilities which are decidedly LOW on my list of concerns.

Engine features useful for shooters, such as destructible environments, object tracking (like, say, a grenade) or levels with multiple elevations (like a two story building where you can put a sniper at the top and put a gunner at the bottom). Which are all pretty cool, I suppose. But they don't really have a ton of relevance to the standard RPG mechanics, gameplay or level design.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I, too, am curious. So far, the only engine features I have heard talked about mos frequently are graphic capabilities which are decidedly LOW on my list of concerns.

Engine features useful for shooters, such as destructible environments, object tracking (like, say, a grenade) or levels with multiple elevations (like a two story building where you can put a sniper at the top and put a gunner at the bottom). Which are all pretty cool, I suppose. But they don't really have a ton of relevance to the standard RPG mechanics, gameplay or level design.

There are plenty of people who care about the visuals. Consider how many people complain about how "bad" DA2 looks, and extoll how good Skyrim and/or the Witcher look, and you'll see why there's a lot of interest in what the non-gameplay capabilities of a new engine are. But there are also gameplay applications that can come with the capabilities of a new engine.

Imagine the tactical applications of real environmental hazards, or destructible terrain. We've had thrown grenades in Dragon Age for a while... but what happens if they actually behave like physics objects? Now you can throw them around corners, or bounce them off of walls. Think about what sort of gameplay effects that a thunderstorm, blizzard, a burning desert sun, or some other form of extreme weather might have. Think about day/night cycles that actually change based on time, rather than simply toggling the time of day. What about having a world you can walk across without having to go to a map to break up load times?

There's a lot of potential to build some interesting things, and plenty of folks are right to be interested in the possibilities.

[Realmzmaster]

One point about the Frostbite 2 engine is that it does not support Windows XP since Frostbite 2 does not support DirectX 9. Correct me if I am wrong. Also the graphic requirements on a PC is at least a NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS or ATi Radeon HD 3870.

This is different from the requirements of DA2 with the Lycium engine which supported XP and Direct X 9. So I assume that PC users will have to update their systems. Unless Bioware plans on adding DirectX 9 support.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I, too, am curious. So far, the only engine features I have heard talked about mos frequently are graphic capabilities which are decidedly LOW on my list of concerns.

Engine features useful for shooters, such as destructible environments, object tracking (like, say, a grenade) or levels with multiple elevations (like a two story building where you can put a sniper at the top and put a gunner at the bottom). Which are all pretty cool, I suppose. But they don't really have a ton of relevance to the standard RPG mechanics, gameplay or level design.

There are plenty of people who care about the visuals. Consider how many people complain about how "bad" DA2 looks, and extoll how good Skyrim and/or the Witcher look, and you'll see why there's a lot of interest in what the non-gameplay capabilities of a new engine are. But there are also gameplay applications that can come with the capabilities of a new engine.

Imagine the tactical applications of real environmental hazards, or destructible terrain. We've had thrown grenades in Dragon Age for a while... but what happens if they actually behave like physics objects? Now you can throw them around corners, or bounce them off of walls. Think about what sort of gameplay effects that a thunderstorm, blizzard, a burning desert sun, or some other form of extreme weather might have. Think about day/night cycles that actually change based on time, rather than simply toggling the time of day. What about having a world you can walk across without having to go to a map to break up load times?

There's a lot of potential to build some interesting things, and plenty of folks are right to be interested in the possibilities.

You're right. There are plenty of reasons to wonder about the possiblitiles of the engine. Hence I began my post with "I, too, am curious."

And we won't know anymore answers until the team is ready to show us more of what's under the hood and behind the curtain. I'm interested in seeing if these engine capabilites do more than make graphics shinier or allow things to go "boom" more easily and show the destruction of said boom.

Cool enough things in theory, but I'd be a lot more excited to see if the engine upgrades let us walk through a city of NPCs who are all interactable, can move about on their own and have their own activities, rather than just standing in place for seven years. Or a way to approach situations outside of A) combat or a dialogue wheel Auto-win. Stealth options or warfare gameplay (since we are in the middle of a war and possibly controlling a castle/fortress) would be nice. As would using magic outside of combat to solve problems/puzzles/quests, like creating an ice bridge instead of going through the valley and fighting hordes of mooks.

Those are the concepts and ideas I'd like to see an engine use. Not better cutscenes or more realistic grenades.

[Killer3000ad]

I wonder when we'll get some in-game footage or screenshots of the new engine in action for DA3.