This engine still needs work on. Every game I played that uses the Frostbite 2 engine so far, Battlefield 3 & Medal of Honor: Warfighter, are just too buggy. And no offense Bioware, but a lot of bugs are common for your games. I played DA:O, DA:O Awakening, DA2, ME, ME2, and ME3, and I have ran into bugs that made me delete my saved progress and start over which I dread because I wasted 6-24 hours over a bug that ruined my progress.
Also, I'm a console player and Frostbite 2 & consoles do not mix. By comparing BF3 on console and PC, PC is supreme in graphics and other stuff. When I saw BF3 the first time I was amazed, but after playing it on console I was what the **** is this? I may be a tech savvy, but I was extremely disappointed for the BF3 console version. It was literally a crappy PC import. PC had it better overall than the Xbox 360 and PS3. I'm not sure if this relates to the engine or the Xbox 360's and PS3's graphics card or whatever, but 24 players on console vs 64 players on PC? Come on Resistance 2 had up to 60 players and M.A.G. support 256 players, yet I felt like I was on a patrol in BF3 than actually fighting on a battlefield.
I honestly think using the Frostbite 2 engine is a bad idea.
Débuté par
genocidal villain
, déc. 02 2012 11:16
Retour en haut
#2
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:23
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Guest_StreetMagic_*
-
- Guests
I doubt it'll be on the 360/PS3 anyways. I'll be surprised if they are.
#3
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:30
genocidal villain
-
- Members
- 349 messages
StreetMagic wrote...
I doubt it'll be on the 360/PS3 anyways. I'll be surprised if they are.
If it's for next gen consoles then using the Frostbite 2 engine seems a bit irrevalent. Might as well use a new a new or updated engine.
#4
Guest_Lathrim_*
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:32
Guest_Lathrim_*
Guest_Lathrim_*
-
- Guests
genocidal villain wrote...
Also, I'm a console player and Frostbite 2 & consoles do not mix. By comparing BF3 on console and PC, PC is supreme in graphics and other stuff. When I saw BF3 the first time I was amazed, but after playing it on console I was what the **** is this? I may be a tech savvy, but I was extremely disappointed for the BF3 console version. It was literally a crappy PC import. PC had it better overall than the Xbox 360 and PS3.
Both consoles are awfully inferior to today's gaming rigs, and there's only so much the devs can do with graphics on the Xbox and PS3. That is an issue with outdated hardware, not the engine.
#5
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:34
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Guest_StreetMagic_*
-
- Guests
genocidal villain wrote...
StreetMagic wrote...
I doubt it'll be on the 360/PS3 anyways. I'll be surprised if they are.
If it's for next gen consoles then using the Frostbite 2 engine seems a bit irrevalent. Might as well use a new a new or updated engine.
Not necessarily. Next gen is sort of a misnomer - it's always what is already current gen on PCs. The new Xbox is slated for a Christmas 2013 release, so it's just around the corner. It's power will be equivalent to decent rigs now. Secondly, early games don't tap into the full power of a new console anyways. Having a game running Frostbite 2 will be par for the course. It'll just be maximizing what Frostbite is really capable of in ideal terms. Going to a completely new engine would take several years. Something better suited to mid and end of cycle console releases.
The main reason they're using it though is that's it's easy for them to work with. Always a good thing.
Modifié par StreetMagic, 02 décembre 2012 - 11:35 .
#6
Guest_Commander Casanova_*
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:35
Guest_Commander Casanova_*
Guest_Commander Casanova_*
-
- Guests
Welcome to the club.
Unless they plan on going to Battlefield-paced combat. Which I find a little boring.
The engine looks good, but it just feels clunky.
Unless they plan on going to Battlefield-paced combat. Which I find a little boring.
The engine looks good, but it just feels clunky.
#7
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:38
genocidal villain
-
- Members
- 349 messages
Lathrim wrote...
genocidal villain wrote...
Also, I'm a console player and Frostbite 2 & consoles do not mix. By comparing BF3 on console and PC, PC is supreme in graphics and other stuff. When I saw BF3 the first time I was amazed, but after playing it on console I was what the **** is this? I may be a tech savvy, but I was extremely disappointed for the BF3 console version. It was literally a crappy PC import. PC had it better overall than the Xbox 360 and PS3.
Both consoles are awfully inferior to today's gaming rigs, and there's only so much the devs can do with graphics on the Xbox and PS3. That is an issue with outdated hardware, not the engine.
Well I have been seeing a lot of improvement over the past years since the Xbox 360 came out just by judging the significant difference Halo 3 and Halo 4 graphics wise. They're still pushing how far the Xbox can go which I'm still surprised. For PS3 hard to know because a few developers rarely push their games towards the PS3's optimal capacity, and it's a console I barely use.
#8
Guest_Lathrim_*
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:39
Guest_Lathrim_*
Guest_Lathrim_*
-
- Guests
genocidal villain wrote...
StreetMagic wrote...
I doubt it'll be on the 360/PS3 anyways. I'll be surprised if they are.
If it's for next gen consoles then using the Frostbite 2 engine seems a bit irrevalent. Might as well use a new a new or updated engine.
You are overestimating how powerful the new generation will be. They will match today's decent, perhaps good gaming rigs. Consoles are never top notch, as using the best hardware there is would make production costs too high, forcing them to sell the consoles at a higher price rate, which is something I am certain Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo want to avoid.
Also, Frostbite 2 is a fairly new (and extremely powerful) engine. Being able to take full advantage of DirectX11 and 64-bit processors makes it so.
#9
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:45
Doctoglethorpe
-
- Members
- 2 392 messages
FB2 is a shining diamond on PC, so... 
#10
Guest_Lathrim_*
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 11:53
Guest_Lathrim_*
Guest_Lathrim_*
-
- Guests
genocidal villain wrote...
Lathrim wrote...
genocidal villain wrote...
Also, I'm a console player and Frostbite 2 & consoles do not mix. By comparing BF3 on console and PC, PC is supreme in graphics and other stuff. When I saw BF3 the first time I was amazed, but after playing it on console I was what the **** is this? I may be a tech savvy, but I was extremely disappointed for the BF3 console version. It was literally a crappy PC import. PC had it better overall than the Xbox 360 and PS3.
Both consoles are awfully inferior to today's gaming rigs, and there's only so much the devs can do with graphics on the Xbox and PS3. That is an issue with outdated hardware, not the engine.
Well I have been seeing a lot of improvement over the past years since the Xbox 360 came out just by judging the significant difference Halo 3 and Halo 4 graphics wise. They're still pushing how far the Xbox can go which I'm still surprised. For PS3 hard to know because a few developers rarely push their games towards the PS3's optimal capacity, and it's a console I barely use.
'Tis as simple as this - Current gaming rigs are more powerful. Push the 360's triple-core Xenon processor (3.2 GHz, I believe) and Xenos (ATI) graphics card (DirectX 9.0 support, embedded DRAM at 256GB/s) all you want, there is a limit, and current PCs are better.
I could even start speaking hardware-talk here if you want, just ask. XD
#11
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 12:21
Maria Caliban
-
- Members
- 26 094 messages
This needed a new thread.
Very little of that has to do with the engine.genocidal villain wrote...
Every game I played that uses the Frostbite 2 engine so far, Battlefield 3 & Medal of Honor: Warfighter, are just too buggy.
#12
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 02:59
Zippy72
-
- Members
- 155 messages
All software has bugs; it's the nature of the beast. The best we can hope for is good QA to minimise the impact on our enjoyment.
An established engine is likely to be less buggy than a 'from scratch' one, generally speaking.
An established engine is likely to be less buggy than a 'from scratch' one, generally speaking.
#13
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 03:02
upsettingshorts
-
- Members
- 13 950 messages
There is a video series of a DICE seminar on precisely what Frostbite 2 does that is very informative if a little technical, I suggest watching that as opposed to making assumptions about the engine unless you've worked with one in a professional capacity before.
#14
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 03:23
Pheonix57
-
- Members
- 567 messages
From what I can tell, this engine has been used to run FPS games, yes? I've played Battlefield 3, and I know that in order to run that game, the engine has to be able to process a ton of variables at once. Perhaps that's what the DA3 team is interested in. Until we know how the engine will run an RPG, I'll reserve judgement.
#15
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 03:39
TCBC_Freak
-
- Members
- 743 messages
Number one, graphics aren't a big part of of Dragon Age games, they have a very simple old school art style. One which I like.
Number two, I don't think you understand what an engine does. I'd check out Upsettingshorts link, or at least learn about more about what game engines do in general. In some ways it is like thinking that the engine under the hood of the car has anything at all to do with what the car looks like; the color it is, how many doors it has, none of that has to do with the engine.
Number two, I don't think you understand what an engine does. I'd check out Upsettingshorts link, or at least learn about more about what game engines do in general. In some ways it is like thinking that the engine under the hood of the car has anything at all to do with what the car looks like; the color it is, how many doors it has, none of that has to do with the engine.
#16
Guest_Guest12345_*
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 03:47
Guest_Guest12345_*
Guest_Guest12345_*
-
- Guests
Actually it is a great idea. EA/DICE spent millions of dollars investing in and building the FB2 engine. Now, they don't have to pay a % of money to a company like Epic to license their Unreal engine. The Unreal engine has dominated the past 5+ years of gaming in terms of 3rd party engines, it is a breath of fresh air to see the industry finally responding by trying to compete and fill some of the void that Epic has been dominating.
I like Epic as a company, but the Unreal engine has become too dominant, in some cases to the detriment of games and developers. If anything, the FB2 engine will allow EA to take more risks in making games, as they will cost less and profit more. Part of why the Unreal engine has been detrimental is because the cost for using it is so high, that "middle class" games like Alpha Protocol can barely break even because they are paying Epic ~25 cents of every dollar they make with the engine.
I like Epic as a company, but the Unreal engine has become too dominant, in some cases to the detriment of games and developers. If anything, the FB2 engine will allow EA to take more risks in making games, as they will cost less and profit more. Part of why the Unreal engine has been detrimental is because the cost for using it is so high, that "middle class" games like Alpha Protocol can barely break even because they are paying Epic ~25 cents of every dollar they make with the engine.
#17
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 04:37
Zobo
-
- Members
- 95 messages
Well, that's because PC is the supreme platform and consoles suck in general. Welcome to the real world.genocidal villain wrote...
Also, I'm a console player and Frostbite 2 & consoles do not mix. By comparing BF3 on console and PC, PC is supreme in graphics and other stuff. When I saw BF3 the first time I was amazed, but after playing it on console I was what the **** is this?
#18
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 04:48
L. Han
-
- Members
- 1 878 messages
scyphozoa wrote...
Actually it is a great idea. EA/DICE spent millions of dollars investing in and building the FB2 engine. Now, they don't have to pay a % of money to a company like Epic to license their Unreal engine. The Unreal engine has dominated the past 5+ years of gaming in terms of 3rd party engines, it is a breath of fresh air to see the industry finally responding by trying to compete and fill some of the void that Epic has been dominating.
I like Epic as a company, but the Unreal engine has become too dominant, in some cases to the detriment of games and developers. If anything, the FB2 engine will allow EA to take more risks in making games, as they will cost less and profit more. Part of why the Unreal engine has been detrimental is because the cost for using it is so high, that "middle class" games like Alpha Protocol can barely break even because they are paying Epic ~25 cents of every dollar they make with the engine.
I think DA:O and DA2 uses some engine made by BioWare.
#19
Posté 02 décembre 2012 - 05:12
upsettingshorts
-
- Members
- 13 950 messages
Rickets wrote...
I think DA:O and DA2 uses some engine made by BioWare.
Yes, Eclipse.
And it sucks.
#20
Posté 03 décembre 2012 - 11:30
Naughty Bear
-
- Members
- 5 209 messages
genocidal villain wrote...
This engine still needs work on. Every game I played that uses the Frostbite 2 engine so far, Battlefield 3 & Medal of Honor: Warfighter, are just too buggy. And no offense Bioware, but a lot of bugs are common for your games. I played DA:O, DA:O Awakening, DA2, ME, ME2, and ME3, and I have ran into bugs that made me delete my saved progress and start over which I dread because I wasted 6-24 hours over a bug that ruined my progress.
Also, I'm a console player and Frostbite 2 & consoles do not mix. By comparing BF3 on console and PC, PC is supreme in graphics and other stuff. When I saw BF3 the first time I was amazed, but after playing it on console I was what the **** is this? I may be a tech savvy, but I was extremely disappointed for the BF3 console version. It was literally a crappy PC import. PC had it better overall than the Xbox 360 and PS3. I'm not sure if this relates to the engine or the Xbox 360's and PS3's graphics card or whatever, but 24 players on console vs 64 players on PC? Come on Resistance 2 had up to 60 players and M.A.G. support 256 players, yet I felt like I was on a patrol in BF3 than actually fighting on a battlefield.
But think of the lens flare! It will be a glorious sight to behold! That flare there and that glare over there...
So many colours, so little time...
Modifié par Naughty Bear, 03 décembre 2012 - 11:33 .
#21
Posté 03 décembre 2012 - 11:58
Mazebook
-
- Members
- 1 524 messages
Upsettingshorts wrote...
There is a video series of a DICE seminar on precisely what Frostbite 2 does that is very informative if a little technical, I suggest watching that as opposed to making assumptions about the engine unless you've worked with one in a professional capacity before.
thanks for the interesting link
#22
Posté 04 décembre 2012 - 12:31
The Teyrn of Whatever
-
- Members
- 1 289 messages
StreetMagic wrote...
I doubt it'll be on the 360/PS3 anyways. I'll be surprised if they are.
I wouldn't be surprised if DA 3 comes out for both those consoles as well as the next gen ones. They may be aging, but both current gen systems can handle Frostbite 2. Here read this article. It is speculative in nature, but when it comes to the quotes by Mark Darrah and FB2's scalability, we are dealing with solid facts.
I'm expecting DA 3 to be pretty graphically, but I'm not expecting something bleeding edge in any respect or something that pushes Frostbite 2 to it's absolute limits. It's not the way BioWare rolls. Look at TOR. They made it cartoony rather than ultra-realistic deliberately so that a wider range of PC hardware set-ups could handle it, rather than just top-of-the-line gaming PCs. Greater compatability can generate greater profits.
Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 04 décembre 2012 - 12:34 .
