[Ideas] PR Future Engine Ideas and Suggestions

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]eggman

My guess is that ArmA 2 is not going to focus on large scale conflicts as much as their engine technology might allow. I think it's going to include a lot of focus on the AI and on a "story driven" campaign. I say that because ArmA 2 is also going to be released on consoles. Perhaps I am wrong... but I can't see 100+ players being practical for a console FPS. Also I've seen some stuff in interviews abou ArmA 2 that imply "less is more" because they have made the AI much smarter. I interpret this as "we're capping the # of players lower so the GPU, CPU and our pogrammers can focus on other things".

Also iirc, ArmA 2 is on a completely new engine whereas ArmA 1 was built on an evolved OFP engine. I believe ArmA 2 is "Game 2" .. which is what I think everyone hoped that ArmA 1 was going to be. On paper ArmA 2 looks outstanding, if they can manage to release a polished product it will potentially be amazing. But I'll be surprised if it's stable at 60+ players.

egg

PlayStation 3 can handle 256 Players on the same map/server =) i dont known for X36 but i do known PS3 can. May be due to CELL BROADBAND Engine... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor))

MASSIVE ACTION GAME [256Players-PS3]
Gametrailers.com - Massive Action Game - E3 2008: Sony Conference Debut Trailer

256 players that would be AWESOME in PR lol =D. But an engine kinda like BF2 but whit all the comodity of ArmA, Big Map, Long Range Sightin...ETC.. that would be PERFECT.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[eggman]

I wasn't really referring to the technical capabilities of the platforms. I think MAG has tons of potential (128 players per team are divided into 8 man squads).

And I am sure both the PS3 and the 360 can support the client requirements (servers and bandwidth are going to be expensive for Sony / MS to maintain).

But MAG is still TBD if it's a 3rd person or 1st person shooter. That's the sort of thing I was referring to... 3p views do not sit well with hardcore tactical gamers. And I don't think there are a lot of hardcore tactical gamers on consoles *yet*. For now I don't see consoles having the kind of audience that a really hardcore tactical game woould appeal to. But there is so much money to be made that developers and publishers can't ignore the console market.

egg

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]eggman

I wasn't really referring to the technical capabilities of the platforms. I think MAG has tons of potential (128 players per team are divided into 8 man squads).

And I am sure both the PS3 and the 360 can support the client requirements (servers and bandwidth are going to be expensive for Sony / MS to maintain).

But MAG is still TBD if it's a 3rd person or 1st person shooter. That's the sort of thing I was referring to... 3p views do not sit well with hardcore tactical gamers. And I don't think there are a lot of hardcore tactical gamers on consoles *yet*. For now I don't see consoles having the kind of audience that a really hardcore tactical game woould appeal to. But there is so much money to be made that developers and publishers can't ignore the console market.

egg

Well, if PS3 can handle it, why not PC ? and there is no difference on performance from 3rd to 1st person view. I'm pretty sure somone somewhere in a game studio had think to that !!!1111!!111!

Anyway, dreaming is free... so i will continu...=(

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[Spuz36]

With PS3 you don't have to worry about updates (hardware) until the whole thing is outdated. Just now game makers are making better games to better handle the new console's potential.

With a computer you need to do upgrades and that discourages some people because it seems daunting, really just takes some patient reading. Computer hardware is quickly passing PS3 and X360 in the graphics department, just upgrading everything to get the quality is tricky (CPU, GPU, mobo, all working together)The computer's ability to hold massive amounts of RAM (compared to PS3 and Xbox) is also why Crysis didn't appear on consoles.

My opinion on MAG is that it is made specifically for the consoles in that you have limited buttons(not many strategic games) If a similar thing were to come out for computer it would have more detail in it since we have keyboards and more inputs.

I really don't see how Valve could have made BF2 any better. I guess in a way the modding could be easier (from what i've heard) and joining Valve series games, everything is customizable. Don't think modding was that popular when they released BF2, that or they didn't learn anything from 1942 (Desert Combat!) Sorry for epic post.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[PFunk]

Originally Posted by [R-CON]Mescaldrav

The source engine is terrible, a massive problem they had with insurgency was that they couldnt implement proper ballistics. Instead of a bullet taking a little time to reach its target it hits instantly. This means you dont lead targets and get laser style instant hits.

If you've played TF2 you'd see that almost all the projectiles you fire have some kind of time delay on them. I don't know why Insurgency had a hard time if TF2 could do it.

Couple this with no squad system

Resistance and Liberation also created some kind of squad system. It was an automatically assigning one but its still in Alpha stages right now. They had a voip system set up also so that it didn't act like radios but instead you could hear over a certain distance. So you could talk to players who weren't even in your squad.

Not disagreeing overall, just saying that the Source engine doesn't seem as bad as everyone says, unless I'm wrong about what I just posted.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[daranz]

Originally Posted by =Romagnolo=

Ok ok, let's suppose that the source engine can handle a 64 players and then a big map too.

Now, tell me, how would be the view distance ?

Give us solid exemples.

Here's Empires. Make what you will of it.

A lot of people here seem to hate on Source engine based on nothing but Counterstrike or TF2. Source can do a lot. There are limitations to map size, and the number of vertices, etc., but if you look at what various mods did with Source, it's a pretty impressive engine. It can do a lot, but requires some optimization if you want to squeeze a lot out of it. It also has some of the best documentation around (unlike BF2, where "documentation" usually means searching a forum for some post that's probably long outdated anyway). Would Source be a good engine for PR? Probably not. Is it an awesome engine for a wide variety of modding projects? Yes, it is.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[[R-DEV]Deadfast]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]eggman

Also iirc, ArmA 2 is on a completely new engine whereas ArmA 1 was built on an evolved OFP engine.

Negative, ArmA 2's engine (Real Virtuality 3) is a successor to ArmA's one (Real Virtuality 2), which was based of OFP's Real Virtuality.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[Hfett]

Originally Posted by daranz

Here's Empires. Make what you will of it.

A lot of people here seem to hate on Source engine based on nothing but Counterstrike or TF2. Source can do a lot. There are limitations to map size, and the number of vertices, etc., but if you look at what various mods did with Source, it's a pretty impressive engine. It can do a lot, but requires some optimization if you want to squeeze a lot out of it. It also has some of the best documentation around (unlike BF2, where "documentation" usually means searching a forum for some post that's probably long outdated anyway). Would Source be a good engine for PR? Probably not. Is it an awesome engine for a wide variety of modding projects? Yes, it is.

I personaly like source, it has some great games/mods.
I love Left4dead for example.
I also enjoy Insurgency, and other Hl2 mods, but it not the engine for PR thats for sure.

The closest you could get to PR on source is Insurgency.

I played Empire and the maps are just open field, not much objects on it (otherwise it would probably lag).

You cant make a HUGE forest map like fools road for example, or a city the size of muttrah.

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[DeltaFart]

The ting is Source isn't meant for combined arms, hence why you might see vehicle only mods or infantry only mods, Ive seen empires but its set up in a way that its never really possible to make it realistic(other than th esci fi theme)
Admittedly Id like to see this engine changed but Im content with it

Edit :Post moved from another thread

[CodeRedFox]

Good content move form other the thread Rules are now in effect