Blizzard doesn't release their games until they're done. Right now NS2 is going to commit suicide if it releases now unless a miracle happens with optimization.
Releasing now is desperate, does anyone really think this could sell by word of mouth?
"Hey you should buy NS2, btw do you have a super computer?"
<!--quoteo(post=1993919:date=Oct 19 2012, 05:52 PM:name=zastels)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zastels @ Oct 19 2012, 05:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993919"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd rather they delay this game.
<b>Blizzard doesn't release their games until they're done.</b> Right now NS2 is going to commit suicide if it releases now unless a miracle happens with optimization.
Releasing now is desperate, does anyone really think this could sell by word of mouth?
"Hey you should buy NS2, btw do you have a super computer?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1993900:date=Oct 19 2012, 04:36 PM:name=carlgm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (carlgm @ Oct 19 2012, 04:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993900"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1993896:date=Oct 19 2012, 04:32 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Oct 19 2012, 04:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993896"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Source would have been fine. And that's what they started out using.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They obviously didn't find it so at the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But the switch could have been based on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJMf7-HKw6A" target="_blank">abandoned ideas</a>. With upstream Source engine updates, they could have had a really <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/screenshot/view/550/0?snr=1_5_9__400&size=800" target="_blank">good looking game</a>. It would also be able to run on Mac,Xbox 360, PS3, and soon GNU/Linux.
<!--quoteo(post=1993888:date=Oct 19 2012, 04:05 PM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Oct 19 2012, 04:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->here is the rub. Customers don't care. That logic will placate some people who are already fans of the game, but the average gamer could give a rat's ass if one guy, or 1000s of people made the game.
People are going to compare NS2's performance to AAA titles. There is no getting around that. If you don't see that I think you are being unrealistic. If NS2 performs poorly compared to other games, it will hurt sales. there is also no getting around that either.
any one arguing that indie game developers should be held to a different standard than AAA titles is deluding themselves.
Now if the game is exceptional and unique, that is a better excuse for poor performance. The 'market' simply doesn't care how big the development team is, and it isn't going to cut Unknown worlds slack for being indie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> comparing an indie game to a valve game is like comparing a toyota to a lamborghini.. its honestly stupid. you paid 25-35 dollars for this game, and you probably paid 60 dollars for bf3, obviously you should not compare the two games you paid less for this one, so you will get LESS..for now.. sure people are going to compare, but thats because they dont know how to compare, oh and one more thing people, this game is not finished when it gets released, it just started and the content WILL be free im sure of it, enjoy playing your 60FPS smooth bf3 for 60 bucks and pay more for downloadable content, im happy with my 35 dollar purchase for this game cause its more like an investment if anything.
i agree performance is pretty poor, but its expected
From a qualitative viewpoint, lots of people compare indie games to their more endowed competitors. I even do so... as a side note, I still get more perceived value out of NS2 than BF3.
UWE knows they have to compete in this market full of similar products, but they have a pretty unique product to help set themselves apart.
Camron, I think having their own engine to work with finally let Charlie develop a real standalone product. I would have loved to see the stability aspects from using the updated engine, but this is where I feel like as a developer you need to really own something. Who knows, years from now when the next iteration from UWE comes out, their product will be developed on a well oiled and machined platform that Valve, DICE, and others have had the luxury to work with all these years.
<!--quoteo(post=1993932:date=Oct 19 2012, 04:03 PM:name=Sharp-Shooter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sharp-Shooter @ Oct 19 2012, 04:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993932"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->comparing an indie game to a valve game is like comparing a toyota to a lamborghini.. its honestly stupid. you paid 25-35 dollars for this game, and you probably paid 60 dollars for bf3, obviously you should not compare the two games you paid less for this one, so you will get LESS..for now.. sure people are going to compare, but thats because they dont know how to compare, oh and one more thing people, this game is not finished when it gets released, it just started and the content WILL be free im sure of it, enjoy playing your 60FPS smooth bf3 for 60 bucks and pay more for downloadable content, im happy with my 35 dollar purchase for this game cause its more like an investment if anything.
i agree performance is pretty poor, but its expected<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be fair last last game that Valve put out was CS GO and it cost $15. It also sucks horse **** and has been ridiculed and scorned for months now because the devs just wanted to make a quick buck by making a console port. That game ran terribly terribly poorly in early beta and now only runs moderately bad.
BF3 yes, great game, optimized quite well. I get 70's to 120's for FPS on ultra at 1440p.
Super super curious how NS2 will run for me. ughhhhhhhhhhhh
<!--quoteo(post=1993940:date=Oct 19 2012, 04:35 PM:name=rmbrown09)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rmbrown09 @ Oct 19 2012, 04:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993940"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To be fair last last game that Valve put out was CS GO and it cost $15. It also sucks horse **** and has been ridiculed and scorned for months now because the devs just wanted to make a quick buck by making a console port. That game ran terribly terribly poorly in early beta and now only runs moderately bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CS:GO: about 180-200 FPS through the whole game, barely any drops, no crashes since april.
NS2: max 60 fps, dropping all over the place, down to 30 lategame.
CS:GO: Streaming = NP
NS2: Streaming = nope...
Dunno if i wanna get a new system just to be able to stream NS2, while everything else runs fine....
<!--quoteo(post=1993940:date=Oct 19 2012, 04:35 PM:name=rmbrown09)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rmbrown09 @ Oct 19 2012, 04:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993940"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To be fair last last game that Valve put out was CS GO and it cost $15. It also sucks horse **** and has been ridiculed and scorned for months now because the devs just wanted to make a quick buck by making a console port. That game ran terribly terribly poorly in early beta and now only runs moderately bad.
BF3 yes, great game, optimized quite well. I get 70's to 120's for FPS on ultra at 1440p.
Super super curious how NS2 will run for me. ughhhhhhhhhhhh<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt think you guys had computers over there in Spokane.
I wouldnt worry too much about how well the game runs if you get that kind of performance with BF3.
Performance can be measured on many different fronts:
- Memory - Map assets, standard gameplay, networked gameplay - Network performance - Client latency for many different events, vs. server lag for the same and other different events - Framerate - what most people are aware of, but that varies radically depending on environment and gameplay events, plus multiplayer events
So this thread is a little moot since it primarily focuses on only one of those things, in spite of the fact all of those things can influence eachother.
<!--quoteo(post=1993865:date=Oct 19 2012, 09:24 PM:name=Camron)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camron @ Oct 19 2012, 09:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993865"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It doesn't matter what BF3 was designed for, it matters what it ends up being capable of. BF3 runs with huge maps with up to 64 players, and amazing graphics on mid range gaming PCs and consoles.
No. NS2 has "wrongfully" bad performance. That is, it has a design flaw (cough cough LUA) that is holding it back. Kinda like the choice of flash.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait, BF3, the game where you can't even hide behind a crate because it's generated client side and is absolutely not synced through others clients? :p Hide behind a crate in BF3 just for the laugh :D
I can understand that people complain about performance, but please... this thread is full of lol.
For me, the best improvement that can be done (especially after 224) is a dedicated server for Linux. I really hope that will come fast.
<!--quoteo(post=1993940:date=Oct 19 2012, 07:35 PM:name=rmbrown09)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rmbrown09 @ Oct 19 2012, 07:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993940"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To be fair last last game that Valve put out was CS GO and it cost $15. It also sucks horse **** and has been ridiculed and scorned for months now because the devs just wanted to make a quick buck by making a console port. That game ran terribly terribly poorly in early beta and now only runs moderately bad.
BF3 yes, great game, optimized quite well. I get 70's to 120's for FPS on ultra at 1440p.
Super super curious how NS2 will run for me. ughhhhhhhhhhhh<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to be even more fair cs go did not need a brand new engine with completely new game mechanics and maps. also valve did not put out cs:go they published it, Hidden Path developed cs:go, but yes it was bad, as for performance i find cs:go fine! ran it on my 4 year old rig at max settings with AA and AF
<!--quoteo(post=1993900:date=Oct 19 2012, 03:36 PM:name=carlgm)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (carlgm @ Oct 19 2012, 03:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993900"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They obviously didn't find it so at the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UWEs official explanation is that they thought it would be easier if they rolled their own engine rather than try to make the source engine(or any other engine) do what they wanted it to do. They also believed they'd release in (2008 or 2009?).
When a feature is implemented from scratch and it looks 80% complete, you actually are only 20% of the way there. The rest is bugs, performance issues and bad interactions with other features. When you license an existing engine you build stuff out of components that are already solid, decently performing and well-tested.
What it costs you is that components are not ideally suited to your needs and some features may be near impossible to implement(although I'm not sure what). LUA support is possible(although arguably a net harm), e.g. fortress forever. The powernode system is possible with lightmaps(it's just two lightmaps in an area, a normal one and a emergency one, you fade out one and you fade in the other). I think infestation as implemented today would work. You would also get support for decent looking water, platforms, trains, ladders, a much more precise sound system where everything isn't a washed out echoey mess, support for transparency etc.
Comments
Blizzard doesn't release their games until they're done. Right now NS2 is going to commit suicide if it releases now unless a miracle happens with optimization.
Releasing now is desperate, does anyone really think this could sell by word of mouth?
"Hey you should buy NS2, btw do you have a super computer?"
<b>Blizzard doesn't release their games until they're done.</b> Right now NS2 is going to commit suicide if it releases now unless a miracle happens with optimization.
Releasing now is desperate, does anyone really think this could sell by word of mouth?
"Hey you should buy NS2, btw do you have a super computer?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WoW and Diablo 3 say Hi.
Source would have been fine. And that's what they started out using.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They obviously didn't find it so at the time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the switch could have been based on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJMf7-HKw6A" target="_blank">abandoned ideas</a>. With upstream Source engine updates, they could have had a really <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/screenshot/view/550/0?snr=1_5_9__400&size=800" target="_blank">good looking game</a>. It would also be able to run on Mac,Xbox 360, PS3, and soon GNU/Linux.
People are going to compare NS2's performance to AAA titles. There is no getting around that. If you don't see that I think you are being unrealistic. If NS2 performs poorly compared to other games, it will hurt sales. there is also no getting around that either.
any one arguing that indie game developers should be held to a different standard than AAA titles is deluding themselves.
Now if the game is exceptional and unique, that is a better excuse for poor performance. The 'market' simply doesn't care how big the development team is, and it isn't going to cut Unknown worlds slack for being indie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
comparing an indie game to a valve game is like comparing a toyota to a lamborghini.. its honestly stupid. you paid 25-35 dollars for this game, and you probably paid 60 dollars for bf3, obviously you should not compare the two games you paid less for this one, so you will get LESS..for now.. sure people are going to compare, but thats because they dont know how to compare, oh and one more thing people, this game is not finished when it gets released, it just started and the content WILL be free im sure of it, enjoy playing your 60FPS smooth bf3 for 60 bucks and pay more for downloadable content, im happy with my 35 dollar purchase for this game cause its more like an investment if anything.
i agree performance is pretty poor, but its expected
UWE knows they have to compete in this market full of similar products, but they have a pretty unique product to help set themselves apart.
Camron, I think having their own engine to work with finally let Charlie develop a real standalone product. I would have loved to see the stability aspects from using the updated engine, but this is where I feel like as a developer you need to really own something. Who knows, years from now when the next iteration from UWE comes out, their product will be developed on a well oiled and machined platform that Valve, DICE, and others have had the luxury to work with all these years.
i agree performance is pretty poor, but its expected<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be fair last last game that Valve put out was CS GO and it cost $15.
It also sucks horse **** and has been ridiculed and scorned for months now because the devs just wanted to make a quick buck by making a console port.
That game ran terribly terribly poorly in early beta and now only runs moderately bad.
BF3 yes, great game, optimized quite well. I get 70's to 120's for FPS on ultra at 1440p.
Super super curious how NS2 will run for me. ughhhhhhhhhhhh
It also sucks horse **** and has been ridiculed and scorned for months now because the devs just wanted to make a quick buck by making a console port.
That game ran terribly terribly poorly in early beta and now only runs moderately bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CS:GO: about 180-200 FPS through the whole game, barely any drops, no crashes since april.
NS2: max 60 fps, dropping all over the place, down to 30 lategame.
CS:GO: Streaming = NP
NS2: Streaming = nope...
Dunno if i wanna get a new system just to be able to stream NS2, while everything else runs fine....
It also sucks horse **** and has been ridiculed and scorned for months now because the devs just wanted to make a quick buck by making a console port.
That game ran terribly terribly poorly in early beta and now only runs moderately bad.
BF3 yes, great game, optimized quite well. I get 70's to 120's for FPS on ultra at 1440p.
Super super curious how NS2 will run for me. ughhhhhhhhhhhh<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didnt think you guys had computers over there in Spokane.
I wouldnt worry too much about how well the game runs if you get that kind of performance with BF3.
Anyhow, back to the discussion....
Performance can be measured on many different fronts:
- Memory - Map assets, standard gameplay, networked gameplay
- Network performance - Client latency for many different events, vs. server lag for the same and other different events
- Framerate - what most people are aware of, but that varies radically depending on environment and gameplay events, plus multiplayer events
So this thread is a little moot since it primarily focuses on only one of those things, in spite of the fact all of those things can influence eachother.
No. NS2 has "wrongfully" bad performance. That is, it has a design flaw (cough cough LUA) that is holding it back. Kinda like the choice of flash.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait, BF3, the game where you can't even hide behind a crate because it's generated client side and is absolutely not synced through others clients? :p
Hide behind a crate in BF3 just for the laugh :D
I can understand that people complain about performance, but please... this thread is full of lol.
For me, the best improvement that can be done (especially after 224) is a dedicated server for Linux. I really hope that will come fast.
It also sucks horse **** and has been ridiculed and scorned for months now because the devs just wanted to make a quick buck by making a console port.
That game ran terribly terribly poorly in early beta and now only runs moderately bad.
BF3 yes, great game, optimized quite well. I get 70's to 120's for FPS on ultra at 1440p.
Super super curious how NS2 will run for me. ughhhhhhhhhhhh<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to be even more fair cs go did not need a brand new engine with completely new game mechanics and maps. also valve did not put out cs:go they published it, Hidden Path developed cs:go, but yes it was bad, as for performance i find cs:go fine! ran it on my 4 year old rig at max settings with AA and AF
UWEs official explanation is that they thought it would be easier if they rolled their own engine rather than try to make the source engine(or any other engine) do what they wanted it to do. They also believed they'd release in (2008 or 2009?).
When a feature is implemented from scratch and it looks 80% complete, you actually are only 20% of the way there. The rest is bugs, performance issues and bad interactions with other features. When you license an existing engine you build stuff out of components that are already solid, decently performing and well-tested.
What it costs you is that components are not ideally suited to your needs and some features may be near impossible to implement(although I'm not sure what). LUA support is possible(although arguably a net harm), e.g. fortress forever. The powernode system is possible with lightmaps(it's just two lightmaps in an area, a normal one and a emergency one, you fade out one and you fade in the other). I think infestation as implemented today would work. You would also get support for decent looking water, platforms, trains, ladders, a much more precise sound system where everything isn't a washed out echoey mess, support for transparency etc.