How long would it take the new community dev team to port it over? Possible NS3 or the stand alone combat game? Could you imagine how stunning this game would be on the cry engine?
It's Super Effective!Join Date: 2012-08-28Member: 156625Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
I believe that the OP is being satirical, and if he isn't, here is my take:
I think there is a misconception of what the public believes what we can do with UWE's IP.
The CDT was approved by UWE to continue to update the game with things like bug fixes, community additions, things of that like. This in no way means we can just take the NS IP and run away with it.
As some have stated earlier, a better engine won't change the game play mechanics, so people not playing NS2 now because of non engine related issues won't make it better.
Another obvious one is, I doubt the 5 programmers we have are going to want to do an undertaking of that size without getting paid. Sure they aren't getting paid now, but they are just to doing small things that they've already done.
If they were to spend all that time just porting it to a new engine that would mean the updates to this engine would stop until the porting is done.
I cannot speak to the difficulty to port it, but I somehow doubt it would be as simple as a CTRL+C and CTRL+V of NS2's Code/Assets.
I'm going to end my reply here because the further I explain it, it just sounds more ridiculous and the more I feel like my effort to set your expectations is wasted.
The cry engine is a very nice engine. I would think future development for things like NS3 or if combat is going standalone would have been relevant. I was only joking about porting NS2.
It's Super Effective!Join Date: 2012-08-28Member: 156625Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
In terms of engine, I assume by "stunning" you are referring to visuals. But what makes up Visuals these days. Textures (including bump maps), lighting/shadow effects, and post-processing, maybe some other jargon I don't know about.
IMO the tech behind textures and dynamic lighting isn't really so different by leaps and bounds, I find NS2 is a very beautiful game and captures Cory's art very well. When I saw the trailers and pre-alpha clips I was blown away. It was also pretty easy when compared to NS1 on the HL1 Goldsrc engine.
Now in terms of post processing visuals, then yes perhaps the cry-engine or any other modern game engine today might have a leg up, NS2 doesn't go as over the top with heavy lens flares, motion blurs, volumetric smoke (I think NS2 has light shafts, but not that much)
Now hypothetically, if you want to make a more justified reason to port engines your main focus point of your rhetorical post should have been to discuss net-code and performance, two areas that NS2 isn't the most friendliest.
This brings me back to when the first Cry Engine came out, you had to have a fairly high end PC to run it. Farcry, and especially Crysis (remember that "bench mark" a few years back). If your computer could run that, you could run anything at the time.
These days with games like Crysis 3, battlefield 4, etc which are very "stunning" games (visually at least) those engines's improvements are tapering off comparatively, also the average consumer's PC are becoming more powerful and cheaper thus making something like Farcry 3 reach a wider audience than Farcry did back then.
Again, I know you're speaking in hypotheticals here, but again I find myself responding for the sake of discussion, in order to respond to your rhetorical question.
These days with games like Crysis 3, battlefield 4, etc which are very "stunning" games (visually at least) those engines's improvements are tapering off comparatively, also the average consumer's PC are becoming more powerful and cheaper thus making something like Farcry 3 reach a wider audience than Farcry did back then.
I think consoles have a lot to do with that too. The next gen of consoles just came out, so companies were designing games for 8 year old hardware.
It's hard to innovate on the software with hardware holding you back. I do agree with most of what you're saying though.
i'm sorry, i just assumed this was another mean-spirited dig at uwe, or a subtle insinuation that the spark engine isn't good enough for you. i guess i was wrong, this thread is just nonsensical claptrap.
Comments
$19 a month subscription, worth giving it a whirl
You agree with this? You do realize I am saying that on cryengine ns2 would look the same as it does on spark.
I think there is a misconception of what the public believes what we can do with UWE's IP.
The CDT was approved by UWE to continue to update the game with things like bug fixes, community additions, things of that like. This in no way means we can just take the NS IP and run away with it.
As some have stated earlier, a better engine won't change the game play mechanics, so people not playing NS2 now because of non engine related issues won't make it better.
Another obvious one is, I doubt the 5 programmers we have are going to want to do an undertaking of that size without getting paid. Sure they aren't getting paid now, but they are just to doing small things that they've already done.
If they were to spend all that time just porting it to a new engine that would mean the updates to this engine would stop until the porting is done.
I cannot speak to the difficulty to port it, but I somehow doubt it would be as simple as a CTRL+C and CTRL+V of NS2's Code/Assets.
I'm going to end my reply here because the further I explain it, it just sounds more ridiculous and the more I feel like my effort to set your expectations is wasted.
IMO the tech behind textures and dynamic lighting isn't really so different by leaps and bounds, I find NS2 is a very beautiful game and captures Cory's art very well. When I saw the trailers and pre-alpha clips I was blown away. It was also pretty easy when compared to NS1 on the HL1 Goldsrc engine.
Now in terms of post processing visuals, then yes perhaps the cry-engine or any other modern game engine today might have a leg up, NS2 doesn't go as over the top with heavy lens flares, motion blurs, volumetric smoke (I think NS2 has light shafts, but not that much)
Now hypothetically, if you want to make a more justified reason to port engines your main focus point of your rhetorical post should have been to discuss net-code and performance, two areas that NS2 isn't the most friendliest.
This brings me back to when the first Cry Engine came out, you had to have a fairly high end PC to run it. Farcry, and especially Crysis (remember that "bench mark" a few years back). If your computer could run that, you could run anything at the time.
These days with games like Crysis 3, battlefield 4, etc which are very "stunning" games (visually at least) those engines's improvements are tapering off comparatively, also the average consumer's PC are becoming more powerful and cheaper thus making something like Farcry 3 reach a wider audience than Farcry did back then.
Again, I know you're speaking in hypotheticals here, but again I find myself responding for the sake of discussion, in order to respond to your rhetorical question.
I think consoles have a lot to do with that too. The next gen of consoles just came out, so companies were designing games for 8 year old hardware.
It's hard to innovate on the software with hardware holding you back. I do agree with most of what you're saying though.
Why do people suck so much on this site?
Devs will never do it, and it is also unnecessary.
i'm sorry, i just assumed this was another mean-spirited dig at uwe, or a subtle insinuation that the spark engine isn't good enough for you. i guess i was wrong, this thread is just nonsensical claptrap.