>>277274906 Either the breath of death vii/cutulu saves the world engine or whatever knights of pen and paper uses. Seriously KoPaP is as demanding as 3 3d games while only having 2-3 frame animated sprites.
I'm pretty sure most people bash Unity just because there's a shitton of horrible indie games slapped together using it. Unity itself isn't that bad, it's just so easy to get started with that people who can't make games flock around it.
The worst is anyone who decides to code their own engine. Unity might not be as fast as a lot of other engines but it allows for fast iteration, meaning that it results in better gameplay in the hands of people who know how to use it. Anyone trying to make their own engine is going to waste a lot of time coding shit that's buggy and will run worse than any modern engine.
>>277276037 >What's wrong with UE3? Sure, it's comparatively ancient, but there's nothing wrong with it. Let's see: >clunky as fuck >laggy controls >everything looks like it's covered by celophane >EVERY single action game with gore and/or gothic elements uses it >fps games have shit aiming >absolutely doesn't work for multiplayer
>>277276307 >clunky as fuck >laggy controls >everything looks like it's covered by celophane >fps games have shit aiming It's because most dev use the base engine and they're too lazy to custom it for their own. That's why UE3 is really noticeable that it use UE3.
>>277276621 They used Frostbite for the latest Need for Speed game. Think it was Rivals. Regardless it wasn't a great idea because if you drove fast enough the game would stop rendering obstacles that could wreck your car. I traded in the game because of that.
>>277276621 Technically Watch Dogs use Disrupt, which has elements of Anvil (the one that AC games use) and Dunia (the one that FC games use). Nevertheless, it's still damn similar engine, since it's still a ubisoft game anyway, they're all same shit.
>>277276621 >Why would they customize the engine? It should work out of the box.
That stuff doesn't even involve "customizing the engine". Controls and aiming are something that the dev has to implement, and it's not the engine's fault if they can't do it properly (assuming that the input handling in the engine isn't flawed or something, which it isn't in the case of UE3). The "celophane look" is also up to the dev to take care of, assuming that they're not using some pre-made assets that came with the engine.
Have you even tried UE3 or are you bashing it just based on games that run on it?
>>277276762 Yeah. Frostbite is retardedly buggy. It looks good on screenshots, or when everything loads correctly, but other than that - shit. Also everything looks like it literally has ice coating.
>>277276850 >Management of an open world city from the AnvilNext engine, and vegetation and AI mechanics from the Dunia Engine have been implemented in Disrupt. That's all it uses. Other than that it's a new engine.
>>277276621 >Why would they customize the engine? Not customize the engine, you dingus. I mean customize basic shit like the looks, controls, and else >It should work out of the box Devs thought that too and that's why every UE3 looks the same, just like what are you complaining
>>277277262 >How come every single game that runs on it has the exact same set of problems? Because the engine comes with a set of basic pre-made scripts for handling stuff like moving around and aiming, and most devs are too lazy to make a proper system specifically designed for their game.
And if you think the engine is shit because of the simple pre-made assets and scripts it comes with, I guess every engine is shit.
>>277277589 Anon, you don't seem to understand what I said. EVERY fucking game made with UE3 is ridden with the exact same set problems. You'd think at least one dev, especially Epic, would handle the engine well, but no. Nobody did. So I'm guessing it must be the engine's fault. I don't know maybe it makes this shit too hard or something.
>>277277786 I don't know what you're talking about but RDR and LA Noire and even GTAV worked fine on my shitty 360. GTAIV had some trouble with streaming textures, but only when you ran if straight off the disc.
>>277277783 The engine is actually pretty crap. It doesn't have the most basic features and every cool thing it has right now is some technology that's been bought from an external dev. Besides, it seems to have script based animations? That's fucked up.
>>277278163 >Arma would be so much better and approachable if it used a different engine. What other engine would work for a map that big with arma ballistic ? > Also, Fox Engine at least runs perfectly on toasters while RV requires some insane computer to run at max.. >at max and ?
>>277278452 Forgot to mention that Fox Engine also runs at max on toasters and arma 3 max >>> PZ max but maybe if they gimped what arma 3 max is, the game would be suddenly more "optimized" according to you.
>>277278163 >Arma would be so much better and approachable if it used a different engine. There's no other engine that can handle the amount of (dynamic) objects, AI, or terrain size that arma contains. Obviously you have to sacrifice some things to have others. Which is why there are different game engines to begin with
>>277278571 BF3 didn't run great. It also had major problems when it was released and it all took time to patch. The engine ran fairly well performance wise but it was also buggy as hell. Netcode was also shit, but better than in BF4.
>>277278575 But Arma 3 at max still looks uglier than Fox Engine... Fox engine was designed to run well on consoles while delivering massive detailed open world just like Arma. Except, you know, Arma wouldn't even run on a console.
>>277278406 Yep, like i said. Fucking retards. Not cute. Fucking disgusting, actually. Bugs aren't exactly engine fault. Take gamebryo so shitted on here for example. Many other games use it, like divinity II, el shaddai, Catherine or even civ IV. They don't have the same problems like skyrim or oblivion. Just because bethesda goes full retarded with it doesn't mean it's bad.
And no, gamebryo isn't exactly a good engine. Although it has decent documentation and can be decent if you prefer iterative development.
>>277278402 And how do you know it's engine fault? What if it's modular? What if the latency is handled by by some module and not the engine itself? What if it was dev choice? Do you actually know something about this engine or do you speak out of your ass?
>>277278727 But that's what I mean. Most engines would shit itself if they had to do what RV does, with the AI and draw distance.
I'm kind of curious on how Snowdrop would do however, at least on how that handles cities. If RV used a similar system to their cities I think it could make urban warfare in ArmA actually tolerable instead of a 25 FPS shitfest.
>>277278837 JC2 engine might be great, but JC2 does nothing with it. The only slightly impressive feat is that there are alot of breakable objects on screen at once, namely tress. Other than that the game doesn't make the processor do any advanced calculations since everything from the ai to the bullets physics is basic at best. The draw distance is laughable and don't get me started on the almost instantly disappearing ruble and bodies.
The game had so much potential. I hope that JC3 will actually be interesting.
>>277278608 M8 do you even remotely have ANY idea what you're talking about? Any of those engines could deliver the same things Arma does but much better. >UE can have great ballistics and big maps >RAGE can have massive detailed worlds with great amounts of physics as evidenced by GTAV >EGO already proved it can into big maps with ballistics this with OP Flashpoint RR >Frostbite already has very big maps and ballistics >wouldn't take heavy modding to introduce ballistics to CryEngine
>>277278709 >great answer That's because your claim was retarded and should be met with a retarded answer...
>>277279145 You obviously have no fucking idea what you're talking about but you act like you do.
Frostbite does NOT have big maps, not even CLOSE to what is featured in ArmA. Frosbite would also explode if it had to deal with more than 5 AI's at once.
RAGE hasn't been proven to run something as big as ArmA with the draw distance. The biggest is GTA V and as you can see there the rendering distance is barely 10 meters and YOU STILL HAVE FUCKING POP IN MODELS AND TEXTURES
EGO, alright I'll give you EGO. It could actually do it. However it hasn't been updated for how long and looks incredibly outdated.
No but we're not talking about just fucking ballistics, we're talking about having to deal with all the dynamic objects, the lightning, the physics, the AI, the player, the ballistics, the models and EVERYTHING FUCKING ELSE IN THE DRAW DISTANCE THAT ARMA OFFERS THAT CRYENGINE CAN'T FUCKING DO OUT OF THE BOX.
>>277279610 I hope you realise that you're critiquing the games artstyle and not the engine it's running on. Also until MGSV actually comes out we have no idea about the texture popping, loading screen time and frequency, nor the complexity of the enviroment.
>>277279570 >Frostbite does NOT have big maps, not even CLOSE to what is featured in ArmA. Frosbite would also explode if it had to deal with more than 5 AI's at once. Holy shit how fucking hard are you trying to be wrong right now? Just because Battlefield hasn't done massive maps yet, doesn't mean the engine wouldn't. Same goes for the AI that DOES work correctly. Unlike in Arma where the AI is just retarded.
>RAGE hasn't been proven to run something as big as ArmA with the draw distance. The biggest is GTA V and as you can see there the rendering distance is barely 10 meters and YOU STILL HAVE FUCKING POP IN MODELS AND TEXTURES What are you even talking right now? Are you stupid? Have you never even seen GTAV played on shitty 360 consoles? It has a massive draw distance along with great amounts of physics and looks great. I can only expect it to work even better on PC.
>THAT CRYENGINE CAN'T FUCKING DO OUT OF THE BOX. Anon, those are literally the things everyone praised first Crysis (and CE2) for. Because all those things were done right WAY before Arma. And of course WAY before Arma's tier of PC requirements.
>>277279751 >I hope you realise that you're critiquing the games artstyle >artstyle >in games that go for realistic look You're not very bright, are you?
>Also until MGSV actually comes out we have no idea about the texture popping, loading screen time and frequency, nor the complexity of the enviroment. We do. We saw it all in the gameplays. It may only differ in console versions but the PC version will be at least as good as gameplays show it.
>Bland An engine can't be "bland" you fucking moron, 3D models, texture, particles, etc. can be bland. MGSV doesn't go for realism the same way ARMA does because ARMA is a simulation, while MGSV is an action game trying to imitate the flair of Hollywood action movies with overdone post processing effects and saturated colours.
>We do. We saw it all in the gameplays. Yes because "gameplays" are representative of the final quality of the game >Wat is literally every AAA game presented in E3 or any other major game expo in the past 10 years
Some recent examples: >Watchdogs - sure ran great and looked as great as in the gameplay trailers, right? >Rage - sure had no graphical problems on release, rite? >Asscreed Unity - sure worked and ran great on release, amirite?
Please admit that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and just leave with a shred of dignity.
VBS3 contains so much shit your mind would be blown and you'd forever hate consoles for holding technology back and it is relatively free.
Arma series is created by small "civilian" branch of BI, it's geared toward civilians to provide fun instead of towards governments to provide training for their armies. It gets all the optimizations, bug fixes, more technology! than you'd ever imagine, AI programming and shit like that, because they have better clients than 13 year old children who just want to play dayz.
Only problem is the engine is ancient, it is still largely the same as OFP one, but it is amazing what they have done with it.
Arma3 is a buggy, unfinished game but still blows others out of the water with what it does.
>>277280763 >An engine can't be "bland" It can. In Arma everything looks like a plastic toy. It's probably a lighting problem or something.
>MGSV doesn't go for realism It does. At least in terms of graphics.
>while MGSV is an action game trying to imitate the flair of Hollywood action movies with overdone post processing effects and saturated colours Arma also imitates Hollywood flares and post processing, and neither Arma nor MGS oversaturate colours...
>Yes because "gameplays" are representative of the final quality of the game The recent ones, yeah. In the worst case scenario it was recorded on PC, not consoles, so only consoles will get shit graphics.
>watchdogs shown a very early gameplay that was staged for E3 and nobody actually got to play it >either way we could bring back the e3 graphics
>RAGE never looked good except for screenshots
>asscreed unity was also a staged non-playable gameplay
>>277279967 >Anon, those are literally the things everyone praised first Crysis (and CE2) for. Because all those things were done right WAY before Arma. And of course WAY before Arma's tier of PC requirements.
>le modern gamer face
Okay concrete proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
You're so stupid I'm certain you're trolling, but still go to neogaf or wherever kids like you can have fun and not appear retarded.
>>277278402 >Because it looks shit and the games are clunky and full of input latency. Animations in killzone games are also shit. Exactly NONE of these are because of the game engine. Holy shit kill yourself for being this retarded.
>>277280954 >VBS3 contains so much shit your mind would be blown and you'd forever hate consoles for holding technology back and it is relatively free. Yo, what? VBS3 uses RV but with a shitload of outsourced technologies. Besides it's not free, it's actually hard to get and expensive as fuck, because it's only meant for the military.
>Arma series is created by small "civilian" branch of BI Nah. VBS is made by Bohemia Interactive Simulations that's based in Florida while Arma is handled by the original BI team from Czech Republic and it's not such a small team. They just decided to let modders do most of their work and just keep developing the game, so it's pretty much in an "early access" state all the time since release...
>Only problem is the engine is ancient It's not. I mean sure it wasn't built from scratch for Arma 3 but it's surely not the same engine that was used in OFP.
>but still blows others out of the water with what it does I wouldn't go as far to say this...
>>277281425 >The game runs poorly Because of PS4 hardware >and has heaps of tangling and glitching also. Glitches happen as a result of scripting. Not engine. How long are you going to keep proving your incompetence?
Engines don't really handle most any of the surface level crap you guys are talking about except may animation blending.
Engines handle low level graphics and sound apis.
All of the shaders and lighting and textures is dev work. At most an engine may provide samples of this stuff as well as tools for designing games or pipelines or specialized systems for animation and stuff like blending.
Even this shit about optimization is mostly a developer issue. While older engines are obviously not designed to scale with or take full advantage of newer hardware, if shit isn't running at a solid framerate it's because the devs elected not to manage the game's resources appropriately.
>>277281701 >Shit optimized engine that doesn't utilize multithreading  >shitty cubemaps >implying cubemaps are bad >with bad bokeh, As opposed to gaussian that is still more used. >hard jaggy shadows and shit ass lighting There's nothing wrong with way the engine handles lightning though. >along with glitches at every corner. Still not related to game engine.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
I rather have repeating textures with proper IQ and resolution, looking sharp and where they should, ( plus, what were you expecting on a 250km2 terrain ? hand crafted textures per terrain ? fucking retarded cunt ) than non-repeating textures with a sub consolish resolution, that looks like undistilled blurry, pixelated shit. Like MGS V.
The screenshots are legit. There's no tricks. Both games are maxed out, yet the game with the biggest map and draw distance got the best textures. Why ? Because it's not a console game on a console engine.
>>277282621 >plus, what were you expecting on a 250km2 terrain Not seeing that same stone for each 1,5m at least. Especially when the game has next to nothing to draw, it should have all the texture memory it needs to have proper looking ground.
At this point I'm convinced that you don't know what a game engine is.
>MGS goes for realism in terms of graphics >neither Arma nor MGS oversaturate colours...
I'm convinced you've never been outside.
>The recent ones, yeah. In the worst case scenario it was recorded on PC, not consoles, so only consoles will get shit graphics. News flash, most if not all AAA PS3, 360, PS4, Xbone games presented on the show floor of expos are being played on a PC. And yet that has absolutely nothing to do with how well they will perform or look in the end. Also this is not a "recent" practice.
Your initial argument: >We do. We saw it all in the gameplays. It may only differ in console versions but the PC version will be at least as good as gameplays show it. >It may only differ in console versions but the PC version will be at least as good as gameplays show it. > PC version will be at least as good as gameplays show it. >B-but watchdogs can be moded >R-RAGE never looked good >b-but asscreed was staged
All this damage control. You're the biggest mongoloid I've encountered on /v/ in the past month.
>>277281474 The guy is backpedalling and damage controlling left and right. His arguments since and including his initial post are utterly ignorant.
>>277282835 >I'm convinced you've never been outside. I'm sure you've never been, lel. MGS only blurs the image more but that's it. No oversaturation. If anything, it lacks saturation.
>News flash, most if not all AAA PS3, 360, PS4, Xbone games presented on the show floor of expos are being played on a PC. And yet that has absolutely nothing to do with how well they will perform or look in the end. Also this is not a "recent" practice. Only consoles get graphics downgrade. Unless it's a downgrade to match the consoles...
>You're the biggest mongoloid I've encountered on /v/ in the past month. Are you retarded? Can you really not tell the difference from a staged gameplay that's literally on stage with turned off controllers to a gameplay where they actually let you play the fucking game and see it upclose?
People like you are ruining the fucking industry I hope you die or at least stop playing games.
>Look dude I'm as mustard as the rest of you but even I know arma looks like shit all over
Nope you're not. You're just an assblasted weeb, and you can't deal with the fact that your lord Kojima spouted a shit engine, which looks out of place on PC. It's a console port. It's not " mustard race " worthy. It's a shit port, locked to 60 FPS with PS4 tier textures. Don't damage control. Accept that as a fact and move on with your life.
The only reason you're hating on ArmA 3 is because, as a retarded weeb, you hate everything which is trying to be realist / tactical or any simulations whatsoever. Even if A3 had the best looking engine on the planet, you would still hate on it, because you hate the game. Therefore all your arguments are shit and moot. Fuck you.
>Whiny elitists whining about how they claim graphics mean anything other than pretty pictures on a screen >Go into a giant shit-fit over nothing That's /v/ for you. >>277283357 Then that's more of a reason to doubt the statement.
>>277284253 way to admit you have no idea what you're talking about one way or the other.
Arma's engine is capable of looking good on high end machines, but there is a very good reason more games don't use it. It's a clunky, mess with some incredibly weird design choices. In terms of being a good engine, I and many other developers look for an engine which is robust and scalable. Could you make a game in arma's engine run on five different SKUs? I don't fucking think so mate. The developers got some good graphics out of it, but that doesn't make it a good engine.
How could you understand graphic fidelity / aesthetics when your games are locked to a certain level of details ?
How could you understand graphic fidelity / aesthetics when all you see is shitty AAA console games, therefore dumbing your aesthetics standards downs and making you unaware of existing products like Space Engine or Outerra, which are two major achievements in their own league ?
The only platform which allows you to really understand the graphic fidelity withing games is PC. Because this is where the technical achievements are being made. That's simple as that. Deal with it. Accept it. Live with it.
Not that guy, but I think I agree with you on graphics, no peasant that has only grew up with console games would have their perspective shattered after seeing something ala unigine or any other benchmark.
But aesthetics, I think is a whole other ball game and is more to do with what you see as a collection of shapes and colours rather than the technology behind it. (I mainly play PC but even I can admit there are lots of beautiful console games out there)
>>277287019 >BC2 is still the best casual shooter now that Vietnam servers are populated again. >BC2 is the best casual shooter Fuck off pleb. You're the cancer that's killing the FPS genre these days.
C# and Java are great languages, but they have specific patterns of usage.
One of them is that objects are lightweight, and that writing classes to encapsulate bullshit so you don't have to deal with it is cheap.
This means that a lot of bullshit details that are hard to keep straight can be kept away, and a lot of the housekeeping is done for you.
This leads to everyone writing 400 classes of different things, and then using those classes to build their application. This is why Java applications often use a lot of memory. They trade memory requirements for being easier to write, expand, debug, etc. Buying an extra stick of ram for your server is cheaper than spending 2 months extra writing the program.
However, in Unity, objects are heavy, expensive things. Make an object, and you'll spend 512k of ram.
This might not seem like *that* much, since even consoles have gigabytes of ram (the weakest one, the Wii U has 2gb of it), but it's shit for two reasons.
First of all, the cache misses. The time it takes to fetch something from L1-L3 cache vs ram is so slow it hurts.
Secondly, you're stuck with large objects, so you can't do modern OOP with it, so you're stuck writing objectively shit code.
Thirdly, it runs on .Net, which has an MS implementation and a Shit implementation. The Shit implementation suck balls.
Don't get me wrong. Unity could have been great. But it prevents modern OOP, and you're thus stuck writing C++ in C#. Just without all the new fancy stuff.
>>277286298 I'm sorry Till someone make another engine that can make you go from playing a military game from the some what future to 1944 to the french revolution, zombie survival , Dinosaur survival, to just a fucking LIFE RPG. Till then ArmA 3 Engine is one of the most flexible engine in the world sure not pretty to look at. but god damn nigga.
>>277287365 >pretty decent This was literally the worst game that came out this year and it was even buggier than BF4 at release. Holy shit I'll never understand why people love this piece of shit. Any CoD, literally ANY was better than BC2.
I love ARMA, but ARMA series has always had woeful engines.
Your graphics card barely matters as the entire thing runs off your fucking CPU, The game can barely run decent consistent framerates no matter the graphics settings, servers have massive memory leaks, the AI is fucking shit, the physics are AWFUL and it doesn't even have functionality and features that games have had since like fucking 2005.
Again, I love the ARMA series, but BI are incompetent as fuck.
>>277277995 Pic related is one of the engines I hate the most. I have know idea how good it is for developing, but the way everything looks with it, the physics, the ragdolls, the facial animations, the movement, all looks like shiiiiiit. Half of my problem with playing Vegas right now is that I have to sit through this shitty oblivion engine. I don't know how much of it is the engine and how much of it is just Bethesda being bad at animation and so forth, but both oblivion, fallout 3 and vegas look and feel like shit, everything about them really.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.