Unigine CEO offers game engine to Wasteland 2 for free

[suz]

stuff

To be honest all your points were proven, disproven, proven again and disproven across 47 pages now

[excession]

stuff

To be honest all your points were proven, disproven, proven again and disproven across 47 pages now

The title of that thread, the poll, and many of the replies refer to animation (sprites) and are largely concerned with character models - rather than the general game art/assets which I'm talking about.

It's entirely possible for both the 3D models which seem popular in that thread, and my 2D game-world/assets to coexist. This has been done by numerous games in the past to great effect.

Besides, to quote the Shadowrun project comments: "The same topics keep coming up over and over. Please do not post until you have read the 7,854 previous comments!"

[Brigand231]

I think, brigand, the thing your not getting that defines turn based is it needs to be a two way street. Using your FO3 example with VATS, you pause the game, take your turn, then the computer gets his turn. However, during the computer's turn you still have control and you can take another turn!

I don't recall mentioning FO3 or VATS (I see excession did after my post). The last post I remember making was asking how, if initiative is "enforced", enemies can get off a final shot if killed before their turn? It would seem that there is another mechanic at work there, where the enemy had already started an action and the player interrupted it, yet somehow player actions are instantaneous. I'm asking for a reconciliation of that.

I'm also pointing out that in a "real time" environment enemy AI must be "limited" to not be aware of things like the player's location, optimal range of weapons, and other things that turn "organic" opponents into simple machines. The AI is intentionally limited and restricted to deal with line of sight and other things the player must contend with so that it does not react in a manner that is simply too fast for a player to react to because we are not machines. This process takes things from real time and slows them down closer to being "paused" for the player to react. What I'm getting at is that just like when you divide 20/20 you get 1, 20/10 gets 2, 20/4 gets 5, and 20/0 approaches infinty..... Do we not get closer and closer to a "pause"? It becomes a system where the AI is programmed to be reactive - the player does something and the system reacts.... isn't that turn based? Yes, I blur the line, and on purpose. dividing by zero is NOT nothing, it's approaching infinity the same way a "real time" game can move closer and closer to pausing and being turn based.

Back to my first point, I've noticed several times in this thread folks have quoted someone, but respond to something someone else said or use information from a later post to respond to that earlier post as if the original poster had the benefit of those later posts.

[torque]

Do they actually filter those out, or is it merely "unspported" (on your own risk)?

From posts after yours it looks like intel is just not supported. That quote doesn't even mention intel HD or the newer intel HD 2000/3000 chipsets. Considering this engine will run on an NVIDIA 6600 I'm certain it would run on a newer laptop with integrated graphics easily.

FYI: I just tried the demo with a Intel GMA 4500MHD and it said that it couldn't create a compatible graphics context.

[dmazz]

I agree excension. Specifically with this quote from the article you posted.

Once the integration was done, the artists could come back and iterate on the animations and graphics weeks later without any programmer help. They’d just export all the new work, look at it in game, and then make adjustments and export the art again.

Clearly this would be the fastest way to get a working prototype up, and as long as the art pipeline is prepared (scripts and visual scripting) then an artist can slowly add little details to the artwork.

2D would be more amenable to this, but what about Brians comment of 'state of the art graphics'?. Maybe he's referring to the use of 2D with lighting, shadows and particles. As shown here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6ISVaM5Ww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtYvNEmmHXE

This engine and the techniques used are 'state of the art' and quite taxing on cpu/gpu's. This would justify the choices of the C4 engine and unigine, both have advanced lighting and shadow effects, and advanced gpu effects generally.

[Hellmaister]

This engine and the techniques used are 'state of the art' and quite taxing on cpu/gpu's. This would justify the choices of the C4 engine and unigine, both have advanced lighting and shadow effects, and advanced gpu effects generally.

I dont care about "state of the art". How the game looks is definetly not a priority for me. The story and character presentation is my highest priority. Sure I would like to see shadows, explosions and so on, but not to the expense of the core rpg elements. Hell... make the game 8-bits I dont care! That would only leave more resources to the rpg experience!

[DerRidda]

Why is the discussion about the graphics style in a NEWS thread about an engine? There are plenty of 2D vs. 3D threads going on where it is probably a lot more fruitful to discuss these things.

[ButchinMelancholy]

Hell... make the game 8-bits I dont care! That would only leave more resources to the rpg experience!

I don't think making the game look silly will add to the RPG experience. You shouldn't neglect the importance of a beautiful shape, because this is part of the art, part of the depth of a video game world, and just because there's a trend about polygons and effects density nowadays doesn't mean that the visual aspect of a game is something superficial.
That said, I must admit that technology in itself isn't a priority for me neither, but in the end the result has to be valuable.

I have a feeling that this engine will be the choosen one.

[Hellmaister]

I don't think making the game look silly will add to the RPG experience.

You are assuming it would look silly. I think you are wrong.

I say it can look however the hell it want, just as long as I am intrigued by the story and its characters. The visual part is important but it is just icing on the cake. To make the actual cake you need skill.

In other words. If the cake looks like shit but tastes like heaven you are still pretty damn satisfied. See my point?

[ButchinMelancholy]

I think nowadays, apart from "retro-style" games which assumes this bias, it would really look silly to use some outdated technologies or look at least, and even in those cases, they can't just do it in 8-bits or something because that would significantly limit the possibilities and vision they could draw from it (so it is indeed a style more than an actual step back in time). Of course they are free to do it, but this would be more for fun or challenge than anything else then.
So this is certainly quite personal, but I can't be touched the same way by a game if it looks one way or another yet with the same content, because it is part of its character and vision. The shape must serve the background by crystallizing it, so this is not insignificant for me, and technology permits it. That's all. ^^

To continue in your metaphor, the visual part of the game is more like the texture of the cake, which is part of the pleasure you will have of eating it (not just a cosmetic bonus).

[suz]

I'm afraid most people can't see beyond their nostalgia glasses.

Most stuff people call "retro" these days - were "state of the art" graphics that was available at the time. Wasteland wasn't made in 16 color palette because it was hipsterish or "retro" at the time, but because of technical limitations, if it was possible at the time they'd have full 24 bit color with alpha channel right there on the spot.

Some games don't need to push graphics barriers, because that's not their focus, but aesthetics is certainly a big part of any computer game and getting EGA graphics for $3m funding would raise my eyebrow(left one at least).

[ButchinMelancholy]

Most stuff people call "retro" these days - were "state of the art" [...] that was available at the time.

Indeed, and that's what makes the (fundamental) difference between "revival" scenes and old works (and why I don't like much the first ones while I used to and still love some of their models).

Some games don't need to push graphics barriers, because that's not their focus, but aesthetics is certainly a big part of any computer game

You guess I can only agree.

[Color Blotch]

In other words. If the cake looks like shit but tastes like heaven you are still pretty damn satisfied. See my point?

If something looks like shit, it will also taste like shit even if a little bit. Our composite perception of taste takes into account the actual taste, the smell, the texture, and finally the look. Something can "look tasty" and that's a scientific fact. The same principle extends to many other aspects of human perception, including the way how a shitty looking game plays a little bit shitty as well, even if it has majestic game mechanics under the hood.

At the same time 'looking good' shouldn't be confused with 'using all the latest bells and whistles'. No need to fill the screen with all the latest and trendy sparkles, blooming, and motion blur to make it convey the visual mood perfectly well.

[Demonidze]

if the game can look pretty, then why not? it should look pretty. I dont want the new 2013 released game to look like a game from 2001 just for sake of been able to run on very old machines.

I see an opertunity here to get a very good looking game engine for cheaper price, ala the game engine will cost less and leave more money to get other stuff done maybe in a slightly better way.

really if you still own an Amiga machine and expect W2 to run on it(been sarcastic here, in case you about to miss it)... then forget it, buy a modern pc even with very average graphics card, like nvidia 550 ti, which is very cheap and runs every single game made up to date on at least medium graphics settings and by happy to get a game that is not only gonna have a brilliant game play mechanics, plot, music, etc. but also a good looks.

[Rascal]

great post Demonidze I can only sign under it.

Game graphics is one of the most important tool for designers to create ingame mood/atmosphere/vibe.
If graphics looks great - its awesome valor for the game.
Totally no-brainer really.

[kiwiblazer]

The engine looks good and free? Just imagine the extra content if they go with this engine.

[Hellmaister]

If graphics looks great - its awesome valor for the game.

Yes of course. I agree. But as I am saying, it is not the core element. Which takes no brain to figure out, right?

[Twarge]

And Unity engine it is. On Twitter:

I can officially announce that we've chosen the Unity engine for Wasteland 2. It meets all the criteria we need. First screens looking good.

[Lucius]

Do they actually filter those out, or is it merely "unspported" (on your own risk)?

From posts after yours it looks like intel is just not supported. That quote doesn't even mention intel HD or the newer intel HD 2000/3000 chipsets. Considering this engine will run on an NVIDIA 6600 I'm certain it would run on a newer laptop with integrated graphics easily.

FYI: I just tried the demo with a Intel GMA 4500MHD and it said that it couldn't create a compatible graphics context.

This is kind of ancient and pointless, especially at this point with Unity engine announced, but you should learn about intel cards. Intel GMA 4500MHD is an old card from 2008. Significantly older than the redesigned HD series. The intel HD 3000 card, found in 2011 and newer laptops, are shockingly powerful compared to intel cards from years past. Intel HD 3000 can play ANY game on the market on low-medium settings. It can play Crysis, Crysis 2, COD: Black Ops, Skyrim, etc with playable framerates. The GMA cards couldn't play current games of their time at all.

Intel has changed in the past 2-3 years. You should do some homework. Comparing Intel GMA cards to Intel HD cards is comparing apples to oranges.