Quake3World

[lvlshot]http://cerberus.gamershell.com/screenshots/8070/163415_full.jpg[/lvlshot]
[lvlshot]http://cerberus.gamershell.com/screenshots/8070/163414_full.jpg[/lvlshot]
[lvlshot]http://cerberus.gamershell.com/screenshots/8070/163408_full.jpg[/lvlshot]
[lvlshot]http://cerberus.gamershell.com/screenshots/8070/163405_full.jpg[/lvlshot]
[lvlshot]http://cerberus.gamershell.com/screenshots/8070/163404_full.jpg[/lvlshot]


sooo...whats the game about? Lumberjacks? :icon6:

"And im proud to announce our new gametype called Cut that tree and bring it back to base.. or as we call it here at the Epic office, CTTABIBTB."

"How ya like those apples folks..."

*cums*

tnf: 2 more years, till you get your the incredibles like graphics in games.

I'd prefer less emphasis on graphics and more on morphable enviroments. Or in other words I'd rather see a less graphical world that deforms realisticly to things happening around.

dzjepp wrote:2 more years, till you get your the incredibles like graphics in games.

Robots (the movie) > The Incredibles

shiny trees

You know I'd rather see a tree that you can shoot one of those UT spiny razory disk thingy's through the tree and see it fall than seeing a tree that looks almost real that can't be moved.

Kracus wrote:You know I'd rather see a tree that you can shoot one of those UT spiny razory disk thingy's through the tree and see it fall than seeing a tree that looks almost real that can't be moved.

amen. this is a reason that i loved Red Faction. blowing up stuff was so much fun.

So what kind of machine setup do they actually use to build this graphics engine?

sirstrongbad wrote:

Kracus wrote:You know I'd rather see a tree that you can shoot one of those UT spiny razory disk thingy's through the tree and see it fall than seeing a tree that looks almost real that can't be moved.

amen. this is a reason that i loved Red Faction. blowing up stuff was so much fun.

I enjoyed red faction but found the levels to be a little TOO deformable in some situations and the gameplay and maps were kinda crummy too. But the idea was definitely there! Now if we could get a company to make it work well with gameplay we'd probably have my new favorite game. I heard HL2 was a lot like that actualy...

Kracus wrote:

sirstrongbad wrote:

Kracus wrote:You know I'd rather see a tree that you can shoot one of those UT spiny razory disk thingy's through the tree and see it fall than seeing a tree that looks almost real that can't be moved.

amen. this is a reason that i loved Red Faction. blowing up stuff was so much fun.

I heard HL2 was a lot like that actualy...

yes and no. there are many crates, boxes, and other things that you can pick up, throw, break, etc. but the world is not deformable like Red Faction. HL2 gave the player the abillity to pick up random objects off the ground and throw them at enemies as a weapon. (shoes don't work very well, by the way)

come to think of it i never played all the way through Red Faction. i think i got tired of the repetitive cave-like level design pretty early on. going in with unlimited rockets and grenades and blowing everything up was great, though.

reefsurfer wrote:
sooo...whats the game about? Lumberjacks? :icon6:

Keep in mind, that isn't a game at all. It's just a demonstration of their engine in its current state, not something to be played. In other words, it's like Doom 3.

You'll see in-game shots in a few months, I'd bet. Probably on Xbox2. :icon27:

Psyche911 wrote:

reefsurfer wrote:
sooo...whats the game about? Lumberjacks? :icon6:

Keep in mind, that isn't a game at all. It's just a demonstration of their engine in its current state, not something to be played. In other words, it's like Doom 3.

You'll see in-game shots in a few months, I'd bet. Probably on Xbox2. :icon27:

Quite a few people have a hard time understanding that it's not a game. There is no Unreal 3 even planned yet AFAIK. Maybe they need to rename their engine to cut the confusion. :icon32:

dzjepp wrote:*cums*

tnf: 2 more years, till you get your the incredibles like graphics in games.

The animated movie graphics are not cutting edge. This was done intentionally on the part of the animators. They wanted a certain look from the movies (or so I've heard).

meh

Kracus wrote:You know I'd rather see a tree that you can shoot one of those UT spiny razory disk thingy's through the tree and see it fall than seeing a tree that looks almost real that can't be moved.

It's been done in an old PS2 game.

I believe battlefield 2 has some rubble elements in some brushes... ie, telephone poles that can be blown up.

That sort of shit is so heavy on the CPU and networking that we won't get realistic physics for at least another decade.

SpeedTree has been out for years.



I don't mean to sound like a faggot, but the tiling grass ruins the whole thing for me. I hope what I'm seeing is an effect of crosshatching grass sprite polygons repeating and NOT a repeating texture.

Massive Quasars wrote:

dzjepp wrote:*cums*

tnf: 2 more years, till you get your the incredibles like graphics in games.

The animated movie graphics are not cutting edge. This was done intentionally on the part of the animators. They wanted a certain look from the movies (or so I've heard).

Actually, much of the Incredibles is cutting edge stuff. Believe it or not, it's harder to make a nice cartoon looking movie that people forget it's CG than it is to make a realistic CG movie.

With the exception being The Spirits Within.

Yeah, don't see the point. Other than the fact that those were modeled with SpeedTree, what exactly are we looking at? Any actual new technology that they're using?

I'm starting to get the impression that Epic is using game art to promote their Unreal3 engine rather actual game engine technology. Not impressed.

For pete's sake, lvlshot that sucker!

Actually, Epic is excellent at marketing their engine. The Unreal Engine has had just as much mass appeal in the game community as any engine I can think of and then some.



Hot.

rep wrote:Actually, Epic is excellent at marketing their engine. The Unreal Engine has had just as much mass appeal in the game community as any engine I can think of and then some.



Hot.

Have you ever seen any of Epic's code? It's almost as sloppy as Valve's.

Does that really matter? CryEngine is a total mess, but the games are still fun.



You act like UT and UT2003/2004 weren't fun. I had a fucking blast in those games.

rep wrote:Does that really matter? CryEngine is a total mess, but the games are still fun.

Speaking we are talking about engines and their appeal, yes.

It's no concern of ours what their code is like. If it works, it works.

If you can make it work better, then you'd obviously be working for them or a better company.

Just looks like a high poly tree to me

rep wrote:It's no concern of ours what their code is like. If it works, it works.

If you can make it work better, then you'd obviously be working for them or a better company.

inolen probably could do it better...