PDA

View Full Version : Hi-jacked video of what this GENRE needs! =)



Ghost_Hybrid
03-26-2007, 02:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=38010...881080545#8881080545 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=3801065024&m=8481068245&r=8881080545#8881080545)

Notice at the end of the video the enemy AI realizes he is out gunned and high tales it!

Now that is what weve been needing for years...

Unfortunately for some, this is a UBI title and it should put to rest that, they are putting an investment into a GROUP of developers that understand the dynamics of designing a game.

Which hopefully will be an awakener that you can sometimes blame a publisher, but really you should point fingers at the developer.....sometimes =)

CRYTEK 2007 will be a memorabel moment for me.

ColinCJ
03-26-2007, 02:52 PM
Great Video I love the bridge scene barrels awsome.

There is no doubt the game will look great, other games out look good too but we are still missing vital ingredients, game play may be this game will do both, we will have to waite and see, it is a game how ever I will buy when it is released.

I hope we dont have to waite too long.

GrimlockCW
03-26-2007, 03:25 PM
Ubi doesn't own Crytek anymore, Crytek left Ubi.
reasons obvious, and Ubi tried to buy Crytek and failed from what i hear.

Crysis belongs to EA
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/ea-crytek-title-untitled-project/

Ghost_Hybrid
03-26-2007, 03:57 PM
Thanks GRIM/ Wonder why they elected to elude UBI's grasp?.....Im sure someone will tell me.

Its probably a good thing they turned them down, due to the market teter tottering towards one publisher, owning to many great titles.

ThumperDFN
03-26-2007, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Ghost_Hybrid:
Thanks GRIM/ Wonder why they elected to elude UBI's grasp?.....Im sure someone will tell me.

Its probably a good thing they turned them down, due to the market teter tottering towards one publisher, owning to many great titles.

Yup! I'm glad Crytek bailed on Ubi. All Ubi does is put a stranglehold on their developers and make them do things their way, which in most cases is bass-ackwards. RIBBET!

ZA_Corax
03-26-2007, 06:45 PM
Actually Ubisoft has purchased the IP rights for the the whole FarCry franchise, which included the unlimited license to use the original CryEngine...

http://firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=9565

Ubisoft never owned Crytek, they're the publisher. Which also applies to EA with Crysis. I'm sure the guys @ CryTek will not make that mistake twice.

GrimlockCW
03-26-2007, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by ZA_Corax:
Actually Ubisoft has purchased the IP rights for the the whole FarCry franchise, which included the unlimited license to use the original CryEngine...

http://firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=9565

Ubisoft never owned Crytek, they're the publisher. Which also applies to EA with Crysis. I'm sure the guys @ CryTek will not make that mistake twice.

yes, Ubi owns CryEngine 1, not CryEngine 2 nor Crysis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Crytek ditched CryEngine 1 with Ubi when they left, since Ubi had the licenses to Farcry and the engine it was made from anyways. :/
CryTek if not mistaken didn't "sell" it to them, so much as Ubi forced it from them IIRC when they tried to take the company.

Six_Gun
03-27-2007, 12:11 AM
LOL, Ubi's not exactly perfect, but neither is EA. EA's support is some of the worst in the biz. They prioritize profit over product as much if not more so than most. EA is probably the biggest publisher out there, yet their forums are the most atrocious I've ever seen. They really don't care at all about devoted fans of the games they publish.

As well, Crytek's a LOT smarter and more affluent than to let ANY publisher own them. Crytek paved their way with Far Cry and have a lot of much deserved freedom because of it. God forbid we should have to see developers like Crytek owned by ANY publisher, it just wouldn't be right.

That being said, despite all the cool video trailers of the amazing attributes of their Crysis project, it's far from proven itself in the retail market. Sure it will have elements far beyond most games, but will the story really be that engaging or the performance requirements worth the expensive upgrades?

Then there's issues like consistent FPS, bugs, hitching, etc, etc. Far Cry went a LONG time before it's MP was even playable due to lack of needed developer patches. It STILL suffers from intermittent bugs like the repeating rifle after a merc is shot, not being able to end the Cooler level, the armory door in Pier not opening, etc, etc.

For the most part these trailers are just to get preorders well before the product is even proven. Valve did the same thing with HL2 and many whom paid full price were uspet about issues that have still not been addressed with patching. Perhaps top on the list is the severe hitching the game exhibits, particularly with ATI cards.

GrimlockCW
03-27-2007, 07:15 AM
i'll give one props to EA, though i do agree their support is some of the worst.
They have continued some support for BF2 even though the 1.4 patch was deemed "final" originally

as for Crytek, well, they at least even went so far as making a 64 bit patch for FarCry, and WOW is it something to look at with the extended draw distance in that game.
i question also how much of what Crytek did for Farcry before they left Ubi, was under their own funding after Ubi had cut them off.

Oliver_Reed
03-27-2007, 09:16 AM
Well that sure is pretty - and my first thought is "My God, my rig will never run anything looking like that".

But if it could, then would I be happy? What if the AI is as dumb as a GRAW Ghost in a blindfold? What if all the missions are linear and scripted? All I'd have is a pretty, but dumb, game.

I'd rather see a demo of how good the AI is and how the gameplay is shaping up - regardless of how pretty it might look.

And why is it that everybody seems to be making advances in game engines, but not in AI?

I for one would be quite happy to play a game with today's graphics that run fine on my machine (like RVS, SWAT 4 etc) but with much improved AI and playability. More processing power spent on AI than eye-candy.

A good engine doesn't necessarily make for a good game. Doom3 leaps to mind.

ColinCJ
03-27-2007, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Oliver_Reed:
Well that sure is pretty - and my first thought is "My God, my rig will never run anything looking like that".

But if it could, then would I be happy? What if the AI is as dumb as a GRAW Ghost in a blindfold? What if all the missions are linear and scripted? All I'd have is a pretty, but dumb, game.

I'd rather see a demo of how good the AI is and how the gameplay is shaping up - regardless of how pretty it might look.

And why is it that everybody seems to be making advances in game engines, but not in AI?

I for one would be quite happy to play a game with today's graphics that run fine on my machine (like RVS, SWAT 4 etc) but with much improved AI and playability. More processing power spent on AI than eye-candy.

A good engine doesn't necessarily make for a good game. Doom3 leaps to mind.

Agreed we are seeing games with a lot of eye candy and poor GP.

But I did read some where this game will work on a 2 to 3 year old system, which is good.

soory bro hit the wrong button

Ghost_Hybrid
03-27-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Oliver_Reed:
Well that sure is pretty - and my first thought is "My God, my rig will never run anything looking like that".

But if it could, then would I be happy? What if the AI is as dumb as a GRAW Ghost in a blindfold? What if all the missions are linear and scripted? All I'd have is a pretty, but dumb, game.

I'd rather see a demo of how good the AI is and how the gameplay is shaping up - regardless of how pretty it might look.

And why is it that everybody seems to be making advances in game engines, but not in AI?

I for one would be quite happy to play a game with today's graphics that run fine on my machine (like RVS, SWAT 4 etc) but with much improved AI and playability. More processing power spent on AI than eye-candy.

A good engine doesn't necessarily make for a good game. Doom3 leaps to mind.

Ive been asking this same question about AI for years.

We have to remember that we as humans use less than 30% of our brain. We just havent evolved enough to program AI the way we are.

Ecspecially in the video game genre. profits would go down if they hired a team to exclusively work on AI. Crytek was pretty good at implementing characteristics of men.

Their theroy on AI, "dropem and let them do the thinking," was an actual success. I expect that time has only allowed them to further enhance thier craft on creating the most realistic AI they can.

If developers would remember the simple questions while designing a FPS...what are we trying to perfect? Graphics or AI.

The consumers have demanded good graphics and hypnotized Developers into thinking that this is the main selling point of a game.

We look back at the forums, before a release and what is the main questions? "How does the game run on my system?" "How many weapons are there?" "How moddable is the game?" "When the heck do we get a demo."

Ai is left on a back burner, and we realize that after weve received all but perfect AI, the game soon looses its flavor.

Oliver_Reed
03-27-2007, 11:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Good points, well made.

Brownsnakeeyes
03-27-2007, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Ghost_Hybrid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oliver_Reed:
Well that sure is pretty - and my first thought is "My God, my rig will never run anything looking like that".

But if it could, then would I be happy? What if the AI is as dumb as a GRAW Ghost in a blindfold? What if all the missions are linear and scripted? All I'd have is a pretty, but dumb, game.

I'd rather see a demo of how good the AI is and how the gameplay is shaping up - regardless of how pretty it might look.

And why is it that everybody seems to be making advances in game engines, but not in AI?

I for one would be quite happy to play a game with today's graphics that run fine on my machine (like RVS, SWAT 4 etc) but with much improved AI and playability. More processing power spent on AI than eye-candy.

A good engine doesn't necessarily make for a good game. Doom3 leaps to mind.

Ive been asking this same question about AI for years.

We have to remember that we as humans use less than 30% of our brain. We just havent evolved enough to program AI the way we are.

Ecspecially in the video game genre. profits would go down if they hired a team to exclusively work on AI. Crytek was pretty good at implementing characteristics of men.

Their theroy on AI, "dropem and let them do the thinking," was an actual success. I expect that time has only allowed them to further enhance thier craft on creating the most realistic AI they can.

If developers would remember the simple questions while designing a FPS...what are we trying to perfect? Graphics or AI.

The consumers have demanded good graphics and hypnotized Developers into thinking that this is the main selling point of a game.

We look back at the forums, before a release and what is the main questions? "How does the game run on my system?" "How many weapons are there?" "How moddable is the game?" "When the heck do we get a demo."

Ai is left on a back burner, and we realize that after weve received all but perfect AI, the game soon looses its flavor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sorry UBI but he's right. This post needs to be stickied under direction for making any game! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

GrimlockCW
03-27-2007, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Oliver_Reed:
Well that sure is pretty - and my first thought is "My God, my rig will never run anything looking like that".

But if it could, then would I be happy? What if the AI is as dumb as a GRAW Ghost in a blindfold? What if all the missions are linear and scripted? All I'd have is a pretty, but dumb, game.

I'd rather see a demo of how good the AI is and how the gameplay is shaping up - regardless of how pretty it might look.

And why is it that everybody seems to be making advances in game engines, but not in AI?

I for one would be quite happy to play a game with today's graphics that run fine on my machine (like RVS, SWAT 4 etc) but with much improved AI and playability. More processing power spent on AI than eye-candy.

A good engine doesn't necessarily make for a good game. Doom3 leaps to mind.

there are some gameplay videos already out, the most noticable is one that takes place on an Amphib (small carrier basicly, so i bet they just call it a carrier like anyone who knows not the ships of the Navy)

it looks pretty awesome. Doesn't show the friendly AI yet though, i think it was prior to getting that worked up...


as to AI, its been going, but its like when i complain about the GRAW AI.

people think that having smarter AI on their team will only make the game "less fun" so companies work on the enemy AI and just dump the friendly AI under some basic commands and leave it there.

Six_Gun
03-27-2007, 09:10 PM
I just hope there's a fair amount of solo missions. I've yet to see any game that implements friendly AI well.

Ghost_Hybrid
03-28-2007, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by GrimlockCW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oliver_Reed:
Well that sure is pretty - and my first thought is "My God, my rig will never run anything looking like that".

But if it could, then would I be happy? What if the AI is as dumb as a GRAW Ghost in a blindfold? What if all the missions are linear and scripted? All I'd have is a pretty, but dumb, game.

I'd rather see a demo of how good the AI is and how the gameplay is shaping up - regardless of how pretty it might look.

And why is it that everybody seems to be making advances in game engines, but not in AI?

I for one would be quite happy to play a game with today's graphics that run fine on my machine (like RVS, SWAT 4 etc) but with much improved AI and playability. More processing power spent on AI than eye-candy.

A good engine doesn't necessarily make for a good game. Doom3 leaps to mind.

there are some gameplay videos already out, the most noticable is one that takes place on an Amphib (small carrier basicly, so i bet they just call it a carrier like anyone who knows not the ships of the Navy)

it looks pretty awesome. Doesn't show the friendly AI yet though, i think it was prior to getting that worked up...


as to AI, its been going, but its like when i complain about the GRAW AI.

people think that having smarter AI on their team will only make the game "less fun" so companies work on the enemy AI and just dump the friendly AI under some basic commands and leave it there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and when they do make the friendly AI smarter it means they need to be scripted and the word linear is not well absorbed in this community.

GrimlockCW
03-30-2007, 07:15 PM
no one said it had to be linear.
the AI used in the 360 games for GRAW and even the AI in both R6V games is not scripted to specific locations.
theres also the team AI in Brothers In Arms.
These AI did not follow "scripted" locations to advance to, they followed the squad leaders (player) orders and went where they were told.
Only linearity to their scripting was the R6V door breach movements and such, but thats necisary.

the only catch with the AI in those games is it functions purely as a group, not individualy, But all in all, the AI is spectacular in most cases (GRAW 2 360 has some really nice workings to it, and its MUCH less annoying than the first game)
The next step is just to make the bloody AI smarter in the games so that it can Shoot, take cover on its own when under fire (rather than just stop dead in its tracks like GRAW (both PC and 360 have this issue)) and so on.

so the friendly AI does not "need" to be purely linear scripting to be smarter, it just needs some proper coding upgrades and test runs to tweak it all. the Technology is there, its just not being used.
as for being scripted at all.... its AI... it IS scripted... otherwise it doesn't think, it just stands there.

IMHO, though its considered "clutter", the order designation marker should be something thats included even in the PC game, though of course as with all in this style case, have it toggleable on/off and the HUD customizable in a few fashions.

i was actually surprised i couldn't find a quick on/off to the Cross-Com in GRAW 2 360, where it was a fast button press away to disable it all in the first game.
maybe i missed it though, only played SP once through. (the game also kept trying to stick me with these gimp medics, i usualy replaced with a gunner though. sux worse that the PC game sounds to be getting them too... more arcade gaming anyone?)
ANYWHO
having an option to turn off the Cross Com stuff would be best i still think for the elitests.
and a designation marker for squad member movement should also be an option for easier management of the team.

its not hard to push this stuff in modern tech, and it'll accomodate more than just counter strikers, like Ubi is targeting.
customization options are merely a matter of the company actually putting some money down and allowing dev time for this stuff.
I think Crysis will probably have the majority of what players can expect, from an action/arcade experience, to a nearly pure Tactical one.
Crytek def learned a LOT from FarCry and what its players wanted, so i won't put much past them to consider.

HyenaX05
03-31-2007, 04:01 PM
Well guys if you like the engine you gonna love what these guys are going to do as official modders for that engine...
Just press on Obsidianedge

baff6
04-03-2007, 12:08 PM
In it's day, Far Cry AI was state of the art.
Even if the key programmers have left the company, the existing code is pretty competetant and in every way comparable to that found in Unreal based games such as SWAT and Ravenshield.

A bit the gameplay isn't my cup of tea, because this engine would be great for an outdoor shooter.

Ghost_Hybrid
04-03-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by baff6:
In it's day, Far Cry AI was state of the art.
Even if the key programmers have left the company, the existing code is pretty competetant and in every way comparable to that found in Unreal based games such as SWAT and Ravenshield.

A bit the gameplay isn't my cup of tea, because this engine would be great for an outdoor shooter.

Baff,

You seriously think that the enemey AI in Ravenshield was almost on par with Crytek?

Please say no, PLEASE!

baff6
04-03-2007, 09:19 PM
The Far Cry AI uses cover, the Unreal AI has better pathing and a variety of different responses, including fear and panic.

Ghost_Hybrid
04-04-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by baff6:
The Far Cry AI uses cover, the Unreal AI has better pathing and a variety of different responses, including fear and panic.

Hmmm, not sure if I agree with the level of complexity between the two.

Unreal bots have set paths, Crytek bots have a choice.

B ut I will agree they are both good in thier own rights.

Id much rather go against crytek AI, since they have more of a human intelligence when it comes to gun fights.

baff6
04-04-2007, 11:37 AM
Unreal AI have set tracks, they may run around near any of those tracks and jump between the them.

It is not uncommon for an Unreal AI to run the full length and breadth of the map. A Far Cry AI will never do this.

MadCat360
04-04-2007, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Ghost_Hybrid:

We have to remember that we as humans use less than 30% of our brain. We just havent evolved enough to program AI the way we are.



Actually it's 10%, but 90% of our brain is basically like a hard drive for storage. We only NEED to use 10% to access the stored info in the other 90%.

GrimlockCW
04-05-2007, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by MadCat360:
Actually it's 10%, but 90% of our brain is basically like a hard drive for storage. We only NEED to use 10% to access the stored info in the other 90%.

i demand a refund then, mine ain't working with no 90% storage....
course most of its cause i choose not to remember alot of short term things (made my time in the warzone go faster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif )
but it likes to dropout stuff i want (such as stuff for my college courses) too real well without a kick to the side and a few cuss words.

heh, only seems to knockout school related stuff though..... anything else can stick easy enough if i feel its important enough to remember.
hmm...
yeah, its broken, i want a new one

Ghost_Hybrid
04-05-2007, 11:14 AM
Funny you say that Grim, when I was in Highschool, 90's I always fell into the year 2000 hype that we'd have flying cars and robots and have inhabited somewhere else other than this planet.

The only thing we've evolved in is technology, my cell phone can now receive emails Woohoo!

ColinCJ
04-05-2007, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Ghost_Hybrid:
Funny you say that Grim, when I was in Highschool, 90's I always fell into the year 2000 hype that we'd have flying cars and robots and have inhabited somewhere else other than this planet.

The only thing we've evolved in is technology, my cell phone can now receive emails Woohoo!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif nice one