Gamespot E3 First Look Preview

[Pidesco]

I found that the combat in NWN2 improved as the number of party members increased. The busier the better.

[Patrick K Mills]

........

 

Here is picture that describes my feelings on the matter:

 

[Volourn]

"It is more "responsive" and less clunky than Aurora and other games using engines derived from it"

 

Nah. Aurora engine is vastly superior to the IE. No contest whatsoever.

 

 

"I'm not talking about if you sit around and play pazzaak for hours, or do those silly JE sidequests where you play Space Invaders, or watch scenery. JE and ME are definitely closer to 20 hours than your estimates."

 

LMAO I didn't estimate. Those are my times according to the game saves, and they're not counting death and reload. I didn't play pazaak or do silly JE sidequests either for hours. Pleased, don't tlel me how I play MY games.

 

I stand by the facts of game time not your mythical estimates which have no effect on me whatsoever.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Volourn

[Xard]

"It is more "responsive" and less clunky than Aurora and other games using engines derived from it"

 

Nah. Aurora engine is vastly superior to the IE. No contest whatsoever.

 

I have Sawyer's words backing my observations

 

And I didn't mention engine's overall betterness, only the fact it is superior in combat

 

 

 

 

...but in my opinion it IS indeed much better. Aurora could've never created visuals of Sigil

Edited July 23, 2008 by Xard

[GhostofAnakin]

LMAO I didn't estimate. Those are my times according to the game saves, and they're not counting death and reload. I didn't play pazaak or do silly JE sidequests either for hours. Pleased, don't tlel me how I play MY games.

 

I stand by the facts of game time not your mythical estimates which have no effect on me whatsoever.

 

Yet you responded to my post about the times it took me to play my games, saying my times were wrong. I could comment the same thing. Please don't tell me how long it took you to finish those games, since it has no effect on me whatsoever.

[themadhatter114]

LMAO I didn't estimate. Those are my times according to the game saves, and they're not counting death and reload. I didn't play pazaak or do silly JE sidequests either for hours. Pleased, don't tlel me how I play MY games.

 

I stand by the facts of game time not your mythical estimates which have no effect on me whatsoever.

 

No one cares if you played a game for 100 hours, that doesn't make it any more valid than anyone else's game time. Your personal play times don't negate the fact that Jade Empire and Mass Effect are easily doable in under 20 hours.

[Volourn]

So is BG2. Your point?

 

 

"Yet you responded to my post about the times it took me to play my games, saying my times were wrong. I could comment the same thing. Please don't tell me how long it took you to finish those games, since it has no effect on me whatsoever."

 

Exactly.

 

 

"I have Sawyer's words backing my observations"

 

Mr. Sawyer, esteemed developer that he is, is not always correct. Nor does one have to always share his opinions.

 

 

"only the fact it is superior in combat"

 

No.

 

 

"...but in my opinion it IS indeed much better. Aurora could've never created visuals of Sigil"

 

It does a much better job, actually. Aurora is superior in every imaginable way to the IE.

 

 

Though this off topic means nothing as AP will not be using either engine, anyways.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Volourn

[Xard]

"Mr. Sawyer, esteemed developer that he is, is not always correct. Nor does one have to always share his opinions."

 

Considering the fact he has worked on both engines much and knows their internal workings better than either of us gives him a lot credibility. That added with my own observations forces me to have no reason to disagree on his "musings".

 

"It does a much better job, actually. Aurora is superior in every imaginable way to the IE."

 

No. Aurora is blocky, tileset based system. It also has low polygon count and numerous other restrictions.

 

It was and isn't capable of achieving the same hand made, unique artistry that Black Isle created for the game.

 

Only now with NWN2's Electron engine it is somewhat achievable as Puragorio shows, but even then it loses badly on small details and sense of scale.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Xard

[Volourn]

I'm not getting into bashing/criticizing a dev in this thread just to 'win' versus you. Sorry.

[Xard]

I'm not getting into bashing/criticizing a dev in this thread just to 'win' versus you. Sorry.

 

Sure...

 

What I can see immeaditly is that when I click enemy in IE game action begins immeaditly

 

In Aurora there is small but noticeable drag

 

Other clunkyness factor is the camera NWN1's was bad, NWN2's strategy cam is good but not as good as IE's isometric

[Alvin Nelson]

/off-topic

[Xard]

anyway, I don't like ****. **** are fine

 

Luckily AP should deliver on that front, though exact skillchecks and skillz are still somewhat unknown to me

 

edit: GODDAMN CENSORSHIP YOU'RE RUINING MY POSTS

Edited July 23, 2008 by Xard

[Joseph Bulock]

anyway, I don't like ****. **** are fine

 

Luckily AP should deliver on that front, though exact skillchecks and skillz are still somewhat unknown to me

 

edit: GODDAMN CENSORSHIP YOU'RE RUINING MY POSTS

 

The best part is I have no idea what you said, and my blind guesses are pretty entertaining.

[Xard]

What's even better, they're propably right *cough*

[J.E. Sawyer]

"I have Sawyer's words backing my observations"

 

Mr. Sawyer, esteemed developer that he is, is not always correct. Nor does one have to always share his opinions.

In this case I am correct, because I actually understand how the underlying code that governs combat and states works in the IE and Aurora. Responsiveness, in this context defined as how quickly the game updates states after player input is given, is consistently faster and more reliable in IE than Aurora.

[Zoma]

"I have Sawyer's words backing my observations"

 

Mr. Sawyer, esteemed developer that he is, is not always correct. Nor does one have to always share his opinions.

In this case I am correct, because I actually understand how the underlying code that governs combat and states works in the IE and Aurora. Responsiveness, in this context defined as how quickly the game updates states after player input is given, is consistently faster and more reliable in IE than Aurora.

 

OMGWTFBBQ!

[spacekungfuman]

"I have Sawyer's words backing my observations"

 

Mr. Sawyer, esteemed developer that he is, is not always correct. Nor does one have to always share his opinions.

In this case I am correct, because I actually understand how the underlying code that governs combat and states works in the IE and Aurora. Responsiveness, in this context defined as how quickly the game updates states after player input is given, is consistently faster and more reliable in IE than Aurora.

 

Josh - Is this something that can be fixed, or is Aurora just fundamentally flawed? I know you outgrew IE eventually, and have experience with the custom engines that were being made for VanBuren and maybe Torn, but based on how Aurora turned out, do you think it is actually better in terms of gameplay (ignoring visual) than ie? Given how much time and energy you had to put into modifying Aurora for KOTOR2 and NWN2, do you think on the whole the engine has been an impediment, rather than a blessing, to game design?

Edited July 24, 2008 by spacekungfuman

[J.E. Sawyer]

There are a few qualifications here:

 

1) There are problems that can be practically fixed and there are problems that can't be practically fixed. Sometimes, a problem that isn't practical to fix can become practical depending on the scope of a project. Aurora's client/server architecture and animation systems could certainly be re-written, but I don't think that would fall in the scope of an expansion (for example). The Witcher shows just how much Aurora can be modified given enough time.

 

2) It's important to remember focus when looking at an engine. While I honestly don't think Aurora's animation/state updating is good for anything (sorry to be blunt, but I can't think of a good reason for it to be engineered as it was), certain other aspects lend themselves better to NWN's intended purpose than the IE's intended purpose. For example, IE game spells were all created in .spl files through an editor called Spell-O-Matic (yes, really). In NWN, most of a spell's functionality came from a script. Creating and debugging spell scripts can honestly be a pain in the *** when compared to the .spl data-driven format, but it allows a lot more flexibility. Also, a 3D engine of any sort makes developing new character/creature content (models, animations, etc.) much, much easier for hobbyists.

[spacekungfuman]

There are a few qualifications here:

 

1) There are problems that can be practically fixed and there are problems that can't be practically fixed. Sometimes, a problem that isn't practical to fix can become practical depending on the scope of a project. Aurora's client/server architecture and animation systems could certainly be re-written, but I don't think that would fall in the scope of an expansion (for example). The Witcher shows just how much Aurora can be modified given enough time.

 

I know a lot of work must have gone into the tactical camera for MotB. Would fixing this be a bigger job than that? I just ask because I'm hoping SoZ provides an icewind dale feel, but the engine might not be up to that right now.

 

2) It's important to remember focus when looking at an engine. While I honestly don't think Aurora's animation/state updating is good for anything (sorry to be blunt, but I can't think of a good reason for it to be engineered as it was), certain other aspects lend themselves better to NWN's intended purpose than the IE's intended purpose. For example, IE game spells were all created in .spl files through an editor called Spell-O-Matic (yes, really). In NWN, most of a spell's functionality came from a script. Creating and debugging spell scripts can honestly be a pain in the *** when compared to the .spl data-driven format, but it allows a lot more flexibility. Also, a 3D engine of any sort makes developing new character/creature content (models, animations, etc.) much, much easier for hobbyists.

 

This might be going to far, but do you think its viable to make a game engine that could be equally developer friendly and hobbyist friendly, or will there always be compromises to let the community get involved too? There sure is a lot of content for NWN 1 and 2, but none of that content has combat as good as in the ie games, which is a shame.

[mkreku]

JE: 30

I did all the side-quests I could find and I even played that horribly stupid shoot'em up sequence and finished it in 13-15 hours (can't remember exactly anymore). I have no idea how you played it.

[Bos_hybrid]

JE: 30

I did all the side-quests I could find and I even played that horribly stupid shoot'em up sequence and finished it in 13-15 hours (can't remember exactly anymore). I have no idea how you played it.

 

 

Everyone goes at their own speed.I just finished my fourth play through of JE on Friday, which logged at 20 hours 43 minutes.

[Volourn]

"I did all the side-quests I could find and I even played that horribly stupid shoot'em up sequence and finished it in 13-15 hours (can't remember exactly anymore). I have no idea how you played it. "

 

Hey, everyone, mkreku wants a medal for beating a game as fast as possible!

[themadhatter114]

13-15 hours gets no award.

 

http://speeddemosarchive.com/JadeEmpire.html

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I keep beating Mass Effect at 25 hours max, while doing EVERYTHING.

 

Creepy.

[themadhatter114]

I keep beating Mass Effect at 25 hours max, while doing EVERYTHING.

 

Creepy.

 

Are the dumb collection quests really worth it, especially after the first time around? I can't imagine doing more than landing on a planet and driving to the quest area if I did it again.