DS III / IwD III (read it Obsidian guys plz)

[Tigranes]

If Onyx can do bigger areas it would be totally awesome. It's reported as being pretty flexible, so I don't see why not - the corridors and skybox were likely DS3's own constraints (partly influenced by consoles, project scope, etc).

 

Generally, though, screw this "OMG THIS GAME HAS NO LOADING SCREENS IT ROCKS" crap, seamless world is a nice bonus to have, not a necessity. A big world with loading screens isa lways better than seamless corridors.

[C2B]

Ofc Onyx runs well on your Xbox-in-a-tower PCs. The maps are tiny and cramped, textures are lowres. Devs said they didn't even create skyboxes for most of the areas - wonder why? TW2 requires a highend PC if you want to max all settings, duh.

 

Because it is a top down game?

 

Why should you create unneeded Skyboxes in the first place? Would only waste resources.

 

And thats not the problem with the games camera. We need more zoom. Not a third person witcher 2 like.

Edited July 6, 2011 by C2B

[sorophx]

Onyx

it's kind of stupid on your part to assume Obsidian built Onyx just for this one game, it's also stupid to assume they plan on making all their games multi-platform hack'n'slash from now on. why do you even comment if you have no idea what their engine is inherently capable of?

[Flouride]

Onyx

it's kind of stupid on your part to assume Obsidian built Onyx just for this one game, it's also stupid to assume they plan on making all their games multi-platform hack'n'slash from now on. why do you even comment if you have no idea what their engine is inherently capable of?

 

Aye, Onyx was 1st made for Aliens:Crucible which seemed to play out completely differently than DS3. There's some thread on Codex (unless they delete old threads) where bunch of devs and ex-devs from Obsidian talked about the game.

 

Can't remember the interview, but I believe they even said that they made Onyx specifically easy to modify to fit their different needs. So they aren't stuck on making one kind of games on that engine.

[Bakercompany86]

If Onyx can do bigger areas it would be totally awesome. It's reported as being pretty flexible, so I don't see why not - the corridors and skybox were likely DS3's own constraints (partly influenced by consoles, project scope, etc).

 

Generally, though, screw this "OMG THIS GAME HAS NO LOADING SCREENS IT ROCKS" crap, seamless world is a nice bonus to have, not a necessity. A big world with loading screens isa lways better than seamless corridors.

 

 

I tend to agree with you. While I loathe loading of any kind, i'd much rather have a world like Fable where its decently large and involves loading screens than a smooth as butter no-loading game thats all corridors. Although I have to say DSIII's campaign and maps are beautiful. I just prefer a much larger open world.

 

I don't see why Obsidian can't do it with this game and this engine though. Some area's are fairly large enough, and they'd just have to open them up a bit and add more. Clearly they have a top notch QA team to make sure everything works and is bug free, this is one of the least buggy games i've played in a bit.

[MakeMOTB2pls]

it's kind of stupid on your part to assume Obsidian built Onyx just for this one game, it's also stupid to assume they plan on making all their games multi-platform hack'n'slash from now on. why do you even comment if you have no idea what their engine is inherently capable of?

They've released one game on this engine and that's what I base my impressions on. As does everyone else, for that matter. OP wants IWD3 on this engine because "graphics are just beautiful, sound is awesome", which makes zero sense, and resident fanboys concur. I remain skeptical until proven otherwise. Certainly it's possible that the engine is good for more than simplistic casual corridor crawlers, but then why is DS3 one? Squenix forced them, no doubt.

[C2B]

They've released one game on this engine and that's what I base my impressions on. As does everyone else, for that matter. OP wants IWD3 on this engine because "graphics are just beautiful, sound is awesome", which makes zero sense, and resident fanboys concur. I remain skeptical until proven otherwise. Certainly it's possible that the engine is good for more than simplistic casual corridor crawlers, but then why is DS3 one? Squenix forced them, no doubt.

 

Because the game is designed that way. Also I would disagree that DSIII is simplistic (though I'm probably taking into account here other things than you do) or completly casual (though it has a nice casual side to it).

 

Edit: Do not get me wrong. I prefer a more open approach myself. Though not open world exactly. Somewhere in the middle is my happyground.

Edited July 6, 2011 by C2B

[C2B]

Also just saying. Together with the corridor approach came a huge, HUGE improvement in terms of enemy encounter design for an Obsidian game. Honestly that is the worst thing in other Obsidian games in terms of combat.

 

Edit: (Though, KOTOR2/AP were also corridor linear for large parts)

Edited July 6, 2011 by C2B

[Bos_hybrid]

Red Engine is pretty and all but I can't stand all the performance issues it gives me (seriously, Gamebryo had less issues than Witcher 2 for me)- Onyx looks pretty AND it's just so damn smooth and well optimised, I'll take Onyx.

 

While I have nothing against Onyx engine(I thinks it's quite good), I would take Red Engine any day of the week. I really hope CD projeckt license it to other devs.

[vAddicatedGamer]

While I have nothing against Onyx engine(I thinks it's quite good), I would take Red Engine any day of the week. I really hope CD projeckt license it to other devs.

 

What exactly is the difference of features between both engines? I imagine depending on what the developers intend to do, they would be capable to making games look very different from they currently look like.

Edited July 6, 2011 by vAddicatedGamer

[Bendu]

Onyx is fine. Compare DS3 to the leaked Alien RPG footage and you will get an idea what kind of games they can make. And they can develop the Onyx further, like BioWare did with its own engine. Aren't NWN, KotOR, JE and Dragon Age 1 + 2 based on the same engine?

[C2B]

Onyx is fine. Compare DS3 to the leaked Alien RPG footage and you will get an idea what kind of games they can make. And they can develop the Onyx further, like BioWare did with its own engine. Aren't NWN, KotOR, JE and Dragon Age 1 + 2 based on the same engine?

 

No. In fact all of these have different engines (at least named differently)

 

Though Onyx is/will be still very flexible. And above all its made by Obsidian themselves so a lot less bugs.

Edited July 6, 2011 by C2B

[Oner]

IIRC KotOR is based on Aurora (NwN engine), but with the whole thing rewritten from ground up.

[C2B]

IIRC KotOR is based on Aurora (NwN engine), but with the whole thing rewritten from ground up.

 

They named it Odyssey Engine. The only offical Bioware Aurora Game was NWN.

Edited July 6, 2011 by C2B

[Bos_hybrid]

While I have nothing against Onyx engine(I thinks it's quite good), I would take Red Engine any day of the week. I really hope CD projeckt license it to other devs.

 

What exactly is the difference of features between both engines? I imagine depending on what the developers intend to do, they would be capable to making games look very different from they currently look like.

 

Given what I've seen of Onyx(Aliens and DS3) it just can't match the graphical quality that Red Engine can. It's like trying to say Eclipse(Dragon Age) can match the quality of Unreal 3(Mass Effect).

 

Remember this has nothing to do with art style.

[Oner]

I'd like to see what Onyx would be capable of if they could go all out with it. Ie huge budget for the graphics.

[XxTaLoNxX]

it's kind of stupid on your part to assume Obsidian built Onyx just for this one game, it's also stupid to assume they plan on making all their games multi-platform hack'n'slash from now on. why do you even comment if you have no idea what their engine is inherently capable of?

They've released one game on this engine and that's what I base my impressions on. As does everyone else, for that matter. OP wants IWD3 on this engine because "graphics are just beautiful, sound is awesome", which makes zero sense, and resident fanboys concur. I remain skeptical until proven otherwise. Certainly it's possible that the engine is good for more than simplistic casual corridor crawlers, but then why is DS3 one? Squenix forced them, no doubt.

 

Sorry, but you don't speak for me or anyone else besides yourself. I agree with sorophx. It is stupid to assume.

Developer companies don't invest time and money into an engine if they don't plan to use it in the future. It's cheaper to lease the license to an existing engine and modify it to meet your requirements for a game. Leasing an engine is also time efficient. The most work that goes into a game is into the engine of the game if it is built from the ground up. The upside is that when you build an engine and have a game to showcase it is advertising your engine to prospective companies that would lease it from you. That is why Epic is still in business... solely on the back of the Unreal Engine*, another example (although they don't depend solely on their engine for income) would be CryTek and the CryEngine from... Crysis franchise.

 

Trust me on this... I know what I'm talking about. But if you insist on arguing the points I made ANYONE CAN GOOGLE!!!

[greylord]

The game isn't all corridors though. It can have branching areas that diverge, it does so at a few points (okay, yes, overall it has a big linear path, but that path has some branches on it) that goes to show that they probably CAN MAKE A GAME which is very non-linear if they so choose.

 

(for example - stonebridge has at least one part with a cross roads and different available paths, as well as diverging into the cave near the beginning for the freeing the prisoners quest, also the foundry has several times you cross over on yourself. It's only linear because they made walls and chasms that you can't cross to block the way most of the time).

Edited July 7, 2011 by greylord