- Aug 16, 2006
- Reaction score
Man I hope the new engine doesn't put more drain on the performance, I'm struggling enough as it is with the current engine >_<
None of those arguments have any substance.Seems like a poor idea. Arma doesn't work on consoles for obvious reasons, but even a game like Dayz with its differences could struggle as well. For example, surviving entails a lot of attention to tiny details: figures in the distance or highly concealed where only a handful of pixels are there. I'm picturing people squinting at their relatively low resolution screens (720p) trying to identify people that are more than 300 meters away. Console shooters don't have engagement ranges frequently above close-range. They also put in features that make precise shooting easier to compensate for less precise controls. I'd be pretty pissed if they added stuff like that, and I don't think BIS is going to do it.
And then there's the drawback of not being able to be frequently updated, or at least not as easily. Though I don't know much about how all that stuff works on consoles, admittedly.
You think low resolution has no impact on vision what so ever? What are you talking about? It has a huge impact. Try playing arma or dayz at 1080p, try identifying some distant targets, and then switch to 720p and see if it's just as easy. It simply isn't. Less resolutions means less detail, it's simply more difficult to make out what something is when it's very small on the screen. Like I said, this is not an issue on most FPS games since your targets aren't tiny specs in the distance; they're usually quite close, relatively speaking. You argument about it being fair regardless is not only flawed but totally irrelevant. Playing on a 1080p display is going to be markedly different than on 720p, and even worse for those without HD displays. But it's not about being "fair", it's about how playable the game is. It's not exactly fun to have to scrutinize a tiny mess of pixels to be able to tell what something is, what it's doing, which direction it is looking, etc.None of those arguments have any substance.
DayZ going standalone will probably require some heavy reworking of the underlying arma 2 engine to compensate for the new features.
The standard resolution of consoles will have no impact on vision what so ever and even if it did everyone playing on a console would have the same disadvantage.
Your assuming that a stand alone DayZ console game would be developed and then ported to the PC. This is often a money grab practice of publishers like EA and UbiSoft. Any developer that puts some thought into their work and isn't under pressure from a major publisher knows that different platforms require different features and tweaks to gameplay.
And Finally your assuming that a release version of DayZ is gonna be frequently updated. You don't seem to understand the difference between a game that is in its alpha life cycle (which is dayz right now where its constantly being worked on) and its release (where it is finished). Sure there might still be bugs in release but once its in release state no new features or assets are developed unless they are DLC.
Your correct about 1080p vs 720p. Regardless this entire concern baffles me cause if you think about the current state DayZ the game specifically has image filtering effects that make it hard to see objects at a distance anyway (and i'm sure this is an intended feature so 1080p or 720p shouldn't make any difference). You probably haven't notice because you like most players fiddle around with the settings to make sure you can get the max advantage by turning off the distance bluring and post processing effects . The PC platform is by no means fair people play at different resolutions and at different graphics settings.You think low resolution has no impact on vision what so ever? What are you talking about? It has a huge impact. Try playing arma or dayz at 1080p, try identifying some distant targets, and then switch to 720p and see if it's just as easy. It simply isn't. Less resolutions means less detail, it's simply more difficult to make out what something is when it's very small on the screen. Like I said, this is not an issue on most FPS games since your targets aren't tiny specs in the distance; they're usually quite close, relatively speaking. You argument about it being fair regardless is not only flawed but totally irrelevant. Playing on a 1080p display is going to be markedly different than on 720p, and even worse for those without HD displays. But it's not about being "fair", it's about how playable the game is. It's not exactly fun to have to scrutinize a tiny mess of pixels to be able to tell what something is, what it's doing, which direction it is looking, etc.
Why are you assuming that the game can't be hard to play and accommodate console draw backs? I'm sure both can be done.And no, I wasn't assuming it would be a console game ported to PC. I was merely talking about what I believe to be important to the design philosophy of Dayz; that the game doesn't help you or hold your hand to accomplish things. Of course features developed to make playing the game on a console easier are good, but there is a line to be drawn between making up for console drawbacks and actually changing the way the game is played.
Take any Bethesda game that was ever developed for a console. Yet some how they are still playable and people have fun.While you are correct about DayZ being in alpha and thus being frequently updated with features, that does not hold true for the engine itself. BIS has been updating Arma 2 frequently since its release. There are constantly new problems being brought to light, DayZ brought even more. You can bet your last baseball card that DayZ is going to need a ton of patching when it's released, no matter how "finished" it is. It's un-treaded territory for an online FPS, and a new engine to boot. Being able to receive frequent updates is essential to keep the game stable.
Why does everybody keep talking about the standalone being produced on a different/modified engine? I was under the understanding that the standalone will merely be the current mod with the fixed bugs/additional features, kind of how Counter-Strike was just a mod and then one day was on shelves.Man I hope the new engine doesn't put more drain on the performance, I'm struggling enough as it is with the current engine >_<
Oh, Bethesda did it, why didn't you say so?
I'm so sick of people bringing Bethesda into an argument as some weird trump card either for or against
Prove to me that globe warming exists but don't use any real facts or examples because they are so cliche and I'm sick of hearing them.B-B-BUT BUT BUT BETHESDA
This is literally all I was saying the whole time. I still don't see the relevance of any other game studios. You mentioning Bethesda did not supply anything to your argument.If BIS decides to cough up the cash and do post release bug fixes then fine. If they don't tough shit that's the way it is on consoles.I do agree that its a major factor in the considering whether to release it on a console is feasible.
Not sure about PS3, but my last post about Xbox patching wasn't a joke. Although now I look it up again, it's actually only $40,000. Only.And so I say again, I'm not sure how difficult/expensive it is to release frequent updates for a console game
Beta version you don't really need to worry about. Any newer client version of the beta can connect to an older beta server.Well the standalone can't come soon enough as the MOD has become a huge mess of late. Countless servers running ten different versions of either the mod or the beta executable.
I know its in-development and its up to individual people to maintain their installation, but with the sheer amount of interest that DayZ has attracted, it wouldn't hurt for them to maintain some kind of clear standardised version number on their front page. A mailing list or even a crappy twitter account to nudge server operators to update wouldn't exactly be Rocket science for them to do.
I didn't realise that, so it's not as bad as it seemed.Beta version you don't really need to worry about. Any newer client version of the beta can connect to an older beta server.
It sounds like all the things WarZ tried to do better than DayZ (while failing horribly) are going to be totally trumped by this.One of the most profound and major architectural changes has had its initial implementation completed, this is the overhaul of the inventory system. In fact, the inventory and item management system was completely removed and rewritten from the ground by Jirka, one of the original engine programmers.
You scavenge for items now, as individual parts, picking up pieces rather than piles, looking for cans on shelves or under beds. The new system opens the door for durability of items, disease tracking (cholera lingering on clothes a player wears…), batteries, addon components, and much more. If you shoot a player in the head to take his night vision, you will damage the night vision. The changes to this inventory system are huge.
An additional area of change has been to make the inventory system more intuitive along with a key focus on providing visceral feedback on your progress through what inventory you have. The use of drag-and-drop, 3D models rather than 2D pictures, and being able to add items/clothing to your character in 3D in the inventory screen - have all come out of months of design work and research.
Check the article for more picturesThe lead architect of the revised (and original) Chernarus map, Ivan Buchta, is still imprisoned in Greece on charges of espionage - and is a great loss to the team. Luckily, through letters, Ivan is able to provide some input and insight into the development of the map. Regardless, the continued imprisonment of him and Martin Pezlar has a significant impact on our ability to redevelop Chernarus.