-
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
Lol, I doubt it somehow.
Anyway, I don't think it would sell particularly well, especially given the engine. -
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
rofl, the Battlefield engine sucks compared today's standards, why would you buy it again?Comment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
The info above isn't strictly true btw.
who says anything about the BF2 engine?Originally posted by Frantic.ieComment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
read the thread linked please.Originally posted by Frantic.ie
With C4 we currently have a purple human shaped blob that can run, crouch and lean We have a couple of ginourmous test maps, but they keep crashing on my machine hehe. And a crude ballistics simulation. And one guy sorta associated with PR2 is working on a T34 Tank simulation that we hopefully can share some stuff with him and learn about how to do tracked vechiles. And we've integrated some 3rd party tools into the C4 engine, just as a learning process. We're in the process of getting our SVN repository, project management tools and Wiki and such set up amongst the PR2 crew. There are guys working on specific aspects of the design, as well as collecting some reference data and several broad design topic discussion with the entire PR1 team.
We'd hope to have some sort of proof that we're actually doing something (a playable alpha) before the PR1 community dissipates. That's about the only "schedule imperative" we're working against. I think that is 12 to 36 months before PR1 starts to decline (it's still growing). And in 4 years if people hear of a PR2 game and they remember liking PR1, they might be compelled to buy it / try it (we're still not sure of the business model, but it will have a commercial aspect to it).
Someone mentioned the C4 billboard system. Hehe that's not referring to "advertising" billboards. That's in reference to the 3D engine's capability to turn 3D objects that are far away into 2D "billboards" to be more efficient (this is good for us because it is an aspect of enablingling long view distances and high numbers of rendered objects).
If we decided to do some sort of in game product placement / advertising (and we might) we'd need to integrate the tools from an in game advertising provider. But we're gamers too heh and some of that stuf is real ****e.
The C4 engine may not be the best choice. But I sincerely believe it is the best choice of Indie priced engines. And Eric Lengyel, the sole coder of the C4 egine, is an extremely bright guy who offers tremendous support. I like supporting guys like that.
The engine isn't even complete yet, but people are shipping product on it. And some people are attempting some incredibly ambitous projects on it. The next release will add a physics engine and some terrain engine optomisations for large terrain rendering. His goal is to allow for unlimited terrain without loading screens. There are some pretty major chunks missing from the engine, but the core foundation is there and the roadmap is pretty solid in terms of rounding out the engine's feature sets. I expect it's mid 2010 before C4 could be considered truly "complete". Hopefully sometime shortly thereafter we can have some basic elements of PR2 in place and toss out a playable alpha to get some community feedback involved.
[R-DEV]eggman
going by rhinos statement, and a lack of response from devs in the thread i guess we will need to wait abit for a proper dev response on the matter.Comment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
Meh I think I will stick with ARMA 2 and Operation Flash Point: Dragon Rising when they come out. This has phail written all over it . Plus why would I want to play this when DFX2 is already out.
Comment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
I doubt they could sell PR if it was still on the BF2 engine.Comment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
Are you even reading what it says? It states that they will have access to an "original engine" which I'd assume to mean new, not building off of BF2.Comment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
indeed DEFEKT, going by some dev comments its a engine called c4 .
Comment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
Wow, they've got a lot of work ahead of them to get a new engine functioning the way they want it to and then to import and recreate the PR content. I can't imagine DICE letting them use any BF content -- it's going to have to be original content. Well, "Good Luck, Tally-Ho and all that."Comment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
I imagine they might be able to use Black Sand Studio assets if they can port them over to C4.Comment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
if possible , AMAZING!Theoretically the C4 engine will allow for unlimited terrain sizes, with seamless paging of terrain from disk (when the terrain engine is complete). Whether that is practical (due to some technical limitation) is unknown. The game play aspects of that are not in our design vision. We're looking to very large maps not because we want arbitrarily large worlds, but because we want to see realistic deployment of a variety of assets.
Jets don't really make sense in PR1, they are very gamey. Artillery doesn't really make sense. Even helicopters are not realistic in the current sized BF2 terrain.
We've thought about aspects of fuel consumption being relevant, so we'll probably accelerate fuel consumption so that Helicopters and such need to consider time to and time on target. Additionally we want to see supply aspects play a larger role. Logistics of a variety of types will be an important aspect of PR2. ArmA Warfare mode with the WACO mod and ACE is a very cool game mode imo. But ArmA itself has innumerable barriers to being a great multiplayer game. A lot of the concepts of Warfare and CnC mode will be incorporated into PR2. We'll probably have other game modes, but there will be a core concept of how PR2 is played that will be more like a real time version of the PR Tournament than the typical public PR server.
There will eventually be bots in PR2, at least with our current thinking. Bots will do stuff like man defensive positions (which will be placed like PR1), anti air positions, drive supply trucks etc. Boring stuff that players don't want to do all the time. Current thinking is also that anything a bot can do, a human player can do as well .. but the bots are available (likely at a logistical cost of some sort).
We're shooting for 100+ players broken into 8 man squads with a commander per team. So 98 players would be 6 x 8 man squads + 1 Commander + Bots. If we can get it beyond that, we will. But destructible networked environments eat up resources. And those are cool
The nature of map size and layout will be affected by the type of assets we want to see deployed. So, for example, a map with jets will be extremely large.. with significant chunks of it just to facilitate there being jets wth somewhat realistic airfield layouts and such. Jets are likely quite low on the initial priority list. It'll start with Infantry, Jeeps, APCs, Supply Trucks and some sort of Helicopters.
I'd say that when we can do those vehicle types (a single type of each to start with) with superb Infantry play and fairly high fidelity simulation of the vehicles we'd look for some money from you lot to play it
But there will be a lot of playable alphas and betas for a long time before we get anywhere near that.
eggComment
-
Re: Project reality 2 - retail ?!?!?
Fizz fizz.Comment
Tweet
Comment