| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Credence
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 10 Feb 2002
Posts: 42
Location: Ontario Canada |
Ive been lurking amongst these forums for awhile, though i never really bothered to register untill now. Id like to shed some light on these rampant gothic vs whatever flamewars, and while im going to try not to toot my own horn, this is coming from someone with quite a bit of experience in game development of..well...everything, from skinning and level design to coding.
Lets break this up into multiple sections shall we.
Gothic has two major parts
The graphic engine and the AI.
Ive seen ALOT of complaints about gothics graphics and it being compared to games like MOHAA (based on Q3) and unreal. Lets point out the major differences between these engines and why, in most cases, Gothic is superior to them. Its quite obvious that gothic is capable of rendering enourmous outdoor levels in rather good detail. Right now, the only other game that comes to mind that is able to render such large landscapes, is Tribes 2 (which is very buggy, and doesnt run well with anything not geforce based) and Operation flashpoint, which also renders huge outdoor levels but lacks any real landscape detail (though the forests were real nicely done) Gothic is the MOST VERSATILE engine ive seen to date (besides Halo, but ive been told its gameplay doesnt really stack up).
xLets look at the reasons at why Q3 and other FPS games have better rendering capabilties than gothic does. For starters, Q3 doesnt have to worry about rendering the insanely large landscapes, so theres a HUGE ammount of space there to work on increasing other aspects of detail, which come in as higher polygon counts on models, more complex lighting effects and much higher texture resolutions.
Lets imagine for a second that gothic had all of these 3 major factors. You would have real pretty graphics and probably sitll some decent framerates. But then we hit the second major burden that pirana bytes was faced with. The level of interaciveness.
Right now, just thinking of the sheer ammount of work and time that went into coding a game like this gives me the shivers. For starters, you have a HUGE world filled with 100's of creatures, humans, god knows what else. Each of these go about doing their own thing. This is where gothic differs immensely from Q3 and other first person shooters. All these engines, when you cant see the NPC or are no where near them, remain static, they have no interactivity with their enviroment whatsoever, gothic, on the other hand, the world is alive whether you're looking at it or not, people will still go about their buisness, animals will still eat, and kill eachother for food and people will still converse with eachother.
This one MAJOR factor alone eats up LARGE ammounts processing power, so you say goodbye to complex lighting and higher graphi resolutions to comepensate for that huge hit. Then you come to the fact that almost EVERYTIME you talk with someone, the plot its self will change, or something along the line within the game gets crosslinked and changed, this is what really amazed me.
It's how they were able to keep the game so relatively bug free for the sheer ammount of mind boggling coding involved. I mean, everytime something in the game is changed, it changes something else which in turn changes another thing, then you talk with someone else that changes the same thing onto something else. It literally just blows me away that they were able to keep track of it all and made sure it played out properly.
This is the other major reason that graphics had to be cut. Granted, the AI in this game is nothing amazing, infact its fairly dumb when it comes to other people (they cant even follow you properly without getting stuck on something) but the ammount of scripting that is done within the game really makes up for it. When it comes down to the sheer ammount of power needed by this game, most of it is being used up by the processor and memory for all the complex code changes and interactivity, which is the reason for the decrease in graphics.
Right now, its simply not possible to have a gamewith graphics as good as or better as Q3 but with the same level of interactiveness, not unless you have a system thats able to process that much information at any given time.
As for alot of this 'polypushing power' Yes, Q3 and other engines have much more complex player models, but they also dont have to render a huge outdoor enviroment. Can you imagine the Q3 player models in the gothic world? you'd be lucky if you got 4 fps.
So put most basically, you cant have your cake and eat it too. If you want little to no interactivity but pretty eye candy, you should by all means get games like RTCW and MOHAA or Q3 which is in reality, nothing but point and click. But if you're looking for averagely good graphics with immersiveness that you WILL remember, gothic and other RPG games alike are the best possible way to go, Gothic struck the perfect balance between graphics and interactivity.
Hopefully people will see this before deciding to complain about how bad gothics graphics are compared to Mohaa and other such games. Now you will see why.
Another thing is this whole argument about FPS.
ive heard differnet stories about FPS capping at 25 fps and 20 fps and whatnot. Now, for you FPS players.. For starters, really, on a computer monitor, anything under 30 fps isnt even noticeable to the naked eye. And even if the games graphics were indeed capped at 25 or 20 fps (which i dont think they are, i think just the fps reporter may be) i mean, i can tell when my fps drops and when it doesnt, and most of the time, gothic runs much smoother than 20 fps or 25.
Many games put caps on how high the fps counter will go simply because the counter uses up more power that is not nescarly needed. and can be used for performance within the game. (take halflife for example, its possible to get MUCH higher than what its limit, 99 fps, reports).
Now lets go to the number of mediocre or semi-good reviews that gothic got when, its quite obvious, it deserved much better.
Gothic is a long game, an extremely long game, infact its the longest ive ever played a game for. On top of its sheer length is the fact that alot of time is spent exploring your surroundings and finding interesting places to visit and loot and whatnot, this is added time ONTOP of the already long storyline. This is also usually the most enjoyable part of gothic. Most reviewers however, did not play this game to the end, not even half way, which is why you get relatively bad reviews. When you find the reviews that the reviewer actually througly played through the game the way it was meant, you'll notice that the scores they give the game are usually MUCH higher.
So, with all that said, please stop saying gothic sucks and is not-advanced and whatever, its quite evident that it is, even if you're to ignorant to see it. Gothic is an extremely good game and requires both skill and problem solving techniques (to a certain extent). Gothic really is an amazing piece of work. If you dont like it, dont try to rain on our parade by deliberatly signing up here and saying it sucks when it clearly does not, its just that YOU dont like it. 
I didnt get to bugs within the game, but i think this post is long enough without it. So, lets just say gothic has its fair share of bugs (especially within winXP, which i hate anyways so its ok  ) But after reading what i said earlier within the games coding complexity, these bugs seem extremely minor.
Lets hope i shed some light on those poor, misguided fools 
[ This Message was edited by: Credence on 2002-02-10 23:02 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Credence on 2002-02-10 23:02 ] |
Mon Feb 11, 2002 4:50 am |
|
|
RingWrath
Jedi Master
Joined: 08 Jan 2002
Posts: 513
Location: new zealand |
well done..
thats very true, i agree with it all accept for the part about any thing more than 30 fps isnt even noticable.
im a serious quake 3 player, and i know for a FACT that 30 fps - 200 fps is extremely noticable, i cant play without 80fps+
at 80fps + u cant notice the diff from their, i know the eye only sees at 25 fps, but thats at about 200 hurts, find a engine that can do that... |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 5:45 am |
|
|
RingWrath
Jedi Master
Joined: 08 Jan 2002
Posts: 513
Location: new zealand |
im not disagreeing with u on the rest though, youve put my thoughts into words that i couldnt be botherd doing.
its all very true, u cant compare gothic to fps's at all.
but as a hardcore first person shooter im gona have to say that 30 fps in a game like q3 is shit 
i get around 100, sum times when my comp is going slow it goes down to around 60 and i can notice that easierly.. but all that was very true, now if every one will please spend the time reading it
_________________
Long is the way. And hard,
that out of hell leads up to light.
- Se7en |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 5:52 am |
|
|
Credence
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 10 Feb 2002
Posts: 42
Location: Ontario Canada |
well, im a big FPS fan too, i play alot of FPS, i cant really notice the difference between 50 fps and 80 fps
maybe it just depends on the eyes? 
and yeah, its really long, i know |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 8:12 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
Fps should not be matter of eyes. There are physical_biological limitations. Your eyes simply will not notice difference between 50 and 200 fps. But it is matter of quick reactions and good feeling when you need to do something very quickly. And it is also matter of "how much fps will you have in some critical monets".
I play Counter-Strike alot and fps are important and I know that Q3 is even quicker and therefor more fps dependant.
I think 100 fps is enough. But question is "when you now have 100 fps how much fps will you have when you will fight with 15 enemies and they will throw several smokegranades?" :smile:
[ This Message was edited by: Danicek on 2002-02-11 02:38 ] |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 8:36 am |
|
|
RingWrath
Jedi Master
Joined: 08 Jan 2002
Posts: 513
Location: new zealand |
man thats sew not right.
'i can' tell the diff betweeen 50 and 200, i know i can, i c it every day in Q3 when it drops to 50 its much worse.
80+ is the limmet that i cant tell.
maybe u just have to play and find out.
because i know for a fact i can easierly tell the differance.
|
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 8:49 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
Ok,
I forgot you are not human but Jedi |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:11 am |
|
|
Credence
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 10 Feb 2002
Posts: 42
Location: Ontario Canada |
not to call you crazy or anything, but it is possible that people become so obsessive over fps that it seems like its running smoother even if it isnt. You know, a figment of the imagination
_________________
What harm to be inbalanced..
to fall down, this is the only real part of equilibrium
Because everything is what it seems to be,
and the balance is the end of eternity |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:11 am |
|
|
RingWrath
Jedi Master
Joined: 08 Jan 2002
Posts: 513
Location: new zealand |
is that true?!
i hardly beleive so, all of my quake 3 buddies can easierly tell, ask ANY ONE who plays quake 3 alot.
show me 2 movies, 1 of 50 fps shot of q3 and 1 of 200 fps shot of q3, dont tell me wich is wich, and i will tell you.
its easy!!
every one ive talked to thinks you guys are nuts!
_________________
Long is the way. And hard,
that out of hell leads up to light.
- Se7en |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:29 am |
|
|
RingWrath
Jedi Master
Joined: 08 Jan 2002
Posts: 513
Location: new zealand |
it might just be because u dudes are prolly rpg players, ive played fps games all my gaming life and they are my main games, pretty hard core player, but any one of friends can easierly tell the differance too, it might just be something to do with the differance between fps in games and fps in real life.
_________________
Long is the way. And hard,
that out of hell leads up to light.
- Se7en |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:31 am |
|
|
PraetorJudis
Village Leader
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 78
Location: MotherShip 2c457z |
quote:
just be something to do with the differance between fps in games and fps in real life
rofl. Real life experience is measured in frames per second?!
On the topic of all the creatures running around all the time, that isn't technically true. All creatures within a certain radius of the player run around. I first noticed it when coming out of the troll tombs. I had killed a troll just outside the cave entrance. When I exited the cave, and the level loaded, I saw a troll and a templar standing at the mouth of the cave for a fraction of a second. Just before I could draw a weapon, they both fell down in a bloody heap. I figure the engine recorded the position of the characters, and loaded their status when I came into view.
I've got some ideas to further test this which I'll try out in the next week or two.
_________________
*gniltrohc yawa srednaw* |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 1:00 pm |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
On 2002-02-10 22:50, Credence wrote:
For starters, you have a HUGE world filled with 100's of creatures, humans, god knows what else. Each of these go about doing their own thing. This is where gothic differs immensely from Q3 and other first person shooters. All these engines, when you cant see the NPC or are no where near them, remain static, they have no interactivity with their enviroment whatsoever, gothic, on the other hand, the world is alive whether you're looking at it or not, people will still go about their buisness, animals will still eat, and kill eachother for food and people will still converse with eachother.
Please explain WHY you believe (this was very briefly discussed once before but was dropped) Gothic has a persistant game world. It has no reason to be coded this way and I see NO evidence of it. In fact, I see evidence of the contrary (besides the simple fact that there is NO game reason for it and therefore the programmers would NOT have gone to that much trouble).
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 1:53 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
Now that we have a serious discussion Iīll use the opportunity to repost something about Gothicīs framerate. The source is, as far as I can say, 100% reliable.
I shortened it slightly.
quote:
Finally 'll try to explain how the frame control in Gothic works.
Assume your high-tech-machine is able to _generally_ render 100 Frames per second.
But rendering is not the only task an RPG game have to compute, for instance the complex AI.
Another point is the big world...
Assume your are in the old camp, many NPCs,
many Objects,...
Every 1-2 seconds (just as sample) some loading and caching of objects, textures, AI, etc. has to be done.
For one or two frames you have an temporary FPS rate of 10 or lower.
Now, if you are "walking" and the frame rate changes to fast (100->10- >100), you *would* see it in your animation. (very ugly)
Gothic has an frame control which slows-down too fast increasing of FPS rates.
The controller starts at 20fps and allow smooth frame rate increasing -- but if ONE frame take to long (lower than 20fps) the process starts again.
There is no limit for frame rates.
So, if your machine is able to _constantly_ compute AI, cache/load textures, AND render at 100fps -- you *would* have 100fps...
[ This Message was edited by: Gorath on 2002-02-11 11:34 ] |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 5:33 pm |
|
|
soltys
Magister of the Light
Joined: 12 Jan 2002
Posts: 386
Location: Poland, Warsaw |
About fps:
I agree with RingWrath at 100%. Although I don't play too much in q3 now (only modem at home and rather boring in single ), but I've played a lot of fps games since wolfenstein 3d. I can easily distinguish frame rates like between 40 and 80. I don't know about faster rates, because my system is not able to generate it. Come on, I can tell, if monitor's refresh rate is set at 60 or 72 hz, 72 or 100 hz. Serious qN players consider frame rates below 70 as unplayable and unfair, especially on tournaments, etc. And they are not paranoid about it. Just play fps games a little more.
I don't know if it's a matter of every person's eyes. But it could be matter of "training", like using computer 10+ hours per day for years (starting with big black/white TV and zx-spectrum).
|
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 7:40 pm |
|
|
Credence
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 10 Feb 2002
Posts: 42
Location: Ontario Canada |
of course there isnt any real way to prove it. That one thing you said about the players 'dropping' once the levels loaded thats because the level its self isnt loaded, and as the level loads it reads the save game file which (if you ever looked in the save game file, its huge ) saves the postion of every NPC, its status (dead/alive) and eveyrthing that your charecter may be holding. The same thing happens when you load a saved games instead of doing levle transitions.
I know it really doesnt make much sense to have a living world because that WOULD consume large ammounts of power, but i tihnk it may be nescary for alot of parts of the level. I.e, the teleport spells being the big one. I think most people have seen that when you load a saved game, the gmae worlds to what should be happening around you. There IS that slight pause inbetween, i would assume that the teleport spell does now do the same, because when you teleport, everything is going on asif you werent even there. And the second you teleport people are still walking around. I really dont think they remain static.
Of course, once the animations and paths are loaded into the memory, it doesnt take much power to make sure they keep happening in a loop, so even if they werent static, the ammount of cpu usage would be minimal. (ever wonder why they say more than 256 mb of ram is barely enough to run this game? )
This is of course speculation, if anyone could prove me wrong on my theory id definately like to see it.
So put bluntly, it would make sense to have static NPC's, but then it causes problems in transition smoothness.
_________________
What harm to be inbalanced..
to fall down, this is the only real part of equilibrium
Because everything is what it seems to be,
and the balance is the end of eternity |
|
Mon Feb 11, 2002 8:39 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
