Quote: "I hate to say it, but I'm becoming very cynical towards FPSC's future."
I find that hard to believe.
Not that you are getting cynical towards FPSC's future, but that you hate to say it.
If DBP is written in C++ and you can make your own commands via your DLLs or whatever
then DBP can do anything that any other engine written in C++ can do, right?
And if FPxC is written in DBP then it too can do anything that any other engine written in C++ can do, right?
Lee did give us the opportunity to modify both the engine and the language didn't he?
There is nothing holding any of this back except our outlook on the future and the plans we make for it.
Quote: "TGC knows what they're doing."
I agree
Quote: "Why do these discussions keep coming up? Why do people insist on comparing FPSC to CryEngine, et al?"
Because people keep bringing it up and I get drawn into it.
I think they bring it up, and want to compare the two, since they are the first two FPS engines to incorporate X10 features.
You are right though, whatever reason they bring it up is not a good enough reason for me to respond, so I am going to make an effort not to in the future.
But I still fail to see how the word CRY is catchy or cool for naming anything. (I'm just saying they could have picked a better name / we all know their engine is awesome too)
Quote: "I have an issue with the way Crytek does things, though. They've said it themselves. They don't use optimizing techniques to make the game run faster. They do it on purpose because they don't want to degrade the "quality" of the end product.
Now... this makes me worried because... they DON'T use the typical optimizations, and they can still pull off such wonderful graphical effects, wonderful AI, and a stable engine (it runs at like... 12 FPS on high for today's GPUs, but that's what they've considered an acceptable compromise for quality)..... "
LOL yeah people aren't complaining about 12 fps???
I didn't play with it much on high after it overheated a new video card to the point of burning it up.
Yes, the Cry Engine has the graphical power to render top of the line video cards useless.
The reason they want the graphical "quality" more then the gameplay is because the graphics are what set them apart from others.
They want to show off new things at the shows so they can demand more money.
They are clearly in it for the money when you consider the cost of their license.
So, don't wait around for them to ever be within reach for anything other than a big studio anyway.
Wii on the other hand understands that graphics are only half of the spectrum, and that gameplay matters just as much.
They have proven that big money can be made without the high end graphics.
However, steering off in only one direction is like having the Yin without the Yang.
So, I doubt that either of them will stay around for the long haul without compromising their current strategies.
But what do I know? Not a lot, right? But then, I am not in it for the money, so it is only natural that I see things differently than they see it.
One thing I do know, is that FPxC is going to be around for a long time, and I am going to have fun with it as long as I can, because having fun is what matters most about gaming.
Quote: "I'll tell you what - the day FPSC has the capabilities of Cryengine will be the day it becomes UNUSABLE for 99% of the people here. You can't have all those features and capabilities AND keep it simple for kids and people with no programming skills. "
Wow
I like to think that people WITH programming skills would like to use it too.
I'm with you though, ease of use is where it's at for everyone, well except those who prefer doing things the hard way.
After all, that is all DBP does is make the 3d graphics easier to accomplish than C++ because the language is more english like (BASIC).
FPSC does the same thing for FPS's by making it easier to build 3D levels than trying to build your own engine from scratch.
It is all about ease of use from the bottom up.
