DUST Search - This game is fundementally broken at the core.

Ziot Reitrenner wrote:

Maken Tosch wrote:

@zoit,

Would you prefer CCP use their in-house engine (carbon) instead which is relatively new, experimental, and requires massive resources? It's the same engine that powers Incarna avatars in Eve.

Anyways, I understand what you mean. But your hate toward the unreal engine is just based on personal preference. CCP had to choose the engine because of time constraints and because the engine is easier to work with for a company that never made a first person shooter in their entire career. Other engines would be nice no doubt, but how easy are they to work with compared to unreal?

IdTech3 would have been the optimal choice, in my opinion. If you want a smooth game, with a consistent feel to it. It's the same game engine used to make the Call of Duty 4 multiplayer engine, which has been used in everysingle Call of Duty game since 4. It can handle vehicles and everything, and while Call of Duty may use a lot of smoke and mirrors to give it that crisp look, it's an ideal multiplayer engine, and would have made a much prettier game than the muddy, ugly, barren thing we have right now.

The texture pop-in on this game is freakin' CRAZY. You simply turn around while exploring the map and the textures will load in front of your very eyes.

Dust 514 is an ugly game. That's saying A LOT considering UE3 is pretty much a Graphics Showcase engine, it's sole purpose besides housing game code is to put a bunch of pretty stuff on the screen. I can appreciate artistic design. But there is no way they intended for all of the terrain in this game to be a mostly featureless grey/brown/yellow expanse. I get it, we're on freshly colonized worlds, but even mars has some texture to it. Without the architecture to break up the drab earths with some metals, this game would be totally devoid of any kind of life. TRIBES had cooler looking maps than this.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.09 13:13:00 - [1] - Quote Why so much hate towards Unreal Engine? It's reminding me of the Microsoft Flight Simulator community arguing against the X-Plane community over whose game is better. So much bitterness and hate. I don't give a crap which engine CCP uses.
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.09 13:15:00 - [2] - Quote Nayrson wrote: So...a show of hands from those who see the words BETA splashed across the top when you sign onto DUST. This one remembers seeing that. Its even a closed BETA even, with changes undoubtedly still in the pipeline. JSTR BETA means Not Complete, subject to lots of changes and adjustments based on PROPER feedback. Alas, it would be very trollish of me to say the OP is shedding carebear tears, but I don't want to troll and I am not even sure DUST has carebears to tear as yet (unless the hapless masses getting caught in spawn camps count?) You didn't read the OP did you? The OP said he understands that the game is in beta and is incomplete. Read before you judge.
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.09 13:27:00 - [3] - Quote @zoit, Would you prefer CCP use their in-house engine (carbon) instead which is relatively new, experimental, and requires massive resources? It's the same engine that powers Incarna avatars in Eve. Anyways, I understand what you mean. But your hate toward the unreal engine is just based on personal preference. CCP had to choose the engine because of time constraints and because the engine is easier to work with for a company that never made a first person shooter in their entire career. Other engines would be nice no doubt, but how easy are they to work with compared to unreal?
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.09 13:47:00 - [4] - Quote Ziot Reitrenner wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: @zoit, Would you prefer CCP use their in-house engine (carbon) instead which is relatively new, experimental, and requires massive resources? It's the same engine that powers Incarna avatars in Eve. Anyways, I understand what you mean. But your hate toward the unreal engine is just based on personal preference. CCP had to choose the engine because of time constraints and because the engine is easier to work with for a company that never made a first person shooter in their entire career. Other engines would be nice no doubt, but how easy are they to work with compared to unreal? IdTech3 would have been the optimal choice, in my opinion. If you want a smooth game, with a consistent feel to it. It's the same game engine used to make the Call of Duty 4 multiplayer engine, which has been used in everysingle Call of Duty game since 4. It can handle vehicles and everything, and while Call of Duty may use a lot of smoke and mirrors to give it that crisp look, it's an ideal multiplayer engine, and would have made a much prettier game than the muddy, ugly, barren thing we have right now. The texture pop-in on this game is freakin' CRAZY. You simply turn around while exploring the map and the textures will load in front of your very eyes. Dust 514 is an ugly game. That's saying A LOT considering UE3 is pretty much a Graphics Showcase engine, it's sole purpose besides housing game code is to put a bunch of pretty stuff on the screen. I can appreciate artistic design. But there is no way they intended for all of the terrain in this game to be a mostly featureless grey/brown/yellow expanse. I get it, we're on freshly colonized worlds, but even mars has some texture to it. Without the architecture to break up the drab earths with some metals, this game would be totally devoid of any kind of life. TRIBES had cooler looking maps than this. That doesn't answer my question. Forget graphics and map layouts. I'm talking about ease of use here.
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.09 14:23:00 - [5] - Quote That still doesn't answer the ease of use question. Someone else please answer the question. Obviously i'm not getting any answers from this guy.
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.09 20:27:00 - [6] - Quote Obviously this OP has already made up his mind and will only accept doom and gloom for DUST. It's like a Christian evangelical constantly denying evolution regardless of physical proof. I'm through talking to this guy on this thread.
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.10 02:14:00 - [7] - Quote J'Jor Da'Wg wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Obviously this OP has already made up his mind and will only accept doom and gloom for DUST. It's like a Christian evangelical constantly denying evolution regardless of physical proof. I'm through talking to this guy on this thread. Nice way to throw in that jab... Off topic, but there is still much debate and physical evidence AGAINST evolution, as much as proponents deny it. While arguments can be very flawed especially in the fervent christian community, there are also very good arguments against it. Personally, I believe in adaptation and natural selection, but find that that gaps between species and the whole concept of a common ansestor presents to o many holes in the theory. In other words, I believe in a mix of the valid parts of the theory, and also my christian beliefs that support it. Labelin every christian that way os quite a stereotype and sweepin generalization. I did not say all christians are like that. I just happen to notice that a certain sect of them understand the book of genesis as if it's meant to be read in literal terms (I'm Gnostic and I read it in allegorical or symbolic terms only). Perhaps it's the Orthodox Christians I was referring to. Anyways, that's besides the point. I was merely using the Christian argument to point out how willfully ignorant the OP is at this moment. I can understand the many flaws with Dust 514, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to see the whole thing as a glass that is half empty. I see the glass half full instead. But it's not just the amount of water in the container that matters. What about the chemical make up of the glass itself? It's shape maybe? Or how tall is that glass? Is the water being filled slowly or quickly? That's how I see Dust. Unfortunately for the OP, he just decided to stick with seeing the glass as just destroyed or non-existent. We already provided our valid arguments regarding the Unreal Engine. So far the OP has already made up his mind. There is no convincing him.
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.10 02:22:00 - [8] - Quote Speaking of adaptation and natural selection, It's nice to know Dust 514 will be all about "adapt or die". XD
Maken Tosch Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 1594	Posted - 2012.12.10 03:00:00 - [9] - Quote J'Jor Da'Wg wrote: But anyways, Back on topic. As I mentioned before. You all are refuting him on the subject of the game bring a work in Progress, not on his basis of a problem with the game engine as a whole. Is there any arguments lut there to support or deny his assertions that Unreal Engine is limiting the game to a large extent? From what others have pointed out, it is a core engine that is flexible and easy to use. It may be limited but it can easily be ported to the latest Unreal engine for the PS4 once CCP has the SDK available for it. That's as far as I know based on what others say.