[Game] Battlefield 3
- Thread starter Ralfst3r
- Start date
On the C4 engine actually - atleast thats what they state on the website.
"(3) What engine is the team using? - The C4 engine.
(4) Is this the engine that the team won with Mod of the Year 2008? - No. We evaluated the Torque engine(s) and found that the C4 engine would be a better fit for our long term goals."
Upvote
0
Any games where I would recognise the C4 engine from?
Saw some screenshots, looks like it would make a decent tactical shooter.
Saw some screenshots, looks like it would make a decent tactical shooter.
Upvote
0
Caught my interest too. I found this page with a few projects listed.
[url]http://www.terathon.com/c4engine/shots.php[/URL]
Upvote
0
'World of Subways' and 'City Bus Simulator' LMAO! I'm def. gonna upgrade my rig to run some THAT!
Upvote
0
Those are the shots I saw.
Not exactly cutting edge but it looks crisp, clean and functional.
Not exactly cutting edge but it looks crisp, clean and functional.
Upvote
0
They'd better bring back the BF1942 menu theme, which has been long forgotten and is way better than the main theme in my opinion.
YouTube - Battlefield 1942 Menu Music - Slaughter (HIGH QUALITY)
YouTube - Battlefield 1942 Menu Music - Slaughter (HIGH QUALITY)
Upvote
0
You have to see "past the visuals" in those screenshots. They are definately not the maximum that the engine offers. Actually, once you have access to every aspect of an software engine it probably means that you can upgrade it and enhace the visuals. But most importantly, you have no obstacles that are hardcoded in the BF2 engine (no lean, no deploying weapons on objects, no bullet penetration...).
Upvote
0
Don't get me wrong here I was not putting the engine down.
What I am trying to say is I think it looks great for a tactical shooter. Games like Raven Shield and RO have crisp graphics and you can tell what is what. I think over use of fancy effects does not work well with simulators.
I'd sooner have the graphics crisp and sharp rather than blurry which seems to be the trend on most games these days.
What I am trying to say is I think it looks great for a tactical shooter. Games like Raven Shield and RO have crisp graphics and you can tell what is what. I think over use of fancy effects does not work well with simulators.
I'd sooner have the graphics crisp and sharp rather than blurry which seems to be the trend on most games these days.
Upvote
0
As in completly outdated and ****ty? They aren't gonna sell many units / to barely anyone outside of their hardcore audience if their graphics are even more outdated than BF2s.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I think Dcode is talking about stuff like depth of field, bloom, and other extreme uses of post-processing. If possible, it's usually the first thing I turn off in a game.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
If they keep the hardcore game play, casual gamers will not stick with the game anyway.
They might attract more sales by making the game look beautiful and touting it as a rival to CoD, but is the extra cost to develop amazing visuals worth it to try and seal a few extra sales compared to putting more development time into game play and keeping with their original target audience?
That is of course if the budget is even there for such features.
I am not one for Project Reality - I don't have the patience for it, however if they release a stand alone game catered for their original audience with no dumbing down of features; i'd buy the game and support them.
I understand I belong to a minority.
That is unnecessary.
Upvote
0
Maybe BF3 vanilla will be a lot better than BF2 vanilla. Therefore the Forgotten Hope mod won't be as necessary to get a great Battlefield experience without all the crummy BS EA couldn't be assed to take out of the game like dolphin diving was. We may not miss the mod tools as much as we would have for BF2 is what I'm getting at.
Upvote
0