The future of mods and modding

[KILLA-COW]

I think modding will continue to be a hobby-based thing, where people with mutual love for building things for a particular game or games will join together to make things as a hobby, and there will always be that small majority who get on their high horse and act all professional like they are the dogs bollocks. I think it's also a good way for people who are serious about game design to get into the industry.

[Rick_D]

That is crysis.

Edit: Other than that though I totally agree that the unreal engine is one of the best engines out there if not the best just because of its versatility.

UT3

I salute you sir

[Surfa]

Crysis

[Rick_D]

Ah crazy, just looked through their thread and they switched to Cryengine 2...

The guys who did it work at Streamline and they are pretty much an Unreal 3 outsourcing house; the last I heard/saw they were using UT3.
Anyway, they had some UT3 screenshots, and my point was that Unreal 3 is not a shit engine by any means.

[Spike]

A. UT3 Engine sucks. All static environments. No physics but player physics. It's laggy. The aliasing sucks. And it's a little bit hard to mod for.

I don't know where did u hear it but UE3 is one of the best engines right now. Physics are limited in multiplayer just like any other game.

B. Cryengine 2 looks good but. Most PCs can't run it, unless it's very laggy. You have to have models for buildings, witch takes away the reason for being a mapper. It takes skill to make brush or mesh buildings. But if you have a modeler to model building there is no reason for a mapper.

Mapping is making a 3D scenary for playing in it. It doesn't matter if it's BSP or model, it's a map. Most of game developers uses model editors to make their maps, so I don't really understand why you're saying it's not mapping.

I would choose source in 5-10 years. Just update the engine a little bit. I believe that game quality has pretty much reached it's limits for a LONG time.

I think Source have serious problems competing with other games graphics right now. When Source came out in 2004 it was really impressive and something new. But nowadays it has to compete with CryEngine, UE3 and even UE2 (Bioshock update) which looks a lot better than Source. They better make a new engine for HL2:ep3, I would be very dissapointed if I had to play it with similar HL2:ep2 graphics.

[Armageddon]

I don't know where did u hear it but UE3 is one of the best engines right now. Physics are limited in multiplayer just like any other game.

Do you own UT3? It's very laggy and most of it goes to the DOF they use trying to cover up the bad aliasing. Source environments have a lot of physics. If you play UT3 there are NO physics whatsoever.

Mapping is making a 3D scenery for playing in it. It doesn't matter if it's BSP or model, it's a map. Most of game developers uses model editors to make their maps, so I don't really understand why you're saying it's not mapping.

I know what your saying but. A coder, modeler, even a texture artist could make a good looking crysis level. So why pay money for someone when you could do it so easily?

I think Source have serious problems competing with other games graphics right now. When Source came out in 2004 it was really impressive and something new. But nowadays it has to compete with CryEngine, UE3 and even UE2 (Bioshock update) which looks a lot better than Source. They better make a new engine for HL2:ep3, I would be very disappointed if I had to play it with similar HL2:ep2 graphics.

I'm not talking about, I would use it for game developing in 5-10 years, I'm talking about I would use it for modding in 5-10 years. And there not making a new engine for ep3, there making a new engine for HL3. And also Bioshock is VERY laggy to. And yes I do have a super PC.

[Surfa]

I don't know where did u hear it but UE3 is one of the best engines right now. Physics are limited in multiplayer just like any other game.

Do you own UT3? It's very laggy and most of it goes to the DOF they use trying to cover up the bad aliasing. Source environments have a lot of physics. If you play UT3 there are NO physics whatsoever.

What about the physx mod for ut3 have you played that? Also compared with source ut3 look amazing.

Mapping is making a 3D scenery for playing in it. It doesn't matter if it's BSP or model, it's a map. Most of game developers uses model editors to make their maps, so I don't really understand why you're saying it's not mapping.

I know what your saying but. A coder, modeler, even a texture artist could make a good looking crysis level. So why pay money for someone when you could do it so easily?

Well yes good looking maybe but what about gameplay?

[SlappyBag]

I know what your saying but. A coder, modeler, even a texture artist could make a good looking crysis level. So why pay money for someone when you could do it so easily?

Looks arn't everything, that is why we have designers. I think Crysis is a fantastic engine when you have a good team or are a real production studion. UT3 is good as well but I completely agree on the physics level. I got the UT3 phys-x mod/addon included with my graphics card on my brand spanking new three month old PC. I run UT3 at max at like 80FPS or something stupid and that add on, even when I put both the graphics and the physx simulation down I still barely got 10FPS.

Might just be a fluke in my PC/Drivers but that is crazy, especially when Crysis runs perfectly with similar stuff going on.

I am a fan of Source, but thats got more to do with bumming Valve, its popularity and it being the best of both worlds.

[Spike]

I don't know where did u hear it but UE3 is one of the best engines right now. Physics are limited in multiplayer just like any other game.

Do you own UT3? It's very laggy and most of it goes to the DOF they use trying to cover up the bad aliasing. Source environments have a lot of physics. If you play UT3 there are NO physics whatsoever.

I think Source have serious problems competing with other games graphics right now. When Source came out in 2004 it was really impressive and something new. But nowadays it has to compete with CryEngine, UE3 and even UE2 (Bioshock update) which looks a lot better than Source. They better make a new engine for HL2:ep3, I would be very disappointed if I had to play it with similar HL2:ep2 graphics.

I'm not talking about, I would use it for game developing in 5-10 years, I'm talking about I would use it for modding in 5-10 years. And there not making a new engine for ep3, there making a new engine for HL3. And also Bioshock is VERY laggy to. And yes I do have a super PC.

Dude, buy a new graphics card!!!

The problems with lag aren't from the engine, are from your computer. Biochock should run all maxed with a decent card. A 8800 GT would run that game all maxed. And UT3 runs similar to Source on my computer, I own a 4870 and I get around 80 FPS everything maxed

[punky]

My pc runs Bioshock smooth as butter, with a 8800GT and a dualcore processor

[marks]

I run UT3 at max at like 80FPS or something stupid and that add on, even when I put both the graphics and the physx simulation down I still barely got 10FPS.

You're supposed to use it with an Ageia PhysX accelleration card :s

[SlappyBag]

But I've a Geforce 260, has that not got the inbuilt Ageia stuff? If not, Nvidia shouldn't be sending me their fancy Ageia stuff with my Geforce card.

[Psy]

Nvidia have supported PhysX in their drivers since at least last year.

[Armageddon]

And yes I do have a super PC.

Yeah PhysX really sucks. It really only adds cloth and a few other stuff...

[Psy]

PhysX does not suck. Now that the uptake is hugely increase due to essentially having half of the graphics card market as their userbase there are a lot of games that use it.