What's the difference if they're pushing nearly the same amount of polygons? Even if it did, It's not like Dead Space doesn't have huge areas (IE, boss segments) and BC2 doesn't have a lot of tight spaces either.
Last edited:
Battle-Field 3
- Thread starter Rambowjo
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
The difference is this: Let's say you have a million polygons at your disposal (there are much more than this, but bear with me) if you have 25 characters on screen and a view distance that includes 2 tanks, a helicopter and 10 buildings with interiors and exteriors that can be seen through holes in walls, then you can only devote a certain number of polygons to each character/space. Now if you're only going to have at max 10 characters on screen, you can suddenly DOUBLE the amount of polygons each character has, and because you don't have to see 300m away, you can also increase the number of polygons devoted to the interior space station and the various doodads around. And the boss segments in DS are largely empty and not full of destructible environments and dozens of players. And yeah, BC2 has tight spaces, but they are rare and the game is played with a near-constant line-of-sight of a HUGE area. You simply can't compare them at all. It's like complaining that the character models in GTA4 are less visually impressive than the ones in Street Fighter 4. Of course they are.
@Brizz-- I know it's heresy, but the first game didn't really do it for me. At first I was awed by how big it was and all the stuff, but it felt to slapdash, I didn't like the pace of infantry combat (too fast for my tastes) and organizing things was a pain. I didn't even play it long enough to see it get "ruined." BF2 fixed all of those things (even though the infantry combat still wasn't the world's best) by a mile. I didn't even mind the patches they did, though eventually I quit playing because none of my friend played anymore and I don't have the sort of time to get into a clan for fun people to play with. I played PR for a little after that, but that mod was such a buzzkill.
~Jason
if you played DC, there was a action galore w/ 64 players. unlike bf2, you had mobile aircraft carriers loaded w/ jets and choppers and on the land plenty of tanks and other vehicles. absolute blast
I only played Desert Combat once or twice. I don't think it was because the mod was bad or anything, just by the time I actually tried it I was kind of over Battlefield. Like dragonfliet, all my friends stopped playing the game and my interest just dropped off.
Only that the servers crash at about 45 players when everyone already gets a ping of 300 and unplayable lag...
BC2 doesn't run that well on my quadcore, although the graphics card is most likely the holdup there. It's playable, but definitely had to dial things back a bit. And yeah the combat in general in this game feels kind of unresponsive like a bad port - Fortunately it's masked under a pseudorealism game where you can expect to kind of randomly die every once in awhile.
Sure wish my knife attacks at point blank range would connect though, instead of stabbing a guy and then he turns around and looks at me then stabs me back and kills me.
I find myself wondering what makes Battlefield a better "large-scale" combat game than UT2004's Onslaught. (Maybe nothing?)
The spawning system is interesting and forces you to rely much more on teamwork, while simultaneously allowing you to avoid running across the large empty spaces of the map all the time as long as you've got squadmates to spawn with.
Control points can't be pinned down for defenders spawning at long range by shooting them.
Vehicles are substantially more powerful, but also harder to use. Also, damage/destruction mechanics require certain weapons rather than being able to wear down anything as long as you shoot it enough. (Although - TBH, I don't understand why I can sometimes shoot a tank once with an RPG and blow it up, and the other 90% of the time my RPGs do no damage. Seems random.)
Sure wish my knife attacks at point blank range would connect though, instead of stabbing a guy and then he turns around and looks at me then stabs me back and kills me.
I find myself wondering what makes Battlefield a better "large-scale" combat game than UT2004's Onslaught. (Maybe nothing?)
The spawning system is interesting and forces you to rely much more on teamwork, while simultaneously allowing you to avoid running across the large empty spaces of the map all the time as long as you've got squadmates to spawn with.
Control points can't be pinned down for defenders spawning at long range by shooting them.
Vehicles are substantially more powerful, but also harder to use. Also, damage/destruction mechanics require certain weapons rather than being able to wear down anything as long as you shoot it enough. (Although - TBH, I don't understand why I can sometimes shoot a tank once with an RPG and blow it up, and the other 90% of the time my RPGs do no damage. Seems random.)
Weak points yo, aim for treads/underside/rear for great justice (assuming its much the same mechanic as the other bf's)
Yeah, in BF1942 you could instagib a tank if you shot it from behind, but shooting it in the front plating basically did no damage.
edit: I updated the OP with a bit of information
Last edited:
You're missing my point. Using your example, I feel that the visceral engine could easily render identical million poly scene from BC2 (helicopters, players, buildings and all) much better than that of the frostbite engine. Your argument lies in the fact that there are many differences between the two that the other is not technically capable of doing (types of lighting, environmental damage, physics), which makes it nearly impossible to compare the two.
I'd have to agree that large scale (map) games have a lot more to their rendering than smaller ones. Just rendering large terrains involves things like quadtree and other LOD optimizations that can be cpu, gpu based or a combination of the two which then involves fencing (basically mutexing locking cpu/gpu pipelines). Shaders, too, can (depending on implementation) dynamically change based on those algorithms. That's just scratching the surface...
Last edited:
Did you play DS2? There are some huge environments in there, now how that would perform in a multiplayer setting with a lot of people, only the engine devs know. No point in arguing.
wat
Ping is how you measure latency.
Eh, ping is simply the time it takes to send a packet to a destination and receive it. Latency in game is also related to the amount of time it takes the server to process your information and return the data.
Did you play DS2? There are some huge environments in there, now how that would perform in a multiplayer setting with a lot of people, only the engine devs know. No point in arguing.
wat
Ping is how you measure latency.
^^^ What he said. Ping is the time it takes for a packet (ICMP packets in for the Windows ping) to travel but latency can be a measurement of time for a combination of anything.
Yes because The Godfather wasn't sandbox or anything.
Polygons on screen & Quality != Can render everything
Game engines are optimized usually to run well with the type of environment the game takes place in.
Also consider that Singleplayer games and scripted sequences are much easier to render than on-the spot player interactions with vehicles.
While I have not played BFBC2, from what I have heard about the destructible environments I am surprised the game runs well on anyone's machine.
Game engines are optimized usually to run well with the type of environment the game takes place in.
Also consider that Singleplayer games and scripted sequences are much easier to render than on-the spot player interactions with vehicles.
While I have not played BFBC2, from what I have heard about the destructible environments I am surprised the game runs well on anyone's machine.
