Engine?

[johnny_b_good]

I was off for a quite long time and now seeing this game. Is it same engine again?

[scoicarius]

Yup. None other than the glorious Warscape engine.

[johnny_b_good]

So GG CA, RIP, waiting for the Medieval 3 and new engine.

[GatoVolador]

Really? This question again? Man... you have google dude. It took you way more time to post the question here than to type "warhammer total war engine" in google...

[Saurus]

What's even the problem with the engine? I mean they already announced that they pretty much tweaked every point the engine got (wrongly) critizised for. Since modding is also not supported it doesn't matter at all. And warscape is not even the engine but rather part of the engine but that has been said like hundreds of times before... The engine is TW3 engine.

[Arimahn]

What's even the problem with the engine? I mean they already announced that they pretty much tweaked every point the engine got (wrongly) critizised for. Since modding is also not supported it doesn't matter at all. And warscape is not even the engine but rather part of the engine but that has been said like hundreds of times before... The engine is TW3 engine.

The problems? It only took them about 14 patches in R2 to somewhat get a grip on unit blobbing and DEI solved a lot of problems not by tweaking the combat but by ripping out entire animations. Plus the DEI team has probably put a more concentrated effort into fixing combat than CA themselves by now and R2's combat still remains "so-so".

Warhammer Fantasy is based around tight formations of infantry and cavalry charges. Both aspects are the absolute worst parts of the other Warscape games so far, except perhaps SH2 which relied on stylized duelling instead of solid blocks of infantry.

Whatever CA originally intended to to with TW3 Engine, it hasn't worked out so far for them.

[scoicarius]

What's DEI?

[Orkfaeller]

DIVIDE ET IMPERA

[scoicarius]

Thanks! The modding community never ceases to amaze me. Imagine what they could do with more powerful modding tools. I love the attitude of those from Firaxis.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-thin...le-it-will-be/

Firaxis says that modders had to work “dark magic” to make one of XCOM: Enemy Unknown’s most popular mods function. XCOM: Enemy Unknown, wonderful as it is, was not moddable out of the box. A decent amount of mods have sprung out of the community, but for the most part they fall into these categories: tweaks to existing math, visual or soldier customization mods, or UI tweaks.

The Long War is a massive, fully-fleshed-out exception to XCOM’s mostly bite-sized family of mods, and Firaxis senior producer told me at E3 that modders’ efforts to crowbar open as much of the XCOM code as possible encouraged Firaxis to make it a whole lot easier in XCOM 2.

“What The Long War taught us—and kudos to those guys, because they worked some dark magic to pull that off—we didn’t give good support to modding with Enemy Unknown, and we want to change that with XCOM 2. It’s a key pillar to the game, and that’s why we’re releasing our modding SDK (Software Development Kit) through Steam Workshop,” says DeAngelis. “You can use the Unreal Editor and make your own content if you have the skills to do that. We’ll have gameplay source code, so you can modify files for abilities or text, or whatever you want to change with our existing units. And we really want The Long War to just be the tip of the iceberg and see what else the community can come up with.”

When I asked what types and extent of mods will be feasible through those tools, DeAngelis gave a reassuring answer. “Total conversions will absolutely be possible. With things like the Unreal Editor, if you’re a madman yourself and you can do the modeling and the changes, or if you have a small team… you know, you have to have the skillset to do that kind of stuff, but the tools will now be there. If you want more tilesets for maps, you can model that stuff, you can put new materials on our stuff. That’s why we’re super excited, because that’s the ultimate relationship to have with your community, where we make something that they love so much that they want to do more with it, so let’s give them the tools to enable that and see what magic comes from there.”

Firaxis has become one of my favorite developers. If only those from CA were just as open minded.

[Orkfaeller]

Feel really bad for the X-Com guys considering how terrible the game sold on consoles.

Hope their next game does well enough as a PC exclusive.

[Saurus]

The problems? It only took them about 14 patches in R2 to somewhat get a grip on unit blobbing and DEI solved a lot of problems not by tweaking the combat but by ripping out entire animations. Plus the DEI team has probably put a more concentrated effort into fixing combat than CA themselves by now and R2's combat still remains "so-so".

Warhammer Fantasy is based around tight formations of infantry and cavalry charges. Both aspects are the absolute worst parts of the other Warscape games so far, except perhaps SH2 which relied on stylized duelling instead of solid blocks of infantry.

Whatever CA originally intended to to with TW3 Engine, it hasn't worked out so far for them.

Everything you described has nothing to do with the engine but is part of their (CAs') philosophy for combat within the last games. To brighten your day: matched combat is gone. At least for the most part. Looking at the Black Fire Pass demo and Ambush at the Thundering Falls battles you can clearly see that the blobbing has gone for the most part.

So my point stands: What is the problem with the current engine?
The only problems I see are missing directx12 support and the 32bit part. But both if these are things that haven't even been confirmed yet.

People don't realize, that creating a new engine is a lot of work. And you don't know, if it will be even better than the current system.

[HigoChumbo]

What's even the problem with the engine? I mean they already announced that they pretty much tweaked every point the engine got (wrongly) critizised for. Since modding is also not supported it doesn't matter at all. And warscape is not even the engine but rather part of the engine but that has been said like hundreds of times before... The engine is TW3 engine.

My problems with the engine are, in one hand, that no matter how many orks and gryffons they add to the game, the overall gameplay is essentially going to feel very similar, and in the other hand, that it's an old engine with plenty of limitations which they have demonstrated over the years to not be able to solve, so they might have the most amazing creative vision in the world and it's not going to matter because the engine is going to hugely limit a proper realization of that vision, so in the end, we end up with a mishmash of make-do workarounds to overcome said limitations rather than with a cohesive final product designed from scratch with a clear target direction.

We have a franchise designed to fit a limited engine rather than an engine designed to allow the devs enough freedom to fulfill their creative vision. So there, that's what's wrong with the TW3 engine.

People don't realize, that creating a new engine is a lot of work.

That's completelly fine.

Just don't expect the customers to be hyped about the game and throw zillions of dollars at the screen everytime a new title is announced. If they want to be the FIFA of strategy games, so be it. If they want hyped fans, then I'm sorry to say, that takes a lot of work to achieve.

[Dewy]

So GG CA, RIP, waiting for the Medieval 3 and new engine.

"It's important to remember that when you start from scratch there is absolutely no reason to believe that you are going to do a better job than you did the first time. First of all, you probably don't even have the same programming team that worked on version one, so you don't actually have "more experience". You're just going to make most of the old mistakes again, and introduce some new problems that weren't in the original version." - Joel Spolsky

Thanks! The modding community never ceases to amaze me. Imagine what they could do with more powerful modding tools. I love the attitude of those from Firaxis.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-thin...le-it-will-be/
Firaxis has become one of my favorite developers. If only those from CA were just as open minded.

And yet Firaxis hasn't really done anything, all the heavy lifting was done by licensing the Unreal Engine. They're just giving out UnrealEd, something not possible with Total War.

So my point stands: What is the problem with the current engine?
The only problems I see are missing directx12 support and the 32bit part. But both if these are things that haven't even been confirmed yet.

Why is DirectX12 support an issue? I'll be happy when Direct3D is dropped.

My problems with the engine are, in one hand, that no matter how many orks and gryffons they add to the game, the overall gameplay is essentially going to feel very similar, and in the other hand, that it's an old engine with plenty of limitations which they have demonstrated over the years to not be able to solve, so they might have the most amazing creative vision in the world and it's not going to matter because the engine is going to hugely limit a proper realization of that vision, so in the end, we end up with a mishmash of make-do workarounds to overcome said limitations rather than with a cohesive final product designed from scratch with a clear target direction.

We have a franchise designed to fit a limited engine rather than an engine designed to allow the devs enough freedom to fulfill their creative vision. So there, that's what's wrong with the TW3 engine.

Not an engine problem at all. It's like saying your car's engine is crappy because you don't like the car's interior.

[scoicarius]

And yet Firaxis hasn't really done anything, all the heavy lifting was done by licensing the Unreal Engine. They're just giving out UnrealEd, something not possible with Total War.

Two points:

(1) Even with a licensed engine you have to create your own custom tools. Full modding support means full access to these tools.
(2) Full modding support also means full access to all your assets.

I would have thought this impossible in the world we live in, however these guys are proving me wrong. I don't really know what's driving them, but I think this is a beautiful mindset:

That’s why we’re super excited, because that’s the ultimate relationship to have with your community, where we make something that they love so much that they want to do more with it, so let’s give them the tools to enable that and see what magic comes from there.

If I were to make a game, this would be my approach.

[Bust Nak]

The problems? It only took them about 14 patches in R2 to somewhat get a grip on unit blobbing and DEI solved a lot of problems not by tweaking the combat but by ripping out entire animations. Plus the DEI team has probably put a more concentrated effort into fixing combat than CA themselves by now and R2's combat still remains "so-so".

If a mod can fix the problems you see by ripping out animations, then said problems are not problems with the engine.

Warhammer Fantasy is based around tight formations of infantry and cavalry charges. Both aspects are the absolute worst parts of the other Warscape games so far, except perhaps SH2 which relied on stylized duelling instead of solid blocks of infantry.

Whatever CA originally intended to to with TW3 Engine, it hasn't worked out so far for them.

The intend was modularity so bits can be replaced without complete rewrites. That TW3 is still in use means it has worked out for CA. Total war will not see a new engine (in the medieval 1 to Rome 1 sense) in the foreseeable future.

[Dewy]

Two points:

(1) Even with a licensed engine you have to create your own custom tools. Full modding support means full access to these tools.

Incorrect.

(2) Full modding support also means full access to all your assets.

They're not giving out all their assets. Unless you're only referring to art assets? Any game that runs on your machine gives you full access to the art assets. How else do you think they appear in game? Got to be somewhere you can access.

I would have thought this impossible in the world we live in, however these guys are proving me wrong.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the games industry from the early 90s onwards. The amount of stuff we get given now in 2015 is mind boggling; however we get the disadvantage of hundreds of terrible games released each day. I may sound elitist but I would much prefer it if it wasn't so "democratised". Easier for someone (like me) who knows how to write low level game code (i.e game engines) to release a game and for it to be profitable. Less fish in the pond so to speak.

[HigoChumbo]

"It's important to remember that when you start from scratch there is absolutely no reason to believe that you are going to do a better job than you did the first time. First of all, you probably don't even have the same programming team that worked on version one, so you don't actually have "more experience". You're just going to make most of the old mistakes again, and introduce some new problems that weren't in the original version." - Joel Spolsky

That's a pretty extreme view. For starters, its validity is based on the assumption that there are no experienced programmers left at CA, which is unlikely. Also, you could perfectly approach the matter from the opposite side and say that it's likely that the programmers that CA can hire nowdays are more qualified than those who worked in the earlier games, not just because they are way more resourceful than some years ago, but also because technology and general expertise have advanced in the meantime. I mean, none of us were there then humans first made fire, and we've got quite proficient at it without having any direct input from those guys.

The most likely case would be that a new engine was a much better basis to create a game, even if the first iterations were a bit rougher (buggier). Was Rome a worse game than Medieval? Was Warcraft 3 a worse game than Warcraft 2? What about GTA 2, 3, 4 and 5? Did they get worse with each new release? The old Total War "revolution-evolution" cycle exemplifies quite well what happens when you do something new. The "revolution" (new engine) game was usually the one that left people open mouthed (remember the transition from Medieval 1 to Rome 1?), the "evolution" (improved engine) was a refinement, overall an undeniably better game, but a lot less revolutionary. Now, that works if you keep alternating revolutionary and refined, but when for years game after game is just a refinement (and sometimes even a step back), then the formula gets repetitive and boring.

Just imagine that racing games were just like in this but with ultramodern shaders and a 2015 Ferrari Spider instead of an 80s Testarrossa...





I highly doubt that CA's refusal to change the engine is related to the capability of their programmers. It's more likely a financial matter, as in "keeping the same engine is the best way to maximize profits, even if that means the product is not be nearly as good as it could be".



In any case, what's the guy's conclussion? That the gaming industry should be completelly stagnant and conservative because that's the safest path? That new games should just add a few fixes and gimmicks? Allow me to insist that that's exactly what FIFA does. That might be the most valid of arguments when you view developers as a business, but when your ultimate goal is to make great games over having the most profitable and balanced business, then sometimes risks have to be taken. Also, that point of view could be understanable if the current product was borderline flawless, which is far from the case. When you have inconsistencies in 2015 that were there in 2006, that can only mean that those are problems inherent to the engine, and not fixable unless drastic measures (like creating a new engine from scratch) are taken.

In any case, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm convinced that the devs at CA would be capable of creating much, much better stuff if given the proper resources and time to do it.

Not an engine problem at all. It's like saying your car's engine is crappy because you don't like the car's interior.

How's that not an engine problem? Are you telling me that the way gameplay feels has nothing to do with the way the engine is programmed? (and before this becomes a new "it's not called Warscape" technicality debate, let's just call "engine" to whatever magic spell makes a unit of Dwarfs in TW:Warhammer play/feel exactly the same as a unit of hoplites in TW:Rome2)

The car interior would be the setting (ancient Rome, feudal Japan, Warhammer) and that has absolutelly nothing to do with what I'm complaining about. Now, since we are going to simplify matters to the limit, you can't expect your blue Fiat Panda to win a Grand Prix at Albert Park just because you have painted it speed yellow. What I'm complaining about is mainly that the core gameplay is almost identical. It's FIFA every two years instead of making jumps like going from Ground Control to World in Conflict, from Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3, or even using the same engine, from Half-life 2 to Left4dead or even Dota2.

I'm tired of playing the same battles again and again and again.

[Saurus]

Sorry but nothing you wrote is in anyway related to either this thread or to my question opening this discussion.

My question was: 'What is bad about the current engine, that someone has the urge to not buy a game because of it?'.
Your answer translates to 'It doesn't feel right' followed buy a long statement why games need to develop new engines in general...

Yes, game developers need to progress in their product but if CA is able to implement Dx12 and upgrade their system to 64 bit there is basically nothing wrong with the current system. Except of your disapproval, of course.

[johnny_b_good]

Everything you described has nothing to do with the engine but is part of their (CAs') philosophy for combat within the last games. To brighten your day: matched combat is gone. At least for the most part. Looking at the Black Fire Pass demo and Ambush at the Thundering Falls battles you can clearly see that the blobbing has gone for the most part.

So my point stands: What is the problem with the current engine?
The only problems I see are missing directx12 support and the 32bit part. But both if these are things that haven't even been confirmed yet.

People don't realize, that creating a new engine is a lot of work. And you don't know, if it will be even better than the current system.

You know what is missing- collision. Same bad collision like on other games based on Warscape.
Also pre alpha graphic shaders are crap.
Also- Warscape=poor optimisation.
It will be same game with different skin, thats all.

[johnny_b_good]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4siz1KrnO0
3:28- wow so epic effects....
6:22 dat jumping....
2:02 funny units.
They could go for little more cartoonish or different approach with this game with live colors...
Its a same setup just like Rome 2.