KalNet Message Board

From the looks of the tech demo I am unimpressed. The graphics seem like they are basically no better than the first game, and they are certinly not better than even a game like Farcry.

They physics tests they show were already done better in source, and all the effects looked just as good in the first Serious Sam. It really doesn't look revolutionary in anyway....I hope they don't try to charge more than $20 for the game.

Serious Sam was always a budget title. Which is fine... They should keep it affordable, as well as the ridiculous amounts of enemies everywhere.

[PX]IronFist wrote:From the looks of the tech demo I am unimpressed. The grqaphics seem like they are basically no better than the first game, and they are certinly not better than even a game like Farcry.

They physics tests they show were already done better in source, and all the effects looked just as good in the first Serious Sam. It really doesn't look revolutionary in anyway....I hope they don't try to charge more than $20 for the game.

Funny how excessive masturbation makes one go blind. If you look at the stats (HDR, bump-mapping, macro scripts, particle editor, alpha shadows, physics engine, OpenGL and DirectX renders, multi-platform capabilities, extensive real-time testing of levels, parallax mapping, specialized grass renderer, destruction editor for ANY model within a level, and not to mention the massive size of the levels) you'll see that it's VERY capable. Since they're doing an arcade (ie. cartoony) game, it may not be as noticeable. However, even good engines can look like sh!at when placed in incapable hands (see Bloodlines for a Source example).

As for the physics, yes, they were done in Source. And Doom 3. And Ravenshield. And UT2K4. And the list goes on. If you check all of their tech demos, they all had it. The Serious engine is just showing that they can run with the "big boys." How much each game used it varied, but they've all had it.



As for the first ones looking just as good:

SS:SE:
http://www.seriouszone.com/gallery/ssse-singleplayer


Review your homework again.


Far Cry I wouldn't wanna say either way as they're different applications (cartoon vs. semi-realism). It's the whole WoW vs. EQII argument all over again.

Though, I also want it priced for $20. But that's because I'm just cheap.

THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:

[PX]IronFist wrote:From the looks of the tech demo I am unimpressed. The grqaphics seem like they are basically no better than the first game, and they are certinly not better than even a game like Farcry.

They physics tests they show were already done better in source, and all the effects looked just as good in the first Serious Sam. It really doesn't look revolutionary in anyway....I hope they don't try to charge more than $20 for the game.

Funny how excessive masturbation makes one go blind. If you look at the stats (HDR, bump-mapping, macro scripts, particle editor, alpha shadows, physics engine, OpenGL and DirectX renders, multi-platform capabilities, extensive real-time testing of levels, parallax mapping, specialized grass renderer, destruction editor for ANY model within a level, and not to mention the massive size of the levels) you'll see that it's VERY capable. Since they're doing an arcade (ie. cartoony) game, it may not be as noticeable. However, even good engines can look like sh!at when placed in incapable hands (see Bloodlines for a Source example).

As for the physics, yes, they were done in Source. And Doom 3. And Ravenshield. And UT2K4. And the list goes on. If you check all of their tech demos, they all had it. The Serious engine is just showing that they can run with the "big boys." How much each game used it varied, but they've all had it.



As for the first ones looking just as good:

SS:SE:
http://www.seriouszone.com/gallery/ssse-singleplayer


Review your homework again.


Far Cry I wouldn't wanna say either way as they're different applications (cartoon vs. semi-realism). It's the whole WoW vs. EQII argument all over again.

Though, I also want it priced for $20. But that's because I'm just cheap.

I didn't say that the engine wasn't capable, I said that it wasn't revolutionary. Basically everything this engine can do, other engines have been doing for months, most of them better.

I suggest that you do a little more "homework" yourself Jew, watch the first serious sam tech demo again....marvel at it's magnificence, and then realize that it was an engine ahead of it's time, where as this one just barely seems to be keeping up with the rest of the pack.


I looked at your screenshots, and I stand by my statement. The character models are better, and the levels are larger (although the first game also boasted impressive level size), but the graphics in general look very similar to the first game. I did not "look at the stats" as you suggested....and if you actually read my post

From the looks of the tech demo I am unimpressed

You would know that. Everything I said is based on how the tech demo looked...and nothing more. If everything you say is true, then maybe it has potential, but the tech demo was unimpressive at best - and that's the bottom line.

[PX]IronFist wrote:
I didn't say that the engine wasn't capable, I said that it wasn't revolutionary. Basically everything this engine can do, other engines have been doing for months, most of them better.

I suggest that you do a little more "homework" yourself Jew, watch the first serious sam tech demo again....marvel at it's magnificence, and then realize that it was an engine ahead of it's time, where as this one just barely seems to be keeping up with the rest of the pack.

I looked at your screenshots, and I stand by my statement. The character models are better, and the levels are larger (although the first game also boasted impressive level size), but the graphics in general look very similar to the first game. I did not "look at the stats" as you suggested....and if you actually read my post

From the looks of the tech demo I am unimpressed

You would know that. Everything I said is based on how the tech demo looked...and nothing more. If everything you say is true, then maybe it has potential, but the tech demo was unimpressive at best - and that's the bottom line.

The technology demo doesn't fully portray what the game will be. However, if you look in the temple room scene, you CAN see the huge differences. The movie's compression hides it somewhat. That I agree with you on. Though, I think that you think the effects that they are achieving are done through different methods than the ones actually utilized. Research this term and then get back to me:

Parallax Mapping

You'll see why I bolded part of your statements--because you're wrong on those counts.





EDIT:

Just cuz I know you'll be too lazy to actually look it up:

http://www.brandonfurtwangler.com/index.php?p=33

I want to have a discussion with someone who at least knows what's going on.

The technology demo doesn't fully portray what the game will be

This may well be true, but it doesn't negate the fact that the tech demo was unimpressive.


If your interested in learning more about parallax mapping:

http://www.infiscape.com/doc/parallax_mapping.pdf


and I'm sure you'll be sad to know that this is not a Croteam original idea, and infact the Doom 3 engine already supports it, it just wasn't implemented in the game.

There is already a D3 mod out that implements parallax mapping if your so excited about this "new feature" that you just have to have it - even though there is a chance your hardware can't support it.

EDIT:

Crytek, Croteam....it's all the same.

Serious Sam isn't going to be a budget title. Seriously

yes, it will be. You know it in your heart that this is true.

No it will not. I read an interview and they said it would not be. Search your feelings

[PX]IronFist wrote:

The technology demo doesn't fully portray what the game will be

This may well be true, but it doesn't negate the fact that the tech demo was unimpressive.


If your interested in learning more about parallax mapping:

http://www.infiscape.com/doc/parallax_mapping.pdf


and I'm sure you'll be sad to know that this is not a Crytek original idea, and infact the Doom 3 engine already supports it, it just wasn't implemented in the game.

There is already a D3 mod out that implements parallax mapping if your so excited about this "new feature" that you just have to have it - even though there is a chance your hardware can't support it

Half the stuff in games aren't original ideas. Heck, HL2 got the gravity gun from D3 but nobody seemed to care about that. They just went on and on about how great it is. A feature in the code unutilized is great, but kinda pointless (until used, that is). When a full retail comes out using features it is the time to get excited. This is it.

Mod == irrelevant to this discussion. The original Quake had full shadow support equivalent to D3's due to mods. We're talking retail games here.

I believe that the tech demo was still stellar, but that it's presentation was less so. The "steak" is there--the "sizzle" wasn't.

And I'm fairly confident my hardware can support it.

THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:Heck, HL2 got the gravity gun from D3 but nobody seemed to care about that. They just went on and on about how great it is.

Don't you mean that D3 stole the gravity gun from HL2?
I don't remember any such gun in the original D3 and then HL2 comes out with one, and suddenly the Doom 3 expansion has the same weapon.


Anway, as far as Serious Sam 2 goes, I guess only time will tell but so far I'm not really expecting it to be an A1 title.

nope, we can document that the gun was in the first release of Doom3, they took it out because it is pointless.

Point and case, there is a console command that enables the feature that you can throw things around. Ask Ghost for the article, he has it somewhere.

Mike cares not if it is a AAA title. Mike loves serious sam games!

[PX]Kal Bob wrote:nope, we can document that the gun was in the first release of Doom3, they took it out because it is pointless.

Point and case, there is a console command that enables the feature that you can throw things around. Ask Ghost for the article, he has it somewhere.

Truth+++



Nobody goes on how D3 utilized a gravity gun even though the code was there. Nobody really raves until the feature is used. SS2 will (as far as I know) be the first to utilize parallax mapping.

Carmack had the Gravity gun removed from D3 because he felt it was just a gimmick that no one would be interested in using.