No, it's not a dream. Go ahead and pinch yourself. After a year of nearly complete silence, the team behind the fantasy FPS Project Offset -- which was acquired by Intel last year -- has redesigned its website and released new media. Specifically, there are two new tech demo videos and some fresh concept art. Embedded above is a video of meteors destroying the environment as they fall from the sky. It certainly looks impressive, though it's unclear if this is dynamic destruction or something pre-defined. Either way, it certainly looks nice.
The second video, embedded after the break, shows off a cottage being constructed inside the Offset engine. The cottage is apparently a prefab, which is essentially a reusable asset for game design. Objects are added to the structure and several textures and graphical effects are added on the fly. The video certainly makes it look easy to create objects within the game world, though we'd like to see something made from scratch.
Sadly, neither video features any gameplay. There are no giant trolls and stealthy elves this time. Project Offset's Sam McGrath promises there will be "much more" in the upcoming months.
It's been so long, but this still looks like quite the impressive engine. Gameplay looked a little like Savage, i hope it turns out good, and doesn't murder my PC
I've been excited for this since I was 4 years old.
I'm 27 now...
I keed I keed...but seriously, their small dev team captured my imagination way back when when they presented on Attack of the Show. I've been waiting patiently ever since.
This feels like Far Cry and Crysis. A very impressive tech demo engine, but not a very playable engine. Of course, this is all conjecture, but that's the impression I get from the two new trailers. Let's hope they can make a game out of this tech.
Far Cry runs flunking fantastically on a range of PCs, but really shines on high end hardware; you were right about Crysis though being a monster, though.
Treyarch deserves to get paid because they sold mad copies (just maybe not to us).
First, tell me what you're broken simile intended to state, then maybe I can clarify. "It's trendy to say it's just a tech demo, like it is to pay out Treyarch for World at War" was the affront to the English language to which I refer.
I think you might need to explain what was wrong with that, and then realise that you wrote this: "you were right about Crysis though being a monster, though.
Treyarch deserves to get paid because they sold mad copies (just maybe not to us)."
And this:
>>First, tell me what you're broken simile intended to state >>what you're broken simile >>you're
Crysis is known to be very taxing on PCs, to the point of gaining a negative reputation for it. That is why Crytek hasn't released it on consoles (not possible), and then later released the less taxing Crysis Warhead (Wars?). Don't play ignorant.
So it's trendy to pay out Treyarch for WaW? I must be missing something there.
And yeah, sorry for the *your/you're misuse, I'm high.
What are you talking about? I never mentioned system requirements or consoles.
I was defending the fact that a lot of people just call it a tech demo and say that it was a bad game. It was a very, very good FPS. Suit abilities, wide open levels, gun customisations and giving you the freedom of choice in how you wanted to play most levels, coupled of course with the amazing visuals and it was a great experience that I played through many times in different ways.
It kind of fell apart after the alien ship- but that didn't last long.
All of the above are my opinions on Far Cry and Crysis. You may not agree about Crysis and other people may say the same things, but it's doesn't make it a FACT that Crysis was a great game. Learn the difference between opinion and fact.
No but what did you not like about it, what set it apart from other FPS's and made it worse? It's like people take that it had good graphics and use that as a platform to proclaim mediocrity in everything else because of it, without explaining how.
1. I have yet to get the game to run at a consistent framerate on moderately high system specs. 2. The narrative (if you can call it that) and art design seemed to me to be so wildly derivative if recent pop-culture sci-fi action that it detracted from my ability to engage in the "world" of the game. 3. The gameplay felt too basic and the gunplay felt loose. For a game that promised innovative gameplay mechanics, the Speed, Shield, Strength mechanic was underwhelming at best. 4. The level design was too linear and didn't offer the same "open-ended" structure of their original, Far Cry.
I'll admit my expectations were high for this game, but it's been over a year since release and I still haven't seen it run at a standard high PC resolution (1440X900 and above, for instance) with a solid, playable frame rate, retaining the detail promised from countless video demos and promotional stills.
Have I justified my opinions enough to satisfy your criticism Ihavepants?
The general consensus seems to be that Crysis WAS a good (if not great) game, if you were ever able to get it to run without crashing stupid puny computer.
WiredKnight; please tell me some FPS games that you like them and tell me all the depth they have to them that Crysis is lacking. No it doesn't have a great story but neither do any other FPS's I know of bar a few.
The open level design, emphasis on suit functions for different situations and tactics, vehicles, gun customisations. Basically if Crysis's game play is boring and over repetetive, you're doing it wrong. Most fun playthrough I had was ninja'ing in Delta difficulty through the entire campaign up to the alien ship. And the multiplayer was fun too.
Man, this was one of my most anticipated "games" back when we thought it was coming out on "next gen consoles". What was that, like 3 years ago? For the love...
The tech demo was clearly only possible on a beastly PC. Probably the first PC your future great grand children will build for themselves. You'll be long dead, and never get to play it.
I think it's PC exclusive. Intel clearly snatched it up to push their Larrabee hardware out the gate with a sponsored game (kind of like what ATI did with Half Life 2....although this is more extreme than that since ATI didn't buy up Valve).
And man it's ambitious IP's like this that I'm excited for.
Anyway, if I'm to make sense of your ass backward comment, no, maybe people "my way" don't have many great grandparents because, well, life expectancy is much higher in your lily white suburban world. You just keep enjoying your hip-hop and salsa and keep thinking rock and roll is a white thing, you prick.
If they've spent this long working on an engine that looked nearly complete like two years ago do you think they'd have the balls to show nothing but prerendered footage? Mostly, proof of concepts (infamous Killzone trailer) I've seen come out for a full on game, this thing doesn't even have a name yet. There's no story, no dialogue, no narration; just neat shinies and collisions and such. Seems like a tech demo to me.
They could scale it way back like they did for Dunia in order to get it all (or most of it) onto consoles. Far Cry 2 scaled remarkably well, ahem.
The "Distruction" feature could be pretty similair to Valve's "Cinematic Physics", meaning it could be pre rendered physics and saved as an animated model.
Honestly I have no problem with this, I wish more games would use it more often, it does look fantastic on large scale events and that I can be happy with. I'd rather have that, then nothing because we can't process those physics at a decent frame rate.
Or it could very possible be procedurely physics based in game... we'll see.
I remember how impressive this tech seemed 3 years ago. With the freezing/shattering gnomes or whatever. It seems less impressive now, but I'll still get if it the computer I wind up building for SCII and D3 can play it. I mean, I would love for a fantasy fps - I haven't played one in years and I am kinda tired of Space Marines and WWII shooters (even though they are excellent games).
As long as it is as good as Heretic and Hexen, I'm game :)
I think the thing that they really wanted to show off before was the character animation, and how it could be procedurally offset by a random amount for groups of similar characters. I believe that's where the project got its name.
That's rather interesting. I'd always wondered how it got such a unique development name (I am, of course, assuming that the final product isn't named "Project Offset" - but who knows?). In any case, I do think it is cool that all the enemies will look unique, but I also remember how impressed I was particularly by the textures at the time. It seems the gaming world has started to catch up with their textures.
That's exactly what I thought when I saw the video. Just looking at the picture made me think that Team Ico had finally come out with more screens until I saw the title. Then I Q_Q.
