xaphod_x on 8/6/2004 at 14:17
Well a bug is BOUND to be disappointing. I don't think it really belongs here, because this is about things that are DESIGNED to be this way. Vote for poor AI if you like.
ZylonBane on 8/6/2004 at 14:20
Quote Posted by Melianor
I find this sequel very fitting to the Thief series, although it is alot different in many aspects to the last games. What should have been in the poll is the AI bug. Apart from the lvl sizes this is the only thing bothering me.
The poll was created
before the AI bug was discovered, genius. :rolleyes:
MrWynd on 8/6/2004 at 16:39
im amazed not as many people voted for the rope arrows. the load zones are a tad annoying, but I didnt feel it took away from the old thief feel as much as no rope arrows....
john9818a on 12/4/2006 at 02:40
The only problem I had with the loading zones is when I had to run from one part of town to another two zones away. I didn't have a problem if I was entering a zone for the first time.
I voted "Other" because of the general mobility of the character. This would include rope arrows, being able to mantle without having to stop and position myself just right, and being able to traverse water. I love being able to shoot a rope arrow while running and leap onto it to safety. I really didn't like the wall climbing, and actually didn't buy the climbing gloves until I was almost finished with DS. There simply wasn't anywhere to go.
After playing so many FM's in Thief I and II, I've learned to adapt to having or not having a specific piece of equipment.
If this had been a PC only game, I say maybe they should have taken the Dark Engine and improve upon it rather than take an engine that won't do what we're used to doing.
I enjoyed playing the game, and the Cradle was great. I didn't have a problem taking on the zombies, but moving the use key from the right mouse to a key in the middle of the keyboard made things awkward.
Worst of all, they left out the squeally wimpy servant from I and II. JK :laff: Actually I think there was some AI that ran like a little girl...
New Horizon on 12/4/2006 at 02:59
Uhm, you do realize this poll is two years old don't you? :laff:
ascottk on 12/4/2006 at 03:24
Quote Posted by New Horizon
Uhm, you do realize this poll is two years old don't you? :laff:
I don't know about him, but I haven't been here for two years :joke:
Ringer on 12/4/2006 at 10:59
Quote Posted by john9818a
.
If this had been a PC only game, I say maybe they should have taken the Dark Engine and improve upon it rather than take an engine that won't do what we're used to doing.
I can remember reading somewhere here that LGS before it went arse up were working on a new Dark engine.....Realistically Ion Storm should have kept working on it rather than creating a bastard Unreal engine...
Lets face it for the type of game Thief is only dedicated custom made engines would work properly...Oh well to late now..
hexarith on 12/4/2006 at 11:15
Interesting, that people always claim the XBox for the small level sizes for both DX:IW and TDS.
That is definitely not true. For comparison have a look at Halo: Both PC and XBox version share the levels and their sizes; they are huge. No, the level sizes are not due to the limitations of the XBox, or the constraints of a console game.
Since I never got a look at the Unreal engines sourcecode I can only guess what the problem is, but I would say: Havok Physics is the guilty. Whatever the guys at Havok say: You can't just replacement the dynamics part of an engine. If you want to integrate physics then you also must take care that you limit the amount of objects to calculate.
Now HL2 has huge maps and uses Havok, too, but the Source Engine was designed with Physics in mind. The version of the Unreal engine the people at Ion Storm started wasn't.
Now if your engine isn't able to limit calculations of the physics part reasonably, you, the map designer has to do it. And the only way to do it effectively is: Size limited levels.
I'm not sure, but if one counts all freely manipulateble objects within a map, for each map of TDS the numbers will probably about the same.
New Horizon on 12/4/2006 at 11:31
Quote Posted by hexarith
Interesting, that people always claim the XBox for the small level sizes for both DX:IW and TDS.
That is definitely not true. For comparison have a look at Halo: Both PC and XBox version share the levels and their sizes; they are huge. No, the level sizes are not due to the limitations of the XBox, or the constraints of a console game.
Since I never got a look at the Unreal engines sourcecode I can only guess what the problem is, but I would say: Havok Physics is the guilty. Whatever the guys at Havok say: You can't just replacement the dynamics part of an engine. If you want to integrate physics then you also must take care that you limit the amount of objects to calculate.
Now HL2 has huge maps and uses Havok, too, but the Source Engine was designed with Physics in mind. The version of the Unreal engine the people at Ion Storm started wasn't.
Now if your engine isn't able to limit calculations of the physics part reasonably, you, the map designer has to do it. And the only way to do it effectively is: Size limited levels.
I'm not sure, but if one counts all freely manipulateble objects within a map, for each map of TDS the numbers will probably about the same.
Yay! Yet another expert. ;) I'm just yanking your chain.
The problem with the small level sizes of TDS has little to do with physics. We've been through all of this many times already.
The TDS engine is not even Unreal anymore really, it was rewritten and rather poorly optimized. The small level sizes are a combination of poor optimization, and low memory constraints of the xbox. The Thief 3 engine has a lot of hard coded limits that were put in place to help the developers stay within xbox constraints. You simply can't have a game like TDS, with all the AI functions, sound prop and light/ shadow calculation on a system with only ...what...64 megs of ram? I'm surprised the levels are as big as they are.
OrbWeaver on 12/4/2006 at 11:38
Quote Posted by hexarith
Now if your engine isn't able to limit calculations of the physics part reasonably, you, the map designer has to do it. And the only way to do it effectively is: Size limited levels.
I'm not sure, but if one counts all freely manipulateble objects within a map, for each map of TDS the numbers will probably about the same.
You appear to be operating under an assumption that every physics-enabled object in a T3 map has its physics simulated every frame, which is totally untrue.
Physics calculation MAY be set to start from the beginning of the level, but the default is for calculation to begin when an object is touched and to end when it comes to rest.
Experiments with physics in the TDS editor have shown massive performance drops by having too many active physics objects, on the order of 30 seconds per frame in some cases.
