A quick look at wikipedia shows that BioWare started using Frostbite for DA:I in 2011, which released in 2014. Mass Effect Andromeda started 2012-ish, released in 2017. Anthem also started in 2012 and released 2019.
That's 7-8 years of trying to work with Frostbite, and they're still trying to use it for Dragon Age 4
I don't understand
Around the time DA:I started development, EA mandated that all EA developers must use Frostbite.
Frostbite is, by all accounts, a crappy engine to develop in, especially since it's purpose built for FPSes and not really for any other task.
EA also kept all its experienced Frostbite developers working on Battlefield and by multiple reports, BioWare struggled hard to get any support from experienced Frostbite developers.
It's a real shame.
This isn't entirely true. Folks have come out in recent years saying EA never mandated folks use Frostbite. Bioware needed a new engine for DA:I as the old one wasn't going to work. Frostbite was free and Unreal Engine was going to have licensing fee's that Bioware would have to cover, so they went Frostbite. This is why Respawn is able to use Unreal. It's more that Bioware leadership chose profits and EA leadership approval over the best interest of their games.
That said, Frostbite is by all accounts a nightmare to work with. Folks have said it takes them half a dozen steps to do what they can do in 1 step elsewhere. Additionally as you mention, EA doesn't license out the engine to others and as such doesn't have a large central support group dedicated to just the engine and helping those who use it. It's not surprising developers couldn't get help. If I'm a Battlefield dev working crunch, the last thing I want is to spend 4 hours helping another dev understand the tools. Also by not licensing it out, it leads to not a lot of folks outside of EA having experience in it should they need to hire employees. Every new developer who hasn't worked for EA, you now need a significant amount of job training that you wouldn't need for Unreal Engine.
It's interesting though, Madden and FIFA both use Frostbyte and don't seem to have nearly the issues Bioware had with it. Was that due to extra EA support as those games make $$$$$? Maybe.
Mario Kart is fun but I wish when I was playing online I was constantly losing to people who are worse at the game but threw a couple thousands of dollars at Nintendo to be unbearably fast.
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
If you look at the unreasonable amount of money EA makes with virtual soccer gambling, the answer is pretty clear on that.
Schreier's expose on the implosion on Anthem even asserted that engineers with valuable Frostbite experience was shuffled from Bioware to work on FIFA.
I was thinking about this in the shower. Dragon Age 4 leadership is in kind of a crap position. Gamifying it a bit:
You win: There is no winning. Your game will never sell as well as Fifa, Madden, Battlefield, etc. There is nothing you can add or design that would make DA4 hit those financial benchmarks. At best you beat projections, which is tough since they tend to be unrealistic.
You lose: Your game flops like Anthem, you don't make much money, and you're looking for a new job.
Option A: You can use Frostbite. You've been using it for over a decade now. Your current team has experience with it. It'll lengthen your development schedule and possibly cause a buggier game to be launched. But it'll save you some costs in the short term.
Option B: You can use UE5. Would make overall development easier. But you might have to hire more folks to help create tooling you need (-$). Might need to train current team since they haven't used it in a long time (-$). And you'll lose a portion of the profits to licensing (-$).
Anyone playing The Good Life? I can't figure out how to get a headache. I've gotten about a dozen colds, and one toothache, but never a headache. The dumb doctor's quest is stuck on stage 2 as a result and i'm like a month and a half in.
0
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
I'm having trouble with that Mario Kart NFT thing. Like, from the small section we see it almost sounds like they're setting it up as an example of why cramming nfts into everything sucks.
That or they so fundamentally misunderstand everything it just comes off that way
I'm having trouble with that Mario Kart NFT thing. Like, from the small section we see it almost sounds like they're setting it up as an example of why cramming nfts into everything sucks.
That or they so fundamentally misunderstand everything it just comes off that way
A quick look at wikipedia shows that BioWare started using Frostbite for DA:I in 2011, which released in 2014. Mass Effect Andromeda started 2012-ish, released in 2017. Anthem also started in 2012 and released 2019.
That's 7-8 years of trying to work with Frostbite, and they're still trying to use it for Dragon Age 4
I don't understand
Around the time DA:I started development, EA mandated that all EA developers must use Frostbite.
Frostbite is, by all accounts, a crappy engine to develop in, especially since it's purpose built for FPSes and not really for any other task.
EA also kept all its experienced Frostbite developers working on Battlefield and by multiple reports, BioWare struggled hard to get any support from experienced Frostbite developers.
It's a real shame.
As I recall a Bioware dev used to post on PA and said the Frostbite worked fine.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
A quick look at wikipedia shows that BioWare started using Frostbite for DA:I in 2011, which released in 2014. Mass Effect Andromeda started 2012-ish, released in 2017. Anthem also started in 2012 and released 2019.
That's 7-8 years of trying to work with Frostbite, and they're still trying to use it for Dragon Age 4
I don't understand
Around the time DA:I started development, EA mandated that all EA developers must use Frostbite.
Frostbite is, by all accounts, a crappy engine to develop in, especially since it's purpose built for FPSes and not really for any other task.
EA also kept all its experienced Frostbite developers working on Battlefield and by multiple reports, BioWare struggled hard to get any support from experienced Frostbite developers.
It's a real shame.
As I recall a Bioware dev used to post on PA and said the Frostbite worked fine.
Taky used to post around here, but I think they stopped before the migration to Frostbite.
And even if they were, their previous experiences with voicing grievances here would have lead them to uh....not disparage Frostbite at all.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
+8
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I feel like the Warrior path got a lot of love in DA:I and while most Mage paths were okay to good, Knight Enchanter was absolutely overpowered when controlled directly and pretty so-so when left up to the AI. Rogues for the short end of the stick for sure. AI controlled Rogues were bad enough that I specced them all into ranged and even then I basically only used Varric outside of companion missions.
DA:I rogues felt absolutely terrible after DA2, especially. they were a ton of fun in that game.
all the mage classes were quite good I thought, but knight enchanter aka wizard jedi was absolutely busted on launch. they eventually nerfed it in both single and multiplayer so it was a lot more reasonable.
of course, the multi is dead now because it was horrible.
A quick look at wikipedia shows that BioWare started using Frostbite for DA:I in 2011, which released in 2014. Mass Effect Andromeda started 2012-ish, released in 2017. Anthem also started in 2012 and released 2019.
That's 7-8 years of trying to work with Frostbite, and they're still trying to use it for Dragon Age 4
I don't understand
Around the time DA:I started development, EA mandated that all EA developers must use Frostbite.
Frostbite is, by all accounts, a crappy engine to develop in, especially since it's purpose built for FPSes and not really for any other task.
EA also kept all its experienced Frostbite developers working on Battlefield and by multiple reports, BioWare struggled hard to get any support from experienced Frostbite developers.
It's a real shame.
As I recall a Bioware dev used to post on PA and said the Frostbite worked fine.
I don't know if I want to drop their name but yes, a Bioware dev who posted here did make this case. iirc it was their contention that Frostbite had its issues but the problems and challenges it brought were more than made up for with timesaves in other areas.
this was before the Jason Schreier article on the development of Anthem, though, which made it pretty clear that lots of other devs thought Frostbite was a huge pain that was more trouble than it was worth.
+2
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Also, that same dev said that the reason DAI didn't launch with a chest to keep your stuff in and that had to be patched in later is because it was incredibly difficult to make happen in Frostbite
that seems like a bad choice for your dragon game!
+13
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
A quick look at wikipedia shows that BioWare started using Frostbite for DA:I in 2011, which released in 2014. Mass Effect Andromeda started 2012-ish, released in 2017. Anthem also started in 2012 and released 2019.
That's 7-8 years of trying to work with Frostbite, and they're still trying to use it for Dragon Age 4
I don't understand
Around the time DA:I started development, EA mandated that all EA developers must use Frostbite.
Frostbite is, by all accounts, a crappy engine to develop in, especially since it's purpose built for FPSes and not really for any other task.
EA also kept all its experienced Frostbite developers working on Battlefield and by multiple reports, BioWare struggled hard to get any support from experienced Frostbite developers.
It's a real shame.
As I recall a Bioware dev used to post on PA and said the Frostbite worked fine.
I don't know if I want to drop their name but yes, a Bioware dev who posted here did make this case. iirc it was their contention that Frostbite had its issues but the problems and challenges it brought were more than made up for with timesaves in other areas.
this was before the Jason Schreier article on the development of Anthem, though, which made it pretty clear that lots of other devs thought Frostbite was a huge pain that was more trouble than it was worth.
I know who you're talking about and I am thinking he might have learned from Taky's example.
EDIT: also, IIRC, he worked on cinematics
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
If I am trying really hard to find a use for NFTs in games, something like EVE online where everything is player crafted and can be destroyed is the closest I can muster.
But there is never any actual reason to use NFTs or an actual block chain or anything for any game I can think of. Like, just have the server enforce uniqueness without burning down a rain forest.
So been playing a lot of Age of Empires 4 over the past few days and I have some thoughts.
First, it’s really good. It doesn’t stray too far from the age of empires formula on the surface, but when you dig down into it there’s a ton of good changes here.
First, whilst there are “only” eight factions they’re way more diverse than older games. In age of empires two is just a skin and then like +15% turret build speed or something. There’s some of that here but each faction has a major mechanical change that that’s them closer to say the differences between Starcraft races than something like AOE 2.
They range from different the English, who play like every AoE faction with the exception that towers and keeps that sport an enemy will get an attack speed buff and then pass than on to the next one if it’s in range, which passes than on and so on. Or say the Mongols, the most extreme difference, who can pick up and move all of their buildings and indeed must, they have one building that collects stone, you can only have one at a time, and your buildings next to it get significant bonuses.
The gameplay is still on the slower end of the spectrum so 30-60 mins matches compared to SC2’s 5-30mins and a big big part of this is major changes to how units interact with buildings.
All units can now walk through buildings, which is good because some of the factions have dense bases. You now only need to kill every “landmark” buildings that rank you up a tier to take out an opponent. To avoid this being easy, the amount of damage a unit does to a building depends on what they are. Archers do nothing, infantry and cavalry can throw torches to do mild damage, and siege weapons smashes them to bits in a few hits. Stone walls are immune to torches, which means that to attack an enemy base it’s not enough to mass the best unit. You have to bring siege equipment or you’re not getting in. This creates some really fun dynamics in multiplayer, with fients and sallying forth and so on. Playing a with a friend he was under siege and I sent my cavalry and rocket launchers (playing as the chinese) out of my base and snuck up behind the enemy through the less dense “stealth forests” that hide your units. My cavalry charged forth (and they now get extra damage when doing so, so you need to charge and pull out and repeat) and thundered past the longbowmen to attack the trebuchets. The archers turned to attack my horsemen only to be bombarded from a nearby hill by rockets and wiped out.
So yeah, good fun game, excellent multiplayer.
For those who like RTS campaigns the good news is there are several and the decisions they made regarding them are excellent.
Essentially the entire thing is set up like a history documentary. You get a video explaining what’s happening in history, between the battles you fight. They’re very well done, extremely informative and a lot of fun. To top it off beating levels unlocks more videos and occasionally historical documents. It’s a lot of fun to play a level, win and then your reward is a video about how chainmail is made. They’ve made the campaign into an edutainment title and I am here for it.
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
Ubisoft was the first gaming company to get so bad that I flatly refused to buy any of their games, no matter how good they looked, and that was a few years ago. Glad to see my non-investment is paying real dividends.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I guess to explain VC behavior somewhat, I mean if you have fuck you money, you basically throw a lump at everything and most of it dies off but one or two go 100,000% returns and you still come out ahead, and because you have fuck you money you can basically play a lot of dumb long shots until some pan out, yeah?
Or is even that giving them too much credit?
Inquisitor on
+3
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
On the one hand, conning stupid rich people is good. On the other hand, destruction of the Earth is bad.
Almost seemed like you were setting up a haiku Chico....
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
+1
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
The only theoretical use for an NFT in games would be validation of an object that could be utilized by multiple different games, otherwise there's no difference between it being an "NFT" and something that is simply validated by a game server.
The idea behind NFTs in games, at least by those who have some idea about what they're talking about, is something like a weapon you have in one game that you could take into an entirely different game.
This is an interesting concept, I guess, I don't necessarily know if it's a good idea, but I do know that there is functionally zero reason for any game developer to get on board with that kind of functionality, as it would just be willingly ceding control of their game content in some way.
+8
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
The only theoretical use for an NFT in games would be validation of an object that could be utilized by multiple different games, otherwise there's no difference between it being an "NFT" and something that is simply validated by a game server.
The idea behind NFTs in games, at least by those who have some idea about what they're talking about, is something like a weapon you have in one game that you could take into an entirely different game.
This is an interesting concept, I guess, I don't necessarily know if it's a good idea, but I do know that there is functionally zero reason for any game developer to get on board with that kind of functionality, as it would just be willingly ceding control of their game content in some way.
It does not even do that, the people saying that are insane and full kool aid drinkers
They do not begin to even speculate how the magic crypto objects would cross between games on a design level, like what the heck does having your sword crypto code taken into another game actually mean in gameplay terms, let alone the technical explanation for how you'd do any of that other than hoping devs decide to support one-off objects from other games somehow, for no reason
BahamutZERO on
+3
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
The only theoretical use for an NFT in games would be validation of an object that could be utilized by multiple different games, otherwise there's no difference between it being an "NFT" and something that is simply validated by a game server.
The idea behind NFTs in games, at least by those who have some idea about what they're talking about, is something like a weapon you have in one game that you could take into an entirely different game.
This is an interesting concept, I guess, I don't necessarily know if it's a good idea, but I do know that there is functionally zero reason for any game developer to get on board with that kind of functionality, as it would just be willingly ceding control of their game content in some way.
It does not even do that, the people saying that are insane and full kool aid drinkers
They do not begin to even speculate how the magic crypto objects would cross between games on a design level, like what the heck does having your sword crypto code taken into another game actually mean in gameplay terms, let alone the technical explanation for how you'd do any of that other than hoping devs decide to support one-off objects from other games somehow
Well yeah, the only thing they would really be able to do without some kind of unified design would be verify that it "exists", conceptually speaking
I turn any NFT you import into my game into a 1 damage consumable that is destroyed on use with an icon that is just a heavily pixelated crude drawing of poop.
whenever someone's like "nft means you still own it, even if the game folds" it's like, super, i can put it next to all my warhammer online age of reckoning screenshots because it's AS USEFUL
Posts
Whoever wrote this views all time spent in terms of their salary per hour
This isn't entirely true. Folks have come out in recent years saying EA never mandated folks use Frostbite. Bioware needed a new engine for DA:I as the old one wasn't going to work. Frostbite was free and Unreal Engine was going to have licensing fee's that Bioware would have to cover, so they went Frostbite. This is why Respawn is able to use Unreal. It's more that Bioware leadership chose profits and EA leadership approval over the best interest of their games.
That said, Frostbite is by all accounts a nightmare to work with. Folks have said it takes them half a dozen steps to do what they can do in 1 step elsewhere. Additionally as you mention, EA doesn't license out the engine to others and as such doesn't have a large central support group dedicated to just the engine and helping those who use it. It's not surprising developers couldn't get help. If I'm a Battlefield dev working crunch, the last thing I want is to spend 4 hours helping another dev understand the tools. Also by not licensing it out, it leads to not a lot of folks outside of EA having experience in it should they need to hire employees. Every new developer who hasn't worked for EA, you now need a significant amount of job training that you wouldn't need for Unreal Engine.
It's interesting though, Madden and FIFA both use Frostbyte and don't seem to have nearly the issues Bioware had with it. Was that due to extra EA support as those games make $$$$$? Maybe.
Schreier's expose on the implosion on Anthem even asserted that engineers with valuable Frostbite experience was shuffled from Bioware to work on FIFA.
Even if that uniqueness is their butt being so big they once choked a monster as it tried to eat them
- Tommasi is a jerk
You win: There is no winning. Your game will never sell as well as Fifa, Madden, Battlefield, etc. There is nothing you can add or design that would make DA4 hit those financial benchmarks. At best you beat projections, which is tough since they tend to be unrealistic.
You lose: Your game flops like Anthem, you don't make much money, and you're looking for a new job.
Option A: You can use Frostbite. You've been using it for over a decade now. Your current team has experience with it. It'll lengthen your development schedule and possibly cause a buggier game to be launched. But it'll save you some costs in the short term.
Option B: You can use UE5. Would make overall development easier. But you might have to hire more folks to help create tooling you need (-$). Might need to train current team since they haven't used it in a long time (-$). And you'll lose a portion of the profits to licensing (-$).
That doesn't sound like a very good life at all
That or they so fundamentally misunderstand everything it just comes off that way
You've got the gist of it
No transphobia that I could see in the amount I played so far, though, so... That's good.
Taky used to post around here, but I think they stopped before the migration to Frostbite.
And even if they were, their previous experiences with voicing grievances here would have lead them to uh....not disparage Frostbite at all.
DA:I rogues felt absolutely terrible after DA2, especially. they were a ton of fun in that game.
all the mage classes were quite good I thought, but knight enchanter aka wizard jedi was absolutely busted on launch. they eventually nerfed it in both single and multiplayer so it was a lot more reasonable.
of course, the multi is dead now because it was horrible.
I don't know if I want to drop their name but yes, a Bioware dev who posted here did make this case. iirc it was their contention that Frostbite had its issues but the problems and challenges it brought were more than made up for with timesaves in other areas.
this was before the Jason Schreier article on the development of Anthem, though, which made it pretty clear that lots of other devs thought Frostbite was a huge pain that was more trouble than it was worth.
that seems like a bad choice for your dragon game!
I know who you're talking about and I am thinking he might have learned from Taky's example.
EDIT: also, IIRC, he worked on cinematics
I haven't seen any at all in 30 hours. Hopefully that stays.
But there is never any actual reason to use NFTs or an actual block chain or anything for any game I can think of. Like, just have the server enforce uniqueness without burning down a rain forest.
It’s all so dumb.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/ubisoft-want-to-be-key-players-in-blockchain-gaming
Here you go, even more reason to not give that shit-arse company money.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
First, it’s really good. It doesn’t stray too far from the age of empires formula on the surface, but when you dig down into it there’s a ton of good changes here.
First, whilst there are “only” eight factions they’re way more diverse than older games. In age of empires two is just a skin and then like +15% turret build speed or something. There’s some of that here but each faction has a major mechanical change that that’s them closer to say the differences between Starcraft races than something like AOE 2.
They range from different the English, who play like every AoE faction with the exception that towers and keeps that sport an enemy will get an attack speed buff and then pass than on to the next one if it’s in range, which passes than on and so on. Or say the Mongols, the most extreme difference, who can pick up and move all of their buildings and indeed must, they have one building that collects stone, you can only have one at a time, and your buildings next to it get significant bonuses.
The gameplay is still on the slower end of the spectrum so 30-60 mins matches compared to SC2’s 5-30mins and a big big part of this is major changes to how units interact with buildings.
All units can now walk through buildings, which is good because some of the factions have dense bases. You now only need to kill every “landmark” buildings that rank you up a tier to take out an opponent. To avoid this being easy, the amount of damage a unit does to a building depends on what they are. Archers do nothing, infantry and cavalry can throw torches to do mild damage, and siege weapons smashes them to bits in a few hits. Stone walls are immune to torches, which means that to attack an enemy base it’s not enough to mass the best unit. You have to bring siege equipment or you’re not getting in. This creates some really fun dynamics in multiplayer, with fients and sallying forth and so on. Playing a with a friend he was under siege and I sent my cavalry and rocket launchers (playing as the chinese) out of my base and snuck up behind the enemy through the less dense “stealth forests” that hide your units. My cavalry charged forth (and they now get extra damage when doing so, so you need to charge and pull out and repeat) and thundered past the longbowmen to attack the trebuchets. The archers turned to attack my horsemen only to be bombarded from a nearby hill by rockets and wiped out.
So yeah, good fun game, excellent multiplayer.
For those who like RTS campaigns the good news is there are several and the decisions they made regarding them are excellent.
Essentially the entire thing is set up like a history documentary. You get a video explaining what’s happening in history, between the battles you fight. They’re very well done, extremely informative and a lot of fun. To top it off beating levels unlocks more videos and occasionally historical documents. It’s a lot of fun to play a level, win and then your reward is a video about how chainmail is made. They’ve made the campaign into an edutainment title and I am here for it.
a fun thread on that note
I say this as someone who deals with them on the reg as part of my job
they are profoundly stupid and easily tricked
Or is even that giving them too much credit?
I'm a bad investment.
Gimme.
The idea behind NFTs in games, at least by those who have some idea about what they're talking about, is something like a weapon you have in one game that you could take into an entirely different game.
This is an interesting concept, I guess, I don't necessarily know if it's a good idea, but I do know that there is functionally zero reason for any game developer to get on board with that kind of functionality, as it would just be willingly ceding control of their game content in some way.
they sound like the fae
It does not even do that, the people saying that are insane and full kool aid drinkers
They do not begin to even speculate how the magic crypto objects would cross between games on a design level, like what the heck does having your sword crypto code taken into another game actually mean in gameplay terms, let alone the technical explanation for how you'd do any of that other than hoping devs decide to support one-off objects from other games somehow, for no reason
Well yeah, the only thing they would really be able to do without some kind of unified design would be verify that it "exists", conceptually speaking
It's a solution looking for a problem