Wolfire Games Forums

Thanks for the update.

It sounds like a good plan.

It may be the occasion to see how well Lugaru can do with a better packaging wrapped around the awesome gameplay.

GaGrin wrote:If you read most of the stuff about FarCry and Crysis they made it quite clear that High and Ultra-high were NOT for normal gaming machines, but for the absoulate top-end, and for future-proofing the games respectivally. The idea with the Crytek games is that they still look good 3-4 years later because you can still turn the detail up.

I think the idea with Crytek games is that they don't really care about games, but they enjoy high-end graphics programming "Future-proofing" a game makes sense if you are making a MMORPG or something, but I doubt anyone will still be playing Crysis in a year even, let alone three or four.

I agree - and personally I was hugely disappointed by the Crysis demo. But they are at least upfront and honest about what they do as far as the graphics side of things go. I'm not saying thats the way to do things - just stepping in to mention that at least they have said that was the case.

I'm glad everyone is positive about your choice to make a smaller Lugaru sequel first.
I'm definitively up for more of the kick-ass Lugaru gameplay!

I've played the Crysis demo, and I can only run it on low/medium, so it looks fairly "meh".
But that doesn't really matter; I think it''s fun.
I mean, picking up enemies and tossing 'em through walls, shooting down palm trees,
stalking around like a Predator, what's not to like? ...Does this make me a horrible person?

Will we get a new story? Or just a redone Lugaru 1 story?

If we get a redone story, I want new cut scenes at least.

David wrote:Therefore I am considering making a new game that is like an updated version of Lugaru 1 in the new engine
(and a different storyline), and then working on a more open-ended Lugaru game later.

Ahem. :p

Zaphon wrote:Does this make me a horrible person?

Crysis is an enjoyable game. It's much better than Farcry in gameplay alone. And Farcry is enjoyable as well.

Yeah man Far Cry was pretty awesome. I enjoyed it a lot, and you didn't really need a powerful PC to run it but it still looked pretty sweet graphically. I think the AI in general was very good, and the game had longevity....I mean it was LONG. But the story was kinda cheesey, as were the mutant primates.

Crysis LOOKS fun, but they were focusing on graphics a lot.

I think that making an updated lugaru 1 is OK.

And I think that this should be in the blog. Just saying.

Renegade_Turner wrote:But the story was kinda cheesey, as were the mutant primates.

It's a good thing that story wasn't the selling point then

Even multiplayer was fun, at least over LAN. I had awesome sessions with a bunch of friends. Our preferred level was the one with the tiny isles in the ocean, where there's one hangar with an RPG-launcher on one isle and a watchtower on the other. Small maps are awesome.

Crysis is a bit extreme on the graphics side, it doesn't run on my machine although it handles simple shaders up to PS3.0 pretty well. The game isn't scaleable at all. But that was to be expected; I don't care anymore, I bought a 360 so that I don't have to worry about upgrading my PC after all and it works so far.

Here's hoping you've got multiple render paths, David, so that cheap people like me still can enjoy L2 with a reasonable framerate.

I like what David said about targeting mid-range computers, it's smart to make a game that is made to work well on most everyone's computers so that people can actually play your game the way it was meant to be played. When you target super high end machines you have to make it really scalable for people to actually play it. But at low detail Crysis looks bad compared to games designed for medium range computers and played at high settings.

I don't think a game has any reason to be "future proof." People continue to play games like Starcraft and Resident Evil 4 because they are fun games, not because the graphics are so good they can compete with present games.

CoD4 has awesome graphics and they aren't future proofed, they'll work on most computers and never jump in frame rate.

Zantalos wrote: I don't think a game has any reason to be "future proof."

Of course not, but the ENGINE being future-proof is a big selling point. That's the basic idea behind the CryEngine2.

I think the engine should be based on what people can actually play the game on, like Valve's Source engine. They update the Source engine with new blur and HDR effects, so it stays within what people can play it on while still looking good.

Crysis isn't selling as well as they hoped because of the system requirements, so I don't think someone else could make a better game people will be willing to play on low settings using the same graphic intensive engine.

...so many games coming out in the summer...

SSBB, lugaru2...

...can't... hold on... to SANitYEEEEEEEEE!

Zantalos wrote:People continue to play games like Starcraft and Resident Evil 4 because they are fun games, not because the graphics are so good they can compete with present games.

True. I completed Resident Evil 4 for the 2nd time just after Christmas. Lol