I get it, hating on the game is super popular right now. I'm no fanboi, I certainly didn't pre-order the game (I only pre-order from a select few developers, those I know will put out great products, like CD Project Red). I'm quite enjoying the game. It's not the type of game you play on rails or with a strong linear narrative or that holds your hand through the experience. I'm on PC and have had not a single issue or crash. I have to put graphics at medium when they should be maxed out, but that shows the age of the engine and that it isn't as streamlined or polished as it could be.

Also the game 'does' have a story, it's just rather basic and while I'm not sure the game is worth $60 (I got it for $45 and think it's worth that) I look forward to future content and the fact that they've said 'no paid DLC' makes me happy as well.

When people ask me if I recommend the game, I tell them first that it's worth waiting for a price drop or the issues with AMD and top-end nVidia to be worked out. I use the analogy that it's like Early Access Starbound. Fun, with an open universe to explore, some interesting races and things to find and crafting but not a whole lot going on in it or directed content to experience. That's No Man's Sky, at $20-30 it's a great Early Access title. I'm glad that it sold very well as that will fund future development and hopefully we'll see new content and fan requested stuff soon.

And for the record I've seen equal numbers awesome wildlife as I've seen crazy shit like in this video lol. The craziest was on this cold, radiated world that was none-the-less flush with exotic life. There were these 1m tall blobs of jelly with elephant ears and like mice faces that bounced around like a bouncy ball all over the place. Hilarious!

Lambast it all you want but it's clearly still popular. Mid-day on a wednesday and it's #3 on steam with 70k users atm. And it's not like it wasn't super easy to find out what the gameplay was like in those 3 days it was on PS4 before PC. So anyone who still bought and is bitching about it is being hypocritical.

I funny the broader furor about this game hilarious. Developer previews game without showing any meaningful gameplay, progression or storyline. Then people are shocked, shocked the game contains none of these things. This train wreck was predictable as hell, right down to the committed fanboys digging in their heels. I hope this is featured as a tech demo on the latest 3DMark.

Your video, Quake Champions Quakecon 2016 Gameplay, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm excited to play this but I'm hoping it can keep my interest past 10 hours. Elite: Dangerous also played the numbers game, which is interesting, but it is a very cold game. This game at least seems to have some things to do in it and has a warm feel, but I'm still on the fence if I want to shell out AAA money for it especially because the developer has been very vague about the gameplay.

its extremely short, i finished it in 3 hours, the ending is very WTF out of nowhere. good atmosphere but expensive for the few hours gameplay

The short answer is "It depends!"

I know it's a crappy answer, but there are way too many parameters at play. There are many games today that have scripted scenes in them that are pretty cinematic. Think of GTA III, from 2001. The cut scenes in that game still outshine the actual gameplay of GTA V today.

If the scene is scripted, then all the animation, and camera movement can be fine tuned and all compute resources are pooled into the viewport of the camera. This allows the artists to focus all of the trickery on the shot itself, but not the rest of the world. From a PVS or scene-graph stand point, you have pretty much reduced the complexity to just what you are seeing.

I do not know how they made this demo and cannot comment on it with any authoritative capital. I've written 3D engines before (not for videogames though) and can comment on the technology I think I'm seeing here. My comments are just an opinion based on what I know. I do not have access to Unity and have never used it before. But here it goes:

For a scene like this, there should be reduced/canned computation in:

• Collision detection and response
  
• AI
  
• Animation / IK
  
• PVS
  
• Texture Atlasing
  

The shaders, unless they are geometry (the ripping of the skin/flesh in the Adam scene) could or could not be reduced in scope and complexity. I am not sure if they are scripted or dynamic. By scripted, I mean a geometry shader that reads vertex data from a VBO stream or some memory buffer instead of computing the vertices on the fly. It's still real-time, just not dynamic.

Most of the graphics you see here are standard applications of technology that's been around for a while:

• PBR shader
  
• Motion Blur Shader
  
• Depth of Field Shader
  
• Cascaded Shadow Maps Shader
  

The particle system seems pretty standard as well.

This is a great demo and I am extremely impressed with the art direction, but the engine itself is, after all, Unity with PBR for the characters, and maybe Global Illumation for the indoor scenes, which I believe they licensed from Geomerics.

As cool of an idea as that is, they would need to be really creative with the gameplay to make it fun for everyone in the long run. In the shows most of what the bridge crew does is:

1. Captain tells you what to do, you punch it into the controls.

2. You relay something on your screen to the captain.

3. Goto 1.

I'll love it if they make that into a fun multiplayer game. But I think a safer bet would be just making a single player game where you are the captain and make all the important decisions while good actors feed you information.

Heres 45min of gameplay footage

GGgwwwwoooooaaahahhhhhhh hahahahahaa.. whaaaaaat???

Now show me some gameplay!

Your video, Dawnbringer - Gameplay Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Jinx: Wolfenstein 3D did not have a Z coordinate, in Doom one could set floor and ceiling height and specify how far down/up the walls should extend. Players and monsters would then correctly follow the floor level (or fly).

The 3D environment (think of it as being inside a box rather than on top of a playing field) was correctly displayed from a first person perspective and you could move in it in all 3 directions. Aiming and shooting (and lighting and determining LOS) was 2D.

Wolfenstein - 3D display, 2D movement and aim.
Doom - 3D display and movement, 2D aim.
Quake - 3D all three counts. And mouselook.

All other FPSs ever - small improvements in graphics and gameplay :-)

I have a pretty good grasp on the assassin's creed storyline, ignoring some of the story bending needed to obtain said artifacts and create gameplay elements that are quickly dismissed in the sequel.

From the looks of it, they did a good job finding an interesting time period (1478+) while allowing the movie arc to start early enough to make plenty of sequels. The game is quickly running out of the past already.

The animus interface looks stupid though.

I'm kinda hoping gameplay involves sitting in a trench dispersing acerbic wit and insulting the idiots that surround you while concocting increasingly cunning plans to avoid such a fate....

So gameplay involves charging across no man's land and dying repeatedly to artillery and machinegun fire?

Interesting. I'd love a breakdown of the falloff on that, for future gameplay realism.