ES4: Oblivion - CRPG of the Year @ GameSpy
View Single Post
January 7th, 2007, 18:34
Well, I'm not a developer, but I've done my share of coding, though nothing near what's required for a game of these magnitudes.
Even so, I was talking about being technically impressive, which most definitely includes the visual aspects of the game.
I don't feel like going back and forth claiming that Oblivion was a demanding game to code, because as you say, it's not something we can ever prove. I'm just under a VERY different impression regarding what it requires to code the aspects I mentioned. The way you talk about what goes on in Oblivion doesn't exactly support your claim to understand what goes into coding this kind of software.
Like claiming Gothic 3 uses a "no-load" engine (what a term) because that's a big misconception. It loads data constantly, which you might call streaming and as such it might seem like it doesn't load data, but it does indeed, and constantly so.
It's definitely not an easy thing to optimise, because you have a lot of things to consider, like harddisk speed and memory of the many hardware combinations out there, and only a select few games have done this well enough to justify the technology. Offhand I think World of Warcraft is the only game that has a close-to-completely-seamless world.
Radiant AI is A LOT more sophisticated than you seem to think, and though you can indeed adjust parameters for every NPC, there's just the matter of coding the AI itself before you can do that. You don't simply code "get food" and magically have NPCs go and get food, because how the hell would they know how to do that. You have to ENABLE them to get their food through a series of decisions and actions, and if you think that's easy I think you're assured a job anywhere in the industry.
But, whatever, I think I've stated my case well enough for now. It would seem pointless for the two of us to go back and forth with claims which we can't prove. If you think Gothic 3 is more impressive, technically, good for you. Let's agree to disagree.