Still early access?

[lakedawg]

I guess 5 years isn't that long...

[=10th=Thomas_Ross]

Well, if it had been 5 years...

[lakedawg]

Dec 16, 2013

True. 4.5 years. I bet they release it by 5 though.

[Maca]

Originally posted by CrossEyedCricket:

I guess 5 years isn't that long...

For the development of the core architecture + design of a game, it really isn't that long. Should use google and do a little research. ;)

[GobboKirk]

Originally posted by Maca:

Originally posted by CrossEyedCricket:

I guess 5 years isn't that long...

For the development of the core architecture + design of a game, it really isn't that long. Should use google and do a little research. ;)

or if he really wanted to know, look at the store page...

[Maca]

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

Originally posted by Maca:

For the development of the core architecture + design of a game, it really isn't that long. Should use google and do a little research. ;)

The core architecture was already developed, the engine existed beforehand and was purely being adapted or else the game would not have been playable (Jokes aside).

- Sigh (Didn't i suggest researching first?)

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

4.5 years in early access and its made as much progress as 2 generations of call of duty games, boring.

Don't confuse DayZ development with some of the other Early Access project that took just as long using 3rd party pre-built software developed by other studios.

[Maca]

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

I don't really care about graphical enhancements or some basic engine tweaks. I could care less about new guns in the game and more spawn locations for weapons. None of this matters when the game is so buggy you're in constant fear of dying from the game's physics or getting stuck on an object.

And by this research, Please enlighten me..

Here's all the factual information about the 'New technology' developed over the development cycle and the transition from the legacy tech to the 'New Enfusion Game Engine'.

Enfusion Game Engine part I & II.

"Dev Update/Peter

All that led us to maintain and develop basically two versions of the game side by side - obsolete one for public to play in the meantime, and a new one for us developers to make the game as good as possible- one that you, players, would enjoy later."

The Enfusion Engine - Status-Report 21 Feb 2017[dayz.com]

"- Peter Nespesny / Lead Designer

We've spent tons of time developing the new DayZ (I personally call it DayZ 2.0 as it’s significantly different) alongside with its predecessor, which was ultimately terminated with the 0.62 version that's now on the Stable branch. It was definitely a long, winding and bumpy road. To be honest, we are still not at its end yet, but I’m glad we were brave enough to take that road!"

https://www.dayz.com/blog/status-report-april-25-2018

[Maca]

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

Have you not played the new 0.63 experimental update? The game is still the exact same, like I said it doesn't matter because it was a completely arbitrary development all things considered.

But didn't you claim: - The core architecture was already developed, the engine existed beforehand. When in fact it didn't and the Experimental .63 is the first transition to the new technology.

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

It's still buggy, it's still broken, the game is still uncomfortably long, and theres still the fear of dying because of the game itself. Half of the time playing it feels like the game is deciding what I'm doing because it's so broken and I need to adapt to the game.

Then playtesting the current version of an incomplete software project isn't for you, are you expecting some full functionality from a Work In Progress project with access to the lastest version?

https://dayz.com/experimental

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

It's the same core engine they just redesigned the assets on top of it. Its the ArmA engine, renaming it something else is purely a tactic to try and make it seem as though it was a lot of work but bigger studios redesign their assets on top of their engines all of the time for new games.

The decision to develop 'new technology' (the Enfusion engine) was made before the standalone released into the Early Access Model, because the original plan was the RV/ToH version modification, that was scrapped (end of 2012) -"This blew any initial plans we had dictated to pieces."

Dev-Blog January 2013 before Early Access Release[dayzdev.tumblr.com]

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

Its the ArmA engine, renaming it something else is purely a tactic to try and make it seem as though it was a lot of work but bigger studios redesign their assets on top of their engines all of the time for new games.

It isn't the Arma Real Virtuality engine and also a new scripting language[forums.dayz.com].

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

The Unreal Engine is taken by smaller studios and all of the mechanics are adapted and redesigned for whatever game its being used for, yet, ArmA wants us to see this as an achievement. They've been developing this for 4.5 years, and if theres something that will really turn my mind I'm open to it, but as I've stated if it doesn't transfer into a benefit towards the gaming experience for the player, theres really no purpose in developing it.

I guess you would first need to take into consideration the resources, i'm amazed many other studios are not investing in the development of in-house technology and developing their own "Core Architecture" (game engines) rather than leasing 3rd party software assets. (if we used your logic).

(Some actual examples below you can research!)

"Just look at the actual development of some of the in-house built game engines such as Bethesda Game Studios engine - "Creation Engine" which was developed for Skyrim and then became the foundations for Fallout 4".

"Then lets not forget the Frostbite Game Engine version 1.0 was developed for Battlefield: Bad Company (Released in 2008) and then next generations of that engine followed - Frostbite 1.5., version 2 and version 3 of the Frostbite Game Engine all modifications and expanded upon and known as "new" game engines. Amazing how these studios financially support (From previous sales) current project(s) development of tech and benefit from new software for future titles".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unity Engine: - "Six major versions of Unity have been released. At the 2006 WWDC show, Apple named Unity as the runner up for its Best Use of Mac OS X Graphics category"

Rust - Unity
The Forest - Unity
7 days to Die - Untiy
Subnautica - Unity
The Long Dark - Unity

Escape From Tarkov - Unity
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unreal Engine: "Making its debut in 1998 with Unreal, the first generation Unreal Engine" Version 1, 2, 3, 4."

Ark - Unreal Engine
PUBG - Unreal Engine
Conan Exiles - Unreal Engine

CryEngine: - "On March 30, 2006, Ubisoft acquired all intellectual property rights to the Far Cry franchise and a perpetual license to use the Far Cry edition of CryEngine"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again it takes years of develop, financial support and resources to actually develop a game engines technology and the modification of existing core-architecture can also take years. Don't be naive........

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

Yeah those new trees you added around the map are nice, but there isn't any benefit and they serve no purpose so its meaningless, but on the flip side, rebuilding the top layers of the engine would be an amazing improvement if the game wasn't still suffering from the same old destructive bugs that entirely remove you from the world and ruin your time playing.

So you think the environment artists skillset and tasks within the DayZ teams structure affect the tasks of the engine programmers? *Rolls Eyes*

[SloppyJoeJoe]

this is always the same argument over and over again someone dislikes fan bois come to rescue im not a devoloper or all that computer savy but i don't need to be, i play games and do love dayz's idea and anyone with half of brain knows that the game has come very little in very long time regardless of a new engine , fancier graphics or character movement which they seem to be telling us about for last 12mths and are still working on and seem to be long way of , anyone who think that this game will be close to being finished in 6 mths would have to be brain dead and you don't need to reasearch or be informed or no how development works to see that
even the devs say it's been a long bumpy road . but i don't care about all that , i just want some results i don't care what they have to go thru to get the results i lust want to play a non broken game ....PLEASE!

[Maca]

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

engine because it was made in such a way that it is extremly modular and accessible for almost every purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6lZ41Q89hY

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

Yes, I think the "environment artists skills and tasks within the DayZ team structure affect the tasks of the engine programmer" (completely pointless amount of fluff in that statement), as you said it taked time and money to develop or upgrade an engine, and there are only a specific amount of assets to be distributed among the development team.

Then you don't comprehend the structure and tasks within a development team.

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

This is a game which changed during development, and teams all have to work in coordination for this new game to be effectively created. Wasting time and resources by having the artistic team create new models for flora and in game decorations wastes time because you could be devoting all your time to the newer .63 version, which if I recall *Looks the exact same as the older DayZ, you know, that obsolete one, and uses the same ArmA 2 textures its been using for 4.5 years now, so the artists sure haven't been all that busy*.

https://trello.com/b/5yzeFpo2/dayz

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

I played it again a few minutes ago to help me explain this a little better. They're polishing all of the wrong things and the ArmA engine is not the right engine for making a zombie survival game.

Are you on the .63 version? lol

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

This is pretty much highway robbery, its the same game they made before, but with minor tweaks or pointless upgrades that sound nice but have no purpose.
They changed the HUD, and main menu screen, added some new character faces, and changed the camera when switching from first to third person. This makes it seem like its some big update because you're unfamiliar with this style and format but its the same game with the same engine.

Status Report 28th November[dayz.com].

Tech Demo about .63 version.

Developer Stream about .63 version.


- Sigh

Originally posted by P-L-A-N-K:

I'd return it if I could and not have to post my hateful feelings towards this game, but I bought it before the refund policy and have since surpassed the 2 hour play time anyway.

"You can now delete games from your Steam account"

https://www.pcgamesn.com/you-can-now-delete-games-from-your-steam-account

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

all the info is out there.

one just needs to look.

closing as Maca's keyboard is probably worn out.