New game engine or GoH2

[we rt]

Hello, I'm starting this thread because I would like to know what you think (or if you have any information that it is already planned) about the game's creators transferring it to a new engine (or creating a second part of the game) because it looks like a game from 2010, and also the mechanics it's already lagging behind, it's hard to find nice advanced mods because they are poorly optimized and difficult to make.

I think that creating a second part of this production or improving it with a new engine would be really good
To make GoH look graphically like MoWll, but not MoWll because it is a much faster game and therefore less tactical

[Darth Revan]

A new engine is not advisable since this engine family is the only engine family that is tailor made for exactly this specific type of game.

The only reasonable upgrade would be to switch to the newest version of this engine that is currently used in men of war 2.

[dynamic]

I don't think that will happen in the near future. It would be a mammoth project that would take a long time. Something like this can quickly consume years of development time without offering a new, saleable product. And: Better an old, but mature engine. Optimization is the key.

I also believe that the engine is not being developed by the GOH team, but by the publisher behind it, Digitalmindsoft.

I can't understand the harshness of the criticism either, the game looks good and the gameplay is solid. Only the AI could be improved.

And for the modding part: You can take a look at the extensive GEM editor. In principle, you can build maps and missions completely from scratch - everything what the devs done in missions is possible without any programming knowledge (there are only scripted sequences, but there are many tutorials for this). Due to the same engine, GEM Editor tutorials from Men of War, for example, are also applicable.

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by Tenko:

They wont move to a new engine because simply they refuse to.

The simps that defend it believe that MoW was on any other engine the game somehow is different. when in reality its what hold sthe game back because nobody wants a game that looks old, runs worse than old and has next to nobody playing it.

Spoken like someone who has no idea how much work, time and money it costs to add all the systems and functions needed for this specific games to a new engine that was not made for those games specifically.

[[TPPL] King Leonidas]

Originally posted by Darth Revan:

A new engine is not advisable since this engine family is the only engine family that is tailor made for exactly this specific type of game.

The only reasonable upgrade would be to switch to the newest version of this engine that is currently used in men of war 2.

to my knowledge Gates of hell was meant to be on the newest Engine however. due to competition for MOW 2 they had to remake the entire game in the old engine bailed out by digitalmindsoft. and that was the entire reason it ended up as a DLC

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by TPPL King Leonidas:

Originally posted by Darth Revan:

A new engine is not advisable since this engine family is the only engine family that is tailor made for exactly this specific type of game.

The only reasonable upgrade would be to switch to the newest version of this engine that is currently used in men of war 2.

to my knowledge Gates of hell was meant to be on the newest Engine however. due to competition for MOW 2 they had to remake the entire game in the old engine bailed out by digitalmindsoft. and that was the entire reason it ended up as a DLC

Indeed, the game was supposed to release as a standalone title published by the engines creator best way and using the latest version of the engine at some point.

I just don't know for what reason specifically that agreement was ended back then. Could have been competition with mow2, could have been other reasons, I don't know. :)

[[TPPL] King Leonidas]

Originally posted by Darth Revan:

Originally posted by TPPL King Leonidas:

to my knowledge Gates of hell was meant to be on the newest Engine however. due to competition for MOW 2 they had to remake the entire game in the old engine bailed out by digitalmindsoft. and that was the entire reason it ended up as a DLC

Indeed, the game was supposed to release as a standalone title published by the engines creator best way and using the latest version of the engine at some point.

I just don't know for what reason specifically that agreement was ended back then. Could have been competition with mow2, could have been other reasons, I don't know. :)

probably the competition halfway through MOW 2 decided it did not want to be a fully MOBA game when i played in the beta it had the MOBA aspects still there

[Doctor Proctor]

Originally posted by Tenko:

They wont move to a new engine because simply they refuse to.

The simps that defend it believe that MoW was on any other engine the game somehow is different. when in reality its what hold sthe game back because nobody wants a game that looks old, runs worse than old and has next to nobody playing it.

just using a new engine is not that simple especially if you don't have direct access to the back end of said engine

[Dwarf Floyd]

They worked so much on this engine, that its practically completly different from the original. no change needed.

[Castrol]

I want an improved AI.
Single missions.
Campaigns.
Tactical and quiet gameplay.

Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront It is the best tactical game in real time of the WW2.

[F.U.D.F.]

Originally posted by Castrol:

Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront It is the best tactical game in real time of the WW2.

I have 2k+ hours in Gates of Hell and I don't think this is true. Neither do like the 6 testers I am friends with. It's good fun and its even worth the wait to find a game most times. I give the devs a lot of credit for what they made. I'd sum it up like this:

Pros:
~Controlling tanks and vehicles directly is awesome
~Visceral ground-level combat and explosions: other games tend to be far away from the combat
~Adequate graphics, looks good at times.

Cons:
~Smooth gameplay is far from guaranteed
~Multiplayer is unreliable enough of the time to be a deterrent
~Finding a playable PVP game takes too long, including the issue of games ruined by laggers/potato PC players/quitters
~UI is unreadable / mouse cursor not visible unless you reduce to non-native resolution
~Price

[A1_AlphaPrime]

Originally posted by slowly dismantling:

Originally posted by Castrol:

Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront It is the best tactical game in real time of the WW2.

I have 2k+ hours in Gates of Hell and I don't think this is true. Neither do like the 6 testers I am friends with. It's good fun and its even worth the wait to find a game most times. I give the devs a lot of credit for what they made. I'd sum it up like this:

Pros:
~Controlling tanks and vehicles directly is awesome
~Visceral ground-level combat and explosions: other games tend to be far away from the combat
~Adequate graphics, looks good at times.

Cons:
~Smooth gameplay is far from guaranteed
~Multiplayer is unreliable enough of the time to be a deterrent
~Finding a playable PVP game takes too long, including the issue of games ruined by laggers/potato PC players/quitters
~UI is unreadable / mouse cursor not visible unless you reduce to non-native resolution
~Price

Seems like most of those are an issue only for dedicated MP players. The performance issues on Liberation maps really got better after the last performance update, and it's even better on Talvisota or Ostfront maps. And if you're lagging on low settings while playing SP, then it's not really the games' fault. Looking for an MP game is tedious, but if you limit the distance of the host from your computer + set a high performance requirement, you can get really good performance, even in team games.

[F.U.D.F.]

Originally posted by A1_AlphaPrime:

Originally posted by slowly dismantling:

I have 2k+ hours in Gates of Hell and I don't think this is true. Neither do like the 6 testers I am friends with. It's good fun and its even worth the wait to find a game most times. I give the devs a lot of credit for what they made. I'd sum it up like this:

Pros:
~Controlling tanks and vehicles directly is awesome
~Visceral ground-level combat and explosions: other games tend to be far away from the combat
~Adequate graphics, looks good at times.

Cons:
~Smooth gameplay is far from guaranteed
~Multiplayer is unreliable enough of the time to be a deterrent
~Finding a playable PVP game takes too long, including the issue of games ruined by laggers/potato PC players/quitters
~UI is unreadable / mouse cursor not visible unless you reduce to non-native resolution
~Price

Seems like most of those are an issue only for dedicated MP players. The performance issues on Liberation maps really got better after the last performance update, and it's even better on Talvisota or Ostfront maps. And if you're lagging on low settings while playing SP, then it's not really the games' fault. Looking for an MP game is tedious, but if you limit the distance of the host from your computer + set a high performance requirement, you can get really good performance, even in team games.

I play for PVP, as do hundreds of others. If there was a better AI on offer I would try that, but as it stands it plays like a toddler. Just saying.

[The Curran]

hate to break it to you but most of MoW II looks pretty much the same as Mowas2 with a glow up

[Raubritter]

GEM2 is an astounding engine, but it really is archaic at this point. The main issue IMO remains the unability to have truly vertical maps, because right now you can't have one walkable surface on top of another (for example, units can't move below a bridge or walkway). That's especially annoying when making urban or industrial maps.

The other issue is probably the unability of GEM2 to work well with modern configs, even with a really good PC the performance increase compared to using an obsolete config is marginal.

That said, making a new engine is an insane endeavor. Not many devs do it, and most of those that do are AAA. Sure a new engine with all the versatility of GEM2 but optimized for modern configs, better pathfinding, better vehicle physics, and multiple "floors" would be great, but realistically it could only done for a hypothetical GoH 2, in the future.

[Raubritter]

Originally posted by slowly dismantling:

Originally posted by Castrol:

Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront It is the best tactical game in real time of the WW2.

~Price

I don't think this one is fair. Goh is 30$, for that price you get pretty every vehicle, gun and infantry that was fielded by the USSR and Germany, including really obscure stuff like the SU-100Y. Plus of course campaigns, conquest, PvP and the editor. The amount of content is really good for the price tag.