Pantheon - First Gameplay stream starting Now

[HallyVee]

Originally Posted by Badwar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol. U srs?

He's right. Objecting to the engine shows either lack of understanding of what a game engine is and does, or an obsession with either brand names or minor flaws inherent to the engine.

Either way it's not a legitimate complaint, for most gamers.

[Tankdan]

Originally Posted by Agecroft [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What does the engine have to do w it?

Let me strongly emphasize that I'm not a game developer and know basically nothing, at all.

But MY understanding is that Unity engine makes creating a basic game world insanely easy, to the level that you don't even need to design assets, you purchase them. Need a cool looking monster? Just buy it from Unity. So basically, making something like they had in the Demo was a lot easier than we think it was, and doesn't necessarily mean the game is even 1% built. Maybe someone with experience can chime in.

[Erati]

This looks great- if we found ourselves here we most certainly will find ourselves in Pantheon as well

I guarantee it.jpg

[Agecroft]

Originally Posted by Tankdan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let me strongly emphasize that I'm not a game developer and know basically nothing, at all.

But MY understanding is that Unity engine makes creating a basic game world insanely easy, to the level that you don't even need to design assets, you purchase them. Need a cool looking monster? Just buy it from Unity. So basically, making something like they had in the Demo was a lot easier than we think it was, and doesn't necessarily mean the game is even 1% built. Maybe someone with experience can chime in.

There's a lot more to it than what you infer. First off, the unity engine they're using is not stock. They have made a lot of rendering changes to it. Second, in order for multiple clients (think of this as the role the unity engine is filling) to be able to play together you need a central server for them to log into. That server (in actuality multiple servers working together) isn't just magically created it requires a lot of programming. Now add to that how smooth the timing was when they were playing that doesn't just just happen either it takes programming and a lot of time and effort.

There was no ghosting, no loot lag, no inventory lag, no ability lag...all of that requires back and forth communication between the client and the server. Exactly what this communication entails depends on how the client/server are written but generally that involves the client needing to send a request, wait for the server to authenticate and then receive a reply before it can do anything but sit idle and render/take input from the user. The client does preliminary authorization but everything is ultimately dependent on the server and that communication. If there is any lag in that transaction you're going to see it manifested in ghosting characters and lag or timeouts.

Everytime your character moves the client is most likely making a preliminary check to authenticate that (is where the character wants to move to legal?) moving the character and then if the server does not agree you'd see the character moving back. Nothing like that happened. All of this communication looked flawless the entire time.

Think about all the other PCs (in this case there were 2 groups so maybe 10) moving around and sending requests to the server (and the server sending messages back) all the strain that could put on the server if there was any lag in that - you'd see it reflected in your client, or in this case the client that Monty was running. Now all the NPCs that the server is also processing (most are idle but there are some that are roamers and others maybe buffing other npcs depending on AI). As soon as they were aggro'd they reacted on the client we were viewing.

There is a lot done behind the scenes to make that stream look smooth.

Now it is pre-alpha so time will tell. No doubt whatever functions and communication they have now will need a lot of changes when more clients are added in and communicating with the server but that is what alpha/beta/stress testing is for.

As far as it not being "worth $30" because it's on unity well that just does not hold water. Any rendering engine can be written in a relatively short amount of time and just as easily as Unity could - that could also easily use stock assets. Unity gets a bad rap because it is popular and freely available but it's not really a fair assessment.

They wont release a game on any engine that uses stock assets. I've watched streams of them creating that zone (and others) we saw piece by piece using assets they've created. That is very different from using easily replaceable low quality npc/pc models for a pre-alpha video.

They freely admit they only have a few zones and a small number of assets created but that is to be expected at this point. The major breakthrough for that video is that the backbone is there. The server/client communication and the foundation of the gameplay.

[fadetree]

Ah. Yes you can buy them, but only from a very small set of pre-built things, which many people would immediately recognize. There's another way to look at it, anyway:

1. You can have a small indie company that resolutely decides to write and design everything themselves, including basic assets like dirt and trees. This company takes 5 years to get a playable demo rolling, and they run out of money and nobody gets a game.
OR
2. You can have a small indie company that utilizes a known graphics library that is well-proven and powerful enough for what they ultimately need, and they use some common assets such as basic background dirt and rocks, and maybe for an alpha demo some creature models. They get a working demo up fast enough to get some more funding, and then build out everything else as they go. The end result is game that people actually get to play, and has very little if any non-custom environmental objects.

What approach would you rather they take?

I'm not even saying that Pantheon did 2, I believe there's a LOT more custom stuff in there than you think, but you see what I'm saying. It would be like a guy who wants to write a book, but decides he has to write his own word processor first, ignoring the fact that there are many already perfectly good word processing 'toolsets' available.

[jarshale]

People still hate on Unity? It's extremely versatile and easy to use, but still requires work. You can't just right click > create MMO and get something that looks like Pantheon does.

[dude]

Seriously looks like crap, some kind of cross between WOW and EQ next. They/We will never find a replacement for EQ classic no way no how says the Dude.

[Valse]

Originally Posted by dude [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seriously looks like crap, some kind of cross between WOW and EQ next. They/We will never find a replacement for EQ classic no way no how says the Dude.

Why would you want a "replacement EQ"? Its buggy at best and tedious at worst. Pantheon looks like a good mix between the spirit of EQ and "hard(er)" mmos and the convenience of the modern iterations of the genre. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

[jcr4990]

Hating on a game cause of Unity is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Stop being dumb.

[Tankdan]

Originally Posted by dude [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seriously looks like crap, some kind of cross between WOW and EQ next. They/We will never find a replacement for EQ classic no way no how says the Dude.

What exactly did you expect it to look like after 17 years of technological advancement?