Warband at E3

[winrehs007]

Thanks Vortex for patiently answering my questions. .

[Lt. of the tower]

Edit: Is this source reliable..?? Because it has the sys req for warband...look at the bottom part..

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=572&game=Mount%20and%20Blade:%20Warband

Don't think so. The requirements will probably be higher..

I think the requirements will definally be much higher than what was stipulated on that site.

[Janlulhannes]

Nah, I'm sure you could run the game with that.
You would just have 5 FPS or so

Alot of game-devs give minimum specs that are retarded just to attract more buyers....

[HopitKonsta]

do you maybe need more powerful comp than in native/ first M&B?

[Blead]

If you want to play it with High graph's Yes. but Armagan also said you could tone down the graphics.

[*Spear*]

This is good...but also sad..
I like mount and blade and the way it is, the gameplay is awesome and i no doubt believe it will carry to the expansion...but i really don't have an uber computer! It was so perfect...do at least the physics get better or anything?

by the way too much to read on this thread....but where can i get this expansion?

[Banok]

are the new graphics in warband designed to be better for performance or simply better visually, or maybe a bit of both? I dont know enough about the technical side of graphics to know.

- Overhauled graphics; HDR, FSAA, Depth of Field, Soft particles, Tone Mapping and many other effects are all now implemented.
- Majority of Models are being redone.

so when they say models being redone, is that to improve performance, visuals or both? in screenshots I've seen they look better but what is the focus basically. will I have to turn battlesizer up or down?

[Oyipggy]

I think a lot of it is for visual effect, but I doubt that performance will just be ignored. You should be able to play the game with it looking just as poor as you can currently make it. (Which is pretty much how I play it, so I hope so anyway.)

[Turok]

In response to some earlier replies:

I don't know how many of you have used a bow in real life, but I have a hickory recurve bow and use it often. A bow can be extremely accurate. It's all about the user and knowing his/her bow, to be quite honest. I have no problems killing deer at thirty yards with trade points and my wooden bow. My compound is another matter entirely. I was rather frustrated with the game's archery at first, but then remembered that I am not my character. He/she needs to learn how to use the bow properly.

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

I'm pretty sure Warband is going to be awesome.

Still, I have a dream for a hypothetical Mount & Blade 2: a procedural animation/physics engine, like Euphoria Engine.
It will be a great add to immersion in this kind of game.

Just imagine about it: a software which can handle any kind of blow on an human/horse model and automatically *generate* appropriate animations for it.

[SupaNinjaMan]

I'm pretty sure Warband is going to be awesome.

Still, I have a dream for a hypothetical Mount & Blade 2: a procedural animation/physics engine, like Euphoria Engine.
It will be a great add to immersion in this kind of game.

Just imagine about it: a software which can handle any kind of blow on an human/horse model and automatically *generate* appropriate animations for it.

Euphoria isn't an engine, it's a buncha code they add to a preexisting engine to enhance shit.

We also looked into Euphoria, but not only is that not a physics engine, it's not even a product -- you basically hire their programming team to work on incorporating dynamic physics animation into your engine. This is extremely expensive, and not necessary when we can implement the same techniques ourselves.

Link: http://www.moddb.com/games/overgrowth/news/creating-the-overgrowth-physics-engine

I love these guys, read their blog, learn about what indie game makers think about.

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Euphoria isn't an engine, it's a buncha code they add to a preexisting engine to enhance shit.

Maybe what are you trying to say is "Euphoria isn't a graphic engine", and you are absolutely right.
Problem is I never said otherwise. I've spoken about "animation/physics engine, which is what Euphoria actually is.
It adds to (almost) any other graphic engine in the same way Havok does with Source Engine, for instance.

[SupaNinjaMan]

Euphoria isn't an engine, it's a buncha code they add to a preexisting engine to enhance shit.

Maybe what are you trying to say is "Euphoria isn't a graphic engine", and you are absolutely right.
Problem is I never said otherwise. I've spoken about "animation/physics engine, which is what Euphoria actually is.
It adds to (almost) any other graphic engine in the same way Havok does with Source Engine, for instance.

then it isn't an engine, it's an addition bit of code to an engine to enhance said engine. go to the havok site, they mention no engine, but "middleware components"

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Are you joking or what? Any *engine* is a middleware.
And Havok is universally known as a "physics engine".

Oh, well, whatever. Say what you like, I really don't care, after all.
Point of my post surely wasn't to argue about this bullshit with you.

[SupaNinjaMan]

what i was trying to point out was euphoria isn't a physics engine, just merely middleware that runs along side the animations engine, more closely related to animations than physics.

it looks good and all, but it's not necessary for procedurally generated animations.