Old 01-23-2018, 07:47 PM
Onmastikon Onmastikon is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 189

I've heard that the drawback with "this engine" (whatever "this" means in light of what has been said above) is that with it, movement skills which do not target an enemy but rather a space on the ground cannot be implemented. Is this accurate? I've heard that this is the reason that they do not exist in this game, it is a constraint of the engine.
If this should prove to be accurate, I do hope that the engine could be modified or updated or changed for GD2. That is one very clear advantage, to me, that Path of Exile has. (I really find that game very, very good, and if it were playable without internet I would find it at least as good and perhaps in some ways superior to GD, but of course only in some ways.)
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 09:46 PM
ASYLUM101's Avatar
ASYLUM101 ASYLUM101 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 7,947

Yes and no.

There is ONE movement skill that doesn't require a target, a blink, that works without a target but it couldn't work in GD (without mods) because it allows you to bypass all sorts of obstacles. It's more of a dev tool than anything.

Dynamite? No need, warp over that barrier.
Scrap? Don't bother building that bridge dude, just blink across.
Interesting cliff? Yeah its ok, once you teleport down there good luck getting out.

Yeah, the teleport skill that exists lets you teleport ANYWHERE. You can add a cooldown, you can kinda limit the range for it, but if you limit a teleport like that, why have one at all?

So, yes, teleport skills can work, but the problem is the engine doesn't really have good ways to limit your movement with said skill so it's not really viable. A jump/roll atm isn't possible, there is no template or animation possible for that.

To make these things work, it would require some engine upgrades for sure.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 10:07 PM
ZaKaRuNe's Avatar
ZaKaRuNe ZaKaRuNe is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Fairfield IL USA
Posts: 190

Originally Posted by medierra View Post
[..] we move on to GD2 and [..] we go on to GD2 [..]
Originally Posted by durruti View Post
half-life 3 confirmed.
My 50 cents on this ( Even tho it's off-topic ) is that I hope Grim Dawn 2 never happens, I really don't think I am the only one. I would love to see Grim dawn cover the whole world map and become the WoW of ARPGs. Packed with all the stuff we already love.

I want the game to keep going. No sense in stopping something your making money and yeah - I respect working on the same project for a while gets really boring. However, most of us have the same job we to go to everyday and just deal with it so I don't know what else to say lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Base Game cleared, Current Part-time Modder, My Mod is getting there! Wanna check out a tiny bit of what i am working on? Hit up my Steampage! http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198037881900/screenshots/#scrollTop=0
Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 06:08 PM
LoreKeeper LoreKeeper is offline
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 21

In contrast - I'm all in favor for GD2; but start by re-creating GD1 in a sexy new DirectX15 engine. And then expand to cover the whole world ^_^
Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 10:01 PM
Athis Athis is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ireland
Posts: 50

I think the current Grim Dawn has a lot of possibilities for expansion; starting over with a new engine etc I'm not so sure about.
If they are going to start over, then do something new; but rehashing GD?
The current game can be developed and expanded incrementally as long as there is a player base willing to buy the expansions. I'm thinking of the kind of development cycle that Paradox games go through; or Firaxis; or Warcraft as someone else mentioned above.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2018, 01:59 AM
Goober Goober is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 204

Originally Posted by medierra View Post
Another major factor is that we didn't just get the engine, we got the entire code base, which saved a massive amount of time / money because we didn't have to recreate an entire ARPG gameplay, feature set and tools from scratch.

Even if you license a commercial engine, you still have a ton of work to do before you have any semblance of a game - unless what you're making is very similar to what that engine was created to do. If you're using Unreal to make a Gears of War clone, then you'd already have native support for a lot of the gameplay you wanted to create. If you're making an ARPG, you're not starting with much besides and engine and then you have to sift through or even try to rework existing code that is irrelevant to your game or not suited for it. Even the way levels are made in Unreal is not great for the way we wanted to build GD, so we'd either have to figure out how to work with it or create a new level editor and terrain system.

We'd still have to do a bunch of work before we could even click on the ground and make a character run around in an isometric view. Then you need to add loot mechanics, player inventory, skills, a skill system, combat mechanics and formulas... basically all the things that make an ARPG.

Starting with the TQ engine, we have everything, in terms of programming, we need to make a game with all the gameplay, features and UI of TQ. Then it's just a question of what we want to improve, add or remove. We've reworked huge portions of both the engine and game. On the engine side, we recently rewrote the renderer from scratch and previously replaced the physics engine, pathing engine, shader model, sound engine, added post effects, etc. The only thing really limiting us from replacing all of the engine components over time is that it has to support the art we've already created and we're sort of obligated to support older versions of directX because we supported them with the initial release and people running older systems wouldn't be able to play if we didn't.

Another issue is that a lot of what people interpret as being the look of the engine is actually the look of the art itself and how it was made. We started working on GD 8 years ago now and expectations for the size of texture resolutions and triangles on models was lower than they are today. A lot of what has improved with the look of the game over the years is just us updating art / redoing textures.

The thing that might have the biggest visual impact now would be to redo lighting and the way materials are rendered but that isn't really feasible unless we move on to GD2 and leave all this current art behind. If we go on to GD2 and no longer have to support older DX version or existing art, then we'd be free to make bigger updates to the engine.

Like Kamil said, the date an engine was originally created is sort of irrelevant since you can continually update it and eventually replace every part of it.
Considering the limitations you have to deal with, I'd say all of you at Crate are doing an amazing job on Grim Dawn.
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Grim Dawn ©2018 Crate Entertainment, LLC.
vBulletin® 3.8.4 ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.