Square Enix now using Unreal Engine 3!

from: http://rpgamer.com/news/Q1-2007/012507a.html

At least they didn't go with the Havok engine.:)

Yeah, UE3 has nothing to do with FFXIII or, apparently, any Sony exclusives. Good move on their part.

[COLOR="Yellow"]Einhander sequel anyone?

Mmhmmmm[/COLOR]

We need more original FPS games. I hope they actually put it to good use...

We need more original games in general.

Chance of Square using this to make an original, online FPS for the Nintendo DS that everyone will buy: 0%

Chance of Square using this to make a bland, PS3 exclusive that will be forgotten within a month: 9000%

[COLOR="Yellow"]You want Square-Enix to use the Unreal Engine 3 on a DS game?[/COLOR]

Apparently he does, because it's worth it. :cookie:

And of course, since it's on the PS3 (I mean, come on), it must be bland and far too probable for it to go in that direction.

I was making references to what other people said. GameMiestro said that Square would make a bland PS3 exclusive while Big Boss said it would be nice to try their hand on non-RPG games. Seeing as how the White Engine is being used in their upcoming XIII, I said that a game exclusively made by Square for the PS3 that isn't an RPG must be bland, but only because it's on the PS3. I was making a funny. :(

And what's this about Square making bland RPGs? :(

... yeah I know.

And, though FFXII was an amazing game, before that the last good game Square/Square-Enix made was Einhander back in '98.

[quote=Aioros;527059][COLOR=Yellow]You want Square-Enix to use the Unreal Engine 3 on a DS game?[/COLOR]

Who wouldn't want UE3 running on DS? :p

No we don't.

Yes we do. Better yet, 25 hour movies. Yeah.

[COLOR="Yellow"]I shall raise that bet. Make it 50 hours, Xenosaga will have have nothing on this.

Like its so hard to press a button and skip a movie if you don't wanna see it.:rolleyes: [/COLOR]

[quote=Aioros;527059][COLOR=Yellow]You want Square-Enix to use the Unreal Engine 3 on a DS game?[/COLOR]

As I clearly stated, there is ZERO chance of this happening. So it doesn't really matter if I want it or not. :)

I dont think that was the point of the question. I think how realistic it is of happening is irrelevant.

Whether you can skip or not still doesn't change the fact that cutscene time is about 20x more than gameplay time.

Exactly Zeta. For every 1 minute of gameplay there is approximately 26 hours of cutscenes. After playing Metal Gear Solid I noticed I was basically holding a controller for 5 days straight.

I think some people are taking the cutscene times waaay to seriously. Skipping cut-scenes in that game will likely cause you to enter a battle without knowing WTH is going on. You can skip them if you have seen them already but there IS NOT more scenes then gameplay.

Come on, a little story woudn't kill ya. Especially since that part in games is usually lacking. This engine has to bring some much needed power.

There is more cut scenes than gameplay in Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2.
First play on number 1 my game time came to about 13 hours. Playing it a second time I skipped all the scenes which brought the gameplay time down to between 4-5 hours.

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;529944]So? Don't play the game. lol hard

[COLOR=Yellow]I'm not even sure some of the people here bashing the game even played it in the first place. Do i need to bring back the Speedfreak/Chrono Cross incident from way back?
[/COLOR]

Played both the original and its remake. The only part I liked was that whole "lol look at all this psychic **** I can do" thing with Psycho Mantis.

I enjoyed both titles. I just wish I got to play more. Also as enjoyable as the game itself is, and as interesting as the story can be the Metal Gear Solid title is stupidly overrated. It really isnt that stealthy.

[quote]Come on, a little story woudn't kill ya
Super Mario Bros has a little story. Sonic 2 has a little story. Metal Gear has little gameplay. You're confusing it with something else my friend.

I'd have to agree about there being more cutscenes than gameplay, jokes aside.

Fanboys and other idiots still treat MGS like the most stealthy games ever. I wasnt referring to anyone in this topic, just gamers in general.

I've never heard an MGS fan say that the series was the most stealthy. Splinter Cell is the more serious of the two. I just like the sci-fi Japanese edge that MGS has.

I have. It always seems people are going on about how 'deep and stealthy the gameplay is' which is something I never understood because even at the time it was made it certainly wasnt that great.

It is deep, that's certainly correct. And it is fairly stealthy. Like I said, you can do more in MGS than Splinter Cell for example. The gameplay is a ton more varied and what you can do with Snake is more diverse, stealth-wise, than Sam Fisher. So, if that's what you're hearing, it would be correct. They're not saying it's the most stealthy, but it's very deep.

Also, consider that there's, like, two series that focus on stealth--MGS and Splinter Cell. So that's not saying much anyways.

Deep as in the stealth is deep. It isnt. The most stealthy thing you can do is hide in a box. I wasnt referring to the shooting melons thing or other quirky parts of the game.

Theres more than those series that focus on stealth. Hitman and Mission Impossible are other ones. Even if Mission Impossible is shocking.

If the only stealthy thing you found in the whole game was hiding in a box, then you're playing MGS waaaaaaaay wrong.

I didnt say it was the only stealthy thing I found in the whole game.

"You're playing it wrong" has always seemed like a pretty desperate excuse to me. The game doesn't teach you a thing, but then that's something I've always been accustomed to from playing Miyamoto's games.

I don't think it'd look as good, though.