   project offset
  Have any of you seen that project offset. The technology their using is amazing.Its like a cg movie game.Realy hard to beleive only three people developed it.If you haven't seen it go to www.projectoffset.com   
  Project Offset isn't just 3 guys. They have at least a dozen guys on their team now. The lead programmer is pretty damn good, but he and his two lead artists worked professionally before starting this new company. They aren't exactly n00bs [wink]   ;  Personally I rather dislike their work. I don't have any problem with the technical aspects of their work (as far as I know, which is nearly nothing...). It's their artwork. It's difficult to explain, but basically I find their work tacky. It's overly shiny, and bloom/blur effects are used to the point that they wreck the visuals. In short, I think their art direction is way, way off the mark.As far as the technical stuff, it always looked competent, especially in the early days, but ever since they were announced they've continued to be complete vapor. And frankly, they're not all that special looking anymore -- there's plenty of other tech that is as good or better.(Also I hate every movie they cited as inspiration, and their story sounds idiotic. That's par for games, though.)   ;  Promit, you were a little harsh, weren't you? Well, you say what you think, I respect that.Quote:Original post by PromitAs far as the technical stuff, it always looked competent, especially in the early days, but ever since they were announced they've continued to be complete vapor.Pherhaps true, but the date they stopped showing progress coincidentally matches the date they were bought by Intel.In fact, Intel has some Project Offset's assets shown in his webpage.Since they (Prj.Off.) claimed at that moment that their engine was highly multi-core scalable, I suspect Intel uses it as a basis for their Intel Partner Program; and my guess they're not interesting in finishing the actual game.But that's my hunch, I have no proof to back it up.Quote:Original post by PromitAs far as the technical stuff, it always looked competent, especially in the early days, but ever since they were announced they've continued to be complete vapor. And frankly, they're not all that special looking anymore -- there's plenty of other tech that is as good or better.I agree today is easy (at least for me) to get to that level of graphics quality (when it turns to programming, I suck on the artwork)But I have to admit, if you look back into the news archive, they were aiming to use shaders way long ago, back in 2004. Some people still believed shaders weren't the future, and there weren't solid engines to handle them yet (with full integration to the game, etc). In other words, I'm trying to say they were visionaries in that aspect.Still their work is impressive, but yet vaporware for most of us.PS: Promit, when is your next GD.Net daily comming out? (This sounds like those n00bs asking for a game: "when will the next version be released?" [lol])   ;Quote:Original post by Matias GoldbergQuote:Original post by PromitAs far as the technical stuff, it always looked competent, especially in the early days, but ever since they were announced they've continued to be complete vapor.Pherhaps true, but the date they stopped showing progress coincidentally matches the date they were bought by Intel.In fact, Intel has some Project Offset's assets shown in his webpage.Since they (Prj.Off.) claimed at that moment that their engine was highly multi-core scalable, I suspect Intel uses it as a basis for their Intel Partner Program; and my guess they're not interesting in finishing the actual game.But that's my hunch, I have no proof to back it up.Fair enough, but it's been four years. That's a long time to build a game...Quote:But I have to admit, if you look back into the news archive, they were aiming to use shaders way long ago, back in 2004. Some people still believed shaders weren't the future, and there weren't solid engines to handle them yet (with full integration to the game, etc). I don't agree with that. By 2002 DirectX 9 was already out, with shader model 2.0. It'd been obvious that shaders were the future at least since the GeForce 3; IMO, there's a case to be made that it should've always been obvious that shaders were the way forward, just by looking at RenderMan.Quote:PS: Promit, when is your next GD.Net daily comming out? (This sounds like those n00bs asking for a game: "when will the next version be released?" [lol])Every Tuesday.   ;  Thank you for posting this :D.  I had seen this before awhile back, and for the last couple days wanted to check up on the site, but couldn't for the life of me remember what the name of it was (all that kept coming to mind was 'Fallout' ...which obviously wasn't right).   