Start the add-on, press record, go through the whole action of voting, press stop. Save the macro and then tell it to run. Walk away from your computer. I'm sure there are similar things for Chrome, Opera and *shudder* IE.
It won't work because of the verification code you have to put in each time you vote nice try though
I'm also curious what tech they "piggy back" from the other games. Feel free to give me a technical answer. No need to dumb it down for me.
Create a player was an initiative by EA bby central tech, then implemented across all games. Dynasty mode UI and all league and stat distribution systems.
EA's chop shop reuses assets from previous years. Also staples center is the same exterior in all games. Same goes for all shared arenas.
Physics tech, graphics and rendering tech, shader pipelines, and implementation pipelines.
;/
Aside from core mechanics of the actual gameplay, most EA Sports games use the same engines assets, network architecture, scripts, tools etc.
Just for fun, count how many EA logos you can before you actuallt play.
Create a player was an initiative by EA bby central tech, then implemented across all games. Dynasty mode UI and all league and stat distribution systems.
EA's chop shop reuses assets from previous years. Also staples center is the same exterior in all games. Same goes for all shared arenas.
Physics tech, graphics and rendering tech, shader pipelines, and implementation pipelines.
;/
Aside from core mechanics of the actual gameplay, most EA Sports games use the same engines assets, network architecture, scripts, tools etc.
Just for fun, count how many EA logos you can before you actuallt play.
My biggest pet peeve is that we have one football game that is vastly superior in its gameplay compared to the other one when, as far as I'm concerned, they should be built entirely on the same tech. Given that they are both built by Tiburon, I'm floored how NCAA can just have a much better control scheme and why they think it'd be a good idea to have Madden have different controls.
I do like that we're rolling out Frostbite to more studios however. Making an engine is damned expensive and given how much it can cost to license one, getting a really good one in house is long overdue. Although I doubt we'll be rolling out Frostbite for EA Sports titles.
As for asset reuse, it's no surprise. No game studio would be able to roll out new tech every year for an annual game release. It'd be retarded if the developed completely independent game engines for each sports franchise. Especially when looking at sports independent things such as the graphics engine. Though I'd hesitate to say NHL "piggy backs" on it any more than a different EA Sports title. We do tech sharing with EAC here in Edmonton because in some cases it just makes sense.
Though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "Dynasty mode UI." EA Sports games do share similar menu UI's, but I'm not sure what things would make you specifically call out dynasty mode.
My biggest pet peeve is that we have one football game that is vastly superior in its gameplay compared to the other one when, as far as I'm concerned, they should be built entirely on the same tech. Given that they are both built by Tiburon, I'm floored how NCAA can just have a much better control scheme and why they think it'd be a good idea to have Madden have different controls.
I do like that we're rolling out Frostbite to more studios however. Making an engine is damned expensive and given how much it can cost to license one, getting a really good one in house is long overdue. Although I doubt we'll be rolling out Frostbite for EA Sports titles.
As for asset reuse, it's no surprise. No game studio would be able to roll out new tech every year for an annual game release. It'd be retarded if the developed completely independent game engines for each sports franchise. Especially when looking at sports independent things such as the graphics engine. Though I'd hesitate to say NHL "piggy backs" on it any more than a different EA Sports title. We do tech sharing with EAC here in Edmonton because in some cases it just makes sense.
Though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "Dynasty mode UI." EA Sports games do share similar menu UI's, but I'm not sure what things would make you specifically call out dynasty mode.
Oh, I meant that more in terms of the 'Dynasty Mode' 'Be a Pro' modes both borrow heavily from the same league/stat tracking/and game systems modes. Nothing directly borrowed from gameplay. UI is pretty much the same scaleform scripts designs n layouts with tweaked flash assets.. No?
I haven't worked on an annual itirative game since Tony Hawk 8, but the amount of re-used work might have bordered on 'expansion pack' territory (why its likely milked to death and dead in a gutter next to guitar hero).
Im jelly about frostbite. ;/. Very very jelly. IMO Makes UDK look like PS2.
Oh, I meant that more in terms of the 'Dynasty Mode' 'Be a Pro' modes both borrow heavily from the same league/stat tracking/and game systems modes. Nothing directly borrowed from gameplay. UI is pretty much the same scaleform scripts designs n layouts with tweaked flash assets.. No?
I haven't worked on an annual itirative game since Tony Hawk 8, but the amount of re-used work might have bordered on 'expansion pack' territory (why its likely milked to death and dead in a gutter next to guitar hero).
Im jelly about frostbite. ;/. Very very jelly. IMO Makes UDK look like PS2.
Guitar Hero was beaten into the ground for sure. I think the seasonal nature of sports is what keeps people coming back. I don't typically get the games every year because they are so incremental. But I think people honestly just like roster updates, since the games continue to sell so well (Especially FIFA now).
Frostbite is interesting. Lots of challenges getting ramped up, and I find it does some things.... oddly (not necessarily bad). But some stuff it does it does really really really really well haha.
Create a player was an initiative by EA bby central tech, then implemented across all games. Dynasty mode UI and all league and stat distribution systems.
EA's chop shop reuses assets from previous years. Also staples center is the same exterior in all games. Same goes for all shared arenas.
Physics tech, graphics and rendering tech, shader pipelines, and implementation pipelines.
;/
Aside from core mechanics of the actual gameplay, most EA Sports games use the same engines assets, network architecture, scripts, tools etc.
Just for fun, count how many EA logos you can before you actuallt play.
What you describe -- component reuse -- is the rule, not the exception, in just about every company in every part of the software industry.
The only companies that re-write every component from scratch for every game are the imaginary ones in your head.
You have not presented damning evidence; the fact you think you have means you don't have a bloody clue.
What you describe -- component reuse -- is the rule, not the exception, in just about every company in every part of the software industry.
The only companies that re-write every component from scratch for every game are the imaginary ones in your head.
You have not presented damning evidence; the fact you think you have means you don't have a bloody clue.
Wow hostile much? I guess my 12 years working in games development equates to not having a bloody clue, but whatever "Mr.Authority".
As for component re-use.. yeah there's certain things here n there pretty standard, like game engines, render engines, havoc, Bink, etc,
but this isn't really simple component re-use. I'd say it's bordering on selling an annual $60 roster/stat pack change, then slapping a new face on the box.
My co-worker used to work at EAC 10 years ago. Every year their job was to revamp ONE core issue from the previous year. In 2002 he was supposed to revamp the physics. Upon looking at the code, he realized the puck used to GAIN velocity when it hit the crossbar. This was something written in the physics engine since they made the jump to 3D.
It's essentially the EXACT SAME GAME with the exception of roster/stat changes, and 1 revamped feature. (That revamped feature might either come from, or be used in almost any other EA Sports game).
Wow hostile much? I guess my 12 years working in games development equates to not having a bloody clue, but whatever "Mr.Authority".
As for component re-use.. yeah there's certain things here n there pretty standard, like game engines, render engines, havoc, Bink, etc,
but this isn't really simple component re-use. I'd say it's bordering on selling an annual $60 roster/stat pack change, then slapping a new face on the box.
My co-worker used to work at EAC 10 years ago. Every year their job was to revamp ONE core issue from the previous year. In 2002 he was supposed to revamp the physics. Upon looking at the code, he realized the puck used to GAIN velocity when it hit the crossbar. This was something written in the physics engine since they made the jump to 3D.
It's essentially the EXACT SAME GAME with the exception of roster/stat changes, and 1 revamped feature. (That revamped feature might either come from, or be used in almost any other EA Sports game).
A second-hand anecdote from over ten years ago (by your admission) means slightly more than squat when trying to show evidence for any general pattern.
Now, if you're upset that a company isn't innovating, then that's a fair point to make. But your screed about a software development company only being successful because they dare re-use components makes no sense. At all. I can't fathom how you're a developer, if that's what you mean by "working in games development" means. Every software project in any industry stands on the shoulders of giant.
P.S. Would love to hear you explain what "implementation pipeline" means. What a bizarre construct of words.
Wow hostile much? I guess my 12 years working in games development equates to not having a bloody clue, but whatever "Mr.Authority".
As for component re-use.. yeah there's certain things here n there pretty standard, like game engines, render engines, havoc, Bink, etc,
but this isn't really simple component re-use. I'd say it's bordering on selling an annual $60 roster/stat pack change, then slapping a new face on the box.
My co-worker used to work at EAC 10 years ago. Every year their job was to revamp ONE core issue from the previous year. In 2002 he was supposed to revamp the physics. Upon looking at the code, he realized the puck used to GAIN velocity when it hit the crossbar. This was something written in the physics engine since they made the jump to 3D.
It's essentially the EXACT SAME GAME with the exception of roster/stat changes, and 1 revamped feature. (That revamped feature might either come from, or be used in almost any other EA Sports game).
I enjoyed that NBA Live 2002 (or around there) still had legacy Genesis code in it haha.
EA Sports does revamp their engines periodically though, in part to just reduce code bloat like that. Engines can also evolve. Dragon Age's Eclipse engine hardly resembles the Aurora engine, even though Aurora evolved into Eclipse, for example.
A second-hand anecdote from over ten years ago (by your admission) means slightly more than squat when trying to show evidence for any general pattern.
Now, if you're upset that a company isn't innovating, then that's a fair point to make. But your screed about a software development company only being successful because they dare re-use components makes no sense. At all. I can't fathom how you're a developer, if that's what you mean by "working in games development" means. Every software project in any industry stands on the shoulders of giant.
P.S. Would love to hear you explain what "implementation pipeline" means. What a bizarre construct of words.
I'm surprised that you haven't called him out over his hidden agenda and "vested interests" yet. He obviously works for some sort of game developer and by your logic him not coming out and saying that and deceiving us all is immoral. Its obvious that you have worked in the gaming industry as well, why haven't you declared your vested interests yet???? I expected better out of you after calling other posters out over the same thing.
I'm surprised that you haven't called him out over his hidden agenda and "vested interests" yet. He obviously works for some sort of game developer and by your logic him not coming out and saying that and deceiving us all is immoral. Its obvious that you have worked in the gaming industry as well, why haven't you declared your vested interests yet???? I expected better out of you after calling other posters out over the same thing.
So hypocritical.
I may or may not work for the same company as QAA2 alanschu. So, strictly speaking, I have been consistent to talk about the argument on its general terms. I have not made any specific defense about any specific company, so any labeling of me being hypocritical is a cheap shot on your part, and not at all born out by the record. Feel free to review my comment history.
I also made it very clear that, if the issue being raised is really about a lack of innovation, then that's a fair point to make. And I agree with that point completely. The games industry, by and large, has been far too reliant on eye-candy rendering, instead of developing deep gameplay, especially AI. (e.g. making a game smarter/harder not "solving a real problem")
In fact, I've stayed well within the bounds of reasonable discussion on this topic, as I am allowed to be.
I may or may not work for the same company as QAA2 alanschu. So, strictly speaking, I have been consistent to talk about the argument on its general terms. I have not made any specific defense about any specific company, so any labeling of me being hypocritical is a cheap shot on your part, and not at all born out by the record. Feel free to review my comment history.
I also made it very clear that, if the issue being raised is really about a lack of innovation, then that's a fair point to make. And I agree with that point completely. The games industry, by and large, has been far too reliant on eye-candy rendering, instead of developing deep gameplay, especially AI. (e.g. making a game smarter/harder not "solving a real problem")
In fact, I've stayed well within the bounds of reasonable discussion on this topic, as I am allowed to be.
The fact is that you work in the gaming industry, or have in the past. You have yet to divulge this info. And you are sharing your opinions and stating facts on the topic which is based in the gaming industry.
It wasn't no more than a month ago that you were upset that another poster did this about an industry that he works in.
Here is an example of you sharing your opinion's and stating facts about things in your industry, past or present. All without divulging any "vested interests".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giant Moo
What you describe -- component reuse -- is the rule, not the exception, in just about every company in every part of the software industry.
The only companies that re-write every component from scratch for every game are the imaginary ones in your head.
You have not presented damning evidence; the fact you think you have means you don't have a bloody clue.
P.S. Would love to hear you explain what "implementation pipeline" means. What a bizarre construct of words.
Well, let me start with something I work with directly.
Look at the standard shader pipeline on the skin tones.
NHL 2006:
Standard Half-Lambert shader to simulate the SSS.
NHL 2012:
This is using a transition mask (essential the same tech as half lambert, just clamping the B and G values).
This is launch title tech. This relies on vertex lighting over pixel lighting.
Since then, studios have implemented BRDF Ramp Shaders, Then the Nvidia skin shading, Crytek's Screen Space SSS, followed by more complex multi-layered SSS used in UDK3, (and from the looks of it possibly frostbite).
Well you clearly know me! I demand a hint!
