After the trailer here is some tech demo footage.  No doubt incorporating some of the technologies likely to be in the new game.

I did like the meat cube/fluid orb, 100+ enemies on screen, new water effects and the promise of expansive environments.

http://media.video.ign.com/ev/sv.html?dlURL=xbox360movies.ign.com/xbox360/video/article/853/853573/unreal_techdemo_022008_flvlowwide.flv&article_ID=853573 

There won't be 100 enemies on screen in game though. The AI isn't sufficient for it. All the locust had to do was run down a street in the scene they showed, and even so, some were running into cars etc. It is nice to see that the engine can handle rendering 100 moving enemies at once though.

The meat cube and liquid orb was pretty cool. They could really do a lot with those effects and tools.

Overall they've done some nice work on the engine.

"The AI isn't sufficient for it. "

lol, 10 years ago when games had the computational power of toasters there were games called Real-Time-Strategy that had hundreds of enemies on the screen at the same time, reacting to each other. So no the AI is not a problem. Dozens of bots in UT or Quake3 have not been a problem either. Of course you CAN write AI that has problems but flat statements do not apply

Wow just have seen the video and it doesn't look much better but some things like the water, the destructible environments or the soft object physics are really amazing.

The tools are getting better, perhaps game development costs will actually fall sometime in the future.

Kyros said: "The AI isn't sufficient for it. " lol, 10 years ago when games had the computational power of toasters there were games called Real-Time-Strategy that had hundreds of enemies on the screen at the same time, reacting to each other. So no the AI is not a problem. Dozens of bots in UT or Quake3 have not been a problem either. Of course you CAN write AI that has problems but flat statements do not apply

There is a bit of a difference between dozens and a hundred, wouldn't you agree?

Also a bit of a difference between a strategy game and a third person shooter?

Perhaps my statement was a little blunt. I was merely pointing out that people shouldn't get their hopes up about fighting 100 locust at once, in-game. Is was my understanding that developers are not at present capable of writing an 'AI script?' for 100 seperate enemies that will work well, and within the boundaries of realism, for a game like this.

So AI is not a problem but writing the AI is? Is that your point?

Conceivably there could be a scene where you shoot locust as they run past, (like in the video) with a turret, but definetly not a huge shootout with 100 standing locust.

Dallinor do you work for Epic?

No?

 Are you trained to use Unreal Engine?

No?

Well then you dont know jack shit about game making. All you know is how to play game's.

Lol

Edit: content moved to the right thread hehe.

Oops wrong thread!

That's impressive stuff by the way!

Nice one weezy...

How about you take the time to read what we both wrote, take longer then 20 seconds to write up a reply, and then perhaps even come up with a valuable contribution to this thread? Something more useful then 'you dont know anything about this lol'.

Perhaps try to refute my statement by explaining why it is possible?

I don't think it's possible to have 100 enemies on screen at once, with perfectly working AI, acting realistically, in a graphics packed game like Gears Of War. Or at the very least the devs don't have the time or resources to make it so. I'm basing this logic off what other developers have managed to achieve in the past, what other games in this genre are like, and the AI in general of any game I have ever played.

The Heavenly Sword devs were said to have spent a long period of time working on the AI in the game, but there was only ever about two dozen enemies on screen at once with realistic AI (Even then some of them sort of shuffled around, not attacking). I would also imagine it would be easier to do it in a game like HS which is just hack and slash. In Gears the enemies would need to be shooting and taking cover etc.

I'm more then willing to accept I'm wrong if someone with a detailed knowledge of this can come in and say "no you're incorrect because..." etc.

If Epic do pull it off, it will be a huge advance in the gaming industry. I almost hope I'm wrong. It will be leaps and bounds ahead of what any other developer has managed to achieve up to this.

Weezy - are you a developer? If not, your far more stupid that he is.

Please feel free to name ANY one game that has over 100 enemy AI's using complex tactics onscreen at once. The closest thing I can think if is Dead Rising, and even then, the AI was scaled to only interact with the player and NPCs when they were rather close.

Your totally lacking in any valid logic, and just trying to call someone out without backing anything up with facts. Gears of War (1) had maybe 10-12 AI onscreen, or nearby at once, at max. I don't see how 2 years later, that AI number has jumped 10 fold. But feel free to prove me wrong.