[QUOTE=mySvenLabs;40207199]Portal 2 was way too simple. I love the game but it's too much story not enough head-scratching puzzles. [/QUOTE]
I thought the game had some challenge to it. Besides, VALVe does a great job and I loved the story. The game was much more in depth than in Portal 1, which just seemed like a proof of concept.
While trying to fix a bug with the Alien Swarm SDK I found some interesting strings, that have existed since the release of Alien Swarm, they would have been more interesting then.
It names several games, nimbus, dota, portal2, swarm, left4dead. This is obviously before dota was known about and I think maybe portal2, feel free to correct me. I suspect nimbus was SoB. In CS:GO it adds infected, which is also referenced in the Alien Swarm source code with the preprocessor macro INFECTED_DLL, though it could just be swarm's codename.
[QUOTE=ben1066;40232412]While trying to fix a bug with the Alien Swarm SDK I found some interesting strings, that have existed since the release of Alien Swarm, they would have been more interesting then.
It names several games, nimbus, dota, portal2, swarm, left4dead. This is obviously before dota was known about and I think maybe portal2, feel free to correct me. I suspect nimbus was SoB. In CS:GO it adds infected, which is also referenced in the Alien Swarm source code with the preprocessor macro INFECTED_DLL, though it could just be swarm's codename.[/QUOTE]
Where did you find those? Couldn't find any references in a clean SDK download.
If you open videocfg.lib in IDA they'll be there, along side the ICE keys for decoding the respective games ekv files (how I found them, wanted to decrypt swarm ekvs).
[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;39924544]The one MAJOR thing I want from source 2 is faster map pipeline. IE, editing in real time or MINIMAL compiling/no compiling at all. I've found source has a perfectly acceptable model, material, coding, and shader implementation, but mapping for source just blows.[/QUOTE]
They're not designing it for hobbyist mapmakers, and Valve and other companies have proved they don't need it.
Edit:
I see why a more refined workflow/realtime would be more profitable, and plus it's neat.
[QUOTE=Blacksheepboy;40251016]They're not designing it for hobbyist mapmakers, and Valve and other companies have proved they don't need it.[/QUOTE]
You should probably look at the development demo for Unreal Engine 4.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8[/media]
Relevant information at 4:42. Developers want to speed up the creation process, and real-time editing does that. It's something that Source 2 would highly benefit from.
[QUOTE=Blacksheepboy;40251016]They're not designing it for hobbyist mapmakers, and Valve and other companies have proved they don't need it.[/QUOTE]
if anything companies would benefit more from faster iteration because they're paying people for their time
but imo baked lighting is perfectly serviceable right now - it's bsp / that awful model compile workflow that needs to go
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
in fact the entire content workflow in Source is pretty flaky when you compare it to much more refined engines like UE3 / Cry3
probably why no-one else uses it outside of valve
[QUOTE=Juniez;40251448]if anything companies would benefit more from faster iteration because they're paying people for their time
but imo baked lighting is perfectly serviceable right now - it's bsp / that awful model compile workflow that needs to go
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
in fact the entire content workflow in Source is pretty flaky when you compare it to much more refined engines like UE3 / Cry3
probably why no-one else uses it outside of valve[/QUOTE]
The setup was amazing in 2004, but people's expectations change in almost 9 years.
I think we can assume that a new engine will come with a new set of development software. They would be mad not to revamp the new Source SDK.
[QUOTE=halflife_123;40254656]I think we can assume that a new engine will come with a new set of development software. They would be mad not to revamp the new Source SDK.[/QUOTE]
SFM gave hints to a new SDK, and it has already moved to Qt, something that wouldn't be surprising if it were to happen to the rest, as opposed to the current MFC based SDK, ugh.
I hope valve will use Autodesk's Beast for the lighting.
[QUOTE=LATTEH;40261565]I hope valve will use Autodesk's Beast for the lighting.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have Octane or V-ray, since both have GPU acceleration on-top of looking wonderful.
[QUOTE=LATTEH;40261565]I hope valve will use Autodesk's Beast for the lighting.[/QUOTE]
I was about to retort "when has valve ever used outside components to add features to their engine" and then I remembered quake, havok, RAD video tools and probably other things I can't remember.
Houdini for the destruction scenes.
[QUOTE=Uberslug;40263167]Houdini for the destruction scenes.[/QUOTE]
well, that's not really an engine feature, because once it gets out of houdini it's an animation like any other
I'd love to see some sexy vertex painting.
[video=youtube;iAvupgMlvKE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAvupgMlvKE&feature=endscreen[/video]
God, I can just imagine how easy applying multi blends would be, you can even paint colors and all sorts, amazing.
Dota 2 uses ScaleForm.
[QUOTE=Juniez;40251448]probably why no-one else uses it outside of valve[/QUOTE]
Technikally thats not true, I see people still working on maps or mods for games built on the engine, I am one of those people as I am working on a p2 mod called "Realities: Source" which is in very early development right now. But as far as I can see other people apart from myself are still using Source despite of its... setbacks...
[QUOTE=Simspelaaja;40263876]Dota 2 uses ScaleForm.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, We can only hope they go with an in-house solution, or something that's much easier for modders to use / make.
[QUOTE=stargate660;40264072]Technikally thats not true, I see people still working on maps or mods for games built on the engine, I am one of those people as I am working on a p2 mod called "Realities: Source" which is in very early development right now. But as far as I can see other people apart from myself are still using Source despite of its... setbacks...[/QUOTE]
I think he meant professional studios.
Real-time content creation tools are a godsend, and the game and film industries are all moving to having better tools for viewing things in real-time. I see nothing wrong with this :)
[QUOTE=Zips;37099655]That is what I was led to believe for quite some time. But naturally, people are running with it until something is stated one way or the other. Also, I believe it was originally a product of searching done from someone here on Facepunch.
Fake edit: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1160439&p=37085287&viewfull=1#post37085287[/url]
Which was then noted on Lambda Generation: [url]http://lambdageneration.com/posts/references-to-hl2-episode-three-and-source-2-found-inside-source-filmmaker/[/url][/QUOTE]
i know this is extremely late, but thanks for the credit, haha
[QUOTE=Simspelaaja;40263876]Dota 2 uses ScaleForm.[/QUOTE]
So does CSGO
[QUOTE=.EDI;40216724]Games should not be made for average people.[/QUOTE]
This really shouldn't have so many "Dumb" votes.. It's true..
[QUOTE=Lampyish;40301353]This really shouldn't have so many "Dumb" votes.. It's true..[/QUOTE]
Average people are better than cod players/stereotypical console gamers.
Which need the game to tell them how to beat it.
[QUOTE=Civil;40303392]Average people are better than cod players/stereotypical console gamers.
Which need the game to tell them how to beat it.[/QUOTE]
This is the reason why I play all games on hard, if possible.
[QUOTE=Civil;40303392]Average people are better than cod players/stereotypical console gamers.
Which need the game to tell them how to [b]play[/b] it.[/QUOTE]
Fixed.
Really though, Games need to be made for, you know, the audience that is demanding it (CoD goes to dumb console kiddies, and games like Bioshock or Half Life should be made for a "higher" level of gamer).
[QUOTE=glitchvid;40306269]Fixed.
Really though, Games need to be made for, you know, the audience that is demanding it (CoD goes to dumb console kiddies, and games like Bioshock or Half Life should be made for a "higher" level of gamer).[/QUOTE]
I remember when games were supposed to be for people to enjoy, and access wasn't limited to an arbitrary tier system.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;40306269]Fixed.
Really though, Games need to be made for, you know, the audience that is demanding it (CoD goes to dumb console kiddies, and games like Bioshock or Half Life should be made for a "higher" level of gamer).[/QUOTE]
That's just nonsense and comes across as incredibly elitist, as to suggest that people who play CoD are actually stupider than those that play more complex games. I suppose people who play mobile games are on the lowest step on the intelligence ladder if we follow that logic?
You don't have to design something for one specific audience. The film Alien was a massive popular success but that doesn't mean it was a dumb film without interesting messages and motifs. Video games don't need to be hard to be good.
[QUOTE=halflife_123;40306664]That's just nonsense and comes across as incredibly elitist, as to suggest that people who play CoD are actually stupider than those that play more complex games. I suppose people who play mobile games are on the lowest step on the intelligence ladder if we follow that logic?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because Angry Birds is totally equivalent to Super Meat Boy.
[QUOTE=Uberslug;40306831]You don't have to design something for one specific audience. The film Alien was a massive popular success but that doesn't mean it was a dumb film without interesting messages and motifs. Video games don't need to be hard to be good.[/QUOTE]
Not saying games need to be hard to be good, just saying that games should aim for their fanbase's skill/intelligence/whateverthefuck level.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
