Source 2 Wishlist - Games - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=spectator1;46305612]Less talking and more action would be nice. And anything that has to do with dynamic water would be very cool too.[/QUOTE] I would love to see water physics based puzzles while trying to navigate the Borealis Would it be too much to ask for the ability to grab a portion of water with the gravity gun and use it to drown headcrabs out of a vent?

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;46397919]I would love to see water physics based puzzles while trying to navigate the Borealis Would it be too much to ask for the ability to grab a portion of water with the gravity gun and use it to drown headcrabs out of a vent?[/QUOTE] I don't think Gravity Gun can do that kind of thing in-story, so maybe a Bucket weapon will do.

[QUOTE=PikaCommando;46398040]I don't think Gravity Gun can do that kind of thing in-story, so maybe a Bucket weapon will do.[/QUOTE] Just shove it through another weird combine thing, it will probably add some more functions to the gravity gun, or create another resonance cascade. Probably worth it.

[QUOTE=hogofwar;46398574]Just shove it through another weird combine thing, it will probably add some more functions to the gravity gun, or create another resonance cascade. Probably worth it.[/QUOTE] Ooh, that makes me think. The borealis has aperture tech on it, right? The blueprints mentioned emancipation grids and whatnot. So if a combine confiscation field can turn the gravity gun into the super gravity gun, could an aperture emancipation grid do something similar? Do they run on the same principle?

[QUOTE=Greendead;46304673]I remember the mindblowing face animation in Source Engine when I first saw it. So I'm expecting something like this in Source 2. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHiC0mt4Ts[/media][/QUOTE] That one guy has been working on R&D for this character for yeeeaaaaarrrrrssss. I doubt they'll shoot for that.

Changeable ladder climbing sound is all I need.

[QUOTE=rebel1324;46339647]Real Time Edit?[/QUOTE] littlebigplanet for pc

[QUOTE=xalener;46408625]That one guy has been working on R&D for this character for yeeeaaaaarrrrrssss. I doubt they'll shoot for that.[/QUOTE] Also it's pre-rendered and we're far, far from using that many controls in a fluid and easy way on high-poly models while still supporting hair, subsurface stuff, proper eye reflection, and all the things that video also boasts.

I'd prefer solid slightly stylized facial expressions like in valves ongoing work instead of any attempt at nuanced realism anyway.

[QUOTE=PikaCommando;46398040]I don't think Gravity Gun can do that kind of thing in-story, so maybe a Bucket weapon will do.[/QUOTE] An Aperture Science make of the gravity gun or some scientific fuckaroundary can easily change that. A bucket would suck, I want to launch water at gravity gun speed. Washing small enemies off edges would be cool too.

ur mom in my bed

I'd love to see Valve adopt a similar business model to Unreal 4. Source code and tools access for $x per month.

I'd like to see some cool, realistic, visually accurate fire that can spread. It's something I've never really seen in a game.

[QUOTE=Butthurter;46416629]i dont think valve could pay attention to any project for more than 2 years[/QUOTE] Unless it's tf2 And maybe the dotas, I guess we'll find out in the next few years.

[QUOTE=p0rtalplayer;46418448]Unless it's tf2 And maybe the dotas, I guess we'll find out in the next few years.[/QUOTE] dota 2 was in public beta starting 2011

I think the most impressive facial animation right now is [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVlE8BXEbpE#t=149"]Witcher 3's facial animation[/URL]. CDPR are magicians.

I am most excited for the non-graphics, and unique functionality they will bring to the engine. For example they in-house developed a physics engine, which is a crazy task and completely unnecessary for the 99.9%. It make me wonder what kind of crazy idea drove them to do it, and what kind of plans they have for it.

If they develop every aspect of their engine from scratch doesn't that mean they could distribute it for free without the issues of some parts being licensed.

[QUOTE=Cows Rule;46424970]If they develop every aspect of their engine from scratch doesn't that mean they could distribute it for free without the issues of some parts being licensed.[/QUOTE] Nothing wrong with distributing some libraries as binary only. UE4 does it.

Valve is moving towards using more 3rd party stuff, unless I'm mistaken. Things like QT, Scaleform, etc. But it's mostly GUI stuff cause Valve GUI sucked

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;46436724]Valve is moving towards using more 3rd party stuff, unless I'm mistaken. Things like QT, Scaleform, etc. But it's mostly GUI stuff cause Valve GUI sucked[/QUOTE] I don't really see any evidence that would support this claim; I think Valve has always been moving towards in-house development ever since EA "fucked" The Orange Box. In legal terms, you can't really include licensed software in your product without consent. For example, Linux doesn't come stock with commercial drivers because they aren't allowed to package them into the kernel.

[QUOTE=SimplePlanz69;46437097]I don't really see any evidence that would support this claim[/QUOTE] CSGO uses Scaleform.

[QUOTE=SimplePlanz69;46437097]I don't really see any evidence that would support this claim; I think Valve has always been moving towards in-house development ever since EA "fucked" The Orange Box. In legal terms, you can't really include licensed software in your product without consent. For example, Linux doesn't come stock with commercial drivers because they aren't allowed to package them into the kernel.[/QUOTE] But you can include licensed software in your product without consent, A license is there to give people explicit permission to use/distribute/copy/publish your software/library.

[QUOTE=Cold;46424826]I am most excited for the non-graphics, and unique functionality they will bring to the engine. For example they in-house developed a physics engine, which is a crazy task and completely unnecessary for the 99.9%. It make me wonder what kind of crazy idea drove them to do it, and what kind of plans they have for it.[/QUOTE] The basic idea is simple. Havok is too expensive. They have to pay the license again with every new product on Source engine, same goes for indie devs who want to license Source engine. And that license is extreemely expensive.

They could probably buy every single person they lisenced the source-engine too a havok lisence for the price it costs to develop a new one. On top of that UE3/UE4 or any of the Cryengine installments don't distribute their physics engine source-code to the people who lisence their engine.

[QUOTE=Cold;46438455]They could probably buy every single person they lisenced the source-engine too a havok lisence for the price it costs to develop a new one. On top of that UE3/UE4 or any of the Cryengine installments don't distribute their physics engine source-code to the people who lisence their engine.[/QUOTE] Even without the sourcecode, you have to pay for Havok and Mile sound system (which is also not cheap and Miles has to be paid for each platform separately- linux, windows). That's why I was asking somewhere about if anyone noticed if the Dota2 SDK uses Miles sound system (yet people rated it as dumb question, while it's rly not, as it can give us some ideas about the licensing model for S2) As far as I know, every indie Source game had to pay Havok license (including my projects or Contagion). I asked Havok and Miles system directly about this as well and they just confirmed this fact. That's why Source engine can't compete with current engines on the market and some time ago, I remember Valve said this is one of the reasons why they decided to make their own physics engine. I belive it was mentioned in one of the presentations about linux, where they mentioned Rubikon engine for the very first time. It's big investment for Valve, but it should be worth it in the long run.

If licensing was their only concern they could have just moved to any of the existing physics engines out there.

[QUOTE=Cold;46438667]If licensing was their only concern they could have just moved to any of the existing physics engines out there.[/QUOTE] And why not create their own solution if they have resources to do so and leave out another third-party from all this and do the things exactly the way they want them to be? Also nobody said it's the only concern, though it's one of the main reasons.

[QUOTE=MR.sugar;46438674]And why not create their own solution if they have resources to do so and leave out another third-party from all this and do the things exactly the way they want them to be? Also nobody said it's the only concern, though it's one of the main reasons.[/QUOTE] Because its costs a lot of resources, and unlikely to be better, then the companies who have whole teams working for 6 years on theirs. Reinventing the wheel because "we could" is a stupid argument. If its not the only reason, interesting options remain like a pointed out in my intial post. Maybe they are interested in large scale water physics or maybe significantly want to crank up the amount of active physics entities in hl3.

[QUOTE=Cold;46438716]Because its costs a lot of resources, and unlikely to be better, then the companies who have whole teams working for 6 years on theirs. Reinventing the wheel because "we could" is a stupid argument. If its not the only reason, interesting options remain like a pointed out in my intial post. Maybe they are interested in large scale water physics or maybe significantly want to crank up the amount of active physics entities in hl3.[/QUOTE] I believe your license is usually per product (that makes sense). So Valve would have to pay for each game again and again. While if they invest into their own thing, they invest resources into it, but bscly only once and then use it how many times they want. And they can make it the way the want. While they may not do something rly big right now, its opportunity to make it flexible and scaleable, so they can enhence it as the time goes by and make it more open for new features in the future. I think that is actually very good reason by itself and I think they wouldn't have such a freedom if they licensed third-party techologies...