Black Mesa Source V5 - "They're still working on Xen?" - Games

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;47344960]I don't know if AI is the [I]hardest[/I] thing (and that's definitely putting disservice towards other areas of programming) but it is definitely tough. I'm speaking as a programmer who's pretty happy right now after just really improving on a tough AI issue on a little hobby project I've been making, so I'm not speaking out of my ass! The pathfinding you mentioned is pretty much a solved problem, to be fair. Pathing isn't the issue with AI any longer, really, in most modern games which only have a couple dozen pathing agents at most at any one time. The trouble with NASA is that they are trying to convert the output from a camera into something a pathfinder can make sense of, and that's definitely a tougher problem. The thing that most people don't understand about AI is that the goal isn't to make super clever NPCs. The goal isn't even to make things intelligent - it's to make things [I]look[/I] intelligent. AI in "closed" situations (so, they don't need to be capable of learning at runtime and can have the entire game's ruleset in their mind already) is already really a solved problem. We've got an [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29"]unbeatable chess AI[/URL], some really [URL="http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~cdavid/starcraftaicomp/"]fantastically clever RTS AI [/URL], and we've definitely got things like aimbots in game which can easily out-perform the best players. The tough part is that clever AI, in games, isn't the goal. Game's require AI which is just as clever as the game design allows (so not unbeatably hard), and even moreso, AI that doesn't do anything that looks stupid. This actually ties heavily into many other aspects of a game which may seem unrelated. For example - we don't want AI to constantly be shooting, because even although they have infinite ammo, it doesn't look intelligent, even if it's the best possible thing they could do to win in an engagement. If you have some stealth game AI, and an NPC is looking for the player, the tricky part isn't making them look around - the tricky part is making all the animations and sounds which make them cautiously move and look around (instead of looking as if they are just idly walking around) and call out for the player to reveal themselves. A fighting AI could easily win every fight, but the trick is to make them dumb and sometimes make mistakes, so the player has a chance. You want them to predict the player's patterns, to reward player's variety. Making clever AI can definitely be difficult, but in the majority of games, clever AI is never the goal. The tough part isn't making artifical intelligence. It's making artificial stupidity, or more accurately, artificial imperfection. That's not just coding the AIs behaviour - it's everything from their animation, sound, strategy and skill.[/QUOTE] Ok, I am not a game programmer AT ALL, so maybe this will sound really stupid - just forewarning everyone! Also, this idea most likely has been tried, or done to death - but in either case I want a game designers opinion. When trying to make believable AI that is a human-like as possible, why not just use humans? Let me explain: Gather about 50 game testers or varying degrees of skill, and test them so you can categorize them into groups like "skilled" "adept" "conservative" "Aggressive" "stealthy" etc. So now you have all of these players broken down into their skill and play style categories. Next, take a section or area from a game that you are making. As an example, let's say the player needs to infiltrate a multi-story building complex and reach the top floor. Take the most skilled player and make him the protagonist. Now let's say your game needs to have 20 enemies in the building that the player needs to eliminate - put 20 play testers in the building with comms, and let the scenario play out on the LAN, all while recording all of the movement of the players. (like a CS:GO demo) Run this scenario a few hundred times or more, then when programming the game at random choose enemy movement from the "pool" of play demos, and base it on the movement of the main player. So if as the player I go in the building and take cover behind object A, you now have hundreds of possible human-quality enemy responses, and the game chooses one at random. now all enemy movement, and team-work is human like. EDIT: obviously this requires a LOT of resources, so I wouldn't expect the BM team to do it - just curious if this has been tried on a AAA title.

[QUOTE=Doit4tehlulz;47348080]Ok, I am not a game programmer AT ALL, so maybe this will sound really stupid - just forewarning everyone! Also, this idea most likely has been tried, or done to death - but in either case I want a game designers opinion. When trying to make believable AI that is a human-like as possible, why not just use humans? Let me explain: Gather about 50 game testers or varying degrees of skill, and test them so you can categorize them into groups like "skilled" "adept" "conservative" "Aggressive" "stealthy" etc. So now you have all of these players broken down into their skill and play style categories. Next, take a section or area from a game that you are making. As an example, let's say the player needs to infiltrate a multi-story building complex and reach the top floor. Take the most skilled player and make him the protagonist. Now let's say your game needs to have 20 enemies in the building that the player needs to eliminate - put 20 play testers in the building with comms, and let the scenario play out on the LAN, all while recording all of the movement of the players. (like a CS:GO demo) Run this scenario a few hundred times or more, then when programming the game at random choose enemy movement from the "pool" of play demos, and base it on the movement of the main player. So if as the player I go in the building and take cover behind object A, you now have hundreds of possible human-quality enemy responses, and the game chooses one at random. now all enemy movement, and team-work is human like. EDIT: obviously this requires a LOT of resources, so I wouldn't expect the BM team to do it - just curious if this has been tried on a AAA title.[/QUOTE] There are a lot of issues with this, as cool an idea as it is. Of course we're strictly talking non BM here as such a thing will never be possible for us. I'm really talking out of my arse here as I don't know much about AI in general, but it's a fun discussion. I've been doing a lot of AI work and refinement for BM, but that's about the extent of my knowledge. There are 2 major issues. The first is that even with [B]thousands[/B] of simulations you'll never be able to cover an adequate number of eventualities, unless your game becomes painfully linear. The possibilities of what a player can do in a given situation in most games are huge, and then when you start chaining them together it quickly becomes hugely unmanageable without massively limiting the experience. So you either end up with a circumstance where your bots are not covering enough eventualities to be proficient, or each scene takes hundreds of hours to perfect the AI. Assuming this technical hurdle could somehow be overcome, you then have the other issue of realism. Generally speaking, "enemies" in video games are meant to represent humans. Most AI is generally designed to make it so that the AI represents a real human. Not players, unless we're talking MP bots. The issue is that players do not play video games like humans behave in real life. Not even close. In games we have no sense of desperate self preservation, or adrenaline, or fear of pain, or any of the myriad factors which make combat in reality so mental. Sure, you could tell your human playtesters to try and emulate these factors, but that would remove a lot of the unpredictability from your opponents and probably wouldn't be very fun to play against. I think at the end of the day most games don't aim to have realistic AI, but instead, [B]fun[/B] AI which derives some of that entertainment from having realistic elements. Any game which had super realistic AI, without the rest of the game aiming to be super realistic, would be deathly boring, because you could probably only kill a few dudes before dying. Good AI is meant to feel like you've outsmarted them, but only just. You want the player to feel like they were smart opponents, but you were smarter. Outsmarting AI because it's dumb is never satisfying. As Tommyx50 said above, finding the right level of imperfection for AI is challenging. I don't think that would be possible using your idea. However, if your idea were to somehow be combined with a dynamic AI, that could be an interesting concept...

[QUOTE=TextFAMGUY1;47348486]There are a lot of issues with this, as cool an idea as it is. Of course we're strictly talking non BM here as such a thing will never be possible for us. I'm really talking out of my arse here as I don't know much about AI in general, but it's a fun discussion. I've been doing a lot of AI work and refinement for BM, but that's about the extent of my knowledge. There are 2 major issues. The first is that even with [B]thousands[/B] of simulations you'll never be able to cover an adequate number of eventualities, unless your game becomes painfully linear. The possibilities of what a player can do in a given situation in most games are huge, and then when you start chaining them together it quickly becomes hugely unmanageable without massively limiting the experience. So you either end up with a circumstance where your bots are not covering enough eventualities to be proficient, or each scene takes hundreds of hours to perfect the AI. Assuming this technical hurdle could somehow be overcome, you then have the other issue of realism. Generally speaking, "enemies" in video games are meant to represent humans. Most AI is generally designed to make it so that the AI represents a real human. Not players, unless we're talking MP bots. The issue is that players do not play video games like humans behave in real life. Not even close. In games we have no sense of desperate self preservation, or adrenaline, or fear of pain, or any of the myriad factors which make combat in reality so mental. Sure, you could tell your human playtesters to try and emulate these factors, but that would remove a lot of the unpredictability from your opponents and probably wouldn't be very fun to play against. I think at the end of the day most games don't aim to have realistic AI, but instead, [B]fun[/B] AI which derives some of that entertainment from having realistic elements. Any game which had super realistic AI, without the rest of the game aiming to be super realistic, would be deathly boring, because you could probably only kill a few dudes before dying. Good AI is meant to feel like you've outsmarted them, but only just. You want the player to feel like they were smart opponents, but you were smarter. Outsmarting AI because it's dumb is never satisfying. As Tommyx50 said above, finding the right level of imperfection for AI is challenging. I don't think that would be possible using your idea. However, if your idea were to somehow be combined with a dynamic AI, that could be an interesting concept...[/QUOTE] Wow, thanks for commenting on my idea! Yeah, I never really considered that "realistic" wouldn't necessarily equate to being "fun" as it relates to game AI. Good point!

[QUOTE=Doit4tehlulz;47348080]Ok, I am not a game programmer AT ALL, so maybe this will sound really stupid - just forewarning everyone! Also, this idea most likely has been tried, or done to death - but in either case I want a game designers opinion. When trying to make believable AI that is a human-like as possible, why not just use humans? Let me explain: Gather about 50 game testers or varying degrees of skill, and test them so you can categorize them into groups like "skilled" "adept" "conservative" "Aggressive" "stealthy" etc. So now you have all of these players broken down into their skill and play style categories. Next, take a section or area from a game that you are making. As an example, let's say the player needs to infiltrate a multi-story building complex and reach the top floor. Take the most skilled player and make him the protagonist. Now let's say your game needs to have 20 enemies in the building that the player needs to eliminate - put 20 play testers in the building with comms, and let the scenario play out on the LAN, all while recording all of the movement of the players. (like a CS:GO demo) Run this scenario a few hundred times or more, then when programming the game at random choose enemy movement from the "pool" of play demos, and base it on the movement of the main player. So if as the player I go in the building and take cover behind object A, you now have hundreds of possible human-quality enemy responses, and the game chooses one at random. now all enemy movement, and team-work is human like. EDIT: obviously this requires a LOT of resources, so I wouldn't expect the BM team to do it - just curious if this has been tried on a AAA title.[/QUOTE] It's an idea which is theoretically possible, but in practise it's impossible. I could go into a long list of specifics issues, but the primary one is that the AI is incapable of being adjusted without creating an entire new AI set - so any tiny balancing changes or map design changes could (and would) completely destroy the AI system.

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;47348668]Can I butt in real quick and just say that even to this day Unreal Tournament 2004 still has the best AI I've ever gone against in a game...[/QUOTE] I've spent countless hours as a kid playing with bots, never even considering multiplayer. The bots were too much fun.

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;47349338]Wait I can't tell if that's on general terms of if you're saying that an AI couldn't be tweaked in that specific situation alone, based on that specific method. Gonna assume the latter.[/QUOTE] That specific situation.

game crashed [t]http://i.gyazo.com/a6009321744108ecfc47b0c7d316ebd9.png[/t] I mean if you insist HEY TEXTFAMGUY UP THAT VERTEX BUFFER SIZE YO

[QUOTE=austin0331;47383553]game crashed [t]http://i.gyazo.com/a6009321744108ecfc47b0c7d316ebd9.png[/t] I mean if you insist HEY TEXTFAMGUY UP THAT VERTEX BUFFER SIZE YO[/QUOTE] As a level designer, it's quite hard for me to do that, unfortunately :wink: Luckily, I believe that the new engine we are on has eliminated this particular problem.

Has the AI of the alien grunts been changed? Right now, agrunts are kind of derpy in their behaviour. When up against an opponent, in most cases they will shoot off some bees and then decide they want to melee you, regardless of distance or damage being done. Which leads to the second problem. The agrunts, if you or an NPC keeps shooting at them, they get stunlocked in place, and are pretty much an easy target due to the agrunt trying to melee the enemy but getting slowed down exponentially. This really makes them an easy enemy to fight, and at one point even the headcrabs on a certain level did more damage to me than the agrunts.

[QUOTE=TextFAMGUY1;47384862]As a level designer, it's quite hard for me to do that, unfortunately :wink: Luckily, I believe that the new engine we are on has eliminated this particular problem.[/QUOTE] I wish the rest of modders could have access to newer branches of Source. Entdata limit of 2048 ents is a hassle :/

[QUOTE=BoxBuilder999;47384992]Has the AI of the alien grunts been changed? Right now, agrunts are kind of derpy in their behaviour. When up against an opponent, in most cases they will shoot off some bees and then decide they want to melee you, regardless of distance or damage being done. Which leads to the second problem. The agrunts, if you or an NPC keeps shooting at them, they get stunlocked in place, and are pretty much an easy target due to the agrunt trying to melee the enemy but getting slowed down exponentially. This really makes them an easy enemy to fight, and at one point even the headcrabs on a certain level did more damage to me than the agrunts.[/QUOTE] AGrunt AI was rewritten from scratch to be more like the original, and less silly. These issues are fixed now.

[QUOTE=TextFAMGUY1;47384862]Luckily, I believe that the new engine we are on has eliminated this particular problem.[/QUOTE] Please tell me A. that means Source 2, and B. by extension you'll be able to have the massive polycounts and self-casting shadows they boasted in the GDC Portal VR demo

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;47385707]It isn't Source 2. They've already said it isn't. It's probably just another special branch of the Source engine that they were given access to do as they please with. No different than say the Portal 2 branch. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] I just hope they end up offering the same if not more flexibility that modders had with goldsrc in Half-Life 1 modding when it came to modifying or making custom entities, modifying behavior and stats and effects, etc.. They have full access to the engine now so it just comes down to time (not really)/willingness on their end.[/QUOTE] This is correct (the first part). It's not Source 2. We call it the "new engine" because our engine is a custom hybrid of several Source branches and features. It's really a custom Source engine version, in a sense. You could even call it the "Black Mesa" branch, if you wanted. No Source 2 whatsoever, though. Can't be much more specific than that, I'm afraid. As for flexibility, our SDK allows people to do as much as you can do with any Source branch, so the flexibility is there. We're providing the standard Source mod tools which work with our engine, with workshop implementation and we'll be providing full support to modders. We can't however open the engine code up because we're not legally allowed to. Neither can anyone else who uses the Source engine. We're intending to open up our own code (I believe, not completely sure) much further on down the line, for the community to play with, but we can't open up the engine code as that's Valve's property.

What kind of new features does the new engine have? Is it stuff that's instantly noticeable, or is it mostly under the hood?

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;47385875]Knocking on wood regardless of whatever happens in the future then; whichever way they decide to go since they're not obligated to do anything. But that's what I was looking for. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] That's interesting too but I'm not gonna ask what that's a result of cause this'll just turn into a lame interview. (changes made by the BM team or Valve working with you people to make that happen beforehand) Especially if that bit about it being a hybrid of the other branches is accurate, almost sounds like it would be the "definitive" version of Source before everyone just drops it and moves on to the new engine. [editline]24th March 2015[/editline] [b][U]OH[/U][/b] That reminds me cause I want to suggest this real quick. I don't know anything about the kind of work that would go into it or how difficult it would be, but as long as they have the opportunity to you should put word in for making this happen: SiN Episodes is still the only thing to have that on Source and it's pretty ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Don't understand why GoldSRC had it but Source didn't. Graphical limitations?

[QUOTE=Megadave;47387907]Don't understand why GoldSRC had it but Source didn't. Graphical limitations?[/QUOTE] I don't remember GoldSrc ever having that. Unless you're talking about how they could make the helmet of a character play a different sound and effect than the other hitboxes on the same model. I think that still exists in source, though instead done through the ragdoll collision joints.

[QUOTE=Megadave;47387907]Don't understand why GoldSRC had it but Source didn't. Graphical limitations?[/QUOTE] Any number of confusing reasons. Engines are weird. That and I'm not sure that Goldsrc did have it. Did it? That game had hardly any models whatsoever compared to modern titles and I can't think of any off the top of my head which would have had multiple materials. Goldsrc was 85% brushwork. I don't think it did have multiple materials on one model, but I may be wrong, my knowledge of Goldsrc is limited. [QUOTE=Whatsinaname;47387666]What kind of new features does the new engine have? Is it stuff that's instantly noticeable, or is it mostly under the hood?[/QUOTE] Mostly under the hood, and not really anything which would jump out at you/you haven't seen in Source before. We do have some quite cool unique stuff for modders too, though, but you'll have to wait until release to find out!

I think they're specifically talking about the agrunts?

I dont know if this was asked before, sorry if it was. Will Black Mesa's purchasable version on steam be as moddable as HL2 is? Would be really awesome if that's the case.

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;47385875] That reminds me cause I want to suggest this real quick. I don't know anything about the kind of work that would go into it or how difficult it would be, but as long as they have the opportunity to you should put word in for making this happen: SiN Episodes is still the only thing to have that on Source and it's pretty ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Are you sure? I recall that HL:S and hell maybe Garry's Mod Supported, for some reason I recall HL1 Barney have a metal helmet and flesh.. well flesh.

Given enemies are being brought back in line with their HL1 counterparts, will ammo limits be brought up as well?

You know, I've been replaying Black Mesa recently, and I have to say, I'm finding myself liking it less and less as the chapters role on. I have a couple of opinions here so I'm just going to roll through all of them in one big post. First off: The Gunplay. I friggin hate the gunplay. It's terrible. Let's just go through all the weapons to explain why: [B]The Crowbar[/B]: Not much to explain here. It's a crowbar, it's the base melee weapons. It works for it's purpose and can even be fun to kill with. [B]The Glock[/B]: Honestly, it's the best weapon in the game. It's incredibly accurate compared to other weapons and has a nice damage for what it is. Great for making headshots. Sounds good too. [B]The Revolver[/B]: Not bad. It's pretty much the revolver from the original HL but with a slower firerate and much less ammo. It sounds a bit weak but it works. [B]The MP5[/B]: The MP5 sucks. It's really really bad. It's incredibly inaccurate and it takes so long to kill a single marine, not to mention it's required that you fire in bursts. Compare it to the Glock, a much more accurate and seemingly more damaging weapon that great at getting headshots, the MP5 is shit. Now the major problem with it though is that, at least to me, it's supposed to be one of your main weapons, one of the ones you are supposed to use the most. That's how it was or at least felt like in the original Half Life. But not in Black Mesa. I pretty much never use in BM except when my other weapons are out of ammo. Sound terrible as well. [B]The Shotgun[/B]: I like this gun a little better. It's powerful, but the main problem I have with it is that it's incredibly short ranged. It feels like you do terrible damage outside of the target being more than a 2 meters away. That's not how the shotgun was in the original Half Life. That's not how it is in Real-Life either. A simple boost to the range would do well to this gun. Sounds a little weak, but like the revolver not a problem. [B]The Crossbow[/B]: Not much to complain about, it's similar to the original crossbow. Only problem I had with it was it's ammunition capacity was severely lacking. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? Gordon can hold 64 rounds of shotgun ammunition, but only 15 rounds of a fucking tiny bolt inside a crossbow. Sound is fine for a crossbow. [B]The RPG[/B]: It's a fucking RPG. They did well recreating it. [B]The Tau Cannon[/B]: It's weird. The original Tau Cannon was supposed to be a projectile weapon. The one in Black Mesa feels as if it's Laser Cannon, which is actually fine. The thing I liked the most about it though was that you could use it throughout the later levels because you could actually find ammunition for it, compared to the original Half Life. [B]The Gluon Gun[/B]: I can't really make a comment on this. It's pretty much perfect. It's a laser gun what do you expect. [B]The Hivehand[/B]: I don't like it compared to the original. It does pretty low damage and I found it's homeseeking abilities lacking compared to the original. Doesn't sound all that great too. The intro scene to getting this weapon is brilliant though. [B]Grenades[/B]: Didn't really use them all that much compared to the original Half Life. Can't really say much on them but when I did use them I found them lacking compared to the original. [B]Satchel Charges[/B]: Still as useful as ever. Can't complain about them [B]Tripmines[/B]: They're tripmines, only problem I came across is the AI doesn't really allow the use of them as much. So straight from that, my typical weapon selections for most of the game was the shotgun and the glock. I would have used the revolver more but it felt like I could never find ammo for it, so I just used the shotgun instead. Now in total this may look like the gunplay is actually pretty good, but first off I just want to note that half of those weapons you don't find yourself using too often, and the second point I'll get more into a bit. Now secondly: The HEV suit's armor. Hate it compared to the original game. The thing I hate about it is the fact that the suit power and health just go down too quickly. It takes 2 bursts from a marine to bring you down to about half batter power, or at least it feels that way. That's such bullshit. This is a suit with fucking reactive armor plating. You're telling me that it goes down in 12 hits from an MP5, a weapon that fire tiny 9X19mm cartridges that can barely penetrate normal body-armor? What the fuck? Compare it to the original suit in Half Life, where it actually takes some god damn time to wear down your battery power and the suit in Black Mesa is Pathetic. It could just be a simple matter that the suit in the original would just take a little longer to get to full power and wear down slower, but it changes the game hugely, and here's why on my next main point. Both of these combine to do something I really hate about Black Mesa compared to the original. The feeling. In the beginning of Half Life, it feels as if Gordon is just a scientist, stumbling through the darkness trying to avoid a headcrab latching on to his cranium, but then after he gets apprehended, it starts to feel like he knows what he's doing until he basically goes full badass in Surface Tension. That's where he becomes an action movie star through the use of his tools at his disposal such as his suit. I never get that feeling in Black Mesa. The HEV suit looses way to much battery power to be of any real use to Gordon and it feels as if it become a chore just to keep the damn thing charged. The weapons he uses in Black Mesa are bad compared to the ones in Half Life. In Half Life, all the weapons had a purpose for different situations. If you wanted to kill something from long range, you'd use the pistol, revolver or crossbow, depending on how tough the enemy is. If you wanted to go up close and personal or even medium range, you'd go with the MP5 or shotgun. If you came across a tough to beat enemy like an AGrunt (which were lackluster in BM too), you'd use the powerful double barrel attack or the one of the more powerful weapons. In Black Mesa, it feels like only one weapon is really appropriate for all situations, which sucks. Gordon shouldn't have to rely on a what should be a weak pistol to deal with all his situations. All of this combined causes the feeling in Black Mesa to go to a scientist running scared all the time instead of a scientist that stands ups and becomes a hero, which is what I hate about Black Mesa. There are several other things too like how the the levels were cut apart and how the enemies are screwed up but this is my main concern with the current mod.

[QUOTE=UnrealCanine;47389051]Given enemies are being brought back in line with their HL1 counterparts, will ammo limits be brought up as well?[/QUOTE] Nah, they work okay as is. You could carry way too much in the original. [QUOTE=TornadoAP;47389057]-Snip-[/QUOTE] You'll be pleased to hear that every single complaint you made here about balance is addressed for the retail release. Weaker weapons rebalanced, HEV Battery mechanics made the same as the original. I've been pretty detailed in this thread about what we've done with all of this. We worked very hard to address the mod release's gameplay concerns, and I did a lot of work in this department personally too.

[QUOTE=TextFAMGUY1;47389206] You'll be pleased to hear that every single complaint you made here about balance is addressed for the retail release. Weaker weapons rebalanced, HEV Battery mechanics made the same as the original. I've been pretty detailed in this thread about what we've done with all of this. We worked very hard to address the mod release's gameplay concerns, and I did a lot of work in this department personally too.[/QUOTE] Well, good then. What did you guys do about the cuts to On a Rail and the Vents? Did you revamp them or are they still as is in the mod?

Got a graphics question, in the original mod there were a few spots that used lights that cast dynamic shadows behind fans and the like, near the beginning of power up, etc. Have you guys added any more of these lights that cast dynamic shadows, or modified the lighting in any way as well?

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;47389250]Well, good then. What did you guys do about the cuts to On a Rail and the Vents? Did you revamp them or are they still as is in the mod?[/QUOTE] They are as they were in the mod. [QUOTE=Bloodshot12;47389343]Got a graphics question, in the original mod there were a few spots that used lights that cast dynamic shadows behind fans and the like, near the beginning of power up, etc. Have you guys added any more of these lights that cast dynamic shadows, or modified the lighting in any way as well?[/QUOTE] They're called projected textures in the editor. I believe there are a few more now, but they're very fiddly and have a lot of problems, so we couldn't overuse them.

[QUOTE=TextFAMGUY1;47389362]They are as they were in the mod. [/QUOTE] With all of the changes to the game and engine, would the uncut versions of OaR and ST still be useable?

[QUOTE=Whatsinaname;47389414]With all of the changes to the game and engine, would the uncut versions of OaR and ST still be useable?[/QUOTE] I will port them and they will be available on the Steam Workshop, hopefully from day 1.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;47389057] [B]Tripmines[/B]: They're tripmines, only problem I came across is the AI doesn't really allow the use of them as much. [/QUOTE] I always see people say this but I found plenty of use for them, the AI doesn't really seem to care if they are there or not and they bum rush you so it's pretty easy to get free kills that way

[QUOTE=TextFAMGUY1;47389424]I will port them and they will be available on the Steam Workshop, hopefully from day 1.[/QUOTE] Awesome. I can't imagine playing through Black Mesa without them.