Source engine being used to make a feature length film.
194 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mac338;36256783]Well, the trailers aren't exactly realtime rendered and the software used to make them isn't released to the public[/QUOTE]
Valve have GIVEN THEM THE TOOLS.
It says right there in the article.
I like Source despite being an older engine. It is extremly flexible, versatile and moddable. It does not require a topnotch rig to be able to run it properly.
You can create a lot of different visuals/asthetics depending on which textures/models that you use. Source can look really cartoony and also pretty realistic. If you look at the UE3 engine, it has always the same style/asthetics.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;36257407]You're [I]vastly[/I] underestimating the cost of engines to license.
Source is somewhere over 100 grand.
Cryengine 3 is [I]a million dollars.[/I][/QUOTE]
(IIRC) Source's licensing costs are different for each project.
E.X - an indie game's licensing cost may only be $40,000 While if a triple A studio wants to License it for Call of Duteh 8, they would pay: $200,00
[QUOTE=codemaster85;36251643]Wasnt cryengine like 100 grand to use while the unreal engine is like $300 when you have like 1000 sales and free otherwise?[/QUOTE]
CryEngine has several plans depending on what you're doing for Indie Games Crytek asks for 20% of the profits from the comercial launch of the game, Unreal asks 25% of the profits after you've made a considerable sum of money in profits (that I can't bother to look up now).
Well since it will be using the Source Filmmaker it could look pretty decent. It's certainly a much cheaper option than setting up or renting a big server farm.
The only.
Only.
Only only only.
[B]ONLY THING I WANT TO SEE:[/B]
Them not using the god damn stock sounds. For anything. At all. Or it's going to ruin the whole fucking experience for me if it's the same god damn box-break, footstep, explosion stuff I've been hearing for eight years.
It's like playing a new game for the first time, getting immersed. Then the sound of something is identical to one in another game and you get snapped right out
I suppose I can see why they'd use Source engine. It still has one of the best facial animation systems I've seen in a while.
Take whatever engine Mass Effect 3 is on. It's pretty, and the game itself is fun, but they have some of the shittiest and most emotionless facial animations I've seen in a long time, and it's a new game. Most importantly, a game that prides itself on its story and story telling.
Oh well, I'm really excited for this. It'll probably be a really long time before this is done, so we'll most likely forget about it by the time it's out.
[QUOTE=Doom14;36258922]The only.
Only.
Only only only.
[B]ONLY THING I WANT TO SEE:[/B]
Them not using the god damn stock sounds. For anything. At all. Or it's going to ruin the whole fucking experience for me if it's the same god damn box-break, footstep, explosion stuff I've been hearing for eight years.[/QUOTE]
And that damn metal collision sound.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36257521]I like Source despite being an older engine. It is extremly flexible, versatile and moddable. It does not require a topnotch rig to be able to run it properly.
You can create a lot of different visuals/asthetics depending on which textures/models that you use. Source can look really cartoony and also pretty realistic. If you look at the UE3 engine, it has always the same style/asthetics.[/QUOTE]
I guess you haven't played many UE3 games then? Mirror's Edge, Mass Effect, GOW, Batman all look different. Sure they have some similarities because they all use the same tech, but so does source.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36257521]If you look at the UE3 engine, it has always the same style/asthetics.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://cdn2.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/borderlands.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.hifigeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gears_of_war.jpg[/t]
[img]http://3.daxgamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/batman_arkham_city_screens16-620x348.jpg[/img]
yeah dude I can't tell any of these UE3 games apart. They all look exactly alike.
Games on the same engine looking similar really comes down to the devs. They can be lazy and use assets that they already know look good ingame, or they can spend extra time developing an artstyle that would work to their advantage.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;36251643]Wasnt cryengine like 100 grand to use while the unreal engine is like $300 when you have like 1000 sales and free otherwise?[/QUOTE]
Uh no Cryengine is free to use via the SDK you just have to give 20% royalties to Crytek on sales (Unreal engine is exactly the same in this reguard).
If you want a full liscense to use Unreal Engine 3 (with no royalties) it costs about $500,000 last I checked while Cryengine 3 is about $1mil
Animated and R-rated Bioshock movie made with Source engine.
A man can dream.
[sp]Yes, I know Bioshock wasn't a Source game but seeing the two combined would be awesome[/sp]
Watch the movie and receive a free (shitty) hat in Team Fortress 2!
[QUOTE=rikimaru6811;36259342]And that damn metal collision sound.[/QUOTE]
As soon as the movie starts, it makes that spawning clicking sound.
Valve ( I think that's where credit is due) really did well with Source engine if even today it continues to shine. I hope the next engine they make, if they eventually make one, will hold up to Source engine's rep.
Litfusefilms has done countless great videos using the source engine, plus many more film groups. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUtFQec0phk[/media]
[QUOTE=-n3o-;36260911]Litfusefilms has done countless great videos using the source engine, plus many more film groups. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUtFQec0phk[/media][/QUOTE]
Good choice.
Jill's Song I think is my favorite piece that LFF has done. It's just so well done.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;36251654]Five minutes into the movie: ED_Alloc: No Free Edicts.[/QUOTE]
That's the name of the Making Of documentary.
[QUOTE=kevaughan;36260703]Valve ( I think that's where credit is due) really did well with Source engine if even today it continues to shine. I hope the next engine they make, if they eventually make one, will hold up to Source engine's rep.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't shine today, but it manages to keep up to a certain degree.
[QUOTE=Dylan_94;36251698]Just imagine how easy it would be to make a game of the movie afterwards.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Originally conceived as a graphic novel by Mitchell, "DEEP" will initially be produced as feature film; however, producing in a game engine means that the characters and environments in "DEEP" can easily translate to a game format. The team has already begun work on a playable level to be distributed via Steam, Valve's online game distribution network, and plans to create additional content for digital distribution and provide opportunities for user-created content in the "DEEP" universe.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dgg;36261223]It doesn't shine today, but it manages to keep up to a certain degree.[/QUOTE]
It shine's perfectly fine, and the fact its one of the most efficient engines out there?
Also you all forget it will soon be running on OpenGL(The only way to get it to run on Linux natively and well)
That means a fuck load of improvements will be inbound.
[QUOTE=Dlaor-guy;36251603]Well, War of the Servers proved it can be amazing, if you know what you're doing.[/QUOTE]
Truthfully WOTS was a bit overrated and didn't make any use of any animations, relying mostly on dialogue.
That's not a bad thing, of course, but you can't use it to show off how great the source engine can be for making Machinima, since WOTS was really specialized.
[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;36263748]It shine's perfectly fine, and the fact its one of the most efficient engines out there?
Also you all forget it will soon be running on OpenGL(The only way to get it to run on Linux natively and well)
That means a fuck load of improvements will be inbound.[/QUOTE]
If it was shining perfectly fine then every Source Engine game ever wouldn't be instantly recognizable as a Source Engine game. You can always tell when it's a Source Engine game because of certain limitations and certain ways you have to work and map with it. It's lack of graphic features is also easily seen, since it's all just flat lifeless textures as there is very little material definition features. Mud doesn't look like wet slippery mud, it looks like dry brown wood. Skin looks like cardboard with skin-colours.
Also what do you mean with most efficient? The Unreal engine is better optimized for lower end rigs than the Source Engine is, it also packs a truckload more features. Working with the Source Engine is also harder than it's competitors.
Source Engine wins on modability, but not all that much more. Everything else it can do it's competitors can do better.
Source's facial expressions and movements still top all of the one I've seen. The people in Crysis 2 looked horribly unnatural.
I love how modder friendly Hammer is, while in hammer i can build a coupe of detailed rooms in an hour, in Sandbox's CE3 i can make detailed forest in 5 minutes, even the solids in CE3 are easier to work wit than source.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;36265048]I love how modder friendly Hammer is, while in hammer i can build a coupe of detailed rooms in an hour, in Sandbox's CE3 i can make detailed forest in 5 minutes, even the solids in CE3 are easier to work wit than source.[/QUOTE]
cool.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;36264279]Source's facial expressions and movements still top all of the one I've seen. The people in Crysis 2 looked horribly unnatural.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I think above anything else, Source's facial animations system is its real prize.
People can argue about how Source visually compares to modern engines, or its optimizations, or its archaic tools, or how unwieldy said tools are (see DrBreen's post about Hammer vs CE3), but I don't think anyone can really argue that Source's facial animations system is still one of the, if not simply [b]the[/b], best of such systems on the market today.
[QUOTE=dgg;36263850]If it was shining perfectly fine then every Source Engine game ever wouldn't be instantly recognizable as a Source Engine game. You can always tell when it's a Source Engine game because of certain limitations and certain ways you have to work and map with it. It's lack of graphic features is also easily seen, since it's all just flat lifeless textures as there is very little material definition features. Mud doesn't look like wet slippery mud, it looks like dry brown wood. Skin looks like cardboard with skin-colours.
Also what do you mean with most efficient? The Unreal engine is better optimized for lower end rigs than the Source Engine is, it also packs a truckload more features. Working with the Source Engine is also harder than it's competitors.
Source Engine wins on modability, but not all that much more. Everything else it can do it's competitors can do better.[/QUOTE]
Uhhhh...No?
Source(2004) was originally designed and implemented to allow machines as early as 2000 to run it relatively well. Souce(2007)added features that forced people to have to upgrade but not as painfully as say the Crytek engine did.
And you always bring up the lifeless textures, they're not lifeless, they're about special as an actual wall would look. I'd also like to point out that there are only maybe 3 games that have been made by third party developers using source. So yes, your games will look the same if [I]it comes from the same studio[/I], that's like complaining that films by Miyazaki are outdated because the style he's used has been in everyone of his movies.
And Unreal is extremely inefficient when it comes to memory management. And those truckload of features are buggy, rarely used, or confusing as fuck because they all use DirectX libraries.
The main reason why Source 'looks dated' is because they use the Direct X 9 libraries, not the Direct 10 or 11. Which both have already shown are being forgotten almost instantly.
There's also the fact that Source is OpenGL compatible, not something you can say about Unreal or Crytek because both depend way too much on Direct X.
Also, what are you talking about? If you're going to compare a game made back in 2004 to now? Well no shit they're going to look dated. But I don't honestly hear people complaining about how dated Doom looks, or Quake.
The argument of dated is for people who are obsessed with graphics, effects and nothing more than that. Style is much more important than flashy colors.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
To further back up my point.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX0jxT03x3U[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaXl7DKG86U[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldFzzVq4lc[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZD17pQSqUU[/media]
All of these are source games, and all of them have their own distinctive style and look different.
The only thing similar is lighting.
[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;36265815]Uhhhh...No?
Source(2004) was originally designed and implemented to allow machines as early as 2000 to run it relatively well. Souce(2007)added features that forced people to have to upgrade but not as painfully as say the Crytek engine did.
And you always bring up the lifeless textures, they're not lifeless, they're about special as an actual wall would look.
I'd also like to point out that there are only maybe 3 games that have been made by third party developers using source. So yes, your games will look the same if [I]it comes from the same studio[/I], that's like complaining that films by Miyazaki are outdated because the style he's used has been in everyone of his movies.
And Unreal is extremely inefficient when it comes to memory management. And those truckload of features are buggy, rarely used, or confusing as fuck because they all use DirectX libraries.
The main reason why Source 'looks dated' is because they use the Direct X 9 libraries, not the Direct 10 or 11. Which both have already shown are being forgotten almost instantly.
There's also the fact that Source is OpenGL compatible, not something you can say about Unreal or Crytek because both depend way too much on Direct X.
Also, what are you talking about? If you're going to compare a game made back in 2004 to now? Well no shit they're going to look dated. But I don't honestly hear people complaining about how dated Doom looks, or Quake.
The argument of dated is for people who are obsessed with graphics, effects and nothing more than that. Style is much more important than flashy colors.
[editline]9th June 2012[/editline]
To further back up my point.
*videyas*
All of these are source games, and all of them have their own distinctive style and look different.
The only thing similar is lighting.[/QUOTE]
Crytek's one and only goal is to be graphically impressive and strong as possible, so it's really on it's own in the engine market. It's intentions is to follow technical development. So it's really an unfair comparision as such.
A wall doesn't need material definition. I said mud and skin as the prime examples. There is no wet material definition to be found in the Source Engine besides water. It does not feature any forms for material definition for making different textures act as different materials. All they have is bumpmaps and that's for the most part it. It's longwinded to explain what I mean, but light acts differently on different material, and some material shines more because it's more wet, other materials reflect more/less light than others and so on. There is none of that in the Source Engine, mud texture and skin texture is treated just like a wall texture, the only material definition they have is the sound impacts makes and particle effects coming from a hit.
No, that has nothing to do with it. The artstyles for most of the games and mods developed on Source are VERY different, but you can instantly tell that they are running on the Source Engine because of all the limitations and borked up looking things.
What does it matter if it's rarely used or confusing? It's an option developers have, if they want to use it they can actually use it, it's called having support. Also one of the reason all new technologies aren't used is because of the consoles holding back the game technology and possibilities, not because they don't want to use them, but because they can't.
Source uses 9, 10 and 11, they just haven't bothered taking much advantage of their new features.
And OpenGL support is absolutely fantastic, no doubt. That is however completely irrelevant to whether or not it's outdated.
Uh, no. I'm comparing every Source Game. Portal 2 being the most recent.
No, I'm talking about dated in every department of the engine, not purely graphical. It's about support, advancement and not holding things back, as well as cleaning shit up. The Source Engine was meant to be a beast of an engine supporting old hardware whilst still being top notch in physics simulation and graphics, the Source Engine was an impressive engine which tried to use all the technology we had available. Right now however, they're just holding onto it, patching it up with new parts here and there hoping it doesn't break. It needs to be refreshed and updated to todays standards, that does in no way mean throwing away support for OpenGL or older hardware, if anything it means they have bigger potential to do so even better.
I don't know what makes you think I'm confusing the importance of gameplay and art direction with graphical features when I've never said anything along those lines. I have only said the Source Engine is lacking and outdated and have brought up more than just graphical features as an example of why, although the graphical features is surely a big handful of it's outdated sides.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.