Source engine being used to make a feature length film.
194 replies, posted
Revelations 2012: The movie?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36268920]i think LA Noire just projects a video of the actor onto the face, its p funny how the concept is so simple (assuming i'm right) but it is still probably the most advanced facial animation in games so far[/QUOTE]
There's also relative depth information stored in the video
ITT people blindly defending Source for whatever reason.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36271711]Revelations 2012: The movie?[/QUOTE]
The only known video game movie where the movie's better than the game.
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;36272161]The only known video game movie where the movie's better than the game.[/QUOTE]Umm what?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36270659]its wrong and stupid and it perpetuates a mindset that somehow the engine is at fault for generic art directions chosen by studios
[img]http://web-vassets.ea.com/Assets/Richmedia/Image/Screenshots/mirrorsedge-pc-screenshot2_656x369.jpg?cb=1334003811[/img]
[img]http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/9/2009/03/killingtroom.jpg[/img]
both of these are unreal engine
they do not look alike[/QUOTE]
Mirror's edge runs on a modified unreal engine 3 and killing floor runs on a modified unreal engine 2.5.
So from what I know Epic did pretty big changes between unreal engine 3 and 2, and the part of DICE and Tripwire kinda modifying the engine a lot, then ofc they will look different.
I would really like to know why the "dumb"?
[QUOTE=DrGRoWL;36272271]Mirror's edge runs on a modified unreal engine 3 and killing floor runs on a modified unreal engine 2.5.
So from what I know Epic did pretty big changes between unreal engine 3 and 2, and the part of DICE and Tripwire kinda modifying the engine a lot, then ofc they will look different.[/QUOTE]
The only "modification" to ME version was using beast for lightmaps instead of the default lightmapper. That doesn't change the fact that it's UE3 game. Source games also require modifications to be not too similar. The looks depend purely on the developer, it has little to do with engine. If the developer is lazy and doesn't change shit, then obviously game will look like another game that didn't change anything either. All games would look similar if everyone used boxes for models.
You could visit udk forum for more examples. People there don't even have access to engine code and yet the games/levels look very different and distinguishable.
[QUOTE=DrGRoWL;36272271]Mirror's edge runs on a modified unreal engine 3 and killing floor runs on a modified unreal engine 2.5.
So from what I know Epic did pretty big changes between unreal engine 3 and 2, and the part of DICE and Tripwire kinda modifying the engine a lot, then ofc they will look different.[/QUOTE]
That's the point people has been trying to make. It is stupid to assume that all UE games look similar It's not the engine the decides how a game will look like, it's the developers.
-snip-
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;36272423]Can you show us a comparison of those killing floor npc's and mirror edge npcs?[/QUOTE]
Why not just google and look them up for yourself? Not sure what point you are trying to make.
You can make a Pixar-esque movie on Source just fine.. It'd probably be a lot easier, too. If that's the style they're going for, then more power to them. Any engine would be fine for any movie that doesn't try to be photorealistic. It all depends on the style they're going for.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36272308]The only "modification" to ME version was using beast for lightmaps instead of the default lightmapper. That doesn't change the fact that it's UE3 game. Source games also require modifications to be not too similar. The looks depend purely on the developer, it has little to do with engine. If the developer is lazy and doesn't change shit, then obviously game will look like another game that didn't change anything either. All games would look similar if everyone used boxes for models.
You could visit udk forum for more examples. People there don't even have access to engine code and yet the games/levels look very different and distinguishable.[/QUOTE]
Wait sure that it was only the light map thing? because I remember that they added more than that. idk nvm.
I know the part that it's all about the devs, and I agree with that.
Just pointed out that Kopimi brought a stupid example, it's like comparing Goldsrc and Source.
The only reason that the "ALL UNREL GEMS LUK DE SAM" is because of some companies "don't have enough money to pay" so the devs don't do the best job for the game to look great, be fun etc.
^
[QUOTE=Swebonny;36272388]That's the point people has been trying to make. It is stupid to assume that all UE games look similar It's not the engine the decides how a game will look like, it's the developers.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;36267141]Found a trailer guys! :downs:
-embedding broken, direct link-
[URL="http://vimeo.com/38902280"]http://vimeo.com/38902280[/URL][/QUOTE]
B..B...But it's just a teaser trailer, They fix it!
[QUOTE=macotaco;36272919]B..B...But it's just a teaser trailer, They fix it![/QUOTE]
The point of a teaser is to tease, no?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36270659]its wrong and stupid and it perpetuates a mindset that somehow the engine is at fault for generic art directions chosen by studios
[IMG]http://web-vassets.ea.com/Assets/Richmedia/Image/Screenshots/mirrorsedge-pc-screenshot2_656x369.jpg?cb=1334003811[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/9/2009/03/killingtroom.jpg[/IMG]
both of these are unreal engine
they do not look alike[/QUOTE]
Killing Floor is UE 2.5 not UE3
-edit-
Didn't notice there is another page, sorry
-snip, already been addressed-
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;36276247]The top one is UE3. The bottom is UE2.
That would be why they don't look alike.[/QUOTE]
UE2.5 isn't it? That's the same bioshock 1 runs on
[QUOTE=junker|154;36270730]I don't get your point.[/QUOTE]
the point is that when you say "Source is so versatile, everything on it looks so different and unique! Not like Unreal, that engine sucks! Everything made in Unreal looks exactly the same!" it implies that Unreal Engine is at fault for the games looking alike, when in reality it isn't. the reason a lot of Unreal Engine games look alike is because it's one of the most widely used game engines, and 9/10 games will be pumped out without any inkling of a unique art style, thus many Unreal Engine games look alike. that doesn't mean though that Unreal is somehow a worse engine than Source because a bunch of shitty games were made on it; Unreal is just as versatile and able to create unique, creative artstyles as Source is, as shown by the comparison between Mirrors Edge and Killing Floor
[editline]10th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=superstepa;36274895]Killing Floor is UE 2.5 not UE3
-edit-
Didn't notice there is another page, sorry[/QUOTE]
doesn't really matter, but if you want to be crazy picky:
[img]http://www.mmofront.com/images2/tribes-ascend-beta.jpg[/img]
[img]http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2012/04/MNC_Chickey_Gear-610x334.jpg[/img]
[img]http://a5.mzstatic.com/us/r1000/065/Purple/v4/f7/f4/54/f7f454b3-497a-259d-f34e-ea8c2faf78d8/mzl.gnenylue.320x480-75.jpg[/img]
[img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6144/5933930155_3cb8dcce7a.jpg[/img]
The short Left 4 Dead Movies look way better than this and are also on Source if I'm not mistaking.
Source has potential yes it has but the tools are so.. SHIT, kind of turns off people that want to start modding or make a counter-strike map or whatever..
[editline]10th June 2012[/editline]
Although, Valve's Portal 2 inga-me map maker thing is really good (probably wouldn't work well for other games considering portal 2's unique art style), Drag and drop is the future of level design in my opinion
[QUOTE=DrBreen;36277639]Source has potential yes it has but the tools are so.. SHIT, kind of turns off people that want to start modding or make a counter-strike map or whatever..
[editline]10th June 2012[/editline]
Although, Valve's Portal 2 inga-me map maker thing is really good (probably wouldn't work well for other games considering portal 2's unique art style), Drag and drop is the future of level design in my opinion[/QUOTE]
drag and drop might be nice for basic stuff where detail and aesthetics aren't a massive requirement but if you want any semblance of realism and creativity you'll need to be able to fine tweak each and every bit of the map
Drag and drop is good for rough drafts, general layout and such.
But it will never, ever, at all, be able to take over.
[QUOTE=Arvuti;36251580]Just why source ? There are a lot better engines to use like for example cryengine 3.[/QUOTE]
My guess - support from valve, direct strong venue with steam and very cheap license price - if any at all.
Basically valve is probably going to provide a better service unlike anyone else.
[editline]11th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36268920]lmao what are you talking about
unreal features a massive editor that lets artists directly create complex shaders just by dragging and dropping and connecting some dots. you can make a beautiful game that takes advantage of almost everything unreal has to offer, without ever touching DirectX at all. and even if you had to touch the engine source, two things:
A. if you're working in a studio that has the Unreal Engine source, thus you're even ALLOWED to mess with DirectX, chances are you can handle a bit of DirectX. saying "you gotta use directx!!" isn't some end-all argument against the engine, even if it were true (it isnt)
B. i can't say for sure because i've never seen Unreal Engine's source, but common sense would tell me that an engine as complex and abstracted as Unreal would wrap all of the DirectX up internally, so that even if for some reason you had to use the engine source to accomplish something, a majority of it could be done through Unreal functions and interfaces and you still wouldn't end up having to touch DX
and unreal being inefficient? pulling this out of your ass. unreal runs fine, and on a plethora of platforms. there's a reason it's one of the most used commercial game engines out there.
and this is the part where it becomes glaringly obvious you're just talking to hear your own voice, no idea what you're saying. using a newer version of DirectX doesn't magically make your engine look better, and trust me, source isn't exactly pushing DX9 to its limits, so chances are even if they did start using DX11 exclusively, graphics would stay almost entirely the same.
what max said. CryEngine 3 and UE3 run on PS3 which runs OpenGL.
[editline]10th June 2012[/editline]
i think LA Noire just projects a video of the actor onto the face, its p funny how the concept is so simple (assuming i'm right) but it is still probably the most advanced facial animation in games so far[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's probably essentially facial motion capture.
The benefit of the of the source method though is, that you have a set of very good and unique shapekeys and can easily play with the animations differences even later on, after the voice has been captured.
You aren't limited to voice, facekey capture.
And the unique shapekeys tend to look better than general skeletal facial animation which a lot of other games use.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36270659]its wrong and stupid and it perpetuates a mindset that somehow the engine is at fault for generic art directions chosen by studios
[IMG]http://web-vassets.ea.com/Assets/Richmedia/Image/Screenshots/mirrorsedge-pc-screenshot2_656x369.jpg?cb=1334003811[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/9/2009/03/killingtroom.jpg[/IMG]
both of these are unreal engine
they do not look alike[/QUOTE]
While no one can argue that source really is quite old by now and could use massive revamps in areas, the majority of unreal 3 games do have a certain way of rendering characters which makes unreal powered games almost instantly recogniseable. It requires quite a lot of work to make a game not have characters that look like they are rendered like in UT3.
And nabbing Mirror's edge and KF as examplex contrary to that is not very good if you ask me.
As mirror's edge completely and utterly replaces the lightning system with a propriatera one (I think it was called beast? not sure) which even shows on the models - they have an extra UV set to facilitate this.
And KF is a UE2.5 powered game so a very different engine generation compared to UE3.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;36277639]
Although, Valve's Portal 2 inga-me map maker thing is really good (probably wouldn't work well for other games considering portal 2's unique art style), Drag and drop is the future of level design in my opinion[/QUOTE]
The future was here back in 2007 with Forge mode in Halo 3 (especially with Foundry which is pretty much an empty slate offering the room for players to make whatever the hell they want). Too bad no one has taken its concept further.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36277906]While no one can argue that source really is quite old by now and could use massive revamps in areas, the majority of unreal 3 games do have a certain way of rendering characters which makes unreal powered games almost instantly recogniseable. It requires quite a lot of work to make a game not have characters that look like they are rendered like in UT3.
And nabbing Mirror's edge and KF as examplex contrary to that is not very good if you ask me.
As mirror's edge completely and utterly replaces the lightning system with a propriatera one (I think it was called beast? not sure) which even shows on the models - they have an extra UV set to facilitate this.
And KF is a UE2.5 powered game so a very different engine generation compared to UE3.[/QUOTE]
already posted some more examples of purely UE3 games with completely different looks and styles
UE3 on its own renders things the same in all games, unless told otherwise. [I]just like source.[/I]
it's entirely a matter of how the developers choose to use the engine to create their style, and a lot of developers choose to use stock UE3 settings in fields like lighting, specifically, which means lots of the games look alike. however the very fact that there are so many games in UE3 that look different (which i've posted) is the only proof you need to see that UE3 isn't the issue, the developers are. and yes Mirrors Edge did modify UE3 somewhat to achieve more detailed characters but the lighting in ME is achievable in an unmodified version of UE3, and even if they did make heavy modifications, who cares? if they did end up revamping the entire lighting system it means UE3 is just as "versatile and moddable" as Source, and further adds to the fact that the developer is fully capable of creating unique graphical themes when using UE3
Holy shit this thread, hell not even this thread, the entire gaming COMMUNITY.
Like some people don't understand that Source is quite honestly one of the best engines out there and will probably be around for the next decade or maybe more. Valve built it with Modularity (probably not the word for it but still) in mind. They can just add on more and more, get rid of the crap they don't need, and viola, have an engine build that can create a perfectly good modern game.
Look at Half Life one, that's GoldSrc, which is the old version of Source. They're the same engine. Now look at CS:Go, or even the "Meet The Team" series. Those are both done in Source, which is by extension, GoldSrc.
GoldSrc was over a [I]decade[/I] ago.
just food for thought
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;36280080]Holy shit this thread, hell not even this thread, the entire gaming COMMUNITY.
Like some people don't understand that Source is quite honestly one of the best engines out there and will probably be around for the next decade or maybe more. Valve built it with Modularity (probably not the word for it but still) in mind. They can just add on more and more, get rid of the crap they don't need, and viola, have an engine build that can create a perfectly good modern game.
Look at Half Life one, that's GoldSrc, which is the old version of Source. They're the same engine. Now look at CS:Go, or even the "Meet The Team" series. Those are both done in Source, which is by extension, GoldSrc.
GoldSrc was over a [I]decade[/I] ago.
just food for thought[/QUOTE]
Only issue here, Source is heavily based on Goldsrc, but it is NOT the same engine.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;36272466]Why not just google and look them up for yourself? Not sure what point you are trying to make.[/QUOTE]
Ah, sorry about that. I forgot google existed when I posted, anyway, snip'd my post.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;36280080]Holy shit this thread, hell not even this thread, the entire gaming COMMUNITY.
Like some people don't understand that Source is quite honestly one of the best engines out there and will probably be around for the next decade or maybe more. Valve built it with Modularity (probably not the word for it but still) in mind. They can just add on more and more, get rid of the crap they don't need, and viola, have an engine build that can create a perfectly good modern game.
Look at Half Life one, that's GoldSrc, which is the old version of Source. They're the same engine. Now look at CS:Go, or even the "Meet The Team" series. Those are both done in Source, which is by extension, GoldSrc.
GoldSrc was over a [I]decade[/I] ago.
just food for thought[/QUOTE]
how does that make Source one of the "best engines" out there? it took them ten years to achieve a level of technical detail that was possible 5+ years ago. and how is source any more "modular" than any other engine? people always say this without anything to back it up and i'm legitimately curious as to whether or not anyone has some technical details that show why and how Source is so "modular". it seems like the only evidence of Source's "versatility" is the fact that Valve has chosen to continue upgrading an old, outdated engine rather than create a new one. you could do the same with any other engine but most people don't because they'd rather start fresh and be 100% "up to date" instead
Lately, Valve's definition of "modularity" has been "shoving as much middleware as possible in the engine"
Which I'm pretty sure is why we don't have public engine builds / source code anymore
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.