So has this been debunked as fake yet ? The supposed "end of thread" on this page doesn't really provide anything
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;43708745]Valve caters to a certain audience and they design their games and engine around that. I'd take open moddability along with engine flexibility over ridiculous attempts at photorealism and such.
Because thats just not how Valve works. I bet you they don't give two shits about trying to beat UE4 or whatever other engine graphically, Valve knows what they can do and what is best for their audience and that is enough for me.
Its ridiculous that after all this time source 2 is starting to surface and people expect it to be the most cutting edge thing out there.[/QUOTE]
having worked with ue3 udk, source, and unity, and seeing the shifting trends in the modding/indie community over the past 3 years or so, i just can't agree with this
source was amazing when it came out and was [I]also[/I] the no.1 modding tool. so why, by your logic, should source 2 not be expected to look amazing just so that modders can use it? that doesn't make any sense. the two factors don't correlate at all
regardless, ue3 still looks great when used by talented artists and is being used for a bunch of indie games and is the staple on polycount for in-engine rendering simply because it is so pretty [i]and[/i] easy to use and, i'd argue, udk is easier to use than hammer and the sdk. it's also being reported that ue4's udk will have an improved kismet that will allow people with no coding knowledge to make far more complex things than ever before
so yeh there's no reason why you can't be both pretty [I]and[/I] have great dev tools. the two things don't cancel out:
[t]http://www.whitepapergames.com/press/03.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.routinegame.com/images/Routine_shots_02.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;43712418]So has this been debunked as fake yet ? The supposed "end of thread" on this page doesn't really provide anything[/QUOTE]
If anything it makes it less likely to be fake, the guy was saying that he was sorry for leaking the images and CBOAT has nothing to do with it, other than posting the images up after receiving them from him.
[QUOTE=Smasher 006;43713054]If anything it makes it less likely to be fake, the guy was saying that he was sorry for leaking the images and CBOAT has nothing to do with it, other than posting the images up after receiving them from him.[/QUOTE]
Very interesting development; I wonder if gabe decided he'd fuck with the world by releasing old Source 2 dev screenshots
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43712543]having worked with ue3 udk, source, and unity, and seeing the shifting trends in the modding/indie community over the past 3 years or so, i just can't agree with this
source was amazing when it came out and was [I]also[/I] the no.1 modding tool. so why, by your logic, should source 2 not be expected to look amazing just so that modders can use it? that doesn't make any sense. the two factors don't correlate at all
regardless, ue3 still looks great when used by talented artists and is being used for a bunch of indie games and is the staple on polycount for in-engine rendering simply because it is so pretty [i]and[/i] easy to use and, i'd argue, udk is easier to use than hammer and the sdk. it's also being reported that ue4's udk will have an improved kismet that will allow people with no coding knowledge to make far more complex things than ever before
so yeh there's no reason why you can't be both pretty [I]and[/I] have great dev tools. the two things don't cancel out:
[/QUOTE]
I'd take a stab and predict Valve won't break a leg trying to make their new engine support bleeding-edge stuff that they won't be using in their own games because they know for fact a significant portion of their customer base doesn't have good enough hardware to warrant it. Source happened over a decade ago, keeping their own game engine updated at the forefront of technology obviously hasn't been a priority for them. Half-Life 2 might have been amazing when it came out but Valve have been doing fine sitting comfortably in their low-mid gaming performance market segment. I believe Valve today is more focused on the gaming experience and less on graphical excellence. If Source 2 blows everyone's mind nobody will be happier than me but considering Valve hasn't been known as world-class engine builders for the last 10 years I wouldn't hold my breath.
[QUOTE=Juniez;43704438]er you do know what voxels are right? atm SVOGI are definitely going to be at a loooowww resolution compared to traditional lightmaps anyways due to its heavy ass performance[/QUOTE]
yeah but u dont need a lot of resolution for GI anyways. a larger part of it better ambient occlusion and shadows, which are improving a lot.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;43713442]yeah but u dont need a lot of resolution for GI anyways. a larger part of it better ambient occlusion and shadows, which are improving a lot.[/QUOTE]
This is true. I noticed that the GI in the Last of Us/Uncharted was fairly low res but still looked good none the less. You definitely want more quality in AO and shadows right now. GI is definitely a lovely touch of realism that I always get giddy at seeing implemented into games though.
[QUOTE=DeEz;43711451]but you're still making the assumption that there'll be a TF3[/QUOTE]
Based on how TF2 is hugely popular and makes Valve an unbelievable amount of money for what they do nowadays. You'd be crazy to think there will never be a sequel somewhere down the line.
[QUOTE=Juniez;43704438]no udk uses dynamic occlusion now
[url]http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/VisibilityCulling.html[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Well the brushes are still really crap compared to Crytek's, UE3's are more like Source BSP than real CSG.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;43726695]What would they even add that warrants the creation of TF3? There's nothing they can't add or change to TF2.[/QUOTE]They can if they have a different vision for example. After all they did make CSGO instead of changing CSS.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;43726996]CSS and TF2 aren't comparable, CSS was pretty much just a graphical upgrade, they wanted to show off the Source engine, it was never intended to push the series' mechanics forward, if they had done balance changes and added/removed weapons in CSS then making something like CS:GO would've been redundant.[/QUOTE]
They would have to make a sequel or remake if they wanted to push TF2's mechanics forward regardless.
[QUOTE=Legend286;43726656]Well the brushes are still really crap compared to Crytek's, UE3's are more like Source BSP than real CSG.[/QUOTE]
That's because CryENGINE 3 doesn't actually use CSG or BSP, except maybe for certain structual placements (I'm not sure about this, because of a lack of internal knowledge of the engine), but their documentation states a use of heightmaps for terrains with additional voxel detail allowing you to create concaves and overhangs without any kind of CSG or BSP maps, needing only the heightmap itself as well as the voxel data, which can often be much more detailed but needing less data to be loaded. Less data in the detail:data ratio I mean.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;43728122]That's because CryENGINE 3 doesn't actually use CSG or BSP, except maybe for certain structual placements (I'm not sure about this, because of a lack of internal knowledge of the engine), but their documentation states a use of heightmaps for terrains with additional voxel detail allowing you to create concaves and overhangs without any kind of CSG or BSP maps, needing only the heightmap itself as well as the voxel data, which can often be much more detailed but needing less data to be loaded. Less data in the detail:data ratio I mean.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://freesdk.crydev.net/display/SDKDOC2/Solid+Tool[/url]
meshes are always recommended over it tho
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lM9rCVj.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;43724228]Based on how TF2 is hugely popular and makes Valve an unbelievable amount of money for what they do nowadays. You'd be crazy to think there will never be a sequel somewhere down the line.[/QUOTE]
F2P games don't get sequels, F2P didn't exist back then, things are different. TF2 will just be updated and changed indefinitely, like web browsers or OS's are changed indefinitely but being the same name and all. All of a TF3 would would be is another F2P game (redundant) that would have higher system requirements (silly) resulting in a game with less people playing it than TF2, meaning a flat out loss of money. There is no possible scenario in which a TF3 would make money.
[QUOTE=banshee93;43729102][T]http://i.imgur.com/lM9rCVj.jpg[/T][/QUOTE]
I don't know why, but seeing this just gives me the impression that some random guy is pulling a literal Gordon Freeman and sneaking around Valve's HQ through the vent shafts, looking for information to steal.
[QUOTE=Marcolade;43730447]I don't know why, but seeing this just gives me the impression that some random guy is pulling a literal Gordon Freeman and sneaking around Valve's HQ through the vent shafts, looking for information to steal.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/kakigori/kakigori1204/kakigori120400007/13080763-happy-thief-sneaking-carrying-a-huge-bag-of-stolen-property.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43712543]having worked with ue3 udk, source, and unity, and seeing the shifting trends in the modding/indie community over the past 3 years or so, i just can't agree with this
source was amazing when it came out and was [I]also[/I] the no.1 modding tool. so why, by your logic, should source 2 not be expected to look amazing just so that modders can use it? that doesn't make any sense. the two factors don't correlate at all
regardless, ue3 still looks great when used by talented artists and is being used for a bunch of indie games and is the staple on polycount for in-engine rendering simply because it is so pretty [i]and[/i] easy to use and, i'd argue, udk is easier to use than hammer and the sdk. it's also being reported that ue4's udk will have an improved kismet that will allow people with no coding knowledge to make far more complex things than ever before
so yeh there's no reason why you can't be both pretty [I]and[/I] have great dev tools. the two things don't cancel out:
[t]http://www.whitepapergames.com/press/03.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.routinegame.com/images/Routine_shots_02.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Realistic expectations is the bottom line.
[QUOTE=banshee93;43729102][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lM9rCVj.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
This guy should just fucken release the pdf instead of teasing the community with it. I dont doubt we will see it at some point.
[QUOTE=banshee93;43729102][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lM9rCVj.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
this doesn't look like a Valve PDF at all
[QUOTE=itisjuly;43726894]They can if they have a different vision for example. After all they did make CSGO instead of changing CSS.[/QUOTE]
CS:S was made purely to show off Source's MP features and graphics, CS:GO was to show off the L4D2/Portal2 Source Engine along with what would happen if you brought a TF2 like system regarding weapons and accessories into the CS universe
Also CS:GO was originally just a CS:S port to the Xbox but Hidden Path got distracted and did something different
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43734441]this doesn't look like a Valve PDF at all[/QUOTE]
Its an internal presentation tho, why would they care what it looks like.
The guy could just have grabbed the second default PowerPoint template and went with it.
EDIT: Probably still a fake tho.
[editline]31st January 2014[/editline]
Every time i go to a different forum i miss facepunch, on the NeoGaf source the first 15 pages are nothing except reaction images.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43712543]
[t]http://www.whitepapergames.com/press/03.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.routinegame.com/images/Routine_shots_02.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
I'm inclined to argue that both of those images are entirely possible within the current Source engine. It's the quality of the visual design rather than the backend graphics engine and shaders that make those two images as pretty as they are
[QUOTE=Cold;43734847]Its an internal presentation tho, why would they care what it looks like.
The guy could just have grabbed the second default PowerPoint template and went with it.
EDIT: Probably still a fake tho.[/QUOTE]
I'm 99% sure it's a fake, it's written like some guy's idealized version of what internal documents look like. The only way it could be more obvious is if the guy had written "VALVe" instead of "VALVE".
and that bottom line...
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3797350/hosting/2014-01/2014-01-31_09-44-15.png[/img]
why would this be here when 1) it's a given that the guy works at Valve 2) why is there a title of "Senior Developer" when job titles is the kind of thing that their working architecture [I]avoids [/I]designated job titles.
If this isn't a fake I'll be very surprised.
Valve have a go-to template for all their presentations, the leaked PowerPoint screenshot was using it. It'd be strange for them to not use the default template, and instead use a random one.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;43727068]Not really, as I said there's nothing they can't change or add in TF2, the only thing I can think of that would require making TF3 is moving to Source 2.[/QUOTE]
No they can't add or change anything they please without pissing everyone off. Especially if changes are major it makes more sense for a new game rather than re-working their existing product.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43734949]2) why is there a title of "Senior Developer" when job titles is the kind of thing that their working architecture [I]avoids [/I]designated job titles.
[/QUOTE]
While I agree with everything else, most people usually 'need' to have a status assigned to their name when they present something, and "Senior Developer" can mean just about anything other than that they've been there a long time.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43735037]While I agree with everything else, most people usually 'need' to have a status assigned to their name when they present something, and "Senior Developer" can mean just about anything other than that they've been there a long time.[/QUOTE]
They're giving jobs to old people is all
[QUOTE=itisjuly;43735075]They're giving jobs to old people is all[/QUOTE]
That must by why HL3 is taking so long, their senior staff are still figuring out how to use their computers.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;43735028]No they can't add or change anything they please without pissing everyone off. Especially if changes are major it makes more sense for a new game rather than re-working their existing product.[/QUOTE]
They have done a lot of changes and they have pissed people off with them, the game is completely different now than what it was on release.
The whole history of TF2 is people being pissed at change, they don't care if people get pissed because they know it's just kids throwing shitfits that then forget about it after a week.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.