Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Spidery_Yoda
UWRyj5cHIQA
+397|3715
Found in the Portal 2 sdk:

http://pastebin.com/q9JB5L9y
Spidery_Yoda
UWRyj5cHIQA
+397|3715
This is relevant.

I find your stonewall ‘no-comment’ responses to the next Half-Life project interesting, because with every other aspect at Valve, you maintain a discussion with fans right until the very end. But before you announce a project, there’s stone silence. Is that to get people excited?

EJ: Oh no way. We’re not trying to spin people to get them super excited. We’re fans of games too and we know what it’s like to be in their seat. Part of it is that we try and be very nimble and fluid with how we make games, and sometimes that can be at odds with how we talk to our customers.

RW: Yeah we’ve been in situations before when we’ve said, hey, we’re going to make X. And then we don’t make X and people ask us why. And we say, yeah, here are the list of reasons why we couldn’t make X, and they say, screw that, you said you were making X!

EJ: And that’s really damaging to our customers. We try to be very careful about setting expectations about what we’re working on. I’m always going back and forth about how transparent we should be, because the reality is that we’re changing our mind all the time about what’s best for our customers.

But the problem is these changes aren’t always communicated to the customer, they just see snippets of info here and there, so you want to be clear what we’re talking about. It’s a really hard problem.

The silence is not about getting people excited about something, it’s about protecting them from an assumption we have about a project that could, in the end, go another way.

Last edited by Spidery_Yoda (2011-05-12 07:10:56)

Trotskygrad
бля
+354|3445|Vortex Ring State
episode 3 is talking so long because they need to make the gameplay up to the "standards" set by recent games... lame
henno13
A generally unremarkable member
+230|3794|Belfast

Trotskygrad wrote:

episode 3 is talking so long because they need to make the gameplay up to the "standards" set by recent games... lame
What standards?
Spidery_Yoda
UWRyj5cHIQA
+397|3715
I don't think that's it at all. I have no idea what they are doing mind you. I just think it has nothing to do with what you find in modern games that you don't find in Half-Life.
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|3769|Graz, Austria
I've been thinking that they maybe have a new engine in the works and want to release a full-blown HL3 on it, rather than wasting more (Valve) time and resources on an episode on the 7+ years old Source engine.

henno13 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

episode 3 is talking so long because they need to make the gameplay up to the "standards" set by recent games... lame
What standards?
Call Of Duty clone?
Hats?
Sisco
grandmaster league revivalist
+493|3789

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

I don't think that's it at all. I have no idea what they are doing mind you. I just think it has nothing to do with what you find in modern games that you don't find in Half-Life.
I think Gabe has the teams occupied with bread and circuses in his vault for months on end.
https://www.abload.de/img/bf3-bf2ssig0250wvn.jpg
mikkel
Member
+383|4047
It seems a bit premature to say that Episode 3 is cancelled. The interview doesn't suggest that it is, only that Valve don't like developing episodic content.

globefish23 wrote:

I've been thinking that they maybe have a new engine in the works and want to release a full-blown HL3 on it, rather than wasting more (Valve) time and resources on an episode on the 7+ years old Source engine.
It makes sense to build a new engine for Half-Life 3, but I wouldn't call it a waste of time and resources to build games on the Source engine. Portal 2 is an obvious testament to that, and Portal 2 is a very pretty game.

Last edited by mikkel (2011-05-15 07:21:36)

Cheez
Herman is a warmaphrodite
+1,027|3884|King Of The Islands

You know a news article is serious when they use "bonza".
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
Spidery_Yoda
UWRyj5cHIQA
+397|3715
They don't have a new engine in the works, but they are focusing on improving source more than they have lately.

They talk about it in these 2 interviews.
http://www.develop-online.net/features/ … io-culture

http://www.develop-online.net/features/ … l-on-Valve
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|3445|Vortex Ring State

henno13 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

episode 3 is talking so long because they need to make the gameplay up to the "standards" set by recent games... lame
What standards?
graphics and epically long first person cutscenes...

like portal 2 opening.
henno13
A generally unremarkable member
+230|3794|Belfast
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,741|4217|Banoi, PNG

\_/

Show me Source 2 and I'll get worked up about a Valve game again.
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|4099|Amsterdam
portal 2 looked more than good enough

the Source engine is infinitely more polished than any newly released one.

why in the fuck would I want to relive source's early days, just so some devs at valve get to re-write the same code and slap a new name on it because Source has reached some arbitrary expiry date?
https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|3914
Source looks good enough, and not using a new engine will drastically reduce resources required for any future products. Source isn't even a bad engine, it's not like Bethesda where their gamebryo engine was so shitty that they had to make a new engine for Skyrim.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,741|4217|Banoi, PNG

Portal 2 also forced you to load, load, load and load again.

Alright, to be fair, Source is great and works on all of my active PC's. I'm more interested in the possibility of a Valve game other than CS/HL/Portal/L4D, but by the time that happens, Source will probably have outlived its upgrade life. It's gotta happen sooner or later. Half-Life 1 came out in '98. Half-Life 2 came out six years later. The clock's ticking.
TimmmmaaaaH
Damn, I... had something for this
+725|3885|Brisbane, Australia

Source isnt just the same engine with some HDR and other newer effects bolted on, it has distinct separate versions. Just because it isnt called something else doesnt mean it isnt different.

The only problem with it (if this is actually the reason, no one knows) is the large amount of loading screens. I dont know why they went to big intrusive loading screens rather than their normal "Loading..." in the middle of the screen in text for Portal 2, it made them far worse.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,741|4217|Banoi, PNG

Source does a foul job of rendering large environments. When they do, it's usually really sparse or just a map on rails. If they can miraculously pull some more modifications out of their ass to fix this age old problem, they may be able to eke a few more years out of Source. If not, well, time for a new engine. I can deal with bugs for awhile if it means pulling Source games out of a technological rut.
Spidery_Yoda
UWRyj5cHIQA
+397|3715
Yes large environments and the constant loading screens are the only problems I have with modern Source. I don't know how they could 'fix' those things really.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,741|4217|Banoi, PNG

/new engine
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|3769|Graz, Austria
Yeah, without streaming capabilities the Source engine is doomed.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
mikkel
Member
+383|4047

globefish23 wrote:

Yeah, without streaming capabilities the Source engine is doomed.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
I don't get this sentiment. It's like people heard it somewhere and latched onto it without thinking. Half-Life and derivatives have been successful in large part due to the modding communities, and the ease of mapping small, closed worlds is a very significant part of that. I can't think of any popular, or even half-way popular Half-Life or Half-Life 2 multiplayer game or mod that would benefit significantly from level streaming. It's pretty strange to suggest that an engine is doomed because it lacks a largely superfluous feature.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,741|4217|Banoi, PNG

If Valve provides even half that level of support to Source 2, I will call it a successful venture. I don't think Source is doomed, but I do think that it can reach a technological dead end for reasons previously listed.

What you called superfluous isn't at all. At some point (one that I've already reached), sitting around waiting for maps to load every few hundred steps is going to get old. Some games can be designed around that successfully (the small maps of TF2, the close proximity of safe rooms and turn-taking in L4D), but as stated, I'd like to see something else. I understand a great deal rests on the machines Valve thinks their customers are still using, but the average is improving all the time.
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|3769|Graz, Austria

mikkel wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Yeah, without streaming capabilities the Source engine is doomed.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
I don't get this sentiment. It's like people heard it somewhere and latched onto it without thinking. Half-Life and derivatives have been successful in large part due to the modding communities, and the ease of mapping small, closed worlds is a very significant part of that. I can't think of any popular, or even half-way popular Half-Life or Half-Life 2 multiplayer game or mod that would benefit significantly from level streaming. It's pretty strange to suggest that an engine is doomed because it lacks a largely superfluous feature.
You can't create a believably immersive, story-driven single-player experience, if a considerable amount of the time is spent on riding elevators.

Also, the modding community can still create small, closed worlds with an engine that also supports large, seamless worlds.
The engine has nothing to do with the quality, popularity or longevity of a game. There are enough crappy games made with good engines.

Since I played GTA3 in 2002, games with a large, open world, where you can go anywhere and (seemingly) can do anything, are my favourite. And even Valve thinks so, if you look at the HL2 and the L4D series, which simulated large, open worlds by circumventing the shortcomings of the Source engine with clever design tricks.

In Portal 2, the "clever" design trick with slapping an ugly, low-res still frame over the elevator-ride-covered loading sequence, failed miserable in my opinion. Even having an animated elevator interior for that time would have been much better.
mikkel
Member
+383|4047

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If Valve provides even half that level of support to Source 2, I will call it a successful venture. I don't think Source is doomed, but I do think that it can reach a technological dead end for reasons previously listed.

What you called superfluous isn't at all. At some point (one that I've already reached), sitting around waiting for maps to load every few hundred steps is going to get old. Some games can be designed around that successfully (the small maps of TF2, the close proximity of safe rooms and turn-taking in L4D), but as stated, I'd like to see something else. I understand a great deal rests on the machines Valve thinks their customers are still using, but the average is improving all the time.
It absolutely is superfluous in the context of the longevity of Source-based games. Only a minuscule amount of the overall time spent playing Source-based games is spent playing singleplayer games with frequent loading screens. The bulk is spent on multiplayer games that genuinely do not need any kind of level streaming to do what they do.

globefish23 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Yeah, without streaming capabilities the Source engine is doomed.
Tiny levels with running from entrance to the exit is more than outdated.
I don't get this sentiment. It's like people heard it somewhere and latched onto it without thinking. Half-Life and derivatives have been successful in large part due to the modding communities, and the ease of mapping small, closed worlds is a very significant part of that. I can't think of any popular, or even half-way popular Half-Life or Half-Life 2 multiplayer game or mod that would benefit significantly from level streaming. It's pretty strange to suggest that an engine is doomed because it lacks a largely superfluous feature.
You can't create a believably immersive, story-driven single-player experience, if a considerable amount of the time is spent on riding elevators.
Thankfully the bulk of time spent on the Source engine is spent on multiplayer games that either don't need level changes at all, or have infrequent level changes that add to the immersion in the way that they're presented.

Also, the modding community can still create small, closed worlds with an engine that also supports large, seamless worlds.
The engine has nothing to do with the quality, popularity or longevity of a game. There are enough crappy games made with good engines.
That would make sense if you completely ignored the history of PC gaming. The /only/ games to enjoy considerable longevity with considerable communities around them, with very few or no exceptions, are MMOs, and extensively moddable games. The engine, and how it's presented to enthusiasts, has /everything/ to do with the longevity of a game.

globefish23 wrote:

Since I played GTA3 in 2002, games with a large, open world, where you can go anywhere and (seemingly) can do anything, are my favourite. And even Valve thinks so, if you look at the HL2 and the L4D series, which simulated large, open worlds by circumventing the shortcomings of the Source engine with clever design tricks.
Why does it matter what your favourite type of game world is? It makes as much sense as saying that pasta is doomed because you prefer rice. To suggest that Valve prefer sandbox game worlds by citing two very linear games that didn't at all attempt to be sandbox worlds is completely silly.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard