6 Years For Half-Life 2 Yeah right

[Wolf]

How am I "pushing his credibility when he uses words like 'completely different' or 'revoluntionary' in contrast to previous unified lighting technology which was 'gimmicky' or 'fake'." when I never said that. Provide a quote please.

(Emphasis added by me)

Here you go:

I repeat, ALL shadows and light detail is created in real time. No pre compiled shadow maps or fake shadows painted on to textures. That is the revolution, and many games are trying to simulate it. Half-Life 2 isn't even close to that in the rendering area.

What game has the Unified lighting model that Doom 3 has? Be carefull, don't fall for that "Dynamic Lighting" marketing jargon that many games throw around.

Note how this quote applies to games generally & not just HL2.

As far as I'm concerned you owe me an apology. Or at least "fess up".

ROFL mate. Don't take yourself so seriously. You made a big deal over D3's lighting model in comparison to other technology and some clarifications were made about what's "revoluntionary"... I made a post which disputed that D3's approach (to significant degree) hadn't ever been done in another released engine and I made the counter claim that that model of lighting isn't necessarily the best approach on current hardware nor will it necessarily produce good graphics & realistic environments.

You said HL2 had no original tech and you were shot down. You asserted without evidence that HL2 & Source didn't take 6 years and you were again shot down. Seems like an open and shut case of you stretching your credibility a little thin in this thread... It's no biggie and certainly not meant as a personal attack on you, I just don't think you've done much to defend your assertions...

 

[EVIL]

lol.. Unified lighting model is revolutionary haha.. its nothing more then another step up on the evolution ladder of graphics in games, nothing more nothing less..

 

[Crusader]

Far too many things of that nature are completely faked.

This kind of thing amuses me.


Yes, Doom 3 isn't a computer game, and it physically places a real-size lamp in areal corridor on the actual planet Mars, and sends a live feed to your computer monitor to display it.

Get real: they're both computer games, it's all about faking it.

Faking it is the whole point. If iD could work out a way of getting a great looking lighting solution for a horror game without calculating it on the fly (losing lots of image quality, I might add), they would.


Headline News:

Computer Games Not Real, Noobs in Shock!

 

[SFLUFAN]

Far be it from me to debate the technological merits of this debate, I'm no expert at such things. But it would seem to me than in any undertaking as expansive as HL2 or D3, there would be significant periods of re-work that would only add to the length of development time. Perhaps there is a period where the plotline is modified significantly or something that you thought would work in the coding simply didn't and has to be redone.

The way I see it is this: a quality product means taking your time with it. Is six years a long time? Maybe, maybe not - I don't know, I'm not a game developer. But I'd rather have them take 6 years to release an absolutely wonderful, immersive game experience than something rushed.

Look at this for example - in 6 years, George Lucas made 2 Star Wars movies that were so subpar that the series as a whole has been all but tainted - at least Valve cares enough about their product (and its fans by extension) to take their time.

 

[billbo]

Moving away from all things not related to the topic, am I the only one that had never heard that Valve did start it 6 years ago? Because it seems that most people here had prior knowledge, but when I asked for links I never got any. With all the rumors around I am less then willing to accept things like that I guess. I did get defensive, but I seem to remember something about "idiot". Concerning the technology, how about we call it based on subjectivity and move on from that mess. Seriously, I wasn't trying to be an ass when I was asking for proof of the 6 years thing, I had never heard of it till now.

 

[Fishlore]

You sure sounded like an ass. You come in here, you don't read the sticky threads, you throw around accusations and you made yourself look ridiculous. Good job. Next time when fifty people take the side opposite yours, realize there is a reason for it.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

Calm down...


I think that particular arguement is just about settled...

 

[billbo]

You sure sounded like an ass. You come in here, you don't read the sticky threads, you throw around accusations and you made yourself look ridiculous. Good job. Next time when fifty people take the side opposite yours, realize there is a reason for it.

Real nice, I extend a hand in friendship and get slapped. Seriously, lets move on from that. :cheers:

 

[billbo]

I officially change my position to "there is no reason to believe that it did not take them six years." Looking back at this thread, I seem to be stubborn. :thumbs:

 

[Fishlore]

My bad, I didn't mean that to be as mean as it probably sounded.

 

[billbo]

It's ok man.

 

[TAOakenshield]

The unified lighting model is just lightmaps calculated in real-time.

This does have advantages, like the lighting being able to react better to bits of geometry shifting about, but also has the disadvantage that it requires craploads of CPU power. Anyone who's mapped for HL knows that the RAD stage, where the light is calculated, takes a damn long time, and this is because it's calculating all the light and shadow for the map, and it's a computer power intensive operation.

To get round the inescapable reality that real-time lighting really bites in terms of computing power, Carmack had to comprimise, keeping poly counts as low as possible to simplify the calculations, and not having the light bounce, making the lighting very harsh. If my mental reckoning is right, it's practically impossible to have proper bouncing light calculated in real-time because the computing power demands rise exponentially.

While this suits the mood of D3, it would look pretty terrible in a lot of other games, which is why they make the comprimise of lightmaps, which look far more realistic than D3-style lighting, and since they're calculated based purely on static geometry, they look just fine. Really, they're a much better simulation of how light works in real life than Doom 3, as you get light bouncing off surfaces to illuminate another surface, just like real life.

Anyways, whilst a lot of the basic ideas behind engine rendering is the same (BSP trees have been with us for a while, and since they're still the best thing to use mathematically, they will be for a long while yet) it still takes time to re-write the code that implements all of this from the ground up. The real trick is in how they architect the internal code of the engine to make it as robust, feature-rich and future-proof as possible, and I'd imagine this is the kinda area in which Valve would be doing the most work.

Quoted for thruth. Ever since I saw the first images/vids of D3, I've been bugged by the very "hard" lighting where surfaces unlit directly are completely black.

IMO Valve has acheived a perfect balance between realism and over-ambitious graphical acheivements. Everyone should notice that most of HL2's realism comes from features which have practically nothing to do with graphical perfection, such as the facial animations, atmosphere and (presumably) level design - which as a whole basically make up the gameplay. On the flipside, Valves graphical ambition has not been to acheive -ahem-"revolutionary" graphical results (such as "perfect" lighting).

In a few words, realism and gameplay - for HL2 - do not come directly from the game's graphics. And such an approach to game design is surely time consuming. A six-year development cycle is very likely when game designers put gameplay at the top of their to-acheived-with-particular-greatness list.

Still, there are obviously some who pretend that playing a game with more advanced lighting calculations is more "fun". IMO such opinions are just flawed.

 

[ferd]

This thread started completely different....how did it become another D3 thread?

 

[billbo]

Actually, we're trying to get it back on track again I believe. I'm partly responsible for the thread being derailed, and I'm now asking humbly to move on from the graphics debate.

 

[lans]

Jesus christ! People is it SO HARD to keep a thread on topic and NOT change it into Doom3 engine Vs. source thread?

 

[brink's]

Because no one understands that Halflife2 and DOOM3 can both be good games.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

To get back on topic i dug up my old PC Powerplay (Australian mag) dated July 2003.

The first question

PCPP: How long has Half-Life 2 been in development? And what stage of the process is the game at right now?

Gabe Newell: We started pretty much right after we finished Half-Life. With the exception of Yahn Bernier, whose working with Robin Walker on the Team Fortress 2 team, the Half-Life team switched to Half-Life 2 and then we added a bunch of people like Mike Dussault (developer of LithTech), and Gary McTaggart and Charlie Brown (developers of Bioware's Infnity Engine). The engine functionality was frozen last September and we're planning on shipping September 30th of this year.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Because no one understands that Halflife2 and DOOM3 can both be good games.

It's a joke isn't it. Everytime a HAlf-Life 2 thread morphs into a HL2 vs Doom3 all i hear is Doom3 lighting sux or Doom3 models look like plastic.

Great....

 

[TAOakenshield]

blah blah ... the Half-Life team switched to Half-Life 2 and then we added a bunch of people like ... [Charlie Brown ...

Half-Life 2 : Peanuts' revenge

The end boss for HL2 will be Charles Schulz's ghost!!!

:bounce:

Erm, yeah back on topic.

PCPP: How long has Half-Life 2 been in development? And what stage of the process is the game at right now?

Gabe Newell: We started pretty much right after we finished Half-Life. [...]The engine functionality was frozen last September and we're planning on shipping September 30th of this year.

I guess this means that the engine was developped in 4 years and then they planned to take only a year to create the game content? Naaah. That's just impossible. This crazyness must be what Gabe called "unrealistic scheduling" when they were planning to release it by Sept 30 of 2003.

 

[subtlesnake]

Moving away from all things not related to the topic, am I the only one that had never heard that Valve did start it 6 years ago? Because it seems that most people here had prior knowledge, but when I asked for links I never got any. With all the rumors around I am less then willing to accept things like that I guess. I did get defensive, but I seem to remember something about "idiot". Concerning the technology, how about we call it based on subjectivity and move on from that mess. Seriously, I wasn't trying to be an ass when I was asking for proof of the 6 years thing, I had never heard of it till now.

Valve started HL2 shortly after they completed HL. This is fact, as spoken by Newell himself. Part of the development time was spent contructing the engine, part was spent building the game's content.

And you can't assume people will go digging through age old interviews just to find select pieces of information for you.

 

[billbo]

Valve started HL2 shortly after they completed HL. This is fact, as spoken by Newell himself. Part of the development time was spent contructing the engine, part was spent building the game's content.

And you can't assume people will go digging through age old interviews just to find select pieces of information for you.

People can't expect me to believe it with all the rumors that fly around without evidence, I made that part clear. I even searched on Google for information, but never found it. Someone finally did clear it up for me. Can we move on now?

 

[EVIL]

Fishlore: My bad, I didn't mean that to be as mean as it probably sounded.

billbo: It's ok man.

GROUP HUG!!!

 

[adulus]

They didn't up and go straight to developing Half-life 2 after they finished Half-Life 1...and they were busy for a while with mods(Opposing Force, Blue Shit, Gunman Chronicles, CounterStrike, DOD) They probably started 3 years ago.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

They didn't up and go straight to developing Half-life 2 after they finished Half-Life 1...and they were busy for a while with mods(Opposing Force, Blue Shit, Gunman Chronicles, CounterStrike, DOD) They probably started 3 years ago.

Hey dude, read my reply a couple of replies up!!

 

[coleslawjoe]

Back to doom 3 for a second,

I would like to see doom 3 render a large outdoor scene, and have 64 player capable multiplayer, and can run descently on a 1.2ghz processor and a dx7 card.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Back to doom 3 for a second,

I would like to see doom 3 render a large outdoor scene, and have 64 player capable multiplayer, and can run descently on a 1.2ghz processor and a dx7 card.

I'd like to see HL2 do that as well.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

I'd like to see HL2 do that as well.

Amen to that!! :E

 

[subtlesnake]

People can't expect me to believe it with all the rumors that fly around without evidence,

Rumours are pieces of speculative information about things such as release dates. Factual information pertaining to where HL2 is set, what engine it uses, or how long has it been in development are not subject to rumours. If you asked a HL2 fan what enemies were in HL2, would you refuse to believe any answer he gave?

I'm feeling argumentative today.

 

[Crusader]

The difference is, we'd like to see that, and we will

 

[billbo]

Rumours are pieces of speculative information about things such as release dates. Factual information pertaining to where HL2 is set, what engine it uses, or how long has it been in development are not subject to rumours. If you asked a HL2 fan what enemies were in HL2, would you refuse to believe any answer he gave?

I'm feeling argumentative today.

Then argue with someone else, I'm not interested. :E

 

[Ermac]

Doom 3... , it also includes an in-house physics system.:O

The physics engine on Doom 3 Sucks, compared to HL2's Very complex Physics.
I know i have played both of those games stolen builds. And you cant even mess around whit the physics in doom 3. all u can do is knock stuff over.

 

[ApocalypseNow]

The physics engine on Doom 3 Sucks, compared to HL2's Very complex Physics.
I know i have played both of those games stolen builds. And you cant even mess around whit the physics in doom 3. all u can do is knock stuff over.

How do you know? have you played the final version of Doom 3?

 

[Gunner]

The physics engine on Doom 3 Sucks, compared to HL2's Very complex Physics.
I know i have played both of those games stolen builds. And you cant even mess around whit the physics in doom 3. all u can do is knock stuff over.

Can it be? is that really?... yes! it's another D3 vs HL2 post!

 

[clarky003]

hey ,, lol isnt Source just an advanced adaptation of the quake engine... ?

 

[Son_Kane]

I hope the engine is as upgrabable as they are leading us to believe. I mean one day if they add better lighting or more shaders, or even update the shaders to 3.0 okay that's nice. But I have doubts that I can pick up a glass with the manipulator gun and dip it in the water and fill the glass while lowering the depth of water where I got it from. And if I can do that, neat. Maybe a video that had a real-time waterfall. Real-time in the fact that it's the water rushing off not a sprite connected to the water etc etc. Can I break a container that will make water run down hill? If not I hope these things can be upgraded.

 

[PvtRyan]

I hope the engine is as upgrabable as they are leading us to believe. I mean one day if they add better lighting or more shaders, or even update the shaders to 3.0 okay that's nice. But I have doubts that I can pick up a glass with the manipulator gun and dip it in the water and fill the glass while lowering the depth of water where I got it from. And if I can do that, neat. Maybe a video that had a real-time waterfall. Real-time in the fact that it's the water rushing off not a sprite connected to the water etc etc. Can I break a container that will make water run down hill? If not I hope these things can be upgraded.

What is it with people and fluids? Look out the window on a rainy day!

:rolling:

 

[Mountain Man]

do you really think it took almost 6 years to make this game i doubt it what do you guys think .

4 years to develop the technology and 2 years to make the actual game content. Sounds about right.

 

[clarky003]

seriously sounds about right to me, I mean alot of people really have no clue how much work goes into the game making process, let alone making their own unique engine :O.

6 years is good time,

although it should of been 5

 

[SnowBall]

I like to look at it like this. If high budget movies were games, then Half-Life 2 would be one of them. I believe it took around $25million to make it.

 

[EVIL]

hey ,, lol isnt Source just an advanced adaptation of the quake engine... ?

serious question = NO! that was the hl1 engine. source is new
trying to be funny question = LOL jolly joker