Did Valve waste their time?

[WaterMelon34]

I hate to say it, but you know how Valve were making the Source engine for so long and put in so much money into it? From a point of view that was a waste...

It took 5 whole years for Valve to make Source and you saw the vids/screens etc. on it. But, Epic, the creators of Unreal, have been making an engine for Unreal 3 for about 18 months and is due out on 2006, in these 18 months of development the graphics look about 5 times better than Half-Life 2's, even the physics look better... Weigh it, 18 months. 5 years.

There's a huge difference...

If you want proof google the keyword "Unreal 3" (Without the ")

But, that's only from a technological point of view, I mean Half-Life 1 lasted this long, I think Half-Life 2 will last quite long aswell.

:cheers:


What do you think?

 

[Cutey_Kaite]

I think that Valve will do good

 

[H-52]

You're talking about the screenies in the other thread right??

Give it a freakin' break man. Screenies arent an really good indicator of what an egine is capable of. We know that from the DooM III screenies and movies. Let's just wait on what comes out of the E3 is what I say.

 

[blahblahblah]

I hate to say it, but you know how Valve were making the Source engine for so long and put in so much money into it? From a point of view that was a waste...

It took 5 whole years for Valve to make Source and you saw the vids/screens etc. on it. But, Epic, the creators of Unreal, have been making an engine for Unreal 3 for about 18 months and is due out on 2006, in these 18 months of development the graphics look about 5 times better than Half-Life 2's, even the physics look better... Weigh it, 18 months. 5 years.

There's a huge difference...

But, that's only from a technological point of view, I mean Half-Life 1 lasted this long, I think Half-Life 2 will last quite long aswell.

:cheers:


What do you think?

Half-Life didn't take 5 years to make. Back then, game developers were banging out games every 2 years.

It takes a lot of time to create an engine from scratch. Even new engines like Doom3 use bits and pieces of the Quake 3 engine (I think they used some tools and other arbitrary stuff). It took Valve over a year to get the lip-synching technology in place. It just takes time to make a brand new engine and then make a game. I promise you that the first game to feature the Unreal 3 engine will probably be delayed atleast once because of delays.

 

[kaf11]

theres no way valve wasted their time. source seems to be more than just a pretty face. i think HL2 will have the same lasting power that HL1 did. im not too sure if any other gaming company is as good at making good games. there are a whole lot of better looking games than HL1 yet i still consider it to be better than all of them.

 

[dream431ca]

Valve did not waste their time. You know why?? Because no matter how much the game gets delayed, no matter how many rumors come out, and no matter how many fans have so called "WALKED OUT" on valve because of no new information released, they WILL STILL BUY HALF-LIFE 2 regardless of all that. I know it and you know it. :farmer:

 

[Xtasy0]

I hate to say it, but you know how Valve were making the Source engine for so long and put in so much money into it? From a point of view that was a waste...

It took 5 whole years for Valve to make Source and you saw the vids/screens etc. on it. But, Epic, the creators of Unreal, have been making an engine for Unreal 3 for about 18 months and is due out on 2006, in these 18 months of development the graphics look about 5 times better than Half-Life 2's, even the physics look better... Weigh it, 18 months. 5 years.

There's a huge difference...

If you want proof google the keyword "Unreal 3" (Without the ")

But, that's only from a technological point of view, I mean Half-Life 1 lasted this long, I think Half-Life 2 will last quite long aswell.

:cheers:


What do you think?

the physics look better? hrm i didnt know there was a demonstration of unreal 3's physics, please link me.

 

[DarkStar]

The Source engine isn't what will make HL2 great. Looking at todays screenshots and looking over the old media, at this point I'll even go so far to say the Source engine sorta looks like crap. BUT THAT DOESN"T MATTER. And I don't want to argue about it.

Valve's keen sense of gameplay and "what's fun" -- these are the things that will make HL2 great.

 

[qckbeam]

I hate to say it, but you know how Valve were making the Source engine for so long and put in so much money into it? From a point of view that was a waste...

It took 5 whole years for Valve to make Source and you saw the vids/screens etc. on it. But, Epic, the creators of Unreal, have been making an engine for Unreal 3 for about 18 months and is due out on 2006, in these 18 months of development the graphics look about 5 times better than Half-Life 2's, even the physics look better... Weigh it, 18 months. 5 years.

There's a huge difference...

If you want proof google the keyword "Unreal 3" (Without the ")

But, that's only from a technological point of view, I mean Half-Life 1 lasted this long, I think Half-Life 2 will last quite long aswell.

:cheers:


What do you think?

Unreal 3 is aimed at bringing the current power cards to their knees. It's unfair to compare the Source engine to it, since the source is meant to be very flexible, and run very well on current tech.

 

[ailevation]

Of course Valve was wasting their time. They were using the Source engine to fool around with making porno movies, to test its graphical quality and physics.

 

[WaterMelon34]

Dude this isn't about the stupid screens. I recently saw an Unreal 3 video that almost gave me a heart attack. 100 times more lighting detail than in Ut 2004... One model has more bitmaps, textures, and poly's than a whole map in original Unreal... 10 times more level detail than in Ut 2004... Bump map textures that actually make walls look 3d and very realisticly I might add... Gimme a break, this has nothing to do with the screens!

Maybe Valve delayed HL2 because they found out about Unreal 3?

Half-Life didn't take 5 years to make. Back then, game developers were banging out games every 2 years.

It takes a lot of time to create an engine from scratch. Even new engines like Doom3 use bits and pieces of the Quake 3 engine (I think they used some tools and other arbitrary stuff). It took Valve over a year to get the lip-synching technology in place. It just takes time to make a brand new engine and then make a game. I promise you that the first game to feature the Unreal 3 engine will probably be delayed atleast once because of delays.

Valve officially announced the engine took 5 years to make... And Unreal 3's engine is totally made from scratch aswell... And, overall it's only going to take about 3 years to make the Unreal 3 engine. They started 18 months ago and it's coming out in 2006.


I exagerated in the first post, there was nothing really on the physics. BUT STILL! It looks dangerous...

 

[XenoSpirit]

yeah i mean U3.0 looks absolutly sweet and ima get me a job soon... my plan for life is to just get a small house in the boonie (cant spell contry),stay single and just save my money for a good computer and a good pice of land to make a nuther small house on...

 

[WaterMelon34]

Valve did not waste their time. You know why?? Because no matter how much the game gets delayed, no matter how many rumors come out, and no matter how many fans have so called "WALKED OUT" on valve because of no new information released, they WILL STILL BUY HALF-LIFE 2 regardless of all that. I know it and you know it.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Moto]

Technology will always get better, that is a fact. Things are always improving. Valve didn't waste their time at all. Source can do things that other engines can't. Source is still advanced. So what if Unreal 3 has scarily realistic visuals, does it have perfected physics like HL2? Does it have a great story like HL2? Does it have the same quality of gameplay that HL2 will provide?

It is hard to match Valve's games as far as quality and handywork. Valve employees pour their heart and soul into this game. That is why it isn't out yet. That is why it will be at the top of gamespy's stats list 6 years from now.
Not many companies give their games the kind of treatment that Valve does.

If you still want the game, they didn't waste their time. It won't be a waste of time once they sell millions of copies and it is declared "The best First Person Shooter Ever. Period."

HL2 is like Valve's little baby. They won't let it go until it is completely grown up, and once it is, they will look back on its development and wish it was still a baby, just being created. Once it is grown up and on it's own, it will be just like its daddy (HL1) and blow everyone away and recieve several game of the year awards. When everything is said and done, HL1 will look at what HL2 has accomplished and say "That's my boy, he's a chip off the ol' block." :thumbs:

 

[qckbeam]

Dude this isn't about the stupid screens. I recently saw an Unreal 3 video that almost gave me a heart attack. 100 times more lighting detail than in Ut 2004... One model has more bitmaps, textures, and poly's than a whole map in original Unreal... 10 times more level detail than in Ut 2004... Bump map textures that actually make walls look 3d and very realisticly I might add... Gimme a break, this has nothing to do with the screens!

Maybe Valve delayed HL2 because they found out about Unreal 3?



Valve officially announced the engine took 5 years to make... And Unreal 3's engine is totally made from scratch aswell... And, overall it's only going to take about 3 years to make the Unreal 3 engine. They started 18 months ago and it's coming out in 2006.


I exagerated in the first post, there was nothing really on the physics. BUT STILL! It looks dangerous...

listen, Unreal 3 tech is a looooong ways off....it's meant to bring CURRENT top of the line cards to their knees. It's designed with a whole different target in mind. The video was a demo of stuff that is a few genrations away yet. Every once in a while we get a glimpse into the future of technology with these little demos. Be assured, it's a long way off yet. Calm down

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Hmm yes. Lets give Valve more incentive to delay the game another year.

Complain away dear friends! Complain away....

 

[Jackal hit]

i think he's talking about development TIME gone into creating the unreal engine. such as "why will this amazing unreal engine be done so much more quickly than Source?"

 

[PaiMei]

HAH HAH HAH. IDIOTS! He is not comparing the engines.. he is comparing the timeframes of their development. NOW CEASE YOUR BRAYING! IT BRINGS ME DISCOMFORT!

 

[WaterMelon34]

YEAH!! THATS RIGhT!!


18 months - 5 years ...
18 months - 5 years ...
18 months - 5 years ...
18 months - 5 years ...


I forgot about that... I thought I was talking about the tech... I was... But that was when I thought I was talking about it..


Your kung-fu is not strong... watch this...

#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
cout << "HIIIYAAA!!\n";
cout << "WACK!\n";
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}

 

[blahblahblah]

Valve officially announced the engine took 5 years to make... And Unreal 3's engine is totally made from scratch aswell... And, overall it's only going to take about 3 years to make the Unreal 3 engine. They started 18 months ago and it's coming out in 2006.

I just watched the video about the Unreal 3 engine. There is no way it is coming out 2006. It was pretty obvious that the Geforce 6800U was having significant trouble rendering a single creature on a screen. If they were able to render an entire level with characters in that detail on a 6800U I would have been worried about HL2.

If Unreal 3 comes out in 2006, it would have been in development for 4 years and that is not assuming any delays. You need to take a chill pill.

 

[qckbeam]

i think he's talking about development TIME gone into creating the unreal engine. such as "why will this amazing unreal engine be done so much more quickly than Source?"

Well 18 months is 1 1/2 years. That engine isn't complete, it isn't finished work. Neither is the game they are building on it. So it took them 1.5 years to get to the state they are at right now.
The two engines also have different goals. The Source must work on a broad scale, from DX6 hardware all the way through to DX9 hardware. Once again, Unreal 3 tech is aimed at one very specific platform, which narrows down the work required from the developers.

 

[Jadewolf5675]

I dont think the Unreal 3 engine looks all that much better than Source to be honest.

 

[x84D80Yx]

I just watched the video about the Unreal 3 engine. There is no way it is coming out 2006. It was pretty obvious that the Geforce 6800U was having significant trouble rendering a single creature on a screen. If they were able to render an entire level with characters in that detail on a 6800U I would have been worried about HL2.

If Unreal 3 comes out in 2006, it would have been in development for 4 years and that is not assuming any delays. You need to take a chill pill.

guess you didnt see the same movie i saw lol. trouble rendering one character? as far as i saw there were multiple characters. and this card is the first that could run this engine with decent framerates. they also said this card + dx9 will be the minimum requirement for this engine when it comes out. and as fast as technology advances 2006 sounds about right.

whos to say a game on this engine wont come out in 2006? if any company could do it, i know epic is one of them. (i live like a hour away from them).

just because valve took 5 years to make hl2, doesnt mean it will take epic 4 years and then some to make a game on the unreal 3 engine. and if i remember correctly the last scene with the creatures coming out of the manhole, tim said this was for their upcoming game.

I dont think the Unreal 3 engine looks all that much better than Source to be honest.

you blind?

 

[Jackal hit]

lol watermelon, you're gonna have to shorten your sig. the max length is 4 lines. (just warnin' ya that a mod is gonna ask you to shorten it)

 

[DarkStar]

I dont think the Unreal 3 engine looks all that much better than Source to be honest.

Wooooaaahhh.....Easy there.....

 

[Skullhair]

whos to say a game on this engine wont come out in 2006? if any company could do it, i know epic is one of them. (i live like a hour away from them).

Heh, living an hour away from a company doesn't mean shit. I live an hour away from Microsoft, Valve, & Nintendo and a bunch of other well known companies. Doesn't mean I know WTF they're doing.


Valves 'Source' engine will last a lot longer then any of the current games because people don't need top of the line computers to run it. This is why the engine took so long to build. Besides, Valve has already stated that the 'Source' engine is upgradeable through Steam. If 3.0 gfx cards start to be released a year or so from now Valve can simply update the engine through Steam. This has been said by Valve in the "Info from Valve" thread.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

I dont think the Unreal 3 engine looks all that much better than Source to be honest.

Oh boy....

 

[XenoSpirit]

U3.0 has awsome graphics but the 2 games are diffrent in gameplay... hl2 well its hl2 style... great graphics good physics ect... U3.0 is about best in class graphics... lighting effects... physics... char models

 

[AlCaponeXB]

Of course Valve was wasting their time. They were using the Source engine to fool around with making porno movies, to test its graphical quality and physics.

Mmmmm....physics....porno. Oh the implications!

 

[Varsity]

There is a hell of a lot more to an engine than eye candy. Source is in fact the most important piece of game technology created for years even if it isn't the *most* incredibly jaw-dropping.

 

[Mad Dog]

Who says Unreal 3.0 is "from scratch"? AFAIK it's built upon the existing architecture from the Unreal engine (Unreal 1<UT<UT2k3/U2/Unrealwarefare<Ut2k4<U3). Sure, it's boy-howdy beautiful with all the advanced lighting and pixel-shading effects, but to suggest it's a brand-new, "from scratch" engine is a bit of a stretch. Since the first Unreal, games that license the technology have always advertised their games as being "Built with/powered by the Unreal engine/technology". Unreal 3 essentially means the engine is in it's third generation, which makes it the second oldest 3d FPS engine still running on the market(quake being the oldest, and *I think* Doom3 uses what will be known as the QuakeIV engine), so technically it's been in development much longer than Source.

That said, if the point of this thread is to bemoan Source's limitations compared to an unreleased engine, try to keep in mind that NO ONE among us can even run the Unreal 3 engine seeing as neither the engine itself nor the harware required to run it are currently availiable. Who knows, when 2005 rolls around and U3 hits the scene, maybe the next generation of Source will be setting the bar even higher, not to mention the next generations of Quake, Crytek and Xray(S.T.A.L.K.E.R.).

Screens never do a game the justice that seeing it in motion does. This is one reason I think people trying to post pics of Far Cry to prove how "crappy it looks" compared to other games(notably HL2 for a water comparison) is mindless. The game is simply brilliant to behold in motion, and I think HL2 will be too. Perhaps it won't have the same raw graphical pinache that D3 or FC have, but if you compare the art direction and level design from what's been shown in HL2 so far to those of other games, you'll see HL2 isn't at a disadvantage, not to mention the fact that HL2 has THE MOST BELIEVABLE characters in any game, ever. I also happen to think that among the many areas HL2 will set new standards of excellence in, physics will be the *big one*.

Hl2 will be just dandy. In about 3 moths or so, you'll all see.

 

[henrym]

...
It took 5 whole years for Valve to make Source and you saw the vids/screens etc. on it. But, Epic, the creators of Unreal, have been making an engine for Unreal 3 for about 18 months and is due out on 2006, in these 18 months of development the graphics look about 5 times better than Half-Life 2's, even the physics look better... Weigh it, 18 months. 5 years.
...

Epic already had an engine to begin with remember, they probably didn't start from scratch. IMO 18 months is a reasonable timeframe for a bunch of devs as talented as Epic's to bring their graphics tech. up to a card-crippling level.

Ultimately, whether Valve wasted their time is up to them. They may think that creating a new engine from scratch is justified for numerous reasons - chances are they get enjoyment through coding/development and are set-up to make quite a bundle through enging licensing, etc.

 

[Sparta]

I doubt Valve wasted tens of millions of dollars, only to bring out an average engine.

 

[Rupertvdb]

Dude this isn't about the stupid screens. I recently saw an Unreal 3 video that almost gave me a heart attack. 100 times more lighting detail than in Ut 2004... One model has more bitmaps, textures, and poly's than a whole map in original Unreal... 10 times more level detail than in Ut 2004... Bump map textures that actually make walls look 3d and very realisticly I might add... Gimme a break, this has nothing to do with the screens!

Maybe Valve delayed HL2 because they found out about Unreal 3?



Valve officially announced the engine took 5 years to make... And Unreal 3's engine is totally made from scratch aswell... And, overall it's only going to take about 3 years to make the Unreal 3 engine. They started 18 months ago and it's coming out in 2006.


I exagerated in the first post, there was nothing really on the physics. BUT STILL! It looks dangerous...

ok dood you wait for Unreal 3 and spend all your cash on upgrading your computer so it can run the thing at over 640 x 480 and i'll stick with the game i want to play. Just cos it looks like the bee's knees doesn't make it so.

 

[Brian Damage]

Anyone remember Unreal 2? Now there was a game I was glad I only paid AU$25 for...

Anyway, didn't VALVe feature-lock the HL2 build of their engine sometime in 2002, leaving only polishing? That's about... what... 4 years of hard-core development?

And this is the latest iteration of the Unreal engine platform... so it may technically be older...

Anyway, Source isn't just about the graphics (Though I fail to see how anyone can say they look crap), it's about the advanced AI, the super-moddability, the specially-enhanced Havok physics, the emotive abilties of the characters...

Valve created this engine with something very specific in mind... they wanted something that was flexible enough to run on many different levels of hardware and and to allow people to mod the crap out of it, yet powerful enough to still be a contender...

 

[Chuckstar]

No, Valve didn't waste their time, because they WILL make money off of steam subscribers. They're doing it right now with CS:CZ. Valve had to create Steam too, you know.

Steam really is the future of developers distributing games without publishers. Publishers tend to get the most money from the game sales. So with CS:CZ, the money goes directly to Valve if you purchase it via Steam.
And more money=better game.(though that isn't always the case)

Also, the Source engine is based on the Havok physics engine. Valve hasn't made Source from scratch. Though they obviously worked a lot on the engine to include some neat things, like facial animations and all the lighting effects to name a few.

HL2 will still be superior to U3.0. Unreal gets the best graphics, but HL always got the most players.
Personally, I don't care much for the graphics. As long as the story and the game are long and addicting. :bounce:

 

[PigeonRat]

C'mon, that's really like apples to oranges.

Unreal Engine 3: not from scratch
Source: from scratch

Well, if I'm wrong, feel free to mock me But the last complete Unreal engine re-write was never. They've all been built on top of the previous generation tech.

Even Doom 3 wasn't from scratch - AFAIK Carmack ripped out the Quake 3 renderer and wrote a new one, then the rest of id went through and now theres probably no Q3 code left

 

[Chris D]

I think what you're saying is correct PigeonRat.

There is no way that Epic have ever completely written one of their engines for a sequel.

 

[Dougy]

Will people buy Hl2 becuase

Its the sequal to the best FPS ever?
Its got the best physics in a game so far?
Its scaleable on many different computers?
It looks great?
Its going to have the best mods ever?

or

will they sit in a dark room for 2 years and work their asses off to buy a machine that might just be able to run Unreal 3 and then buy unreal 3.

bearing in mind that all we have seen in 1 movie of unreal3 wich was not showing any ingame footage and was merely bragging about how many poly's they could be bothered to put on the map.


Im thinking #1.

 

[Brian Damage]

Just one thing... Source is not "based on" the Havok physics engine. Havok is integrated into the engine code, but is only a very small part of the whole thing.