EA Developer speculates on Half-Life 2 delay

C

CreedoG

Newbie
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
http://www.computergaming.com/article2/0,4364,1472968,00.asp

The last paragraph, on page three:

Perhaps all this detail explains why Pacific Assault has slipped past its Q1 2004 release date. At one point, Bell notes a tricky physics problem he's dealing with and sympathetically notes, "That's what's probably ailing the Half-Life boys right now." He should know—like the team at Valve, he's struggling with a hugely ambitious game, one with a premium on dynamic storytelling using all-new original technology. If this transition from Europe to the jungles of the Pacific isn't a project on par with Valve's potential juggernaut, nothing is.
Click to expand...

I wonder what that specific physics problem was?
 
i would think that when dealing with physics in a game, math is key. i would assume that TONS of calculations are needed to make a ragdoll move or a jeep drive, so that in that mass of code and math, one tiny error can multiply enormously. just my guess if hes talking about getting the physics to work right.
 
I doubt physics are causing the HL2 team too many problems since they're using a 3rd party out-of-the-box engine, Havok 2, that has been used successfully in several games.
 
hense why they have to have brilliant programers :p , they are aiming for the physics to be flawless, they wouldnt have it anyother, way . or by realease we would be complaining. they dont want that... there working on something . if you read about that dudes visit to valve. a month ago. they where tampering with helicopter AI
 
uhhh, guys, MOH: PA DOES use the Havok 2 engine as well. So, yeah, I think Valve is probably going through the exact same thing as this guy.

EDIT: or at least has gone through this stuff already. (here's hoping)
 
MOH is well crappy
i payed for allied assault and it was really boring :/
 
Goddamnit Badger, the whole general discussion is speculation, the damn game's not out, but you have to move my thread? Bah!

(that was pretty quick though.. cheers)
 
fishymumma said:
MOH is well crappy
i payed for allied assault and it was really boring :/
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. I couldn't understand why the MOH series got such rave reviews, when it was such a crappy game(s).

However, Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault is an all new game on an all new engine, that rivals HL2. Go check it out.
 
im affraid that the first one has put me off forever. it dont intrest me in the slighest..

a game that i want right now is black and white 2. gunna be amazing. some of the vids for that look really really good :D

no good games worth buying have come out for ages :( its annoying, getting bord of cs :'(
 
MOH was really crappy I agree and I don't think MOH:pA stands up to HL2 in any way shape or form. I doubt valve are haveing the same problem as these guys or if they have had it, it was fixed along time ago, Valve said they have heavily modified the Havok engine which is something I can tell you the MOH:pA people havn't, they simply have not had the time.

EDIT: ****ing smilies it's MOH : PA
 
true EA stylees rush out 40 games a month :/ and they are all rubbish. well generals was pritty cool. shame it wernt made by westwood they are the best! would of made it much better :p

EA SPORTS ITS IN THE GAME! < rubbish!
 
mrchimp, i agree with you that ea puts out a lot of garbage.

But I don't think that's the case here. The quality of this title is amazing. And yes, I'll say it again, I don't think HL2's facial technology is as good as Pacific Assault.

Plus, haven't they been working on this new engine for years? From what I understood, they began the pacific assault engine right after MOH:AA
 
oh, and the obviously less talented MOH team (sarcasm) has got physically simulated water in their engine. Valve does not.
 
It looks like crap I thought it was a modded version of the Q3 engine, the characters don't look anywhere near as realistic as HL2's.

EDIT: Valve have physically simulated water, wood floats ect. neither game has fluid dynamics. Just because the 3d mesh ripples in MOH:pA it doesn't mean it's better than HL2's shader only effects which judgeing from what I have seen are far superior. Unreal2's water ripples in exactly the same way as MOH:pA, does that mean it's got physically simulated water?

Infact come to think of Tribes 2 has waves lol and so does HL1.
 
mrchimp said:
Valve said they have heavily modified the Havok engine which is something I can tell you the MOH:pA people havn't, they simply have not had the time.
Click to expand...

I thought HL2 used the Source engine?, or was that the name for the modified version of the Havok 2 engine?.

I'm a dummie me thinks...

fishymumma: As far as I know, westwood did make C&C: Generals, well most of it, that and E&B were their last projects (of course E&B is under EA development now). The thing with westwood (yes that company roxxx!!!) was that they were re-locating to th EA studios in Redwood, California when generals was nearing completion.
 
What are you people smoking? MOH : PA looks amazing. It is definatly a contender with HL2.
 
mayb it looks good but if the game play is ne thing like AA then..... well nuff said it was crap only good bit in the hole game was the beach bit. but the stupid mine bit how crappy was that
 
Max35 said:
I thought HL2 used the Source engine?, or was that the name for the modified version of the Havok 2 engine?.

I'm a dummie me thinks...

fishymumma: As far as I know, westwood did make C&C: Generals, well most of it, that and E&B were their last projects (of course E&B is under EA development now). The thing with westwood (yes that company roxxx!!!) was that they were re-locating to th EA studios in Redwood, California when generals was nearing completion.
Click to expand...


The source engine incorporates Havoks Physics engine model, but Valve have heavily modified it. Consider how much more realistic the Physics in HL² tech movie looks compared to those in Max Payne 2? Yet they are using the same havok physics at the core.

Hope that clarifies things for you
 
I though Medal of Honour was awesome. There was nothing as as awesome as the beach level with surround sound and everything, I havent seen a level as atmospheric as that outside of COD. The sound was also amazing in MoH.
 
frances_farmer said:
I though Medal of Honour was awesome. There was nothing as as awesome as the beach level with surround sound and everything, I havent seen a level as atmospheric as that outside of COD. The sound was also amazing in MoH.
Click to expand...

I found the Omaha map overrated, all you did was pretty much run from cover to cover while the scripted AI followed you. I didn't have any sense of actually participating in the battle, I was merely there to watch the slaughter.
 
mrchimp said:
EDIT: Valve have physically simulated water, wood floats ect. neither game has fluid dynamics. Just because the 3d mesh ripples in MOH:pA it doesn't mean it's better than HL2's shader only effects which judgeing from what I have seen are far superior. Unreal2's water ripples in exactly the same way as MOH:pA, does that mean it's got physically simulated water?.
Click to expand...

Ok, my mistake. Water properly displaces in MOH: PA. Half-Life 2 does not. Unreal 2 does not.
 
I found Omaha very disappointing too. It was 100% scripted and I felt nothing more than a pedestrian. The machine gunners focused almost exclusively for you and the scale of it was tiny: three landers, two bunkers?

One thing I'd love in a game would be a full, massive simulation of one of the D-Day landings where you're not forced into taking a very precise route. Playing the same map again and again, each time approaching with a different strategy would be awesome. Neither MOH:AA or COD (with its Russia campaign) have come close to achieving this.
 
While primative now, I think the MOH:AA Omaha level was incredible at the time. Truely incredible. Now, it's nothing. But the day that it's re-made in virtual reality with photo-realism, is the day that we've gone too far...... then again that would be cool. :E
 
I just watched some vids for MOH: PA, and it did impress me......at first - the water looked cool and a bird flew down and got summit from the water and created ripples. Then a gun was fired into the water, it created exactly the same ripples :/ The ragdolls are jerky, but i'm guessing that will be sorted soon enough. The thing that bothers me about it is that it will most probably be the same experience over and over again, in similar looking environments :(
 
Max35 said:
I thought HL2 used the Source engine?, or was that the name for the modified version of the Havok 2 engine?.

I'm a dummie me thinks...

fishymumma: As far as I know, westwood did make C&C: Generals, well most of it, that and E&B were their last projects (of course E&B is under EA development now). The thing with westwood (yes that company roxxx!!!) was that they were re-locating to th EA studios in Redwood, California when generals was nearing completion.
Click to expand...

EAP (EA Pacific) made C&C: Generals not Westwood. And westwood was an awesome gaming company.
 
The source engine incorporates Havoks Physics engine model, but Valve have heavily modified it. Consider how much more realistic the Physics in HL² tech movie looks compared to those in Max Payne 2? Yet they are using the same havok physics at the core.
Click to expand...

Let me say this, I know nothing about coding or anything like it. But I do know that physics engines should be relatively the same, as they are based from the same science. The difference (between MP2 and HL2) is caused by developers not knowing how to properly enter calculations for mass. I image the problems they are having with the physics engine is having it react properly to forces (I.E. throwing a box - how far and how does it react when it hits the ground?)
 
you also have the issue of laziness, games like maxpayne2 don't really use physics as extensiely as hl2 and therefore may want to settle for a simpler model with less precise numbers [perhaps a float instead of a double], or save some cpu time with fewer calculations. thats all just my speculation though, so don't take it too seriously.
 
blahblahblah said:
Let me say this, I know nothing about coding or anything like it. But I do know that physics engines should be relatively the same, as they are based from the same science. The difference (between MP2 and HL2) is caused by developers not knowing how to properly enter calculations for mass. I image the problems they are having with the physics engine is having it react properly to forces (I.E. throwing a box - how far and how does it react when it hits the ground?)
Click to expand...

actually, i'm not sure that the forces are TOO big an issue, after playing for HOURS with boxes and moveable crap in both max payne 2 and dx:iw, the items all seem to react properly when knocked over and moved around and such. ...things SEEM to have the proper weight. but then again hl2 is gonna try to be a realistic game, i'm wondering if maybe they're working on making certain things destructable... such as in traptown when gordon rolls the grenade.. and the dumpster crashes to the ground... maybe they're trying to make that sort of physically strategic game play true throughout the game. maybe THAT's the issue? i dunno, on second thought i think i am agreeing to mass issues. maybe all the valve people are going around weighing everything from empty boxes to cars. heh... blahhhh useless post.
*dies* :x

edit: okay forget that, i think it's how the AI interacts with the environment/physics that's the issue maybe. i mean think about it, unless you script the AI to do certain things, or just give it like a checklist of possible options in how to interact with ... say a barrel... how are they gonna code it? (although i heard the AI is given a list of things it can do to interact with stuff.) but i dunno blah. maybe they're balancing how strong each npc is? anyways, i dunno, but i'll just guess that it's AI interaction with the evironment that is(was?) the issue.
 
I've played both COD and MOH AA & SP. The most disappointing thing about them is the multiplayer. Especially MOH, these guys leaning to one side and bunny hopping looked ridiculous. The graphics look fine but they both blew it for multiplayer.
 
CreedoG said:
Ok, my mistake. Water properly displaces in MOH: PA. Half-Life 2 does not. Unreal 2 does not.
Click to expand...

What do you mean properly displaces? the pixel shader code that creats the ripple in HL2 proberly has roughly the same accuracy as the vertex manipulation code that causes the ripple in MOH : PA. Compared to real water there both incredibly inaccurate.

I'v seen quite a few screenshots and videos from this game and nothing I have seen even compares to HL2. WTF are you people smokeing?
 
dont try and talk to mrchimp, hes riding Valve and HL2's d*ck so hard even the jaws of life couldn't pull him off. the words "nothing compares to HL2" alone should shed light on his ignorance. stupid moronic people who try and pretend they know all cause they can throw words around.
 
Go away Pitbul, you've been nothing but an idiot here. The words "nothing compares to HL2" only shows your lack of reading comprehension skill because that isn't what he said. He said the screenshots don't compare to HL2 and he's right, aside from a few areas MOH: PA's graphics could pass as Quake 3 level.
 
Is it wrong that I think the water in games like HL2 is prettier than in real life?
 
Anable said:
Is it wrong that I think the water in games like HL2 is prettier than in real life?
Click to expand...

Nope. :) I agree in most cases, probably because water in games goes for a flashy effect, while water in real life is more often dull looking than reflective. Water reflections are overdone in games currently, but that's alright, people prefer it :)
 
I dont think Valve is stuck on the same thing the guys at EA Games are. Valve have been building Half Life 2 for about 5 years now right? Im gonna go with logic here and say they've probably had more time to tamper with the Havok 2 engine then EA have.
 
I think Valve has got the physics in order, I just think it's like Gabe says "Bugs are easy; fun is hard". I think they just weren't satisfied with some parts of the game and decided to redo them. Kind of like what happened with HL1, but on a much smaller scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top