What's going to be Valve's next latest and greatest?

[StardogChampion]

So basically you're laming out on the challenge. Seriously stick to lurking instead of posting if you're not prepared to do more than emptily posture when faced with an argument.

Ironically you're doing the exact same thing for HL2.

The rest of the development community are stuck in a run & gun hangover they can't seem to get over yet.

Yet people like you continue to buy their games (CoD4).

 

[Asknoone]

The rest of the development community are stuck in a run & gun hangover they can't seem to get over yet.

This is a very, very true statement. Valve are one of the few developers to actually push gameplay and story in a new direction; most other shooters still operate within the confines of run and gun, as opposed to creating an actual experience. I can only list a handful of games that do this outside of the FPS genre too.

 

[Stigmata]

Yet people like you continue to buy their games (CoD4).

There's only so many times you can play through the Half-Life games before you need a new game. So that doesn't really work as a counter-argument.

 

[Kadayi]

Ironically you're doing the exact same thing for HL2.

I asked first. Feel free to ask me to provide a negative critique once you've provided me with a positive. Cowboy up with some arguments in your next post to support your claim or **** off (in short) :dozey:

Yet people like you continue to buy their games (CoD4).

You want to know why I bought CoD4? Because I've played CoD & CoD2 and I know infinity ward deliver good game head when it comes to gritty first person shooters, and once again they delivered on it. I never bought Half life or half life 2, or more recently the Orange box because they delivered that gritty first person shooting experience, I bought them because they delivered a compelling storyline within a FP world perspective. Debates like 'Doom3/Crysis/Halo 3/CoD4 (insert other FPS title here)is better than Halflife 2' are moot imo because as experiences they aren't operating in the same game space in terms of content or delivery in any way, shape or form as the half life franchise presently does. People just get hung up on the FPS aspect as if that is the be all and end all of definition, but it's becoming increasingly redundant as the palette becomes broader (consider the FPS experience of Stalker as another example). Personally I'd love it if more developers of FPS games broadened their horizons and perhaps some of them shall (game development is a slow process after all), however what interests me more is where Valve are going with the Half life franchise, and from what I've experienced so far it's much removed from the FPS experience you get in CoD4. Halflife 2 is a meaningful relationship, CoD4 is a sordid one night stand, both are good in their own way, but they aren't comparable experiences.

 

[Cole]

The problem is that it's still stuck in the BSP world. You still see mappers making light switches out of BSP blocks. You can understand why, because it's such a pain to get a model into the engine that they can't be bothered.

I pointed this out with the map format. I would say your reasoning is flawed. I would say once both lighting and shadows are completely calculated in real time on source(which is when the average hardware can support it), Valve will switch to a new system. Right now by pre-computing the shadows of the map it looks great and runs on just about every piece of hardware. Once that entry market hardware gets good enough I could see Valve keeping backwards compatibility with it, but also supporting a new format.

 

[StardogChampion]

I pointed this out with the map format. I would say your reasoning is flawed. I would say once both lighting and shadows are completely calculated in real time on source(which is when the average hardware can support it), Valve will switch to a new system. Right now by pre-computing the shadows of the map it looks great and runs on just about every piece of hardware. Once that entry market hardware gets good enough I could see Valve keeping backwards compatibility with it, but also supporting a new format.

But not using BSP doesn't mean you have to lose pre-computed lightmaps. Lightmaps can be done on models.

 

[Cole]

But not using BSP doesn't mean you have to lose pre-computed lightmaps. Lightmaps can be done on models.

Completely true. However, lets say Valve does start going over an entirely new map format that relies and makes really good use of lightmaps. So it's a year later, and HL2: Ep3 comes out making use of this new format. But then 2 years later down the line they end up having to design an entirely new map format because the average computer can kick fully dynamic shadows right in the butthole. Why not just keep lightmaps right now, stick through the havoc for a while and then start on something even better?

Theres no point in going through an entirely new format right now that makes heavy use on lightmaps. Valve had there chance to switch when first designing source or when entry level hardware has caught up with the ability to run what they want to see in a new file format. They took the latter. I'm sure Valve has been designing a new file format for Source. Whether its implemented or not in a testing version of Source, idk, but I would be suprised if they didn't have at least ideas down on paper somewhere. Once the technology is right, Valve will make a big leap.

 

[Kadayi]

StardogChampion = fail :dozey:

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

The problem is that it's still stuck in the BSP world. You still see mappers making light switches out of BSP blocks. You can understand why, because it's such a pain to get a model into the engine that they can't be bothered.

Ok, it's not as easy as it is with UnrealEd, but it doesn't exactly take a degree in rocket science to import a model into Source.

 

[StardogChampion]

Completely true. However, lets say Valve does start going over an entirely new map format that relies and makes really good use of lightmaps. So it's a year later, and HL2: Ep3 comes out making use of this new format. But then 2 years later down the line they end up having to design an entirely new map format because the average computer can kick fully dynamic shadows right in the butthole. Why not just keep lightmaps right now

They could easily have an engine with both. Bear in mind Doom 3 came out before HL2 with fully dynamic lighting. And we probably won't see full radiosity dynamic lighting soon so we'll still need lightmaps for years to come.

Ok, it's not as easy as it is with UnrealEd, but it doesn't exactly take a degree in rocket science to import a model into Source.

A "pain" doesn't suggest you need a degree in rocket science. It's a waste of time especially when custom UI's people make stop working when Valve update Steam.

StardogChampion = fail

And you wonder why you don't get replies. You act like a 15 year old.

 

[Cole]

They could easily have an engine with both. Bear in mind Doom 3 came out before HL2 with fully dynamic lighting. And we probably won't see full radiosity dynamic lighting soon so we'll still need lightmaps for years to come.

Doom 3 and HL2 also target different places in the market. Could I go buy a $500 computer and expect to run Doom 3 with full out dynamic lighting smoothly in an open enviroment? Keep in mind Doom 3 kept to small corridors and its shadows had hard edges that wouldn't really look to good in a nice "nature" enviroment of that in Ep2. HL2 has open enviroments.

Sure they could throw them into the same engine, but what would be the point of calculating the shadows of for instance...walls when you're walls are already calculated via realtime in the engine?

Furthermore of course youre not gonna get the same shadows that takes quite a while to calculate in realtime for quite some time, but you can still get nice soft-edged shadows in the upcoming years.

 

[Kadayi]

And you wonder why you don't get replies. You act like a 15 year old.

Actually I asked you a pretty reasonable question in reference to your claim that "HL is a better game that HL2":-

That's an interesting claim, perhaps you can elaborate as to why you think so. Maybe roll out some Vis on Vis comparisons in terms of feature sets and provide a critical breakdown, as to why HL1 is better than HL2. I want some tangible examples as to why it's better, not merely the claim that it is.

The only thing you've done so far is duck out on providing a full response, firstly by asking me to defend HL2 when the onus is on you to support your position (who says I think HL2 is a better game? You're just assuming that), and secondly in trying to ignore the question. Unless you're actively prepared to defend a statement with some critical arguments to back it up, don't make them in future. So yes right now you do = fail (to use the parlance of a 15 year old ), and until such time as you answer the question you will still = fail. :dozey:

 

[StardogChampion]

Sure they could throw them into the same engine, but what would be the point of calculating the shadows of for instance...walls when you're walls are already calculated via realtime in the engine?

If they were already calculated in realtime then obviously you wouldn't need a static light in that scene. Other engines have both in their engine so you could use a static light for outdoors then dynamic lights in coridoors to help performance.

Could I go buy a $500 computer and expect to run Doom 3 with full out dynamic lighting smoothly in an open enviroment?

Yes, probably. As long as you kept your current monitor/case etc. See Quake Wars.

 

[Kadayi]

Yet another post by StardogChampion and still no answer to the conundrum of why 'HL is better than HL2'. My god, at this rate of failure you should turn professional :dozey:

I mean really, if you're as positive about your position as you state, you should have some rationale behind it, there should be some strength to your convictions. I want to hear it, I want you to explain it. What is so difficult about that?