Ishma3L
Member
Good thing I was half joking then.It's going to be a lot of flags. These threads happen every couple of months.
Good thing I was half joking then.It's going to be a lot of flags. These threads happen every couple of months.
Is this a joke? It most beWut? The consumer doesnt pay the devs, the publisher does.
The publisher tells the devs what to do, not you!
And? The game looks amazing regardlessAlyx proves absolutely nothing - it was a great small scope project for a super niche audience on a platform that had basically no competition.
It clearly is if you dont even understand how those basic things work.Is this a joke? It most be
So what? This was never about looks, this was about engine technology!And? The game looks amazing regardless
I think the point we're making is if it looks on par or better than most games in 2020 - why would the assumption be that it's unable to compete graphically with games today and updated features? Far as I know source 2 is not something the public has full access to - and it clearly has features beyond what they've used in Alyx and cs2 like Raytracing. Also - didn't they make their own physics engine for Alyx that's not havok? That's why physics objects move way more realistically in Alyx vs other games - i still haven't seen a game that matches it in that regardIt clearly is if you dont even understand how those basic things work.
It isnt your money that is prefinancing game projects, its publisher money doing that.
They pay the developers for milestones until the project is finished.
The developer may or may not get additional money as bonus after release.
So once the game is sold you pay the publisher, at no point are you paying the dev!
Unless youre one of those lunatics that gave crazy money to Star Citizen
So what? This was never about looks, this was about engine technology!
Alyx looks better then half the games today in the same genre. CS2 is simplified graphics, Alyx they really went flexing and its a 5 year old game now. Im just using this video since its "2D" but game looks absolutely stunning especially who can run this on max:I think the point we're making is if it looks on par or better than most games in 2020 - why would the assumption be that it's unable to compete graphically with games today and updated features? Far as I know source 2 is not something the public has full access to - and it clearly has features beyond what they've used in Alyx and cs2 like Raytracing. Also - didn't they make their own physics engine for Alyx that's not havok? That's why physics objects move way more realistically in Alyx vs other games - i still haven't seen a game that matches it in that regard
I was talking about Source 2's situation, not Source 1. Of course Source 1 is outdated. So is Unreal Engine 3. So is the first iteration of Frostbite, or fucking idTech 3 (which, I still think, is the most elegantly designed out of every engine.)I worked with around 10 different engines professionally (not all 3D tho) - and yes fine - decades is an exaggeration.
But 10-15 years is probably realistic. Heck Source2 still uses BSP and non metric units!
So you actually agree with me!
Oh hey a fellow UE5 VR dev, but I cant say I have a reason to complain!
Well given the amount of time and money Valve has, its weird they havent delivered anything better.
Even if HL3 cant compete with other modern games, im sure old ppl like me will be happy to finally see the story end
So you agree with me here too. I never said that Source was a bad engine, just that it is hella outdated for modern development.
And yes same here, I only tinkered with Source1 abit back then, but then UT99 released with UnrealED and I never looked back![]()
He also seems to be confusing Source 1 with GoldSrc, as Source 1 released in 2004.I was talking about Source 2's situation, not Source 1. Of course Source 1 is outdated. So is Unreal Engine 3. So is the first iteration of Frostbite, or fucking idTech 3 (which, I still think, is the most elegantly designed out of every engine.)
If I am agreeing with you on everything, then what was the point you were trying to make?
Yeah. And GoldSrc itself was based on the Quake engine (actually QuakeWorld, which is like some weird in-between of Quake 1 with Quake 2 engine modifications in it, as Quake 2 was in development at that time). But Valve modified it so much that it basically became its own thing.He also seems to be confusing Source 1 with GoldSrc, as Source 1 released in 2004.
If Valve was still a normal game dev they would be at HL7 by now.It will be the last hurrah for a lot of people that worked on 1 and 2. That some of them even went back to the offices for the hl2 anniversary doc is interesting. I wouldn't really be surprised if it's coming. The success of valve does not ride on half life whatsoever and at this point the "expectations" don't matter. Alyx is a master class in single player game design, and they absolutely have the chops to make an amazing game.
And from who's the money of the publishers comes if not the consumer? If nobody is buying the games what's going to happen?It clearly is if you dont even understand how those basic things work.
It isnt your money that is prefinancing game projects, its publisher money doing that.
They pay the developers for milestones until the project is finished.
The developer may or may not get additional money as bonus after release.
So once the game is sold you pay the publisher, at no point are you paying the dev!
Unless youre one of those lunatics that gave crazy money to Star Citizen![]()
That's exactly the matter which i am questioning, engine technology doesn't matter to make the game attractive for the average playerSo what? This was never about looks, this was about engine technology!
No im not, you are confusing what I said.He also seems to be confusing Source 1 with GoldSrc, as Source 1 released in 2004.
I was talking about Source2 too!I was talking about Source 2's situation, not Source 1. Of course Source 1 is outdated. So is Unreal Engine 3. So is the first iteration of Frostbite, or fucking idTech 3 (which, I still think, is the most elegantly designed out of every engine.)
If I am agreeing with you on everything, then what was the point you were trying to make?
Peoples doubting Valve for graphics?
![]()
While UE5 breaks down the best GPUs for barely any gains, they were doing near photorealistic with potatoes
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The publishers money usually comes from banks or investors.And from who's the money of the publishers comes if not the consumer? If nobody is buying the games what's going to happen?
Yeah right, like Warner Bros who made Suicide Squad a Live Service!Publishers answer to the desire of the average public
The average player doesnt want to wait 10+ years for a game to get released because the developer is slow to develop on an outdated engine.That's exactly the matter which i am questioning, engine technology doesn't matter to make the game attractive for the average player
Well, OF COURSE?! That's how you START a company, you literally just described every company ever unless that it start as a parent from other company or a subsidiaryIf you start a new new publisher today, you dont have any income from previous products sold to consumers.
They literally think that the desire of the average consumer IS GAAS, you just confirmed what i am talk aboutYeah right, like Warner Bros who made Suicide Squad a Live Service!
Or Sony making a Bloodborne Remaster! Or Valve making HL3! etc....
The average player doesn't care, people have lives, they'll buy when is ready to buy, i wish there was a massive crowd demand another dead space and dungeon siege but the reality is like i said, people doesn't care, they'll buy when it's readyThe average player doesnt want to wait 10+ years for a game to get released because the developer is slow to develop on an outdated engine.
Right? I want the game, but I've been hearing of its progress and such for what feels like decades. I was already in the industry at times back then- and hearing about what was being worked on didn't help. Would be nice to get closure though!I've been hearing this since episode 2. It's like around 20 years of these bullshit rumors!
![]()
I'm starting to feel like the only person who doesn't care about Half-Life.
Tried the games when they released, including Alyx, but they were so boring to me.
Maybe I should give them another shot, even though they've aged.
Did you actually try half life when it came out in the 90's? It was the first game with scripted story moments happening in the game - something every game has basically adopted at this point. HL2 obviously pushed physics forward — honestly HL2 doesn't feel all that dated even today most games have not progressed beyond what it was doingI'm starting to feel like the only person who doesn't care about Half-Life.
Tried the games when they released, including Alyx, but they were so boring to me.
Maybe I should give them another shot, even though they've aged.
Half-Life(1 and 2) is completly overrated imo...
Source? Your uncle who works at Nintendo?They will announce it the day Microsoft announces they buy Sega and future consoles will be in the Dreamcast family. They will announce on a Wednesday by the way.
You don't get the reference here.... There was a thread in 2021 or 2022 about Microsoft every week announcing they would buy Sega and it would be on a Wednesday.Source? Your uncle who works at Nintendo?
![]()
I still feel this an odd statement when they released the incredibly polished Alyx in 2020 which was a genre/tech defining game, and easily will rank among the handful of most important games of the last decade given that is wrote the script for a whole new medium.I have always wondered why they have effectively abandoned HL. It's like had Nintendo abandoned Mario after Mario 2.
Remember Shenmue 3? yeah.Right? I want the game, but I've been hearing of its progress and such for what feels like decades. I was already in the industry at times back then- and hearing about what was being worked on didn't help. Would be nice to get closure though!
Not everything needs to be rewritten, that would be reinventing the wheel unnecessarily. And you never throw away code that works (and is tested!). Every engine nowadays is not a rewrite from scratch. "New" engines are mostly marketing nowadays. What it actually means is that they added some new components to the engine, maybe changed stuff in the renderer or audio system or whatever. And if the added features are marketable enough, you increment the engine's major version by 1. There's a reason why you'll still find Quake 1/3 engine code in Source 2 or the current iteration of Call of Duty's engine. You modify components that require it and add components that you need. If your internal interfaces are soundly thought through, and you have established good code quality practices (reviews, rule sets, engineers that are tasked with checking and keeping the standards up, etc.). And keep separate branches for components that are specifically developed for a feature set of one game, etc. You don't really acquire tech debt. If you do, then there's a far bigger problem that won't be solved by a rewrite because it will happen again.I was talking about Source2 too!
And no we are not agreeing on everything,! Assuming youre an experienced dev you should know that engines need complete rewrites when tech moves on.
Unreal to UE2 was basically the same tech. Then the engine was rewritten for UE3 which lasted up to UE4. Then they completely rewrote it again for UE5.
id did he same with their engine over the years - any major game dev does!
If you dont rewrite it from the ground up, you end up with alot of tech debt that severely limits it.
Source2 is no such rewrite!
You don't get the reference here.... There was a thread in 2021 or 2022 about Microsoft every week announcing they would buy Sega and it would be on a Wednesday.
Well obviously rewriting from scratch does not mean you restart from zero. But adding new components on top of an outdated base will lead to tech depth - like in Source´s 2 case its still using BSP with all the problems that come with it.Not everything needs to be rewritten, that would be reinventing the wheel unnecessarily. And you never throw away code that works (and is tested!). Every engine nowadays is not a rewrite from scratch. "New" engines are mostly marketing nowadays. What it actually means is that they added some new components to the engine, maybe changed stuff in the renderer or audio system or whatever. And if the added features are marketable enough, you increment the engine's major version by 1. There's a reason why you'll still find Quake 1/3 engine code in Source 2 or the current iteration of Call of Duty's engine. You modify components that require it and add components that you need. If your internal interfaces are soundly thought through, and you have established good code quality practices (reviews, rule sets, engineers that are tasked with checking and keeping the standards up, etc.). And keep separate branches for components that are specifically developed for a feature set of one game, etc. You don't really acquire tech debt. If you do, then there's a far bigger problem that won't be solved by a rewrite because it will happen again.
Why? There's never been more credible and verifiable data out there then now.If Valve was still a normal game dev they would be at HL7 by now.
But they are not. Which is why I don't think it's coming.
It'd make a lot more sense for the Deck 2 to launch with the new Half-Life game. Especially if we're talking certain features that are only available on that platform that they might make (gimmicky) use from (such as the Portal experience for the original Deck).Steam Deck 3 has a better chance of coming out before HL3
Interesting. Do you have a source? It depends on what they're using BSPs for. I doubt it's for partitioning the actual static meshes in a level.like in Source´s 2 case its still using BSP with all the problems that come with it.
So why didnt they replace that? Can you still name a single modern engine that does that?
I assume for compatibility to some older stuff. As for the source - it was a random Valve dev I bumped into at Gamescom a few years ago.Interesting. Do you have a source? It depends on what they're using BSPs for. I doubt it's for partitioning the actual static meshes in a level.
At this point, them doing modern remakes of HL1+2 would be smart, as outside of some old ppl no one knows or cares about that IP anymore.@ me when HL3 turns out to be HL1+2 remake
At this point, them doing modern remakes of HL1+2 would be smart, as outside of some old ppl no one knows or cares about that IP anymore.
Remaking them and then releasing HL3 afterwards in the same quality would make the most sense.