<!--quoteo(post=1569841:date=Oct 13 2006, 08:57 AM:name=Garet_Jax)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Garet_Jax @ Oct 13 2006, 08:57 AM) [snapback]1569841[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nice post, SJ.
Whatever is going to be done- I feel it has to be done <b>now</b>. I'd guess at 12 months from conception to first release, if Flayra can afford to offer contracts to professionals to work as developers.
As this will be a major stepping stone for UWE- I feel that a release in Spring 2008 will be too late.
I'm not saying no-one will be playing Steam games by then- but as NS:S/NS2 will be a retail game; many gamers might choose to buy next-gen titles (such as UT2007 etc) instead. A game doesn't have to have excellent graphics to sell- indie games with innovative gameplay such as Defcon prove this; but blending FPS with RTS is no longer a unique idea, and let's face it- us FPS gamers are a simple breed- we like pretty eye candy. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but 12 months of development isn´t a good amount of time (maybe for EA)... NS is more complex than a Counter-Strike game. The point to be considering is the fact tath Half-Life Source engine may be outdated when NS:S is being released and be tied with Steam is something tath may kill Natural Selection Source few months after release. New engines are being released and people will start to loose interest of Half-Life mods next year. Only Counter-Strike fans will stay with it. It will be a very restricted market.
I would really discard to be tied with anything now.
My opinion...choose NS:S. Play it safe, build the playerbase back up and then use that momentum ($) to do NS2.
NS has an existing, dedicated userbase. The game rocks...it is a success, that can't be argued with. Updating it to Source would be guaranteed to work...people would buy it, people would play it. That is a given. No brainer.
NS2 is an unknown. We all say we'll download and play it...but who knows if the average Joe will. Perhaps it will perform better than NS...perhaps (gasp) worse. Thus, there is some risk in putting the eggs in a NS2 basket.
<!--quoteo(post=1570110:date=Oct 15 2006, 07:41 PM:name=nip)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nip @ Oct 15 2006, 07:41 PM) [snapback]1570110[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> My opinion...choose NS:S. Play it safe, build the playerbase back up and then use that momentum ($) to do NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Playing it 'conservative' could destroy the playerbase - maybe joe public won't buy it? then we'd be stuck with the same playerbase we have now split between 2 different games, which would pretty much signal "IP's down" for UWE.
If there are very few changes other than visual, then that doesn't provide a whole lot of incentive for current players (me, for example) to buy NS:S. That's the advantage of making NS2 instead.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
edited October 2006
I vote for NS 2
I feel that NS has already come a long way and it surely brought with it its intended long term goal of NS being the "First Contact".
Humanity's First Contact has been going on for years now. Its time for the Kharaa to really spread out and evolve. And its time for humanity and the TSA to stop being on the defensive by losing one ship, space station, or colony mining/research outpost after another.
Basically NS came out as an independent mod. The NS dev team had great creative leeway and few restrictions into development and implementation of ideas into NS. I understand that with UWE's expansion into bigger and better things the company needs to work with outside people.
I trust in Flayra's ideas as thats what lead to NS's success. If NS2 is to be made I hope that we can get another quality game fom the mind of Flayra with as little outside influence as possible.
If I hear one universal complaint from desingers of any kind whether they be in the gaming, graphical or advertisement industry its;
"They wont let me do my job and design. Im the designer not them."
Or " I was rushed, and I couldnt work on, fix, test, or I had to take unwanted shortcuts to get the [insert product here] out now or never."
Flayra, you've obviously got a handle on the 'soul' of the gaming industry, in terms of what makes a good game.. <i>good,</i> NS a tribute to that fact. Honestly I'd love to see NS:Source simply because I love the gameplay of NS but the lack of updated graphics and physics engine leave it with an empty space it never had before. But I know that the sooner NS2 gets out, the sooner I'll get my hands on a good piece of software I'll be enjoying for a long, <i>long</i> time.
NS2 all the way. You've already established what you can do with NS -- step it up, <u>don't</u> remake it. If anything, its the better choice for company growth.
I'm not sure I understand all the Source hating (as a graphical engine). My thoughts:
1) It already supports 64 players per server right off the bat. Any mod/game can use it. There are even 64-player Counter-Strike maps available. They're pretty hectic, but that's because Counter-Strike isn't balanced for that many players. That's a gameplay issue.
2) It remains a current-gen game from a graphical perspective. People play games like F.E.A.R. on quality settings that run at much lower framerates than Source. If they maxed out the visual quality of Source (Enable all the eye candy, HDR, etc), it can look pretty damned nice. The HDR implementation is certainly one of the nicest of any game currently available. Many games claim HDR support and just add light bloom, which is such a small part of HDR
3) It has very good netcode. Despite all the complaints, it's still a heck of a lot better than many other games. I'd bet most complaints are due to poorly configured servers more than anything.
4) It will be around for the long haul. Valve is committed to constant technological improvements. The Episode 2 version of the engine is significantly different from the initial version that shipped. Major features added that come to mind are HDR (a HUGE graphical effect), a new particle system for episode 2, and "cinematic physics" (which may just be scripted physics, but if they produce new tools to make it possible, it probably counts). We also know that Valve intends to KEEP improving it as time goes on. As far as I know, these engine updates are made freely available to licensees, and if they're not, they are probably available for small fees compared to a new license.
Valve designed Source to be super flexible to avoid the problem they had with GoldSrc (where it didn't significantly improve in graphical fidelity over its lifespan). I really wouldn't be surprised if whatever becomes "Half-Life 3" is made using an even more beefed up version of the Source engine.
5) It is extremely scalable. From DirectX 7 mode that looks worse than Quake 3, to all-eyecandy-turned-on using DX9+, it runs on any computer available today, or made since the original GeForce. I think early (beta?) versions even supported DirectX 6, although I think they dropped support for that. Fact is, you make a game with Source, you're ensuring that it can run well on almost any PC being used by gamers today. Try that with F.E.A.R.
6) Because it's going to be around for so long, the core components are going to be patched and tweaked to perfection. As was pointed out, look how amazingly robust GoldSrc is after all these years of development. Source will be even better maintained, since they actually intend to improve it and use it for new products for a very long time. The engine's stability and reliability will only get better
7) It integrates very well with Steam, which is extremely attractive to small (and even large) developers. Valve gives developers 60% of the profit and keeps 40% themselves. Traditional publishers reportedly gives developers about 10% of the profit and keep 90%. You make SIX TIMES MORE selling a game through Steam than at retail. And if you get a smash hit on Steam, you gain leverage with publishers who want to put it in retail. When a publisher approaches a developer and says "Your game is really popular! We want to put it in retail.", the developer can say "Well, OK, but it's doing really well on Steam, and we're getting a great deal there. What can you offer us for Retail that can compete with Steam's margins?"
There are probably more points, but these will do for now. I really do think that Source is the obvious choice for small (and large) developers who need to license an engine.
BF2's engine doesn't scale well, performs poorly in general, has poor netcode (lacks latency correction for one thing), is owned by EA (huge megacompany with no incentive to license engines to people at all), and so on. The Doom 3 engine has seen some licensing action (Quake 4, Prey, etc), and scales somewhat well, but still has performance and networking issues. Not to mention stability problems. F.E.A.R.'s engine, I don't think it's available for licensing, but if it is, it's an extremely poor choice. It doesn't really scale at all.
The only real competitors would be UE2.5 and UE3. UE2.5 is really showing its age (nowhere near as graphically advanced as Source or even any other current-gen engine), and UE3 is sort of an unknown (not really released in any major titles). UE3 doesn't seem like it'll scale well, although Epic has done a decent job of that in the past. It certainly wins out in the graphical fidelity category, but how will it run on a GeForce 1? We just don't know yet. Of course, one thing UE3 has going for it is cross-platform appeal. It runs on (that we know of) PC, 360, and PS3. Source only runs on PC, XBOX, and 360 (currently). But as a new engine, UE3 will have trouble matching Source's robust nature; it's a proven product.
This sort of turned into a rambling discussion, so I'll leave it with my main point: Source is the best engine available for licensing today.
As a quick point, I also think that Valve's licensing fees are quite a bit less than companies like Id, although I could be wrong.
As for the lighting engine, let's first say something up front; games such as Fear and Quake use higher resolution textures, higher poly models, higher resolution normal maps, MORE normal maps, and more pixel shading effects. This makes up a large part of their seeming graphical advantage over Source.
Source, however, SUPPORTS this. Don't mistake the design decisions of Valve making HL2 with the capabilities of the engine. A developer could go crazy with high poly models, high res textures, high res normal maps, and a huge quantity of normal maps with Source. And they could add more pixel shaders. This isn't a limitation of the engine. You'd be surprised how much better a game can look when you go nutso with media quality.
Sure, it isn't the entire difference, but I feel it's the biggest part of it. I'd say that the lighting engine in Source, especially with the addition of HDR, can compete other lighting engines when compared using similar quality media.
Another thing to consider, small effects like displacement mapping. F.E.A.R. had quasi-displacement mapping, used for bullet pockmarks. This is really a simple trick of pixel shaders, and displacement mapping MORE advanced than seen in F.E.A.R. has already been demonstrated running in Source by the community, using pixel shaders. Proper engine support for it would seem quite easy to add. Such minor effects can probably be added to Source either with relative ease, or without engine modifications at all if it can be done using shaders.
So in conclusion, I find statements that Source's lighting engine is outdated technology with low graphical fidelity to be laughable.
Steam is not bad to sell products. The problem is to be tied with Steam. When i said 'tied' i mean thath the game will not be released at stores and tath is what will happen being just a half-life mod. Nothing wrong about Source Engine if UWE could get a license. Source is a good engine for low-end and hi-end users, no doubt about it.
<!--quoteo(post=1570493:date=Oct 19 2006, 12:49 AM:name=Nero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nero @ Oct 19 2006, 12:49 AM) [snapback]1570493[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Steam is not bad to sell products. The problem is to be tied with Steam. When i said 'tied' i mean thath the game will not be released at stores and tath is what will happen being just a half-life mod. Nothing wrong about Source Engine if UWE could get a license. Source is a good engine for low-end and hi-end users, no doubt about it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? Steam doesn't prevent you from going retail. Not in the slightest. Valve's games are released on both Steam and in retail, as well as many of the games that are made by other companies; Darwinia, Sin Episodes, etc.
The lure of steam is the 60/40 revenue split, and the free marketing. It also can generate revenue and publisher interest that ALLOW a company to take their game to retail when they ordinarily either couldn't afford it, or couldn't find a publisher.
Look at the guys behind Red Orchestra. After winning the Make Something Unreal contest, getting a free Unreal Engine 2.5 license, and forming a company to produce a game with it, they couldn't find a single publisher to get their product into retail. Valve, however, let them on Steam, where they've been reasonably successful. Their company, which was on the verge of closing up shop, got a revenue stream through Steam, and then retail publishers started taking interest, getting them on store shelves.
So, Steam allows the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. Steam enables retail, it doesn't prevent it.
<!--quoteo(post=1570536:date=Oct 19 2006, 11:29 AM:name=Guspaz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Guspaz @ Oct 19 2006, 11:29 AM) [snapback]1570536[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Huh? Steam doesn't prevent you from going retail. Not in the slightest. Valve's games are released on both Steam and in retail, as well as many of the games that are made by other companies; Darwinia, Sin Episodes, etc.
The lure of steam is the 60/40 revenue split, and the free marketing. It also can generate revenue and publisher interest that ALLOW a company to take their game to retail when they ordinarily either couldn't afford it, or couldn't find a publisher.
Look at the guys behind Red Orchestra. After winning the Make Something Unreal contest, getting a free Unreal Engine 2.5 license, and forming a company to produce a game with it, they couldn't find a single publisher to get their product into retail. Valve, however, let them on Steam, where they've been reasonably successful. Their company, which was on the verge of closing up shop, got a revenue stream through Steam, and then retail publishers started taking interest, getting them on store shelves.
So, Steam allows the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. Steam enables retail, it doesn't prevent it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If what you said is true what we are waiting for <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> . If UWE could get a license of Source, to make NS2 their own way, this thread will be pointless to continue. No doubt now what they need to do now (at least for me).
<!--quoteo(post=1570561:date=Oct 19 2006, 05:05 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Oct 19 2006, 05:05 PM) [snapback]1570561[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If NS2 is going to be on the source engine I change my vote to NS:S released first and build on from there. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See thats not NS2 then. I would say if NS2 is going to be on Source, it shouldn't be a straight copy and paste of the same NS, armslab gets upgrades, DCs give defense upgrades and heal. I would suggest identifying the gameplay you want from NS2. Like get the thoughts down on how you want even the RTS section of the game to go down(is it going to be on nodes or something else, maybe something a little more fluid. Then identify issues with the source engine you can exploit, such as how they sort of how they hacked commander mode to work in HL. Who knows maybe they might discover that vents can be used in an interesting fashion. The key here is to get the game out in an testable alpha/beta soon. Don't advertise it, but get playtesters to start fooling with the game.
We don't need NS:S, it would be a waste of time imho. Sure it would make the NS experience pretty, but too much time has gone by.
In reality I think they should have whipped together a simple test Source version of regular NS by now. To test the feasiblity of porting the game, like lag issues, graphics issues, and the like.
You should take aspects of the gameplay of NS and transfer it to NS2, but NS:S would be like making Super Mario 3 for the Super Nintendo with updated graphics(after being released for the NES) instead of making Super Mario World.
Take aspects and the feel of sticky invisible mines that bleNS to NS2, but do the things you couldn't have done, or the things you wanted to do(like new weapons, or new ways to do weapons.
NS:S or NS2 doen't matter. What matters is you release an NS type game with a modern engine (e.g. source) cause to be honest with you, i don't play anything that has to do with hl1 engine anymore... In fact my hl1 doesn't work (problems with VAC) anymore, so even if i wanted to play ns i wouldn't be able to.
NS:S or NS2 asap, I hope it won't take a year, cause by then hl2 engine would be "old". If it will take a year or longer you might wana try the Crysis engine or unreal engine 3.
As I said, the Source engine will never be old, because Valve will keep updating it. At the very least, there will be more major enhancements to it in time for Episode 3, which is at least a year off.
Episode 1 had HDR (although that came out slightly before it), and other changes (character emotions and reaction capabilities were improved, IIRC, and NPC interaction is pretty important in games). Episode 2 has apparently had major updates to the particle system, and physics. I can't wait to see what Episode 3 brings. The engine keeps evolving. People don't realize that pure graphical fidelity is just one part of the engine. Source's character animation systems blew me away when HL2 came out. They're really revolutionary. And yet, even though Source-based characters might not LOOK as good as something out of more graphically advanced games, they FEEL a lot more real.
NS2 for sure. Why spend your time creating something you've already made? The way forward should always include new ideas. NS was great because it pushed the envelope and redefined peoples expectations of not only what a HL mod could do, but of multiplayer shooters in general. The next iteration of NS should do the same, both technically and from a gameplay perspective.
Well after looking at the points that were thrown into this topic, I will "modify" my vote. Although I do feel that NS2 is the way to go, but if you want more interested parties into NS in general, then the best way to go to NS2 is through NS:S.
Developing NS:S just to move to NS2 is just a waste of time. Flayra said tath the amount of time to make NS:S is equal of doing NS2. NS:S will just split the development (maintenance of NS:S and a new NS2). NS:S can´t be just discarded when NS2 development starts. So, why make things harder?
I have not played NS in ages, mostly because it did not work on the WSU campus, but I must say from what I've heard it's slowily dying. Granted, people have been saying NS has been dying since it came out, but the devide between competitive players and casual players became so large that many people simply lost interest, most servers turned to poor enviroments, even the strictest of servers had to ease up on rules just to have a playerbase. I think with NS:S you will make everyone who currently plays NS happy faster, but honestly those people are becoming few and far between. With NS2 you will not only have a means, but a responsability to make a game which is appealing to both the current players of NS, and people who do not play NS.
I think there are too less pieces of information about NS2, so many people voted NS:S, because then they know what they'll get.
I voted NS2, because I really hope it will have the NS-gameplay (commander, hive, res-system,... + seperate Combat-Mode) and of course better graphics, physic engine and some minor changes like a new weapon (flamethrower), new upgrades, etc.
Comments
If you look into the future, NS:S may be a better choice.
But if you go NS:S, and you don't get new players (i.e. stay with the actual population/servers), the division may be fatal to the community.
In short : I doubt that the actual NS community can afford to be divided between 2 games
Nice post, SJ.
Whatever is going to be done- I feel it has to be done <b>now</b>. I'd guess at 12 months from conception to first release, if Flayra can afford to offer contracts to professionals to work as developers.
As this will be a major stepping stone for UWE- I feel that a release in Spring 2008 will be too late.
I'm not saying no-one will be playing Steam games by then- but as NS:S/NS2 will be a retail game; many gamers might choose to buy next-gen titles (such as UT2007 etc) instead. A game doesn't have to have excellent graphics to sell- indie games with innovative gameplay such as Defcon prove this; but blending FPS with RTS is no longer a unique idea, and let's face it- us FPS gamers are a simple breed- we like pretty eye candy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but 12 months of development isn´t a good amount of time (maybe for EA)... NS is more complex than a Counter-Strike game.
The point to be considering is the fact tath Half-Life Source engine may be outdated when NS:S is being released and be tied with Steam is something tath may kill Natural Selection Source few months after release. New engines are being released and people will start to loose interest of Half-Life mods next year. Only Counter-Strike fans will stay with it. It will be a very restricted market.
I would really discard to be tied with anything now.
NS has an existing, dedicated userbase. The game rocks...it is a success, that can't be argued with. Updating it to Source would be guaranteed to work...people would buy it, people would play it. That is a given. No brainer.
NS2 is an unknown. We all say we'll download and play it...but who knows if the average Joe will. Perhaps it will perform better than NS...perhaps (gasp) worse. Thus, there is some risk in putting the eggs in a NS2 basket.
Go NS:S. Play it conservative.
My opinion...choose NS:S. Play it safe, build the playerbase back up and then use that momentum ($) to do NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Playing it 'conservative' could destroy the playerbase - maybe joe public won't buy it? then we'd be stuck with the same playerbase we have now split between 2 different games, which would pretty much signal "IP's down" for UWE.
I feel that NS has already come a long way and it surely brought with it its intended long term goal of NS being the "First Contact".
Humanity's First Contact has been going on for years now. Its time for the Kharaa to really spread out and evolve. And its time for humanity and the TSA to stop being on the defensive by losing one ship, space station, or colony mining/research outpost after another.
Basically NS came out as an independent mod. The NS dev team had great creative leeway and few restrictions into development and implementation of ideas into NS. I understand that with UWE's expansion into bigger and better things the company needs to work with outside people.
I trust in Flayra's ideas as thats what lead to NS's success. If NS2 is to be made I hope that we can get another quality game fom the mind of Flayra with as little outside influence as possible.
If I hear one universal complaint from desingers of any kind whether they be in the gaming, graphical or advertisement industry its;
"They wont let me do my job and design. Im the designer not them."
Or " I was rushed, and I couldnt work on, fix, test, or I had to take unwanted shortcuts to get the [insert product here] out now or never."
Therefore NS2 is my choice. Why? We already have NS. It's a great game and it's free. Why pay for the same game with only a graphical update?
I'd want cooler Source stuff. NS2 for me.
Flayra, you've obviously got a handle on the 'soul' of the gaming industry, in terms of what makes a good game.. <i>good,</i> NS a tribute to that fact. Honestly I'd love to see NS:Source simply because I love the gameplay of NS but the lack of updated graphics and physics engine leave it with an empty space it never had before. But I know that the sooner NS2 gets out, the sooner I'll get my hands on a good piece of software I'll be enjoying for a long, <i>long</i> time.
NS2 all the way. You've already established what you can do with NS -- step it up, <u>don't</u> remake it. If anything, its the better choice for company growth.
1) It already supports 64 players per server right off the bat. Any mod/game can use it. There are even 64-player Counter-Strike maps available. They're pretty hectic, but that's because Counter-Strike isn't balanced for that many players. That's a gameplay issue.
2) It remains a current-gen game from a graphical perspective. People play games like F.E.A.R. on quality settings that run at much lower framerates than Source. If they maxed out the visual quality of Source (Enable all the eye candy, HDR, etc), it can look pretty damned nice. The HDR implementation is certainly one of the nicest of any game currently available. Many games claim HDR support and just add light bloom, which is such a small part of HDR
3) It has very good netcode. Despite all the complaints, it's still a heck of a lot better than many other games. I'd bet most complaints are due to poorly configured servers more than anything.
4) It will be around for the long haul. Valve is committed to constant technological improvements. The Episode 2 version of the engine is significantly different from the initial version that shipped. Major features added that come to mind are HDR (a HUGE graphical effect), a new particle system for episode 2, and "cinematic physics" (which may just be scripted physics, but if they produce new tools to make it possible, it probably counts). We also know that Valve intends to KEEP improving it as time goes on. As far as I know, these engine updates are made freely available to licensees, and if they're not, they are probably available for small fees compared to a new license.
Valve designed Source to be super flexible to avoid the problem they had with GoldSrc (where it didn't significantly improve in graphical fidelity over its lifespan). I really wouldn't be surprised if whatever becomes "Half-Life 3" is made using an even more beefed up version of the Source engine.
5) It is extremely scalable. From DirectX 7 mode that looks worse than Quake 3, to all-eyecandy-turned-on using DX9+, it runs on any computer available today, or made since the original GeForce. I think early (beta?) versions even supported DirectX 6, although I think they dropped support for that. Fact is, you make a game with Source, you're ensuring that it can run well on almost any PC being used by gamers today. Try that with F.E.A.R.
6) Because it's going to be around for so long, the core components are going to be patched and tweaked to perfection. As was pointed out, look how amazingly robust GoldSrc is after all these years of development. Source will be even better maintained, since they actually intend to improve it and use it for new products for a very long time. The engine's stability and reliability will only get better
7) It integrates very well with Steam, which is extremely attractive to small (and even large) developers. Valve gives developers 60% of the profit and keeps 40% themselves. Traditional publishers reportedly gives developers about 10% of the profit and keep 90%. You make SIX TIMES MORE selling a game through Steam than at retail. And if you get a smash hit on Steam, you gain leverage with publishers who want to put it in retail. When a publisher approaches a developer and says "Your game is really popular! We want to put it in retail.", the developer can say "Well, OK, but it's doing really well on Steam, and we're getting a great deal there. What can you offer us for Retail that can compete with Steam's margins?"
There are probably more points, but these will do for now. I really do think that Source is the obvious choice for small (and large) developers who need to license an engine.
BF2's engine doesn't scale well, performs poorly in general, has poor netcode (lacks latency correction for one thing), is owned by EA (huge megacompany with no incentive to license engines to people at all), and so on. The Doom 3 engine has seen some licensing action (Quake 4, Prey, etc), and scales somewhat well, but still has performance and networking issues. Not to mention stability problems. F.E.A.R.'s engine, I don't think it's available for licensing, but if it is, it's an extremely poor choice. It doesn't really scale at all.
The only real competitors would be UE2.5 and UE3. UE2.5 is really showing its age (nowhere near as graphically advanced as Source or even any other current-gen engine), and UE3 is sort of an unknown (not really released in any major titles). UE3 doesn't seem like it'll scale well, although Epic has done a decent job of that in the past. It certainly wins out in the graphical fidelity category, but how will it run on a GeForce 1? We just don't know yet. Of course, one thing UE3 has going for it is cross-platform appeal. It runs on (that we know of) PC, 360, and PS3. Source only runs on PC, XBOX, and 360 (currently). But as a new engine, UE3 will have trouble matching Source's robust nature; it's a proven product.
This sort of turned into a rambling discussion, so I'll leave it with my main point: Source is the best engine available for licensing today.
As a quick point, I also think that Valve's licensing fees are quite a bit less than companies like Id, although I could be wrong.
As for the lighting engine, let's first say something up front; games such as Fear and Quake use higher resolution textures, higher poly models, higher resolution normal maps, MORE normal maps, and more pixel shading effects. This makes up a large part of their seeming graphical advantage over Source.
Source, however, SUPPORTS this. Don't mistake the design decisions of Valve making HL2 with the capabilities of the engine. A developer could go crazy with high poly models, high res textures, high res normal maps, and a huge quantity of normal maps with Source. And they could add more pixel shaders. This isn't a limitation of the engine. You'd be surprised how much better a game can look when you go nutso with media quality.
Sure, it isn't the entire difference, but I feel it's the biggest part of it. I'd say that the lighting engine in Source, especially with the addition of HDR, can compete other lighting engines when compared using similar quality media.
Another thing to consider, small effects like displacement mapping. F.E.A.R. had quasi-displacement mapping, used for bullet pockmarks. This is really a simple trick of pixel shaders, and displacement mapping MORE advanced than seen in F.E.A.R. has already been demonstrated running in Source by the community, using pixel shaders. Proper engine support for it would seem quite easy to add. Such minor effects can probably be added to Source either with relative ease, or without engine modifications at all if it can be done using shaders.
So in conclusion, I find statements that Source's lighting engine is outdated technology with low graphical fidelity to be laughable.
Nothing wrong about Source Engine if UWE could get a license. Source is a good engine for low-end and hi-end users, no doubt about it.
Steam is not bad to sell products. The problem is to be tied with Steam. When i said 'tied' i mean thath the game will not be released at stores and tath is what will happen being just a half-life mod.
Nothing wrong about Source Engine if UWE could get a license. Source is a good engine for low-end and hi-end users, no doubt about it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? Steam doesn't prevent you from going retail. Not in the slightest. Valve's games are released on both Steam and in retail, as well as many of the games that are made by other companies; Darwinia, Sin Episodes, etc.
The lure of steam is the 60/40 revenue split, and the free marketing. It also can generate revenue and publisher interest that ALLOW a company to take their game to retail when they ordinarily either couldn't afford it, or couldn't find a publisher.
Look at the guys behind Red Orchestra. After winning the Make Something Unreal contest, getting a free Unreal Engine 2.5 license, and forming a company to produce a game with it, they couldn't find a single publisher to get their product into retail. Valve, however, let them on Steam, where they've been reasonably successful. Their company, which was on the verge of closing up shop, got a revenue stream through Steam, and then retail publishers started taking interest, getting them on store shelves.
So, Steam allows the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. Steam enables retail, it doesn't prevent it.
Huh? Steam doesn't prevent you from going retail. Not in the slightest. Valve's games are released on both Steam and in retail, as well as many of the games that are made by other companies; Darwinia, Sin Episodes, etc.
The lure of steam is the 60/40 revenue split, and the free marketing. It also can generate revenue and publisher interest that ALLOW a company to take their game to retail when they ordinarily either couldn't afford it, or couldn't find a publisher.
Look at the guys behind Red Orchestra. After winning the Make Something Unreal contest, getting a free Unreal Engine 2.5 license, and forming a company to produce a game with it, they couldn't find a single publisher to get their product into retail. Valve, however, let them on Steam, where they've been reasonably successful. Their company, which was on the verge of closing up shop, got a revenue stream through Steam, and then retail publishers started taking interest, getting them on store shelves.
So, Steam allows the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim. Steam enables retail, it doesn't prevent it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If what you said is true what we are waiting for <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> . If UWE could get a license of Source, to make NS2 their own way, this thread will be pointless to continue. No doubt now what they need to do now (at least for me).
If NS2 is going to be on the source engine I change my vote to NS:S released first and build on from there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See thats not NS2 then. I would say if NS2 is going to be on Source, it shouldn't be a straight copy and paste of the same NS, armslab gets upgrades, DCs give defense upgrades and heal. I would suggest identifying the gameplay you want from NS2. Like get the thoughts down on how you want even the RTS section of the game to go down(is it going to be on nodes or something else, maybe something a little more fluid. Then identify issues with the source engine you can exploit, such as how they sort of how they hacked commander mode to work in HL. Who knows maybe they might discover that vents can be used in an interesting fashion. The key here is to get the game out in an testable alpha/beta soon. Don't advertise it, but get playtesters to start fooling with the game.
We don't need NS:S, it would be a waste of time imho. Sure it would make the NS experience pretty, but too much time has gone by.
In reality I think they should have whipped together a simple test Source version of regular NS by now. To test the feasiblity of porting the game, like lag issues, graphics issues, and the like.
You should take aspects of the gameplay of NS and transfer it to NS2, but NS:S would be like making Super Mario 3 for the Super Nintendo with updated graphics(after being released for the NES) instead of making Super Mario World.
Take aspects and the feel of sticky invisible mines that bleNS to NS2, but do the things you couldn't have done, or the things you wanted to do(like new weapons, or new ways to do weapons.
NS:S or NS2 asap, I hope it won't take a year, cause by then hl2 engine would be "old". If it will take a year or longer you might wana try the Crysis engine or unreal engine 3.
Episode 1 had HDR (although that came out slightly before it), and other changes (character emotions and reaction capabilities were improved, IIRC, and NPC interaction is pretty important in games). Episode 2 has apparently had major updates to the particle system, and physics. I can't wait to see what Episode 3 brings. The engine keeps evolving. People don't realize that pure graphical fidelity is just one part of the engine. Source's character animation systems blew me away when HL2 came out. They're really revolutionary. And yet, even though Source-based characters might not LOOK as good as something out of more graphically advanced games, they FEEL a lot more real.
NS:S will just split the development (maintenance of NS:S and a new NS2). NS:S can´t be just discarded when NS2 development starts.
So, why make things harder?
That awhere the revamped lighting model is being introduced...
Difference from being a ns clone with same gameplay or entirely new game.
Difference from being a ns clone with same gameplay or entirely new game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still hope that NS2 will have some of the same gameplay as NS1
I still hope that NS2 will have some of the same gameplay as NS1
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Me too, maybe I chose the wrong word... I doubt NS2 will be totally different from NS in the end anyway
I voted NS2, because I really hope it will have the NS-gameplay (commander, hive, res-system,... + seperate Combat-Mode) and of course better graphics, physic engine and some minor changes like a new weapon (flamethrower), new upgrades, etc.