The sequel received two extra campaigns (one of which L4D1 also got).. and a bunch of ported over content from L4D1. Oh, and I guess that fan campaign got added in too. Not exactly a whopping amount of new content over it's predecessor. So, how is that "fraudulant" exactly? That was the term you used, "fraudulant."
And make up your mind what you're angry about. First you complain about them being "fraudulent" about updating L4D1 enough, then you complain about how it would be pointless if they updated L4D1. You bring up how the Steam group has thousands of people in it, but the dismiss or deride those people when they change their mind, and then dimiss and deride the Steam group as being "pointless" and something you wouldn't bother joining anyway. It's getting pretty confusing here.
EDIT: Ugh, I just realized that anyone clicking on this for the Half-Life 3 news is going to be stuck viewing a dumb, pointless argument. My bad. As an apology, here's a complete list of all the mailing groups
EDIT: Ugh, I just realized that anyone clicking on this for the Half-Life 3 news is going to be stuck viewing a dumb, pointless argument. My bad. As an apology, here's a complete list of all the mailing groups
It's not that I find Source a bad engine or even ugly, but every engine has a certain distinctive look even when games using it employ different art designs. And the "Source look" is a bit old, in a way. Like UE3. It's not a tech thing, it's a visual identity thing. We need a refresh.
So, in case anyone is wondering, tox stays and some people don't because tox didn't actually break any rules and the others did. That said, this is no longer the tox grudge against Valve thread, so shut up about it.
Source may have the longest legs of any engine I can think of. It is insane to think that the engine that powered half life 2 a decade ago can do everything Titanfall is doing.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If some guy is saying something you super don't like, that's a real shame. Under the rules of the forum though, he's totally allowed to do that. If you think that someone is taking it too far, use the report button and we'll check it out.
What you absolutely don't get to do is call them a troll, whine and scream at them, post stupid gifs and generally make arseholes of yourselves. Tox was absolutely not the person who was fucking up this thread, the people responding to him were. This policy is not up for debate.
I hasten to add that this doesn't mean he was not 100% shithouse wrong about his actual, terrible opinions. This is the last post that needs to address that though.
Source may have the longest legs of any engine I can think of. It is insane to think that the engine that powered half life 2 a decade ago can do everything Titanfall is doing.
Constantly being updated and all that.
Even rewatching the gameplay video, I'm not really sure what "everything Titanfall is doing" is supposed to be. It has decent sized maps with a nice looking skyboxes? The nice animations? The spaceship intro? AI guys in a multiplayer game?
It's not that I find Source a bad engine or even ugly, but every engine has a certain distinctive look even when games using it employ different art designs. And the "Source look" is a bit old, in a way. Like UE3. It's not a tech thing, it's a visual identity thing. We need a refresh.
This is some common-ass bunk. HL2 doesn't look like Zeno Clash doesn't look like Titanfall doesn't look like Portal 2 doesn't look like Alien Swarm doesn't look like TF2 doesn't look like Dear Esther. Mirror's Edge doesn't look like Gears of War doesn't look like Mass Effect doesn't look like Dungeon Defenders doesn't look like Borderlands doesn't look like Zeno Clash 2. Zeno Clash 2 does look like Zeno Clash 1.
Game engines doesn't look like anything. Artists decides what games look like.
What decides when a game engine needs upgrading is mostly the tools, and Source's have been pretty much the worst you can pay for for years.
You don't think the tools available shape the aesthetic to any extent? I haven't played all the games on your list there, but I'd find that a very shaky concept.
That's not to say it's a bad thing, I've loved every Source game I've played. But I've never looked at a painting and thought, "I bet that was made with clay."
It's not that I find Source a bad engine or even ugly, but every engine has a certain distinctive look even when games using it employ different art designs. And the "Source look" is a bit old, in a way. Like UE3. It's not a tech thing, it's a visual identity thing. We need a refresh.
This is some common-ass bunk. HL2 doesn't look like Zeno Clash doesn't look like Titanfall doesn't look like Portal 2 doesn't look like Alien Swarm doesn't look like TF2 doesn't look like Dear Esther. Mirror's Edge doesn't look like Gears of War doesn't look like Mass Effect doesn't look like Dungeon Defenders doesn't look like Borderlands doesn't look like Zeno Clash 2. Zeno Clash 2 does look like Zeno Clash 1.
Game engines doesn't look like anything. Artists decides what games look like.
What decides when a game engine needs upgrading is mostly the tools, and Source's have been pretty much the worst you can pay for for years.
He's right though, in that you can usually tell which games are running UE3 or Source or Doom 3, for example. The artists obviously contribute most of a game's aesthetic, but each engine has a visual flavor that usually gets thrown in there, too.
Of course there are games that buck that, but I can definitely see where he's coming from.
I don't suppose anyone knows why Titanfall went with Source, do they? Have any of the developers said anything on that?
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
What makes game engines recognizable is not the visual look usually, but the sharing of technical flaws and glitches. UE3's texture pop being the most common example. Every UE3 game, literally every one, has some texture pop as the game loads high res resources.
You don't think the tools available shape the aesthetic to any extent? I haven't played all the games on your list there, but I'd find that a very shaky concept.
That's not to say it's a bad thing, I've loved every Source game I've played. But I've never looked at a painting and thought, "I bet that was made with clay."
The tools effect the aesthetic.
The tools can shape the aesthetic, sure. They don't have to, though. Usually when they do it's a matter of falling back on the art or code that came with the engine - SiN Emergence looks and feels like Half-Life 2, because it uses so much of the stock HL2 code and even art. Then Zeno Clash comes along and looks nothing like HL2, because they used almost 100% their own assets. Most of their level design wasn't even done in Hammer.
To put it another way, the Source engine doesn't really have a "look", but HL2 has a definite "look", and it's easy to fall into using it because that's the set of assets you start out with.
I'm not saying you can't ever tell what game an engine is running on by playing it, you often totally can (a good example being minor glitchy stuff like the ue3 mipping thing several of you raise), but it's not the engine that has a style, it's the art. The idiosyncrasies you notice are almost always something a developer can easily remove.
I don't suppose anyone knows why Titanfall went with Source, do they? Have any of the developers said anything on that?
I have no idea, it's pretty bizarre. I guess it's possible that they're actually using Source 2.
Edit: EXAMPLE: I made a mod called Shotgun Sunrise for Half-Life 2. Then I made an iPad game based on it, on UE3, called Vroom, using mostly the exact same assets. I was excitedly asked, many times, "Zomg! How did you port the Source Engine to iOS?!?!" because people thought I had "that Source Engine look".
I don't suppose anyone knows why Titanfall went with Source, do they? Have any of the developers said anything on that?
According to this article, they went with Source because they were familiar with it, and could rely on it to hit a constant 60 fps on current generation systems. This was before they decided to shift to next gen of course.
Edit: EXAMPLE: I made a mod called Shotgun Sunrise for Half-Life 2. Then I made an iPad game based on it, on UE3, called Vroom, using mostly the exact same assets. I was excitedly asked, many times, "Zomg! How did you port the Source Engine to iOS?!?!" because people thought I had "that Source Engine look".
FWIW I think it's pretty easy to tell Source from UE3 even with the same assets in the case of Shotgun Sunrise vs. Vroom!. And yes, I can tell that Zeno Clash is a Source engine game just by looking at it. Pretty much the only time I think I've ever been wrong is 1) I thought Dishonored was Source when they released the first 3 screenshots (many, many months before we saw the game for real, and the screenshots were low res) and when I watched Titanfall at low res I thought it wasn't Source. But aside from that I think it's pretty clear when something's UE, when something's idTech, and when something's Source.
I really don't think anyone in the public would have guessed Titanfall was source if they weren't told. I'm not a graphics programmer, I don't know if there's like... common libraries of shaders or something that get reused amongst licensees or something, but I think the reality is probably confirmation bias more than the engine having some kind of unmistakable signature, or at the very least the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I have some doubt that anyone in this thread looked at Titanfall and immdiately went "oh, that's a source game, I can tell by the pixels"
Pretty much the only time I think I've ever been wrong is 1) I thought Dishonored was Source when...
Viktor Antonov worked as an art director on HL2, and went to work on Dishonored at Arkane. You were probably responding to the design aesthetic rather than the engine.
Posts
No, thanks.
And make up your mind what you're angry about. First you complain about them being "fraudulent" about updating L4D1 enough, then you complain about how it would be pointless if they updated L4D1. You bring up how the Steam group has thousands of people in it, but the dismiss or deride those people when they change their mind, and then dimiss and deride the Steam group as being "pointless" and something you wouldn't bother joining anyway. It's getting pretty confusing here.
With that said, can everyone please stop engaging with him now?
http://pastebin.com/Hm1dpcvX
I found myself in the chatlog the other day and decided to read a thread called itt lesbians
I was surprised at how quickly the thread went off the tracks, over the cliff and into the abyss
Payday?
titanfall is source?
And not source 2, even.
Source may have the longest legs of any engine I can think of. It is insane to think that the engine that powered half life 2 a decade ago can do everything Titanfall is doing.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If some guy is saying something you super don't like, that's a real shame. Under the rules of the forum though, he's totally allowed to do that. If you think that someone is taking it too far, use the report button and we'll check it out.
What you absolutely don't get to do is call them a troll, whine and scream at them, post stupid gifs and generally make arseholes of yourselves. Tox was absolutely not the person who was fucking up this thread, the people responding to him were. This policy is not up for debate.
Constantly being updated and all that.
Even rewatching the gameplay video, I'm not really sure what "everything Titanfall is doing" is supposed to be. It has decent sized maps with a nice looking skyboxes? The nice animations? The spaceship intro? AI guys in a multiplayer game?
This is some common-ass bunk. HL2 doesn't look like Zeno Clash doesn't look like Titanfall doesn't look like Portal 2 doesn't look like Alien Swarm doesn't look like TF2 doesn't look like Dear Esther. Mirror's Edge doesn't look like Gears of War doesn't look like Mass Effect doesn't look like Dungeon Defenders doesn't look like Borderlands doesn't look like Zeno Clash 2. Zeno Clash 2 does look like Zeno Clash 1.
Game engines doesn't look like anything. Artists decides what games look like.
What decides when a game engine needs upgrading is mostly the tools, and Source's have been pretty much the worst you can pay for for years.
That's not to say it's a bad thing, I've loved every Source game I've played. But I've never looked at a painting and thought, "I bet that was made with clay."
The tools effect the aesthetic.
He's right though, in that you can usually tell which games are running UE3 or Source or Doom 3, for example. The artists obviously contribute most of a game's aesthetic, but each engine has a visual flavor that usually gets thrown in there, too.
Of course there are games that buck that, but I can definitely see where he's coming from.
edited so people know who the hell i'm talking to
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
To put it another way, the Source engine doesn't really have a "look", but HL2 has a definite "look", and it's easy to fall into using it because that's the set of assets you start out with.
I'm not saying you can't ever tell what game an engine is running on by playing it, you often totally can (a good example being minor glitchy stuff like the ue3 mipping thing several of you raise), but it's not the engine that has a style, it's the art. The idiosyncrasies you notice are almost always something a developer can easily remove. I have no idea, it's pretty bizarre. I guess it's possible that they're actually using Source 2.
Edit: EXAMPLE: I made a mod called Shotgun Sunrise for Half-Life 2. Then I made an iPad game based on it, on UE3, called Vroom, using mostly the exact same assets. I was excitedly asked, many times, "Zomg! How did you port the Source Engine to iOS?!?!" because people thought I had "that Source Engine look".
According to this article, they went with Source because they were familiar with it, and could rely on it to hit a constant 60 fps on current generation systems. This was before they decided to shift to next gen of course.
I have some doubt that anyone in this thread looked at Titanfall and immdiately went "oh, that's a source game, I can tell by the pixels"
Viktor Antonov worked as an art director on HL2, and went to work on Dishonored at Arkane. You were probably responding to the design aesthetic rather than the engine.
I don't remember that feeling from playing Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines : Colons
But then again I played that game in third-person a lot and how many Source games do you play in third-person?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar