I hate to call "old!" but we discussed this months ago when the video came out.

I still don't see how this is going to be that effective when you are standing right beside a flat wall, though

A fundamental change in the engine that would make mapping and coding different, more difficult, or less accessible to new people would be a stupid move for Valve. The continued and unparalleled success for a FPS this old is only because of the ease of modding and mapping, so why wouldn't they want to recreate such success for their next game?

Plus, do any people really need smooth bevel curves or map construction by subtraction to eliminate leaks and make testing faster (and move the learning curve so much higher)? I don't, and I don't know of any fundamental changes that are neccessary.

I find it rather horrifying D: Half of the fun of HL texturing is putting in detail that looks great and doesn't cost a polygon when the mapper would have had to use quite a bit of detail.

Lol you fool Cassius... take a close look at HL2 pics and videos. The only difference between HL1 and HL2 is larger areas and higher detailed textures. Most walls and buildings are just as simple as HL1 ones in say CS! They just have them 3D bump mapped textures and such.

Lol you moron Myrk, that's hardly related to what I was talking about, you just took my statement out of context so you could repeat something you've been endlessly prostyletizing. I've always been opposed to fancy, needless jive like bumpmapping and static meshes. They rob mapping of all skill, and texturing of all meaning. They allow complete noobs to create things nearly as beautiful as professionals, something I see in UT2k3 mapping quite a bit.

And, both you and Jinx can spare me this nonsense. Unless you hacked the beta and examined the engine code, every last word you have to say about the HL2 engine is a baseless conspiracy theory. By the way, even if it were a souped up HL engine, why would that be a bad thing? I'm willing to bet that you would be screaming your head off if the sequel to the game you've both mapped for years f**ked you over with subtractive geometry or something of the like. The thing with such hardcore skeptical cynicism that you two in particular exhibit is that it ceases to be constructive or realistic - these "well, I've looked at the HL2 screenshots, and being a super-expert on all facets of graphic engine coding and design, I can conclude without any evidence that THIS ENGINE IS BASED ON HL1!!!!!!1111111111oneoeneone" statements are only theories. Hold your judgements back at least a few months until they release the product you continue to whine about, continue to bash, continue to curse Valve as being an evil corporate giant who wants to actually release the game when they're ready to (this in particular reference to Jinx).

Half-Life editing is still fun for me at least, because of the fact that with enough talent and time, you can create something with 800 polygons on a five year old engine that looks better than something with 40,000 on UT2k3.

I've textured for UT2k3 before. It is not a cakewalk, if you want to keep the same detail as you had in 256x256 textures; and in the end, it's not really satisfying even if you did. When an engine supports enough polygons that it's only up to a texture artist to make colors and materials (things like big shadows, complete objects, and transitions are becoming obsolete), it's a mappers utopia, and an artist's hell. The nature of being an HL texture artist is that you're half the process of mapping, you give a level its soul, rather than its clothes.

I don't know if what any of what I just said makes sense to any of you, but trust me, in my shoes you would understand.

Oh my god. Maybe then I'll finally be able to map!!!11!1

No? Ok...