Things to come...

Just a quick reminder of how old and decrepid the HL2 engine is.

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

hehe :biggrin:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Myrk-</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Just a quick reminder of how old and decrepid the HL2 engine is.

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

hehe :biggrin:

</DIV></DIV>
That just makes me sick!! Just when I thought HL2 was it. Beautiful screens. WOW

Omg that engine looks AWESOME!! But, hey, just wait till HL3 comes out.
Now witch will be screenshot and witch will be reality? :biggrin:

pure beauty. i wonder what specs you'll need though:/

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting RaPtoR</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Omg that engine looks AWESOME!! But, hey, just wait till HL3 comes out. Now witch will be screenshot and witch will be reality? :biggrin:
</DIV></DIV>

HL3 according to Gabe Newell will use Source engine slightly modified, and is currently in production.
As for specs for that engine- not 100% sure, but its all DX 9 stuff, so I assume a good DX9 system would run it. HL2 is just poorly made. I love what can be done with HL2 (don't wanna get in an argument now), but as far as normal mapping/bump mapping goes and other advanced features, its pretty poor.

The Unreal3 engine models look great, but the outside environments
(like the windmills) don't look th?t overwhelming. Could be dev
screenshots, tho.

You guys have seen the technology video ? Amazing, really.



How to they make those 2 million poly-models ? A 3d scanner or
something ? I know they're not used in game, but they add some kind of
effec to the normal, in-game models.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting BlisTer</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>pure beauty. i wonder what specs you'll need though:/ </DIV></DIV>

whatever specs, the unreal engines have always run smoother, and on lower end machines than any FPS i know of.
i am betting it will run better again.

Better find us a link then buddeh!

Always knew this engine would beat out the rest. The PS3 is suppost to
be able to run U3 when it comes out. Can't wait for the jump from old
UT2003/2004 to UT2005! :biggrin:

nice, but imagine having to map for all this crap! I bet there are shaders and meshes and overlays and cubemaps and ALL SORTS of things that weren't implemented in any game b4. Just like all that other stuff was not in HL but is in HL2

Er, those "screenshots" have been around for several months. And whoop-de-freaking do, wait and see until we see some in-game stuff (not that I'll care seeing as UT is good for nothing except multiplayer) :razz:

What about Unreal II the single player game? That had pretty good gameplay, in my opinion (and spectacular graphics at the time).

And I feel ill when playing HL2 :sad:

I'll probably vomit on my screen when playing this :sad:

beautiful screens though

What about Unreal II the single player game? That had pretty
good gameplay, in my opinion (and spectacular graphics at the time).

It did for a couple of levels. Then they seemed to just run out of ideas.

Yeah, the Devs for the Unreal games have always focused on pushing the technology to the next level, whereas Valve has always focused on making a fun game, and hacked together the technology to make it happen. For example, while the devs at Unreal 2k4 were coding a monstrously awesome and powerful terrain editor, the devs at Valve hacked together the bare minimum displacement editor fast, and gave it to the artists who, with extra time, made it look far better than it is.

truth be told, i fragged as much, or more Unreal DM as i did HLDM.. the simple fact was, on 56k, Unreal beat the s**t out of HL in pings and everything else it took to have fun on 56k.

i am not here to alter anyones viewpoint on single player adventuring, HL may indeed beat the hell out of Unreal, but in deathmatch, it is a damned close race indeed. all the bad mouthing in the world won't alter that fact one bit.

/ 2 cents.

Just sucks that all the people with the low end Graphics cards 9800 pros will do fine but anything below will have problems.

No, this is next gen - 9800 won't run it. I think the nvidia 6800 was the first card that could run Unreal3 graphics at 30fps - at least that's what the tech video I watched (half a year ago) said.

Needless to say, this is a nice glimpse into the future of game graphics. This is basically the evolution of shader, normal/parrallax mapping, and lighting technology, that Doom3, Hl2, and Farcry were pushing (sans parrallax). I'm sure HL3 will do the same as HL2, and find a nice middle ground that can reach lower end machines.

There's alot to be said for art direction, and no amount of hi-tech engine wizardry can replace that. That's the one thing that Valve has no shortage of, and for me, that's what will make HL3 shine.

Also, with all of this new tech, comes more art requirements. This equals more time and effort for mod teams and development teams, to keep up with the current standards of 'eye candy'.

Great! They're making a game no one will be able to play at reasonable
detail because of the system requirements. Just like Unreal 2 when it
came out.

And it seems great engines have replaced gameplay and the decent
storyline that makes you play on. People who keep going on and on about
how great X will look/looks and niglect what's realy important make me
sick.

Great! They're making a game no one will be able to play at reasonable
detail because of the system requirements. Just like Unreal 2 when it
came out.
And it seems great engines have replaced gameplay and the decent
storyline that makes you play on. People who keep going on and on about
how great X will look/looks and niglect what's realy important make me
sick.

I think you're being overly dramatic. Think about what is made using the unreal engine(s). The ONLY reason Epic can still make these things while their games flat out suck (because of content) is because the power they give to other developers. Not to mention, they make a crap load of money every time someone uses their engine to develop a game.

Does that make sense?

I was talking in general when I said the stuff about the storyline.

I think you're being overly dramatic. Think about what is made using the unreal engine(s). The ONLY reason Epic can still make these things while their games flat out suck (because of content) is because the power they give to other developers. Not to mention, they make a crap load of money every time someone uses their engine to develop a game.

I have to disagree with your comment on Epic's games. Yes they have had a few slips - Unreal Tournament 2003 comes to mind but they have several VERY high quality games under their belt - The origional Unreal, Unreal Tournament and Unreal Tournament 2004 are all classic games with fantastic replayability. As far as general Multiplayer modes based on Deathmatch go, they have the best games available. None of the deathmatch modes for other games such as Half-Life or Half-Life 2 come close to UT2004s Deathmatch. While Quake III's deathmatch mode was better than UT99s deathmatch mode, UT excelled at other modes such as CTF and Domination.

Unreal Engine 3 is simply taking advantage of the huge leap in graphics technology that came about with the launch of the latest generation of graphics cards. The engine isn't even coming out for another 2 years at least anyway

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Andrei</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>And it seems great engines have replaced gameplay and the decent storyline that makes you play on. People who keep going on and on about how great X will look/looks and niglect what's realy important make me sick.
</DIV></DIV>
What are you smoking? You haven't even played the game yet! Though I would have to agree to an extent... HL2 did have a crap storyline. :razz:

HL2 crap storyline? Considering it borrows heavily from one of the most influential socio-political novels of the 20th century, I thought it worked quite well.

Once again though, Valve stuffed up the ending and missed lots of potential openings and ideas they could have capitalised on for a better, more cohesive storyline. The overall plot was a bit shaky - but the atmosphere created by "Civil Protection" , opression, constant loudspeaker announcements and the crushing of civil liberty and erasing of memory was superb.

Orwell himself would have been proud.

HL2 has one of the most imaginative plot in all of FPS games. Not
only was it a game, but it has some social commentary too. When
was the last time you played a computer game that carries more weight
than a marine shooting mutated monsters?

half-life was a work of art. Marc Laidlaw, who wrote the storyline, is an EXCELLENT writer. If anyone recalls seeing a book texture that says "The 37th Mandala, Marc Laidlaw," while mapping, you may already be familiar with one of his titles. I got this gook on ebay and enjoyed it immensely. I would recommend his books to all.

What are you smoking? You haven't even played the game yet! Though I
would have to agree to an extent... HL2 did have a crap storyline. :razz:

Doesn't anyone get it that i'm refering to the previous unreal which
everyone praised for its shiny engine but it took 2 years for all of
them to realise just how awful the storyline is? I am also refering to
the fact that most game reviews tend to focus on graphics and physics
and that the storyline is often shoved aside. And I don't quite
remember saying that HL2 has a crap storyline.

Andrei, I completely agree. But look at Doom 3 - the exact same thing has happened.

And Unreal 2 was not developed by Epic who own the Unreal Liscense.

Unreal II: The Awakening has a s**tty plot. It's nothing more than an excuse to land in various planets and proceed to shoot everything that moves. However, I was kinda sad when it ended, and Aida got killed on the spaceship. I'd like to bone her before she died.

I'd like to bone her before she died.

You animal, you :razz: .

hmm i might start taking up unreal mapping after seeing those screens :]...

Might be worth learning unrealED .

I've done some mapping in UnrealEd for the Unreal engine for UT 2003
and I have to say that both HL2 and UT have strong points. God knows
why they don't get together and create a super game. Anyway, here are
the primary differences I noticed between the editors, and why a
combination would be perfect.

Terrain and terrain editing is absolutely beautiful in UT. It was so
inovative and really limitless that it was absolutely perfect for
anything you could come up with. HL2 on the other hand had the
dodgiest, buggiest and downright most inflexible terrain editor. It's
limitations almost outweigh most of the good of it.

Brush construction in HL2 is so simple yet you can create most of the
structures you'll need without having to use a modelling program.
Texture application is also fantastic and easy to use. UT on the other
hand relied heavily on static meshes because it was extremely hard to
create anything detailed solely out of brushes. The interface is clunky
and any fine work seems to take ages. Texture application is also
difficult and time consuming.

HL2 editing, whilst generally easier and quicker, lacks well thought
out tools and the existing tools are limited. UT editing, whilst having
some incredible tools and technology, is time consuming and clunky to
use.

Conclusion, combine the two together so that the hybrid contains all the best features of both, creating a super editor/game.

I have a dream...

I think after finishing a couple of maps for Source, I'm gonna try my
hand at a few other editors. Having experience in only one editor is
probably going to be a bit of a weak point when trying to get hired.

Knowing any editor or technology will help you in the long run, as the basic concepts apply across all engines - good design is always good design. :smile:

That said, Worldcraft/Hammer is very seldomly used compared to Radiant and UnrealEd, so definitely familiarize yourself with one or both of them. Even if you just know how the basics work, that'll save a lot of time if/when you start somewhere using that technology.

I personally recommend Radiant as the most down-and-dirty powerful editor with the greatest amount of geometry control on the market today. But your milage may vary :smile:

I'm really not impressed by these screens, and with each new iteration of FPS engines I'm less and less pleased. When are people going to decide that graphics aren't everything and start focusing on other aspects of FPS design such as AI? From my limited knowledge I can guess that the three biggest recent visual innovations have been real curves (Q3), dynamic shadows (D3), and reflective and bump mapped surfaces (D3, HL2). None of these are particularly impressive and once you move beyond the wow factor what are you left with? I'd be much happier if next-gen games did more than just up the model detail and improve upon those three things already mentioned.

How about weather modeling, where during a map the weather can go from sunny to rainy to cloudy with the appropriate visual changes? Or maybe realistic and adaptive AI that presents a real challenge? How about AI that learns and adapts to your actions and eliminates your main strategy, forcing you to change tactics? Or one that can correctly manipulate the environment (open closed doors, create and destroy barriers)? Or perhaps developers could avoid going for extreme high end detail and focused instead on tons and tons of content? Maybe they could have dynamic levels, dynamic storylines, or even dynamic battles going on around you?

I was glad that HL2 went in different directions in their innovations away from pure graphical power (tons of physics and realistic facial animation) but there's still plenty of stuff that could be done outside of the realm of pure visuals.

I know in Morrowind Game of the Year, the environment goes from sunny/rainy/cloudy whatever, but the rest of that game is pretty snotty now. Good gameley though...

Well, Yak, this engine seems to offer two improvements that neither D3 or HL2 really delivered: more polygons and a lighting system that actually looks like real light.

It's a damn shame I'll have to learn UnrealEd to use this. Maybe we should persuade a team of coders to make UnrealHammer

But really, God knows some new game with even better graphics will be unveiled before U3 is released, and the argument over "WUTS TEH BEST GAEM ENGINE LOL!!1" will resume in full force.

ReNo, learn UnrealED. Your skills from Worldcraft translate directly
into Radient and you could get mapping at full pace within a few hours
of practise with Radient. All you're learning with Radient is different
shortcuts and where the various tools are in the menu's.

UnrealED uses a COMPLETELY different method of building maps and it
could take you several weeks or months to get up to scratch in
UnrealED. If you learn UnrealED then you will have experience of both
Additive and Subtractive level building - you'll have skills that will
instantly transfer to any in-house level editor.

But really, God knows some new game with even better graphics will be unveiled before U3 is released, and the argument over "WUTS TEH BEST GAEM ENGINE LOL!!1" will resume in full force.

It's the old leapfrog effect. Quake, Quake II. Unreal, Unreal Tournament. Quake III. UT2K3/4. Doom3. Unreal Engine 3. Id's next tech. Epic's next tech. Yadda yadda.

More companies now are using proprietary tech, so there's a few more in the mix, but id and Epic are still the dominating forces in engine licenses and likely will be for some time to come.

Yak, you might be surprised at the sort of AI capability that is available in D3, but just wasn't really shown in the game. Hopefully some of the licensed products will make better use of this.

UT mapping isn't really that different from HL2 mapping, at least the
basics aren't. It's just like most of the things in Hammer have been
turned inside out, you don't add brushes, you subtract space. I think
the biggest hurdle moving between the editors is that with UnrealEd you
really need the entire map planned out before hand, including how and
in what order things need to be made; as opposed to Hammers ability to
create as you go. I found that there can be a number of problems with
your map if you don't plan in UnrealEd.

UT mapping isn't really that different from HL2 mapping, at least the
basics aren't. It's just like most of the things in Hammer have been
turned inside out, you don't add brushes, you subtract space. I think
the biggest hurdle moving between the editors is that with UnrealEd you
really need the entire map planned out before hand, including how and
in what order things need to be made; as opposed to Hammers ability to
create as you go. I found that there can be a number of problems with
your map if you don't plan in UnrealEd.

Subtracting space is really only the tip of the ice berg, you also add
space and (so in reality you have subracting and addition brushes) from
that you can create some complicated "brush" work with this, you just
need to think "ouside of the box". This ability makes csg construction
more powerful in UT than hammer, but it is rarely used, most of
anything you see in UT is models models and heightmaps (thats why UT
games run so nice, is because models are esier to render than CSG). Its
getting past the complex actor system that it contains, it takes me
about 15 minutes to set up a heightmap (or displacement surface as its
called in hammer). But what I really like about the UT editor is its
real time lighting, thats really great, because this way instead of
recompiling to get it close to correct, you can just look at it in the
editor to see the effects, and from this you can place it exactly where
you want it and get the nice effect you want, instead of "that will do"
in hammer.

Ive tried my hand at the doom's editor, I just have a hard time
navigating and learning the new key strokes to get efficient at it.

I tried UnrealEd. I liked the results, but didn't like the hassle of getting to that stage. Also, I tend to map-as-i-go. Thats a concept that doesn't bode well with UnrealEd. I suppose I could eventually get used to the key strokes, but IMO mapping is supposed to be fun, not work. Learning a new editor of this type by any definition is WORK. I think I'll leave it to the more inclined among us. I simply do not have the time nor the inclination to devote the necessary resources to learning it.

I will continue to play them however, and if need be, I can critique them maps upon request.

I've played around with UnrealED too when Unreal:TA came out. It took
me 6 hours to figure out how to make a single bloody room that isn't a
hollowed cube :sad: . The texture browser is kinda' slow too. Liked the
lack of compilers, though. :smile:

HL2 has one of the most imaginative plot in all of FPS games. Not
only was it a game, but it has some social commentary too. When
was the last time you played a computer game that carries more weight
than a marine shooting mutated monsters?

Doom 3? Oh wait my bad...

I agree with Orph, on the topic of UED.