PDA

View Full Version : FluXs Thoughts - 4th Nov 2004


FluXs
4th Nov 2004, 03:28 AM
Wee, its the 4th of November and another time for FluXs Thoughts, so put in a VHS and press that record button!

:rolleyes:

Anyway. Firstly, I am typing this from University as my Home Line has died on me since Tuesday 2nd November. :mad:

Now for a recap...
From last Month...This means the rest of the week so far is free I intend to get a hold of Spec_X this week so we can talk and deceide whats next for DA2. Currently we are going to be looking for coders and also writing up some "spec" sheet for what needs to be coded...
Since last month, aBsOlUt has returned again back to the MOD, and our plans me and Spec had started to finalise seem somewhat in danger of being forgotten. As you know recently there has been a new update since absolut has returned, which is the progress of the player v player version of Defence Alliance.

As you will know a few weeks ago it was stated, Defence Alliance was going to be patched for pvp and then realised and left.
But since my long post I feel we are now a team again and are back on track to developing DA, instead of just kicking out the door what we had already done and leaving the community to pick it up and play with like a dead cat.

However we are still looking to get onboard coders, and I am currently in the progress of finishing a Design Doc for coders to work from. We now have a good group of mappers now working on DA, so you should expect to see new pictures more often.

Now I dont want to be seeing as flaming my own Mod, but this PvP is all good and fine (this is something I wanted along with PvB but not PvP on its own) but apart from the name of the MOD "Defence Alliance 2" I feel it wont have anything in common with the DA series.

It seems to be going the way of Atlantis, Domian or Hackerz etc. (Two teams fighting out to hold objectives) What set Defence Alliance UT apart was the Co-Operative Game against a team of NPC (Computer Controlled Bots) Aliens invading you. This I fear is in danger of disapearing and making way for a player vs player game, which might have a Player vs Bot (co-op) option bolted onto it later, but nothing like what was planned.

Most of the team dont seem to see this as a problem, and all welcome a PvP only game; where everyone will like DA2 as a player vs player game "as the weapons look cool" etc. As the DA Website Master I follow links to sites which have linked to us. Recently a few news sites have posted the pvp news. I cannot read foreign websites, but in the comments I do notice the words "coop??" a few times.

For what its worth I have actually been writing up a specification / design doc for various pvb/pvp options such as writing up what the control point actor should be (something Dante would of loved) and other actors such as the one used for allocating attackers and defenders to use "cover" or will go to to defend/attack from instead of just running around.

I would like to know peoples opinion on the new line Defence Alliance is taking towards a Player vs Player game. In my eyes, its looking no more different then the other MODs out there, is this a problem? or does everyone want a pvp game and its just me thinking we need some co-op mode? Would you be happy to have Defence Alliance 2 released with just pvp and wait until pvb is added later?

What I would like to do is state on the Forums, that DA will be released with "X" and we will add "Y" in the second release. But the feeling I get when I ask the team is that I am not sure this will happen. These are my worries and fears for the month. :)

Views expressed are my own opinions and not of the team

Dest
4th Nov 2004, 06:47 AM
This pvp will be in the first beta, after that we will add old da into it (pvb)
There need to be some things solved first:

-Mechanic needs to build minigun/ammobox, since its now placed in the map by the mapper
-Minigun shoots like a cannon now... guess it supposted to be a minigun?
-Pilot (gunner?) only one that can gun the minigun, everybody can gun atm
-There need to be a model standing behind the minigun
-Medic should drop medic packs, or as abs is making a radious around the medic that heals the players that are in it
-Mines should be made and put in-game (maybe in later release)
-New intro, cus the current lags
-Multiplayer game mode needs to be fixed/added, atm you can only join a game by the console (~)

EDIT:

-End Camera actor needs to be added
-Prepare time (also for pvp)
-NoCampzone (also for pvp)




And some smaller things, and more things I couldnt think of at this time.

FluXs
4th Nov 2004, 06:52 AM
so we are dumping all the new DA features and going back to one touch winzones and destroying a winzone? WTF?

The whole point of DA2 was to update the games co-op mode to something a lot better and dynamic... Now we might add co-op into DA2 but it will be the same as it was in DA:UT?????? whats going on?

This is annoying, i cant get onto irc and now I am learning we are bassically scraping the new Co-op mode to replace it with the ****ing same thing as in DA:UT. So this means no control point systems, no capture/defeing waypoints/objectives. no customisable map/missions. Just bots heading in lines towards a winzone? or one they need to shoot to blow up? :mad: And even all this is a maybe after the first release... am i the only person who doesnt see this as a problem? changing the game to something else then what its supposed to be? Has everyone got in a group and decided this?

What happend to the plan of, lets get the rest of the game finished... apart from pvp or pvb. Then when we are ready, we will look at pvb and pvp and develop a plan. Now i see you where all just nodding your heads at me and carrying on with the full intent of releasing DA2 with PvP and ignoring what I said, hosting pvp games and recoding stuff to fit into pvp... And about the pvb mode. Ive been trying to say code wise stuff needs to be coded so it can work in both pvp and pvb otherwise you will end up having to code everything again to work in pvb; this you ignore and continue to rehash the code to fit into pvp. making it imposible in the future to make it work both ways. After all the work ive been doing trying to get some sense from it all, im now told. Well IF we do add pvb, it will just be like in DA:UT... why do i feel like i am fighting this side of an arguement. I feel like i am having the piss taken out of me. :mad:

We are supposed to be creating a sequal of a co-operative game against against AI enemy for christ sake, not making a player v player only game where you both have a base to defend, thats already been done in Atlantis, Hackerz, Domain and so on. You are all treating the PvB mode as a secondary idea that you are only thinking about adding because i keep asking about it. You all need to go and Play DA:UT to remind youselves what we are supposed to be doing.

This is like having DOOM 2. then creating DOOM 3 but turning it into a game about car racing, they are totally different apart from the Name of it has a new number at the end.

The Plan was to:

1. Develop the Co-Op side of DA into game which plays longer and is more fun to play without repetative missions.
2. Create Bot Support for the Defenders.
3. Update the PvP mode from Defence Alliance CE to a better working version
4. And so on....

NOT

1. Create a Player vs Player game
2. Maybe add a co-op mode later, but have it like in DA:UT

I dont know why i am the only person who seems to understand this, or sees this as not being a problem :(

Im not against PvP, we need to ADD it in with PvB. I am for PvP, what i am not happy about is that we seem to be developing a game exclusively for Player vs Player, almost forgetting why we made a second version in the first place. And when I ask, Ifwe still going to have PvB as planned for Co-op I get a crappy "Yes" Which I dont believe, so i pressure people to talk about it, or talk about the co-op side in general. Its only then people turn around and tell me what we are "really" doing. I dont like people keeping things from me, or telling me stuff to shut up.

If we dont intend to Support Co-Op mode and develop it beyond what we had in DA:UT then tell me.

If we dont intend to Develop Defence Alliance 2 as a sequal to a Co-Op game then tell me.

If we intend to shift the focus to a player v player mode then tell me.

If we intend to change the name of the mod so it doesnt give people the impression we are developing a 2nd version of the co-op game vs bots then tell me and tell everyone else. As im not the only person who thinks they are developing/going to play a co-op game vs bots.

I have not seen a plan or roadmap for DA2. The specification changes widly everyweek... When i try to agree something with absolut, i spend all my energy defending it or getting people to understand to find a week later its all forgotten about... When i try to write stuff down to set some boundries with absolut, its ignored and i find we are now doing the complete opposite. Like now, out the blue i read we are now just going to implement co-op mode (if any) like in DA:UT, which is just crazy. The reason is probably because its easy to code; which is not a solution, thats a work around, a solution would be to get coders in. But who would help. as the games idea changes from week to week.

I am scared and worried for DA2, everytime I bring up the co-op mode it goes from the main game focus, to the seconday focus and after that the scope and scale of it gets smaller and smaller until its just bot support for player vs player mode. I will stop now as ive written too much. :( :( :( :(

Thejackal
4th Nov 2004, 09:08 AM
i have to say myself and hamma (hope he doesnt mind me mentioning his name) have been given the same impression as fluxs, the whole point of Defence Alliance was that it wasnt another everyone join, shoot at people for a while and leave, it was something completely diferent, where everybody worked together as a team towards a common goal, yes PvP is still good because people will want to play it, but if we only have PvP.. then theres nothing to seperate us from the other mods.. the guns may be a bit fancy, and theres a cool minigun, but basicaly we can just go play 'fortress or ctf.. the PvB is what made DA unique and special, which is obvious when, as fluxs said, you go around the news sites looking at what they say... everybody is looking for Co-op in the game, its what DA is, and if theres no co-op then i very much doubt if we'll have many more players then DA:UT does right now.

As for the team, im not gonna go all badmouthing everyone, but i will say everyone needs to sit down, thin about things for a while and actualy work together on this one, fluxs has been working himself to death around everything else he needs to sort out irl, and now hes just getting pushed aside

Dest
4th Nov 2004, 09:17 AM
I didn;t meant like winzone for old-style da, but with destroyable objectives, and controle points...

And since we dont have the crew to get this pvb done bug-free, we release a pvp version and hopefully get some attention and recruit new people that can help us make pvb, cus abs can;t do all this coding alone....


And an art update:

http://www.zoneseek.ca/features/gallery/uploads/RUinsPaint.jpg

spec_x
4th Nov 2004, 10:28 AM
All the code for pvb, as far as I know,is still in there and useable for creating pvb maps, unless I'm wrong? Currently the shift of focus has seemed to go to pvp, however, I, at least, haven't set aside what was already planned for pvb by me and fluxs. I'm aware that currently code is being optimized for pvp, which is fine, it'll give us something to show for the hard work we've all put into this, and yes, I agree that once we have something out there, we are more likely to find new talent to help us move this project foreward. I don't feel like pvb will end up just being a bolted on feature, but at least with everyone working on the pvp, work is actually being done as apposed to it sitting and no one working on anything.

I agree with both sides, and I don't see why it can't come to a comprimise. I don't think anyone should feel like they aren't being heard. I want everyone to understand that while things do seem to change every week, it's not from a lack of caring what other team members may think. It's a difficult task to communicate to the team as a whole, on a regular basis, when there's factors such as real life issues, school, the fact that not one of us live in the same timezone, and because of that there will most definately be stress and feelings hurt if for some reason, something needs to be changed last minute due to coding issues or whatever, and if we are unable to get in contact with the rest of the team when that issue is found, we can't just let it sit and wait, a decision needs to be made and sometimes it's not in the better interests of some of the team members.

I recognize this is a problem and I also feel that this is happening more often than it should, a lot of ideas are being thrown out, and it seems no one wants to put them into stone. I also recognize how much effort fluxs has been putting into documentation of everything that has been talked about up to this point, on top of everything else he has to deal with on a daily basis. It's not easy for someone who feels like they are being ignored and strung along with to still continue working as hard as he does. Working on da has been stressful and hard for all of us. We've all put a lot of work into this (some a lot more than others) and to see it go in a direction you aren't happy with, or to feel like you're hard work isn't being put into good use or appreciated is a hard matter to deal with, especially as none of us are being paid for it. In the end it becomes a matter of motivation to continue work so that we can show off what we've accomplished and to please all the fans out there that have been waiting a very long time for this to be released.

Even with all the drama that has followed, people leaving coming back, working not working (myself included), the core is still there, and the fans are still supporting us the best they can, and I can't thank everyone enough for what's been done and how proud I am to see the kind of talent we have/had on the team over the course of working on DA. I feel we can really take this project to a new level in the future and I would love to see it happen. Whether we share the same ideas of what the future of da will be, we all have a common goal of seeing it completed and pleasing all our fans, making you all happy is my only reason for continuing and without all your support, I don't think DA ever would have gotten the point it is now.

Well, there's my rant for today, I didn't feel like going back and reading it to see if it all made sense, so too bad for you! :-p Hope everyone is having a good day/night!

Hellhound
4th Nov 2004, 11:03 AM
Hmm, i read once, that a simple solution for making a successful game to copy ideas from others. If war-games are played, make a war game ... but that suits only for small gamestudios which will go under after a mistake.

On the other hand, prequells of successful games sell in generall min. as good as the first one.

But don't forget new ideas, genre mixes etc. GTA, Black & White, the Sims etc. They all tried some new ways.
Nevertheless, you have nothing to lose, so you could risk something "new".
Well it isn't really new, it could only become a further thougt, cooler version of something that already exists (DA:UT, Seven COOP)
And the fact, that there are quite few COOP mods ( i remember only a zombie mod for UT2k4 ) would make it a good alternative for always the same pvp stuff.
Take a look at the millions of PVP games, especially mods for UT2K4. I don't see any great varitys of PVP mods. Maybe Clone Bandits, the rest is the same stuff, different looking.

I' d prefer a good COOP mod.
I think lots of people want to play something in coop. Its often a required feature from fans, but most of the studios don't implement it, because it wouldn't fit in the story, level etc.
This is a point for you, to create something like this.
UT2K4 hasn't problems with storys and leveldesign, so its on your own, how far you will go.

I agree with fluxxs
wise stuff needs to be coded so it can work in both pvp and pvb otherwise you will end up having to code everything again to work in pvb
if you don't do it right now, later you aren't motivated to change everything
for new. I can't code, but i remembering from school (java, c++) how annoying it is if you have coded something, and have to change something with requiers major changeings. Maybe its the reason why i haven't the motivation to learn it.

Another fact is, that you won't find new coders without a straight line and a working team, in which everyone has the same goal and really wants to do a great job, instead of rushing the project to finish without any thougts on a further way. No one likes to join a team without a perspective, spend time to work for something and a week later the work isn't needed anymore. Why work for something which is like the thousand other projects and no player is interested in, because hes confident with the game he plays ... which might be better or he is simple used to it and won't play the same style with another look.
You should make it public that the next station maybe a PVB, if someone joins you because he likes to code for a PVP game, the might be disapointed and won't code for PVB

Nevertheless we should not forgot that this is a free - fan - mod. People using a lot of free time to work together and create a game by there own hands.
PVP might be a beginning, but without keeping PVB in your heads it is also a sequel real sequel. Just something with the DA label which will disapoint DA:UT fans, who are aiming for a newer better DA. (Well they also might read this forums)
Fact is, that a lot of your free time is gone for nothing, if you can't find a status which is everyone comfortable with. This means not that everyone may agree every single point, but there should be a light at the and of the tunnel for everyone ( which isn't supposed to be train ;-) )

{UFF}HAMMERSTIEN
4th Nov 2004, 12:33 PM
TheJackal And Hellhound and fluxs have said everything 4 me
i feel 100% the same as jackie and fluxs and mostlikely the rest of the vetran community of DA which is getting smaller ever month thx to the no show of anything that is like the old co-op based game. and the fact that u (ABS)don't seem to stay to any design doc's just go wot every way the new trend takes u untill it is realised thats it's the wrong way 4 DA2 to go .

I WONDER IF UT2K4 WOULD HAVE EVER APPEARED IF THEY HAD WORKED LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rolleyes:

Dest
4th Nov 2004, 02:38 PM
to make things clear!

The pvb version we had, had some terrible lag issues, since Dante left, and abs couldnt fix this. There would be a pvp version instead, cus in an expiriment, it showed that the pvp didnt had lag issues.


thats really the reason why there is no pvb version....

I also wanted a pvb in the begin, but since pvp atm is pretty good working, I dont care atm tbh.

DA|Dante
4th Nov 2004, 03:45 PM
to make things clear!

The pvb version we had, had some terrible lag issues, since Dante left, and abs couldnt fix this. There would be a pvp version instead, cus in an expiriment, it showed that the pvp didnt had lag issues.

Of course PvP hadn't as much, there's only 1 gun firing projectiles, the rest is instant hit, also the amount of players in PvP is below 50 ...

Dest
4th Nov 2004, 03:57 PM
Of course PvP hadn't as much, there's only 1 gun firing projectiles, the rest is instant hit, also the amount of players in PvP is below 50 ...

yes, i've heard..


So you'd say: import the allien models and make then all melee, and then it should run fine? Or pvb has more then 50 players in each game, its impossible to run without lag?

FluXs
4th Nov 2004, 03:59 PM
This is why me and spec came up with the idea of:

Reducing the NPCs to levels which the server could manage and due to the reduction of bots, they would become stronger, slower and each one takes more to put them down.

We even started developing the Shadow Enemy to replace that "alien" model so it would match the enemies new "spec" (Tall, Armoured, Slow and Big)

They would carry an instant hit weapon but it wouldnt fire quickly and take time to reload/recharge.

They would also carry a instant hit secondary weapon, so not all of them would be firing there slow rechargeable projectile weapon anyway (plus the numbers of NPCs in total is reduced)

But this i talked about, but everyone seemed to ignore this and dantes advise and has just carried on with pvp.

Dest
4th Nov 2004, 04:02 PM
This is why me and spec came up with the idea of:

Reducing the NPCs to levels which the server could manage and due to the reduction of bots, they would become stronger, slower and each one takes more to put them down

They would carry an instant hit weapon but it wouldnt fire quickly and take time to reload/recharge.

They would also carry a instant hit secondary weapon, so not all of them would be firing there slow rechargeable projectile weapon anyway (plus the numbers of NPCs in total is reduced)

But this i talked about, but everyone seemed to ignore this and dantes advise and has just carried on with pvp.

Fluxs have you played PVP ?

FluXs
4th Nov 2004, 04:11 PM
thats not the point, the point is there wont be a lag issue for pvb if you take into account the new enemy so it cant be a reason why there is no pvb anymore...

PvB was tested on a server, with about 50 skaarj running around firing projectile weapons.

I guess PvP is very fun, but so are all the other pvp games out there. Like i said i dont mind us developing PvP. Its I ask if we will add PvB, i spend ages writing stuff planning stuff to make it easy for us to keep. I spend ages agreeing it with people. I go away happy, then a week later I notice things which wouldnt work or would make the PvB mode harder to code to be told "well. we are not going to do that now"

The problem is, every week that goes by I see the ability to add PvB becomer harder and harder to the extent the scope of PvB gets smaller and more basic, to now where it wont be included in the first release. I come up with these solutions like with the Lag problems to be ignored.

Im at the point now where when i mention PvB in mIRC i am almost shouted at for bringing it up. I am 100% against the idea of releasing the 1st version of Defence Alliance 2. Pimped as the best game on the UT engine for Cooperative gameplay and the sequal to the DA:UT version on UT99 to have 0% co-op gameplay in it.

However I would agree to that, IF. IF we got something written down which states we ARE GOING to do a REAL co-op game mode like we talked about before (no da classic) and this is whats going to be in it. Then i would be happy and so would the community i think. As at the momment its all up in the air with nothing decided about the fate of PvB or even how much of it will be done

spec_x
4th Nov 2004, 04:16 PM
fluxs, what specifically is being done that is going to make it harder to code pvb? I guess maybe I'm oblivious, but all I've seen done lately is coding the medic, destroyable health, and new sounds

spec_x
4th Nov 2004, 04:26 PM
if it comes down to no one else wanted to do pvb, I'll build it myself with what we talked about, either way, it'll be done, so don't worry

FluXs
4th Nov 2004, 04:29 PM
Well its the control point system... Example

When we started coding for PvB i asked if its possible if we could create a PvP mode so i can spawn on both teams to test stuff, and spawn with the bots to attack.

I was told this was imposible on how the code was setup, we couldn't do this as it would require recoding many things...

Now the complete opposite is happening, everything is being re-enginered to work in PvP. I dont see a new game mode appearing called PvP which works off its own code/setup. All i see is the current pvb code being redeveloped/overwritten to work for PvP.

My reason is, why not do it right the first time, and when all of this is being coded (at the start) make sure its being coded so it will work in both modes. and not require recoding and rebuilding of maps to make it work later on.

I sat down and wrote up some papers (theory) on how we needed to alter actors like the ControPoint actor so we got rid of stuff we didnt use, and created a logical approach to the values and attributes which would work for either pvp or pvb, and allow us to create the different style maps we wanted, and not cause "logic problems" in how they where setup. such as not having the right values etc which could cause problems when the game is played. This would also mean we wouldnt have to go back in and add new actors to accomodate for PvB.

Update:

If you are interested Spec, i recently wrote up our Cover Actor. Ive updated it so we can use the cover actor for either the team attacking or defending a control point; and linking it to the Control Point its supposed to be for.. As the attacking team may require cover behind rocks or bits of debris as they attack the Control Point. looks very good :mwink:

anyway im leaving for home now, will be in Uni again 2morrow/

spec_x
4th Nov 2004, 04:32 PM
yes it should all be done right the first time....

DA|aBsOlUt
6th Nov 2004, 09:33 PM
Got my internet back, I will soon be posting my views regarding DA2 and whats next.

brokenFIX
7th Nov 2004, 12:49 AM
The reason I love DA1 is because of the PvB so you need to work as a REAL team to fight against dozens of enemies, LAN games were so damn good back in the old good day with DA. Please bring back the DA feel and gameplay to UT2004.

]-UnderTOW-[
7th Nov 2004, 03:12 AM
This is why me and spec came up with the idea of:

Reducing the NPCs to levels which the server could manage and due to the reduction of bots, they would become stronger, slower and each one takes more to put them down.

That's what i suggested ages ago during that build with the beach map. I mean it was rediculous the amount of skaarj there were there, making for really low fps, really high lag and just messed up and too frantic gameplay.

q_mi_4_3
7th Nov 2004, 03:55 AM
I think Fluxs is correct in that DA should always be a COOP game; but realistically speaking, people are just not as interested in a game just against bots. For example, CS:CZ has a working single player, but in every reviews I read it is nothing more than a trial for the multiplayer. The reason: people just like the challenge of beating each other online more than in beating a bunch of bots. No matter how good you guys can get the AI in DA to be, people are still not going to be 100% convince COOP will be more fun than multiplayer. But that's all my personal view.

To be even more realistically, I agree that a 1st release with PVP only should be easier, since UT2K4 is pratically that. I think a base version of that needs to go out first: one to get attention, two to see what could be done better and bug detection, and three for a morale boast(I think the team can benefit from getting a 1st release out, so they could know they are doing something). However, even if a PVP version is out, it may still be hard to get help since peolpe may not be interested in making COOP and AI coders seem to be more rare than other modders(but that's from general point of view).

However, that is not to say I didn't like DA COOP. I was one of the first people to play DA(my game name is Vyron) and it was really fun. But with the way the gaming world is going(more MP only games and less SP, more realistic shooters than non-realistic shooters; but those are not related issues), COOP seems to be getting cut at the time(hell, HALO PC didn't have COOP when it was release). But Fluxs there still seems to be quite a few team members who feel the same as you, so I wouldn't think DA will be a PVP only mod for a while :) .

You guys may also want to test PVB with a few less bots first, to atleast make sure it works fine. Then maybe tweak it for difficulty later.

@ABSOLUT: Did you worked on EC for 2k3?

Hellhound
7th Nov 2004, 04:34 AM
I think CS:CZ isn't a good example.
People played for years CS now there is the singleplayer with the same weapons etc. and no other gameplay. Why play the same 3min rounds with bots,if you can have the same online.
In my opinion an invasion type is something different. The rounds are longer
there is more action, because more or harder enemies. Teamwork may work better because there is fun for everyone and single rul0rs may not have a chance.
Also if in the first DA2 release is only PVP supporting bots for each team would be nice. Maybe this works without frameratedrop, there hasn't to so many bots like in battlefront maybe a special for a achieved goal to call support. If all bots are dead they won't respawn new.

FluXs
7th Nov 2004, 05:08 AM
nice thoughts, im starting to understand what the community wants, only yesterday I had Zenny from BeyondUnreal (news reporter and stuff ) PM saying how much he likes the site and how it reflects the quality of the game.

The problem i had with releasing a pvp only first, is that you are not going to be able to make it 100% clear why or when the co-op will be added, and about 60% of everyone who reads about the release or downloads it would jsut go, uh, no co-op anymore and leave it at that, without knowing it wold come later.

Anyway... ive started working on a new menu map. I dont know if its less laggy than before as there seems to be more going on in this one, then in the corridor version before.

Background info:

Its taken from one of my early island maps. Its a bunker on the shore line, In the distance is a tropical storm comming in over the sea. This is to make DA look a lot "darker" but still keeping the cool island effect. Thats why the sky is dark in the distance, ive added lighting flashes in the clouds to simulate distance lightning and added thunder from UT99 :P

the beach has some nice stormy effect to show the sea is getting rough but its still sort of light there as the storm is not over the island yet.

I will be adding some Marines patrolling in and out of the bunker, and will be adding some beach stuff later. I want to make the plam trees sway in the increasing wind but that might not happen.

Here are 3 pics; the sea foam and splashing looks better ingame :P


BTW, its not finished yet :rolleyes:

I get 100fps on a 1280x1024 monitor with all of Ut2004's gfx details on max

Dest
7th Nov 2004, 08:05 AM
Im down!!

spec_x
7th Nov 2004, 11:05 AM
Pretty sweet fluxsy :)

q_mi_4_3
7th Nov 2004, 04:45 PM
The problem i had with releasing a pvp only first, is that you are not going to be able to make it 100% clear why or when the co-op will be added, and about 60% of everyone who reads about the release or downloads it would jsut go, uh, no co-op anymore and leave it at that, without knowing it wold come later.
People should know making a PVP would be much more easier than making PVB. I think if you posted bold words on the news page, when the PVP version is released, saying that PVB will come, people will understand.

Nice work on the map.

{UFF}HAMMERSTIEN
7th Nov 2004, 04:46 PM
nice one dude

q_mi_4_3
7th Nov 2004, 04:51 PM
I think CS:CZ isn't a good example.
People played for years CS now there is the singleplayer with the same weapons etc. and no other gameplay. Why play the same 3min rounds with bots,if you can have the same online.
In my opinion an invasion type is something different. The rounds are longer
there is more action, because more or harder enemies. Teamwork may work better because there is fun for everyone and single rul0rs may not have a chance.
Also if in the first DA2 release is only PVP supporting bots for each team would be nice. Maybe this works without frameratedrop, there hasn't to so many bots like in battlefront maybe a special for a achieved goal to call support. If all bots are dead they won't respawn new.
Well to you CS:CZ may not mean what I said, but to me it means that people like multiplay more than anything.

I agree that maybe you guys should try to add bot support to the current PVP gametype. One it allows for a smaller group of players to still have a game, and two the bot AI in PVP may help in future PVB developement.

Maybe just use deathmatch AIs for PVP first, so they'll atleast dop something in the game(that wouldn't be so bad since the human players will play strategically, so bots are just diversion/cannon fodder for non-crowed games). Then you guys can worry about making th bots attack strategically later.

spec_x
7th Nov 2004, 04:54 PM
Bots are already supported for both offline and online use for pvp and pvb ;)

DA|aBsOlUt
7th Nov 2004, 05:22 PM
q_mi_4_3 read in some posts around here i made DA2 bots further expand UT2kx AI. Not very much but at least to fit DA2 better

FluXs
8th Nov 2004, 06:45 PM
Here is a pic I shrunk down to 1024 res.

It's the final shot in the menu after the camera has finished moving. You go from looking up the beach to looking out the fort onto the beach

]-UnderTOW-[
8th Nov 2004, 07:06 PM
Reminds me of the Far Cry menu background ;)

Hellhound
9th Nov 2004, 07:55 AM
Looks really nice, with some good "sea and wind sounds" the atmosphere will be perfect.

FluXs
9th Nov 2004, 08:15 AM
Looks really nice, with some good "sea and wind sounds" the atmosphere will be perfect.

Already done, but its hard to show thunder/sea sounds in a pic :)

FluXs
9th Nov 2004, 01:46 PM
When I go home i might try and make a video of it

Here is the final shot of where the intro finishes after its flyby of the beach base.

All it needs is for the menu to be left aligned like I have asked a 1000 time before, and put it inside a grey transparent box to make the white text easier to read.

Dest
9th Nov 2004, 02:40 PM
When I go home i might try and make a video of it

Here is the final shot of where the intro finishes after its flyby of the beach base.

All it needs is for the menu to be left aligned like I have asked a 1000 time before, and put it inside a grey transparent box to make the white text easier to read.

Nice job!! :tup:

spec_x
9th Nov 2004, 03:45 PM
cool stuff dude!

FluXs
9th Nov 2004, 04:25 PM
Hey thanks, I got a master copy of the DA2 image so i can update it when new versions come out too.

spec_x
9th Nov 2004, 04:26 PM
awesome

]-UnderTOW-[
9th Nov 2004, 04:50 PM
and put it inside a grey transparent box to make the white text easier to read.

A single grey box would look a bit ugly. If each option was covered with some sort of beveled box and colour both the text and boxes, eventually. For now though, i think the text is pretty readable.

FluXs
9th Nov 2004, 04:53 PM
Update:

Okay gotta make this quick. I made a video, but to transfer it to UNI etc etc I had to make it small.... 320x res sorry lol :P

I added music to make up for it :P its a 3mb zip for about 1:10min footage. Its not got much detail due to the size, it was orignally 436mb at 640x res \o/

but you should see detail in the screenshots. This is to show you the animation. The inside of the base is empty and was quickly done to get the base shape from the camer to fly around.

Happy downloading

It's zipped in winzip was designed/exported in M$ Movie Maker, so it's in wmv format.

File (3mb) :
www.planetunreal.com/da/fluxs/intro_beta.zip

Oh and i added some music to make up for small size. Any good pps should know what game its from.

]-UnderTOW-[
9th Nov 2004, 05:15 PM
Zip's corrupt :(

EDIT: nm, downloaded again. Seems to work now

{UFF}HAMMERSTIEN
9th Nov 2004, 06:36 PM
woot :)
wot is that music it sounds right 4 some strange reason

spec_x
9th Nov 2004, 06:54 PM
I think I just pooped myself :)

Thejackal
9th Nov 2004, 08:07 PM
sweet, very sweet :)


and i know that music from somewhere but i dont know where and im gonna be thinking about it for the rest of the day now :(

]-UnderTOW-[
9th Nov 2004, 09:13 PM
Don't think i've ever heard that music before

DA|aBsOlUt
9th Nov 2004, 10:55 PM
Damn fluxs you did a very good job on this one!

At long last your talent is showing off

FluXs
10th Nov 2004, 02:11 AM
Ghost Recon - Theme, teh best.

I found the artists site by accident and it was on his site as a download, had it for a while.

The whole song sounds very cool ingame. But i doubt we could use it :(

As you can see, it uses some of the ECE Bonus Pack meshes, i am going to check what is used and where when i get back home and see what can be removed, we will need to copy one of the static mesh files into DA2 Directory for people who dont have ECE, but seeing this is a Epic Bonus Pack it shouldnt be a problem as we did this before for DA:UT. Also it will give mappers access to some nice trees etc :)

absolut: I dont see you using the DA2 Avator and Sigs :eek:

Hellhound
10th Nov 2004, 07:58 AM
:eek: Really nice,

especialy the DA2 logo and the version von the the stone.

Will you add some marines patroling on the beach or maybe one next to the bunker entrance waving in the camera or something like that ;)

FluXs
10th Nov 2004, 08:02 AM
I decided against adding animated characters for a few reasons:

1) It takes a long long time to get them to do anything "good"
2) People after seeing it ask for it to look better, or do things they cant do
3) The DA2 characters are not UT2004 friendly and create eons of bug reports when they are left on a loop. So to save on a error log everytime the menu is loaded they are not on.
4) Saves FPS, not having ppl moving around.


However I am still looking into something like this but its a 20% chance of it going in.

The solution would be to do what EPIC have done in the intro. create models of a full animation sequence, not use the current walk.run.shoot etc animations from ingame and glue them together in a sequence.

Dest
10th Nov 2004, 11:14 AM
I decided against adding animated characters for a few reasons:

1) It takes a long long time to get them to do anything "good"
2) People after seeing it ask for it to look better, or do things they cant do
3) The DA2 characters are not UT2004 friendly and create eons of bug reports when they are left on a loop. So to save on a error log everytime the menu is loaded they are not on.
4) Saves FPS, not having ppl moving around.


However I am still looking into something like this but its a 20% chance of it going in.

The solution would be to do what EPIC have done in the intro. create models of a full animation sequence, not use the current walk.run.shoot etc animations from ingame and glue them together in a sequence.


Maybe some allien artillary?

Hellhound
10th Nov 2004, 11:57 AM
Maybe some allien artillary?
This might destroy this peaceful, but threateningly feeling created by the wheater.
If animated chars are not possible, i would leave it like it is.
At least adding a lamp in the bunker entrance room or some other decorations.

DA|aBsOlUt
10th Nov 2004, 11:59 AM
I am sure fluxs will decorate the interior

maybe a couple of marines sitting there on top wouldnt be bad and a DFA Turret?

After that the camera will move around so it wont render them anymore.

I am not asking for animation or movement just sitting there waiting...and waiting......

Dest
10th Nov 2004, 12:08 PM
ye sweet!

Dest
10th Nov 2004, 02:00 PM
here is the very very very first screenshot of the da:ut remake of da-Ruins

http://www.zoneseek.ca/features/gallery/uploads/ruins.jpg

FluXs
10th Nov 2004, 02:16 PM
no turrets. the gun/texture looks out of place.

i will try and add soliders inside the base, but if it start getting loads of accessed nones or errors like cannot find idle animation etc, it wont stay in.

{UFF}HAMMERSTIEN
10th Nov 2004, 04:41 PM
nice dest thats wot u were up to

]-UnderTOW-[
10th Nov 2004, 05:53 PM
Out of curiosity fluxs, have you had a play with the Source SDK Hammer?

q_mi_4_3
11th Nov 2004, 12:41 AM
3) The DA2 characters are not UT2004 friendly and create eons of bug reports when they are left on a loop. So to save on a error log everytime the menu is loaded they are not on.Why did you guys make stuff you can't use in the game engine? Are they incomplete or something?

The intro movie was really nice.

FluXs
11th Nov 2004, 03:26 AM
Why did you guys make stuff you can't use in the game engine? Are they incomplete or something?

The intro movie was really nice.

They work but have a few animations missing which when making cut scences with them the engine wants such as Idle guns, weapon change etc. (those are all in 3rd person may i add, we already got 1st person animations for idle etc)

FluXs
11th Nov 2004, 03:27 AM
-UnderTOW-[']Out of curiosity fluxs, have you had a play with the Source SDK Hammer?

Is it out? I thought you could only get it with HL2. ive only ordered HL2, not C$ as i hate it :P

I get Halo2 2morrow for my new xbox, so i can start to get some base/layout ideas when i play it... Btw as i got the crystal xbox im gonna mod it with a blue light underneath, so it has a slight blue glow from under the box. looks neat when u just leave it under the box, so now im gonna mod it and put it inside, gonna run it from the HDD power supply as its a light kit for a pc

]-UnderTOW-[
11th Nov 2004, 04:17 PM
The Source SDK is available to anyone who's steam account recognises that you own HL2. In other words, if you have bought HL2 through steam you can use the Source SDK. When HL2 is released retail and you activate it through steam (which you HAVE to do), you'll be able to use it too. However at that time, the HL2 SDK should be out.

Dest
12th Nov 2004, 10:02 AM
-UnderTOW-[']The Source SDK is available to anyone who's steam account recognises that you own HL2. In other words, if you have bought HL2 through steam you can use the Source SDK. When HL2 is released retail and you activate it through steam (which you HAVE to do), you'll be able to use it too. However at that time, the HL2 SDK should be out.

Whats the problem?

I have a Steam Hax! :lol:

spec_x
12th Nov 2004, 10:26 AM
lol

]-UnderTOW-[
12th Nov 2004, 02:52 PM
Whats the problem?

I have a Steam Hax! :lol:

and? Or is that the end of your little story :P ?

spec_x
12th Nov 2004, 05:00 PM
waffles!

]-UnderTOW-[
12th Nov 2004, 05:23 PM
TACOS!

Thejackal
12th Nov 2004, 10:54 PM
LOCKAGE!

less of the padding... ;)

]-UnderTOW-[
13th Nov 2004, 09:04 PM
TACO TACO TACO

spec_x
13th Nov 2004, 09:10 PM
lol

]-UnderTOW-[
14th Nov 2004, 12:50 AM
The more i look at Hammer, the more i hate it

spec_x
14th Nov 2004, 01:21 AM
thank you :)

]-UnderTOW-[
14th Nov 2004, 01:43 AM
Source's modelling side is still better than UT2004's though :T
Wonder if someone could code in a 9 point look system into UT2004. That would be nice

spec_x
14th Nov 2004, 02:31 AM
no doubt

]-UnderTOW-[
14th Nov 2004, 02:49 AM
How limiting is UT2004's anim blending system?

spec_x
14th Nov 2004, 03:08 AM
not very from what I've seen, although I haven't had a chance to really dive into it...

DA|aBsOlUt
14th Nov 2004, 08:25 AM
Not a whole lot, people, just like us, have problems with replication instead.

FluXs
15th Nov 2004, 03:51 AM
O_o

No one came to fix the net last week, so he MUST be comming sometime this week. I checked my box outside the house and it seems fine, so it might be the main junction at the top of the road.

Just as well as i got two sets of coursework in this week and next, But hopefully I should be back on soon sometime this week.

Also in related news i found out that blueyonder are upgrading all there services again for free. So my 750k now becomes 1mb \o/ and the top connection, 3mb now becomes 4mb.

woot woot


Oh and also started optimising the map. I get steady FPS, and have started removing stuff, or trimming the bunker to remove unseen parts.

I have a feeling someone in the community will MOD the intro map into a real map :)

Oh and I also updated the splash screen with the new logo, so i will try and get that to uni sometime.

Also, a bug which is still there, When playing a game, and then quiting back to the menu, i get a blank screen on the menu, no map, but the menu works fine. I think the map needs to be reloaded again so maybe someone can add that to the code.

Thejackal
15th Nov 2004, 03:32 PM
Also in related news i found out that blueyonder are upgrading all there services again for free.

:eek:
:D :D :D :D :D

{UFF}HAMMERSTIEN
15th Nov 2004, 07:09 PM
/me crys
why can't wight cable do that still stuck with max 512/512
:( :mad: :rolleyes:

]-UnderTOW-[
15th Nov 2004, 10:52 PM
/me crys
why can't wight cable do that still stuck with max 512/512
:( :mad: :rolleyes:

/me tries to comprehend

Dest
16th Nov 2004, 08:58 AM
1024/320 here

spec_x
16th Nov 2004, 11:02 AM
you guys don't even wanna know what I have ;)

{UFF}HAMMERSTIEN
16th Nov 2004, 12:10 PM
hopefully 56k so i don't have to burn u at the stake :lol:

spec_x
17th Nov 2004, 01:30 PM
lol, not quite ;)

FluXs
18th Nov 2004, 03:43 AM
Hey hey, this is fluxs @ home.

Net is fixed but I wont be doing any DA stuff yet, like i said i got those 2 assignments/courseworks in for Friday (tommorrow) and Monday. Then for the rest of that week until I have made my final alterations and handed it in by next friday. After that im free and can get back to DA

Got HL2, very cool. All the loading times are very long and are too often for my taste. But I havent had much time to get very far. The engine looks pretty sweet and the use of physics for problem solving are very good. I think people who played older games where the map didnt interact (physics) on this type of level might find it harder to complete some of the puzzles.

aBsOlUt if you could compile a new Internal Release build which the whole team can download and install, as with all the additional files and rebuilds its time for a new one... then i can download it too and get started.

PS.

Hope you liked the new avators/sigs I upped; now there is a greater range from which people can pick. :)

DA|aBsOlUt
18th Nov 2004, 07:47 AM
I have a new build, send me the menu map first though.

I am waiting to see who will get really overwhelmed to quit DA2 for HL2.

I love the engine interaction as well its amazing, Weapon/Reload sounds kinda suck though but that can be changed easily in any mod.

They did deliver afterall!

But without a proper team I cant port or move to HL2 so we stick with UE.

]-UnderTOW-[
18th Nov 2004, 02:06 PM
A friend at work who has a lot of experience with HL1 modding said that sounds can be linked on a per frame (or per second?) to an animation through the QC file and that's how he linked reload sounds to weapons (like what we did with anim notifies). I think valve just couldn't be bothered propperly timing the reload sounds. I mean they were like that from the first HL2 movie i saw (trap town).

]-UnderTOW-[
18th Nov 2004, 05:16 PM
Dispite Source's flaws such as having to compile everything and it's un-UED quality (that's both a good and bad thing), it's still a remarkable engine. Even though Hammer isn't WYSIWYG, and doesn't have the functionality of UED, it's still VERY easy to use (probably the easiest level editor i've used). It's graphics are quite awesome from the radiosity in the lighting to the cubemap system. The physics just implemented so well and i'd love to incorporate it into an MP mod. The AI and squad system is pretty interesting and would make for some cool bots.

FluXs
18th Nov 2004, 05:39 PM
How do I access the Editor. Do i need to download it?

]-UnderTOW-[
18th Nov 2004, 11:41 PM
it should be available for download on steam under tools. The Source SDK (used for editing CS Source. HL2 SDK should be out soon)

Dest
19th Nov 2004, 04:00 PM
off topic tbh....

Seng
21st Nov 2004, 01:54 AM
I couldnt see myself saying this... but after beating hl2... I have to agree with TOW as COULD really see DA2 being pulled off better technology wise from a coding standpoint on it. However it would require the rest of the team to change heh.

FluXs
21st Nov 2004, 06:03 AM
There are too many mods like Defence Alliance for HL2, also on top of that there is Team Fortress 2 comming soon.

spec_x
21st Nov 2004, 11:14 AM
is anyone else not as impressed with hl2? for the time it was in development I guess I was expecting more, still a good game though

]-UnderTOW-[
21st Nov 2004, 03:07 PM
It's the best FPS i've played. I'm playing it again, right after i finished it.

FluXs
21st Nov 2004, 05:50 PM
i finished it friday, i might play it again with some cheats

On the hover boat level I saw the G man standing on a pier when i replayed the level to show my cousin. I went up there but he just stood there looking over the river and shooting him or actioning didnt do anything... weird.

BTW


i tried the steam editor hammer, i ****ed it up with my noobish attempt to play one of the example maps.

Its very weird, the best editor render you get is of basic coloured walls. Not like in UED where its ingame style. Farcrys/Serious Sams ed was the best for ingame as you can actually play the game in the Ed instantly. very cool that.

]-UnderTOW-[
21st Nov 2004, 06:23 PM
Yes. The lack of WYSIWYG in Hammer is really annoying (my biggest bitch about it). However, considering it has to compile the lighting (and the light maps can take a very long time to compile), lighting in the editor may not be possible. I wish they'd at least have some basic lighting or something. No shadows, just radial lights to get an idea. I did hear a rumour that the final hammer (in the HL2 SDK) will have lighting in the editor, but i wouldn't hold my breath for this rumour to be true.

The displacment editing is very interesting. Was a bit disappointed by it at first, but it seems to be more useful than unreal's or far cry's terrain. For a start you can easily just create it from any brush (it's not so football-in-the-groin painful to set up as Unreal's) so you can have small 'terrain' easily placed in a small area. You are limited to 2 textures blending, but with how you can create multiple displacment brushes and sew them together, you can get away with more. As well as get better looking walls or cliff faces by having a seperate displacment brush with a seperate texture so it doesn't look like just a texture blend as the case with unreal's. You have a lot more control over the vertex editing as well. Also the poly count seems like it will need to be a lot lower as it wouldn't have FC-like terrain LODing. Speaking of which, does Unreal terrain LOD?

FluXs
21st Nov 2004, 06:53 PM
im not sure, but funny you talk about LOD, as when i was trying to setup the marines in the menu map I had a ponder around Unreal Tech pages and found lots of info about LOD, and how to setup up LODs for actors, meshes etc to the point where its a flat image in the distance. I think its all there in UT2004. Not sure about terrain.

Ive finished my coursework for Monday, just got to show lecturer tomorrow and do any alterations by friday.

Then I got some spare time. I played frag-ops online for 3 minutes today. :eek: This thing actually won a place in MSUC? :lol:

]-UnderTOW-[
21st Nov 2004, 08:22 PM
Yes, UT2004 does LOD it's animated meshes, but ONLY them. It doesn't LOD the static meshes. One thing Source has over UE. As for terrain, i don't think it acctually does LOD itself like Far Cry's. I think it simply uses antiportaling.

]-UnderTOW-[
22nd Nov 2004, 02:58 PM
Here are some shots of a displacment test level i whipped up in a couple minutes

DA|Dante
23rd Nov 2004, 05:28 AM
I played HLČ as well, and I'm kind of disappointed.
Well the good points are:
* Graphics
* Sound
* Action
* Physics
* Enemy behaviour

The bad points are:
* Vehicle physics suck badly
* Repetitive gameplay (i.e. driving like 2h with that ****ty boat)
* Story (Atfer I played the game I know as much as before :/ )
* I'm not a pro player but a good one and played normal. There where 2 places in the game where I had to try up to 10 times. (i.e.: Some kind of mini DA where hords of soldiers attack u and u got only 3 auto guns to protect yourself
(* German synchro sucks so much OMG)

Argh need to go ^^

FluXs
23rd Nov 2004, 09:09 AM
ah that was easy, I was sad and carried an auto gun with me around that level. so when i came to defend myself i had 4 auto guns :D also during the pitch black level the auto gun i carried in my hand was able to pick out the soliders, handy andy...!

DA2 needs an auto gun like that, one which has a weakness in that you can knock it over would be cool and the mech can place.

DA|Dante
23rd Nov 2004, 11:47 AM
Did u play on easy ?
No matter where I placed the guns, after a while some soldiers threw grenades at them & me. And the other soldiers just ran straight away into them and therefore dumped them.
Pitch black level ? Can't rmbr :eek: . The only difficult point besides the above one was when I had to fight 2 Striders + Mass soldiers in an open area...

FluXs
23rd Nov 2004, 12:47 PM
Did u play on easy ?
No matter where I placed the guns, after a while some soldiers threw grenades at them & me. And the other soldiers just ran straight away into them and therefore dumped them.

I played on normal. I stayed in that room in the middle with 1 gun facing each of the 4 entrances, you can pick the guns up again as long as you get to them just after they fall over. So it helps to keep them all nearby.... The striders are hard but they make cool noises when they die :D

One thing which was annouying was when driving the buggy, every time you go through the tunnels. You had to wait 20+ seconds to load the next level. Then the buggy hits the wall and spins around, and you cant tell which way to go and I kept driving back the wrong way and loading previous level :P

]-UnderTOW-[
23rd Nov 2004, 03:11 PM
* Vehicle physics suck badly
* Repetitive gameplay (i.e. driving like 2h with that ****ty boat)
* Story (Atfer I played the game I know as much as before :/ )
* I'm not a pro player but a good one and played normal. There where 2 places in the game where I had to try up to 10 times. (i.e.: Some kind of mini DA where hords of soldiers attack u and u got only 3 auto guns to protect yourself


Are you insane? HL2 has some of the best vehicles physics i've seen. What on earth would you classify as being better? UT2004's joke vehilces/physics? Far Cry's laughable vehilces? HL2's flying/helicopter vehicles move so realistically. The hoverboat is awesome how is bounces on the water and can be controled in the air. The buggy is the best 4 wheeled vehicles in a FPS since the Warthog.
Repetitive gameplay? It's a freaking FPS (are you just looking for things to complain about it?)! The story was great and well played out, it's exactly HL in that not much has been answered yet. Did you expect Alyx and Gorden to get hitched and live happily ever after or something? I agree with the Prison defending bit, as i've never liked those stuck in defence bits in FPS games.

DA|Dante
23rd Nov 2004, 03:56 PM
-UnderTOW-[']Are you insane? HL2 has some of the best vehicles physics i've seen. What on earth would you classify as being better? UT2004's joke vehilces/physics? Far Cry's laughable vehilces? HL2's flying/helicopter vehicles move so realistically. The hoverboat is awesome how is bounces on the water and can be controled in the air. The buggy is the best 4 wheeled vehicles in a FPS since the Warthog.
Repetitive gameplay? It's a freaking FPS (are you just looking for things to complain about it?)! The story was great and well played out, it's exactly HL in that not much has been answered yet. Did you expect Alyx and Gorden to get hitched and live happily ever after or something? I agree with the Prison defending bit, as i've never liked those stuck in defence bits in FPS games.
Well I played BF42 which had far better vehicle physics for example.
The helicopter and striders move perfectly, but if u played the same game as I did, u can control neither yourself....
I didn't play Far Cry because I just don't like how it looks.
I did not play HL thru because I got bored after like 30 mins (and I mean really bored).
I did not expect Alyx and Gorden to live happily afterwards.
Am I looking for things to complain about ? I complain if I don't like something. You seem to be following the HLČ hype as many people do. I didn't even complain about the loading times which are like 30 secs wait every 5 minutes.

While it has nice ingame cut-scenes and superb graphics and sound it looks a bit rushed - and that after all those years.

Edit: Note that I do like the game. The singleplayer is way better than most games that came out the last few months (besides United offensive maybe). But I also have seen better things...

]-UnderTOW-[
23rd Nov 2004, 04:51 PM
OMG, you're acctually serious about BF1942's vehicles?! You really must be insane :P. And not being able to control the other vehicles (BTW, Striders are NOT vehicles. They're like any other monster) doesn't mean the vehicles physics aren't great.
HL2 isn't perfect, as no game is. But HL2 comes the closest to perfection than any other FPS. I personally didn't like the defending parts because i don't like them just stuck in FPS games. I'm sure some people liked them. There are other inperfections (like load times), but not many. I haven't been tricked into thinking it's all perfect by the hype (hype has the opposite effect, anyway), i know an excellent game when i see one. If you didn't like HL1 i can understand you not liking HL2, but don't blame other crap like physics and story, and so-called repetitive gameplay (with that logic, you shouldn't like any FPS on the basis of 'repetitive' gameplay).

spec_x
23rd Nov 2004, 05:14 PM
*group hug*

DA|aBsOlUt
23rd Nov 2004, 06:44 PM
I guess what dante is trying to say is that it didn't, to a personal level always, give this BIG BOOM he was expected maybe.

To talk for my self I liked HL2, I havent passed even the boat vehicle because of school and usually I got people over and we play Halo 2 as its easier to play a team game because in HL2 some people have to watch someone play.

Anyway, repeating the stuff, physics are awesome, gfx are great, sounds for me are not good at all. Overall story so far is unclear but I have yet to play a whole lot so I wont express any opinions yet. Majority of people have told me ending really sux, a couple of people said ending was great.

Nevertheless the only thing I will point out is that the game itself never gave me *YET* the "omg I cant wait to get in and load it up" feeling.

Too early but for example Halo 2 gave me that feeling since second one.

I was warned by Valve a while ago, but I disliked the fact not even HL2 DM is included and some people mod it now and I saw alpha one which I heard good but buggy heck some even people said its a virus....(Go figure...)

It is true that UEngine is following behind according to many resources online and I think many stuff that HL2 has, UE can do but in a harder way and that is what I like about HL2 engine. Latest tech with easiest application.

Personally, I still learn UEngine and I like it a lot because it I got really aquianted with but I see it being a bit old now and the biggest thing I hate most is that mods never gather big communities.

I will stop here because I Dont want to make this thread a "3D engine" argument.

]-UnderTOW-[
23rd Nov 2004, 06:53 PM
UE2 still has a lot of nice things that Source doesn't do. Can't wait to see UE3

DA|Dante
23rd Nov 2004, 06:57 PM
-UnderTOW-[']OMG, you're acctually serious about BF1942's vehicles?! You really must be insane :P. And not being able to control the other vehicles (BTW, Striders are NOT vehicles. They're like any other monster) doesn't mean the vehicles physics aren't great.
HL2 isn't perfect, as no game is. But HL2 comes the closest to perfection than any other FPS. I personally didn't like the defending parts because i don't like them just stuck in FPS games. I'm sure some people liked them. There are other inperfections (like load times), but not many. I haven't been tricked into thinking it's all perfect by the hype (hype has the opposite effect, anyway), i know an excellent game when i see one. If you didn't like HL1 i can understand you not liking HL2, but don't blame other crap like physics and story, and so-called repetitive gameplay (with that logic, you shouldn't like any FPS on the basis of 'repetitive' gameplay).
Well it's not really "repetitive" I meant... HLČ does change alot within the game. But things like driving around in that insane hoverboat, for what feels like hours, is really bad.
They applied a bit too much physics to the vehicles. Other things in the levels "feel" good.
I didn't blame the general physics, just vehicle one's. I'm not saying hlČ's story has the complexity of i.e. frogger, but it stands no chance vs titles like for example Deus EX or Max Payne.
And for a game that claims to belong to the best I'm comparing it with the best.

FluXs
23rd Nov 2004, 07:45 PM
and that concludes the off-topic subject :)

spec_x
24th Nov 2004, 09:03 AM
!!!!

{UFF}HAMMERSTIEN
5th Dec 2004, 11:11 AM
were fluxs thoughts 4 dec 4th

Eizo
5th Dec 2004, 03:04 PM
It's quite stunning how much this conversation has spun off lol

FluXs
5th Dec 2004, 04:10 PM
eek i forgot