On C-Z and DNF Release Dates [Dec 18, 2003, 12:52 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
GameStop
is now the second e-tailer to push the release date of Counter-Strike: Condition
Zero back to March 2004. Valve has not given any indications that the game is
delayed to that point, but their expected November 18 release date (story)
for the supposedly gold shooter has come and gone without comment, reminiscent
of the tight-lipped handling of the Half-Life 2 delay (thanks HomeLAN
Fed). Also on HomeLAN
Fed is a report based on this morning's conference call with Take Two
Interactive saying the publisher is passing along indications they have received
from 3D Realms that Duke Nukem Forever is heading for a release in "late
2004 or early 2005." Of course the game's release is entirely in the hands
of 3D Realms, and it's doubtful that their official release date for the game
has changed from their hard-line mantra of "when it's done."
Ok then...
Did you even READ the link I provided? You do know how FOLLOW HYPERLINKS, don't you? Perhaps I should have posted this snip instead:
Rather than a polygon count, we aim at a specific performance level on high-, medium-, and low-end machines. The map designer has tools (similar to Half-Life's r_speeds output, but greatly expanded) that will help pinpoint areas that need to be optimized.
The only problem with that snip is they don't give any hard polygon limits for their maps. That makes it a little hard to come up with a 'good base of comparison', don't you think? However, I can make an educated guess from reading the fucking FAQ (which contains the snip I posted) that your original point about 'limits of the Half-Life' engine is totally irrelevant.
You wrote:
This is Quake 3, okay? AN OLD, DEATHMATCH CENTRIC GAME THAT TAKES PLACE MOSTLY IN TIGHT MAPS WITH CONFINED AREAS.
http://www.gamershell.com/hellzone_FPS_Quake_3.shtml
This is Half-Life 2, okay? A NEW, SOLO-PLAY CENTRIC GAME THAT TAKES PLACE MOSTLY IN LARGE MAPS AND OPEN AREAS.
http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/screenshots/
if ($apple != $orange) {
print "ildon is a jackass.";
}
You wrote:
Oh, so you did a case-by-case comparison of the source code from both games, did you? I didn't know you worked for Valve, since the source code for HL1 is not available even though the source for HL2 is. Ohh... that's right, you're just another forum troll pulling shit out of his ass as usual.
One more link you probably won't read:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/400/400985p1.html?fromint=1
Here's a nice, juicy quote:
It all started with the engine. Right after the original Half-Life shipped, a group of guys from the development team went off in to a secret area and began working on the new technology. The new engine, called Source, was built entirely from scratch specifically for Half-Life 2. But though it was built from scratch, it took its direction from the limitations of the first game's engine. "There was a bunch of stuff at the end of Half Life 1 that got cut, right? Things that people wanted to do. That's always the natural starting point. We had all these great ideas and things we had in mind that we weren't able to do with the last tech."
Bonus! It talks about limits too! Oh, I forgot - IGN is just made up of a bunch of liars, right? Well then, how about Gamespy:
http://www.gamespy.com/previews/may03/halflife2pc/
The story of Half-Life 2 starts with its technology. While the original Half-Life was created with Quake technology licensed from id Software, Valve spent most of the last few years developing their own brand-new engine, dubbed "Source." In fact, most of what we got to see while at Valve were proof-of-concept tech demos finished around September 2002 to show off the capabilities of the Source engine; only later did the team start constructing levels for the actual game.
Hell, even if they did re-use parts of the old engine, is that such a capital crime? PROGRAMMERS ARE LAZY. It's much quicker and easier to take something you already wrote and adapt it to a task than starting over from scratch (as many others have pointed out).
However, any *rational* person would tend to think that Valve is using a new engine for Half-Life 2 that surpasses the limits of the Half-Life 1. Is that an intelligent enough reply for you? Pardon the belligerance, but I'm tired of the ignorance. Jackass.
I'm anticipating the reply to be that I am a quote unquote "Valve fanboy" and I will be told to quote unquote "fuck off".
---------------------------------------------
"There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?" -- Dick Cavett
mocking the TV-violence debate
Did you even READ the link I provided? You do know how FOLLOW HYPERLINKS, don't you? Perhaps I should have posted this snip instead:
What is the production polygon count per scene for Half-Life 2 maps?
Rather than a polygon count, we aim at a specific performance level on high-, medium-, and low-end machines. The map designer has tools (similar to Half-Life's r_speeds output, but greatly expanded) that will help pinpoint areas that need to be optimized.
The only problem with that snip is they don't give any hard polygon limits for their maps. That makes it a little hard to come up with a 'good base of comparison', don't you think? However, I can make an educated guess from reading the fucking FAQ (which contains the snip I posted) that your original point about 'limits of the Half-Life' engine is totally irrelevant.
You wrote:
m00t, that's my whole point, it DIDN'T keep the robust features of HL1 it kept the LIMITS of HL1. You just wait, when the game comes out, you try to make levels with 10,000 visible world polygons (something Quake3 (1999) can do quite easily). Without using the models or terrain mesh.
This is Quake 3, okay? AN OLD, DEATHMATCH CENTRIC GAME THAT TAKES PLACE MOSTLY IN TIGHT MAPS WITH CONFINED AREAS.
http://www.gamershell.com/hellzone_FPS_Quake_3.shtml
This is Half-Life 2, okay? A NEW, SOLO-PLAY CENTRIC GAME THAT TAKES PLACE MOSTLY IN LARGE MAPS AND OPEN AREAS.
http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/screenshots/
if ($apple != $orange) {
print "ildon is a jackass.";
}
You wrote:
It seems you're the one that's the fanboy here. I already mentioned shaders and all that other stuff is merely built on top of their existing code base. They never "rewrote the engine from scratch". That's the lie that they're perpetuating. They just piled more features onto the SAME ENGINE.
Oh, so you did a case-by-case comparison of the source code from both games, did you? I didn't know you worked for Valve, since the source code for HL1 is not available even though the source for HL2 is. Ohh... that's right, you're just another forum troll pulling shit out of his ass as usual.
One more link you probably won't read:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/400/400985p1.html?fromint=1
Here's a nice, juicy quote:
It all started with the engine. Right after the original Half-Life shipped, a group of guys from the development team went off in to a secret area and began working on the new technology. The new engine, called Source, was built entirely from scratch specifically for Half-Life 2. But though it was built from scratch, it took its direction from the limitations of the first game's engine. "There was a bunch of stuff at the end of Half Life 1 that got cut, right? Things that people wanted to do. That's always the natural starting point. We had all these great ideas and things we had in mind that we weren't able to do with the last tech."
Bonus! It talks about limits too! Oh, I forgot - IGN is just made up of a bunch of liars, right? Well then, how about Gamespy:
http://www.gamespy.com/previews/may03/halflife2pc/
The story of Half-Life 2 starts with its technology. While the original Half-Life was created with Quake technology licensed from id Software, Valve spent most of the last few years developing their own brand-new engine, dubbed "Source." In fact, most of what we got to see while at Valve were proof-of-concept tech demos finished around September 2002 to show off the capabilities of the Source engine; only later did the team start constructing levels for the actual game.
Hell, even if they did re-use parts of the old engine, is that such a capital crime? PROGRAMMERS ARE LAZY. It's much quicker and easier to take something you already wrote and adapt it to a task than starting over from scratch (as many others have pointed out).
However, any *rational* person would tend to think that Valve is using a new engine for Half-Life 2 that surpasses the limits of the Half-Life 1. Is that an intelligent enough reply for you? Pardon the belligerance, but I'm tired of the ignorance. Jackass.
I'm anticipating the reply to be that I am a quote unquote "Valve fanboy" and I will be told to quote unquote "fuck off".
---------------------------------------------
"There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?" -- Dick Cavett
mocking the TV-violence debate
--------
BOOBIES Filter Greasemonkey script:
http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/BOOBIES_filter.user.js
Punk Buster (Ignore Trolls) Greasemonkey script:
http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/punkbuster.user.js
BOOBIES Filter Greasemonkey script:
http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/BOOBIES_filter.user.js
Punk Buster (Ignore Trolls) Greasemonkey script:
http://camaro76.web.aplus.net/punkbuster.user.js
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 27 March 2025, 09:40.