<!--quoteo(post=2064905:date=Jan 22 2013, 06:09 PM:name=MuckyMcFly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuckyMcFly @ Jan 22 2013, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2064905"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its not sales, its people currently playing the different versions on steam.
Just saying people often prefer old versions of games over their successors. xx
That's true indeed, but it hardly says anything about the quality of the new game. There's a lot of "<i>Ye know boy, when I was your age things used to be a lot better ... bla ...</i>". I mean, I do that myself, I still thing old SNES games like Terranigma or Secret of Evermore offered an experience yet to be reached. But in all honesty, I know that it's mere nostalgia and the same's true for NS1 I guess. When you think back of the great times you had in the past, people you used to spent time with you usually only remember the good times and well, it's nearly impossible for a new game to compete with an older title and a nostalgic community by nature.
I had a lot of fun with NS1 for sure but as soon as you realize that NS1 is not NS2 and accept it as a new game and new experience I have just as much fun as I had with NS1. It's a different game, for sure, but then again, the only things in life which always stay the same are the dead (<i>dead languages, etc.</i>) and sooner or later they start to fade away. So, well ...
Nostalgia is great eh? but this is NS2 - I would bet that if it was the same as NS1 but a bit more shiny you would complain too. No one can win when making sequels or updates and the figures above prove that for a huge game like Counter-Strike.
So... anyone for a night of NS1?, I know I would love one with some of the community. :) xx<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> CS is really the exception that proves the rule. Using steam stats, the COD series goes from BLOP2 -> MW3 ->MW2 in playercount. L4D2 beats out L4D1. There doesn't look to be any info on TFC or DOTA1, but I am pretty sure that TF2 and DOTA2 are likely an order of magnitude larger in current playercount.
I love the Warcraft (RTS not MMO) series, but going back to play Warcraft 1 is like being transported into the RTS dark ages. The nostalgia ends when I remember I can't queue units or place structures freely.
You know, I didn't even really think about all these factors but the screen shots from NS1 really drove home a few points that bothered me about NS2 that I couldn't put my finger on.
I'm not sure how big of a problem it is, or if it's ultimately fixable, but I do know that shooting down through the window to hit the power node in Marines start as an invisible Lerk in a certain unnamed map is the end result of some of these design flaws.
Is it sad that a game made almost a decade ago is actually a more robust engine?
Yes, yes it is.
Valve knows their $h1t is all I can really say about that, and comparing NS1 to NS2 really displays the ineptitude of the NS2 developers. I respect the hell out of UWE for making NS2, and I'm glad it's been a success for them for a lot of reasons. Sadly, it also displays a lot of their weaknesses as engine designers versus modding a superior engine to do what they want.
A few other examples that display their ineptness on engine design would be the hard cap on programmable key functions, and the inability to rebind critical command functions to virtually anything through any consistently usable method. Gaming mice and gaming keyboards are completely ignored in their design philosophy by allowing people to 'cheat' using auto-fire scripts, auto-jump scripts, and the <i>inability</i> to rebind command functions to side buttons on $60 peripheral devices.
Not to mention the lack of certain staple abilities that were included in HL by default, such as 'switch to last weapon used' for quick switching between LMG and pistol, which is something you won't even know you're missing unless you remember using it in NS1. (Or any modern FPS games, which generally include this function by default for a reason.)
Basically, don't take a bunch of modders, map designers, and tweakers and tell them to design an actual game engine from scratch. It's impressive that they managed it, but also lackluster in the extreme. For all it's 'pretty' factor, NS2 is an extremely limited game in a lot of ways. The hectic game play makes a lot of these issues barely noticible, but if you play it enough they eventually become <i>incredibly frustrating</i> to people that have played games with a better budget and a knowledgeable design crew.
The fact that all the things I just mentioned were actually in NS1, which was made forever ago despite some of these devices not even existing at that time, boggles my mind. It means UWE purposely made NS2 a more linear, less modable game on purpose while still leaving in the worst parts of the devices in question. It is, in my opinion, the worst thing about NS2 and it's why I play it significantly less than I did even a month ago.
No offense intended to the UWE crew, this is just my opinion obviously. And NS2 is still a success, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted it to be delayed more than it already was.
(Somewhere to the tune of a decade of development time. Duke Nukem Forever, I'm looking at you.)
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 04:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know, I didn't even really think about all these factors but the screen shots from NS1 really drove home a few points that bothered me about NS2 that I couldn't put my finger on.
I'm not sure how big of a problem it is, or if it's ultimately fixable, but I do know that shooting down through the window to hit the power node in Marines start as an invisible Lerk in a certain unnamed map is the end result of some of these design flaws.
Is it sad that a game made almost a decade ago is actually a more robust engine?
Yes, yes it is.
Valve knows their $h1t is all I can really say about that, and comparing NS1 to NS2 really displays the ineptitude of the NS2 developers. I respect the hell out of UWE for making NS2, and I'm glad it's been a success for them for a lot of reasons. Sadly, it also dislpays a lot of their weaknesses as engine designers versus modding a superior engine to do what they want.
A few other examples that display their ineptness on engine design would be the hard cap on programmable key functions, and the inability to rebind critical command functions to virtually anything through any consistently usable method. Gaming mice and gaming keyboards are completely ignored in their design philosophy by allowing people to 'cheat' using auto-fire scripts, auto-jump scripts, and the <i>inability</i> to rebind command functions to side buttons on $60 peripheral devices.
Not to mention the lack of certain staple abilities that were included in HL by default, such as 'switch to last weapon used' for quick switching between LMG and pistol, which is something you won't even know you're missing unless you remember using it in NS1. (Or any modern FPS games, which generally include this function by default for a reason.)
Basically, don't take a bunch of modders, map designers, and tweakers and tell them to design an actual game engine from scratch. It's impressive that they managed it, but also lackluster in the extreme. For all it's 'pretty' factor, NS2 is an extremely limited game in a lot of ways. The hectic game play makes a lot of these issues barely noticible, but if you play it enough they eventually become <i>incredibly frustrating</i> to people that have played games with a better budget and a knowledgeable design crew.
The fact that all the things I just mentioned were actually in NS1, which was made forever ago despite some of these devices not even existing at that time, boggles my mind. It means UWE purposely made NS2 a more linear, less modable game on purpose while still leaving in the worst parts of the devices in question. It is, in my opinion, the worst thing about NS2 and it's why I play it significantly less than I did even a month ago.
No offense intended to the UWE crew, this is just my opinion obviously. And NS2 is still a success, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted it to be delayed more than it already was.
(Somewhere to the tune of a decade of development time. Duke Nukem Forever, I'm looking at you.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Brave. It is true that I know nothing of what you are talking about. But lets assume for a moment you are right, that sounds pretty amateur of them. I still think the source engine would have been better, faster & more profitable.
I now fully expect extreme NS2 fanboys, elitist playtesters to barge in and bash you. To them, NS2 is the end-all-be-all of videogaming.
<!--quoteo(post=2065153:date=Jan 22 2013, 05:33 PM:name=john_b)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (john_b @ Jan 22 2013, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065153"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Brave. It is true that I know nothing of what you are talking about. But lets assume for a moment you are right, that sounds pretty amateur of them. I still think the source engine would have been better, faster & more profitable.
I now fully expect extreme NS2 fanboys, elitist playtesters to barge in and bash you. To them, NS2 is the end-all-be-all of videogaming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not calling the dev's out, or calling NS2 a giant steaming failure, or saying that the limitations that were introduced in NS2 are things that can't be worked around. Those are things that are, quite frankly, a bit beyond my knowledge base. (As are many things, I will freely admit.)
I've seen the angry troll posts that were modded out of existance, and I'm not trying to be mean here.
Frankly, these are just the facts of the matter as I view them from the last 20 years that I've played video games. Am I correct? Maybe, maybe not. It's a subjective thing.
So perhaps instead, I should say the 'facts' of the matter are that NS2 has limited itself with some of their new systems in ways that prohibit some interesting map design choices that were available in a previous incarnation of Natural Selection. DopedDog is a person I almost ubiquitously agree with, and this thread is no different.
Also, just to point out, aliens already can't use the few ladders that are actually still in the game. It's immensely frustrating as a gorge to go <i>all the way around an area</i> simply because ladders are 'marines only'. Does it make sense? Of course. But if ladders are Marine only, why exactly is it possible to get into virtually any vent in the game? Specifically the skylights vent entrance as one particularly bull###### spot for a lone marine to reach.
This also dovetails into the fact that Marines apparently channel spider man on surfaces that no human could concievably cling to. Having a Marine hiding halfway up a wall like a skulk armed with a machine gun simply does not fit in NS2, period. This is another area where the Spark engine apparently falls flat, and on top of that is yet another potential exploit for smart players.
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 04:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is it sad that a game made almost a decade ago is actually a more robust engine?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really, considering the goldsrc engine was made in 1998 and was based off of the already stable Quake 1 engine you should expect it to be significantly more stable than something that hasn't been released for even half a year.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 03:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 03:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->wall o' text<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Known issues that will be fixed in time. Things such as not being able to rebind comm hotkeys is an annoyance, but it hardly breaks the game. Also, you're overlooking many of the things that UWE can do on their new engine that they really couldn't in gldsrc (e.g. dynamic infestation, proper blink effect, powernodes/systems, etc).
<!--quoteo(post=2065226:date=Jan 22 2013, 08:26 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jan 22 2013, 08:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065226"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Known issues that will be fixed in time. Things such as not being able to rebind comm hotkeys is an annoyance, but it hardly breaks the game. Also, you're overlooking many of the things that UWE can do on their new engine that they really couldn't in gldsrc (e.g. dynamic infestation, proper blink effect, powernodes/systems, etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you know how many times I've heard that, and how many times it hasn't been true?
I certainly hope it's true in this case, but again none of the things I mentioned are really noticeable in 95% of the NS2 games I've played. I never claimed any of these things are 'game breaking', that would be a ludicrous assumption based on what I said. Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I automatically assume everyone hates it.
There's nothing wrong with being different from something else, or being a little buggy. However, for a game in the modern era to not have a customizable control setup, especially when designed from the ground up to be run on PC's, is frankly something that turns me off to the extreme. It's only compounded by the RTS element of commanding and the use of hotkeys. It's understandable on ports, but not to sole-platform PC releases that have competitive multiplayer components. Most games of that type will have those basic functions, at least the one's I play do although I'm obviously a bad statistic to use.
The main issue being talked about is, of course, mapping. In relation to that, NS2 was supposed to be mod friendly considering the original roots of the game. I think the mappers are feeling constrained by the requirements for maps to be cyst/pathing friendly for all the NPC units. In that, I agree with them, although there have been some really good screenshots offered up as proof that good maps are still possible only they might not be as robust as NS1 maps were.
SpaceJew, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, myself, but that's not why I'm posting here. I take exception to you calling the NS2 developers inept. I've dabbled in game development myself, and while I don't know a *great deal* about it, I simply don't agree with your sentiment that these guys are inept. Furthermore, it's pretty rich to come onto <i>their</i> forums and call them inept.
Depends what you mean by inept. If you mean out of their league when it comes to making a fully fledged engine in a reasonable time frame that rivals other options and which adds a significant amount to the game, then it wouldn't be far off. Like I said earlier, if you try and play in the major league, no matter how talented you are, don't expect to be compared against the little league players.
<!--quoteo(post=2065226:date=Jan 23 2013, 02:26 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jan 23 2013, 02:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065226"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Known issues that will be fixed in time. Things such as not being able to rebind comm hotkeys is an annoyance, but it hardly breaks the game. Also, you're overlooking many of the things that UWE can do on their new engine that they really couldn't in gldsrc (e.g. dynamic infestation, proper blink effect, powernodes/systems, etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This also disturbs me (though I know opinions are divided on this one): each of those examples you gave serve to prove how pointless the endeavour was. In fact, I believe the cysts, blink and powergrid all actively <i>detract</i> from the game. If you took any of those out we'd have a better game, perhaps not as flashy, but a better game nevertheless. Without going into a debate here, I only want to add that, for me personally, it's incredibly disappointing to have those features listed as the "benefits" of designing a new engine.
<!--quoteo(post=2065429:date=Jan 24 2013, 01:15 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jan 24 2013, 01:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ns_hera: You could attach lights to weldables - something even NS2 can't do yet!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yup, I remember that too. A U shaped corridor outside marine spawn where you could weld to switch on the lights. I asked earlier in the mapping forum, you can't do triggered events in the spark editor.
<!--quoteo(post=2065429:date=Jan 23 2013, 04:15 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jan 23 2013, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ns_hera: You could attach lights to weldables - something even NS2 can't do yet!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty sure welding a power node turns the lights on. That's how it was last time I played anyway.
Except, interestingly, goldsrc, because it used pre-baked lightmaps and being able to switch between them for portions of the level is actually quite technically impressive. See the level needs to bake lightmaps for every single possible permutation of lighting setups in a level. There's basically a hard limit of about six overlapping lights even in Source, because the number of lightmaps needed goes 2 (1 light) 4 (2 lights) 9 (3 lights) 16 (4 lights) 25 (5 lights) 36 (6 lights) 49 (7 lights) and 64 (8 lights)
After about six it starts to get silly, so setting up any significant amount of lighting variety needs to be done carefully, and eats significantly into the lightmap budget because it (at the very least) doubles the amount of lightmap data needed for that area. If two areas with switchable lights overlap, or two different switchable lights overlap, that number increases exponentially.
Not really relevant I suppose, but it does mean that variable lighting <i>is</i> actually technically impressive in goldsrc's case.
But yeah NS2 can and does trigger lights based on scripted sequences, it just isn't based on the same I/O scripting as in goldsrc/source but power nodes are scripted to mess with all lights in their sphere of influence (unless dictated by the mapper). It would simply be a matter of adding some entities with the relevant keyvalues to be used in the spark editor if you wanted to set up a more versatile and 'approachable' scripting system, though personally I would think some documentation on how to write your own lua scripted entities would be better, as once you actually learn lua it's much faster and easier to interpret than I/O scripting.
<!--quoteo(post=2065454:date=Jan 23 2013, 03:52 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 23 2013, 03:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But yeah NS2 can and does trigger lights based on scripted sequences, it just isn't based on the same I/O scripting as in goldsrc/source but power nodes are scripted to mess with all lights in their sphere of influence (unless dictated by the mapper). It would simply be a matter of adding some entities with the relevant keyvalues to be used in the spark editor if you wanted to set up a more versatile and 'approachable' scripting system, though personally I would think some documentation on how to write your own lua scripted entities would be better, as once you actually learn lua it's much faster and easier to interpret than I/O scripting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you want I/O scripting, then this would probably help: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=126775" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=126775</a> Still needs some lua coding to create the actual entities you want, just a framework to easily make those entities capable of being linked by the mapper.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2065409:date=Jan 23 2013, 05:34 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jan 23 2013, 05:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065409"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This also disturbs me (though I know opinions are divided on this one): each of those examples you gave serve to prove how pointless the endeavour was. In fact, I believe the cysts, blink and powergrid all actively <i>detract</i> from the game. If you took any of those out we'd have a better game, perhaps not as flashy, but a better game nevertheless. Without going into a debate here, I only want to add that, for me personally, it's incredibly disappointing to have those features listed as the "benefits" of designing a new engine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I pointed those out mostly because they are easily noticeable in-game. Personally, I feel the biggest things the new engine allows that gldsrc/source doesn't are: - No-compile mapping (for anyone who maps, this is huge) - Lua allowing realtime running of (some) new code changes (<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=115410" target="_blank">Radiance</a> is a good example of this in action)
I mostly take issue with those who seem to imply that because a certain feature or issue hasn't been included/fixed right now, it won't ever be. Also, HL1/HL2/CS all were buggy, had balance issues, and crashed when they were released. That's why CS is on v1.6 rather than 1.0 and HL1/HL2 had all sort of updates to fix similar issues that UWE are dealing with now.
That's actually a rather good point too, coming from a source mapping background, spark is far, far, far easier to use even back in alpha when I played around with it.
The specifics of setting up the background technical stuff for an NS2 map obviously are as arcane and obfuscated as they are for any game, but that's just mapping for a game, there's a lot of stuff you need to do to make the pretty geometry function properly in the game. You learn it once and it's easy.
The actual engine itself though is much more approachable, and even lacking a lot of the tools I am used to in hammer or 3ds max, I was quite able to produce something nice looking with the art assets and tools available.
Basically, spark is much easier to map for, that alone means a higher proportion of your community is going to be able to pick it up and try making maps, and it also means you may attract people specifically who want to make levels for your engine, because level design is actually fun in and of itself.
Spark does a lot to encourage new levels being made.
<!--quoteo(post=2065593:date=Jan 23 2013, 11:36 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jan 23 2013, 11:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065593"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hardly a compelling case to those that actually play the game, really. :(<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So true. The relative ease with which the gldsrc engine could be modified added very little to my experience as a non technical gamer. <b>Oh wait.</b>
<!--quoteo(post=2065373:date=Jan 23 2013, 06:19 AM:name=Roobubba)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Roobubba @ Jan 23 2013, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065373"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->SpaceJew, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, myself, but that's not why I'm posting here. I take exception to you calling the NS2 developers inept. I've dabbled in game development myself, and while I don't know a *great deal* about it, I simply don't agree with your sentiment that these guys are inept. Furthermore, it's pretty rich to come onto <i>their</i> forums and call them inept.
Not cool.
Roo<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2065409:date=Jan 23 2013, 07:34 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jan 23 2013, 07:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065409"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Depends what you mean by inept. If you mean out of their league when it comes to making a fully fledged engine in a reasonable time frame that rivals other options and which adds a significant amount to the game, then it wouldn't be far off. Like I said earlier, if you try and play in the major league, no matter how talented you are, don't expect to be compared against the little league players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tweadle hit it on the head with what I was trying to say. Perhaps 'inept' was poor word choice, but 'inexperienced' is entirely true. As a freshman effort to create a game engine from scratch, NS2 is indeed very impressive from what was basically a HL mod team. (With additions and subtractions, of course.)
That being said, some of the limitations imposed by the engine are limitations that should have been no brainers when going off the functionality of their prior game. Why did they choose to hard-cap commands lower than the number of overall commands available in the game? Why does the physics engine allow Marines to stick to some walls? Why is there no 'last weapon used' button? The only answer is that they were either left out on purpose, which is confounding, or they were left out on accident. Given the relative experience of the engine designers, I choose to believe it's the latter assumption that's true.
If you want to tweak balance that's fine, but tweaking balance is a back burner to me when certain things just plain jane don't work mechanically the way they should. (In my opinion, of course.)
I'm less concerned with ramp pathing and ladders, but at the end of the day some of the best maps I played in NS2 (in fact, ALL of them.) were created originally by the community. That being said, the developers themselves were part of the community at that time, as everything that was done was done for free and as a community.
It's possibly true that the story of Natural Selection 2 and how it came to be is more interesting than the end product of all that effort.
<!--quoteo(post=2065593:date=Jan 23 2013, 09:36 PM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jan 23 2013, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065593"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hardly a compelling case to those that actually play the game, really. :(<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those of you who 'actually play the game' presumably have no need to worry you pretty heads about big scary things like design theory then?
<!--quoteo(post=2065664:date=Jan 24 2013, 12:02 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 24 2013, 12:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065664"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those of you who 'actually play the game' presumably have no need to worry you pretty heads about big scary things like design theory then?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't really get where you're going with this. My point is that the advantages of designing the new engine don't fall on the consumer which is a bit awkward. I also doubt they fell on the developers either as the choice to go that way has always been to allow them to do things they otherwise couldn't (though, as discussed, nothing that impressive has come about and dynamic infestation was never truly realised). They also talked about licensing the engine but that has got to be a long way off, if ever? Anyway, if the only obvious beneficiaries of the engine are the mappers, I don't really know what to say...
As for design theory, I'm affected by the kind of design theory that affects gameplay and balance. If it's designing maps and mechanics, then I don't need to worry about them explicitly, no. However, if I feel like the end product is being affected, then yes, I damn well do.
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Valve knows their $h1t is all I can really say about that, and comparing NS1 to NS2 really displays the ineptitude of the NS2 developers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sadly, it also displays a lot of their weaknesses as engine designers versus modding a superior engine to do what they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A few other examples that display their ineptness on engine design would be the hard cap on programmable key functions, and the inability to rebind critical command functions to virtually anything through any consistently usable method.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically, don't take a bunch of modders, map designers, and tweakers and tell them to design an actual game engine from scratch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No offense intended to the UWE crew, this is just my opinion obviously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, no offense taken at all *eyeroll*
<!--quoteo(post=2065794:date=Jan 24 2013, 05:59 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Jan 24 2013, 05:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065794"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh, no offense taken at all *eyeroll*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the man speaks the truth. It's not personal if it's constructive criticism. I agree with everything he said and this topic is more than just about maps now. I pointed out a lot design flaws in the UI two weeks ago in this <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=126851" target="_blank">thread</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=2065795:date=Jan 24 2013, 09:03 AM:name=Amb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Amb @ Jan 24 2013, 09:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065795"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well the man speaks the truth. It's not personal if it's constructive criticism. I agree with everything he said and this topic is more than just about maps now. I pointed out a lot design flaws in the UI two weeks ago in this <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=126851" target="_blank">thread</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's true. And what was quoted was in no way constructive criticism. People often say "no offense but" in cases where they quite clearly mean to offend. This was one of those cases.
Anyway, I wouldn't (and I'm sure you don't) take it to heart UWE. Game releases have had bad performance before, and they will continue to in the future. When such a release comes about, the players simply latch onto whatever insults they can hurl at the time, regardless of how relevant or true they are. Arma 2's performance : gb2 mil sims bohemeeya lulz Doom 3's performance : lulz how is linux doing basement nerdz?
<!--quoteo(post=2065809:date=Jan 24 2013, 06:27 PM:name=|strofix|)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (|strofix| @ Jan 24 2013, 06:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065809"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Game releases have had bad performance before, and they will continue to in the future. When such a release comes about, the players simply latch onto whatever insults they can hurl at the time, regardless of how relevant or true they are.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no one mentioned anything about performance in this thread (albeit the fact that the performance is absolutely horrible for NS2).
<!--quoteo(post=2065821:date=Jan 24 2013, 10:02 AM:name=Amb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Amb @ Jan 24 2013, 10:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065821"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->no one mentioned anything about performance in this thread (albeit the fact that the performance is absolutely horrible for NS2).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I merely assumed that the quoted remarks about the engine were exclusively about performance, as that is pretty much the only gripe one could possible have. Rereading the original post, the issues the poster has with the engine are pretty laughable. The majority of it was about key binds... HAHHAHAHAHAHA. Now I'm not intimately familiar with the spark engine, but regardless of the engine, implementing anything to do with the controls is a trivial change. Depending on the architecture it may not be a quick process, but the simplicity cannot be overstated. Marine's sticking to walls? Its a simple change, that they once again don't have the immediate time for.
Honestly, the only acceptable issue one could have with this engine is the performance.
This highlights something that seems to be quite prevalent throughout this thread. Its almost as if, going back to the original post, you are attributing the map design issues you have identified to the engine. Obviously not exactly, but its similar in the way that you are connecting something quite abstract, and conceptual, and therefore extremely easy to change, to something quite concrete and rather difficult to change. Most of the complaints are just temporal things that will be changed when the time is found. Honestly, the only thing I can think of the the devs want to change, but really can't due to architectural limitations is the performance. Even that is just my opinion, as many people believe they can fix the performance.
<!--quoteo(post=2065703:date=Jan 24 2013, 02:03 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jan 24 2013, 02:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065703"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't really get where you're going with this. My point is that the advantages of designing the new engine don't fall on the consumer which is a bit awkward. I also doubt they fell on the developers either as the choice to go that way has always been to allow them to do things they otherwise couldn't (though, as discussed, nothing that impressive has come about and dynamic infestation was never truly realised). They also talked about licensing the engine but that has got to be a long way off, if ever? Anyway, if the only obvious beneficiaries of the engine are the mappers, I don't really know what to say...
As for design theory, I'm affected by the kind of design theory that affects gameplay and balance. If it's designing maps and mechanics, then I don't need to worry about them explicitly, no. However, if I feel like the end product is being affected, then yes, I damn well do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point is that it is strange to complain about the engine and the map design, then say 'oh TECHNICAL stuff I don't care about that' when someone points out the good bits of the engine and its effect on map design.
If the engine is easy to develop for, that means you get more stuff developed for it. If you don't understand how the engine is easy to develop for, that's unfortunate but not really necessary. So long as the people who use it do.
Comments
Just saying people often prefer old versions of games over their successors. xx
source:- <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/stats/" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/stats/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's true indeed, but it hardly says anything about the quality of the new game. There's a lot of "<i>Ye know boy, when I was your age things used to be a lot better ... bla ...</i>". I mean, I do that myself, I still thing old SNES games like Terranigma or Secret of Evermore offered an experience yet to be reached. But in all honesty, I know that it's mere nostalgia and the same's true for NS1 I guess. When you think back of the great times you had in the past, people you used to spent time with you usually only remember the good times and well, it's nearly impossible for a new game to compete with an older title and a nostalgic community by nature.
I had a lot of fun with NS1 for sure but as soon as you realize that NS1 is not NS2 and accept it as a new game and new experience I have just as much fun as I had with NS1. It's a different game, for sure, but then again, the only things in life which always stay the same are the dead (<i>dead languages, etc.</i>) and sooner or later they start to fade away. So, well ...
Counter-Strike: Source - players 33,340
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - players 17,867
Nostalgia is great eh? but this is NS2 - I would bet that if it was the same as NS1 but a bit more shiny you would complain too. No one can win when making sequels or updates and the figures above prove that for a huge game like Counter-Strike.
So... anyone for a night of NS1?, I know I would love one with some of the community. :) xx<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CS is really the exception that proves the rule. Using steam stats, the COD series goes from BLOP2 -> MW3 ->MW2 in playercount. L4D2 beats out L4D1. There doesn't look to be any info on TFC or DOTA1, but I am pretty sure that TF2 and DOTA2 are likely an order of magnitude larger in current playercount.
I love the Warcraft (RTS not MMO) series, but going back to play Warcraft 1 is like being transported into the RTS dark ages. The nostalgia ends when I remember I can't queue units or place structures freely.
I'm not sure how big of a problem it is, or if it's ultimately fixable, but I do know that shooting down through the window to hit the power node in Marines start as an invisible Lerk in a certain unnamed map is the end result of some of these design flaws.
Is it sad that a game made almost a decade ago is actually a more robust engine?
Yes, yes it is.
Valve knows their $h1t is all I can really say about that, and comparing NS1 to NS2 really displays the ineptitude of the NS2 developers. I respect the hell out of UWE for making NS2, and I'm glad it's been a success for them for a lot of reasons. Sadly, it also displays a lot of their weaknesses as engine designers versus modding a superior engine to do what they want.
A few other examples that display their ineptness on engine design would be the hard cap on programmable key functions, and the inability to rebind critical command functions to virtually anything through any consistently usable method. Gaming mice and gaming keyboards are completely ignored in their design philosophy by allowing people to 'cheat' using auto-fire scripts, auto-jump scripts, and the <i>inability</i> to rebind command functions to side buttons on $60 peripheral devices.
Not to mention the lack of certain staple abilities that were included in HL by default, such as 'switch to last weapon used' for quick switching between LMG and pistol, which is something you won't even know you're missing unless you remember using it in NS1. (Or any modern FPS games, which generally include this function by default for a reason.)
Basically, don't take a bunch of modders, map designers, and tweakers and tell them to design an actual game engine from scratch. It's impressive that they managed it, but also lackluster in the extreme. For all it's 'pretty' factor, NS2 is an extremely limited game in a lot of ways. The hectic game play makes a lot of these issues barely noticible, but if you play it enough they eventually become <i>incredibly frustrating</i> to people that have played games with a better budget and a knowledgeable design crew.
The fact that all the things I just mentioned were actually in NS1, which was made forever ago despite some of these devices not even existing at that time, boggles my mind. It means UWE purposely made NS2 a more linear, less modable game on purpose while still leaving in the worst parts of the devices in question. It is, in my opinion, the worst thing about NS2 and it's why I play it significantly less than I did even a month ago.
No offense intended to the UWE crew, this is just my opinion obviously. And NS2 is still a success, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted it to be delayed more than it already was.
(Somewhere to the tune of a decade of development time. Duke Nukem Forever, I'm looking at you.)
I'm not sure how big of a problem it is, or if it's ultimately fixable, but I do know that shooting down through the window to hit the power node in Marines start as an invisible Lerk in a certain unnamed map is the end result of some of these design flaws.
Is it sad that a game made almost a decade ago is actually a more robust engine?
Yes, yes it is.
Valve knows their $h1t is all I can really say about that, and comparing NS1 to NS2 really displays the ineptitude of the NS2 developers. I respect the hell out of UWE for making NS2, and I'm glad it's been a success for them for a lot of reasons. Sadly, it also dislpays a lot of their weaknesses as engine designers versus modding a superior engine to do what they want.
A few other examples that display their ineptness on engine design would be the hard cap on programmable key functions, and the inability to rebind critical command functions to virtually anything through any consistently usable method. Gaming mice and gaming keyboards are completely ignored in their design philosophy by allowing people to 'cheat' using auto-fire scripts, auto-jump scripts, and the <i>inability</i> to rebind command functions to side buttons on $60 peripheral devices.
Not to mention the lack of certain staple abilities that were included in HL by default, such as 'switch to last weapon used' for quick switching between LMG and pistol, which is something you won't even know you're missing unless you remember using it in NS1. (Or any modern FPS games, which generally include this function by default for a reason.)
Basically, don't take a bunch of modders, map designers, and tweakers and tell them to design an actual game engine from scratch. It's impressive that they managed it, but also lackluster in the extreme. For all it's 'pretty' factor, NS2 is an extremely limited game in a lot of ways. The hectic game play makes a lot of these issues barely noticible, but if you play it enough they eventually become <i>incredibly frustrating</i> to people that have played games with a better budget and a knowledgeable design crew.
The fact that all the things I just mentioned were actually in NS1, which was made forever ago despite some of these devices not even existing at that time, boggles my mind. It means UWE purposely made NS2 a more linear, less modable game on purpose while still leaving in the worst parts of the devices in question. It is, in my opinion, the worst thing about NS2 and it's why I play it significantly less than I did even a month ago.
No offense intended to the UWE crew, this is just my opinion obviously. And NS2 is still a success, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted it to be delayed more than it already was.
(Somewhere to the tune of a decade of development time. Duke Nukem Forever, I'm looking at you.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Brave. It is true that I know nothing of what you are talking about. But lets assume for a moment you are right, that sounds pretty amateur of them. I still think the source engine would have been better, faster & more profitable.
I now fully expect extreme NS2 fanboys, elitist playtesters to barge in and bash you. To them, NS2 is the end-all-be-all of videogaming.
I now fully expect extreme NS2 fanboys, elitist playtesters to barge in and bash you. To them, NS2 is the end-all-be-all of videogaming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not calling the dev's out, or calling NS2 a giant steaming failure, or saying that the limitations that were introduced in NS2 are things that can't be worked around. Those are things that are, quite frankly, a bit beyond my knowledge base. (As are many things, I will freely admit.)
I've seen the angry troll posts that were modded out of existance, and I'm not trying to be mean here.
Frankly, these are just the facts of the matter as I view them from the last 20 years that I've played video games. Am I correct? Maybe, maybe not. It's a subjective thing.
So perhaps instead, I should say the 'facts' of the matter are that NS2 has limited itself with some of their new systems in ways that prohibit some interesting map design choices that were available in a previous incarnation of Natural Selection. DopedDog is a person I almost ubiquitously agree with, and this thread is no different.
Also, just to point out, aliens already can't use the few ladders that are actually still in the game. It's immensely frustrating as a gorge to go <i>all the way around an area</i> simply because ladders are 'marines only'. Does it make sense? Of course. But if ladders are Marine only, why exactly is it possible to get into virtually any vent in the game? Specifically the skylights vent entrance as one particularly bull###### spot for a lone marine to reach.
This also dovetails into the fact that Marines apparently channel spider man on surfaces that no human could concievably cling to. Having a Marine hiding halfway up a wall like a skulk armed with a machine gun simply does not fit in NS2, period. This is another area where the Spark engine apparently falls flat, and on top of that is yet another potential exploit for smart players.
(THIS IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION, MCFLY!)
Not really, considering the goldsrc engine was made in 1998 and was based off of the already stable Quake 1 engine you should expect it to be significantly more stable than something that hasn't been released for even half a year.
Known issues that will be fixed in time. Things such as not being able to rebind comm hotkeys is an annoyance, but it hardly breaks the game. Also, you're overlooking many of the things that UWE can do on their new engine that they really couldn't in gldsrc (e.g. dynamic infestation, proper blink effect, powernodes/systems, etc).
Do you know how many times I've heard that, and how many times it hasn't been true?
I certainly hope it's true in this case, but again none of the things I mentioned are really noticeable in 95% of the NS2 games I've played. I never claimed any of these things are 'game breaking', that would be a ludicrous assumption based on what I said. Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I automatically assume everyone hates it.
There's nothing wrong with being different from something else, or being a little buggy. However, for a game in the modern era to not have a customizable control setup, especially when designed from the ground up to be run on PC's, is frankly something that turns me off to the extreme. It's only compounded by the RTS element of commanding and the use of hotkeys. It's understandable on ports, but not to sole-platform PC releases that have competitive multiplayer components. Most games of that type will have those basic functions, at least the one's I play do although I'm obviously a bad statistic to use.
The main issue being talked about is, of course, mapping. In relation to that, NS2 was supposed to be mod friendly considering the original roots of the game. I think the mappers are feeling constrained by the requirements for maps to be cyst/pathing friendly for all the NPC units. In that, I agree with them, although there have been some really good screenshots offered up as proof that good maps are still possible only they might not be as robust as NS1 maps were.
EDIT: Bad verbage.
Furthermore, it's pretty rich to come onto <i>their</i> forums and call them inept.
Not cool.
Roo
<!--quoteo(post=2065226:date=Jan 23 2013, 02:26 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jan 23 2013, 02:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065226"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Known issues that will be fixed in time. Things such as not being able to rebind comm hotkeys is an annoyance, but it hardly breaks the game. Also, you're overlooking many of the things that UWE can do on their new engine that they really couldn't in gldsrc (e.g. dynamic infestation, proper blink effect, powernodes/systems, etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This also disturbs me (though I know opinions are divided on this one): each of those examples you gave serve to prove how pointless the endeavour was. In fact, I believe the cysts, blink and powergrid all actively <i>detract</i> from the game. If you took any of those out we'd have a better game, perhaps not as flashy, but a better game nevertheless. Without going into a debate here, I only want to add that, for me personally, it's incredibly disappointing to have those features listed as the "benefits" of designing a new engine.
yup, I remember that too. A U shaped corridor outside marine spawn where you could weld to switch on the lights. I asked earlier in the mapping forum, you can't do triggered events in the spark editor.
Pretty sure welding a power node turns the lights on. That's how it was last time I played anyway.
After about six it starts to get silly, so setting up any significant amount of lighting variety needs to be done carefully, and eats significantly into the lightmap budget because it (at the very least) doubles the amount of lightmap data needed for that area. If two areas with switchable lights overlap, or two different switchable lights overlap, that number increases exponentially.
Not really relevant I suppose, but it does mean that variable lighting <i>is</i> actually technically impressive in goldsrc's case.
But yeah NS2 can and does trigger lights based on scripted sequences, it just isn't based on the same I/O scripting as in goldsrc/source but power nodes are scripted to mess with all lights in their sphere of influence (unless dictated by the mapper). It would simply be a matter of adding some entities with the relevant keyvalues to be used in the spark editor if you wanted to set up a more versatile and 'approachable' scripting system, though personally I would think some documentation on how to write your own lua scripted entities would be better, as once you actually learn lua it's much faster and easier to interpret than I/O scripting.
If you want I/O scripting, then this would probably help: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=126775" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=126775</a>
Still needs some lua coding to create the actual entities you want, just a framework to easily make those entities capable of being linked by the mapper.
I pointed those out mostly because they are easily noticeable in-game. Personally, I feel the biggest things the new engine allows that gldsrc/source doesn't are:
- No-compile mapping (for anyone who maps, this is huge)
- Lua allowing realtime running of (some) new code changes (<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=115410" target="_blank">Radiance</a> is a good example of this in action)
I mostly take issue with those who seem to imply that because a certain feature or issue hasn't been included/fixed right now, it won't ever be. Also, HL1/HL2/CS all were buggy, had balance issues, and crashed when they were released. That's why CS is on v1.6 rather than 1.0 and HL1/HL2 had all sort of updates to fix similar issues that UWE are dealing with now.
The specifics of setting up the background technical stuff for an NS2 map obviously are as arcane and obfuscated as they are for any game, but that's just mapping for a game, there's a lot of stuff you need to do to make the pretty geometry function properly in the game. You learn it once and it's easy.
The actual engine itself though is much more approachable, and even lacking a lot of the tools I am used to in hammer or 3ds max, I was quite able to produce something nice looking with the art assets and tools available.
Basically, spark is much easier to map for, that alone means a higher proportion of your community is going to be able to pick it up and try making maps, and it also means you may attract people specifically who want to make levels for your engine, because level design is actually fun in and of itself.
Spark does a lot to encourage new levels being made.
So true. The relative ease with which the gldsrc engine could be modified added very little to my experience as a non technical gamer.
<b>Oh wait.</b>
Furthermore, it's pretty rich to come onto <i>their</i> forums and call them inept.
Not cool.
Roo<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2065409:date=Jan 23 2013, 07:34 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Jan 23 2013, 07:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065409"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Depends what you mean by inept. If you mean out of their league when it comes to making a fully fledged engine in a reasonable time frame that rivals other options and which adds a significant amount to the game, then it wouldn't be far off. Like I said earlier, if you try and play in the major league, no matter how talented you are, don't expect to be compared against the little league players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tweadle hit it on the head with what I was trying to say. Perhaps 'inept' was poor word choice, but 'inexperienced' is entirely true. As a freshman effort to create a game engine from scratch, NS2 is indeed very impressive from what was basically a HL mod team. (With additions and subtractions, of course.)
That being said, some of the limitations imposed by the engine are limitations that should have been no brainers when going off the functionality of their prior game. Why did they choose to hard-cap commands lower than the number of overall commands available in the game? Why does the physics engine allow Marines to stick to some walls? Why is there no 'last weapon used' button? The only answer is that they were either left out on purpose, which is confounding, or they were left out on accident. Given the relative experience of the engine designers, I choose to believe it's the latter assumption that's true.
If you want to tweak balance that's fine, but tweaking balance is a back burner to me when certain things just plain jane don't work mechanically the way they should. (In my opinion, of course.)
I'm less concerned with ramp pathing and ladders, but at the end of the day some of the best maps I played in NS2 (in fact, ALL of them.) were created originally by the community. That being said, the developers themselves were part of the community at that time, as everything that was done was done for free and as a community.
It's possibly true that the story of Natural Selection 2 and how it came to be is more interesting than the end product of all that effort.
Those of you who 'actually play the game' presumably have no need to worry you pretty heads about big scary things like design theory then?
I don't really get where you're going with this. My point is that the advantages of designing the new engine don't fall on the consumer which is a bit awkward. I also doubt they fell on the developers either as the choice to go that way has always been to allow them to do things they otherwise couldn't (though, as discussed, nothing that impressive has come about and dynamic infestation was never truly realised). They also talked about licensing the engine but that has got to be a long way off, if ever? Anyway, if the only obvious beneficiaries of the engine are the mappers, I don't really know what to say...
As for design theory, I'm affected by the kind of design theory that affects gameplay and balance. If it's designing maps and mechanics, then I don't need to worry about them explicitly, no. However, if I feel like the end product is being affected, then yes, I damn well do.
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sadly, it also displays a lot of their weaknesses as engine designers versus modding a superior engine to do what they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A few other examples that display their ineptness on engine design would be the hard cap on programmable key functions, and the inability to rebind critical command functions to virtually anything through any consistently usable method.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically, don't take a bunch of modders, map designers, and tweakers and tell them to design an actual game engine from scratch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2065135:date=Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM:name=SpaceJew)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SpaceJew @ Jan 22 2013, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2065135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No offense intended to the UWE crew, this is just my opinion obviously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, no offense taken at all *eyeroll*
Well the man speaks the truth. It's not personal if it's constructive criticism. I agree with everything he said and this topic is more than just about maps now. I pointed out a lot design flaws in the UI two weeks ago in this <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=126851" target="_blank">thread</a>.
That's true. And what was quoted was in no way constructive criticism. People often say "no offense but" in cases where they quite clearly mean to offend. This was one of those cases.
Anyway, I wouldn't (and I'm sure you don't) take it to heart UWE. Game releases have had bad performance before, and they will continue to in the future. When such a release comes about, the players simply latch onto whatever insults they can hurl at the time, regardless of how relevant or true they are.
Arma 2's performance : gb2 mil sims bohemeeya lulz
Doom 3's performance : lulz how is linux doing basement nerdz?
no one mentioned anything about performance in this thread (albeit the fact that the performance is absolutely horrible for NS2).
I merely assumed that the quoted remarks about the engine were exclusively about performance, as that is pretty much the only gripe one could possible have. Rereading the original post, the issues the poster has with the engine are pretty laughable. The majority of it was about key binds... HAHHAHAHAHAHA.
Now I'm not intimately familiar with the spark engine, but regardless of the engine, implementing anything to do with the controls is a trivial change. Depending on the architecture it may not be a quick process, but the simplicity cannot be overstated. Marine's sticking to walls? Its a simple change, that they once again don't have the immediate time for.
Honestly, the only acceptable issue one could have with this engine is the performance.
This highlights something that seems to be quite prevalent throughout this thread. Its almost as if, going back to the original post, you are attributing the map design issues you have identified to the engine. Obviously not exactly, but its similar in the way that you are connecting something quite abstract, and conceptual, and therefore extremely easy to change, to something quite concrete and rather difficult to change. Most of the complaints are just temporal things that will be changed when the time is found. Honestly, the only thing I can think of the the devs want to change, but really can't due to architectural limitations is the performance. Even that is just my opinion, as many people believe they can fix the performance.
As for design theory, I'm affected by the kind of design theory that affects gameplay and balance. If it's designing maps and mechanics, then I don't need to worry about them explicitly, no. However, if I feel like the end product is being affected, then yes, I damn well do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point is that it is strange to complain about the engine and the map design, then say 'oh TECHNICAL stuff I don't care about that' when someone points out the good bits of the engine and its effect on map design.
If the engine is easy to develop for, that means you get more stuff developed for it. If you don't understand how the engine is easy to develop for, that's unfortunate but not really necessary. So long as the people who use it do.