Your statement is <span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>. Half-Life 1 is a modification of Quake 1 with some Quake 2 technology sprinkled in to taste. Half-Life 2 is an entirely new modern engine that shares no code (beyond the vgui) with Half-Life 1 (With the notable exception of the netcode).
A code port might be aided by VALVe through things like similar interfaces or even abstraction layers or simulated interfaces, but there'd still be a ton of work to get done there.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+May 16 2004, 10:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ May 16 2004, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Agreed. Do a cheap arse port to keep us held over while we wait for a more major release from Flay <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Double agreed. I was gonna suggest this... but I read the posts first. Good thing I did! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not an expert... but don't people go from 3dsmax models to hl models, and then rig them once they're in half life form? Couldn't you take the originals (or hell even decompile the hl models - I KNOW its possible!), and just convert them from 3dsmax to hl2 models?
As in, what they said, port it over without redoing the art. That can come later.
The issues I see with porting: *Time and effort. Duh. What we've all been talking about.
Specifically, rerigging all the models and maps. I'm sure the artwork will go right over, the rigging is what will take the time.
*New physics. Now it hasn't been discussed much how this'll change balance. The changes the physics will (most likely) make things like knockback, jetpacks, lerks, and wallwalking different. So they'll have to be recoded from scratch. Don't quote me though... I'm no expert, just saying what makes sense to me.
*Breakable walls? Apparently, any wall in hl2 is breakable as long as its not too thick (correct me if I'm wrong), so we'd have to more than port map layout over. We'd have to assign materials to walls to make them unbreakable so balance isn't screwed up. Weldables... I'm sure something along those lines is probably built into hl2, so I'm not sure how you'd do those. You could have a wall that welders would destroy... as for closing vents I'm not sure.
To sum it up... the effort goes into: * Rerigging models and maps * Making jps, lerk flight, knockback, wallwalking, etc work properly in the new physics system, as well as removing fall damage for certain aliens and jps (that might be easy to do though) * Redoing the buildings and everything having to do with them * Redoing the command interface
How much of the code is easy to port over I'm not sure. Someone who knows about programming help us out.
<!--QuoteBegin-Guspaz+May 16 2004, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Guspaz @ May 16 2004, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Half-Life 1 is a modification of Quake 1 with some Quake 2 technology sprinkled in to taste. Half-Life 2 is an entirely new modern engine that shares no code (beyond the vgui) with Half-Life 1 (With the notable exception of the netcode). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait... so they share netcode?
Wouldn't that mean that it would be possible to have people playing the same mods on different engines (as in cs on both hl1 and hl2)? That would solve the community cleaving problems (as in half goes to hl1, half to hl2).
And btw... ns on hl2 should be called Natural Selection Classic. The new game, ns2, would be Natural Selection II.
No, they just took the netcode from Half-Life and went from there. Doesn't mean it's compatible, because I'm sure they've expanded on it.
Walls aren't breakable in HL2. Certain objects are, if they're tagged as such, just like they were in HL1. Again, the physics engine needn't be a big deal, as objects would have to be tagged to be movable or not. You wouldn't have to worry about knocking over an armory because it probably would either be tagged as not being movable, or having an immense weight.
Porting the models would probably be as simple as a direct conversion from the existing HL1 models, but simply grabbing the source models and sticking them in HL2 wouldn't give you better models. HL2 models are, I believe, like DooM 3 or Unreal Engine 3, bumpmapped. As in, the models are created at high detail (several million polygons), then a low-poly version (under 10k polys) are created, and the difference is put into a bump or normal map. HL1 models aren't created like that, so they'd just look like HL1 models.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+May 16 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ May 16 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Agreed. Do a cheap arse port to keep us held over while we wait for a more major release from Flay <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats what I was thinking. It seems like a good idea to me.
That doesn't mean that the .bsp format is the same or that the .mdl files are either. They are certainly incompatible with HL and quite different in many respects.
well actually someone tried to use a half life 2 .mdl with half life, i saw a screenie of it it was really funny, it was al squashed and messed up but it still worked, so i think the file format is the same and easily portable
You guys make it sound like you just copy the directory to HL2 and presto, it should work. There is SOME work involved... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
From what I've seen converting the source shouldn't be hard, its converting the maps and models. I'm perfectly capable of helping with all this though and probably will. I know as soon as I can I'm converting nancy.
HellbillyA whole title out of pity...Join Date: 2002-11-02Member: 3931Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
This community is crawling with talented coders, mappers, modellers....etc. Why not throw together a team willing to do all the "dirty work" of converting NS to the Source engine and talk to Flayra about what he thinks of it? I mean, isn't it worth a shot?
<!--QuoteBegin-Jragon+May 17 2004, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jragon @ May 17 2004, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> mind you who cares because as soon as we all get hl2 steam will b0rk and lose everything and die <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Or HL2 is just an other program in the steam? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They don't HAVE to port ns2 on hl2 engine... Doom3 looks really good, UT 2004 is wonderfull in cpu usage for nice quality maybe even crytech from farcry. I don't really really care for graphic update for ns, its more the possibilities of interaction with space or hitbox fix and such... I know my pc will handle next gen fps but i'm a bit sick of upgrading, i imagine ppl still stuck at playing stracraft cos their pc won't work anything else on 56k, lol
Far Cry is way too demanding when you sit down and look at whats going on. Its got subpar phyics when comparing to HL2. I estimate my computer will run HL2 with at least 60-90fps, whereas I get 30-50 in Far Cry, its a bit perturbing that companies spend less time optimizing and more time marketting...
<!--QuoteBegin-bade+May 18 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bade @ May 18 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> has a moderator reported this thread to flayra yet? maby all the voulentiers in this thread will convince him to consider a hl2 port. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I belive Flayra posted something in this topic on page one or two <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeh it was <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=70686&st=0' target='_blank'>page one</a>
It surprised me noone has actually taken a closer look at Doom 3 as the base for NS2 (that is, assuming there is going to be an NS2, and its going to be a modification).
Just give it some thought, Doom 3 is certainly going to have an excellent atmosphere to fit with NS (at least the atmosphere i thought was originally intented with NS, but dint quite work out with HL), mostly due to it's realtime shadow calculation (something afaik, isn't included with HL2).
Aside from that, assuming NS will be ported without too many gameplay changes initially, Doom 3 has the indoor-focus NS (and HL for that matter) currently uses. Not completely sure, but i was under the impression HL2 sets its story-line largely in outdoor-scenery (looking at several E3 movies). So it's only logical to assume HL2 is optimized for outdoor terrain, i'm not saying HL2 won't do a good job with the indoor area's, but i do think its likely Doom 3 will do a <b>better</b> job.
There is ofcourse a bad side on the story. Doom 3 for instance, most likely doesn't use modifications in a similar fashion as HL does (and HL2 will, with it's new 'source' engine), so you'll probably end up rewriting a fairly large portion of the NS code. I'm also thinking about a detail in the Multiplayer setup of Doom 3, involving player amounts limited to a total of 4-8 (although John Carmack <b>did</b> mention modifications could make use of the full 32 player support in Doom 3).
Now i haven't mentioned FarCry so far in this post, and i don't think i need to. FarCry is famous for it's outdoor terrain, and it's probably focussed on outdoor even more than HL2 is, making it an even less suitable conditate for NS (assuming again, NS will remaing unchanged initially).
I'll probably come up with more points along the ride, but these are the most obvious i could think of at the moment.
ssjyodaJoin Date: 2002-03-05Member: 274Members, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2004
one problem with doom3. Currently, the multiplayer aspect of the game can only run 4 players due to the heavy load of the game.
besides, hl/hl2 is much more popular, and many more ppl will have hl2 over doom3.
and, the easiest is that ns is already on hl which will make it a lot easier to port over to hl2. I read somewhere that original hl was ported in 3 days over to source. The set of automated programs are to be released with hl2 to do just this.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-ssjyoda+May 19 2004, 05:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ssjyoda @ May 19 2004, 05:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> one problem with doom3. Currently, the multiplayer aspect of the game can only run 4 players due to the heavy load of the game. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Flahabrbarlahflarfhahrtafhafh.
The multiplayer that Doom 3 will <i>ship with</i> has only four players. However, the technology has support for more than that; up to 32 players, I think I read.
I think the whole point of doing a quick port (and largely of this thread) is that the current iteration of NS can be easily ported over to HL2 using Valve's tools. To make a version of NS for Doom 3 or UT2k4 would mean that the team would need to start right from the bottom up, which is more work for that team.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->besides, hl/hl2 is much more popular, and many more ppl will have hl2 over doom3.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That ofcourse, is pretty much speculation, although i have to admit HL2 will probably have the benifit of HL1's popularity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->one problem with doom3. Currently, the multiplayer aspect of the game can only run 4 players due to the heavy load of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as i know, it was more of a gameplay issue rather than hardware to keep player levels at 4. Since Doom 3 more or less focusses on the 'scary' and 'sneaky' element, it would kind of defeat the point having 32 players in a game (unless we're talking about really big maps, that however WOULD press the hardware\connection :])
Doom3's limit is not a "hardcoded" problem, as in, something that can't happen because the code won't let it. It's a performance problem. The method of real time lighting being used is so performance intensive that at more than 4 players you start to pile up way too many different lighting/shadowing events all in one place for almost anyone's hardware to handle. Remember: every gun flash, every flashlight beam, every light in the room, every object moving around to block light: all of it ends up with the engine having to recalculate the shadow volumes in all the relevant areas.
If performance wasn't an issue, I could see some real possibilities for NS in Doom3's environment. Imagine, for instance, that the whole ship is very dark: much darker than ships currently. The marines have flashlights, but they only illuminate certain areas. And the kharaa can see much better in the dark. Marines might have new light tech entities that can they can install to light up certain areas and keep them lit (and the kharaa can chew out), or map goals to get the power back on to certain areas to get the light level up.
Now, that would be AWESOME. But on the Doom3 engine it also would bring virtually any system any of us have to its knees pretty quickly.
As for HL2, I it has plenty of indoor scenes that we've seen, and they look fantastic. While it only uses real time lighting in limited situations, the general graphical fidelity and complexity of its indoor scenes and the lighting is actually much higher than Doom3, because it's thrown high quality textures, specularity, normal mapping, and realistic radiosity into the mix. It just fudges the real time aspect of shadows by using projected shadows for moving characters, which saves a ton on performance. The main "wow" factor of shadow edges and light sliding over characters and shading them properly is actually there in the HL2 engine as well (just check out how the light and shadow affect the combine who leads you through the hall to the interrogation room). And the engine can obviously handle a much much bigger load of entities and characters on the screen at once: an absolute MUST for an NS game.
In summation, I don't think any engine out there really IS as suited to NS as HL2 will be.
Even tho Doom 3 is pretty much going to push our hardware, and it being probably quite more demanding than HL2, it will certainly run very decently on current and next generation videocards.
You have to keep in mind that Doom 3 was originally developped with a target system of a Geforce 3-4. The realtime shadow thing is indeed fairly heavy, and will probably not be used again (at least in a similar fashion) in any other game. However, it is severly overrated if you think it'll bring today's systems down to it's knees.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The method of real time lighting being used is so performance intensive that at more than 4 players you start to pile up way too many different lighting/shadowing events all in one place for almost anyone's hardware to handle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now what if more than 4 enemy's (Singleplayer) appear in the screen? According to you the hardware simply wouldn't be able to handle it. Obviously that can't be correct, as i've seen dozens of Doom 3 movies containing multiple enemy's with a decent FPS. Also, i'd hate to say it, i've played the alpha on my PC, and i have to say the issues where nowhere near as bad as you'd expect them to be.
Besides of wich, ID hasn't published a single System Requirement to Doom 3, wich makes it rather hard to already judge the game elements as being 'too heavy' for the current hardware.
The fact is HL2 wasn't built with the same intentions as DoomIII. Valve has pushed for the best graphics they can get with optimal scaling. Their priority was allowing the most gamers to be able to play the game and for it to look the best it can under that condition. Keep in mind that the majority of players of HL mods use GF2mx or GF4mx video cards. (though obviously many will upgrade) It's quite silly to compare it to DoomIII graphically, imo. It's also quite silly to think of porting NS to DoomIII when porting it to HL2 would be so much easier and playable on a wider range of computers. Besides, Valve intends to upgrade the graphics (like PS 3.0, higher poly models and stuff) as time goes on to keep up. They announced this many times.
<!--QuoteBegin-PseudoKnight+May 19 2004, 11:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PseudoKnight @ May 19 2004, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The fact is HL2 wasn't built with the same intentions as DoomIII. Valve has pushed for the best graphics they can get with optimal scaling. Their priority was allowing the most gamers to be able to play the game and for it to look the best it can under that condition. Keep in mind that the majority of players of HL mods use GF2mx or GF4mx video cards. (though obviously many will upgrade) It's quite silly to compare it to DoomIII graphically, imo. It's also quite silly to think of porting NS to DoomIII when porting it to HL2 would be so much easier and playable on a wider range of computers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It remains to be seen wether HL2 is all that 'optimal'. Its not hard to tell ID Software is focussing heavely on the Graphics end, and produced a very optimized and efficient engine (as we're used of ID, just think of the sheer amount of games that used the Quake 3 Engine, excellent peice of software).
People with a GF2-4MX are <b>not</b> going to be able to play HL2 anywhere near decently, with all it's graphics options turned off, it'll probably look more like HL1 again.
Having a wider player range with HL2? Granted. Easier port of NS to HL2? Granted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, Valve intends to upgrade the graphics (like PS 3.0, higher poly models and stuff) as time goes on to keep up. They announced this many times.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valve announces much, not to mention the terrible screw-up with their original release-date. I think it's hard to go by assumptions like those.
Comments
A code port might be aided by VALVe through things like similar interfaces or even abstraction layers or simulated interfaces, but there'd still be a ton of work to get done there.
Agreed. Do a cheap arse port to keep us held over while we wait for a more major release from Flay <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Double agreed. I was gonna suggest this... but I read the posts first. Good thing I did! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not an expert... but don't people go from 3dsmax models to hl models, and then rig them once they're in half life form? Couldn't you take the originals (or hell even decompile the hl models - I KNOW its possible!), and just convert them from 3dsmax to hl2 models?
As in, what they said, port it over without redoing the art. That can come later.
The issues I see with porting:
*Time and effort. Duh. What we've all been talking about.
Specifically, rerigging all the models and maps. I'm sure the artwork will go right over, the rigging is what will take the time.
*New physics. Now it hasn't been discussed much how this'll change balance. The changes the physics will (most likely) make things like knockback, jetpacks, lerks, and wallwalking different. So they'll have to be recoded from scratch. Don't quote me though... I'm no expert, just saying what makes sense to me.
*Breakable walls? Apparently, any wall in hl2 is breakable as long as its not too thick (correct me if I'm wrong), so we'd have to more than port map layout over. We'd have to assign materials to walls to make them unbreakable so balance isn't screwed up. Weldables... I'm sure something along those lines is probably built into hl2, so I'm not sure how you'd do those. You could have a wall that welders would destroy... as for closing vents I'm not sure.
To sum it up... the effort goes into:
* Rerigging models and maps
* Making jps, lerk flight, knockback, wallwalking, etc work properly in the new physics system, as well as removing fall damage for certain aliens and jps (that might be easy to do though)
* Redoing the buildings and everything having to do with them
* Redoing the command interface
How much of the code is easy to port over I'm not sure. Someone who knows about programming help us out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait... so they share netcode?
Wouldn't that mean that it would be possible to have people playing the same mods on different engines (as in cs on both hl1 and hl2)? That would solve the community cleaving problems (as in half goes to hl1, half to hl2).
And btw... ns on hl2 should be called Natural Selection Classic. The new game, ns2, would be Natural Selection II.
Walls aren't breakable in HL2. Certain objects are, if they're tagged as such, just like they were in HL1. Again, the physics engine needn't be a big deal, as objects would have to be tagged to be movable or not. You wouldn't have to worry about knocking over an armory because it probably would either be tagged as not being movable, or having an immense weight.
Porting the models would probably be as simple as a direct conversion from the existing HL1 models, but simply grabbing the source models and sticking them in HL2 wouldn't give you better models. HL2 models are, I believe, like DooM 3 or Unreal Engine 3, bumpmapped. As in, the models are created at high detail (several million polygons), then a low-poly version (under 10k polys) are created, and the difference is put into a bump or normal map. HL1 models aren't created like that, so they'd just look like HL1 models.
Thats what I was thinking. It seems like a good idea to me.
<a href='http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?faq=source_mod_faq§ion=106159035033544900&question=106159124050453000' target='_blank'>http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?...159124050453000</a>
You guys make it sound like you just copy the directory to HL2 and presto, it should work. There is SOME work involved... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=9924966' target='_blank'>http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=9924966</a>
Yay?
Or HL2 is just an other program in the steam? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Or wonder how they are going to make it...
Doom3 looks really good, UT 2004 is wonderfull in cpu usage for nice quality maybe even crytech from farcry.
I don't really really care for graphic update for ns, its more the possibilities of interaction with space or hitbox fix and such...
I know my pc will handle next gen fps but i'm a bit sick of upgrading, i imagine ppl still stuck at playing stracraft cos their pc won't work anything else on 56k, lol
Just my 2 cents
I belive Flayra posted something in this topic on page one or two <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeh it was
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=70686&st=0' target='_blank'>page one</a>
Just give it some thought, Doom 3 is certainly going to have an excellent atmosphere to fit with NS (at least the atmosphere i thought was originally intented with NS, but dint quite work out with HL), mostly due to it's realtime shadow calculation (something afaik, isn't included with HL2).
Aside from that, assuming NS will be ported without too many gameplay changes initially, Doom 3 has the indoor-focus NS (and HL for that matter) currently uses. Not completely sure, but i was under the impression HL2 sets its story-line largely in outdoor-scenery (looking at several E3 movies). So it's only logical to assume HL2 is optimized for outdoor terrain, i'm not saying HL2 won't do a good job with the indoor area's, but i do think its likely Doom 3 will do a <b>better</b> job.
There is ofcourse a bad side on the story. Doom 3 for instance, most likely doesn't use modifications in a similar fashion as HL does (and HL2 will, with it's new 'source' engine), so you'll probably end up rewriting a fairly large portion of the NS code. I'm also thinking about a detail in the Multiplayer setup of Doom 3, involving player amounts limited to a total of 4-8 (although John Carmack <b>did</b> mention modifications could make use of the full 32 player support in Doom 3).
Now i haven't mentioned FarCry so far in this post, and i don't think i need to. FarCry is famous for it's outdoor terrain, and it's probably focussed on outdoor even more than HL2 is, making it an even less suitable conditate for NS (assuming again, NS will remaing unchanged initially).
I'll probably come up with more points along the ride, but these are the most obvious i could think of at the moment.
besides, hl/hl2 is much more popular, and many more ppl will have hl2 over doom3.
and, the easiest is that ns is already on hl which will make it a lot easier to port over to hl2. I read somewhere that original hl was ported in 3 days over to source. The set of automated programs are to be released with hl2 to do just this.
Flahabrbarlahflarfhahrtafhafh.
The multiplayer that Doom 3 will <i>ship with</i> has only four players. However, the technology has support for more than that; up to 32 players, I think I read.
I think the whole point of doing a quick port (and largely of this thread) is that the current iteration of NS can be easily ported over to HL2 using Valve's tools. To make a version of NS for Doom 3 or UT2k4 would mean that the team would need to start right from the bottom up, which is more work for that team.
That ofcourse, is pretty much speculation, although i have to admit HL2 will probably have the benifit of HL1's popularity.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->one problem with doom3. Currently, the multiplayer aspect of the game can only run 4 players due to the heavy load of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as i know, it was more of a gameplay issue rather than hardware to keep player levels at 4. Since Doom 3 more or less focusses on the 'scary' and 'sneaky' element, it would kind of defeat the point having 32 players in a game (unless we're talking about really big maps, that however WOULD press the hardware\connection :])
If performance wasn't an issue, I could see some real possibilities for NS in Doom3's environment. Imagine, for instance, that the whole ship is very dark: much darker than ships currently. The marines have flashlights, but they only illuminate certain areas. And the kharaa can see much better in the dark. Marines might have new light tech entities that can they can install to light up certain areas and keep them lit (and the kharaa can chew out), or map goals to get the power back on to certain areas to get the light level up.
Now, that would be AWESOME. But on the Doom3 engine it also would bring virtually any system any of us have to its knees pretty quickly.
As for HL2, I it has plenty of indoor scenes that we've seen, and they look fantastic. While it only uses real time lighting in limited situations, the general graphical fidelity and complexity of its indoor scenes and the lighting is actually much higher than Doom3, because it's thrown high quality textures, specularity, normal mapping, and realistic radiosity into the mix. It just fudges the real time aspect of shadows by using projected shadows for moving characters, which saves a ton on performance. The main "wow" factor of shadow edges and light sliding over characters and shading them properly is actually there in the HL2 engine as well (just check out how the light and shadow affect the combine who leads you through the hall to the interrogation room). And the engine can obviously handle a much much bigger load of entities and characters on the screen at once: an absolute MUST for an NS game.
In summation, I don't think any engine out there really IS as suited to NS as HL2 will be.
Even tho Doom 3 is pretty much going to push our hardware, and it being probably quite more demanding than HL2, it will certainly run very decently on current and next generation videocards.
You have to keep in mind that Doom 3 was originally developped with a target system of a Geforce 3-4. The realtime shadow thing is indeed fairly heavy, and will probably not be used again (at least in a similar fashion) in any other game. However, it is severly overrated if you think it'll bring today's systems down to it's knees.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The method of real time lighting being used is so performance intensive that at more than 4 players you start to pile up way too many different lighting/shadowing events all in one place for almost anyone's hardware to handle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now what if more than 4 enemy's (Singleplayer) appear in the screen? According to you the hardware simply wouldn't be able to handle it. Obviously that can't be correct, as i've seen dozens of Doom 3 movies containing multiple enemy's with a decent FPS. Also, i'd hate to say it, i've played the alpha on my PC, and i have to say the issues where nowhere near as bad as you'd expect them to be.
Besides of wich, ID hasn't published a single System Requirement to Doom 3, wich makes it rather hard to already judge the game elements as being 'too heavy' for the current hardware.
It remains to be seen wether HL2 is all that 'optimal'. Its not hard to tell ID Software is focussing heavely on the Graphics end, and produced a very optimized and efficient engine (as we're used of ID, just think of the sheer amount of games that used the Quake 3 Engine, excellent peice of software).
People with a GF2-4MX are <b>not</b> going to be able to play HL2 anywhere near decently, with all it's graphics options turned off, it'll probably look more like HL1 again.
Having a wider player range with HL2? Granted.
Easier port of NS to HL2? Granted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, Valve intends to upgrade the graphics (like PS 3.0, higher poly models and stuff) as time goes on to keep up. They announced this many times.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valve announces much, not to mention the terrible screw-up with their original release-date. I think it's hard to go by assumptions like those.