WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    Quote from VoodooBenshee

    whine whine - hammer is shit. the workflow is shit, everything is shit - point! don´t waste your time learning that, go step ahead and try sb2, ue3 or id-tech - we are in the age of realtime editor lighting, turbo compiling and better and faster uses of custom stuff - or lets call it: "what you see is what you get-editing". not that crap which source uses *maeh*

    Well, I would if I was interested in building the best looking levels, but I'm more into gameplay stuff and not really a level artist, so I'd rather go with games that have more potential in that area (in my opinion).

    Quote from VoodooBenshee

    whine whine - hammer is shit. the workflow is shit, everything is shit - point! don´t waste your time learning that, go step ahead and try sb2, ue3 or id-tech - we are in the age of realtime editor lighting, turbo compiling and better and faster uses of custom stuff - or lets call it: "what you see is what you get-editing". not that crap which source uses *maeh*

    but nice stuff the0rthopaedicsurgeon

    Woo! Awesome, someone that has the guts to speak the truth!!

    get ready to be bashed by source engine mapcorean fanboys tho!

    We're not talking about best gfx, we're talking about better and improved technology.

    And yes, there are differences, like importing custom content without having to create a lot of side files (.vmt, .q, etc), using compilers for this and for that!

    Source engine has never been user friendly, and It's no different now!

    get a better argument.

    Who needs arguments? Nobody's trying to make you use Hammer, but some of us feel like to. Sure, new technologies rock everybody's asses, but if I can't seem to make better stuff with it, I'd rather go with the my choice.

    Quote from VoodooBenshee

    whine whine - hammer is shit. the workflow is shit, everything is shit - point! don´t waste your time learning that, go step ahead and try sb2, ue3 or id-tech - we are in the age of realtime editor lighting, turbo compiling and better and faster uses of custom stuff - or lets call it: "what you see is what you get-editing". not that crap which source uses *maeh*

    Crysis = commercial fail /Ut3 = commercial fail... So you get more luck to be recognize by modding Source than those two games!

    Unreal Engine is one of the most used engines in the industry! Just because UT3 was a commercial failure, doesn't' mean learning UE3 and UnreadEd is a lost cause for your career.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... gine_games

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_eng ... urce_games

    And just because HL2 and It's flowing episodes were a commercial hit, learning It's editor wont get you into the industry more easily then learning UE3, SandBox2, Radiant, or whatever.

    Quote

    ":3i0cgeo0]Unreal Engine is one of the most used engines in the industry! Just because UT3 was a commercial failure, doesn't' mean learning UE3 and UnreadEd is a lost cause for your career.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... gine_games

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_eng ... urce_games

    And just because HL2 and It's flowing episodes were a commercial hit, learning It's editor wont get you into the industry more easily then learning UE3, SandBox2, Radiant, or whatever.

    I agree with that. Unreal seems to be somehow the reference.

    EDIT: my point is: the Source engine suits what I want to create, and I wouldn't be able to create that under the mentioned recent games. I don't want to get U3 (I don't like the Unreal gameplay) and create a multiplayer level just for the sake of learning the editor. When a moddable game that I feel like creating a level for comes out, I'll go for it (actually, I could have gone for Gears of War). It's just not about the power or the ease of use of the engine, rather what assets, resources and possibilities it comes with.

    Quote

    ":1hy7x0f4]wont get you into the industry

    But some people just want to make something for fun - where there's more access for players to check it out. Personally, Crysis/Unreal Engine might look great, but I'd rather use Source despite it's horrid tools.

    I was not too long ago learning to use Sandbox 2, but I don't enjoy the Crysis gameplay much so it's useless to me to make anything with it. Unreal Engine is the same story. Not interested in making a multiplayer map for UT3. So to be honest, no thanks~ (Basically what Corwin said too)

    The mod I'm working on using the Build engine is planned to hopefully run standalone. No need for Duke3D. Which is awesome~

    I'd be keen to hire anyone who's done anything in any engine - as anyone who's been in the industry for a while should know, it's not that difficult to learn new engines when you're forced to use them 8hrs a day It's also beneficial to know more than one engine as it can open your eyes to different pipelines and future tech requests for your own toolset.

    I still use Hammer as it makes me nostalgic - I get kinda tired of working on open world environments, placing prefabbed buildings or in UE where your BSP work is purely for optimisation methods. Different strokes for different folks The clumsiness of hammer, at times, makes me feel like I've achieved more when the day is over ;P

    Quote from tofu

    I'd be keen to hire anyone who's done anything in any engine - as anyone who's been in the industry for a while should know, it's not that difficult to learn new engines when you're forced to use them 8hrs a day It's also beneficial to know more than one engine as it can open your eyes to different pipelines and future tech requests for your own toolset.

    Fully agree.

    It doesn't hurt to know the cutting edge technologies ofcourse, but learning a new tech can be done in months, getting an artistic sence is a lifetime pursuit. Ofcourse, it's hard to show that you actually have an artistic sence if you just work on old tech, so it's probably good to use an engine that doesn't limit you too much. From that perspective I'd say Source isn't the best choise, but I think that generally if someone can make a scene look really good in source, the same person can make a scene look like pure awesome in Crytek or UE

    Quote from Nurb

    Ofcourse, it's hard to show that you actually have an artistic sence if you just work on old tech, so it's probably good to use an engine that doesn't limit you too much. From that perspective I'd say Source isn't the best choise, but I think that generally if someone can make a scene look really good in source, the same person can make a scene look like pure awesome in Crytek or UE

    I think I (partially) disagree with this. If someone makes something really beautiful on an old engine, it's probably more obvious how talented he is. Instead of just throwing some prefabbed models etc in a scene, which may 'look' way better (to the average unknowing gamer) than the level on old tech. But that'd just be beause of all the next-gen technology (shaders etc) instead of the actual design (lighting, ambience etc).

    Quote from Squad

    I think I (partially) disagree with this. If someone makes something really beautiful on an old engine, it's probably more obvious how talented he is. Instead of just throwing some prefabbed models etc in a scene, which may 'look' way better (to the average unknowing gamer) than the level on old tech. But that'd just be beause of all the next-gen technology (shaders etc) instead of the actual design (lighting, ambience etc).

    I disagree too. The more limitations, the more skill is required to work under them to visually convey your idea. It's a lot easier to be lazy when it comes to optimisation these days but working within engine restraints and optimisation is still very important. I still use a lot of little goldsource optimisation tricks when planning my source engine maps, ensuring they aren't too demanding on the engine budget.

    Quote from m8nkey

    I think I (partially) disagree with this. If someone makes something really beautiful on an old engine, it's probably more obvious how talented he is. Instead of just throwing some prefabbed models etc in a scene, which may 'look' way better (to the average unknowing gamer) than the level on old tech. But that'd just be beause of all the next-gen technology (shaders etc) instead of the actual design (lighting, ambience etc).

    I disagree too. The more limitations, the more skill is required to work under them to visually convey your idea. It's a lot easier to be lazy when it comes to optimisation these days but working within engine restraints and optimisation is still very important. I still use a lot of little goldsource optimisation tricks when planning my source engine maps, ensuring they aren't too demanding on the engine budget.

    What makes you think more recent technology doesn't have any limitations? You need to keep an eye on your budget in these engines just like in the old ones, only that the bar of limitations is set somewhere higher. While some restraints might be issues of the past, there are new features available, that need to get handled with care and which you will not know if you just work with old technology.

    ANYWAY I think there are two fundamental ways to look at this topic:

    a) I want to use the engine for (semi-)professional purposes and thus need "state of the art" technology and a convenient workflow.

    b) I want to build levels for the games I enjoy playing and don't care how old the game/technology is.

    Everyone not trying to get involved in this argument can now lean back and enjoy how people from both sides try to persuade each other to no avail.

    Quote

    ":38p7846s]Unreal Engine is one of the most used engines in the industry!

    I wasn't thinking especially to the game industry. Otherwise I believe that you can be hire in the industry with Goldsrc past work or whatever the old engine you want...

    Quote from FrieChamp

    What makes you think more recent technology doesn't have any limitations? You need to keep an eye on your budget in these engines just like in the old ones, only that the bar of limitations is set somewhere higher. While some restraints might be issues of the past, there are new features available, that need to get handled with care and which you will not know if you just work with old technology. ANYWAY I think there are two fundamental ways to look at this topic:

    a) I want to use the engine for (semi-)professional purposes and thus need "state of the art" technology and a convenient workflow.

    b) I want to build levels for the games I enjoy playing and don't care how old the game/technology is.

    Everyone not trying to get involved in this argument can now lean back and enjoy how people from both sides try to persuade each other to no avail.

    Nice conclusion Frie!

    Quote from FrieChamp

    What makes you think more recent technology doesn't have any limitations?

    I don't. I just don't aggree that it's hard to show that you have an artistic sense if you work on old tech. I wasn't trying to get into the great engine debate .

    Quote from m8nkey

    I don't. I just don't aggree that it's hard to show that you have an artistic sense if you work on old tech. I wasn't trying to get into the great engine debate .

    i disagree. artistic skill can scale, so you can still do something brilliant within your limitations, but do something even better without those limitations.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login