Making a Mod on the Source Engine

Discussion in 'Games Talk' started by FiLi, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. FiLi

    FiLi L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    195
    Positive Ratings:
    52
    I've been thinking a lot lately about creating a first person indie game, and, seeing as I have experience with it, I've mostly been thinking about building it on the source engine. Of course, I'm not doing much in the way of real development right now.
    But, one thing I've been wondering about is if there is another engine I should use instead. The ideas I have so far seem very appropriate to Source, but are there maybe some really crippling elements I should know about?
     
  2. Berry

    aa Berry spooky scary skeletons

    Messages:
    1,006
    Positive Ratings:
    1,584
    Wouldn't recommend source engine for modding. It sucks more dick than me.

    Seriously though, stuff like CryEngine and another one I can't remember is a lot better, more modern and easier to work with when you're used to it.
     
  3. fubarFX

    aa fubarFX The "raw" in "nodraw"

    Messages:
    1,633
    Positive Ratings:
    1,808
    but source is silly and fun! I started my own mod and I wouldn't want to do it on any other engine. berry is just jelly of its dick sucking capacities
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  4. DannyRand

    DannyRand L2: Junior Member

    Messages:
    72
    Positive Ratings:
    23
    I would strongly suggest Unity.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. FiLi

    FiLi L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    195
    Positive Ratings:
    52
    Would you kindly elaborate a bit? I'd appreciate it :)
     
  6. Berry

    aa Berry spooky scary skeletons

    Messages:
    1,006
    Positive Ratings:
    1,584
    Source is really, really buggy though, and there's much better map editors out there than Hammer.
     
  7. Trotim

    aa Trotim

    Messages:
    1,180
    Positive Ratings:
    1,029
    If you really feel like you've invested so much time into Source by now it would be a waste not to use it for something... I still wouldn't recommend this. Source is an outdated, badly documented patchwork of an engine.

    Unity, UDK and CryEngine are all free and much more relevant. The time it will take to get used to the one you choose is well worth it - the entire development process will go way more smoothly and result in a better product hands down
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  8. ForbiddenDonut

    aa ForbiddenDonut

    Messages:
    391
    Positive Ratings:
    403
    The biggest problem you face by switching to UDK or Unity is that you'll very likely never come back to Source. I'm not joking. Source makes things that should be simple incredibly painful and time consuming.

    Let's talk specifics, considering that I'm walking this path myself.

    If you want to create an indie game with your own assets, you'll need to create them with a modeling package (3DS Max, Maya, Blender, ect.) and an image editing package (Photoshop). Once you've made your assets, you'll need to get these into your level editor.

    In Source, this is totally overcomplicated and just horrible.
    The fact you need to decompile and recompile (sometimes including third-party tools!) your models is bad.
    The fact you need to write a .vtf for each texture before import is bad.
    The animation import is shockingly finicky and bad.

    In Unity and UDK, you drag your asset into the level editor and it shows up. It just does. It's so easy. It saves so much time that you need for making the actual game.

    And if you ever want to release your game, you don't have to jump through loops of fire with Unity or UDK. You're talking free (Unity) and UDK's indie license ($60 + royalities after $50,000) compared to whatever Valve decides they want to charge you under NDA.

    Do yourself a favor and pick up a different engine. The time you would have spent learning that engine would have been lost originally by just dealing with Source's problems.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. UKCS-Alias

    aa UKCS-Alias Mann vs Machine... or... Mapper vs Meta?

    Messages:
    1,264
    Positive Ratings:
    795
    Hammer has carve :carve:. Suicide buttons inside editors are fun to fool people with. Those lovely youtube videos of people explaining how to use it while a single text line could solve it. To me hammer is far from ideal to start with in mapping either. Learning a diffirent engine for mapping doesnt have to be a problem.

    Red editor wasnt realy ideal to switch from red faction to start on source (as carve is the only tool you have there). But it doesnt mean its bad at all to have other mapping tools. It took me 1 map to learn the basics to make some mad maps in css already (only tf2 took me long as im usualy poor at detailing).

    And 1 already clear thing to note, most newer engines arent realy forced to make the mapper work on a 45, 90 degree angle system (and even 45 already works bad on bots). I have seen maps having far nicer and realistic shapes because of that.

    But as tf2 mapper i can understand its a pain to leave hammer and learn a new editor. But if its needed for your game dont be afraid. Dont judge on how they work, judge on what you can do with it.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1