TFU for PC?

[Char Ell]

When exactly did LA start developing TFE?

That depends on how you define "start." LucasArts pitched ideas to George Lucas in 2005 April and I think the Darth Vader's secret apprentice story got approved by GL in 2005 September. But it sounds like there were a lot of major design decisions that didn't get finalized until the end of 2006. Recommend you read TFU Project Lead Haden Blackman's production diary "The Force Unleashed: From Concept to Console" to get his take on the concept, pre-production, and production phases of the game.

 

 

Congratulations on making your first post, KniteWhoSaysNI.

Even still, crysis alone has proven that an uber system req. game can, will and does sell the pants off of everything else.

What makes you think that Crysis outsold everything else? Have you seen the NPD report for the top 10 selling U.S. PC games in 2007? Crysis didn't even make the list.

I'll tell you what I really suspect is going on. The PC gamer getting snubbed and kick around yet again by a company that made most of its past revenue from PC gamers. This is the thanks we get other than a few pathetic bantha chips they decide to throw our way to keep their name in our eyes.

I don't intend to be condescending with what I am about to state but whatever gave you the impression that game development companies like LucasArts are altruistic? Make no mistake about it, game developers and publishers are in the business to make money. PC gaming in general has been on a downslide for a while now and the general consensus is PC games don't have anywhere near the profit potential as console games.

 

LucasArts President Jim Ward made clear his intentions to have LucasArts more fully support consoles shortly after he took over the reins at LucasArts back in 2004 May so the fact that LucasArts isn't releasing this game for PC shouldn't come as a surprise for those who have followed the news coming out of LucasArts, like myself anyway. Doesn't sound like you've been paying a great deal of attention to what LucasArts has been up to and that's fine with me but I just wanted to share what I know and why I'm not surprised at LucasArts' decision to not make a PC version of The Force Unleashed.

 

Of course, as a PC gamer, this doesn't mean I'm not greatly disappointed by this decision or that I don't think Mr. Blackman's reason for LucasArts not releasing a PC version isn't a bunch of bantha poodoo because as far as I'm concerned it is. I've expressed my sentiments on this in previous posts in this thread so I'll just confirm that my views haven't changed any. I'll just say that in my opinion PC gaming struggles to compete with consoles and handhelds for the following 3 reasons:

 

1) Piracy - Game publishers lose A LOT of potential sales to people who download a hacked copy of a PC game instead of buying it. Until something can be done to greatly reduce the piracy rate this will continue to be a huge obstacle to the growth of PC gaming. Did you read any of the recent articles about Infinity Ward's community manager blogging his great dismay at the number of pirated copies of COD 4 being used in multiplayer?

 

2) Hardware and operating system diversity - PC gaming is at a transition point right now and developing a game for PC is more complex now than it already was. With two operating systems in active use, the transition from single core to multi-core processors in progress, the decision whether or not to develop the game as a part of Microsoft's Games for Windows program, and the continuing need to support a highly heterogenous hardware environment all constituting a significantly more challenging development environment for PC gaming, it makes PC game development a lot less inviting when compared to development for consoles.

 

3) Complexity - this arises from reason #2. In short, the gameplay experience for consoles is much easier than PC. Sure there are hardcore PC gamers out there who don't mind dealing with taking the time to install a game, driver issues, crashes to desktop, etc. but there seems to be a lot more people who prefer just powering up their console, putting in their game disc, and playing the game and not having to deal with those problems.

[KniteWhoSaysNI]

Congratulations on making your first post, KniteWhoSaysNI.

 

Wow. Wait, what? I could have sworn I've posted before in the past. Hmmm.

Thanks though.

 

What makes you think that Crysis outsold everything else? Have you seen the NPD report for the top 10 selling U.S. PC games in 2007? Crysis didn't even make the list.

 

I'm going to quote two people:

 

Person #1-"We don't know how well it's selling. The figures shown for it that were in the 80-thousands were for North American retail only (meaning, no digital distribution, including the EA Downloader which probably accounts for quite a large chunk of the sales). It does not include sales from other regions, such as Europe, where PC gaming is far more popular than it is in the US.

 

If anything, it's more than likely that Crysis has sold very, very well indeed."

 

Person #2- "Ok, PC-gaming is bigger in Europe. Here's a quote I found on the Internet from april 2007:

 

Footnote: Did you know the largest PC games market worldwide is actually Europe? That's not something we talk about much this side of the pond. It's also not that surprising. The European Union (EU) clocks in at 807 million people--12 percent of world's total. According to Polish-based developer Reality Pump Studios (Two Worlds), without Europe, the company's budget for U.S. and other market PC games would drop to just 30%. And Ubisoft's North American president Laurent Detoc has said the company's computer game sales are roughly one-third in North America versus two-thirds in Europe.

 

I so wish that US citizens stop thinking that NA is the centre of the world when it comes to... everything."

 

Also another fact from that link you provided:

"However, digital downloads were not factored in to the NPD data, since the firm only tracks bricks-and-mortar retail sales currently, making it difficult to track exactly how the PC market is trending as a whole with the rise of casual games and even digital downloads for more 'hardcore' titles."

 

I dunno about you but I'm finding it harder and harder to get PC games in the dwindling retail outlets. We've lost Compusa since it's gone belly up and Gamstop's game section has dwindled to almost nothing and Best Buy is heading the same way. There are no Wallmart's in nyc so I have no idea what they carry in the way of PC games. So yeah so much for bricks-and- mortar sales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't intend to be condescending with what I am about to state but whatever gave you the impression that game development companies like LucasArts are altruistic? Make no mistake about it, game developers and publishers are in the business to make money. PC gaming in general has been on a downslide for a while now and the general consensus is PC games don't have anywhere near the profit potential as console games.

 

LucasArts President Jim Ward made clear his intentions to have LucasArts more fully support consoles shortly after he took over the reins at LucasArts back in 2004 May so the fact that LucasArts isn't releasing this game for PC shouldn't come as a surprise for those who have followed the news coming out of LucasArts, like myself anyway. Doesn't sound like you've been paying a great deal of attention to what LucasArts has been up to and that's fine with me but I just wanted to share what I know and why I'm not surprised at LucasArts' decision to not make a PC version of The Force Unleashed.

 

Of course, as a PC gamer, this doesn't mean I'm not greatly disappointed by this decision or that I don't think Mr. Blackman's reason for LucasArts not releasing a PC version isn't a bunch of bantha poodoo because as far as I'm concerned it is. I've expressed my sentiments on this in previous posts in this thread so I'll just confirm that my views haven't changed any. I'll just say that in my opinion PC gaming struggles to compete with consoles and handhelds for the following 3 reasons:

 

1) Piracy - Game publishers lose A LOT of potential sales to people who download a hacked copy of a PC game instead of buying it. Until something can be done to greatly reduce the piracy rate this will continue to be a huge obstacle to the growth of PC gaming. Did you read any of the recent articles about Infinity Ward's community manager blogging his great dismay at the number of pirated copies of COD 4 being used in multiplayer?

 

2) Hardware and operating system diversity - PC gaming is at a transition point right now and developing a game for PC is more complex now than it already was. With two operating systems in active use, the transition from single core to multi-core processors in progress, the decision whether or not to develop the game as a part of Microsoft's Games for Windows program, and the continuing need to support a highly heterogenous hardware environment all constituting a significantly more challenging development environment for PC gaming, it makes PC game development a lot less inviting when compared to development for consoles.

 

3) Complexity - this arises from reason #2. In short, the gameplay experience for consoles is much easier than PC. Sure there are hardcore PC gamers out there who don't mind dealing with taking the time to install a game, driver issues, crashes to desktop, etc. but there seems to be a lot more people who prefer just powering up their console, putting in their game disc, and playing the game and not having to deal with those problems.

 

Ehhhh, no condescending percieved. Just a good 'ol fashion debate.

But you are right though. I really haven't been paying attention to what the industry and Lucasarts has been up to lately and I do miss a bit on what's going on like this ruckus. Too busy playing games and other things and taking for granted that Lucasarts will come out with PC games.

 

Well I'm not disputing the fact that Consoles now far outnumber PC's but the PC is still no slouch in the sales arena either.

 

1) I so hate that argument about the PC Piracy. Does the game industry honestly believe that copies of console games aren't being pirated as well?

"What's $50 to a computer gamer? That'll just about cover the latest game titles for the Microsoft Xbox and Sony PlayStation 2 living room consoles. But it'll also pay for a microchip, a soldering iron, and a lifetime supply of illicit fun." Yes, and even the wii has a mod chip available. Also let me tell you, all the consoles game are being pirated including the Wii games. And that doesn't even cover the emulators that allow you to play console games on the PC. Of course, no emulators yet for the latest consoles. This includes the handhelds as well.

 

2) No dispute there. But seriously, speaking for myself, I could care less about eye candy and physics and just want great gameplay. I still go back to Jedi Knight A.K.A. Dark Forces II even though being spoiled by the eye candy and physics of todays games it sure does look ugly compared to them but damn the game play is so much more fun than it's follow ups and other games.

 

3) People do think that don't they. If this was a perfect world, that would be so true. I won't go into the ugly tales of woe from the thousands + maybe even millions of console gamers (I haven't really counted) and their issues with their little boxes.

 

 

 

I have only one thing say to Jim Ward and Mr. Blackman:

 

Bring me a Jedi Knight Game

One that plays nice

And not too expensive

Noowwwww.... GO!

Ni!

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Yes, and even the wii has a mod chip available. Also let me tell you, all the consoles game are being pirated including the Wii games. And that doesn't even cover the emulators that allow you to play console games on the PC. Of course, no emulators yet for the latest consoles. This includes the handhelds as well.

Just something I wished to be made clear: There is currently no way of pirate PS3 games. Even if there was, it's media is still very expensive.

[KniteWhoSaysNI]

Just something I wished to be made clear: There is currently no way of pirate PS3 games. Even if there was, it's media is still very expensive.

 

Yeah, I stand corrected about that. I didn't think to look for info about that since I don't really follow anything sony has to offer. Still the cheapest blue-ray burner is $219.99 and TDK has a single 25gig disk for only $14. Only a matter of time. By the time they figure out how to crack the PS3 the blue ray equipment will be lots cheaper.

 

The other thing is are there that many Ps3's in use now anyway.

[PoiuyWired]

Well, it is true that the development of Pirated PS3 games is lagging behind, even as the PS3 itself is successfully hacked, for one simple reason: Demand.

 

PS3 is not doing well on sales, except maybe in japan. This, coupled with the GIGTANTIC AMOUNT OF GAMES OUT FOR PS3, kIND OF PUT OF THE PIRATES FROM DEVELOPING VIABLE PIRATE COMPY.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Well, Sony always had a special focus on Europe. Last I heard, they had some optimistic previsions for sales there.

[Char Ell]

Here is a transcript I made of an audio recording made by Anthony Baratta on TheForce.Net from a recent The Force Unleashed press conference held at the Letterman Digital Arts Center in San Francisco, CA.

Q: Was PC ever considered as a platform for this game?

 

Haden Blackman: Yeah, it actually was. At LucasArts, we are big believers still in the PC platform. We look at every single game we do and see whether it makes sense on the PC platform. There's a couple reasons why we, you know, it didn't for this game. One was just the core design and the emphasis on the, I mean from day one we had a game pattern in our hands and the emphasis on the, you know, that kind of visceral, blood-pressing experience. The other was because of basically they don't spec essentially. So for most of the versions of the game to bring that over to PC without a complete redesign would require a really high-end machine and just the number of units we would have to sell to make it worthwhile didn't match up with the installed base for those high-end machines so, you know, as you can imagine things like Pixelux, or sorry, things like DMM and euphoria are very processor intensive.

I did take the liberty of not including all the ums and ahs Mr. Blackman uttered during his response as I considered them immaterial to what he was saying.

 

I don't know what he was babbling about for reason #1. His rationale pretty much sounded like complete nonsense to me. I can't think of a reason why the PC couldn't support a "visceral" playing experience as well as a console, a handheld, or a blasted mobile phone running N-Gage?!?!

 

Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.

 

What is everybody else's take on this?

[Jeff]

Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.

 

What is everybody else's take on this?

I pretty much figured this was their reason the whole time and I think it makes sense from a business standpoint. I'm not happy that they're not making it but I understand their reasoning.

[Char Ell]

^^^

Yeah, but they sure do seem to have a hard time just saying it.

 

I was left with the impression that Mr. Blackman was trying to come up with some reasons for not making TFU for PC that didn't sound so shallow as "we don't think we'll make any money developing TFU for PC." He tried to sugar coat it I guess but IMHO failed miserably, which surprises me seeing as how this question has been out there for some time now and shouldn't have come as a surprise to him. I expected he would already have an answer prepared for the question but it sure didn't seem like he did.

[Ztalker]

Originally Posted by Char Ell

Reason #2 however was somewhat more coherent. Basically what I got out of it is that LA decided not to make a PC version of this game because they didn't think they would sell enough copies of a PC version to make it worth their development effort.

 

What is everybody else's take on this?

 

Allright. Let me get this straight:

Lucasarts lived on games like Full Throttle and Monkey Island. The PC gamers loved them. Still, the fans would buy this TFU game. But because the 'hyper active shooter punks' use to illegally get the game the fans won't even get the chance (aka: Slap in the face).

 

It's like the hooligan down-ward spiral of soccer/football! The fans get checked, need to pay lots of cash for a game, because the people who just go there to fight with other 'fans' ruin stuff? From an emotional perspective, TFU not coming for the PC hurts. Alot.

 

Although, from a business point of view, all to ubderstandable.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I pretty much figured this was their reason the whole time and I think it makes sense from a business standpoint. I'm not happy that they're not making it but I understand their reasoning.

Sad, but ditto.

[daventry]

On this Website it looks like the Game will be on PC.

 

http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=286;6;-1;-1&sku=648375

[Jeff]

I believe that site is where the false reports started, making LucasArts confirm that it is not coming out for PC.

[igyman]

As far as I know, the game isn't going to be made for PC, which is a real shame since the game seems really interesting and the abilities shown in the trailer very impressive.

Now, as for Blackman's reasoning quoted above, well, I'm studying IT so I know a bit about how the PC works and I can say that what he said about only high-end machines could run it was utter nonsense. That's what's great about PCs, you can adjust the details of any game, whether they are graphics, or sound, which is why you can run a lot of games on a PC. Let's take Splinter Cell: Double Agent as an example of a next-gen game ported to PC (there are two versions of the game, but the next-gen one was the one that was ported to PC, not the current-gen one) and I can say (since I own the game) that the game works great and looks great on a PC (not a high-end one).

Now, his other reason was a typical company reason - they assessed that they wouldn't profit enough from a PC version - and it's a reason I can understand (since I'm also learning some basics about Management in my studies). However, I'm inclined to believe their market experts made a wrong assessment. We all know that PCs are wide-spread around the world nowadays and we know that home users definitely play games on them. We also know that Star Wars is a franchise known and loved around the world and Star Wars games that have been made so far had their PC versions and have always generated serious profit to LucasArts. I could probably find exact numbers on the net regarding the things I mentioned, but I'm not going to bother myself with that right now. When you think about it, you don't require all those numbers to come to my conclusion, they help, but they're not mandatory.

I've rambled enough, so in conclusion I'll say simply that I hope the LA management realizes their mistake and make a PC version, if not sooner, then when they see the revenue reports on the console market.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

However, I'm inclined to believe their market experts made a wrong assessment. We all know that PCs are wide-spread around the world nowadays and we know that home users definitely play games on them. We also know that Star Wars is a franchise known and loved around the world and Star Wars games that have been made so far had their PC versions and have always generated serious profit to LucasArts.

Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales. The only feasible reason for that, minding all those positive points, is that because it requires such a high-end machine, most users didn't bought it out of fear it wouldn't work properly (Some people actually won't play the game on low or even medium specs, but let's be reasonable, on "Very low" settings the game isn't even worth to play) or knowing it wouldn't work at all.

 

If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.

[igyman]

Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales.

I haven't played Crysis personally, but I have a friend who has and he said that he didn't like the game, regardless of its amazing graphics, because it just had nothing that would keep him going, nothing that would interest him in playing it further. Also worth mentioning is that he doesn't have a high end machine, considering what high end is nowadays, but a standard, yet powerful enough PC. I imagine that's a bigger reason why Crysis didn't do well in sales, rather than it's system requirements.

 

If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.

If the game was that demanding his words would make sense, but the truth is we have no idea what system requirements would a PC version have, since one isn't planned to be developed. However, after seeing the trailer the game's graphic doesn't seem that impressive, very good yes, but not like something that would require the latest in PC technology. I know that graphic isn't the only thing that affects system requirements, but it's the most notable thing when it comes to games. I don't think this game's physics engine would eat memory or processor power, since it's not that realistic to begin with. Portal is the game with the most realistic physics engine there is and it works perfectly on a standard Pentium 4.

[Jeff]

Well I don't know a lot about Portal's engine but TFU is the first game that these engines (euphoria and DMM) are being used on so they are the latest and greatest. But again I don't know how they stand up to Portal's. But that combined with the graphics might make the PC specs pretty high.

[igyman]

Ah, yes, DMM and Euphoria. I read what they said about those on TFU's official site and I took a look at the example videos very carefully from a programmers point of view. Basically what they claim Euphoria does is make the characters act differently every single time. Not that true as seen in the example video. There you'll see spawned Stormtroopers being thrown against a fragile wooden beam, the poor Stormtrooper will catch the beam and after a few seconds it will collapse and the Stormtrooper will fall to his death. You'll also see two Stormtroopers thrown against that same beam and experience a similar situation. It looks very cool, but when you think about it here's what's happening in the code itself:

A stormtrooper is thrown against the wooden beam, there are two options:

1) He will not grab onto it and will fall to his death;

2) He will grab onto it, at which point the appropriate scripted animation of the panicking soldier is started along with an animation bending the beam under the soldier's weight and a background timer until the beam breaks.

Now we have the following possibilities:

Another (and another and another...) Stormtrooper is thrown against the beam with the one Stormtrooper still hanging and this Stormtrooper faces the same if/then/else that's described above, he either grabs on, or doesn't.

If he grabs on there will be one of the two available scripted animations, which means that the second Stormtrooper will grab onto the beam directly and display the same animation as the first one, or he will grab onto the first Stormtrooper's hand which is the second scripted animation. In any case the background timer started above will expire and the hanging Stormtroopers will die.

So basically it's a complex net of if/then/elses, or perhaps for or while loops whose conditions are determined by a classic random generator, not some high tech simulation (which would also be comprised of if/thens or for/while loops, but they wouldn't have predetermined outcomes, rather they would calculate them using formulas, or something like that).

 

Now the DMM. It's supposed to make the environment act realistically, meaning that surfaces will bend, break, or whatever in a different manner every time. Again, if you take a careful look at the example video, you can see it's not as revolutionary as it's claimed to be. It does look cool though. If you take a closer look at the DMM applied wooden wall used in that video, you'll see that even though it will break appropriately depending on the strength of the impact, the pieces are always of the same shape, a pattern can be seen clearly. All it takes is a careful look.

So after seeing this, I still don't think the game would be that much system demanding that it wouldn't be able to run on standard PCs.

[BurningZero]

well...what WOULD be revolutionary would be if that after the trooper grabs onto the beam...he would try to climb it...'

 

 

no?

[Davinq]

It's disappointing that the best compromise LA could come up with for the lack of a PC version for TFU was a novel. As someone above stated, "at least we won't miss the story."

[Ztalker]

Ctrl_Alt_Del wrote:

Let's go back to Crysis again: It's a wonderful and fun game, widely anticipated and had fantastic scores on most gaming sites, still it did poorly on sales. The only feasible reason for that, minding all those positive points, is that because it requires such a high-end machine, most users didn't bought it out of fear it wouldn't work properly (Some people actually won't play the game on low or even medium specs, but let's be reasonable, on "Very low" settings the game isn't even worth to play) or knowing it wouldn't work at all.

 

If we consider that TFU is going to demand a as powerful - or even a more strong PC - and that we admit that Star Wars games of any kind are mostly restricted to their fanbase, we may see that Blackman's words make sense.

Well. There are two things about Crysis that make it...flop.

First of all, every single Review I have read makes the point of saying the game 'spits PC gamers with the first-gen DX10 cards in the face, who will now have to buy a new card to make the game work properly' (by Power Unlimited, game magazine). Reading this, many gamers might want to....try and download the game to see if it works for their PC. I know there is a demo out there, but that isn't enough for most.

Second, there is an 'semi-active' anti EA thing going on. If you see how many problems the Battlefield franchise has had...I, for example, have never had any battlefield game work properly. And the support is poor, if not absent. Many 'youngsters' who are into downloading I spoke with said 'EA will make money anyways.'

 

But these things don't count for LA. If you look at Kotor. It's single player. It's downloadable (we had an idiot claim victory about it recently) but it still sold immensely good! The same is probably true for TFU. It's worth the purchase.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I haven't played Crysis personally, but I have a friend who has and he said that he didn't like the game, regardless of its amazing graphics, because it just had nothing that would keep him going, nothing that would interest him in playing it further. Also worth mentioning is that he doesn't have a high end machine, considering what high end is nowadays, but a standard, yet powerful enough PC. I imagine that's a bigger reason why Crysis didn't do well in sales, rather than it's system requirements.

 

That's an opinion matter. Any game that's highly anticipated is likely to sell well enough. That did happened to Halo 3, or even Kane & Lynch

, that last one, being rated poorly or as the letdown of the year frequently.

I know that graphic isn't the only thing that affects system requirements, but it's the most notable thing when it comes to games. I don't think this game's physics engine would eat memory or processor power, since it's not that realistic to begin with. Portal is the game with the most realistic physics engine there is and it works perfectly on a standard Pentium 4.

Well the Havok Engine (Postal's) was news years ago on HL2. But that Engine can be seen working on a PS2 (Tomb Raider: Legend & Anniversary) while both DMM and Euphoria are said to be too much for the Wii to handle.

 

Now the DMM. It's supposed to make the environment act realistically, meaning that surfaces will bend, break, or whatever in a different manner every time. Again, if you take a careful look at the example video, you can see it's not as revolutionary as it's claimed to be. It does look cool though. If you take a closer look at the DMM applied wooden wall used in that video, you'll see that even though it will break appropriately depending on the strength of the impact, the pieces are always of the same shape, a pattern can be seen clearly. All it takes is a careful look.

So after seeing this, I still don't think the game would be that much system demanding that it wouldn't be able to run on standard PCs.

 

It's true we can see more or less how the engine is going to work on such a small teaser (I found some animations to be deceptively stuck, even on such a small trailler), but the real-time shown scenario and characters were so insignificant, that we can 't really get a good idea on how it'll work, just have inaccurate guesses

 

But these things don't count for LA. If you look at Kotor. It's single player. It's downloadable (we had an idiot claim victory about it recently) but it still sold immensely good!

It also had low specs for it time.

[igyman]

Well the Havok Engine (Postal's) was news years ago on HL2. But that Engine can be seen working on a PS2 (Tomb Raider: Legend & Anniversary) while both DMM and Euphoria are said to be too much for the Wii to handle.

Point taken, but I was talking about Portal, not Postal. Since in Portal you need to solve logical puzzles by taking advantage of the laws of physics, they had to make a really realistic physics engine and that engine is without a doubt the most realistic one there is right now (for example: you jump from a certain height into a portal on the floor and you pop out another portal you've created on another floor (now you're flying upwards) and you'll still be under the influence of gravitational acceleration for a few secs, before the force of gravity pulls you back down.) and that engine works perfectly on any standard PC. After seeing the presentations of DMM and Euphoria and not seeing anything revolutionary, I simply don't see any good reason for TFU not to work on the same PC configurations on which Portal works, except for bad engine optimization.

However, I do agree that we can't make full conclusions after seeing only those teaser videos.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Rofl, that was a typo. I meant Portal (The one that comes along on the Orange Box), not that crappy Uwe Boll, Postal game.

 

Yep, and Havok Engine was used there, the same of Halo 3, Bioshock and other games, like the TR games I've mentioned before.

[igyman]

Actually all of the latest Valve's games use the Source engine, which is based on the Havok 2 engine, but is a lot more advanced.