Anyone else extremely disappointed in Source?

[iamaelephant]

I have had a go with CS:S, and I have to say, Source is not all it's cracked up to be. The physics are really bad compared with Far Cry (barrels as light as a feather, uninteresting human ragdolls, lots of weird physics bugs). The graphics are boring as hell (low poly, uninteresting textures). The engine does not run as fast as it should, considering the low poly models, low poly (and small) maps and low res textures. The load times are comparable with Far Cry and Doom 3, which is just ridiculous considering the size of the map (de_dust).

These are the things I have noticed thus far. What do you all think?

 

[Interl@ce]

i think i read somewhere that they didn't really update game content in CS:S, but took all content from counter-strike and put them in the source engine. So basically you have all low poly content, lowres textures etc from cs but handled by source.

 

[KagePrototype]

Is negativity your job or something? You never seem to be happy about anything.

 

[bliink]

I have had a go with CS:S, and I have to say, Source is not all it's cracked up to be. The physics are really bad compared with Far Cry (barrels as light as a feather, uninteresting human ragdolls, lots of weird physics bugs). The graphics are boring as hell (low poly, uninteresting textures). The engine does not run as fast as it should, considering the low poly models, low poly (and small) maps and low res textures. The load times are comparable with Far Cry and Doom 3, which is just ridiculous considering the size of the map (de_dust).

These are the things I have noticed thus far. What do you all think?

I think its really, really good, esp. for a BETA. ps. what are the specs you are running it on? and detail level?

 

[Interl@ce]

try taking a look from a different view: How does CS:Source compare to CS:CZ?

 

[Risiko]

Well, most of what you have said will be different in Half-Life 2. Counterstrike: Source is not HL2, and that can't be closer to the truth.

First off, the physics are the way they are (things go flying everywhere even if you lightly brush it) beause of bandwith. In a game like Counter-Strike, which Valve wants to make as smooth as possible in terms of lag and the like, they disabled 'variable physics'. In other words, in Half Life 2, if you brush by something, it'll move appropriately - in CS: Source, it may not, because of bandwith constraints.

As far as the graphics go, Half Life 2 will have a more beautiful setting, I believe. More importantly, still, is the fact that 'detail textures' are not enabled in CS: Source. It is presumed (and expected) that Half Life 2 will have 'detail textures' enabled, which does wonders for up-close textures. You may notice that the close ground textures in CS: Source are iffy-looking. Well, that's because detail textures isn't there. Half Life 2, as far as we know, has it. And it helps a lot.

Anyway, I think the game runs really well. A lot of people have said the same. The thing is, when people are getting 30-40 FPS in Doom 3, it isn't a big deal. Why? Because it is very dark, and the action is a bit slower pace. In a game like CS: Source however, 30-40 FPS doesn't cut it so well - it is pretty open, it's bright, and it's much more of a twitch FPS. So, it seems as though the engine is a performance hog - it isn't (at least what I've experienced).

And load times are extremely short for me, comparible to a CZ game (perhaps slightly longer). I actually experienced really, really, incredibly long load times when I first started playing because the servers were all messed up at the time. But, under normal conditions, load times are really nothing, at least for me (1GB Ram).

I suggest you go back and play for an hour or two. The engine really grows on ya.

/my 2 cents

 

[DarkStar]

Woah...the physics are bad compared to Far Cry? I thought physics were supposed to be Source's forte!

 

[Interl@ce]

Woah...the physics are bad compared to Far Cry? I thought physics were supposed to be Source's forte!

sigh.... nobody takes the effort to read anymore

First off indeed the physics have been 'restrained' for online multiplay because of bandwith issues, this has been said plenty of times also in the "info from valve" topic and numerous threads.

Second they didn't update content like textures (i believe, plz no flaming), instead they took all content from cs and placed them in source engine.

Third keep in mind that it IS A BETA just play it for yourself a few hours and then decide. don't immediately assume other people's opinions are true. Have your own.

Fourth: Don't worry, hl2 will definately kick ass

 

[DarkStar]

sigh.... nobody takes the effort to read anymore

What? I read the whole thread.

 

[DarkStar]

i think i read somewhere that they didn't really update game content in CS:S, but took all content from counter-strike and put them in the source engine. So basically you have all low poly content, lowres textures etc from cs but handled by source.

And that's just not true. Valve redid all the graphics.

 

[Interl@ce]

And that's just not true. Valve redid all the graphics.

ok, that was the only thing i wasn't sure of ps i edited my previous post.

 

[jabberwock95]

I have one observation. Barrels in FarCry are supposed to be full. Barrels in CS:S are supposed to be empty. Empty barrels will go a lot further than full barrels if you throw a grenade near them.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

BTW, what other objects are there in CS:S besides barrels? Is there anything else?

 

[Kon]

They probably spent less time on CS:s than HL2, youll recieve a better impression of source when you play HL2.. Its been stated that things in cs:s were designed differently (different-ish physics)

 

[Mr. Redundant]

I have had a go with CS:S, and I have to say, Source is not all it's cracked up to be. The physics are really bad compared with Far Cry (barrels as light as a feather, uninteresting human ragdolls, lots of weird physics bugs). The graphics are boring as hell (low poly, uninteresting textures). The engine does not run as fast as it should, considering the low poly models, low poly (and small) maps and low res textures. The load times are comparable with Far Cry and Doom 3, which is just ridiculous considering the size of the map (de_dust).

These are the things I have noticed thus far. What do you all think?

wow

I think you and I played completely different games.
the load times were fast, the game looked great and ran damn well even on my other crap computer which I thought it wouldnt even run on... the physics are dumbed down on purpous for gameplay and netcode reasons.. its not like that in SP.

just wow.

 

[iamaelephant]

I think its really, really good, esp. for a BETA. ps. what are the specs you are running it on? and detail level?

Athlon XP 2500 @ 2.04GHz
512mb DDR333
MSI 9800 pro 128mb/256bit (R360 core) @ 435/378

My framerates are very good, but I get alot of annoying little pauses when some things happen. Hopefully will be fixed when I get my extra half a gig of RAM tomorrow, we'll see. Fact is, I expected it to run alot better considering the low res textures and models and extremely simple geometry.

I got 57fps on the video stress test, but that test is bullshit.

Also, anyone else getting really long pauses in some menus, like the Buy menu and graphics details menu?

 

[lans]

Check out the stress test.

That shows the kind of graphics in HL2, not cs:s.

and those are definately representative of the in-game graphics in HL2.

 

[DarkStar]

^^ So the physics are "dumbed down?" Why? I'm not a programmer, but isn't a Havok physics calculation a Havok physics calculation? Why would making the barrels lighter have any affect on netcode performance? How exactly are the physics "dumbed down?"

I don't understand.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

I haven't even played it yet but i love CS1.6 and if it's anything like with that with ragdolls (which apparently it is ) i'm going to love it.

Graphics i don't really give a flying fubar about. I've been playing CS for 4 years now and all that time there's been games with better graphics.

Plus this is a BETA version.

 

[czrsink]

I found that the barrels on the ramp were quiet 'weighty' ie you had to 'push' a couple of times to topple them.

If you want a bad example of physics, play Devastation...there's really no comparison between this beta test and the full retail game, Devastation. CS:Source is streets ahead, and Valve aren't even trying.

 

[Gunner]

I haven't even played it yet but i love CS1.6 and if it's anything like with that with ragdolls (which apparently it is ) i'm going to love it.

Graphics i don't really give a flying fubar about. I've been playing CS for 4 years now and all that time there's been games with better graphics.

Plus this is a BETA version.

QFE!

Give it some time iamelephant. Besides CS:S isn't HL2

 

[Mr Neutron]

Load times are no longer than in vanilla CS. What you experinced is probably Steam/server related or a glitch for your hardware setup.

I believe the player models in CS:S are the same from CS:CZ with a few texturing details added.

 

[sHm0zY]

I have had a go with CS:S, and I have to say, Source is not all it's cracked up to be. The physics are really bad compared with Far Cry (barrels as light as a feather, uninteresting human ragdolls, lots of weird physics bugs). The graphics are boring as hell (low poly, uninteresting textures). The engine does not run as fast as it should, considering the low poly models, low poly (and small) maps and low res textures. The load times are comparable with Far Cry and Doom 3, which is just ridiculous considering the size of the map (de_dust).

These are the things I have noticed thus far. What do you all think?

I have no idea what you are talkign avout this game blows away far cry

 

[EVIL]

Right.. CS:S is now the perfect representation of the capabillities of Source? -_- "I pitty teh fools"

 

[Sparta]

I have had a go with CS:S, and I have to say, Source is not all it's cracked up to be. The physics are really bad compared with Far Cry (barrels as light as a feather, uninteresting human ragdolls, lots of weird physics bugs). The graphics are boring as hell (low poly, uninteresting textures). The engine does not run as fast as it should, considering the low poly models, low poly (and small) maps and low res textures. The load times are comparable with Far Cry and Doom 3, which is just ridiculous considering the size of the map (de_dust).

These are the things I have noticed thus far. What do you all think?

I had no problem with the load times, and the physics are way better in Source then in Far Cry and Doom 3, although yeah the barrels are as light as feathers but oh well, I think the graphics could be a little better, because i've seen Source do better, but i only had a problem with the load times when i first loaded the maps, it was kinda long but then it evened up.

Also i can see why you complain about Source's graphics. The only thing its really missing is specularity on every surface, but it has normal/bump maps on every surface as well, and the guns reflect the world around you, which is cool but doesn't really effect gameplay. Also i'm pretty sure they made CS:S that way deliberately (Little specular maps). I mean look at Far Cry's multiplayer, it sucks dick, bigtime.

As for physics, the ragdoll isn't as good as in the HL2 video's but i imagine its more to do with the fact that its multiplayer so its toned down a bit. Also i think its way better then any other game out. I haven't seen any other game that has the wrists, neck and ankles on the model move with the ragdoll. Its pretty damn cool

Also i'm not really surprised about you complaining about it, you've been complaining about the game ever since the delay

 

[lans]

Also i'm not really surprised about you complaining about it, you've been complaining about the game ever since the delay

True, that's why I didn't take him seriously. :dozey:

I was amazed by the stress test though - the shaders and stuff really put life into that area - the way the walls reflected light, the water, the mirror distortation effects, the high-res wall textures - wow!

That is the representative of the actual in-game graphics, not cs:s.

 

[Interl@ce]

lol
Delays suck when you're anxious about a game, but in the end it definately pays off (except when waiting (DukeNukem)4 ever

 

[Kadayi]

Is negativity your job or something? You never seem to be happy about anything.

The guy reads the obituaries too cheer himself up. I honestly can't ever recall seeing one positive post by him on this forum about anything HL related, which is pretty funny considering his post count. Perhaps he might do one positive thing and leave (one can but hope).

CS:S is in BETA, which pretty much means that it's highly probable it isn't fully feature enabled. In a BETA you test out core issues then gradually add in other peripheral elements.

 

[iamaelephant]

Also i'm not really surprised about you complaining about it, you've been complaining about the game ever since the delay

I challenge you to find one single post where I complain about HL2. Yeah, I bitch about Valve because they are a pathetic excuse for a game developer. They make excellent games (well, they've made on excellent game) but they may aswell have George Bush running their PR department and Peter Griffin running their security and estimating release dates.

 

[Xenome]

I have had a go with CS:S, and I have to say, Source is not all it's cracked up to be. The physics are really bad compared with Far Cry (barrels as light as a feather, uninteresting human ragdolls, lots of weird physics bugs). The graphics are boring as hell (low poly, uninteresting textures). The engine does not run as fast as it should, considering the low poly models, low poly (and small) maps and low res textures. The load times are comparable with Far Cry and Doom 3, which is just ridiculous considering the size of the map (de_dust).

These are the things I have noticed thus far. What do you all think?

Wait for HL2 for a good demonstration of these superb physics.
Graphics are interesting and smooth to me, SINCE IT'S A PORT OF DE_DUST FROM CS1.6 TO CS:S.
Don't you see the cool light coming from above in the hallway, and the shining floor in the hallway?

The gameplay rocks.

Load times are much faster then doom III and Far cry here, perhaps you should upgrade you ram.

 

[SideEffect]

iamelephant, you might wanna upgrade that CPU, bottlenecking that card pretty heavily there...

 

[ferd]

Ive seen about 5 other gaming sites say the physics pwn...so...

 

[GRIMEY]

I have had a go with CS:S, and I have to say, Source is not all it's cracked up to be. The physics are really bad compared with Far Cry (barrels as light as a feather, uninteresting human ragdolls, lots of weird physics bugs). The graphics are boring as hell (low poly, uninteresting textures). The engine does not run as fast as it should, considering the low poly models, low poly (and small) maps and low res textures. The load times are comparable with Far Cry and Doom 3, which is just ridiculous considering the size of the map (de_dust).

These are the things I have noticed thus far. What do you all think?

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Lanthanide]

^^ So the physics are "dumbed down?" Why? I'm not a programmer, but isn't a Havok physics calculation a Havok physics calculation? Why would making the barrels lighter have any affect on netcode performance? How exactly are the physics "dumbed down?"

I don't understand.

I don't exactly know what the changes are between them, but I know it's along these general lines.

It's not so much that they've changed the weight of a barrel or anything, it's that they've taken a lot of the precision out of the calculations. So instead of something taking say 25 units of time to calculate and requiring 500 bytes of data to be sent on the network, with the lower-precision calculations it might take only 11 units of time and require 79 bytes of data to be sent over the network.

So the results aren't as accurate, realistic, or pretty, but they are a heck of a lot faster and less strain on the server/client. Which means more time/data can be spent on more important things, like keeping track of the players position and whether that bullet they just shot actually hit someone or not.

It's preferrable to have wacko-physics and a smooth, responsive game, rather than amazing physics but a game that is jerky and unpredictable (thus wasting the amazing physics anyway).

I believe they have said that HL2 multiplayer (or multiplayer mods, at least) can/will have more accurate physics than CS:S does, but not as accurate as the SP. And likely the MP maps won't be as populated with physics-enabled props as the SP maps are, in order to help reduce the physics work-load.

Whether or not it's better to have no physics at all is a matter of personal opinion - but Far-Cry multiplayer is pretty dull (0 physics, nothing in the environment moves at all), and IMO -any- amount of physics is better than none.

 

[Woggy]

The screenshots look pretty shit, in my entirely correct and unbiased opinion.
Its terrible performance is pretty suprising... I was expecting near half-life performance. The graphics are terrible, honestly. Im not sure what you guys see in them.

This is so average and boring looking. A boxe here, a blocky arch there. Yawn. http://www.csnation.net/images/content/image_31255.jpg

 

[BlueWhiteRed]

Don't judge Source by the beta CS:S, judge Source when you play Half-Life 2 ...

 

[^Ben]

lol!

THe physics are made like that so barrels dont get stuck everywhere and you have to keep running into things to keep moving them.

There are variables in the console for the physcis.

mp_solidplayer so you dont get knocked back when hitting stuff.
and some phys_ commands that change physics.

The performance is amazing on this engine, my freind with a 1.2ghz spyware infested piece of crap just played this game and got smoooth FPS.

I think the graphics are pretty darn great for how long they have been working on CS:S better then doom 3's 1 texture fits all situation.(yes i do realise that dust is mainly yellow)

 

[[Matt]]

Your issues with the game are unfounded.

1. The physics are really bad compared with Far Cry (barrels as light as a feather, uninteresting human ragdolls, lots of weird physics bugs)

a. The physics seem really bad simply because they've been severely 'dumbed down' in multiplayer fro bandwidth reasons. They will be vastly superior in Half Life 2's single player campaign. Far cry had a good physics model but in my opinion the physics in painkiller are superior and thats a game that uses the Havok 2 physics engine in an unmodified form. Valve have taken the Havok 2 physics engine and modified it greatly to improve upon it for use in Half Life 2. On top of that Far cry doesnt even HAVE physics in multiplayer!

2. The graphics are boring as hell (low poly, uninteresting textures).

a. What do you expect from a game thats a mere conversion of counter strike 1? The engine is capable of far superior graphics! See below for reference...

3. The engine does not run as fast as it should, considering the low poly models, low poly (and small) maps and low res textures.

a. Not sure what you mean but i get double the frame rate in cs source than what i get in doom 3 and i run source at 1152x864 high settings and im forced to run doom 3 at 800x600 medium settings....

4. The load times are comparable with Far Cry and Doom 3, which is just ridiculous considering the size of the map (de_dust).

a. Not true. Whilst the map may take ages to load when playing the first time thats because steam is fetching resources from valves content servers to store on your hard drive before loading them. Every time you need to load the map afterwards steam merely acceses your hard drive for the data it needs without having to fetch anything. Ive tested load times in miltiplayer maps in all games and heres what ive found.

de_dust_cz
18 seconds for cz

de_dust
29 seconds for source

monkey bay map
1min 5 seconds far cry

death chamber map
1min 4 seconds

Whilst its not directly comparable as the engines are not loading the same maps you can still see that source load times are nowhere near as long as both doom 3 and far cry!

 

[Absinthe]

Holy shit, what the **** did you people expect in terms of graphics? CS:S is essentially a Source port of Counter-Strike. Honestly, did you exepct it to look like god damn Far Cry?

Although I have not played CS:S, I have played the HL2 Alpha. From what I've played, the Source engine is absolutely fine. The physics are good. The textures are nice. And the load times are minimal.

 

[Vidrio]

lol I think some people are getting the idea its gonna be a cs2
;p

 

[^Ben]

Some people are just extremly negative towards valve and wont wait to throw their toys out of the pram.

Guess what i've seen the trainstation and coast levels from the e32004 videis and ive also seen them in the alpha. While both are good you will be glad that they delayed the game.