Anyone else extremely disappointed in Source?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A) the models are low poly because they're directly imported from CS or CZ (one of the 2)
B) It's a BETA, and therefor not in any way representative of the final product!
C) How long is this topic gonna be? please everybody stop talking about long load times and lowres stuff because it's more then "said and done" in this topic.
 
TheWart said:
Well, if CS:S in its current state *is* a representation of what Source has to offer, then yes, I am dissapointed. There is no denying the textures, esp. the ground, are way too bland.
Click to expand...


Did you notice the shiny floor tiles in the hall?
 
Iamelephant if you didn't spend the last year bad-mouthing the game before it was even out, I might feel your thoughts were more credible.

That is, if I hadn't played the game myself and seen it was awesome.

I love the VST by the way, that is awesome graphics :D
 
Btw when there is a possibility of 60 players being on the screen at once, you have to be a little more careful with world poly-counts and texture detail. But it still looks awesome anyway, maybe you set up your config wrong?
 
The engine is butter smooth on my machine - 60 fps at 1024x768 with detail on high but no AA/AF.

The graphics may not be bleeding-edge, but they still look damn good, and they aren't so detailed that you need a $500 card to see them, as in other games I could mention. Don't get me wrong, detail is nice, but not when it detracts from the gameplay.

Valve has done a terrific job balancing eye candy/new things with classic CS gameplay. Never once did I feel uncomfortable or lost playing it.
 
Stryyder said:
Did you notice the shiny floor tiles in the hall?
Click to expand...


Yes, those look nice. I meant the textures of the 'standard dusty' ground outside.
 
Don't know what everybody is bitching about. I think the graphics look great.

But the real question is: how's the gameplay? As Far Cry proved, a game with great graphics and subpar gameplay is a bad game.

As for physics, I remember Valve saying something like they opted for "fun" physics instead of realistic physics in CS:S.
 
It's amazingly fun :D

Just its to bad when your team are a bunch of idiots.
 
Sparta said:
Here's an average screenshot, everythings on high, but because its a beta somethings are missing. In the E3 Demo there was normal mapping on the players arms (In first person mode anyway) which looked really cool but that aint in there. Anyway there's bumpmaps and shit on the walls that remind me alot of the palm trees you find in Far Cry. Anyway enough babbling

1026x768 or something, all settings on High, No AA or AF, And for some reason the shader settings aren't enabled

Headshot :(
Click to expand...

Weapon model that is viewed in 1st person (including hands) is different one from the 3rd person view and that's why is more errr, less, NO! more detailed. :D
 
i think iamelephant is just being honest. After playing the hl2 leak u soon realise source is not as powerfull as everyone would like.

Now after playing dust, which is a very small map, i am dissapointed the source engine doesnt render it better with more fps. Graphics are fine with some nice touches here and there but to me source is like the HL1 engine on steroids. More powerfull but still limited in a number of ways.

p.s the physics in HL2 are much better than in cs source.
 
Pssh. I rolled that tire at the tunnels all the way up to CT spawn, and it took over 5 minutes. Don't tell me the physics suck, because that took effort.
 
iamaelephant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not making too much sense here, iam.

"Pathetic excuse for a game developer, BUT make excellent games"

They may have a pathetic excuse for a PR department, but they are a top-notch game development company, revered by everyone in the industry because they have some of the brightest minds and best skills.

You do seem a bit pessimistic about everything. I suspect you haven't complained about HL2 because it's just not out yet, give it some time and it will happen :) Cheer up, things are not that bad :thumbs:

Oh and I think it's quite silly to be disappointed in a game just because the barrels are light. That's like disliking a movie because you don't like the color of actor's shirts or something. It isn't like barrels are the key element of gameplay. And, the weight of a barrel can be changed at will, it's just a number which is easy to adjust. I guess they just didn't set that number to your liking.

Stan R.
 
ukfluke said:
i think iamelephant is just being honest. After playing the hl2 leak u soon realise source is not as powerfull as everyone would like.

Now after playing dust, which is a very small map, i am dissapointed the source engine doesnt render it better with more fps. Graphics are fine with some nice touches here and there but to me source is like the HL1 engine on steroids. More powerfull but still limited in a number of ways.

p.s the physics in HL2 are much better than in cs source.
Click to expand...


One using the leak as a basis for you decision is in itself suspect as we have no way of knowing how representative it is of the final product how did the leaked doom alpha compare to doom.

I was playing on a server last night at 1024 x768 with high settings and avergating 50-60 fps and 63 other players. I personally feel that the graphics/performance ratio for the beta is excellent.
 
iamaelephant said:
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?
Click to expand...

well frist of this isn't a tech demo, its a beta

the physics are pretty good and remeber there degraded for muiltplayer

again this isn't a techdemo and things like low poly and res texture do depend if you card can handle them the 9600xt i was running it on look very nice nicer than doom3 and farcry thats just becasue the card surpports it and being fast it even runs on my 9100 (benchmark was 35fps for that card 60 for the other)

i do have to say load times do suck but after afew times switching around a few things it isn't so long
frist time about 5 mins... 10th time 30sec-3min

also the game doesn't use everything the engine has

betas are not suppose to impress this isn't the unoffical e3show
wait until hl2 comes then you won't be complaining :thumbs:
 
iamaelephant said:
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?
Click to expand...

Before I start I just wanna say for the record I am no fanboy lol I noticed the barrels are easy to move, but granted other object are much more weighed down so to speak. To my understanding you (the map maker) have control over how much "umpf" it requires to move an object. Nothing to worry about trust me. As for the barrels in cs source, they are empty and well, move in very realistic fashion imo. I have all details jacked up and get 100 fps, so I dont know what all the fuss is about. I think source is outstanding, I am looking forward to working with it.

*edit* forgot to mention I like the ragdoll more than far crys and max payne 2, but max payne 2 was almost as good imo
 
DarkStar said:
Woah...the physics are bad compared to Far Cry? I thought physics were supposed to be Source's forte!
Click to expand...

Source uses a modded 1.0 Havok physics engine, if you wanna see good physics grab a demo of Max Payne 2, it uses Havok 2.0
 
Yeh also want to play max payne 2 multiplayer?

Hitman 1 i belive was the first game to use ragdoll.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Quoted for emphasis.

Show me a multiplayer FPS that has better physics.
Then, and only then, will I care.
Click to expand...

I personally thought the physics in the Far Cry multiplayer were better. I found no difference between th sp physics and the mp physics. You could jump on barrels, stack bodies, and watch as vehicles exploded into individual parts which acted realisticly, atleast more so then cs:sources, under a few laws of kinematics.
 
Hopefully this means iamelephant will not be playing CS:S. Which is a good thing, I never understood people that kept playing games they were extremely disapointed in.
 
Wow this is kinda intresting. Before cs:s was released as a beta people was really happy to play it and see how the source engine was like. Now you say that this doesnt compare at all to hl2.

I really agree how demanding it is even though the textures are low res, maps is blocky and player models not that great at all.
The shiny stuff in the tunnels are just a pathetich excuse to use dx9 shaders. How is it that a tunnel in a warm country is wet? I dont get it.
 
Lol are you guys who say it's demanding playing on 286's?

Stuff does'nt have to be wet to shine.
 
No but i want at least 99fps as i get in ut2004 wich looks a lot better, theres no arguing that.
Then what is it, cause whatever it is it looks retarded.
 
Wow you know its people like this that are so dam negative that just really pushes my buttons....this is a freakin BETA for crying out loud...gabe himself said to think of this as just that,a test to get steam ready, and not as a final representation of what the game will be like. :flame: But personaly I am blown away by css beta I never really thought i would get that big into cs again, but man after playing last night Im inlove all over again just little things like the fact that your mussle flash lights up the area around you or when you fire in dense smoke it lights the smoke up with light....so many little touches like that in this beta makes it what it is and what it will be....and as for HL2 well there is no doubt in my mind after seeing css, that it is gonna be one of the best games ever.
 
From what i've seen of CS:S, (The videos from Fileplanet) the rag-dolls are immensely superior to Far Cry's stiff mannequins. The barrels looked a little iffy, but i'll accept that variable phyics were dumbed down for CS:S Beta. The gameplay i'm not going to comment on because I thought CS sucked ass, but the game overally looks fairly good considering it's a port of a five-year old mod, and took, IIRC, 5-6 months to develop.
 
fireinside isnt it bedtime for you. Why is it so hard to agree that in the case cs: source the engine really sucks. Im pretty sure that HL2 will look a lot better and wont have much worse fps than cs:s because they will use it more efficiant, instead of just having the game on a great engine but not make use of it wich will just make it slow. Allright for some specs, 3200+ xp 1024mb ram 9700pro everything is overclocked a bit.

*edit* Please if you know anything about betas you know that the graphics almost never change a bit, as in savage, groundcontrol 2 and wich most of you know Doom 3 wich was an alpha.
 
Ok you either have AA + AF right up because my freind who just hits minimum specs gets over 40fps
 
Im running everything at max except af and aa wich is turned off. I get avarage 40-50 and sometimes down to 30 wich is just laughable. Dont say that its because drivers or anyting i just had my computer formatted.
 
Well i dunno, because all the other people i have spoken too have not had this problem.
 
What a coinsidence all people i spoken to seem to have some minor or even mayor framedrops when playing all at high.
 
Hopefully CS:S is not a correct representation of what HL2 will look and play like because if it is, shame on valve. Didn't they put like millions of dollars and 4 or 5 years into devloping the source engine? With that amount of money and time I don't expect to see the player's only interaction with objects being that of the expelsion of two opposite polaritys like that of magnets. A lot of the textures also looked liked textures from the original Tony Hawk Games. I believe all of these problems found in CS:S is because they havn't been able to polish it up from working on HL2 which will be nothing less than a work of art. From what Shomzy (spelling?) was saying about his trip to valve it sounds like the physics and the graphics in HL2 are a lot different from CS:S. Hopefully Shomzy is reading this and will reply on how close HL2 was to CS:S ;)
 
Hey pooslice, you're new here, so here's some advice.

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all.
 
negativecreep the u dont get that magnet repulsion effect with objects in HL2. The reason u get that in cs:s is the limitations in the multiplayer. Its too much data to send over the network.

but that aside all this talk of maps being 50 times the size of Hl maps was kind of misleading. For example theres no way u could have 50 dust maps all connect and rendered at the same time...no chance!!
 
Well if you have looked at the videos then you would find out that they are not the same.

What a coincidence you have registered to post on this topic and with a pretty obscure problem that all the people i have spoken to or most of the forum threads i have read don't have the same problem.

Yes you can ukfluke if you knew anything about mapping you would be able to easily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
CombineAdvisor3
Source 2 expectations?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Gabe Newell's AMA summary (January 17, 2017)
Replies
1
Views
24K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
M
Dota 2 in VR (Need help with shaders and textures)
Replies
0
Views
1K
mrpresidentb
M
Back
Top