New engine?

[Decon]

Another idiot shot down. GG HL2.net.

Can you elaborate please, I would very much like to have a dialog with all of you if you would just pause for a moment and address me argumentatively, politely and reasonably.
All I saw so far was fanboy syndrome devoid of debatable content.

 

[Druckles]

Just because no-one agrees with you doesn't make them fanboys or unreasonable. It also tends to mean you could be wrong.

We've been here for a while, and we've listened to Valve. As was said right at the start, Valve are not producing another engine for Episode Three. The reasons have been outlined. If you say anything about being "unreasonable" or "fanboyish", I am going to quote every single post in this thread which explained the reasons, "argumentatively", why we won't get a new source engine, and then quote every single post in this thread which are fanboyish.

Don't tempt me.

 

[Decon]

The reasons have been outlined.

Is it because they are overstretched? I find it odd that Valve undertakes all kinds of side projects instead of concentrating on HL2 series.
All I'm saying is that it is obvious we won't have that kind of streamlined immersive FPS for a very long time and it would be a shame if cutting edge technology wouldn't be used so it can withstand the test of time. This basically refers to the fact that we are now at a point where it is possible to make a game look almost photorealistic(Crysis) so anything made at this point and not before that point would weather the test of time.

Surely you feel this regret for Half Life 1.

 

[Druckles]

Why? Because the Source engine is perfectly fine as it is. Valve don't want to spend the next ten years creating a state of the art engine, because they'll leave us hanging, waiting for the next update, and it will only suffer further Valve/DNF curses and might never be released. They also don't want to stretch the Source engine like they did with Half-Life 2, because there's so many people they don't want to leave behind. The source engine is still apparently quite open to new enhancements as you saw with dynamic shadows and HDR being included.

This is why.

No game that is produced now will "stand the test of time". Sure, it might last slightly longer, but is that really worth giving up a decent storyline, gameplay, physics or AI for?

The reason Crysis won't last that long, is that two years down the line, someone else will have come up with some even more impressive graphics, like Far Cry 2 with even more fancy effects like dynamic weather and regrowing trees, at which people will look back at Crysis and look at it as an old, dated engine with poor physics, far too many bugs and a rather poor storyline, which is what Crysis is, behind the pretty effects. Besides, even if Crysis did outlast Far Cry 2, for instance, 10 years down the line, new technologies like ray tracing will become conceivable, leaving Crysis a footprint in the walk of gaming.

A game with a immersive gameplay like Half-Life, however, has even now stood up to a ten year "test of time" because people still enjoy playing it, despite the poor graphics for today's standard. To further illustrate my point, Half-Life 2 was considered a work of art when it first came out, and would barely run on my own computer back then. After taking 6 years to create, you're even now telling me how it doesn't look that pretty anymore. Does it really sound like those graphics stood "the test of time"? Absolutely not! It's the story, the gameplay and the fun which makes Half-Life 2 stand above the rest.

As I said, a "photorealistic" scenario, while achievable, is not conceivable at this stage. We're at the point in technology where 3D is everyday. If you recall 15 years ago, 3D physics was in the state that this "photorealism" is today. Sure, we'll advance eventually, but they don't make games to advance, they make games to please us, the audience. And right now, the audience want fun. Pretty effects are a side order which we'll enjoy or game with, but I don't want to have to play Half-Life like I did Crysis, being constantly upset about the bugs which had crept in, disappointed in the storyline, and generally miserable that while I had plenty to look at, I'd rather be playing Half-Life.

 

[-Psy-]

Is it because they are overstretched? I find it odd that Valve undertakes all kinds of side projects instead of concentrating on HL2 series.
All I'm saying is that it is obvious we won't have that kind of streamlined immersive FPS for a very long time and it would be a shame if cutting edge technology wouldn't be used so it can withstand the test of time. This basically refers to the fact that we are now at a point where it is possible to make a game look almost photorealistic(Crysis) so anything made at this point and not before that point would weather the test of time.

Games always age. Some more then others. There is nothing that can be done. Crysis will start to look aged in a few years time which proves a point - Why spend years developing a new engine when the engine you currently have is perfectly adequate for your needs and your entire development team have become use to working with it?

Why would Valve want to spend time working on a new engine when they could be making new games? You know how bad Valve are at keeping to their release dates and creating a new engine would only make that fact worse.

 

[LackingSaint]

Jesus guys you're appreciating one game over another you're all idiot fanboys. ALL OF YOU.

 

[mrman234]

Valve really should work on Source though. It's really start to look old. Static shadows, pre-calculated reflections, the entity/brush/magical flying banana limits, and the homosexuality that is water are some of the problems I see.

We payed $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for our rigs and now we're stuck with anus-flavoured graphics.

 

[Absinthe]

Then don't buy any more games running on the Source engine.

Fucking idiots here, seriously.

 

[Shift]

We payed $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for our rigs and now we're stuck with anus-flavoured graphics.

Thats why you are an idiot. Dont like the graphics, then dont ****ing play it, no one gives a shit.

 

[Decon]

Thats why you are an idiot. Dont like the graphics, then dont ****ing play it, no one gives a shit.

Graphics are not a thing to be liked or not liked, certain standards are made by other products, and then you automatically compare from an objective viewpoint.
And from that objective viewpoint HL2/source is falling behind.
It's as simple as that and your infantile insulting comments are not welcome!

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Graphics are not a thing to be liked or not liked, certain standards are made by other products, and then you automatically compare from an objective viewpoint.
And from that objective viewpoint HL2/source is falling behind.
It's as simple as that and your infantile insulting comments are not welcome!

HL2 is 4 years old, so that doesn't count, you can't compare it to games out now.
Apart from Crysis, how many other games look that much better than Source?
Unreal engine games don't really look that much better and look worse in some, Call of Duty 4 again doesn't look that much better than Source.

 

[Decon]

I'm comparing E1 and E2 whenever I say HL2, because that's the latest of HL2 obviously!
And COD4 looks awful and very primitive, it is Quake 3 engine after all and COD4 is hugely graphically dumbed down because of consoles.
Consoles continue to systematically halt all progress, just the fact that a certain game is being developed on multi platforms makes it less for PC than otherwise would have been if it was exclusive for PC.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I'm comparing E1 and E2 whenever I say HL2, because that's the latest of HL2 obviously!
And COD4 looks awful and very primitive, it is Quake 3 engine after all and COD4 is hugely graphically dumbed down because of consoles.
Consoles continue to systematically halt all progress, just the fact that a certain game is being developed on multi platforms makes it less for PC than otherwise would have been if it was exclusive for PC.

But how many PC exclusives look a lot better than Source?
While i do believe consoles kinda hold PC back, thats not the argument.
All i can say is that Source is not that far behind when compared to other PC games, yes Crysis looks miles better, but that's it.
Source is a very versatile engine and will be around for a long time, and you won't see any other Crysis type engines for a while.
Half-life 2 and Source will be remembered long after Crysis is dead. Look at Half-Life that is still regarded as one of the best games ever, while Far Cry the Crysis of it's day has been long forgotten.

 

[Druckles]

Graphics are not a thing to be liked or not liked, certain standards are made by other products, and then you automatically compare from an subjective viewpoint.
And from that subjective viewpoint HL2/source is falling behind.
It's as simple as that and your infantile insulting comments are deserved!

Fixed, fixed, fixed.

 

[-Psy-]

And COD4 looks awful and very primitive, it is Quake 3 engine after all and COD4 is hugely graphically dumbed down because of consoles.

You must have some high standards because I thought CoD4 looked fantastic. Just because it's a heavily modified Quake 3 engine doesn't mean it's "primitive". That's like saying Windows is "primitive" because it's based of the same design made over 10 years ago.

 

[Apocalypse89]

We payed $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for our rigs and now we're stuck with anus-flavoured graphics.

If you haven't noticed from the constant Steam hardware surveys, Valve makes their games for the 99% of PC gamers who don't own a NASA supercomputer. You can play Crysis if you want to stare at shiny shaders or fancy shadows all day . For those who want a decent-looking game that doesn't melt our graphics card through our PC case and set our house on fire, we'll play something else.

And COD4 looks awful and very primitive, it is Quake 3 engine after all and COD4 is hugely graphically dumbed down because of consoles.

Excuse my ignorance, but I always thought that Infinity Ward abandoned the Q3 engine after COD1?

 

[Laivasse]

I'm comparing E1 and E2 whenever I say HL2, because that's the latest of HL2 obviously!
And COD4 looks awful and very primitive, it is Quake 3 engine after all and COD4 is hugely graphically dumbed down because of consoles.
Consoles continue to systematically halt all progress, just the fact that a certain game is being developed on multi platforms makes it less for PC than otherwise would have been if it was exclusive for PC.

You might not like the fact that consoles are causing PC graphics development to plateau for a while, but it is a fact. It's also a fact that's good for gaming since it allows PC users, the majority of which have mid-range rigs or lower, to catch up and maybe even break into PC gaming for the first time.

High end PC exclusives like Crysis are the exception rather than the rule. In fact I can't think of any more games like that in the pipeline (is Dragon Age for consoles too?), and after Crytek's little bitching spree about PC games not selling well that type of game could be even less frequent, if not extinct for good.

There's less pressure than ever on Valve to update Source since it already looks fine, graphically. Episode 2 on its highest settings doesn't look especially inferior to any 360 port you care to mention (not to mention the fact that it's simply a better game in design terms than almost anything out there). 'Wouldn't it be really nice if all graphics were really nice' - sure, but you are overexaggerating the need for Valve to update. The graphics race has slowed down a bit and it's a good thing for PC gaming.

 

[Apocalypse89]

Good point...I remember before the "age of bumpmapping" as I like to call it, which started around the same time that Doom 3/Far Cry/HL2 came out, even a mid-end rig could run most new games on their highest settings. Hopefully it won't be long before that happens with the current generation of games.

 

[mrman234]

Valve really should work on Source though. It's really start to look old. Static shadows, pre-calculated reflections, the entity/brush/magical flying banana limits, and the homosexuality that is water are some of the problems I see.

We payed $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for our rigs and now we're stuck with anus-flavoured graphics.

Hey I don't remember saying that... that's fricken stupid...

Valve didn't spend 5 years developing an engine so they could say "k guys time for a new one LOL"

 

[Absinthe]

I don't remember making this post!

 

[cjohnson]

Well one example of how good source is is GMOD. Tell me another engine that lets you do all the things you can do in GMOD and so easily!

 

[Que-Ever]

I haven't bought a game on an engine newer than the source engine and I am very happy.

 

[mrman234]

I don't remember making this post!

I don't even remember buying a computer.