New engine?

[Decon]

I was wondering is any official information available on the implementation of new technologies?
Although Source is a good engine, it seems to be obsolete for quite a while now(especially for outdoors), I guess we've all been spoiled by Crysis, you just cannot go on without automatic comparisons. I would hate for Valve to be tied down just because they are committed to episodic nature of HL2.

I noticed the inclusion of dynamic shadows in E2, maybe E3 will be also a premiere for a new engine?
And are there any real Source engine enhancements possible to make it to be competitive with Crysis engine?

 

[Druckles]

No, there will be no new engine.

No, Source isn't obselete.

Yes, source is extensible.

Yes, Episode Three will have new features.

No, it won't look as good as Crysis.

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.

You can take that however you wish.

 

[Omnomnick]

Didnt I post a thread EXACTLY the same as this in 'Episode 3' .

I hear the search button works wonders...

 

[Decon]

No, it won't look as good as Crysis.

Why? Because the Source engine is perfectly fine as it is.

This doesn't add up, do we have to wait for 3-5 years before games start to look like Crysis?

 

[jondy]

Current Source games don't look like Crysis because Valve want a decent percentage of their demographic - PC users - to be able to play their games.

 

[Pesmerga]

This doesn't add up, do we have to wait for 3-5 years before games start to look like Crysis?

...wow...

 

[Decon]

Current Source games don't look like Crysis because Valve want a decent percentage of their demographic - PC users - to be able to play their games.

But that same demographic can play Crysis if they use proper graphic settings, no one is forcing anyone to use the highest settings, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

 

[Pesmerga]

That's not true at all- most lower range cards that do support Source (and play it with a decent fps) do not support Crysis. Also, Valve has stated time and again that they update Source when they feel it pertains to the games they are developing.

In any case, I think the art style in TF2, Portal, and Ep2 are much more pleasing to the eyes than Crysis ever was.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Valve actually cares about their customers and want the widest range of customers to enjoy the game. Source still supports DX8, while loads of the newer engines are already ditching DX9 SM2 support. The Source engine can still hold it's own against plenty of the other engines out their without needing a high end pc to enjoy. Valve prefers that everyone benefits, not just those with the high end PCs If you look at the Valve Hardware Survey you will see that the majority out there cannot handle Crysis. Simply put Valve are not in competition with Crysis the Source engines does fine for what it's built for, the facial animations is by far better than Crysis.

I personally hated Cyrsis, although it looked awesome on high, i never completed it because i got bored. And i believe myself and plenty of other guys here would agree that we prefer Valve to focus on the Story and Gameplay more than Graphics, which was Crysis's downfall.

But that same demographic can play Crysis if they use proper graphic settings, no one is forcing anyone to use the highest settings, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

So your telling those Guys to play it on low, which make it look ugly, when previously they were running on High with AA and HDR on Source. That's really gonna make Valve popular by making the vast majority of there customers play the game on the lowest setting, just so those graphic whores like you can enjoy the pretty graphics on high.

 

[Absinthe]

But that same demographic can play Crysis if they use proper graphic settings, no one is forcing anyone to use the highest settings, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

Oh yes. Let's keep designing games that ensure most PC gamers will have to run them at dog-shit levels! Surely that will bring in the cashflow needed to revive the platform!

What backward thinking. I had a pretty decrepit and aged PC, but I was able to run HL2 on medium-high settings with a smooth FPS, and the game still managed to look wonderful. I would hope than when Half-Life 3 comes around, I similarly won't need an uber PC to experience most of its visual splendor. Games like Crysis that require top-tier machines to run as the developer intended are precisely what turn so many off from PC gaming.

Work with the systems most of your customer base have. That's what Valve are doing,

 

[Decon]

Never mind, I just happen to like progress and new technologies, and believe that anyone who likes that should pay for that by buying a new computer.

This mentality of waiting for some players to catch up is not only not conducive to progress but encourages status quo, I'm sure many people were motivated by Crysis to upgrade, same thing would happen with Valve, and eventually those left behind would be negligible minority and deservedly so because they don't care about quality and improvements.

 

[kacation_man]

The Cry2Engine was developed over like.. what.. 8-10 years.. sure it looks nice, but if any of you have actually played it, you'd see know its not the best game around. Sure it looks nice, but the game is not that much fun.

Keep in mind that the source engine ( the original ) was built ( or at least released ) some where 2003-2004 ( i dont remember when CSS came out ). So the fact that your comparing it even know to this day shows how far its come.

Honestly, after seeing a lot of custom made Counter Strike skins. I think that the Source engine, granted enough time be put in to texture models, could rival crysis. But i could be wrong too .

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Never mind, I just happen to like progress and new technologies, and believe that anyone who likes that should pay for that by buying a new computer.

This mentality of waiting for some players to catch up is not only not conducive to progress but encourages status quo, I'm sure many people were motivated by Crysis to upgrade, same thing would happen with Valve, and eventually those left behind would be negligible minority and deservedly so because they don't care about quality and improvements.

This status quo is as pathetic showing off your E-penis online, nobody cares if you got a kick ass pc that can max out Crysis. The fact is not everyone can afford to upgrade often, real life can unfortunately get in the way and some people like myself don't wish to waste that much cash to keep upgrading my PC. Like many people, gaming is a past time and i refuses to keep shelling out every few months just to be able to enjoy a game. You think that loads of people would upgrade, no they won't they will tell Valve to **** off, look at games like the Sims 2 and Wow, they sell loads, why, because low end users can enjoy them. Now look at Crysis it was a failier for the amount that Crytex invested in it it, it sold no where near what they expected. But i doubt you would understand, as you think it's good business sense to leave behind those who can't upgrade calling them negligible. their money is as good as yours and ignoring them is stupid, and we will go else where. I don't care about graphics and other stupid effects, i want good gameplay and a great story, something Cysis can't offer and something you don't need a great pc for.

 

[Decon]

I don't care about graphics and other stupid effects

Although I find this statement unfathomable like there is some sort of fake exclusivity of graphics and story, you have to realize that you are a very tiny minority.
Furthermore I sense fakeness in this statement, because after all, graphics and "stupid" effects(like physics) just makes everything far more enjoyable and more immersive.
I don't see any reasonable substance in your statement.

 

[Escaep]

Also with the economy how it is here in the states people are not going to keep shelling thousands of dollars to play the latest games.

 

[Decon]

Games worth buying are very rare, no more than 10-12 per year.

 

[Tenebrais]

I wouldn't call a little under one a month "very rare". That's still far more games than I buy.

 

[Shift]

Never mind, I just happen to like progress and new technologies, and believe that anyone who likes that should pay for that by buying a new computer.

This mentality of waiting for some players to catch up is not only not conducive to progress but encourages status quo, I'm sure many people were motivated by Crysis to upgrade, same thing would happen with Valve, and eventually those left behind would be negligible minority and deservedly so because they don't care about quality and improvements.

Well frankly, I find it very hard to believe that people who earn there money will wanna throw a good majority of it away every few months just so their PC can keep up with the latest hardware requirements. Crysis proved to me that the direction a lot of game developers are taking is making a mockery of PC gaming, relishing graphics over gameplay and plot, which is exactly what Crysis did. The result? Another edition to the games I buy one day, and take back the next, if only developers would take by Valve's example, then there would be a lot more games on the market worth buying.

And frankly, anyone who wants to waste thousands of pounds of hard earned cash every month just to keep up with the latest games needs their ****ing head examined.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Although I find this statement unfathomable like there is some sort of fake exclusivity of graphics and story, you have to realize that you are a very tiny minority.
Furthermore I sense fakeness in this statement, because after all, graphics and "stupid" effects(like physics) just makes everything far more enjoyable and more immersive.
I don't see any reasonable substance in your statement.

I was referring sorely on graphics, not physics etc. I really don't care about HDR and all those stupid effects, sure they look good, but i can live without them, i managed to when that sort of tech simply wasn't possible and game devs actually had to work hard, in making games interesting instead of simply increasing graphics and calling it a day.And i can tell you for a fact that i am NOT in a tiny minority.
Things that actually contribute to gameplay such as physics , realistic gunplay etc don't require high performance, and i prefer them much more than graphics. Like i said before Crysis is a good looking game, i must admit that, but the gameplay sucks you could easily see that most of the time went into new graphical features over gameplay and story which sucked compared to other FPS out there. Even the graphics could't get me to complete the game, and i stopped playing it out of boredom. I'm not saying there is an exclusivity of graphics and story, just that i prefer Valve to work more on the story and new gameplay over graphics, thinking something as awesome as the gravity gun.

And frankly, anyone who wants to waste thousands of pounds of hard earned cash every month just to keep up with the latest games needs their ****ing head examined.

QFT

 

[Pesmerga]

Let's see... best selling PC games ever...

Myst
Diablo II
Half-Life
WoW
Starcraft
The Sims

Yes, graphics snobs are obviously the majority.

 

[MorganFreeman911]

Let's see... best selling PC games ever...

Myst
Diablo II
Half-Life
WoW
Starcraft
The Sims

Yes, graphics snobs are obviously the majority.

Naturally, of course.

Probably around 90% of the people on earth can't even RUN Crysis. You need some form of Monolith to even attempt to run it, and with the added "bonus" of Vista, it makes it even MORE fun to run on the highest of high.

 

[Druckles]

Never mind, I just happen to like progress and new technologies.

How can your definition of "progress" come around when there's no-one who will buy the games because there's no-one who can run the games? The developers will indubitably lose all faith in the platform and not bother producing a sequel or advance their technologies further.

We're all quite aware of what we can do on the software side. It's been done, so we know it's possible. Why would progressing (or digressing) the Source engine to the state of the CryEngine help progress anymore? All that would do is make it look pretty. Progress involves creating new technology and advancing to a state which we didn't have before. If the technologies are already there, present in other games, it's not really progress if we just copy it, is it? It's certainly not progress if no-one then bothers buying it!

Furthermore, there is a lot more to "progress" than just graphics and fancy effects. You're one of those morons that would look at a website and say "oh, it looks pretty" and as soon as someone says "oh, I didn't design it" you immediately go "urgh, well you're crap then aren't you" assuming that the skin which you see before you is all there is to a website. What about the physics side to it? Or the gameplay? The work Valve are doing at the moment with the game itself could be considered progress. Portal was certainly progress, even if the engine is "obselete".

And I don't see how people who'd prefer a decent game over pretty graphics are in the minority if you're the only person on this board who bothers to stand up for the opinion, and if everyone continues to purchase Valve games but can't even be arsed to pay for Crysis!

 

[Kula Meenur]

Didnt I post a thread EXACTLY the same as this in 'Episode 3' .

I hear the search button works wonders...

This.

USE THE FREAKIN' SEARCH BUTTON!!!!​

 

[Decon]

Btw, I noticed that the quality of dynamic shadows included in E2 is of very low quality, is this indicative of the maximum limits of Source engine?

 

[-Psy-]

I assume you are talking about the diffuse shadows cast by the flashlight. They are fuzzy around the edges because it looks more realistic. It's either that or the horrible stencil shadows as seen in Doom 3.

There is no reason for Valve to create a new engine. Look how long it took them to make the Source engine! I don't think they want to spend more time creating a new engine instead of creating games which they are already well-known for delaying.

Steam Hardware Survey

Look at the survey. Valve ask Steam users to do this survey every six months to see what the average PC is capable of. This is so they can add new features and optimise their engine with their user's hardware in mind.

Crysis really highlighted that PC gamers don't care about state-of-the-art technology if they can't run it on their own PC and Crytek failed to see this during development.

 

[LackingSaint]

Jesus christ, this is just stupid. NO, THE SOURCE ENGINE WILL NOT BE REPLACED. It's currently one of the best physics engines running, and just because a few people deicde to get fangasms about the graphics of Crysis, DOES NOT MEAN VALVE WILL CHANGE IT. Every engine has a selling point, and just because Crysis' is more noticable (graphics), does not mean Valve will make themselves every other game studios, by getting rid of the one thing that makes their engine different (physics), in favour of PRETTY WATER.


Let me tell you something. My computer I currently have is very outdated. So you know what I had to do when I palyed ep2? Turn down the graphics to the point of it looking the same as HL2, then window it. And you know what? I friggin LOVED IT. Possibly my favourite game of all time. Recently, I played it at a friends house, on a massive HD PC.... and it was the same experience. Not any better, not any worse.. So yeah.

 

[sgt niallr]

Half Life sells because of it's character development, rich storyline and most of all the game play.
It might never be up there with Gears Of War, Halo or Crysis. But at least it will sell because most of the people with PCs can play it.

 

[Druckles]

in favour of PRETTY WATER.

Tbh, I could do with pretty water :|

And actually, graphics do make a lot of difference to a game. Without its graphics, Crysis wouldn't have been the game it was.

 

[LackingSaint]

Half Life sells because of it's character development, rich storyline and most of all the game play.
It might never be up there with Gears Of War, Halo or Crysis. But at least it will sell because most of the people with PCs can play it.

Get out.

 

[Decon]

It's currently one of the best physics engines running

WTF?! Isn't Havok the physics engine?
And what does that have to do with it anyway since Crysis has far better physics, in HL2 you can't break a tree with rockets and grenades, you can't break a wooden door. There are very few classes of objects with embedded physics in HL2. Even the same looking wood planks are not breakable. HL2 having the best physics, what the hell are you talking about?!
This must be the dumbest thing I ever saw on this forum besides Crysis being crap, the same game that got average of 9/10 rating...and will sell high but over a longer period of time, obviously.
Wow, talking about cognitive dissonance/fanboy syndrome on this forum...no intelligent dialog possible.

And you know what? I friggin LOVED IT.

For f**k sake, of course you loved one of the best FPSs ever made...you can't play anything else anyway. Are you braindead, what is wrong with you, can't you at least discern basic categories of criticism. I'm starting to get sick of this mindless mentality on this forum.

 

[ríomhaire]

Half Life sells because of it's character development, rich storyline and most of all the game play.
It might never be up there with Gears Of War, Halo or Crysis. But at least it will sell because most of the people with PCs can play it.

Half-Life is much better than Halo and Gears of War is just shite. (Talking about singleplayer here, BTW)

 

[Decon]

Half-Life is much better than Halo and Gears of War is just shite. (Talking about singleplayer here, BTW)

Wow, you people really have some serious cognitive dissonance issues, everything is shit except HL2, even universally acclaimed games. The dumbest forum ever.

 

[Laivasse]

By this point even Crytek have disowned their strategy of developing for the very highest tier of PC hardware. Even though Crysis has sold over a million, since it didn't quite reach the dizzy sales heights of, say, the far more scaleable HL2, Crytek bitched pointlessly about piracy and said they wouldn't do a PC exclusive ever again.

Why should Valve change a winning formula? Especially if it's only to mimic the high-end technological showboating of a company that doesn't seem to know wtf they're doing.

One point where I will criticise Valve is that their sense of priority is awful. The whole episodic release system is more or less a failure in terms of delivering shorter games with shorter intervals between releases. The waits for each episode so far have been stupidly long, and the longer we have to wait for Episode 3, the less impressive it will seem. However, instead of trying to redress this and pouring all their resources into finishing Episode 3 ASAP - which is after all, possibly the most anticipated instalment of their most illustrious IP - Valve appear to be putting it on the back burner and focussing on a trillion other things instead.

 

[Shift]

I agree I thought Gears of War was like one of the best action games I have ever played, but it doesnt come close the experiance of Half-Life 2 imo. And dont even ****ing bother comparing Crysis and Halo to Half-Life 2 in my presence.

And Decon, this is a Half-Life 2 forum, dedicated to lovers of the game, so yes, you will get ravid fanboyism here, you are just as stupid as anyone to criticise that here. If dont like it, then **** off, because like the so many before you have come on to challenge Half-Life 2 on here, you will fail miserably.

Not to mention you're a hypocrite, you slate fanboyism when you are clearly a fanboy of Crysis and you're an idiot, because you expect to get all your orders through Half-Life 2 by comparing its elements to games that are nothing like it, and suggesting to add ridiculous additions to it that are simply not Half-Life 2, just because other games you liked worked with those editions.

 

[sgt niallr]

When I compared them I meant in terms of graphics....
But I'm a console/shooter/puzzle guy, which is how come I got The Orange Box, and then Half life 2 Episodes 1 and 2 on PC.
In game play terms, nothing is as good as Half Life 2.

 

[-Psy-]

Even the same looking wood planks are not breakable.

So? I really doubt that would make a huge impact on the game. Sure, it would be very nice but it's not exactly one of Valve's highest priorities.

This must be the dumbest thing I ever saw on this forum besides Crysis being crap, the same game that got average of 9/10 rating...and will sell high but over a longer period of time, obviously.

So what if Crysis got a 9 out of 10? That doesn't mean that everybody who thinks it's a crap game is an idiot.

Wow, you people really have some serious cognitive dissonance issues, everything is shit except HL2, even universally acclaimed games. The dumbest forum ever.

Stop taking things of context and generalising every member of the forum. Halo 3 was a universally acclaimed game but I thought it was dreadful. Guess this means I'm a HL2 fanboy because I post on a HL2 forum.

 

[LackingSaint]

WTF?! Isn't Havok the physics engine?
And what does that have to do with it anyway since Crysis has far better physics, in HL2 you can't break a tree with rockets and grenades, you can't break a wooden door. There are very few classes of objects with embedded physics in HL2. Even the same looking wood planks are not breakable. HL2 having the best physics, what the hell are you talking about?!
This must be the dumbest thing I ever saw on this forum besides Crysis being crap, the same game that got average of 9/10 rating...and will sell high but over a longer period of time, obviously.
Wow, talking about cognitive dissonance/fanboy syndrome on this forum...no intelligent dialog possible.


For f**k sake, of course you loved one of the best FPSs ever made...you can't play anything else anyway. Are you braindead, what is wrong with you, can't you at least discern basic categories of criticism. I'm starting to get sick of this mindless mentality on this forum.

Of course i'm a fanboy, in case you haven't noticed, this forum is for people who love HL2. Yoiu really can't see the irony in you arguing with my opinion (claiming I can't accept criticism..)? To be honest, you can get off your damn high horse, acting as if you're a genius lost in a sea of idiocy. I'm sorry for not having your 'superior' knowledge in being able to call me out as a braindead, mindless drone. I suppose I lack your finesse or talent when arguing. Next time you use hurtful words like this, could you please consider you're not talking to a robot, you're talking to another human being.

Back on topic, I suppose i'm bias in this, as i've never managed to play much of Crysis, only being able to go on occasionally pplaying it on my friend's high-powered PC. All I have is a modest modem, not the monolith that Crysis requires. But of course, i'm sure it's a good game, i'm sure it's a GREAT game, but I haven't had the chance to play deeply into it.


Now, how about that for mindless mentality? Weren't expecting me to reply to your blatant flaming with anything more than a single sentence, were we?

 

[Cole]

Who cares?
OMGZ Crysis can do this and that. How about the developers stop concentrating on pointless effects and more on the gameplay?

 

[Druckles]

Half Life sells because of it's character development, rich storyline and most of all the game play.
It might never be up there with Gears Of War, Halo or Crysis. But at least it will sell because most of the people with PCs can play it.

...

:|

...

No, seriously, get out.

And what does that have to do with it anyway since Crysis has far better physics

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. Generally people start their paragraphs with facts, not opinions, or lies.

in HL2 you can't break a tree with rockets and grenades, you can't break a wooden door.

Crysis and Half-Life are completely different games, for a start. Crysis is supposed to be much more open-ended allowing you different approaches through situations. This means breaking trees and stuff are part of the gameplay. Half-Life, being incredibly linear, doesn't need that. So it doesn't have it.

Secondly, breaking things aren't to do with physics. They're to do with breakability and interactability. Just because they applied an interface to a load of object or embedded their physics into everything, doesn't make it a superior physics engine.

This must be the dumbest thing I ever saw on this forum

I don't think you've been here very long.

besides Crysis being crap, the same game that got average of 9/10 rating...and will sell high but over a longer period of time, obviously.

That's funny, because Half-Life sold high over a period of at least 5 years. That must say something about a game. While Crysis supported superior graphics that most people couldn't actually watch, imagine what Crysis would have been like with the graphics of a recent game like Episode Two. Could you have really played it all the way through? I certainly couldn't. The only reason I continued on was because I kept on looking at the scenery. The plot wasn't particularly immersive, the gameplay wasn't that new, and the fact everything broke got old after playing the demo.

Wow, talking about cognitive dissonance/fanboy syndrome on this forum...no intelligent dialog possible.

Tbh, you sounds more like a fanboy to me. A Crysis fanboy.

For f**k sake, of course you loved one of the best FPSs ever made.

Yes, we do. That's what we're getting at.

you can't play anything else anyway.

I thought we clarified that we've all played Crysis and didn't appreciate it.

Are you braindead, what is wrong with you, can't you at least discern basic categories of criticism.

Can't you construct a sentence without sounding like you're babbling? The only criticism anyone mentioned was of Crysis, and then you go on this rant and by the end appeared to lose your mind. I'm not entirely sure where this went wrong, but it was Crysis being criticised, not Half-Life.

I'm starting to get sick of this mindless mentality on this forum.

Please, piss off, then. You don't sound very pleasurably or sane.

Wow, you people really have some serious cognitive dissonance issues, everything is shit except HL2, even universally acclaimed games. The dumbest forum ever.

Gears of War was pretty poor on PC, tbh. I didn't hear anything about anyone saying everything is shit, but then what else would you expect, walking into a forum titled HalfLife2? There's a reason it's got a community that loves it. There's a reason it received such high praise itself. There's a reason it has got such high sales figures.

And there's a reason Crysis was pirated.

When I compared them I meant in terms of graphics....
But I'm a console/shooter/puzzle guy, which is how come I got The Orange Box, and then Half life 2 Episodes 1 and 2 on PC.
In game play terms, nothing is as good as Half Life 2.

...

:|

...

Seriously, you just compared Halo's graphics to Half-Life 2...?

 

[-Psy-]

Another idiot shot down. GG HL2.net.