Eh. Eventually, yeah. Source 2, or something. Or maybe some fusion of Cry and Source...like Tearduct! (I'm totally trademarking that...)
Poll: Will Valve ever make/use another engine?
- Thread starter Elite Guard Lethleane
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Didn't you hear, now Valve is working on the PASTE engine. Get it, Source, but like sauce? Anyway I enjoy the physics of the source engine, and having one engine means you have more time to work on the game. Though I reckon the graphics for the source engine are pretty good.
They don't need to make an entirely new engine, just give it big update in the next game, while keeping similar programming laguages and design tools. Just give it larger capabilities. That said, i still think Half Life 2 looks great and MW2, a 2009 game, barely looks better than that.
Oh, I certainly didn't mean to argue that. I'm just saying that it makes sense from a business point of view to use what you have for as long as it's viable.Rusty Bucket said:
It's highly likely that Valve will make a new engine in the future. I don't think it'll be anytime soon though.
I've found Source to be a great engine that delivers a great FPS game with it's physics engine and graphics. Some will argue that Source doesn't meet top notch standards for graphics, but do graphics really matter that much?
Bottom line, I like Source the way it is and wouldn't mind having it as the engine for many more FPS games from Valve to come.
I've found Source to be a great engine that delivers a great FPS game with it's physics engine and graphics. Some will argue that Source doesn't meet top notch standards for graphics, but do graphics really matter that much?
Bottom line, I like Source the way it is and wouldn't mind having it as the engine for many more FPS games from Valve to come.
They do update the engine whenever they make new games and further expand on its technical and visual powers. Whilst i do agree they have been using the same engine for a long time they do it well, The visual styles for the game's are so vastly different it not only shows the engines flexibility but also the developers.
So for now lets roll with it, I reckon when we are out of the half-life 2 era they will make a new one
So for now lets roll with it, I reckon when we are out of the half-life 2 era they will make a new one
What Source is missing:
-actual volumetric light (the one they have now is built in the level editor)
-excessive bloom
-textures that take up 10GB for one building in the background
-models with a million pollies
Personally, I don't think this affects the experience that much. Now, Source does have a really big problem with load times though...
-actual volumetric light (the one they have now is built in the level editor)
-excessive bloom
-textures that take up 10GB for one building in the background
-models with a million pollies
Personally, I don't think this affects the experience that much. Now, Source does have a really big problem with load times though...
I think that source is capable of putting out things that look more than acceptably pretty. I actually think graphics are important. They're a significant part of the user experience, and though I used to argue they were 'unimportant' my view I feel has become more refined through actual play. Sure, this isn't the same for all games and graphical standards are variable. Civ 5 won't need to be on whatever cryengine we're up to now to be enjoyable (obviously). The games that run on source look -fine- and importantly, run very well on many systems, even those that are getting on a bit. I genuinely think that episode 1 and 2 had some seriously impressive scenery, and I never had cause for complaint in regards to the graphics. I'm glad they've stuck with the engine.
Only when they are ready. I love Valve, its one of the few companies which is dedicated for making great GAMES not great GAME ENGINES.
Source is old, its true. But it still looks great and can run even on medieval hardware which is a big plus. Oh and Katana314, if you think L4D2 is ugly i recommend you checking your graphic settings. You may have set everything on low or something.
Source is old, its true. But it still looks great and can run even on medieval hardware which is a big plus. Oh and Katana314, if you think L4D2 is ugly i recommend you checking your graphic settings. You may have set everything on low or something.
I'm still fine with the Source Games. I can't run a lot of the latest games, so I really like how it looks very good and doesn't lag my computer. I dont have much other games to compare Source games to, but IMO it still looks and feels very good.
Source is still an acceptable engine, its renderer seems much more gritty and less "shiny" than its competitors and the engine itself scales very well to lower end computers.
That being said the engine truly sucks at rendering outdoors enviroments and I've thought for many years its about time the industry started attempting to move away from the rails shooter in the CoD and HL mould.
That being said the engine truly sucks at rendering outdoors enviroments and I've thought for many years its about time the industry started attempting to move away from the rails shooter in the CoD and HL mould.
Actually, they have changed it around a lot since it's inception. It works fine and looks great so I don't really see what the problem is