The IW Engine comapred to the Source Engine
- Thread starter Midnight Crossroads
- Start date
...except to start with the IW engine looked like balls compared to the original Source Engine, and as of MW2, they are easily on level pegging, and although its largely a stylistic choice, I think the IW engine may have an edge in terms of how realistic it looks.TestECull said:
There is no denying that the Soruce Engine has more potential for adaptability , and it is constantly changed instead of bi-yearly overhauls as with the IW engine.
So yeah.
Yayy, finally a chance to break out the Quake family tree picture!
As you can see from this image, both the IW engine and the Source engine are ultimately descended from the quake engine. They may as well be called Idtech 30A and Idtech 30B, but they aren't because major changes to an engine sometimes necessitate a change in name as well. What's more, today's Source engine is no more the source engine of 2004 than the 2004 version was GoldSRC, or GoldSRC was Quake 1. Similarly, IW 4.0 is not the same engine that they used on CoD 2. Companies have just started marketing more on the name of the engine than they have the version number; think about it, the Source engine is a really famous engine. If you were valve, would you throw out that name recognition just because you put out a new version of the engine?
As you can see from this image, both the IW engine and the Source engine are ultimately descended from the quake engine. They may as well be called Idtech 30A and Idtech 30B, but they aren't because major changes to an engine sometimes necessitate a change in name as well. What's more, today's Source engine is no more the source engine of 2004 than the 2004 version was GoldSRC, or GoldSRC was Quake 1. Similarly, IW 4.0 is not the same engine that they used on CoD 2. Companies have just started marketing more on the name of the engine than they have the version number; think about it, the Source engine is a really famous engine. If you were valve, would you throw out that name recognition just because you put out a new version of the engine?
Your engine is not going to age well if you keep making the exact same games. People will start noticing flaws that are passed down from instalment to instalment.
valve tweaks/updates it with every new release (just compare HL2 to portal 2)
also the Source Engine is based partially on the goldSRC engine (used in CS and HL1/OPFOR/BS setting it,s roots somewhere late 90,s) it,s physics are done by the Havok Engine.
PS
also Valve,s games are more varied (instead of just playing a random army guy) you play a rebel in HL2 and the episodes (I know Gordon is a scientist but his action make him more a rebel) a test subject in Portal(2) and a insane mercenary in TF2 it also keeps using different environments per game further hiding the fact it,s a old engine.
PPS
there are also benefits to sticking to a older engine
for example porting the game would be faster and you don,t need to learn new things when developing a new game allowing games to get done faster.
also the Source Engine is based partially on the goldSRC engine (used in CS and HL1/OPFOR/BS setting it,s roots somewhere late 90,s) it,s physics are done by the Havok Engine.
PS
also Valve,s games are more varied (instead of just playing a random army guy) you play a rebel in HL2 and the episodes (I know Gordon is a scientist but his action make him more a rebel) a test subject in Portal(2) and a insane mercenary in TF2 it also keeps using different environments per game further hiding the fact it,s a old engine.
PPS
there are also benefits to sticking to a older engine
for example porting the game would be faster and you don,t need to learn new things when developing a new game allowing games to get done faster.
I don't really give two shits about how old an engine is, just how good it is. I like the source engine, it makes really stupid physics moves sometimes[footnote]Tripping over myself and dying instantly is a personal favorite[/footnote], but it hardly looks it's age and seems to work fine.
I hardly pay attention to the IW engine, but Modern Warfare was one hell of a lot of fun, MW2 was a bit indecisive but still okay. As long as the game's good I could really care less how old the engine is.
I hardly pay attention to the IW engine, but Modern Warfare was one hell of a lot of fun, MW2 was a bit indecisive but still okay. As long as the game's good I could really care less how old the engine is.
Go play Half-Life 2. Then, go play Team Fortress 2. Same engine. Shocking, right?
Go play MW2. Then, go play Black Ops.
I'm surprised you're not seeing the difference between the two situations.
Also worth mentioning, Valve is always upgrading the engine. And not just visuals.
Go play MW2. Then, go play Black Ops.
I'm surprised you're not seeing the difference between the two situations.
Also worth mentioning, Valve is always upgrading the engine. And not just visuals.
Whoa whoa whoa.screwvalve said:
Hate steam, hate valve, hate them for appropriating ideas from mod-makers, but wishing someone to die is too much. Some people here have diabetes or relatives who have diabetes.
Because the Source engine is built to have stuff added to it. Look at the difference between Half-Life 2 and Portal 2 - not only on a technical level, but the way they implement art direction also.
And then look at the difference between CoD 2 and whatever the newest one is.
And then look at the difference between CoD 2 and whatever the newest one is.
As in, takes less time to bring out excruciatingly mediocre titles? Seems a tad lazy to me, "Well we haven't changed our engine for a few years because, despite it looking and feeling shit to the players, we can't be arsed to learn any new techniques or implement anything new"henritje said:
Not that cod does this a particular ammount either, but you can see through the game library a steady progression at the least.
Now, I like Valve for very specific reasons, and those might not apply to you. Half Life 2 is actually fairly bland where it comes to the shooting aspects, but it is peerless in terms of it's visual storytelling and atmosphere. The entire game is chock full of detail and I'm a modernist. Details appeal to me.
Does the IW engine have physics? Is it commonly modded? Has it been the testbed for innovative technology improvements, eg high dynamic range lighting? Has it been used in a wide variety of different games, rendered in different styles and with different sorts of gameplay?Midnight Crossroads said:
More has been done with Source, by more people, in many more different ways, and its inclusion of basic physics has made it immensely more versatile than IW's engine. Plus, with more variety in their games and a strong modding community, Source has made itself widely popular with people interested in gaming - the sort of people you'd meet on sites like this.
Finally, the sort of games released on the two engines goes a long way to how people will support them. You produce exploitative games year-on, year-out, people notice and call you out on it. Take time to carefully, lovingly craft gaming experiences? People respect that.
Wait, what? When was the last time you played either game? Because Half Life 2 looks downright ugly by todays standards, but l4d looks pretty good for a game from 2008. l4d2 and Portal 2 look at least as good as any other game from their respective time periods. The only way I can see you saying that HL2 looked like L4D is if the only HL2 game you've played is Episode 2, but even then L4D is running on an improved version of the engine.SammiYin said:
IW engine - 60FPS + high resolutions, gorgeous lighting
Source - 30FPS + mid resolutions, gorgeous lighting
IW wins for me.
Source - 30FPS + mid resolutions, gorgeous lighting
IW wins for me.
IW use a differently modified engine to Treyarch.Zabriskie Point said:
Black Ops just looks like there's powdery birdshit all over everything.