The IW Engine comapred to the Source Engine

[Wintermoot]

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.

 

[meowchef]

Valve has been constantly improving the Source engine. Half Life 2 and Portal 2 look like they're on entirely different engines, and the things you can do in Portal 2 were unheradof in 2005. But it's the same engine.


IW engine? They haven't done a damn thing to it.


See the difference now? See why gamers don't mind the Source engine but balk at Activision spewing another junkheap on IW Engine?

You're really saying Black Ops and Call of Duty 2 look the same? Really? They look like they're on entirely different engines, the difference is so great. Be realistic here...

 

[Wintermoot]

Valve has been constantly improving the Source engine. Half Life 2 and Portal 2 look like they're on entirely different engines, and the things you can do in Portal 2 were unheradof in 2005. But it's the same engine.


IW engine? They haven't done a damn thing to it.


See the difference now? See why gamers don't mind the Source engine but balk at Activision spewing another junkheap on IW Engine?

You're really saying Black Ops and Call of Duty 2 look the same? Really? They look like they're on entirely different engines, the difference is so great. Be realistic here...

I think he meant past COD4

 

[meowchef]

Valve has been constantly improving the Source engine. Half Life 2 and Portal 2 look like they're on entirely different engines, and the things you can do in Portal 2 were unheradof in 2005. But it's the same engine.


IW engine? They haven't done a damn thing to it.


See the difference now? See why gamers don't mind the Source engine but balk at Activision spewing another junkheap on IW Engine?

You're really saying Black Ops and Call of Duty 2 look the same? Really? They look like they're on entirely different engines, the difference is so great. Be realistic here...

I think he meant past COD4

Even then, there is a pretty noticeable difference between 4 and Modern Warfare 2... Especially in the post-processing department.

 

[SammiYin]

Valve has been constantly improving the Source engine. Half Life 2 and Portal 2 look like they're on entirely different engines, and the things you can do in Portal 2 were unheradof in 2005. But it's the same engine.


IW engine? They haven't done a damn thing to it.


See the difference now? See why gamers don't mind the Source engine but balk at Activision spewing another junkheap on IW Engine?

Well that's just wrong isn't it? Half life 2 and Left 4 dead look exactly the same, despite being years apart. Now compare Cod2 to Cod4.

 

[Motiv_]

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.

 

[Zabriskie Point]

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.

 

[Namewithheld]

I dont like Valve, I dont like steam. I dont like them as a gatekeeper to my pc games. I dont like them turning mods into 50$ games. The source engine is old. Gabe Newell cannot die from diabetes soon enough.

Whoa whoa whoa.

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.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

 

[SammiYin]

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.

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"

Not that cod does this a particular ammount either, but you can see through the game library a steady progression at the least.

 

[Namewithheld]

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.

 

[Wicky_42]

My question is this then, why is Call of Duty called out so often for using a six year old engine, yet Valve is allowed to still use a seven year old engine upon which they built more games? ...What should an engine be judged on to make it unacceptable to use one for a shorter amount of time than another and to make less games with it?

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?

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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Valve has been constantly improving the Source engine. Half Life 2 and Portal 2 look like they're on entirely different engines, and the things you can do in Portal 2 were unheradof in 2005. But it's the same engine.


IW engine? They haven't done a damn thing to it.


See the difference now? See why gamers don't mind the Source engine but balk at Activision spewing another junkheap on IW Engine?

Well that's just wrong isn't it? Half life 2 and Left 4 dead look exactly the same, despite being years apart. Now compare Cod2 to Cod4.

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.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

IW engine - 60FPS + high resolutions, gorgeous lighting

Source - 30FPS + mid resolutions, gorgeous lighting

IW wins for me.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Go play MW2. Then, go play Black Ops.

I

IW use a differently modified engine to Treyarch.

Black Ops just looks like there's powdery birdshit all over everything.

 

[Zabriskie Point]

IW engine - 60FPS + high resolutions, gorgeous lighting

Source - 30FPS + mid resolutions, gorgeous lighting

IW wins for me.

Really? The Source engine usually has the highest FPS out of my games, at the cost of it not looking quite as good.

 

[Korten12]

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.

Yup, not much of a difference... >.>

 

[Zabriskie Point]

It seems a lot of you are comparing everything on a purely visual level. When I hear people complain about CoD using the same engine over and over, they're usually talking about how each game "feels" exactly the same.

With Source, there's a lot more variation. It's hard to compare the two though. With IW Engine, they're using it on one game franchise. Source is used across multiple franchises, and that's where the variation comes from.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

Yup, not much of a difference... >.>

No, not really, especially when CoD 2 was the first venture onto "next-gen" consoles, and the comparison shots are being drawn between cities and a field/desert. Things have improved, but the biggest leap is between CoD 2 and Modern Warfare. After that, not much.

Certainly, if they did something new with the engine that'd be interesting - its not exactly pretty but its not bad - but Source gets used with all sorts of different stuff, new tech is bolted on (cloth simulation should be arriving with DotA 2), there's advanced facial animations, etc.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

why is Call of Duty called out so often for using a six year old engine, yet Valve is allowed to still use a seven year old engine upon which they built more games?

Art thou trolling? Valve is nothing if not called out on the source engine being old.