The IW Engine comapred to the Source Engine

[Johnnyallstar]

Source is on the downhill of it's life, but it's still a phenomenal engine, and it has things embedded in it that improve it beyond I.W. Engine.

As for aesthetics, I'd agree about 90%. Games of the same series don't need the same graphics, but they should usually share styles. But the quality of the graphics should be better than the predecessor because doesn't that show progress? Would you accept a game that was a sequel that had worse graphical fidelity than the original?

Notable differences in aesthetics include LoZ: Wind Waker, Mario 64, and Oblivion, which changed the aesthetics, but not necessarily better or worse, but had their own flavor in the series.

A lot of people hated LoZ: WW, but I really warmed up to the aesthetics once I got into it. Ocarina is still my favorite of the series, but the change in aesthetics wasn't horrible.

It does show progress, but I'm just not sure if its the progress that should be measured so much. We have great graphics now, and they're improving, but it's hard to show a massive improvement with the level of graphical quality today.

Agreed, and I would add that sometimes there is too much focus on it.

At this point we're talking babysteps in most places, but there are still points where large leaps and bounds can be taken, like what Rockstar did with L.A. Noire's faces. What someone with an imagination could do is mix the "arty" aspects into the nearly photo-realistic, and produce something truly amazing if they tried. Also, there's still a lot of room for facial animations. L.A. Noire has redefined how good facial animations can be, but there still room for growth because now everyone has to play catchup and attempt to get ahead of Rockstar, and if Rockstar can continue to improve and proliferate the new tech, it will vastly improve the medium as a whole.

I don't like the teeth in L.A. Noire, and that's one of the little things they can do to improve in the next game. Babysteps, and the occasional leap.

 

[Dense_Electric]

It's not because IW uses the same engine, it's because the gameplay in every CoD game is EXACTLY the same. By contrast, if you're going to tell me that the gameplay of Portal and Team Fortress 2 are anywhere near similar I'm going to have to ask you to step outside. Even Half-Life 2 and Left 4 Dead, both fairly generic FPS's in terms of gameplay, feel different. CoD4 feels identical to MW2 or BlOps, hence why IW gets called out while Valve doesn't

They should feel different, as they're in different series. All the Call of Duty games fall under the same franchise.

I've never really bought that as a valid reason. Halo had five games, and each one felt different - even 3 and ODST, practically the same game in terms of gameplay, felt a lot more distinct than CoD4 and MW2.

But if you don't like that answer, there's also this one: "well there you go." Valve has spent seven years now coming up with new, sometimes very innovative experiences, all of which run on the same engine, but all of which were very unique. IW and Treyarch have spent the last four years rehashing the same gameplay into increasingly ridiculous stories.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Because the IW engine is a buggy mess that has terrible hit detection, horrible spawning, terrible explosive physics, awful fire physics, awful player collision physics, no actual in game physics and tediously compacted level design. The source engine works because it is relatively bug free and easily modifiable, and has more invested in actual structure than the skin deep cramp-fest that is IW.

 

[Dr.Cereal1]

Because the source engine has the kind of lasting appeal and work put into it that makes it so much of a better engine, and it is constantly upgraded.
Se2 better come out soon though because it is beginning to show its age, but then again mw3 looks terrible and few are noticing.

 

[screwvalve]

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.

 

[octafish]

I think source games tend to have a better design aesthetic than Unreal games. It goes a long way in covering the shortcomings of a now aging engine. I had no problems with the way Portal 2 looked for example. I use Unreal as a comparison because I haven't played any COD games since they left WW2, and I was more of a Medal of Honour fan back then (or Brothers in Arms).

I really like the frostbite engine by the way. Destructible environments FTW. Go DICE!

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

I think source games tend to have a better design aesthetic than Unreal games. It goes a long way in covering the shortcomings of a now aging engine. I had no problems with the way Portal 2 looked for example. I use Unreal as a comparison because I haven't played any COD games since they left WW2, and I was more of a Medal of Honour fan back then (or Brothers in Arms).

I really like the frostbite engine by the way. Destructible environments FTW. Go DICE!

I'm excited for it as well. I wish CoD had taken notes from BF. They both have things they can learn from each other. I think UO somewhat did, but that's the odd one out in the CoD series. Too bad, it's my favorite.

 

[Twilight_guy]

People like valve a lot and ignore the old engine (which actually got a facelift around L4D if I'm not mistaken). Now go look up Unreal 3. That'll be fun.

 

[Savber]

Simple.

Valve focuses on always giving the player an entirely new experience, filling their games with great writing, memorable characters, and engaging gameplay.

Call of Duty had done practically NOTHING besides giving more of the same with some various alterations.

With such repetitive gameplay, CODs main draw would be the graphics hence the constant comparison and bashing whenever COD's graphics aren't on par with the best.

 

[screwvalve]

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.

Because disliking a service someone provides is totally grounds to await their late death and grieving family, right?

OT: I never really noticed anything special about the IW engine... So I guess Source wins by default, seeing as how I have noticed a lot of unique and interesting things in that one - and have had a blast playing the games that run on it.

Yes, totally.

Source is old. It's just rebranded and resold everytime to the billions of idiot sheeple valve fanboys. IW engine is old too though. A game is not the engine is runs on.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Art direction. You can have the shittiest engine ever, and still have good looking games depending on how you use it. The IW engine is used to make grey/brown muddy looking shooters, whereas the Source Engine has been used to make brown, muddy dystopian futures, deep south sunny apocalypses, and cartoony 50's era combat arenas.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

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.

You made an account just to yell at Valve and wish death upon Gabe? Whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

Art direction. You can have the shittiest engine ever, and still have good looking games depending on how you use it. The IW engine is used to make grey/brown muddy looking shooters, whereas the Source Engine has been used to make brown, muddy dystopian futures, deep south sunny apocalypses, and cartoony 50's era combat arenas.

This.

The Source engine has been updated and evolved since its original release, and it continues to please through a variety of art styles and games.

IW 4.0 has only had minor changes since 2005, and has been used throughout the same game series and same art styles.

So the Source engine appears to be much more versatile than IW 4.0

 

[omicron1]

I think people point fingers at the Source engine because it doesn't follow the conventional routes for "prettier" graphics. Where the Unreal games turned up the bloom, adding post-processing effects, lots of specular highlights, and extra detail (creating something akin to the world's most detailed claymation setup), Source games tend to have a sharper, more defined look - an appearance that sticks closely to the polygon-centric rendering systems of yesteryear.

People deride the source engine for getting "old," but really, there's no reason for it to be considered old. If Valve decided to use a different engine, their games would not magically look better. They would not suddenly double in detail or speed. They would simply be able to handle new technologies and visual effects (although texture streaming, I admit, is something Valve needs to be looking at pretty carefully) - not better, just different.

New game engines were fashionable around the turn of the millenium, but this was mainly because of the rapid pace of technological advancement. Heck, dedicated graphics cards were just coming into their own! New features were being introduced on a yearly basis, new features that rendered the old systems obsolete. Nowadays? You've got mainly software features. The most notable new thing in recent years is tessellation, and that's been passed over because the support for high-end PC gaming efforts just isn't there. We have no need of new engines; simply creative uses of the old ones.

 

[screwvalve]

Oh well. You're welcome to your hate. I'm sure Gabe will continue being happy and enjoying his life and business - and us his creations. Enjoy your hate and dysphoria.

You made an account just to yell at Valve and wish death upon Gabe? Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Yes, I hate all these fanboys blindly rushing to suck up to Valve, just cause it's teh Valve, man! Screw that.

 

[Solo-Wing]

I prefer the Unreal Engine to Source or IW. I am pretty sure it is the most Versatile. Although Source has the best physics for games I believe.

 

[Netrigan]

Call Of Duty is more popular than Valve ever was, so they're a much bigger target. But the complaints are pretty wide-spread.

I frankly get tired of hearing every game being described as "dated" by a quarter of critics. Maybe the player models aren't super-detailed, maybe the facial animations are on the stiff side, maybe the environments aren't mouth-wateringly beautiful... there's only so many resources to go around an no game is going to knock it out of the park on all fronts.

The engines are fairly static because there's been no increase in processing power in consoles. All there doing these days is stream-lining code, putting more money into design, or shaving frame-rates to get the sequel to look better than the original.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

because the source engine is made by valve, and everyone and their grandmother hates COD

they both look like shit anyway