Portal 2, source engine graphics very dated ?

[Dotard]

@Someonerandm

You’re missing a key point through all of this: An engine is more than just what the gamer sees. You are not qualified to judge an engine good if all you’ve seen is a game made by its developers.

This

[cjohnson]

Do you think they’ll ever do a Portal or Portal 2 “Source” ten years from now?

[Dotard]

What do you mean ? They are already on Source … you mean remakes ?
Hmm maybe …

[King_Kaddo]

I want to see a portal remake in Portal 2 engine with the new assets.

[Dotard]

… no point in that … Portal is still new enough, maybe in 5 years.

[Someonerandm]

@King_Kaddo

I want to see a portal remake in Portal 2 engine with the new assets.

Seriously why?

[blue]

@JeffMOD

No, I’m saying you can’t judge a game’s physics engine in places where it wasn’t used. It may not have any ‘wow’ feature, but it’s by far the most stable, well rounded, and realistic system I’ve come across, and by Dota 2, we’ll finally have soft-body and cloth physics.

Yeah, but it dosnt impress anyone anymore, it isnt a big advantage when now every game has good realistic physics. And i would call it that stable, i was killed multiple times while playing hl2 games by objects bugging out on the floor, or had stuff get stuck in walls. Its as buggy as any other physics engine i saw.

@JeffMOD

That’s just the thing, we’re not modelers. On unreal, on gamebreyo, it’s mostly placing models that other people have made. Everything is already pre-built, and you’re just placing predetermined set pieces. I’ll agree that you can’t use brushwork to make props more complicated than signs in Source, but have you ever taken a look at the buildings in HL2? Most of those were brushwork. Everything but the skybox buildings. Not models, part of the actual BSP file itself. And brushwork in Source lets you make unique areas with little to no external tools outside of Hammer, where you’d have to get out XSI and an image editing tool, and make all the verts, and UV map it, and compile the model, and put the model in the correct directory, and then use it in the map. You see how that’s more complex, and takes more time?
And if you don’t find that BM looks good, then you really have no place judging games. It may not be Crysis, but it’s art style, enviroments, and lighting are astoundingly good.

But you still have to place the polies and uv them, then assign a texture and a material, whats the differences between doing that in hammer or in max ? Even when you use brushes for decals, you would do the same thing in max but bake it on to the the maps afterwards. A mapper is also a moddeler, i have no idea why would you say otherwise, and why is this even important ?
And that approach worked for hl2, but nowdays normalmaps, spec maps are everywhere and soon we will have displacement maps for tessellation to add. No way you will be able to do whole maps using only the built in editor for new games, you need to know other software.

@JeffMOD

But source IS amazing. If you can’t see that, it’s because you’re holding everything up against Crysis, or some other game that tries to be realistic so hard that it has no art style, and will thus flop when a game with better graphics comes along.

@JeffMOD

It’s nice that you know a lot of modeling software, but that doesn’t mean you know anything about game engines, and you really need to stop holding everything up to the games with the highest graphics. Source isn’t outdated, it just concentrates on personality over looks.

But why wouldnt i compare it to the best looking games ? Its not like its an indie title. And, no, having realistic graphics, dosnt mean you have no art style, if you make a game like lets say crysis, where you have aliens, alien structures and high tech weapons its obvious you will have to make up those things since they dont exist, there are millions of ways you can imagine them. So concepts and models made by different ppl will look differently, even while all of them look realistic. And the way you can destroy NYC you can also approach in multiple ways. Thinking that realism means no art style is just stupid.
But all in all there is not one single thing that source does extraordinarily, and as a whole it also looks average at best. Why would i call it amazing, just because its works ?

@JeffMOD

You’re saying the entire engine is outdated. :hmph:

Yeah and the engine is responsible for the visual side of the game, even the map size is part of it. The engine has nothing to do with the story, gameplay, originality or the sound design and music.

@JeffMOD

If I was making an SP FPS? (Which I would be) I’d use Source. It’s additive space, is a solid, stable engine, has full facial animation, nearly glitch-free physics, it’s fast to push stuff out of the pipeline and get it ingame [regardless of compile times, you guys that keep complaining about that need to either turn off RAD or use the cordon tool when testing your maps. ]
Frankly, I may the odd one out, but I hold all of those features, storyline, and gameplay over graphics, and with just a little effort, Source shines. Sure, I’d add more stuff to the engine if I were to license it for a game, but it would mostly be personal tastes more than anything else, such as a global weather system.

The same way you could add new features to any engine you license, so what the point ? There schould be 3 things you look at when you buy an engine. Graphics, support in tools and how flexisible it is, and last how well it will do with multi platfor support.
And honestly unreal seems better in every aspect,and the whole industry seems to agree, since nobody licences source, while everybody does unreal.
And while there are only 2 serious games form 3 party developers using source engine, there are already much more in development for cryengine 3 which just came out.

@JeffMOD

Really, if you want to say an engine is outdated, go find out what they call the engine Activision and Treyarch use for Call of Duty games. Because that engine concentrates on graphics, but it doesn’t even do that right.

Them using the same old engine for every game, while they got the most profitable franchise in the industry dosnt make source any better ;f They did fire the guys responsible for Modern Warfere just so they didnt have to pay them. So yeah, the whole company is a fucking joke, i wouldnt look at them for an example in anything ;f

@Dotard

Moronic stuff…

You make no fucking sense at all, not one sentence you wrote makes any sense … You are ether braindead or 12, pls come back when you are at lest 16 …

[Someonerandm]

Just a quick note: Personality is a product of the developers, not the engine.

[Dotard]

You make no fucking sense at all, not one sentence you wrote makes any sense … You are ether braindead or 12, pls come back when you are at lest 16 …

I’m 18 you retard

[xalener]

Yowch.

[JeffMOD]

@blue

But why wouldnt i compare it to the best looking games ?

Because the best looking games focus and hinge on being the best looking. Valve doesn’t give a shit if they beat every other game in graphics. :hmph:

The same way you could add new features to any engine you license, so what the point ? There schould be 3 things you look at when you buy an engine. Graphics, support in tools and how flexisible it is, and last how well it will do with multi platfor support.

And source has all of the ones that really matter. (The one it doesn’t have being “next gen” graphics)

[Someonerandm]

Nothing has next gen graphics, considering its the current gen. It does, however, have current gen graphics.

[JeffMOD]

Blue, I want you to pay close attention to these quotes;

@Gabe Newell

Why spend four years of your life building something that isn’t innovative and is basically pointless?

@Mike Harrington

Id’s stuff is always cutting-edge, but this time we wanted to cut some different edges

Valve aren’t the kind of company that follows trends. They make their own. They innovate. They don’t give a shit about always being the top dog in graphics. And they certainly don’t follow other developer’s definitions of ‘realism’.

I urge you, no, I implore you, look out your window, if you have one. Things don’t have massive, normalmapped gouges in them. Things don’t shine like they’ve been drenched in water, unless they have. And, unless you live in a location where the smog is so thick it tints the sunlight, things aren’t brown. What most companies say is realistic is anything but. And the ones such as Crytek that both focus on graphics and make their graphics actually look somewhat realistic invest all of their technology money in making things look as best they can, instead of inventing new technology.
To quote a member of these forums (I think it was Maxey, but I could remember that wrong)

Keep your icing, I’ll take my cake.

Frankly, if you think graphics are the most important thing in a game, you’re doing it wrong. You’re certainly not suited for a forum dedicated to a remake of a game from 1998. God help you if you ever play Doom. You’re shallow, you seem to be a bit of an attention-whore, and I’m tired of having this argument every time you rear your head on these forums. Stop complaining about things that don’t really matter. Invest your time in doing something constructive, like learning how to enjoy a game for it’s story and gameplay.

[Dotard]

And if you think about it most “next-gen” looking games are short and boring because everything goes to graphics.

[johnyo]

ITT: people who think source is outdated for some valid or not so valid reasons vs. people who take it as a personal insult to valve’s games.

[pfannkuchen_gesicht]

@blue

But you still have to place the polies and uv them, then assign a texture and a material, whats the differences between doing that in hammer or in max ?

if you ever made a map with Hammer you would know better.

[Zer0x]

In my opinion graphics are overrated!

I mean, who really cares about it as long as the games are great?
Also Source engine graphics aren’t bad, they’re good enough to me!
I still enjoy playing HL2 for example and I am still impressed about the visual presentation (something I can’t say about Crysis, because all these pseudo-realism just begins to annoy and bores me to death).

I really don’t want/need to have high-end graphics in every game!
Most important is the style, not realism or technology!

Dont’t get me wrong, I am not saying, that graphics are completely unimportant, but Source has a graphical standard, where I can say, that I don’t need something better.

Also to me it’s more intersting to see, what they can still realize with those engine limitations, than creating something completely new.

[k3nny1550]

Graphics are ultimately a subjective way to judge a game anyway because system configurations vary so wildly from PC to PC. Valve has a distinct advantage in that they managed to make an engine that works on a lot of platforms, wheras something like Crysis demands a rig powered by orphan hearts and built in SPACE.

[gordonfreemantshepha]

Crysis actually doesn’t really need a monster rig to run anymore, mabye in 2007, but now in 2011 the average gaming PC has specs that meet or exceed Crysis’ system requirements. Anyway, graphics are synonymous with immersion, they are the way a visual world is represented, and if they are sub-par ( or in Valve’s case, deliberately sub-par) then it will hamper the player’s enjoyment of the game.

[sersoft]

just look at minecraft if you want to talk about shitty engines, it runs on Java