I wonder if they use Radiant instead of Hammer…
I think the similarities are mostly on the way the maps are created, otherwise both engines have almost no legacy Quake code.
Looks great. And some people say Source is crap. It looks phenomenal when the right people are using it.
“Looks at CS:GO” :|:|:|
"Looks at Titanfall, Call of Duty devs = right people :retard:
Shame on you Valve…
Seriously, I hope resources spent on Source 2 is the reason why Source hasn’t seen a large scale update like Unreal 3 did get.
Titanfall is next-gen, CSGO is not. It was also made to be playable on low-spec computers.
And when you say “Call of Duty devs = right people” sarcastically, take into consideration that this is the prime Infinity Ward people that made all the good CoDs. MW2 suffered from being rushed by Activision.
For me, the CoD’s prime for:
-SP is = CoD1, CoD2, MW2, BO, BO2
-MP are = CoD2, MW1, BO
Nuking whole map in MW2 and getting killed by a thrown Tomahawk through whole map isn’t my definition of well done. I wouldn’t say the original Infinity Ward has done the only good ones, at least in my opinion.
There are only a few bad ones, it’s just most are only good at either half, while sucking at the other.
But on topic, some console games for current generation (ps3/xbox360) look better than anything by Valve for PC. I’m just sad anyone pushes Source to its limits but Valve. They are too costumer-friendly, according to statistics, most have rig capable of running latest games on decent settings with playable frame-rate. Also 1.6 is still being played.
I’m not a graphics whore, but in my opinion Black Mesa is what Episode Two should have been. And be honest, if it weren’t important, then Half-Life: Source would just still do.
Half Life 2 Episode 2 came out in 2007, Black Mesa 5 years later and has higher requierements than Episode 2.
Valve always pushed their engine but only to the point where still many people can play it. Of course they are customer friendly,
it’s one of their philosophies to do what the customer likes.
Shame on them? For what?
*Looks at release date of CS GO: 21st August. 2012. Costs 15 dollar.
*Looks at release date of Titanfall: 2014. I bet my ass that it costs more than 15 dollar.
Valve didn’t use a high budget for CS GO. It’s a small game, and like the previous user said, it was made to run on older systems too.
Even the team behind it was rather small, while Respawn has around 75 developers.
Titanfall is not even using Source 2 (Because the engine is not finished anyway.), so the next game by Valve will surely use the new engine.
What if it is using Source 2 but they’re keeping it a secret because Valve wants to announce it?
It was already stated that it uses Source Engine.
Gabe said infront of the /v/ visit at the end of 2012, that they were working on a new engine for 2 years.
Respawn aprox. started developing Titanfall in 2011~.
I would say, that they only use an upgraded version for it, because Source 2 wasn’t far enough in development to actively use it.
Also, when they announced it, it would surely use Source 2 as the engine name, if it really used it, because it would be a real a
Source 2 title and it wouldn’t make any sense keeping it as a secret.
I would also say, that it would make more sense to come up with a game that shows off the new
features of an engine. Titanfall didn’t show anything new, so yeah, it just looks like normal, upgraded version of Source.
(I know it’s content that matters, engines can’t look good, but you know what I mean)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Episode Two reuses majority of assets from HL2 and EP1, right? Also I bet by 2007 most had a computer that meets Black Mesa’s minimal system requirements, it’s not Crysis. Those who complain here on forums “not playable even on lowest settings” shouldn’t do PC gaming altogether. For CS:GO, no one told them (Valve) to port a reskinned CS: S to consoles, personally I expected something more akin to “Counter Strike 2” and yes, its price surely reflects its “scale”
A trick to see consumer’s reactions first or something? As stated by the other guy though, most likely false.
Are you sure Gabe mentioned 2 years? I couldn’t make any of that from the low-quality recording. Also there’s only as much as a multiplayer game can do to show off new features.
Is it?
I guess this is the sci fi project that IW wanted to do while Activision was forcing them into the CoD meat grinder. Looking forward to it- I love giant robot games. Looks like Hawken with free-running pilots, which could be fucking ace.
looks really interesting definitelly looking forward to it. The only thing that surprises me, considering it uses source, are the terrible face animations.
Never heard of it, but just google it and man looks awsome indeed not only graphicly but also in gameplay
Looks like somewhat of a fresh take on multiplayer shooters. Unique gameplay mechanics… Looks like fun.
As weird as it may sound, my expectations for the game are higher than justified, I must admit. I expect what’s been shown to be taken even a level higher, to epic proportions. Kinda like I’m having more fun imagining playing in my head a “would be” game rather than as it is.
I mean, come on, mechas + parkour, not succeeding with that? Doubt it! :retard:
Getting overhyped will only lead to disappointment.
I’m mostly interested in Titanfall because this is what Infinity Ward wanted to make after CoD but Activision didn’t let them.
Respawn owns the IP and has creative control over it, meaning we’re getting a mostly unadulterated execution of their vision. They’re also an independent studio and if shit happens, EA can’t dissolve them and Respawn can do whatever they want to the IP. In fact, I hope it succeeds enough for Respawn to be able to self publish their own games.
I’m also interested because it uses Source and I’m curious to see what changes they made to it.