Next HL installment: Source 2 or another incremental update?

[CombineFrieza]

Do you think a Source 2 is in the wings? Is the reason why Valve doesn't want to show off anything at E3 (other than Dota 2, CSGO and 10ft UI) is because they really want to bring another big HL game the magical touch it needs like a Source2/heavily modified Source?

Or do you think Valve has viewed the development process differently after the many years they spent developing the Source engine, which would mean incremental updates like HL2 build to episodic build, Portal 2 engine build to CSGO engine build? A less ambitious but more time to focus on story and polishing on the proven HL formula. Do think we'll see HL3 on the same scale as Portal 2 was for Portal 1?

[jimmysmitty]

VALVe will not do a major overhaul of the game engine until the majority is using something new. They have used DX9 because every effect they want can be done in it and at the time, the majority of people were still on DX9.

I do think there will be at some point a huge update to Source, making it Source 2, but not an entirely new game engine as they would still want to use Source for it is a very modular game engine.

Look at Source 2004 (essentially 1.0) and Source 2011 (Portal 2, I would say maybe Source 1.5). There have been many changes and a lot of enhancements to the engine to give the effect they wanted, all which worked out great TBH.

[CombineFrieza]

Originally Posted by jimmysmitty

VALVe will not do a major overhaul of the game engine until the majority is using something new. They have used DX9 because every effect they want can be done in it and at the time, the majority of people were still on DX9.

I do think there will be at some point a huge update to Source, making it Source 2, but not an entirely new game engine as they would still want to use Source for it is a very modular game engine.

Look at Source 2004 (essentially 1.0) and Source 2011 (Portal 2, I would say maybe Source 1.5). There have been many changes and a lot of enhancements to the engine to give the effect they wanted, all which worked out great TBH.

But the engine still has the same texture and polygon quality that HL2 had, while there's been some updates to the engine, there has been zero innovation from Valve since 2004. As for Valve waiting for people to upgrade, well the average steam user is far ahead of the Portal 2 recommended specs. They never waited for anyone during Half-Life 2 which saw innovations like the gravity gun, skeletal system for animations, realistic facial expressions and among other things, where people were FORCED to upgrade just to play the game.

Take a look at UE3, its an engine thats even more flexible than Source, provides better visuals and can run on low end PC's. I'd say Source is in the same realm of CoD's engine, both are old and tired.

Originally Posted by Zekiran

I don't think that Source 2 is in the works, given that the new Portal puzzle editor is on the way. Also, that Garry's Mod 13 will be able to use POrtal 2 resources and maps, apparently. I think if they were going to shoot Gmod in the foot alongside their own newly released AND compatible-with-Hammer puzzle editor, they'd be kinda stupid.

How do you know? Valve has different teams of developers doing different stuff, if they wanted to make Source 2... Gabe wouldn't say "no you can't, you need to make more DLC for *insert game here*" and we don't know what goes on in, so its a mystery.

Also Portal 2 is Portal 2, and HL3 is HL3... so i don't see how making a new engine for HL3 would be a bad idea. They are independant games from each other.

[Boff]

Originally Posted by CombineFrieza

But the engine still has the same texture and polygon quality that HL2 had, while there's been some updates to the engine, there has been zero innovation from Valve since 2004.

seriously?

[scojer 2.0]

Originally Posted by CombineFrieza

They never waited for anyone during Half-Life 2 which saw innovations like the gravity gun, skeletal system for animations, realistic facial expressions and among other things, where people were FORCED to upgrade just to play the game.

Take a look at UE3, its an engine thats even more flexible than Source, provides better visuals and can run on low end PC's. I'd say Source is in the same realm of CoD's engine, both are old and tired.

Skeletal animation was first used in HL1, so they didn't innovate it with HL2. The facial animations though, they DID do that.

Also, people were not forced to upgrade. When HL2 first came out, if you had a low end system (which I did), then you could play and it would look strikingly similar to HL1. Source has came a long way since then. There is support for hi-res textures, higher poly-count models (if you played HL2:Lost Coast and listened to the dev commentary, you'd know). Don't even say that Source is in the same realm as CoD. They are both Quake-based, but one is most definitely showing its age, and it isn't Source. I'd say the only way that Source is showing its age, is the SDK.

[CombineFrieza]

Originally Posted by scojer 2.0

Skeletal animation was first used in HL1, so they didn't innovate it with HL2. The facial animations though, they DID do that.

I stand corrected, then.

Also, people were not forced to upgrade. When HL2 first came out, if you had a low end system (which I did), then you could play and it would look strikingly similar to HL1. Source has came a long way since then. There is support for hi-res textures, higher poly-count models (if you played HL2:Lost Coast and listened to the dev commentary, you'd know). Don't even say that Source is in the same realm as CoD. They are both Quake-based, but one is most definitely showing its age, and it isn't Source. I'd say the only way that Source is showing its age, is the SDK.

In 2004? I remember people complaining on how their system couldn't handle the bleeding edge Source engine, at the time I had a CRT monitor that had a resolution of 800x600, AMD Athlon, 256 RAM and a Nvidia Geforce 5xxx series CPU. When I downloaded the demo, it was laggy as ♥♥♥♥.

Portal 2 suffers from lower poly environments and alot of flat surfaces, and so does CSGO. I played MW3 during the free weekend, so its pretty comparible. It even has most of the updates that Source has. Like dynamic soft shadows.

[surfrock22]

Originally Posted by CombineFrieza

I stand corrected, then.




In 2004? I remember people complaining on how their system couldn't handle the bleeding edge Source engine, at the time I had a CRT monitor that had a resolution of 800x600, AMD Athlon, 256 RAM and a Nvidia Geforce 5xxx series CPU. When I downloaded the demo, it was laggy as ♥♥♥♥.

Portal 2 suffers from lower poly environments and alot of flat surfaces, and so does CSGO. I played MW3 during the free weekend, so its pretty comparible. It even has most of the updates that Source has. Like dynamic soft shadows.

I think it's important to make that same push. For Valve, it doesn't have to mean exiling all of your customers, but merely causing a few moans and groans about throwing DX9 away for good, for example.

[Zekiran]

I don't think that Source 2 is in the works, given that the new Portal puzzle editor is on the way. Also, that Garry's Mod 13 will be able to use POrtal 2 resources and maps, apparently. I think if they were going to shoot Gmod in the foot alongside their own newly released AND compatible-with-Hammer puzzle editor, they'd be kinda stupid.

[surfrock22]

Originally Posted by Zekiran

I don't think that Source 2 is in the works, given that the new Portal puzzle editor is on the way. Also, that Garry's Mod 13 will be able to use POrtal 2 resources and maps, apparently. I think if they were going to shoot Gmod in the foot alongside their own newly released AND compatible-with-Hammer puzzle editor, they'd be kinda stupid.

Those are really poor reasons not to make another engine. The Portal 2 puzzle editor and Garry's Mod are hardly of concern in comparison to achieving innovation on next-gen consoles alongside PC gaming.

[jimmysmitty]

Originally Posted by CombineFrieza

But the engine still has the same texture and polygon quality that HL2 had, while there's been some updates to the engine, there has been zero innovation from Valve since 2004. As for Valve waiting for people to upgrade, well the average steam user is far ahead of the Portal 2 recommended specs. They never waited for anyone during Half-Life 2 which saw innovations like the gravity gun, skeletal system for animations, realistic facial expressions and among other things, where people were FORCED to upgrade just to play the game.

Take a look at UE3, its an engine thats even more flexible than Source, provides better visuals and can run on low end PC's. I'd say Source is in the same realm of CoD's engine, both are old and tired.



How do you know? Valve has different teams of developers doing different stuff, if they wanted to make Source 2... Gabe wouldn't say "no you can't, you need to make more DLC for *insert game here*" and we don't know what goes on in, so its a mystery.

Also Portal 2 is Portal 2, and HL3 is HL3... so i don't see how making a new engine for HL3 would be a bad idea. They are independant games from each other.

Left 4 Dead has higher quality textures than HL2. That said, it could stand that the Source engine needs some major upgrades but you missed my entire point.

No UE3 game will run on a DX8 card, some Source games will. It will run on DX9, which pretty much everyone has, but it still does not sale nearly as well as Source and overall, Source looks more realistic to me while UE3 looks more plasticy.

The UE engine is the same engine with upgrades over time. The current version is something like UE 3.95 and it looks massivley better than the first itteration.

With that I can see VALVe being able to update the current Source engine the same way, they have been and they will keep doing it. If they wanted to, we all know VALVe could make a new game enigne and graphics that make most others look old as dirt, they did it before. But why focus on the game enigne over the gameplay and story? Isnt that the main focus of most VALVe games?

I have played every VALVe game and there are very few others that can give a great gameplay and story with it.

Still I wouldn't mind a new engine. Or at least a highly updated engine. I still remember the jaw dropping Source got in 2004, especially the facial animation system that to this day is still better than the majority of games out there.

Originally Posted by surfrock22

Those are really poor reasons not to make another engine. The Portal 2 puzzle editor and Garry's Mod are hardly of concern in comparison to achieving innovation on next-gen consoles alongside PC gaming.

You mean a next gen console that only currently has rumored specs to match a HD6670 in terms of performance? Something that upon release, based on current rumors, will have been outdated by about 1+ years in graphics hardware for PC?

I honestly don't think we will see anything major, if the current rumored specs are true, for consoles. They will add in some DX11 effects possibly but how many DX11 games can you max out on a HD6670? Even some higher end games take more power than a higher end GPU.

Next-gen consoles will give a boost, thats for sure, but by the time they are out PCs will again be much further ahead and still held back by consoles for the most part.

Still as I said before, VALVe focuses on gameplay and story overall to deliver a unique game experience. I can tell you that Crysis, while it had pretty graphics, was nothing compared to HL2. HL2 was ground breaking in almost every aspect and more innovative in every way. Shiny does not equal better.

[surfrock22]

Originally Posted by jimmysmitty

Left 4 Dead has higher quality textures than HL2. That said, it could stand that the Source engine needs some major upgrades but you missed my entire point.

No UE3 game will run on a DX8 card, some Source games will. It will run on DX9, which pretty much everyone has, but it still does not sale nearly as well as Source and overall, Source looks more realistic to me while UE3 looks more plasticy.

The UE engine is the same engine with upgrades over time. The current version is something like UE 3.95 and it looks massivley better than the first itteration.

With that I can see VALVe being able to update the current Source engine the same way, they have been and they will keep doing it. If they wanted to, we all know VALVe could make a new game enigne and graphics that make most others look old as dirt, they did it before. But why focus on the game enigne over the gameplay and story? Isnt that the main focus of most VALVe games?

I have played every VALVe game and there are very few others that can give a great gameplay and story with it.

Still I wouldn't mind a new engine. Or at least a highly updated engine. I still remember the jaw dropping Source got in 2004, especially the facial animation system that to this day is still better than the majority of games out there.



You mean a next gen console that only currently has rumored specs to match a HD6670 in terms of performance? Something that upon release, based on current rumors, will have been outdated by about 1+ years in graphics hardware for PC?

I honestly don't think we will see anything major, if the current rumored specs are true, for consoles. They will add in some DX11 effects possibly but how many DX11 games can you max out on a HD6670? Even some higher end games take more power than a higher end GPU.

Next-gen consoles will give a boost, thats for sure, but by the time they are out PCs will again be much further ahead and still held back by consoles for the most part.

Still as I said before, VALVe focuses on gameplay and story overall to deliver a unique game experience. I can tell you that Crysis, while it had pretty graphics, was nothing compared to HL2. HL2 was ground breaking in almost every aspect and more innovative in every way. Shiny does not equal better.

We'll have to wait and see what rumors materialize into. No one's going to pay $400-600 for a system that is a tiny bit better than what they've already got, I can tell you that much.

I don't think the next systems will blow people out of the water, but there's gotta be incentive for people to spend their money. It's much different from buying a game because it's a much larger purchase.

[CombineFrieza]

Originally Posted by jimmysmitty

Left 4 Dead has higher quality textures than HL2. That said, it could stand that the Source engine needs some major upgrades but you missed my entire point.

No UE3 game will run on a DX8 card, some Source games will. It will run on DX9, which pretty much everyone has, but it still does not sale nearly as well as Source and overall, Source looks more realistic to me while UE3 looks more plasticy.

The UE engine is the same engine with upgrades over time. The current version is something like UE 3.95 and it looks massivley better than the first itteration.

With that I can see VALVe being able to update the current Source engine the same way, they have been and they will keep doing it. If they wanted to, we all know VALVe could make a new game enigne and graphics that make most others look old as dirt, they did it before. But why focus on the game enigne over the gameplay and story? Isnt that the main focus of most VALVe games?

I have played every VALVe game and there are very few others that can give a great gameplay and story with it.

Still I wouldn't mind a new engine. Or at least a highly updated engine. I still remember the jaw dropping Source got in 2004, especially the facial animation system that to this day is still better than the majority of games out there.



You mean a next gen console that only currently has rumored specs to match a HD6670 in terms of performance? Something that upon release, based on current rumors, will have been outdated by about 1+ years in graphics hardware for PC?

I honestly don't think we will see anything major, if the current rumored specs are true, for consoles. They will add in some DX11 effects possibly but how many DX11 games can you max out on a HD6670? Even some higher end games take more power than a higher end GPU.

Next-gen consoles will give a boost, thats for sure, but by the time they are out PCs will again be much further ahead and still held back by consoles for the most part.

Still as I said before, VALVe focuses on gameplay and story overall to deliver a unique game experience. I can tell you that Crysis, while it had pretty graphics, was nothing compared to HL2. HL2 was ground breaking in almost every aspect and more innovative in every way. Shiny does not equal better.

Portal 2 dropped DX8 support, though. And nothing about games like Batman Arkham City, Tribes Ascend and Bioshock seem "plastic"

True graphics aren't everything, but an engine can impact gameplay (see physics, which played a big role in HL2's gameplay) and Source doesn't have the best physics anymore, not even close to the best. BTW I wasn't comparing HL2 to Crysis, absolutely not (only from a visual standpoint) because Crysis is a mediocre shooter with console gameplay mechanics. But there is undoubtibly a similar feeling to recent Valve games, the same way all COD games feel the same visually.

[trenmost]

Originally Posted by CombineFrieza

Portal 2 dropped DX8 support, though. And nothing about games like Batman Arkham City, Tribes Ascend and Bioshock seem "plastic"

True graphics aren't everything, but an engine can impact gameplay (see physics, which played a big role in HL2's gameplay) and Source doesn't have the best physics anymore, not even close to the best. BTW I wasn't comparing HL2 to Crysis, absolutely not (only from a visual standpoint) because Crysis is a mediocre shooter with console gameplay mechanics. But there is undoubtibly a similar feeling to recent Valve games, the same way all COD games feel the same visually.

actually left 4 dead dropped dx8 support, but there are no DX8 cards on the market since 2004 (DX9.0 came out in 2002)

according to steamstats 1.04% of the users have dx8 or lower cards

[IIIIGooseIIII]

Originally Posted by jimmysmitty

but [UE3] still does not sale nearly as well as Source and overall, Source looks more realistic to me while UE3 looks more plasticy.

Is this true? I know Valve moves a lot of units, but this was surprising considering the amount of popular franchises that license UE3.

[supras989]

Its going to be called AwesomeSauce(ource) and will be able to render 10 headcrabs on screen at a time