Gaben confirms Source 2 engine

They've been working on a new engine for quite a while, and it's not just an update to source 1. That's good.
 
Will probably still be DX9, made to run on an Intel HD2000 and have crappy/no dynamic shadows. :p
 
When was the last time Valve pushed the graphics envelope?

I don't see how thats relevant. They are working on a new engine. Not just an update to Source. Last time they did this it was a move from GoldSRC to Source; that was a monumental improvement and showed up almost every other engine out there graphically and usability wise.

I'm guessing Source 2 is going to be the same leap forward.
 
Not surprising. It's obvious that a new Source will debut with HL3. When that actually happens... well, that's another issue entirely.
 
I'm sure Hammer Legion Members think it's going to be better than Frostbite 2 or CryEngine 3.
 
Hopefully this one doesn't employ call wrappers on the graphics API level. That's a reasonable stopgap solution, but it's not good solution otherwise.

I'm curious as to whether this one will still be BSP-based.
 
I'm sure Hammer Legion Members think it's going to be better than Frostbite 2 or CryEngine 3.

Why wouldn't it? If it's still in development, it's pretty easy to see Source 2 being better than anything else out currently.
 
source 2 is console based for the next generation xbox, ps4, wii u.

so ya the leakest link will be wii u.
 
source 2 is console based for the next generation xbox, ps4, wii u.

so ya the leakest link will be wii u.

Says who?

I'm sure they'll make it scalable to all the different platforms. Any good engine does that.
The only time a weak system would be limiting is the game itself, with it's art assets, poly count, view distance, etc.
 
I'm sure Hammer Legion Members think it's going to be better than Frostbite 2 or CryEngine 3.

Um, do you have a point to make about the topic or are you just trying to stir things up? You do realize we are discussing about something that's still in development. :rolleyes:
 
And in other news , obvious things remain obvious.


Of course there is a source engine 2 , unless Valve thinks they can build a time machine back to 1999 they would have to be utterly retarded not to be getting a next gen engine up and running.

Half-Life 3 + Source 2 = duh.
 
Source 2 is still going to side with performance over IQ. Plus it's gotta be able to run on consoles, don't forget.
 
Source 2 is still going to side with performance over IQ. Plus it's gotta be able to run on consoles, don't forget.

Being still in development, you could assume it's being aimed at next gen consoles, if anything. The next Xbox and Playstation are going to be able to pump out graphics that the highest end PC can do today, if not better.
 
Seriously?

Yes... When you see a Valve game you don't think "wow those graphics look great" you think, "hey if all my computers die my 7 year old laptop can run that at 120fps". :p


Exactly... which was 8 years ago, and even that wasn't exactly pretty (just flat "clean", grey and tarmac). Since then they've gone on to great new things like... Linux support... :D
 
Why the doubt? Next-Gen consoles, historically, always leap-frog PC graphics at release. Obviously PC gets the lead again shortly after.
 
i doubt next gen consoles will be as far as pc in gfx. it will prob be near top of the line single gpu but i doubt it will use stuff like sli and stuff. also cooling is a big issue in console systems. so the gpu is prob not the strongest ones but one that have better power useage.
 
i doubt next gen consoles will be as far as pc in gfx. it will prob be near top of the line single gpu but i doubt it will use stuff like sli and stuff. also cooling is a big issue in console systems. so the gpu is prob not the strongest ones but one that have better power useage.

Ok, maybe not TOP of the line PC. But I'd still bet they'll be equal to a $1k system graphics wise.
 
ya the new consoles will be good and most likely they will be losing money on each console sold but gain the money back by the overpriced games.
 
Yes... When you see a Valve game you don't think "wow those graphics look great" you think, "hey if all my computers die my 7 year old laptop can run that at 120fps". :p

I'm not sure you really remember the state of PC graphics back in 2004...or 1998 with HL. Both had excellent, top-end graphics for their time.

Granted, it's been 8 years and nothing Valve has released since has really pushed the graphics envelope, but back then they were definitely top-end.
 
What are you talking about? I'm saying that if you take the level of graphical fidelity that a $1k gaming PC can output, thats what you'll see in the next gen consoles.

A $1k gaming PC as of today would be more than adequate for 1600p gaming. The new consoles will not. Heat, power, size.

I'd say you'd have to be extremely optimistic to think that.
 
Yes... When you see a Valve game you don't think "wow those graphics look great" you think, "hey if all my computers die my 7 year old laptop can run that at 120fps". :p

Uh..maybe now that the games are years old as well. When HL2 was first released, it was absolutely stunning. Particularly the facial animations.

I'm not sure you really remember the state of PC graphics back in 2004...or 1998 with HL. Both had excellent, top-end graphics for their time.

Granted, it's been 8 years and nothing Valve has released since has really pushed the graphics envelope, but back then they were definitely top-end.

This. And I have to say, I appreciate Valve games that look very good, even with a dated engine, and run amazingly on my hardware. Can't wait to see what they come out with next.
 
A $1k gaming PC as of today would be more than adequate for 1600p gaming. The new consoles will not. Heat, power, size.

I'd say you'd have to be extremely optimistic to think that.

I see 1080p still being the standard resolution on next-gen consoles for sure, because thats standard TV resolution. But resolution is only one small piece of the graphical equation.
I'm more talking about poly counts, shaders, shadows, view distance, particle effects, physics, etc, etc, etc.

I'm expecting just as much of a leap in graphics as was from PS1 to PS2, or close to that. Both were 480i, but clearly one looks a hell of a lot better than the other. If you're only thinking of resolution, you've missed the point.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully they overhaul the editor so we will get less boxy maps that plague any game made with the source engine. Maybe they will finally even add some real bump/parallax mapping.... doubt it.
 
I see 1080p still being the standard resolution on next-gen consoles for sure, because thats standard TV resolution. But resolution is only one small piece of the graphical equation.
I'm more talking about poly counts, shaders, shadows, view distance, particle effects, physics, etc, etc, etc.

I'm expecting just as much of a leap in graphics as was from PS1 to PS2, or close to that. Both were 480i, but clearly one looks a hell of a lot better than the other. If you're only thinking of resolution, you've missed the point.

I don't doubt the next gen consoles will be a massive jump from the last. You just can't fit $1k worth of real gaming hardware in a console box. You get more for your money in computer hardware today than you did in 2005.

I'd love for you to be right, but no company will be taking a $700 loss per unit sold.
 
I don't doubt the next gen consoles will be a massive jump from the last. You just can't fit $1k worth of real gaming hardware in a console box. You get more for your money in computer hardware today than you did in 2005.

I'd love for you to be right, but no company will be taking a $700 loss per unit sold.

While I definitely agree with you, with consoles being programmed to metal, you can get probably get $1k PC performance from ~$750 in parts. While it still won't even be close to $750 in parts, you'll see outsized gains as compared to the equivalent PC performance.
 
I don't doubt the next gen consoles will be a massive jump from the last. You just can't fit $1k worth of real gaming hardware in a console box. You get more for your money in computer hardware today than you did in 2005.

I'd love for you to be right, but no company will be taking a $700 loss per unit sold.

I'm not saying the actual console hardware will cost the manufacture $700 or whatever. I'm saying if you take a gaming PC worth $700 to $1k, thats the equivalent you'll get with the next-gen consoles.

Consoles don't require the same level of hardware a PC does to output an equivalent level of graphical fidelity. They don't need as much RAM, CPU, etc.
The hardware is standardized across the board. This makes game development much more optimized, obviously. But it also lowers the cost of production; they have factories dedicated to producing the exact same hardware spec. Combine that with the fact that Sony/MS will absolutely take a loss on the hardware, as they've always done, you get the $499 console that can out perform a PC that costs 2x as much at retail.

It's all about the ratio of cost to graphical fidelity output. When a next-gen console comes out, it's always leaped over PC for about a year. But of course consoles have a lifespan of many years now, so PC always passes them up again until the next cycle. I think maybe it's been so long since the last console generation, too many people have forgotten this.
 
Last edited:
A $1k gaming PC as of today would be more than adequate for 1600p gaming. The new consoles will not. Heat, power, size.
I suppose that depends on how one defines "adequate". I don't think next-generation console ports (think UE4-powered games) are going to run adequately on today's $1k gaming PC at 2560x1600/2560x1400. It's only adequate today because of today's games, which are mostly undemanding.

Remember that console performance is often a function of developers being able to write very closely to metal. On the PC, we're often too far from metal to be able to squeeze out good performance.
 
Back
Top