Valve: no new engine anytime soon

I liked Valve's approach too. I generally prefer better textures than most of the new stuff in games. But now it's starting to show its age, imo.
If they improved the physics, decreased the blockiness, and decreased the loading then I wouldn't be so annoyed by the decision to stay with Source. So far there's been some pretty cool physics stuff done with Portal, but at the end of the day I want destructible environments, not goo ;p I guess I'm just doubtful that these issues will get addressed by continual updates I guess.

On the other hand, I'll take an outdated game with good gameplay over a good looking game with bad gameplay, so it's not really a huge issue to me. Just a disappointment.
 
huxley said:
Prefer Valve keeping this than Bethesda keeping their engine.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I have WAY more issues with the crap that the Fallout series uses than the Source engine. Yet people love the Fallout series and keep playing despite the horrible, buggy, glitchy engine it uses. And that's because it's a good game - if you're into that style of game.
 
Surly73 said:
Yeah - I have WAY more issues with the crap that the Fallout series uses than the Source engine. Yet people love the Fallout series and keep playing despite the horrible, buggy, glitchy engine it uses. And that's because it's a good game - if you're into that style of game.
Click to expand...
no kidding. I just started New Vegas yesterday and its pissing me off. in fact I just made this vid a few hours ago and actually I ghave crashed another time since then too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzmm4bwKVGg
 
Jay_oasis said:
The issue its its still too CPU hungry
Click to expand...

I bought into this myself, but...


NOT ANY MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Check 275.27 Forceware. TF2 ... before it was dips to low 30s, with rare ones to mid 20's

Now locked at 60FPS.

Personally I love Source clean, precise and glitch free look&feel of Source.

Corection: It's still CPU hungry, but this doesn't translate to killing 2 cores.
 
Last edited:
To me, the better graphics the game has the more immersive I can get into the game. It doesn't make the game great but it sure helps! Source is a good engine but it needs a overhaul, or at least some major updates...
 
Goddamnit. I want a Counter-Strike 2 in 2012 that kills off 1.6 and source.
 
SonicTron said:
Portal 2 looks pretty good. It's by no means on the level of any of the heavy hitters of the last couple of years (mirror's edge, metro, crysis, even bfbc2). The engine has seriously been showing its age, and if they intend to stretch it for another couple of years I think we're all going to be extremely unimpressed with their future offerings.
Click to expand...

The biggest factors: textures and antialiasing.
 
cannondale06 said:
a 3.0 Pentium 4 can deliver playable framerates in any Source game.

Source engine is okay but it sure would be nice to start giving us some better eye candy.
Click to expand...
Good luck dominating a server with a mere 30-45 fps.
 
I maxed out TF2 at release with a 939 athlon 64 and an x1900xt no problem but every patch made it worse and worse. Portal 2 looked so good because it was 99% flat surfaces.
 
djoye said:
I really like Valve but I was disappointed that Portal 2 didn't have any significant updates to the engine.
Click to expand...

Right, Portal 2's graphics look old.

Valve doesn't want to go to the effort of making a new engine because they're now making games for the lowest common denominator, the old technology of the 360 and PS3. When the PS4 comes out, they'll start a new engine or become a has-been company.

Old software can't be modified much without becoming a total kludge.
 
Stone Cold said:
Old software can't be modified much without becoming a total kludge.
Click to expand...
this is bullshit. every engine is an iteration of the past. if you actually did anything with game engines under the hood and knew what you were talking about you'd know that even the latest version of cryEngine uses the original code from Far Cry.

Where do you guys get the idea that studios whip new engines out every time they release a game? Engines take years to a decade to code.

As for Portal 2 and Source...if you want better textures make them yourself or wait for someone else to do it. Source is an incredible and extensible engine. The bellyaching in this thread is a result of ignorance not the engine's limitations.
 
mope54 said:
this is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Nothing is better at getting the garden to bloom. Thank you for the compliment.

if you actually did anything with game engines under the hood and knew what you were talking about you'd know that even the latest version of cryEngine uses the original code from Far Cry.
Click to expand...

Far Cry came out in 2004, which is the same year Valve released its Source engine. Now, come reason with me, young padwun, if I say the Valve engine will eventually need to be replaced with a new engine to avoid becoming a complete kludge, how does pointing to another engine of similar age, which hasn't been replaced but only modified, show that I'm wrong about the Valve engine? The CryEngine will also need to be eventually replaced, to avoid becoming a total kludge.

The longer these old engines are just "modified", the further they fall behind the PC's potential.

As for Portal 2 and Source...if you want better textures make them yourself or wait for someone else to do it. Source is an incredible and extensible engine. The bellyaching in this thread is a result of ignorance not the engine's limitations.
Click to expand...

No one points to Portal 2 to showcase PC graphics. And, this is going to start dragging down the experience of future Valve games.
 
Stone Cold said:
Far Cry came out in 2004, which is the same year Valve released its Source engine. Now, come reason with me, young padwun, if I say the Valve engine will eventually need to be replaced with a new engine to avoid becoming a complete kludge, how does pointing to another engine of similar age, which hasn't been replaced but only modified, show that I'm wrong about the Valve engine? The CryEngine will also need to be eventually replaced, to avoid becoming a total kludge.

The longer these old engines are just "modified", the further they fall behind the PC's potential.
Click to expand...

You are totally missing his point. His point is that engines are constantly modified or reworked to do new things. You don't have to build new engines from the ground up, you can take an existing engine and rewrite parts of it to make it work. The COD4 engine uses Q3E code, CE3 uses CE1 code, UE3 uses UE1 code, and so on. That's just how it works. It is very rare for a brand new engine to be built from the ground up. It is expensive, time consuming, and usually not worth the effort. Hell you can probably find some code that traces back to the Infinity Engine in the Lycium engine Bioware used for Dragon Age 2.
 
Stone Cold said:
The longer these old engines are just "modified", the further they fall behind the PC's potential.
Click to expand...

Uh... did u see Samaritan demo? UE3 is from 2006, Source 2004.


--
Valve has always been a company that rolls at its own pace. It makes its games on its own time, bathing in its money bin filled with bajillions of dollars in revenue from Steam, and laughs at gamers who actually think that Episode 3 is being worked on.
 
Stone Cold said:
The CryEngine will also need to be eventually replaced, to avoid becoming a total kludge.

The longer these old engines are just "modified", the further they fall behind the PC's potential.



No one points to Portal 2 to showcase PC graphics. And, this is going to start dragging down the experience of future Valve games.
Click to expand...
I assumed you knew that Crysis uses the CryEngine and people do use that game to showcase PC graphics.

Regardless, are you aware that Valve is specifically opposed to developing games to "showcase PC graphics?" That's diametrically opposed to their mission of providing fun games to the bulk of their customer base. They have the stats posted on their site...the majority of their customers are using PC's that are behind the current gen consoles so I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that they're focused on console customers.
 
I haven't written off Valve doing a new engine for HL3 yet. When HL was released it was head and shoulders above every other game out there. It pushed the limits. When HL2 and Source were released it was the same way... but those were during the days PC was king.

Now that the market is multi-platform Valve's seemingly stagnated approach has worked well for them. That said, Gabe is routinely being quoted saying things about being ready for the future. They're going to put some huge emphasis on social networking games and mobile platforms I know, BUT... they are well aware they have to finish the HL story or the fans are going to storm the doors of their offices with crowbars and cosplay outfits. We know from interviews that HL2:Ep.3 was in development back in '07. They were not saying much about it, but they're not talking about it at all now. If I had to guess, I'd say they have been quietly working on a new engine and shifted development to a full length finale.

The consoles have also been showing their age, and developers are sick of having to try and squeeze another ounce of tech out of DirectX 9. DICE is building Frostbite 2 with DX 11 in mind. Epic is building UE 3 with DX 11 in mind. The console makers are starting to put together details for their next gen. It would be foolish for Valve to NOT be in a place to compete with the coming wave of games. They have waited too long since Episode 2 to do anything else but a full length HL3 on a new engine. If that is not their plan, then they need to publicly confirm that if they ever hope to put the issue to bed. In order to compete on Facebook, Android and iPad they are going to have to do something with the engine anyway.

I'd bust out in a happy dance like a sugar induced three year old if they surprised everyone at E3 with a peek at HL3 on Source 2. Only time will tell.
 
Frraksurred said:
I haven't written off Valve doing a new engine for HL3 yet. When HL was released it was head and shoulders above every other game out there. It pushed the limits. When HL2 and Source were released it was the same way... but those were during the days PC was king.

Now that the market is multi-platform Valve's seemingly stagnated approach has worked well for them. That said, Gabe is routinely being quoted saying things about being ready for the future. They're going to put some huge emphasis on social networking games and mobile platforms I know, BUT... they are well aware they have to finish the HL story or the fans are going to storm the doors of their offices with crowbars and cosplay outfits. We know from interviews that HL2:Ep.3 was in development back in '07. They were not saying much about it, but they're not talking about it at all now. If I had to guess, I'd say they have been quietly working on a new engine and shifted development to a full length finale.

The consoles have also been showing their age, and developers are sick of having to try and squeeze another ounce of tech out of DirectX 9. DICE is building Frostbite 2 with DX 11 in mind. Epic is building UE 3 with DX 11 in mind. The console makers are starting to put together details for their next gen. It would be foolish for Valve to NOT be in a place to compete with the coming wave of games. They have waited too long since Episode 2 to do anything else but a full length HL3 on a new engine. If that is not their plan, then they need to publicly confirm that if they ever hope to put the issue to bed. In order to compete on Facebook, Android and iPad they are going to have to do something with the engine anyway.

I'd bust out in a happy dance like a sugar induced three year old if they surprised everyone at E3 with a peek at HL3 on Source 2. Only time will tell.
Click to expand...

Valve already said they're not showing anything at E3.
 
Derangel said:
Valve already said they're not showing anything at E3.
Click to expand...

God I'm lovin me some Valve :D nothin like an 04' engine to get me drooling :eek:

Why drive a Lamborghini when you can have a Riding Lawnmower in the garage... am I right?
 
Comon' Valve.... is this really how your going to roll for the next few years?

6x4%20gator.jpg


They have the money why not go big, and be awesome?

dsc02166_.jpg


Too greedy now Valve, r u guys serious?
 
Guys take a look at the Steam hardware numbers. Why the hell would they make a new engine when most of their user base couldn't use it? Valve has always created games to be used by as many people as they can get. Valve doesn't hide this, they have always been honest about how they design games. There is no point in making a new engine to go against the very way they do business. Hell Half-Life 2 support DX7 when it released!
 
I love all the people taking the time to chime in on this thread to crap on how old they feel the Source Engine looks. Have you seen console games likely? The source engine still has a lot of technology that far out-surpasses console ports and console games.

The source engine is starting to show its age but comparatively to games that came out at a similar time back in June 2004 I think its doing decently. I dare you to name Unreal's technology at the time released in 2004. You know, Unreal 2.5, with the 64-bit update, improved rendering and particle system editor. Of course, nobody has used Unreal 2.5 in ages whereas the Source engine is still being used to create new games.

I think that alone should go to say something for Source's longevity. At the moment, the Source engine does support DirectX 10 and I can't help but think it'll be updated to DirectX 11 when there's enough of a user-base to warrant it. Looking at the hardware survey for Steam, DirectX 10 is still the most popular 'newish' technology and consequently what Source uses.
 
Last edited:
Derangel said:
Guys take a look at the Steam hardware numbers. Why the hell would they make a new engine when most of their user base couldn't use it? Valve has always created games to be used by as many people as they can get. Valve doesn't hide this, they have always been honest about how they design games. There is no point in making a new engine to go against the very way they do business. Hell Half-Life 2 support DX7 when it released!
Click to expand...
they could do the same thing they did before. make an engine that scales back pretty far so nearly everyone can play at some level yet offers much higher visuals for those that are not stuck in 2004. not to mention that probably a third of the people on Steam are casual gamers or CS/CSS addicts that don't even care to play most graphically demanding modern games.
 
What are you pro Valve sellouts posting again?

Let me get this straight?

The prostitute/sellout route? Valve is going that way now? This is really going to be the way to go for Valve you say? Because it makes them mo'money? Fo' Schleezy ? Are they hurting this bad they have to milk that engine for what... another 5 more years or so on us? Why would they want to be known as the company that loves running a seriously outdated game engine? Oh yeah it does HDR and uses multicore technology, that's not even close to cutting edge lmfao!! Because it plays on the most generic hardware?!! Oh yeah that's gonna be sooo prime! Seriously?? Cuz, I think they are really hitting their pipes and snorting sum junk now thinking their graphics are hot? :confused:Lolwhut?

I bet you guys wouldn't mind Crysis 3 on Crysis 2 engine. Hell people can't even run Crysis 1 lmao give it to them on the Farcry 1 engine it had HDR!

Doom4 on the Doom 3 engine am I right? Or Quake 5 on the Quake 2 engine, heck everyone could run it!! Imagine the market accessibility to the masses!!

The Market PENETRATION IS SOOO EPIC!! :eek:

Valve is turning into an anti-PC platform if you ask me.

Serious enough for you Valve fanboys now? :D
 
cannondale06 said:
they could do the same thing they did before. make an engine that scales back pretty far so nearly everyone can play at some level yet offers much higher visuals for those that are not stuck in 2004. not to mention that probably a third of the people on Steam are casual gamers or CS/CSS addicts that don't even care to play most graphically demanding modern games.
Click to expand...

Thing is Valve does extensive testing and they've said before they use the hardware numbers as research for their games. Until the majority shifts on the Steam numbers don't expect a new engine. Unless Valve decides to radically change their business model we'll just have to deal with it. The visuals for the engine are far from being "stuck in 2004". HL2 now looks better than HL2 in 04. Portal 2 looks a hell of a lot better than HL2 in 2004. I wouldn't say no to a new engine, but as long as the games are still fun I'm happy. I understand how they want to do business and it works for them so who am I to say they shouldn't do what works and makes them money?
 
Derangel said:
Thing is Valve does extensive testing and they've said before they use the hardware numbers as research for their games. Until the majority shifts on the Steam numbers don't expect a new engine. Unless Valve decides to radically change their business model we'll just have to deal with it. The visuals for the engine are far from being "stuck in 2004". HL2 now looks better than HL2 in 04. Portal 2 looks a hell of a lot better than HL2 in 2004. I wouldn't say no to a new engine, but as long as the games are still fun I'm happy. I understand how they want to do business and it works for them so who am I to say they shouldn't do what works and makes them money?
Click to expand...
I was jokingly talking about those users that still had hardware from around 2004. I was saying that except for those people a new engine could finally take advantage of more modern hardware and allow some nicer visuals.
 
drako said:
Here's some sad food for thought... unless something crazy happens, the entire Mass Effect trilogy will have been released in the time between Episode 2 and 3 (or HL3 or whatever they are planning).
Click to expand...

That is really sad when you think about it.
 
teletran8 said:
Doom4 on the Doom 3 engine am I right? Or Quake 5 on the Quake 2 engine, heck everyone could run it!! Imagine the market accessibility to the masses!!
Click to expand...

Either engine sufficiently modified could work well for either game, sure. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either Tech 2 or Tech 4 (though admittedly the former is so technologically dated that it require too much effort to modify). Tech 5 is obviously a much more appropriate choice given its design goals and its current technological state, but there would be nothing fundamentally 'wrong' with making revisions to Tech 4 for Doom 4. id's concern would be making the kind of revisions appropriate for their specific vision and a defining a specific LOD target for a given target frame rate.

People really need to stop making the mistake of looking at the visuals in a single game based on a platform and coming to the conclusion that those visuals are all the platform is thus capable of. It simply does not work that way. The engine itself is usually perfectly capable of rendering a much greater level of visual detail than presented in games built atop that engine.
 
You know how many people who see a person playing a Valve game on PC today react??

No one that see's a Valve game running today will be impressed, not even console gamers. Show them a Valve game and they are like these graphics are OUTDATED! And that you should see Killzone 3 on their PS3 or Boarderlands on their XBOX360. They laugh at Valves game engine and think out-loud or to themselves... Wow you paid 200+ for a graphics card that can run the same game the XBOX was running in 2007. Are you crazy? :rolleyes: It's the sad truth, Valves game engine doesn't impress any gamers out there. Not even XBOX 360 gamers lmfao. Get a clue people quit being Valve fanboys, it's outdated and if HL3 is released on it I won't support them. You people that support Vavles new ideology are in for a rude awakening when even more company's adopt this philosophy, in the strategy to make Mo Money, on boring looking PC games. I seriously think we have more MBA wannabees than actual PC gamers in this forum thread. I probably won't post in this thread again, there is some massive fail going on here.
 
I laugh at all of these people who complain about the graphics from the Source engine. I wonder how many of them go out and spend top dollar for the latest graphics card and PC? I guess I'm one of the few who actually prefer gameplay over eye candy. What impresses me more is how well the Source engine has held up since its debut.

I have a very hard believing people will not buy HL3 because it's on the Source Engine.
 
And I'm sure Carmacks early engines included the string header, and are thus derivative of the very first C programs ever written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top