Why is Source so efficient?

[PopeKevinI]

yeah, that game looked so horrible!11!!! Vavle is teh sux0r.






If you think Half Life 2 looked shitty you have no taste.

But it's not as pretty as the newest eye candy games, therefore it looks like crap.

Some gamers are just entirely too spoiled (or just too obsessed with pretty graphics).

 

[Digital Terror]

But it's not as pretty as the newest eye candy games, therefore it looks like crap.

Some gamers are just entirely too spoiled (or just too obsessed with pretty graphics).

Too much eye candy, not enough gameplay or storyline. HL2 had a decent storyline, but short gameplay (8-10 hrs at most), CoD is nice, but very short gameplay (finished in under 5 hrs). How long does it take to finish Doom 3? How long will it take to finish FEAR or Q4?

Whatever happened to games that provided a good storyline AND good gameplay? I miss the days of games that advertised 100+ hours on the boxes

IIRC, AvP2 took closer to 25 hrs to complete if you did all 3 story arcs, and did a great job with weaving the 3 story arcs together to make one large storyline. I haven't tried Doom 3 yet, but if I want a bit of a 'scare' type game thrill, the Marine story arc is good for that.

I really want to see a FPS with a great 'scare' atmosphere that lasts longer than a mere dozen hours. The FEAR demo has a great atmosphere, but I really doubt it'll have the length of gameplay. I'm going to get it anyway

 

[Apallohadas]

Source efficient? LOL!!!

That piece of shit engine has no dinamic lights or shadows, that’s why it’s “efficient” and that’s why it looks like a piece of crap from 5 years ago. Valve stopped impressing me after Half Life 1.

dynamic.

 

[FlatLine84]

dynamic.

Indeed.

 

[NowhereMan]

dynamic.

Sorry, fast typing got to me. Regardless, the point is still valid.

 

[deathBOB]

Sorry, fast typing got to me. Regardless, the point is still valid.

Looks pretty damn good to me!

 

[Aelfgeft]

That piece of shit engine has no dinamic lights or shadows, that’s why it’s “efficient” and that’s why it looks like a piece of crap from 5 years ago. Valve stopped impressing me after Half Life 1.

If that's your basis for the quality of a game, in my opinion, you are not a gamer. You are an art critic.

Knights of the Old Republic by today's standards has outdated graphics. Even on 7800GTX it slows down in a couple areas due to a user-correctable bug in one of the config files. However, I think the majority of people will attest to its replayability, fun, enjoyability, and challenge as a high quality game.

The Source engine (not Half Life 2 exclusively) is proving to be as successful an engine as the HL1 engine that was ripped from Q2. It has tremendous scalability potential, opening up not only a world to gamers who want to put their own ideas into action, but also helps new generations of game programmers get ideas and get some practice.

Oh...and the smartest thing about the Valve engine? A T-Bird or PIII could play it with low settings on and still be a suspenseful and enjoyable experience. The more comments like the one above get thrown at the gaming industry, the more the whole genre gets pushed into the cliques and closets, and the more game companies give up because they are not going to focus on a vocal minority on message boards.

 

[NowhereMan]

If that's your basis for the quality of a game, in my opinion, you are not a gamer. You are an art critic.

What? Quality? HL2 was nothing but a linear average shooter. It was all hype.

 

[FlatLine84]

What? Quality? HL2 was nothing but a linear average shooter. It was all hype.

I don't think you played the game, the only thing it didn't live up to was the whole unscripted deal....

 

[Aelfgeft]

What? Quality? HL2 was nothing but a linear average shooter. It was all hype.

Read what I was responding to. Someone saying the game was bad because of what it "looked like". That's an art critic, not a gamer.

 

[Rock&Roll]

Download the R8 HDR bloom mod, it only gives a marginal framerate hit and adds great bloom effects.

Gave it a whirl. No go. I get some purple checkerboard effect. Turning off AA and AF doesn't help either.

as for the Source engine:

It ran impressively on my old 32 MB Radeon 7000. Other games couldn't hope to run on a card that weak, but Source did it and still looked reasonably good. I've since bought an X850 Pro and have seen Source in all its glory...it's nowhere near the best engine for graphics but I haven't been particularly impressed by those engines which are supposedly superior.

Source creates an immersive environment, runs smoothly, and makes for a fun game. That's all I care about.

Same here

 

[Digital Terror]

Gave it a whirl. No go. I get some purple checkerboard effect. Turning off AA and AF doesn't help either.




Same here

Were you using D3D, OpenGL, or Software?
I think you get the checkerboard off OpenGL. Using D3D I didn't have that problem.

 

[Mabrito]

I don't think you played the game, the only thing it didn't live up to was the whole unscripted deal....

Yep, but I heard that Aftermath is suppose to have unscripted AI. But then again, Valve said Half-Life 2 was suppose to have it also, so who knows.

 

[NowhereMan]

Read what I was responding to. Someone saying the game was bad because of what it "looked like". That's an art critic, not a gamer.

Trust me, I am a gamer. And the game was bad on both ends.

On one end, gameplay was as linear and plain as any other average shooter out there. The AI is dumb and we've seen physics in other games before that. The game has zero replayability unless you like to finish the levels the EXACT same way taht you finished them last time. And the multiplayer is full of hacks and stupid 12 year olds. (And don't even get me started on Steam.)

On the other hand, you have an old engine that uses pre-rendered graphics and shadows that are static, plain and flat. Hi-resolution textures alone don't make for good graphics in a game. Heck, most of the time the old Quake3 engine looks just as good if you look at games like Call of Duty.

So my point is that after waiting for the sequel for 5 years, my response was – that's it? All the hype and that's all they came up with? A gravity gun? Woopie f*cking doo!

Bottom line -- average game and average engine. No more, no less.

 

[Twinkie]

NowhereMan,

I agree with you. Games of late have been "ooh, pretty," but boring as all hell.

The last few games I played I really enjoyed:

Prince of Persia: Both SoT and WW (music SUCKED in WW, though)
Splinter Cell: CT
Burnout: Revenge
Jade Empire



Hmm... none of those were PC games...

 

[Lord of Shadows]

If that's your basis for the quality of a game, in my opinion, you are not a gamer. You are an art critic.

The Source engine (not Half Life 2 exclusively) is proving to be as successful an engine as the HL1 engine that was ripped from Q2. It has tremendous scalability potential, opening up not only a world to gamers who want to put their own ideas into action, but also helps new generations of game programmers get ideas and get some practice.

Oh...and the smartest thing about the Valve engine? A T-Bird or PIII could play it with low settings on and still be a suspenseful and enjoyable experience. The more comments like the one above get thrown at the gaming industry, the more the whole genre gets pushed into the cliques and closets, and the more game companies give up because they are not going to focus on a vocal minority on message boards.

He was talking about the source engine's "efficiency" not the quality of games based on that engine. HL1 was based on quake1 source code, which still leaves its mark. If running on low end machines is "smart" then there are many engines "smarter" than source. I dont know about you, but there is this new trend to make things look better in video games. And for some reason I dont see many people complaining about it.

 

[Digital Terror]

He was talking about the source engine's "efficiency" not the quality of games based on that engine. HL1 was based on quake1 source code, which still leaves its mark. If running on low end machines is "smart" then there are many engines "smarter" than source. I dont know about you, but there is this new trend to make things look better in video games. And for some reason I dont see many people complaining about it.

This is not a 'new' trend, it's been going on since the very beginning. However, the trend is more eye-candy with less content...and THAT does have a lot of people complaining.

 

[PopeKevinI]

He was talking about the source engine's "efficiency" not the quality of games based on that engine. HL1 was based on quake1 source code, which still leaves its mark. If running on low end machines is "smart" then there are many engines "smarter" than source. I dont know about you, but there is this new trend to make things look better in video games. And for some reason I dont see many people complaining about it.

HL2 looked much, much better on DX7 hardware than Doom3 or FarCry.

One thing you've got to realize is that there are A LOT of gamers playing on hardware that the average [H] poster is going to consider obsolete. I'm one of them...between getting married, getting laid off, moving, and having a kid, I haven't had much money to spend on my system in the past 3 years. It was nice to see HL2 running well on my aging system when it came out while other games choked.

So yeah, Source may not be all that impressive for those of you who can regularly invest in new components, but those of us who have other priorities (or simply less money), Source beats the other engines because it actually works for us.

 

[HHunt]

He was talking about the source engine's "efficiency" not the quality of games based on that engine. HL1 was based on quake1 source code, which still leaves its mark. If running on low end machines is "smart" then there are many engines "smarter" than source. I dont know about you, but there is this new trend to make things look better in video games. And for some reason I dont see many people complaining about it.

It's only "smart" if it also looks good on modern hardware, something HL2 pulls off nicely IMO. I like the way it looks, perhaps because I don't focus on what it's missing. It's a coherent, stylish, and (for me) smoothly running experience, and a good example of an art team making the best of the available engine.

That doesn't mean that I don't hope they integrate all sorts of eyecandy in newer versions and other engines, of course, but if I let that distract me I could never enjoy a game.


Edit: Just for once, I think a hardware listing would be relevant:
Radeon 9800 Pro
P4 Xeon 2.8 GHz (single)
Asus PP-DLW (dual socket 604, intel E7505-based)
1Gb of PC2700 DDR ram
(It should really have been a server or a workstation, but ... things happened.)
In short, I agree with PopeKevinI. There's an upgrade looming, but until then, I appreciate well-running engines.

 

[amdgamer]

If you really want a longer FPS game, Doom 3 does provide 15-20 hours of gameplay. It's probably one of the longer FPS games to be released recently. After you have beat that, you can buy Resurrection of Evil expansion pack to tack on another 8-10 hours or so.

Too much eye candy, not enough gameplay or storyline. HL2 had a decent storyline, but short gameplay (8-10 hrs at most), CoD is nice, but very short gameplay (finished in under 5 hrs). How long does it take to finish Doom 3? How long will it take to finish FEAR or Q4?

Whatever happened to games that provided a good storyline AND good gameplay? I miss the days of games that advertised 100+ hours on the boxes

IIRC, AvP2 took closer to 25 hrs to complete if you did all 3 story arcs, and did a great job with weaving the 3 story arcs together to make one large storyline. I haven't tried Doom 3 yet, but if I want a bit of a 'scare' type game thrill, the Marine story arc is good for that.

I really want to see a FPS with a great 'scare' atmosphere that lasts longer than a mere dozen hours. The FEAR demo has a great atmosphere, but I really doubt it'll have the length of gameplay. I'm going to get it anyway

 

[Attean]

Trust me, I am a gamer. And the game was bad on both ends.

On one end, gameplay was as linear and plain as any other average shooter out there. The AI is dumb and we've seen physics in other games before that. The game has zero replayability unless you like to finish the levels the EXACT same way taht you finished them last time. And the multiplayer is full of hacks and stupid 12 year olds. (And don't even get me started on Steam.)

On the other hand, you have an old engine that uses pre-rendered graphics and shadows that are static, plain and flat. Hi-resolution textures alone don't make for good graphics in a game. Heck, most of the time the old Quake3 engine looks just as good if you look at games like Call of Duty.

So my point is that after waiting for the sequel for 5 years, my response was – that's it? All the hype and that's all they came up with? A gravity gun? Woopie f*cking doo!

Bottom line -- average game and average engine. No more, no less.

You clearly don't get it and that's fine. Just don't spew your crap on the rest of us.

Half Life 2 is the epitome of design. Yes, it didn't have dynamic shadows...oh no. It was still far better than everything else that came before it and still is - and it successfully built on the strength of its predecessor: level design. I can understand you not liking it, but to say it was an average game just makes you sound ignorant and disrespectful.

 

[Nuzzles]

I honestly thought the only thing this thread was going to be was a Steam Flaming Fest....that aside...

HL2 is a great game. Not that i have finished it, mainly due to formatting and loosing all of those updates and shit. And me being super lazy not downloading them (dial-up )

Onto my HL2 comments. Well, I love the graphics. They're what I like, unlike -cough- Doom 3...-shudder- One of the most fun times I had in a long time was on that little water-jet-sky-machine-gun-hybrid thingy. That was a total blast.

 

[NowhereMan]

Half Life 2 is the epitome of design.

http://mirrors-av.club-internet.fr/pub/games/nofrag/halflife2/videos/hl2_nofrag_us.avi

I rest my case...

 

[Jake]

Why come HL2, CS:S and DOD run so smooth with everything cranked up and with really nice graphics as compared to other gaming engines?

Maybe because you have a A64 4000+ and SLIed 7800s?

 

[oqvist]

Why come HL2, CS:S and DOD run so smooth with everything cranked up and with really nice graphics as compared to other gaming engines?

I know that this has been said before but the first reply is really correct. It´s not really a dx 9 game but it covers it with good work on the textures. You can play an otherwise excellent games which I warmly recommed wampire bloodlines to see how Source engine looks when not tons and tons of work have been done to cover it´s ugly side .

But there is no shadows in HL 2 and the one there is isn´t working very well. That is one of the biggest reason why it doesn´t really demand anything.

 

[HHunt]

http://mirrors-av.club-internet.fr/pub/games/nofrag/halflife2/videos/hl2_nofrag_us.avi

I rest my case...

That's ... amazingly irrelevant to the discussion of the graphics and engine.
(Except perhaps the hitboxes.)

 

[drizzt81]

wtf are you talking about? source is THE ONLY engine i know of that unless im running a constant 70FPS+ is choppy


which means i run 1280x960 4xAA 4xAF for CS:S on a 6800gt

where as i can run doom 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF smoothly

I was wondering the same thing. With my 6800GT, I could not get it to run at 60FPS (vsync on; LCD) even at 1280 x 1024 with some effects turned off.. I think it is reather sluggish. then again, I do play MP games.

on that topic:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=175&type=expert&pid=9

shows the new Asus Dual 7800GT card getting <40 fps min in a level.. That -imho- says a lot about 'efficiency'.

 

[hordaktheman]

I never found the engine that impressive. HL2 looking good has far more to do with the artists being good than the engine. DoD:S, however, looks pretty phenomenal with HDR (much better than without), but that's the only outstanding feature specific to the engine that I can think of.

 

[Attean]

http://mirrors-av.club-internet.fr/pub/games/nofrag/halflife2/videos/hl2_nofrag_us.avi

I rest my case...

every game has bugs in it. I didnt say it was flawless technically I said it was the epitome of design.

How can you be so dense as to go about finding a bug and then using that as proof the game was bad? Especially considering it didn't obstruct gameplay in the least and you would have to look for those bugs to find them. Give it a rest. If that's youre case your case is weak.

How much more irrelevant of a post could you of made.

 

[Cabezone]

You clearly don't get it and that's fine. Just don't spew your crap on the rest of us.

Half Life 2 is the epitome of design. Yes, it didn't have dynamic shadows...oh no. It was still far better than everything else that came before it and still is - and it successfully built on the strength of its predecessor: level design. I can understand you not liking it, but to say it was an average game just makes you sound ignorant and disrespectful.

I didn't like it much either for mostly the same reasons.

Does that make me ignorant?

 

[Cabezone]

every game has bugs in it. I didnt say it was flawless technically I said it was the epitome of design.

How can you be so dense as to go about finding a bug and then using that as proof the game was bad? Especially considering it didn't obstruct gameplay in the least and you would have to look for those bugs to find them. Give it a rest. If that's youre case your case is weak.

How much more irrelevant of a post could you of made.

It didn't seem that well designed, overall, to me. It had the best artwork I've seen in a shooter to date. But the game felt like it was made by 4 different teams that just stuck their level together randomly to see what they could to with the physics. It had some good atmosphere though. It was much better than most of the stuff out there, but I liked Far Cry better because of the way it played. It was linear for the most part as well, but didn't feel like it.

 

[Attean]

I didn't like it much either for mostly the same reasons.

Does that make me ignorant?

no, not liking it is fine. Saying it's an average game isn't. Show respect.

 

[Cabezone]

no, not liking it is fine. Saying it's an average game isn't. Show respect.

Respect an inanimate object? Why, if it's my opinion thats it's an average game, I will say so. Did anyone say that the programmers are a bunch of morons, or that Gabe is a fat bastard? That would be disrespectful.

Giving my opinion that it's an average game is not.

 

[Bo_Bice]

get on your knees and show some respect to the game, IMMEDIATELY

 

[Lord of Shadows]

I dont like gabe much, after the whole shader day incident and obvious hate towards the fx series visible in hl2.

 

[Attean]

Respect an inanimate object? Why, if it's my opinion thats it's an average game, I will say so. Did anyone say that the programmers are a bunch of morons, or that Gabe is a fat bastard? That would be disrespectful.

Giving my opinion that it's an average game is not.

Well, you're not respecting the game that is clearly above average. Saying Half Life 2 is average is like calling Natalie Portman ugly because you don't like her ankles. Ok, bad analogy but calling Half Life 2 a bad game is just insulting to a game that had so much to offer.

If it was over hyped for you that's fine, you couldnt appreciate it. But you have to look at the content in that game objectively and see the brilliant design behind it.

 

[Cabezone]

Well, you're not respecting the game that is clearly above average. Saying Half Life 2 is average is like calling Natalie Portman ugly because you don't like her ankles. Ok, bad analogy but calling Half Life 2 a bad game is just insulting to a game that had so much to offer.

If it was over hyped for you that's fine, you couldnt appreciate it. But you have to look at the content in that game objectively and see the brilliant design behind it.

Everything above this sentence is an opinion not a fact.

 

[NowhereMan]

no, not liking it is fine. Saying it's an average game isn't. Show respect.

Dude, this game is average in my own opinion so STFU!

If you want to be a Valve fanb0y then that's fine, but I am entitled to my own opinion.

 

[FlatLine84]

The game is certainly average now, but when it came out it was revolutionary from a technological aspect, that was short lived sadly.

 

[pancakes]

I dont think the Source engine is super efficient.

Source is heavily CPU dependant. Doom 3 uses very little CPU compared to Source. I get super smooth framerates in Doom with my xp 2200 and 9700pro. But, when i load up source I get abbysmal framerates even with all the eye candy turned off at 640x480.