Some of you guys really don't understand Valve's approach to naming the engine. Nowadays people just care about marketing something with a higher version number instead of content.
For those who want to know more about the engine, read here
, and don't forget to browse the specific features menu on the right.
Let's see what Valve has been updating and not publicizing it as a new engine version:
- HDR Lighting support on DX9b hardware with AA since 2005 (Half-Life 2: Lost Coast demo) - no other engine can do this;
- DX9c support;
- Developer commentary (Orange Box - 2007);
- Improved physics (Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Portal - 2007, and, of course, Portal 2 with fluids physics);
- Multi-core support (Experimental in the Orange Box in 2007, fully usable in Left 4 Dead in 2008);
- Come on, they even added OpenGL rendering to the engine in order to make their games run on the Mac when Steam was launched for the Mac platform in 2010, and they still didn't change the major version number;
Why are you guys making it such a bid deal out of version numbering ?
Valve has been constantly updating the engine, and it is in many ways much better than other engines:
- Source is still ahead of perhaps every single engine when it comes to facial animation;
- it works well with many different types of games, whether it's single player with guns, single player with physics, multiplayer, co-op or RTS/RPG (DOTA 2);
- it works well with small maps or large maps (Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 have some pretty large maps);
Also, Valve has been constantly improving their online content delivery system, which is closely related to your gameplay experience.
Now that they have the engine working on PC, Mac, Xbox360, regular porting to the PS3, Steam on PC, Mac and Steamworks on the PS3, a fully optimized DX9c engine, the sequel of Portal released, DOTA 2 in the finishing touches phase, what do you think will be released next year ?
Source with DX11 support and HL2: EP3. What else ? Did you expect Valve to release their updated Source engine with anything other than their highest profile game ?
Originally Posted by sub50hz;15330489
Do they really need to? Source can look very modern while running on lesser hardware, has an excellent library of mod tools and is generally quite optimized. I doubt many fans of Valve games are itching for some GPU-hungry DX11 engine when the content of said games eclipses any need for graphical engine improvement.
Originally Posted by sausageson;15330787
Yeah but I remember people on this site specifically attacking COD because it was using the same engine. Whatever you think of the game you cannot attack the fact that there are using the same engine over again, while not attacking valve for doing the same.
It's not only the engine, it's what you do with it. In some parts of COD 4 MW, and MW2m you can clearly see they just didn't care. The trees are static, and the backgrounds are just pathetically low resolution mock-ups (load MW2 in the favela section and tell me how the background of Rio de Janeiro looks like. If you want a good laugh use the sniper scope.)
Originally Posted by SamTheJarvis;15332099
Optimized (High image quality to FPS ratio)
Configurable (gigantic list of console commands and config files)
It's an almost perfect engine, just with outdated effects. I say, well done Valve for creating an engine, and not letting it languish by updating it regularly and maintaining all your main games.
I wonder if a game like Garrys Mod could be as easily made as it was in source, than in another engine like Unreal or Frostbite.
+1Edited by tpi2007 - 10/16/11 at 1:59pm