Leaked Source2 screen shot

[FordGT90Concept]

Newell said they were working on engine stuff, not Source 2.0. Slightly different, and was the writers interpretation. I do see how it could be taken that way, however.

And then these slides show up a year later. It all fits. What is available now is Source 1.0 build 5506. Naturally, Source 2.0 would supersede it.

Additionally, PC Games N wasn't the only one to say "Source 2." Pictures were leaked previously and published on Game Trailers; moreover, they have a photo there of a Valve computer with a bug list and "Source2" is directly referenced in it.

Also, Chaos Theory had great graphics, etc, it had horrible performance compared to HL2.

Great graphics cost performance. I played it on an 9800 Pro and X800 XL. Neither had any problems running it.

 

[FX-GMC]

Newell said they were working on engine stuff, not Source 2.0. Slightly different, and was the writers interpretation. I do see how it could be taken that way, however.

Someone asked him if it was an entirely new engine and Newell said "Yeah". You are correct that he didn't give it a name tho.

 

[Ravenas]

And how is that not average? Minecraft graphics are shit but it undeniably appeals "to the masses." In fact, Minecraft has outsold the best selling Valve title, Half-Life. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with average. I'm saying that if it looked like Crysis 3, I'd be sure it was a fake because Valve doesn't put that much effort into making games look pretty.

Console graphics are average. That screenshot looks better than any console I've played on. Secondly, I doubt that is even real.

 

[TheMailMan78]

1) Half-Life 2 debuted Nov 2004. Half-Life 2: Lost Coast debuted Oct 2005. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory debuted Mar 2005. 2000 is irrelevant to this discussion.
2) Tech demos have little to do with games actually released. The picture I posted is of gameplay.
3) In 1999, the original Unreal engine slaughtered IDTech engine which GoldSource was based on. ID has never been able to catch up to Epic since.

Edit: Newell confirmed Source 2.0 was in development in 2012.

Don't change the argument. You said Valve always did "Average" games in terms of graphics. The tech demo of Half Life 2 WAS the game back in 1999 and NOTHING at that time even came close. So if you want to go "final game" that's a whole different argument. Also the Tech3 engine powers ALL the CoD games even today. Where's you Unreal God now?

You are coming at me with gaming history. You shouldn't do that. I've been living this stuff since 1983. I don't need Google to one up you in this arena.

 

[Ravenas]

Don't change the argument. You said Valve always did "Average" games in terms of graphics. The tech demo of Half Life 2 WAS the game back in 1999 and NOTHING at that time even came close. So if you want to go "final game" that's a whole different argument. Also the Tech3 engine powers ALL the CoD games even today. Where's you Unreal God now?

You are coming at me with gaming history. You shouldn't do that. I've been living this stuff since 1983. I don't need Google to one up you in this arena.

You are right. During 1999 nothing compared to Source. Source isn't the pinnacle of gaming graphics, but the graphics engine itself is by far more than average even by todays standards.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Don't change the argument. You said Valve always did "Average" games in terms of graphics. The tech demo of Half Life 2 WAS the game back in 1999 and NOTHING at that time even came close. So if you want to go "final game" that's a whole different argument. Also the Tech3 engine powers ALL the CoD games even today. Where's you Unreal God now?

1) It was in 2003, not 1999/2000. The original Splinter Cell debuted six months before E3 2003--gameplay video below). If you look at stuff that was released of Half-Life 2 (known as Half-Life 2 Beta at the time) prior to the E3 tech demo, it looks more like Half-Life than Half-Life 2.

2) Only Call of Duty used the ID Tech 3 engine. All subsequent games used the Infinity Ward engine which is a lot like Gold Source in that it diverged and became its own IP from ID Tech. I'm pretty certain Activision isn't paying licensing fees to iD anymore.

 

[TheMailMan78]

1) It was in 2003, not 1999/2000. The original Splinter Cell debuted six months before that E3 2003. If you look at stuff that was released of Half-Life 2 (known as Half-Life 2 Beta at the time) prior to the E3 tech demo, it looks more like Half-Life than Half-Life 2.

2) Only Call of Duty used the ID Tech 3 engine. All subsequent games used the Infinity Ward engine which is a lot like Gold Source in that it diverged and became its own IP from ID Tech. I'm pretty certain Activision isn't paying licensing fees to iD anymore.

Better check the back of any CoD box fine print son. iD Software copyrights are to be seen. Activision still pays rights.

Also the original splinter cell isn't anywhere near Half Life 2 unless your obsessed with bump mapping.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Game looks is always subjective. My point is that from a technology standpoint, the Source engine (2004 technology) doesn't compete with Unreal Engine 3, iD Tech 5, AnvilNext, Rockstar Advanced Game Engine, nor virtually any other engine found in a 2010+ game. It needs updating and it sounds like that update is coming soon.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Game looks is always subjective. My point is that from a technology standpoint, the Source engine (2004 technology) doesn't compete with Unreal Engine 3, iD Tech 5, AnvilNext, Rockstar Advanced Game Engine, nor virtually any other engine found in a 2010+ game. It needs updating and it sounds like that update is coming soon.

1. All those engines are YEARS newer.
2. Point was you said Valve always did "Average" graphics. That was the whole point of the debate. I just proved that was incorrect. Point, set, match.

kthxbai

 

[Frick]

Better check the back of any CoD box fine print son. iD Software copyrights are to be seen. Activision still pays rights.

Also the original splinter cell isn't anywhere near Half Life 2 unless your obsessed with bump mapping.

I REALLY cannot express how much I hate agreeing with Ford, but google brings up discussions about when the HL2 tech is coming and they all come from 2003. The engine might have originated 1999, but i'm quite sure it wasn't demoed then. EDIT: I'm not saying one engine was better than the other, it's just for clarification. IMO HL2 still is gorgeous, especially the facial animations.

Game looks is always subjective.

Not to you.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Better check the back of any CoD box fine print son. iD Software copyrights are to be seen. Activision still pays rights.

Strange how even the original Half-Life published by Sierra doesn't mention iD nor Quake on the box art. The Quake agreement must have been less restrictive than the iD Tech 3 agreement.

Also the original splinter cell isn't anywhere near Half Life 2 unless your obsessed with bump mapping.

Splinter Cell debuted 2002, Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow debuted 2004, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory debuted 2005
HL2 tech demo was 2003, HL2 was 2004, HL2:LC was 2005.
FarCry debuted 2004 (ironically also had a trailer at E3 2003)

Splinter Cell preceded HL2 tech demo by six months, nevermind the actual game release which is more in line with Pandora Tomorrow and FarCry. I thought I made that clear in my previous post.

1. All those engines are YEARS newer.
2. Point was you said Valve always did "Average" graphics. That was the whole point of the debate. I just proved that was incorrect. Point, set, match.

1. That's the point. Portal 2 is of the same generation has those games I mentioned but it really didn't set any landmarks due to using an engine seven years old at the time.
2. No, you didn't "prove" anything other than you've got a lot of years wrong.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Strange how even the original Half-Life published by Sierra doesn't mention iD nor Quake on the box art. The Quake agreement must have been less restrictive than the iD Tech 3 agreement.


Splinter Cell debuted 2002, Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow debuted 2004, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory debuted 2005
HL2 tech demo was 2003, HL2 was 2004, HL2:LC was 2005.
FarCry debuted 2004 (ironically also had a trailer at E3 2003)

Splinter Cell preceded HL2 tech demo by six months, nevermind the actual game release which is more in line with Pandora Tomorrow and FarCry. I thought I made that clear in my previous post.


1. That's the point. Portal 2 is of the same generation has those games I mentioned but it really didn't set any landmarks due to using an engine seven years old at the time.
2. No, you didn't "prove" anything other than you've got a lot of years wrong.

Bottom line is you said Valve has always done average graphics. 1999 or 2003 doesn't matter honestly as even in 2003 Valve Half Life 2 demo was still bleeding edge in graphics. That's the WHOLE POINT. You are wrong. Titanfall is the source engine also. Guess that's "average" also.......never mind its on a 10+ year old engine.

I can see your point. Its so outdated EA is making a AAA game with it by the creators of CoD. Seems legit.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

FarCry was "bleeding edge;" Half-Life 2 was average. I'd say Splinter Cell, throughout its history, has been average as well.

For 2014, yes, Titanfall is average. Respawn Entertainment is private like Valve. EA is merely publishing it.

 

[TheMailMan78]

FarCry was "bleeding edge;" Half-Life 2 was average. I'd say Splinter Cell, throughout its history, has been average as well.

For 2014, yes, Titanfall is average. Respawn Entertainment is private like Valve. EA is merely publishing it.

Yeah....um FarCry was a system hog. Graphics vs Half Life 2? really?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I didn't say it wasn't a system hog but if you're looking for "bleeding edge," I'd expect it to put all the computer resources available to it to work. FarCry did that more than any other game at the time and it actually came out in March of 2004 as opposed to November of 2004.


Edit: To add to Titanfall...

Titanfall is built on the Source engine, but it is not a simply mod. We didn't choose Source to make a "Source game", we chose it because its a great foundation to build our own technology on. In addition to everything we've added, we've made significant changes to the engine at all levels including major changes to parts that are not accessible to modders at all. We've rewritten or rearchitected major systems to support the needs of our game and our developers, including things like rendering, lighting, visibility, networking and tools pipelines. If you don't get everything you want you're free to call this an excuse if you'd like, but it's the reality of developing a multi platform title with next gen capabilities with a relatively small team.

Respawn is having to do all of the above to make a Source game on-par for 2014 standards. If Source wasn't such a relic, they could focus a lot less on bringing it up to date and more on the unique content they want to bring to the table. Respawn effectively has to do what Valve has failed to do. The sad part is that Valve is unlikely to get any of the modifications Respawn made.

He said the reason why they chose Source over other engines is because of its ability to maintain 60 FPS on Xbox 360, Windows, and PlayStation 3 (which was exceptional at the time). Knowing that they would be launching on Xbox One, Xbox 360, and Windows and that they wouldn't be launching on PlayStation 3/PlayStation 4, the odds are pretty good they would have selected another engine back then. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[manofthem]

"I couldn't care less about [Valve/graphics/engines/techdemos/years]. But, I'm loving the debate. Great minds battling it out. And I've got a front row seat"

-Creed Bratton, the Office

 

[TheMailMan78]

I didn't say it wasn't a system hog but if you're looking for "bleeding edge," I'd expect it to put all the computer resources available to it to work. FarCry did that more than any other game at the time and it actually came out in March of 2004 as opposed to November of 2004.


Edit: To add to Titanfall...

Respawn is having to do all of the above to make a Source game on-par for 2014 standards. If Source wasn't such a relic, they could focus a lot less on bringing it up to date and more on the unique content they want to bring to the table. Respawn effectively has to do what Valve has failed to do. The sad part is that Valve is unlikely to get any of the modifications Respawn made.

He said the reason why they chose Source over other engines is because of its ability to maintain 60 FPS on Xbox 360, Windows, and PlayStation 3 (which was exceptional at the time). Knowing that they would be launching on Xbox One, Xbox 360, and Windows and that they wouldn't be launching on PlayStation 3/PlayStation 4, the odds are pretty good they would have selected another engine back then. Hindsight is 20/20.

You mean like the "vastly superior" Unreal 2.0 engine used in Splinter Cell or the Far Cry 1 engine? Yeah you are right. I'm sure the boys a Respawn never heard of those engines before they picked the Source engine.

Again you are trying your damn best to change the argument. But have failed at every turn.

The Source engine was never EVER "Average". It was bleeding edge when it came out. Even today its being used and modified by AAA developers. That's the point of this argument. You said Valve produces "Average" graphics.......if Source was "average" it would have been dead years ago. Alas the proof is in the puddin'.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Splinter Cell: Blacklist still uses a modified Unreal Engine 2.5; Source isn't the only engine with staying power.

I think you're missing the point of why engines get major updates and that's predominately to make developers be able to implement the latest technologies with the littlest effort possible. Respawn has been working on Titanfall for over three years now. Had Source 2.0 been available in 2010 when they started on it, the game likely would have been out no later than 2012 or early 2013. Respawn has been criticized heavily for choosing Source engine. Let's not judge whether or not that was a good decision until it launches in a few months.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Splinter Cell: Blacklist still uses a modified Unreal Engine 2.5; Source isn't the only engine with staying power.

Honestly thats really not relevant to the argument. Source wasn't average. Never was. I proved it over and over again. Now that you keep banging your head against straw arguments I think my point has been made. Go ahead and have the last word as my evidence out weights your emotion. Class dismissed.

 

[Mindweaver]

I'm with TMM on this and think that Valve doesn't do average. You can go all the way back to the original Half-Life and see this as well. You're splitting hairs with Unreal 2.0 and the Source engine, because they are both great engines. They both had their strengths, and used them well. To say either is average is a far stretch from the true.

 

[Kaynar]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/01/28/these-might-be-images-of-valves-source-2-0-engine/

PCGamer covered this *today* as well.

 

[BiggieShady]

Nevermind the Source being "old" it uses the same idea as Unreal 3, they both use lightmaps and binary space partitioning algorithm that Carmack originally adapted for occlusion culling. Other things are just shaders, editing tools and 3rd party tech that is modular and work with any engine. Ultimately there is nothing UE3 can do that Source can't. There is one thing ... if you don't know how to write shaders, in Unreal you can do it by drawing graphs with colored boxes and connections

 

[xenocide]

I'll try to address some things as I see them;

Q: Source 2.0? Wasn't that already released?
A: Am I the only one that knows the difference between "Source 2.0" and "Source2"? Source 2.0 implies a revision of the original Source Engine, where as Source2 implies a successor to the Source Engine. It would be the same as Call of Duty 2.0 versus Call of Duty 2.

Q: Why re-render a scene from L4D2 instead of building a new one?
A: For a frame of reference. If they just wanted to show something shiney they easily could. Do you think by showing a multiplayer level from Half-Life 2 DM next to a multiplayer level from Titanfall you would have any real frame of reference? What they are showcasing is how much better Source2 variations of levels are in terms of graphical capabilities.

Q: Hasn't Valve always been behind the times when it came to graphics?
A: Yes and No. When Half-Life came out it wasn't the best looking game, but it was above average. The same can be said about Half-Life 2. There were a handful of titles on the bleeding edge around the release of both, but especially during Half-Life 2, the trade off was HL2 looked very good while still being playable. I remember when Far Cry launched, and it brought even the highest end of computers to their knees. HL has usually been a series focused on interesting gameplay (Script/AI and Platformer elements in HL1; Gravity Gun, Lighting/Water effects, Atmosphere, AI in HL2) and acceptable enough graphics to not be considered dated.

Q: Didn't Newell say there was no Engine in development?
A: He has flip-flopped a bit on the subject. I don't expect Source2 to completely replace the Source Engine, rather for it to be a large update to it. The Source Engine has been gradually updated since HL2 launched. I remember when TF2, Portal, and Portal 2 came out there were a lot of updates to pre-existing Source and Goldsrc titles, because the engine had been updated. People assume that because they don't launch a huge marketting campaign and showcase new games every time they make a change the engine is exactly the same as it was in 2004, this is false. I've read interviews where he says one month that there is no Source2, and the next month says they never stop developing it. The man is a massive troll--case in point Ricochet 2.

Q: "Redesigned Tools & Workflow."?
A: The biggest complaint I've heard about the Source Engine in its current state is that it's SDK is very very dated. They haven't updated the tools in a couple years, so I imagine part of the push for Source2 will be focused on an updated toolset for modders and wouldbe developers. The easier you make tools to use the more likely people are to take advantage of them.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Q: Source 2.0? Wasn't that already released?
A: Am I the only one that knows the difference between "Source 2.0" and "Source2"? Source 2.0 implies a revision of the original Source Engine, where as Source2 implies a successor to the Source Engine. It would be the same as Call of Duty 2.0 versus Call of Duty 2.

That is not absolute. When I make 2.0, I brand it as <name> 2.

 

[xenocide]

That is not absolute. When I make 2.0, I brand it as <name> 2.

It's generally speaking the norm though. 2.0 implies a version number, 2 implies a new iteration of the product.