[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31537351]The source engine was amazing when it came out (just look at half-life 2 and other games that came out the same year) but lately its been feeling a little outdated. Portal 2s textures weren't that detailed and there doesn't seem to be that big of a difference between source 1 and source 2.[/QUOTE]
there's a source 2?
[QUOTE=koeniginator;31537915]there's a source 2?[/QUOTE]
Guessing Source 2 is used for the newer games like Portal 2 and DOTA 2.
There is no source 2 it's just different branches of source.
[QUOTE=booster;31537471]But if put in the right hands it can become pretty beautiful
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3bPjEbenew&feature=BFa&list=UUzEweHcTo8xM&index=3[/media][/QUOTE]
My god, that looks better than Cryengine 3. Can't wait to see what HL3 will look like.
EDIT: I watched it in 720p and came a little. I hope to god that valve uses what these people did for things like Ice caves in the Arctic with HL3.
Keep in mind he's an ex-designer for DICE
Top Ten Gaming Engines aka "We took 10 engines that recent games used and put them in this countdown"
Top Ten Gaming Engines aka "We don't know shit about the technology that goes into creating a video game engine but we took some games we like that use these engines and looks pretty and put them in this countdown"
Frosbite 2, 7th place? ...
[QUOTE=booster;31537471]But if put in the right hands it can become pretty beautiful
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3bPjEbenew&feature=BFa&list=UUzEweHcTo8xM&index=3[/media][/QUOTE]
Except something like that would use an obscene amount of edicts, brushes, and take half of eternity for the lighting to be baked in during rendering. God forbid you try to optimize that, as well. Source can do extreme detail, but the rest of the level must also be tiny.
[QUOTE=Saber15;31541095]Except something like that would use an obscene amount of edicts, brushes, and take half of eternity for the lighting to be baked in during rendering. God forbid you try to optimize that, as well. Source can do extreme detail, but the rest of the level must also be tiny.[/QUOTE]
And Valve did a rather good job of that in their games. What people don't understand is that their games are linear. Sure you can branch off into another room and look around but at heart, its linear. Good thing about linear games/levels is that you can go into a higher detail because you dont need to make an entire city with detail around every corner. One thing I noticed in most Valve made source games is that the more you get off the path you are supposed to go, the less the detail comes. And Source is rather bad at detail compared to model based engines, seeing as displacements are awful and brushes don't help either. (And I am 100% sure that a good amount of that video has to have models in it to even possibly be stable)
idTech or Unreal Engine should have easily gotten first place as they are the two greatest/most influential engines of all time.
I don't understand their criteria to qualify those game engines. At all.
[QUOTE=STeel;31543547]I don't understand their criteria to qualify those game engines. At all.[/QUOTE]
two of them were the same engine
[QUOTE=STeel;31543547]I don't understand their criteria to qualify those game engines. At all.[/QUOTE] They definitely don't seem to know too much about game development so they probably just thought up there favorite games that recently came out and classified there engine based on that.
[QUOTE=booster;31537471]But if put in the right hands it can become pretty beautiful
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3bPjEbenew&feature=BFa&list=UUzEweHcTo8xM&index=3[/media][/QUOTE]
The question is how efficient is it compared to making a similar scene on a different engine.
And by efficient I mean all of the practical stages of making this scene, from mapping it(and modelling), baking it and of course how well it runs when you finally play it. And whatever may come in between and I have overlooked.
[QUOTE=Dlaor-guy;31536208]ALL OF MY RAGE.[/QUOTE]
get a grip its just a horrible joke
Unreal Engine should have been number one and Source should have been number two. I mean, everything runs on Unreal these days. Even Tetris.
[QUOTE=Mister Royzo;31553041]Unreal Engine should have been number one and Source should have been number two. I mean, everything runs on Unreal these days.[B] Even Tetris.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's pretty unreal.
They didn't go into depth with how easy they are to develop for or how powerful they are.
This entire ranking is pretty irrelevant if it's not based on anything but how used the engines are.
Looks like they're just ranking them based upon graphics, which are an unfair comparison because the graphics of a game depend more on the art style and developers than the engine (Although engines can introduce new shaders and effects.) They also ranked it upon usage, however just because an engine isn't used much doesn't make it a bad engine. I don't think I've seen a single non-BF or EA game on Frostbyte, but it's one of the most amazing engines I've seen.
The sheer amount of ignorance these guys exhibit is mind blowing. C++ is nerd speak for gay school kids? He could have at least mentioned that it's a coding language. He just skins the surface of the topic without showing that he knows anything about it.
What about Renderware? More than hundred games of the PS2-era were using it. Can't be such a bad engine.
Source engine? For me it's getting more buggy with every update (TF2 at least). The console is full of errors, the game sometimes freezes my whole PC or it crashes to desktop. Even the TF2 beta with the unfinished, not fully functional Source Filmmaker runs way more stable than the version TF2, L4D2 or Portal 2 uses.
My favorite engine is the Avalanche 2 engine (Just Cause 2). It's loading really fast, it's able to render a giant world with lots of details, it has all the modern stuff to make a game look good (Bokeh-DOF, SSAO, motion blur, CUDA support, ...), looks fucking beautiful and runs just fine compared to other engines of that tier. I wish their engine was more known and available to third-party-developers like the Source engine or the UT engine is.
I'd like to see this again, only with people who actually know what they're talking about.
Source is terrible for any developer that isn't Valve.
What about X-Ray? It has THE SEXIEST lighting engine known to video games.
[QUOTE=booster;31535581]Frostbite should've been way higher up.
BC1 and 2 were amazing for their time. Especially when it comes to sound interferance.
And they should've gone with some other engine instead of the IW one. Like Visceral engine. Dead space 2 was so fluid you barely ever noticed what was a cutscene and what wasn't.
Dante's Inferno was pretty shit however.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sa2fan;31541012]Frosbite 2, 7th place? ...[/QUOTE]
Frostbite is a pretty powerful engine, and it certainly looks pretty, but the tech behind it is a total mess. DICE themselves have said that working on the engine is incredibly challenging and that is why they aren't releasing mod tools.
To be honest, the only reason Frostbite is (and Gamebyro and Euphoria) are on here is because the people making these lists have no idea what the purpose of a video game engine is.
[b]SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE A .GIF OF 2:37 - 2:39.[/b]
Dat splosion'
Source is amazing for it's age, as far as video game technology goes.
Halo 2 still looks like this today.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/51/Halo2_widescreen.jpg/800px-Halo2_widescreen.jpg[/img]
Source looks like this today.
[img]http://www.gamestar.hu/apix_collect/0802/half-life-2-episode-two/half-life-2-episode-two_20080223133834_6050_original.jpg[/img]
And don't say the engine has progressed, the OB update didn't change a large amount of the major gears and cogs behind it all, it just added new features primarily like the particle editor
[QUOTE=Mister Royzo;31553041]Unreal Engine should have been number one and Source should have been number two. I mean, everything runs on Unreal these days. Even Tetris.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me3QihxWIRw&feature=player_embedded[/media]
Just Cause 2, Avalanche Engine 2.0 anyone?
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;31565339]Source is amazing for it's age, as far as video game technology goes.
*SCREENSHOTS*
And don't say the engine has progressed, the OB update didn't change a large amount of the major gears and cogs behind it all, it just added new features primarily like the particle editor[/QUOTE]
Halo 2 is a bad example. Take some PC games of the GeForce 6800/Radeon X800 times instead.
[img]http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Farcry_2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/doom31a_1091862243.jpg[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
