Source vs UE3

No gamer can deny that either one of these engines is amazing.

But source is nicer to my pc me thinks. :)

Source is what started it all and UE3 is just incredible. I like source, too bad its way too computer-games based. UE3 works well on both the PS3 and 360. I would love to see a source engine 2 but the fact is it might not happen until valve either makes it console-usable as well or just have enough PC games using it to justify that development. Someone will accuse me of trolling or something, but I'm not. Console games have grown much bigger than the PC game niche and thats a fact we all have to face.PSdual_wielder

unreal 3 engine is alot better

Source engine makes for great char model.But UE3 has to be best performance vs graphics engine availabe nowsandeep410

[QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]Source is what started it all and UE3 is just incredible. I like source, too bad its way too computer-games based. UE3 works well on both the PS3 and 360. I would love to see a source engine 2 but the fact is it might not happen until valve either makes it console-usable as well or just have enough PC games using it to justify that development. Someone will accuse me of trolling or something, but I'm not. Console games have grown much bigger than the PC game niche and thats a fact we all have to face.naval

Pay attention, the problem is the only dev using source is valve themselves. UE3 has tons of other devs licensing it. As much as valve is successful, its just not much of a difference if they were using source or other people's engine I'm afraid. Look at CryEngine2, please prove me wrong that there are external supporters using the engine.

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]Source is what started it all and UE3 is just incredible. I like source, too bad its way too computer-games based. UE3 works well on both the PS3 and 360. I would love to see a source engine 2 but the fact is it might not happen until valve either makes it console-usable as well or just have enough PC games using it to justify that development. Someone will accuse me of trolling or something, but I'm not. Console games have grown much bigger than the PC game niche and thats a fact we all have to face.PSdual_wielder

Pay attention, the problem is the only dev using source is valve themselves. UE3 has tons of other devs licensing it. As much as valve is successful, its just not much of a difference if they were using source or other people's engine I'm afraid. Look at CryEngine2, please prove me wrong that there are external supporters using the engine.

I have to say, for an engine that came out in 04, it has held up really well to arguably the best overall engine on the market (scalability wise)Dave_NBF

Yup..but that's only because Source is modular, and has undergone tons of engine updates during its lifespan. It's a much more capable engine today than it was 4 years ago..

[QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]

[QUOTE="naval"] lol wut ....you think pc games are not enough to justify source 2 devolopment ? here is the sales figures of valve's games (not including steam sales) , most of them are source games: http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/12/valve-unveils-h.htmlnaval

Pay attention, the problem is the only dev using source is valve themselves. UE3 has tons of other devs licensing it. As much as valve is successful, its just not much of a difference if they were using source or other people's engine I'm afraid. Look at CryEngine2, please prove me wrong that there are external supporters using the engine.

To increase profit. Its the goal of every company! Would sony or microsoft enter the console race just to make you have fun? Of course not. If it doesn't justify the cost, of course they won't make a new engine. And as I said above, computer games aren't nearly as grand as they used to be, thats why they to either find some way to reboot it into some high stature or just make the engine accessible to consoles.

To increase profit. Its the goal of every company! Would sony or microsoft enter the console race just to make you have fun? Of course not. If it doesn't justify the cost, of course they won't make a new engine. And as I said above, computer games aren't nearly as grand as they used to be, thats why they to either find some way to reboot it into some high stature or just make the engine accessible to consoles. PSdual_wielder

[QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]To increase profit. Its the goal of every company! Would sony or microsoft enter the console race just to make you have fun? Of course not. If it doesn't justify the cost, of course they won't make a new engine. And as I said above, computer games aren't nearly as grand as they used to be, thats why they to either find some way to reboot it into some high stature or just make the engine accessible to consoles. naval

I couldn't really answer this question because I couldn't even imagine this scenario happening, sorry, and yea I'll be signing out soon cuz I'm really tired from posting replies in several different threads.

Anyways, no it would've definetly not gotten valve as much profit if they used UE2. Because back in 2004, as everybody knew Half-Life 2 back then is the crysis of everything else. That was the same year Far Cry 1(cryengine 1), UT2k4(UE2), Doom 3, all those stuff were out. Basically source blew all those out of the water. As everyone was so hyped up by crysis, similarly valve destroyed everything in graphical capabilities, so if you have half-like 2 in UE2 it would surely not have garnered that same attention. And surely valve using UE3 would of course be completely a stupid idea, because they already have a signature tech! So sorry I'm tired, I just can't imagine that scenario.

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]To increase profit. Its the goal of every company! Would sony or microsoft enter the console race just to make you have fun? Of course not. If it doesn't justify the cost, of course they won't make a new engine. And as I said above, computer games aren't nearly as grand as they used to be, thats why they to either find some way to reboot it into some high stature or just make the engine accessible to consoles. PSdual_wielder

I couldn't really answer this question because I couldn't even imagine this scenario happening, sorry, and yea I'll be signing out soon cuz I'm really tired from posting replies in several different threads.

Anyways, no it would've definetly not gotten valve as much profit if they used UE2. Because back in 2004, as everybody knew Half-Life 2 back then is the crysis of everything else. That was the same year Far Cry 1(cryengine 1), UT2k4(UE2), Doom 3, all those stuff were out. Basically source blew all those out of the water. As everyone was so hyped up by crysis, similarly valve destroyed everything in graphical capabilities, so if you have half-like 2 in UE2 it would surely not have garnered that same attention. And surely valve using UE3 would of course be completely a stupid idea, because they already have a signature tech! So sorry I'm tired, I just can't imagine that scenario.

Source engine games do still look great, and I love it how well it runs on my rig, I also like how different the games can look from Half-life to L4D to TF2. However, I think a great deal of Source engine's appeal comes from Valve's artistic direction, they pay great attention to detail, lighting, models and animation taking the most out of old technology. UE3 is good too, but maybe it's the fact it's so popular that makes it less appealing, you get tired of looking at it after a while.mr_mozilla

Yea you really have to give credit to Valve's designers. The problem with UE3 is that sometimes the overdone detail and the whole "thick" and hardcore theme associated to the engine can make over-stressed to look at. Valve's games gets the details just "right", they convey the mood they're trying to achieve, yet pull back enough that it looks realistic and moderate so its not overdone. So the lesson is: art direction in a game definetly means something!!

[QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]

[QUOTE="naval"] do you think valve would have made more profit if they used UE 2/3 for their game rather than source ? If yes, then why ?naval

I couldn't really answer this question because I couldn't even imagine this scenario happening, sorry, and yea I'll be signing out soon cuz I'm really tired from posting replies in several different threads.

Anyways, no it would've definetly not gotten valve as much profit if they used UE2. Because back in 2004, as everybody knew Half-Life 2 back then is the crysis of everything else. That was the same year Far Cry 1(cryengine 1), UT2k4(UE2), Doom 3, all those stuff were out. Basically source blew all those out of the water. As everyone was so hyped up by crysis, similarly valve destroyed everything in graphical capabilities, so if you have half-like 2 in UE2 it would surely not have garnered that same attention. And surely valve using UE3 would of course be completely a stupid idea, because they already have a signature tech! So sorry I'm tired, I just can't imagine that scenario.

Source 2 I really have no idea how it'll turn out if it is in the making. But in the end, it just depends if whatever they're making next will require such a step in the tech.

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]

I couldn't really answer this question because I couldn't even imagine this scenario happening, sorry, and yea I'll be signing out soon cuz I'm really tired from posting replies in several different threads.

Anyways, no it would've definetly not gotten valve as much profit if they used UE2. Because back in 2004, as everybody knew Half-Life 2 back then is the crysis of everything else. That was the same year Far Cry 1(cryengine 1), UT2k4(UE2), Doom 3, all those stuff were out. Basically source blew all those out of the water. As everyone was so hyped up by crysis, similarly valve destroyed everything in graphical capabilities, so if you have half-like 2 in UE2 it would surely not have garnered that same attention. And surely valve using UE3 would of course be completely a stupid idea, because they already have a signature tech! So sorry I'm tired, I just can't imagine that scenario.

PSdual_wielder

Source 2 I really have no idea how it'll turn out if it is in the making. But in the end, it just depends if whatever they're making next will require such a step in the tech.

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="PSdual_wielder"]

Pay attention, the problem is the only dev using source is valve themselves. UE3 has tons of other devs licensing it. As much as valve is successful, its just not much of a difference if they were using source or other people's engine I'm afraid. Look at CryEngine2, please prove me wrong that there are external supporters using the engine.

PSdual_wielder

To increase profit. Its the goal of every company! Would sony or microsoft enter the console race just to make you have fun? Of course not. If it doesn't justify the cost, of course they won't make a new engine. And as I said above, computer games aren't nearly as grand as they used to be, thats why they to either find some way to reboot it into some high stature or just make the engine accessible to consoles.

• Crysis - Crytek, Finished, Release November 16, 2007 in Europe and the U.S. (2007).
• Crysis Warhead, uses an upgraded version of the engine.
• Game based on new intellectual property- Crytek, in development (2008).
• New, possibly non-fps game- Crytek, in development (TBA).
• Entropia Universe - signed a license agreement on July 25, 2007. Expected to be ready late-2008.[4]
• Merchants of Brooklyn[5] - Paleo Entertainment, in development (TBA).
• The Day by Reloaded Studios[6]
• Blue Mars - Avatar Reality, inc., in development (TBA).
• Forged by Chaos - Panzar Studio, in development (TBA).
• Vigilance (Military Training Game) - The Harrington Group, Inc. (Not for public release).[7]
• New MMORPG - XMLGames, in development (TBA).[8]

After, Left 4 Dead the source engine. Not that the UE3 engine does not look pretty, nor is it versatile - its just its an absolute buggy mess at times, and has that 'odd visual look' too it.skrat_01

im gonna have to agree with you, theres more games i play based on the source engine then the unreal engine hands downvoodoochild815

[QUOTE="sandeep410"]Source engine makes for great char model.But UE3 has to be best performance vs graphics engine availabe nowPandaBear86

Valve keeps updating and making upgrades to the source engine (if im not mistaken i think its source engine 16 or something i was reading somewhere?).

The main thing though is how well games run on the source engine compared to Unreal3 games. It seems like any game with the unreal engine that isnt made by EPIC has problems with graphics tearing, loading problems, glitches,etc...

The source engine just seems alot more stable to me. I think they are almsot even graphics wise (wish unreal engine having a slight advantage in some cases, aka gears2).

My fav engine is CRYTEK's Cryegine for crysis, but the Source engine would be my 2nd fav. 3 of my all time favorite online shooters run on The Source engine (Team Fortress2, Counterstrike Source and Left4Dead).

Team Fortress 2 is very underrated graphics wise imo.

*what a jump the source engine has made over the years*

[QUOTE="voodoochild815"]im gonna have to agree with you, theres more games i play based on the source engine then the unreal engine hands downskektek

im really tired at the moment so i know ill miss some but as far as i know Team Fortress2, Half Life2, Counterstrike Source, Half Life 2 Episode 1 and 2, Portal, Left4Dead and a few others use source engine.