Source vs UE3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Dave_NBF (1974 posts) -
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) from 06-08 in the UE3 engine. In ways, I play L4d on PC (looks way diff than the 360 version) and I like the style of the engine better. Amazing facial animations, great great great texture detail and overall lighting. It is a more simple engine but it really does everything well; even compared by today's new standards...agree?
#2 Posted by voodoochild815 (282 posts) -
im gonna have to agree with you, theres more games i play based on the source engine then the unreal engine hands down
#3 Posted by sandeep410 (1173 posts) -
Source engine makes for great char model.But UE3 has to be best performance vs graphics engine availabe now
#5 Posted by II_Seraphim_II (20486 posts) -
Unreal is ahead, but Source is legendary :D
#6 Posted by Shafftehr (2889 posts) -
UE3 seems to be incredibly accesible and versatile for developers. It's made a host of good looking games across multiple platforms without too much hassle on the developers' parts. Source seems to be a bit more niche oriented, but when put in the right hands, the results are pretty spectacular. I'd say they're both great engines.
#7 Posted by ronniepage588 (4188 posts) -
i think source has the potential to be better. but right now, with games like gears 2, unreal is better. what ever valve may be working now, like a source 2 engine, it will be amazing no doubt.
#8 Posted by g0ddyX (3885 posts) -

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

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

#9 Posted by Mardil (3214 posts) -
Source runs fast and easy, but environments look kinda dated, but shadows and lightning compensate for this. Unreal looks to... unreal.
#10 Posted by clembo1990 (9976 posts) -
Unreal games are usually boring and clunky-looking, yeah its nice that things are given a weight to them and it looks all shiny but Source makes it look more real with a few little effects like torch-lights and gritty walls hiding bad textures. What does that show?
#11 Posted by naval (11109 posts) -
if black mesa looks as good as its trailer, i would say source still packs a lot of power
#12 Posted by Toriko42 (27562 posts) -
I enjoy the versatility of source though UE3 is amazing
#13 Posted by PSdual_wielder (10646 posts) -
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.
#14 Posted by naval (11109 posts) -
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
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.html
#15 Posted by flopzone2_429 (42 posts) -

unreal 3 engine is alot better

#16 Posted by PandaBear86 (3389 posts) -
Source engine makes for great char model.But UE3 has to be best performance vs graphics engine availabe nowsandeep410
FarCry 2's Dunia engine is better optomised when it comes to graphics vs performance ratio IMO. FarCry 2 on PC at maximum settings is only mildly weaker than Crysis, yet the system requirements are considerably lower.
#17 Posted by PSdual_wielder (10646 posts) -

[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
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.html

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.

#18 Posted by naval (11109 posts) -

[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

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.html

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.

Does it really matters who uses it as long as it's profitable for the dev ?
#19 Posted by Velocitas8 (10748 posts) -

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..

#20 Posted by aliblabla2007 (16756 posts) -
I'm no expert on game engines, so I can't say much. All I know is that I prefer the look of Source games in general, and I dislike how you can recognize almost any UE3 game with ease.
#21 Posted by PSdual_wielder (10646 posts) -
[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.

Does it really matters who uses it as long as it's profitable for the dev ?

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.

#22 Posted by naval (11109 posts) -
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
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 ?
#23 Posted by PSdual_wielder (10646 posts) -

[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
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 ?

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.

#24 Posted by mr_mozilla (2381 posts) -
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.
#25 Posted by naval (11109 posts) -

[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

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 ?

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.

so you see the the fact that valve benefited a lot from their engine and are reaping lots of benefit. As they plan on using the engine only for their own development they are really not interested in bringing out a new version for match other engines, which again saves them a lots of development costs. Similarly, source 2 can be and will be very beneficial for them even if its mostly pc only ( but I think it could be pc / 360 )
#26 Posted by PSdual_wielder (10646 posts) -

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!!

#27 Posted by PSdual_wielder (10646 posts) -
[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.

so you see the the fact that valve benefited a lot from their engine and are reaping lots of benefit. As they plan on using the engine only for their own development they are really not interested in bringing out a new version for match other engines, which again saves them a lots of development costs. Similarly, source 2 can be and will be very beneficial for them even if its mostly pc only ( but I think it could be pc / 360 )

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.

#28 Posted by naval (11109 posts) -
[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

so you see the the fact that valve benefited a lot from their engine and are reaping lots of benefit. As they plan on using the engine only for their own development they are really not interested in bringing out a new version for match other engines, which again saves them a lots of development costs. Similarly, source 2 can be and will be very beneficial for them even if its mostly pc only ( but I think it could be pc / 360 )

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.

i too have no idea, but if i have to take a guess, it would be technically advanced as valve would like to use it again for a long long time
#29 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (19818 posts) -
[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

Does it really matters who uses it as long as it's profitable for the dev ?

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.

Here are a few other (including Crytek) companies using Cryengine 2...

#30 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
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.
#31 Posted by jg4xchamp (46986 posts) -
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
yeah everyone comes out looking big and diesel :P
#32 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
im gonna have to agree with you, theres more games i play based on the source engine then the unreal engine hands downvoodoochild815
What games are based on the Source engine (other than L4D, Half Life 2, etc)?
#33 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -
I love the clean look of the source engine compared to the caked on textures of the UE3 engine. TF2 is one of the best looking games ever IMO (asthetically)
#34 Posted by EuroMafia (7026 posts) -
Source engine has weird lighting. UE3 is better.
#35 Posted by sandeep410 (1173 posts) -
[QUOTE="sandeep410"]Source engine makes for great char model.But UE3 has to be best performance vs graphics engine availabe nowPandaBear86
FarCry 2's Dunia engine is better optomised when it comes to graphics vs performance ratio IMO. FarCry 2 on PC at maximum settings is only mildly weaker than Crysis, yet the system requirements are considerably lower.

FC2 has horrible char models and also indoorenvironment looks really bad so does vehicle model and textures.UE on other hand makes better both eg gears
#36 Posted by kozzy1234 (35140 posts) -

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*

#37 Posted by kozzy1234 (35140 posts) -

[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
What games are based on the Source engine (other than L4D, Half Life 2, etc)?

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.