Valve’s sticking with Source for now

id Software premiered its id Tech 5 engine in Rage earlier this month, and Epic’s Tim Sweeney is hard at work on Unreal Engine 4. By the looks of it, the folks at Valve are less eager to talk up next-generation engine technology. Check out this snippet from GamingLives’ interview with Chet Faliszek of Valve:

You’ve had the Source engine around for quite some time now, how difficult is it to come back and keep adding more to the engine and making sure it can keep up with the games of today?
That’s just the way we work with that engine, we’ve just update it not just replace it, and some point we may say there’s Source 2 or whatever, but really for us there’s been a pretty easy way to keep it and understanding the tools. When you replace an engine you’re replacing the tools and the way that people work, there’s an expense in man hours and people learning and people getting up on it right.

The rest of the interview dwells largely on Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, but you get the idea—Valve seems happy with its current strategy of incrementally improving its Source engine. That’s worked pretty well for them so far, of course. Source debuted in 2004 with Half-Life 2, and it’s still going strong in titles like Portal 2 and Left 4 Dead 2, which feature an update version of the engine with more bells and whistles like high-dynamic-range lighting.

I just hope we won’t have to wait for the next generation of consoles before Source gets another makeover. Portal 2 looks nice and runs great, but part of me wishes Valve would throw in a little more eye candy for us PC gamers. (Thanks to Shacknews for the tip.)

Comments closed
    • Umbragen
    • 8 years ago

    If they made a new engine, they’d be forced to scrub a lot of the work they’ve done on Episode 3…. wait.

    • shaq_mobile
    • 8 years ago

    I’m not disappointed in their reuse of source engine. I’m disappointed in their reuse of a game from 1999. They just took popular server commands and mini mods and made them available with a check box. They didn’t add any new gameplay features. Heck, they even used the same maps (according to released screenshots). What’s sad is that this will become the new CS standard, so people will purchase it. I like Valve, they’ve made some really fun games. But comeon. :/

    • Madman
    • 8 years ago

    IMHO, Valve engine looks and feels dated. But the move is no surprise, since consoles have stopped all the progress anyway.

    • Krogoth
    • 8 years ago

    I love the hypocrisy.

    Gamers bitch about modern games that are little more than pretty tech demos, but when developers don’t focus on the eye candy. They bitch about game not being state of art. They assume it is pure crap because it is doesn’t have the eye candy.

    I guess you can’t please everyone.

    Personally, I don’t care too much about eye candy. I rather have gameplay and decent art direction. The graphics themselves are more limited by the talent of the artists not the technology itself.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      I’m going to repost this from a reply to Jambe since you obviously didn’t ready his post which essentially said the samething as you.

      [quote<]Too many people are buying into the BS argument developers are using as an excuse that you CAN'T have eye candy AND good gameplay.[/quote<] You seem to be operating under the premise that IF developers spend less budget wise on graphics it will automatically make every other facet of their game better... even though to the contrary I've seen a LOT of shitty games with both crappy graphics and crappy game play released in the last two years. It's turning into an excuse and a casual scape goat for making shitty games, just as pirates ruined the PC gaming industry.

        • travbrad
        • 8 years ago

        By having games that run on anyone’s PC they have a lot more potential customers. This strategy seems to be working well for them, looking at how many games they sell. They do that hardware survey for a reason. ๐Ÿ™‚

        Yes you can make a game with great gameplay AND graphics, but not one that runs on nearly every PC.

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          And why is that?

          Just because it’s capable of looking good doesn’t mean it has to look good for everyone.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 8 years ago

            Do you want games to sell? You graphics nuts want all games to be designed explicitly for quad-SLI, liquid nitrogen cooled, super overclocked rigs. That’s not how you make a good game. You optimze for the audience, who has mid-range cards, then add extra’s for the enthusiasts. Crysis level games are not sustainable, as they cost too much, and enthusiasts are a limited market segment. The correct way to do this is with using multiple levels of detail that aren’t overkill, while running efficiently on all cards available.

            It’s absolute idiocy to not optimize for mid-range, especially since most mid-range cards are many times more powerful than a console. Deus EX is the only modern game that seems to have balanced graphics with performance, and we need to see more of that.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            What are you talking about? I’m talking about having both good graphics AND good gameplay. I thought I made what I wrote pretty short and concise.

            You can have a game that has good graphics and runs alright on a 4-6 year old machine. It wont look the same, but that’s to be expected. It’s almost like you’re trying to shoehorn this into ‘everything should look the same so I never need to upgrade my computer and still have the ego stroking sensation of having everything on maximum” argument.

            • travbrad
            • 8 years ago

            Maybe you should code such a game then. You apparently are a lot more knowledgeable than thousands of PC developers.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Sarcasm or not, yes, I’m considering it…

        • Krogoth
        • 8 years ago

        Gameplay always comes first.

        Eye Candy is not a substitute, at best it helps to accentuate the gameplay.

        It is very difficult to craft a game with good graphics and gameplay. It usually requires a more generous budget and development time. Neither of which big publishers are willing to give their developers.

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          Why? Why does a completely logical process for instance like thinking out game mechanics and game play in general affect something that is highly budget constrained like graphics?

          I don’t think you’re thinking out what you’re saying. Making good game play doesn’t generally involve a lot of resources, rather just tweaking game play in a manner that is conducive of being fun and entertaining.

          They’re two completely separate issues. One for the most part is not constrained by resources, rather by talent and ingenuity, the other is and can be easily and linearly increased. That’s why we went through the whole phase of good looking games with bad game play to the point of crappy looking games with crappy game play. It is very easy to make a game look good if you task a bunch of artists on it, however, tasking a bunch of developers on a game does not work in the same way to increase how ‘good’ game play is and can even work inverse to that due to conflicting views on where to go with things.

          Diverting resources from graphics WILL NOT increase how good game play is. There isn’t a correlation between the two.

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          BTW I really enjoy your massive edit, which completely changes your argument.

          There aren’t many people that believe games without state of the art graphics are bad games. I don’t think your generalization really works at all now. It just comes across as ranting about non-existent groups of people.

          Remind me to quote your premise in full in the future.

      • shaq_mobile
      • 8 years ago

      That’s a good point. Problem is they aren’t giving you anything new for the money you’ll be spending except textures and skins. So they really didn’t provide you with any new gameplay. That’s what I think sucks about this whole CSS GO thing. It’s the same game we’ve had for 12 years. Sure it’s still fun and a tiny bit changed with CSS, mostly just graphics and handling, but at least it was a huge increase in graphics.

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]When you replace an engine you're replacing the tools and the way that people work, there's an expense in man hours and people learning and people getting up on it right.[/quote<] Something Microsoft desparately needs to learn. You don't need to throw away your existing engine to make a new game, and you don't need to replace the tools that your employee's are comfortable working with. Improving what you have is the most efficient way of working. Just look at what some people have created in their spare time with the quake engine, and linux. Throwing everything out to make something new from scratch is insanity, not to mention vastly more difficult. The only reason I see for making a new engine from scratch is that the existing code is crap, and not worth updating.

    • blitzy
    • 8 years ago

    Valve is the most over rated PC game developer in the industry, there I said it.

    It just goes to show the hippie culture of companies like valve and id really does have an impact on their game quality and ability to keep up with the market and deliver. id lost any relevance since q3a and valve gave up on their abortion of hl2 to create niche toys of games.

    TF2 and portal were okay, but very niche. Halflife 1 was a fluke success, HL2 was garbage. When indie mods are better than the original game you know the original was weak.

      • Xenolith
      • 8 years ago

      Pro-tip: When you troll, post sooner. You will get more thumbs down that way.

        • blitzy
        • 8 years ago

        it ain’t trolling if it’s factual

      • FubbHead
      • 8 years ago

      You didn’t like them, but I have thoroughly enjoyed pretty much all of their games, so to each their own I guess. Overrated? Hardly.

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    This isn’t surprising if you’ve ready some developer articles for Valve. They stated before they do incremental updates on their engine based around what clients of it want and they aren’t going to replace it any time soon.

    I believe Valve has sort of turned into the developers Nirvana. Their company ideology sounds really cool if you’re an experienced developer looking for a place to retire to and toodle out a game with people who share a similar passion, but not anywhere where something spectacular will be made. They operate on a sort of communist ideology where everyone does whatever they want and they all contribute to the overall picture (from what I’ve read). No one is really in charge of what all the employees do and they’re allowed to work on their own projects. That generally isn’t going to work out if they want to make a new engine.

    Valve as a developer is just going to slowly fade away into the background while releasing sort of indie ‘trinkets’ of games, like Portal. Not saying Portal is a bad game, it’s just not something the new generations will take and run with racking up 1000s of hours of play time.

    • Jambe
    • 8 years ago

    Part of me wishes to eradicate the part of you that wishes Valve prioritized eye candy.

    Pretties are fine and all but I primarily play games because… er, games are fun (well, some are). Sometimes I look into them because of pretties or realism but no, it’s mostly for fun.

    /me goes back to Terraria

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Too many people are buying into the BS argument developers are using as an excuse that you CAN’T have eye candy AND good gameplay.

    • HunterZ
    • 8 years ago

    Has each generation of the Unreal (Tournament) engine actually been re-coded from scratch? I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that both Epic and Valve have been incrementally developing their respective engines since the days of Unreal 1 and Half-Life 1, and that they have been changing the names to mark the spots where they’ve brought the graphics tech forward a generation.

    • Prospero424
    • 8 years ago

    Sure, there are plenty of little things, but the only negative thing that really pops out at me when comparing current Valve games to those using newer engines is the lack of texture fidelity. If they can fix this, they can easily get a few more years out of Source.

    • Xenolith
    • 8 years ago

    Is Source still a DX9 engine?

      • Silus
      • 8 years ago

      Yep.

    • dashbarron
    • 8 years ago

    Gameplay and mechanics are good…but the graphics are getting really dated. The lighting can look good but I’ve had numerous glitches pop up with it, and I could throw it out all for a game that doesn’t look like it’s premiering in 2003.

    Seriously, they have [b<]alot[/b<] of resources to throw at graphics: please step up 10 years. It's not like they're an indie developer struggling.

    • Silus
    • 8 years ago

    The usual “Valve is not about graphics, but about gameplay” is always laughable, especially when some of the same people (i.e. Church of Freeman fanatics) that say that, also say that Valve is the only company that actually cares for PC Gamers…

    Neither of those is true of course. Valve stopped in time, just like the hardware in a console did too. They will keep the aging Source engine, because of consoles and that’s about it. Plus Valve has not invested in actually improving graphics since Half Life 2 way back in 2004. None of their new games look any better than half life 2 did in 2004, with the exception of the addition of HDR to the engine in 2006-2007. That is ignoring the PC community in a way that no other company does or did to this date and I’m always in awe with the amount of people that defend Valve despite all that…The only interest they have in the PC market, is related with Steam and that’s about it. Their despise for their “fans” when we consider the years and years of lies related with Episode 3, that is still no where to be found, even though fans beg for it every chance they get!

      • Farting Bob
      • 8 years ago

      And yet Valve continues to make some of the most popular (with gamers and critics) games around. Sure they arent going to have crysis level graphics, but source engine games look acceptable and run with a good enough FPS for IGP (and not jut latest AMD IGP’s, Intel IGP as well!), most games released now look horrible on those setups because you have to lower everything to minimum and play at 1024×800 just to get 30FPS out of them. That makes them accessible to everyone including laptop users who are mostly given the short end of the stick with gaming.

      Believe it or not, PC gamers arent just about stunning visuals. Good games will be good regardless of what their “ultra” settings make them look like. Opening the game up to twice as many people while still keeping the game looking modern beats the hell out of making a fairly dull game but with graphics that look stunning if you are one of the <1% that have the latest high end cards.

        • Silus
        • 8 years ago

        Should I go to ANY thread on ANY forum on the internet and find ANY Crysis 2 thread without bitching about it not having support for DX11 when it was released ?

        I don’t need to do I ? I think not, because that’s the hypocrisy going around. Criticize EVERY game developer for not pushing the limits, except for Valve. Valve can continue to crap on PC Gamers all they want by not even updating their engine to current tech.

        No one is disagreeing that visuals aren’t everything, but it’s amusing to see all the idiots supporting Valve for essentially despising the PC community. Yes despising, because even if you try to disregard it, one of the MAJOR advantages the PC has over consoles, is its capability for higher graphics quality/fidelity. Of course you ignore that just for the sake of trying to protect your ridiculous argument but so be it. No wonder many developers have given up on the PC community. They’re a bunch of whining babies with some severe double standards. Have fun with your console like games for the PC, because they are, and I quote “accessible to everyone including laptop users who are mostly given the short end of the stick with gaming”.

          • Airmantharp
          • 8 years ago

          If I recall, the ‘bitching’ about Crysis 2 was that DX11 support was promised, and then not delivered.

          Valve hasn’t promised a state-of-the-art Crytek/UE/Tech 5/whatever beating engine, they promise and deliver excellent games.

          I’m still waiting for Episode 3/Half-Life 3 too, but I waited for a long time for Starcraft 2 as well…

            • Silus
            • 8 years ago

            Neither did Crytek and they still did deliver, because CryEngine 3 is one of the most advanced engines in the market right now. I’m still waiting to see proof of this promise of DX11. Some conspiracy theories came up, but they were never proved…so do show proof that Crytek promised DX11 support for Crysis 2 at launch.

            Meanwhile, Valve promised more content in less time with the episodic content initive. They delivered less content in more time. They promised Half Life 2 Episode 3 for the end of the 2007, but last time I checked we’re in 2011. They also promised that they wouldn’t charge for DLC and they now charge for DLC.

            One minor detail, not related with gameplay at all from any other developer is grounds for huge amounts of bitching, but years of lies from Valve are dismissed entirely.
            This charging for DLC thing was one of the most hilarious, because when Oblivion came out in 2006 and the first DLC (horse armor) came out, there was a huge uproar against Bethesda because they just wanted money. No one cared that it wasn’t a gameplay changer at all and it wasn’t needed to play the game. Valve did the EXACT same thing a couple years later and what do the idiots say ? That “you don’t need to buy it and it doesn’t change gameplay”. The lenience that Valve gets, when other developers are beaten to death for minor things, is one of the reasons why PC Gaming is as it is right now: console ports for the most part and Valve by continuing to use the Source Engine shows just how committed they are with the PC crowd i.e. nothing at all (if the fact that the most wanted game from them – Half Life 2 Episode 3 – which ins’t out yet despite being promised a long time ago, isn’t proof enough that they really couldn’t care less about the PC)

    • burntham77
    • 8 years ago

    “we’ve just update it not just replace it”

    What?

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    The ironic thing about the source engine was the technologies they invested in on it. They basically set the standard for procedural generation of animations in games, no engine to this day has come close. Their lighting engine is top notch, they have phenomenal physics implementation… so what do they need to change again??? Maybe add in some tessellation and bring the texture tech up to speed and you’ve got one of the best game engines out there. Its on par with stuff like Frostbite 2, cryengine 3, and Unreal engine 4 (UE4 is not that good of an engine IMHO). Valve has already pioneered some of the greatest AI games have ever seen, I doubt that we will get much better than what them and crytek can produce.

      • bcronce
      • 8 years ago

      They need to multi-thread it, but they still have some life left in the engine. I say they hold off on threading for new techs to standardize a bit more. Plus, you can’t truly take advantage of threading until you switch to DX11, and too many people are still on DX9/10.

      Once DX11 starts to become standard, then they should start to invest into a new engine. By then, a new generation of graphics and CPU capabilities will be forming and Valve will be able to clearly see which direction to take the engine.

        • bthylafh
        • 8 years ago

        Source /is/ multithreaded and has been for years.

        [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/11237[/url<]

          • bcronce
          • 8 years ago

          It has course grained threads. It can utilize 2-4 of my cores(and that’s with all of the experimental threading features enabled), but not all 8.

          So yes, it is threaded, but it doesn’t scale past a quad core. Desktops are going to have 32 core CPUs in the next 5 years.

          Most CPUs are currently quads with a mix of some 6 and 8 threaded CPUs, but next year 12 thread CPUs will start to become cheap and 16 threaded CPUs will be showing up for desktops.

          Also, you are NEVER going to take full advantage of threading without DX11. OpenGL/DX9/10 do not support taking commands from multiple threads. OpenGL will probably gain that ability some time in the future, but DX9/10 never will. Source is DX9.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            atleast they aren’t constrained by hardware like sup com was. sup com was a mess when it came to hardware demands.

            • drfish
            • 8 years ago

            This. I still play FA occasionally and it finally runs great late game with tons of units on my 2600k… My previous Q6600 that I bought specifically for the game? Not so much…

            Its not a huge surprise though, TA could make Athlon64s crawl…

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 8 years ago

            And what do you expect to happen if they spend a ton of time and money to make it scale to 8+? The 50% load on a few cores will just turn into a 25% load, but your clock speed will drop and minimum FPS with it.

            • EtherealN
            • 8 years ago

            Clock speed will drop? How so? If you mean the differential Turbo-Boosts depending on core loads – this isn’t really making much of a difference. 3.6GHz instead of 3.8GHz isn’t exactly a big deal – and on K-version Sandys you can just tell it to always Turbo all cores all the way even if you don’t do a formal overclock. (That is how I run mine.)

            Also, the objective with threading is always to separate whatever it is that is the heaviest thread into smaller chunks – something that only loads to 50% isn’t going to be as big of a focus as the thread that’s running 100% – slice that one up to a couple more 10% chunks and you get tangible benefits.

            Aside from that nitpick though, I agree. I’m not sure most games need much more multithreading yet. Most games (at least those that focus on eyecandy, so not proper flight sims (that is, not jokes like HAWX and such airQuake bull) where multithreading is a really tempting thing to get going. Extremely difficult to implement on old codebases, but still tempting.

            • cmrcmk
            • 8 years ago

            According to the hardware info they collect from their actual customers, dual cores are still the most popular CPU configuration. (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/) Quad CPUs are second and all the systems using Steam with more than 4 cores amount to about 1.6% of the total. What’s the point in overhauling the system to accommodate those few customers?

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            It scales to four cores? Leave the task manager open and play a source game. Using four cores and fully utilizing four cores are two very different things. Much like many applications now days it offloads certain things to extra cores, but it’s just picking and choosing not equally balancing the load across all cores.

            Playing TF2 for instance yields roughly one pegged core, one operating at roughly 35%, one at 15%, and one around 25%. Give or take how windows scheduler decides to divy things up.

            It’s all swell and fun to believe just because it’s multithreaded it’s efficient at doing so, but most programs aren’t. The source engine is no exception.

            • turkeysam
            • 8 years ago

            99% of games out there don’t scale beyond 4 cores, and there’s a good reason for it. Games tend to use a logic that requires a relatively small number of highly complicated decision trees. Furthermore, most games are coded in C++, which was never designed for multicore processing, and is simply not optimised that way.

            Game logic only requires a handfull of high speed, low latency hardware pipelines. We won’t see games scale up to 8 cores (not to mention 32) for a good while. Furthermore, even in situations where the extra cores are useful, there’s a penalty in setting up the logic across all these hardware cores. This requires a lot of work in itself, both in design and processing, and introduces high latacy, which is bad for games in general.

            The many-core approach is light years away from proper low level software implementation. As such, it falls to software designers to build code in a certain way. It’s not always appreciated how difficult that is with the current tools. The recent release of AMD Bulldozer is good proof of that; the benchmarks highlight its poor single threaded performance, simply because that’s how most software is designed.

            Remember the wise old saying ‘Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth’. There are many every day scenarios where a small number of workers are better than too many. This applies to computer science problems as much as it does to every day situations.

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah that was what I thought. It really isn’t short on tech, ironically many prominant game engines out there still do worse than source for many things. I would argue valve intentionally keeps their games the way they do so they scale better and run on more machines. I actually believe gabe said something to that effect a while ago, when talking about portal 2.

          • fr500
          • 8 years ago

          Even then itยดs horrible, at least TF2 with MT enabled has always been a stuttery jumpy mess. Of course I can hit 100+fps mostly everywhere on my 2600k @4.2GHz + GTX570 without MT but with MT it goes up to 250+fps. The bad part is there are lighting issues with MT enabled on some maps and it gets jumpy at times.

          On my previous PC (e8400@3.8Ghz) it would suffer a lot of slowdown on single thread on big open areas with water and with MT enabled it would get pretty choppy

            • Wyglif
            • 8 years ago

            Your results may not be typical. I have never had issues with thread mode in Source on either of my quad core machines.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        I thought valve had begun modding the engine for multi threaded processors a while ago??? I don’t know how complete the implementation is, I’m at work otherwise I’d boot up L4D2 and watch my processor utilization.

      • PixelArmy
      • 8 years ago

      Source is still good (at least enough for the games they put out). Given the age, it has held up.

      But seriously, it is nowhere close to “on par” with Frostbite 2 (Battlefield 3, later this month) or even Unreal Engine _3_ (Batman: Arkham City, just yesterday). I’d venture to say Frostbite 1 is better. I have no experience with CryEngine.

      • squeeb
      • 8 years ago

      You’re right about the animations, lighting and physics. I still get a kick out of HL2 in that regard. Kinda wish the mod community had taken off quicker for source but whatever ๐Ÿ™‚

      • blitzy
      • 8 years ago

      Source looked ok when it came out, it looks terribly dated now. It is a world of rectangles, and stiff looking gimpy ragdolls.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      You should go look at some Cry Engine tech demos… or just play Crysis which is essentially a tech demo for the Cry Engine… or go play Living Legends which is a mod built on Crysis which is a tech demo for Cry Engine.

      I’m not entirely sure how it’s on par with the engines you mentioned when it doesn’t have any of the features from DX10-11…

      I don’t know how pop-up and shoot AI is amazing either…

      Source Engine is essentially adequate for a majority of games that are being put out today. In other words games built around consoles, the lowest common denominator.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 8 years ago

    I played through Portal 2 on my E-350 (dual core 1.6Ghz with integrated Radeon 6250) just fine (a little choppy in places). I think this speaks a testament to the source engine.

    That being said, Valve has ALWAYS been about gameplay first, graphics second. This goes right back to Half-Life. There were better graphics out, but the game play is what drove that game.

    As long as a game looks decent, I’m happy.

      • Silus
      • 8 years ago

      A testament of what ? Of how old it is, so why would it run bad on a new machine ?

      Seriously, give credit where credit is due. A new engine running great on a weak PC is one thing. An extremely old engine running on a weak PC is quite another and the source engine fits on the latter. It’s not exactly a reason to be proud of.

        • dashbarron
        • 8 years ago

        ^this.

        • FubbHead
        • 8 years ago

        Reading comprehension++

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    I used be like all HL1 DM for life, then I was CS 1.3 4 LifeCauseIgotl337h4X, then I was all TF ain’t got nothing on my baby, then I was soooo hot right now for CS 1.5, then 1.6, then HL2:DM, then CS:S, then I died in a pit full of mountain dew and was reincarnated when TF2 suddenly emerged from nowhere. Valve has singlehandedly shaped my neurotransmitters, my muscles, and my hand-eye coordination Without them I’d be a southpaw game controller holding Halo junky. But with them I can hold onto my 9000 dpi mouse and salivate all over my wall of GabeN.

    • Arclight
    • 8 years ago

    Source engine was meant to be updated and i still like how it looks in their latest installment.

    I have yet to see another engine that looks this good with so few resources. Sure they could come up with something better looking but Valve’s value was always more in the content of the game.

    • Airmantharp
    • 8 years ago

    While they haven’t seen the need to completely re-work their engine or build a new one from scratch, they have been quite successful in creating games that are loved by the community and that are commercially successful.

    Bells and whistles are nice, but Valve seems to be the ‘World of Warcraft’ of shooters (and First-Person-Puzzles). Their games look decent enough when turned all of the way up but still look and play very well on low end hardware.

    I’m running Counter-Strike:Source, Left 4 Dead 2, and Portal 2 on my laptop with it’s Intel HD 3000 graphics, and I’m more than happy with the performance at 1366×768.

    • gorillagarrett
    • 8 years ago

    Who gives a fox about Valve? That company should have been dead a long time ago.
    Heck, they have not produced anything quality in ages.The same outdated graphics and frustrating mechanics for what, ten years now..

    The same goes for ID software, and that clueless rabbit Carmack.

    The only game i’ve been playing for a almost a year now is warcraft 3 FZ. Waiting for battlefield 3, and hopefully, wont be disappointed.

      • Airmantharp
      • 8 years ago

      Nothing quality in ages? You don’t seem to hold too high of an opinion for them, but personally, I appreciate just about everything they do; Portal 2 was especially enjoyable both in single-player and co-op modes.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 8 years ago

      I think you came to the wrong website.

      • XA Hydra
      • 8 years ago

      Valve is like my old pair of Chuck Taylors. Or PB&J sandwiches.

      I don’t think about what makes me like Valve so much.

      I just do.

      So there.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 8 years ago

      WOW!

      • MaxTheLimit
      • 8 years ago

      Oh you trickster of a troll.
      You won’t get me so easily!

      • PrincipalSkinner
      • 8 years ago

      Nice trolling.

        • bthylafh
        • 8 years ago

        Not really. He tried too hard.

        • willyolio
        • 8 years ago

        from the post below, i think he actually believes what he says. that’s even worse.

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      While his position is extreme, I think he’s somewhat correct. Portal was ok, but I think they’re living on goodwill from a while ago

        • Noigel
        • 8 years ago

        L4D2 came out in what? 2009? I’m still playing it regularly. And Valve is close to finishing up on putting all the maps from L4D1 in the sequel entirely… at no charge.

        That’s class.

          • gorillagarrett
          • 8 years ago

          L4D is not a quality game.It’s simply a bad fps, but the cooperative gameplay is what adds the “fun” element into it.
          Nothing in that game is quality, really.From the graphics to the mechanics, to the actual gameplay.

          Mate, the company has been making hundreds of millions Heck, they’ve been probably make over 200M off Steam annually.Those guys have the money.They just don’t wanna put “some” of that money into a good quality project.
          Like Activision / Infinity Ward, they wanna keep using the same damn engine for as long as they can, and milk as much money as they can from those stupid kids who buy their games.

            • shaq_mobile
            • 8 years ago

            I’m sure one thing we can all agree on is that Valve’s stingy use of Source pales in comparison to the COD engine, which was a highly modified version of the quake 3 engine until just recently. They even charge for their map packs after charging you an absurd $60 for their games which have less replay value than some of the free-to-play modeled games. Have you seen the movies from the new COD? Even the cream of the crop footage, which is all they would use for promotional videos, looks very dated.

            L4D2 felt like what L4D should have been. I remember in the demo for L4D they claimed to have an array of weapons and enemies of which we had yet to experience, when in reality the demo was a quarter of the final game with all the weapons and surprises unveiled. L4D2 was given to me by a friend and I still felt ripped off. It felt exactly like Valve charged me twice for the same game (well me once and my buddy once) and left me with some stale gameplay and a few weapons with different recoil, firecones and clip sizes. They weren’t bad games, they just got stale fast. They were an absolute blast when first released but a few weeks later they boiled down to teamkilling and finding glitchy spots the zombies couldn’t reach.

            • willyolio
            • 8 years ago

            oh yes, god forbid people actually have fun playing a game, or we define a game’s quality by how much fun people have playing it.

          • dashbarron
          • 8 years ago

          The only reason they’re porting the maps is because other modders were doing it–and months faster than Valve. Valve probably wanted to do it themselves because they wanted them to be bug free, if there were any glitches.I don’t see it as “class,” just keep to their brand.

        • TrptJim
        • 8 years ago

        Their sales disagree. Their goodwill continues today, which is why people flock to their games and Steam.

      • NeXus 6
      • 8 years ago

      What’s it like living in your parents’ basement?

      • Joe Miller
      • 8 years ago

      I agree to a point. HL was a great game, and CS – never had so much fun, played it for several years. HL2 – not so good, and the scripted play made me mad. L4D/L4D2 – ok.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This