Muzman on 30/8/2011 at 04:04
Most of the imagery actually makes me hanker for a NOLF sequel.
EvaUnit02 on 30/8/2011 at 08:20
Quote Posted by dethtoll
So it's basically nothing new, just a graphical update with cross-platform play and a few extra weapons.
I am disappoint.
Why are you surprised? It's a highly popular e-sports game with a very picky hardcore fanbase, it was almost a given that it'd be practically the same it's always been, just like Starcraft 2:
Wings of LibertyOver-priced First 1/3rd of Unfinished Game Edition.
sNeaksieGarrett on 30/8/2011 at 15:13
I'll buy it. It seems different enough, but I don't understand why they didn't just make CSS 2 instead of CSS version 2.0, if you get what I mean. (I guess because they still are holding onto Source for as long as they can?)
EvaUnit02 on 30/8/2011 at 16:07
It isn't "CS:S v2.0", all the assets seem to have been made from scratch, no CoD sequel-esque copy-paste malarkey. The current iteration of CS:S ported to the Orange Box engine (Source 2009) and the CS:S beta are closer to what you have in mind.
Even if they had built the game on an all new engine (rather than the Portal 2 engine aka Source 2011), the core game would still largely be the same. Why is Starcraft 2 largely the same as SC1? Why is DotA 2 (built on Source engine) largely the same as DotA 1 for WC3?
Yakoob on 30/8/2011 at 17:39
Eitherway, Valve is really starting to need a new engine...
EvaUnit02 on 30/8/2011 at 18:14
I've played my copy of Portal 2 for a couple hours or so, the visuals of the current iteration were fine. A noticeable improvement over L4D2 certainly.
Why they might be holding onto Source would likely be its scalability. The market has changed a shit load over the last 6 years or so - reaching more audiences and people than ever. The range of PCs that people might be using is wider than ever.
They'll probably be making a big push with F2P games in the near future. A lot people reckon that Dota 2 will use that business model. F2P games appeal to all sorts of people, given their entry level costs.
june gloom on 30/8/2011 at 18:33
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Eitherway, Valve is really starting to need a new engine...
This is starting to get old. Have you even played Portal 2? It looks fucking amazing, and not dated at all.
Never hear people making this complaint about Unreal Engine 3...
Shadowhide on 30/8/2011 at 19:41
Quote Posted by dethtoll
This is starting to get old. Have you even played Portal 2? It looks fucking amazing, and not dated at all.
Never hear people making this complaint about Unreal Engine 3...
Portal 2 looks good because of work of level designers,modelers and texture artists.Anyway, Portal 2 levels is pretty small though
There is alot good games runs on Source engine,but tech side of Source engine -
Inline Image:
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o139/megsparker/Decorated%20images/zx40au.gifjune gloom on 30/8/2011 at 20:37
I'll tell you what's getting old is ccctoad.gif. Also, you're wrong, as usual.
sNeaksieGarrett on 30/8/2011 at 23:59
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
It isn't "CS:S v2.0", all the assets seem to have been made from scratch, no CoD sequel-esque copy-paste malarkey. The current iteration of CS:S ported to the Orange Box engine (Source 2009) and the CS:S beta are closer to what you have in mind.
Even if they had built the game on an all new engine (rather than the Portal 2 engine aka Source 2011), the core game would still largely be the same. Why is Starcraft 2 largely the same as SC1? Why is DotA 2 (built on Source engine) largely the same as DotA 1 for WC3?
But my point is that they are using the same maps, same teams, just adding new content on top of it. It's sort of like how Left 4 Dead 2 is still left 4 dead, but with new content. However, like I said I'm fine with it. If they built it on a new engine it might not be "largely the same," but considering this is Valve I guess you're right.
Also, wtf is up with that image?
