Remake it in Source?

[Robotchk12]

Since we all know that Source is the greatest engine evar (<= OPINION), what game do you think would have been/would be better if it had been made with the Source engine?
Borderlands would have been a lot better in my opinion. It would allow for greater enemy variety (hopefully), better decals, and a FOV that isn't less than 50.

It is also a dream of mine for a Zelda game to be made with Source.

[SloppyMoe606]

Fallout 1 and 2.

[scetch00]

What are you talking about? The Source engine is incredibly dated and most games look horrible and play stiffly as well.

[SloppyMoe606]

At 7/31/10 03:22 AM, scetch00 wrote: What are you talking about? The Source engine is incredibly dated and most games look horrible and play stiffly as well.

Are you retarded? Have you seen Portal 2's graphics?

[JingoJoe14]

At 7/31/10 02:30 AM, Robotchk12 wrote: and a FOV that isn't less than 50.

You can actually adjust the FOV by editing some files if you have the PC version. That's what I did.

[scetch00]

At 7/31/10 03:24 AM, SloppyMoe606 wrote:

At 7/31/10 03:22 AM, scetch00 wrote: What are you talking about? The Source engine is incredibly dated and most games look horrible and play stiffly as well.

Are you retarded? Have you seen Portal 2's graphics?

Are you retarded? Have you seen Crysis 2's graphics?

CryEngine would be much better for games to be remade in.

[AIDSMcGuff]

I'd rather just have decent gameplay, rather than graphics.

[Robotchk12]

At 7/31/10 04:04 AM, scetch00 wrote: CryEngine would be much better for games to be remade in.

Not graphics, moron, GAMEPLAY.

[thenewbies]

At 7/31/10 04:04 AM, scetch00 wrote:

At 7/31/10 03:24 AM, SloppyMoe606 wrote:

At 7/31/10 03:22 AM, scetch00 wrote: What are you talking about? The Source engine is incredibly dated and most games look horrible and play stiffly as well.

Are you retarded? Have you seen Portal 2's graphics?

Are you retarded? Have you seen Crysis 2's graphics?

Actually, I believe Valve updates the engine with more graphics capabilities every so often. I've found that early Source games had low sysreqs, but newer ones have them higher. Besides, video game companies(especially Valve) don't have the time to create a new engine every year. Updating an existing engine is much less time consuming.

[PoloPancake]

At 7/31/10 04:05 AM, salted-tator-tot wrote: I'd rather just have decent gameplay, rather than graphics.

I concur, although graphics are pretty important as well.

[KeroKeroMario]

The Source engine is getting dated fast. I mean, it's a good engine and all, but re-skinning it and making a new game of it can only go so far. I say wait until Valve creates a new engine before re-making something in a soon-to-be outdated engine.

[Kogey]

It would be kinda cool to see an older GTA game such as 3, VC, or even SA to be re-made in the source engine.

[thenewbies]

At 7/31/10 11:17 AM, KeroKeroMario wrote: I say wait until Valve creates a new engine.

Then you'll have to be patient.

[TMdrummer]

Alien Homonid..... NAAHHHH!

[explodingbunnies]

At 7/31/10 03:22 AM, scetch00 wrote: What are you talking about? The Source engine is incredibly dated and most games look horrible and play stiffly as well.

Oh yeah, because HL2, L4D 1 and 2, Portal, CS:S, and a few other games look horrible and have stiff controls.

Get out.

[CompleteDouche]

I just don't like Vehicles in the Source engine, and that I feel like I'm floating, as well as not seeing my feet. Those are my only complaints for the engine.

[darklink4567]

Guys guys guys, we don't need fantastic graphics in video games. Thats what an incredibly retarded douche who knows nothing about what makes a game good thinks. What we need are good gameplay, controls ect. Not goofy things that make people buy it just because of the pretty colors.

[TMdrummer]

At 7/31/10 01:57 PM, CompleteDouche wrote: I just don't like Vehicles in the Source engine, and that I feel like I'm floating, as well as not seeing my feet. : Those are my only complaints for the engine.

Games where you see your feet:

-Halo

- Mirrors edge

- americas army 3

I can not believe you are making this argument, in %99.999999 of fps games you can not see your feet. Is the only fps you feel comfortable playing halo. Pathetic.

[Re2deemer]

As a matter of fact you could see your legs in l4D. I'm not sure if it is still in the game though, I remember not having those after a while...

[scetch00]

At 7/31/10 05:41 AM, Robotchk12 wrote:

At 7/31/10 04:04 AM, scetch00 wrote: CryEngine would be much better for games to be remade in.

Not graphics, moron, GAMEPLAY.

Oh hello there idiot! CryEngine 3 looks superior in both Graphics AND Gameplay.

So suck a dick :)

[Robotchk12]

At 7/31/10 04:37 PM, scetch00 wrote:

At 7/31/10 05:41 AM, Robotchk12 wrote:

At 7/31/10 04:04 AM, scetch00 wrote: CryEngine would be much better for games to be remade in.

Not graphics, moron, GAMEPLAY.

Oh hello there idiot! CryEngine 3 looks superior in both Graphics AND Gameplay.

So suck a dick :)

lol ok

[CompleteDouche]

At 7/31/10 02:57 PM, tmdrummer wrote: I can not believe you are making this argument, in %99.999999 of fps games you can not see your feet. Is the only fps you feel comfortable playing halo. Pathetic.

You only name three games out of many that allow you to see your feet, then think I only feel comfortable with halo. You are a fucking idiot. I don't mean I won't play a game if I can't see my feet, it just makes the game more realistic, and not "Oh we didn't feel like putting it in, just looks like you are floating everywhere hurr".

[Androu1]

At 7/31/10 04:37 PM, scetch00 wrote: Oh hello there idiot! CryEngine 3 looks superior in both Graphics AND Gameplay.

So suck a dick :)

So CryEngine 3's gameplay looks better, eh? I'm betting you haven't played any game that uses the engine, then. Since you only say it LOOKS better.

Going on and saying "So suck a dick :)" as a conclusion for the discussion pretty much makes all your opinions invalid. Also because you fail to provide a reason why CryEngine 3 is better other than saying it just is better. You don't explain anything. I know this is the internet and noone really cares about arguments in the internet, but you could at least try to sound like you know what you are even talking about and not like some bad troll.

[scetch00]

At 7/31/10 09:22 PM, Androu1 wrote:

At 7/31/10 04:37 PM, scetch00 wrote: Oh hello there idiot! CryEngine 3 looks superior in both Graphics AND Gameplay.

So suck a dick :)

So CryEngine 3's gameplay looks better, eh? I'm betting you haven't played any game that uses the engine, then. Since you only say it LOOKS better.

Yes there have been quite a few gameplay videos of Crysis 2.
There are no games besides this game so far that use it and no I haven't played it. By the way, CryEngine 2 looks better AND plays better than the Source engine as well. Even the Unreal Engine 3 is better than Source for gameplay and graphics.

Going on and saying "So suck a dick :)" as a conclusion for the discussion pretty much makes all your opinions invalid.

Also because you fail to provide a reason why CryEngine 3 is better other than saying it just is better.

It looks better and the game showcasing the engine is gorgeous and looks like it plays amazing?

You don't explain anything. I know this is the internet and noone really cares about arguments in the internet, but you could at least try to sound like you know what you are even talking about and not like some bad troll.

I'm not sounding like a troll at all, I expressed a statement such as why remake a game in Source if it isn't the best engine to do it in?
Graphics, textures, and animation are downright horrible in the Source engine. So many other engines do it better and CryEngine 3 looks to be the best right now. I can't wait for more games to start licensing it as the graphics, gameplay, and framerate look awesome. Also by the way it's optimized for consoles as well and looks as good as most PC's can play it.

So yeah. Can you say that about any Source powered game on consoles? Do they look as good as a PC counterpart? Play as well? Or even look good/play well at all?

[Letiger]

Woudn't Pokemon be better in Source?

[Gobblemeister]

At 7/31/10 05:41 AM, Robotchk12 wrote:

At 7/31/10 04:04 AM, scetch00 wrote: CryEngine would be much better for games to be remade in.

Not graphics, moron, GAMEPLAY.

Valve's shooting mechanics are mediocre at best

Their physics are probably the best feature

[scetch00]

At 8/1/10 04:37 AM, Gobblemeister wrote:

At 7/31/10 05:41 AM, Robotchk12 wrote:

At 7/31/10 04:04 AM, scetch00 wrote: CryEngine would be much better for games to be remade in.

Not graphics, moron, GAMEPLAY.

Valve's shooting mechanics are mediocre at best

Their physics are probably the best feature

And even then, Crysis physics are better.

[ParadoxVoid]

At 8/1/10 03:11 AM, scetch00 wrote: So yeah. Can you say that about any Source powered game on consoles? Do they look as good as a PC counterpart? Play as well? Or even look good/play well at all?

lol, bringing up consoles in an engine discussion.

[scetch00]

At 8/1/10 04:48 AM, ParadoxVoid wrote:

At 8/1/10 03:11 AM, scetch00 wrote: So yeah. Can you say that about any Source powered game on consoles? Do they look as good as a PC counterpart? Play as well? Or even look good/play well at all?

lol, bringing up consoles in an engine discussion.

This engine is PC based and is optimized for consoles as well.

Lol, the Source engine is also on games for consoles.

PC elitist much?

[Soviet]

It would be awesome if someone could make a Garry's Mod for Cry engine 3 (I do know about that easy customize thing that crysis has, I'm mainly refering to tools and ragdoll and pro things etc.)

Mirrors Edge would be pretty good with the source engine.

Also stop fighting over better engines, Both cryengine and source is a great engine.
If your a Graphicsfag then stop bitching...