Food for thought (HL2 and engine optimization)

It's been almost a DECADE since HL2 launched and it still has "good graphics." It ran great when it came out and it just shows that a good PC exclusive (for the time it was released) around an engine that appreciated good textures and character features can stand the test of time. Sure it doesn't have all the new technology and particle effects, but it has clean textures and varied environments that really are still impressive today. The source engine has to be one of my favorite engines ever created.

I'll take extra time on highly detailed textures over fancy blur and particle effects any day. This game is one of the few "WOW" games that came out and just screamed "next gen" for me. Anyone else feel similarly about this game and the way it has aged? I can't think of any engine that really has stood the test of time and evolved just enough to stay relevant; even by today's high spec requirement standards.

 

hl2 as it exists today is pretty different from the hl2 you knew in 2004 in terms of graphical fidelity

 

Agreed. Valve constantly kept up on the series with graphics and support updates. They did it to keep the game "current" and "accessible" to bring new fans over in anticipation of continuing the series years after they released it. But who knows if it will continue at this point?

 

Actually, if you turn back the clock and go to HL2's 2004 release, you'd see that it didn't really "run great when it came out." At maxed-out settings it was too much for the current GPU's of the day and there was a huge deal with the GeForce FX series not even being able to run highest graphics settings, as Valve intentionally limited them to the DirectX 8.0 and 8.1 path because of their terrible Shader Model 2.0 performance. You got the full DirectX 9 Shader Model 2.0 effects and better performance on the Radeon 9500-9800 cards. That generation was the only time in recent history that ATI held larger market share than Nvidia, as their products were indisputably superior. But I digress...

As far as Source Engine goes, I would say that it still looks decent to this day and updates have kept it surprisingly relevant, but it clearly shows its age in many areas. Like many other 3D engines (the IW Engine powering CoD since CoD2 is another) it traces its roots way back to the old Quake engines of the 1990's. Source Engine's main strength is the low hardware requirements and great scalability, as it provides nice-looking graphics and effects even on low-end PC's and consoles.

On the development side, all the tools and SDK are free (for noncommercial use of course) and very easily obtainable, which is why it has been a boon to modders and indie game developers. Source Engine's animation toolset is very good and it's ideal for things like machinima (think Source Filmmaker) and a game like Garry's Mod LOL. However, one drawback is that there are multiple non-compatible SDK builds (e.g. 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013) available which complicates things.

Source Engine's main weakness is its age and the fact that it's based on ancient source code. It's got no native support for DirectX 11 and like many others derived from old id Tech engines it's really only great for corridor-based shooters. It struggles with rendering large open areas and long draw distances, which is why you don't see these kinds of games running on Source. It's good for flatter, more barren-looking games with strong art direction based on clean, crisp and simple graphics like Portal 2 and Team Fortress 2. But games with more organic environments, realistic characters, and interactible characters and terrain are impossible with the engine's polygon, texture mesh, and lighting limitations.

As an outdated engine Source also has trouble managing large numbers of assets efficiently and with proper hardware utilization. This is why even a high-end computer nowadays will chug in TF2 on a Mann vs. Machine server when there are a million NPC robots and players on-screen in the thick of battle, and why TF2 gets slower and more bloated with every major update as more assets are added. As far as I know, there is only a very simple LOD and occlusion culling system in place. There doesn't appear to be any real texture or mesh streaming either. Again, it's an engine built for corridor-based shooters, not large open worlds.

My favorite game engines nowadays are Frostbite and CryEngine. I think they are both far and away the most powerful and capable engines at the moment and clearly built for current and next-gen hardware. It's a shame that Frostbite is completely closed and not publicly available or licensable because there can be amazing content created if people could get their hands on it. But it's EA so it's to be expected. This screenshot of BF3 has always floored me with how photorealistic it is:

The reason for this is that Valve releases very few games and only for a small number of successful IP's. This is why they can get away with using Source as their sole development engine since 2004. Another reason is that Source does not have a meaningful version numbering scheme like for instance CryEngine 1, 2, 3 or Unreal Engine 2, 2.5, 3, 4. Like others have said the Source Engine of today is very different from the Source Engine of 2004. It hasn't stood the test of time without a lot of major updates. The only engine I can really give that honor to is CryEngine 2 which powered Crysis on the PC in 2007. Even today, absolutely breathtaking content continues to be created for what is essentially an obsolete and deprecated build.