Source 2 vs Unreal Engine 4.

[Buhnanner]

Thoughts?

[AlwaysFSX]

UE4, all the pants have been creamed.

[Snickerzz]

has source 2 even been shown off?

[ShadowCaptain]

Thoughts?

 

There are no games in Source 2... how can we comment on it

[Remilia]

The Dota 2 "map editor" uses an alpha version of Source 2 if I'm not mistaken.

 

I think Dota 2 is currently getting ported to Source 2 as well, so we might see something not too far in the future. Lol, jk, world war 3 ruined Valve before it was finished.

[Humbug]

the creator of CS who has seen source 2 said it's very similar to unreal 4.

But we will not know What it is capable of until valve releases a game which was built on it from the ground up. Right now insufficient data to answer your question.

[totjup5]

Considering we don't know about source 2 yet....... I would go with the engine that has been released which is UE4.

[Sky Daddy]

from what i know and heard

 

source 2 -> focuses more on content creation while unreal 4 focuses more on graphics/game development

 

if i were to compare the two

[ManOfDisguise]

Source 2

[theproffesor]

Cryengine.

.

.

.

your argument is invalid.

[babbaj]

gold source is better 

[ComradeHX]

Cryengine.

.

.

.

your argument is invalid.

Cryengine?  The one that people complain about due to poor documentation?

[Zweihander]

I'm looking forward to any improvements Valve could make.

 

Source, tsk tsk...  <_<

[typographie]

Frankly I trust both Valve and Epic to develop engines that will work well on PC. By contrast, I don't think I've ever played a recent game based on a version of the idTech engine that didn't have problems to some degree.

 

As long as Unreal 4 keeps using user-accessible config files for tweaking as UE3 did, I'll be happy. I'm sure Source 2 will, but I don't expect it to often need them.