Talk:Source

	This is the talk page for Source. Click here to start a new topic.
	This page is reserved for discussion about the article itself, not for discussions about the subject. If you haven't yet, please read our Talk page policy for information and help on how to comment on talk pages.

L4D

Guys, you are aware L4D was made by valve? -SI

We know that. What's your point?...--YabbaMyIcing 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's under the "Other develepors" catogry. Valve made it. 82.23.9.115

Second person

fix the second person warning is taken down--Thelastlambda 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Natural Selection 2

Natural Selection 2 was going to be on Source at first, but now they are using a custom engine. Thus, they should be removed from the list of Source games. — Unsigned comment by 72.173.201.95

Too old!

I can't help but notice the entirety of the article talks about stuff as it was before ep2 was even released, 7 years ago. That's longer than the time it took to develop Source itself until its first release. And of course, post-ep2 developments to the engine is not even mentioned anywhere.

It's about damn time someone go look around Valve Developer wiki for the latest stuff and give this article the update it desperately needs. 14.1.210.41 19:13, 21 May 2014 (BST)

Just checked - the Valve Developer wiki's Source page itself only has a glossed-over bullet list of all the features, with very little details. Other pages, on the other hand, can get real down and dirty, down to the source code itself. Someone need to dig deep to find a reasonably-detailed infos inside the code spaghetti that is the Valve Dev wiki. 14.1.210.41 19:23, 21 May 2014 (BST)

This page will be eventually cleaned up per the Cleanup Project. Thanks for your help! 18 () 07:50, 22 May 2014 (BST)

Too old! 2

In Next-gen renderer it talks about Xbox 360 and PS3 as if they are, well, next gen. It also says that Directx10 might happen which, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't, and with the release of Source 2 never will.

About DX10: yesn't. Orange Box's Source 1 does recognise DX10 capability in the system and uses *some* of its functions while staying firmly on the DX9 API. (those functions have less to do with being fancy and more with handling some technical colour spaces things to improve transparency sorting and things of that nature). However, third-party games on Source (namely Titanfall) did go beyond DX9, so should that be reflected or... and then the recent (Deck) updates added Vulkan support apparently... so there's potentially a lot to be added to the article, and we can't say that something "never will" happen.

On that note, the paragraph that talks about "Dynamic lighting and shadowing 2" is, for the most part, blatantly false if we look at the game (Episode Two). Dynamic shadows still do cast through models, they don't blend with lightmaps, they don't cast onto models, they didn't learn to take local lights into account until Alien Swarm, entities aren't given more than one dynamic shadow. Also, the links in that section are dead. Cvoxalury (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2022 (MSK)

Regarding recent edits

Although I understand the argument for some or most of this info not being necessarily relevant to a HL/Portal-focused wiki, I feel like any edit of such large scope as to delete almost 7,000 bytes of, as far as I can tell, accurate and well-researched information, should probably be discussed on a talk page beforehand... especially considering it had been on the page since 2008 and seemingly not caused any controversy so far. 86.75.115.1 16:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The way it was presented - the edit summary - was unideal (too personally styled, memetic, opinion driven) but to be frank the article was long overdue for cleaning up; it still is. Some small factual errors begin almost immediately, like stating the skybox is 'up to 16x' (it can go above; in L4D the default is 32x), Wikipedia links can be added, like explaining what HDR is. Things like the list of common issues was aged poorly. The list of games doesn't have to be restricted to just HL/P, as others are routinely mentioned when appropriate. Some things like 'future technology' or 'dynamic lighting 2' could use a lot of rework, the latter in particular used to displease me as it's almost to the point of false advertisement - they never did rework the actual 'dynamic lighting' to blend between objects or with lightmaps; the issue here is 'dynamic lighting' is a de-facto name of the system that uses render-to-target shadows, while what was being described, I believe, was 'a' dynamic lighting system, the shadow mapping one. But all that nuance was not in the article.

I'd say reverting these edits could be done if you want to, but it's postponing the inevitable - someone's gotta take the article, work on it, and replace some chunks. I for one can't do it in the foreseeable future.

P. S. If you want an example of over-documentation, you can look at VDC. It's hopelessly cluttered with everyone wanting to toss yet another portion of information. That would be one way not to do it - not to go too deeply into how Source works, as this page's not a tutorial and not technical documentation, but an encyclopedia entry. Cvoxalury (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)