Graphics still top of the line?

[brink's]

THX for ur opinion guys and i must say i agree with those who feel they are looking at GI Joe when seeing doom3 or fear screenshots.

 

[Styloid]

HL2's graphics are just well designed. It looks natural, not like CG.

 

[Apos]

And no, Source cannot equally match D3's shadowing effects. Source is still based on static lightmaps for the most part, while D3 has a fully dynamic perpixel lighting system. They are not the same thing. I'm not saying that one necessarily looks better than the other, but it's just false to claim that HL2 has a unified real time lighting model.

Indeed. But to get its unified lighting model, doom3 has to throw out realistic light effects like radiosity and HDR that shade and glare characters and objects in subtle and complex ways. As long as Valve can solve the overlapping double dark problem with its projected shadows, HL2's shadowing is going to get done most of the major "wow" elements of Doom3's lighting system (like a zombie creeping out of the dark with the shadows sliding over it) at a much reduced cost, leaving room for all sorts of other effects and much bigger and more complex environments. HL2 can also do real time lighting when it needs to: it's lighting effects have a very wide scale to accomodate a wide variety of effects and environments.

 

[brink's]

HL2's graphics are just well designed. It looks natural, not like CG.

ya those CD graphics were worse then hl1, i was SUPER pissed when i found that out

 

[vicefredav444]

Its like the president from nintendo said, Its not about beefing up graphics and system specs over and over but how you come up with new innovative ways to play the game. I didnt believe him untill I played farcry and he was right. I guess hl2 is using the latest in graphics tehnology and others things to give us a different experience. thats the key, different.

 

[Curator]

Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!!

You're kidding, right? It's foolish to assume Source is capable of close to UE3.

You obviously know nothing of what the Source engine is capable of. It may not be able to look quite as good as UE3 in it's current form but with a bit of upgrading, such as a more robust dynamic lighting system, it easily could. Thanks for showing your idiocy, it made me laugh.

 

[Styloid]

You obviously know nothing of what the Source engine is capable of. It may not be able to look quite as good as UE3 in it's current form but with a bit of upgrading, such as a more robust dynamic lighting system, it easily could. Thanks for showing your idiocy, it made me laugh.

You are optimistic and he is pessimistic. No idiocy involved.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Half-Life doesn't have the most advanced graphics, but from an artistic standpoint they make far better use of them.

I think that Doom 3 and Stalker could use subtler maps, and put more focus on the actual texture work. It just looks like they were tempted to push the bumpmaps to the maximum, and let textures fall to the wayside.

Stalker has it a lot better, because it uses hyper-detailed textures. Still, their use of maps is almost too limited. The metal isn't very shiney at all, and the textures are seem flatter than they aught to be.

Half-Life 2 has a very well-balanced combination of both texture and maps, making it just look more realistic, even if it's not as good from a technical standpoint.

It's not the tecnology, it's how you use it.

 

[Aphal]

Look in that first picture.. the butt of the rifle goes into his chest..

I've seen worse clipping than that in HL2 as well

 

[Curator]

You are optimistic and he is pessimistic. No idiocy involved.

There is a difference between being pessimistic and being plain idiotic. I know what the engine is capable of, I'm not being optimistic. HL2 uses the same method as UE3 for it's model and texture detail for instance. Source art is created extremely high and then reduced using normal maps that are then reduced into light maps effectively reducing a thousand polygon model into only one; UE3 uses this same process only it's models consist of much higher polys. HL2's are around 100,000 in source and a couple 1000 ingame whereas UE3's are around 2,000,000 in source and a couple 100,000 ingame. UE3 also uses shaders that consist of around 50-100 instructions as opposed to HL2's 15-40, that doesn't mean HL2 is not capable of producing highly complex shaders either. HL2 also supports specular lighting, radiosity, HDR, etc. which UE3 boasts, again they are just higher quality shaders.

iamaelephant simply has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[smwScott]

These new games remind me of when the PS2 was first released. The developers went trigger happy with all of the new effects the PS2 offered and most of the games ended up looking extremely shiny and plastic, like the characters were dipped in wax.

The same thing is happening with PC's. Doom 3 and FEAR, while maybe great games, took the effects to the extreme. They found something cool and overused it to the point that it makes the game look like a Saturday morning cartoon, or an old CG cutscene. Half-Life 2 and STALKER both refrained from blatantly saturating every little thing in the game with mapping effects, giving them a much more realistic feel.

 

[Neutrino]

Indeed. But to get its unified lighting model, doom3 has to throw out realistic light effects like radiosity and HDR that shade and glare characters and objects in subtle and complex ways. As long as Valve can solve the overlapping double dark problem with its projected shadows, HL2's shadowing is going to get done most of the major "wow" elements of Doom3's lighting system (like a zombie creeping out of the dark with the shadows sliding over it) at a much reduced cost, leaving room for all sorts of other effects and much bigger and more complex environments. HL2 can also do real time lighting when it needs to: it's lighting effects have a very wide scale to accomodate a wide variety of effects and environments.

Oh certainly, I just wished to point out the misconception that HL2's lighting system was the same as D3's.

Speaking of dynamic lighting, did you listen to how U3 achieved dynamic soft shadows? It's pretty interesting.

 

[omni]

Its like the president from nintendo said, Its not about beefing up graphics and system specs over and over but how you come up with new innovative ways to play the game. I didnt believe him untill I played farcry and he was right. I guess hl2 is using the latest in graphics tehnology and others things to give us a different experience. thats the key, different.

Well said, Far Cry was only a medicore game despite its next-gen graphics. Running around in the jungle is only so fun until you hear "Eat my ass!" for the 100th time.

 

[A2597]

I still think HL2 looks as good as STALKER. both look STUNNING, and blow Doom3/Fear out of the water in terms of looking realistic over plastic/wax.

 

[ZombieBudgie]

I just wanted to know how u guys feel about this subject. Does anyone still think hl2s graphics are top of the line or am I the only one.

Well HL2 was never meant to compare with D3 if that's what you mean. Doom 3 is designed to make great-looking indoor environments - not render an active City 17. HL2 has its own special look that no one can really imitate.

Anyway i know that HL2 will own not because of its graphics but because of its intense story etc.

No doubt about it.

 

[Wesisapie]

looking around this room, pretty much everything has that plasticy effect on it (in real life), but i think doom3 forgot that you cant have those maps without extremely detailed textures.

 

[Baal]

It's hard to judge which is better for me because they are such different enviroments....

Half-Life 2 is a futuristic area with a lot of water and many closed in areas (but still have open areas too)

While STALKER has mainly outdoor areas....I dunno....

One thing for sure, STALKER has best sky i've ever seen....

 

[|Link|]

I think HL2 is the best becouse of physics, graphics and the gameplay!!! end of story

(HL2 is #1)

 

[Cole]

Well according to me:
As the graphics we have seen so far, not what engines are capable of -
U3 has the best graphics, no doubt.
HL2
Doom 3 (I just like Doom)

U3 according to what i have seen shows the best, i mean sure source may be able to pull of the same stuff but im saying just on what ive seen. Nothing more. I believe U3 will be only 64 bit? I believe HL2 will be compatibile with 32bit\64bit.
But i mean out of what we have seen U3 has shown the best graphics, there very impressive. Now the last think U3 has to do is figure out, how to add 15 guys onto a screen all shooting and jumping in a huge level with over 15 fps.

But yeah HL2 looks alot more realistic, its dosn't look plastic at all. Doom 3 looks plastic, Painkiller looked somewhat plastic but i believe they still looked kick ass. Doom 3..hmm what to say about Doom 3, well i believe Doom 3 looses its..."Potential" by not having 100 - 1000 guys all shooting at you and trying to kill you. But Doom3 does look pretty good and ill probably by it.

But overall the one game that will own it for a super 1 ass reason. The Physics. I mean you have graphics that compare to any other game.. The physics beat any other games. (Ima make a jungle level..then burn it to the ground!). A super kick ass one of a kind storyline. N i'd have to say.. The Largest Mod Community and The Largest Community.

I believe those would be correct...but theres one thing i just wanna say..
This game i will always honor, and i will always honor ID for it. Quake 3. Quake 3 still looks nice, and its engine has been the most modified in games. Many games use its engine which is why i also honor it. Quake 3 also gave a great amount of graphic options. But ya gotta admit it... Quake 3 still looks good.
I use to play quake 3 all the time, then i met Cs, then i didnt care about it..then i met HL..then i beat HL...then i beat blue shift n opposing force..then i seen Hl2..then i drolled over HL2 for the rest of my life.. The End.

 

[Styloid]

There is a difference between being pessimistic and being plain idiotic. I know what the engine is capable of, I'm not being optimistic. HL2 uses the same method as UE3 for it's model and texture detail for instance. Source art is created extremely high and then reduced using normal maps that are then reduced into light maps effectively reducing a thousand polygon model into only one; UE3 uses this same process only it's models consist of much higher polys. HL2's are around 100,000 in source and a couple 1000 ingame whereas UE3's are around 2,000,000 in source and a couple 100,000 ingame. UE3 also uses shaders that consist of around 50-100 instructions as opposed to HL2's 15-40, that doesn't mean HL2 is not capable of producing highly complex shaders either. HL2 also supports specular lighting, radiosity, HDR, etc. which UE3 boasts, again they are just higher quality shaders.

iamaelephant simply has no idea what he is talking about.

I have to agree with you but I would still say that we're being optimistic since we still don't KNOW all about the Source engine or the Unreal engine. There is still the possibility that Source may have problems as well as the possibility that Source is absolutely amazing. There can be people on either side expecting either outcome until we actually have it.

 

[63]

I'm getting tired of this graphics crap. YOU PLAY GAMES, NOT LOOK AT THEM!!!

But to play the game, you must see the game...

 

[DarkStar]

I'm getting tired of this graphics crap. YOU PLAY GAMES, NOT LOOK AT THEM!!!

Graphics matter. Plain and simple. It's cool to pretend they don't but the sad fact of the matter is that better Graphics = More Immersive Game. Anyone who says different is just fooling themselves.

 

[Karis]

HL2 - Intends to have the focus of the game in the storyline and immersion. They attempt to use graphics in which will actually not get in the way of this. An over-zellus ( <-- spelling?) explosion or having lights and shadows going everywhere might take your focus off the story/situation at hand. The graphics also have to be somewhat like you would expect in real-life, and some attempt is made to do so, for example the bullet/missile trails, explosions, and sparks all attempt to capture real-life. Not to mention, the graphics HAVE been dulled down enough so that they can run on fairly low-end macheines. (I suppose having your macheine stall for five minutes during a heavy firefight, you getting killed, finding out you forgot to save, and replaying the whole battle from the start can have a negitive effect on immersion)

D3 - Mainly intended to scare the hell outta you. As we all know, shadows and lights can be a VERY usefull tool in doing this. Apparently the plastic effect is a side effect in using this technique. Hopefully it will be overcome with detail and making the whole level having one unified graphical theme. (Kinda like that dern n64 joystick. It's akward at first, but you get use to it after a while.)

 

[A.I.]

Graphics are the medium to the essence of the game - the gameplay.

 

[infin|ty]

With all these new games coming out, much of it will be personal preference. I feel that Doom 3, Far Cry, etc look like plastic. The engines are very capable, but it just isn't my style. I feel like I'm playing G.I. Joe.

HL2 and STALKER on the other hand, have very realistic graphics. More like the real world. Everything has a texture, a feel to it. Not just shiny and rounded. HL2's environment actually makes me think "That looks like concrete", "The Combine's shirt looks like cloth", that type of stuff, which to me makes all the difference.

Plus, how fun is it to throw shit around?

 

[Brian Damage]

*Throws milo mug at sister*

Very.

 

[Apos]

Check this post out:
http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=9964452

Apparently, Unreal3 also does what Source does in terms of lighting: instead of a single intesive method for everything, it blends pre-rendered lightmaps with various forms of dynamic lighting. Given that Unreal3 is world's removed in graphical fidelity from any other engine, I'd say that this is good news for Source. It means that it's path forwards will involve primarily the addition of blending modes and disparate dynamic lighting methods, not ripping out everything and replacing it all with the Doom3 style method. And the result can look phenomenal. I was under the impression that something like Unreal3, the next-next gen, would mean discarding lightmaps altogether. But it seems that's not the case.

 

[A.I.]

Check this post out:
http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=9964452

Apparently, Unreal3 also does what Source does in terms of lighting: instead of a single intesive method for everything, it blends pre-rendered lightmaps with various forms of dynamic lighting. Given that Unreal3 is world's removed in graphical fidelity from any other engine, I'd say that this is good news for Source. It means that it's path forwards will involve primarily the addition of blending modes and disparate dynamic lighting methods, not ripping out everything and replacing it all with the Doom3 style method. And the result can look phenomenal. I was under the impression that something like Unreal3, the next-next gen, would mean discarding lightmaps altogether. But it seems that's not the case.

Well it still depends how much the devs left the Source open and flexible for gfx engine upgrades...

 

[Spiffae]

Well it still depends how much the devs left the Source open and flexible for gfx engine upgrades...

*insert numerous gabe quotes about how source is perfectly capable of incorporating newer graphics technology*

Gabe has said that Source will easily incorporate HDR, Motion/depth blur, PS 3.0, DirectX 10, etc... it is an open ended dev platform, which is in Valve's (and the mod community's) best interest.

anyone feel like finding those quotes?

 

[BlumenKohl]

Someone spoke of cramped spaces earlier.

I seriously am thinking big wide open spaces have been done to death. Hopefully HL2 will find a good mix of both.

 

[csmighty1]

HL2's graphics are amazing, Doom 3's graphics are amazing, Far Cry's graphics are...good, stalker's graphics are amazing. I don't know what you guys are arguing about, we only get to play more games! That's what we want...isn't it?

 

[Lobster]

HL2's graphics are amazing, Doom 3's graphics are amazing, Far Cry's graphics are...good, stalker's graphics are amazing. I don't know what you guys are arguing about, we only get to play more games! That's what we want...isn't it?

AMEN BROTHER!

 

[Peks]

the graphics go like this:


source 2 > ut new engine > source > everything else.

 

[Lobster]

They have specificly designed source and steam over the last 5-6 years to be an easy method of introducing new features and tech into there games, im not saying source is going to own everything else, but it will always be pushing its boundaries to look better and advance, which is the one thing that has held Half-life 1 back lately. The gameplay of CS DOD TFC etc is already proven, the only thing needed is better visuals and features such as a physics system, and thats what the source ports are all about.

The half-life 1 engine has been very restricted with how it can be improved, the basic renderer was basicly unchangable without needing to change all the content, but with source they can cut and paste features without needing to completely redevelop the art resources and everything else.

It may not be the most groundbreaking engine on the planet but it will always be there, and I see alot of good solid playtime over the next few years, and beyond.

 

[Silent-]

HL2 gfx is like a movie.
my friend who likes video games called me and he was speachless after he saw HL2 video. not only the gfx are mind blowing the engine itself is light.

 

[amneziac85]

Has *ANYONE* stopped to think they aren't using 100% the maximum polygons possible at stable framerate in half-life 2 game? Also, Half-life 2 engine can EQUALLY match doom III's shadowing effects. They just DONT use it in the game. We haven't seen it with the engine. It hasn't been demonstrated but it is there.

Shader wise, Doom 3 is much more advanced then HL2

Doom is better at high poly counts and shaders, HL2 has better textures and physics, also it looks like its better at wide open spaces.

 

[Wolf]

Shader wise, Doom 3 is much more advanced then HL2

Doom is better at high poly counts and shaders...

Um - you mind backing that up? Carmack has only just recently spoken about adding a shader materials system to Doom3. Prior to this everything we heard about D3's shaders was that they were basically limited to FP16 and int12. Doom 3's shader complexity is an unknown at this point but we do know it was designed around the relatively primitive GF3-4 shader model - that is, the Open GL equivilent of DX7-8; which means that though it was EXTREMELY demanding in terms of fill-rate and memory throughput, the shader model remained simple. Shaders in D3 are used to decrease the rendering passes more than anything.. Last time I checked HL2 was based around DX9 level shaders (at least 200 of them) using FP24 precision which is naturally more advanced than what we currently know of D3...

So, it is unknown the extent to which D3's material system will change the balance by utilising more advanced shaders - but at this stage your claim is simply incorrect...

 

[lans]

I don't know why people like doom 3, far cry and fear graphically - the models just look like they are made of plastic. Also, if you notice, the character models which are "shiny" and look like plastic has very less detail such as facial hair, freckles, marks, moles (emm..), birth marks, e.t.c..which is impossible as no human face is ultra smooth. Just look at the s.t.a.l.k.e.r models or G-man - how realistic they look in comparison.

The tiles in doom 3 look good in those washroom screenshots since I suppose they use bump-mapping (correct me if I'm wrong - I know very little about the technical terms) but the sheen or HDR (is that what it's called?) in HL2 on the floor is more subtle and realistic in my eyes.

 

[Murray_H]

I have to rank the games like this:

1. HL2 - just looks so realistic, really is the best looking game i have ever seen
2. Doom 3 - the game in motion does look fantastic, the lighting is superb and the low polygon models (that have been normal mapped to heaven and back) look fine (in motion)
3. Stalker - to me the look of Stalker is like the game artists made nice, realistic textures then took every single one of them and applied the same PS filter to each one
4. Far Cry - the tropical environment is well done, but the characters do look really stupid, i hate to refer to the plasticness, but thats how they look :/
5. Fear - this looks very unrealistic, i hope games don't take this route in the near future

 

[Dead-Inside]

I know that I'm going to have a lot more fun playing HL2, and I probably wont even buy STALKER. But I do think its graphics are a lot more impressive than HL2, mostly I like the fact that it looks more realistic while all these other new engines look plastic (cept HL2)

http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_41.jpg

http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_22.jpg

http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_44.jpg

To be honest, that looks like Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising with a bit of structures added (And with greater contrast, nothing special). Also, look at the railroadtracks, do they look realistic to you? Or the flat "mountain-rock" fasad on the same picture as the railroad? Simply - No.