HL2 look primitive in 5 years?

[smwScott]

I think the best example to date of a game appealing to your morality as far as killing NPCs is Metal Gear Solid 2. Personally, it's my favorite game of all time because it is the first of it's kind to incorporate so many innovative ideas.

When you sneak up on a guard and put a gun to his head, he will put his hands up. You can then walk around to the front and aim at his head, heart, or crotch and see him start to tremble and beg for his life, even giving you items to apease you. If you do decide to kill him, there is an extremely realistic amount blood and gore, including if you hit him in certain places like the neck you can see it spurt out and stick to the walls. This being said, the game encourages you to subdue guards and avoid them altogether rather than get in situations such as this.

Anyway, that's basically what your all talking about, and it's already been done in one of the bestselling games ever (I think).

 

[evilian1717]

dont forget that hl2 started geting worked on (gabe said) 5 years ago

 

[Skullhair]

It really doesn't matter. In five years Lieberman will be voted in for President by a bunch of old farts (cause they're the only ones who vote, if you vote then GJ) and he'll ban all Video-Games and make us all play with dolls.

 

[ferd]

well it still plays better then anything else ive played since then...some came close...but none got equal

 

[zdub]

GT4 may look nice but jesus christ i hated those games with a passion....no damage modeling whatsoever is so ****ing annoying...when your driving a viper down the road and you smash into a wall at 160 goddamnit i want to see it happen, i dont want to hear this little bump sound, then you slow down a bit and your good to go again....I hated that about the game so much i literally can't play it. if they are going to make a driving sim go all the way i say.

 

[doser]

the saddest thing is that now games are all about graphics, unlike back in the day when qw and doom were about the gameplay (which is why they rocked, and are by far the best games ever )... these days its all about the graphics and games are slow and boring, which explains why quake2 and quake3 are the biggest piles of wank since... mrs pacman :/

hl2 will rule tho \o/

 

[urseus]

Have a look at Day of Defeat. That game is the Half Life engine milked till blood comes out.


The textures on that game are better than even battlefield 1942 can come up with. If you go to the main forums modeling and skining forum, youll see custom skins of a quality you wont belive.

There are better examples, but thats just one i found atm.

Now think about these same people, milking the Source engine (now INVENTED to be modded and upgraded more than the half life 1 engine) for all its worth, and the graphics in 5 years.

 

[Shockwave]

HL2 will be the best graphically for about 5-6 months maybe a year at the most. But in the last few weeks there have been games popping up all over the place that are in development that have just as good grahics as hl2.

 

[Lifthz]

Originally posted by urseus
Have a look at Day of Defeat. That game is the Half Life engine milked till blood comes out.


The textures on that game are better than even battlefield 1942 can come up with. If you go to the main forums modeling and skining forum, youll see custom skins of a quality you wont belive.

There are better examples, but thats just one i found atm.

Now think about these same people, milking the Source engine (now INVENTED to be modded and upgraded more than the half life 1 engine) for all its worth, and the graphics in 5 years.

You mean the Quake engine right? Lol.

Anyway... Battlefield doesn't have too great graphics as far as i'm concerned, so I don't know why you said "even Battlefield" as if that game is a landmark in game graphics or something.

Originally posted by Shockwave
HL2 will be the best graphically for about 5-6 months maybe a year at the most. But in the last few weeks there have been games popping up all over the place that are in development that have just as good grahics as hl2.

Well, in my opinion Half-Life 2's graphics are overally already beaten by FarCry and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Far Cry comes out this year, S.T.A.L.K.E.R comes out sometime early next year.

And neither of those games "popped up", Half-Life 2 kinda popped up moreso than those games that have been revealed since last year since Valve decided to not reveal their game until it was almost complete (as they said).

 

[urseus]

I used it as a ww2.

Those V_models though on day of defeat are much more realisic looking than the ones on quake 3 though by a long shot.

 

[JackiePrice]

Personally I like the direction Blizzard is taking with it's games as they improve the graphics. Sure, the polygon models and textures are getting more detailed... but they are moving toward a more animated, cartoonish 3D look instead of realistic, and it's intentional. I think it works well.

That being said.... /drool HL2 graphics

How will they look in a few years?
Most 5 year old games still look okay to me now, just not state of the art anymore. I'm sure HL2 will be the same.

 

[Taximes]

Originally posted by adio2001
As some have said, if they ever do make a completly photo-realistic game, I doubt that I would be interested in it. I mean most people who play games, do it because it's a sort of escape from every day life. So I doubt there would be a very high demand for it. But I think the best game graphics should get should be like Pixar and that sort, I sorta like the cartoonish look of games. That's just me though.

Who says that a photorealistic game wouldn't be an escape from everyday life?

People go on vacations to escape everyday life, and those are photorealistic.

I think the element of a game that allows you to escape everyday life is much, much more storyline wise than graphics wise. Games like Half-Life and the other greats out there are considered an escape from everyday life because their premise is so far from what we deem to be normal, not their graphics.

And as far as games seeming morally wrong and unplayable because of graphically realistic violence...Well, that will always be there, just as it always has been since the near-beginning of games. You just have to draw your own line as far as how far you're willing to go with the violence of a game. So, as games get more realistic, that line may indeed be drawn further and further back due to inability to distinguish between game violence and real-life violence, but not all games have to involve violence - or man vs. man violence for that matter.

What about a completely photorealistic RPG? There's still a violent element if you want that thrill, but you probably wouldn't be facing the moral issues of it while battling skeletons or other far-fetched creatures.

And a game can definitely allow you to be something that you could never otherwise be without being violent. What about a game that just let you live...but in a different time period? A completely photorealistic game designed to depict life in a medieval or futuristic setting. No, not everyone would find it exciting, but it would sell. Look at games like The Sims that simply let people live.

Hey, call me Cypher, but I don't see a real-life Matrix as a bad thing. I mean, lets start with the simple things. Obviously I'm not talking about being controlled by machines being good, just living life in a virtually customizable world. Obviously not all of humanity could be "inside" at once, people would have to stay "outside" for various reasons...

But once inside, lets look at the benefits. It's a virtual world. You could customize your body. Get your hair perfect, and you'd never have to get it cut again. Same with weight, height and all other aspects of physical appearance. Aside from that, living in this dream world, you couldn't die. Yes, I know that's not how it is in the movie, but that's just added in for drama. A real-life Matrix would be designed as a computer program which sends electrical impulses to the various parts of your brain, allowing you to "see", "taste", "touch" and "hear" things that are not really there. If you "died" in this world, it would have no affect on your physical body, whatever happened would just be whatever was coded into the program.

Also, in this world, you could do anything you wanted. There would be developers of new software. When you played a game, you would not just control the character, you would BE them. You would have the option to actually physically be anything or anyone that you wanted, and it would be one-hundred percent realistic.

I could go on for pages and pages about the benefits of a completely immersive virtual world, but unfortunately it's late, and I've got to sleep. Something that we would not need to do if we were living in a perpetual "dream" world...

 

[GRIMEY]

HL2's graphics will last until games like Farcry, Stalker, Doom3 and doom3-powered games (there are more) are released.

 

[SensesFail]

I personally think HL2 will remain above every single small title game to be released after HL2 until HL3...sure newer, big title games will take the glory, but in the overall scheme of things, HL2 will stay respectable, just not the best...

I do think I will find myself cringing at its graphics a little as I do now when I look back at Half life and look forward at Half-Life 2...huge difference...

I really can't wait until HL3...I can't imagine how awesome it will be...

 

[Phisionary]

talking about photorealism in games, i really doubt this will be an issue for quite some time. Every time I've looked at the newest, bestest, most amazing game of the day, I thought the end was in sight. But as technology progresses, I find out I'm wrong.

The first game I thought was truly amazing, in terms of it's graphics, was a Links golf game.. Precurser to Links 386; circa 1991 I think. Then it was doom. Then quake2 (wow polygons!). Half life. I played Myst (prerendered even, and don't say anything about me playing myst... it was cool) and thought it could be no better. Riven was. Other pre-renders are better still.

There is no forseeable point when games will truly be indestinguishable from real images, although it is far closer now then it was even a few years ago. But there are reasons that these look so good in the screenshots, but are truly very far from being photorealistic. The first is that they are static, and being realistic in a still image is a different thing from being realistic as you turn and move and jump and interact with an environment...

The second thing, is you have to realize that the environs of games (Hl2, d3, any game) are designed to look extremely realistic on screen. The trick to photorealism is more that anything can be made and will look real.

First, think about the environments you see so often in games... Enclosed courtyards, Boarded up abandoned houses, dark alleys, neat offices, warehouses and open landscape. Things that are simple, clean, and usually uncluttered. Places where the only views are carefully planned, and your ability to see far distances are very limited. The real world, on the other hand, is infinitely varied. It has all the environments above, and many many more, often all in the same place...

Try to remember the las time you were in a game on teh top of a tall building, and could see the whole city rendered around you? Maybe you have, I don't keep up that well. But in a real city, you should be able to pick out a few thousand cars, and at least that many pedestrians. See that in any game recently??? Even the most advanced LOD system won't enable that on our computers for many many years...

But we need'nt go so big to see the trouble's with photorealism. Whenever I think about this issue, I find myself walking around, looking at things, and try to figure out how many polygons it'll take to make it look real... (for instance)

In games, it's not uncommon for a shelf full of books to be rendered with a single big rectangle. To be real, and hence usable and interactive as a book in real life, I could see a book being several hundred or more, without the ability to fan the pages out or somesuch... Open it up, there'd be more. A teeshirt could be a few hundred, probably more to make it renderable with a cloth physics simulator of some sort. The lamp on my table, five hundred. Okay. that should be doable. Even dozns of each should prove no problem. But I'm an apparently incurable slob. My room is piled high with massive amounts of junk. Just guessing, I bet there's several thousand discreet, individual objects laying around; cables and tools and wrappers and joysticks and cd cases and books and boxes and clothes and everything else. Even if you set a conservative number, say, 400 poly's a piece, and you wanted a game set in my room, and photorealistic (for whatever horrible reason you would want that), well.... I don't think it's possible on todays technology. maybe at 1 fps....

Now scale it back up to that city....

*Sigh* quite a little rant here.... I guess i'll just say, theres decades worth of advance to come, if the advances in technology can continue to support it...

/me tapes his mouth shut. :E < Oops. I guess i didn't ::grin::

-Phision

 

[Taximes]

You've got a lot of great points, Phisionary...

I vote for the motion of all game developers temporarily tossing aside competition and creating a game physically identicaly to ours.

That seems so far off now, though...But just imagine a game that was perfect accurate. Every atom was accounted for...

The thing is, a perfectly realistic game can't be done with polygons. In the real world, things have mass and volume. If you "break open" a polygonal object in a game, there's nothing inside, unless the engine is coded to react a certain way.

But a game where every atom was accounted for...When you think about it, it actually seems easy to code, the hard part would be having a system that could handle it. All you would have to do, really, is design every element in the periodic table, all the crystalline patterns and such, and then design a program that would take the elements, mix them according to the final object desired and "shape" them into an object...Wow.

 

[Boogaleeboo]

If we had quantum computers tomorrow it'd take a few thousand years.

But hey, relatively simple right?

 

[Taximes]

Hey, I said the concept behind it was simple, not the computers that could run it

 

[Reborn]

Sure they can change the graphics and everything, BUT if they change how to gameplay is, IT WILL RUIN THE WHOLE GAME.

Like say, you know how you can get shot and then you're fine, you just lose like 15 health and can get healed later.

If it was completely real, like if you were shot in the stomache, you would die in 5-10 minutes, and you couldn't move. If you were to be shot in the arm, or leg, you would limp, and would have to go to the hospital and spend the night there or 3 days getting better through operations. (you couldnt play the game with that character for 3 days since your getting operated.)

So, if they leave the gameplay as it is, it would be fine, and multiplayer is fine like this, so i'm just saying if they changed to realistic gameplay, IT WOULD SUCK!:flame:

 

[Shockwave]

One thing that hasnt been mentioned is the fact that mods on the HL2 engine *should* look better than HL2 graphics themselves.

 

[PSX]

So, if they leave the gameplay as it is, it would be fine, and multiplayer is fine like this, so i'm just saying if they changed to realistic gameplay, IT WOULD SUCK!
exactly... photorealism, or damn close to it, even if it's not modeled to the atomic level (that seems far-fetched anyway on today's $400 monitors) would be great, but like you said, a complete life simulator I don't think would be fun, even if it's in first-person view, unlike The Sims; a game is to get away from normal life, for most people, and continuing the way a game plays today, like a space shooter/racer/shooter is how it should continue, just with better graphics; this cycle has been going for over a decade, or decades if you count every genre; from what Valve has said, I wonder if, in 5 years, HL2 will look twice, or maybe threefold(?) as good as it does today using Steam for updates

 

[RabidMeatloaf]

After accidently posting in the wrong topic........

In five years I think Half-Life will still look pretty good. Of course it prolly won't look good as some other current games, but it'll still look good.

 

[jasonh1234]

What a dumb thread. You might as well of said. "I just bought the fastest computer available" Do you think it'll seem slow in 5 years?"

 

[superbo3]

i still think doom 1 and quake 1 has nice grafiks (for its age) i wouldnt call em ugly

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by infin|ty
Thoughs?

IT'S MY GOOD FRIEND INFIN|TY!!!!

 

[urseus]

http://www.3dtotal.com/home2/gallery/getgalleryitem.asp?id=749




Photo Real enough for ya?

This will be in game stuff soon. Hell Gman already starting to look a little like this.

Also stalker looks crappy i dont know why people keep quoting it. The faces look so jagd you could cut a roast on them. The forest textures are too bright and it looks the same as vietcong.