Other titles with real time lighting?

[The Dark Elf]

Originally posted by spitcodfry
I'll look for it now and if I find anything, edit within this post.

EDIT: Here ya go: http://www.fileplanet.com/files/60000/60330.shtml

cheers mate, in a line waiting for it to DL now

Originally posted by Mr. Redundant
*ahem*
John Romero is going to make you his bitch.

(same scenario)

*grins* ahh poor Romero, yes he's a perfect example

 

[Mr. Redundant]

Originally posted by Fenric1138
cheers mate, in a line waiting for it to DL now

they say if you restart your comp and you relog into Fileplanet you will be first in line
....




damn you



Im waiting in line too
getouttahere

I got 20min to wait yippee

 

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by Sp0ck
Yes, Source is capable of producing projected shadow maps

It is also capable of calculating and rendering real time dynamic light and shadow. Since this point seems to continually escape you, let me repeate it: Source is capable of calculating and rendering real time light and shadow! Now read that sentence a few more times so that it really sinks in.

Its not that valve made the more prudent decision by using more primitive methods.

Sorry, but begging the question is never a sound argumentative technique.

They did for their purpose, for they wanted half-life2 playable on low end specs. But it is more beneficial to the genera, and to you the gamer, that other companies continue to push technology and drive the evolution of graphics in this genera.

Since you are now well aware that the Source engine is perfectly capable of calculating real time light and shadow, logic should lead you to the obvious conclussion: Valve's prudent use of this technique is purely a smart design decision as opposed to a technical limitation.

As for pushing technology forward, Valve is on the cutting edge of shader technology as well as introducing us to the most life-like NPC's ever seen in a video game. At the same time, there is more to gaming than just pushing technology. I like Valve's approach of letting the technology serve the gameplay rather than John Carmack's "Technology is King" approach.

 

[EvilEwok2.0]

damn, i came in late on this one. It looks like it was a good one too =(

No, seriously, im not looking to join a debate. Just throwing my 2 cents into the mix.

Source is capable of calculating and rendering real time light and shadow!

I dont suppose you would be kind enough to link me to your source for this information. I havnt seen hl2 do anything particularly good with shadows or lighting, just a projected shadow map on some objects in a scene(as others have already said in this thread), and always from only one light source at a time. From what ive seen models dont even cast a shadow on themselves. I would be interested in reading anything you can give

Valve is on the cutting edge of shader technology

Yea, the shaders are nice, but other engines(doom3 for example) have these same effects. But in the end, shaders are just little gimmicks. They improve visual quality, but they are just a cherry or two on top of the cake. Thats basically what valve did with source, put a few cherries on the same cake we have been eating for a few years now. But other developers are totally rewritting the recipe and giving us a taste of something we have never had before. And it tastes damn good IMO.

I like Valve's approach of letting the technology serve the gameplay rather than John Carmack's "Technology is King" approach.

Hehe. Carmack is the programmer! Ofcourse technology is important to him, he creates it. Hes not the only one making the actual game, though. Id does have deisgners, you know

And Id isnt totally ignoring gameplay. The new technology they have made works to serve the gameplay, just as much as the source technology serves the gameplay of hl2, if not more.

 

[Stryyder]

Is it me or does that screen shot on file planet of duke nukem look like it was rendered on the original Half life engine, it is boxy as hell.

 

[spitcodfry]

Originally posted by Stryyder
Is it me or does that screen shot on file planet of duke nukem look like it was rendered on the original Half life engine, it is boxy as hell.

I'm pretty sure that particular build was using the Unreal engine, which is older than the first Half-Life's modified Quake engine. Sort of makes sense for the graphics to look like crap on it, even though the original Unreal wet my pants from the excitement when I first saw it.

 

[Stryyder]

Originally posted by spitcodfry
I'm pretty sure that particular build was using the Unreal engine, which is older than the first Half-Life's modified Quake engine. Sort of makes sense for the graphics to look like crap on it, even though the original Unreal wet my pants from the excitement when I first saw it.

Yeah I remember the first open area you encounter in UNREAL I was like HOLY **** that is cool.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Originally posted by Mr. Redundant
they say if you restart your comp and you relog into Fileplanet you will be first in line
....




damn you



Im waiting in line too
getouttahere

I got 20min to wait yippee

it never worked when it finally came to my turn anyway.. can't be arsed waiting again, I'll wait until DF is released............ *grins*


Edit: heh harsh filter, can't even use normal words lol

 

[The Dark Elf]

Originally posted by Stryyder
Yeah I remember the first open area you encounter in UNREAL I was like HOLY **** that is cool.

heh same here, was very impressive.. I just realised though, I never got to play it in OGL or DX. Anyone know if they ever did finally release a patch that worked properly with one of those? I'd probably dig it out and play it again then

 

[spitcodfry]

Originally posted by Fenric1138
it never worked when it finally came to my turn anyway.. can't be arsed waiting again, I'll wait until DF is released............ *grins*


Edit: heh harsh filter, can't even use normal words lol

Dude, same thing happened to me. Fileplanet may be one of the most up-to-date sites for files, but their system kind of sucks. At least they have good bit rate on even the public servers (if you have high speed that is).

 

[The Dark Elf]

Originally posted by spitcodfry
Dude, same thing happened to me. Fileplanet may be one of the most up-to-date sites for files, but their system kind of sucks. At least they have good bit rate on even the public servers (if you have high speed that is).

might be cause it was a .mov file then, IE/QT might have got confused with it and tried to stream it or something. Might try again tomorrow during the day when the Us is asleep, usually no waiting time which is good

 

[Styloid]

I think the main point against Source right now is it's lighting so let's just focus our attention on that for a while and get a few issues out of the way.

I'm not sure if I understand all of this or not but here goes my thoughts (corrections from the more informed is welcome).
Source projects a texture onto the walls/surroundings for it's shadows, much like how the input/output is used for cameras and screens. These textures are made out of a lightsource acting as a camera able to take in the picture it sees of models/objects and turn it into a projected shadow 'faking' depth and direction of light. It is known that shadows already change according to direction of light. It is also known that a camera can be picked up and moved around and still have the screen showing what the camera sees- input and outputs are completely flexible. We have also seen that an antlion(in HDR vid) can throw a shadow onto a door now, when previously a table (traptown vid) couldn't- this could also mean some selfshadowing between some manipulatable world objects (I wouldn't say full self shadowing since there is absolutely zero evidence of that). I can only hope that the different colours of static and dynamic shadows is fixed but it seems to me that (if i'm correct) Source is capable of quite a bit more (lighting wise) than what we've seen.

 

[Shuzer]

Do the shadows of the objects on the table get projected on the ground in the traptown video, or what? I never paid attention, and you bring that to light (haha.. pun not intended)

 

[Styloid]

Oh, and on the topic, I think Id is the only developer with the money and guts to do full dynamic lighting (I don't consider Farcry to be full dynamic lighting- no self shadowing, funny 'grate' texture on the dynamic lights, no shadows out doors, etc. Looks like a neat trick to me). If some no-name developer offered a game with 4(possibly 8) players in MP, high system requirements, smaller sized environments, slower gameplay style, etc- basically going against all FPS normalities- they wouldn't survive a minute. However Id has a tonne of loyal fans and a big franchise name. They've also got a passion to advance game technology... and swimming pools of money. If they don't release a game with full dynamic lighting, I don't think anyone would for a while. We've already seen Chaser (CloakNT engine has full raytraced dyanamic lighting but didn't use it in the game) chicken out.

 

[EvilEwok2.0]

eh, doesnt the modified unreal2 engine that Deus Ex(and Thief3) is using sport a unified lighting system? I believe it does, but im not sure.

And IMO the community is starving for something new like Doom3. I for one am fed up with the multitude of ww2 games and cs clones, and Doom3s style/gameplay is a very welcomed change.

 

[vann7]

Originally posted by Styloid
Oh, and on the topic, I think Id is the only developer with the money and guts to do full dynamic lighting (I don't consider Farcry to be full dynamic lighting- no self shadowing, funny 'grate' texture on the dynamic lights, no shadows out doors, etc. Looks like a neat trick to me). If some no-name developer offered a game with 4(possibly 8) players in MP, high system requirements, smaller sized environments, slower gameplay style, etc- basically going against all FPS normalities- they wouldn't survive a minute. However Id has a tonne of loyal fans and a big franchise name. They've also got a passion to advance game technology... and swimming pools of money. If they don't release a game with full dynamic lighting, I don't think anyone would for a while. We've already seen Chaser (CloakNT engine has full raytraced dyanamic lighting but didn't use it in the game) chicken out.

well i not really sure about FArcry ,but their tech demos speak better than words.. in indoors there they have screenshots pretty similar to DOom3 style of Lights ,also they sponsor their lights as realtime in the swinging lamp part of their demo , also they use pretty similar tecniques for their characters modeling than doom3.. they create very High quality models of hundreds of thousands of polys (for very high quality bumpmaps info) and project the data in very low poly models , to make them more detailed than they really are. it looks like they saw the Doom3 demo in 2001 in the geforce3 and decided to go for something similar in that direction.. :cheese:


ok.. back on the ligh-t-i-n-g topic , here is an screenshot of Doom3 self shadowing. notice the shadow of the gun ..cast itself even in the player chest. (and also in the floor ,but not visible in that screenshot)

and now HL2..

as you see the weapon of the character doesnt exist.. not for the ligting system of Hl2.. :dozey: this is not Big deal , for most people .. even for me.. i will not look at the floor whith an ALien in front of me :cheese: but this clearly shows that Hl2 does NOT have a "realistic" lightning/shadowing system. and in a real life sense neither Doom3 :cheese: no game have a realistic lighting system.. the way it works in the real life.. however Doom3 is a step in that direction , is a truly realtime lighting engine.. "means that Lights and shadows happens at the same time and in their time (not pre-rendered). (like in the real word) that means that they are UNIFIED. in most games including Hl2 ,lights works in a special way , only affecting certain objects or characters and as the picture above . the above error is not possible in Doom3. you have automatic shadows in realtime everytime you place a light in a map. and that is very elegant technique. at the expense heavy cpu performance.(nothing is free in technology). whether the shadow properties are Realistic or not ,its another topic.. because the techniques for realistic shadows (photons mapping) are unfortunately not possible in games in realtime.

http://www.vrayrender.com/gallery/?page=2&type=0&all=1

(unless you dont mind waiting hours for 1 second of game playing) ..

 

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by EvilEwok2.0
I dont suppose you would be kind enough to link me to your source for this information [that the Source engine is capable of rendering real time light and shadow].

It's in the "Info from Valve" thread. Someone asked if the Source engine is capable of Doom III-like lighting effects, and Valve's response was something to effect of "Yes, but we implement this effect differently than id."

Yea, the shaders are nice, but other engines (doom3 for example) have these same effects. But in the end, shaders are just little gimmicks. They improve visual quality, but they are just a cherry or two on top of the cake. Thats basically what valve did with source, put a few cherries on the same cake we have been eating for a few years now. But other developers are totally rewritting the recipe and giving us a taste of something we have never had before. And it tastes damn good IMO.

Valve's shader techniques are cutting edge. I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay this. But that's not all there is to it. You're also forgetting (intentionally perhaps?) about Valve's bleeding edge facial animation system and how they're incorporating physics into the gameplay to an unprecedented degree (there's more to physics than just ragdolls, boys and girls). Valve is certainly doing their part to push the technological envelope.

Hehe. Carmack is the programmer! Ofcourse technology is important to him, he creates it. Hes not the only one making the actual game, though. Id does have deisgners, you know

Yes, but Carmack is the head of id and so drives their design philosophy, which is to create the technology first then build a game around it. Unlike Valve, id's technology is not driven by game design.

And Id isnt totally ignoring gameplay. The new technology they have made works to serve the gameplay, just as much as the source technology serves the gameplay of hl2, if not more.

Perhaps, but I know for a fact that id's gameplay design is driven totally by technology. This is based on comments from Carmack and other id principles. They design the tech first then design a game to fit around it. Valve, on the other hand, decided what they wanted to achieve in terms of gameplay then designed the technology to allow them to do it.

 

[iamironsam]

Doom 3 also doesn't have HDR (from what I've seen and heard), which I believe is a very important step towards realism. The shadows in Doom 3 also seem to me to be binary. The contrast between the "lit" areas and the "dark" areas seems to be very uniform, even with multiple light sources.

 

[Mountain Man]

True. Doom III's bleeding edge technology is certainly not without its compromises.

 

[EvilEwok2.0]

It's in the "Info from Valve" thread. Someone asked if the Source engine is capable of Doom III-like lighting effects, and Valve's response was something to effect of "Yes, but we implement this effect differently than id."

heh, hes just talking about the projected shadow maps on some of the objects. Its not really a big deal that this is all hl2 has, but you need to stop trying to make it sound as if Source is capable of the same effects as doom3, which it is clearly not.

Valve's shader techniques are cutting edge. I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay this.

Yes, i already said the shaders are nice. BUT other engines utilize "cutting edge" shader effects as well. Its not some huge advantage for Source, these effects are somewhat common. And they are just small additions in graphic detail, cherries on top of the cake as i said. They dont fundamentaly change the way graphics are presented, as other engines do(and also have neat shader effects on top of that).

You're also forgetting (intentionally perhaps?) about Valve's bleeding edge facial animation system

No, im not forgetting. And once again i said they look nice, but valve isnt in a field of their own with this. There are other companies pumping out facial animations that look just as good(its a matter of opinion as to which looks better). You call it "bleeding edge", but the system in the new MoH game(i keep forgetting the subtitle ;o uhg there are too many!) has more bones dirving the facial animation than hl2 does. And they eyes look better. In hl2 the eyes are the same old eye texture that all games have, they just added a reflective effect to them. But in the new MoH game the eyes not only reflect the world around them, but they also have other effects to make them look realistic. They look wet in a way that they dont in hl2, and their pupils dialate based on the lighting in the environment. This is more "bleeding edge", isnt it?

and how they're incorporating physics into the gameplay to an unprecedented degree (there's more to physics than just ragdolls, boys and girls).

Once again, valve does a good job with this, but it will be common in this next generation of games. Stalker and Doom3, for example, will also have an advanced physics system which WILL be incorperated into gameplay. Hl2 isnt the only game to feature traps ;o.

And this isnt a good thing in everyones view. To me, hl2 over does it big time. It really feels too much like a physics demo, which detracts from the gameplay more than adds to it. The physgun is cool, but again it just makes you feel more as if your inside a physics demo than a game. It wasnt even created for the game, it was created for the developers to play around with the physics. Thats why it doesnt feel right for the game, because it wasnt designed for the game. And i dont really like the idea of stumbling across an elaborate domino effect set up to kill enemies with. Its just not fun to me. Its cool to see, but its not fun. There is a reason why they dont package and sell physics demos, its because they arent games.

but thats just my opinion

Valve is certainly doing their part to push the technological envelope.

No, not really. Valve wrote some nice little shader effects, but this doesnt push the technology of games any further. Other games will have effects just as nice, and not because valve pushed them to it

Valve has alot of physics in the gameplay, but so do other games. All valve did was put more of it in their game than other designers wanted for theirs. They arent pushing technology in this area either, since once again its common throughout next generation games.

And the faces look nice, but once again they havnt brought games to some new never before seen fronteir. Other developers are focusing on this area too with the same(if not better) results, and its not really important to most other games out there(stalker and doom3 for example) like it is for hl2.

But its cool, valve was never about pushing graphics the same way a developer like Id was, and they dont need to be. They just make games that people generally like playing. I hope hl2 is the same.

Yes, but Carmack is the head of id and so drives their design philosophy, which is to create the technology first then build a game around it. Unlike Valve, id's technology is not driven by game design.Perhaps, but I know for a fact that id's gameplay design is driven totally by technology. This is based on comments from Carmack and other id principles. They design the tech first then design a game to fit around it. Valve, on the other hand, decided what they wanted to achieve in terms of gameplay then designed the technology to allow them to do it.

This isnt really relevant to the discussion. I disagree with many points, also based on quotes for the dveleopers, but in the end it doesnt matter. You cant really say that valve creates better gameplay, because its a matter of preference. Different people like different style. Id has always been about simple, straightforward, and above all fun games. They never wanted to make gameplay a complicated or intricate thing. They are about simple and fun. This is why Carmack was against a use button, because he felt he could impliment a system where you would get more interactivity without one, and therefore make the game just a bit simpler(one less key to bind). And he did, and the system works much better than a use button in the first place. I love Id's style of gameplay.

Valve has a totally different style. Most people seem to enjoy it too, though i didnt all that much. I find the frequent adventures through the maze of venting systems to be tedious, as well as the jumping puzzles around every corner. It looks as though valve is taking a new approach with hl2, and for that im very thankfull. But you never know until you play it.

As i said, it depends on what kind of gameplay you enjoy more. There is obviously a place in the industry for both styles.

 

[Incitatus]

I don't know how representative the screens are, but from what I can tell HL2's main shortcoming is polygon count. Especially in the outdoor scenes compared to the screens we've seen from Stalker.

:afro:

 

[Dagobert]

The polycount (like everything) is based on Valves decision to allow he game to run on older ahrdware, thus opening up the potential market.

 

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by Dagobert
The polycount (like everything) is based on Valves decision to allow he game to run on older ahrdware, thus opening up the potential market.

I'm sure they had their reasons, I just hope it's not an engine limit and us mods will be able to extend these poly limits. Because in my personal opinion Stalker is looking more sexeh all the time.

:afro:

 

[Mr. Redundant]

Hl2's art style (regardless of polycount/bump mapping specular blah blah technical) looks the most realistic.

their weapon and player models blow away Stalkers (this is my opinion, I prefer realism) Doom3, ... Far-Cry however looks pretty keen (second best)

although all the Bumpmapping (polybumping), Use of shadows and lighting etc, is nice, overused they look cartoony... as cool as Doom3 looks (to me) the bump mapping plays against it (as well as enhancing) its more of an art style....
its like the 3d representation of "embossing" (and its one thing I love, and loathe about doom3)

 

[Incitatus]

I would be VERY happy if you could show me HL2 screens that equal or beat these in terms of realism. People keep saying HL2 is a visual wonder, but I just can't see it that way, please prove me wrong (seriously, I am working on a HL2 mod so I'd be very happy if you could )

http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_42.jpg

http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_08.jpg

http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_32.jpg

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

:afro:

 

[EvilEwok2.0]

IMO hl2 doesnt look realitsic at all. Stalker takes the cake over all games, as far as graphical realism goes. Sure, the textures on the skin of the player models look somehwat funky(the face), kinda like cardboard(its hard to describe) but i firmly believe this will be sorted out before the game is released. Other than the weird looking effect on the textures, the models themselves are top notch. And the skies in stalker are amazing. they look nice in screenshots, but some people dont know that they actually move across the sky and the clouds change shape against the wind and what not, and the light form the sun plays against the new shapes forming in the clouds as the sun moves over the sky. Very very nice.

Doom3 doesnt look real world realistic, because the realistic features its bringing into games are still in their infancy. It will be improved. Its like Carmack said, there was a decision to be made between using the same old technology to create a more realistic looking game, or start implimenting realistic features and have a consistent world. Its good that he chose what he did, because now we have new technology to play with, but it will be a while before these features make a game as realistic as stalker. I think in Carmacks next(and last) engine, he will bring realism and realistic features together in one package. but thats about 5 years form now.

 

[iamironsam]

See, in my opinion, realistic doesn't necessarily mean better. I think if Valve was going for absolute true to life images, it would probably be more apparent in HL2. From examining the characters in HL2, they look like they could almost pass for human, but were skewed into some parallel cartoon universe somewhere along the line. The same goes for everything else in HL2's world. Personally, I like this look. Reality sucks. Actors wearing tights always look stupid compared to the superheros in comic books.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

Originally posted by Mr. Redundant

their (HL2) weapon and player models blow away Stalkers (this is my opinion, I prefer realism)

*notice how I specifically pointed out the player and weapon models, not the environment*

allow me to demonstrate my point:
(these are from the latest screenshots of the latest STALKER build, I want the game and am Un-biased I still have my own artistic preference however.)

Stalker:
Face and eyes:
http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_41.jpg

Full Body:
http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_38.jpg

Weapon Pistol:
http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_36.jpg

Wapon Rifle:
http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/middle/sb_xray_35.jpg
-----------

very impressive (however in motion they look very poorly done, however its not a complete build so Im not judging it, however I still prefer the artistic style used in Hl2)

Half Life 2: (couldnt find any recent shots, so heres the same old same old)

Face and Eyes:
http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/screenshots/hl2_015.jpg

Full Body:
http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/screenshots/hl2_091.jpg

Weapon Pistol:
http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/screenshots/hl2_059.jpg

Weapon Rifle:
http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/screenshots/hl2_090.jpg

so how did I illustrate my point?
I cant see its my opinion.

Im buying both so I dont need to pick
in fact I have preorders on them all!!!!!
all shall be mine
from the stalky stalker, to the lify halflife2
even the doomy doom3
I didnt go out and blow 3k on my rig to then not utilize its power

 

[Crusader]

I was playing the original hidden and dangerous yesterday, and it had the same graphical quality as Stalker . Anywho, all this malarkey about swinging lights is daft, I downloaded a 200 kb Havoc demo and that had swinging lights in it, too: wo000oo!

And the problem that was mentioned about the guns not being lit dynamically was addressed after a couple of people complained to Valve about it.

Also, if you look at the graphics in most computer animated films these days, they are totally based around shaders, so at least it seems hollywood see them as the way towards cinematic graphics.

Another thing: Half-Life wasn't the most realistic or visually stunning game of its time either, and we all know how successful that was.

I can't condone trying out the beta... but urmm.. maybe people should wait til all these games are out before passing judgement. Or go to a Doom III forum

 

[EvilEwok2.0]

No one here is judging the games, we are just discussing the different graphical styles.

 

[Crusader]

You can't compare graphical styles just by looking at small portions of footage and still screens from an old version, I still think you are judging the games too early. Wait for the game to be finished.

 

[Shuzer]

Yeah. It's really bothering me now that people are basing their judgment on HL2's graphics on 5 month old screenshots to brand new, recent STALKER/Doom 3 screens..

It's like I've said, if you've played the stolen build, and been to some of the POLISHED areas (note that, in what got stolen most of it looks to be placeholder stuff, but there's SOME polished areas, and they look great) it looks just as good as STALKER environment wise

 

[EvilEwok2.0]

lol, we arent judging the final product, we are just discussing what we have seen up to this point. Thats what these forums are for, otherwise they wouldnt create forums until after the game is released.

 

[Crusader]

Disclaimer: I have not played the beta, I am just psychic.

That's why I want people to wait til the game is out and play it for themselves, then they'll wonder how they ever doubted the King of Games

 

[Incitatus]

Yes very nice, 'every rule has it's exceptions' and 'fault will always be found in the details'

But you didn't answer my question and those screen were selected for a reason, they showcase the world in which you will be experiencing these adventures. Remember Stalker is not a character driven story.

Even when accepting your point. We come to the conclusion that HL2 beats Stalker's characters, but this is a must because unlike Stalker HL is a character based story.

But when we look at the actual game world in which everything takes place, the foundations of the game if you will, or that which gives the game it's believability, we must conclude that Stalker is VISUALLY way ahead of HL2.

And remember Stalker is way behind HL2 in developement, it's scheduled for release in mid 2004. HL2, or so we were led to believe, was reaching it's final form last september.

Unless you'd like another attempt at the Stalker screens I posted. But since you intentionally evaded them once I doubt you think HL2 will win this round.

:afro:

 

[Crusader]

Evil, you are the last person to talk about "dicussing", I don't ever recall you taking stock of anyone's opinions but your own.

 

[Shuzer]

Originally posted by Incitatus
Yes very nice, 'every rule has it's exceptions' and 'fault will always be found in the details'

But you didn't answer my question and those screen were selected for a reason, they showcase the world in which you will be experiencing these adventures. Remember Stalker is not a character driven story.

Even when accepting your point. We come to the conclusion that HL2 beats Stalker's characters, but this is a must because unlike Stalker HL is a character based story.

But when we look at the actual game world in which everything takes place, the foundations of the game if you will, or that which gives the game it's believability, we must conclude that Stalker is VISUALLY way ahead of HL2.

And remember Stalker is way behind HL2 in developement, it's scheduled for release untill mid 2004. HL2, or so we were led to believe, was reaching it's final form last september.

Unless you'd like another attempt at the Stalker screens I posted. But since you intentionally evaded them once I doubt you think HL2 will win this round.

:afro:

Not quite sure who you're directing that towards, but, we have nothing to compare STALKER to with HL2, seeing as how we've all seen the 10 or so screenshots VALVe released. And any other screenshots are forbidden here, so, yeah.

 

[EvilEwok2.0]

Ive turned over a new leaf

See, ive been in this thread for a while and havnt started an conflics. Im even learning to use phrases like "IMO' and "but thats just my opinion".

 

[Crusader]

I think this topic annoys me so much because I look at the evidence and it's blatantly obvious to me which game has the best visuals, and the other people dispute it... And it makes me feel like I'm going crazy

 

[Shuzer]

And Evil, you ARE judging HL2's final product, indirectly. Many times now you've said "STALKER is better looking than HL2, case closed," which is forming an opinion of the final product (in more or less words, or atleast that's my take of it). Once again, I'll say that we've seen very little of HL2, and more of STALKER.

Edit: I'd noticed you were being more civil now, too, and I appreciate that

Edit 2: Sure, you never said case closed, but, uhm.. /me hides