So what is Valve doing about...

[MultiVaC]

Do you think that Doom3 would have been just as terrifying and exciting (minus the repetition and at times predictability of the game) if it had HL2's totally precomputed lighting system?

I'm actually quite positive it would have been. Minus the occasional swinging lamp and scripted imp crossing above the skylight casting a shadow from outside, the fully dynamic lighting was kind of pointless. Those things could even be accopmished by 'cheating', scripting the imp's shadow to move across the floor and using a Far Cry type solution for the swinging lamp. You couldn't shoot out any of the lights and you wouldn't want to because the game was too dark as it is.

 

[Reaktor4]

I'm not entirely sure, but from what I read (and I can't recall where I read it now), the gist was that only the immediate scene was actually rendered as polygons, distant objects were actually images. Or something like that.

that would be a big step backwards.

 

[Space Farm]

...the fully dynamic lighting was kind of pointless. Those things could even be accopmished by 'cheating', scripting the imp's shadow to move across the floor and using a Far Cry type solution for the swinging lamp.

I can totally understand where you come from, but the Doom 3 engine is a step in the right direction and there's no denying it - it was the first game to utilise a realtime lighting system so it's only going to get better from there. An example can be where do you remember the first popular 3D FPS which was Wolfenstein? How bad does that look! But look what it did technically and the way that game pushed gaming forward and paved a foundation for many great games to come.

I mean if games are going to get more realistic then new features like realtime shadows will make all the difference.

The only reason why Doom 3 looked really dark was because of the lack of a radiosity system therefore the shadows are completely black - nothing like in real life. If developers can come up with a real-time radiosity solution or something better imagine where we will be in the next few years!

Hacking and faking is good for now but for how long will that last? We need game developers to push these new features so we can move forward.

That's my two cents anyways.

 

[Asknoone]

It's ironic that you mention atmosphere there, while in the same breath totally downplay the significance of graphics. If anything, graphics (both from a technical AND artistic standpoint) practically define the atmosphere of a game. Do you think that Doom3 would have been just as terrifying and exciting (minus the repetition and at times predictability of the game) if it had HL2's totally precomputed lighting system?

Doom 3 was neither terrifying, nor exciting. I didn't jump once. It was simply dull, dull, and dull. And no, it's not necessarily graphics that define atmosphere. In some cases, yeah, but I don't think it's always the case.

 

[1Luc1]

Ok, i know what the source engine will look like...Valve is working on that....

.................................................................after some upadates..................................................................................................current source engine.................................................................

 

[jondy]

that would be a big step backwards.

The premise was that as soon as the image differed from the realtime render it would be replaced, making the transition from image- to geometry-based rendering seamless. It's all very ambiguous though, I've no idea how they'd get it done

 

[Sparda]

mother ****in nothin

Eh?

 

[Kadayi]

That technique has existed for a long time actually. It's called "impostors" and Far Cry used it for a lot of its vegetation, and Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike used it to handle the hundreds of ships it could display. Not a new technique, and not a very revolutionary one either.

The way Gabe talked about Image-based rendering back in the 1UP interview it more akin to the entire gameworld being being rendered in and out of 3D, not simply certain elements within an existing 3D frame (as with Farcry). Doing so would significantly bring down you polycounts and thus allow you to actively increase the number of elements you could have interacting in view at any one time (think genuinely crowded street scenes someday). Moving to image-based rendering also offers up the strong possibility of escaping the level loading problems that are normally associated with traditional 3D engines. Sure, some game engines can provide you with large levels, but because of the constraints of entity levels, invariably the type of locations and scenarios they can generate are always limited in scope and opportunity (big spaces, few enemies, few objects). Image-based rendering would go some way to providing developers with greater opportunities to expand the scope of games in terms of storylines, scenarios, characters and content. If Valve can bring it to fruition, as Gabe envisioned it I think it will have a profound impact upon gaming as we know it.

 

[hi_ted]

I can totally understand where you come from, but the Doom 3 engine is a step in the right direction and there's no denying it - it was the first game to utilise a realtime lighting system so it's only going to get better from there. An example can be where do you remember the first popular 3D FPS which was Wolfenstein? How bad does that look! But look what it did technically and the way that game pushed gaming forward and paved a foundation for many great games to come.

I mean if games are going to get more realistic then new features like realtime shadows will make all the difference.

The only reason why Doom 3 looked really dark was because of the lack of a radiosity system therefore the shadows are completely black - nothing like in real life. If developers can come up with a real-time radiosity solution or something better imagine where we will be in the next few years!

Hacking and faking is good for now but for how long will that last? We need game developers to push these new features so we can move forward.

That's my two cents anyways.

I would take a well designed game over a "tech demo" any day. For me, Source is fine and will be fine for the next 2 years even without an upgrade, as long as they keep the level of design they have been using.
Deus Ex is one of the greatest FPS titles ever made, not because of the graphics, but because of the gameplay and design of the game. Sure, FarCry and Doom 3 were fun to play as simple shooters, but they lacked any form of creativity. iD is great at deathmatch levels, they've been doing it for years, but when it comes to molding a story over the engine they have created, they lack the design to do it.

If you look at the Steam Hardware Surveys, most people are still playing on the 9800xt/5800 video cards. Developers don't need to push forward at all, they need to look at what they have created thus far and improve on their design.

 

[Cole]

The only real thing Source is lacking is lighting, shadows, seamless loading. Other than that Source is more than caught up.

How many other engines can pull off expressions as good as Source? I played Doom 3 while Episode 1 was installing. When I seen Alyx's face, it seemed.....just wow.....

Throw in HDR, very nice in Episode 1. Color Correction, Motion Blur, etc.. all very cool and are things that other developers havn't even approached.

Also:
Image-based rendering (IBR) refers loosely to techniques that generate new images from other images rather than from geometric primitives. IBR seems to hold the promise of shortcutting the traditional modeling/rendering pipeline or at a minimum hiding the latency between rendered frames.

I found this btw, http://kt.ijs.si/aleks/slicing-and-blending/

 

[Cypher19]

The way Gabe talked about Image-based rendering back in the 1UP interview it more akin to the entire gameworld being being rendered in and out of 3D, not simply certain elements within an existing 3D frame (as with Farcry).

But that doesn't make it brand new technology. That simply is a different application of an existing concept. Seeing as how the world is split up into models and discrete objects already, there is not much in the way of extending such a concept to the entire world.

]Moving to image-based rendering also offers up the strong possibility of escaping the level loading problems that are normally associated with traditional 3D engines.

Are you kidding me?! Impostors still require all of the media to be loaded, it's not streaming or something.

Sure, some game engines can provide you with large levels, but because of the constraints of entity levels, invariably the type of locations and scenarios they can generate are always limited in scope and opportunity (big spaces, few enemies, few objects).

Oh man, that's funny, especially considering it's not at all related to something that IBR helps with.

Image-based rendering would go some way to providing developers with greater opportunities to expand the scope of games in terms of storylines, scenarios, characters and content. If Valve can bring it to fruition, as Gabe envisioned it I think it will have a profound impact upon gaming as we know it.

An extra level-of-detail control having "a profound impact upon gaming as we know it"? I know it's a cliche insult, but seriously stop sucking Valve's dick so much.

 

[Ludah]

If they could implement a decent lighting system it would be.

Surprise, surprise. The next thing they're focusing on is a new renderer for lighting and shadowing, as hinted at with the Episode 2 teaser.

Chances are though, in the next year or so, Valve is going to seriously lag behind in graphics technology (hell, they are already).

To lag behind in graphics technology, you need to face competition. There currently is none, as most of the titles/tech you've mentioned has not been released yet.

Seems like so many people here want to poo-poo Source for any reason they can.

 

[Kadayi]

But that doesn't make it brand new technology. That simply is a different application of an existing concept. Seeing as how the world is split up into models and discrete objects already, there is not much in the way of extending such a concept to the entire world.

Like the lady getting out of the car, sometimes you see it and sometimes you don't, and you clearly don't. Your argument about IBR not being a new technology holds about as much water as arguing that the automobile is no real advance upon the horse and cart as a means of getting from A to B. Impostors is a supplemental to existing rendering techniques, IBR is a wholly new approach to the entire rendering process.

That you struggle with the simple premise that with IBR, the game environment doesn't come into full detailed 3D existence unless it is within a certain visual range of the player is quite amusing. I also find it laughable that you don't understand that by focussing the computational demands of a games rendering down to what can directly be seen by a player you are significantly reducing the rendering strain, and subsequently you are in a much better position to consider adding in greater levels of environmental complexity.

You clearly don’t realise that the technological constraints that game engines operate under directly impact upon the type of scenarios that can accommodate. Doom 3: near abandoned space station, Unreal 2: desolate outposts, Farcry: large jungle expanses with not much else, Half-life 2: devastated half abandoned City, Max Payne: New York in a snow blizzard. You honestly think these environmental design decisions weren’t a forced resultant of the limitations of their respective game engines capabilities? Do you also honestly believe that by reducing the associated processor strain game designers might not then be able to consider broader options when it comes to the sort of environments they can set games in?

 

[Cypher19]

Like the lady getting out of the car, sometimes you see it and sometimes you don't, and you clearly don't. Your argument about IBR not being a new technology holds about as much water as arguing that the automobile is no real advance upon the horse and cart as a means of getting from A to B. Impostors is a supplemental to existing rendering techniques, IBR is a wholly new approach to the entire rendering process.

Comments like that only further the idea that you have no idea what the two technologies are. IBR is a "new approach to the entire rendering process" in the same way that scaling back levels-of-detail in geometry is a new approach. In the 1up interview, what Gabe describes is EXACTLY what impostors are, and even references the fact that objects near the player are just geometry, while further away they turn into simple images. It's not a wholly new approach, it's an extra feature that they're using to reduce some of the processing on the video card. A new approach to the entire rendering process would involve something like moving from precomputed lighting to purely dynamic lighting, or developing virtualized texturing, which idNext is using.

That you struggle with the simple premise that with IBR, the game environment doesn't come into full detailed 3D existence unless it is within a certain visual range of the player is quite amusing.

That you struggle with the simple premise that that is exactly what impostors is is an absolute joke.

I also find it laughable that you don't understand that by focussing the computational demands of a games rendering down to what can directly be seen by a player you are significantly reducing the rendering strain, and subsequently you are in a much better position to consider adding in greater levels of environmental complexity.

I'm fully aware of what the benefits/tradeoffs of the technology is, and I'm one of the last people that you need to talk to about that. I'm also not skeptical of the technology, I'm merely saying that a) you're vastly overestimating how much power it has and b) that it is NOT a new tech, and is in fact about 2-3+ years old.
Edit: Actually, I shouldn't say that. If I recall correctly, something similar to impostors was considered for the enemies in Quake 1 while that was being developed. However, at the ranges that impostors were being invoked, the enemies were not animating very smoothly at all, and ended up looking more like Doom sprites than 3D models.

You honestly think these environmental design decisions weren’t a forced resultant of the limitations of their respective game engines capabilities?

No, I think they were the product of wanting to make a certain kind of game and designing an engine around it. However, the arguments of the Doom3 and Unreal engine are totally moot, as the former has demonstrated that with a little bit of work it can handle vast outdoor situations (ET:QW), and the latter is meant to be fairly robust and works under most situations as well. Heck, even CryEngine handles large indoor and outdoor scenes extremely well.

Do you also honestly believe that by reducing the associated processor strain game designers might not then be able to consider broader options when it comes to the sort of environments they can set games in?

To an extent, yes. Impostors still require a good chunk of the geometry, media, and shaders still loaded upon generation of the impostor, so it's not like level designers will be able to get something from nothing and get some wicked cool streaming or super-massive environments like you think it will. What it allows is the ability to 'stagger' renderings of objects so that they only have to be rendered once every few frames (or more), instead of every single frame.

 

[0mar]

You could probably take Quake 1, add shader support and have a game that looks incredible. The thing is that nowadays less and less depends on the actual code behind the engine. It's about coding shaders and implementing bump/normal mapping.

 

[Kadayi]

Comments like that only further the idea that you have no idea what the two technologies are. IBR is a "new approach to the entire rendering process" in the same way that scaling back levels-of-detail in geometry is a new approach. In the 1up interview, what Gabe describes is EXACTLY what impostors are, and even references the fact that objects near the player are just geometry, while further away they turn into simple images. It's not a wholly new approach, it's an extra feature that they're using to reduce some of the processing on the video card.

So given that Farcry was released in march 2004 and imposters were being used then, why is it that in 2005 Gabe Newell would talk about Image-Based Rendering as a potential future tech? Could it be that he and his entire team was wholly unaware of what Crytek managed with Farcry, or do you think perhaps he is in fact talking about an entirely different kind of IBR? Perhaps one like I described where the entire gameworld moves in and out of the image domain?

No, I think they were the product of wanting to make a certain kind of game and designing an engine around it. However, the arguments of the Doom3 and Unreal engine are totally moot, as the former has demonstrated that with a little bit of work it can handle vast outdoor situations (ET:QW), and the latter is meant to be fairly robust and works under most situations as well. Heck, even Cry Engine handles large indoor and outdoor scenes extremely well.

Shit, so let me get this right accordingly to you, ID, Unreal, Crytek, hell, even my lovely Valve (I want your babies Gabes), could all make really complex Cityscapes with myriad numbers of highly detailed and individual NPCs populating, interacting and transitioning through the spaces, but instead they all prefer to make games where your never running into more than 2 Dozen AI opponents at the best of times in a level? Why? Because there are just so many wonderful scenarios that such limitations bring. Consider me royally owned for thinking otherwise. :dozey:

 

[Cole]

Image-based rendering refers to a class of rendering methods that take as input a series of images of a scene, rather than a model containing geometry and material specifications. These methods combine the provided images and use them to form new images, from different camera locations.
What does this make me think? You have 6 images of a box. 4 images on each corner, one looking at the top, one looking at the bottom. What if you could use these images to build an image of the box at any possible angle. Rather than have a 3D Model you are building an image in real-time.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~ibr/projects/HQWarping/kamov.good.0310Cut550x350.jpg
Here is an image. On the bottom right there is a helicopter. It is 9 images. The Engine, in real-time, calculates and allows you to look at the helicopter at any possible angle from 9 images.


More Info
Current image-based rendering techniques all share several advantages over geometry-based techniques, making them useful for a wide range of situations. Image-based techniques are independent of the complexity of the scene to be rendered, making real-time realistic interactions with complex scenes possible. In addition, these methods can make use of rendered images, or images of actual physical environments. As a result, complex, realistic real-life scenes can be viewed without difficult or impossible geometric modeling, and independent of scene complexity.

Advantages
Naturally "photo-realistic" rendering, because the source data are photos. This will allow immersive 3D environments to be constructed for real places, enabling a new class of applications in entertainment, virtual tourism, telemedicine, telecollaboration, and teleoperation.

Computation proportional to the number of output pixels rather than to the number of geometric primitives as in conventional graphics. This should allow implementation of systems that produce high-quality, 3D imagery with much less hardware than used in the current high-performance graphics systems.

A hybrid with a conventional graphics system. A process we call "post-rendering warping" allows the rendering rate and latency to be decoupled from the user's changing viewpoint. Just as the frame buffer decoupled screen refresh from image update, post-rendering warping decouples image update from viewpoint update. We expect that this approach will enable immersive 3D systems to be implemented over long distance networks and broadcast media , using inexpensive image warpers to interface to the network and to increase interactivity.

 

[tehsolace]

IBR is only viable with ambient objects such as trees or far away objects. You can't just use it on a very complex model such as a helicopter and expect it to look just fine in-game only using images. As the player's perspective rotates around the model, the engine must 'fade' between the images -- an effect very noticable for something like a helicopter thats being looked at directly, but not noticable for something like leaves on trees far away.

Many people suspect Episode 2 will have levels within some sort of forest setting, based on the teaser videos we've seen. Gabe himself hinted on the use of IBR, so I would only suspect valve would use the technology for the trees and such.

 

[Cole]

http://kt.ijs.si/aleks/slicing-and-blending/

This is the link I Posted. It actually shows a tree using IBR. There is also something that comes with it showing the 3d model Tree and IBR next to eachother.

 

[Kadayi]

GJ Minerel.

tehsolace, as the player moves closer to the object geographically, the game engine would then build out the original 3D model upon which the IBR is based. There is always an underlying 3D game world, but the game engine only renders those 3D models within a certain distance of the player, the rest of the scene effectively becomes one big dynamic skybox utilising the IBRs of all the visible objects in the game to construct it.

 

[tehsolace]

Correction - I was mistaken on how exactly IBR worked. I didn't realize that in the demo Mineral had posted, that even the limbs of the tree was using IBR, while the leaves used a shortcut of blending to reduce the load even further on the computer. The fact that while I ran the demo and didn't even realize that I was looking at IBR IMAGES of the limbs of the tree is impressive to me! IBR really does give a solid effect with objects

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

It seems that Crytek has the only non-Quake based "next-gen" engine these days.

In my opinion Valve should not concern them selves with mega graphics until they finish Half Life 3 (Episodes 1-3) so they can devote them selves to level and story line entirely.

As said before Half Life series is the ultimate in immersion, story, and NPCs.
But the fact still remains that the games are very linear. Crysis has been boasted to be very much the opposite, very unlinear but still retail the total immersion and story (They wont win in NPCs how ever because Alyx is the best NPC ever). They are also able to incorperate massive levels that still retail detail and variance, unlike Half Life 2 which has small levels. It seems to me that Crytek's Crysis just might overshadow Half Life series as most immersive game ever made, I dout it could have a better story considering Crysis is one game and Valve has 3 games continuing the story.

Just my opinion.

Also, if you guys are interested take a look at this 14min Crysis video, I was amazed when I first saw it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3502375929069803475&q=crysis

 

[tehsolace]

Also, if you guys are interested take a look at this 14min Crysis video, I was amazed when I first saw it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3502375929069803475&q=crysis

wow... that really is impressive. ive never seen graphics or physics like that ever.

 

[Kadayi]

I do agree that there are technically better Game engines out (or coming out) that are visually better than Source, but so far I haven't seen anyone engine that can match Source for bringing across believable characters (and I don't mean visually). Valve have made a story telling engine more than a FPS engine with Source, but in many ways because of the silent nature of Gordon freeman we haven't really seen it shine quite as much as it could in a more interactive form of adventure gaming.

Troika made a good effort with Vampire the masquerade: bloodlines, but an ill timed release (directly up against HL2..neat call Activision you chumps) and some early bugs turned into a sales death knell. If your remotely interested in seeing a different approach to Source I recommend hunting down a bargain bin copy.

 

[Asknoone]

Valve have taken storytelling to a whole new level in terms of how characters are presented. I think alot of people underlook this, because it makes a whole host of other games out there look like a joke.

 

[theotherguy]

I agree. After going back and playing games like farcry and condemned and other things, I am so unimpressed by the charachter design in most other games. Your NPC friends are always generic badasses that say things like, "Yeah, gonna open me a can of whoopass! hoo-ha!" and run around bumping their bounding boxes into each other, not looking at interesting items, and having little or no lipsync.

 

[Kadayi]

Valve have taken storytelling to a whole new level in terms of how characters are presented. I think alot of people underlook this, because it makes a whole host of other games out there look like a joke.

Agreed totally, but because Gordon Freeman is a passive participant in terms of how the characters engage with him HL2 doesn't actually give full range to how much that technology could be used. I'd of really liked to see an adventure game like Fahrenheit use Source, as I think something as story driven as that would of benefitted greatly from all the expressive nuances that Source is capable of delivering.

 

[Asknoone]

I agree, it does limit it somewhat - but in a way, I as the player feel connected to these characters in the game world, and thats mainly because Gordon just doesn't speak. But you are right of course, something along the lines of Fahrenheit using Source would be fantastic.

But really, how many games out their can cite their characters as to looking embarrassed? Yeah, I thought there'd be no hands.

 

[99.vikram]

Speaking of the Source engine, I don't see anyone else trying to do motion blur.

Doom 3's dynamic lighting technology was an evolutionary dead end. It is too inefficient to be carried forward.

 

[ríomhaire]

Christ, Doom 3 engine. The shadows are just annoying. In Quake 4 I was getting a horrible frame rate on the lowest settings, I turned off shadows and I was able to turn everything else on full without any trouble.

 

[Kadayi]

Speaking of the Source engine, I don't see anyone else trying to do motion blur.

The new Crytek engine does incorporate motion blur. They released a couple of tech Demo movies prior to E3 and I recall MB was one of the things illustrated. I think the movies are up at Fileplanet (in work so no time to find linkage).

 

[Zephos]

Valve have taken storytelling to a whole new level in terms of how characters are presented. I think alot of people underlook this, because it makes a whole host of other games out there look like a joke.

I just want some things to be a little less vague about certain plot elements. It was obvious that Eli and Mossman had evacuated the city, but I had no clue it would have been via escape pods. It could have taken just one line (and it wouldn't feel jammed or tacked in) to confirm that they had taken the pods to clear it up.

Still, I love how they did the whole "Breen is now a slug" moment, subtle AND mysterious. I just hope they say some more things directly, instead of leaving us to speculate continuously on forums and such.

EDIT:

But really, how many games out their can cite their characters as to looking embarrassed? Yeah, I thought there'd be no hands.

Ok, I thought I'd take you up on this bet. So after around half an hour of searching...I found a pic of Link being embarrassed of such a ridiculous costume (that is what it's supposed to be in the game). Sure, it's not on par with the likes of HL2 (it's cel shading ) but I found an embarrassed person. Sorry it's not very clear

And here's a random screaming link

Sorry if I derailed the thread. Resume normal source bashing conversation.

 

[Insano]

Is that ingame or during a break?

 

[Zephos]

Is that ingame or during a break?

All in-game.

EDIT: Whoops, 2nd one is during a "cutscene".

EDIT EDIT: I really don't see what difference it makes, Link has the facial expressions throughout the whole game, including combat and general walking around (if a secret is nearby, Link will look at it and sort of have his mouth in a kind of thing). I think the expressions were one of the things they were touting with Wind Waker as a by-product of the cel shading.

 

[Ludah]

Cartoony Link is kind of a different ball-game from (attempted) photorealistic Alyx though, innit?

 

[Zephos]

Cartoony Link is kind of a different ball-game from (attempted) photorealistic Alyx though, innit?

Course it is, but I just wanted to find an embarrassed character in a game in reply to what Samon said.

 

[Zephos]

Whoops, double post D: