Why didn't valve design half-life 2 to have stencil shadows?

[Styloid]

I think of everyone here Fenric1138 has made the most correct posts.
You should also take into consideration what these different games are aiming for. HL2 is trying to make a very convincing european city- large urban environments, dried out sea bed, inside a combine fortress, etc. They are trying to make a holistically realistic world with soft shadows and more advanced (though static) lighting. Doom 3 is impressive as it looks like CG but isn't very convincing as real.
Both have per-pixel lighting- (wester, you need to watch some of those videos and read articles more carefully before you say stuff like you did)
Both have normal maps that correspond to lighting.

It's not supposed to be a race to see which company can make the best looking engine- or else no one would be able to run them and the games would suck.

 

[Arno]

Originally posted by Styloid
Doom 3 is impressive as it looks like CG but isn't very convincing as real.

That is just in your opinion. I think Doom3 looks more real.

Originally posted by Styloid
Both have per-pixel lighting- (wester, you need to watch some of those videos and read articles more carefully before you say stuff like you did)
Both have normal maps that correspond to lighting.

The big difference is that HL2 uses per-pixel lighting and normal maps in a few spots, while Doom3 uses them all over the place.
From the looks of it, most of the HL2 world is covered with blurred lightmaps. Therefor, most of it has no per-pixel lighting.

I agree with your comment that both are different games that are aiming for different experiences. Doom3 aims for a completely consistent lighting engine, which makes it the most realistic looking, IMO. Because of this heavier lighting engine, huge open terrain areas are impossible in Doom3. HL2 aims for large open areas and thus had to make some sacrificies in the lighting department.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Ok this might help clear some things up with comparing the various shadow and lighting styles.

Threw this example of the different kinds together for easy comparison. I think its safe to say HL2's lighting/shadowing features looks much nicer.

 

[Arno]

Originally posted by Fenric1138
Threw this example of the different kinds together for easy comparison. I think its safe to say HL2's lighting/shadowing features looks much nicer.

I appreciate the work you've done to create this comparison. The pre-calculated lightmap in picture (e) looks definitly better then the hard shadows in picture (a). However, that's not the end of the story. In general, the lightmaps in HL2 will be of a much lower resolution. In picture (e) you can see how the shadow of the cone has a very precise shape. This requires a lot of memory and is simply not possible in the large HL2 maps.
The shadows in (a), while looking less good, have one major advantage: they can change dynamically when the light changes. This is not possible in scene (e). In order to add dynamic shadows to scene (e), a hack is required. A hack which could kill the feeling of consistency.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Originally posted by Arno
I appreciate the work you've done to create this comparison. The pre-calculated lightmap in picture (e) looks definitly better then the hard shadows in picture (a). However, that's not the end of the story. In general, the lightmaps in HL2 will be of a much lower resolution. In picture (e) you can see how the shadow of the cone has a very precise shape. This requires a lot of memory and is simply not possible in the large HL2 maps.
The shadows in (a), while looking less good, have one major advantage: they can change dynamically when the light changes. This is not possible in scene (e). In order to add dynamic shadows to scene (e), a hack is required. A hack which could kill the feeling of consistency.

Of course. Shadow maps are well known in the pre-rendering groups for the "issues" they have. Their pro's are speed and soft more belieavable edges, aswell as useful for interesting effects aswell as faking some types of shadowing, and in Lightwave (only I think) they can be used with the spinning light trick to give very fast area like shadowing and believable global illumination effects.

Their cons are no matter how close the shadow to the object is, it remains soft (when in reality it should become sharper the closer the object is to its shadow (d), some wont work correctly or atall with transparent objects.. though I think thats an old issue now. And they can end up looking blocky sometimes, depending on the maps resolution. (d) is going to be quite a while yet before it makes it into realtime completely.

Stalker as I say has attempted it, as did Serious Sam (to a point), but in both cases they were hard edged and inacurate (but its good they realised and atleast tried, that'll all help in the future). (a) simply has the disadvantage of being unrealistic right now, requiring a very large amount to create the illusion of realism, the sharp edges and the fact the light from them travels (traced) in a line from source to target and doesn't bounce, unlike the static light calculations in HL and other similar games (radiosity). But in time (a) will become (d) and look amazing. Throw in realtime radiosity/GI, fix the problems with shadows layering instead of blending with each other and things will look great, with no need for static lighting atall.

The other effects caused by light properties and so on shouldn't be too far behind that. It's weird to think in just a few years from now we could be playing games that look almost identical to real life. Damn just think, one day we'll be playing games where digital plants actually grow, where rain will wash away blood stains, where liquid is accurately simulated. Damn thats gonna be fun, shame I'll be too old by then to play them without being made fun of.. hmm, I best get on with having kids so I've got someone I can send to the store to buy them for me

 

[vann7]

those screenshots looks all nice , but manipulating raytraced images to compare "the looks" of those games is not exactly an accurate test. i prefer to use -in game screenshots- thats will point you better the real graphics of each game.

btw.. doom3 can do -realtime- Soft shadows ,if you use more than 1 light in a scene ,in the case of Hl2 only static objects have softshadows (lightmaps=pre-computed shadows).. the dynamic shadows of the characters are low resolution also..

http://www.city-17.net/images/model.jpg

this is what screenshots show.. and there are Many, more than valve will like to see.. and it is not only the shape of the shadows what give a game good graphics .. but the quality of its renderer and how much interactivity the lights have with the game. in the case of Doom3 its realtime lights affects -ALL surfaces and characters and weapons .. when Hl2 "use" reflections/speculars/normals/bumps . is using workarounds and doesnt work at all cases ,or doesnt look accurate.. because and all those things require a true realtime lighting engine like doom3 to look realistic.

this is an example of a workarounds in Hl2 for specular lights and bumps..

soldier
http://www.city-17.net/images/hl2wgun.jpg

if you look as the gun of the soldier ,it doesnt look that the lights reflections are accurate neither the bumpsmaps looks more than they were painted? . the helmet reflections looks much better, but i will not be surprised if is another workqround ,some evidence i have seen point in that direction , (in the betademo ,it glows in a -similar way- in the ->night) :dozey: looks more like enviroment mapping -a fake-, (used too in unrealt2k3 to fake reflections and speculars in the water)

now look at the reflections /speculars and Bumpsmaps here in the marine SHotgun in D3..

http://www.doomworld.com/php/screenie.php?dir=/pcgamer_dec2002/

all that is not art of the game is actual game screenshots..
(the marine doesnt use a helmet in the latest builds)
some may say a little plastic the look ,other may say the more detailed graphics ever done in a game.

Stalker have similar shadows than doom3 but only in indoors ,in outdoors i think they use lightmaps. my only wish for that game is for characters as detailed as doom3. and for doom3 outdoors like the ones in stalker.

 

[The Dark Elf]

unfortunately you missed the point of those pre-rendered example images entirely, and then went on to ruin your findings by using what you've found in the stolen files as an example of solid evidence, nothing anyone has seen in those can be considered proof of any kind as its old unfinished and stolen/incomplete. Also those images, while not stolen file related, do apparantly pre-date what was stolen.

I can't comment fully because you brought up the stolen files

 

[vann7]

the sceenshots above are officials released by VALVe and id-software of their games respectively.. so they will never release something that they think doesnt re-present actual graphics or the intended graphics for the game. however it is true that no-thing stop the developers of any game to enhance even more the graphics of their games ,which probably they will doing if they spent some time in their forums.. people always wants more . but we need also to remember that those games are scheduled to be released in a couple or more months. the good news is that developers like Valve always listen the community .

but yes , i was tempted to see unfnished game ,just for the sake of my technical curiosity about the game.. how they achieved that from an artistic point of view. i think that its more easier the technical discussion when we know before hand what the developers were trying to do for each game. in simple words ,there is nothing to compare between Doom3 and Hl2 in lights/shadow techniques.forget about anything you have read. there is enough physical evidence ,released screenshots By VAlvE that shows clearly their shadows use alot of workarounds and sometimes even doesnt exist. ,to do some of the things that D3 naturally does..even in scenes that are obvious, nothing wrong with that.. all released games up to day do this. and also enough evidence that doom3 lighting system is at a new level , heck even the things that almost nobody will ever notice cast a shadow .. like the marine ears and the nose. what this means is that its clear that lighting and shadows was always ,a prority for idsoftware. that was their choice. Physics/DIrectx9 effects with great gameplay for valve. most surely Hl2 game will never work in the D3 engine in the way was intended,and the neither Doom3 will be that scary in the Hl2 source engine. both games will be great in their own way ,probably Hl2 will have a much greater community ,and will last more ,its impressive with how long Hl1 have been for years as the most played in the gaming community.but what is true is true. when it comes to discussions about shadows and/lights between Hl2/D3, i dont see any similarity at all, but more noticeable diferences .each game was intended for a diferent purpose in mind.

 

[PowerLlama]

all i gotta say is you guys are weird... from everything i've read HL2 is going for the less realistic approach...... not the more realistic. but uhhh that's just my opnion.... they both look great and i personally think you can't really compare them b/c they're two totally different styles...

like comparing pointilism (sp?) to an oil painting.. it's just not the same

 

[Wester547]

Originally posted by Yodareturn
all i gotta say is you guys are weird... from everything i've read HL2 is going for the less realistic approach...... not the more realistic. but uhhh that's just my opnion.... they both look great and i personally think you can't really compare them b/c they're two totally different styles...

like comparing pointilism (sp?) to an oil painting.. it's just not the same

Yeah, Doom 3 & HL2 look great but were talking about why valve didn't include stencil shadows/per-pixel lighting(ppl in terms of point lights, spot lights, improved ambient lighting, etc) in HL2. :flame: