Why will HL2 be any better than other games ?

[GRIMEY]

"Why will HL2 be any better than other games ?"

IMO it probably won't.

 

[Bleeder]

For: "It's the greatest thing ever!"

Against: "No it's not"

For: "No, it really is!"

Against: "No, it isn't."

For: "Um.....yup."

Against: "Shut-up you ****tard."

For: "4m l3373R than y0u."

Against: "...............what?"

For: "Uh......I.....uh.....4m l3373R than y0u."

Against: "Dude.....is that even ****in english?"

For: "........so anyways.........I, uh, may or may not have played the supposed aformentioned "leaked" beta, and when i did.......i mean.....if I had I played it .....I mean........uh,......somebody told me it would be really good."

Against: "Oh, yeah? Well i have the DoomIII alpha on my N-Gage, and it like, uh, had sex with your mom and stuff."

For: "HAH! now i know you're lying! My mom doesn't even like DoomIII!.......you, uh,....you don't have a Cuban poolboy named Juan on that thing do you?"

Against: "..................."

For: "I'm scared.......hold me."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post has been brought to you by the number "pointless", and the letter "This thread is"

 

[clarky003]

theres no need to write so much about 'why it'll be a great game' isnt it just a bit obvious to see how promising its going to be anyway.. , (with the best interactive characters ever seen, Havoc physics, a kool Sci Fi story which is sort of believable , and a hero with as much brain as brawn.)

 

[clarky003]

HL2 isn't as impressive to me when I first saw it. HL

does that really make a difference, you'll probably end up buying it anyway. and then your opinion might change.

(How can you compare HL2 and STALKER. thats obsurd there two completely different types of games in most aspects.. and I think your a loon if you come on here (HalfLife2.net) ranting that stalker is gonna woop ass. (lol its not like its certain to score high ratings, being as we dont even know how it plays, its consistencey.. lets all wait till these games hit the shelves :dozey: )

 

[theGreenBunny]

I hate these threads.

"Oh nos, I'm not as sexually attracted to HL2 anymore as I was before!!1"

"OMGROFLOL *insert game here* has *insert feature here*, and HL2 doesnt! Mwaha!"

"Gabe lied to us! I hate HL2 now!"

"Whoa, Doom 3 will be so much better than HL2! I saw the trailer! And now I want to have sex with John Carmack ASAP!!1"

"Valve owe us financial compensation because of the delay!"

"Screw you all! HL2 will own my grandmother! I'll never touch another game again!"

Sigh. I know, nobody cares. But hey, useless post, useless thread. It matches up.

 

[clarky003]

well said Green Bunny

 

[BlazeKun]

Wow... With all the bitching in this thread I think it needs some features that none of the other games have.

1. The Physics! Well while other games might have the physics, HL2 is currently the only one that uses physics to enhance the gameplay, and not just a side effect of shooting a guy into a table >.> Examples of this are: The traps. Using objects as weapons *via manipulator* Zombies throwing crap at you. There are probobly many more that wait to be seen in the final game.

2. Partially ties into the physics, but what other games have breakables like HL2 has breakables? What other games can you break a piece of wood some guy is standing on and have him fall and get hurt?

3. Immersion level and sense of feeling "right." This one is hard to explain yet everyone knows what I'm talking about. You play Q3/UT2k3/D3/RTCW/etc/etc and yeah you can move around and jump and stuff. But does it feel like your moving around and jumping on stuff? I know it doesn't feel like that for me. While this really is my opinion I believe a great deal of you feel the same way.

4. The lighting. While the lighting may not be the latest and greatest, the look is the most true to life. Let's take a look at D3's shadows for a minute. Sure it's all realtime, and while they do look pretty good, it's not even CLOSE to being anywhere near as realistic as HL2's. Point in mention? Radiosity. This is the factor light has to spread. Can anyone here tell me ANYWHERE in D3 that you have seen light reflect off objects to create radiosity? no? This is the very reason why HL2's lighting, while not being as advanced, creates a more natural and realistic look. As HL2's ligting is actually compiled, and uses lightmaps, this gives it an opportunity to use radiosity. D3's lighting, unless using lightmaps *does D3 even support this??* has 0 radiosity from what I've seen. I believe if D3 had radiosity, it would take far too many resources to actually play the game. If I am wrong about this please correct me.

I have more but I can't think right now. All in all, it's one thing to have the latest and greatest of 1 single thing. It's another to have an equal balance and create a more involving game.

Edit> Oh one thing I forgot to mention, I'm sure all of you have seen really cool renders of untextured models with REALLY cool lighting that makes everything look very realistic. That's called photon mapping for those of you who don't know. What that is, is a much more advanced form of the radiosity HL/HL2 uses and will one day be used in realtime. Until that day comes though, realtime lighting like D3 will not look as good as precompiled lightmaps.

 

[Zoorado]

2. Partially ties into the physics, but what other games have breakables like HL2 has breakables? What other games can you break a piece of wood some guy is standing on and have him fall and get hurt?

Painkiller seems to boast of it. DOOM 3 have breakable glass so complex that even the break points are generated on-the-fly by the physics engine. However, it is said that the framerate may be cut in half when you're shooting a pane of glass at highest visual settings.

4. The lighting. While the lighting may not be the latest and greatest, the look is the most true to life. Let's take a look at D3's shadows for a minute. Sure it's all realtime, and while they do look pretty good, it's not even CLOSE to being anywhere near as realistic as HL2's. Point in mention? Radiosity. This is the factor light has to spread. Can anyone here tell me ANYWHERE in D3 that you have seen light reflect off objects to create radiosity? no? This is the very reason why HL2's lighting, while not being as advanced, creates a more natural and realistic look. As HL2's ligting is actually compiled, and uses lightmaps, this gives it an opportunity to use radiosity. D3's lighting, unless using lightmaps *does D3 even support this??* has 0 radiosity from what I've seen. I believe if D3 had radiosity, it would take far too many resources to actually play the game. If I am wrong about this please correct me.

There's real-time radiosity-like lighting effect in DOOM 3, or so I think. Of course, it is simulated by fragment shaders, instead of techniques like raytracing or radiosity. The engine also supports bumpmapped ambient lighting (ambient lighting that affects bumpmapped objects dynamically), which is for use in rendering outdoors areas, as opposed to the static ambient lighting in HL 2 and other shooters. These have been mentioned in Carmack's .plan about a year ago, together with other complex graphical effects in the D3 engine, made possible by ARB and ARB2 fragment program (OpenGL specific). Most will act as novelties and not be implemented in the game, since they're more for CGI-level of rendering. But even if DOOM 3 doesn't have any kind of radiosity or whatsoever, I still feel it is gonna look better than precompiled lightmaps when seen in motion. That's my POV.

<Edit> Oh one thing I forgot to mention, I'm sure all of you have seen really cool renders of untextured models with REALLY cool lighting that makes everything look very realistic. That's called photon mapping for those of you who don't know. What that is, is a much more advanced form of the radiosity HL/HL2 uses and will one day be used in realtime. Until that day comes though, realtime lighting like D3 will not look as good as precompiled lightmaps.

Yes, photon mapping yields fantastic results at fabulous speeds. There's no doubt Henrik Jensen is a programming genius, having first inventing the photon mapping technique and later, BSSRDF rendering. Both made great impacts on the world of RIS, enabling the realm to go beyond "PIXAR quality" for the first time in many years.

Here is an interesting link about photon mapping on GPUs:
http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/papers/photongfx/

Here are some of his papers (the face cloning one looks especially impressive):
http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/papers/

 

[clarky003]

wow that last site is kool, the new smoke generating techniques are flawless, its all so real..

 

[PvtRyan]

Edit> Oh one thing I forgot to mention, I'm sure all of you have seen really cool renders of untextured models with REALLY cool lighting that makes everything look very realistic. That's called photon mapping for those of you who don't know. What that is, is a much more advanced form of the radiosity HL/HL2 uses and will one day be used in realtime. Until that day comes though, realtime lighting like D3 will not look as good as precompiled lightmaps.

If you mean the 'clay renders' (they named it that cause it looks like clay) that isn't photon mapping, that's most of the time a skylight (an array of spotlights in a sphere shape) . Perhaps photon mapping was turned on but it's not responsible for that realistic clay looking thingy. I think it can be done using photon mapping but most of the time its an ordinary skylight

An example:

 

[_-_-SELAS-_-_]

HL² has Alyx... Thats why HL² will rox... Period

 

[OCybrManO]

Photon mapping looks much better than that. I doubt he would call the lighting in skylight.jpg as "REALLY cool"

I think he means things like these:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~henrik/images/imgs/expo.jpg
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~henrik/images/imgs/mie3pm.jpg

 

[clarky003]

Oh one thing I forgot to mention, I'm sure all of you have seen really cool renders of untextured models with REALLY cool lighting that makes everything look very realistic. That's called photon mapping

Or light tracers, in the prefered term., Fakeosity is another form of lighting which can create similar effects. If anyone wants to know exactley how Light tracers work, its real simple. they apply a mask to the scene in the render which calculates colour bleeding and the general level of light effecting dark areas, and vice versa which creates realism ( for instance when you look into a corner of a room, in daylight, the proximity of the walls in the corner is much closer, creating a dark area where light doesnt refract as much, light tracers replicates that. But isnt photon mapping different to these advanced lighting systems?

 

[BlazeKun]

Or light tracers, in the prefered term.

Eh. I prefer photon mapping. Light tracers sounds too much like ray tracing, and you just know the general public is gonna get mixed up. Besides photon mapping sounds so much cooler

 

[vann7]

RAytracing,radiosity,photonmapping ... -no game announced on the future support that-..and no DX6/7/8/9/10? video card support true raytracing or will support-thats why we have Pixelshaders. (wich can do a good job faking RAytracing -look at the Timemachine NV demo) but the real thing is always better when it comes to quality .
with raytracing and the other rednering tech.. things like realistic lifelike reflections/refractions and caustics will be done naturally in a game.effects neccesary for the ultimate goal in games which is real water/real lights ..etc..
the only hardware capable of real raytracing its the CPU. if Hl2 have anything of that ,you will be waiting minutes or even hours for Every 1 second of gameplay. a complete walk animation of gordon could take you an entire day. so everytime you see the word RAytracing..etc.. in a game ,remember that is a fake. that at least until year 2010 or a bit earlier hopefully. .what Valve does (when they say that they use raytracing) is a workaround..(a hack)...pre-recorded lightmaps/bumpmaps (static textures) rendered in a professional raytracing software (since SOurce engine in Hl2 does not raytrace.) and imported to HL2. it only works with static lights ,and it may not look natural if you walk overthere because the reflections and the bumps will stay static. its a workaround but at least it can help a lot with the IQ ,with the limitation of not looking natural if you are in motion.

what im interested to see is the breakable glass in doom3 ,not that glass is interesting by itself ,but because is said to be done on the fly in realtime ,with its per polygon colission physics engine.. it should look Extremely good ,for idsoftware allow such expensive effect (that they say take 50% of of your performance,but that the quality is well worth the sacrifice ). in Doom3 DEformation of WAlls and doors are also possible ,this is obvious in the video of the E3 Doom3 video ,with the 2 monters going thorough the door deforming it. but was not impressed by the effect. a cool looking deformation i have seen is GIant citizen kabuto in the terrain .. hehe that game was very advanced in their time.

 

[vann7]

Btw..

if the effect of breakable glass is as good and accurate as i can imagine it can be ,the possibilities for the mod community are HUGE! because people will be able to deform structures (made of glass) in any shape they like.. build sculptures on the fly ,just with your gun and good aim. or complete destruction of bridges,castles or buidings made of same material. but also the same effect can be done "other" materials like "wood" or "stone" if people hack the glass to look like those.mmm only people with experience in modding can answer this. the only thing im sure is that performance will be an issue for effect like those. lets cross fingers that idsoftware breakable effects in glass is at least half as good as the possibilities ..

 

[Styloid]

Didn't Chaser have things that could break like that?

Does anyone else see it as weird that a thread about how good games are turned in to a thread about nothing but technology?
Or am I out of date and games are all judged this way now?

 

[Brian Damage]

I just want it to be the most fun I've had in a while...

Oh, and I want to mod the hell out of it.

 

[Sparta]

theres no need to write so much about 'why it'll be a great game' isnt it just a bit obvious to see how promising its going to be anyway.. , (with the best interactive characters ever seen, Havoc physics, a kool Sci Fi story which is sort of believable , and a hero with as much brain as brawn.)

Yup...Deus Ex 2 is pretty cool

I'm looking forward to Doom's graphics and gameplay, but not looking forward to the story or the multiplayer. The multiplayer only 4 players in Doom 3, how is that going to compete with up to 32 players? (at least, 32 is what valve told us)

the only 2 games that matter to me next year are Doom 3 and Half Life 2, i doubt either will disappoint. Unless both of them get cancelled a day before release. That would be cruel

 

[Sparta]

Btw..

if the effect of breakable glass is as good and accurate as i can imagine it can be ,the possibilities for the mod community are HUGE! because people will be able to deform structures (made of glass) in any shape they like.. build sculptures on the fly ,just with your gun and good aim. or complete destruction of bridges,castles or buidings made of same material. but also the same effect can be done "other" materials like "wood" or "stone" if people hack the glass to look like those.mmm only people with experience in modding can answer this. the only thing im sure is that performance will be an issue for effect like those. lets cross fingers that idsoftware breakable effects in glass is at least half as good as the possibilities ..

Kinda like Red Faction, but with detailed physics

 

[Joeyslucky22]

With all these great games comming out (Max Payne 2, Call of Duty, Freedom Fighters, and KOTOR).... im beginning to think of what still needs to "be done in a game" ....

I mean all games you have to admit get boring after playing hours upon hours... the games that last are the ones with replayability!

I go back to max payne 2, and after about an hour i'll get bored.. then like 5 hours later i'll have a craving for it again.. because MP2 is just one of those games that did something none other has done.

What will Half-life 2 do? im becoming more scepticle....

A story, yeah thats a + but... if its just physics that we're all awed by...

play MP2 the physics are just beautiful...

I dunno...

I guess im not as "sexually attracted" to HL2 as i used to be...

I used to make love to it every night

now I yawn

....boo...

 

[OCybrManO]

MP2 has more replayability than HL2 will (supposedly) have?

Let's make a quick comparison from what we know(?) so far...

MP2:
* Singleplayer only... and it's a very linear SP experience
* Not very flexible for modding
* Physics are only there to help make things look cool

HL2:
* Sure, it supposedly has a great SP game with "interactive cutscenes"... but it also supposedly has an original and addictive multiplayer mode (unknown whether it will be in addition to standard MP or not) with great netcode
* Extremely versatile for modding if it's at least as good as HL (I think that's generally accepted as a fact)... and it already has a larger active mod community than many (if not most) released games.
* Physics supposedly do more that make things pretty... like puzzles, traps, manipulator, vehicles, etc
* Supposedly has better AI

Yeah, I can see why you would get bored with Half-Life 2 after several hours and go back to playing Max Payne 2.

Somewhat Off-Topic: I was just thinking about how closely you could mimic the bullet trails in the Matrix with shaders (specifically something like the water or magnifying glass that distorts the image) because I saw a Matrix commercial.

 

[Sparta]

Yeah making bullet trails in Half Life 2 using the shaders would be awesome, something that refracts light basically. Like the Striders beam...thingy

 

[Zoorado]

Kinda like Red Faction, but with detailed physics

Plus dynamic shadows and per-pixel environment mapping for each glass shard.

 

[Zoorado]

the only hardware capable of real raytracing its the CPU

That's why photon mapping is the best choice. It can simulate global illumination thru the GPU efficiently, and yet produce much better results than raytracing. Last I heard, it is possible to use photon mapping to generate a BSSRDF map for subsurface scattering, in a matter of minutes (true SSS takes hours or even days to accomplish using Monte Carlo raytracing).

 

[Sparta]

Cool. Although i dont think anyone will pay attention to it though. I'd think they'd pay more attention to the monster on the other side of the glass. Cool though

Edit: This in response to the post above the post above...if ya get me

 

[vann7]

That's why photon mapping is the best choice. It can simulate global illumination thru the GPU efficiently, and yet produce much better results than raytracing. Last I heard, it is possible to use photon mapping to generate a BSSRDF map for subsurface scattering, in a matter of minutes (true SSS takes hours or even days to accomplish using Monte Carlo raytracing).

yep photonmapping is the most asked feature in today Pro-3dgraphics
but the techniques done to simulate it in the GPU (workarounds and hacks) are still early attempts to produce something that video cards were not originally designed to do. means it has serious drawbacks to be used in a practical way in either games or in the proffessional 3dmarket . notice that such amazing feature -photonmapping-in computer graphics ,no video card company ATI/NVidia....market their video card as Photonmapping capable. still in the proffessional 3dmarket all is done in the cpu for one reason. .there are very good simulations of photonmapping done in the GPU made by Nvidia ..at siggraph,but it just an experiment.. a really good one btw.. but again its doesnt replace what CPUs can do. for now Pixel shaders and vertexshaders will be the way to -simulate - real life effects in games. TRUE (Raytracing and Photonmapping) will still be for a long time a CPU feature.

 

[Sp00fman]

D3 is aiming to high if it's really going to cut the framerate in half. its no fun to wait 2 years until the hardware can run those graphics on max settings.

 

[MultiVaC]

Making large breakable objects out of Doom 3's glass? There's no way in hell. If simply breaking a window will cut the framerate in half, then a Red Faction-like version of that would be impossible for an ordinary home computer.

 

[Zoorado]

yep photonmapping is the most asked feature in today Pro-3dgraphics
but the techniques done to simulate it in the GPU (workarounds and hacks) are still early attempts to produce something that video cards were not originally designed to do. means it has serious drawbacks to be used in a practical way in either games or in the proffessional 3dmarket . notice that such amazing feature -photonmapping-in computer graphics ,no video card company ATI/NVidia....market their video card as Photonmapping capable. still in the proffessional 3dmarket all is done in the cpu for one reason. .there are very good simulations of photonmapping done in the GPU made by Nvidia ..at siggraph,but it just an experiment.. a really good one btw.. but again its doesnt replace what CPUs can do. for now Pixel shaders and vertexshaders will be the way to -simulate - real life effects in games. TRUE (Raytracing and Photonmapping) will still be for a long time a CPU feature.

AFAIK, there aren't any more drawbacks to photon mapping on programmable GPU than there is to GPU-independent photon mapping. It has been proven during this year's Siggraph that photon mapping on next-gen GPUs is very feasible, and more efficient than doing the same on the CPU alone. True, video processors manufacturers do not market their products as photon mapping capable, but the same can be said of Intel and AMD. With the release of fully programmable GPUs in the near future, global illumination and fancy lighting techniques will all be based on graphics accelerators. CPU raytracing will be obsolete.

Carmack's next engine (to be his last) should be comparable to the state-of-the-art renderers right now (eg. PRMan, Brazil, Mental Ray), with features like the ability to interpret million-line shader algorithms, volumetric photon maps, true SSS, full NURBs support, etc. It'll take at least another 4 years, but to fulfil his ambition of converging Hollywood-quality renderfarms and real-time game graphics, such a move towards a free-form rendering environment is inevitable.

 

[Zoorado]

Making large breakable objects out of Doom 3's glass? There's no way in hell. If simply breaking a window will cut the framerate in half, then a Red Faction-like version of that would be impossible for an ordinary home computer.

Shooting a window won't cut the framerate in half if you're running it at 60fps. Maybe a loss of speed by 10fps. But if you're running the game with everything max, its framerate might hover around 20fps; in that case, a loss of 10fps would be equivalent to a cut in half.

Of course, a "City of Glass" map would be ridiculous to play on. That'll be like putting 20 dynamic, swinging lights in the same room with the player and monsters running around.

 

[OCybrManO]

Sure, with a GPU that wasn't designed to do anything like photon mapping you aren't going to be able to get incredible results at a decent speed (they were just showing that it could be done on a programmable GPU). That's why it should and probably will (well, maybe not photon mapping, but something similar) be built directly into the GPU like T&L, normal maps, etc. Hardware that is specifically designed to do something can do it much more quickly than hardware that is versatile but needs to be programmed. The reason we need the programmable part is so that the video card makers don't have to hard-wire every shader imagineable into the video card.

I would bet that with current production technology they could make a card that does real-time photon mapping, at least on simple scenes like the ones in the PDF about photon mapping... but it would be a while before it could actually be used in highly-detailed games along with shaders and normal maps.

 

[MadMechwarrior]

Well I dont usualy post in these threads, but its late and I feel stupid, here goes my reputation.

First and foremost I will say that iD usualy makes 'tech-demo' games. None of their games particularly stand out as being very outstanding and they all follow an undead, rusty, bloody place which im guessing is the universe of doom. iD makes engines, thats the main reason I think Doom 3 wont be all its cracked up to be. Its a game built around the technology, not technology built around a game. First Technical drawback for Doom3 is prolly one of its main features, the dynamic lights... that takes out alot of possibilities for mod makers who arent looking to make a scary mod, most notably outdoor areas. The other main problem is it's built around OpenGL, which is good, but not state of the art. OpenGL is really falling back these days and DX is taking up the slack with lots of new features. HL2 is simply a more technicly able bodied game. It has the ability to do both static and dynamic lights, it also has a very good physics engine built AROUND the game and not as an afterthought as I feel Doom3's physics are.

Other than that its just a case of style. I think the monsters on mars thing is getting kinda old and boring, same with zombies and I think HL2 has a bit more style overall. Not to mention its the sequel to one of the most modded games of all times which can guarentee you wont put it down too fast.

 

[Styloid]

This whole Doom3 glass thing is kind of silly. Watch the glass break in HL2 (traptown vid) and if you watch it frame by frame you will realize that the glass breaks and falls apart exactly where it is hit (by the tracer of the bullet). I don't want to bring up the leak (no I didn't download it) but... you know...
This is not special to any game either. Watch the DNF (from 2001) vid and you'll see the same thing on walls, or play Chaser and you have the same thing on wood and stuff.
Doom 3 does not have deformable terrain just like all these other games do not have deformable terrain.

 

[Zoorado]

First and foremost I will say that iD usualy makes 'tech-demo' games. None of their games particularly stand out as being very outstanding and they all follow an undead, rusty, bloody place which im guessing is the universe of doom. iD makes engines, thats the main reason I think Doom 3 wont be all its cracked up to be.

Read latest previews. Id Software has NEVER done a SP-focus game quite like this before. Its last SP game was released 6 years ago; the standards are now different, and the developers know that.

Its a game built around the technology, not technology built around a game.

Can't really argue with that, though the technology does tie in remarkably well with the gameplay.

First Technical drawback for Doom3 is prolly one of its main features, the dynamic lights... that takes out alot of possibilities for mod makers who arent looking to make a scary mod, most notably outdoor areas.

No one said the DOOM 3 engine can't handle outdoor environment. In fact it can, with features like bumpmapped ambient lighting and FP framebuffers made possible by the ARB fragment program.

the other main problem is it's built around OpenGL, which is good, but not state of the art. OpenGL is really falling back these days and DX is taking up the slack with lots of new features.

Just wrong. OpenGL is open source, which means you can add in extra features using extensions. It's akin to Pixar's PRMan. The PRMan is nearly 15 years old, and it still remains as one of the best rendering apps in the industry, heralded by hobbyists and commercial F/X producers alike. Why? 'Cos you can add wonderful effects to it using complex shaders. Likewise, you can add graphical features to the OGL API, features so advanced that you wouldn't be able to do in the closed environment of DX's D3D.

HL2 is simply a more technicly able bodied game. It has the ability to do both static and dynamic lights, it also has a very good physics engine built AROUND the game and not as an afterthought as I feel Doom3's physics are.

HL2's physics are impressive no doubt. But DOOM 3's is perfectly integrated with every other aspect of the engine. That's what Carmack calls a "unified renderer". Shoot a glass window, and you'll see the glass break according to near real-life physics, with every broken fragment casting dynamic shadows and reflecting the environment as they flip across the air. Even the soundscape would be affected (albeit slightly) by each shard. It's this kind of consistency that amazes me. I really doubt HL2 has such a feature-set. And I don't see how D3's physics engine is inferior to HL2's, at least we can't determine that until both games are out.

Other than that its just a case of style. I think the monsters on mars thing is getting kinda old and boring, same with zombies and I think HL2 has a bit more style overall. Not to mention its the sequel to one of the most modded games of all times which can guarentee you wont put it down too fast.

Cool. It's your opinion. Personally, I couldn't care less for Mars or zombies, I just like to be scared. HL2's graphical style looks like pastel painting, which is very appealing to me as well.

 

[Styloid]

It sounds like Carmack's 'unified renderer' can be a nice tag for all the other engines coming out (breakable glass, physics, sound, lighting, etc). It looks like they're the only ones, however, who are willing to sacrifice gameplay to showcase these effects unlike Chaser whose CloakNT engine was also a 'unified renderer'. How many 'unified renderers' will we see in the next year? 5? 10? 20? Can one 'unfied renderer' be superior to another 'unified renderer'? Well I guess not since all games with 'havoc' or 'physics' are lumped together and all games with 'advanced AI' get lumped together.... Will 'unified renderers' make good games? Will 'unified renderers' become the standard for all high end titles? Will 'unified renderers' be cheap enough for small companies to license? Will the 'unified renderers' like cheese?
We can't determine that until they are all out.

 

[MadMechwarrior]

Well thats one thing we cant argue, when carmack programs something it goes everywhere and not just on those special see-it-once moments in the singleplayer. Dynamic lights and bump mapping come to mind. I think the Doom 3 engine will be very good, I guess it really depends on what you intend to do with it. I know I will probably buy both games unless one of them gets a horrible review (it could happen). To put a conclusion to the thread, chances are NONE of them will be better than any other game, its a game, not a gift from god and I hope people will realize that. They're just games after all...

 

[Xenome]

Halflife differences itself from other games, because of it's ATMOSPHERE.

Just like in halflife1..it had something that kept the game good.
And singleplayer was GREATLY done..lots of variety..you don't see that too often in games.

We'll all c why halflife2 will be the best, when it comes out, but it will probably build on the bases that made halflife1 such a great game.

 

[Zoorado]

It sounds like Carmack's 'unified renderer' can be a nice tag for all the other engines coming out (breakable glass, physics, sound, lighting, etc). It looks like they're the only ones, however, who are willing to sacrifice gameplay to showcase these effects unlike Chaser whose CloakNT engine was also a 'unified renderer'. How many 'unified renderers' will we see in the next year? 5? 10? 20? Can one 'unfied renderer' be superior to another 'unified renderer'? Well I guess not since all games with 'havoc' or 'physics' are lumped together and all games with 'advanced AI' get lumped together.... Will 'unified renderers' make good games? Will 'unified renderers' become the standard for all high end titles? Will 'unified renderers' be cheap enough for small companies to license? Will the 'unified renderers' like cheese?
We can't determine that until they are all out.

DOOM 3 engine is the only "unified renderer" I know of. Does ragdoll physics affects the soundscape (deflection and absorption of sound waves) in other games? Does all physics object cast true-to-life, per-pixel accurate shadows dynamically? Heck, I can't even think of another game that has fully dynamic specular highlights... It is one thing to add "dynamic lighting", but making it work uniformly under all possible circumstances (the way light in real-life works) is another story altogether. DOOM 3 is aiming for the latter, and that's what distinguishes it from the other engines with seemngly similar visual styles.

 

[vann7]

DOOM 3 engine is the only "unified renderer" I know of. Does ragdoll physics affects the soundscape (deflection and absorption of sound waves) in other games? Does all physics object cast true-to-life, per-pixel accurate shadows dynamically? Heck, I can't even think of another game that has fully dynamic specular highlights... It is one thing to add "dynamic lighting", but making it work uniformly under all possible circumstances (the way light in real-life works) is another story altogether. DOOM 3 is aiming for the latter, and that's what distinguishes it from the other engines with seemngly similar visual styles.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R also have an unified per pixel lighting engine ,but not at all times .. they also use Lightmaps for OUtdoors. FArcry so something similar .

and here some engines with unified perpixel lighting..

http://www.3dengines.net/feat/?f=28

some of them are pretty similar to doom3 rendering engine.. with with some diferences..

http://www.egerter.com/prx/main.htm

btw.. the real -way lights works- is far from doom3 or any game on the horizon you can name... no game support Photmonmapping yet... what perpixel lighting games allow to do is to do -more things- in a natural way than with tons of hacks or workarounds that were done in the past to simulate the light.the best pixelshaders can go is to do good fakes of real lights behaviour .Again neither ATi and NVidia market their video cards as Photmapping capable or support..PIXELshaders is the way MICrosoft and IHV wants to push realtime graphics.Intel or AMD doesnt need to market their processors as photonmapping capable since those rendering techniques were invented to work ..->in CPUs since day 1. they have always supported RAytracing ,and later photonmapping since computer graphics were invented ,that was much earlier than video games existed.and those techniques were invented to work in the only thing that was programmable in that time -> CPUS (Programmable Processors).today GPUS never were designed for those task in mind.they just found a way to "simulate" it . is not that the whole COmputer graphics industry will stop buying REnderfarms CPUS that cost millions to begin buying gaming video cards.

BTW-- im very exited to see the mods people with do in Hl2 and Doom3 ,, but more with the incoming engine of IdS that its has been said that will match computer graphics holywood movies. :cheese: