Yo, does HL2 have Dynamic Textures?

Killzone! The Halo, oh wait... the Halo 2 and now the Half Life 2 killer! BAHAHA!

7screen10.jpg
 
ok ps2 games do very good for wut they run on, xbox as well. but the fact of the matter is, no console currectly out, out performs or even comes close to the current high end hardware avalible. hardware is updated atleast every 6 months while consoles stay around for a long time (2-4 years). some of the games made for PC will not run with anything close to acceptable frame rates on consoles.

killzone does look nice, i like it, it doesnt mean its better technology or graphics wise.
 
Didn't Xbox even have issues running Morrowind? Can't imagine a PS2 running it too well if that's the truth. Plus, for as bland as a lot of Morrowinds artwork was, it had some awesome and complex (not to mention extremely VAST) terrains. Great game, wasted a lot of my life on it. LOL, probably the most next to HL/CS/Etc.

I'm not going to bash Killzone, but from a bunch of small screenshots that attempt to be really flashy and "in yo' face" with "bad guys wearing masks", I think one would be hard pressed to say it looks better than HL2, especially when compared to the HDR/DX9 video.

Edit: And yes, HL2 has dynamic textures, I'm pretty sure HL1 did. I know that Quake 3 did, so I'd assume that HL2 would have to...
 
Originally posted by smwScott
I mean seriously, the majority of these games aren't even near the caliber of the games I mentioned. You aren't even putting up a good argument for the PC, a lot of games look better than the ones you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Do you even care about anything but graphics?
 
Dude, Joneleth, I love XBOX, but they're made by Microsoft!
Microsoft is a computer company!
Sony has more experience in making video games.
 
the particle effects on that "killzones" look absolutley horrendous, but the design, and the motion blur, and the carachters look fantastic. But there is not really a video that we can watch to tell the difference between it and HL2.

This thread is starting to turn into PC Vs. PS2 thread, this is just completley ridiculous, if you have better hardware, then PC>PS2, when PS3 cpmes out, most likley PS3>PC, but that ain't the PS2 pal, people will be enjoying PC games far after they put down thier PS2, since PC games will last as long as the PC lasts, and it isnt leaving very soon.

There are alot of VERY, VERY bad games for PS2, they just pump out a whole lot of games very quickly, and then they just might get a good game every now and then, but they have some bad games, and most of thier games fail to compare with any of the next-gen stuff thats coming out on PC.

It sickens me that most all of my freinds are just console gamers, i mean some of them have never touched a PC, and if they have, its like some crappy, 300Mhz machine, none of them have ever heard of Half-life, and if they have, they thought it was only on PS2, and about six of them told me that F-ZeroGX was the closest thing to being realistic they had ever seen, I just played that game, and the graphics aare horrible!

/me sighs, then bangs head with console game until it breaks

But there are some very good PS2 games, and some very bad PC games, we just must all live with it.
 
Originally posted by smwScott
Elder Scroolls III: Morrowind - Not a prayer
Warcraft III - Are you high? This doesn't even look very good.
Unreal II - Very good looking game, but not up to SH3 IMO
Unreal Tournament 2003 - not as good as Unreal II's, so read above
the upcoming UT2K4 - still doesn't look as good
Splinter Cell - on the PS2 buddy, looks almost as good
Rainbow Six 3: Ravenshield - isnt an incredible looking game, many PS2 things beat it
EVE Online - No idea what this is
Neverwinter Nights - Also doesnt look as good as many PS2 games
Medal of Honor - A lot of PS2 games look better than this
Homeworld - Not a chance in hell dude
Homeworld 2 - probably couldnt be done on PS2 because of intense amount of polygons, but with a better LOD system could be
Tron 2.0 - No way man, this games only graphical appeal are the interesting design, could easily be done on the PS2

I mean seriously, the majority of these games aren't even near the caliber of the games I mentioned. You aren't even putting up a good argument for the PC, a lot of games look better than the ones you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Dude, wtf that isn't argumentation, that's saying 'it doesn't look better because it doesn't look better'
Face the facts, PS2 graphics are outdated.
The most important is that it doesn't support per pixel shaders, so no bumpmapping, no reflections (besides cubemapping like in UT2k3) no refractions no specular mapping. It can't pump too many polygons, characters look very square.
Resident Evil on the cube looks way better than SH3.
And besides, it isn't about how the graphics are on a small scale, no it's about what it can handle on a larger scale. For example, BF1942 graphics could be done on the PS2 (maybe some lower texture res becuase of the small VRAM) but not with the enormous map sizes and high polygon counts.
 
Originally posted by smwScott
Elder Scroolls III: Morrowind - Not a prayer
Warcraft III - Are you high? This doesn't even look very good.
Unreal II - Very good looking game, but not up to SH3 IMO
Unreal Tournament 2003 - not as good as Unreal II's, so read above
the upcoming UT2K4 - still doesn't look as good
Splinter Cell - on the PS2 buddy, looks almost as good
Rainbow Six 3: Ravenshield - isnt an incredible looking game, many PS2 things beat it
EVE Online - No idea what this is
Neverwinter Nights - Also doesnt look as good as many PS2 games
Medal of Honor - A lot of PS2 games look better than this
Homeworld - Not a chance in hell dude
Homeworld 2 - probably couldnt be done on PS2 because of intense amount of polygons, but with a better LOD system could be
Tron 2.0 - No way man, this games only graphical appeal are the interesting design, could easily be done on the PS2

I mean seriously, the majority of these games aren't even near the caliber of the games I mentioned. You aren't even putting up a good argument for the PC, a lot of games look better than the ones you mentioned.
Click to expand...


Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind - Awesome ass graphics with all detail turned on, which you couldn't even do on a PS2, and great gameplay
Warcraft III - Are you high? This is one of the BEST games ever mad. If it wasn't, then I don't know why there are so many good reviews for it..
Unreal II - Very good looking game
Unreal Tournament 2003 - just as good as Unreal II's
the upcoming UT2K4 - looks better than UT2K3, higher ploly counts and it includes more drivable vehicles
Splinter Cell - on the PS2 buddy, looks almost as good(HAHAHAHA!!!! Have you seen the comparisons between the XBOX version and PS2 versions??? You have got to be joking if you say it looks almost as good. They had to cut corners in the PS2 version just to make the game look passable. Even then, it still doesn't compare the the PC version.)
Rainbow Six 3: Ravenshield - isnt an incredible looking game(if it's not, than what is), many PS2 things beat it('things'? Define things.)
EVE Online - No idea what this is,(n00b)
Neverwinter Nights - Also doesnt look as good as many PS2 games because it looks better than many of the PS2 games. It would cause serious FPS lag if they ever tried to make this game for the PS2.
Medal of Honor - A lot of PS2 games have about the same graphical quality, but it will never be able to surpass MOH on a long term basis
Homeworld - Not a chance in hell dude(The game cam out 4 years ago and the PS2...*Gasp!!* there was no PS2 when Homeworld came out and Homeworld still looks good and plays good as well!)
Homeworld 2 - probably couldnt be done on PS2 because of intense amount of polygons, but with a better LOD system could be(uhh... better LOD?? Wouldn't that mean the game would be even more graphically intense??? So you are saying that it can't be dont now, but with more detail it can be? WTF? Don't you mean less detail? I couldn't see how making a game more graphically intense would make any game run better on the PS2.)
Tron 2.0 - No way man, this games only graphical appeal are the interesting design, could easily be done on the PS2(I might agree with you there, but they'd have to dumb down the graphics just to make it run. Other than that, its a very pretty game.)

I mean seriously, the majority of these games are near or better in caliber of the games I mentioned. You aren't even putting up a good argument for the PS2, a lot of games look better than the ones you mentioned.
 
Actually, with the whole "people will be playing PC games long after they finish with the PS2" argument, I have to point out that the PS3 will be backwards compatable just like the PS2 is. So that helps to give them some longevity.
And the PS2 doesn't quite match a good PC anymore, but that doesn't mean they're not good games. You find genres and gameplay on the PS2 that you'll never see (at least done well) on the PC.
 
The only games that interest me on the PS2 are the beat-em-ups and similar. Everything else is far inferior to PC.

Warcraft 3 rocks! So the graphics are not next-gen so what!?
 
When I read threads like this, I worry about the future of humanity.

These people will have children...
 
I started off with a nintendo in late 1985 (chistmas to be exact), and then moved on to the Gameboy, SNES, Genesis, Saturn, N64, PS, PC, Dreamcast, PS2, XBOX, GB Advance, Gamecube, and Finnaly the GBA SP in that order. I say that to say this: I love many games on many platforms and have for years. All of my life I've spent my extra money on games (until i started dating in college, but that another story) of all kinds, and I've been in many arguments about games before and heard some very uninformed people talk about what is the best. But never have I seen an argument as uninformed and fanboyish as the one that's being argued now. Let me settle this, current PS2 games CANNOT do what current PC games do. To argue that is to show how ignorant you are. And there are plenty of worthless titles on every platform known to man, some companies just make lame games. I love all of my current systems equally, they all have thier pros and cons which make them equal to me. One last thing, Morrowind is the most beautiful game that I've every played. You have to have a good rig to run it well (which I do), but to say that the game doesn't have good graphics is just stupidity on your part. Sorry.

Flame on!
 
Originally posted by manny_c44
Of course PC games always look better.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they always look better. The PS2 can do SOME things as well as PC, but not everything, and not nearly to the extent in which the PC does them. To say anything else is being blind. That is the last thing I have to say about all of this.
 
graphics-pc>xbox>gc>ps2, from what i have seen that is the best decision anyone can make.
 
Why are we having a PS2 vs PC debate? You can't say PC is better or worse because of the constant state of change PCs are in. Someone with a crap computer won't get anything looking as good as a PS2, but someone with a recent system, or someone who continually upgrades, will get better and better looking graphics that will very quickly and easily surpass the PS2. Then, though, there's the cost of PCs to consider. I tend to think that the increased precision of games on PCs make the PC a much better gaming system, but that's just personal preference.

Console vs PC is an age old debate that just causes flame wars, so I advise we just leave it as it is and get back to talking about HL2.

Originally posted by MrD
When I read threads like this, I worry about the future of humanity.

These people will have children...
Click to expand...
http://www.vhemt.org/ :dozey:
 
The PS2 can do SOME things as well as PC, but not everything, and not nearly to the extent in which the PC does them
Click to expand...
The PS2 can also do things now that the PC is still unable to do - like motion blur.
 
Originally posted by Dagobert
The PS2 can also do things now that the PC is still unable to do - like motion blur.
Click to expand...
The PC can do this, it just hasn't been implemented into any games available now (that I know of). There's some motion blurring in the doom 3 alpha. PCs are very flexable in terms of what they can do.. it's just a matter of developers deciding to do it and coming up with a suitably optimised version of it that runs on average systems. Anything that systems can't handle now, will become easy as systems get better.
 
um, are dynamic textures bit mapping/ specular mapping, perhaps? Cause HL2 definitly has those...
 
Originally posted by Dagobert
The PS2 can also do things now that the PC is still unable to do - like motion blur.
Click to expand...

Lol. PC can't do motion blur? :cheese:

You've proven you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Originally posted by dis
Didn't Xbox even have issues running Morrowind? Can't imagine a PS2 running it too well if that's the truth. Plus, for as bland as a lot of Morrowinds artwork was, it had some awesome and complex (not to mention extremely VAST) terrains. Great game, wasted a lot of my life on it. LOL, probably the most next to HL/CS/Etc.

I'm not going to bash Killzone, but from a bunch of small screenshots that attempt to be really flashy and "in yo' face" with "bad guys wearing masks", I think one would be hard pressed to say it looks better than HL2, especially when compared to the HDR/DX9 video.

Edit: And yes, HL2 has dynamic textures, I'm pretty sure HL1 did. I know that Quake 3 did, so I'd assume that HL2 would have to...
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with it really. Xbox can't run Morrowind that well because the game wasn't made for Xbox... it was a crappy coded port.

Take a look at a game made for Xbox... like FABLE for example.... it blows the shit out of Morrowind and runs perfect on Xbox, and no loading the entire game (using hard drive caching).

And then you can take a look at games such as Halo... or better yet... Halo 2! :) And then you'll wonder what the reason is for games like Unreal Championship running crappy....
 
Originally posted by smwScott
I'm a fan of Half-Life, Perfect Dark, No One Lives Forever, AvP2, might like D3, and possibly Killzone. You see, I am a fan, but I don't blind myself to other possibilities. HL2 may or may not be the best thing out for a long time, but that doesn't mean that there will not be other good games worth playing. I don't see your point, being blind to everything else isn't being a fan, its being ignorant.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you are going to buy Half-life 2 and you support the gaming industry. I hope you have a wonderful day.
 
There's some motion blurring in the doom 3 alpha.
Click to expand...
Well I've played through it several times with a 9800 and I haven't seen any. There's some render-to-texture effects that are a poor approximation of motion blur (like you get in MGS on the PS1), but no motion blur.

Look at the recent Killzone shots for what the PS2 can do with motion blur

Note: The PC can do lots lots more graphical effects than the PS2, that is a fact. There are just a few minor ones that are not available or being used on current PC hardware.
 
Originally posted by Dagobert
Note: The PC can do lots lots more graphical effects than the PS2, that is a fact. There are just a few minor ones that are not available or being used on current PC hardware.
Click to expand...
Like.....?
 
No, I've seen motion blur in a few PC games. Off the top of my head I can't remember which games they were.

Actually, in Raven Shield, when you walk through teargas, it looks like the engine motion-blurs to simulate the effect of the teargas on your eyes. At least that's what it looks like to me.
 
Originally posted by stigmata
No, I've seen motion blur in a few PC games. Off the top of my head I can't remember which games they were.
Click to expand...

Didn't GTA 3 have motion blur?
 
The motion blur we see in games is a direct hack that leaves the previous frame on the screen at a light transparancy. ie, GTA3 or the "drunk" effect you see in games.

Real hardware motion blur means the actual individual frame has motion blur. That's a directx 9 thing and consoles don't have it.
 
Originally posted by Typhon
The motion blur we see in games is a direct hack that leaves the previous frame on the screen at a light transparancy. ie, GTA3 or the "drunk" effect you see in games.

Real hardware motion blur means the actual individual frame has motion blur. That's a directx 9 thing and consoles don't have it.
Click to expand...

Thx for clearing that up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ennui
HL2 20th Anniversary Update + Documentary
Replies
8
Views
355
Xtremecherry95YT
Xtremecherry95YT
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Half-Life's lost feature, glowing textures
Replies
0
Views
6K
Barnz
B
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
CombineAdvisor3
Source 2 expectations?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Back
Top