HL2, where are the revolutionary visuals?

number69 said:
Personally I can't wait for:

p_bezerker.jpg


Unreal 3.
Click to expand...


At the time of its release unreal 2 had the best pc graphics, game sucked royally though. Could be a repeat. :confused:
 
I don't think Unreal 2 was that bad gameplay wise. I was really expecting it to suck from reading some of the comments about it. Either way I just want to play Unreal Tournament with that engine, that's going to kick major assola. I don't think anybody in their right mind would say UT's gameplay sucks.
 
Are you people blind? How can anything compare to the visuals in HL2? IMHO, lets forget about the technical prowess of the engine, no game has ever captured an environment this well, not game has ever had the amount of artwork and crystal clear textures as HL2 has had. I feel like I am in a movie while playing the game, I just can't understand how anybody that has been playing PC games for the past 7 or 8 years can say that these graphics are underwhelming. I think they are revolutionary.
 
IMO Half-life 2 is far superior in graphics, character animation, texturing. Half-life 2 is simply amazing. This argument about doom 3 having better environments is crazy. Doom 3 was all hallways and occasional trips outside, mars looked better in total recall, IMO.

Half-life 2 has incredibly detailed environments and the physics engine is amazing.... although I have one sticking point with collison detection. It doesn't feel right the way chracters hang-up on some of the objects.

I also like the way Half-life accomplishes the bloom effect. It isn't as realistic as farcry .... but it also doesn't pwn your videocard. It also made baby jesus cry.

All in all .... I think half-life 2 is amazing.... I seem to remember the tech demos showing more of a slimy / shiny look on the ant lions tho..... starship troopers called and wanted its bad guys. :) its alright they are still cool.
 
Considering this matter is going to be entirely opinion based, there are some facts to take note. The Source engine is definiately better scalable to older hardware plus Half-Life 2 makes use of something Doom 3 didn't, outdoor environments! My opinion is that the human character models are extremely more realistic and believable in HL2 than in either of the disputed games. The textures are extremely high quality and realistic as well as the facial expressions.
 
aBSoLuT_0 said:
The Source engine is definiately better scalable to older hardware
Click to expand...

Of course it scales better. The engine simply isn't as intensive. But in terms of scaling with IQ in mind D3 is better. You can play D3 on a Ti200 and get ever single effect [short of the heat haze] you would on a 6800GT. The same can't be said about HL2. It defaults to older codepaths. That's why is 'scales better' on older hardware, it rapes your IQ to do so.
 
I have to agree with the other smartie, imagine porting the HalfLife2 game to the Doom3 engine, no system today could run it, in those huge outdoor city areas with combines running after you, etc..
And I think the Source engine does it better, it looks more real, like a dirty and lived in setting.
 
This article talks about doom 3 how there are so little polygons and just a lot of nice looking textures and stuff. Here is the article

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19704

It makes sense, the way they make the game run good is kick down the polygons and kick up the texture resolutions. Halo 2 has less polygons than Halo 1 but for some reason looks better. Guess they are finding a new way to figure out how to make a game look better without kicking up the polygons.
 
Textures in HL2 are superb. However overall I think Doom3 looks more realistic. And both D3/FarCry have better lighting. I'd say Doom3 looks the best, and HL2 ties with FarCry, HL2 for best textures and characters, FarCry for better lighting (HDR).
 
HL2 has the HDR thing but it doesn't do it correctly, when you look at bright objects (like the sun) and then move to a dark object your vision doesn't change unlike Farcry which mimics what happens naturally. Personally I like the way FC does it, more realistic IMO.
 
I dont see Doom3 being able to do anything like the outdoor areas in HalfLife2 ? Some of the scenes in HL2 are HUGE, you can see for man than a mile or so, but D3 would make your system crawl with something like that, wouldnt it ?

I would still love to see a Doom3 engine game, that was set on the Mars landscape, and used vehciles to get around :)
 
I believe the difference is in the fact that HL2 uses a different form of HDR, not that it does it incorrectly.

Far Cry uses OpenEXR, which is an entirely different method. HL2 can't 'do HDR' wrong because it isn't using OpenEXR, it's using something else. (As far as I'm aware, at least).
 
When HL2 implements the full SHDRI and the original Source Physics... it will be a better game.. worth playing again, and again..
 
CrimandEvil said:
HL2 has the HDR thing but it doesn't do it correctly, when you look at bright objects (like the sun) and then move to a dark object your vision doesn't change unlike Farcry which mimics what happens naturally. Personally I like the way FC does it, more realistic IMO.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call what HL2 has HDR. More like pseudo-HDR. It stinks compared to the HDR in FarCry.

If HL2 is actually using "HDR", without using OpenEXR the best it can manage is 8bit integer HDR, as compared to 16bit floating point OpenEXR HDR like FarCry uses.
 
CrimandEvil said:
HL2 has the HDR thing but it doesn't do it correctly, when you look at bright objects (like the sun) and then move to a dark object your vision doesn't change unlike Farcry which mimics what happens naturally. Personally I like the way FC does it, more realistic IMO.
Click to expand...

It's not that it doesn't do it incorrectly

it's that it doesn't use the OpenEXR format using a FP16 framebuffer and coded to do the iris effect

there are different formats and ways of doing HDR you realize

not just one method

HDR itself stands for High Dynamic Range Lighting
 
Brent_Justice said:
It's not that it doesn't do it incorrectly

it's that it doesn't use the OpenEXR format using a FP16 framebuffer and coded to do the iris effect

there are different formats and ways of doing HDR you realize

not just one method

HDR itself stands for High Dynamic Range Lighting
Click to expand...

Can you really call 8-bit integer format "HDR" (RGBE8)? I would think 16bit FP would really be the minimum for real HDR, with 32bit FP being even better, tho as you can see from OpenEXR 16bit FP is already taxing nevermind 32bit.
 
Labrador said:
I dont see Doom3 being able to do anything like the outdoor areas in HalfLife2 ? Some of the scenes in HL2 are HUGE, you can see for man than a mile or so, but D3 would make your system crawl with something like that, wouldnt it ?

I would still love to see a Doom3 engine game, that was set on the Mars landscape, and used vehciles to get around :)
Click to expand...


Why wouold you expect to see doom doing city size environments seeing as its a game set in a military base. The engine is perfectly capable of outdoor areas, no way carmack would have coded it to be able to do small corridor areas and nothing more.
 
y'all realize that HL2 and DOOM3 are set in completely different universes correct?

they have a completely different setting, mission, etc...

they are both different and unique games, both fun, both with top notch graphics, the engines they ride on will be used in many a game for a long time to come...
 
tranCendenZ said:
Can you really call 8-bit integer format "HDR" (RGBE8)? I would think 16bit FP would really be the minimum for real HDR, with 32bit FP being even better, tho as you can see from OpenEXR 16bit FP is already taxing nevermind 32bit.
Click to expand...

Well I think the HDR in HL2 is a nice compromise between speed and visuals...obviously the HDR in FarCry is vastly superior...but the performance hit is also enormous...

It might make sense now to implement that kind of HDR for people who want to punish their new cards, but remember that HL2 was supposed to come out a year ago, when nothing would have been able to run OpenEXR at all...
 
tranCendenZ said:
Can you really call 8-bit integer format "HDR" (RGBE8)? I would think 16bit FP would really be the minimum for real HDR, with 32bit FP being even better, tho as you can see from OpenEXR 16bit FP is already taxing nevermind 32bit.
Click to expand...

Stop arguing semantics. It's still HDR even if it 1-bit integer, i couldn't give a rats ass if an OpenEXR45 format comes out tomorrow with 64bit FP and a 256-bit framebuffer, it doesn't make lesser forms not HDR, the term "real HDR" means jack squat
 
SnakEyez187 said:
Stop arguing semantics. It's still HDR even if it 1-bit integer, i couldn't give a rats ass if an OpenEXR45 format comes out tomorrow with 64bit FP and a 256-bit framebuffer, it doesn't make lesser forms not HDR, the term "real HDR" means jack squat
Click to expand...

bingo

its a form of HDR, period

personally I think HL2 uses it quite well where needed
 
Labrador said:
Some of the scenes in HL2 are HUGE, you can see for man than a mile or so, but D3 would make your system crawl with something like that, wouldnt it ?
Click to expand...

No not really. The draw distance in HL2 is pathetically small. Drive on the coast with the buggy and you'll be treated to trees and hell even mountains 'magically' popping into view less then a 100ft from you. It was jarring as fuck the first time I saw it happen. Far Cry spoiled me to that effect.
 
Chris_B said:
The engine is perfectly capable of outdoor areas, no way carmack would have coded it to be able to do small corridor areas and nothing more.
Click to expand...

And yet there isnt a single one in the game. If it could do large outdoor environments they would have had some...its freaking Mars for christs sake..nothing but huge outdoor environments. Far Crys outdoor environments were amazing, a huge step forward. Doom 3 was another step forward in a totally different way.But they both chugged like mad on my machine. I had to do a lot to make either game playable with decent graphic level. This is where HL2 really shines. Right out of the box, great graphics with no problems , no stutters, no clipping, nothing. The facial animations are fantastic, teh levels all look great. Not revolutionary in any one respect but a definite step forward in every respect. And no game has had this much interaction with your environment.

And who are the people comparing a FPS to a roleplaying game in terms of graphics? Thats just loopy.

And finally . last but not least. Comparing a PC game to any console game ever made is rediculous. The best any console has to offer ends up looking like a 2 or more year old PC game. Halo 2 is a prime example. When I saw it at the game store I thot they were doing Halo 1. It looks that old and crappy compared to a decent PC games graphics. But console games have always been behind the curve.
 
MikeP said:
And yet there isnt a single one in the game. If it could do large outdoor environments they would have had some...its freaking Mars for christs sake..nothing but huge outdoor environments. Far Crys outdoor environments were amazing, a huge step forward. Doom 3 was another step forward in a totally different way.But they both chugged like mad on my machine. I had to do a lot to make either game playable with decent graphic level. This is where HL2 really shines. Right out of the box, great graphics with no problems , no stutters, no clipping, nothing. The facial animations are fantastic, teh levels all look great. Not revolutionary in any one respect but a definite step forward in every respect. And no game has had this much interaction with your environment.

And who are the people comparing a FPS to a roleplaying game in terms of graphics? Thats just loopy.

And finally . last but not least. Comparing a PC game to any console game ever made is rediculous. The best any console has to offer ends up looking like a 2 or more year old PC game. Halo 2 is a prime example. When I saw it at the game store I thot they were doing Halo 1. It looks that old and crappy compared to a decent PC games graphics. But console games have always been behind the curve.
Click to expand...

I take it you never played the original one then did you?

And about your console comment, it looks just fine if not better the most PC games on my TV -- hell it rivals some of THIS generations games in my opinion..plus the no load times is a plus. Oh, and get any game to look like that on the equivilant of a GeForce 2, and I'll be happy :) (While yes, consoles are specially formated to fit the hardware... the Xbox is still using something around that generation..)
 
MikeP said:
And yet there isnt a single one in the game. If it could do large outdoor environments they would have had some...its freaking Mars for christs sake..nothing but huge outdoor environments.
Click to expand...


See my above post about the game being set in a military base.....You honestly really think the engine was coded to be nothing more than enclosed areas? If that was the case what companies gonna license it? id and more to the point carmack are a lot smarter than to cripple a next gen gaming engine.
 
In the video interviews with Carmack and the Valve (alot of people, lol) they state that people don't see that HL2 and Doom3 are basically just the begining of the engines, and they explain just all that they can do.
 
MikeP said:
And finally . last but not least. Comparing a PC game to any console game ever made is rediculous. The best any console has to offer ends up looking like a 2 or more year old PC game. Halo 2 is a prime example. When I saw it at the game store I thot they were doing Halo 1. It looks that old and crappy compared to a decent PC games graphics. But console games have always been behind the curve.
Click to expand...

Ah yes of course. Explains why FFX rapes NWN in visuals. Console games can be damned pretty too. MGS2 was jaw-dropping when it first game out. The only people who make grand sweeping statements like that are the ones who have the least to offer from an informed perspective.
 
Cenuij said:
Take another look, it is decidedly average, if you think HL2 is the best graphics ever you ARE smoking crack...
Click to expand...
I think that Doom 3 has the best graphics...it's not TERRIBLE compared to Playstation 2 or Xbox graphics. You guys should just sit back and enjoy it, the story might not be that great, but at least the graphics are. I'm sure that Half Life 2 is just as great, if not, awe-inspiring. Jeeze...stop criticizing the games. Remember that the developers are the ones that spend their time to create games, and we're the ones that spend our time to play them.
 
HL 2 has the best PC graphics to date so far. The guy who said people who think this should put the crack pipe down, should take his own advice cause he's obviously doing double the crack. Doom 3 was pretty good as well, but it was way to dark, so it was much easier to achieve those graphics since it was all indoors and corridors for environment. No open envirnoment at all.
 
Chris_B said:
Yeah? go and download the leak and tell me thats a "game". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Allow me to comment. Hl2 is not necessarily a year old, The Source engine on the other hand, is atleast that old, with probably quite a few inhouse upgrades. You don't get HL2 and a second game based off the same graphics engine (Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines) released on the same day, without a reasonably functional engine being available for most of it's build time. Hell, Activision announced that there would be a playable build at ICC (International Camarilla Conclave (White Wolf's fanclub yearly big party) 2003. Thats a year ago this past October.

Are the graphics in HL2 nice? Yes. Is the engine new? Debatable due to the fact that others outside of Valve have been using / working with it for over a year now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top