What makes Modern Warfare 2 maps so "high detail" to some people compared to source maps? - Developers

Well, I think this would be mapping related. I got really board earlier so I played Modern Warfare 2, then I started looking at all of the textures and everything. I didn't ever really noticed how blocky they are, and how low detail a lot of the models are even on max settings for the whole game. What makes some people think it's such a high detail game? I understand why games like Crysis are high detail, it has pretty good textures, and very good physics, and lighting. Modern Warfare 2 has good lighting too, I like the fog, and the leaves flying around, but I mean, three things that are better than the source engine, is that really all? Don't call me a Modern Warfare 2 fag or something, I rarely play it, got bored today and just wanted to mess around. tl;dr What is better on Modern Warfare 2 maps than Source Engine maps?

Lighting, the high-res textures, the models, the paper that flies around, etc. It has just an overall better engine than Source, also, in nearly every way possible.

But he just said [b] The textures are very blocky and low-res. [/b]

Modern Warfare 2 maps are not better than Source Engine Maps. Not all of them anyways. Like we have infinity more available content to mod into a source game. It just depends on the level designer and the texture artist (sometimes the same like me) on how the map looks. I mean sure MW2 has Dynamic Lighting, but it looks like shit, not to mention I can hardly play the game because my CPU starts yelling at me. Source games are pretty much usable on anybody with even a crappy computer. So as long as they optimized their maps correctly it doesn't matter.

[QUOTE=Spartan One;23603447]Lighting, the high-res textures, the models, the paper that flies around, etc. It has just an overall better engine than Source, also, in nearly every way possible.[/QUOTE] The textures are low res, the models, you can easily see how blocky they are. [QUOTE=Firegod522;23603589]Modern Warfare 2 maps are not better than Source Engine Maps. Not all of them anyways. Like we have infinity more available content to mod into a source game. It just depends on the level designer and the texture artist (sometimes the same like me) on how the map looks. I mean sure MW2 has Dynamic Lighting, but it looks like shit, not to mention I can hardly play the game because my CPU starts yelling at me. Source games are pretty much usable on anybody with even a crappy computer. So as long as they optimized their maps correctly it doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] Yeah, true. I just don't get it, MW2 is pretty low detail when you look at it. Just most of these kids play on 360 and are like 10 feet away from their TV so they can't tell lol

I only prefer mw2 because the animations and movement are so smooth and bouncy, I don't really see how it looks that great compared to ep2 engine stuff though.

Also IMO , source is a better engine, even though it may not look as nice as newer engines, it is probably one of the most modded engines in existence. Plus it just has that [b]"Feel"[/b] to it that makes it seem smooth. [b]Also it`s supported by the best company in the world.[/b] (I also think that it isn`t as polluted by console-users.)

It's got alot of detail (small rocks everywhere, trash) and cool particle effects MW2 runs on a good engine, they support outdoor areas very well

More foliage and other detail-based sprites/models. Also more particles.

The Source engine is not a "high-quality" as the MW2 engine, but it is known for being the most efficient engine available. One full game takes less than 2GB (though thats not so hard anymore) and it runs smoothly on very low-down computers. Hell I used to have a very old Intell and it ran fine. [editline]11:38PM[/editline] Also it is the most "open" for modders than any other engine, even UDK. [editline]11:39PM[/editline] Thats how Valve makes their money baby.

The mass amount of Phong maps.

[QUOTE=kaine123;23605587] (I also think that it isn`t as polluted by console-users.)[/QUOTE] This is what makes gamers hate Valve. This is what Valve is trying not to be, PC fanboys.

[QUOTE=Firegod522;23603589]Modern Warfare 2 maps are not better than Source Engine Maps. Not all of them anyways. Like we have infinity more available content to mod into a source game. It just depends on the level designer and the texture artist (sometimes the same like me) on how the map looks. I mean sure MW2 has Dynamic Lighting, but it looks like shit, not to mention I can hardly play the game because my CPU starts yelling at me. Source games are pretty much usable on anybody with even a crappy computer. So as long as they optimized their maps correctly it doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] Ignoring that with practically no visual improvement HL2's performance has gone down the drain with the later engines. Every engine update there's a bunch of these legacy users Source is supposedly good for that get dropped by performance losses.

There is no such thing as a "better engine". Source was designed initially for tight environments, where as CoD was designed for frantic gunfights in a myriad of terrains.

[QUOTE=IronPhoenix;23610317]There is no such thing as a "better engine". Source was designed initially for tight environments, where as CoD was designed for frantic gunfights in a myriad of terrains.[/QUOTE] CryENGINE 3 and Unreal Engine 3 beg to differ. But yeah, Valve games only have good graphics in the areas where the players are supposed to be focued. L4D1/2: Survivors, Special Infected and extremely linear environments look good. Effects, normal zombies and sound is shit. HL2/expansions: Great environments and sound. Alyx looks like she's the only model Valve pays attention to. Everyone else looks like shit. Team Fortress: Great sound, decent graphics all around. The COD games try to make everything look amazing at the same time, so not everything is refined and considering they have to put out a game evey year as opposed to Valve putting out games on their own terms, the COD games are essentially not quite finished in the graphics department. Graphics aside, both games rock. I prefer playing on the 360 because most normal people would prefer not to have their faces within 3 feet of their computer screens for extended periods of time(and don't bullshit me, we all sit realatively close to our PCs while we play there's no denying it).If I can sit back and not notice these little flaws in graphics with no effect to gameplay whatsoever, who cares?

MW2's engine is still basically the Q3 engine which has the excellent advantage of being extremely modular. You can pull it apart and it will still function very well. Shit Source began life as GoldSrc which began life as Quake. I think we owe Id Software a big thank you. [editline]03:10AM[/editline] [QUOTE=kaine123;23605587][b]Also it`s supported by the best company in the world.[/b][/QUOTE] That would be Id Software.

Dunno, we're just stuck in the past. Even id's own engines have moved far, far ahead compared.

Id always sets the bar. BSP, bump mapping, Carmack's Reverse, and now MEGA textures.

[QUOTE=lonefirewarrior;23611255]CryENGINE 3 and Unreal Engine 3 beg to differ. But yeah, Valve games only have good graphics in the areas where the players are supposed to be focued. L4D1/2: Survivors, Special Infected and extremely linear environments look good. Effects, normal zombies and sound is shit. HL2/expansions: Great environments and sound. Alyx looks like she's the only model Valve pays attention to. Everyone else looks like shit. Team Fortress: Great sound, decent graphics all around. The COD games try to make everything look amazing at the same time, so not everything is refined and considering they have to put out a game evey year as opposed to Valve putting out games on their own terms, the COD games are essentially not quite finished in the graphics department. Graphics aside, both games rock. I prefer playing on the 360 because most normal people would prefer not to have their faces within 3 feet of their computer screens for extended periods of time(and don't bullshit me, we all sit realatively close to our PCs while we play there's no denying it).If I can sit back and not notice these little flaws in graphics with no effect to gameplay whatsoever, who cares?[/QUOTE] There is no such thing as a better engine. Engines are all designed to perform a specific role. You would not use the engine creative assembly use for empire to make a driving game. When planning a game, you need to look at what engine will suit you. Seriously, threads like this should be closed down as they are opened. It's just another thread for people to complain how shit source is without really understanding it at all.

[QUOTE=thisispain;23611778]and now MEGA textures.[/QUOTE] Fuckin A. I can't wait for Rage. PS: Source can still look really nice if you apply it properly. Every Valve game has pretty good frame rates for the way the games look. Alien Swarm needs some work on the optimization but considering how you have to make those levels, it's pretty damn smooth.

MW2 engine may seem cool, but the specular maps look like shit if you don't have AA applied...

Depending on the artist, Source can look incredible and way better than MW2. Overall though, MW2 looks better in my opinion because of proper visual weight, accurate specular maps on everything (not just models like Source), and of coarse the per-pixel lighting and great use of color correction. Seriously, I've seen the game with color correction off and it looks like ass.

[QUOTE=IronPhoenix;23611945]There is no such thing as a better engine. Engines are all designed to perform a specific role. You would not use the engine creative assembly use for empire to make a driving game. When planning a game, you need to look at what engine will suit you. Seriously, threads like this should be closed down as they are opened. It's just another thread for people to complain how shit source is without really understanding it at all.[/QUOTE] Are you implying we have to be Source fanboys here?

[QUOTE=WebOfTrust;23614152]Are you implying we have to be Source fanboys here?[/QUOTE] I'm implying that people should learn about why the engine was made, instead of automatically saying that source is shit for massive space battles.

[QUOTE=IronPhoenix;23614215]I'm implying that people should learn about why the engine was made, instead of automatically saying that source is shit for massive space battles.[/QUOTE] Of course nobody said that. I don't think you understood a word I said. As everyone else said, Source looks good when applied to the right areas while COD cuts a lot of corners to make their graphics look the way they do. Oh and... [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvl31g77Z8[/url] ... Better graphics, destructable environments, water physics with lower hardware requirements to allow for PS3 and 360 to run the same game with the same level of detail. Source can't do any of that anywhere near the same level without major detractions. There are better engines. [editline]10:50AM[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;23611605]MW2's engine is still basically the Q3 engine which has the excellent advantage of being extremely modular. You can pull it apart and it will still function very well. Shit Source began life as GoldSrc which began life as Quake. I think we owe Id Software a big thank you. [editline]03:10AM[/editline] That would be Id Software.[/QUOTE] Id software is the shit. They hang in the background and pull the strings on all the developers we love, lol

Id is bankrupt... They sold off Duke Nukem to Valve I think too. They are closing down shop this year I heard.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;23617908]Id is bankrupt... They sold off Duke Nukem to Valve I think too. They are closing down shop this year I heard.[/QUOTE] ID is part of Bethesda Softworks. All of what you heard is bull.

[QUOTE=IronPhoenix;23618188]ID is part of Bethesda Softworks. All of what you heard is bull.[/QUOTE] Thank god, I loved Id.

[QUOTE=lonefirewarrior;23615047] Oh and... [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvl31g77Z8[/url] ... Better graphics, destructable environments, water physics with lower hardware requirements to allow for PS3 and 360 to run the same game with the same level of detail. Source can't do any of that anywhere near the same level without major detractions. There are better engines.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but then again Crysis actually has pretty ugly indoor areas, the water 'physics' are just a special shader similar to parallax (which source actually has) combined with a small amount of code to handle the extra physics calculations, and crysis only has 1 main light, the sun. Crysis isn't that technically impressive, and has higher requirements than Source by a long way.

[QUOTE=SnakeFace;23618491]Yeah, but then again Crysis actually has pretty ugly indoor areas, the water 'physics' are just a special shader similar to parallax (which source actually has) combined with a small amount of code to handle the extra physics calculations, and crysis only has 1 main light, the sun. Crysis isn't that technically impressive, and has higher requirements than Source by a long way.[/QUOTE] That video is for Crysis 2 and Crytek says it's because of their new engine the hardware requirements aren't as heavy as the first's. But, yeah the indoor environments weren't too impressive in the first game. Luckly, since the second revolves around New York, that'll change.