[QUOTE=Sally;41153616]About that list of projects.[/QUOTE]
Shame, I was looking forward to the gayben game.
I'm sure Source 2 will be impressive, but I doubt it will compete with [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHzhinTX1q4"]Frostbite 3[/URL] with things like destruction, dynamic water and dynamic weather. Most people would be happy if they made Hammer better.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41181585]I'm sure Source 2 will be impressive, but I doubt it will compete with [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHzhinTX1q4"]Frostbite 3[/URL] with things like destruction, dynamic water and dynamic weather. Most people would be happy if they made Hammer better.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget dynamic vehicle damage
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41181585]I'm sure Source 2 will be impressive, but I doubt it will compete with [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHzhinTX1q4"]Frostbite 3[/URL] with things like destruction, dynamic water and dynamic weather. Most people would be happy if they made Hammer better.[/QUOTE]
after all this time, I doubt people will be happy with just an upgraded Hammer.
Part of me hopes that the only WYSIWYG element in hammer will be the lighting.
[QUOTE=GameDev;41187011]Part of me hopes that the only WYSIWYG element in hammer will be the lighting.[/QUOTE]
Anything to reduce or completely remove the need to compile maps would be magnificent.
[QUOTE=azgag;41186790]after all this time, I doubt people will be happy with just an upgraded Hammer.[/QUOTE]
I would.
tbh, I hope they keep the way of making brushes, but also allow lightmaps on models and such. If they keep the static lighting which I would be completely fine with. As long as they improve it.
[QUOTE=azgag;41186790]after all this time, I doubt people will be happy with just an upgraded Hammer.[/QUOTE]
Look at this thread a few pages ago, people would be happy with an upgraded toolset. Something that's not another batch of authoring tools.
Sure the rendering ability would probably be better, stuff like what most engines have. But Valve will never compete with Frostbite 3, Unreal 4 and Cry Engine 3.4 in technical ability.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;41187588]tbh, I hope they keep the way of making brushes, but also allow lightmaps on models and such. If they keep the static lighting which I would be completely fine with. As long as they improve it.[/QUOTE]
Still having blocky geometry in 2013, no matter the nostaglia. I would be disappointed, but not surprised.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41188352]
Sure the rendering ability would probably be better, stuff like what most engines have. But Valve will never compete with Frostbite 3, Unreal 4 and Cry Engine 3.4 in technical ability.
[/QUOTE]
you have no basis for saying that
[QUOTE=NixNax123;41188606]you have no basis for saying that[/QUOTE]
Valve has never been about graphics, and there last dozen or so games proves that.
Half-Life 2 looked very awesome for its day, especially its art style. But Far Cry and Doom 3 had better graphics.
Thing is, Half Life 2 ran beautifully on everything. Far Cry and Doom 3 were quite demanding back in the day. I'd rather have them focus on making things look good but perform well rather than be "top of the line". We have Crytek and Epic for that stuff.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41188795]But Far Cry and Doom 3 had better graphics.[/QUOTE]
no they didn't
[img]http://nowgamer.net-genie.co.uk/siteimage/scale/0/0/350533.gif[/img]
[img]http://demo.gamespotclone.com/Image/covers/doom-3-resurrection-of-evil/doom-3-resurrection-of-evil-image844588.jpg[/img]
[editline]25th June 2013[/editline]
one of the only good things doom 3 had going for it graphically was the stenciled shadows
and the real time everything
[QUOTE=NixNax123;41188939]no they didn't
[img]http://nowgamer.net-genie.co.uk/siteimage/scale/0/0/350533.gif[/img]
[img]http://demo.gamespotclone.com/Image/covers/doom-3-resurrection-of-evil/doom-3-resurrection-of-evil-image844588.jpg[/img]
[editline]25th June 2013[/editline]
one of the only good things doom 3 had going for it graphically was the stenciled shadows[/QUOTE]
Wow, 2 games made in 2004 are outdated by today. Great job, astounding. Was that what you were trying to point point out?
Also:
[video=youtube;rzp9fMEi9ys]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzp9fMEi9ys[/video]
The best "next gen" graphics mod that HL2 has is Cinematic mod and that is sad.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41190819]Wow, 2 games made in 2004 are outdated by today. Great job, astounding. Was that what you were trying to point point out?
Also:
[video=youtube;rzp9fMEi9ys]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzp9fMEi9ys[/video]
The best "next gen" graphics mod that HL2 has is Cinematic mod and that is sad.[/QUOTE]
Throwing bloom everywhere does NOT make something next gen.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41190894]Throwing bloom everywhere does NOT make something next gen.[/QUOTE]
Irronically, the new games especially Battlefield 3 has alot of bloom. So yes, next gen.
But the Sikkmod for Doom 3 has some cool shit like HD textures and parallax mapping, but the lens flares, bloom and motion blur is [B]optional[/B].
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41190930]Irronically, the new games especially Battlefield 3 has alot of bloom.
[/QUOTE]
We know, it's an ugly thing we've picked up from Film.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41190930]
But the Sikkmod for Doom 3 has some cool shit like HD textures and parallax mapping, but the lens flares, bloom and motion blur is [B]optional[/B].[/QUOTE]
"HD" Textures are very subjective, Source's are 512^2 to 1024^2: and HL2 Enhancement is working on 2048^2 and higher.
In any event, it takes away from the point that in 2004: HL2 was better looking than FC and Doom 3, not counting graphics mods that came out YEARS later.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41190967]We know, it's an ugly thing we've picked up from Film.[/quote]
Yep, and which is exactly my point.
[quote]"HD" Textures are very subjective, Source's are 512^2 to 1024^2: and HL2 Enhancement is working on 2048^2 and higher.[/quote]
Half-Life 2 EM isn't released yet, and from what you told me will not take advantage of Biohazard's lighting effects. Sikk mod has this thanks to Doom 3's dynamic lighting, plus parallax occlusion mapping, (sikkmod) the texture packs, (also sikkmod) some new shader effects, etc.
[quote]
In any event, it takes away from the point that in 2004: HL2 was better looking than FC and Doom 3, not counting graphics mods that came out YEARS later.[/QUOTE]
Better looking in art style and stylization, sort of like how Mirror's Edge looks fucking amazing. Even with other games having better lighting effects/textures.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41191143]Yep, and which is exactly my point.
Half-Life 2 EM isn't released yet, and from what you told me will not take advantage of Biohazard's lighting effects. Sikk mod has this thanks to Doom 3's dynamic lighting, plus parallax occlusion mapping, (sikkmod) the texture packs, (also sikkmod) some new shader effects, etc.
Better looking in art style and stylization, sort of like how Mirror's Edge looks fucking amazing. Even with other games having better lighting effects/textures.[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ are you stupid or something? FC and Doom 3 look like shit because there is NO style and no graphic fidelity.
You're not good at this whole thing.
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;41191471]Jesus christ are you stupid or something? FC and Doom 3 look like shit because there is NO style and no graphic fidelity.
You're not good at this whole thing.[/QUOTE]
Are you blind as a bat? Doom 3 has way better lighting effects (vs HL2 having precomputed lighting), and Far Cry has way better water, vegetation and is more open.
And it's style has nothing to do with its technical ability, dude.
Far Cry looked like shit dude.
In 2004, it did not. Everyone I've talked to in the HL community has said the same thing, which why I'm kinda shocked here in this thread as well.
I imagine Crysis will look terrible in a few years, too.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41191671]In 2004, it did not. Everyone I've talked to in the HL community has said the same thing, which why I'm kinda shocked here in this thread as well.
I imagine Crysis will look terrible in a few years, too.[/QUOTE]
Far Cry had incredibly flat lighting, no normal maps, and really terrible texture res/model complexity. Compare that screenshot with the M4 to any of HL2's weapon models.
[img]http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2005/09/lost_coast_benchmark/pistol.jpg[/img]
HL2's big advantage at the time was that it was real big on shaders. Normals, cubemaps, distortion, etc. While Far Cry did macro detail, with it's density of trees and long view distance, HL2 did the micro detail with lighting, model, and texture fidelity.
Not to mention character models in HL2 were drastically better than anything else that day and age.
I mean, you can't really get me to think this:
[t]http://gryitechnologie.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/far_cry.jpg[/t]
Looks graphically more impressive than this:
[t]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090604225424/half-life/en/images/5/5e/Half-Life_2_Dr_Breen_Office.jpg[/t]
[editline]25th June 2013[/editline]
Also:
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41190819]
Also:
[video=youtube;rzp9fMEi9ys]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzp9fMEi9ys[/video]
The best "next gen" graphics mod that HL2 has is Cinematic mod and that is sad.[/QUOTE]
You can mod GTAIV to look almost photorealistic.
[t]http://i028.radikal.ru/1206/1a/eeeb12e681c3.jpg[/t]
Does that mean it's engine is better than something like Cryengine? No, of course not.
[QUOTE=The Vman;41192199]HL2's big advantage at the time was that it was real big on shaders. [B]Normals[/B], cubemaps, distortion, etc.[/QUOTE]
Eh, to be fair a large majority of HL2 models lacked normal maps (viewmodels included)
The ones that DID have normal maps were pretty much just facemaps and the occasional body.
[QUOTE=The Vman;41192199]Far Cry had incredibly flat lighting, no normal maps, and really terrible texture res/model complexity. Compare that screenshot with the M4 to any of HL2's weapon models.
[img]http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2005/09/lost_coast_benchmark/pistol.jpg[/img]
HL2's big advantage at the time was that it was real big on shaders. Normals, cubemaps, distortion, etc. While Far Cry did macro detail, with it's density of trees and long view distance, HL2 did the micro detail with lighting, model, and texture fidelity.
Not to mention character models in HL2 were drastically better than anything else that day and age.
I mean, you can't really get me to think this:
[t]http://gryitechnologie.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/far_cry.jpg[/t]
Looks graphically more impressive than this:
[t]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090604225424/half-life/en/images/5/5e/Half-Life_2_Dr_Breen_Office.jpg[/t]
.[/QUOTE]
to be fair, micro details was never far cry's focus and there's no way to say that one is better than the other
and imo far cry can look pretty ace at times (as well as doom 3, although given its focus its much better appreciated in motion)
[t]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v684/MaXThREaT/FarCry0065.jpg[/t] [t]http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/23400000/Doom-3-Hell-Knight-doom-3-23453001-1024-768.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41190894]Throwing bloom everywhere does NOT make something next gen.[/QUOTE]
The best part about sikkmod is that you can turn that off >.>
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41190894]Throwing bloom everywhere does NOT make something next gen.[/QUOTE]
Next gen = lens flares, dirty lens, chromatic aberration
[QUOTE=Dissolution;41193554]Eh, to be fair a large majority of HL2 models lacked normal maps (viewmodels included)
The ones that DID have normal maps were pretty much just facemaps and the occasional body.[/QUOTE]
All of the HL2 viewmodels have normal maps.
Umm Just tell you
Doom 3 is Idtech engine 3 Not comparable to source engine
Hl2 it self got's impressive effects
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
