[QUOTE=Silikone;31566791]Halo 2 is a bad example. Take some PC games of the GeForce 6800/Radeon X800 times instead.
[img]http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Farcry_2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/doom31a_1091862243.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
that's probably the nicest looking screenshot ever taken of doom. Doom is ugly as hell.
I don't think they understand the difference between in-game art, models and textures, and what the game engine does.
The strength of a game engine doesn't come from the 'beauty' of a game. It comes from versatility, the tools it gives and how heavy it weighs on a CPU.
These two guys are morons.
Interesting choices, I was going to laugh if they put the X-ray engine in there. (But they didn't)
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;31566905]GEM2[/QUOTE]
The GEM series of engines sucks.
In my opinion, Woflire's Phoenix Engine should've been on the list. Just check out the videos they made for the Overgrowth alphas. Dayum.
These guys don't understand what the fuck they're talking about.
What?
No FPS Maker engine?
Bullshit.
No X-ray? That engine is fucking amazing, I know fuck all about it but A-life and the Lighting are sexy. Not sure if they're part of the engine or what though.
[QUOTE=sparky28000;31535388]I for one actually like the Gamebryo engine.[/QUOTE]
You have to differentiate Gamebyro used for Bethseda stuff and Gamebyro used for other games.
Gambyro was used to make Civilization IV as well.
[editline]6th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;31565339]Source is amazing for it's age, as far as video game technology goes.
Halo 2 still looks like this today.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/51/Halo2_widescreen.jpg/800px-Halo2_widescreen.jpg[/img]
Source looks like this today.
[img]http://www.gamestar.hu/apix_collect/0802/half-life-2-episode-two/half-life-2-episode-two_20080223133834_6050_original.jpg[/img]
And don't say the engine has progressed, the OB update didn't change a large amount of the major gears and cogs behind it all, it just added new features primarily like the particle editor[/QUOTE]
Source was never made to basically melt your computer. Source was made so that everyone could play it, with old computers and new computers and still have a decent looking game.
The people that complain it doesn't look good don't realize just how optimized it is now.
[QUOTE=Saber15;31541095]Except something like that would use an obscene amount of edicts, brushes, and take half of eternity for the lighting to be baked in during rendering. God forbid you try to optimize that, as well. Source can do extreme detail, but the rest of the level must also be tiny.[/QUOTE]
Actually it seems like there would be very little edicts as prop_statics don't affect edict levels. There also wouldn't be many brushes as that is all displacement. Yeah it might take awhile to compile but not "half of eternity." Looking at the map, probably 30 minutes; an hour tops. And optimizing those areas shown in the video would be pretty easy as the source engine uses binary space partitioning which is designed to ideally optimize small corridors and caverns like that.
[QUOTE=zombini;31538449]My god, that looks better than Cryengine 3. Can't wait to see what HL3 will look like.
EDIT: I watched it in 720p and came a little. I hope to god that valve uses what these people did for things like Ice caves in the Arctic with HL3.[/QUOTE]
Source can look better than anything out there, but only with the right artist. That is something that annoys me, seeing people claim something is better than something else because an amazingly talented person worked for a goddamned long time on it, if that same person did something similar on cryengine 3. I'm betting it would look quite a deal nicer.
[QUOTE=Tark;31572926]The GEM series of engines sucks.[/QUOTE]
from a graphics point of view, maybe, gameplay? wouldn't say so
No mention of the Serious Engine of course.
Last 3 should have been CryEngine 3, Unreal Engine, Source
[QUOTE=Hazrd24;31580654]Actually it seems like there would be very little edicts as prop_statics don't affect edict levels. There also wouldn't be many brushes as that is all displacement. Yeah it might take awhile to compile but not "half of eternity." Looking at the map, probably 30 minutes; an hour tops. And optimizing those areas shown in the video would be pretty easy as the source engine uses binary space partitioning which is designed to ideally optimize small corridors and caverns like that.[/QUOTE]
Its not an outdoorsy engine anyway. It was always meant from indoor areas.
I like source in Valve games, but it just feels...lazy in other games, I don't know...
The only part I laughed was when he said "You see all those Battlefield vs Call of Duty videos on youtube?" "No, I can't read" :v:
[QUOTE=Clementine;31597095]I like source in Valve games, but it just feels...lazy in other games, I don't know...[/QUOTE]
Have you seen Xenoclash? Or the newest game to come out? I forget its name but its a FPS/RTS hybrid.
I don't like it when people just say "HURR SOURCE ENGINE IS #1 BECAUSE PEOPLE USE IT ALL THE TIME"
:suicide:
I used to like these guys. [B][I][U]Why did I used to like these guys?[/U][/I][/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
