I think a key thing to keep in mind is that graphics get outdated but art design is basically timeless.
Source is still my favorite engine, and it [i]can[/i] look extremely good too.
[QUOTE=FpShepard;44476984]Not a fair comparison at all, xbox was a lot weaker than a computer needed to run HL2 at high settings.
Half life 2 looks like shit for xbox, miles worse than halo 2 on the same system.
[img]http://cdn0.spong.com/screen-shot/h/a/halflife2176675l/_-Half-Life-2-Xbox-_.jpg[/img] [img]http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2005/08/29/half-life-2-20050829035447476-1232834_640w.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
And to continue the trend, here's Titanfall (a game also made in source) running on an Xbox 360:
[t]http://mp1st.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Titanfall-360.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Jays2Kings;44485378]And to continue the trend, here's Titanfall (a game also made in source) running on an Xbox 360:
[t]http://mp1st.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Titanfall-360.png[/t][/QUOTE]
They could have at least put some more work on a lot of the textures. Some look muddy and low rez.
[QUOTE=Vipes;44485918]They could have at least put some more work on a lot of the textures. Some look muddy and low rez.[/QUOTE]
As he said that is the 360 version. They made cuts to maintain a solid frame rate. The PC and xbone versions look much better.
[QUOTE=Skyward;44488806]As he said that is the 360 version. They made cuts to maintain a solid frame rate. The PC and xbone versions look much better.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I should have also provided a reference, but here's the Xbox One version as well:
[t]http://mp1st.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Titanfall-Xbox-One.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Vipes;44485918]They could have at least put some more work on a lot of the textures. Some look muddy and low rez.[/QUOTE]
they had to make room for the 36 gigabytes of audio somehow! (seriously the audio is the biggest part of the game)
[QUOTE=Jays2Kings;44489547]Yeah I should have also provided a reference, but here's the Xbox One version as well:
[t]http://mp1st.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Titanfall-Xbox-One.png[/t][/QUOTE]
from what I know titanfall has very little code from source still in. I think they just wanted to work with code they were familiar with
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;44490089]they had to make room for the 36 gigabytes of audio somehow! (seriously the audio is the biggest part of the game)[/QUOTE]
which is really surprising considering that the game's audio design isn't really top notch.
i wish more games would work on audio and ai instead of just textures and shit.
[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;44490255]from what I know titanfall has very little code from source still in. [/QUOTE]
never been said
they have said they rewrote a lot, including a lot of the renderer
never really said how much though iirc
[QUOTE=Recurracy;44480679]about the datedness of the game, I just wanna go ahead and compare stalker: shadow of chernobyl's graphics to half-life 2's, hl2 was released in 2004 and stalker: soc in 2007
and then there's call of pripyat which does look a shitload better, although I still think it won't age as well as half life 2 did:
though I guess the textures don't really do it justice because the lighting itself is pretty baller, though it has its quirks sometimes.
I mean yeah it's made by a ukrainian company that gets nowhere near the size or budget of valve's, now please don't think I hate stalker or something because I love the game to death but what I mean is hl2 has aged very well compared to games released three years later.[/QUOTE]
why are you comparing the graphics of a massive free-roaming game with dynamic AI to a very linear action game with loads of loading screens?
[QUOTE=FpShepard;44476984]Not a fair comparison at all, xbox was a lot weaker than a computer needed to run HL2 at high settings.
Half life 2 looks like shit for xbox, miles worse than halo 2 on the same system.
[IMG]http://cdn0.spong.com/screen-shot/h/a/halflife2176675l/_-Half-Life-2-Xbox-_.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2005/08/29/half-life-2-20050829035447476-1232834_640w.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Despite how awful it looks, its sort of impressive they got the full game to run in a playable state on something with a 700 Mhz Pentium III and 64 MB of RAM, which was vastly underpowered for late-2005's standards when that version was released. The only difference besides the low textures and models I noticed is there are less random props scattered on the ground. Probably attests to the flexibility and efficiency of the Source engine I suppose.
The 360 version in the Orange Box looked MUCH better, probably due to it using the 2007 Source engine. Actually, I remember remarking that it looking a bit better than the PC version, since it hadn't been updated to the 2007 version yet.
[QUOTE=Demache;44491814]Despite how awful it looks, its sort of impressive they got the full game to run in a playable state on something with a 700 Mhz Pentium III and 64 MB of RAM, which was vastly underpowered for late-2005's standards when that version was released. The only difference besides the low textures and models I noticed is there are less random props scattered on the ground. Probably attests to the flexibility and efficiency of the Source engine I suppose.
The 360 version in the Orange Box looked MUCH better, probably due to it using the 2007 Source engine. Actually, I remember remarking that it looking a bit better than the PC version, since it hadn't been updated to the 2007 version yet.[/QUOTE]
Seriously though, the fact that they put HL2 on the Xbox is a feat in itself. It does look pretty good in motion as well, those aren't the best screenshots of it. The textures are a lot worse, but the models are around the medium quality.
[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;44490255]from what I know [B]titanfall has very little code from source still in[/B]. I think they just wanted to work with code they were familiar with[/QUOTE]
As a programmer, I can tell you this is not how game engines work.
My friend gave the Xbox version of Half-life 2 as a birthday gift to another friend. He had a shit computer and no internet connection, so he never really experienced the game.
It wasn't on par with the PC version. However, the graphics were good enough and the core experience of the game was there. I think it did the job for the console gamers who heard a lot about Half-Life 2 at the time.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;44491432]why are you comparing the graphics of a massive free-roaming game with dynamic AI to a very linear action game with loads of loading screens?[/QUOTE]
That's actually a really good question and I thought I thought it out but turns out I did not actually think of it as well as I thought I did
I guess the reasoning I had for it was that a game released in 2007 is 'supposed' to look better than a game released in 2004 since 3 years is a long time and I expected a load of improvements in graphical technologies in those three years but I could've known myself that expectancies don't mean shit, and yeah you're right, stalker's maps are loads bigger than hl2's but there's still a lot of transition points in the game, although considerably less than hl2
Unreal 3/4 is great, but source still has its charms and I honestly enjoy working in source for making games/mods. I really hope Valve jumps on board the indie train and provides a standalone Source Engine 2 SDK. I'd take Source 2 over Unreal 4 any day, to be honest. Maybe I'm just weird like that.
[editline]9th April 2014[/editline]
Also, without any hint of modesty I've completely mastered Hammer Editor and know it like the inside of my eyelids, so it'd be nice not to have all that go to waste if I need to use unity/udk
Ideally, Source 2 should have modding tools which don't look like they're from the 90s.
Also it would be nice to move away from .bsp to something not so outdated.
[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;44475065]Why does Eli have a lazy eye?![/QUOTE]
Could be worse. [URL="http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/04/Cinematic-Mod-10-new-Alyx-00.jpg"]Alyx could be incredibly cold and underdressed[/URL] (NSFW)
[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;44490255]from what I know titanfall has very little code from source still in. I think they just wanted to work with code they were familiar with[/QUOTE]
I bet that you can find stuff from source and quake.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;44500360]Unreal 3/4 is great, but source still has its charms and I honestly enjoy working in source for making games/mods. I really hope Valve jumps on board the indie train and provides a standalone Source Engine 2 SDK. I'd take Source 2 over Unreal 4 any day, to be honest. Maybe I'm just weird like that.
[editline]9th April 2014[/editline]
Also, without any hint of modesty I've completely mastered Hammer Editor and know it like the inside of my eyelids, so it'd be nice not to have all that go to waste if I need to use unity/udk[/QUOTE]
any redesign of their editing tools will have only passing semblance to the current toolset, just like how different ue4 is from ue3. you would have very little advantage over switching engines entirely.
the moral is don't get fond of software because that's a terrible way to decide on something that changes so much and so fast.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;44500477]Could be worse. [url=http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/04/Cinematic-Mod-10-new-Alyx-00.jpg]Alyx could be incredibly cold and underdressed[/url][/QUOTE]
No Deeplinking please
oh, I guess I was wrong about the titanfall source thing.
I don't even remember where I heard it from
[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;44501362]oh, I guess I was wrong about the titanfall source thing.
I don't even remember where I heard it from[/QUOTE]
[t]http://puu.sh/82JPA.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;44501362]oh, I guess I was wrong about the titanfall source thing.
I don't even remember where I heard it from[/QUOTE]
The devs said themselves in interviews that they rewrote the 3D renderer, but it's certainly still the same engine.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44474362][IMG]http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/31233357/etytbgq.0_cinema_960.0.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I kind of want a wallpaper sized version of this
[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;44503489]I kind of want a wallpaper sized version of this[/QUOTE]
Follow the article links.
[url]http://i.imgur.com/etyTBGQ.jpg[/url]
[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;44503489]I kind of want a wallpaper sized version of this[/QUOTE]
At least be bothered to click links man. >_<
(1920x1080)
[t]http://i.imgur.com/etyTBGQ.jpg[/t]
[editline]9th April 2014[/editline]
Ah bitch, ninja'd. D:
[QUOTE=laserpanda;44483461]I'd say it's aged fairly well compared to other 2004 releases.
[img]http://screenshots.en.sftcdn.net/en/scrn/31000/31858/unreal-tournament-2004-2.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
idk man, 2004 didn't look too bad on other official maps
[t]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/598158853726148758/5CDF8EF1E0005F62E4AE1F0ACC127481632966D1/[/t]
[t]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/598158853726399024/B7DEDAFC4794BBC94B1A32D559F9AAA7EC1C3587/[/t]
[t]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/598158853726400254/840499FCD503E37CC6E16D86617B300618408B8A/[/t]
I think most of the onslaught maps in general looked worse because of how large scale they were
[QUOTE=VintageCat;44483185]Stalker was intended to release in 2004 and most graphics were unupdated since then[/QUOTE]
And even so most of the problems graphically are because of the strange model textures (which weren't updated from earlier builds). The environments actually do look pretty good.
[t]http://image.gamespotcdn.com/gamespot/images/2002/pcnews/110702/stalker/stalker_screen005.jpg[/t]
Hell, this is even from 2002 without dynamic lighting and it still looks okay (aside from the wonky-ass hand)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.