Half life 2 doesn't look much improved from the previous version

[skace]

Torpid what you describe as "looking good" is simply textures. Sure Doom had a lot of steel textures and sure Quake1-3 had a lot of brown textures. But that doesn't define how well a graphics engine is. Anyone can sit down and make a completely pink map for Doom3. It just so happens that Idsoftware wanted to make an environment that LOOKED like a mars base.

It is also much harder to make your game look good with a limited color palette (think about it). But you are right that it is easier to make a game look good with a limited variety of environments. Although the question is what do you consider an environment. You have to realize the complexity of the Doom3 levels that were presented to you. Go back and look at some of the generators, the bridges, the deformable objects. Once you realize how COMPLEX these levels were, you will stop thinking it was so easy to make it look good. You have to remember that every pipe has to mapped and created by someone. It is much easier to make the outside of a building and only show a few windows than it is to generate the entire guts of a building.

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: Gomce
I may be mystaken, but, the graphics department of this game hasn't received a lot of attention. IF you think I'm wrong point me to the right screenshots site

You are sooooooooooo wrong. The graphics will be mindblowing, and the game will be 100x more complex and sophisticated than Doom 3. Just one look at the water graphics will leave you drooling.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: skace
Torpid what you describe as "looking good" is simply textures. Sure Doom had a lot of steel textures and sure Quake1-3 had a lot of brown textures. But that doesn't define how well a graphics engine is. Anyone can sit down and make a completely pink map for Doom3. It just so happens that Idsoftware wanted to make an environment that LOOKED like a mars base.

It is also much harder to make your game look good with a limited color palette (think about it). But you are right that it is easier to make a game look good with a limited variety of environments. Although the question is what do you consider an environment. You have to realize the complexity of the Doom3 levels that were presented to you. Go back and look at some of the generators, the bridges, the deformable objects. Once you realize how COMPLEX these levels were, you will stop thinking it was so easy to make it look good. You have to remember that every pipe has to mapped and created by someone. It is much easier to make the outside of a building and only show a few windows than it is to generate the entire guts of a building.

id needs some hippies.

 

[NeoV]

I'm not sure how anyone could watch the HL2 movies and not think the game looks amazing - I saw them in person at E3, and seeing them released this week makes me wonder why that took so long, but I think the game looks amazing.

 

[prometheusxls]

I played CS:Source Beta. The game is absolutely amazing. It looks as good as Far Cry Doom III, or whatever. From a game play perspective it blows them away... Whats the problem?

 

[Cawchy87]

Quite honestly i don't care that much about graphics. The thing i am worried about is game play. HL still keeps my attention with counterstrike and if it is counterstrike with better graphics and the same game play i am not sure if you could ask for much more out of a game.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: skace
Torpid what you describe as "looking good" is simply textures. Sure Doom had a lot of steel textures and sure Quake1-3 had a lot of brown textures. But that doesn't define how well a graphics engine is. Anyone can sit down and make a completely pink map for Doom3. It just so happens that Idsoftware wanted to make an environment that LOOKED like a mars base.

It is also much harder to make your game look good with a limited color palette (think about it). But you are right that it is easier to make a game look good with a limited variety of environments. Although the question is what do you consider an environment. You have to realize the complexity of the Doom3 levels that were presented to you. Go back and look at some of the generators, the bridges, the deformable objects. Once you realize how COMPLEX these levels were, you will stop thinking it was so easy to make it look good. You have to remember that every pipe has to mapped and created by someone. It is much easier to make the outside of a building and only show a few windows than it is to generate the entire guts of a building.

Yes, I agree that the graphics engine in doom 3 was pretty impressive, as were all the 3d objects. That impressed me for a while, but eventually it wore thin as there is so little variety and some of it just looks bland. The things I've seen of half life make me think that I will constantly be impressed with how the game looks even if it's not as technically impressive.

 

[Genx87]

I cant make up my mind if the graphics in HL2 are great or just good. There are times where I have seen some lighting that looks great. And then there are times where they used HL1 graphics.

It seems like the lighting is nice but the wall textures seem like they were taken from HL1 in some areas.

Until the game gets out I really cant make a final decision. I just hope it does indeed impress.

 

[elkinm]

I haven't played the beta but from the videos and screenshots I think the textures are just to flat. Sometimes they seem even worse then HL 1. They look completely flat and one colored. It definitely needs bump mapping and shading on flat surfaces to make them realistic. I'll try the beta and hopefully it is better.