Sure, if you think the eye-searing HDR and the ?I have butter smeared on my monitor? blurring in today's games looks good.Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Sure, if you think the eye-searing HDR and the ?I have butter smeared on my monitor? blurring in today's games looks good.Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games
Don?t be fooled into thinking this engine is somehow inferior just because you don?t get ugly effects modern games force down our throats.
Two years later I'm still impressed by the Fear engine's ability to make things look just like real life. Every surface it gives us - concrete, steel, wood, rock, plastic, etc - looks real.
Also the soft specular highlights they have on surfaces look amazing and the shadowing is as clean as a whistle without the muddled blur you get in some ?next gen? engines.
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Sure, if you think the eye-searing HDR and the ?I have butter smeared on my monitor? blurring in today's games looks good.Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games
Don?t be fooled into thinking this engine is somehow inferior just because you don?t get ugly effects modern games force down our throats.
Two years later I'm still impressed by the Fear engine's ability to make things look just like real life. Every surface it gives us - concrete, steel, wood, rock, plastic, etc - looks real.
Also the soft specular highlights they have on surfaces look amazing and the shadowing is as clean as a whistle without the muddled blur you get in some ?next gen? engines.
FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR. Everything is either blue, grey, or black. Every corridor looks the same.
Lot of newer games look like crap too but FEAR looks like you are playing a 5 year old game with no thought involved into level designing and art work involved.
No it doesn't; Fear looks like real life but because people don't see "OMG butter blur" like in new games they somehow think it's dated.FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR.
Much like an office building or back-alley in real life.Everything is either blue, grey, or black. Every corridor looks the same.
You're flip-flopping between graphics, artwork and level design now. You might not like the level design but that doesn't mean the graphics are dated like you originally claimed.Lot of newer games look like crap too but FEAR looks like you are playing a 5 year old game with no thought involved into level designing and art work involved.
Originally posted by: CrystalBay
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Sure, if you think the eye-searing HDR and the ?I have butter smeared on my monitor? blurring in today's games looks good.Graphics are looking way dated. It looks horrible now compared to any of the newer games
Don?t be fooled into thinking this engine is somehow inferior just because you don?t get ugly effects modern games force down our throats.
Two years later I'm still impressed by the Fear engine's ability to make things look just like real life. Every surface it gives us - concrete, steel, wood, rock, plastic, etc - looks real.
Also the soft specular highlights they have on surfaces look amazing and the shadowing is as clean as a whistle without the muddled blur you get in some ?next gen? engines.
FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR. Everything is either blue, grey, or black. Every corridor looks the same.
Lot of newer games look like crap too but FEAR looks like you are playing a 5 year old game with no thought involved into level designing and art work involved.
Well , while agree with you on the art assets, but if you ask me the lighting on HL2 looks five years older than FEARS awesome lighting and particles . OK lets talk about HL2's awesome weapons against FEARS again no comparison...
You just came in here to troll , because you don't like FEAR , I get it...
Originally posted by: BFG10K
No it doesn't; Fear looks like real life but because people don't see "OMG butter blur" like in new games they somehow think it's dated.FEAR looks like crap. Looks crappier than Half Life 2 which is older than FEAR.
Much like an office building or back-alley in real life.
You're flip-flopping between graphics, artwork and level design now. You might not like the level design but that doesn't mean the graphics are dated like you originally claimed.
It?s much closer than most other games, even new ones.Fear does not resemble real life.
HL2's lighting & shadowing system is positively primitive compared to Fear's, as is it's particle system.Half life 2 looks more real than this and the engine is older than FEAR.
Again just like real life. Have you ever been into an office building where an entire floor is a bunch of identical cubicles? I don't think you have or you wouldn?t be surprised at what you?re seeing in Fear.Every cubicle looks exactly the same.
Then you might have a graphics issue with your system.Can't even see the textures on the ground.
LOL, do you even know what a poly is? Demonstrate to us with screenshots where Fear suffers in this regard.It's low poly dated game.
No, I'm telling you that the way the game renders them looks close to real life. When I go outside I don't see a bunch of blurring or blinding light like most modern engines give me. What I see are surfaces quite close to how Fear renders them.You telling me every back alley or office buildings look exactly the same in real life?
You claimed it looks dated so therefore you must be comparing it to modem engines.Yeah but I also didn't claim that newer games look good because it looks shiny did I?
Except I never made any claim about anything being shiny, I was talking about brightness and blur.But you put it in my mouth so you can go on about how you feel about shiny butter graphics.
Gamespot also told us Halo for the PC is great. :roll:http://www.gamespot.com/pc/act...ary&tag=summary;review
Originally posted by: BFG10K
It?s much closer than most other games, even new ones.
HL2's lighting & shadowing system is positively primitive compared to Fear's, as is it's particle system.
Again just like real life. Have you ever been into an office building where an entire floor is a bunch of identical cubicles? I don't think you have or you wouldn?t be surprised at what you?re seeing in Fear.
Then you might have a graphics issue with your system.
LOL, do you even know what a poly is? Demonstrate to us with screenshots where Fear suffers in this regard.
No, I'm telling you that the way the game renders them looks close to real life. When I go outside I don't see a bunch of blurring or blinding light like most modern engines give me. What I see are surfaces quite close to how Fear renders them.
You claimed it looks dated so therefore you must be comparing it to modem engines.
Except I never made any claim about anything being shiny, I was talking about brightness and blur.
Gamespot also told us Halo for the PC is great. :roll:
By your reasoning GLQuake looks better than HL2.It still looks better than FEAR.
I thought your issue was Fear's texturing but now you're complaining about the contents of cubicles?Yup I used to work in one. Some people have diff. things on their cubicle. In FEAR every cubicle had exactly the same thing. Computer, phone, and files.
Then you must be blind as I don't know anyone else that had issues seeing floor textures, except for floors intentionally dark ("void") that is.Nope played FEAR Persues Mendate at the highest settings with 4xAA.
Thanks for proving you don't know what a poly is.http://www.gamespot.com/pages/...d.php?pid=941968&img=4
But things don't blur when you're standing till unless you have a vision problem.When you run or move your head quickly things can blur.
I play Fear because it's fun. That the graphics engine is great at rendering life-like scenes is a bonus.Keep on playing FEAR then if it's life like to you.
Which ones and why? I want to hear it in your own words.Some new modern games look terrible.
The same thing applied to HL2 when compared to Doom 3 or Far Cry back in 2004 yet even today you claim it looks great.And it does look dated. It felt like I was playing quake 2 and just moved up to quake 3.
So by what metric do you base HL2 as looking good given other than HDR the visuals are pretty much the same as they were in 2004, visuals that were already inferior to Doom 3 or Far Cry?Either way you want to go on about brightness and blur when I didn't mention such things.
Originally posted by: BFG10K
By your reasoning GLQuake looks better than HL2.
I thought your issue was Fear's texturing but now you're complaining about the contents of cubicles?
Then you must be blind as I don't know anyone else that had issues seeing floor textures, except for floors intentionally dark ("void") that is.
Thanks for proving you don't know what a poly is.
But things don't blur when you're standing till unless you have a vision problem.
I play Fear because it's fun. That the graphics engine is great at rendering life-like scenes is a bonus.
Which ones and why? I want to hear it in your own words.
The same thing applied to HL2 when compared to Doom 3 or Far Cry back in 2004 yet even today you claim it looks great.
Also in terms of visuals all they?ve pretty much added to the HL2 engine is HDR but you?re claiming brightness isn?t what you?re referring to when you think HL2 looks good.
So by what metric do you base HL2 as looking good given other than HDR the visuals are pretty much the same as they were in 2004, visuals that were already inferior to Doom 3 or Far Cry?
Not using your reasoning. Using your reasoning one could claim GLQuake looks better than HL2.Half Life looks a lot better than GLQuake or FEAR.
In otherwords more goal-post shifting on your part, aka trolling.Everything that I see. It's the whole presentation.
Huh?Still playing single textures are we?
You told us the game was "low poly" and when I asked you for an example you provided something that wasn't even remotely capable of demonstrating what you were talking about, thereby proving you don't know what you're talking about.It proves you have no idea what you are talking about but think you do. Instead of acting like you know it all why not show an example?
I would suggest getting your vision checked as you appear to have some serious issues.I haven't seen a single game when it blurs while sitting idle.
Neither of which make a game look dated which is what you originally claimed. Again your goal-post shifting (aka trolling) is simply comical.Probably Timeshift. Crappy level design. Bad artistic taste.
No it isn't.It used to be fun 3 years ago. but it's crap now.
HL2 when it shipped looked dated compared to Doom 3 or Far Cry. It also looks dated today against modern games.Either way it still looks better graphically.
Ah, it makes perfect sense now. What we're dealing with is a HL2 fanboy, the kind that can?t accept how graphically inferior that engine was to games back in 2004, much less against today?s games.Inferior? Not so.. I think Half life looks better than Farcry. Doom 3 looks terrible too.