Two years after HL2 and no updated graphics for HL2 Episode One?

[T2k]

Originally posted by: toyota
i think the graphics are getting very dated.

:Q

It's certainly not very dated nor looks like that.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
People have a short memory.

Valve did update the engine with HDR, which was originally NOT a feature of the Source Engine. They could implement it, and not only they updated their Engine (which almost never happens from other development houses), but they made HDR "theirs", by tweaking the way it's being rendered by GPUs with SM 2.0.

The Source Engine is one of the few others around that can actually be regularly revised/updated.

Usually, when a game is released, it has an engine running it, but other than game-play related patches, the engine is left out over time, and then another version of that engine is made for the sequel, or a pseudo-sequel of that previous title (such as Crysis and Prey).

Valve, on the other hand, created an Engine that can, that has been, and that will be updated over time.

And they even wrote a new map, the "Lost Coast", solely for this, for free. :thumbsup:

And nothing proves us that the following Episodes will not receive a better graphics-related update other than adding HDR lightning.

My hopes, too...

Oh, and, 18 months is nothing to develop a game, even if you don't have to create a new engine from scrap.

Take Battlefield 2, for example. That one was under development for two years (approximately), and look how badly it ran when it was first released (history repeats itself with Electronic Arts games anyways, even if they do not entirely develop them for some ungodly reasons). Not to mention that it could have looked much better than it did upon release. The lightning effects are basic, textures are lacking in details, and the engine is a RESOURCES STARVING SLAVE.

Hah - look at D3! The most retardedly unbalanced game EVER...

 

[toyota]

Hah - look at D3! The most retardedly unbalanced game EVER...

what is D3?

 

[toyota]

damn double post

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: toyota

Hah - look at D3! The most retardedly unbalanced game EVER...

what is D3?

Doom 3?

Doom 3 runs fine these days of course, but maybe he was refering to when it came out it was very video card limited, or that the game shadows and some indoor textures are much better than it's lighting. Or maybe just that graphics were given all the design effort, at the expense of gameplay. Just my guesses anyways.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Sunrise089

Originally posted by: toyota

Hah - look at D3! The most retardedly unbalanced game EVER...

what is D3?

Doom 3?

Doom 3 runs fine these days of course, but maybe he was refering to when it came out it was very video card limited, or that the game shadows and some indoor textures are much better than it's lighting. Or maybe just that graphics were given all the design effort, at the expense of gameplay. Just my guesses anyways.

Doom3 is what i thought but i never knew there were any issues with it. I bought it patched it and played it. i got stuck (literally) once outside and thats the only problem i ever encountered. to me it was the most bug free game i have ever played. it did get a little boring but i liked it.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

The graphics in this case have less to do with the engine and more to do with the artists and modelers. If they doubled the poly count on characters and objects, increased the texture resolution, added more lights, more reflections, more decals, more particles, the game would look much, much better. It would run like crap though.

 

[Zenoth]

Overall, I think it might have to do with Valve's development philosophy.

They prefer stability and performance, over quality of content.

They have found some nice fair spot between "not too ugly" and "too beautiful so that you need a dual-GPU solution to run it smooth".

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
The graphics in this case have less to do with the engine and more to do with the artists and modelers. If they doubled the poly count on characters and objects, increased the texture resolution, added more lights, more reflections, more decals, more particles, the game would look much, much better. It would run like crap though.

agreed. Have those of you saying HL2 looks like crap tried any of the high res packs? my god they are sweet. If they made it look even better by default they would rule out half the PC gamers out there. I for one have no problem with the graphics at default esspecially since I know other folks will add the high res packs to make them look even better.

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Supposedly all new Valve releases after Lost Coast are supposed to have all of Lost Coast's improved features. This includes HDR of course but should also include higher resolution textures and more detailed/higher poly models.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
The graphics in this case have less to do with the engine and more to do with the artists and modelers. If they doubled the poly count on characters and objects, increased the texture resolution, added more lights, more reflections, more decals, more particles, the game would look much, much better. It would run like crap though.

I agree with you in terms of the high rez textures, I really wish they would include them in the standard game as an option for those of us with a powerful video. As far as Valve's artists... I'm not sure if you've played SiN:Emergence yet, but if you have the chance you might notice how much better Valve's artists use the lighting to their advantage than Ritual. Comparing HL2 and SiN, I feel that Valve's artists truely have an understanding of how Source works and they make it work for them. SiN at it's best looks like HL2, and at worst it looks like a game that came out in 2003-2004.

edit: another thing that I like about HL2 is it's consistency in appearance, which I think helps with immersion. HL2 maintains roughly the same visual quaility throughout. Quake4 was on of the worst examples of inconsistency in a while IMO - the models and lighting were decent, but the low rez textures were terrible. It didn't look real at all. The thing that I get from HL2 (when I think about it) is that the artists spent a lot time on creating a feel, style, and consistency to the game which makes the game play like a piece of art made by artists and not a tech demo made by engineers. To me, it isn't always about the latest tech, but how well the artists draw me into their world that makes me enjoy a game.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

im not getting this. i dont find hl2 to be a particularly exciting game.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
The graphics in this case have less to do with the engine and more to do with the artists and modelers. If they doubled the poly count on characters and objects, increased the texture resolution, added more lights, more reflections, more decals, more particles, the game would look much, much better. It would run like crap though.

edit: another thing that I like about HL2 is it's consistency in appearance, which I think helps with immersion. HL2 maintains roughly the same visual quaility throughout. Quake4 was on of the worst examples of inconsistency in a while IMO - the models and lighting were decent, but the low rez textures were terrible. It didn't look real at all. The thing that I get from HL2 (when I think about it) is that the artists spent a lot time on creating a feel, style, and consistency to the game which makes the game play like a piece of art made by artists and not a tech demo made by engineers. To me, it isn't always about the latest tech, but how well the artists draw me into their world that makes me enjoy a game.

i totally agree with you on HL being visually consistent. Far Cry was all over the place with different types of textures.

 

[g3pro]

I don't think Half-Life 2 every looked half-way decent. It was mostly just a texture circle-jerk. Textures don't make games, guys. Stories, characters, etc make games interesting to play.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: g3pro
I don't think Half-Life 2 every looked half-way decent. It was mostly just a texture circle-jerk. Textures don't make games, guys. Stories, characters, etc make games interesting to play.

well this thread is about graphics.

 

[Crescent13]

Fakefactory FTW?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
Fakefactory FTW?

That is what I use, the overdrive pack. Looks great, and the weapons balance is much better. 1gb ram users will not be pleased though

 

[nycdude]

Originally posted by: Sunrise089
IMHO even though I have a PC that can run more demanding graphics engines, I would rather run a game like HL2 that I can run at almost any resolution and crank up all the settings than something like F.E.A.R that maybe looks a bit better but requires a HUGE performance hit or settings adjustment to only gain the small amount of superior graphical quality.

I agree!