PDA

View Full Version : Half-Life 2: Lost Coast screens!


Pages : [1] 2

CaptNKILL
04-28-05, 11:12 PM
Dont know if these have been posted before, but they are news to me!

http://photos.nerdtreehouse.com/displayimage.php?album=29&pos=3

Looks very nice :)

SH64
04-28-05, 11:16 PM
I'm currently downloading its movie .. lets see how good it looks in motion :cool:
EDIT:
http://www.3dgamers.com/dlselect/games/halflife2/Missions/hdr_lostcoast_q01.zip.html

Edge
04-28-05, 11:27 PM
Is that video the same one that's been floating around? Or is it a totally new one? Because the file size seems similar, except an EXE instead of a Quicktime movie.

SH64
04-28-05, 11:31 PM
Is that video the same one that's been floating around? Or is it a totally new one? Because the file size seems similar, except an EXE instead of a Quicktime movie.

Not sure .. i think its the same.

SH64
04-28-05, 11:44 PM
But i don't know why The Inq talk about it like its fresh news ?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22880

Rakeesh
04-28-05, 11:59 PM
I'm currently downloading its movie .. lets see how good it looks in motion :cool:
http://www.3dgamers.com/dlselect/games/halflife2/hl2-coast.exe.html

Eh...thats just regular half life 2 on the highway 17 level, I don't see anything special about it.

Perhapse you meant this?

http://files.filefront.com/Half_Life_2_The_Lost_Coast_HDR_Trailer/;3849592;;/fileinfo.html

Definitely looks like something new

einstein_314
04-29-05, 12:34 AM
I'm currently downloading its movie .. lets see how good it looks in motion :cool:
http://www.3dgamers.com/dlselect/games/halflife2/hl2-coast.exe.html

Umm I just downloaded that and it's just a video of part of Hwy 17 from HL2. Nothing different there.

SH64
04-29-05, 02:06 AM
You are right guys .. i wasted my time downloading the old coastline video :(

here is the correct link :
http://www.3dgamers.com/dlselect/games/halflife2/Missions/hdr_lostcoast_q01.zip.html
or here :
http://www.eurogamer.net/file_service_files.php?action=show_file&file_id=183

& sorry for the incorrect link.

Danhill
04-29-05, 02:16 AM
Looks nice but not that nice, I mean its HL2 with some more HDR, still no moving foliage and I still don't understand the high machine specs.

Edge
04-29-05, 02:41 AM
Those videos are terrible, 166 megs for a minute and a half of footage? Get the gametrailers.com version (http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=5567&type=mov) instead, it's the exact same video except 1/4th the size and the same quality. Although both versions have this annoying static crackling sound in the audio track. Good going Valve, release a video that shows off your new visual feature, and then don't even bother to check if a microphone was plugged in when you encoded the audio :rolleyes: . Too bad, because the music track is the best part of those videos...

OWA
04-29-05, 02:53 AM
I didn't download the video but the pics look good.

vX
04-29-05, 12:38 PM
The pics look like what we've been playing, just brighter, I mean it looks nice, but yea...I totally don;t get the 3.2 ghz/high-end gpu requirements.

Rakeesh
04-29-05, 07:59 PM
Frankly I am not particularly impressed by the screenshots nor the video. Perhapse the game itself might be different, but for now I don't see what the big deal is.

Intel17
04-30-05, 04:40 PM
Why the hell are Valve even trying to sell their engine? With Unreal Engine 3 all ready for licence, nobody is going to touch Source!

|MaguS|
05-01-05, 04:37 AM
Why the hell are Valve even trying to sell their engine? With Unreal Engine 3 all ready for licence, nobody is going to touch Source!

Because with the U3 engine not everyone would be able to play the games at high quality without upgrading, the source allows some great graphics on lower end hardware which taken by the poll most poeple have... Poeple with 6800/x800 and top end CPUs are really the minority...

Rakeesh
05-01-05, 11:38 AM
Because with the U3 engine not everyone would be able to play the games at high quality without upgrading, the source allows some great graphics on lower end hardware which taken by the poll most poeple have... Poeple with 6800/x800 and top end CPUs are really the minority...

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...valve is specifically touting these HDR features as requiring a very high end system. FWIW, Supposedly the U3 engines HDR system makes valves look like crap.

Raje
05-01-05, 03:22 PM
FWIW, Supposedly the U3 engines HDR system makes valves look like crap.

U3 > Valve Source, IMO.

Can't wait to see Id's next gen as well.

|MaguS|
05-01-05, 03:52 PM
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense...valve is specifically touting these HDR features as requiring a very high end system. FWIW, Supposedly the U3 engines HDR system makes valves look like crap.

But the Source engine isn't 1/2 years out... its for todays high end systems, the UE3 engine is not going to release till around 06 or possibly later on the PCs, high end systems when it releases will be different.

And my response wasn't towards Lost Caost ingeneral but a reply the the previous post as to why Valve is trying to market thier engine.

Rakeesh
05-01-05, 04:24 PM
But the Source engine isn't 1/2 years out... its for todays high end systems, the UE3 engine is not going to release till around 06 or possibly later on the PCs, high end systems when it releases will be different.

All the more reason to use the unreal 3 engine instead. By the time they finish developing the game (at least one year or more with A titles,) these systems will be available.

killahsin
05-01-05, 08:18 PM
Ahh so you don't think its smart for developers to use an engine that scales much greater up and down and has systems built inside it to make for ease of use when dealing with character animation. Yet will constantly be able to scale upward and have new systems implemented over the coming years, thus allowing it to compete with newer games as they arrive on the shelves?

Your logic is flawed

Rakeesh
05-02-05, 12:47 AM
Ahh so you don't think its smart for developers to use an engine that scales much greater up and down and has systems built inside it to make for ease of use when dealing with character animation. Yet will constantly be able to scale upward and have new systems implemented over the coming years, thus allowing it to compete with newer games as they arrive on the shelves?

Your logic is flawed

Scaling backwards is never a problem with any engine; you can always turn off certain graphics functionality (not that most game developers would want to scale backwards anyways - the market has shown that hitting the high end systems goes a long way.) The U3 engine can scale far further upwards than the source engine on the other hand, namely because it has a hell of a lot more features. And with regard to the animations - the U3 engine has the source engine beat down to the floor from pretty much every angle.

Not only that but the physics engine in U3 has the option of being hardware accellerated. It also puts source's already pathetic (and very annoying/stupid for multiplayer I might add) hitbox system to shame.

killahsin
05-02-05, 03:47 AM
Um no, the u3 engine is feature locked. Source is and always has been dx9 +. It was built to be patched into dx10 and so forth, or whatever ms decides to name their next direct x. Have you personally worked on a title based on unreal 3 technology to even state that the animation technology is far better? Because from what I understand nothings preset for the developers, everything you have to do on your own. In other words there are no toolsets that make doing animated sequences easier, for instance pre set up morph targets that run off syncing with mp3s.

What I am stating and you can hold me to this. Is that when the time comes, source will be revamped to the next level. The only current technology u3 has over source is it's shadowing system, which isn't a very different method. And its steamlined level loading.

Valve has stated numerous times they plan on adding new technology features tothe game for hardware that supports it as it comes out, for hopefully the next 10 years. Where as unreal technology isn't somthing you keep on your computer getting free upgrades automatically so that your current game and even multiplayer games and modders can use this technology in their mods. You have to buy the next rehash, in order to get the tools. The only other developer that has even made an attempt at doing what valve has done is Crytek. There was a quote on half-life 2.net from a email to gabe newell where they asked about how he stated the engine will scale beyond dx9 when hardware accepts it, in which he stated that, they have a high end version of the game that currently won't run on ANY hardware. You can be sure to expect many more things like what you see with this hdrr patch to be patched in over the next few years.

Where as unreal based engines are truly feature locked, you work with unreal 2.0 or 2.5 or 3.0. Otherwise you would see lineage 2 with bump/parralax maps and real time lighting/shadowing. Unreal tech isn't made to scale up, its made to scale down. It's feature locked software. It's sort of like the john madden of FPS's and their respective engines. Which isn't a bad thing if thats what your looking for.

I'm not trying to debate what engine is better because engines are designed for purposes, inherent goals for putting across an experiance. Unreal 3 is mainly developed in a more broad scope, than say for instance doom 3. Or at least their marketing/licensing team is putting that message across. And as we can see here, the message is getting out =). The fact remains that all of the big 3 engines are quite revolutionary in what they are trying to do. But to say one engine is better than the other for ALL developers is foolish. It's not even close to true. You liscense an engine based on what you are trying to do. If your working on a first or third person where you have lots of dialogue and want to get across alot of emotion to the player, at the same time save on costs of hirering 30 more animators. Working with ingame cutscenes rather than pre-rendered stuff saves developers ALOT of money. You go with somthing like what source has to offer. You also have to look at the cost of liscensing and so forth. There are way more factors that come into play than, oh 2000 more poly's, and real time lighting/shadowing(when neither are truly real time). Being that its 5 am and im tired ive probably made no sense at all. Basically what i'm trying to say is that as much as me you or anyone else wants to believe, based on specs, and screens. Unreal 3 isn't the enxt best thing since slided bread. Neither was hl2, nor was doom 3. Yet...were sure as hell all wished they were.

Edge
05-02-05, 05:40 AM
How is the Unreal engine feature locked when they basically took the original version they had from 1997 and scaled it all the way up to what we have now? Sure, there's still a big gap between the UT version and the UT2003 version, but they're still based on the same basic technology, and they simply kept working on it until they felt it was good enough to be considered the second make of the engine. There's nothing keeping them from upgrading existing games with the features they added to the engine. Hell, the Unreal engine didn't even support hardware acceleration when it was first released, but they added D3D, Glide, OpenGL, and S3 MeTaL to it later on and it worked with the game and all mods if I'm not mistaken that were based on the pre-hardware accelerated code. I'd say that's a pretty big feature upgrade, wouldn't you?

And it doesn't really matter if the Unreal 3 engine can't be scaled up when it's going to take Source years to match it, and by then the Unreal 3.5 or Unreal 4 engine will probably be out, and the cycle will start again. Frankly, it's rediculous to say that shadows are the only thing UE3 has over Source when Source doesn't even have all the features found in the Unreal 1 (yes, 1) engine, such as volumetric fog and true reflections (the water reflections in HL2 are a hack job at best, they don't even properly reflect many entities or 3d skyboxes). Source doesn't even support regular distance fogging very well, certain effects such as blood sprays show up at full brightness even if they're in an area of heavy fog (good luck making a horror mod for HL2!). Unreal 1 also supports in it's software mode what Source requires pixel shaders for, such as soft shadows and dynamic lighting effects. It wouldn't surprise me if Source requires DX10 just to get real-time dynamic shadows out of the engine when other engines like UE3 and Doom 3 manage to do the same with DX8 hardware.

If anything, it just shows that the CryEngine is even more scaleable than we thought: they added HDR, displacement mapping (at least, they have a version of it that supports displacement mapping, even if it's not public), and SM3.0 support to a game without changing ANY of the game's data files, just the engine itself. But the difference between CryEngine and Source, is that CryEngine support far, far more features to begin with and isn't based on archaic technology such as map BSP trees.

Ruined
05-02-05, 09:03 AM
Because with the U3 engine not everyone would be able to play the games at high quality without upgrading, the source allows some great graphics on lower end hardware which taken by the poll most poeple have... Poeple with 6800/x800 and top end CPUs are really the minority...

lol i had to return hl2 because of its terrible stuttering bug and i have pretty decent hardware (see sig). apparently the bug is still not fixed!

Rakeesh
05-02-05, 11:35 AM
If your working on a first or third person where you have lots of dialogue and want to get across alot of emotion to the player, at the same time save on costs of hirering 30 more animators. Working with ingame cutscenes rather than pre-rendered stuff saves developers ALOT of money.

Um...I don't know about you but I haven't seen the need for pre-rendered stuff in any game engine for quite a long time.

Unreal 3 isn't the enxt best thing since slided bread.

Compared to source it is. Source is truely the buggiest game engine of our time, and not only that but I for one don't really find its graphics to be that impressive, and that said it is the least advanced of this generation of engines. You ever played that game called vampire the masquerade: bloodlines? It actually got **** reviews simply because of problems related directly to the source engine.

And I am not quite certain what the point about scaling up is either. The only reason you'd care to scale up is if you plan on selling your changes to the game engine, which none of these companies can do nor are they interested in it. Note that when valve ads new features (such as HDR) it doesn't make any changes to their existing game, rather instead it only applies to new content, namely because they aren't interested in re-designing the maps to accomodate this new feature as its cost prohibitive.

With that said, when a game developer begins work on a game, they are more than likely going to keep it locked with whatever features it has at the start, rather than add new features later. With the U3 engine, the cryengine, or the doom 3 engine, they have far more to start with than source.