Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-05, 09:10 PM   #37
MustangSVT
Stop looking at me
 
MustangSVT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

Quote:
Or it would force these people to upgrade off 4 generation old hardware. D3 caused a stir of upgraditis.
No, the majority would probably go and buy a console, because then, they DON'T have to upgrade to play games on that console, and all they have to do is buy another console in a couple of years.

I think all of you should be happy that people ARE making games like Half-Life 2 and Doom III and you're not forced to be able to play only games as graphically good as Halo 2 on the XBOX.
__________________
1. Q6600 @ 3.2, ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo, Powercolor HD 4890 CrossFire, 4GB Mushkin DDR2-1066, 3x 24" LCD, Matrox TripleHead2Go, Audigy 2 ZS

2. Q9550 @ 3.7, ASUS P5K, Galaxy 8800GT G92, 2GB Mushkin DDR2-1066, Samsung 710N + Samsung 205BW, Audigy 2 + SB Live! 5.1 (hooked up together, really), dad's comp

3. XP-M 2500+ @ 205x11.5, Gigabyte nForce2-400, GeForce4 Ti4200, 2x512MB OCZ DDR-400 "Premier", oldie
MustangSVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-05, 09:26 PM   #38
Edge
3d animator for hire!
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,564
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

Quote:
Originally Posted by MustangSVT
I think all of you should be happy that people ARE making games like Half-Life 2 and Doom III and you're not forced to be able to play only games as graphically good as Halo 2 on the XBOX.
Umm, Halo 2 looks very good, and it manages to maintain a very consistant framerate. It may not have been the best, but it was still quite impressive in a number of areas (especially cutscenes). What's wrong with games that look like that?

Last edited by Edge; 02-12-05 at 09:57 PM.
Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-05, 09:58 PM   #39
killahsin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,496
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

This debate has turned pretty sour.

Edge being that you have the title animator for hire, you should realize that technology is give and take. You should also realize that a game can be designed for many levels of details and for many paths. HL2's shadow and lighting model wasn't picked so it could run on tnt2's. It was picked because if you wanted any semblance of stability and playability on certain areas you could not go in the direction you suggest. Give and take. Needless to say Valve could have and should have given the end user the option of non playability if they chose so.

Doom 3 for instance gives you full screen bump/spec, while taking any semblance of high detail texturing away. Why? Because thats the only way it would be playable on this generation hardware, let alone gf3 technology. As a designer you should know that its a very give and take process.

And valve designs engines to suit the game, not the other way around like id. So you only get as much technology as you need to get across your artists ideas and your designers philosophies.

Debates like this are pointless, and only show that we all are biased. Being an animator you should be loving working in xsi and poser with the hl2 system. There hasnt been a character animation system in fps's this good, um, ever?


edit: To clearify what i am saying. I'm not saying anyone here is wrong. I'm just saying in a perfect world things could be designed to run on everything current gen high end cards can do. The problem is The more money you spend on R&D, design methadology, actual design, coding, playtesting, redesigning, playtesting, recoding. As well as future content additions and life span. Just to make sure you have an extremly fun gaming experiance. You than are forced to support all the way down to the lowest common denominator, in order to get the money back you just spent on just making sure you had a fun game with a long life span. Thats why I said these kinds of debates are pointless. I'm not saying anyone is wrong in general, were all just biased, and unforgiving, and forgetful of the fact that the pc gaming market, is not as full of massive impulse buying gamers, such as the console market is.

Last edited by killahsin; 02-12-05 at 10:17 PM.
killahsin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-05, 10:29 PM   #40
dpagan
Registered User
 
dpagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 231
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

games are getting a face lift and thats a good thing, but i rather have a balance between eye candy and gameplay, i'm just starting to hate to load almost 5GB of data just for eye candy, and get 15 hours of gameplay thats if i'm lucky and it happens to be good game play many developers are just using what works just to be on the safe side, they need to take a risk and try something new and fresh which i hope will be done in the near future, graphics aren't everything
__________________

Spec's:
Abit NF8
Amd Athlon64 2800@2.25Ghz
1GB GeIL Ultra Platinum PC4000@ 7-4-4-2.5
160GB WD Caviar HD 7200RPM 8MB Cache
Chaintech 6600GT@ 550/1000
SB Audigy2


http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=36426
dpagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-05, 10:44 PM   #41
Edge
3d animator for hire!
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,564
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

Quote:
Originally Posted by killahsin
This debate has turned pretty sour.

Edge being that you have the title animator for hire, you should realize that technology is give and take. You should also realize that a game can be designed for many levels of details and for many paths. HL2's shadow and lighting model wasn't picked so it could run on tnt2's. It was picked because if you wanted any semblance of stability and playability on certain areas you could not go in the direction you suggest. Give and take. Needless to say Valve could have and should have given the end user the option of non playability if they chose so.

Doom 3 for instance gives you full screen bump/spec, while taking any semblance of high detail texturing away. Why? Because thats the only way it would be playable on this generation hardware, let alone gf3 technology. As a designer you should know that its a very give and take process.

And valve designs engines to suit the game, not the other way around like id. So you only get as much technology as you need to get across your artists ideas and your designers philosophies.

Debates like this are pointless, and only show that we all are biased. Being an animator you should be loving working in xsi and poser with the hl2 system. There hasnt been a character animation system in fps's this good, um, ever?
I see what you're saying, and I agree with the give-and-take philosophy, however the problem is that developers aren't taking advantage of what they can and are cutting back in areas they don't have to. For things that are easy to scale down (for example textures), I think the best way to do it is to start at the high-end and then allowed reduced quality for lower-spec systems. However, what many companies seem to do is build their games off the lowest of low-end hardware, and then add in a few extra effects for hardware that can take advantage of it. This is pretty much how Source was built, and while it was in general adequate for HL2, there were many issues that came because of it, and especially for an engine that was built to lisence out to other companies, it's really quite baffling why they didn't add an option to use higher-quality versions of many effects. It also surprises me that they spent so much time on the pixel shaded water effects, and then didn't even bother to make it compatable with the GF3 (I'm still confused as to what exactly keeps it from working, since there are no major feature differences between PS1.1 and 1.3).

I do agree that the animation system for HL2 is quite impressive, I love the lip-syncing (hell, it's almost TOO easy, at this rate they won't need animators like me in a few years!), although I would've liked to see the option to have physics-driven animations rather than the standard scripted ones. Still, it's a step in the right direction, I just wish they had spent as much time on certain other features (in fact, I don't even think it has a proper reflection or volumetric fog system...)
Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-05, 01:14 AM   #42
Vagrant Zero
I'm a Back Door Man
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,750
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant Zero
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpagan
first of all it's ASININE like your comment above, and the same thing applies to the doom3 engine, just because they support gf3 doesn't make someone playing with a 6 series card it's going to look like there playing on a gf3
Wonderful, you can spell but you can't connect your brain to your fingers. Let me guess; you're a tutu-wearing drama major? I say this because I think all the math majors here understand the concept of lowest common denominator.

Go look it up. While you're at it rape yourself with a grammer book because spelling is only half the battle and I'm pretty sure the first letter of the first word needs to be capitalized.

And ya, D3 pretty much looks the same on a GF3 as it does on a 6800GT. Higher rezs and AA/AF really have nothing to do with the engine or the game. The game has low rez textures, low poly characters, and goes super-lite on the firefights whereas the older doom games would throw literally 100s of enemies at you at once.

Clearly you played D3 with your eyes closed if you failed to notice all these things.
__________________
o <---- Dev
|\_o <---- Paladin
// \
Vagrant Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-05, 01:32 AM   #43
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

Yea this debate has turned pretty sour, lets try to keep it to a non lethal level

Anyways, I still think its bad that develpers code around old hardware. The way I see it... If somebody cannot afford a $100 9600 Pro, how can they afford a few $50 games? Most people have "decent" pc's where they can throw in a $100 card, the average system on steam was a 2.4ghz p4, while a huge margin of users were on a geforce4mx An XBOX/PS2 costs more than a mid-level graphics card.

Why are we still stuck with 6 CD's... how long have DVD's been out? Nobody has the balls to say, "Look you need a DVD Player." Even the Xbox is more advanced in that department. Forcing DVD games gives people finally a reason to upgrade that old CD-Rom. Besides the 1 DVD rom game I have, I really see no reason to own a DVD Rom yet. If I didn't have one, I would sure as hell buy when the second I needed it for games. They are like what.. $30??!!!

Look at the reasons we PC Gamers stick to PC's, lets just look at the bottom line and not the fun in upgrading, updating, and patching games:
Graphics
Mouse and Keyboard

Whats the point of even PC Gaming, if developers continue to support outdated hardware??
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-05, 02:25 AM   #44
Kickus_assius
Defenestrator of the Weak
 
Kickus_assius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 338
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

It's pretty obvious that they eventually have to raise the bar or else the technology and graphics of pcs cannot improve. What is the incentive for hardware makers to spend money on R&D and make new products if people can still run the games on 5 year old hardware. The radeon 9700 PRO has been around for almost 3 years now and it's still capable of running the modern games just fine. Thus, if it takes 3 years for the next generation of cards to occur, then why aren't people upgrading cards? It's not like 99-2001 when there was a new generation every 6 months. People should easily be able to save up and buy a card from this or last generation easily. I mean, honestly, we've been on Pentium 4's for 4 years now, I think most people have fairly capable PC's by now. If you still have a Pentium 3 or older, then why are you still trying to game?

I think the main problem is that casual PC buyers make up most of the market and end up paying more for less and the first thing the mass-PC-Makers leave out is video.
__________________
Heat: Broughtonr: 49-0-0
Ebay: Kickus_assius: (109)
Kickus_assius is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-05, 03:32 AM   #45
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

llook, I'm drunk. I klnow what is going on:

All devs need to stop supportsing everythning but 1 and 2 gens befhind Then alll games will rule. Am I right or what? YEAH!
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-05, 03:43 AM   #46
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

HL2 1 pwnz D3. There. I said it.
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-05, 06:32 AM   #47
Edge
3d animator for hire!
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,564
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

Erm, maybe you shouldn't talk when you're drunk
Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-05, 07:24 AM   #48
nutcrackr
Super Registered User
 
nutcrackr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default Re: impressive hl2 engine

I agree with Edge on the drunk part

Anyway PC's are expensive beasts, a graphics card that runs everything well is not cheap. If you have a $500 dollar machine that will play games for 3 years why would you need a PC, sure you need a PC to do word and the internet (perhaps not much longer with xbox 2 pc) but how many people on these boards would spend $500 every 3 years to play games on the PC? I know I don't and I don't think you could get away with it before too long. Some new games don't support older gen well enough.

To make PC's popular again we need to support gamers that have a computer but not a brand new spanking one, one that sit beside the xbox and ps2 unused. I was never a fan of the phantom gaming system that went the way of the dodo but in some ways it had a decent concept, provide a system that developers can optimise on so when you see on the back "phantom console" you can play a PC game just fine. Joe Bloe proof system, which the PC does not have, especially with AMD releasing chips like the 3000 and 3200, just like their previous gen to make it that little bit harder for consumers to spot requirements.

I appreciate that you must cut the line somewhere, which may be very difficuilt to find. Valve certainly found it with their online survey. It's a bit you win some you lose some situation. I also see some more potential for PC, if we are catering for a large hardcore market and selling 15-20% of gaming sales then imagine if we could make PC gaming far more easy for the "console consumer".
nutcrackr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Square Enix Luminous Engine - Now this is impressive mojoman0 Gaming Central 14 07-01-12 11:29 PM
Regression with 295.33 and GeForce GT 240 maro NVIDIA Linux 16 06-29-12 06:47 PM
Gorgeous Unreal Engine 4 brings direct programming, indirect lighting News Archived News Items 0 06-08-12 09:20 PM
Star Wars 1313 running on Unreal Engine 3 on PC at E3, will be linear and light on Je News Archived News Items 0 06-08-12 05:20 AM
May 24 Webinar: How Do You Make Grid Engine Faster? News Archived News Items 0 05-22-12 06:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.