MrPing1000
Member
doom3 is a step back, the gfx don't look real they look plastic, This is where graphics shud be heading
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Half Life 2 screens...
- Thread starter Doom_Bringer
- Start date
DemonCleaner said:
I'm sure it will...
Heck, this gen marks the closest high-end PCs and consoles have ever been. Even now, console games still can look extremely good in comparison to technically superior PC games. Back during the PSX era, a high end PC absolutely DESTROYED those consoles and made them look like complete shit. That isn't the case here...
I mean, Doom 3 and Far Cry are technically above anything on the consoles...but when you have stuff like RE4, MGS3, and Ninja Gaiden out there, those consoles don't feel that dated.
I expect next gen consoles to go well beyond where people are looking right now. I mean, people were saying some of this same shit before last gen as well.
Ah, but there is one area where Doom 3 stands above every FPS released to date and that is animation. THAT is MUCH more important than most of the other aspects and goes a long way towards the creation of something beautiful. id deserves major props for the animation in Doom 3. I only hope that other devs take note and follow them...
WHOAguitarninja
Member
MrPing1000 said:
I have yet to figure out where this "doom 3 looks plastic" argument is coming from. Have you actually played the game? The only things that look "plastic" arethings like armor and painted walls and the like, which make sense to look plastic, especially the armor.
MrPing1000
Member
morbidaza said:
Yes I have, its a direction Deus Ex:IW and Thief
S (using unreal engine) characters were heading towards.
Mayb its not plastic but its more sorta smudgy its difficult to discribe but i prefer the crisper look.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
MrPing1000 said:Yes I have, its a direction Deus Ex:IW and Thief
Mayb its not plastic but its more sorta smudgy its difficult to discribe but i prefer the crisper look.
That's due to the normal maps. They were necessary due to the lighting model, as any sizeable increase in geometry in the charachters would cause HUGE increase in rendering complexity due to the dynamic shadows. I'd agree the normal and texture maps could stand to be a bit higher res, but they were that way due to memory constraints. The game already uses a huge amount of texture memory, so with current hardware it really isn't feasible to raise the resolution much if any.
The reason HL2(and UT, and many other games) can get away with higher polygon models is due to their much simpler lighting model. If HL2 implemented shadowing in the same way as doom 3, with it's current level of geometry, even the fastest systems today would choke.
They represent two different directions as far as rendering and they are useful for different types of games.
eso76
Member
shuri said:
What ???
Riddick and Doom 3 are already relatively close to Doom 3 !If past generations are anything to go by, when next gen consoles launch they'll look like *nothing* we've seen on PC, at least for a couple years.
This gen was partially spoiled by the (awesome) Dreamcast, which was somewhere in the middle of 2 generations and prepared us to Ps2 (looking even better than Ps2 it in some cases) but if the proportion are like PS1 -> PS2/GC/Xbox (and judging by the xenon leaked specs, it looks like they may well be) then next gen will be able to run Doom 3 AND Half Life 2 on the same monitor in split screen at 60 fps
Seriously, i expect next gen to be able to do even marginally better than those unreal 3 pics we've seen.
Frankly, i can't wait
WHOAguitarninja
Member
That's what I was responding to. And that is due to the normal maps not being insanely high res, not the specular maps.
For the record, I think doom 3's charachters look absolutely fantastic and the normal maps look fine, but CAN see where some would draw issue with them.
The difference in hardware power between PC and consoles won't be as significant next gen. At least not as far as graphics hardware is concerned. Over the last few years we've seen the establishment of a market for extremely high-end consumer graphics hardware - cards that cost USD 500+. Consoles won't be able to compete with that. Hell, looking at this gen consoles didn't have the upper hand for long. PS2 is the odd man out as it has had a brute force advantage for quite some time but it was behind on features from the very beginning. GC and Xbox were ahead for less than a year.DemonCleaner said:
Where consoles have an advantage is that they're fixed hardware so developers can really maximize the performance each one offers. That and the best developers work on console games.
Another thing is that it appears the focus of the next-gen consoles won't be the GPUs as much as the CPUs. The graphics hardware may not match the stuff that is available for PCs but the CPUs could be well ahead for a change.
I think that games like Doom 3, Half Life 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and F.E.A.R. all have a uniqueness in their graphical styles and they all deserve high marks for what they accomplish. I for one think its great that games don't look too much alike, and have differences. Of course, I don't think that any of the above titles is "bad" looking at all, they all look damn nice, in their own ways, which makes them all the more enjoyable.
I dont know why you guys keep saying that the next gen of consoles will be special. Remember back before the n64 came out, some nintendo bighead said "The N64 is more powerful than 10 pentium 100 (at the time, that was the equivalent of a amd 3800+), COMBINED!!!!!)
.. and we know what happened
.. and we know what happened
Doom_Bringer said:
Hot damn that video is awsome. Hope this game turns out as good as the first.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
While I'm not a programmer at all (I literally spent about 2 days learning c++ before I decided programming was definitely not for me), it's been my experience that this goes a LONG way.
Look at games like Ninja Gaiden, Riddick, Halo 2, Conker, and even the Doom 3 port. All these hold up EXTREMELY well considering they are on a 700mhz cpu, with essentially a tweaked gf3 gfx chip, and only 64mb of total ram.
Compare that to games running on a similar PC and the difference is phenomenal.
shuri said:
Wow, you clearly have a short memory...
For one, the N64 was a VERY late entry into the console market...so it isn't the norm. However, that doesn't mean it didn't blow the doors off of the average PC game at the time. Do you actually remember the time period when the N64 was released? 3D cards were barely even out there (and those that were, sucked!) and the N64 was doing a LOT of stuff that the PC simply couldn't match. I mean, even when PCs were finally starting to see lots of 3D cards (like Voodoo) on the market...stuff like GLQuake was still lacking a lot of the effects and things found in games like Turok on N64 (which was later ported).
This gen was much different...
It wasn't until UT2003 that the PC had something that could go above consoles...and that was lacking in a lot of ways (namely, animation, presentation, polish, etc.). New consoles ALWAYS exceed current PC hardware in terms of the type of visuals that can be offered...and it will be the same once again. If you think otherwise, you need to go back and check out a little history...
Well, yeah...I didn't fully explain myself. I meant, near the end of that generation, PSX could not stand up to PCs at all. Early on, PSX smacked the PC around pretty hard...
eso76
Member
shuri said:
When the PlayStation launched with Tohshinden and Ridge Racer there was absolutely nothing that could come even remotely close to it on PC.
N64 was essentially a 32bit gen console which was launched late; this makes it a little unfair to compare, but still:
At 'that time' (?) 10x a Pentium 100 was exactly the same as it is today: a hardware which would run the same games as a pentium 100 at 10x the frames per second, or with 10 times the polys on screen (that's simplifying a lot, but you get the idea) which the N64 was MORE than capable of. 10x a Pentium 100 = amd 3800+ ??? My P4 2.8Ghz is *thousands* times faster than a P100, in terms of pure CPU alone. I remember having to wait 5 hours to render a scene in Lightwave which now takes literally seconds with the exact same settings...
eso76
Member
Back to the subject;
Half Life 2 looks gorgeous. I Can't wait to just wander aimlessly through those areas; they look incredibly 'open' and believable.
If they nail ambient sound fx and overall 'scale' right i could sink in those screens.
That's not to say Doom 3 isn't impressive, but as far as looks go
Doom 3 = Cool.
HL2 = Beautiful.
Half Life 2 looks gorgeous. I Can't wait to just wander aimlessly through those areas; they look incredibly 'open' and believable.
If they nail ambient sound fx and overall 'scale' right i could sink in those screens.
That's not to say Doom 3 isn't impressive, but as far as looks go
Doom 3 = Cool.
HL2 = Beautiful.
CrimsonSkies
Member
It's tough to compare PC and Console developers. Console developers have like 5 times the art staff.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
One thing I noticed while playing through it, is even with my extremely limited video card(x300 se), largeish outdoor environments didn't really cause any additional performance hit compared to indoor.
I agree and think that...while obviously the versatility has yet to be shown(seeing that only one game has been released), the D3 engine will surprise a LOT of people by the type of games that are released on it.
I agree and think that...while obviously the versatility has yet to be shown(seeing that only one game has been released), the D3 engine will surprise a LOT of people by the type of games that are released on it.
Black Deatha
Member
My god, I simply can NOT wait to have this game. That video is amazing, I cant wait to BE the one behind the controles.
As much as I think Doom 3 looks great, HL2 blows it away I feel, not with lighting, but like everyone else has said, it's art style. It just looks so damn, 'real'. And to the person who said they don't think the animations that great in Hl2, what are you talking about? It looks just as good as Doom 3's, if not better, so seriously, what are you talking about?
~Black Deatha
As much as I think Doom 3 looks great, HL2 blows it away I feel, not with lighting, but like everyone else has said, it's art style. It just looks so damn, 'real'. And to the person who said they don't think the animations that great in Hl2, what are you talking about? It looks just as good as Doom 3's, if not better, so seriously, what are you talking about?
~Black Deatha
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
I was hoping there weren't going to be any Doom 3 and HL2 comparisons (it's inevitable anyways) but I respect and love each of them equally for different directions they've taken graphics. One relies more on the artistry and animation side while the other relies more on raw graphical power. I don't think any direction is better than the other, they are just different methods of producing an adaptation of real life.
Half Life 2 should be purchased by everyone who owns a decent PC. This game looks like it will be well worth the money.
Half Life 2 should be purchased by everyone who owns a decent PC. This game looks like it will be well worth the money.
I just masturbated to that trailer, and I've seen all of the other Bink trailers. Wow, the picture quality, and especially the sound are absolutely unbelieveable, and vastly improved from the previous Binks (which were themselves quite stunning). I can't wait to make love to this game.
ToyMachine228
Member
Anyone know about how well Half-Life 2 will run on a GeForce FX 5200? Will it run better or worse than Doom 3 you think?
WHOAguitarninja
Member
It's up in the air. Word out of valve is that ait is the card of choice. They said "the x800's perform up to 30% faster than nvidia's top competitor" or something very close to that(i'm almost positive they didn't name the nvidia chipset).
Valve seems to be in bed with ati, so personally I'm not entirely positive they weren't referring to the fx series, as I have ahard time beleiving the x800's would beat the 6800's by that wide of a margin(especially since some benchmarks of the leak have stated distinctly otherwise. I find it hard to beleive it would flip flop like that).
That being said, HL2 certainly appears to be less graphically strenous than doom 3, so if I had to guess, I'd say it would perform slightly better.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
PC's will eventually leave consoles behind imo, the update cycle is so quick now. It wont take 2-3 years for PC's to leap frog consoles forever, soon enough it may be the case pc's will be able to top consoles within months of their debut. All that said consoles have the software advantage so it wont really matter. The mere fact that such optimization is possible on an integrated chipset that is fully standard will keep consoles in the race for many years to come. Not to mention people have to actually buy the new pc hardware which takes months to a year for that to become the norm.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
DonasaurusRex said:
You seem to be forgetting that pc devs have to write to the lowest common denominator. At the launch of consoles there will be pc's signifigantly more powerful. HOWEVER, developers won't really be able to embrace those systems for a few years as simply put, in order to sell games they have to write them to be playable on systems that are years old.
Consoles have the (enormous) advantage of being a fixed platform. This allows the developers to write code knowing EXACTLY what will be running it. Aside from a few rare exceptions though, that prevents the hardware from being upgraded over time, and is what eventually allows pc's to jump ahead.
EDIT-
Didn't read your last sentence, oops. I guess I'll leave this here just to make sure the point isn't understated.