Delay of a Game

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by Tyrion

http://www.daionet.gr.jp/%7Emasa/rthdribl/index.html

 

That is using Dynamic lightings, no? It's HDR, which means it's used in Half-life 2.

 

Tell me what the difference is between Dynamic lighting and HDR, though. I thought HDR included Dynamic lighting..

 

All HDR does is use up lots of resources to create that halo-ish effect around things when you look at really bright things like the sun.

The dynamic lighting previously mentioned refers to actually having lights that realistically cast shadows (realistic that is, because they actually cast shadows...multiple shadows as well) that can move...like in Doom 3. Oh, and last I heard Half Life 2 wasn't going to have HDR afterall... *shrug*

[ET Warrior]

 

 

Honestly, all this bickering about the graphics makes me sad. Is this what gamers have come to? The desire to play a game is based on appearance? It's graphics aren't SUPAR 31337 and it isn't as worthy of attention as the games that are?

[Crow_Nest]

I'd say HL2 has better graphics than Far Cry IMO. For example if you look at the water in Far Cry (At the max detail) and compare it with the half life 2 water. You'll see that half life 2 has more realistic water wave movements.

 

Besides, Far Cry has very high system requirements. HL2 and Doom3 is desgined to play on lower end systems.

[GothiX]

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

I'd say HL2 has better graphics than Far Cry IMO. For example if you look at the water in Far Cry (At the max detail) and compare it with the half life 2 water. You'll see that half life 2 has more realistic water wave movements.

Far Cry has more realistic terrain, dynamic lighting, and a dynamic LOD system.

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

Besides, Far Cry has very high system requirements. HL2 and Doom3 is desgined to play on lower end systems.

You actually believe that advertising crap?

[El Sitherino]

it's ABLE to play on low end systems, but it's gonna suck unless you have atleast 512+ mb of Ram and atleast an ati radeon 9600 or nVidia 5200 or greater.

[Crow_Nest]

Originally posted by GothiX

You actually believe that advertising crap?

 

Dude, they were not advertising, it was already in the FAQ

 

I remember reading in the Far Cry offical site, they said even though the graphics are beautiful the game can still maintain good and smooth framerate. But when i downloaded the demo and the moment the game started i was already getting below 20 frames

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

it's ABLE to play on low end systems, but it's gonna suck unless you have atleast 512+ mb of Ram and atleast an ati radeon 9600 or nVidia 5200 or greater.

 

from planethalflife -

 

While the new engine has all sorts of fancy features, it's still designed to scale and work on lower-end machines. Apparently a 700mhz processor and a video card capable of running DX6 is enough, although a 2ghz with a GeForce4 is recommended. Rumors about NVidia or ATI exclusivity are unfounded.

 

From the Doom 3 FAQ -

 

easiest way to sum it up is a Pentium 4 or Athalon XP, 512 meg of RAM and a top end video and sound card will give you the full experience of DOOM III. Although 1GHz CPU 256MB RAM GeForce or Radeon 7xxx series card will be sufficient to play at a minimum.

 

The Platform for Doom 3 will be GeForce 3 and above cards but supposedly you can play it on a Geforce 1 but you will have to turn ALOT of the visual off to play. An ATI Radeon 9700 and GeForce FX5900 would be a safe bet.

[Tyrion]

Er... I don't see what you mean. All three games(Far Cry, Half-life2, and Doom 3) all have high and low settings. The low settings for Farcry, for instance, use very basic graphics and computations(DirectX 7 if I remember) and the same for Doom3 and Half-life2. It's not that they're tailored to the low end, it's that they're flexible enough to be used for the high and low end machines.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Tyrion

Er... I don't see what you mean. All three games(Far Cry, Half-life2, and Doom 3) all have high and low settings. The low settings for Farcry, for instance, use very basic graphics and computations(DirectX 7 if I remember) and the same for Doom3 and Half-life2. It's not that they're tailored to the low end, it's that they're flexible enough to be used for the high and low end machines.

exactly, it can be played on a low end system but unless you have enough RAM and a good card like I said, It's pretty much going to suck, you'll have such crap quality graphics it won't be much fun.

 

and that'll make Sithy sad.

[GothiX]

Eh, guys, FC was said to run on really low specs at high quality too when it was in production. Which was also added to the FAQ, it's all about getting people hyped.

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by GothiX

Eh, guys, FC was said to run on really low specs at high quality too when it was in production. Which was also added to the FAQ, it's all about getting people hyped.

 

True, but in the case of Doom 3, John Carmack himself said that a Geforce 3 will play Doom 3 fine on nice settings (perhaps not the highest texture resolution anymore), and he doesn't go in for marketing crap. Unlike Far Cry, Doom 3 is still based on older tech that a Geforce 1 can handle...that is, you can turn the settings all the way up on a Geforce or Radeon 7xxx card and it'll render it correctly even if only at 5 fps. Doom 3 still has advanced stuff, it's just that instead of using DirectX shortcuts (that's really all the pixel shader stuff is...things to make stuff easier) John Carmack programmed the stuff himself by hand. Doom 3 ran great on a Geforce 3 back 3 years ago at some Mac thing, and I'm sure Doom 3 is much much more optimized now than it was 3 years ago. You really can't compare what was done with Far Cry with what is being done with Doom 3...John Carmack has a very different way of going about things, and has the skill to do them that way.

[Crow_Nest]

Originally posted by GothiX

Eh, guys, FC was said to run on really low specs at high quality too when it was in production. Which was also added to the FAQ, it's all about getting people hyped.

 

Heh, i played FC on my FX 5700 Ultra, ALL of my detail wasnt even set to max (even tried the LOWEST settings and no AF/AA) and i could get even 10 frames.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

exactly, it can be played on a low end system but unless you have enough RAM and a good card like I said, It's pretty much going to suck, you'll have such crap quality graphics it won't be much fun.

 

and that'll make Sithy sad.

 

Well then upgrading even to something like a GeForce 4 Ti4200 or FX 5200 wont be a problem right? GeForce 4s and 5200s are really cheap these days especially after the new release of video cards. Valve said a 1600 Mhz CPU, 256 RAM and a GeForce 4 Ti4200 can already give you 50-60 FPS on the max detail.

 

Unlike Far Cry which recommended graphic cards are FX 5950 Ultra or a Radeon 9800 XT, 512-1024 RAM and needs to have the the latest drivers or the game will not run properly.

 

Originally posted by GothiX

Eh, guys, FC was said to run on really low specs at high quality too when it was in production. Which was also added to the FAQ, it's all about getting people hyped.

 

Far Cry started somewhere in 2003, so they may have added that in the FAQ last year. Now in 2004 its released, after all those months since 2003 they may have already made the graphics so high end that it couldnt even run on a low en CPU.

 

And how i know Valve isnt fooling us? People has been waiting for HL2 since it was in production which was about 5 years ago, and now its delayed because of you know why, now its almost going to be 6 years. If they release the game and performance is like Far Cry the 6 year wait wont be worth at all right?

[GothiX]

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

And how i know Valve isnt fooling us?

Eh, because they actually did the same thing when they made HL? (They said you could play on lower specs than actually possible)

 

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

People has been waiting for HL2 since it was in production which was about 5 years ago, and now its delayed because of you know why, now its almost going to be 6 years.

Valve has never confirmed that they were making a sequel to HL until last year.

[Crow_Nest]

Originally posted by GothiX

Valve has never confirmed that they were making a sequel to HL until last year.

 

But that doesnt mean they started working on HL2 in 2003, they actullay took about 5 years to make it, and would have released it on 30th september in 2003 but was delayed.

 

Originally posted by GothiX

pft, HL2 doesn't even have DLighting..

 

Originally posted by IG-64

exactly my point, there are more and more graphics updates that have already outdated half life 2

 

WRONG

 

This question was answered by Gabe Newell himself

[GothiX]

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

But that doesnt mean they started working on HL2 in 2003, they actullay took about 5 years to make it, and would have released it on 30th september in 2003 but was delayed.

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

People has been waiting for HL2 since it was in production which was about 5 years ago

Are you trying to own yourself? You can't have been waiting for it if it hasn't been announced to be in the making.

 

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

WRONG

That's only on character models, just like JA.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by GothiX

That's only on character models, just like JA.

 

And you know this because.....you're writing the code for the game?

[GothiX]

I talked to Emon about a while back in #massassi, and he had sent an e-mail to Valve regarding DLighting in HL2.

[Crow_Nest]

Originally posted by GothiX

I talked to Emon about a while back in #massassi, and he had sent an e-mail to Valve regarding DLighting in HL2.

 

But that was last year? A long time ago? Even if they only had it for models they may have already added it for other stuff before the source code thef.

 

And havent even you bothered to check out the updated HL2 screenshots and videos? Right now there plenty videos with dynamic lights (Some maps with HDR)

 

Then tell me their e-mail address, i would love to ask them something.

 

Originally posted by ET Warrior

And you know this because.....you're writing the code for the game?

 

Or in other words..... HE STOLE THE GAME CODE!!!

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

exactly, it can be played on a low end system but unless you have enough RAM and a good card like I said, It's pretty much going to suck, you'll have such crap quality graphics it won't be much fun.

 

and that'll make Sithy sad.

 

Valve said you need at least a 1600 MHz CPU, 256RAM, a GeForce 4 Ti4200 to get 50-60 FPS at maximum detail. (Including AA and AF)

[Astrotoy7]

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

Really? Is there any screenshot of it?

 

EDIT: Now are you telling me that this isnt Dlights?

 

great - youve started crow talking about dynamic lighting again havent you ! pfft ! why do you think he's the "dynamic crow", coz he's damn obsessed with that crap. The first 1500 of his posts were about that very topic at the JA forums, I know , I WAS THERE !!!

 

mtfbwya

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

But that was last year? A long time ago? Even if they only had it for models they may have already added it for other stuff before the source code thef.

 

And havent even you bothered to check out the updated HL2 screenshots and videos? Right now there plenty videos with dynamic lights (Some maps with HDR)

 

Er...you think they might have gone and rewritten the renderer?

 

Besides, it is plain to see that they haven't changed much because of the recent videos...in fact, the real-time shadows still have a bug that has been in since last year...you can see it when the crane is lifting that contaner up in that one long video that also later showed CS Source. Also, again...HDR has nothing to do with dynamic lights. All HDR does is add glowy effects at the expense of performance...it's really pretty stupid at this point IMO...it doesn't improve the graphics enough to be worth the performance cost. Perhaps when UE3.0 comes into use it'll be more practical to use. Oh, and I'm still pretty sure HDR isn't in HL2 anyway...

[Crow_Nest]

Originally posted by Gabrobot

Oh, and I'm still pretty sure HDR isn't in HL2 anyway...

 

Tell me, why the hell would they spend so much time working on the graphics and HDR and not gonna include it in the final game? It would be a waste of time.

 

Besides Gabe Newell already said they will inculde HDR in HL2, download the video posted by Tryion in the first page if you dont belive me.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Gabrobot

Besides, it is plain to see that they haven't changed much because of the recent videos...in fact, the real-time shadows still have a bug that has been in since last year...you can see it when the crane is lifting that contaner up in that one long video that also later showed CS Source. Also, again...HDR has nothing to do with dynamic lights. All HDR does is add glowy effects at the expense of performance...it's really pretty stupid at this point IMO...it doesn't improve the graphics enough to be worth the performance cost. Perhaps when UE3.0 comes into use it'll be more practical to use. Oh, and I'm still pretty sure HDR isn't in HL2 anyway...

 

Isn't that the same thing with Dynamic lighting? It doesn't add much to gameplay or graphics either, and it drains ALOT of resources( High-Very High Shadows in Farcry were a cool factor, but they sucked too much performance out to be used really.)

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by Tyrion

Isn't that the same thing with Dynamic lighting? It doesn't add much to gameplay or graphics either, and it drains ALOT of resources( High-Very High Shadows in Farcry were a cool factor, but they sucked too much performance out to be used really.)

 

Er, no. True full dynamic lighting like what will be in Doom 3 adds a lot. (Far Cry wasn't complete...and what shadows were in real-time are rather...puzzling) Imagine a room. In this room you have no lights...it is dark. You have objects stacked up around the room, and you have an enemy that darts around behind these objects and is intent on killing you. Now, if you are using an engine like Source, Quake 3 (when using something like the saber illumination thing in JA) or Far Cry if you turned on your flashlight things would be illuminated but no shadows would be projected. With full dynamic lighting shadows would be projected by the flashlight, and would dance around as you move the light and move around the room. Now, there's a sly enemy darting around somewhere and you have to try and get it before it gets you...you turn your light on and you see something move out of the corner of your eye, you turn fire and find that you shot the shadow of a box. You turn around miss the creature as it darts into a shadow cast by your light, and investigate the other side of the room...this is just one example of how it has a direct effect on gameplay. It also makes things look very noticeably better when seen in motion...take for instance in the recent Doom 3 Xbox trailer with all the rotating red emergency lights...imagine the atmosphere that can be created when you've got sirens blaring emergency lights flashing around causing shadows to dance around the room...this has never before been seen in a game. There are many different ways it comes into play and enhances the experience.

 

Here's an interesting way to look at it...I always hear about things like interactivity when Half Life 2 features are mentioned, but Half Life 2 still just uses static lightmaps to shadow it's environment...sure they may look nicer then real-time shadows but you can get great static graphics just by looking at a photograph. You play games so that you can interact with the world, so why do you want static shadows on your environment? Here you've got the very world you play in and all its environment uses for shadows is a picture overlaid on it!? Games have been doing this since the first Quake...it's time to move on to the new way of doing things.

 

Also, the people on Halflife2.net are saying that HDR is not in Half Life 2...apparently the info comes right from Gabe Newell.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25546

[Tyrion]

Well that does look a whole lot better, maybe I'll be more interested in Dynamic Lighting once I see it in "true" action. Hopefully Doom3 will use it to good effect.

[Crow_Nest]

Originally posted by Gabrobot

Also, the people on Halflife2.net are saying that HDR is not in Half Life 2...apparently the info comes right from Gabe Newell.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25546

 

Right now its not 100% comfirmed they are going to remove it, they are still discussing whether to keep it or make it an option to turn it on/off or make it only works on higher-end video cards.

 

Originally posted by Gabrobot

With full dynamic lighting shadows would be projected by the flashlight, and would dance around as you move the light and move around the room.

 

Actually JA does have that feature, you just need to use Projected shadows (cg_shadows 3)

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by |GG|Crow_Nest

Actually JA does have that feature, you just need to use Projected shadows (cg_shadows 3)

 

But that only projects shadows from the player and NPCs (and only a single shadow which doesn't even get projected correctly on things). In Doom 3, everything has shadows...and if you have multiple lights, the shadows are realistically blended like in this screenshot:

http://www.planetdoom.com/images/image.asp?screenshots/official/8l.jpg

 

Kinda makes Jedi Academy pale in comparison.