TheReverend(c) September 26, 2005 Share TheReverend(c) Member September 26, 2005 Read and heard that HL3 was in the works as confirmed by Gabe Newell back in 2004, but anyone hear anything recent? I read it may be on the new PS3? Also read the new Apextreme will be able to play HL2 out of the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norguard September 26, 2005 Share Norguard Member September 26, 2005 Apextreme is still vapourware. Don't expect to hear or see anything from them. HL3 on PS3 is a scoop indeed, I can't confirm or deny that. I'd imagine that it'd actually be on the consoles for both Sony and Microsoft. That's the general rule of PC to console conversion. As for Half-Life 3, it'll be a long time before you see or hear anything about that. First thing's first: the expansion. Half-Life 2: Aftermath is currently in development, and will be the next VALVe project released after DoD: Source and Lost Coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vovik September 26, 2005 Share Vovik Member September 26, 2005 I still didn't find enough patience to finish Half-Life 2.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zerodamage September 28, 2005 Share Guest zerodamage Guests September 28, 2005 I still didn't find enough patience to finish Half-Life 2.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your loss. The game is a masterpiece from beginning to end. Fantastic story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magruter September 28, 2005 Share Magruter Member September 28, 2005 I still didn't find enough patience to finish Half-Life 2.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your loss. The game is a masterpiece from beginning to end. Fantastic story. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed, i even started playing it for a second time after beating it when it first came out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman September 28, 2005 Share Batman Member September 28, 2005 Yeah, I played it all the way through.. Its well worth it, not finishing it is like never watching the end of a movie.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReverend(c) September 28, 2005 Author Share TheReverend(c) Member September 28, 2005 I liked it so much Im trying to make my own addon for it. I played the much ballyhooed Farcry for the first time yesterday but it doesnt compare to Source. Maybe if Farcry was recompiled in Source... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VooDooPC September 28, 2005 Share VooDooPC Member September 28, 2005 I'd take the Crytek engine over Source anyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox September 28, 2005 Share appalachian_fox Member September 28, 2005 Crytek has a beautiful engine. Very efficient. I would love to see more stuff like that come out...Though Source is definitely not chopped liver, either (I don't like liver). I'd like to see more addons / new levels on the Crytek engine, for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReverend(c) September 29, 2005 Author Share TheReverend(c) Member September 29, 2005 Maybe its just me, but I think HL2 graphics have more realism. Ill crank up the specs to max on Farcry and check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox September 29, 2005 Share appalachian_fox Member September 29, 2005 I would say the graphics are a bit more realistic in HL2, but understand that's half engine, half artwork. With a level editor, model builder and enough time I'm sure I can make a HL2 level look absolutely awful. I think one metric that can be used pretty accurately would be to crank up the graphics to "equal levels" on both games (all high, AA same level, same resolution for example) and check the FPS. You'd have to be generous with the FPS, though: Something of just a few frames' difference would be insignificant considering that High and High aren't necessarily the same. I guess it also depends on what you're actually trying to measure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norguard September 29, 2005 Share Norguard Member September 29, 2005 (edited) Totally agree, Fox. Higher res textures, higher poly models and more attention to lighting detail are all one ups that I think VALVe has over CryTek. That has nothing to do with the engine, though. That's artistry. Some people I've talked to like FarCry better because everything's shiny... Well, that's personal preference, but I didn't think that between each scene, they'd get a waterboy to come out and spray each character down with water. You can do some amazingly beautiful things within the Source engine, compared to the CryTek engine. It just requires a longer art cycle than anybody's ever put into a videogame. Oh, and to really see Source at its highest levels, you need a seriously pimped out videocard. Most videocards see the 1024x768 specular maps, but a highend videocard will default to showing 1280x1024 specular maps on all of the textures. And now that HDR is out, that will only make those high end speculars even more stunning. The engine isn't yet capable of rendering out 2560x2048 specular bumpmaps, but let's face it, most engines can't even display regular textures at that size. Edited September 29, 2005 by Norguard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox September 29, 2005 Share appalachian_fox Member September 29, 2005 Yes, I totally agree: Valve put more artistry work into HL2 than Crytek did into Farcry. However, I think part of it is the huge backing HL2 had vs. Crytek as a startup and part of it is the fact that FarCry was more bubble-gum action and fantastic while HL2 was supposed to be a real-world, gritty epic struggle. Style makes a big difference (Bring on the waterboy!). That's not to say "Farcry could totally look better than HL2", that's just one reason that could contribute to the overall look. The next question is, how do you make the claim that one engine is better than another? Obviously we would all take Source over Quake anyday, provided we had a decent enough computer to run Source (there's already a metric). However, how does one compare Crytek and Source? The fact that Source can do more, even though it isn't feasible on the "average" computer? Personal preference? FPS (at what settings? How do you compare them?)? Source may be a bit more powerful, so that may be a bad comparison, but I don't think a good metric exists yet to really objectively judge between two peer engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norguard September 29, 2005 Share Norguard Member September 29, 2005 (edited) That sounds about right. Personally, the only way I would consider comparing engines is to get a list of all aspects of the engine and its capabilities, considering a PC which can handle all of the options at a 100+ framerate. Such a PC doesn't exist, but assuming that the PC is totally out of the question, the whitesheet can be a tapemeasure. Likewise, if you take all of the potential out of the engine, and use a P4 2GHz processor with a RADEON 9600XT, you will be able to judge which offers the majority of its current features at the highest framerate. It's impossible to do both. That's one of them, there scientific-like principles: we can know where an object is in space, or where it is in time, but not both in the same calculation. People are still trying to tell me that DooM 3 had the best graphics, and yet, the exact same people tell me that Quake 4 looks attrocious. Quake 4 is just DooM 3 with the lights turned on. Edited September 29, 2005 by Norguard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appalachian_fox September 30, 2005 Share appalachian_fox Member September 30, 2005 I think that's getting towards a really great testing setup...Too bad, like you said, it can't practically be done...But ideals are good Hehe, I hated Doom 3's graphics. And a horrible engine to boot. Never tried Q4, though...I imagine it's just as bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackieChan October 1, 2005 Share JackieChan GC Alumni October 1, 2005 Only way to make sure which engines' graphics are better than the others is to stand directly in front of a wall and compare screenshots. =D Unless... that only works when comparing console to PC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymo June 2, 2006 Share anonymo Member June 2, 2006 *tink...tink* "I think I found something!!!" *wipes off loose earth* "There's a thread down here!!! Wow is it old! Ha! They thought there would be a HL3 sometime in the future...funny what things were like in the past..." *re-burries thread* http://www.half-life3.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackieChan June 2, 2006 Share JackieChan GC Alumni June 2, 2006 Half-Life 2's engine is already STILL pretty. It'd be kind of a waste not to make alot of expansions for HL2's engine... I guess that's why they made Ep 1. They should made other episodes free to those who bought EP 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.