Two Quake IV screens

they can call it whatever they want, it looks like ass. i havent seen any lighting in half life 2 that looks better than unreal tournament 2k4. and people can say its subtle all they want, but i dont notice ANY bump mapping in half life 2 because everything looks completely flat except for the characters.

 

Can someone tell me how V2:Bloodlines compares to HL2 graphics-wise?
I only have the former and the graphics quality is pretty disgusting. The sewers show what the engine is capable of but the rest of the levels looks totally bland thanks to the subtelty.

 

There's a Vamp:Blood thread...

 

Maybe you need to refill the Technicolor fluid in your moniter to get the full effect.

 

You're blind. Or running it on a Voodoo2.

 

Hmm, really I think he is pretty right. The lighting really to me looks just as bad as it did in all the screenshots and Doom 3 engine looks much more impressive overall unfortunately just too dark

Though there definately is bump-mapping its just hard to see when the normal map texture is the same resolution as the texel texture and the objects and lights aren't moving.

 

I'm not going to judge this game whatsoever until there is A LOT more info and shots of it.

Raven has never totally messed up, IMO. A lot of their games are mediocre, but none of them totally suck.

Let's just say I'd be stunned to see Quake 4 not lay total waste to the textbook example of repetition and cliche's that was Doom3.

 

You're still going on about that? I'll correct you then: you don't notice bump-mapping in Half-Life 2 because there is very little specular and extremely few dynamic lights.

 

cuz the lighting in hl2 is ass.....

dont knwo how else you can describe a game with lighting that looks no better than games thet came out YEARS earlier.

 

Yes, yes -- so you've said in other threads. However, if you actually read other people's explanations rather than ignoring anything that does not agree with your own opinions, you'd realize that the surfaces are lit exactly as they should be. It's not a matter of the lighting being bad; it's a matter of the lighting being static.

 

when the engine uses precomputed lighting exclusivly, with that precomputed lighting being virtually identical to the lighting on nintendo 64 games, just at a higher resolution(regardless of what fancy name they make up for their lightign system), id say the lighting sucks.

 

It certainly does use precomputed radiosity lightmaps, but if it weren't precomputed, it'd look worse due to the lack of any sort of radiosity-based lighting. Ignoring radiosity and only looking at basic shading and light attenuation, precomputing this data produces the exact same result as doing it in realtime. If you took a scene from Half-Life 2 and rendered it in FarCry with the shading computed in realtime, it would look the same.

Once again, it looks the way it does because most of the lights are static. Dynamic lights shining on the same surface are handled with realtime shading.

 

send me 1 picture of a dynamic light excluding the flashlight(even with the flashlight on everything looks flat). it just hit me. source = unreal engine 2 + dx 9 shaders. 3 years for that. talk about a waste of time

 

far crys lighting is much better than half life 2s. dont even compare the 2

 

Well, Far Cry's only redeeming quality really was its open landscapes. Characters, indoors, story, and the monsters were pretty bad. I don't remember being stunned by lighting.....

HL2 got more right than FarCry. I was beginning to hate FarCry towards the end. It just got dumber as you progressed. And I DESPISE waxy people.

FarCry deserves a lot of praise as a first showing from Crytek though.

 

No can do. I uninstalled the demo earlier this week after having finished it twice.

And once again you understood nothing that I posted. I thought I explained it clearly and specifically, but I guess it's really futile.

 

i understand exactly what your saying. half life 2s lighting doesnt look like shit cuz of art design. and it wouldnt look identical if it was rendered in realtime.

 

only arguing on the merits of the engine, not how good the game was. cryteks engine is better in virtually every way than source.

 

At worst, the precomputed lightmaps will not look as detailed close-up. Even if the lightmap was only half the resolution as the original normal-map, only the finest of details would be missing. Otherwise, the lighting would look the same.

Care to list those differences?

 

Raven has never made an outstanding game. And that's what we all expect Q4 to be.