half life 3 screenies!!

Reppyboyo said:
Plus they have already said they will be upgradeing the HL2 engine as time progresses, not make a whole new one.
Click to expand...
They've never made a whole new one. The HL2 engine was only an upgrade of the original HL engine.


Craig, you realise games will NEVER look "real"? It is impossible to make computer generated graphics look like real life, because we KNOW we are looking at a game. This is at the top end of "realism" (it certiantly isn't cartoonish), but of course it doesn't look real.
 
Last edited:
beautiful pictures, very fake though, however i would say in 5 to ten years, that level of detail should be commonplace, provided of course AMD+ATi doesnt go buggerup causing a virtual hollocaust for PC gaming. :D
 
What I said just shows that graphics aren't everything to everyone (I realise this sounds like I'm being argumentative, sorry if it seems that way, I really don't mean it to sound like that). Sorry about the late reply lol.
 
I don't believe valve when they say hl3 are the episodes, if hl3 is going to be a trilogy closure (I could be wrong about that) then they would be shooting themselves in the foot by making it a couple of episodes with a 2/3 months wait between each one, it should be something special. Also it would be stupid of them not to totally revamp the engine each time they did a major release like hl > hl2. So I'm going to take what Valve says about hl3 with a pinch of salt.
 
SnipaMasta said:
They've never made a whole new one. The HL2 engine was only an upgrade of the original HL engine.
Click to expand...


Wikipedia said:
Although Valve have explicitly stated that the Source engine has been built internally from the ground up, rumors and myths persist that it is instead merely derived from the original Quake codebase via Valve's GoldSrc offshoot. The primary reasons for this are the manner in which the engine uses similar development interfaces to GoldSrc (to aid transitioning developers), and John Carmack's comment on his blog that "there are still bits of early Quake code in Half-Life 2"[12], expanded through hearsay to be a confirmation that large swathes of code are identical, when no such conclusion can be drawn from the statement. There remains no solid proof that Source is derived from the GoldSrc codebase - and indeed, given the fact that the 2003 code leak did not produce any such claims it can only be assumed that no incriminating evidence was to be found.

However, it is known that Source was developed part-by-part, slowly replacing the GoldSrc engine in Valve's internal projects.[13] This explains its modular nature, and suggests that, even if Source was not derived from GoldSrc, GoldSrc was at the very least modified to plug into it during development.
Click to expand...

That's from Wikipedia. Basically, all the reports saying that it was built from the old HL engine (GoldSource) are muths and rumours - they have not been confirmed. Even if there are segments of code identical to the old engine, chances are they were used as references (hinted by the last paragraph from the quote above) and the entire engine was not merely an "upgrade from the original HL engine".




SnipaMasta said:
Craig, you realise games will NEVER look "real"? It is impossible to make computer generated graphics look like real life, because we KNOW we are looking at a game. This is at the top end of "realism" (it certiantly isn't cartoonish), but of course it doesn't look real.
Click to expand...

I don't understand where you're coming from with that. Why would it not look real because we know it's from a game? Depth of Field, motion blur, HDR - they're all effects based on what affects our vision. Sure, we're a while off yet, but what's to say it won't look real if we can master the art? And there's nothing stopping us from mastering the art; we just need more powerful machines to handle the complex shaders etc.. Saying that we'll never have "real" looking graphics is a bit naive - especially when you consider the advancements made in the last few years.

-RaZ
 
if you read the comments you find that the person that posted the pictures admitted it was fake, and taken by a camera with some snazzy photo editing :D
 
i love how people are making comments along the line of:
"they don't look real"
and
"they look too grainy/cartoonish"

how on earth do you get that from photographs?
As for source being based on the HL engine (a modified quake2 engine)... what a load of rubbish. As said, myth and rumour!
 
We'll never have 'real' graphics because quite simply, its impossible. As you get closer and closer to an object more detail is revealed. You have molecules, then atoms, then protons/electrons/neutrons, then you have what makes these particles (strings?), then what makes them, and so on.

We can't simulate that sort of detail, and its unlikely we ever will. We'll get close, but I doubt games will ever bother simulating molecules etc. The textures won't blur / lose detail as quickly though, so thats always a good thing :)

I can just see now, a time traveller coming from 1000 years into the future, and assuming we don't blow up the planet / rely on oil for too long, he'll post in this thread 'foolish Boogle, in the future our computers are so advanced that simulating molecules and atoms is easy, you just have to set the properties for all surfaces, and thats done for you when you specify 'wood here' for example. Oh and you reach your goal of immortality'.
 
Boogle said:
We'll never have 'real' graphics because quite simply, its impossible. As you get closer and closer to an object more detail is revealed. You have molecules, then atoms, then protons/electrons/neutrons, then you have what makes these particles (strings?), then what makes them, and so on.

We can't simulate that sort of detail, and its unlikely we ever will. We'll get close, but I doubt games will ever bother simulating molecules etc. The textures won't blur / lose detail as quickly though, so thats always a good thing :)

I can just see now, a time traveller coming from 1000 years into the future, and assuming we don't blow up the planet / rely on oil for too long, he'll post in this thread 'foolish Boogle, in the future our computers are so advanced that simulating molecules and atoms is easy, you just have to set the properties for all surfaces, and thats done for you when you specify 'wood here' for example. Oh and you reach your goal of immortality'.
Click to expand...
True but we can theoretically make it as real looking as watching TV. There comes a point where our eyes are not advanced in enough to see the difference, especially on our current screens.
 
Boogle said:
We'll never have 'real' graphics because quite simply, its impossible. As you get closer and closer to an object more detail is revealed. You have molecules, then atoms, then protons/electrons/neutrons, then you have what makes these particles (strings?), then what makes them, and so on.

We can't simulate that sort of detail, and its unlikely we ever will. We'll get close, but I doubt games will ever bother simulating molecules etc. The textures won't blur / lose detail as quickly though, so thats always a good thing :)
Click to expand...



SnipaMasta said:
They've never made a whole new one. The HL2 engine was only an upgrade of the original HL engine.


Craig, you realise games will NEVER look "real"? It is impossible to make computer generated graphics look like real life, because we KNOW we are looking at a game. This is at the top end of "realism" (it certiantly isn't cartoonish), but of course it doesn't look real.
Click to expand...



Half life 2 was not an upgrade of the original engine. it would be impossible to upgrade the half life engine to give off the results of halflife 2 without making it into something totally new as other than a few bits of basic structural code, the ammount of extra code required would transform it into a totally different beast.


i think your both looking at this from the wrong angle, i think there is a grave difference between the real world that we see and the "photo realistic" nature of movies and T.V. that kind of realism is possible on the pc. we know this from CGI films such as final fantasy that was done 8 years ago now.

within ten years, we will see the true dawn of physics and a shift towards photo realism the likes of which we have never seen before. sure it wont be perfect but be happy, we are living in exciting times when it comes to graphical content.
 
Last edited:
Boogle said:
We'll never have 'real' graphics because quite simply, its impossible. As you get closer and closer to an object more detail is revealed. You have molecules, then atoms, then protons/electrons/neutrons, then you have what makes these particles (strings?), then what makes them, and so on.

We can't simulate that sort of detail, and its unlikely we ever will. We'll get close, but I doubt games will ever bother simulating molecules etc. The textures won't blur / lose detail as quickly though, so thats always a good thing :)
Click to expand...

I think you're taking that a bit far... I think it's entirely possible we'll get "real" looking graphics - Why would you need to be able to see molecules, atoms, protons etc in a WW2 game for example? There's just no need for it - sure, we know the principle behind atoms and how them doing what they do makes things be - but you don't need to recreate stuff to that detail to make it seem real.

-RaZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom