Someone asked "do you see people still buying cs?"
As a matter of fact I do. After so many years we still sell that game. My last data is from last year, but then we would sell about 5-10 games monthly. I am talking about the old CS.
Also Source engine is great for low end computers and has a lot of potential. After just finishing Turok I can say that the graphics can't get better for the time being. Crysis? Well 70% of the "WOW" factor is the vast game world and a lot of playing with lights. I didn't get stunned by it's graphics (before someone asks- yes I did play a lag free "high details" game)
Not everyone has a massive monolith of a computer.
Thus, to get competitive and smooth framerates, something essential for a multiplayer game, it is MANDATORY that its load is as minimal as possible to provide an open entry point to a wide audience. This is probably why CS and NS still rank as some of the most played games according to the Steam Server Stats page. It's because graphics don't make the game. It's the content. Other notables are Earth's Special Forces, a game built on the HL1 Engine as well, and The Specialists, also exclusively on HL1 content.
Also, while Crysis is shiny, and singleplayer, i'd like to point out 2 things. 1) there are several ongoing projects to mod Crysis into several multiplayer games, including Mechwarrior Living Legends: <a href="http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/" target="_blank">http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/</a> 2) it is really really hardware intensive, so I doubt it will become a "standard" as someone else stated.
In my opinion, while the source Engine isn't the top of the crowd in shiny graphics, it's not only still very good and continually updated, but it also is one of the best scaling graphic engines out there. Valve has made it a point to ensure that you can still run their games on systems with a GeForce 5 and a crummy Pentium 4. I should know, I've TF2 played on one, and at moderately OK frames. So, I'm sure the graphics will be fine.
Plus, you're forgetting this is the Natural Selection Team. They made a really good looking game with the HL1 engine, I'm sure they'll take full advantage of the Source Engine as well.
Take a look on NS1 to see how much they achieve using a HL1 engine - this is insane. I'm sure guys from UWE will do everything they can to make the NS2 look stunning. It's way to early to judge.
<!--quoteo(post=1680615:date=Jun 9 2008, 05:40 PM:name=haymo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(haymo @ Jun 9 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680615"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Graphics are secondary to immersion and environmental engagement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That can't be true. Graphics are not mutually exclusive to immersion and environmental engagement.
<!--quoteo(post=1680670:date=Jun 10 2008, 01:37 AM:name=invader Zim)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(invader Zim @ Jun 10 2008, 01:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680670"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think using an "old" engine is more of a public image thing than a game changing issue.
The source engine is more than adequate for ns2. Ns2 is going to be an indoor game round corridors and various rooms. Good graphics can easily be wasted on indoor environments since there isnt that much too see - e.g. doom3
If ns2 were to be out door in a massive living environment i would understand the need for a glorious graphics engine but in its setting graphics isnt going to be a riding factor in the experience.
If ns2 ships after say hl3 or a newer valve engine or after people commonly view source as out of date it will be a public image problem rather than a game play problem. Some people equate the latest engine to game quality and thus whether its worth buying and playing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I reckon that's a great point, and Lt.Hendrickson's and spellman23's comments about scaling and efficiency, as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1681016:date=Jun 13 2008, 01:19 AM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Max @ Jun 13 2008, 01:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681016"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We intend to release a great looking game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Never doubted ya for a second. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
imo a good art team can trumph a graphics engine anyday. If the NS art team produce good work the game will look insanly good on the source engine. Many new games have 'state of the art engines' but have very bland art work and model designs. If UWE can generate an art style that looks good and is distinct then they can produce a visual piece. They did it last time so i dont see why they couldnt do it again.
Graphics only seem to be a sale factor in single player FPS. in RTS the graphics havent revolutionised in the past decade, in FPS TF2 is a clear display of art over graphics in my opinon. and MOORPGs dont have great grpahics yet they out sell pretty much everything else atm.
I can't afford to keep my computer up to date, so haven't bought any non-steam games in a while. Most things look like my computer would struggle with, or I'd have to heavily turn down settings. But as long as I continue to buy Source games, I trust I can play them. I can't play with highest visual settings, but everything is still impressive. The only games I want to play and can't are HL2: Lost Coast and Hidden: Source.
My RAM started at 512, but has degraded to about 460. My video card is an old (regular) PCI card, Radeon 9250. My CPU is around 2.2...
These settings are rather poor by comparison to what others can afford, but I still get the play Source games well. Even Gmod. They still (technically) meet the minimum requirements listed by most Steam games.
NS1 I'd say is particularly special among mods, particularly in graphics. Its visuals are so far above all other HL1 mods, and even HL1 itself. I don't know if it is true on a technical level, but the way they did the graphics just really works. That also means that my most-played game is also easily handled by my system. I expect we'll get similar for NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1681372:date=Jun 17 2008, 10:39 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Jun 17 2008, 10:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681372"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyone who keeps their computer moderately up to date can run Crysis. No, not at ultra specs, but at very high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we're only going to cater to the 30-40% of people who keep their systems "moderately up to date"? Also, have you seen how crappy Crysis looks on low settings? I have, because my gaming machine IS the minimum working settings.
I'm hoping that UWE will release some kind of a 'rolling-demo' of the tech, showing off some kinds of animated scripted sequence which involves some characters/aliens, to show approx what kind of FPS we could expect. Like a real-time trailer or something running in Source.
<!--quoteo(post=1681372:date=Jun 17 2008, 04:39 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Jun 17 2008, 04:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681372"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyone who keeps their computer moderately up to date can run Crysis. No, not at ultra specs, but at very high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FPS matters a lot in an fps, I'd rather have my fps never dip below 100 in say tf2 than have my computer chug away at 20 fps in crysis.
What will make the game look good is the quality of the art work and design.
Take WOW for instance it uses a very primitive rendering engine but its probably one of the best looking games on the market.
What a game engine does is simply let developers make games faster by not having to re-write lots of generic low level code whilst hl2 is be no means the best engine it should suffice for this project.
<!--quoteo(post=1680615:date=Jun 9 2008, 11:40 AM:name=haymo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(haymo @ Jun 9 2008, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680615"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Graphics are secondary to immersion and environmental engagement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
!!!
Lets not forget, that speed is also a major factor. If you compare screens of hl2ep2 and cod4 you will notice alot of difference, but when you actually play the game, the fact that your sight has that sweet reflection becomes less and less important. Only when you stand still and have time to look around, only then you will notice the many imperfections.
And as long as NS2 keeps the player moving we wont have many problems with people moaning bout the graphics
I can see how NS1 looks like crap now, but that dosen't stop me from playing it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> . As long as NS2 comes out in the next 2-3 years ppl will still play it, as for buying it ppl still buy half-life 1 for mods like NS1 so i don't see it being a big problem
<!--quoteo(post=1681966:date=Jun 25 2008, 11:11 AM:name=BlackHawk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BlackHawk @ Jun 25 2008, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681966"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can see how NS1 looks like crap now, but that dosen't stop me from playing it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> . As long as NS2 comes out in the next 2-3 years ppl will still play it, as for buying it ppl still buy half-life 1 for mods like NS1 so i don't see it being a big problem<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think NS1 still looks great! It doesn't have lots of fancy effects but it looks really good.
the source engine, however, is now over 5 jears old. and still be used, and maybe crysis or cod4 looks better, but source have a such robust physics engine, can be updated everytime, and can be used to almost everything, even RTS.
no, when NS2 come out, none look at the graphic, they look at the game, how polished , great and fun it is, not graphic. and the people who do look at this, dont deserve this game, and shouldnt play it.
and i think the source engine can easely run, and will make other engines look like crap in the next 4 jears.
(IE, expansive, new and high requiremts <b><</b> "cheap" older, but still good looking and low requiremts. )
the success of Left for Dead will be a good indicator this autumn since (i think) its on the source engine. If it slumps on the fact that its engines out of date then this maybe a worrying trend.
imo i'm very happy with the source engine. I hate how fast games are developing recently, i dont have $2000 to dish out every year for new computers just to play the new direct x that supports only 20 core processors that have to be liquid nitrogen cooled overcloced 200x normal speeds. >_<
<!--quoteo(post=1682258:date=Jun 30 2008, 03:36 PM:name=invader Zim)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(invader Zim @ Jun 30 2008, 03:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682258"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the success of Left for Dead will be a good indicator this autumn since (i think) its on the source engine. If it slumps on the fact that its engines out of date then this maybe a worrying trend.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is built on Source. I wouldn't use it as the end-all of indicators, especially since it's a very specific genre. Content still tends to reign supreme. See FFVIII. Shiny graphics, crummy game (second half at least).
Personally, i spent 2 years with natural selection 1, the problem that i'm moreso focused on right now is that other games will be out (and most likely better) than natural selection 2. I know a lot of gamers that concentrate first on graphics, second on gameplay. With blizzard announcing Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and a new unnanounced MMO, natural selection 2 has a lot of competition on their hands against these three big games. I'm sorry to say, but if it's not released sometime within the next two years, their base populous for this game will be elsewhere and will not care about a game being released on an 8 yr old engine.
I still have converts who pick up NS1. I actually started up 3 years ago and have been playing every since. Yeah, I'm from the 3.0 era, so sue me.
The key is is it accessible and is it fun? Most of my school friends play casually at our weekly LAN parties, which are often time insane slug fests as the better players angst about noobs and the noob angst about the skill gaps. But, it's fun and refreshing instead of the frag fest games, some players become known for being annoying Gorges. Actually, I started my NS career being the annoying Gorge who put up that OC that's blocking our way.
<!--quoteo(post=1682385:date=Jul 2 2008, 09:48 AM:name=Dtere)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dtere @ Jul 2 2008, 09:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682385"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know a lot of gamers that concentrate first on graphics, second on gameplay. With blizzard announcing Starcraft 2,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i dont expect starcraft 2 to blow us all away with its graphics, it will sell on its game play and maticulus balancing
<!--quoteo(post=1682385:date=Jul 2 2008, 08:48 AM:name=Dtere)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dtere @ Jul 2 2008, 08:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682385"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Personally, i spent 2 years with natural selection 1, the problem that i'm moreso focused on right now is that other games will be out (and most likely better) than natural selection 2. I know a lot of gamers that concentrate first on graphics, second on gameplay. With blizzard announcing Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and a new unnanounced MMO, natural selection 2 has a lot of competition on their hands against these three big games. I'm sorry to say, but if it's not released sometime within the next two years, their base populous for this game will be elsewhere and will not care about a game being released on an 8 yr old engine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Starcraft II is an RTS, and Diablo 3 is an action RPG. I don't see how that could possibly compete with Natural Selection 2? A far bigger piece of competition for NS2 is Left 4 Dead, due to its attempt to create an immersive, teamwork oriented experience and asymmetric teams. It's also the <i>only</i> multiplayer-oriented FPS coming out this year. The only other FPS games coming out this year with multiplayer (that I can think of) are Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead, which of course are focused on their campaign modes.
<!--quoteo(post=1680545:date=Jun 8 2008, 01:27 PM:name=eliotmat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eliotmat @ Jun 8 2008, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The original NS ran on an aging HL1 engine. It seems NS2 is on schedule to run on source as it starts to show its age.
I had trouble getting friends to play NS1 because they thought it looked like crap. Is NS2 going to run into the same problem? I'm not sure how "future proof" the source engine is, but it's starting to get old.
What do you guys think about this?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's a question of money and balance. A game can still have fun gameplay and immersive environments, even if the graphics aren't the latest.
It's like roller coasters.
Roller coaster architects and builders are always trying to claim a new greatest title of the tallest, fastest, etc. one in the world. Yet sometimes by focusing on being the most extreme, they end up making a roller coaster that isn't as fun or as thrilling than one that focuses on the art of making it an exhilarating ride that you can't wait to ride again.
Source provides a solid, modular and easy-to-work-with engine and Steam provides an easy and effective means of publishing and distributing the product. For a new small business like UWE, it makes perfect sense given the limited labor resources and limited financial backing. The small developer can be creative and artistic while the giants can spend the time and money engineering fancy graphics. Besides, to run the most extreme graphics you will need to upgrade hardware too (an potentially "un-upgrade" to Vista for DX10).
One of the best things about Source anyways was it's focus on vastly improved physics simulation and is something which is bound to have intriguing possibilities for new, fun ways to use upgrades or tactics in combat for defense & offense.
<!--quoteo(post=1680546:date=Jun 8 2008, 01:50 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sherpa @ Jun 8 2008, 01:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680546"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Source is modular so you can add stuff all the time, but to me that's just fancy talking. To my untrained eye Ep2 looked no better than HL2; talk about aliased dynamic nuclear powered extra fluffy clouds all you want, you'd struggle to keep updating any engine to ensure it stays modern.
But Steam is so popular that UWE can afford to work as slowly as they do- I'd have guessed any release in the next 2-3 years will work if the game is good.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So basically the quality of the art is greater than the haste to complete it? (yes/no?)
<!--quoteo(post=1680546:date=Jun 8 2008, 01:50 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sherpa @ Jun 8 2008, 01:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680546"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pessismist hat but based on past progress I can't see how NS2 will be released in 2 years. Granted we wouldn't expect website hacks and moving cross country to get in the way again, but they've had no issues in the past half year and all we've seen is concept art.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not sure what you are getting at here. It sounds like you are saying they could do more, in contradiction to the rest of what it sounded like you were previously implying, so I'm confused.
<!--quoteo(post=1680565:date=Jun 8 2008, 04:08 PM:name=eliotmat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eliotmat @ Jun 8 2008, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Graphics matter if it's a new product that is going to cost money......<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, it will also cost money if you need to buy the latest nVidia or ATi card just to run the game half-decently too.
With that said, people shouldn't be expecting to play it on really old Atari-like hardware, but there needs to be a balance. (of course everybody will have a different opinion on where that perfect balance lies)
<!--quoteo(post=1681009:date=Jun 12 2008, 12:03 PM:name=Reyn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Reyn @ Jun 12 2008, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1681007:date=Jun 12 2008, 11:42 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 12 2008, 11:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you realize you've all ready made a decision about the game's graphics when they haven't released a single screen shot? NS looks out-dated now, but it didn't look bad when it came out. My friends and I all said "this is using the HL engine!?" when we first saw it. If you want to judge how NS2 will look, you'd probably be best by comparing it to NS1 when it was released.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I will compare NS2 graphics to other FPS released in the same year. Crysis graphics will become standard in 2009 so good luck. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First, you <i>all</i>? Pardon me, locallyunscene, but I didn't realize I was making any decisions on the graphics. To my knowledge, I've reiterated my thoughts on the Source engine, the balance of not being too cutting edge yet not too the kind of app you could run on your iPhone, and other such statements and querries surrounding the underlying issues, without passing judgment either way. The only kind of decision I thought I made was to vouch support in feeling that UWE made a wise decision in choosing to go with Source.
Second, know that people are probably making the comparison of what NS2's graphics might be like by assuming it to be similar to HL2's graphics. (after all they <i>are</i> built from the same engine)
Third, "standard in 2009" eh? Hah, well that is a plenary fallacy assumption if I've ever seen one Reyn! Crysis graphics may be <i>your</i> vision of a standard for next year, but that is no guarantee of what the <i>market</i> will decide. (if that could be quantified at all!) In fact, I would argue that the current economy's declining consumer market trend would delay that at the least, and that the modifications from Source engine have not even begun to hit their zenith of prosumer-created production. To your credit, yes, NS2 <i>will</i> be compared against it's peers at its release. But given there are <i>many</i> more people at LAN parties (such as the MML7, 2nd largest annual LAN party in North America, just a few days ago) playing StarCraft, Smash Bros., TF2, and WCIII even now and you <i>know</i> how dated the graphics on some of those games are... even if NS2's graphics are not cutting-edge. So? So what? It's not the biggest concern for NS2 by far.
<!--quoteo(post=1681016:date=Jun 12 2008, 01:19 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Max @ Jun 12 2008, 01:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681016"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We intend to release a great looking game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That sounds to me like a "don't worry" reassurance statement, a "we've got bigger fish to fry" dismissive statement, and a "we will make the game look great with excellent art" confirmation statement together in a really terse, compressed form. (while not making any specific commitments)
I'm not sure whether that answers the discussion's issue or just raises more questions, but I feel that I can agree with you, even if I can't place why exactly.
<!--quoteo(post=1680613:date=Jun 9 2008, 03:31 AM:name=Lt_Hendrickson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lt_Hendrickson @ Jun 9 2008, 03:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680613"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even though the maximun capabilities of this game visually are less than other games, I still find on my computer that if I set my graphics high to the max before it lags, its looks better on the source engine because it's more efficiant. Take the example of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for anyone who had the opportunity to play that amazing game. Hl2 looks better on my computer because I can set the graphics to max and in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. i have frame rate issues even on medium settings. S.T.A.l.K.E.R's engine actually some of the best graphics in my opinion ( not the best) but only super insane computers can run it. One of the biggest problems I found with the episodes of HL2 was that they spent way too much time showing off graphics and new engine abilities and not enough on gameplay. Atmosphere was good but the games were boring to me but that's mostly cause they couldn't get over the fact the made a physics engine and you can beat the game blindfolded lobbing things with the gravity gun.
Except for that strider fight at the end of ep 2. That was sweat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> HL2, any part of it, looks alot better then stalker on full settings. I personally think that's more the fault of the art team then the engine developer, but stalker has it's engine troubles too... there are a cascade of annoying bugs inherent to the stalker engine. Everything from flawed stat keeping, to people forgetting how to talk to you, to mission critical characters getting killed irrellevent of what the player does to try to prevent it, even random player deaths in a few spots.
Not to say stalker is bad. It's one of the more amazing games of the last generation. I can't remember the last time FPS and RTS elements combined to make something so fun, and there's just tonnes of ###### to explore in stalker. But it isn't the prettiest or most bug free game in recent history.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682808:date=Jul 8 2008, 04:24 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Jul 8 2008, 04:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682808"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First, you <i>all</i>? Pardon me, locallyunscene, but I didn't realize I was making any decisions on the graphics. To my knowledge, I've reiterated my thoughts on the Source engine, the balance of not being too cutting edge yet not too the kind of app you could run on your iPhone, and other such statements and querries surrounding the underlying issues, without passing judgment either way. The only kind of decision I thought I made was to vouch support in feeling that UWE made a wise decision in choosing to go with Source.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What made you think that paragraph was directed to you? I quoted <b>Reyn</b> when I responded, and you hadn't even posted in the topic yet. I'm very puzzled why you would think that was directed at you.
I don't think many of you realize that a graphics engine does not make a game. The core game play is what really matters. I also think that I should reiterate a statement that I previously read in game developer magazine. In it Doug Lombardi said that the Source engine is one of the most update engines and if you ever check the update log that games have you can see that the engine is constantly getting features added to it. I believe that once the game "Left 4 Dead" comes out (which is built on the Source engine) many will see that it is still a great engine.
It doesn't matter how many lights are touching a pile of crap, if the crap has normal mapping on it or if the crap is so shiny you could see your reflection off of it. It is still a pile of crap.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682837:date=Jul 8 2008, 10:49 PM:name=exoity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoity @ Jul 8 2008, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think many of you realize that a graphics engine does not make a game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny, I would say the exact opposite about these forums. Most people are here because they care about the great gameplay/atmosphere of NS1. I think with the exception of the OP you're mostly preaching to the choir.
Comments
Someone asked "do you see people still buying cs?"
As a matter of fact I do. After so many years we still sell that game. My last data is from last year, but then we would sell about 5-10 games monthly. I am talking about the old CS.
Also Source engine is great for low end computers and has a lot of potential. After just finishing Turok I can say that the graphics can't get better for the time being. Crysis? Well 70% of the "WOW" factor is the vast game world and a lot of playing with lights. I didn't get stunned by it's graphics (before someone asks- yes I did play a lag free "high details" game)
Not everyone has a massive monolith of a computer.
Thus, to get competitive and smooth framerates, something essential for a multiplayer game, it is MANDATORY that its load is as minimal as possible to provide an open entry point to a wide audience. This is probably why CS and NS still rank as some of the most played games according to the Steam Server Stats page. It's because graphics don't make the game. It's the content. Other notables are Earth's Special Forces, a game built on the HL1 Engine as well, and The Specialists, also exclusively on HL1 content.
Also, while Crysis is shiny, and singleplayer, i'd like to point out 2 things. 1) there are several ongoing projects to mod Crysis into several multiplayer games, including Mechwarrior Living Legends: <a href="http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/" target="_blank">http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/</a> 2) it is really really hardware intensive, so I doubt it will become a "standard" as someone else stated.
In my opinion, while the source Engine isn't the top of the crowd in shiny graphics, it's not only still very good and continually updated, but it also is one of the best scaling graphic engines out there. Valve has made it a point to ensure that you can still run their games on systems with a GeForce 5 and a crummy Pentium 4. I should know, I've TF2 played on one, and at moderately OK frames. So, I'm sure the graphics will be fine.
Plus, you're forgetting this is the Natural Selection Team. They made a really good looking game with the HL1 engine, I'm sure they'll take full advantage of the Source Engine as well.
That can't be true. Graphics are not mutually exclusive to immersion and environmental engagement.
<!--quoteo(post=1680670:date=Jun 10 2008, 01:37 AM:name=invader Zim)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(invader Zim @ Jun 10 2008, 01:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680670"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think using an "old" engine is more of a public image thing than a game changing issue.
The source engine is more than adequate for ns2. Ns2 is going to be an indoor game round corridors and various rooms. Good graphics can easily be wasted on indoor environments since there isnt that much too see - e.g. doom3
If ns2 were to be out door in a massive living environment i would understand the need for a glorious graphics engine but in its setting graphics isnt going to be a riding factor in the experience.
If ns2 ships after say hl3 or a newer valve engine or after people commonly view source as out of date it will be a public image problem rather than a game play problem. Some people equate the latest engine to game quality and thus whether its worth buying and playing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I reckon that's a great point, and Lt.Hendrickson's and spellman23's comments about scaling and efficiency, as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1681016:date=Jun 13 2008, 01:19 AM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Max @ Jun 13 2008, 01:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681016"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We intend to release a great looking game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Never doubted ya for a second. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Graphics only seem to be a sale factor in single player FPS. in RTS the graphics havent revolutionised in the past decade, in FPS TF2 is a clear display of art over graphics in my opinon. and MOORPGs dont have great grpahics yet they out sell pretty much everything else atm.
<img src="http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/315/reviews/931665_20071112_screen013.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_162355.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Crysis also runs poorly on the majority of pcs and will run poorly on the <i>majority</i> of pcs for awhile.
If you want to make a popular game cutting edge graphics are not ideal.
My RAM started at 512, but has degraded to about 460. My video card is an old (regular) PCI card, Radeon 9250. My CPU is around 2.2...
These settings are rather poor by comparison to what others can afford, but I still get the play Source games well. Even Gmod. They still (technically) meet the minimum requirements listed by most Steam games.
NS1 I'd say is particularly special among mods, particularly in graphics. Its visuals are so far above all other HL1 mods, and even HL1 itself. I don't know if it is true on a technical level, but the way they did the graphics just really works. That also means that my most-played game is also easily handled by my system. I expect we'll get similar for NS2.
So we're only going to cater to the 30-40% of people who keep their systems "moderately up to date"? Also, have you seen how crappy Crysis looks on low settings? I have, because my gaming machine IS the minimum working settings.
FPS matters a lot in an fps, I'd rather have my fps never dip below 100 in say tf2 than have my computer chug away at 20 fps in crysis.
What will make the game look good is the quality of the art work and design.
Take WOW for instance it uses a very primitive rendering engine but its probably one of the best looking games on the market.
What a game engine does is simply let developers make games faster by not having to re-write lots of generic low level code whilst hl2 is be no means the best engine it should suffice for this project.
!!!
Lets not forget, that speed is also a major factor.
If you compare screens of hl2ep2 and cod4 you will notice alot of difference, but when you actually play the game, the fact that your sight has that sweet reflection becomes less and less important. Only when you stand still and have time to look around, only then you will notice the many imperfections.
And as long as NS2 keeps the player moving we wont have many problems with people moaning bout the graphics
I think NS1 still looks great! It doesn't have lots of fancy effects but it looks really good.
no, when NS2 come out, none look at the graphic, they look at the game, how polished , great and fun it is,
not graphic. and the people who do look at this, dont deserve this game, and shouldnt play it.
and i think the source engine can easely run, and will make other engines look like crap in the next 4 jears.
(IE, expansive, new and high requiremts <b><</b> "cheap" older, but still good looking and low requiremts. )
p.s., i'm over dramatizing.
It is built on Source. I wouldn't use it as the end-all of indicators, especially since it's a very specific genre. Content still tends to reign supreme. See FFVIII. Shiny graphics, crummy game (second half at least).
The key is is it accessible and is it fun? Most of my school friends play casually at our weekly LAN parties, which are often time insane slug fests as the better players angst about noobs and the noob angst about the skill gaps. But, it's fun and refreshing instead of the frag fest games, some players become known for being annoying Gorges. Actually, I started my NS career being the annoying Gorge who put up that OC that's blocking our way.
i dont expect starcraft 2 to blow us all away with its graphics, it will sell on its game play and maticulus balancing
Starcraft II is an RTS, and Diablo 3 is an action RPG. I don't see how that could possibly compete with Natural Selection 2? A far bigger piece of competition for NS2 is Left 4 Dead, due to its attempt to create an immersive, teamwork oriented experience and asymmetric teams. It's also the <i>only</i> multiplayer-oriented FPS coming out this year. The only other FPS games coming out this year with multiplayer (that I can think of) are Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead, which of course are focused on their campaign modes.
I had trouble getting friends to play NS1 because they thought it looked like crap. Is NS2 going to run into the same problem? I'm not sure how "future proof" the source engine is, but it's starting to get old.
What do you guys think about this?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a question of money and balance. A game can still have fun gameplay and immersive environments, even if the graphics aren't the latest.
It's like roller coasters.
Roller coaster architects and builders are always trying to claim a new greatest title of the tallest, fastest, etc. one in the world. Yet sometimes by focusing on being the most extreme, they end up making a roller coaster that isn't as fun or as thrilling than one that focuses on the art of making it an exhilarating ride that you can't wait to ride again.
Source provides a solid, modular and easy-to-work-with engine and Steam provides an easy and effective means of publishing and distributing the product. For a new small business like UWE, it makes perfect sense given the limited labor resources and limited financial backing. The small developer can be creative and artistic while the giants can spend the time and money engineering fancy graphics. Besides, to run the most extreme graphics you will need to upgrade hardware too (an potentially "un-upgrade" to Vista for DX10).
One of the best things about Source anyways was it's focus on vastly improved physics simulation and is something which is bound to have intriguing possibilities for new, fun ways to use upgrades or tactics in combat for defense & offense.
<!--quoteo(post=1680546:date=Jun 8 2008, 01:50 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sherpa @ Jun 8 2008, 01:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680546"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Source is modular so you can add stuff all the time, but to me that's just fancy talking. To my untrained eye Ep2 looked no better than HL2; talk about aliased dynamic nuclear powered extra fluffy clouds all you want, you'd struggle to keep updating any engine to ensure it stays modern.
But Steam is so popular that UWE can afford to work as slowly as they do- I'd have guessed any release in the next 2-3 years will work if the game is good.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So basically the quality of the art is greater than the haste to complete it? (yes/no?)
<!--quoteo(post=1680546:date=Jun 8 2008, 01:50 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sherpa @ Jun 8 2008, 01:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680546"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pessismist hat but based on past progress I can't see how NS2 will be released in 2 years. Granted we wouldn't expect website hacks and moving cross country to get in the way again, but they've had no issues in the past half year and all we've seen is concept art.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure what you are getting at here. It sounds like you are saying they could do more, in contradiction to the rest of what it sounded like you were previously implying, so I'm confused.
<!--quoteo(post=1680565:date=Jun 8 2008, 04:08 PM:name=eliotmat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eliotmat @ Jun 8 2008, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Graphics matter if it's a new product that is going to cost money......<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it will also cost money if you need to buy the latest nVidia or ATi card just to run the game half-decently too.
With that said, people shouldn't be expecting to play it on really old Atari-like hardware, but there needs to be a balance. (of course everybody will have a different opinion on where that perfect balance lies)
<!--quoteo(post=1681009:date=Jun 12 2008, 12:03 PM:name=Reyn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Reyn @ Jun 12 2008, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=1681007:date=Jun 12 2008, 11:42 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 12 2008, 11:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you realize you've all ready made a decision about the game's graphics when they haven't released a single screen shot? NS looks out-dated now, but it didn't look bad when it came out. My friends and I all said "this is using the HL engine!?" when we first saw it. If you want to judge how NS2 will look, you'd probably be best by comparing it to NS1 when it was released.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will compare NS2 graphics to other FPS released in the same year. Crysis graphics will become standard in 2009 so good luck.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, you <i>all</i>? Pardon me, locallyunscene, but I didn't realize I was making any decisions on the graphics. To my knowledge, I've reiterated my thoughts on the Source engine, the balance of not being too cutting edge yet not too the kind of app you could run on your iPhone, and other such statements and querries surrounding the underlying issues, without passing judgment either way. The only kind of decision I thought I made was to vouch support in feeling that UWE made a wise decision in choosing to go with Source.
Second, know that people are probably making the comparison of what NS2's graphics might be like by assuming it to be similar to HL2's graphics. (after all they <i>are</i> built from the same engine)
Third, "standard in 2009" eh? Hah, well that is a plenary fallacy assumption if I've ever seen one Reyn! Crysis graphics may be <i>your</i> vision of a standard for next year, but that is no guarantee of what the <i>market</i> will decide. (if that could be quantified at all!) In fact, I would argue that the current economy's declining consumer market trend would delay that at the least, and that the modifications from Source engine have not even begun to hit their zenith of prosumer-created production. To your credit, yes, NS2 <i>will</i> be compared against it's peers at its release. But given there are <i>many</i> more people at LAN parties (such as the MML7, 2nd largest annual LAN party in North America, just a few days ago) playing StarCraft, Smash Bros., TF2, and WCIII even now and you <i>know</i> how dated the graphics on some of those games are... even if NS2's graphics are not cutting-edge. So? So what? It's not the biggest concern for NS2 by far.
<!--quoteo(post=1681016:date=Jun 12 2008, 01:19 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Max @ Jun 12 2008, 01:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681016"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We intend to release a great looking game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds to me like a "don't worry" reassurance statement, a "we've got bigger fish to fry" dismissive statement, and a "we will make the game look great with excellent art" confirmation statement together in a really terse, compressed form. (while not making any specific commitments)
I'm not sure whether that answers the discussion's issue or just raises more questions, but I feel that I can agree with you, even if I can't place why exactly.
Except for that strider fight at the end of ep 2. That was sweat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HL2, any part of it, looks alot better then stalker on full settings. I personally think that's more the fault of the art team then the engine developer, but stalker has it's engine troubles too... there are a cascade of annoying bugs inherent to the stalker engine. Everything from flawed stat keeping, to people forgetting how to talk to you, to mission critical characters getting killed irrellevent of what the player does to try to prevent it, even random player deaths in a few spots.
Not to say stalker is bad. It's one of the more amazing games of the last generation. I can't remember the last time FPS and RTS elements combined to make something so fun, and there's just tonnes of ###### to explore in stalker. But it isn't the prettiest or most bug free game in recent history.
What made you think that paragraph was directed to you? I quoted <b>Reyn</b> when I responded, and you hadn't even posted in the topic yet. I'm very puzzled why you would think that was directed at you.
It doesn't matter how many lights are touching a pile of crap, if the crap has normal mapping on it or if the crap is so shiny you could see your reflection off of it. It is still a pile of crap.
Funny, I would say the exact opposite about these forums. Most people are here because they care about the great gameplay/atmosphere of NS1. I think with the exception of the OP you're mostly preaching to the choir.