The future of mods and modding

[Lord Ned]

*clears throat*
*straightens tie*



That is Source. And Spas12.

Looks like it could compete with UT3 any day.

[Zipfinator]

Looks like it could compete with UT3 any day.

Until you reach the brush limit which would happen fairly quick with that detail level or trade a lot of brush geometry for models which would have worse lighting.

[Lord Ned]

Shhh. >.>

Actually if you look close it's not alot of brush detail... It's not overdetailed, and models and overlays were used expertly to give more depth than there really is.

[Chopium]

As visual elements seem to be the biggest issue here, I will put in my 2 cents. I, for one, favor a stylized graphical theme (like Team Fortress 2) for its ability look visually stunning, yet so simple and elemental. That game will never look old (besides the low poly models and low-res textures) because it's not trying to recreate something computers can't yet. It's making it's own world and using the artists' imagination to create a seamless environment. Sure, maybe the COD4 can handle the most realistic water and shading effects, but that means NOTHING unless the water and shading effects are put to good use creating a seamless, realistic environment. The Source-Engine might not be able to handle effects as well as the COD4 engine, but that doesn't hold back the designers. People have an easier time picking apart the graphics of a "realistic" game because they know what the finished product should look like. Look at the examples:

Sure one looks more realistic, but which one looks better?

At the end of the day, the graphical properties of the game rest on the person using them. You could have the most beautiful map on the Source Engine, and the worst looking map on the far superior (graphically) Cry-engine.

Cry-Engine:

Source-Engine:

The quality of the graphics will mostly fall onto the artist behind them. Realistic does not necessarily mean good looking.

[Armageddon]

Looks like it could compete with UT3 any day.

Until you reach the brush limit which would happen fairly quick with that detail level or trade a lot of brush geometry for models which would have worse lighting.

Uh, is there really a brush limit in source? I don't thing so...

[Zipfinator]

Looks like it could compete with UT3 any day.

Until you reach the brush limit which would happen fairly quick with that detail level or trade a lot of brush geometry for models which would have worse lighting.

Uh, is there really a brush limit in source? I don't thing so...

Yes there is a brush limit, a brush side limit and many other limits in source that a highly detailed scene will hit the limit of quickly.

[vcool]

2^13 = 8192 -> brush limit in Source.

[stoopdapoop]

I always think it's silly to compare the capabilities of engines by the quality of the art in the games. What really matters is how well they handle textures, shaders and polygons.

And I think Call of Duty is a good example of how a modest number of polygons and not particularly high amount of texture data can turn into something stunning, if you try drawing wireframe models in your head when playing through the game, you'll realize that the game isn't really pumping out that much. (and it runs wonderfully) And people like to moan about source's brush limit, but holy shit, you shouldn't really be detailing with brushes. Not to mention that most maps in Cod for example, probably wouldn't hit the (arbitrary) brush limit in the source engine.

What does that CoD picture have in it that source doesn't have? Diffuse maps? source has that, normal maps? source has that, detail foliage? source has that, Very detailed characters? Hl2 doesn't have that, but source can handle it, if you're willing to make it. Oh yeah, and some color correction, source has that.

The same models and the same texture could look the exact same in source. And probably run better.

Like L'chop sorta said people need to stop stressing the differences between engine capabilities and start stressing the differences in artistic capabillities. The bread and butter for each engine is really the same. A modder that makes ugly maps in source will make uglier maps in UE.

gize check dis out.

Source engine:


Unreal 3:



and source runs better too.

[St.Penguin]

On the day HL2 was released (11/16?), I played through the first level and thought, "This looks and feels fantastic." However many years, I played through L4D and thought, "This looks and feels fantastic."
To me, to the current level of graphical engines is just right. If eye-candy did not progress for the next 10 years, I'd still be perfectly content. I think HL2 was the first 3d game that felt truly immersive to me...no, it was nowhere near photo-realism, but it looked and felt (source physics were the shit at the time) like I was finally in a real world. Before that, I had usually found 2d games more immersive, as they knew they were 2d and had a blast with it, not afraid to make their own stylized theme. All 3d games just fell flat.
In short, I'd much rather see engines that are supported longer and continue to receive tons of USEFUL updates. Source still has a lot of life left in it, and I think Valve has been quoted as saying something along those lines.

[zombie@computer]

To me, to the current level of graphical engines is just right. If eye-candy did not progress for the next 10 years, I'd still be perfectly content.

Sorry, but in 10 years you will see that is bullshit. You have no idea how realistic duke3d was the first time people play it. And be serious, how realistic is it now ???

[Psy]

I agree with Zombie. HL2 is really starting to show it's age now.

[St.Penguin]

To me, to the current level of graphical engines is just right. If eye-candy did not progress for the next 10 years, I'd still be perfectly content.

Sorry, but in 10 years you will see that is bullshit. You have no idea how realistic duke3d was the first time people play it. And be serious, how realistic is it now ???

Yes and no. Yes, I'm sure you're right that in 10 years I would rather poke my eyes out than play a Source game, but I'm saying that if eye-candy did not progress at all in those 10 years across all engines and platforms. It is all relative, like you suggested. Duke was THE SHIT and now looks like just shit because we have much better better graphics and thus 'know better' now. My main point was that, for me personally, the Source level of engines was the first that that I was satisfied with the way a 3d game looked and felt. I always felt like alot of older 3d games relied on the fact that they were 3d, whereas 2d games were more able (easier to do, for starters) and willing to create immersive worlds. Not that I didn't enjoy those games...god knows I'd still enjoy a good lan match of duke.

[Spike]

Looks like it could compete with UT3 any day.

It can't compete with UE3

[ScarT]

As said before, it's all depends on artist(s) behind a specific piece of work.

[Spike]

As said before, it's all depends on artist(s) behind a specific piece of work.

Then an experienced artist can make a level as pretty as one made in Crysis?

Seriously, I'm a big fan of HL2 and Source, but it's getting old, and there are lots of engines that looks and makes things a lot better than Source