How do you judge graphics?

[Styloid]

I see there's a huge difference between what people think are good or
bad graphics. What do you think makes a game graphically good?

 

[Gordon'sFreeman]

Things that look realistic and not cartoonish, how smooth and shiny things are but run very well, and the way the enviroment expresses the mood of the weather...
And how kick as it looks when you shoot sh*t up

 

[CyberSh33p]

smooth edges, good textures, good lighting, relaistic shapes(not all blocks or straight edges everywhere. Basically curves, realistic lighting, reflections, models, high res textures help, and then basically anything you see in hl2 now. And I thought gta3 was good.

 

[Tork]

alot of atmosphere helps too.

 

[Woggy]

If it looks beutiful.
For example, the System Shock 2 graphics were great for its time because of how well designed the environments and characters were, not because of how many polygons or how many lights or how many shadows are in one scene.
Deus Ex 2 looks fugly like hell - Even though of dynamic shadows and bumpmaps.
HL2 doesnt rely on Dynamic shadows or bump maps too much to produce its images, and it still looks a hell of a lot better.
It just looks beutiful.

 

[Gordon'sFreeman]

Originally posted by Woggy
HL2 doesnt rely on Dynamic shadows or bump maps too much to produce its images, and it still looks a hell of a lot better.
It just looks beutiful.

EDIT:

What does it use then?

 

[spitcodfry]

Originally posted by Styloid
I see there's a huge difference between what people think are good or
bad graphics. What do you think makes a game graphically good?

When a certain 'style' or 'atmosphere' is created that stands out from other things. This visual style must be consistent throughout though...there's nothing I hate more than seeing one area of focus in a game graphically-speaking, and other attributes to the game's look seem like it was neglected in terms of time put into it.

Although several years old, I think Max Payne had a very sharp-looking style to it. The modeling and textures for every object and surface were of the same quality and consistency throughout the game.

 

[CyberSh33p]

Originally posted by Woggy
If it looks beutiful.
For example, the System Shock 2 graphics were great for its time because of how well designed the environments and characters were, not because of how many polygons or how many lights or how many shadows are in one scene.
Deus Ex 2 looks fugly like hell - Even though of dynamic shadows and bumpmaps.
HL2 doesnt rely on Dynamic shadows or bump maps too much to produce its images, and it still looks a hell of a lot better.
It just looks beutiful.

Thats true, but you gotta admit realistic shapes, curves, and good lighting help a lot. Good lighting meaning how it is lit, what colors, specularity, reflection, and all that mumbo jumbo. basiclaly as long as it looks good and plausible, I like it.

plausible meaning it looks someone realistic, and not out of place, like a smooth thing. I suppose I'm tyring to say I don't like tooo much texturte reuse. anyway, I'm rambling. I'll stop now.

 

[Joneleth]

Yeah, I think style is the most important part. A game could look cartoony, but still have good graphics. It's all in the way the game is meant to be presented.

 

[spitcodfry]

Originally posted by Gordon'sFreeman
What does it use?

I assume you're asking about the lighting---Valve has their own dynamic lighting system...but unlike Doom III it does not affect every object in the environment, only moving ones. An Ant Lion or Combine soldier, for example, would have proper dynamic lighting attributes...but that pillar in the City 17 square wouldn't. The best comparison I can think of is the old Doom III E3 demo where that beast is munching away on the fat zombie. The swinging lamp overhead properly incorporates not only the shadows of the characters but also the static objects in the surrounding environment. Hope that helped.

 

[poseyjmac]

believable

 

[ReZeroX]

Originally posted by Gordon'sFreeman
What does it use?

hehaH. oh man thats funny. bump maps are like the biggest part of hl2.

anyway, a game that takes the under-noticed things in real life and puts them in a game can make it feel A LOT more realistic. like say dust particles in the air, certain lens flares, etc.

 

[Tyrion]

The better detail in the picture(I.E. more pixels, better reflections, unique additions).

But I cant really compare some of them, for instance Warcraft III has a different style than Half-life2.

 

[Gordon'sFreeman]

Originally posted by spitcodfry
I assume you're asking about the lighting---Valve has their own dynamic lighting system...but unlike Doom III it does not affect every object in the environment, only moving ones. An Ant Lion or Combine soldier, for example, would have proper dynamic lighting attributes...but that pillar in the City 17 square wouldn't. The best comparison I can think of is the old Doom III E3 demo where that beast is munching away on the fat zombie. The swinging lamp overhead properly incorporates not only the shadows of the characters but also the static objects in the surrounding environment. Hope that helped.

Yeah i knew all that i just wanted to hear it from Woggy.

 

[spitcodfry]

Originally posted by Gordon'sFreeman
Yeah i knew all that i just wanted to hear it from Woggy.

Are you telling me I just wasted all that friggin time explaining crap you already knew? How dare you sir! Nah jk its all good :cheese:

 

[Gordon'sFreeman]

hehe sorry

 

[ReZeroX]

you should have been more sarcastic. like "what does it use then? a litebrite?!" then noone would be confused.

 

[spitcodfry]

Originally posted by ReZeroX
you should have been more sarcastic. like "what does it use then? a litebrite?!" then noone would be confused.

I remember having one of those When I was just a wee lad those were the coolest things.

 

[Styloid]

Are you guys sure that's how HL2 dynamic lighting works? From what I read in the interviews, I was under the impression that a lightsource would act like a camera and take in info and the texures of the world all acted like screens playing a shadow version of the picture on it. They called it texture-projection or something like that, I thought that's how it worked.

 

[Apos]

Yes, that's right but it's only done for moving/moveable objects. They don't use shadow volumes or anything like that.

Mostly all I care about with HL2's lighting is that the shaodws blend into each other properly, instead of the glaring "shadow cast within a shadow" effect we've seen in some places.

 

[ReZeroX]

well all see soon enough...

 

[Typhon]

I judge purely on wow-factor. If, when I first start a game, I say "wow", then it has good graphics. Or, if not immediately, at some point.

Biggest wow-moment ever: quake 2 (yeah yeah I know, brown) on my new Riva 128. It was the first 3d acceleration I'd ever seen. I saw...light from the rockets....and it was yellow....and all was good in the world.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Let's get a little more accurate than 'moving/moveable' objects.

The world is:

BSP = big flat surfaces that don't move

MODELS:
Moveable = animated or physics enabled objects
or
Non-Moveable

So for lighting:

BSP: lighting by precalculated shadowmaps;
additional light from moving lights layerd on top;
shadows cast by moveable models layerd on top
(if not shadow volumes, what?)

Models:
texture-projection = all lighting dynamic;

(I'll take your word for it on that last bit. It sounds like a poor man's raytracing. Do models block light from falling on other models? On themselves?)

 

[Koldfire]

I want real 3d trees and forests =/

 

[smilez]

Repeating textures are the worst... also flat polygons. Did anyone notice on the source engine HDR demo that when the user went into the wind tunnel the wooden planks were all flat and blocky? If anything needs a normal (bump) map then wood does!

 

[jabberwock95]

In my opinion, a game has good graphics if it pulls off the style the game-makers were aiming for. Example: HL2 has good graphics, the style valve was aiming for was realistic, believable worlds and characters. They pulled it off briliantly. Then again, I think Elite Force 2 has good graphics, but the style they were aiming for was more cartoony, not as realistic. Both pulled off the style, so both looked excellent.

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by Mr Neutron
Let's get a little more accurate than 'moving/moveable' objects.

The world is:

BSP = big flat surfaces that don't move

MODELS:
Moveable = animated or physics enabled objects
or
Non-Moveable

So for lighting:

BSP: lighting by precalculated shadowmaps;
additional light from moving lights layerd on top;
shadows cast by moveable models layerd on top
(if not shadow volumes, what?)

Models:
texture-projection = all lighting dynamic;

(I'll take your word for it on that last bit. It sounds like a poor man's raytracing. Do models block light from falling on other models? On themselves?)

no, projected shadows dont get cast onto other models, only onto flat surfaces (wall or floor)