Read this


May 14, 2003
Reaction score
to Murray_H
at 7:17 18/6/2003
geez your dumb, that video of GF in a buggy is CG and not gameplay.
And CG has nothing to do with the actual game engine. So maybe you should be the 1 researching.


He reckons the UT2K3 engine is better than Source, and that Source cannot handle complex physics and superb graphics in real time. He believes them to be pre-rendered (edit - them being the demo videos)!

(This was on, had to say something, they were dissing HL2!)
Apparentley the HL2 Engine was able to handle way better stuff then UT2K3 ...2 Years ago... According to that last big interview with the ValVe Tech heads..
Oh, jeez. Some people and their dreamworld. What can you do?

Does CG in this case mean 'computer-generated' as in CGI: computer-generated imagery? What the hell else would be generating the images? Does he think they were drawn by hand? Recorded on a handicam?

Don't take it too personally Murray, he'll be crying in his cheerios at how good HL2 is (and at how dumb he is) on Sept 30, and all of forums we'll be laughing right along with you.
I'm guessing he meant pre-rendered stuff that had nothing to do with the fact they used the best hardware out whilst recording the demos....
True dat, nietzsche. I actually was referring to the guy who Murray_H quoted, as I hadn't seen your post yet (still writing it when you posted- I so slow).

It's pretty crazy tho that the effects it used to take supercomputer-class processors weeks to render for the movie industry are close to being possible to do in real time on home PCs.
but the real question how soon will it be before it is almost immpossible to be able to recognise real from Pre-grenerated CG?

And I dn't mean FF movie, I mean Real, FF you could still tell they were CG... I mean Matrix kind of stuff!
The original wasn't from this newsgroup, it doesn't serve much purpose being posted here. My guess is this argument started elsewhere, you were out numbered and decided to post this here where everyone is going to agree with you. I know you wanted to stick up for HL2, but arguing on the internet is akin to particpating in certain disabled sports events, as the saying goes. Your original quote only goes to prove this. This is not meant to be a flame, it's just that there is an excess of useless posts on this forum already.

If this guy really likes UT2k you wont change his mind, it's just the way of things.
I was only showing how ignorant people still are, regardless of how much publicity HL2 has got and what has been revealed so far.

Dont worry, next time i see something like this, i wont even touch my keyboard.....(but talk to those theorists too - 20+ pages of tripe!)
Originally posted by nietzsche
The first time i realized that this would become mainstream sometime in the future is when it was possible to approximate RenderMan shaders by multi-pass rendering-techniques in OpenGL, a long time ago.

Whaa? You a college boy Nich? Huh... think you' soo shmaaat?
Originally posted by nietzsche
:LOL: Stop quoting all of my comments, beanie man...
I doubt I've been quoting ALL of your comments Hanz, or is it Franz,

We're here to pump.. YOU.. up!
You would be able to tell the difference between CGI and in-game footage because the screen would start switching and such and the game would have to be taken out of Gordon's perspective. And since thats not happening, its fair to say there won't be any CGI in this game.

Whoever wrote this post was a fair bit of an uneducated idiot.

And to be honest, UT2003 had the tech, but not the actual vehicles. Only 1 test vehicle, and Unreal Tournament 2004 is attempting to rectify this. But I guess HL2 will have blown it out the water by then.