Portal 2, source engine graphics very dated ?

Half-Life Series
#1

So am i the only one extremely disappointed by how the new source version looks like ?
The Problem isnt potal 2 alone, but if ep 3 or hl3 will be shown at this year, it will use the same or slightly updated engine version, and since it will also hit the consoles we will have 1 room levels once more.
The biggest problem with the new version of the engine is the size of the maps and they way normal maps are shaded. No specular shading makes every texture seem flat and you cant really say if they are normal mapped or not. Considering how normal maps are now used on everything in every good looking game its a huge drawback, especially for character models.

And as much as the map size dosnt bother me in portal 2, i cant imagine an semi open ended game like half life have 5mins maps, and considering there were no enemies on screen in that game, the resources and ram for use in consoles will be even smaller.
At this rate i dont know if i even want to see ep 3 be out this generation, i hope the either drop the multi platform crap, or get a new engine, since source is pretty miserable on consoles O_o

And before anybody says its not all in graphics, the size of maps will hit gameplay really hard, even the more open levels in episode 2 felt small for me, and i feel every valve game from when hl2 was released gets more claustrophobic.
Valve pls license cryengine 3 !

#2

I don’t think its dated. Very few games come out that ever really blow me away graphically like HL2 did. One game that will do though this year is definitely going to be Battlefield 3. The Frostbite2 engine looks simply immense.

For an engine that has really only had 2 major revisions since its public release in 04 it definitely holds its own against most games out there.

Wait for Ep3. Whether Valve will do another major Engine update like they did in 07, would be nice but honestly. Im not bothered. Valve have a way of pulling the most out of their engine.

#3

They’ve squeezed it dry.

Wrap up DOTA2 and go back to the drawing board, Valve. Your engine’s limitations are getting to the point where they seriously cripple your abilities.

To say Source DOESN’T need a MAJOR upgrade is sheer lunacy. Especially when there are so many editors that could probably produce a more detailed HL2 in half the time it took to make it the first time. Not saying what they have is terrible… wait. nvm.

What they have IS terrible. It’s impractical, slow, over complex, and above all, unable to compete. The only reason why the modern sections of portal 2 looks as good as they do is because the whole art style relies on simple shapes and high contrast edges. It’s aesthetic charm comes from being underdetailed and smooth. The moment you get to the old chambers, source REALLY shows it’s age. Hard.

Source looks and IS dated. It’s the most dated engine still putting games out there.

Now I know what you’ll say “But it’s all in the art, mang”, and yes. You are right. The right assets can make quake 1 look godly.

But that’s just the thing. Unless Valve plans releasing another game that looks like TF2, there’s no way in hell they’re going to put out a game that lives up to today’s (or their own) standards. The level of detail and artistic quality is severely limited in source.

I know this completely juxtaposes a post I made on another thread, but come on. You’d have to be completely blind to think source still puts out great looking stuff in all situations. You can make a nice realistic looking research facility, or some decent angular buildings in source… But try to make something with the complexity of a jungle or a blade runner style city block and you’re absolutely fucked.

Face it.

[COLOR=‘Red’]WE NEED NEW ATTRACTIONS.[/SIZE]

But should valve get a license for someone else’s engine? FUCK NO. Fuck that.

#4

switch to another map format, rewrite the shaders and add new ones -> done.

#5

Agree with you for the most part, except

It’s one of the major FPS engines, and as such people compare it to UDK and CryEngine. It’s outdated for sure, but it’s one of the better engines regardless of what you’d like to think. (Due mostly to usage rather than technology) It’s just not the best.

It’s better than HPL, Gamebryo, TT Engine, idTech… ( cough well at least 4 and below :stuck_out_tongue: ) on a purely technical level. Beauty can be achieved with any engine, really.

#6

Valve has always said that they wanted any game they put out to be able to be enjoyed by all, which means that instead of building a powerhouse engine, they want it to run as smooth as possible on any hardware. While I completely agree that the source engine needs an update (I thought portal 2 looked great though. Old aperture is huge.), I understand why they haven’t added all the cool dx11 effects and etc.

#7

I don’t.

#8

As I was playing Portal 2 I did notice some horribly low-res diffuse maps, lack of normal maps and specular highlight. Or maybe I’m just getting used to the Unreal Engine 3.

With that said, the game did run incredibly smooth at all times even with maximum AA/AF.
The graphics were not ‘horrible’ by any means, but better graphics wouldn’t hurt.

edit:

Ok some contradicting statements in my post but w/e - it’s late. :slight_smile:

#9

Portal 2 really lacks lighting. It would add so much more atmosphere. If I try to remember something from Portal 2s graphics the first thing that comes into my mind is a giant dull fog effect that blends in really bad and the poor lighting . The second thing is the highly detailed props that I really like. I agree to everything the OP says.

#10

What the fuck are you guys talking about? Portal 2 has the best lighting of any game that runs on Source. It’s gorgeous. The only thing that looks iffy is the gel.

max settings at a high resolution = boner giver

fucking morons

#11

Here it is. I found the tumor.

#12

while reading through this thread i get the strong impression that none of you got the point of playing games. i mean how far have we gotten if we complain about normal maps and specular highlight? can’t you just enjoy the fucking story?(i mean it’s like…awesome)
on a sidenote: the graphics really aren’t THAT bad.

another sidenote: i think valve got the one or other thing up their sleeves for the next half life. have trust in valve that we won’t be dissappointed(provided we don’t go bitching about minor downsides like the lack of normal maps) you can always complain about the little things, but you risk to ruin an experience that would have been awesome.

#13

Portal 2 can run on a single core Athlon 64 with any GPU ranging from Geforce 6600 to Radeon 9800.

Crysis 1 would run at about 8FPS on a setup like that, on the crappiest settings possible.

#14

I wasn’t saying portal 2 is bad. In fact, it’s the best campaign experience I’ve had… Ever really.

What I WAS saying is that it’s dated as shit.

When one points out something negative, it doesn’t mean that’s all they see.
I would like to see some deferred rendering shit going on… I mean, more real time for less compiling time for faster testing makes me feel all happy inside. Probably a more streamlined editor with more features for more in depth detailing for things like terrain.

Maybe a nice shader editor too. Something like UDK’s.

#15

I agree with xalener. Where would we be if we were always content with our graphics? We’d be playing a Portal 2 that looked like Wolfenstein. I’m not saying graphics are everything, but it would be silly to say that they’re nothing either. Technology changes and advances, so should our games and software.

#16

Really? I was just admiring how nice their use of normal mapping looks. It’s not overdone and they don’t overuse specular like most games do.

I agree on all other points though.

With normal mapping.

Without.

#17

what is the comparison?

Federal regulations require me to warn you that the first screenshot is Looking Pretty Good.

#18

For a 2004 for engine, that had some updates. It’s the best looking game out… ever… if you compare it to the Cryengine 3 which was released in 2011… sure… crysis 2 looks fucking amazing compared to Portal 2… but you have to remember… 2004 engine… they still pull it off…

#19

Yeah, those look fine. But I agree with him though about character models. The normal maps on the character models of valve games have never really been used to the effect of being necessary. I know that’s probably the point, but if the high quality version looks the same as the low, then what’s the point of using the high quality version?

Also: I respect your opinion, but there’s a bit of a hole in your logic. You see, 2004 was 7 years ago.

#20

Indeed. That’s why it’s amazing that the game still looks great FOR A 2004 ENGINE.

Great choice in pic! what movie was that again?.. The one where he’s chasing Westley Snipes or the other guy? haha

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.