[aldo_14]

I can't think of one PC game you can get right now that looks that good.

I'm not actually all that impressed by that.  I don't see... well, i don't see a point in it. 

Particularly because the uncanny valley effect comes into play, it looks no better than, say, your squadmates in Call of Duty (1). 

Obviously you can get that level of graphical fidelity on current top-end PCs (because that'd be a/the development environment for the Unreal 3 engine, which is being used in the scarce PS3 devkits as well as Pc and 360) anyways, but the market isn't yet ready for it because there's not enough machines capable of running it to make it economically viable.  I'm pretty sure we'll seen GoW or a similar game on the PC before, ooh, mid 2007 if not sooner, though.  Dependent more on development time than technological process, of course.

I have seen the GoW screens, of course, although how reliable they are is TBC.  Particularly, I remember a still which had a very odd blood effect that, in comparison to even the blurry handcam footage, definately looked photoshopped on.  Also, it's very easy to pick show-off shots (for example, close ups of characters as above to use the highest LOD, rather than what you'll see in 99% of play time).

Not true. The game has multiple paths according to Cliffy B. In fact during co-op (which should be a bloody blast) you can split up with Dom and go seperate ways.

Isn't this multiple paths in the sense of 2 linear levels, though?  Everything I've seen of that game screams scripted sequence which, whilst not bad in itself, limits that sort of gameplay options.

[Deepblue]

I can't think of one PC game you can get right now that looks that good.

I'm not actually all that impressed by that. I don't see... well, i don't see a point in it.

Particularly because the uncanny valley effect comes into play, it looks no better than, say, your squadmates in Call of Duty (1).

Obviously you can get that level of graphical fidelity on current top-end PCs (because that'd be a/the development environment for the Unreal 3 engine, which is being used in the scarce PS3 devkits as well as Pc and 360) anyways, but the market isn't yet ready for it because there's not enough machines capable of running it to make it economically viable. I'm pretty sure we'll seen GoW or a similar game on the PC before, ooh, mid 2007 if not sooner, though. Dependent more on development time than technological process, of course.

I have seen the GoW screens, of course, although how reliable they are is TBC. Particularly, I remember a still which had a very odd blood effect that, in comparison to even the blurry handcam footage, definately looked photoshopped on. Also, it's very easy to pick show-off shots (for example, close ups of characters as above to use the highest LOD, rather than what you'll see in 99% of play time).

Not true. The game has multiple paths according to Cliffy B. In fact during co-op (which should be a bloody blast) you can split up with Dom and go seperate ways.

Isn't this multiple paths in the sense of 2 linear levels, though? Everything I've seen of that game screams scripted sequence which, whilst not bad in itself, limits that sort of gameplay options.

1. Um, that blows CoD2 faces away, even if they both look freakishly unnatural.
2. ??? Watching that vid reaffirmed to me that the blood was realtime, it's just moving faster in the vid, but you can clearly see it's the same effect. Furthermore, a GeoW dev confirmed it was all in-game stuff captured from non-standard angles on the EPIC boards. And the shots are not just "show off." You've seen the game footage, the cutscenes (which the screen above is from) are short, to the point, and above all, completely part of the game. I didn't even see any LOD popping. You have UT2007 PC screens looking that good, so why is it so hard to believe?

[aldo_14]

I can't think of one PC game you can get right now that looks that good.

I'm not actually all that impressed by that. I don't see... well, i don't see a point in it.

Particularly because the uncanny valley effect comes into play, it looks no better than, say, your squadmates in Call of Duty (1).

Obviously you can get that level of graphical fidelity on current top-end PCs (because that'd be a/the development environment for the Unreal 3 engine, which is being used in the scarce PS3 devkits as well as Pc and 360) anyways, but the market isn't yet ready for it because there's not enough machines capable of running it to make it economically viable. I'm pretty sure we'll seen GoW or a similar game on the PC before, ooh, mid 2007 if not sooner, though. Dependent more on development time than technological process, of course.

I have seen the GoW screens, of course, although how reliable they are is TBC. Particularly, I remember a still which had a very odd blood effect that, in comparison to even the blurry handcam footage, definately looked photoshopped on. Also, it's very easy to pick show-off shots (for example, close ups of characters as above to use the highest LOD, rather than what you'll see in 99% of play time).

Not true. The game has multiple paths according to Cliffy B. In fact during co-op (which should be a bloody blast) you can split up with Dom and go seperate ways.

Isn't this multiple paths in the sense of 2 linear levels, though? Everything I've seen of that game screams scripted sequence which, whilst not bad in itself, limits that sort of gameplay options.

1. Um, that blows CoD2 faces away, even if they both look freakishly unnatural.
2. ??? Watching that vid reaffirmed to me that the blood was realtime, it's just moving faster in the vid, but you can clearly see it's the same effect. Furthermore, a GeoW dev confirmed it was all in-game stuff captured from non-standard angles on the EPIC boards. And the shots are not just "show off." You've seen the game footage, the cutscenes (which the screen above is from) are short, to the point, and above all, completely part of the game. I didn't even see any LOD popping. You have UT2007 PC screens looking that good, so why is it so hard to believe?

1/ Look up the meaning of 'uncanny valley'.  In essence, above a certain level of 'realism', the human eye begins to resist that visual effect and 'reject' the effect; in essence countermanding the added details.  For example, this bloke is more detailed, but not more realistic.  I actually find him - whilst nicely bumpmapped - somewhat cartoonish.  And hence unimpressive as a realistic face.

2/  I'm not saying that's not realtime, I'm saying it's selectively picked to show the best bits - like a touched up model on a cover.  For example, just look at the camera movement and panning to highlight detail (such as the enemy things running into the screen).  That would not occur in a real game, it's far too off-putting.  Additionally, the player (demonstrator) is capable of acting out the exact 'expected' behaviour requried for the best setpiece effect; shoot this window here, select an explosive weapon to blow away the creature jumping at you rather than a prolonged fight, etc. Just like they'd demo, say, the Stalingrad level of Call of Duty and not show what happens if you don't take the requisite path.

 This will and does occur in all demos.

In terms of the visual fidelity of screenshots; we all know how they can be manipulated and selected to show only the best.  So it'd be a bit daft to benchmark the overall visual quality on what the developers - the people trying to sell and advertise the game - are selecting.  The particular blood effect I say was a lot higher definition and clarity than seen (accounting for the nature of the footage) in that video.  Assuming it wasn't in fact tidied up for publication, then it must be the game adding blurring.  In turn, I guess, making statics a lot less valid as judges of clarity.  i'd note said blood decal was of an unecessary level of detail in the screenshot I'm referring too.

Finally, LOD popping wouldn't be expected to be visible; it occurs at a point where the visual difference is negated by distance.  That's the whole point of level of detail effects, and it'd be idiocy if they didn't employ that for the face as you will almost certainly never, ever see it at that distance outside a cutscene.

[Deepblue]

I can't think of one PC game you can get right now that looks that good.

I'm not actually all that impressed by that. I don't see... well, i don't see a point in it.

Particularly because the uncanny valley effect comes into play, it looks no better than, say, your squadmates in Call of Duty (1).

Obviously you can get that level of graphical fidelity on current top-end PCs (because that'd be a/the development environment for the Unreal 3 engine, which is being used in the scarce PS3 devkits as well as Pc and 360) anyways, but the market isn't yet ready for it because there's not enough machines capable of running it to make it economically viable. I'm pretty sure we'll seen GoW or a similar game on the PC before, ooh, mid 2007 if not sooner, though. Dependent more on development time than technological process, of course.

I have seen the GoW screens, of course, although how reliable they are is TBC. Particularly, I remember a still which had a very odd blood effect that, in comparison to even the blurry handcam footage, definately looked photoshopped on. Also, it's very easy to pick show-off shots (for example, close ups of characters as above to use the highest LOD, rather than what you'll see in 99% of play time).

Not true. The game has multiple paths according to Cliffy B. In fact during co-op (which should be a bloody blast) you can split up with Dom and go seperate ways.

Isn't this multiple paths in the sense of 2 linear levels, though? Everything I've seen of that game screams scripted sequence which, whilst not bad in itself, limits that sort of gameplay options.

1. Um, that blows CoD2 faces away, even if they both look freakishly unnatural.
2. ??? Watching that vid reaffirmed to me that the blood was realtime, it's just moving faster in the vid, but you can clearly see it's the same effect. Furthermore, a GeoW dev confirmed it was all in-game stuff captured from non-standard angles on the EPIC boards. And the shots are not just "show off." You've seen the game footage, the cutscenes (which the screen above is from) are short, to the point, and above all, completely part of the game. I didn't even see any LOD popping. You have UT2007 PC screens looking that good, so why is it so hard to believe?

1/ Look up the meaning of 'uncanny valley'. In essence, above a certain level of 'realism', the human eye begins to resist that visual effect and 'reject' the effect; in essence countermanding the added details. For example, this bloke is more detailed, but not more realistic. I actually find him - whilst nicely bumpmapped - somewhat cartoonish. And hence unimpressive as a realistic face.

2/ I'm not saying that's not realtime, I'm saying it's selectively picked to show the best bits - like a touched up model on a cover. For example, just look at the camera movement and panning to highlight detail (such as the enemy things running into the screen). That would not occur in a real game, it's far too off-putting. Additionally, the player (demonstrator) is capable of acting out the exact 'expected' behaviour requried for the best setpiece effect; shoot this window here, select an explosive weapon to blow away the creature jumping at you rather than a prolonged fight, etc. Just like they'd demo, say, the Stalingrad level of Call of Duty and not show what happens if you don't take the requisite path.

 This will and does occur in all demos.

In terms of the visual fidelity of screenshots; we all know how they can be manipulated and selected to show only the best. So it'd be a bit daft to benchmark the overall visual quality on what the developers - the people trying to sell and advertise the game - are selecting. The particular blood effect I say was a lot higher definition and clarity than seen (accounting for the nature of the footage) in that video. Assuming it wasn't in fact tidied up for publication, then it must be the game adding blurring. In turn, I guess, making statics a lot less valid as judges of clarity. i'd note said blood decal was of an unecessary level of detail in the screenshot I'm referring too.

Finally, LOD popping wouldn't be expected to be visible; it occurs at a point where the visual difference is negated by distance. That's the whole point of level of detail effects, and it'd be idiocy if they didn't employ that for the face as you will almost certainly never, ever see it at that distance outside a cutscene.

Actually all those camera angle shifts like when the main characters view suddenly shifts to see the thing crawling along the wall are part of the game itself.

And keep in mind Cliffy B. seems to like highly detailed gore...

[Descenterace]

Gears of War: another possible good game that will probably never see the PC...

Even so, don't expect me to shell out for a 360 just to play this. I've got enough good games.

Such as Descent 1 and 2, Quake 2, Freespace 1 and 2, Diablo 2, Starcraft, Warzone 2100...
Why is it that all of those are more than five years old?

You don't have D3?

Get. It. Now.

And yeah, old games are fun. But so are new games.

I do have Descent 3. I didn't include it in the list because I don't consider it as good (except multiplayer, which I rarely play).

[CP5670]

D3 actually has way better level design and weapon balance, but D2 did somehow have a greater fun factor, as far as the singleplayer is concerned. I can't pinpoint exactly why; maybe it was a little faster paced? D2 also had some outstanding user-made mission sets that are much better than the original levels. I did a big run through all of the D2 mission packs I have (about 70 levels, including the official counterstrike and vertigo missions) last year. It's too bad I can't get the 3dfx version of this to work correctly.

[q]And yeah, old games are fun. But so are new games.[/q]



Although I think it's safe to say that there were more extremely good games back then than what we get now. Maybe it's just a result of there being simply fewer games these days, but my top four or five all time favorites are all older things.

[aldo_14]

Actually all those camera angle shifts like when the main characters view suddenly shifts to see the thing crawling along the wall are part of the game itself.

And keep in mind Cliffy B. seems to like highly detailed gore...

Christ, that would be the most irritating thing in history.  You mean every 10 seconds it removes control and switches to a psuedo cutscene?

[Ransom]

I don't think it would be that bad if it's not in action sequences.

[aldo_14]

I don't think it would be that bad if it's not in action sequences.

It was in action sequences, though.  That's what I mean; like the first shooting starts on about 2:15, and there's a jump at 3:16 (to show onrushing enemies), then 3:58 (to show a fuel tank or something), 4:28 (as he turns the wheel, apparently still shooting going on, and the camera zooms slightly onto another enemy group) and then the end cutscene bit at about 5:10.

It's obviously WIP, to be fair.  For one thing some of the animation seems jerky IMO, and there aren't apparently any bullet damage decals.  The latter, I'd imagine, could look pretty neat in a system which has normal mapping.  Another thing; is there IK for the bodies?  I couldn't tell; I'd expect so, but not sure.

I mean, it should be a good game.  But whether it'll be a genre-redifining or unique game, I doubt it at the moment.  It has that sort of Halo 'feel' to me; a perfectly executed but ultimately generic shooter with very little real gameplay innovation and mainly consisting of adapted 'best of' moments from prior games.

[Roanoke]

I would say it's harsh to call Halo generic. I reckon the problem was Bungie layed all their card within the first couple of levels. I happened to like both games myself.

[aldo_14]

I would say it's harsh to call Halo generic. I reckon the problem was Bungie layed all their card within the first couple of levels. I happened to like both games myself.

I found it quite generic; the first, that is.   Had a feeling of not being that surprising or striking, I'm not sure quite why.  It may have been graphical limitations compared to the games I'd been playing at the time, which were newer.  When Call of Duty is doing a more convincing Stalingrad, the fairly samey and undetailed levels did feel somewhat lacking.  I think at the moment (in relation to this) we may be reaching the point where graphical diversity has less and less impact, though, which is what I meant by the uncanny valley refence (both for human faces, but also environments).

Although the main, er, genericity of Halo for me was just that it felt very samey... the weapons, gameplay, etc.
Not played or really seen the sequel, though.

[Roanoke]

I wonder if they'll bother to port Halo2 to PC......

[aldo_14]

I wonder if they'll bother to port Halo2 to PC......

Doubt it.  Wouldn't seem to be much point, especially now.  IIRC it's main draw was multiplayer, too, and there's not exactly a shortage of MP games on the PC.

[Janos]

wow awesome magnificent incredible hyper stupendous

What is it?

[WMCoolmon]

Too bad, I've been looking forward to that possibility. I still boot up the ol' Halo now and then.

[Deepblue]

Don't feel too bad. Halo 2s multiplayer kicks arse, but the campaign isn't quite as good as Halo 1 (level design etc. are better, but it just doesn't have that sense of mystery the original had, AND THEY TOOK OUT THE ASSUALT RIFLE!!!).