HL2 v GR:AW comparison

[jsonedecker]

I have to agree about http://www.bit-tech.net/content_images/los...k/eyecandy1.jpg

Wonderul use of HDR and stunning art work pushes this above GRAW easily. I mean no offense to the Grin devs; they did a good job, but there's little competing with images like that.

←

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for anyone that takes on the challenge of making a modern game..... PERIOD! It is an extremely tough challenge.

My point of posting is to counter the "GRAW looks awesome and blows everything away" crowd.

I think GRAW PC has a lot going for it and strangely enough, I actualyl enjoy playing in the Command view. Fun to watch!

But, there are some serious deficiencies that are most likely not very fixable because they are at the core of the engine. Unless they made a terrible mistake at some point, you cannot just fix large performance issues or change tyour art completely around in a patch.

Again, I am not going after GRIN, they actualy did a decent job on a tough task given to them. I think they got too bold and bit off more than they could chew though.

-John

[LT.INSTG8R]

im kind of worried how people think GRAW looks better than Lost Coast, im a big GR fan but im not blinded by it.  That LC map is not small, and the water alone in LC outperforms any factor in GRAW, gameplay or not.  Comparing the actuall games is stoopid because they are very diff.

←

I think GRAW looks better, but because it lacks AA, Half-Life 2 wins. Graphicly speaking of course.

←

This is an interesting discussion, purely on it's "artistic" merits alone. Art is funny, as no one will agree 100% on what looks "good" and what doesn't.

But, I'm not sure how someone can think that this:

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/images/temp/BAU.JPG

Actually looks "good".

Compare that to something like this:

http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/image...stcoast_bay.jpg

or

http://www.bit-tech.net/content_images/los...k/eyecandy1.jpg

or

http://www.ixbt.com/games/images/halflife2/hl2_01.jpg

Of course you can't compare gameplay, but as a gamer, my main issue with GR:AW PC has been what do I get for my steep tech investment? I play HL2 and it looks just like those screens at 1680x1050 on my ATI x800XL 256mb, 3000+ amd64 and 2gb ram... all with 60+ framerates. That GR:AW shot was taken on my 3.4 P4 with a nVidia 7800GT 256 and 3gb ram and with 35fps.

GR:AW actually has some fun gameplay in SP, but I just cannot figure out why people think it looks so good. Are the blinded by the "new car smell" of a new GR game? Am I seeing something different? Am I getting old? Not sure, but to this salty old dog, there is nothing in the game to graphicaly justify the HW requirements.

No one can run on High settings as the HW isn't available you say....that's fine and all, but unless there is something in the game that just turns on in the future, running a 512mb card doesn't change things much. Maybe the game has some DX10 features in it already, who knows.

Will I still enjoy the game.... probably. Does it look sub par going into mid 2006.... definately. Should GRIN have licensed an engine..... probably not. Should GRIN have used more mature tech, say something else in the Ubi closet(RSE or even in house stuff)........Yes. I feel they would have got a lot more mileage out of the game and reduced some of thier internal headaches.

-John

←

Thank you

This is kinda the point I have been trying to make all along and coming from someone with the backround and knowledge of these things validates me in my efforts to try and make people aware.

[pz3]

Well said jsonedecker. Couldnt of said it any better.

that is exactly what i was trying to say for so long but couldnt put it into words

[Cpl Ledanek]

My other hobby was photography, and I used to share winter pictures with a guy from Maui, and another in Thailand, since both haven't seen snow in their entire life.

So that hobby my wife doesn't mind me spending way too much time. She enjoys seeing the pictures that are sent to me.

So here comes HL2 rolling into our home, my wife would have a fit. "Here he goes again, spending hours in front of the computer, shooting this, shooting that.

When Lost Coast came around, I would sometimes pause and "admire the view" when the wifey is in the same room. She takes one look, and she goes, "So and So sent you some more pictures? Wow, those are nice. What part of Thailand is that? Or is that in Maui? I'd say, say something like, yeah, this pictures are sooo stich together you can actually walk in it.

So I'd walk around, changing the view from time to time. I'd say don't touch the mouse, its on screen-saver mode. And she would leave it alone.

GRAW on the other hand, I get to sleep downstairs.

I had a point....

[BornToKill]

Again, I am not going after GRIN, they actualy did a decent job on a tough task given to them. I think they got too bold and bit off more than they could chew though.

I would agree with that to a certain extent.A fairly new dev company striving out and up and wanting to impress.

Coupled with their will to try and appease a very vocal fanbase.

The only thing i think this game lacks is development time.

12 months ago it was announced that GR2 was canned for the PC and that GR3 for PC was under development.

If development began 12 months ago, then in my mind that definately is not long enough for any dev team to pull all the goods out the bag.(Although my suspicions are that development started earlier on all versions and the marketing machine only let on when they felt it was right).

Either way realistically 18-months-2yrs is what i feel is required maybe longer with todays games becoming bigger and more involved is whats required to have any chance of developing a top notch game.

Grin appear to have taken on more staff during their development of GRAW (judging from the photos) in a bid to get it out on time.

Will GRIN have learnt from this experience? Will they go onto make better games?

I'm sure they will.

I'm sure GRAW will be a success, but it won't achieve the same acclaim as the original (that would be hard for anyone to achieve).

GR4 will be out before you know it, but unless UBI get some more realistic time frames in place their CEO is going to chewing dirt if he still thinks he can claim 'in 5yrs we'll be making games that look like the movies'.

[stevenmu]

I don't think it's really fair to compare HL2 with GRAW. As has been said there are serious differences in the two engines.

Possibly the most amazing thing in GRAW is the combination of draw distance, the number and detail of the buildings and the lack of loading times. Playing just the first mission, my jaw hit the floor when I had the drone up on full screen and it climbed up over a building and scanned around looking for bad guys. The view was incredible, I've never seen anything else in any game to compare. Then I could instantly switch back to my own view several blocks away or to the view of any one of my team. Not only that but your can also switch instantly to the command map and pan and zoom, and see everything (explosions, muzzle flash, smoke etc).

Contrast this with the small more enclosed HL2 areas and the fact that the game pauses every few minutes to load up the next section. Also while the near-in parts (and water especially) of the bit-tech image above look incredible (better than GRAW), the distant buildings are much less impressive and not as good as GRAW (imo)

[thrush213]

i have both games...hl2's water is good. but over all ghost recon 3 definetly better all around. much better shader effects and hdr.

[zwitherow]

But, I'm not sure how someone can think that this:

http://www.ghostrecon.net/fileman/users/ny.../Images/bau.jpg

Actually looks "good".

Compare that to something like this:

http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/image...stcoast_bay.jpg

yes everyone does have their own opinion on what looks good and what does not, but i still love the screenshot you chose to represent graw.

a closeup of a dumpster, how lame. great comparison bud.

edit: this took me all of 2 minutes in fraps to capture, and i think you'll agree it shows a much better representation of the graphic quality of graw.

Edited May 7, 2006 by zwitherow

[NYR_32]

a closeup of a dumpster, how lame. great comparison bud.

Here's a closeup of another dumpster.

http://www.nyrgraphics.net/images/dumpster.jpg

And here they are side by side.

http://www.nyrgraphics.net/images/dumpstersbs.jpg

I think the one on the right looks better, don't you? His shows more than just a dumpster, you forget to metion texturing, smoothness and bunch of other things.

[zwitherow]

a closeup of a dumpster, how lame. great comparison bud.

Here's a closeup of another dumpster.

http://www.nyrgraphics.net/images/dumpster.jpg

And here they are side by side.

http://www.nyrgraphics.net/images/dumpstersbs.jpg

I think the one on the right looks better, don't you?

ok anyways...

first off, if anyone thinks that comparing details like dumpsters can accurately compare the level of detail of two games, they're wrong.

and second, just to counter your point , the graw dumpster is CLEARLY on low textures. (give me a minute and i'll go get a good screen of a dumpster)

edit: dumpster as promised.

and lets not forget, video goodness

Edited May 7, 2006 by zwitherow

[Rocky]

LMAO, I am lost for words.

Nice explosion though.

Edited May 7, 2006 by Rocky

[EasyCo]

While you guys are taking pictures of dumpsters and comparing something you obviously dont enjoy at all, I'm playing GRAW. It's funny how you guys get more entertainment out of bashing something then actually enjoying whatever it is you enjoy. How one can enjoy a perceived failure to them is beyond me. Have fun expressing yourself...

[BornToKill]

re-read, they're not bashing it.

[NYR_32]

While you guys are taking pictures of dumpsters and comparing something you obviously dont enjoy at all, I'm playing GRAW. It's funny how you guys get more entertainment out of bashing something then actually enjoying whatever it is you enjoy. How one can enjoy a perceived failure to them is beyond me. Have fun expressing yourself...

This thread is comparing game art, nothing more. Noone is saying GR:AW as a whole is not worth playing.

[jsonedecker]

But, I'm not sure how someone can think that this:

http://www.ghostrecon.net/fileman/users/ny.../Images/bau.jpg

Actually looks "good".

Compare that to something like this:

http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/image...stcoast_bay.jpg

yes everyone does have their own opinion on what looks good and what does not, but i still love the screenshot you chose to represent graw.

a closeup of a dumpster, how lame. great comparison bud.

edit: this took me all of 2 minutes in fraps to capture, and i think you'll agree it shows a much better representation of the graphic quality of graw.

Next time address me as Mr. Bud please.

I would like to spend some time and gather a few more screenshots as a person of your stature should do with nothing less. But, I am busy preparing things for E3 and fly out on Tuesday. You see, I develop games for a living....... A few you may have actually heard of.

Anyway, I can see that the overall point of the thread and my posts in particular are getting lost in the noise. Dumpsters are great, but you should listen to NYR_32. I was not pointing out the dumpster specificaly, but the entire screen of stuff. BTW, my settings for the game were on the absolute highest the game would allow me to on my machine... specs above.

I am sure yours were on high, but at what cost? Again, for those hard of hearing, it's all about what you get visually for what you need to invest in HW. Again, thanks for te screenshots it saved me the time of needing to go take more to illustrate my point.

-John

a closeup of a dumpster, how lame. great comparison bud.

Here's a closeup of another dumpster.

http://www.nyrgraphics.net/images/dumpster.jpg

And here they are side by side.

http://www.nyrgraphics.net/images/dumpstersbs.jpg

I think the one on the right looks better, don't you? His shows more than just a dumpster, you forget to metion texturing, smoothness and bunch of other things.

Haha... that happens to be one of my levels you chose.

-John

[Papa6]

I'm thinking Grin will suprise us all with a fix to all these problems. Also with modding tools i think we'll be blessed with some great maps/ weapons and the like.

But my research, sonedecker might be able to confirm this, that FPS's are by far the hardest games to develop.With Grin using it's own developed game engine that is ever evolving as Grin has put it, I'm optimistic about what lies ahead.

Edited May 8, 2006 by Papa6

[BornToKill]

You can't retexture parts of a map in a patch, you may be able to improve the texture itself but you can't remap the texture without re-exporting it and that would result in a rather larger patch.

The point John's making is better quality texturing/graphics can be achieved with less overhead in the game engine.

It would appear (although the lighting is better IMO in GRAW than the HL2 SS) that the lighting amongst other things is causing an inexplicable overhead in terms of hardware requirements to generate.

PS imo that dumpster was rushed (i'm no 3DS/PS wizard but i could have done better).

Which just takes me back to a point i've made in another thread that this game just lacked dev time.

[Papa6]

I'm probably willing to say it's probably the lighting. as when I turn off the "post effect quality" all together has helped with the heavy overhead. so I'd say it's the lighting and not the textures.

[jsonedecker]

PS imo that dumpster was rushed (i'm no 3DS/PS wizard but i could have done better).

Which just takes me back to a point i've made in another thread that this game just lacked dev time.

THat very well may be the issue and in 6 months after a few patches and updates, we may see a better product, but it doesn't change what is on the shelves today.

Either way, I bought it and am going to play it all the way through.

But my research, sonedecker might be able to confirm this, that FPS's are by far the hardest games to develop.With Grin using it's own developed game engine that is ever evolving as Grin has put it, I'm optimistic about what lies ahead.

Definately. FPS have the highest tech requirements and are very tough to make. Other genres are much harder to design and balance though.

-John

I don't think it's really fair to compare HL2 with GRAW. As has been said there are serious differences in the two engines.

Possibly the most amazing thing in GRAW is the combination of draw distance, the number and detail of the buildings and the lack of loading times. Playing just the first mission, my jaw hit the floor when I had the drone up on full screen and it climbed up over a building and scanned around looking for bad guys. The view was incredible, I've never seen anything else in any game to compare. Then I could instantly switch back to my own view several blocks away or to the view of any one of my team. Not only that but your can also switch instantly to the command map and pan and zoom, and see everything (explosions, muzzle flash, smoke etc).

Contrast this with the small more enclosed HL2 areas and the fact that the game pauses every few minutes to load up the next section. Also while the near-in parts (and water especially) of the bit-tech image above look incredible (better than GRAW), the distant buildings are much less impressive and not as good as GRAW (imo)

Draw distance in GR:AW is really cool and does a great job of setting up that large city feeling. The thing for me is that is really isn't all that technically great. It is severely LOD. Look closely at the buildings in the distance. They are just a blurry box. It really isn't throwing *that* many polygons on screen and is using textures from other parts of the level that are already in memory.

The engine uses Level Of Detail in large amounts and it has to. Notice the physics objects on the ground? They pop in at about 10 feet in front of you. How could anyone not notice them.

-John

EDIT: Yikes. I made 3 posts and they are all appended to my first one. Progress I guess.

Edited May 8, 2006 by jsonedecker

[NYR_32]

EDIT: Yikes. I made 3 posts and they are all appended to my first one. Progress I guess.

One of the new features since the upgrade. Keeps everything neat and tidy if you happen to post a few times in a row. It kinda freaks you out the first time it happens!

[zwitherow]

my post wasn't an attack at you.

it was only meant to point out that the graw dumpster screen isn't a good representation of the game's quality of detail.

your credentials, however nice, do not change this fact.

im sure that i could find a screen from HL2 that wasn't up to par with the overall quality of the artwork.

i'm also sure, that i would not use it to compare it to another game's artwork.

[Hatchetforce]

You also have to consider what else the game is giving you besides a dumpster. And the dumpster in that explosion vid changed shape instantly. Hmmmm some type of time warp there. When I can run HL2 on a BS laptop but can only run GRAW on my home PC in 800X600, there is a lesson in resource management and optimization to be had. Especially when the people actually look like people in movement and skin tone in HL2.

my post wasn't an attack at you.

it was only meant to point out that the graw dumpster screen isn't a good representation of the game's quality of detail.

your credentials, however nice, do not change this fact.

im sure that i could find a screen from HL2 that wasn't up to par with the overall quality of the artwork.

i'm also sure, that i would not use it to compare it to another game's artwork.

His credentials - which include GR1 and R6 - do not change facts per se. They just make him better at understanding and interpreting those facts. When that allows him to determine what actually IS fact, the facts then change.

[zwitherow]

no, sorry. his credentials do not change the fact that the screenshot of the graw dumpster is not on par with the overal quality of graphics in graw. therefore making it a bad representation of graw's overal graphical quality.

this is a fact, which requires no interpretation.

edit: keep in mind i am not talking about performance, only aestetics as per jsonedecker's original post.

Edited May 8, 2006 by zwitherow

[jsonedecker]

no, sorry. his credentials do not change the fact that the screenshot of the graw dumpster is not on par with the overal quality of graphics in graw. therefore making it a bad representation of graw's overal graphical quality.

this is a fact, which requires no interpretation.

edit: keep in mind i am not talking about performance, only aestetics as per jsonedecker's original post.

First, my credentials are what they are and do not make me any better than anyone else at determining what looks good. But I do have more understanding of how this stuff works and what makes a modern, or not modern, game engine tick as well as the resource, budgeting and scheduling issues that go into a modern game. Maybe you do to, I don't know, but that really isn't the issue.

Second.... I think you are continueing to focus on just the dumpster and not the entire screen. The dumpster is less than stellar, but also look at the ground, the walls, the grass clumps and the buildings across the road. THe color pallatte, texture resolution, repetative textures, uniformity of the textures, the way each surface is autonomous and doesn't even remotely try to blend into an adjacent one, the low res normal maps, the flat and uninspired lighting.... I could go on and on. But, you like to focus on the dumpster.

Take your screenshots and compare them to anything in HL2 you want at it's highest settings at a resolution you can get 40+ fps on and compare them. If you still say that GRAW looks better than I guess we can agree to disagree.

Heck, do the same thing with Lockdown if you want. And HL2 was not just a corridor shooter. Far from it in fact.

-John

[zwitherow]

just because i call it the "dumpster screenshot" doesn't mean im focusing on the dumpster. i never said HL2 was a corridor shooter, or that GRAW made efficient use of hardware resources, or that you didn't know what you were talking about.

all i said was that the screenshot you provided doesn't paint an accurate picture of the visuals in graw.

this is my ONLY point.

if you disagree with this, than i guess, as you said, we can agree to disagree.