Source is more than a decade old and no other engine has had better looking fire yet

Art direction probably plays a big part in that. You could have low res textures, but still have a style that makes it look better than most games.

I'd argue games like Mega Man Legends and Kingdom Hearts, even without HD or emulator enhancements, look better than most games today.

Pretty much this.

All they ever do at this point is hype how 'Hyper-realistic' the graphics are to the point you can see a pimple on the girl's face or it feels the same because they don't bother differentiating themselves anymore

Let's not kid ourselves here, user. We're nowhere near that point yet.
Do these games look like they're even close to what you're suggesting?
Take any fucking modern game (and I'm not talking about those fake pre-rendered screenshots devs show off to the press like Rockstar did with GTA5 and Ubisoft does with all of their games) and compare it to Crysis and tell me there's a difference in anything other than lighting.
The polygons are basically the same, they aren't pushing any limits anymore.

But there's no limits to push, as I said, we are at the point where increments of polygons are barely noticeable.
Rather than making models slightly more defined I would rather want more content or more variety.

I mean shit MGSV is very very low poly compared to other games, and it's probably one of the best looking games I've seen so far.

...

how's we happy few? i might pirate it

That gif also reminds me…

AIs are still as dumb as a brick and the only thing that harder modes do is give them bullet sponges instead of intelligence

How do you feel about procedurally generated survival crafting games?

In general, yes, but you have implied that all modern games haven't progressed much in terms of graphics. UT4 is probably the current "Quake3/HL2/Crysis" (best looking game on the market in terms of fidelity), unfortunately 2/3 of the maps still aren't finished.

I also run this shit on near maximum settings on a GTX 760, i3 processor, and 8gb of RAM. If I built this computer today it would hardly cost $500 so I'd say it's pretty well optimized too.

UT does run absolutely amazingly, it's baffling

Well yeah, innovation happens when there's a problem that needs to be solved; devs now don't think there's any problems that need to be fixed so nothing new and exciting happens

...

A lot of stuff happened that contributed to it. Sonys mainstreaming/casualizing of the industry. The rise of Leftism/Liberals and the permeation of those people into the tech sector. Lack of ability/funding to innovate in types of technology due to the overpopulation of the people i mentioned above and governments incentivizing unskilled immigrants to come and succeed at the expense of actually useful people.

i like terraria

It'd be more impressive if the game was equally good on an unfinished engine.

CDPR, prior to the Witcher 3 downgrade, was top dog when it comes to uncompromising graphics on PC.

Looking forward to Cyberpunk 2077, specially if they take the Witcher 2 ultrasampling route.

Because shaders are truly the thing of the future. Not polycount.

Hey, remember when Mario 64's reflection effect used to blow your mind?

Black Desert Online built their own engine a few years ago and there isn't a game with better fidelity on the market so far.

Polygon count has WAAAY gone up, but 3D model sculpting and shading ain't easy you know.

...

lie

see

Didn't Ubisoft boast and marketed the fucking shit out of the "Realistic" fire that the Dunia Engine (Far Cry 4s engine/CryEngine fork) can produce?

The Source Engine that runs Half-Life 2 nowadays is not the same version as the Source Engine it was released with

I believe Half-Life 2 uses Source 2009, it was initially released with Source 2004/Source original

Team Fortress 2, CS, and Garry's Mod use Source Engine Multiplayer, which uses a serverside physics model in contrast to single player Source versions which use a client-side physics model and receives constant updates

Never ever

Games haven't been pushing higher polygons and higher resolution textures for half a decade now.
Its all shaders and post processing effects.

And "faking" higher poly counts with things like bump-mapping everything

Bump mapping has been on every texture since 2005, fancy material effects like subsurface scattering, actual refraction/reflection, ambient occlusion, and raycasting are the main things being worked on.

U wot?

Look at any single human model in Skyrim and compare it to Crysis.
The difference is night and day.

That would be decrements because Skyrim's models look quite a bit worse than those in Crysis. However, if you're comparing the best looking games of the current year to Crysis you won't see much of a difference between the models.

Heck in 92 to 04, polygons weren't even in the equation at the start.
We went from from shit limited color palettes to millions of colors, that was the real game changer.

But now, artists are the bottleneck now rather than the hardware; which is also why the industry is such a bloated mess.
It just takes too long and too much money to do models, textures and especially sound(ie. voice acting) in ever higher fidelity.

I thought the FOX engine had great looking fire.

Looks pretty shitty imho, explosions are almost always see through, it's not meaty enough

AI and sound are the two biggest things that are lacking. Sound will hopefully get a boost due to VR headsets.

Here's unmodded Crysis.

Near-perfect positional sound was solved almost twenty years ago fam.
You have Creative Labs to thank for it disappearing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, are you trying to say that Skyrim's look better than that? Because they definitely don't. Or maybe you mean to say that that looks better than anything in the current year which would also be wrong. I hate Uncharted games and everything they stand for but the recent one probably has the best faces + facial animation of any game on the market, I'd say pic related looks better than that yours but the point is that they aren't far off.

Yeah, I know..
Nvidia is doing things, though, so maybe we'll finally be back to that point.
youtube.com/watch?v=A3Y2BSHxKHU

No, no, I'm just giving an example of unmodded Crysis. I wasn't arguing anything.

That video was pretty cool, I can't wait until stuff like that and binaural audio become the standard for games (especially horror).

Too bad Crysis runs like complete shit on modern hardware.

64-bit version, GTX 1070, runs like shit (sub 40 FPS).

Here are some DOOM screenshots, along with some DEMON ASS.

You're full of shit m8

i7 2600k
GTX 1070 (8 GB)

1080p, ultra.

40 FPS.

Games are more tool-assisted nowadays as game dev tools have gotten better and games are becoming more expensive to make

What this means is that, while poly counts, texture resolution, and visual FX have greatly improved, modern games tend to look more "artificial" for example, ground textures on modern games tend to look more "stretched" as a result of lazy developers slapping them on with a map maker

I demand a screen shot with a frame counter. I don't expect the game to run as well on modern hardware, but with am i7 and 1070 you should be getting something better than sub 40 framerates

Source 2 blows UDK out of the water so we have a lot to look forward to.

how and or why?

When is Valve releasing the new Source dev tools? And when are they updating TF2 to Source 2 like they did with Dota?

Do you only play games from 8 years ago?
Crysis 2 was released in 2011 and it's arguably one of the best looking games this past 6 years.

Bad textures, shadows, shading, lighting and water.

It's decent, give it a shot.

The first one is the newest CoD right? That game has a really old engine.
Second is a fairly small indie game.
Third is a mainstream game and mainstream GPUs aren't always up to snuff so they need to make it watered down.

Eww, what the fuck is that static?

The reason shit today is hard to run while also having poor textures is because they put too many fucking filters like bloom, dof, etc. on newer games. Even if I can run the game fine I turn that shit off because it makes it hard to see.

Valve basically said "Fuck TF2, we aren't updating it to Source 2" and the same to CS:GO.

Doom is currently the most graphically difficult game there is around, not the best looking though cause idTech is pretty shit. 2600k is a 3 year old CPU although still holds up.

Man I wish this game wasn't so damn mediocre. I really do like the visuals and wubstep music, and it does seem like they attempted to capitalize on what made old DOOM good, they just happened to be incompetent hacks with no grasp on what makes games fun.

I've used Source 2 to some extent to make custom games for Doter 2 but I didn't see anything that blows even Source 1 out of the water outside of the new hammer editor.

I think it's implied that this means the mode of high budget games, Crysis 1-3 are on the extreme end and if you were just looking at the average AAA game like Fallout 4 there isn't too much of a difference.

I would have assumed that Total Warhammer would be the hardest game to run because that has been the case for awhile with this series.

the original user was talking about Crysis 1 m8

Also I think the reason Valve doesn't upgrade TF2 to Source 2 is because it will most likely break compatibility with a lot if not all custom maps and they don't want to piss off their dwindling userbase

They can be converted with the tools they're supplying though. The real reason is because the code is a fucking mess after 9 years.

Creative did frivolous lawsuits against Aureal (the better sound card people). Aureal won, but went bankrupt anyway, and Creative bought all of Aureal's stuff and proceeded to use none of it.
Then Microsoft removed support for Direct3DSound once they released Windows Vista, because of stability issues. This also meant sound cards stopped working properly in Vista and beyond, and all those games suddenly lost a lot of audio features. Combining the two events, competition essentially died. Nowadays, there's ways to get those old soundcards working with custom drivers combined with Creative ALchemy, or emulating it with software and onboard audio, but the latter isn't as high quality and can be dodgy. You're probably familiar with Thief using OpenAL as the goto method for most people ever since the patch from the dev, which is a good example.

Combination of Source 2 not being worth the port effort and TF2's code being a mess

I do need to point out that Valve have updated HL2 graphics since it came out.
That being said, it looked amazing at the time and still holds up today.

Yeah, it really sucks. Right now I have an X-Fi Titanium and the games that support EAX sound like magic, especially FEAR and Doom 3. I doubt that anything similar will happen again any time soon.

TF2 will most likely eventually get a Source 2 update. Despite being almost a decade old, it still pulls in millions every week, and Valve still has dozens of people working on it.

The reason they haven't ported TF2 to Source 2 yet is the same reason they haven't ported CS:GO: it's hard to perfectly recreate everything.

TF2 uses the physics engine for things like demoman grenades, huntsman arrows, rocket jumping, and airblast. Porting to Source 2 would require them most likely re-writing all of that code, AND getting it 100% perfect. One calculation being wrong could mean that rocket jumping feels every so slightly "off", and suddenly high-skill players (read: some of the highest-revenue players) can no longer do things that used to entertain them. This is especially difficult because Source uses Havok physics, while Source 2 uses a proprietary physics calculation algorithm.

CS:GO faces a similar problem with grenade throws and recoil. The port was relatively easy with Dota 2 because there's nothing like physics-based grenades.

Long story short: TF2 and CS:GO will eventually get Source 2 ports, but not for a long time.

Consoles are holding back the gaming industry. It would be possible to make games with a fuckton better graphics than now, but devs never do because almost everything is multiplat so they make the same console versions then just port it to pc.

Wasn't that pretentious hipster shit We Happy Few supposed to take place in Britain? The architecture of those houses is German, 100%.

Keep in mind Valve's flat-management structure which is the reason they don't do jack shit nowadays. People would have to want to port TF2 to Source 2 and its current team can't even be bothered to playtest updates. Even minor updates for localization files are so poorly made that there's typically an immediate 5 MB hotfix pushed out afterwards.

Gabe can't tell them what the fuck to do, he has as much power in the company as anybody else because of flat-management, and any structural changes to any different management method would require the participation of a majority of current Valve employees.

TURN OFF FILM GRAIN

Are you dumb?

Games in 1992 were basically a few moving pixel and upon closer inspection one would see something that resembles a dude walking on a platform.

Also, a lot of the innovation isn't just graphics, physics is important too

Do keep in mind that for any other company as large as valve, they likely would have already stopped most if not all support for tf2, it stills gets rather regular updates. Especially a company that has a hit the size of dota2 and CS:GO, never mind the storefront. There are two main reasons TF2 still sees some development, some devs in valve still like the game and are allowed to work on it, and more importantly, its a testing ground for nearly any other game they make because its big enough but not that important to them.

As several anons pointed out so far in this thread many games are having diminishing returns when it comes to higher poly counts and higher res textures and so forth.
Higher res textures also take longer to make leading to inconsistent quality in larger games. (when you go somewhere off the beaten path and run into lots of muddy shitty textures)

In my opinion the "next big thing" to make games look more realistic is proper lighting.
And I don't mean shitty bloom effects or blur or even god rays. But realistic simulated physics based lighting with no bullshit.

Embedded is some cryengine tech demo with decent textures and assets that you might see in any game made in the last 8 years or so. The lighting is what takes it to the next level.

I don't know a whole hell of a lot about what it takes to make good lighting. But I know two things. It takes a solid understanding of physics and math, and it is computationally expensive.

Games have been looking better up to this point because it was a matter of recruiting good artists to make models and textures. And a lot of dev money goes towards artists (as well as voice actors, imo one of the biggest mistakes of modern gaming) instead of mathematicians and competent programmers requires to implement lighting.

And of course, like many anons have said, consoles have gimped gaming because they are unable to use proper lighting without tanking framerate. Devs don't want to spend time and resources implementing this great lighting engine if possibly a majority of their customers are unable to enjoy it. That's why we are seeing the trend towards so many shitty filters and effects in games. They are easier to implement and can run adequately on consoles.

Yeah, for some reason the dumb fuckers thought it was acceptable to turn a maze shooter with a huge emphasis on survival horror elements into Painkiller 2: Halo in Hell Edition.

Serious Sam style "arena" shooters are just not very fun, serious sam at least has co-op going for it though, I don't think Doom 2016 has that but I never bothered to check.

Source engine is the best engine

Is good global illumination and the like worth requiring high-end GPUs and leaving D3D 9-10 GPUs behind? Out of all the open source engines I've found that support it out of the box, pic related supports OpenGL 2.1 (with extensions) and 3-level GPUs but has tight level size requirements, while the alternative supports much larger environments and has much fancier global illumination but needs OpenGL 4.3 and is probably more bloated than it needs to be.
There's always the option of adding a decent GI algorithm to an existing engine and tweaking it to not run like shit but I don't have the confidence in my /agdg/ skills to do that yet.

if it will be like witcher, with little cutscenes fights and not open world.. it's fucking worthless

As a short addendum to that post, OpenAL Soft HRTF is still in existence, but very little devs have decided to put in the effort for custom profiles

hey Tesseractbro, how's your progress? because it's like you've been swept off the face of /agdg/

fuck

That thing is a static texture of some flowers. I think the Saturn had real reflections despite not having texture filtering etc though

Do you know how long it takes to render great looking graphics? I want everyone to know how much time it takes to create and render a single frame for those beautiful cinematics we make that are constantly compared to and complained about the game itself not looking good as. Over 20+ fucking hours. Fucking hell, Pixar's Zootopia took 29 hours just to render A SINGLE FRAME.

We simply learned that having great looking graphics is not necessary for sales. Many of the best selling games do not have the best graphics and even back in the day with CRYSIS, it did not achieve best seller. But please tell everyone how they can render every polygon in realtime.

The only progress I've made is on reading the source code and mucking about in the map editor. It's a fantastic engine for oldschool multiplayer, fast level prototyping, maybe even a F.E.A.R. clone or a more traditional FPS, but lacks basic shit like 3D skyboxes and has issues with models shaking when the octree goes above size 12. I have my doubts that I'll end up using it but it's still a neat engine even with all the legacy code and general lack of threading.
Also, it's impossible to get pitch-black scenes or truly dark shadows unless you set the ambient array to zero instead of an RGB value. This creates a really high-contrast look in bright scenes but suits what I'd like to work on.

That's basically what he said, though.

AMD has had dedicated audio simulation hardware on their cards for a while now, but their approach is to supply an open hardware platform and leave the choice of SDK to the developer.

In any case I hope either platform will bring about proper EAX simulation so old gems will sound as good as they once did.

I'd love to integrate something like that as an experimental feature, but only if I could get it running on Linux as well.

How does that work? If you tell a GPU to perform instruction X shouldn't it perform instruction X regardless of any external software environment, or does the card need to load binaries from a driver suite that is only available on Windows?

Also, I see now it seems they have dropped the dedicated DSP and will use the regular CUs from now on.

considering how the best looking games of all time are currently on consoles, it seems like PC devs need to catch up. Hey Mount & Blade homolord will have 360 quality graphics at least.

source has 3d skyboxes you dumbass

Jesus fucking christ, learn to read, they're not fucking talking about Source you imbecile.

Guys. None of these things are the problem. Consoles are the problem, the console industry is the problem.

If games were developed to run only on PCs we would have beautiful looking games.

But games need to run on consoles, so polycounts have to go down, textures have to be downscaled and consequently blurred when stretching them all over the 3D models. And because it would be extra costs to keep an optimized PC version and optimized console version, we only have an optimized console version and a PC version of the console version that contains nothing of the original art except the console prepped garbage.

tldr consoles

That's a lot of big words for something as simple as "their own physics engine".

whatever

Are you baiting or are you honestly an idiot?
It's hard to tell the difference.

I didn't read the context of the thread and didn't care to, assumed he was talking about source and wasn't

I don't really care that I was wrong about something so insignificant, I've moved on already

...

My only complaint I have about that game, appearance wise, is the fact that the flak cannon which is reminiscent of the 1999 version shoots flak particulate that looks like the ut3 one.
They look like little shitty ufos. Nothing like flack

You need to go back.

I got a question about sound cards and all that..
I found a Sound Blaster Live! 5.1 (SB0100) in a box, and that supports up to EAX 2.0. With the custom kX drivers it works on Windows 7 (no other drivers would install), but games don't see it, I assume because Microsoft removed DirectSound support. I installed Creative ALchemy, which didn't work until I cracked it (maybe due to custom drivers), and now I can activate EAX in Thief using Hardware Acceleration set to ON and EAX enabled, and OpenAL is not an option.
Creative ALchemy wraps DirectSound to OpenAL, but you can use OpenAL in Diablo 2, Tribes 2 (it sounds terrible in Tribes 2, I don't know why), etc. without a sound card at all as long as you crack the Creative stuff. OpenAL also works in Dark Mod, and that's EAX 4.0 and doesn't use DirectSound at all.

Ultimately, I'm asking…is this card useless? Everything seems to be software based, and no audio has improved with it installed. If I had an Audigy would I notice a difference compared to OpenAL Soft? What about a card that supports EAX 4.0?

idiot, the current fire effect if from hl2:ep2 orange box engine of 2007, the fire before looked different.

so 9 years

not so much.
this shit doesn't just appear out of the aether for free, AAA devs would still be jews about it.

...

There's a lot of neat shit this game did such as the checkpoint system, the FPS and Tank control options and some of the scripted sequences but it's one of the few I know with in depth environment mechanics that isn't just physics based.

Computer games have literally only gotten worse with the hardware hike.

Literally every one of the best looking games came from people working on shit tier laptops.

And I am being literal with my usage of the word literal. I'm not being metaphorical.
The easier to use and work on computers devs get, the worse their games turn out.
Shit I bet you any game.
ANY OF THEM. That can't be run decently on ~5 year old hardware are shit.

Battlefront and Battlefield 1 are breathtaking in terms of graphics. Nothing comes even close.

Quads has it. Alone in the Dark was pretty fucking shitty in pacing and optimization, but holy shit it had some pretty awesome mechanics and physics to it. Story was kinda shit and the fucking episodic endings to all the chapters were fucking annoying, but being able to search a car for supplies and mixing items together was pretty fun.

…what are you trying to prove with those screenshots? As far as polygons go they all look as detailed as they could possibly be.

As far as graphics goes the only way games can look better at this point is with superior textures or use of post-processing effects.

I'm stuck with athlon xp and geforce 4 440mx and 256 ram.

...

uncharted 4 looks better

chad warden pls go

play it and decide for yourself, easily the most advanced lighting to date, some top notch deformation and top tier animation.

Assets are not made shitty, they go through a pipeline to transform them to what the developers want. Assets are always the highest quality, we just don't ever get them.

Why are you fucking denying this when we've seen multiple times trailers of games that looked really good and then we got garbage when it is finally released.

Assets aren't made in some hyperrealistic quality far above the pale of what we see.
No, touched up bullshit trailers don't count.
And with or without consoles they'ld still have to make lower fidelity shit. Devs need to include potato mode for the majority of their target audience.

Is Source 2 still a BSP engine?

Here you have it folks, a mind so used to blurred messy textures he doesn't believe high res textures can exist.

Just how fucking stupid are you user?

No, how stupid are you? How many day 1 buys do you have to go through to realize you're being scammed?

You've never mad a game before. Holy shit you couldn't be more wrong.
Looks a little dated but it gets the job done well.
Hammer is shit. It's stuck in 1996 while GtkRadient and Trenchbroom have blown it out of the fucking water (other BSP tools for other games.) All the other tools could be much better.
Having lots of mods != being easy to mod
True
If you've ever used a Quake related engine you'll be right at home
True.

Source has some good things going for it, but it's a pain in the fucking ass to develop for outside of a really tiny project. The only big projects that got finished were from really dedicated developers who regretted using Source when they were halfway through their project and didn't want to turn back.

Not to mention it's shit licensing that also requires you to have Steam installed.

Just use a Quake 1/2/3 sourceport. Many of them are nearly as, and in some cases more capable than Source.

If anything, it's more like they HAVE to work on TF2 because those devs feel like they're obligated to work on it, since the game makes Valve big money.

Please stop projecting, you illiterate mong.

Didn't Creative also steal the shadowing tech used in Doom 3?

...

What kind of deformation? Dirt?

I don't like that kind of analogies because it's retarded as fuck when you take into account the law of disminishing return.
It was way easier to improve on NES graphics than it is to improve on current ones.

I don't even care for better graphics anyways. We've reached a point where photorealism is almost a thing but photorealism is lazy as fuck. This is why hyperrealism never worked that well, I play videogames for escapism, give me art style over photorealism any time of the day.

I just want all games to be as optimized as MGSV.

Pretty sure.

Well, I could do quite a few things with it when I was 12.

has any game ever done PBR right besides the fox engine?
it's literally the undisputed next step in photo realism but no one wants to do it right.

You prob find theres some black ops people that use something like that to create false evidence (photographs or pictures). Though I imagine it's rarely used, as it's better to force a person into a situation that looks compromising. Have the "real deal" and some paid jurys/judges as oppose to something getting caught under heavy analysis.

also two things, one
full on photorealism with no manipulation has only been done a couple of times, most of the time what we call "photorealism" is realism with filters, a lot or too little contrast, etc.
implementing it is expensive, but now even fucking Unity supports it.

Art direction is infinitely more important than graphical power. A strong art style can make even the weakest of graphical engines shine like a diamond.

Compare Paper Mario to Turok 2, for example.

Someone needs to break into Konami HQ and steal that engine, all that work done on it for nothing.

At least Kojima can rebuild it from scratch- learning from past mistakes

it's like how Undertale made the shitty Game Maker engine look decent

It's also why /agdg/ are on suicide watch. They're begging for people to make sprites/models/etc and the best they can get is faux retro pixel art that looks like every other SJW indie title.

They should consider actually hiring an artist to oversee the project. But that would cost money or require you to have some sort of working prototype and Holla Forums is primarily comprised of idea guys.

Anyone with actual talent gets run outta town on a rail- look at what happened to Yandere Dev or the Risk of Rain guy.

...

Kojimbo is just a movie maker.

His project is actually at a state where it's somewhat playable. Beats most of the wankers in /agdg/.

He's farther along than Anton and Woodpecker and he's doing it by himself, too.

He's being paid $60k a year.

...

Their modeling thus far looks like Runescape Classic monster concepts rejected for being, and I quote, "too shitty." The actual gameplay they demo is floaty, stiff, and imprecise.

bloated post fx shaders are killing gaming.

...

Your metaphor breaks down, though, because /adgd/ produces NOTHING. Anyone who does produce something of worth gets driven out on the thinnest of pretenses because the ideas guys can't handle someone else being successful before them.

Stop projecting. /agdg/ is not a hivemind.
Are you Yandere-dev? Fucking faggot

Have you even looked at the threads?
I see plenty of progress.

This video blew my mind personally when I saw it. I think companies would rather spend their time on bigger sales figures. Because of this, improvement on graphics is not a priority. Like the Nintendo survey showed, people want memes and other garbage like that when we could get real improvement in writing, sound, gameplay and visuals.

Is it playable? Does anything ever release? Are they NOT inherently hostile to any game that reaches completion? Holla Forums is idea guy central, someone with a character model they made in blender or a few IF THEN statements is not making progress.

Never said it was, friend. But the only game to come from a dev known to post on their was Risk of Rain and he left months before finishing his work. It's not a resource of aspiring devs and it's not a good sounding board for working devs.

Using speedbot as an example
Yes.

Not that I know of. Haven't heard what the dev's plans with the game are.

I haven't heard anyone be hostile to other game devs there.

In fact, the only dev I've heard anyone dislike that's posted here is yandev.

Have you seen the amount of engine devs we have?
It's obvious they're going to take longer to make a game than the person using Unity / UE4 / Godot, that doesn't mean they aren't making progress.

I wouldnt be surprised if developers dont optimize jackshit because "everyone has super powerful cards nowadays so we can skip optimizing".

I dont know if its lazy developers, suits being stingy or a combination of those two (probably the third option).

I don't know what horrible alternate dimension you came from, but lately /agdg/ has been filled with anons posting progress and occasionally laughing at unproductive ideaguys.

It's a combination of lazy developers,console manufacturers paying the suits, and devs implementing shit that benefits from newer hardware or graphics APIs without providing fallbacks. To be fair to the last group, supporting legacy hardware can be a pain in the ass and often it's tempting or advantageous to dump OpenGL 2/DX9 and sticking with GL 3-4/DX10-11, the problem being that in many cases these improvements aren't worth expensive hardware upgrades. Tied with shit CPU cache usage and developers finding new and horrible ways of implementing old shit with new hardware in mind, you get the clusterfuck that is modern vidya visuals and performance.

It mostly falls down with the resolution of textures in some places.

wat? Valve is making a new engine?

I believe they already have. Dota 2 uses it (or at least an early version of it, I forget).

are you being dumb on intent?

It's just "cinematic" post-processing taken to an extreme.

HDR and PBR aren't post processing.
learn before you shitpost.

The "it can't be done on the CPU!" is total horseshit, they're just desperate to make more exclusive features like TressFX. Sound hulls like they're describing were briefly being handled by '90s hardware. And not even good '90s hardware, garbage sound card hardware that struggled just to mix 32 channels. Your CPU today has vector extensions rated in the hundreds of gflops and would just laugh at this problem.

HDR is largely post processing. Learn how to implement HDR before you shitpost.

big difference
PBR is the main draw of the Fox Engine anyway, saying the Fox Engine is post processing to the extreme is wrong no matter how you look at it.

feels bad man

also B is fake, imperfect lighting and polygon counts are showing plus the ceiling lights lack depth and there's visible aliasing on the white painting on the first picture on B

you retarded fuck it was a glorified cutscene, of course you can make it look good when there is nothing in the background and all that is seen is prerendered assets as you walk in fucking corridors

actually there is aliasing on most of the paintings and on the whiteboard, also the paintings are part of the wall instead of being attached to it on the 2nd set of pictures. The shadows under the chairs on the 3rd set of pictures also don't take into consideration multiple light sources. there's more but i won't bother to tell everything that is unrealistic there

At least they aren't like nvidia, i distincly remember them showing off graphics on an expo in one of their buildings and they made this exact same comparison, i used aliasing only to determine if one was real life and the other wasn't since there was always some and then they tell me i was wrong. Later on i accidentally walk into a room and it's actually the room they modeled it after, and when i look at some of the frames still hanging on the wall they actually cut the things to give them fake real life aliasing

holy shit, not even using suroundsound or headphones and I could hear the direction it was coming from perfectly.

We need this in our games.

What is wrong with you dumb niggers? What I said is true.
Bogus gameplay ads with touched up videos made on custom builds that only have to render in game footage on a single known machine with no regard for response times or actual playability have nothing to do with consoles.

Do you idiots just not realize that for every one autist on a high end machine, there are also a thousand brazilians on ten year old toasters?

To be fair AI is legitimately hard, especially when it needs to run on consoles and toasters.
DF is a good example as it has very complex AI and runs like shit because of it, but that doesn't really matter because it's turn based.

surround audio is a meme and a jewish marketing plot.
we only have 2 audio receptors we only need 2 speakers

also modern game audio is shit because nobody really tries. most games just have audio fade out if it's too far and nothing else when in reality there's obviously much more at play. there was this game i forgot the name and i was driving a mustang in an underground garage and the sound actually echoed and then my friend who was at the exit said he could hear it bouncing on the walls and going into his character. It was a third person shooter but the fact that you can hear shit from your character's perspective was really cool

like i told the other guy, good fucking luck rendering that in an actual game and not a glorified cutscene with baked assets and almost nothing to render since it's all in a closed halls space. also did they fucking have both ambient occlusion and global illumination on at the same time?

I fucking hate the source engine so god damn much.
Buggy bloated trash!

Try it with headphones on. And this was what, 2000?

On a source related topic, is it just me sucking or is CSGO the anti-fun? I used to be pretty god tier on the original Counter Strike, but I just find CSGO impossible. I have no idea how people got as good as they have or make the shots they do. I feel like you have to have a bit of autism to be good at this game.

Replaying FEAR since I got EAX working.
I know the flank is coming, but I still get caught. The worst is when they hide.

I think the FOX engine looks good but there are other qualities to it that I'm interested in as well, the fact that it can lok like that is interesting enough but factoring in their claims of portability, a nice scripting environment, and minimal footprint, I'm disappointed that people can't work with it to make something more involved while still looking alright.

There's no reason to be upset with me.

no nigga you don't understand
my neutral state is upset

seems plausible enough but i don't think they would be stupid enough to do it in highly public matters. Not only will that kind of stuff not work on anything since to actually full someone not looking for it we still can't pick up any scene but as soon as someone figures it out for one thing then the whole world will start looking for other times highly realistic CGI was used and if they actually try to pull that off with a person not being identical to a real human bean in perfect realism it will take the image right into the uncanny valley and our instincts will pick up something is weird

If PS4, xbone and that other one were to drop dead today it wouldn't change a fucking thing.

...

they're actually the reason games don't get even worse. imagine that from out of nowhere all console plebs are on PC

Wouldn't be any different than it is now.

It's called Steam.

...

if consoles didn't exist those plebs wouldn't play videogames in the first place, and going back to the argument without graphics being frozen for a sizeable portion of videogames every 5 or so years we'd have much more developed technology.

Wishful thinking cranked up to 11. Steam easily disproves that notion.

Oh yeah, because the one thing video games needs more of right now is even more graphics whoring.

You'll live it before you get to play it.

how so

My 970 pushes 90FPS all the time on Ultra.

Wew.

The hardware market would become super competitive and cheap, graphics and performance wouldn't have to be held back, shovelware would have to deal with all of the competition and sink harder than before.

SILENT HILL HAD THE BEST FACIAL ANIMATION

...

Probably is full of shit, µI have a 4770k and a GTX 770 and I oscillate between 100+ and 45fps, maybe sub 20 if I start firing nukes left and right in a physics object heavy area.

Creative will never let this happen, at least until their patent expires after a few years.

Half Life 2 aged remarkably well. Though it's hard to say how well it really has thanks to updates.
What I find shocking is how even in Sonys BLATENTLY FALSE demos for the PS4 showing off facial animation, It still looked worse than Half Life 2.

I did. Boring piece of crap