The original NS ran on an aging HL1 engine. It seems NS2 is on schedule to run on source as it starts to show its age.

I had trouble getting friends to play NS1 because they thought it looked like crap. Is NS2 going to run into the same problem? I'm not sure how "future proof" the source engine is, but it's starting to get old.

What do you guys think about this?

Source is modular so you can add stuff all the time, but to me that's just fancy talking. To my untrained eye Ep2 looked no better than HL2; talk about aliased dynamic nuclear powered extra fluffy clouds all you want, you'd struggle to keep updating any engine to ensure it stays modern.

But Steam is so popular that UWE can afford to work as slowly as they do- I'd have guessed any release in the next 2-3 years will work if the game is good.

Pessismist hat but based on past progress I can't see how NS2 will be released in 2 years. Granted we wouldn't expect website hacks and moving cross country to get in the way again, but they've had no issues in the past half year and all we've seen is concept art.

The source engine is very flexible and easy to use. I think that if the Source engine becomes outdated, Valve will just put out a new version.

Agreed.

well, true, but I wouldn't say that they are constantly making NS2 for the past 6 months. During that time they were doing some essential, but down-to-earth things like looking for sponsors, setting up an office etc.

anyway - all I want to see in NS2 is revised gameplay and the feel of NS1, not eye candy which I will eat fast, sh*t out and flush it the loo like all other games that are coming out recently - not like with NS which I digest from v1.04 (with breaks)

Souce engine outdated ? You must be kidding , actually it is one of the best game engines, capable of show incredible graphics with good framerate even with crappy sub 100 € videocards. The UT3 and COD4 engine maybe have a bit better visual effects, but the differences are minimal. Besides, valve and all the hl comunity is something that other engines don't have and it's as important as graphics.
Crysis have the best engine to date, but problably you wouldn't want to play NS2 at 15 fps, am i right ?

People play the original Duke Nukem 3D, one of the first 3D games released... thats about 16 years old. So it doesn't matter if the graphics aren't that great, the idea of a good game is to base it on the game play; not on looks. Thats where most games fail and loose all their money like Age of Empires 3, looks great but game play sucks.

Graphics matter if it's a new product that is going to cost money......

The Source engine has been upgraded a good deal since HL2 come out, and probably will continue to be at least until Ep3(and I imagine Valve will just keep building on it). NS2 probably won't be state-of-the-art in terms of visuals anyway, but I don't think it will look outdated by any means.

Keep in mind, having 'state-of-the-arts' graphics or 'being on the cutting edge' can be double-edged sword. It may have it's advantages, but it certainly comes with it's fair share of disadvantages. Someone may say "ohh, look good graphics! That looks really impressive, I'll give it a try" while the person next to them says "ohh, look good graphics! Bet I can't run that..."

Then you have gamers like me - I play games to have fun, yes, but I also love trying to dominate in those games. Often times graphics can be a hindrance to my play, so even though my computer is currently able to run almost anything out there on high, I usually run games on low / medium.

Either way, one thing is clear, games with 'great graphics' usually make a great PR push then fade as quickly as they came. I believe the games that stick around need to be games that are good and accessible to the greatest number of people possible. Graphics can severally limit who has access to your game.

So long as NS2 comes out in the next 2 to 5 years, it should have graphics satisfactory to the vast majority of players.

If you mean mature and can run on nearly everyone's computer, then yes. But the engine is flexible and has the potential for plenty of graphical improvements as shown by Ep1 and subsequently Ep2.

Not the best of gaming friends. I find graphics aren't important to me at all so much as art... but beyond that gameplay is the deciding factor. If an old game just doesn't play well compared to modern games, then it's harder for me to enjoy it.

gameplay makes the game - sure graphics help, but anyone remember play hexxagon or drug wars? the were barely any graphics, yet they were so addictive and fun. thats definitley some of the strenghts that ns1 had also.

however hl2's graphics are good enough, and the art style of ns2 will make it aesthetic hl2 is much more than a graphics upgrade. .lets not forget that there are still a few games which will be comming out on the hl2 engine - such as left4dead.
and probably most importantly - it will run on just about every pc out there - unlike most new games.

Even though the maximun capabilities of this game visually are less than other games, I still find on my computer that if I set my graphics high to the max before it lags, its looks better on the source engine because it's more efficiant. Take the example of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for anyone who had the opportunity to play that amazing game. Hl2 looks better on my computer because I can set the graphics to max and in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. i have frame rate issues even on medium settings. S.T.A.l.K.E.R's engine actually some of the best graphics in my opinion ( not the best) but only super insane computers can run it. One of the biggest problems I found with the episodes of HL2 was that they spent way too much time showing off graphics and new engine abilities and not enough on gameplay. Atmosphere was good but the games were boring to me but that's mostly cause they couldn't get over the fact the made a physics engine and you can beat the game blindfolded lobbing things with the gravity gun.

Except for that strider fight at the end of ep 2. That was sweat.

Graphics are secondary to immersion and environmental engagement.

NS though was done so professionaly that the visuals shat all over those found in Half life. It was one of the few mods that felt like you were actually playing a different game, not one that felt like all that was different were the player/gun models. Im pretty sure it will withstand the graphical test, not that such a good game will need to in order to be a success.

agreed

I think you should slap your friends a lot for basing their opinion on the polycount of a game.

Am I the only gamer that has only really noticed a difference in the look of games if I play something like Unreal Tournament, but if I play Unreal Tournament 2003 all the way up to current games, they all look about the same to me ... Maybe I have been gaming too long, and I remember 8-bit and 16-bit graphics and midi sounds, but sheesh, isn't the next step in gaming graphics practically a f'n holodeck from Star Trek?

I thought we left the importance of graphics behind us years ago, as far as I am concerned, they have pretty much plateaued and look better than the various CGI movies from past years.

If someone actually thinks HL2 graphics are dated, they seriously need to consider stop playing incomplete custom maps with lazy mono-chrome art and notice that with just a little bit of effort, the engine performs like a friggin' beast when you give it art assets that measure up to some degree of fidelity, I would have thought HL2: Episode 2 played at even medium or minimal graphical settings would demonstrate that nicely.

I didn't for a while. When I go back to NS1 now I notice the pixely textures on the walls, but the player and weapon models still look fine.

i think using an "old" engine is more of a public image thing than a game changing issue.

The source engine is more than adequate for ns2. Ns2 is going to be an indoor game round corridors and various rooms. Good graphics can easily be wasted on indoor environments since there isnt that much too see - e.g. doom3

If ns2 were to be out door in a massive living environment i would understand the need for a glorious graphics engine but in its setting graphics isnt going to be a riding factor in the experience.

If ns2 ships after say hl3 or a newer valve engine or after people commonly view source as out of date it will be a public image problem rather than a game play problem. Some people equate the latest engine to game quality and thus whether its worth buying and playing.

I still think ns1 looks great being on a hl1 engine.

Also keep in mind this is a multiplayer game where excessive effects and poor performance gets in the way of good gameplay.

true true, i think that even with ns1 the graphics and art were above vanilla hl1 standard. so i'd say the samething will apply to ns2.

although at the same time, i'd say that if ns2 doesn't come out in 6-12 months, then it'll be too late.

http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games

Considering that Counterstrike, a hl1 based engine(1998) game, is still the most played fps game in the world, followed by Counterstrike : source, a source engine game, and then battlefield 2 a distant no3, I don't think you have to worry so much about the source engine being over the hill any time soon. You have to worry more about the gameplay being good enough to get players away from those other games. Battlefield 1 haCall of duty has ~10% the player base of CS and UT3 has ~0.3%.

Hmm those numbers seem to contradict what I see here in Australia. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the following shows the percentage of players (currently playing) for the top 4 games on Australia's largest server provider (GameArena)
BF2 40%
TF2 24%
CS:S 23%
CS 12%

Hardly conclusive stats, but it does confirm what I see anocdotally around the servers.

Also, the issue here for Unknown Worlds is sales (for the game to be a financial success). How many people are still buying CS? Like someone else said, they have about 6-12 months before their market starts drying up. NS is already a distant memory for a lot of it's original player base, and if NS2 comes out looking dated it's going to be hard to drum up excitement.

NS was one of my most favorite games ever, and I hope NS2 is a huge success, but they seriously need to get a move on.

If any of you read Game Developer Magazine you will notice in the May 2008 issue there is an article about game engines. In it Doug Lombardi (of Valve) said that the Source engine is constantly being updated. This is true because if you notice Valve typically does not do "huge updates" every six months or so. Instead they update often with new features that actually make it one of the most updated game engine.

I'm sure someone's already responded to this, but I just wanted to say: I disagree. It seems like the NS2 team is building a solid foundation. Once this foundation is erected, I think we'll see some tremendous progress at a pace rarely matched by other developers. Development of decoda, for instance, is a good example of this. They're getting all their ducks in a row and launching them all at once rather than pushing each individual duck out to sea as soon as it's ready...if that made any sense.

I know it'll get done when it's done but I REALLY want to see some real progress.

NS2 will come out in 2009 (if we are lucky) and it won't look half as good as Gears of War (a 2006 game that ran on a 2005 conole) so yes, the graphics will definitely be out dated.

Do you realize you've all ready made a decision about the game's graphics when they haven't released a single screen shot? NS looks out-dated now, but it didn't look bad when it came out. My friends and I all said "this is using the HL engine!?" when we first saw it. If you want to judge how NS2 will look, you'd probably be best by comparing it to NS1 when it was released.

I will compare NS2 graphics to other FPS released in the same year. Crysis graphics will become standard in 2009 so good luck.

Yes that's what I said. If you compare NS1 graphics to things that were released in the same timeframe it stacks up fine. I'd wager NS2 will as well.

A.) I don't believe it for a second.
B.) Crysis is a single player game. I don't hear anything about Crysis's competitive scene.
C.) TF2 was released around the same time as Crysis and is doing quite well in terms of sales and community.

If you're not going to buy it because the graphics aren't top of the line that's your prerogative. I think that's the worst reason you could pass up the game though.

We intend to release a great looking game.

I would like to add my 2c.

Someone asked "do you see people still buying cs?"

As a matter of fact I do. After so many years we still sell that game. My last data is from last year, but then we would sell about 5-10 games monthly. I am talking about the old CS.

Also Source engine is great for low end computers and has a lot of potential. After just finishing Turok I can say that the graphics can't get better for the time being. Crysis? Well 70% of the "WOW" factor is the vast game world and a lot of playing with lights. I didn't get stunned by it's graphics (before someone asks- yes I did play a lag free "high details" game)

Hey guys, here's a quick heads up.

Not everyone has a massive monolith of a computer.

Thus, to get competitive and smooth framerates, something essential for a multiplayer game, it is MANDATORY that its load is as minimal as possible to provide an open entry point to a wide audience. This is probably why CS and NS still rank as some of the most played games according to the Steam Server Stats page. It's because graphics don't make the game. It's the content. Other notables are Earth's Special Forces, a game built on the HL1 Engine as well, and The Specialists, also exclusively on HL1 content.

Also, while Crysis is shiny, and singleplayer, i'd like to point out 2 things. 1) there are several ongoing projects to mod Crysis into several multiplayer games, including Mechwarrior Living Legends: http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/ 2) it is really really hardware intensive, so I doubt it will become a "standard" as someone else stated.

In my opinion, while the source Engine isn't the top of the crowd in shiny graphics, it's not only still very good and continually updated, but it also is one of the best scaling graphic engines out there. Valve has made it a point to ensure that you can still run their games on systems with a GeForce 5 and a crummy Pentium 4. I should know, I've TF2 played on one, and at moderately OK frames. So, I'm sure the graphics will be fine.

Plus, you're forgetting this is the Natural Selection Team. They made a really good looking game with the HL1 engine, I'm sure they'll take full advantage of the Source Engine as well.

Take a look on NS1 to see how much they achieve using a HL1 engine - this is insane. I'm sure guys from UWE will do everything they can to make the NS2 look stunning. It's way to early to judge.

That can't be true. Graphics are not mutually exclusive to immersion and environmental engagement.


I reckon that's a great point, and Lt.Hendrickson's and spellman23's comments about scaling and efficiency, as well.


Never doubted ya for a second.

imo a good art team can trumph a graphics engine anyday. If the NS art team produce good work the game will look insanly good on the source engine. Many new games have 'state of the art engines' but have very bland art work and model designs. If UWE can generate an art style that looks good and is distinct then they can produce a visual piece. They did it last time so i dont see why they couldnt do it again.

Graphics only seem to be a sale factor in single player FPS. in RTS the graphics havent revolutionised in the past decade, in FPS TF2 is a clear display of art over graphics in my opinon. and MOORPGs dont have great grpahics yet they out sell pretty much everything else atm.

Crysis' graphics are better than source but it's not as huge a jump as hl1 to hl2.




Crysis also runs poorly on the majority of pcs and will run poorly on the majority of pcs for awhile.

If you want to make a popular game cutting edge graphics are not ideal.

Anyone who keeps their computer moderately up to date can run Crysis. No, not at ultra specs, but at very high.

I can't afford to keep my computer up to date, so haven't bought any non-steam games in a while. Most things look like my computer would struggle with, or I'd have to heavily turn down settings. But as long as I continue to buy Source games, I trust I can play them. I can't play with highest visual settings, but everything is still impressive. The only games I want to play and can't are HL2: Lost Coast and Hidden: Source.

My RAM started at 512, but has degraded to about 460. My video card is an old (regular) PCI card, Radeon 9250. My CPU is around 2.2...

These settings are rather poor by comparison to what others can afford, but I still get the play Source games well. Even Gmod. They still (technically) meet the minimum requirements listed by most Steam games.


NS1 I'd say is particularly special among mods, particularly in graphics. Its visuals are so far above all other HL1 mods, and even HL1 itself. I don't know if it is true on a technical level, but the way they did the graphics just really works. That also means that my most-played game is also easily handled by my system. I expect we'll get similar for NS2.

So we're only going to cater to the 30-40% of people who keep their systems "moderately up to date"? Also, have you seen how crappy Crysis looks on low settings? I have, because my gaming machine IS the minimum working settings.

I'm hoping that UWE will release some kind of a 'rolling-demo' of the tech, showing off some kinds of animated scripted sequence which involves some characters/aliens, to show approx what kind of FPS we could expect. Like a real-time trailer or something running in Source.

FPS matters a lot in an fps, I'd rather have my fps never dip below 100 in say tf2 than have my computer chug away at 20 fps in crysis.

This is a silly discussion..

What will make the game look good is the quality of the art work and design.

Take WOW for instance it uses a very primitive rendering engine but its probably one of the best looking games on the market.

What a game engine does is simply let developers make games faster by not having to re-write lots of generic low level code whilst hl2 is be no means the best engine it should suffice for this project.

!!!

Lets not forget, that speed is also a major factor.
If you compare screens of hl2ep2 and cod4 you will notice alot of difference, but when you actually play the game, the fact that your sight has that sweet reflection becomes less and less important. Only when you stand still and have time to look around, only then you will notice the many imperfections.

And as long as NS2 keeps the player moving we wont have many problems with people moaning bout the graphics

I can see how NS1 looks like crap now, but that dosen't stop me from playing it . As long as NS2 comes out in the next 2-3 years ppl will still play it, as for buying it ppl still buy half-life 1 for mods like NS1 so i don't see it being a big problem

I think NS1 still looks great! It doesn't have lots of fancy effects but it looks really good.

the source engine, however, is now over 5 jears old. and still be used, and maybe crysis or cod4 looks better, but source have a such robust physics engine, can be updated everytime, and can be used to almost everything, even RTS.

no, when NS2 come out, none look at the graphic, they look at the game, how polished , great and fun it is,
not graphic. and the people who do look at this, dont deserve this game, and shouldnt play it.

and i think the source engine can easely run, and will make other engines look like crap in the next 4 jears.

(IE, expansive, new and high requiremts < "cheap" older, but still good looking and low requiremts. )

ns1 was the first source game with the higher color bit setting that I can recall, so it was something at the time.

the success of Left for Dead will be a good indicator this autumn since (i think) its on the source engine. If it slumps on the fact that its engines out of date then this maybe a worrying trend.