half life 2 uses diferent method for reflections and it is used only in water, the whole scene is rendered upside down and render in that shader, since games now have alot more geometry that is hard to do with this method, also that mehtod doesn't work with convex surfaces, now untill raytracing, a combination of cubemap (a 360 degree photo of the scene, prerendered or real time) and screen space reflection is used and it is used on most of the surfaces not just water, half life 2 has this kind of reflections only on water, the rest of the surfaces have prerendered cubemaps, raytracing is a simulation and it will never be perfect unless you have unlimited rt cores or hardware, thats why nvidia is trying to put AI post processing. With ray reconstrunction cyberpunk sometimes looks like a painting.
@@necrotic256 you're right, as Gabe Newell said, Games are not just about rendering pixels. I just explained the difference between the technologies. I think Half Life is one of the best games ever, cyberpunk is one of the best we've got today in a time when games are crappy.
@@necrotic256 did you ever see hl2 cubemaps? Those suck ass but it blown our asses back in 2004, once again, this is the only real reflection in the game, nothing else reflects anything but a cubemaps image that ruins your inmersion pretty quickly
Yeah but you have to take into account things like - poly count (probably you have milion times more of them), texture resolution and texture channels involved. This is a big difference.
...you also have to take into account the speed of computers in 2004, and the kind of machine HL2 was actually running on, while pulling off these tricks.
@@NicholasBrakespear yeah, i am doing that. HF2 had a real nice water effect but really there's a lot more to process in games today. Actually in terms of fluid mechanics we are a bit stuck in progress - and my guess is its because of Nvidia.
@@mariuszstanisawczyk8990 I think the biggest obstacle is, and always has been, art direction. A lot of new techniques and technologies have been pushed without good reason - mainly to sell new generations of GPU and consoles. But solutions to a lot of graphical issues go way back. For example, fluid mechanics; you ever play Hydrophobia? Had very cool "let's flood the entire level" water physics. That was good enough. Didn't see it in any game after that though. Similarly, been playing Guild Wars 2 lately, in which they introduced some very nice wave effects for ocean areas in some of its expanded content. Not real fluid physics, but it looks fantastic. Yet a huge number of games that came out after this content... had flat Morrowind-style water. And this had nothing to do with technology. If Guild Wars 2 could have rolling waves, with no physics but a nice visual, and GTA IV could have rolling waves with some actual physics... oh and of course GTA V had some very nice looking water... then why do we find ourselves staring at inferior visual effects in games that followed? Anyway I suppose the real point is - HL2 did more with less. Given not only the more limited hardware of the time (and the expectation, let's not forget, that many people would be playing the game on less than optimal machines), and the fact that in 2004... we were witnessing the jump from what was effectively the Quake 1 engine? Rather more impressive. There has been some real stagnation in the years that followed. When HL2 came along it was like, boom, drastically new visuals, a new approach to physics props (leaving aside the flawed but revolutionary Trespasser)... now it's like, boom? Some new visuals? Maybe? If you can call them that? Some new ways of... rendering basically the same kinds of imagery, but we've lost a few things along the way, and it runs worse, and nobody can really tell for sure if a game is truly "next gen" because the generational gaps don't mean so much...
@@NicholasBrakespear Well i think there were some greate breakthroughs done in graphics but sometimes we're not really appreciating it that much, e.g. realtime GI, PBR which gave us couple of new things: especially in open world games where you've got dynamic light condition changes. We really need to take into the account poly count and texture resolutions. You have a major breakthrough with bump mapping (and normal mapping) done on every single asset in the game after HL2. We have a lot more data put into the scene: animations included, LOD informations, number of lights on the scene. Look that the scenes are now, for the most part, loaded dynamically. In case of Cyberpunk 2077 we have to take into the account a lot processing which goes into the CPU/GPU budget: crowd simulation, vehicle simulations, particles. I think that we need to remember that the tech itself might not be new (e.g. crowd sim) but combination of the tech with other stuff (and keeping the budget) is difficult. So I would say, that after all those years, CP2077 in 2.0 version is very good and beautiful game. But I would agree that many things can be achieved with proper artistic direction without procedured shaders: e.g. Death Stranding is very beautiful game and yet very efficiently rendered. Same thing could go into Elden Ring, Resident Evil 4 or Metal Gear Solid 5. Many of those game have excellent graphics without CPU/GPU overheating.
It's an annoying quirk of graphical technology, that we sacrificed so many very nice effects from older engines... for arguably unnecessary graphical "improvements" in areas that didn't truly need it. Poly counts went up, subtle visual techniques were added at great cost to performance... and did it actually make games play better? Was it truly necessary for "immersion", given that we can be immersed in the simplest of visuals, if the audio, art style and writing are on point? Speaking as someone who finally bought Cyberpunk recently, feeling thoroughly vindicated in waiting until it was "finished", from what I've seen so far it's awesome. Very impressive. What they've done with the conversations (actually making people move in a human way, and move around during conversations) is a true innovation. But... with every graphically fancy release, I find myself wondering - what could have been done, if developers focused on art style over graphical technology? Imagine a version of Cyberpunk, for example, using older, simpler technology, pixel art sprites for characters for example, and a more robust engine; imagine how much bigger the city could have been, how much more interactivity there could have been... imagine realtime mirrors everywhere, and thousands of characters on screen, and crazy Brutal Doom-levels of persistent bodies/blood/spent casings/wall decals etc... maybe a whole System Shock-style cyberspace realm to explore.
you didnt even have the path tracing on in cyberpunk there i could see the that you were using screen space reflections as they cut off when you looked down... hl2 uses a camera on the waters surface to reflect the half life 2 engine can only do one of those live reflections on the screen (and in a world portal) at once, if there two seperate water objects, one of the reflections wouldnt work, hl2 is a game that is linear with small maps with low poly count and low textures and low quality baked lighting, it still holds up but cyberpunk is a open world game with lots of moving parts all with insanely hight poly count, texture qulality, and all those textures are pbr. but this comparison was not only done wrong, but is also completely redundant.
@@JokaBoka compare both scenes, half life's is just plain sky with one hut, night city is 20x more complicated and more important - dynamic, you couldnt fake reflection of flashing screens with static image just admit you cant afford mid-decent gear and stop being salty lmao
Nice comparing total out of boundries Scene with a totally modded HL3 ;) Then show also a modded Cyberpunk and a gameplay relevant scene. Not the water which is a complete irrelevant objeckt in cyberpunk.
This is stupid, you're showing the best graphic scene of half life 2 with a far away scene on cp77, the game sucked ass and had lots of bugs on release, but it really was an artistical piece of art where it shines for an open world game compared to GTA and fallout
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
half life 2 uses diferent method for reflections and it is used only in water, the whole scene is rendered upside down and render in that shader, since games now have alot more geometry that is hard to do with this method, also that mehtod doesn't work with convex surfaces, now untill raytracing, a combination of cubemap (a 360 degree photo of the scene, prerendered or real time) and screen space reflection is used and it is used on most of the surfaces not just water, half life 2 has this kind of reflections only on water, the rest of the surfaces have prerendered cubemaps, raytracing is a simulation and it will never be perfect unless you have unlimited rt cores or hardware, thats why nvidia is trying to put AI post processing. With ray reconstrunction cyberpunk sometimes looks like a painting.
As a consumer, i don't care how it's done and don't need a list of excuses why modern programmers are regressing in their skill
@@necrotic256 you're right, as Gabe Newell said, Games are not just about rendering pixels. I just explained the difference between the technologies. I think Half Life is one of the best games ever, cyberpunk is one of the best we've got today in a time when games are crappy.
@@necrotic256 did you ever see hl2 cubemaps? Those suck ass but it blown our asses back in 2004, once again, this is the only real reflection in the game, nothing else reflects anything but a cubemaps image that ruins your inmersion pretty quickly
the thing is we can run half life 2 at 1000 fps because developers built tight succinct levels with cube reflections
Yeah but you have to take into account things like - poly count (probably you have milion times more of them), texture resolution and texture channels involved. This is a big difference.
...you also have to take into account the speed of computers in 2004, and the kind of machine HL2 was actually running on, while pulling off these tricks.
@@NicholasBrakespear yeah, i am doing that. HF2 had a real nice water effect but really there's a lot more to process in games today. Actually in terms of fluid mechanics we are a bit stuck in progress - and my guess is its because of Nvidia.
@@mariuszstanisawczyk8990 I think the biggest obstacle is, and always has been, art direction.
A lot of new techniques and technologies have been pushed without good reason - mainly to sell new generations of GPU and consoles. But solutions to a lot of graphical issues go way back.
For example, fluid mechanics; you ever play Hydrophobia? Had very cool "let's flood the entire level" water physics. That was good enough. Didn't see it in any game after that though.
Similarly, been playing Guild Wars 2 lately, in which they introduced some very nice wave effects for ocean areas in some of its expanded content. Not real fluid physics, but it looks fantastic. Yet a huge number of games that came out after this content... had flat Morrowind-style water.
And this had nothing to do with technology. If Guild Wars 2 could have rolling waves, with no physics but a nice visual, and GTA IV could have rolling waves with some actual physics... oh and of course GTA V had some very nice looking water... then why do we find ourselves staring at inferior visual effects in games that followed?
Anyway I suppose the real point is - HL2 did more with less. Given not only the more limited hardware of the time (and the expectation, let's not forget, that many people would be playing the game on less than optimal machines), and the fact that in 2004... we were witnessing the jump from what was effectively the Quake 1 engine? Rather more impressive.
There has been some real stagnation in the years that followed. When HL2 came along it was like, boom, drastically new visuals, a new approach to physics props (leaving aside the flawed but revolutionary Trespasser)... now it's like, boom? Some new visuals? Maybe? If you can call them that? Some new ways of... rendering basically the same kinds of imagery, but we've lost a few things along the way, and it runs worse, and nobody can really tell for sure if a game is truly "next gen" because the generational gaps don't mean so much...
@@NicholasBrakespear Well i think there were some greate breakthroughs done in graphics but sometimes we're not really appreciating it that much, e.g. realtime GI, PBR which gave us couple of new things: especially in open world games where you've got dynamic light condition changes. We really need to take into the account poly count and texture resolutions. You have a major breakthrough with bump mapping (and normal mapping) done on every single asset in the game after HL2. We have a lot more data put into the scene: animations included, LOD informations, number of lights on the scene. Look that the scenes are now, for the most part, loaded dynamically.
In case of Cyberpunk 2077 we have to take into the account a lot processing which goes into the CPU/GPU budget: crowd simulation, vehicle simulations, particles. I think that we need to remember that the tech itself might not be new (e.g. crowd sim) but combination of the tech with other stuff (and keeping the budget) is difficult. So I would say, that after all those years, CP2077 in 2.0 version is very good and beautiful game.
But I would agree that many things can be achieved with proper artistic direction without procedured shaders: e.g. Death Stranding is very beautiful game and yet very efficiently rendered. Same thing could go into Elden Ring, Resident Evil 4 or Metal Gear Solid 5. Many of those game have excellent graphics without CPU/GPU overheating.
Could you also compare other areas of the games? E.g. lighting, dynamic shadow, transparency etc.
Won't make the videos point
I don't get your point both are very good. I would even say Cyberpunk is a bit better as the water do not always fully reflect like in real life.
The point is immersion. And how it's unnecessary to spend a lot of money to get an immersive experience.
looks Better than ray tracing
It's an annoying quirk of graphical technology, that we sacrificed so many very nice effects from older engines... for arguably unnecessary graphical "improvements" in areas that didn't truly need it. Poly counts went up, subtle visual techniques were added at great cost to performance... and did it actually make games play better? Was it truly necessary for "immersion", given that we can be immersed in the simplest of visuals, if the audio, art style and writing are on point?
Speaking as someone who finally bought Cyberpunk recently, feeling thoroughly vindicated in waiting until it was "finished", from what I've seen so far it's awesome. Very impressive. What they've done with the conversations (actually making people move in a human way, and move around during conversations) is a true innovation. But... with every graphically fancy release, I find myself wondering - what could have been done, if developers focused on art style over graphical technology?
Imagine a version of Cyberpunk, for example, using older, simpler technology, pixel art sprites for characters for example, and a more robust engine; imagine how much bigger the city could have been, how much more interactivity there could have been... imagine realtime mirrors everywhere, and thousands of characters on screen, and crazy Brutal Doom-levels of persistent bodies/blood/spent casings/wall decals etc... maybe a whole System Shock-style cyberspace realm to explore.
All that Direct X 9.0 goodness!
yes bec a small world comparing to a gaint open world makes sence, bruh
ok but the cyberpunk reflections actually look realistic
Looks like half life 2 was using an advanced version of Path tracing in 2004 🗿
it’s baked in my guy
@@spamjosh6526 you can't even understand sarcasm
Water in a game makes it better mentally going on here
Man we are waiting for your next video!!!
I am taking a break for a while
you didnt even have the path tracing on in cyberpunk there i could see the that you were using screen space reflections as they cut off when you looked down... hl2 uses a camera on the waters surface to reflect the half life 2 engine can only do one of those live reflections on the screen (and in a world portal) at once, if there two seperate water objects, one of the reflections wouldnt work, hl2 is a game that is linear with small maps with low poly count and low textures and low quality baked lighting, it still holds up but cyberpunk is a open world game with lots of moving parts all with insanely hight poly count, texture qulality, and all those textures are pbr. but this comparison was not only done wrong, but is also completely redundant.
It was launched 20 years ago what else you expect ha?
in hl2 it's just a static image, a trick
yep, and this looks better, more perfomance and cheaper than silly rtx
SSR is also similar to a "trick"
@@JokaBoka compare both scenes, half life's is just plain sky with one hut, night city is 20x more complicated and more important - dynamic, you couldnt fake reflection of flashing screens with static image
just admit you cant afford mid-decent gear and stop being salty lmao
@@kamehamehapierwszy920absolute copium
@@kamehamehapierwszy920 bla bla bla stop crying kiddo I am not even comparing complexities here just reflections
old but gold
HL2 somehow looks better
Because Cyberpunk was made by inexperienced amateurs
Nice comparing total out of boundries Scene with a totally modded HL3 ;) Then show also a modded Cyberpunk and a gameplay relevant scene. Not the water which is a complete irrelevant objeckt in cyberpunk.
😂 are you drunk or what, It's HL2 with no mods, & I am comparing Reflections here
This is stupid, you're showing the best graphic scene of half life 2 with a far away scene on cp77, the game sucked ass and had lots of bugs on release, but it really was an artistical piece of art where it shines for an open world game compared to GTA and fallout
Because baked lighting would totally work and look believable in a massive open world (not) 🤡👍
😅
Cyberpunk is trash. Half Life 2 was made by experienced talented developers
We are a hater here :). Decirle basura a un juego sin dar ningún motivo es de no saber nada.