This is a 2011 Game

I’m pretty sure he’s referring to colour choice in comics, and how bright colours affected development and perception - can’t find where I learnt about that a long time ago, but that would explain why he mentioned CMYK.

>cheating shitter trying to rationalize why he is shit at casual video game
ok bro

imagine caring so much about some meaningless stat in some meaningless video game that you're willing to play FPS on a fricking console just so theoretically someone else couldn't be getting an advantage.

learn to git gud moron, i suggest by getting some glasses for a start

Nice screenshot of Ravenfield bro

How does it feel to not be a human being? Genuinely curious

did hot pursuit even have an openworld?
wasnt it a purely menu based driving game?

because they're way too fun

because they aren't any fun?
almost as if people who play games and don't just collect images from Ganker care about more than how the graphics look in a screenshot
have you ever seen an engine demo? or a tech demo for a new console? that's basically what mirror's edge is. and those tech demos look way better.
what you're asking is basically like asking why developers don't make their games like 3Dmark

if they can't make it fun then it's their fault, not the fault of the tech

>it's not fun BECAUSE of the tech
my exact point

game from 2008 look prettier than game from 2023
game from 2008 need weak pc
game from 2023 need strong pc
game in 2024 can look better than game in 2023 if copy game from 2008 but can be bigger everywhere

>are pre-baked
and that's bad because?
ray tracing offers nothing of value unless you have a 1000$ GPU and want to use fake frames to get a smooth image

>it literally cannot by its very nature be interacted with in any way.
why is that bad?

what interactivity are you lacking with pre-baked lighting?

look at the post above yours, buddy

You would have a heart attack if you ever played any Source game

Lightmaps are baked lighting

You would have a heart attack if you ever played any Source game

Dynamic objects look horrible and don’t interact well with the environment.

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/VRAD
>VRAD's static and pre-compiled light is bounced around the world with a radiosity algorithm. VRAD will:
>Generate lightmaps
>Generate ambient samples
>Generate per-object or per-vertex prop_static and detail prop lighting

Those literally are the same thing, you just seem to be confused by the fact that you can bake information separately and mix it at runtime.

>a lightmap is a pre-calculated set of instructions for the lighting engine so that the game doesn't have to be ray-traced in real time. that is not the same as pre-baking lighting, which is applying the lighting to the texture itself
Incorrect. A lightmap is not a pre-calculated instruction set. It's the texture file resulting from baking static lighting, usually using raytracing so that there can be soft shadows and indirect exposure. And baking is never applied to "texture itself". You don't just paint the diffuse channel of a wall with black pixels to create an illusion of shadow. That would be moronic. If you'd shine a flashlight on it, it would not illuminate the actual wall, but attempt to apply illumination on the pre-darkened pixels of its albedo.

You do not know what you're talking about. I do. A lightmap is a certain bit depth bitmap that includes the illumination information of geometry. At first those were low depth and monochrome, later they became colored bitmaps that allowed the baking of colored lights. You would NEVER bake literally all of the texture and lighting data into the same bitmap. A subtractive blend model that combines diffuse texture with a lightmap uses marginal amounts of processing power and vast quantities less memory and hard drive space. Not only would you be compounding the required texture space for every piece of lit textured geometry in all of your level design by incorporating lightmaps into it, but you would entirely preclude any use of dynamic light such as the simple flashlight in Half-Life 1. You would waste untold hundreds of megabytes of space, and most likely be incapable of even fitting it in the available graphics memory.
This is not an argument. I'm not attempting to convince you. I'm giving you information that you are lacking.

Megatextures are an extremely different thing and and are only used by about four games ever made. Rage, Doom4, Dishonored 2 and Doom5. Also, Rage is not exactly an ancient game, and traditional lightmaps were used a long time before Megatextures came along. Also, Megatextures are technically still lightmaps. It just uses all of the texture maps the same way lightmaps are used, as a singular material definition for all of the level geometry that allows the cumulative manipulation of all of the visuals in a single swoop, so you can hire non-specialized level artists that do not require in-depth technical knowledge of graphics. There still is a lightmap as one of the layers in the Megatexture data, alongside diffuse, specular and normal.

I concede. I was referring to the older games that were the topic of the previous posts, which is why I said "would" -not realizing with my ESL brain that the word doesn't always refer to the past tense.

That’s isn’t what he is talking about at all, he’s talking about how early lightmaps where monochrome, such as in Quake.

No, that's entirely different. A bump map is the depth information of a surface that can inform shading. A normal map is a three-channel bitmap that includes horizontal normal deviation, vertical normal deviation and additional multiplier for said normal deviation in the R G and B channels. Normal maps are used to tell lighting how it needs to interact with a surface to create an illusion of depth, highlights and shadows. Bump maps are often used in addition to normal maps in order to provide parallax occlusion depth information for the rendering offset of steep parallax.
Bump maps and normal maps have little to do with baked lightmapping. Both are related to lighting, but for very different reasons. And often normal map data is incorporated into a lightmap after the lighting has been baked based on all of the existing material maps including normals.

>and additional multiplier for said normal deviation in the R G and B channels.
That’s not what it stores, B is the third component of the normal vector. As the length of the normal vector is known (1), and requiring surface normals be positive isn’t too limiting, the blue channel can be dropped, which is done in a lot of games.

Also, you should update you vocabulary - use height map instead of bump map.

https://docs.worldviz.com/vizard/latest/max_light_baking.htm
here. this is what baked in lighting is. it's rendered into the texture.

I discovered an amusing aspect of this 2002 game engine compared to another 2002 game engine...
>Invalid combinations
>Some of these booleans have interactions and we can disable certain combinations in our offline process to save runtime memory and speed up compilation.
>Some things like detail textures and normal maps we consider to be mutually exclusive.
According to this, Valve's fancy Source engine was initially incapable of something that the XRay Engine of STALKER could always do. Microsoft millionaire's innovations btfo'd by a bunch of autistic slavs.
STALKER could also do deep parallax maps before Source got that technology

>The geometry isn’t moving, that’s what the "nothing can be moved" refers to.
You can move lightable geometry in GoldSrc. Half-Life's binary space partitioning supports animation. In fact the train you can drive in the game is entirely comprised of BSP. It's not a vertex mesh. I'm not sure what you're getting at in relation to the lighting? Whether a BSP wall is static or moving, the flashlight can still alter its luminosity. Granted, it would be a tricky balance to set to actually have a baked lightmap for a moving piece of BSP, but it's possible and nothing prevents it from being lit by that form of flashlight.

yeah, that's lightmapping
here's a blatant example of light baking
those middle panels closer to the light aren't actually any more "lit up". if you turned that light off, they would remain lighter. to give the illusion of lighting from a fixed angle. that's light baking.

of course this is a really obvious example for illustrative purposes and it can be done with more subtlety

Mixed lighting has been a thing in games with baked lights since forever. Silent Hill 1 on the PS1 has baked shadows in the level textures, and real-time vertex lighting for animated meshes.

Exactly. With mixed lighting you have static lights that do not affect the baked geometry, except for casting real-time shadows from dynamic objects. The dynamic objects use a shader model that attemps to make the fast-to-calculate dynamic lighting and shadows approximate the raytraced indirect baked lighting. The light originates from those static sources and also produces specular reflections. It's a compromise that sacrifices some graphical fidelity for the sake of being able to have less stark lights for environments where the lighting does not need to change.
Some games like Thief 1 managed to have dynamically toggleable static lightmaps so that the player could turn on and off any static light source. But that game doesn't have any dynamic shadowing at all, and any actual dynamic light source just shines through all geometry. Thief 3 on the other hand has zero static lights and baked lighting whatsoever. Every single light source in that game is calculated in real time so any light source can not just be turned on and off, but can also move. But it uses shadow volumes so the lighting is very stark and has no indirect illumination. The natural evolution of that would be fully raytraced lighting, but we're never going to get that because shitheads insist on better and better graphics and any new hardware is never going to be used for providing additional dynamism.

>move an unaturally bright object (a huge red container) from one contrasting environment to another
the "wow graphics" he's defending feature light shafts and reflections that are baked in. if you moved the object even 10 inches the it'd look off because the shadow moves with it. that's why pre-baking is a cheap 1990s technology not used anymore.

That isn’t being moved or manipulated, you can additional lights on top of baked lighting.

the piece of environment isn't being moved or manipulated. shining a light on it (=adding another layer of lighting on top) isn't moving or manipulating it.

That isn’t being moved or manipulated, you can additional lights on top of baked lighting.

It's moving, but it's additive blend pixels moving across the actual lightmap texture. That's why HL1's flashlight beam appears to change size and definition based on the texel density of the lightmap that's the target of the flashlight. It also can't cast any shadows because it isn't concerned with geometry at all, only the texture coordinate that the flashlight is pointing at in the lightmap.

>why would you want to interact with? a game is a limited medium meant to be played and experienced. It's not and never should be a perfect simulation.
no one's talking about a perfect simulation, moron
pre-baking the lighting removes the ability to say, I dunno, open and close doors. which you can't do in mirror's edge. or to move ANY object in the environment, like you can't do in mirror's edge. if you shoot at even the tiniest thing, it can't break. it can't move. if you punch something or fall from height on something, it doesn't react.

it's not even that I want these exact things in the game. it's that the devs couldn't implement them if they wanted to because of the game's fake pre-baked lighting. if they got the best idea in the world they couldn't do it, because of the very nature of the tech tying their hands.

you can't close that door. go ahead, try.
yeah, there's a canned "running through door" animation that's the same each time. and those can't be used in any scene with pre-baked lighting. having pre-baked lighting in scenes such as the one you posted doesn't mean every light source in the game is pre-baked

by the way, notice how the door doesn't cast a shadow on anything.

The lighting on that platform is horrible if you pay attention.

i opened up mirror's edge just now and went through a door
after a few seconds the door closes on its own and you can't go back through it although that makes sense from a design perspective because it's a one-way door on top of a building, also there's no backtracking

>pre-baking the lighting removes the ability to say, I dunno, open and close doors
anon have you perhaps thought that said doors are limited by LEVEL DESIGN and not graphic fidelity?
>or to move ANY object in the environment, like you can't do in mirror's edge
what's the point of interacting with objects when your objective is to zoom past them when running from A to B?
>if they got the best idea in the world they couldn't do it, because of the very nature of the tech tying their hands.
have you perhaps thought that such interactability adds nothing to the game? that their resources or "limited tech" as you say, are better used on other things?

>it's the entire point of my post
I know it's the entire point of your post. Its the fact that you made it to side step my post that I took issue with. Which is why I said it makes you look like a moron trying to win an argument. And judging by the wall of replies you just made I knew I was right.

I won't be replying further.

>have you been looking at the rest of the thread, my friend?
yeah, and all these old games look like shit. good for the TIME, some of them, but not for 2023.

>it looks good even in 2023
in a static low-res screenshot it looks good for 2008, yes

>>but it's pre-baked, linear, etc.
>15 years of technological improvements should have changed that but hasn't
yes they have. we can now make environments that not only look better than mirror's edge, but are also interactive. if you tried to move any piece of that environment in mirrors edge it'd look like the sun broke down. you can't move the smallest thing. you can't even have characters' own shadows blend with them, because it's just .png
it's fake. it's made for screenshots. and you're dumb enough to buy it. the marketing department must love you.

>we're talking about video games not movies, friend
you said creative pursuits, not creative pursuits in video games.
but alright
>make us a video game
>ok
>but you can't press any buttons
>what?
>technology is NEVER the limiting factor in creative pursuits
enjoy your kinect

>games from 2023 look way better than mirrors edge
hahahaahahahaha

Zoomer moron

Games aren't art Black person. Go away.

technology is NEVER the limiting factor in creative pursuits

>ignoring the crucial last three words of the post
why did you even bother posting

No I saw it, I was incredulous that you even bother to add in the stipulation. It only makes you look like a moron trying to win an argument.

>bad ones blame the lack of technology on why they can't do X or Y
Are you willing to admit that there are certain things that can NOT be achieved without certain technological advancements? Certain game features or mechanics that would be literally impossible

>you can fake or believably replicate almost everything with enough ingenuity
So your answer is no then? You believe that if a dev is creative enough, tech is never a limiting factor?

>cutscene
pic related was achieved on a ps1

>devs have to get more creative even if the hardware is weak as shit and can't support their creativity
what a in incredibly disingenous way to break down an argument. They need to work withing the limits of said hardware, not use said limits to blame lack of creativity

>I'm saying the complete inverse of that. You can be as creative as you want and still be limited by tech.
Alright, I'll bite. Riddle me this: Why are modern games shit DESPITE the devlopers not being limited by technology? Where is the interactability? Surely it's not due to the lack of "technology"?

can you provide a tangible example of developers using advanted technology to make games more interactable? Because I can think of at least 5 games where devs used "outdated" engines and ideas to make games that were still "limited" by technology as you say. And they turned out great.
Suffice to say, it's better to be limited by something and rise above, than it is to have near-limitless resources and still make an awful product.

>i already asked this question earlier in the thread and got no replies
apparently this

>using advanted technology to make games more interactable?

is supposed to be a good response. LMAO!
Red Faction is a game made in 2009, btw. They were limited by the PS3 and Xbox360

>Are you going to explain why you think it isn't?
sure. The developers are limited in the tech and hardware they could use so the made the best of it (PS3 and 360).
VR multiplayer games are also purposefully gimped so they can run at 90-120fps on PC and most consoles.
Both are great experiences despite being severely limited by the hw they can use. Your argument was supposed to be about devs using "limitless" hardware capability to make greater games, which so far you have provided no examples of.

>No, the argument was to show advanced tech making games more interactable. Which I did.
"Advanced" tech in a 2009 PS360game. Yeah, right! It's just a clever use of physics

For that point it in time it was. And why are you conveniently ignoring the VR video?

>tech that was advanced in 2009 isn't advanced tech for a 2009 game
and how is that even relevant? it's new tech used to allow for gameplay that wouldn't be possible without it and hasn't been done before. isn't that exactly what you asked for?

>using advanted technology to make games more interactable?

half-life 2's physic puzzles?

>>it's not "weak technology". it's bad technology
>the frick that does even mean?
a weak technology is an inefficient or... WEAK way of reaching some result.
prebaking isn't a weak technology, because it doesn't reach the same result as lightmapping or ray tracing. it gives the illusion, from a static angle, in a static screenshot, of having done that.
and it does that by heavily limiting with how the player can interact with the environment. it removes the ability of the devs to implement all kinds of....

>>it's a cheap trick used to make marketing screenshots
>we're not even talking about marketing, but about gameplay systems

...GAMEPLAY SYSTEMS, at the expense of making this illusion for marketing screenshots.
so it's not "weak". it's bad. it's a shortcut at the expense of the rest of the game's potential.

what the frick are you talking about? who's said anything about pores?
>Visuals should never limit interactability
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PRE-BAKING LIGHTING IS A SHIT TECHNIQUE YOU moron.
there is no technique in video game development that limits interactivity and game design more than pre-baked lighting, the technique you're defending.

>give me an example. how does a baked-in light limit environment interaction?
do you even know what pre-baked lighting is? I have a feeling you don't.

>And why could said interaction important to the gameplay, instead of being just set dressing, like RTX and global illumination mostly are?
do you think everything except ray tracing and global illumination is pre-baked lighting? prebaking lights literally means drawing them into the textures. if you move the object, the lights and shadows move with it. geez, I wonder how NOT BEING ABLE TO MOVE OR MANIPULATE ANYTHING would limit interactivity.

it's not "weak technology". it's bad technology. it's a cheap trick used to make marketing screenshots that don't represent the actual product.

>AAAAAHHHHhhh
>thee
>french