What year does DNF look graphics wise today?

[Jeff]

For example, a game such as Half Life 2 looks like it came out in 2004. What year would you say the most recent stuff we've seen on Duke be?

[Kyphros]

It depends. The scene with the strippers looks like it comes from 2007, but the wallpaper with the aliens looks more like 2009.

[jaimie10]

It's an interesting point you raised actually, as I think time is what will kill DNF. There is probably a game there, that could have been finished within 6 months prior to any legal proceedings, but the lengthy delays are only going make it seem dated. I think when/if the project kicks off again, they are going to be faced with the dilemma GB has faced during DNF's entire lifespan - push out a game that does not have the latest & greatest tech or redevelop, but risk further delays? I mean ultimately it's what has killed DNF.

[KaiserSoze]

I think the game will look absolutely fine.

Remember, we haven't seen anything in-game "officially".

[jaimie10]

I think it will look OK. But lets be realistic, it's not coming out until at least 2011/2012, by that time the tech will be over 4 years old. I think any chance of this game blowing all other games out of water has gone. I think it could still be a good game, but a great game - nope. 3 or 4 years is a looooong time in game development,

[KaiserSoze]

Originally Posted by jaimie10

I think it will look OK. But lets be realistic, it's not coming out until at least 2011/2012

I think Gearbox got the title in either May of last year or November. If that's the case, the game should be very close to completion at this point. If they just picked the game up a few months back, it's probably a first quarter 2011 release.

[Rapture_Rising]

Originally Posted by jaimie10

I think it will look OK. But lets be realistic, it's not coming out until at least 2011/2012,

Realisticly DNF might not come out at all. My prediction is that if gearbox did get DNF they would gotten it after the lawsuit was settled.

[Rösti]

The footage we saw in Jace Hall Show where Jace visited 3D Realm's headquarters (?) I think looked awesome in terms of graphics. That however was from an earlier build and may not have represented what the game looked like in its current state back then. So I think it is correct to assume that textures, shaders and more has been updated as of today.

Regarding the mentioned stripper image from Duke Nukem 3D for Xbox LIVE, we got some unofficially released update (where the hair details were better). That shows there was obviously ongoing work, yet in the Xmas 08 wallpaper, the anti-aliasing was a bit poor. Shouldn't make a difference though, considering that the game probably will not look anywhere near that if Gearbox is playing around with it.

[TerminX]

Modern art assets tend to age pretty well. Realistically, what's going to make the game look current or not is going to be stuff like the shaders the engine is using. The models and textures and everything were already high poly and high res enough for their targeted April 2010 release so it's not like any of this stuff is magically going to be incredibly dated in 2011.

[KaiserSoze]

Originally Posted by TerminX

Modern art assets tend to age pretty well. Realistically, what's going to make the game look current or not is going to be stuff like the shaders the engine is using. The models and textures and everything were already high poly and high res enough for their targeted April 2010 release so it's not like any of this stuff is magically going to be incredibly dated in 2011.

I'm really hoping DNF ships with mod tools or Gearbox releases them shortly thereafter. Can't wait to see what you guys do with it.

[OttoMoto]

I'd say DNF would look like anything else on the market. Directx11 mostly unsupported in modern games, all other stuff have'nt changed much since 2007. Shaders are mostly the same, lighting model, shadows, particles, geometry... To tell the truth - we won't get any better graphics until realistic raytracing renderer will be introduced. Well, sure DirectX 11 have some neat stuff too, but it's kinda old comparing to overall computer graphics evolution (not realtime).

[SpinX]

they have a great lighting engine in that game, great lighting is a real surplus to a game in a realistic setting...

[Damien_Azreal]

Personally, judging from the leaked media/screens and such... I think the game looks perfectly fine and would hold up pretty well in today's market. True, it's not going to be competing with the likes of Gears of War 3, Alan Wake or Killzone 3...
But it's still a very nice looking game.

BUT... graphics, art direction and design.... they are nice. But to me, it's all about the gameplay. Look at Raven's most recent release with Singularity.
It is not the best looking shooter out there, hell... even Wolfenstein (which they release a couple years earlier) looks better at times.
But, the games gameplay is amazingly fun and completely makes up for any lack in the visuals.

DNF could look like the 2001 build, be released in a month or so... and I'd still probably love it. Because it's the gameplay that looks so amazing.

[ferran275]

There is also the probability that Gearbox will do a slight rework, how many games get the "HD" treatment and are re-released? they might add a few months to kick it into 2011 graphics territory.

[delta2kbr]

Just don't bloody tell me that Gearbox is making DNF cel-shaded

[alex d]

Don't you love it when people talk about graphics engines, rendering techniques and API's so authoritively when they have very little knowledge of them, let alone experience coding a renderer for a game?

What "year" it looks like it's from is pretty inconsequential, after all many games coming out this year may not look anywhere near as good as certain games from two or three years ago.

The truth is, much as TerminX said, art assets are made to such high fidelity these days that their textures maps can be rebaked and the models re-processed from the high-detail sculpts. Shaders can be improved and refined to gain better speeds and higher quality rendering based on new techniques which further allow more detailed effects to make use of the freed up processing power.

Graphical programming is such a vast and complicated job that teams usually have people dedicated to it, thus while everyone else is doing gameplay code and the like, the renderer coders can carry on adding in all the latest effects and techniques they feel are needed.

I'd say DNF would look like anything else on the market. Directx11 mostly unsupported in modern games, all other stuff have'nt changed much since 2007. Shaders are mostly the same, lighting model, shadows, particles, geometry... To tell the truth - we won't get any better graphics until realistic raytracing renderer will be introduced. Well, sure DirectX 11 have some neat stuff too, but it's kinda old comparing to overall computer graphics evolution (not realtime).

1) "all other stuff" has made drastic leaps and bounds since 2007. If you take a look at the average game's rendering path from 2007 and compare it to the rendering path of a 2010 game then there will be major differences.

2) Geometry techniques has made a generational leap with (duh) the generational leap in the hardware, allowing everything from native hardware support for blendshapes, hardware tesselation, skinned-instancing of animated characters, etc. Shadow mapping techniques have equally improved, just look at the jagged, blotchy shadowmapping in almost any 2007 title compared to the crisp and clean shadow mapping used in today's top games.

Lighting techniques have improved more than most areas, as proved by Crytek handling realtime radiosity, color bleeding and global illumination on DirectX 9(!!!) level hardware through their Light Volume Propegation techniques.

3) Graphical quality will always improve as there is always a more efficient, effective and/or graphically correct way of doing things. It's called "research". The sole reason why DX10 and 11 has such little commercial support is there's still a tremendous amount of ground left uncovered on DX9 level hardware.

Case in point: Consoles run high-end DX9 (or "9 turned up to 11" as some people say) level hardware and have been "maxing out" the hardware for the last three years. Each year, though, developers manage more and more out of the hardware. Again a key example here is Crysis 1 being "far too much for consoles to handle" but Crysis 2, with it's far more complex and realistic renderer, fits console platforms with performance to spare.

4) That "DX11 is old compared to non-realtime-techniques" line is possibly the most pointless and ignorant comment I've ever read in a discussion about realtime rendering. It's like saying "Sure, that V8 is good and all for a road car, but it's nothing compared to the energy created by the reactor at a nuclear power plant" in a discussion about a car's horsepower.

ALL realtime graphics techniques are old when compared to offline-rendering techniques. This should be obvious by the fact that they're both "rendering" scenes with a very key difference: one is realtime and thus requires techniques to be able to run in realtime on consumer hardware, while the other, lo-and-behold, is not realtime and so doesn't need it's techniques to run in realtime on massive farms of supercomputers. That's a bit of a clue isn't it?

It's just a slight bit ridiculous to think that realtime rendering techniques could ever be comparable to non-realtime graphics. The very nature of the two means that anything that can be done in realtime can be done many, many, many hundreds of times better not realtime. There's graphical techniques which are only now just being implemented into realtime systems which were based on algorithms originally discovered as far back as the 50's and 60's.

[ferran275]

Originally Posted by delta2kbr

Just don't bloody tell me that Gearbox is making DNF cel-shaded

I can't stand that look, the whole BorderLands thing, its hard for me to even look at

[Damien_Azreal]

Originally Posted by ferran275

I can't stand that look, the whole BorderLands thing, its hard for me to even look at

To each his own. Personally I love Borderlands look, it helped to make the game stand out. The previous art style of Borderlands looked very dull and lifeless, and I had absolutely no interest in it.

But, look at Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, or even the few screenshots we have of Aliens: Colonial Marines.... Gearbox know how to work with the Unreal Engine and make great looking games.

[KO Gilligan]

For all the gpu power hungry games that everybody mentions here, nothing looks like real life yet. I'm a big Tomb Raider fan, and it's really cool to see the graphics evolve through those games, but we've hit a rather large wall in all games that keep them from looking like movie cinematography.

In 10 years they will scoff at what we call "realistic" just like we scoff at "realistic" graphics from 10 years ago.

I really don't go for eye-candy screenshots as a good measure either, when you get to moving around there is still a toon in a flat environment effect that you can't deny and it still has years to overcome.

DNF will be more than enough to bring a mediocre machine to it's knees, and it will absolutely achieve the limits of an XBox - which is all I really ask.

Looks great to me, I'm not gonna be trying to find 2007 jaggies in the foliage because it just doesn't matter enough to me to consider it a game changer.

[Dark Rabbit]

Originally Posted by KO Gilligan

I really don't go for eye-candy screenshots as a good measure either, when you get to moving around there is still a toon in a flat environment effect that you can't deny and it still has years to overcome.

This.


But, I think there is also something subtle that I haven't yet seen mentioned yet, that I think effects the 'realism' of a game (at least from an 'artistic' point of view. ) :

The characters/monsters/enemies almost always look too perfect.

They have no little 'defects,' by which I mean warts, freckles, stray hairs, random torn areas of clothing, etc. They almost always look like clones or have clean skin and clothing.
Duke in the newest screenshots looks like he's wearing a fur cap on his head, in one example. In real life, there is usually a few extra little hairs sparsed on people's foreheads around the main scalp area, where it kind of blends into bare skin. But Duke doesn't have that, so to me he looks slightly 'fake.'

Also, the monsters don't have warts or freckles either, or have clothing torn in differant spots from each other. You're fighting a hoard, but it's a cloned hoard.

In this example, I will use PigCops.
Given that these were once humans, they should be able to be rendered at least reasonably differant with today's technology, if not big differances, then at least little ones. Randomly generated by the computer. Give some PigCops blond hair, really ripped bloodstained clothing, or broken tusks. They should look differant enough so that I can see that the aliens really did mutate a bunch of cops, and not just trot out a set of clones. This helps to 'set a feel' of an alien invasion, because the cops now look like real individuals, and the aliens look like monsters for mutating them.

These little details helps to set some of the 'realism' to me, not just fancy particle effects (though those do help BTW ,) so I wish they were thought about more often.

[PredatorFL]

It looks like an 08 - 09 game, it will look decent and hey it is a foot in the door for Duke once again for him regain his throne. We may see a rebirth of the franchise, and who knows; 3DR might become motivated once again and rise from the ashes (new Triad, Shadow Warrior, or even older games)

There are some scenes that look amazing like when he is watching the pig cops get crushed by the door.

Then there are other scenes,like when he is fighting the Cycloid Emperor and when he falls down, the grass looks a bit dated.

[Superrayman3]

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Personally, judging from the leaked media/screens and such... I think the game looks perfectly fine and would hold up pretty well in today's market. True, it's not going to be competing with the likes of Gears of War 3, Alan Wake or Killzone 3...
But it's still a very nice looking game.

BUT... graphics, art direction and design.... they are nice. But to me, it's all about the gameplay. Look at Raven's most recent release with Singularity.
It is not the best looking shooter out there, hell... even Wolfenstein (which they release a couple years earlier) looks better at times.
But, the games gameplay is amazingly fun and completely makes up for any lack in the visuals.

DNF could look like the 2001 build, be released in a month or so... and I'd still probably love it. Because it's the gameplay that looks so amazing.

I agree although graphics are a good thing for any game to me everythig else (plot character development gameplay music sounds etc) is what makes the game good or bad

[Psyrgery]

Looks pretty 2007-2008ish, which is fine by nowaday's standards. Gears of War and Uncharted still look cool nowadays.

I think DNF graphics resembles those of Gears of War 1, but the stages/scenarios are bigger in the former imho.

[GrimWoman]

DNF Looks modern enough, looks like a 2008 game to me. Thats perfectly fine by today's standards

[Blubberblubs]

DNF looks good I guess. Good enough to be released in 2010 :P

[Biotech45]

the gameplay looks like 2007 but the screenshots look like 2009

[Damien_Azreal]

Originally Posted by Biotech45

the gameplay looks like 2007 but the screenshots look like 2009

What?
From the grand total of maybe ten minutes of leaked gameplay footage? And really, how game gameplay look like a specific year?

[Justyce]

Its not the graphics its the gameplay that will make or break DNF

[cof_3pc]

I like how a tech guy always comes in a gives a big long in depth explanation about how the graphics can easily be upgraded by loading new shaders and textures etc.... Then EVERYONE ignores it and continues on with their aimless speculations.

These guys are right, the game will look fine, and they will update the graphics before releasing it.

[PredatorFL]

One thing I find interesting is that ID's Tech 5 engine will be based on DirectX 9 when there is DX 10 and 11, Proving that DX 9 in't gone yet, pretty amazing.

source:
http://www.giantbomb.com/id-tech-5/92-1385/

[Damien_Azreal]

Yeah, Carmack has always said DX10 was a waste.

[PredatorFL]

yeah DX 11 is already out DX 10 like Vista did not last long lol.

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Yeah, Carmack has always said DX10 was a waste.

Particles, fog, lighting.... lots of wonderful potential. The waste was that developers weren't ready to really utilize it's benefits.

I think it's funny how people get all wet over DX11 even though DX9 is still able to work fine. It doesn't surprise me though, graphic cards are still way outpacing every game worth using them for. I fail to see how people need higher resolutions and framerates then the actual display can even come close to. Guess it's time to get two widescreen displays on my desk.

[Damien_Azreal]

Originally Posted by KO Gilligan

Particles, fog, lighting.... lots of wonderful potential. The waste was that developers weren't ready to really utilize it's benefits.

Not really. There wasn't anything done in DX10 that couldn't have been done in DX9. And that was Carmack's argument... and something he proved with RAGE.

I don't know if he's made any comments about DX11 yet. But I remember him saying it was a gimmick to get people to buy Vista. As there were no real benefits.

[KO Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Not really. There wasn't anything done in DX10 that couldn't have been done in DX9.

Amazing how someon like Carmack was so wrong if he actually said that.
But I'm skeptical that he actually said DX9 could do everything DX10 could - that's just ignorant. Perhaps it's his interest clouding his honesty.

SM3 proved we didn't need DX10, but there is plenty it "can" do that DX9 cannot.

I don't know if he's made any comments about DX11 yet. But I remember him saying it was a gimmick to get people to buy Vista. As there were no real benefits.

As far as a gimmick to buy the next version DirectX capable hardware.....
SHOCKING

(emphasis for sarcasm)

[thunderPIN]

I'm not worried about how good the graphics stack up because I was very impressed with all the media I have seen up to this point. The models definitely have some of the best Z-Brush art I have ever seen.

"OMGGG, It doesn't look like Haloz 3...AHHHH!!" People are waaay too quick to judge. We can't actually truly judge the games visuals until we play the actual game. I find screenshots and videos on the internet never really do the final product justice. But what I have seen so far is positive.

Visuals are only one piece of the package. We still have gameplay, sound, etc. Either way, I have faith that Duke will deliver!

[cof_3pc]

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Yeah, Carmack has always said DX10 was a waste.

Yeah, I think they only made DX10 to support that short run of GFX cards with the on board physics processing, like the first Nvidia 8800 series.

That didn't last long, so I guess it's not really needed.

[Jeff]

I was just curious. I still play games which are from 2004 or so because they have good gameplay and such.

[JobivanHiob]

it looks awesome! the visuals fit perfectly! Who needs crysis gfx btw.

[cof_3pc]

Crysis is one of those games where you go, "Ooh, aaahhh!" Then 2 days later you go back to playing Counter Strike.

At least that's how it was for me lol!