Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half-Life 2 RTX

store.steampowered.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Half-Life 2 RTX

#41

Post by dowager_dan99 »

zeroCalories wrote: post #19
ListeningPie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original aesthetic, including lighting, was made keeping the original limitations in minds. Kind of running old sprite games on LCDs instead of CRTs makes them look jagged. So it's different and a tech demo, but I agree it's not necessarily better and could be one the reasons it is free.

Yeah when looking at games like Alyx it seems like the vision isn't too far off. Personally I don't mind the RTX version as I always found hl2 to be depressingly boring to look at.

The boring aesthetic really matches so much of the game though; soviet-era architecture is awfully boring too.

Re: Half-Life 2 RTX

#42

Post by taco_emoji »

olivierestsage wrote: post #2

I know it's a bit silly to criticize something offered for free -- I'm glad it's there for those who want it! -- but I really feel like something of the original aesthetic has been lost in translation here. The before-and-afters aren't always flattering to the new version; everything is glowing orange. Darker atmospheres have become brighter.

Could be a factor of settings--I wonder if they just bumped the brightness to emphasize the differences, especially for a tiny video.

Re: Half-Life 2 RTX

#43

Post by nottorp »

klaussilveira wrote: post #16

It's funny how, in my opinion, whenever the RTX On/Off comparison shows up, the older has better mood, atmosphere and design. The "RTX On" almost feels like "Generic UE5 pseudo-realism On". Based on other comments, I'm not the only one. Is "RTX On" the "bloom/motionblur/green filter" of this generation?

I'm not a fan of graphics mods, but there is a similar problem with fan made RPG mods that "bring a game up to date with the technology" (wide screen, qol etc). A lot of mod packs feel like they have to add content (characters, quests) that is not so likely to fit in with the original game just because they can.

At least in Gibberlings mod packs for the infinity engine games the extra content is non existing or optional...

Re: Half-Life 2 RTX

#44

Post by nottorp »

deadbabe wrote: post #33

This seems like so much work, what motivates people to just give it all away for free? Are the devs independently wealthy or funded by a rich patron?

Also hobbies. Not every activity has to be for monetary gain. Or full time for that matter.

Maybe not in this case, which may be a paid for nvidia ad. But in the case of a lot of mod/remakes, yes, they're done for free.

Re: Half-Life 2 RTX

#45

Post by ribcage »

klaussilveira wrote: post #16

It's funny how, in my opinion, whenever the RTX On/Off comparison shows up, the older has better mood, atmosphere and design. The "RTX On" almost feels like "Generic UE5 pseudo-realism On". Based on other comments, I'm not the only one. Is "RTX On" the "bloom/motionblur/green filter" of this generation?

[dead]

Re: Half-Life 2 RTX

#47

Post by torginus »

josteink wrote: post #21
klaussilveira wrote: post #16

It's funny how, in my opinion, whenever the RTX On/Off comparison shows up, the older has better mood, atmosphere and design. The "RTX On" almost feels like "Generic UE5 pseudo-realism On". Based on other comments, I'm not the only one. Is "RTX On" the "bloom/motionblur/green filter" of this generation?

While I think the ray-traced version looks better in a technical sense, it seems to me that they have completely forgotten to apply darkness and shadow appropriately in the scenes to create an immersive atmosphere. Keep all the new tech and dial the ambient lighting down. That would look way better. Make it feel dark, uncertain and risky again. You’re not supposed to know what’s in that corner or that room before it…

I've always wondered that by gaining the ability to simulate light (or basically anything) in a more accurate manner, we reduce artists' ability to control the final result.

Back in 2D times, an artist could just set a pixel to a given color, and it would be that color, in early 3d, they had the ability to paint in shadows/highlights or control the texture colors directly.

With the physically based workflow, they had to author roughness/metalness and albedo maps, and were hoping for the best that the final result looked good in the game.

Nowadays with simulated light bounces, changing anyting in the scene could affect everything else, making controlling the final result that much harder.

Yes it does look better automatically, but at the cost of adding difficult of channeling the artists' vision.

Re: Half-Life 2 RTX

#48

Post by jonwinstanley »

zokier wrote: post #38
olivierestsage wrote: post #2

I know it's a bit silly to criticize something offered for free -- I'm glad it's there for those who want it! -- but I really feel like something of the original aesthetic has been lost in translation here. The before-and-afters aren't always flattering to the new version; everything is glowing orange. Darker atmospheres have become brighter.

I don't understand why they made everything have that weird sickly yellow cast. It's so weird.

Isnt it all a bit bright too?

Re: Half-Life 2 RTX

#50

Post by jonwinstanley »

HelloUsername wrote: post #11

The trailer ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j31ISEd8xRM ) actually shows the old lighting has much more mood and atmosphere.. RTX is far too bright. Ravenholm is supposed to be scary!

Yes, way too bright. The ray tracing is great but couldn't they have reduced the source brightness?
Post reply on HN