Could you tell Vampire used the source engine if not told?

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:06 pm

I played both HL2 and Vampire last night for about 2 hours each and I have to say if I hadn't read that Vampire used the source engine I would not know it.

Vampire doesn't look nearly as good, not just the textures but everything. The lighting doesn't look as good, the facial animation isn't as good, etc.

I don't know what version of the source engine Troika got but I really wish they would have gotten the good one! Vampire looks worse than Far Cry and Doom 3 - two games that HL2 looks better than (well I don't think it looks better than Far Cry - more of a tie).

I know that graphics are not the big thing about Vampire. And the roll-playing is incredible but it is just jarring to go from HL2 to Vampire.

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:37 pm

I agree completely. Vampire feels unpolished. It does so on it's own merit, but especially when you compare it to Half-Life 2.

That's not something we haven't seen Troika do before though, right?

adumir · Post by **adumir** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:09 pm

There is a gentleman who was on the Vampire team posting in the Something Awful forums. He says that they were creating the game while the source engine was still in development, thus missing out of a lot of late-to-the-party enhancements by Valve to the engine. He conveyed an interesting story of odd negotiations between Valve, Activision and Troika that led to the choice of Sorce as an engine for the game, rather than Troika's burning desire to create Vampire with that code base. "It's fun creating a game with an engine in development" he said sarcastically.

jcompton · Post by **jcompton** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:11 pm

Like any 3D rendering package for still or animated art creation, it's not so much what you've got but how you use it. Too many people seem to think that it's just the 3D engine that matters, not the skill driving it.

It's a bit like thinking that better oils make you a better artist.

JayG · Post by **JayG** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:19 pm

Still looks pretty good for a RPG. While it looks nothing like HL2, lets face it, nothing else does. HL2 is like the LOTR films, and everything else looks like a Roger Corman film.

bluefugue · Post by **bluefugue** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:24 pm

Yeah, HL2 is one of the best looking videogames in history (though the graphics are a bit uneven), so it's not really fair to judge everything by that standard.

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:56 pm

IMO The facial animations are fairly comparable. Not quite as good as HL2 but certainly better than any other game. The engine is very poorly optimized and no the environments don't compare. But I keep thinking that if I hadn't seen HL2, this game would be one of the best looking in recent memory.

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:15 am

bluefugue wrote:Yeah, HL2 is one of the best looking videogames in history (though the graphics are a bit uneven), so it's not really fair to judge everything by that standard.

It is sort of fair when they are both using the same engine. If Vampire was using something else under the hood I wouldn't compare it to HL2 becuase that would unfair.

However I think if you are using the second best looking FPS engine (I have decided I like Far Cry's just a tiny bit better

) you should look like it!

They paid a lot of that engine so it should look like it!

Dhruin · Post by **Dhruin** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:57 pm

All game development is a matter of balancing time and money for the return. HL2 had an essentially unlimited budget...I'm pretty sure Activision had some strict limits for Troika.

How much longer would the HL2 development have been if was around twice as long, with a complex dialogue script including multiple options and different responses for 7 clans, much more complex melee combat, multiple disciplines bla bla bla. Troika had to use their limited resources differently and couldn't polish the graphics to the same level.

Still the best-looking RPG ever.

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:28 pm

Dhruin wrote: Still the best-looking RPG ever.

Agreed.

Once you get to the 2nd hub, the use of Source is quite a bit more apparent. For some reason Santa Monica just isn't as good as some of the other environments.

ChrisGwinn · Post by **ChrisGwinn** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:31 pm

I think Valve also has really good 3D artists and animators. This is only Troika's second game with 3D art assets.

knob · Post by **knob** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:51 pm

Maybe it's because I haven't played it in a while, but atleast basing it off the start of the game, I'd almost say Arx Fatalis seems to look better in my opinion (Facial expressions not included). The first hub in Bloodlines is supposed to be pretty ugly compared to the rest, so we'll see.

Some character models in Bloodlines are great. Others seem lacking. A lot of the buildings seem pretty ugly.

none · Post by **none** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:13 am

and speaking of arx fatalis, aren't they making the sequel using source?

JayG · Post by **JayG** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:13 am

It's also the first game that Troika have produced in first person, so I'm pretty impressed. The facial animation is stunning, and reminds me a lot of the characters from Fallout. I spent 8 hours yesterday playing Vampire, and I brought HL2 on the same day. Both games are great, but it's been so long since I've played a decent RPG that it has me hooked. I'd forgotten what a PC RPG could be like. I'm just a bit sad that Vampire will achieve a fraction of HL2's sales. Valve deserve their success, but the PC could use more games like Vampire.

Edited to add that I can't wait to see what Arx Fatalis 2 looks like. The original had quite a few flaws, but the sequel could be amazing.