Left 4 Dead Graphics

I recently got the demo for L4D on the 360, and I was not impressed with the graphics at all. The lighting was medicore, the fire was horrible looking, and the character models were basically crap. My questions are: 1. Are the graphics on the 360 final version better than the demo? 2. Does it look a lot better on the PC?
20 answers Last reply
More about left dead graphics
  1. This is a cliche, but its not the graphics that make the game, its the game. Of course that's just IMO since I grew up with 32-bit sega genesis cartridges and played games using an integrated chipset for a freakishly long time.

    As for your question, I'm assuming that the graphics on the PC is better although I myseld don't know for sure. Game graphics can either be worst or equal in my experience, although I don't play much games on consoles and the same one on PC so I don't have too much reference.
  2. Unless they buggered the xbox version, which i cant see how, i doubt the graphics would be "better" on a pc. They should look the same. From the demo, the game looked similar to other steam games, so if you've seen them running, then think of that.

    L4D isn't the next Crysis or ( insert console equivalent ), and it was never trying to be. It is however a pretty fun game to play. Though, I never thought the fire was horrible or the character models crap.

    I also can't see the graphics being worse on the demo, it's not a beta, though i suppose it is possible they made some last minute adjustments, but i doubt they'd b major. If you think CSS and TF2 on a pc look crap, then I think you'll think the same about L4D
  3. First of all, provided you have a good enough computer, the graphics should be at least slightly better than on the 360, if for no other reason than the higher resolutions many computers are capable of.

    Second, I believe this game uses a modified Source graphics engine, which originally debuted over 4 years ago! Valve is going for gameplay with this title, not graphical innovation.

    Anyway, the graphics will probably change little, if any between the demo and the final release.
  4. I personally think that the game looks great. Great atmosphere Valve has created in the game. The textures, models, and effects may not be Crysis quality, but who cares? The game is fun, and that is all that really matters with this type of game.
  5. how did the game get such a good review, it had hardly any maps, the graphics were not that great, zombie AI is bad and theres no iron sights. The only good thing is the boss zombies and the co-op so i'll just play CoD5 which has zombies and co-op.
  6. Played the demo and loved it. The graphics are more than good enough.
    When you're attacked by a hoard of 20-30, how accurately their eyes and clothes are reproduced really isn't on my mind!
  7. Ive been playing the demo and it is stunning IMO. Nothing like setting off the horde and fighting for your life, you get some really intense fights on expert lvl! Graphics are the same as CSS but they have done loads with lighting etc to get the right atmosphere. Zombie AI is amazing, watching them scramble over cars and fences to get at you is great and the AI director makes sure the game is never the same each time you play through. The demo is a little short but that is part 1 of 5 of a campaign and there are 4 campaigns. Buy this game it rocks!!!
  8. I have played both versions and the pc of course blows the 360 version away. The source engine may be 4+ years old but it still looks very nice maxed out at high resolutions... Valve has done a good job modifying it to today's standards it looks very real using the flashlight in the dark apartments. The only difference I noticed between the demo and the final release is the option to enable the game to use multiple cores which is nice finally.
  9. PC > Console in most cases (excluding simplicity, convienece etc)
    Otherwise what would be the point of PC gaming?!
  10. I must say that the game looks about twice as good on a capable PC and runs twice as fast. I played the full 360 version at a friends and it was just like the demo. My PC version is hands down better....he even agreed and he is a console fanboy, but to be fair...I dont think it takes away from the experience all that much if you can cope with the control scheme.


  11. Heya,

    Looks better on PC with AA and high res. Also, don't expect this game to be something `omg' advanced, it's the source engine, and even as a very good engine, it is dated.

    Very best,
  12. people who say it is ugly... take off youre crysis fanboy goggles and actually look at the game, it is gorgeous. sure not every model and texture is super high res. but i checked the models for the survivors and i found out they actually have more polygons than the crysis character models. just pointing it out i don't remember exact numbers but it certainly isn't a 4 year old looking game, particle effects are advanced, bullet penetration is there, the animation for the infected is the BEST CHARACTER ANIMATION EVER (the way they run is almost too realistic for the rest of the game) and the lighting is damn near perfect. Not to mention it's a valve game and therefore can't really be criticized... they really can do no wrong
  13. OKay, thanks for the help. I was just suprised by how old the demo looked on the 360. I love the entire half life series but was never a big fan of TF2. What really stuck out was when I through a molotov cocktail into a pit full of zombies. The fire that sprung up was really archaic looking, wasn't even close to real. I agree, I didn't play close attention to the zombie models, but looking at my buddies made me cringe a little. Finally, the lighting was okay but still not as great as many said. I think I will get it for the console anyways as that seems the easiest way to play co-op, unless anyone knows if you can play L4D co-op over LAN.

    I'm not a Crysis fanboy, but I still think that it really does look ugly (at least on the 360). I thought HL2 looks WAY better than L4D, but this is HL2 on the PC. Maybe I just haven't fully realized how behind the consoles are.

    Also, my PC is fine and I would be able to play it maxed out at 1680x1050 (highest res of my monitor).
  14. *** ing up the graphics, the colors are just bland and it looks like n64 graphics to me, but then i played it on a 1280 x 1024 res crt monitor, and it looks real pretty, I aint hatin on the console version, but if you want quality then go for the pc.
  15. 360 has a weaker GPU than the PS3 what did you expect.
  16. I think what you give up in eye candy, you gain in smooth gameplay. I like how everything is quite responsive and snappy. I actually like that it is not graphically demanding because for one, the settings don't distract you from the game and 2nd, we don't have to hear about everyone griping about not being able to play it on high settings.
  17. ^^ Of course, they could just use medium settings (same as the 360/PS3 for most games) to achieve the same effect...
  18. Shhh....don't tell them that
  19. bpogdowz said:
    360 has a weaker GPU than the PS3 what did you expect.

    Que? It certainly does not.

    The PS3 uses a GPU from nVidia called RSX. It is essentially a 7800GTX just remade.

    The 360 uses the R500 based GPU which was never released on the PC. It was essentially the stepping stone between the x1950XTX and the HD2900XT. The X1950XTX alone is more powerful than the 7800F+GTX was.

    As for L4D, if you worry about graphics (normal for consoles) then its not the game for you although I disagree with you on the player models. It will look better on a good PC and looks great ta 1080p res but the facial animations and character details look so good, at least to me.

    Then again I enjoy the gameplay over the graphics. I mean there is nothing like L4D VS really.
  20. Oh wow 7000 series.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Graphics Video Games