Originally Posted by gtarmanrob
yeah..i dunno if Half-Life would suit OpenGL engines. OpenGL tends to make things look very shiny, almost artificial. DirectX, imo, has a much more realistic and sharper look.
Not necessarily, since they're just APIs for graphics programming. The shiny, artificial look is that back then OpenGL was still more popular than Direct3D (since it was new) and shaders weren't as advanced. Doom 3's graphics were coded in OpenGL, for example. Any Linux-based console is more than likely to be using OpenGL. D3D and OGL use different shader programming languages (HLSL and GLSL respectively). I'm not familiar with shader programming so don't take my word for it, but while the effects they can achieve should be the same theoretically, if one of the languages happens to support more advanced programming language constructs or new hardware features and a certain shader effect depends on that feature then that's where the differences in visual quality would be. However, given GLSL and HLSL shader programs that "output the same thing," the graphical output should be the same. HLSL was developed alongside nVidia's own Cg shader language, by the way.
I'm guessing it's because of MS's faster, discrete updates of D3D that reflect the changes in cutting-edge hardware technology that OGL was left behind (at least as far as Windows games are concerned). The new OGL 3.0 specifications are taking forever.
The primary incentive for OGL is that being non-proprietary, many other OSes besides Windows will also have support for it. This makes porting to different platforms much easier, but the best thing that could happen is that middleware graphics engine developers (such as Bioware, Epic, Gamebryo, etc.) begin to show more support for OGL. If middleware engines made porting much easier by supporting cross-platform APIs instead of proprietary ones, we'll probably see more cross-platform releases.Edited by arkheii - 5/15/08 at 11:50pm