Half-Life 2
- Thread starter BigsWickDagger
- Start date
- Status
ace
Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
Weirdos.
I really like how in Half-Life 2 all the weapons are dreadful. Both the machine guns are so amazingly inaccurate that you cannot hit anything beyond a five foot distance. Maybe it would have been neat if they had added any new weapons at all into this game that weren't in the first game. I suppose you were just supposed to use the gravity gun to hurl objects at people for the entire game.
I really like how in Half-Life 2 the enemies are bland and stupid. It's pretty funny how you don't fight any aliens at all in this game. I kinda enjoyed how in the first game you fought a variety of different enemies with different levels of intelligence. I guess I should be satisifed that there are three different headcrabs this game, two different zombies and 3 different humans that you fight constantly. I really enjoyed those Serious Sam moments where they would literally throw dozens and dozens of mindless soldiers at you.
I'm really glad that Half-Life 2 had no plot. It was pretty neat how Valve went for the "confuse the player" approach where you're thrown into a situation with no understanding of what is going on. You'll run into NPCs every half hour who will promptly tell you that you must hurry somewhere to save or stop something you have no reason at all to care about. At least things resolve nicely...you stop the evil aliens from controlling earth
The physics are neat. I guess people might call that a gimmick though.
I really like how in Half-Life 2 all the weapons are dreadful. Both the machine guns are so amazingly inaccurate that you cannot hit anything beyond a five foot distance. Maybe it would have been neat if they had added any new weapons at all into this game that weren't in the first game. I suppose you were just supposed to use the gravity gun to hurl objects at people for the entire game.
I really like how in Half-Life 2 the enemies are bland and stupid. It's pretty funny how you don't fight any aliens at all in this game. I kinda enjoyed how in the first game you fought a variety of different enemies with different levels of intelligence. I guess I should be satisifed that there are three different headcrabs this game, two different zombies and 3 different humans that you fight constantly. I really enjoyed those Serious Sam moments where they would literally throw dozens and dozens of mindless soldiers at you.
I'm really glad that Half-Life 2 had no plot. It was pretty neat how Valve went for the "confuse the player" approach where you're thrown into a situation with no understanding of what is going on. You'll run into NPCs every half hour who will promptly tell you that you must hurry somewhere to save or stop something you have no reason at all to care about. At least things resolve nicely...you stop the evil aliens from controlling earth
The physics are neat. I guess people might call that a gimmick though.
I thought that was kinda the point of the game? - that you were thrown into this situation and you don't know what you need to do at the moment and by reacting with NCPs etc, you start putting the pieces together?ace said:
Isn't this what the industry refers to as 'Emergent Gameplay'?
Pedro
Admiral
Half-Life was over rated, I mean it introduced a LOT to the FPS genre but it didn't mesh together very well, overall a rather clunky game.
Half-Life 2 on the other hand introduces nothing new to the genre except improved physics but plays really well
Got to agree with ace, the machine guns do suck horribly though, still who wants a cowardly long ranged battle 
The pulse rifle isn't so inaccurate, and is powerfull enough that a few lucky hits do the trick anyway.
Neither was really a classic in my opinion but Half-Life 2 is for whatever reason great fun to play (can't understand all the fuss about its graphics engine though, water is nice but the surfaces seem very flat, no bumpmapping on them at all, flames don't even use particle effects, just billboards you can often look down on as thin sheets of paper etc).
Half-Life 2 on the other hand introduces nothing new to the genre except improved physics but plays really well
Got to agree with ace, the machine guns do suck horribly though, still who wants a cowardly long ranged battle The pulse rifle isn't so inaccurate, and is powerfull enough that a few lucky hits do the trick anyway.Neither was really a classic in my opinion but Half-Life 2 is for whatever reason great fun to play (can't understand all the fuss about its graphics engine though, water is nice but the surfaces seem very flat, no bumpmapping on them at all, flames don't even use particle effects, just billboards you can often look down on as thin sheets of paper etc).
Edfilho
Cry some more!
AFAIK, MGs and SMGs are supposed to be inaccurate. That is the case on Far Cry and Call of Duty, both excellent FPS games.
BTW, did you talk to anyone? animation is better here than in any other game... I've yet to see an engine to pull this much detail out without needing a super computer.
BTW, did you talk to anyone? animation is better here than in any other game... I've yet to see an engine to pull this much detail out without needing a super computer.
WTF? are you nuts? final fantasy movie used MILLIONS, probably billions, of polygons, and you're comparing it to a game that uses several hundred thousand to a low millions number? not to mention final fantasy took months to render on thousands of computers, that your home computer would take decades to render, and you're comparing it to a game your machine rendered in realtime? dream on. No game is that good yet, and will be that good for at least 10+ years,Edfilho said:
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I'm reletively sure that the appearance of art isn't measured by number of polygons. For instance, the average number of polygons in a classic painting is zero.
I don't know how Half Life 2 looks, but the fact that it uses less tiny boxes to do what it does than an awful movie doesn't really mean anything.
I don't know how Half Life 2 looks, but the fact that it uses less tiny boxes to do what it does than an awful movie doesn't really mean anything.
BigsWickDagger
Spaceman
Bandit LOAF said:
True enough. Polygon counts and FF flicks aside, the game looks great, period.
ace
Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
I generally like games where I feel as though I have a degree of control as to where my bullets go. Having a game where none of the guns are accurate beyond a few feet isn't very fun gameplay. That's really it for me: at no point did I have fun playing the game that was presented to me. It was never fun or interesting to kill these mindless enemies or drive around in fantastically unrealistic vehicles that magically flew around. It's freakishly obvious what the developers of the game spent their time on and it wasn't the story or the action.Edfilho said:
Percy said:
I have no problem being thrown into a situation like that; that's what they did in the first game. I don't think it's an effective thing to do when the whole game is about you caring about these people that you're never given a reason to care about at all. The story just never evolves. You end the game knowing exactly as much as you do when you start. They just wave the fact at you that there are a million things going on that you don't know about and then never tell them to you.
The facial animation was pretty impressive at times. I definitely think Doom 3 did more to advance graphics though. This was pretty much just Half-Life with more little boxes.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
I haven't seen HL2, so I don't know how they compare, but I can tell you this - it's not polygons, it's mapping. By applying a number of different maps to their models, games like Doom 3 manage to create relatively low-poly models that look incredibly detailed.Darkmage said:
At long last, poly counts have gone back to what they should have always been - something that only weirdos and irritating graphics card enthusiasts ("my card can draw fifty million polys! It's the best") care about. They were never a good way of measuring detail - as you can see from the fact that WCP's models had, on average, only as many as WC3/4 models.
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
true.
maps do most the detail
but polycount will determine the silhouette.
and there are bad effects with low counts.
in doom3 models don't case self-shadows, beause the polycounts are so low that the shadow would look like crap. reason being, while the surface looks round, the projected shadow volume will be flat, and will ruin the effect.
ultimately displacement maps will help that, but really, all they do is tessellate the polygons. so you end up wiht a high poly model.
benefit being that low poly + displacement map can take less memory to store than a high poly model.
-scheherazade
maps do most the detail
but polycount will determine the silhouette.
and there are bad effects with low counts.
in doom3 models don't case self-shadows, beause the polycounts are so low that the shadow would look like crap. reason being, while the surface looks round, the projected shadow volume will be flat, and will ruin the effect.
ultimately displacement maps will help that, but really, all they do is tessellate the polygons. so you end up wiht a high poly model.
benefit being that low poly + displacement map can take less memory to store than a high poly model.
-scheherazade
Edfilho
Cry some more!
I'm not talking about models per se, I was refering to the FACE ANIMATION. The characters in HL2 have absurdly expressive faces. Barney cracked a joke at gordon and one of his eyebrows lifted, the lower eyelids went up, he smirked a bit... It was freacking perfect. Now cut to FF, Aki was surelly a gorgeous mega complex model with more polys in a hand than all HL2 people together. But she had NO fucking expression. Her face was always stale... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Well, of course many people will dislike HL2, no problem there, it's their right. But I still believe that it will leave a mark on FPS gaming, just like the first one. BTW, many people still hate HL1, as we can see in this very thread, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the most important single player FPS after the original doom.
And I'm leaving games like System Shock, SS2, Deus Ex and the like out of the debate, because they're really rpgs. Nevertheless, I really liked all 3 of them, no matter how rough and unfinished SS2 and DX were.
I don't think that Doom 3 engine is better than Source for practical purposes. It is way too heavy for open spaces, and aparently too dependent of shadows and stuff. We actually don't know how well it works in other kinds of environments and concepts. Source may lack the advanced lighting stuff, but excells in creating a beliavable environment with expansive open areas, cramped corridors and good physics. Which are definitely not just a gimmick or novelty (like in DX2, terrible). It is a full component of the game in all its details.
I think that the latest Unreal Tournament or the Crytek engines are more feasible at the present time. I sincerelly never saw all that fancy shit in Doom3 like bump mapping and stuff, because i don't have a machine fast enough.
Well, of course many people will dislike HL2, no problem there, it's their right. But I still believe that it will leave a mark on FPS gaming, just like the first one. BTW, many people still hate HL1, as we can see in this very thread, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the most important single player FPS after the original doom.
And I'm leaving games like System Shock, SS2, Deus Ex and the like out of the debate, because they're really rpgs. Nevertheless, I really liked all 3 of them, no matter how rough and unfinished SS2 and DX were.
I don't think that Doom 3 engine is better than Source for practical purposes. It is way too heavy for open spaces, and aparently too dependent of shadows and stuff. We actually don't know how well it works in other kinds of environments and concepts. Source may lack the advanced lighting stuff, but excells in creating a beliavable environment with expansive open areas, cramped corridors and good physics. Which are definitely not just a gimmick or novelty (like in DX2, terrible). It is a full component of the game in all its details.
I think that the latest Unreal Tournament or the Crytek engines are more feasible at the present time. I sincerelly never saw all that fancy shit in Doom3 like bump mapping and stuff, because i don't have a machine fast enough.
Edfilho
Cry some more!
Then you'll probably hate 90% of modern FPS, because on all of them the MGs and SMGs are inacurate. It is the reason why people still make rifles.Ace said:
BTW, the Magnum and the Crossbow are pretty acurate in HL2.
Well, the problem then is not HL2, but your very strict conception of what a game should be. Pitty for you that HL2 doesn't conform to it...
Nomad Terror
Rear Admiral
I have to agree with Ace. We have been waiting and waiting and waiting for Half-Life 2 and then we finally get it and it is just a shallow game that relies on its graphics to wow you instead of any sort of deep plot. This has to be the most overrated and underdelivering game of all time.
ace
Pepper's Keeper - Administrator
Edfilho said:
Did your mother make Half-Life 2 or something? I don't mind if they have an inaccurate gun in the game as long as they have guns that are accurate. Yes, the magnum and Crossbow are pretty accurate, but the crossbow takes forever to reload and you can only carry something like 4 arrows. The magnumm holds six shots and ammo is sparse. The guns they make you rely on for the game just aren't good.
- Status