<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+May 14 2004, 03:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ May 14 2004, 03:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is it even possible to kill striders?
I notice that everyone always shoots at the main body. If there was some sort of buzz saw lying around, (probably only available on the zombie stage though <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) I'd immediately use the manipulator on it and aim for the leg joints...
If HL2 had a truly leet phsyics engine, you'll be able to fire a rocket at one of the Striders leg joint, which would then break, then the strider would try to balance on two legs, but it would fail, and it'd fall into the strider behind it, then the strider behind it will fall into the next strider, creating a horrible domino effect of falling Striders that will destroy City 17 itself!
You can tell when they get hit by some of the rockets they seem to lose their balance, probably a nice heavy object to knock them over. Or a well placed hole in the ground to trip them into to snap one of those legs. But I can not wait for this to come out, it's going to be so awesome <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> . I can imagine wasting away hours just chopping zombies inhalf with large sharp objects.
<!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+May 14 2004, 08:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ May 14 2004, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Quite obviously the way to rid them from the face of the earth is to expose them to the common cold or perhaps the flu. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> YES. I was wondering if anyone else was drawing the lines between the two.
I noticed it too but I didn't want to feel old <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway, notice how during the two Strider battles, the striders use different tactics.
In the first one, the Strider prefers to make shishkabobs out of the people, while they run around and generally miss thier shots.
In the second one, the Strider prefers to use the secondary guns.
And in both, when Gordon runs up to the (train station?) platform, the strider attacks the pillars, and they break the same way. Scripted? Hmm I think so!
Not really...in the first video he destroys like 3 and a half pillars, then he fires his vaporizer and wipes out everyone on the platform...in the second he nails one pillar, guns down two guys, then nails the other with the vaporizer.
Most likely scripted, but why is it invisible? (The strider, that is.)
EDIT: NM. I just couldn't see it behind the smoke.
It seems like you eventually get a form of whatever weapon the Strider uses. In the video when the strider attacks you see a guy get sorta pinned against a wall or float (?) with a blue haze around him. Later on you see Gordon using a weapon that does the same thing. Unfortunatly its sorta hard to see but it looks like the bodies just float in mid-air while others around them fly backwards. Very odd.
<!--QuoteBegin-Testament+May 15 2004, 03:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Testament @ May 15 2004, 03:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not really...in the first video he destroys like 3 and a half pillars, then he fires his vaporizer and wipes out everyone on the platform...in the second he nails one pillar, guns down two guys, then nails the other with the vaporizer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, I've been comparing. In both, it does NOT destroy the first two pillars, but it blows away the upper half of the next, and much more of the second.
The pillars were destroyed, each time, 5 seconds after he stepped up towards the platform (I imagine the trigger for the event is somewhere just before the stairs). Finally, the pillars constitute a much smaller surface area then anything else around it. The odds of the strider landing shots on the pillars, and not between them, are rather low, and the fact that they both got destroyed and look exactly the same in both scenes pretty much show valve was full of crap.
Valve's been full of crap from the start. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(And you're assuming the projectile thingy he's firing isn't large enough to hit the pillars while passing between them.)
It was counterstrike with prettier graphics (might I add that the map looked just as boring, blocky, and square as every CS map has been), ragdoll deaths, and some barrels that fell over. What was so damn impressive again?
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 15 2004, 10:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 15 2004, 10:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for multiplayer....
It was counterstrike with prettier graphics (might I add that the map looked just as boring, blocky, and square as every CS map has been), ragdoll deaths, and some barrels that fell over. What was so damn impressive again? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Um, the graphics and physics were pretty much the whole point of converting to source, not any new gameplay(although the physics will probably alter the gameplay a bit).
<!--QuoteBegin-Align+May 15 2004, 04:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Align @ May 15 2004, 04:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 15 2004, 10:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 15 2004, 10:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for multiplayer....
It was counterstrike with prettier graphics (might I add that the map looked just as boring, blocky, and square as every CS map has been), ragdoll deaths, and some barrels that fell over. What was so damn impressive again? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um, the graphics and physics were pretty much the whole point of converting to source, not any new gameplay(although the physics will probably alter the gameplay a bit). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They kept hyping how fantastical the game would be on Source. Which is what I'm asking, what was so spectacular? Far Cry has certainly better graphics then Half-Life 2... so...
Hmm lets see, well a jarring sense of realism, gritty storyline (Rather than just islands) better physics, Gordon Freeman, Atmosphere, better levels (Apparently it is nigh on impossible to create anything other than an island in Far Cry), better physics, far better storyline, Powerful scripting system, Contextual AI, The Manipulator, More Gordon Freeman, oh and the G-Man.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 15 2004, 10:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 15 2004, 10:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They kept hyping how fantastical the game would be on Source. Which is what I'm asking, what was so spectacular? Far Cry has certainly better graphics then Half-Life 2... so... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think they were hyping how their favorite game would look really good, not how it would be extremely new or anything.
<!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+May 15 2004, 05:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch @ May 15 2004, 05:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm lets see, well a jarring sense of realism <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Half-Life doesn't even have dynamic lighting. You were getting 'realism' from where?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->gritty storyline (Rather than just islands)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a storyline to FarCry (and since you don't even sound like you've played it, I won't spoil it for you). It wasn't complex or very 'unique' but considering the nature and setup of the game, it was actually perfect. A complex storyline would've ruined the 'Die Hard' feeling of the game. A simplier storyline would've made it just another 'Doom'.
Maybe a PREFERED atmosphere, but I've seen billions of 'run around in the post-apocalyptipc city and shoot things' games, but I've only seen two games set in a jungle, and walking up to a dock and seeing minnows flee from my presence pretty much took it for me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->better levels (Apparently it is nigh on impossible to create anything other than an island in Far Cry)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you definately haven't played FarCry. It is easilly possible to create indoor levels of complexity in FarCry, and not only that, but FarCry is the only game to have a complete rendering engine capable of rendering roughly 2km+ (In real-life distances) of completely terrain and complex geometry. Everything I've seen in Half-Life that involved long distances was either low-poly, or used clever 'vis-blockers'. Look at the 'dried up lake' for instance. The majority of outdoor levels seems to rely on curves around mountains so you can't see everything.
The Manipulator is, in my opinion, actually pretty damn stupid. Really, if I could have a ten pound object capable of ripping a radiator out of the wall and sending it flying down a city block, what stops me from building a sixty-thousand ton one and ripping the earth in half, or sending the moon flying into mars?
Oh and the most important thing you managed to miss:
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 15 2004, 03:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 15 2004, 03:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Testament+May 15 2004, 03:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Testament @ May 15 2004, 03:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not really...in the first video he destroys like 3 and a half pillars, then he fires his vaporizer and wipes out everyone on the platform...in the second he nails one pillar, guns down two guys, then nails the other with the vaporizer. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, I've been comparing. In both, it does NOT destroy the first two pillars, but it blows away the upper half of the next, and much more of the second.
The pillars were destroyed, each time, 5 seconds after he stepped up towards the platform (I imagine the trigger for the event is somewhere just before the stairs). Finally, the pillars constitute a much smaller surface area then anything else around it. The odds of the strider landing shots on the pillars, and not between them, are rather low, and the fact that they both got destroyed and look exactly the same in both scenes pretty much show valve was full of crap. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, in all liklehood it isn't scripted. The level designer will have just placed a hint entity on each pillar that communicates to the Striders that they can be blown up, and so if the Strider <i>chooses</i> to it can destroy them when the player/civilians are near.
That's what HL2 will feature a lot of: not only the monsters communicating with the level, but the level communicating with the monsters for the most explosive experience. It's a beautiful thing.
You'll have to do better if you want to unsurp HL2's A.I.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 15 2004, 05:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 15 2004, 05:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+May 15 2004, 05:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch @ May 15 2004, 05:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm lets see, well a jarring sense of realism <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Half-Life doesn't even have dynamic lighting. You were getting 'realism' from where?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dynamic lighting isn't the only thing involved in creating a realistic feel. In fact, most of it is in the animating of the characters. If you've got a soldier who walks like he's got a stake shoved up his rear, it's going to spoil some of the immersion for you. (This comment is NOT insulting the Far Cry animations, I haven't played Far Cry. I'm talking about things in general.)
There was a storyline to FarCry (and since you don't even sound like you've played it, I won't spoil it for you). It wasn't complex or very 'unique' but considering the nature and setup of the game, it was actually perfect. A complex storyline would've ruined the 'Die Hard' feeling of the game. A simplier storyline would've made it just another 'Doom'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A different type of story for a different type of game. It's a matter of preference. Personally, I love the story ideas behind Half-Life 2. As I said, I haven't played Far Cry, so I can't comment on its story.
I don't see where this is coming from...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't comment on this considering I haven't played Far Cry. Half-Life 2's physics are absolutely amazing, though.
Maybe a PREFERED atmosphere, but I've seen billions of 'run around in the post-apocalyptipc city and shoot things' games, but I've only seen two games set in a jungle, and walking up to a dock and seeing minnows flee from my presence pretty much took it for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> City 17 isn't post-apocalyptic. Neither is Half-Life 2's story, from what I've seen. If you listen to what Breen is saying in the E3 2004 video, you hear him saying "Welcome to City 17. It's safer here." as you step off the train. It seems to me like Breen is a mayor of sorts for a group of cities (City 17 being one of them.) and he has control over the Combine to make sure that nobody steps out of line. Think dictatorship.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->better levels (Apparently it is nigh on impossible to create anything other than an island in Far Cry)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you definately haven't played FarCry. It is easilly possible to create indoor levels of complexity in FarCry, and not only that, but FarCry is the only game to have a complete rendering engine capable of rendering roughly 2km+ (In real-life distances) of completely terrain and complex geometry. Everything I've seen in Half-Life that involved long distances was either low-poly, or used clever 'vis-blockers'. Look at the 'dried up lake' for instance. The majority of outdoor levels seems to rely on curves around mountains so you can't see everything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have no comment on the Far Cry stuff but, to me... Using vis blocking is pretty clever. It's pretty much essential if you want the game to run acceptably at high quality on slightly older systems. (From what I've heard, high detail in Far Cry requires a pretty beefy system.) It's also very difficult to pull it off convincingly and I have to commend VALVe for doing it well.
What?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can script a lot in Half-Life 2. What they mean by not needing scripts because of AI is this: The soldiers analyze things themselves. They'll never do the same thing twice unless it's essential to the story/that part of the level. (Like in Kleiner's Lab, the creature broke through the wall because that was essential to that part of the story and level. If you wanted, you could probably set it so that, depending on where the people are, it could choose a different place to break in. So basically, combat is different each time.
<span style='color:white'>Relevant part deeleted.</span>
The Manipulator is, in my opinion, actually pretty damn stupid. Really, if I could have a ten pound object capable of ripping a radiator out of the wall and sending it flying down a city block, what stops me from building a sixty-thousand ton one and ripping the earth in half, or sending the moon flying into mars?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What stops you from building a gigantic gun that can blow the Earth in to little bits, too? Simple: You're limited either by common sense or by advancements in the technology. Cost is a factor, too. They might not be able to AFFORD to build a giant one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh and the most important thing you managed to miss:
FarCry wasn't delayed a year, now, was it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure, that's the most important thing if you want to judge how good a game will be by its release date.
Maybe a PREFERED atmosphere, but I've seen billions of 'run around in the post-apocalyptipc city and shoot things' games, but I've only seen two games set in a jungle, and walking up to a dock and seeing minnows flee from my presence pretty much took it for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> City 17 isn't post-apocalyptic. Neither is Half-Life 2's story, from what I've seen. If you listen to what Breen is saying in the E3 2004 video, you hear him saying "Welcome to City 17. It's safer here." as you step off the train. It seems to me like Breen is a mayor of sorts for a group of cities (City 17 being one of them.) and he has control over the Combine to make sure that nobody steps out of line. Think dictatorship.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd actually like to know where these 'billions' of post apocalyptic FPSs are (despite the fact HL2 would be considered more of a mix of 1984 and a revolt against an oppresive government with aliens involved). We'll lower the number from a billion to say, maybe, five. Or maybe you'd just like to go with post-apocalyptic games with guns? Name some of those too (that aren't Fallout related - 3 games from one series though - maybe a fourth if we get lucky).
I'd say City 17 is like a processing center, or maybe a place to make people slaves or something - because, unless all the people are janitors, it doesn't look like they have many jobs. [I also believe I heard someone say that they always have trains coming in, but you can't get on a train going out; and there was the guy who thinks something's in the water causing memory loss].
Half-Life 2 might not be the best looking game out there, but so far, based on demos I've seen and played:
Its atmosphere is the most realistic. [FC: those monkeys really annoy me; the plants look very cartoony and bright - maybe it's my video card; woot, 1 commando against everyone!] [Stalker: Actually, I like Stalker's atmosphere equal to or better than HL2] [Doom3: Works in the space setting (sortof) but it looks too reflective and "Lets make it shiny!"] [Halo 2: seems to also suffer from the "POLISH IT NOW!!!" syndrome]
Its physics are the most integrated, useful and realistic. [FC: nice physics, but you rarely use them - especially tactically: "Hey look, a pile of exploding barrels...too bad the enemies are nowhere near it] [Stalker: The physics are getting better, but don't seem like they're integrated into the game beyond adding realism] [Doom3: Don't know anything/no comment] [Halo 2: I don't think they have much of anything for physics (aside from bodies and vehicles), destructible enviroments is a good addition though]
The AI seems to be the most realistic (I mean believeable for what the enemies are). [FC: The AI is iffy, sometimes its good, sometimes it cheats a little. Overall it does the job pretty well, but sometimes it's just blatantly annoying.] [Stalker: The life simulation and released information makes it seem like it will have efficient and fairly realistic mutant AI, but we can't really know right now, can we?] [Doom3: Don't know anything/ no comment] [Halo 2: The AI, from the first game alone should be pretty good and believeable. From something I read in OXM it seems like it couple improve 10x or so, but still no playable demo or anything - so I can't be sure]
The levels seem varied and interesting, and very detailed. [FC: Ocean...lots of ocean- wait, now it's a dock, wait, now it's plants - plants everywhere! - now it's a base, with pipes and some barrels - wait another base, with pipes and barrels, oooh, and a computer kiosk! (okay, it's not quite that bad)] [Stalker: The cities look intricately detailed - and it is real world terrain - the exploring factor beats out HL2, since you basically get kilometers and kilometers to explore (not just a tiny island like Far Cry, albeit where you could go anywhere you could climb to)] [Doom3: Lots of shiny spaceship, some evil hellish locales and some other stuff; doesn't seem overly realistically detailed, but the lighting and enemies will probably distract you from the fact anyway] [Halo 2: Still seems to be lacking in intricate detail; plenty of bump-mapping, but plenty of over shininess too]
Overall, I'll have to say HL2 still looks the most promising (and because I only have ~$100 at the moment, HL2 and either Stalker or Halo 2 get to be bought by me (Halo 2 special edition seems like a good investment). The combat looks fluid and realistic, the graphics are not the greatest (although, they look slightly worse than stalker, but very good) - but that doesn't determine if it's going to have interesting, dynamic, fun gameplay. Now does it?
<!--QuoteBegin-UltimaGecko+May 15 2004, 07:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UltimaGecko @ May 15 2004, 07:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd say City 17 is like a processing center, or maybe a place to make people slaves or something - because, unless all the people are janitors, it doesn't look like they have many jobs. [I also believe I heard someone say that they always have trains coming in, but you can't get on a train going out; and there was the guy who thinks something's in the water causing memory loss]. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That sounds really plausible, actually. Listen really close to Breen's speech as you're getting off the train. He talks about "the citadel provided by our benefactors", or something similar. There has always been talk about the Combine being aliens, so maybe it goes like this:
Aliens persuade Breen to work for them. In return, Breen gets power and control over a bunch of cities and alien soldiers for an army. The aliens use him to further their own agenda.
Or maybe it's some sort of penal colony/reeducation centre. Maybe you have to infiltrate it and try to free the prisoners.
Friendly neighbourhood admins note: If you have made a direct psychological connection between a certain game and your manhood, do us all a favor and don't go around telling everyone how everything else doesn't even come close. It'll at best lead to general annoyance.
First off I have watched videos of both so this is only based on what I've seen and heard.
First off, by realism I don't mean just graphics, screw graphics I couldn't care. But its Half-Life 2's combinations of the physics, graphics engine, sounds and all the other things. Out of all the next gen games I've seen (although Stalker does it well) Half-Life 2 has the most immersion out of them all. I can see it happening. And this is something VALVe pays most of its attention too. They don't want a game that may look superb but has pants immersion. Valve are the kings of immersive gameplay. Full Stop.
Half-Life 2 also has much more of an intreeging storyline. Rather than "I have just happened to arrive here and I have a bright shirt." I mean by the sounds of it a lot of it is similar to Return To Castle Wolfenstein later in the game.
Atmosphere-wise Half-Life 2 has it in spades. I mean looking at the E3 footage and hearing the Zombies scream as they set on fire or the pinging of the helicopters bullets as it flys by shooting you. Or even the comment "Was that you knocking? I didn't think we had a door."
Levelwise Seriously, Novalogic's Commanche and Delta Force had a level renderer that could create huge expansives, Even Operation Flashpoint had huge areas you could just look out over. And the geometery was complex. And Flashpoints ages old. And indoor? Half-Life 2 does it effortlessly. Come to think of it, SoF2 did the outside thing very well, and NOLF2. Plus of course HL2 is being made so large amounts of people can play it. I'm gonna believe that you can push the engine much harder than they are currently.
And the manipulator, if you really wanted it to be so powerful go use the SDK and make it that way. The manipulator is an inventive weapon that frankly is something no one else has done.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
It could be. But then, what are the other Cities for? Not to mention, with Dr. Green continually saying things about how City 17 will protect you, I think they'll be there to stay. I think it all may be one huge experiment from Dr. Green- testing the limits of the human mind, on a mass basis. I mean, everything around seems to be a scare tactic- the combine guards everywhere, the taking off of the doors, the cameras everywhere, the interrogations, everything. It seems like it'll amount to something revolving around Green himself.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I notice that everyone always shoots at the main body. If there was some sort of buzz saw lying around, (probably only available on the zombie stage though <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) I'd immediately use the manipulator on it and aim for the leg joints...
YES. I was wondering if anyone else was drawing the lines between the two.
Anyway, notice how during the two Strider battles, the striders use different tactics.
In the first one, the Strider prefers to make shishkabobs out of the people, while they run around and generally miss thier shots.
In the second one, the Strider prefers to use the secondary guns.
And in both, when Gordon runs up to the (train station?) platform, the strider attacks the pillars, and they break the same way. Scripted? Hmm I think so!
Most likely scripted, but why is it invisible? (The strider, that is.)
EDIT: NM. I just couldn't see it behind the smoke.
Nope, I've been comparing. In both, it does NOT destroy the first two pillars, but it blows away the upper half of the next, and much more of the second.
The pillars were destroyed, each time, 5 seconds after he stepped up towards the platform (I imagine the trigger for the event is somewhere just before the stairs). Finally, the pillars constitute a much smaller surface area then anything else around it. The odds of the strider landing shots on the pillars, and not between them, are rather low, and the fact that they both got destroyed and look exactly the same in both scenes pretty much show valve was full of crap.
(And you're assuming the projectile thingy he's firing isn't large enough to hit the pillars while passing between them.)
It was counterstrike with prettier graphics (might I add that the map looked just as boring, blocky, and square as every CS map has been), ragdoll deaths, and some barrels that fell over. What was so damn impressive again?
It was counterstrike with prettier graphics (might I add that the map looked just as boring, blocky, and square as every CS map has been), ragdoll deaths, and some barrels that fell over. What was so damn impressive again? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, the graphics and physics were pretty much the whole point of converting to source, not any new gameplay(although the physics will probably alter the gameplay a bit).
It was counterstrike with prettier graphics (might I add that the map looked just as boring, blocky, and square as every CS map has been), ragdoll deaths, and some barrels that fell over. What was so damn impressive again? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um, the graphics and physics were pretty much the whole point of converting to source, not any new gameplay(although the physics will probably alter the gameplay a bit). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They kept hyping how fantastical the game would be on Source. Which is what I'm asking, what was so spectacular? Far Cry has certainly better graphics then Half-Life 2... so...
I think they were hyping how their favorite game would look really good, not how it would be extremely new or anything.
Half-Life doesn't even have dynamic lighting. You were getting 'realism' from where?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->gritty storyline (Rather than just islands)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a storyline to FarCry (and since you don't even sound like you've played it, I won't spoil it for you). It wasn't complex or very 'unique' but considering the nature and setup of the game, it was actually perfect. A complex storyline would've ruined the 'Die Hard' feeling of the game. A simplier storyline would've made it just another 'Doom'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->better physics<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see where this is coming from...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Atmosphere<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe a PREFERED atmosphere, but I've seen billions of 'run around in the post-apocalyptipc city and shoot things' games, but I've only seen two games set in a jungle, and walking up to a dock and seeing minnows flee from my presence pretty much took it for me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->better levels (Apparently it is nigh on impossible to create anything other than an island in Far Cry)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you definately haven't played FarCry. It is easilly possible to create indoor levels of complexity in FarCry, and not only that, but FarCry is the only game to have a complete rendering engine capable of rendering roughly 2km+ (In real-life distances) of completely terrain and complex geometry. Everything I've seen in Half-Life that involved long distances was either low-poly, or used clever 'vis-blockers'. Look at the 'dried up lake' for instance. The majority of outdoor levels seems to rely on curves around mountains so you can't see everything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Powerful scripting system<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What?
<span style='color:white'>You <i>do</i> know that you have already been suspended once, do you?</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Manipulator<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Manipulator is, in my opinion, actually pretty damn stupid. Really, if I could have a ten pound object capable of ripping a radiator out of the wall and sending it flying down a city block, what stops me from building a sixty-thousand ton one and ripping the earth in half, or sending the moon flying into mars?
Oh and the most important thing you managed to miss:
FarCry wasn't delayed a year, now, was it?
Nope, I've been comparing. In both, it does NOT destroy the first two pillars, but it blows away the upper half of the next, and much more of the second.
The pillars were destroyed, each time, 5 seconds after he stepped up towards the platform (I imagine the trigger for the event is somewhere just before the stairs). Finally, the pillars constitute a much smaller surface area then anything else around it. The odds of the strider landing shots on the pillars, and not between them, are rather low, and the fact that they both got destroyed and look exactly the same in both scenes pretty much show valve was full of crap. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, in all liklehood it isn't scripted. The level designer will have just placed a hint entity on each pillar that communicates to the Striders that they can be blown up, and so if the Strider <i>chooses</i> to it can destroy them when the player/civilians are near.
That's what HL2 will feature a lot of: not only the monsters communicating with the level, but the level communicating with the monsters for the most explosive experience. It's a beautiful thing.
You'll have to do better if you want to unsurp HL2's A.I.
Half-Life doesn't even have dynamic lighting. You were getting 'realism' from where?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dynamic lighting isn't the only thing involved in creating a realistic feel. In fact, most of it is in the animating of the characters. If you've got a soldier who walks like he's got a stake shoved up his rear, it's going to spoil some of the immersion for you. (This comment is NOT insulting the Far Cry animations, I haven't played Far Cry. I'm talking about things in general.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->gritty storyline (Rather than just islands)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was a storyline to FarCry (and since you don't even sound like you've played it, I won't spoil it for you). It wasn't complex or very 'unique' but considering the nature and setup of the game, it was actually perfect. A complex storyline would've ruined the 'Die Hard' feeling of the game. A simplier storyline would've made it just another 'Doom'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A different type of story for a different type of game. It's a matter of preference. Personally, I love the story ideas behind Half-Life 2. As I said, I haven't played Far Cry, so I can't comment on its story.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->better physics<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see where this is coming from...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't comment on this considering I haven't played Far Cry. Half-Life 2's physics are absolutely amazing, though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Atmosphere<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe a PREFERED atmosphere, but I've seen billions of 'run around in the post-apocalyptipc city and shoot things' games, but I've only seen two games set in a jungle, and walking up to a dock and seeing minnows flee from my presence pretty much took it for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
City 17 isn't post-apocalyptic. Neither is Half-Life 2's story, from what I've seen. If you listen to what Breen is saying in the E3 2004 video, you hear him saying "Welcome to City 17. It's safer here." as you step off the train. It seems to me like Breen is a mayor of sorts for a group of cities (City 17 being one of them.) and he has control over the Combine to make sure that nobody steps out of line. Think dictatorship.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->better levels (Apparently it is nigh on impossible to create anything other than an island in Far Cry)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you definately haven't played FarCry. It is easilly possible to create indoor levels of complexity in FarCry, and not only that, but FarCry is the only game to have a complete rendering engine capable of rendering roughly 2km+ (In real-life distances) of completely terrain and complex geometry. Everything I've seen in Half-Life that involved long distances was either low-poly, or used clever 'vis-blockers'. Look at the 'dried up lake' for instance. The majority of outdoor levels seems to rely on curves around mountains so you can't see everything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no comment on the Far Cry stuff but, to me... Using vis blocking is pretty clever. It's pretty much essential if you want the game to run acceptably at high quality on slightly older systems. (From what I've heard, high detail in Far Cry requires a pretty beefy system.) It's also very difficult to pull it off convincingly and I have to commend VALVe for doing it well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Powerful scripting system<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can script a lot in Half-Life 2. What they mean by not needing scripts because of AI is this: The soldiers analyze things themselves. They'll never do the same thing twice unless it's essential to the story/that part of the level. (Like in Kleiner's Lab, the creature broke through the wall because that was essential to that part of the story and level. If you wanted, you could probably set it so that, depending on where the people are, it could choose a different place to break in. So basically, combat is different each time.
<span style='color:white'>Relevant part deeleted.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Manipulator<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Manipulator is, in my opinion, actually pretty damn stupid. Really, if I could have a ten pound object capable of ripping a radiator out of the wall and sending it flying down a city block, what stops me from building a sixty-thousand ton one and ripping the earth in half, or sending the moon flying into mars?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What stops you from building a gigantic gun that can blow the Earth in to little bits, too? Simple: You're limited either by common sense or by advancements in the technology. Cost is a factor, too. They might not be able to AFFORD to build a giant one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh and the most important thing you managed to miss:
FarCry wasn't delayed a year, now, was it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, that's the most important thing if you want to judge how good a game will be by its release date.
But no doubt HL2 will <b>OWN</b>.
Valve has the garguantan responsibility to uphold the standards of the first HL to shoulder, if the game fails it would be impossible to imagine.
Now they wouldnt have spent millions on developing a game to see it go down the drain eh?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Atmosphere<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe a PREFERED atmosphere, but I've seen billions of 'run around in the post-apocalyptipc city and shoot things' games, but I've only seen two games set in a jungle, and walking up to a dock and seeing minnows flee from my presence pretty much took it for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
City 17 isn't post-apocalyptic. Neither is Half-Life 2's story, from what I've seen. If you listen to what Breen is saying in the E3 2004 video, you hear him saying "Welcome to City 17. It's safer here." as you step off the train. It seems to me like Breen is a mayor of sorts for a group of cities (City 17 being one of them.) and he has control over the Combine to make sure that nobody steps out of line. Think dictatorship.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd actually like to know where these 'billions' of post apocalyptic FPSs are (despite the fact HL2 would be considered more of a mix of 1984 and a revolt against an oppresive government with aliens involved). We'll lower the number from a billion to say, maybe, five. Or maybe you'd just like to go with post-apocalyptic games with guns? Name some of those too (that aren't Fallout related - 3 games from one series though - maybe a fourth if we get lucky).
I'd say City 17 is like a processing center, or maybe a place to make people slaves or something - because, unless all the people are janitors, it doesn't look like they have many jobs. [I also believe I heard someone say that they always have trains coming in, but you can't get on a train going out; and there was the guy who thinks something's in the water causing memory loss].
Half-Life 2 might not be the best looking game out there, but so far, based on demos I've seen and played:
Its atmosphere is the most realistic.
[FC: those monkeys really annoy me; the plants look very cartoony and bright - maybe it's my video card; woot, 1 commando against everyone!]
[Stalker: Actually, I like Stalker's atmosphere equal to or better than HL2]
[Doom3: Works in the space setting (sortof) but it looks too reflective and "Lets make it shiny!"]
[Halo 2: seems to also suffer from the "POLISH IT NOW!!!" syndrome]
Its physics are the most integrated, useful and realistic.
[FC: nice physics, but you rarely use them - especially tactically: "Hey look, a pile of exploding barrels...too bad the enemies are nowhere near it]
[Stalker: The physics are getting better, but don't seem like they're integrated into the game beyond adding realism]
[Doom3: Don't know anything/no comment]
[Halo 2: I don't think they have much of anything for physics (aside from bodies and vehicles), destructible enviroments is a good addition though]
The AI seems to be the most realistic (I mean believeable for what the enemies are).
[FC: The AI is iffy, sometimes its good, sometimes it cheats a little. Overall it does the job pretty well, but sometimes it's just blatantly annoying.]
[Stalker: The life simulation and released information makes it seem like it will have efficient and fairly realistic mutant AI, but we can't really know right now, can we?]
[Doom3: Don't know anything/ no comment]
[Halo 2: The AI, from the first game alone should be pretty good and believeable. From something I read in OXM it seems like it couple improve 10x or so, but still no playable demo or anything - so I can't be sure]
The levels seem varied and interesting, and very detailed.
[FC: Ocean...lots of ocean- wait, now it's a dock, wait, now it's plants - plants everywhere! - now it's a base, with pipes and some barrels - wait another base, with pipes and barrels, oooh, and a computer kiosk! (okay, it's not quite that bad)]
[Stalker: The cities look intricately detailed - and it is real world terrain - the exploring factor beats out HL2, since you basically get kilometers and kilometers to explore (not just a tiny island like Far Cry, albeit where you could go anywhere you could climb to)]
[Doom3: Lots of shiny spaceship, some evil hellish locales and some other stuff; doesn't seem overly realistically detailed, but the lighting and enemies will probably distract you from the fact anyway]
[Halo 2: Still seems to be lacking in intricate detail; plenty of bump-mapping, but plenty of over shininess too]
Overall, I'll have to say HL2 still looks the most promising (and because I only have ~$100 at the moment, HL2 and either Stalker or Halo 2 get to be bought by me (Halo 2 special edition seems like a good investment). The combat looks fluid and realistic, the graphics are not the greatest (although, they look slightly worse than stalker, but very good) - but that doesn't determine if it's going to have interesting, dynamic, fun gameplay. Now does it?
That sounds really plausible, actually. Listen really close to Breen's speech as you're getting off the train. He talks about "the citadel provided by our benefactors", or something similar. There has always been talk about the Combine being aliens, so maybe it goes like this:
Aliens persuade Breen to work for them. In return, Breen gets power and control over a bunch of cities and alien soldiers for an army. The aliens use him to further their own agenda.
Or maybe it's some sort of penal colony/reeducation centre. Maybe you have to infiltrate it and try to free the prisoners.
If you have made a direct psychological connection between a certain game and your manhood, do us all a favor and don't go around telling everyone how everything else doesn't even come close. It'll at best lead to general annoyance.
First off, by realism I don't mean just graphics, screw graphics I couldn't care. But its Half-Life 2's combinations of the physics, graphics engine, sounds and all the other things. Out of all the next gen games I've seen (although Stalker does it well) Half-Life 2 has the most immersion out of them all. I can see it happening. And this is something VALVe pays most of its attention too. They don't want a game that may look superb but has pants immersion. Valve are the kings of immersive gameplay. Full Stop.
Half-Life 2 also has much more of an intreeging storyline. Rather than "I have just happened to arrive here and I have a bright shirt." I mean by the sounds of it a lot of it is similar to Return To Castle Wolfenstein later in the game.
Atmosphere-wise Half-Life 2 has it in spades. I mean looking at the E3 footage and hearing the Zombies scream as they set on fire or the pinging of the helicopters bullets as it flys by shooting you. Or even the comment "Was that you knocking? I didn't think we had a door."
Levelwise Seriously, Novalogic's Commanche and Delta Force had a level renderer that could create huge expansives, Even Operation Flashpoint had huge areas you could just look out over. And the geometery was complex. And Flashpoints ages old. And indoor? Half-Life 2 does it effortlessly. Come to think of it, SoF2 did the outside thing very well, and NOLF2. Plus of course HL2 is being made so large amounts of people can play it. I'm gonna believe that you can push the engine much harder than they are currently.
And the manipulator, if you really wanted it to be so powerful go use the SDK and make it that way. The manipulator is an inventive weapon that frankly is something no one else has done.