Wait and check it for youself, after that make a discision which one is the best...
[edit] sounds promising this release date, lets just hope they have the right info and we dont have to wait yet another year shall we <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--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-->Half-Life 2 release date is currently September 3rd 2004 (UK) due to the source code leak according to Valve Software<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even Valve admitted that the source theft wasn't the primairy cause for the delay, so much for the credibility of that release date <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Wait and check it for youself, after that make a discision which one is the best...
[edit] sounds promising this release date, lets just hope they have the right info and we dont have to wait yet another year shall we <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That release date looks to be at least several months old. I'll wait till I hear it from the major sites.
Every last thread comparing the Doom 3 engine to the Half Life 2 engine is crap.
You guys aren't comparing engines; you're comparing artwork. It's been that way in EVERY SINGLE THREAD similar to this one. You are talking about the poly count in these screenshots, but how the hell do you know how well the HL2 engine will handle those large outdoor scenes? You don't. You won't know until the software is in your hands.
Stop being a bunch of pathetic fan boys... it's not very becoming of anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Aug 25 2004, 03:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 25 2004, 03:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why is everyone arguing about this again? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Haha, I don't know. I wanted to add a little balance to the argument.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Aug 25 2004, 02:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Aug 25 2004, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Coil mentioned that we haven't seen HL2 lighting yet.
We should all go back to watch the old E3 movie. The portion where Gordon follows the ant-lions into the machine guns - he ducks around the corner and attacks them from the side. When he shoots the guns over they do rather impressive flash lighting on the wall behind them.
I don't know how it will compare to Doom 3 (haven't bought it) but I did notice in Doom 3 that the flash light had a very stagnant glow (light ring, dark ring, medium ring) on everything it shown on. It almost looked like a sprite of light is thrown in your view. I haven't seen if the shadowing from your flashlight casts realistic shadows - can anyone tell me? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you have an NVidia card? I'm assuming you do.
This is absurdity:
<!--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-->I see that area and say 'Oh nice detail' and then see 'oh low poly rocks'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--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-->On the rooftop, you see buildings miles in the distance<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--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-->Blah blah but see Doom 3 has low poly parts!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coil, I noclipped out to this area so you can see the WHOLE AREA. The entire range of the largest area in Doom 3 I could find. If I noclipped out to the buildings in the distance of HL2 you'd be looking at ****-ugly low-poly crap just the same, with only a tiny little 'superdetailed' blob in the middle where you're supposed to be. Look at Unreal Tournament - One of the maps featured tall structures. They looked nice, but when you noclipped out to them, wow look! They're hideous!
HL2 uses 'cheats' for their distance. There's no point in detailing distant objects you can't get to. The buildings in the distance of HL2 are most likely 1) One sided (the other sides are most likely nulltextured), 2) Very low detail, and 3) covered with a very low resolution texture.
The DIFFERENCE is, I ran out to an area in Doom 3 to get a picture of a huge area, and from what I can see, it has a larger view distance then HL2 did.
HL2 FEATURES a shot of a huge area, but you can SEE the low-detail. From the Cyberdemon platform, in fact, from ANYwhere in that room from the main area you can't really tell the low-detail area. But you're showing off a scene from an 'HL2 stress test' that blatantly features: 1) Low detail terrain, 2) Distance-masking fog, 3) Blocky buildings. If I had that stress test I'd go out there and see if those objects are even FULL OBJECTS, or if they 'cheated' on the parts you're not supposed to see.
I don't think cheating is bad, but I also don't for a moment consider Doom 3 inferior to Half-Life 2. Both engines appear rather similar, with strengths in different areas. At the moment, because Half-Life 2 isn't released, I think Doom 3 has the upper hand. We'll see.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Tequila+Aug 26 2004, 12:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tequila @ Aug 26 2004, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is bloody stupid. Few people have a clue what they're talking about, so let's just let the unresolvable arguement die. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> yup
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 04:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think cheating is bad, but I also don't for a moment consider Doom 3 inferior to Half-Life 2. Both engines appear rather similar, with strengths in different areas. At the moment, because Half-Life 2 isn't released, I think Doom 3 has the upper hand. We'll see. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm concerned though, because Valve was a one-shot-wonder. I never found HL to be that spectacular of a game gameplay wise (It was good but not the best I'd played), and I still think they're a young company. HL2 can be really good, or it could be pants.
I'm uncertain if Valve can repeat its success, and I won't be surprised if it doesn't, especially considering their blunders with Half-Life 2. I too agree that Half-Life wasn't the most spectacular. I had fun with it, but once the game left the laboratory, I played through it to say "I finished", rather than because I was having fun. It became one jumping puzzle after the rest, and was frustrating, and often boring. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Although it caught fire and has been burning for 7 years. Still just a flash in the pan <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-dhakbar+Aug 25 2004, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dhakbar @ Aug 25 2004, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 05:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The mods kept it alive. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. ONLY the mods kept Half Life alive.
Valve would be long-forgotten if it were not for Counter Strike. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And humans would have never existed if only the dinosaurs <i>hadn't</i> died. Ok I'll stop being an asshat now, heh.
Doom 3 has a System Shock 3 mod in the works <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Winr for Doom 3.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 25 2004, 05:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 25 2004, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 04:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think cheating is bad, but I also don't for a moment consider Doom 3 inferior to Half-Life 2. Both engines appear rather similar, with strengths in different areas. At the moment, because Half-Life 2 isn't released, I think Doom 3 has the upper hand. We'll see. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm concerned though, because Valve was a one-shot-wonder. I never found HL to be that spectacular of a game gameplay wise (It was good but not the best I'd played), and I still think they're a young company. HL2 can be really good, or it could be pants. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The one thing they are doing is making all the right moves. To port over the most popular existing mods to their new engine is a dastardly tactic to say the least. Essentially Valve, who has been running off the success of particular mods alone, is simply flowing those exact mods into new technology, thus prolonging thier life exponetially.
Look at starcraft, the game is still popular and still awesome, its just really starting to show its age. Now if starcraft were to be remade exactly the way it is right now with more accordance to todays technology, I have little doubt it would run for another several years, because it isn't the gameplay that has aged, its the technology.
Counterstrike isn't going to just die one way or the other. By continuing the legacy on a new engine they are essentially insuring that the HL2 engine will be around for a long long time. It takes forever for a good sequal series to die.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 25 2004, 05:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 25 2004, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 04:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 04:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think cheating is bad, but I also don't for a moment consider Doom 3 inferior to Half-Life 2. Both engines appear rather similar, with strengths in different areas. At the moment, because Half-Life 2 isn't released, I think Doom 3 has the upper hand. We'll see. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm concerned though, because Valve was a one-shot-wonder. I never found HL to be that spectacular of a game gameplay wise (It was good but not the best I'd played), and I still think they're a young company. HL2 can be really good, or it could be pants. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bad gameplay? What parts were bad with gameplay? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->Superior plot? The plot was contrived and boring. It was good for games, but not great for plots. I don't know why this keeps getting referenced, because the plot didn't break any ground. It was a nice game, sure. But once the game left the science lab, the fun ground to a halt, and the story went just as slow.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact is, HL's plot was revolutionary, not because of the plot itself (aliens marines blah blah blah) but because of how it was presented. All through your eyes.
The story unfolded through the enviroments you saw, the people you speak to, and the enemies you faught.
Cutscenes are generally bad for FPS, because that essentially means the developer admins: "Yep, our medium for the game sucks we have to go to another one in order to continue with the story".
No cutscenes = good game design. Cutscenes are a weak, so very weak, coverup to keep out any holes in the plot.
Speaking of weak instances with cutscenes... doom 3 anyone? Oh look. It's an imp. Lets show a cool cutscene of it CRAWLING ON THE WALLS. AROUND YOU! And then we can end it with you staring right in it's face. That killed a lot of suspense right there.
Same goes for the pinky cutscene, hell, just about every cutscene in that game was unessesary and severly detracted from the game's overall presentation.
...
Cutscenes = poor game design ^ max.
This is why HL was so good in the plot department.
<!--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--> I'm uncertain if Valve can repeat its success, and I won't be surprised if it doesn't, especially considering their blunders with Half-Life 2. I too agree that Half-Life wasn't the most spectacular. I had fun with it, but once the game left the laboratory, I played through it to say "I finished", rather than because I was having fun. It became one jumping puzzle after the rest, and was frustrating, and often boring. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean it got boring when you get to xen? Which is like 6 levels long? Not to mention I had a blast fighting that big monster with a ballsac, lol.
<!--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 mods kept it alive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, the dudes who made CS went to a hat and went "Lol guys, which engine we gonna teh use?!?!!!"
And pulled out HL, that's the ONLY reason it lasted as long as it did. Yup. <img src='http://www.giantninjarobots.net/stuff/rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin-Daza400+Aug 25 2004, 06:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Daza400 @ Aug 25 2004, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> HL didn't survive because of mods. It survived because its engine was and still is one of the best. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh hunh. Oooookay. You have fun on your little island there. The island which is still running in 1998.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hobojoe+Aug 25 2004, 06:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hobojoe @ Aug 25 2004, 06:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> hmm some armor i wonder what happens if i OH NO AN IMP
hmm a door i wonder what happens if i OH NO AN IMP <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know why, but that made me laugh pretty hard.
I know many users liked having the in-game cutscenes. I <b>like</b> having the pre-rendered cutscenes favored in the older games. The quality was far superior to the engine. Because of the increasing quality of graphics in-game, that won't be needed much any longer. However, I still like having the pull-away shots (like those used in Doom 3). They add something to it... I like it. If it's not going to pre-rendered, at least give the cutscenes some unique camera angles! Half-Life's style was nice too, but I was dissappointed in the silent Gordon. But yes, you're right, Half-Life did present the plot in a unique manner. Still unsure if it was better, but it was unique.
Half-Life got boring once I went to the surface of Earth... remember the level where there is the revolving doors, and then the remote turrets on the roof? That's where it gets boring, from what I remember.
And yes, Half-Life has lasted so long because of the mods. Counter-Strike was not the first mod.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Aug 25 2004, 06:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Aug 25 2004, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bad gameplay? What parts were bad with gameplay? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Fighting the Marines and Asassins felt rather boring. I mean, they were smart, but shooting them felt fruitless... They didn't flinch or anything, and they could run far faster than you could dream of. With Asassins, maybe I could understand the speed part, but the Marines are just icky. I never beat the game, the Xen levels were also boring.
I DID have fun when I gave myself some ninja speed and jumping abilities and buffed the crowbar up significantly to the point of insta-gib <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Allow me to remind you: HL2 is still not released. You can compare your stress tests and CS betas, but I'll wait until I have that CD-rom spinnin' in my CD drive.
Comments
Wait and check it for youself, after that make a discision which one is the best...
[edit]
sounds promising this release date, lets just hope they have the right info and we dont have to wait yet another year shall we <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Half-Life 2 release date is currently September 3rd 2004 (UK) due to the source code leak according to Valve Software<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even Valve admitted that the source theft wasn't the primairy cause for the delay, so much for the credibility of that release date <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Wait and check it for youself, after that make a discision which one is the best...
[edit]
sounds promising this release date, lets just hope they have the right info and we dont have to wait yet another year shall we <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That release date looks to be at least several months old. I'll wait till I hear it from the major sites.
You guys aren't comparing engines; you're comparing artwork. It's been that way in EVERY SINGLE THREAD similar to this one. You are talking about the poly count in these screenshots, but how the hell do you know how well the HL2 engine will handle those large outdoor scenes? You don't. You won't know until the software is in your hands.
Stop being a bunch of pathetic fan boys... it's not very becoming of anyone.
Haha, I don't know. I wanted to add a little balance to the argument.
We should all go back to watch the old E3 movie. The portion where Gordon follows the ant-lions into the machine guns - he ducks around the corner and attacks them from the side. When he shoots the guns over they do rather impressive flash lighting on the wall behind them.
I don't know how it will compare to Doom 3 (haven't bought it) but I did notice in Doom 3 that the flash light had a very stagnant glow (light ring, dark ring, medium ring) on everything it shown on. It almost looked like a sprite of light is thrown in your view. I haven't seen if the shadowing from your flashlight casts realistic shadows - can anyone tell me? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have an NVidia card? I'm assuming you do.
This is absurdity:
<!--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-->I see that area and say 'Oh nice detail' and then see 'oh low poly rocks'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->On the rooftop, you see buildings miles in the distance<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Blah blah but see Doom 3 has low poly parts!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coil, I noclipped out to this area so you can see the WHOLE AREA. The entire range of the largest area in Doom 3 I could find. If I noclipped out to the buildings in the distance of HL2 you'd be looking at ****-ugly low-poly crap just the same, with only a tiny little 'superdetailed' blob in the middle where you're supposed to be. Look at Unreal Tournament - One of the maps featured tall structures. They looked nice, but when you noclipped out to them, wow look! They're hideous!
HL2 uses 'cheats' for their distance. There's no point in detailing distant objects you can't get to. The buildings in the distance of HL2 are most likely 1) One sided (the other sides are most likely nulltextured), 2) Very low detail, and 3) covered with a very low resolution texture.
The DIFFERENCE is, I ran out to an area in Doom 3 to get a picture of a huge area, and from what I can see, it has a larger view distance then HL2 did.
HL2 FEATURES a shot of a huge area, but you can SEE the low-detail. From the Cyberdemon platform, in fact, from ANYwhere in that room from the main area you can't really tell the low-detail area. But you're showing off a scene from an 'HL2 stress test' that blatantly features: 1) Low detail terrain, 2) Distance-masking fog, 3) Blocky buildings. If I had that stress test I'd go out there and see if those objects are even FULL OBJECTS, or if they 'cheated' on the parts you're not supposed to see.
yup
I'm concerned though, because Valve was a one-shot-wonder. I never found HL to be that spectacular of a game gameplay wise (It was good but not the best I'd played), and I still think they're a young company. HL2 can be really good, or it could be pants.
Although it caught fire and has been burning for 7 years. Still just a flash in the pan <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yes. ONLY the mods kept Half Life alive.
Valve would be long-forgotten if it were not for Counter Strike.
Yes. ONLY the mods kept Half Life alive.
Valve would be long-forgotten if it were not for Counter Strike. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And humans would have never existed if only the dinosaurs <i>hadn't</i> died. Ok I'll stop being an asshat now, heh.
I'm concerned though, because Valve was a one-shot-wonder. I never found HL to be that spectacular of a game gameplay wise (It was good but not the best I'd played), and I still think they're a young company. HL2 can be really good, or it could be pants. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The one thing they are doing is making all the right moves. To port over the most popular existing mods to their new engine is a dastardly tactic to say the least. Essentially Valve, who has been running off the success of particular mods alone, is simply flowing those exact mods into new technology, thus prolonging thier life exponetially.
Look at starcraft, the game is still popular and still awesome, its just really starting to show its age. Now if starcraft were to be remade exactly the way it is right now with more accordance to todays technology, I have little doubt it would run for another several years, because it isn't the gameplay that has aged, its the technology.
Counterstrike isn't going to just die one way or the other. By continuing the legacy on a new engine they are essentially insuring that the HL2 engine will be around for a long long time. It takes forever for a good sequal series to die.
I'm concerned though, because Valve was a one-shot-wonder. I never found HL to be that spectacular of a game gameplay wise (It was good but not the best I'd played), and I still think they're a young company. HL2 can be really good, or it could be pants. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bad gameplay? What parts were bad with gameplay? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->Superior plot? The plot was contrived and boring. It was good for games, but not great for plots. I don't know why this keeps getting referenced, because the plot didn't break any ground. It was a nice game, sure. But once the game left the science lab, the fun ground to a halt, and the story went just as slow.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact is, HL's plot was revolutionary, not because of the plot itself (aliens marines blah blah blah) but because of how it was presented. All through your eyes.
The story unfolded through the enviroments you saw, the people you speak to, and the enemies you faught.
Cutscenes are generally bad for FPS, because that essentially means the developer admins: "Yep, our medium for the game sucks we have to go to another one in order to continue with the story".
No cutscenes = good game design. Cutscenes are a weak, so very weak, coverup to keep out any holes in the plot.
Speaking of weak instances with cutscenes... doom 3 anyone? Oh look. It's an imp. Lets show a cool cutscene of it CRAWLING ON THE WALLS. AROUND YOU! And then we can end it with you staring right in it's face. That killed a lot of suspense right there.
Same goes for the pinky cutscene, hell, just about every cutscene in that game was unessesary and severly detracted from the game's overall presentation.
...
Cutscenes = poor game design ^ max.
This is why HL was so good in the plot department.
<!--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--> I'm uncertain if Valve can repeat its success, and I won't be surprised if it doesn't, especially considering their blunders with Half-Life 2. I too agree that Half-Life wasn't the most spectacular. I had fun with it, but once the game left the laboratory, I played through it to say "I finished", rather than because I was having fun. It became one jumping puzzle after the rest, and was frustrating, and often boring. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean it got boring when you get to xen? Which is like 6 levels long? Not to mention I had a blast fighting that big monster with a ballsac, lol.
<!--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 mods kept it alive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, the dudes who made CS went to a hat and went "Lol guys, which engine we gonna teh use?!?!!!"
And pulled out HL, that's the ONLY reason it lasted as long as it did. Yup. <img src='http://www.giantninjarobots.net/stuff/rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Uh hunh. Oooookay. You have fun on your little island there. The island which is still running in 1998.
hmm a door i wonder what happens if i OH NO AN IMP <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know why, but that made me laugh pretty hard.
EDIT:AHAHAHA 666 post! Im evil!
I know many users liked having the in-game cutscenes. I <b>like</b> having the pre-rendered cutscenes favored in the older games. The quality was far superior to the engine. Because of the increasing quality of graphics in-game, that won't be needed much any longer. However, I still like having the pull-away shots (like those used in Doom 3). They add something to it... I like it. If it's not going to pre-rendered, at least give the cutscenes some unique camera angles! Half-Life's style was nice too, but I was dissappointed in the silent Gordon. But yes, you're right, Half-Life did present the plot in a unique manner. Still unsure if it was better, but it was unique.
Half-Life got boring once I went to the surface of Earth... remember the level where there is the revolving doors, and then the remote turrets on the roof? That's where it gets boring, from what I remember.
And yes, Half-Life has lasted so long because of the mods. Counter-Strike was not the first mod.
Fighting the Marines and Asassins felt rather boring. I mean, they were smart, but shooting them felt fruitless... They didn't flinch or anything, and they could run far faster than you could dream of. With Asassins, maybe I could understand the speed part, but the Marines are just icky. I never beat the game, the Xen levels were also boring.
I DID have fun when I gave myself some ninja speed and jumping abilities and buffed the crowbar up significantly to the point of insta-gib <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, Opposing Force > Half-Life * 10
YOU SPEAK THE NAME OF THE DEVIL