Now, after playing Doom3 and Half-Life2...

Yea thats what I'm saying, anything and everything in the hl2 levels are pretty much changeable *spoilers* Jump on a merry-go-round and tap "E" when ur supposed to be running from the police and the merry go round spins, pick up a tv and run backwards and the power chord comes unplugged and the tv turns off, drascitcally searching for ammo for grav-gun while being chased by an enemy? Pick up a paint can and launch it at him, he gets painted! Shoot a flaming barrel next to an enemy, he starts on fire, runs into one of his buddies, starts him on fire and he trips over another explosive barrel (this may sound scripted but it's just the AI, if it is scripted it sure doesn't seem like it, I was only able to do this once) It's just a plain awesome game. By the way, I could play with the gravity gun for hours.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thrawn86
" It actually feels like a real world, something out of George Orewell's "1984" is probably the best way to describe it."

exactly. I get tired of blindly flailing around a room trying to frantically switch between shotty and flashlight. repeat 100x

halflife 2 there are infinite possiblilities for amusements. ever tried hurling paint cans at your enemies with the grav gun. wow. or shooting a propanetank at a headcrab, only to be attacked by a flaming headcrab?



even if these things were possible in D3, you wouldn't be able to see them.

---

HAHHA totally agree

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PointlesS
yes...the first screenshots didn't show much...but later down the thread and a few other screenshots on the doom 3 world forums showed some great environments and very good fps...

---

I checked over the thread again and the times they showed FPS w/ out door enviroments were pretty limited. Everyone was having fun bashing the other side with words instead of examples :p

I definatly disagree that showed that it could do large enviroments w/ good FPS, it showed something suggestive towards that, but w/ the limited number of examples and the limited nature of the map used i dont think it showed anything conclusive.

Not trying to start a debate or anything, just showing that there are differing opinions on this.

Just finished and would gladly accept a fanboy compliment if I recieved one. I didn't think too highly of Half-Life, but I didn't play it in 1998. It does have a familiar look and feel to Max Payne 2, but the outdoor scenes were very cool. A lot of comparisons were made Crytek and Source, but having played HL2, I have to give the nod to Source. It feel more visceral and gratifying. Farcry looked too pristine, but than again, it is paradise. Still, the open enviroment was more fullfilling in HL2 than it was in Farcry. Doom 3 was too dark and linear, story wise. Had they included half/half indoor/outdoor, i.e fight some bad aliens in the martian atmosphere, that owuld have rocked!

They used a lot of the same textures for the indoors -- could have had potential.

One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Un4given

---

Not the same. The body parts that come off when you go at something with the chainsaw is scripted. You also can't throw the chainsaw at your enemy. In this game you can throw objects, call them back, and body parts come off exactly where you hit them, not in a scripted sequence.
Hmm, having played last 2 days in the row... I was unable to cut zombie parts "exactly where you hit them". It is pretty much sctipted. Cuts them in half.

Things you throw, like the saw blade will stick in objects, like a wooden wall, or it hitting a much harder surface, will ricochet around.
Are you sure about that? Because sawblades in my experience never ricocheted from concrete or brick walls, just stuck in them. Can't recall shooting them in the room with steel walls, however can't recall single ricochet either. I'll trh this weekend again just to see.

As far as picking up objects, sure other games may have given you the ability to do that, but again, very scripted. What you picked up and moved was generally required as part of continuing through the game. In this game you can interact with almost everything, even if it isn't necessary for the story or game to continue.
Well, yes and no. Things are random. For instance gravity gun doesn't work on lots of things. And for no apparent reason. I'd rather have better driveable vehichle or shorter loading times and better sound(I mean stuttering) vs. the ability to interact with empty bottles. Yeah, can be fun for 5 minutes, but you ain't spending a day dong that.

Not overly unique until you watch the blade come off and the real physics at work as the saw blade properly reacts to object it contacts.
See above. It's not that realistic.

And more about realism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by a singularity

---

One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.
In a real world when an average human fortified by kevlar (with Ti plates behind it, otherwise that kevlar will end up in his intestines with those bullets) gets hit even by relatively low powered handgun bullet shock and damage are enough to put him out of action for some time. Let alone receiving a few rounds(more powerful) from SMG.
In short it's not realistic at all to need a clip, though it wasn't that much , few headshots were suffice in general.
And no, 9mm pistol can't possibly be more powerful than SMG firing the same 9mm pistol rounds or more powerful stuff.

If you want real world realism(at least in terms of you dying) then play Far Cry on realistic difficulty. That's how it is in real world, almost. One bullet and UR done. I didn't enjoy that kind of realism at all. Sometimes too much of realism can be a problem.

guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zvi

I'd rather have better driveable vehichle or shorter loading times and better sound(I mean stuttering) vs. the ability to interact with empty bottles. Yeah, can be fun for 5 minutes, but you ain't spending a day dong that.

---

It was fun. In the begining, throwing bottles at the gaurds who then chase you, trying to stun you, lol.

I'm still in water hazard level (I'm addicted to Rome: Total War) but I still think Far Cry, even with its problems, is a better game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PointlesS
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...

---

Amen brother, amen. If ppl want realism turn off you computer and GO OUTSIDE

IMHO Doom3 and Halo2 are the two biggest and overhyped letdowns of this year.

FarCry was fun and HL2 is just fabulous

but right now MGS3 has my complete attention... the most immersive game ive played this year

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harbinger
Amen brother, amen. If ppl want realism turn off you computer and GO OUTSIDE

---

Naw...the graphics suck.:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpxgq
IMHO Doom3 and Halo2 are the two biggest and overhyped letdowns of this year.

FarCry was fun and HL2 is just fabulous

but right now MGS3 has my complete attention... the most immersive game ive played this year

---

so now it's settled, Far cry and HL2 is better than doom3.

after 4 hours of Far Cry and HL2 I was still very excited and wanted to play more.

but after 4 hours of doom3 I didn't really like but force myself to play further just because I paid for the game. need less to say after 6 hours I just got annoyed and cheated to finish the game and ebay the thing before the value dropped too much.


to tell ya the truth all 3 games was hyped up for me and only doom 3 was a disappointment. (FarCry was never officially hyped but I went on their website adn downloaded all their screenshots, trailers and demo and hyped myself up)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PointlesS
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...

---

Agree. Which is why I disagre on D3 criticism about D3 being not realistic. Like those critics have worked on demon invaded bases on mars for years...

As for D3 and Halo 2 being "Overhyped". Especially about D3. I am not sure I understand what exactly was "Overhyped" about D3. We all knew what Doom game was about, we all knew it was gonna be a remake with a new engine and as most of the ppl agree the graphics were superb. On top of that compared to previous dooms U get cutscenes, more interaction with env. and quite detailed plot given the limitations, i.e. basic plot was already set.
What exactly ID promised and didn't deliver to accuse them of overhyping anyway? A princess to save on the last level? Or U wanted hot looking chick following U around?

OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shoot lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shooting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights...

Comparatively speaking, HL2 is done much better than its counterparts. For complete realism, there is no substitute for America's Army, but HL2 infuses a nice blend of realism and mayhem fun. A game like HL2 would lose a lot of fun factor with an over emphasis on realism.

Everything from the gravity gun to hostile take overs are possible in theorectical science. I applaud the writers at Valve for mentioning elements like dark matter and black holes, which made it all that much more enjoyable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zvi


And more about realism.


One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.
In a real world when an average human fortified by kevlar (with Ti plates behind it, otherwise that kevlar will end up in his intestines with those bullets) gets hit even by relatively low powered handgun bullet shock and damage are enough to put him out of action for some time. Let alone receiving a few rounds(more powerful) from SMG.
In short it's not realistic at all to need a clip, though it wasn't that much , few headshots were suffice in general.
And no, 9mm pistol can't possibly be more powerful than SMG firing the same 9mm pistol rounds or more powerful stuff.

If you want real world realism(at least in terms of you dying) then play Far Cry on realistic difficulty. That's how it is in real world, almost. One bullet and UR done. I didn't enjoy that kind of realism at all. Sometimes too much of realism can be a problem. [/B]

---

Funny you should mention Doom III. The graphics were done in a way that made you felt like you were playing a long continuous FMV, rather than a game -- so in that sense, it set the bar higher for graphics expections. HL2 in stark contrast was more pragmatic in their approach with breaking new grounds. They offered a more immersive world and true to their previous formula, you could take time to explore the map and not feel rushed to complete a mission.

D3 is defintely a cult favorite. The overwhelming majority will praise HL2 and a small pcoket witll praise Farcry. They've all set technical benchmarks, so hopefully the end result is more refined games in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zvi
Agree. Which is why I disagre on D3 criticism about D3 being not realistic. Like those critics have worked on demon invaded bases on mars for years...

As for D3 and Halo 2 being "Overhyped". Especially about D3. I am not sure I understand what exactly was "Overhyped" about D3. We all knew what Doom game was about, we all knew it was gonna be a remake with a new engine and as most of the ppl agree the graphics were superb. On top of that compared to previous dooms U get cutscenes, more interaction with env. and quite detailed plot given the limitations, i.e. basic plot was already set.
What exactly ID promised and didn't deliver to accuse them of overhyping anyway? A princess to save on the last level? Or U wanted hot looking chick following U around?

OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shut lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shuting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights...

---

if the far cry outdoor graphics, super long draw distance and being able to walk anwhere on the map, doom 3's indoor graphics, the pc requirements and bug freeness of the source engine with its physics and its better storyline and how u have to figure out on your own how to get thru parts, had a baby. holy shite.

man i cant wait till s.t.a.l.k.e.r.

just got to "our benefactors" in hl2. its been gettin better and better each chapter especially since sandtraps :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zvi
OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shut lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shuting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights...

---

What do you mean "Shutting the lights in HL2"? And by mentioning that these people also complained about D3 being too dark do you mean to say that HL2 was just as dark as D3 and they are being hypocrtical?

I mean that some ppl criticised Doom 3 because the player couldn't shoot the all lights(some could've been shot btw), although nobody made that a big issue in HL2.

I didn't say HL2 is as dark as Doom 3. The same feature was missing in both games. Now, if one was so upset for not being able to kill the lights in already dark game I'd expect the same "one" to ask for the same thing in HL2. It was about fairness of some D3 critics.
E.g. D3 got criticised because of not having checkpoints and having quicksave. HL2 uses the same model. Yet "critics" chose to poitn that "problem" only in D3 and so on. I personally like quicksave a lot better tho.

However one of Doom 3's main attractions was its lighting, not so for HL2.(though i dont remember seeing many complaints about not being able to shoot the lights in D3 so im not sure its all that much of an issue)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mancora
However one of Doom 3's main attractions was its lighting, not so for HL2.(though i dont remember seeing many complaints about not being able to shoot the lights in D3 so im not sure its all that much of an issue)

---

Not to argue, just IMHO shooting the light can hardly be described as "lighting" works ;) I think it's more into real world interaction/realism features which definitely is HL2 stronger point. Dunno how often ppl break lights in badly lit rooms but still, if U kill the light source light rendered engine won't have much to do...

Lets go back a couple pages, and this is what i seem to agree w/best.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PointlesS
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...

---

:)