Half Life 2 Has ruined me

[TheSomeone]

So I downloaded the demo for Brothers in Arms, and I was so looking forward to it because I thought it would have amazing graphics and awesome gameplay.

I start it up, crank the texture and model details to the max, and start playing.

Two minutes later: "What! This looks like total crap!"

The environment was pretty cool and detail (made my framerate jump a few times as a matter of fact), but the textures were so primitive! Damn half life 2 and its 512 x512 hq textures has made me unable to play any console ports, simply because of estethics.

Speaking of consoles, I think they're an immense burden in the process of video game art and evolution. People think Doom 3 looks good on the console, when it looks a million times better on a good computer. That makes developers think twice about creating detailed textures.I hope to god next-gen consoles will change that.

 

[Ames]

HL2 still needs detail textures.

 

[Beerdude26]

EDIT : And I'm a ****ing idiot. Sorry for being a jerk, I was tired and didn't read the post well.

Can you forgive me?

 

[Ames]

No, since almost all of my posts about HL2 have been praising it, I decided to deviate from my normal posting routine and complain.

It still needs detail textures. Particularly the Coast area.

 

[StardogChampion]

Yeah, the estethics suck.

After playing HL2, I can't even play Zelda: OOT anmorezz lolzlzzz.

/sarcasm

 

[Jandor]

What are estethics?

The textures look like shit on my PC, but thats my PC.

 

[Chav]

So I downloaded the demo for Brothers in Arms, and I was so looking forward to it because I thought it would have amazing graphics and awesome gameplay.

What has brother in arms to do with this?

 

[Evo]

I think it's spelt aesthetics (not entirely sure) but pretty certain it is general appearance of objects (im prob totally wrong on that btw)

 

[StardogChampion]

What are estethics?

There is no such thing, he meant aesthetics.

 

[Kamex]

What has brother in arms to do with this?

I have never heard of brothers in arms, but I believe he is referring to his eyes being used to the graphical quality of Half-Life 2. Once you have seen how good those graphics are, other games look bad by comparison.

I remember when I first installed the high resolution textures for Doomsday (remake of Doom). Until then, Half-Life 1's textures looked at least acceptable, but after seeing Doomsday's 1024 x 1024 textures, Half-Life's looked so bad I was rubbing my eyes.

I've been waiting so long for a game with textures like Doomsday, and now I finally have it. While everyone else is marveling over the textures of Half-Life 2, they just look normal to me, which makes me kind of sad. At least I can enjoy the rest of the graphics and realism of the game..for the time being, but I was just as amazed at the graphical quality of Super Mario 64 when it first came out, now look at it.

The problem is that human concept of an amount is built on comparison. No matter how good game graphics get, they will only amaze us for a few hours; after that, they will look normal, and everything else will look bad. On top of that, we have to continually buy new graphics cards to keep up.

I look forward to the day when graphics look just like real life, then the madness can end.

 

[Axyon]

Complaining about Half-Life 2 on a Half-Life 2 forum...

You're not so very bright, are you?

Did you even read his post? He's saying that Half-Life 2's spoiled him so much, games like Brothers in Arms pale in comparison. Although that may have been the case without playing HL2, as BiA has some of the shoddiest low-res textures I've seen in a PC game in recent times.

 

[Pred]

Actually i thought Farcry looked better then HL 2,so HL 2 didnt amaze me as much since i played Farcry before it

 

[TheSomeone]

Complaining about Half-Life 2 on a Half-Life 2 forum...

Did you even read the friggin post?

EDIT: Ooh, another user already said that for me .

 

[Foebane]

I have never heard of brothers in arms, but I believe he is referring to his eyes being used to the graphical quality of Half-Life 2. Once you have seen how good those graphics are, other games look bad by comparison.

Ah, ha, ha ha ha ha HA HA HAH AH AHA HAH AHAHAH AH AH AH AH AH AHA HA HAH A HA HA HAH A!!!!!!!!!!

Oh thank you Kamex for making me laugh so ****ing hard in AGES!

Oh, btw...

COUGH*Doom 3*COUGH

Get lost, you loser! :flame: :flame: :flame:

 

[Sufferin-rebel]

I dont get that at all... I played doom 3 and HL2, the graphics r medicore (Cuz of my G-card ) and when i play HL1 i like the graphics even more... i dunno why they are not UP-TO-DATE but i feel content with them more than HL2 i dunno why...

 

[giant384]

UT2k4 has the best textures they dont look bad if u look at them up close

 

[Ames]

That's because it has detail textures.

 

[TheSomeone]

Oh thank you Kamex for making me laugh so ****ing hard in AGES!

Oh, btw...

COUGH*Doom 3*COUGH

Hum, it's not hard to make 10 x 10 tunnels look good. Half life 2 has entire environments. Half-Life 2 surpasses Doom 3 in design, textures, and quality. The only thing Doom 3 has over Half-Life 2 is lighting, even then...

By the way, if that made you laugh that hard, please go get a sense of humor.

 

[Jintor]

I'm just questioning why he isn't banned yet, i've yet to see Foebane say anything constructive...

 

[Spectre01]

Yeah, UT2k4 textures make HL2 look like shit.

 

[FictiousWill]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=53080&highlight=detail+textures
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31704&highlight=detail+textures

 

[Foebane]

I'm just questioning why he isn't banned yet, i've yet to see Foebane say anything constructive...

Jintor, you should see me on the boards of things I like. I just find it hard to say anything positive about a game I don't like much delivered on a system I absolutely loathe (Steam), and having to put up with people who praise it to the hilt.

I just find the Doom 3 engine technically superior, and the visuals second to none (love those moving lights and shadows!). You also can't compare the two, calling Doom 3 crap because it takes place on a claustrophobically dark martian research base (And it's not all endless tunnels, either - there are huge reactor rooms and garage areas, and you do go outside in places too!), whereas HL2 takes place in the open air, most of the time. Those are two different games, two different environments, two different themes (horror as opposed to sci-fi).

There are different purposes of both games, that are their main selling points:

Doom 3 - to scare you witless, with breathtaking moving directional lights and shadows, as well as extensive use of bumpmapping
Half-Life 2 - to allow you to explore huge open areas, see advanced physics in action and to use vehicles.

But both involve lots of fighting with lots of guns. :naughty:

NOW am I being constructive?

 

[Chav]

I have never heard of brothers in arms, but I believe he is referring to his eyes being used to the graphical quality of Half-Life 2. Once you have seen how good those graphics are, other games look bad by comparison.

I remember when I first installed the high resolution textures for Doomsday (remake of Doom). Until then, Half-Life 1's textures looked at least acceptable, but after seeing Doomsday's 1024 x 1024 textures, Half-Life's looked so bad I was rubbing my eyes.

I've been waiting so long for a game with textures like Doomsday, and now I finally have it. While everyone else is marveling over the textures of Half-Life 2, they just look normal to me, which makes me kind of sad. At least I can enjoy the rest of the graphics and realism of the game..for the time being, but I was just as amazed at the graphical quality of Super Mario 64 when it first came out, now look at it.

The problem is that human concept of an amount is built on comparison. No matter how good game graphics get, they will only amaze us for a few hours; after that, they will look normal, and everything else will look bad. On top of that, we have to continually buy new graphics cards to keep up.

I look forward to the day when graphics look just like real life, then the madness can end.

Oh I see, yes BIA wasn't what I expected of graphics either and the game was to short too.
HL² beats them all...

 

[Jintor]

Jintor, you should see me on the boards of things I like. I just find it hard to say anything positive about a game I don't like much delivered on a system I absolutely loathe (Steam), and having to put up with people who praise it to the hilt.

I just find the Doom 3 engine technically superior, and the visuals second to none (love those moving lights and shadows!). You also can't compare the two, calling Doom 3 crap because it takes place on a claustrophobically dark martian research base (And it's not all endless tunnels, either - there are huge reactor rooms and garage areas, and you do go outside in places too!), whereas HL2 takes place in the open air, most of the time. Those are two different games, two different environments, two different themes (horror as opposed to sci-fi).

There are different purposes of both games, that are their main selling points:

Doom 3 - to scare you witless, with breathtaking moving directional lights and shadows, as well as extensive use of bumpmapping
Half-Life 2 - to allow you to explore huge open areas, see advanced physics in action and to use vehicles.

But both involve lots of fighting with lots of guns. :naughty:

NOW am I being constructive?

Constructive, yes. Humour, yes. 1st constructive post ever.... yes.

Wooo! :thumbs:

 

[Kamex]

Ah, ha, ha ha ha ha HA HA HAH AH AHA HAH AHAHAH AH AH AH AH AH AHA HA HAH A HA HA HAH A!!!!!!!!!!

Oh thank you Kamex for making me laugh so ****ing hard in AGES!

Oh, btw...

COUGH*Doom 3*COUGH

Get lost, you loser! :flame: :flame: :flame:

I am pleased I was able to amuse you.

 

[Foebane]

I am pleased I was able to amuse you.

Erm, I was a bit pissed when I wrote that. I didn't mean to add the last bit. Sorry.

 

[15357]

Erm, I was a bit pissed when I wrote that. I didn't mean to add the last bit. Sorry.

Uh huh..

I'm sure you didn't. :cheers:

 

[CyberPitz]

Jintor, you should see me on the boards of things I like. I just find it hard to say anything positive about a game I don't like much delivered on a system I absolutely loathe (Steam), and having to put up with people who praise it to the hilt.

I'm just at a loss as to why you would post on a board that is a fanboard about a game/system you "loathe"...?

 

[Asknoone]

Jintor, you should see me on the boards of things I like. I just find it hard to say anything positive about a game I don't like much delivered on a system I absolutely loathe (Steam), and having to put up with people who praise it to the hilt.

I just find the Doom 3 engine technically superior, and the visuals second to none (love those moving lights and shadows!). You also can't compare the two, calling Doom 3 crap because it takes place on a claustrophobically dark martian research base (And it's not all endless tunnels, either - there are huge reactor rooms and garage areas, and you do go outside in places too!), whereas HL2 takes place in the open air, most of the time. Those are two different games, two different environments, two different themes (horror as opposed to sci-fi).

There are different purposes of both games, that are their main selling points:

Doom 3 - to scare you witless, with breathtaking moving directional lights and shadows, as well as extensive use of bumpmapping
Half-Life 2 - to allow you to explore huge open areas, see advanced physics in action and to use vehicles.

But both involve lots of fighting with lots of guns. :naughty:

NOW am I being constructive?

Funny Foebane, it just so happens I recall you getting banned for posting doom3 sucks about a hundred times in one post...I'll check your post history and see if it was you.

EDIT: Haha, nevermind - it was half-life2 sucks and doom3 rock

 

[Drackard]

Everyone going on about graphics, any true gamer will tell you its the game that makes it enjoyable to play, ok graphics play a part in it, but wouldn't you rather play a game with a brilliant story line and ok graphics then a game with a Crap story line and brilliant graphics ??

 

[Smoke]

SGT.MURRAY SPEAKS TEH TRU7H!!

no really he has got a good point there, if im playing a game with a kick ass storyline then im not too bothered about the graphics.
BUT.....
If im playing a game that say.....had better graphics than hl2? but a shite storyline, then id throw it away or sell it almost immediately.


smoke

 

[ch0ke]

You want something to really ruin you play World of Warcraft...and say bye bye to all

 

[Ghostly Adam]

You want something to really ruin you play World of Warcraft...and say bye bye to all

Yeah, I'm ****ing pissed that my friend spends all his gosh forsaken time on friggin' WoW than talking to his friends. I haven't seen him in about a friggin' month since he got a new job.. -_-

The Half-Life 2 storyline was amazing, in my humble opinion, and the graphics just drew me in deeper within the game. I had just beaten Half-Life 2 and decided to start on Half-Life again right afterwards, but when I looked at the graphics I had to readjust. XD Going from 2005 graphics to 1998 grahpics wasn't easy.



And no, I haven't beaten Half-Life yet. It was on my other computer, but that one's run down so badly with Spyware and viruses that it can't even run Half-Life.. e.e Pathetic, I know. So I had to start my whole game over on this one.

 

[special-ed]

Speaking of consoles, I think they're an immense burden in the process of video game art and evolution. People think Doom 3 looks good on the console, when it looks a million times better on a good computer. That makes developers think twice about creating detailed textures.I hope to god next-gen consoles will change that.

Haha your kidding right? 360 will have 48 pipelines and 3 cpus, which blows away
any high end pc.. god knows what ps3 will have. Consoles take huge steps while pcs take baby steps.

 

[OvA]

farcry was pretty, but there just wasnt enough detail

 

[Jintor]

In the immortal words of J.C. Denton:

'What the hell is with that shirt? You're lucky you're in the jungle, something that hideous needs 200 tonnes of foliage to distract you from it!'

 

[r2000]

Haha your kidding right? 360 will have 48 pipelines and 3 cpus, which blows away
any high end pc.. god knows what ps3 will have. Consoles take huge steps while pcs take baby steps.

Yeah. No hard drive, a graphics system that will be dated, months later, a resolution less than 640x480, and the need to use shiny textures and bump mapping to hide the lack of detailed textures. NICE. Macs have 2 cpus and still suck. Secondly, i remember the XBox, as a hell of an impressive system. For about 2 months. Then the computer industry, ratcheted up standards with video cards and memory systems and system optimizing, and the Xbox became a dated machine. Oh, and BTW, all games are made on computers. Therefore, computers are far better than consoles. You see computers can render 1600x1400 and be immaculate in detail. No console can produce that, because they're limited to a tv screen. Even HDTV won't.

Farcry wasn't as pretty as HL2, D3, or COR, because it was an early release. Plus, it boasts a 1.2 KM draw distance (simulated). Thats a hell of a lot of distance to be able to see enemies at. As it is, I can run HL2 better than Far Cry for that reason alone.

 

[Drackard]

Just a quick questing, how much is the 360 going to cost, im happy with my normal xbox and LIVE atm, but i heard the 360 is out in december over in America which means they wouldn't release it here for a couple of months after usually. Also a friend is saying how it will probably cost like £300, which i don't believe as microsoft know for a fact they wouldn't sell that well at that price anyway. I was thinking more along the lines of £150 to £200 can someone help me with that one please ?

 

[special-ed]

Yeah. No hard drive, a graphics system that will be dated, months later, a resolution less than 640x480, and the need to use shiny textures and bump mapping to hide the lack of detailed textures. NICE. Macs have 2 cpus and still suck. Secondly, i remember the XBox, as a hell of an impressive system. For about 2 months. Then the computer industry, ratcheted up standards with video cards and memory systems and system optimizing, and the Xbox became a dated machine. Oh, and BTW, all games are made on computers. Therefore, computers are far better than consoles. You see computers can render 1600x1400 and be immaculate in detail. No console can produce that, because they're limited to a tv screen. Even HDTV won't.

Farcry wasn't as pretty as HL2, D3, or COR, because it was an early release. Plus, it boasts a 1.2 KM draw distance (simulated). Thats a hell of a lot of distance to be able to see enemies at. As it is, I can run HL2 better than Far Cry for that reason alone.

Too bad a decent pc is a helluva expensive.. and you have to go through the pains of tweaking, and installing, plus a whole other mess of crap. (joys!) The new consoles will be different from the last, they will last much longer, and have soo much potential.

 

[r2000]

Too bad a decent pc is a helluva expensive.. and you have to go through the pains of tweaking, and installing, plus a whole other mess of crap. (joys!) The new consoles will be different from the last, they will last much longer, and have soo much potential.

Depends. If you hit places like newegg.com for equipment, its pretty cheap. Use old components from your old computer (case, dvd drives, sound cards, modem cards and so forth,) and then your looking at a cheaper setup. Plus, if you go for the gold, you'll be able to play games for many years.