LOL CS:S looking ugly?? wTF is wrong wid these peeps?

youve posted this on hl2 fallout and here, yet both links do not work. The link has ... in it where more text should be.
 
that link is broken or something not working :p
 
try it again sorry lol
man.. you posted fast... I was just fixing it lol
 
Counter-Strike is not a revolution. It looks better then the original but not by much. Most of the effects are the same as the original (Lighting, some textures are ugly, ETC). It doesn't even come close to Doom 3 and Far Cry in graphics. It is quite better then the old Counter-Strike though. Just Not A Revolution!!!
 
i agree. evolutionary at best. but I think it'll improve before release, and maybe some new maps from scratch for the new engine will help. but if the gameplay is the same, it'll be good enough..
 
Kschreck said:
Counter-Strike is not a revolution. It looks better then the original but not by much. Most of the effects are the same as the original (Lighting, some textures are ugly, ETC). It doesn't even come close to Doom 3 and Far Cry in graphics. It is quite better then the old Counter-Strike though. Just Not A Revolution!!!

nah i don't think that's it... I'm sure HL2 and CS:S have some stunning graphics. Those screenies just don't show that AT ALL. The problem is that people don't like to think in more than one angle. The problem with the screenies shown at the forums is clearly because of the bad computer that the screenshots were taken from. It's just that most the users over at gamespot forums as well as many other goons out there just don't seem to realize that.
 
It really does look amazing however I can really see some pixels in some textures... might need to up the res and make them even better high quality.

Some people though man they always go with what other people say... One guy doesn't like it and then like 10 people don't like it :borg:

I mean if people are id software fan boys then they should look at their models... really low poly compared to HL2... Like the imp is 2,000 poly's or something but it's because they got really good normal maps they look good. THe NM's saved them.

HL2 is really great, maybe over the years it fell behind in some graphical aspects, but with full DX9 effects enabled, it will be complete domination!!! Like the dust going through lights, the delicious bump mapped ant lion guard :)
 
guys once you play it graphics look better dont worry about photos lol
 
no i saw photos and i wa really disapointed that the graphics werent good once you actually play it on a fast computer the effects and everything is good they are finished with the game now there just fixing bugs and stuff i bet.

Regards,

Homie
 
It looks amazing in comparison to CS1.6, it doesn't look amazing in comparison to Doom 3 or Far Cry.

Either way i don't care. All i want is physics in CS1.6 because I know the gameplay already rapes Doom 3 and Far Cry.

Graphics mean jack shit in the long run.
 
"It looks amazing in comparison to CS1.6, it doesn't look amazing in comparison to Doom 3 or Far Cry." Quote - Mr.Fusion

I agree! Either way I can't wait to play Counter-Strike: Source and Half-Life 2!!!
 
I think CSS looks stunning, even on par with D3 and far cry. I only feel this way casue both games had to sacrifice ultraa sharptextures, and CSS /HL2s look amazing in comparison.
 
Originally Posted by Mr-Fusion
Graphics mean jack shit in the long run.

That's why CS is the most popular online game like 4 years after it's release, and I'm sure CS:S will continue the legacy.
 
I hate how everyone compares CS:S to Doom 3 and FarCry, I mean it's just meant to be a graphical update to an older game.....and Counter-Strike is more about gameplay.

Besides FarCry is one of the most boring games I've everplayed.....
 
a) For some reason the screenshots the engine takes always seem kind of low quality.

b) The majority of shots we are seeing are on medium settings.

c) Wait til you see it for yourself in motion.

d) It looks truly awesome.

e) Uninstalling Doom 3 :p
 
I think it looks absolutely stunning for a port from HL1 to HL2.The only thing I've seen that still looks a little rough was a w_m4a1.mdl(well alot rough for that M4) and the ground on the way out of the CT spawn didn't look as good as I had hoped.

But that's only from screenshots and it is a beta.I'm sure the final version will be polished up alot in the next 6 weeks or so.All said I think it's excellent upgrade for CS....soooo happy.My favorite game got overhauled :)

***If any VALVe guys read these threads excellent job***,and what are the chances for right side ejection ports on the weapons or an option for it in future updates?
 
f) Installing Doom 3

g) KICKING myself for not buying cz

h) Hmm...thinking about buying cz
 
waht is wrong is they are at lan places that dont have super good graphics cards and stuff like everyone on here does... i played at a lan place today and all the graphic settings were down all the way because of the dang geforce 4 they had running the thing... stupid lan place, i cant wait to play this game on my own machine..

-merc
 
SaL said:
What's $20.00 go buy CZ so you can enjoy the beta :thumbs:

its 39.95 from steam, I would pay 20 bucks.. but no way in hell I would pay 40.
 
I don't see anyrthing wrong with whatever they are talking about..

I wanna play cs s now..
 
1) Screenies always look bad.
2)Those were taken on a bad computer.
3)Its probably the most advanced graphical MP game apart from Doom3, and Doom3 MP is not good at all.
4) All the Vets of CS are so ****ing stubborn, that if they are going to change then it will have to be something soooo amazing that its impossible to get.

IMO this game looks very good, seeing as the gameplay is going to be the same as CS, just with more reality such as better physics and better graphics its going to be very good. Sooo many people play CS, which i dont really get because although i play it and it is fun, the graphics are so amazingly shit i dont see why people dont play CoD, but if this game is going to have graphics that are really good then everyone is going to play it. People need to chill out a bit more about what screenies look like, they are always shit and never enough to fully show what the moving game is going to be like, take a pill, a chill pill.

Edit: This is only a pushed for time beta, and of course it is going to be poor. Not poor but certainly not what it could be, there will be countless tweaking before the game actually comes out, and after that there are also going to be countless numbers of patches and fixing for the game, so its going to look sweeeeeet. End of.

iF.
 
What I wish, is that they would make the textures better. It's not really hard to do, just use only 1024 textures and I'll be happy.
 
Kschreck said:
Counter-Strike is not a revolution. It looks better then the original but not by much. Most of the effects are the same as the original (Lighting, some textures are ugly, ETC). It doesn't even come close to Doom 3 and Far Cry in graphics. It is quite better then the old Counter-Strike though. Just Not A Revolution!!!
What he said.
 
kschreck said:
Counter-Strike is not a revolution. It looks better then the original but not by much. Most of the effects are the same as the original (Lighting, some textures are ugly, ETC). It doesn't even come close to Doom 3 and Far Cry in graphics. It is quite better then the old Counter-Strike though. Just Not A Revolution!!!



Now i know that the size aint great for these vids, but they sure as hell are better than some peoples screenies, and the game looks a lot better in motion. I cant believe you can say that the graphics are practically the same as CS.
 
Mr-Fusion said:
It looks amazing in comparison to CS1.6, it doesn't look amazing in comparison to Doom 3 or Far Cry.

Either way i don't care. All i want is physics in CS1.6 because I know the gameplay already rapes Doom 3 and Far Cry.

Graphics mean jack shit in the long run.

Yep I agree with the man, besides CS never was about shiny graphics.
 
Don't want to hijack the thread, but I want to know what exactly looks good about Doom 3. People seem to have accepted it as the numero uno graphical game of supremacy, but I have played through the whole game on high detail and I thought Far-Cry looked a little better.

And HL2 looks better than Far-Cry :p

Edit: Oh, and by the way, the screenshots most people are taking are taken with the ingame screenshot tool in the bug report, which is only for taking screens of bugs, not graphical goodness. They are very low quality and people shouldn't be making assumptions based on them.

Valve should never have staggered the release like this, because everyone is going to have ideas about CS:S looking bad before they play it for themselves, and that sort of thing usually sticks even when the game looks awesome in reality.

Valve are excruciatingly bad at this type of thing...
 
If graphics are so important to a games success why is CS still the number one online action game (by a large way), I said that to somone and they argued "its cause everyone has it", which made me laugh, valve already have the sum of several game communities playing there games religiously, everyone playing CS regularly will be stunned CSS cause its what they have been wanting for years, a true CS on a much better engine, Source doesnt have the graphical feature set of farcry or Doom3, but it has alot of advancment in other areas, ingame charecters, ai, physics etc, valve has always put what they have to good use, CS would be a bad example cause its basicly a clone of a working gameplay and theres not much new stuff they can do at first, But HL2 has already proved it has some really cool and clever ideas built into its combat and visuals, so i cant wait, sue me :D
 
Back
Top