There goes hope of a GOTY at Gamespot...

[Adrien C]

I love how PC fanboys are more than willing to bring up HL2's Gameranking statistics as proof of its undeniable excellence, and yet will harp endlessly about how shiteful Halo 2 is despite relatively similar acclaim. You can't have it both ways.

And before any idiot decides that I must be some other kind of fanboy for pointing out this logical contradiction; I treat all systems evenly, as I own them all. And personally I too think Halo 2 was vastly overrated. One of the most overrated of all time. But I also think HL2 is overrated by many people's standards. I still really enjoyed it, though. Can't say the same about Halo 2.

HL2 does not deserve to win by some kind of infallible default. Opinions are not objective. It could appear on any best of the year list with no complaint from me, though. And I would shriek with unearthly glee if Gamespot did put it up there, just to see your reactions. It most likely will not happen, but you have to realise that a single review score doesn't reflect the overall editorial opinion of the site. Places like Gamespot have tens of writers. Stop calling conspiracy on their whole organisation just because a single guy over there disagrees with you. I have disagreed with Gamespot's scores quite often in the past, but cannot deny they remain one of only a few gaming websites not willing to automatically blow anything with a little hype behind it. Look at MGS back in the day... got a 7.5. Undeservedly? Probably. But gutsy.

Exatly how I feel, for a 7 year game, it's not that good. And it's damn to short.

 

[Alig]

I considered actually taking you seriously, having a debate, but this put me off that idea. What a silly idea that was.

Why so?. The games industry is catering for many different tastes...infact, everyone is unique so if a game sells lots then its considered a good game even if 25million people didn't like it. If a game sells hardly anything then its considered a bad game because it does'nt appeal to hardly anyone.

Reviews are just an opinion...they have no impact on a games sales or how good a game is. Gamespot could find a game i really hate, and give it one of the best reviews ever because 'they' liked it. It does'nt change what i think of the game. I won't suddenly think its a good game because someone that gets payed for reviewing games thinks so.

 

[Narcolepsy]

Whew... I wake up this morning, and I find that I have unleashed the worst of halflife2.net in a single misguided post. I will have to remember to stop deleriously making threads while running on four hours of sleep right after a grueling exam week.

But really, guys, I'm not talking about Gamespot's review, nor am I denying them the right to an opinion. I'm just talking about basic journalistic integrity here - in an objective NEWS article, they stated an opinion. See my problem?

 

[diluted]

The term 'fanboy' should be banned. It's so overused lately that it's lost all meaning.

 

[DarkDude]

So my opinion is a load of shit, but gamespys' opinion is as good as fact?. Are proffesional reviewers like godsends or something and there opinion should be taken seriously?

Wow, you do an awesome job at proving my points! Thanks! You first go on and say that Gamespot's review is the one that "saw through the name" and should be taken seriously, and now say that proffesional reviewers mean jack? Make up your mind, please. I'm not pointing at one site for an example, I'm pointing at gamerankings.com where HL2 is the highest ranked game to come out this year.

If you don't like my opinion then don't quote me.

Huh? I quite enjoy your opinions, they're worth as much bread as mine are. It's just that your were (and still are) stating them like fact; like you were the "one" that could see through the hype of HL2 along with Gamespot.

...Oh and yeah as a matter of fact, the ammount of copies a game sells does determine how good a game it is. Good games sell loads, bad games....don't!... whether you agree or not.

... And HL2 has sold a shitload. Valve hasn't released the Steam/retail sales yet, but I'm positive it'll top 2 million. Even then, sales don't make a game great. A good game sells alot, yes, but some great games had some low sales numbers, like PoP.

This is exactly why i can't be arsed even posting in this thread again. You've already made up your mind that HL2 is the best game ever made by saying what i underlined.

Believe it...HL2 isn't the best game this year.

What?! Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? So because I said that most copies of HL2 were sold over Steam, I've already made my mind up that HL2 is the best game ever? Warning, flawed logic approaching!

And there you go again, stating your opinion like fact. Maybe I do think it's the best game this year, and maybe I don't. (I've never said that I did...) Oh well, at least I've booted you out of the thread.

I love how PC fanboys are more than willing to bring up HL2's Gameranking statistics as proof of its undeniable excellence, and yet will harp endlessly about how shiteful Halo 2 is despite relatively similar acclaim. You can't have it both ways.

I love being classified as a fanboy just because I support Half-Life 2 on a Half-Life 2 forum. (I'm assuming you were refering to me, I apologize if you weren't) I don't hate Halo 2, nor do I think it's a crappy game. Halo 2 is 12th though (I believe, haven't checked lately) and HL2 is 5th, that's a pretty big difference there. Does it mean that without a doubt HL2 is better? Hell no, but I believe we have a valid point bringing up gameranking.com.

And before any idiot decides that I must be some other kind of fanboy for pointing out this logical contradiction; I treat all systems evenly, as I own them all. And personally I too think Halo 2 was vastly overrated. One of the most overrated of all time. But I also think HL2 is overrated by many people's standards. I still really enjoyed it, though. Can't say the same about Halo 2.

Well put, very well put.

HL2 does not deserve to win by some kind of infallible default. Opinions are not objective. It could appear on any best of the year list with no complaint from me, though. And I would shriek with unearthly glee if Gamespot did put it up there, just to see your reactions. It most likely will not happen, but you have to realise that a single review score doesn't reflect the overall editorial opinion of the site. Places like Gamespot have tens of writers. Stop calling conspiracy on their whole organisation just because a single guy over there disagrees with you. I have disagreed with Gamespot's scores quite often in the past, but cannot deny they remain one of only a few gaming websites not willing to automatically blow anything with a little hype behind it. Look at MGS back in the day... got a 7.5. Undeservedly? Probably. But gutsy.

I 99% agree. Like I said earlier though, I do find it odd that they didn't get Kasavin to review it. Halo 2 and Doom 3 were both reviewed by him, not to mention the other "big games" of the year, does HL2 not deserve the same honor? I guess Gamespot doesn't think so...

 

[Narcolepsy]

You'll never know what I originally said here.

 

[ShadowFox]

It's threads lke this that make it embarrassing to be a HL/PC fan.

Come on guys - read some of the childish whining you're churning out :/

Every community has them.. although you are correct that it is embarrassing.

 

[jimmyjam]

You= Hilarious. I've read all of your babyish posts.

hot. can we move in together? I'm thinking blue for the walls.

edit: since I'd never heard of you I thought I'd return the favour and read your posts
so can I assume 'babyish' is good when compared to supporting the British National Party?

 

[R to the Sizzle]

Think of how high expectations were for HL2. HL suprised everyone and revolutionized the FPS. Many people's expected HL2 to do the same, but it, simply put, didn't. A 9.2 is an incredible score but not revolutionary.

 

[photon]

HL2, the best FPS - yes! Deserves a 10 - No!!

Hi,

This is a highly biased opinion and I know that I'm stepping into very very muddy waters here. But being a 3D graphics programmer myself, I tend to rate the games I play by giving the graphics features quite a high weightage. And that's where HL2 misses out to Halo2, Doom 3 and Far Cry.

Sure, it has superior and more immersive gameplay than Halo2 and Doom3 (i rate FarCry almost equal to HL2 in terms of these). Now let me break down HL2's performance in terms of technical features and compare it with the other major games:

3D Rendering:
OK, here John Carmack's baby wins hands down in terms of the sheer power the graphics engine of Doom3 possesses. And the 3d modelling team at id software has also done a great job in creating nice high-polygon (or high normal?) monsters.

Bump-mapping -
Doom3 redefines the term, Halo2 has elementary capabilities, FarCry=Halo2 here and though Valve claims bump-mapping to be an "integral" part of the engine - they haven't used it anywhere (to the best of my eyes' capabilities) in the game itself.

Shadows+Textures -
OK, in the shadows department, Doom3 again wins like hell, Halo2 survives (just!), Farcry performs admirably and HL2 sucks!!! Dear Valve guys - when you average shadows - you don't average their directions as well. The shadows in HL2 point the wrong way!

As far as textures are concerned, all the games fare almost equally with HL2 and Halo2 winning out as they are better at terrain rendering.

Animation+Physics -
All right, here HL2 wins hands down with Doom3 as the runner-up (Doom3 has a reasonably good physics engine - it just isn't used that much). Farcry=Halo2 here too with Halo2 being a tad better. Of course, if vehicle dynamics is concerned, then Halo2 comes out on top.

Vertex/Pixel Shaders -
All the games must take lessons from Papa Carmack! God, he can do it with OpenGL and these guys can't even do it with DX 9.0 Pixel shaders and Vertex shaders. Halo2 is the runner-up here (i think that's because DX is a Microsoft technology). And HL2=Farcry here.

Sound - Halo2 wins - no doubt! Doom3=HL2 here with Farcry bringing up the rear.

Multiplayer - If you do not count CS: Source here, then probably Halo2 wins, but if CS is taken into account - the tried and tested Valve technology wins out (marginally though).

These are the facts. Now gameplay is a matter which varies from person-to-person. Personally, I liked playing HL2 more than any of these games with Halo2 as second, Farcry as third and Doom3 as fourth. The main reason: the Havok physics engine - take it away and HL2 can't hold a candle to Farcry, Halo2 or Doom3. But the fact is, it is there in HL2 and it mkes the game great!

Another thing I'd like to add:
HL2 looks the same on low-resource GPUs and the higher end ones. Doom3 and Farcry improve considerably. Anyone having played Doom3 on a GeForce 6800 (or 6200) can testify to that. Halo2, of course, uses the XGPU from nVidia and is bound to look cool - which it does!

Now after spending a huge amount of my annual income of 2004 on some great games - I have this much to say - none of them gets a 10 in my book - but HL2 and Halo 2 get equal ratings.

OK, now kill me!!

 

[Narcolepsy]

HL2 just won best artistic graphics.

 

[KagePrototype]

The reviewer had an opinion of HL2 that may have differed from your own. If you don't like it, tough. Get used to it. They said it was a faithful sequel, and one of the best action games of the year. A 9.2 score is an excellent score, especially when it's been out through the trials and tribulations of Gamespot's harsh and overly-objective scoring policy. If you can't recognise this, then you need to understand that not everyone will agree with you on something. Stop taking it out on Gamespot; if you must, use a wall. At least it won't try to argue or reason with you.

 

[kenyo]

i don't aggree with gamespot.com on hl2, or anything else.
it don't matter to me tho, i just don't go to sites i don't like!
for exsample: b4 i new bout hl2 i was a member of halomods.com and made mods for my pc halo game, but after i found out bout hl2 i simply vanished from halomods.com and never went there again! (then i read post on this site for aboat a month b4 finaly desiding to join so i can post, search, and view thugmnails)

 

[Ahnteis]

Do we care? I don't need gamespot or any else validating my fun.

BTW, if you don't mind a lot of cussing, you should also give Chronicles of Riddick a shot. Fun game.

 

[PvtRyan]

The reviewer had an opinion of HL2 that may have differed from your own. If you don't like it, tough. Get used to it. They said it was a faithful sequel, and one of the best action games of the year. A 9.2 score is an excellent score, especially when it's been out through the trials and tribulations of Gamespot's harsh and overly-objective scoring policy. If you can't recognise this, then you need to understand that not everyone will agree with you on something. Stop taking it out on Gamespot; if you must, use a wall. At least it won't try to argue or reason with you.

Indeed. There's nothing wrong with a 9.2... if only the review attached to it had made some sense. Gamespot is not consistent. They give one game an extremely high mark for no reason (9.3 for Freedom Fighters, 10 for THPS3) and with the next review they seem to have a completely different review scale. "Seeing through the hype" is something completely different than scoring a game lower because of the hype.

And I would hardly call them objective, when they're trying to sqeeze a "oh yeah, by the way, HL2 has been delayed" in every article about it. Yes Gamespot, we know it, we knew it since september 2003, it's old now, HL2 has been delayed, like every other game out there, get over it. Another, not-so-objective thing is judging a game by your expectations, it's something that would make a less hyped game brilliant and a hyped game disappointing. Expectations are your own creations, when Valve didn't meet yours, fine, couldn't care less, but don't try to put a mark on it and sell it as a fact.

 

[Grand Architect]

Indeed. There's nothing wrong with a 9.2... if only the review attached to it had made some sense. Gamespot is not consistent. They give one game an extremely high mark for no reason (9.3 for Freedom Fighters, 10 for THPS3) and with the next review they seem to have a completely different review scale. "Seeing through the hype" is something completely different than scoring a game lower because of the hype.

And I would hardly call them objective, when they're trying to sqeeze a "oh yeah, by the way, HL2 has been delayed" in every article about it. Yes Gamespot, we know it, we knew it since september 2003, it's old now, HL2 has been delayed, like every other game out there, get over it. Another, not-so-objective thing is judging a game by your expectations, it's something that would make a less hyped game brilliant and a hyped game disappointing. Expectations are your own creations, when Valve didn't meet yours, fine, couldn't care less, but don't try to put a mark on it and sell it as a fact.

Nice post couldn't agree more.

 

[Ennui]

EDIT: Yes, darn it, I'm a fanboy and proud of it!

representin'

 

[Styloid]

Do we all remember the notoriously unimpressed hands-on preview Gamespot gave? Did you honestly think that they were going to change their opinion when the game came out? Gamespot basically decided HL2's fate before the game came out and we all 'knew' that by the way Gamespot was treating HL2 in the news. People do not like changing opinions and Gamespot is just that-- a group of average people like you and me. They develop opinions just like anyone else. This is their opinion on HL2 and they are biased against it just like most of us are biased for it.

I still respect Gamespot, however, because they (and every other reviewer) have always been like this and won't change and this is nothing new; there is no such thing an unbiased reviewer. I still go to Gamespot to look at their reviews to get their impression of games as much as I come to forums to get impressions of games and treat the impressions no differently.

We HL2 fans, though, can rest easy knowing that even though HL2's manipulator wasn't nominated for Best Game Mechanic (and HL2 overall will likely be snubbed), it'll still be the most copied... and when more and more games move away from cutscenes and towards direct character interaction with perfect facial animation, HL2 raised the bar... and when people realize that good game experiences need well paced, varied, natural, interactive, logical, original plots, HL2 raised the bar... and in atmosphere and immersion and the use of tools like colour, architecture, physical objects and interaction, NPC's, direction of paths, transition of settings, etc, HL2 raised the bar.... I'm getting a bit off topic now...

 

[sup2069]

theres always HL3

 

[JCampbell]

Hi,

This is a highly biased opinion

Ok...thanks for clearing that up.

and I know that I'm stepping into very very muddy waters here. But being a 3D graphics programmer myself, I tend to rate the games I play by giving the graphics features quite a high weightage. And that's where HL2 misses out to Halo2, Doom 3 and Far Cry.

Fair enough, although even games with the greatest graphics will suffer greatly if gameplay is down the shitter.

Sure, it has superior and more immersive gameplay than Halo2 and Doom3 (i rate FarCry almost equal to HL2 in terms of these). Now let me break down HL2's performance in terms of technical features and compare it with the other major games:

Sounds good.

3D Rendering:
OK, here John Carmack's baby wins hands down in terms of the sheer power the graphics engine of Doom3 possesses. And the 3d modelling team at id software has also done a great job in creating nice high-polygon (or high normal?) monsters.

I agree...at least from the screenshots. Everything does look slightly plastic though.

Bump-mapping -
Doom3 redefines the term, Halo2 has elementary capabilities, FarCry=Halo2 here and though Valve claims bump-mapping to be an "integral" part of the engine - they haven't used it anywhere (to the best of my eyes' capabilities) in the game itself.

While the bump maps in HL2 may not jump out saying "look at me I'm a bump map," they are there. if your eyes aren't able to see them, then perhaps you need glasses or your computer isn't capable of handling them. (I doubt about the latter though)
e.g.
facial texture bump mapping
rock wall bump mapping (not quite as good as it could be though)
alien skin bump mapping

Shadows+Textures -
OK, in the shadows department, Doom3 again wins like hell, Halo2 survives (just!), Farcry performs admirably and HL2 sucks!!! Dear Valve guys - when you average shadows - you don't average their directions as well. The shadows in HL2 point the wrong way!

As far as textures are concerned, all the games fare almost equally with HL2 and Halo2 winning out as they are better at terrain rendering.

Screenshots from the 'Raising the Bar' book clearly indicate that they can indeed 'average direction.' I'm sure this was done more for performance reasons and engine scalability more than anything else. (no the shots weren't "doctored," as this would bring up the problem of "if we can add directional shadows with photoshop, why not add 124265 polygons as well?")

I haven't played Halo2, so I can't comment on that part.

Animation+Physics -
All right, here HL2 wins hands down with Doom3 as the runner-up (Doom3 has a reasonably good physics engine - it just isn't used that much). Farcry=Halo2 here too with Halo2 being a tad better. Of course, if vehicle dynamics is concerned, then Halo2 comes out on top.

Where is Doom 3's physics engine even existant? Shoot zombies, zombies blow up. Shoot demons, demons blow up.

Vertex/Pixel Shaders -
All the games must take lessons from Papa Carmack! God, he can do it with OpenGL and these guys can't even do it with DX 9.0 Pixel shaders and Vertex shaders. Halo2 is the runner-up here (i think that's because DX is a Microsoft technology). And HL2=Farcry here.

Sound - Halo2 wins - no doubt! Doom3=HL2 here with Farcry bringing up the rear.

Multiplayer - If you do not count CS: Source here, then probably Halo2 wins, but if CS is taken into account - the tried and tested Valve technology wins out (marginally though).

I haven't played Halo2, so I don't know about the sound quality comparison.

These are the facts.

Hey...but wait a second...

This is a highly biased opinion

Hmmmm...how factual is it?

Now gameplay is a matter which varies from person-to-person. Personally, I liked playing HL2 more than any of these games with Halo2 as second, Farcry as third and Doom3 as fourth. The main reason: the Havok physics engine - take it away and HL2 can't hold a candle to Farcry, Halo2 or Doom3. But the fact is, it is there in HL2 and it mkes the game great!

Take the physics away from HL2 and you have more or less HL1 (gameplay-wise). Are you saying that Doom 3, Halo2 AND FarCry have better gameplay than one whom many believe to be the best FPS ever? Are these more of your "facts?"

Another thing I'd like to add:
HL2 looks the same on low-resource GPUs and the higher end ones. Doom3 and Farcry improve considerably. Anyone having played Doom3 on a GeForce 6800 (or 6200) can testify to that. Halo2, of course, uses the XGPU from nVidia and is bound to look cool - which it does!

You're wrong. Talk to anyone on this board and they'll agree there is a significant increase in just about everything that you deem as criteria for judging a game (graphics-wise).

Now after spending a huge amount of my annual income of 2004 on some great games - I have this much to say - none of them gets a 10 in my book - but HL2 and Halo 2 get equal ratings.
OK, now kill me!!

You said:

I tend to rate the games I play by giving the graphics features quite a high weightage

and gave almost all of the graphics awards to Doom3. Now you conclude that HL2 and Halo2 are the winners? Looks like gameplay wins out after all eh...

 

[Zeus]

How did it lose to san andreas to voice acting!?!?!? I'm not even being a fanboy here but OMG how did it lose to a stupid ps2 game in VOICE ACTING one of the high points of the game?!?!

 

[Narcolepsy]

Want to see some bumpmapping?
I had to resize the pic kind of crudely in Paint, but you get the picture.

 

[KagePrototype]

Indeed. There's nothing wrong with a 9.2... if only the review attached to it had made some sense. Gamespot is not consistent. They give one game an extremely high mark for no reason (9.3 for Freedom Fighters, 10 for THPS3) and with the next review they seem to have a completely different review scale. "Seeing through the hype" is something completely different than scoring a game lower because of the hype.

Well, there are reasons for this. For starters, they don't have the same guy reviweing each game; people think differently and have differing opinions on these things. And secondaly, they take so many factors into their scoring policy that it soon becomes overkill, and doesn't seem to make sense sometimes.

And I would hardly call them objective, when they're trying to sqeeze a "oh yeah, by the way, HL2 has been delayed" in every article about it. Yes Gamespot, we know it, we knew it since september 2003, it's old now, HL2 has been delayed, like every other game out there, get over it.

What, a preview and a few news articles? How is this different to any other gaming publication?

Another, not-so-objective thing is judging a game by your expectations, it's something that would make a less hyped game brilliant and a hyped game disappointing. Expectations are your own creations, when Valve didn't meet yours, fine, couldn't care less, but don't try to put a mark on it and sell it as a fact.

I called their scoring policy overly-objective, because they're trying to fit so many things into the final score; they even try to fit in historical context. I find this is why Gamespot seem so erratic with their scoring; there are so many factors taken into account, that it starts to become over-kill. It's best to just read the review and ignore the score; which I might add, was a bloody good one. Other reviewers, while they do acknowledge negative aspects, might not take them into account because they're easily overlooked. Gamespot's policy simply doesn't allow this.

Do we all remember the notoriously unimpressed hands-on preview Gamespot gave? Did you honestly think that they were going to change their opinion when the game came out? Gamespot basically decided HL2's fate before the game came out and we all 'knew' that by the way Gamespot was treating HL2 in the news. People do not like changing opinions and Gamespot is just that-- a group of average people like you and me. They develop opinions just like anyone else. This is their opinion on HL2 and they are biased against it just like most of us are biased for it.

I still respect Gamespot, however, because they (and every other reviewer) have always been like this and won't change and this is nothing new; there is no such thing an unbiased reviewer. I still go to Gamespot to look at their reviews to get their impression of games as much as I come to forums to get impressions of games and treat the impressions no differently.

We HL2 fans, though, can rest easy knowing that even though HL2's manipulator wasn't nominated for Best Game Mechanic (and HL2 overall will likely be snubbed), it'll still be the most copied... and when more and more games move away from cutscenes and towards direct character interaction with perfect facial animation, HL2 raised the bar... and when people realize that good game experiences need well paced, varied, natural, interactive, logical, original plots, HL2 raised the bar... and in atmosphere and immersion and the use of tools like colour, architecture, physical objects and interaction, NPC's, direction of paths, transition of settings, etc, HL2 raised the bar.... I'm getting a bit off topic now...

The reviewer's tilt was a 9. Gamespot had one preview where the writer was doubtful. How were they biased against it?

 

[photon]

OK, I take my words back about bump-mapping, the use in HL2 is subtler.

Shadows - what I mean to say is this, if you have got multiple light sources, you get multiple shadows. But you DO NOT average them up into a single shadow (which I think HL2 does) - that gives the wrong direction. Engine scalability has nothing to do with this- although Engine performance sure does - you have to add a render pass for each shadow. Hell - now we've got shadow buffers in graphics cards - was Valve sleeping?

HL2 doesn't use the cutting-edge stuff provided in DX 9.0 to its fullest. Of course, this is a plus point rather than a negative one. It doesn't act like Doom3 which can gobble up all the GPU power you have and still want more. And HL2 does manage to look more attractive than Doom3. But Halo2 and Farcry do a better job at shaders and textures and Farcry does show PS 2.0 features for higher-end GPUs. Halo2, of course, has PS 2.0 written all over it. HL2 utilizes PS 2.0 minimally.

Reflections (water surfaces in HL2) have been done quite well in HL2 - but then those aren't true reflections (ie per pixel raytracing) - just animated cube-map based environment mapping. Gloss maps, again, have ben done beter in Halo2 (heck, they've been done better in Halo1. Also, has anybody heard of "Project Eden"?)

As far as performance over different GPUs is concerned, I'm absolutely right! Besides offering higher resolution textures and better mipmapping (an automatic result of higher resolution), HL2 doesn't improve!! Doom3 and Farcry undergo a metamorphosis!

The Valve "special effects" feature list:
Environment Mapping, Billboarding, Particle System:
• Cube and environment mapping (see Halo 1 and Halo 2)
• Water with refraction and fresnel effects (new!)
• Advanced particle system that can emit sprites or models (Serious Sam, Halo1 & Halo2)
• 3D skyboxes extend the horizon and add parallax on distant objects (Delta Force, IGI, Farcry)
• Dynamically rendered organics (grass, trees etc) (loads of games)

Nothing in the list is new - games have done it before (Halo 1 does it all except skyboxes and water effects). But credit sure goes to Valve in combining all these features in a single game.

What I intend to say is that in terms of technical features in graphics rendering - Source does nothing new execpt to combine a physics engine with the graphics engine. Technically, Doom3 and Halo2 outshine HL2. I love playing HL2, but to think that everything is perfect with it is going a bit too far - and that is a fact.

And Doom3 DOES have a physics engine - I already stated that it isn't utilized a lot. You can bump into boxes and see that. Also, demons who blow apart do so in a very physics-like manner. Also, if you haven't noticed - a flexion of the arm in Doom3 does distort the "skin/muscles" (whatever) on a demon's torso.

What I read in one of the earlier messages is probably true - had HL2 been released an year earlier, it would have beaten all these other games boh technically and in gameplay as well.

 

[Buckfutter]

How did it lose to san andreas to voice acting!?!?!? I'm not even being a fanboy here but OMG how did it lose to a stupid ps2 game in VOICE ACTING one of the high points of the game?!?!

I think you'll find that you, in fact, are being a fanboy here. Now, the popularity of an actor has only a little to do with their actual talent, but San Andreas had names like James Woods and Samuel L. Jackson behind it. And they did very well. One of the few faults I found with HL2 was that the dialogue (and monologues, if you want to get technical) was often contrived and therefore gave the solid actors little to work with. I'm not saying I even prefer the voice acting in SA to HL2, just that it isn't some kind of "no contest" just because one is on a PS2 and the other on a PC.

 

[MigaS_tX]

Bah, im reading some stupid posts here. For example, HL2 has a much better voice acting than San Andreas! It's a fact, not an opinion.

But the game is excelent, with or without gamespot aprovation.

 

[PvtRyan]

Shadows - what I mean to say is this, if you have got multiple light sources, you get multiple shadows. But you DO NOT average them up into a single shadow (which I think HL2 does) - that gives the wrong direction. Engine scalability has nothing to do with this- although Engine performance sure does - you have to add a render pass for each shadow. Hell - now we've got shadow buffers in graphics cards - was Valve sleeping?

No, Valve did the right thing. This method is very cheap and effective. Shadows aren't used in gameplay in HL2, and would only gobble up valuable resources. They are only really used to aim with physics objects, and generally look nice and soft. When you need to draw a lot of shadows (for all the physics objects) you don't want an expensive system like Doom 3's. Rome: TW also uses this method of shadowing, simply because it has to draw a lot of shadows. Source can do it though, look at Bloodlines, but it's simply not used in HL2.

HL2 doesn't use the cutting-edge stuff provided in DX 9.0 to its fullest. Of course, this is a plus point rather than a negative one. It doesn't act like Doom3 which can gobble up all the GPU power you have and still want more. And HL2 does manage to look more attractive than Doom3. But Halo2 and Farcry do a better job at shaders and textures and Farcry does show PS 2.0 features for higher-end GPUs. Halo2, of course, has PS 2.0 written all over it. HL2 utilizes PS 2.0 minimally.

If there's one game that does use PS2.0, it's HL2. The difference between a DX8.1 (PS1.4) card and a DX9 (PS2.0) is pretty big.
Far Cry only uses PS2.0 for certain lighting aspects, water etc is all DX8. But that may have changed with the 1.3 patch.

Doom 3 doesn't use PS2.0, since it's OpenGL based, not Direct3D for rendering.

I would be very surprised if Halo 2 uses PS2.0, because the Xbox GPU is based on a GF3 Ti200, a DX8 card, which doesn't support PS2.0.

Reflections (water surfaces in HL2) have been done quite well in HL2 - but then those aren't true reflections (ie per pixel raytracing) - just animated cube-map based environment mapping. Gloss maps, again, have ben done beter in Halo2 (heck, they've been done better in Halo1. Also, has anybody heard of "Project Eden"?)

I doubt Halo 2 uses a shader for walls and stuff like HL2's water shader to reflect all. Because it basically renders the scene twice. Not very cost effective when you have to make a shiny semi-reflective metal wall eh? Cubemaps are ideal for this, VERY low cost.

As far as performance over different GPUs is concerned, I'm absolutely right! Besides offering higher resolution textures and better mipmapping (an automatic result of higher resolution), HL2 doesn't improve!! Doom3 and Farcry undergo a metamorphosis!

All Doom 3 does is offer different texture resolutions either, well compression in textures. And there's a huge difference in image quality when I'm playing HL2 on my laptop's Go5700 (DX8.1) and on my 9800 Pro (DX9).

What I intend to say is that in terms of technical features in graphics rendering - Source does nothing new execpt to combine a physics engine with the graphics engine. Technically, Doom3 and Halo2 outshine HL2. I love playing HL2, but to think that everything is perfect with it is going a bit too far - and that is a fact.

What new stuff does Doom 3 and Halo 2 do then? (and no, Doom 3's unified lighting is nothing new). It's not about doing new stuff, it's about doing them right, and Source offers a very complete package.

You're by the way the first person I've ever seen that calls Halo 2 technically superior, but inferior in multiplayer compared to HL2

And Doom3 DOES have a physics engine - I already stated that it isn't utilized a lot. You can bump into boxes and see that. Also, demons who blow apart do so in a very physics-like manner. Also, if you haven't noticed - a flexion of the arm in Doom3 does distort the "skin/muscles" (whatever) on a demon's torso.

Having a physics engine is something different from having a good physics engine. Doom 3's physics were crap and inaccurate.

PS: I'll get back to you later Kage.

 

[Dr0ndeh]

theres one really simple reason that hl2 wont win GOTY:

it simply isnt the best game thats come out in the last year.

 

[CookieCuttah]

No, Valve did the right thing. This method is very cheap and effective. Shadows aren't used in gameplay in HL2, and would only gobble up valuable resources. They are only really used to aim with physics objects, and generally look nice and soft. When you need to draw a lot of shadows (for all the physics objects) you don't want an expensive system like Doom 3's. Rome: TW also uses this method of shadowing, simply because it has to draw a lot of shadows. Source can do it though, look at Bloodlines, but it's simply not used in HL2.



If there's one game that does use PS2.0, it's HL2. The difference between a DX8.1 (PS1.4) card and a DX9 (PS2.0) is pretty big.
Far Cry only uses PS2.0 for certain lighting aspects, water etc is all DX8. But that may have changed with the 1.3 patch.

Doom 3 doesn't use PS2.0, since it's OpenGL based, not Direct3D for rendering.

I would be very surprised if Halo 2 uses PS2.0, because the Xbox GPU is based on a GF3 Ti200, a DX8 card, which doesn't support PS2.0.



I doubt Halo 2 uses a shader for walls and stuff like HL2's water shader to reflect all. Because it basically renders the scene twice. Not very cost effective when you have to make a shiny semi-reflective metal wall eh? Cubemaps are ideal for this, VERY low cost.



All Doom 3 does is offer different texture resolutions either, well compression in textures. And there's a huge difference in image quality when I'm playing HL2 on my laptop's Go5700 (DX8.1) and on my 9800 Pro (DX9).



What new stuff does Doom 3 and Halo 2 do then? (and no, Doom 3's unified lighting is nothing new). It's not about doing new stuff, it's about doing them right, and Source offers a very complete package.

You're by the way the first person I've ever seen that calls Halo 2 technically superior, but inferior in multiplayer compared to HL2



Having a physics engine is something different from having a good physics engine. Doom 3's physics were crap and inaccurate.

PS: I'll get back to you later Kage.

Owned...Just owned...Everything you said was strong with a good backbone of support...Good job, you got him.

 

[Cons Himself]

Get over it guys

Get back to Japan if you want to play 2nd rate console games above a great like Half Life 2. You peopl just don't get it, the PC Market isn't 'dead' - it's the console market that is dead! The Console market has been riding off the back of PC Innovation for years now and it's beginning to show.

Bloody Consoleers at Gamespot!

 

[Cons Himself]

exeunt.

...With trains

 

[Zeus]

I think you'll find that you, in fact, are being a fanboy here. Now, the popularity of an actor has only a little to do with their actual talent, but San Andreas had names like James Woods and Samuel L. Jackson behind it. And they did very well. One of the few faults I found with HL2 was that the dialogue (and monologues, if you want to get technical) was often contrived and therefore gave the solid actors little to work with. I'm not saying I even prefer the voice acting in SA to HL2, just that it isn't some kind of "no contest" just because one is on a PS2 and the other on a PC.

Ok sorry, was thinking that by voice acting they meant the lipsynching.

 

[Cons Himself]

They're mad that HL2 is better than Halo 2 and San Andreas so not giving HL2 the GOTY award that it deserves is their way of saying "Haha, stupid PC games, that'll teach you to be better than console games!!"

Yeh, all those console sites should just rename themselves to www.miyamotoasskissing.com because thats all it contains. Basically every interview with that jap guy starts like this:

"The genius behind such games as 'Zelda' and 'Mario' stands in front of me, the fact he hasn't released anything of note for years and keeps on making platform games doesn't matter to us, because we lick Jap ass!"

I think the real fanboys are the guys who idolize Master Chief to the point they make papier mache figures of him *even though hes such an awfully cliched character!* and go to nintendo conferences to just sniff Nintendo's CEO's ass.

Japanese games are overrated!

 

[Warbie]

Get back to Japan if you want to play 2nd rate console games above a great like Half Life 2. You peopl just don't get it, the PC Market isn't 'dead' - it's the console market that is dead! The Console market has been riding off the back of PC Innovation for years now and it's beginning to show.

Bloody Consoleers at Gamespot!

lol - of course it is

 

[Warbie]

Yeh, all those console sites should just rename themselves to www.miyamotoasskissing.com because thats all it contains. Basically every interview with that jap guy starts like this:

"The genius behind such games as 'Zelda' and 'Mario' stands in front of me, the fact he hasn't released anything of note for years and keeps on making platform games doesn't matter to us, because we lick Jap ass!"

I think the real fanboys are the guys who idolize Master Chief to the point they make papier mache figures of him *even though hes such an awfully cliched character!* and go to nintendo conferences to just sniff Nintendo's CEO's ass.

Japanese games are overrated!

You are so full of it. I'm an avid pc gamer - but also enjoy consoles.

Miyamoto has done so much over the last few years (not to mention for the industry as a whole) Look at his, and Nintendos, output over the last decade (and more) No other developer/publisher can even begin to compare with the sheer amount of quality that's left there doors. They define polish, and Miyamoto a fantastic designer. He has absolutley nothing to prove ..... something I doubt many people would try to argue with.

It seems you have difficulty in distinguishing between what you think is 'fact', and personal taste.

 

[Narcolepsy]

You are so full of it. I'm an avid pc gamer - but also enjoy consoles.

Miyamoto has done so much over the last few years (not to mention for the industry as a whole) Look at his, and Nintendos, output over the last decade (and more) No other developer/publisher can even begin to compare with the sheer amount of quality that's left there doors. They define polish, and Miyamoto a fantastic designer. He has absolutley nothing to prove ..... something I doubt many people would try to argue with.

It seems you have difficulty in distinguishing between what you think is 'fact', and personal taste.

Exactly right. Miyamato didn't just come up with Mario - he came up with the idea of platform games and "levels" with a start and end point. He pioneered games as we know them.

 

[photon]

All right, let me get to the point:

Shadows point in the wrong direction - that's a technical defect. Valve would have been better off by just displaying a single shadow using the z-buffer algo using the main light source as a reference, if they wanted engine performance without a glaringly wrong shadow system.

Dear PvtRyan, I never said that Doom3 used DX - of course, it uses OpenGL (whether it uses GLSL - I don't know). See my earlier post for that. Doom3 with DX?!!! That would be sacrilege!

Also, you need to get this right - cards don't come in with built-in support for PS 1.0 or PS 2.0 (of course a generation supporting the bare minmum has to be there - for nVidia it is GeForce4 Ti)- it is the driver implementation that matters. So forget stuff like having a "DX 8.0 card". The X-box runs on the nVidia XGPU architecture which can support gene mapping if you want it to. And the software support has evolved - the Xbox currently supports DX 9.0b.

Get the latest drivers from nVidia and your Laptop's Go5700 will become a "DX 9.0c card" (really - you ought to pay me for that!).

Cube-map based environment mapping is a faster way to generate reflections - agreed. But place the "cube-mapped" water reflecting the pinkish sky near the dam with the water earlier in the game (somewhere around Route Canal) - and the water would still reflect pink - it doesn't respond to the environment surrounding it dynamically - it is just using pre-computed textures!! To see the desired effect in action watch Serious Sam closely.

And by the way, gloss maps do not depend on the shader architecture - you can see it being used when you see the reflection off the cobblestone streets. But see the walls, the enemies and of course "Master Chief" in Halo2 and you would come to know what gloss-mapping really means. (And yet again, I recall "Project Eden").

And as far as a unified lighting model is concerned - John Carmack is the pioneer - heck, he devised a whole new algo for shadow volumes - search for "Carmack's reverse" - it is not an "original" algo but has never been implemented before.

OK, now the hot-point, HL2 doesn't become better with better hardware - it just looks better - and that's because they've got great texture artists. They've got high resolution textures for everything and that's why the game looks better. And after watching the game closely (after being bashed here in the forums), I saw this - they haven't got higher resolution "normal-maps" or "bump-maps" for the textures. So even if the texture-detail increases, bump-mapping detail DOES NOT increase - a feature which is there in Doom3. And also, although Source supports it - HL2 does not switch over to PS 2.0 from PS 1.0 with better hardware except for a few scenes (Farcry does - and the difference is apparent).

The Source engine is a good overall package but HL2 hasn't utilized it fully. Now if you can't utilize the damn thing in your own game, then that's not a thing to be proud of. Most of HL2 "special effects" are hacks - just using some clever alpha-maps with great textures and some good occlusion culling can give you eye-candy with reasonable performance - but that's no technical improvement over earlier engines. There, now I am speaking against my favorite game of all time!!! Give me a dynamic environment and HL2 fails miserably when compared to Doom3. We are talking about next-generation engines here and Source sure is one among them - but HL2 implements only a few features that can be deemed as "next-generation".

OK, I would also like to emphasize - Source does terrain rendering better than any other engine out there and the stuff they have used is ground-breaking - mesh based LODs (not implemented in games - other people simply replace things with sprites) and better occlusion culling (better and faster than other games).

Also, I have never said that Doom3 has a better physics engine than HL2 - I just clarified that it was not non-existent.

As for the multiplayer stuff, I stated clearly, that HL2 wins only if CS:Source is taken into account, which I think is true. Otherwise, Halo2 is better.

What I mean to say is this - HL2 has loads of great technical features, but it is not the best in any of them except for graphics+physics engine integration and terrain rendering- which I think is the main reason for HL2 being a great game.

 

[SweetLou]

So my opinion is a load of shit, but gamespys' opinion is as good as fact?. Are proffesional reviewers like godsends or something and there opinion should be taken seriously?



-----------------------------

If you don't like my opinion then don't quote me.

...Oh and yeah as a matter of fact, the ammount of copies a game sells does determine how good a game it is. Good games sell loads, bad games....don't!... whether you agree or not.



This is exactly why i can't be arsed even posting in this thread again. You've already made up your mind that HL2 is the best game ever made by saying what i underlined.

Believe it...HL2 isn't the best game this year.

wow you could not be more wrong. go re-read your post and try not to laugh. WoW is selling like it is BECAUSE of Gamespot's review. Believe it or not.

 

[Zeus]

So my opinion is a load of shit, but gamespys' opinion is as good as fact?. Are proffesional reviewers like godsends or something and there opinion should be taken seriously?



-----------------------------

If you don't like my opinion then don't quote me.

...Oh and yeah as a matter of fact, the ammount of copies a game sells does determine how good a game it is. Good games sell loads, bad games....don't!... whether you agree or not.



This is exactly why i can't be arsed even posting in this thread again. You've already made up your mind that HL2 is the best game ever made by saying what i underlined.

Believe it...HL2 isn't the best game this year.

Two words dude, : Driver 3

 

[DarkDude]

Also, you need to get this right - cards don't come in with built-in support for PS 1.0 or PS 2.0 (of course a generation supporting the bare minmum has to be there - for nVidia it is GeForce4 Ti)- it is the driver implementation that matters. So forget stuff like having a "DX 8.0 card". The X-box runs on the nVidia XGPU architecture which can support gene mapping if you want it to. And the software support has evolved - the Xbox currently supports DX 9.0b.

Hmm, just a quick question about this bit. If that is true, then why is it that nVidia's 6800s have PS 3.0 capabilities while ATi's x800s don't? Shouldn't x800s be capable of PS 3.0 usage if what you say is true? In fact, after Googling around a fair bit, I came up with nothing connecting Halo or Halo 2 to PS 2.0. Not saying you're wrong, just wondering about it.

In fact, after more searching around I found this which stated fairly early on that. - "Fallback versions of the pixel shaders are provided in ps1.1 for hardware that doesn't support ps1.4. - Once again, not saying you're wrong, just wondering about this because I seem to be getting conflicting info.

Furthermore, seaching both "Xbox gene mapping" and "nVidia gene mapping" turned up nothing related to graphics or the Xbox.