left 4 dead anyone???

[zmatt]

^ Have you ever played stalker? Or Crysis in DX9? The source engine is from 2004. And they have added things like HDR, but it is still an old engine.

 

[[t..o..m]]

I don't see why people are discrediting the game, just because the graphics engine is out of date and the "zombie thing" has been done before. I have no problems with my decision to spend AUD$100 on this game and would do it again tomorrow, Farcry 2 on the other hand I might question.

Just because it doesn't have graphics compared with stalker, doesn't mean you can't have fun playing it. Look at CSS for gods sake, dated graphics, no story, linear gameplay, yet thousands of people are drawn to it. If your having FUN then price and graphics don't come into the equation.

 

[Wildside]

I don't see why people are discrediting the game, just because the graphics engine is out of date and the "zombie thing" has been done before. I have no problems with my decision to spend AUD$100 on this game and would do it again tomorrow, Farcry 2 on the other hand I might question.

Just because it doesn't have graphics compared with stalker, doesn't mean you can't have fun playing it. Look at CSS for gods sake, dated graphics, no story, linear gameplay, yet thousands of people are drawn to it. If your having FUN then price and graphics don't come into the equation.

durr what he said gameplay > graphics, except if it's on a PC n if the title is ported from consoles lol. Well, at least it looks better then the Xbox 360 version i heard.

n no i have not played Stalker n yes Crysis demo DX9. I have, or hardly seen, a friend of mine play HL2 n ive only seen videos n screenshots of that game.

oh n one note, u shouldnt always compare graphics to different games because those games are made by different developers who have different styles n tastes in how they do their graphics n art design. This makes it not fair to put a lowdown on a game that is doing done great like Left 4 Dead that uses a (soft of?) updated engine used in HL2 back in 2004, which was awarded the best graphics n overall game of that year.

 

[veg1992]

durr what he said gameplay > graphics, except if it's on a PC n if the title is ported from consoles lol. Well, at least it looks better then the Xbox 360 version i heard.

n no i have not played Stalker n yes Crysis demo DX9. I have, or hardly seen, a friend of mine play HL2 n ive only seen videos n screenshots of that game.

oh n one note, u shouldnt always compare graphics to different games because those games are made by different developers who have different styles n tastes in how they do their graphics n art design. This makes it not fair to put a lowdown on a game that is doing done great like Left 4 Dead that uses a (soft of?) updated engine used in HL2 back in 2004, which was awarded the best graphics n overall game of that year.

I didn't mock the games or say its crap, I just said the graphics are ok and its easy to max... and the game is quite fun

 

[zmatt]

HL2 is a 4 year old game. Best graphics in 2004 means noting in 2008 soon to be 2009. HL2 was a great game, however I don't think its fair for Valve to rest on their laurels and to make a game 4-5 years later on practically the same engine and charge a premium.

And yes I cab compare games form different developers. Artistic taste aside, there are many ways you can quantify the graphical intensity of a game. And when we have games running on modern DX10 engines you can no longer call source engine based games "good" graphically speaking.


Furthermore, Tom I don't think you read my post, because I was comparing its graphics to other games, not relating its graphics to gameplay. Knowing Valve it probably has great gameplay. But I still think your getting ripped off.

 

[Gabb]

I'm with zmatt, I don't see any reason to spend $50 on left 4 dead. The graphics are a generation behind and how may different ways can you shoot a zombie before it gets boring.

are you also with Zmatt on judging a game based on screenshots?

^ Have you ever played stalker? Or Crysis in DX9? The source engine is from 2004. And they have added things like HDR, but it is still an old engine.

Stalker had a good open ended world like Farcry but virtually every professional gaming critic commenting on how horribly buggy and poorly programmed the game was. From the sounds of it zmatt, it seems you haven't even played the game. Don't you think its a little unwise to put down a game and say its not worth its price unless you have at least played it? I mean...I think everyone can agree on this...a humorous not so serious metaphor is like saying an amazing book isn't worth 10 bucks because it doesn't have the eye candy to tell a story that a high budget movie can tell and that you can see for 10 bucks...but it still tells a great story. The source engine will always be famous for its ability to last as long as it has and its ability to be run so well on the majority of systems and still provide amazing flexibility.

durr what he said gameplay > graphics, except if it's on a PC n if the title is ported from consoles lol. Well, at least it looks better then the Xbox 360 version i heard

This shouldn't even have to be argued...anyone who thinks otherwise I don't consider a gamer imho

 

[[t..o..m]]

HL2 is a 4 year old game. Best graphics in 2004 means noting in 2008 soon to be 2009. HL2 was a great game, however I don't think its fair for Valve to rest on their laurels and to make a game 4-5 years later on practically the same engine and charge a premium.

And yes I cab compare games form different developers. Artistic taste aside, there are many ways you can quantify the graphical intensity of a game. And when we have games running on modern DX10 engines you can no longer call source engine based games "good" graphically speaking.


Furthermore, Tom I don't think you read my post, because I was comparing its graphics to other games, not relating its graphics to gameplay. Knowing Valve it probably has great gameplay. But I still think your getting ripped off.

I know this is going to go back and forth, and it will lead nowhere, but what the hey. Stating that a game isn't worth buying as it's engine is 4 or so years old is quite stupid. I feel probably the exact opposite as there are many highly graphically enhanced games which lack any gameplay qualities to keep my attention for more than a few hours.
I know you weren't comparing graphics -> gameplay, but you stated that if it doesn't have the latest graphical effects "then you are getting ripped off" which is a ludicrous statement at the least.

Games are a form of entertainment, if you get your entertainment from looking at nice affects of an engine then go right ahead, I for one will choose gameplay over graphics any day of the week, L4D being an example of this.

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

I know this is going to go back and forth, and it will lead nowhere, but what the hey. Stating that a game isn't worth buying as it's engine is 4 or so years old is quite stupid. I feel probably the exact opposite as there are many highly graphically enhanced games which lack any gameplay qualities to keep my attention for more than a few hours.
I know you weren't comparing graphics -> gameplay, but you stated that if it doesn't have the latest graphical effects "then you are getting ripped off" which is a ludicrous statement at the least.

Games are a form of entertainment, if you get your entertainment from looking at nice affects of an engine then go right ahead, I for one will choose gameplay over graphics any day of the week, L4D being an example of this.

it's more than just graphics though, there is a complete lack of content, what you're basically getting is a barebones version of a good multiplayer co-op idea, and they figure you deserve to pay $50 (a full game price) for it.. the fact that it has outdated graphics is really just one of quite a few points as to why this game isn't really the best bang for the buck, it really feels more like a top-end mod, I mean heck, there are some free mods out there that really take advantage of the source engine much better than this game does, look at Dystopia for instance..

I don't know about zmatt, but I feel that this is really a great game, just not worth $50, i wouldn't pay more than $29.99 for it

and whoever made the comparison to Counter-Strike Source, consider that it came bundled with HL2 for free :\

 

[zmatt]

it's more than just graphics though, there is a complete lack of content, what you're basically getting is a barebones version of a good multiplayer co-op idea, and they figure you deserve to pay $50 (a full game price) for it.. the fact that it has outdated graphics is really just one of quite a few points as to why this game isn't really the best bang for the buck, it really feels more like a top-end mod, I mean heck, there are some free mods out there that really take advantage of the source engine much better than this game does, look at Dystopia for instance..

I don't know about zmatt, but I feel that this is really a great game, just not worth $50, i wouldn't pay more than $29.99 for it

and whoever made the comparison to Counter-Strike Source, consider that it came bundled with HL2 for free :\

Thank you, someone actually understands my point. I didn't say it was a bad game, I said your getting ripped off. It uses an old engine and non innovative gameplay. It's not worth $50. For a game to cost that much you have to justify it. I don't think Valve has.

From the sounds of it zmatt, it seems you haven't even played the game.

Actually I own the game. And yes it did have bugs in the beginning. But that is beside the point. My point was that your are paying a premium for a game that doesn't warrant such a price, and I was giving STALKER as an example of a DX9 game that had superior graphics, after a member made the incorrect statement that Left 4 Dead had the best DX9 graphics.

Games become $50 for two main reasons. 1: They use a new and complex engine that took a great deal of money to develop. When HL2 came out this was true, and 2: The dev has put a lot of time and money into trying to make a deep and involving story line. Crytek sent some of its developer's to Africa for some time so they could see what the real Africa was life before they made Far Cry 2.

Valve did neither of those to make Left 4 dead. They used an old engine that has easily paid for itself already, and they didn't put a lot of money into making a very immersible experience. Not to say its a bad game, but it is over priced and over rated.

Its a B title. And Knowing the way Valve makes games they probably wont make A titles until HL3 and its new engine are released, whenever that is. Then we will see another counter strike and a slew of other games based off that engine. And it too will reach the end of its life after 4 years or so.

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

^Probably just an innocent mistake, but Far Cry 2 was developed by Ubisoft, not Crytek

anyway, I never feel comfortable being in the position where I have to say why I'm disappointed in a game, because sometimes it might come off as sounding like I'm trying to convince other people why they shouldn't like the game.. so if most of you enjoy it and feel that it's worth the $50, then I guess I'll stuff it, I've made my opinion clear enough as it is, for whatever reasons, I just wasn't impressed, lol

but for those of you who haven't gotten the chance to try out the demo, I'll say that it's not really a clear-cut winner, most people enjoy it, there are quite a few people disappointed with the lack of content, but for a majority of even those people, they are still impressed with the game overall, I don't think there are too many people that are overly disappointed, just read into it more before you decide to plunk down $50, unless 50 bones doesn't mean much to you of course :\