zmatt
The Bulldog
- Messages
- 4,660
- Location
- In an empty Ramen packet
^ 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.
I don't see why people are discrediting the game, just because the graphics engine is out of date and the "zombie thing" has been done before.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.
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.
^ 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.
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
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.
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 :\
From the sounds of it zmatt, it seems you haven't even played the game.