Poll: Was half life 2 episode 2 behind the times?
- Thread starter tino1498
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have no issues with the Source Engine; it's aged very well and can still produce contemporary visuals. My issues with Ep. 2 were with the mission design, not the engine, and those are mainly issues of personal preference (bleh, grub cave and friggin' magnussens) than anything I'd declare to be inherent to the game itself.
-- Steve
-- Steve
QFT. Magnussens felt like a random mini-game inside an otherwise well told story. I'm also getting tired of the mandatory underground/tunnel sections each half-life game has with cramped spaces a lots of melee fighting opponents (zombies, ant-lions, etc). I just don't find fighting masses of mindless things that entertaining after the 10th one. I'd rather take on combine soldiers any day (for that matter, I hate the Flood... least entertaining sections of any Halo game, but then again I don't consider Halo that great anyway.)Anton P. Nym said:
Given that my computer has a poor graphics card, I can't judge the graphics very well.
I don't think that Episode 2 was behind the times, really. Yes, they are using an older engine, but the Source engine is still a great engine. And I personally enjoyed Episode Two more than the previous episodes.
I don't think that Episode 2 was behind the times, really. Yes, they are using an older engine, but the Source engine is still a great engine. And I personally enjoyed Episode Two more than the previous episodes.
Well said. The new cinematic physics they added, along with a slew of new shaders that no other company has made yet and they're unmatched animation more than stands up to any current engine. Says a lot for an engine that's at least 4 years old. Source is one of those few game engines that's as much a work of art as it is a programming feat.R.Nevermore said:
HL2 gameplay is already incredibly boring. It took me a few months to stomach through the EP:1 game since it was the same stuff that I've grown tired of in HL2. EP:2 is the same thing.Piorn said:
It's getting old. They need some new mechanics, some puzzles that don't revolve around stacking some bricks on a platform to have the other side raise so it can support your weight... you know, some variety.
Or maybe some areas that don't have you doing the same thing 1,000 times in a row to get on to the next area (start of EP:1 for example).
It's really interesting to see that most people respond in regards to graphics. Nvidia marketeers must be smiling.
Why should a game's up-to-dateness be based upon eye candy? Why aren't gameplay innovation and experimentation, stroytelling, input set up etc. as, if not more, important?
It's no surprise Portal got the attention it recieved. It might not have looked extra-purty, but it did something pretty novel.
In all honesty, portal, at heart, was a bog-standard puzzle game. Apart from some of the mechanics and setting, it did little to push the boundaries of the puzzle genre, and kept to the puzzle genre cliches and frameworks.
In a world where graphical fidelity over-rides gameplay, stories and so forth, all we end up with is Quake with more colours and polygons. To be facecious, but with some conviction - Crysis was little more than Quake 2-with-bells-on.
Anyway, rant over.
Half Life 2, and the espisodes, were not ground breaking.
There is nothing wrong, however, with doing something traditional again, but doing it well. HL2 took the traditional FPS of story (in case a pretty damned good one) interspersed with corridors and baddies and did it exceptionally well. It stands shoulders above the others.
In that case, no, it's not behind the times.
Why should a game's up-to-dateness be based upon eye candy? Why aren't gameplay innovation and experimentation, stroytelling, input set up etc. as, if not more, important?
It's no surprise Portal got the attention it recieved. It might not have looked extra-purty, but it did something pretty novel.
In all honesty, portal, at heart, was a bog-standard puzzle game. Apart from some of the mechanics and setting, it did little to push the boundaries of the puzzle genre, and kept to the puzzle genre cliches and frameworks.
In a world where graphical fidelity over-rides gameplay, stories and so forth, all we end up with is Quake with more colours and polygons. To be facecious, but with some conviction - Crysis was little more than Quake 2-with-bells-on.
Anyway, rant over.
Half Life 2, and the espisodes, were not ground breaking.
There is nothing wrong, however, with doing something traditional again, but doing it well. HL2 took the traditional FPS of story (in case a pretty damned good one) interspersed with corridors and baddies and did it exceptionally well. It stands shoulders above the others.
In that case, no, it's not behind the times.
Regardless of if it was new or not, It was still fun and enjoyable, and that's all that matters in my opinion.
Gameplay was, of course, awesome. You can only really judge out of date-ness based on the visuals. I think that Visual wise, it is comparable to most other games, still has probably the best physics engine and facial features out there, but a few details are starting to lose top slot to other games.
Then again, it took the engine what, 5 years in the world of computer technology to be challenged? I remember looking at my first HL2 videos, and thinking it went beyond next gen, and into the nebulous realm of "The Future". I think overall, it still stands up to the competition, it just doesn't tower over them menacingly like it did in 2004.
Then again, it took the engine what, 5 years in the world of computer technology to be challenged? I remember looking at my first HL2 videos, and thinking it went beyond next gen, and into the nebulous realm of "The Future". I think overall, it still stands up to the competition, it just doesn't tower over them menacingly like it did in 2004.
Now most people know me as "That one guy who gave crap to Half-Life2/Ep.1/Ep.2 for "linearity".
But I'm gonna go ahead and say, no. It wasn't. The graphics, while not Crysis or Call of Duty 4 good, still keep up with our times. The in game effects (Larval essence anyone?) were rendered using a brand new technique that made them basically randomly. And it has some of the first non-cutscene cinema-style effects (At the beggining, for example, the bridge with the train collapsing). You just listen to the developer commentary to get this.
But I'm gonna go ahead and say, no. It wasn't. The graphics, while not Crysis or Call of Duty 4 good, still keep up with our times. The in game effects (Larval essence anyone?) were rendered using a brand new technique that made them basically randomly. And it has some of the first non-cutscene cinema-style effects (At the beggining, for example, the bridge with the train collapsing). You just listen to the developer commentary to get this.
For which I must agree. The Dynamic flashlight shadow-casting is something many deveolpers envy to this day. I also an impressed by the High-Dynamic range lighting and volumetrics. Those were cool. But what knocked my socks off were those Cinematic Physics, like the train bridge, or the Advisor Barn roof.Iron_will post=9.58669.440739 said: