bah guys. Dont expect much innovation in the mainstream games. Look to weird Jap imports for console innovation (misquito simulator, construction vehicle fighters, more craziness here), and small PC games or mods for PC's innovation (NS for one, Im sure some of you can rattle off more here)
Baldur's Gate Ultima Online The Sims Black & White Roller Coaster Tycoon TES3:Morrowind(innovative in the open-ended ness) Allegiance Max Payne<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where's deus ex, NS and CS(it is NOT original NOW, but it was as far as I know)? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> sorry about double post, i dont know how to combine quotes from two different peoples posts....
yes i agree those are some of the more innovative release's i play, although we both shall get flamed for say its not innovative....but they dont understand
If Halo was innovative, Nox was. Pretty fun to play, too. You moved your mouse away from the character, who is in the center of the screen, and hold W to move in the direction of the mouse marker. Then, you have spells, or special abilities in the case of the barbarian, as the ASDFG keys. You could also make traps by combining spells(or just using 1 spell) as a wizard, or summon creatures as a conjurer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have almost exactly the same amount of control over your character in PSO as you do in Diablo. Ever played the PC version of PSO? The controls are almost exactly the same as Diablo's, and it still works, because they use a very similar method of moving your character. In the playstation version of Diablo you were in direct control of you character, but it was almost exactly the same as using a cursor or, you guessed it, PSO. Oh, and you can dodge projectiles in Diablo, it's just harder because the projectiles are faster and more numerous. Face it, PSO is Diablo in 3D Sci Fi clothing.
I'm comparing a point and click adventure to a move your joystick and click adventure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate quoting but your post is miles back so I need it here for quick reference while i type ^^;
Anways, the Diablo on PSX is interesting, I never knew =o With that in mind I can see where your train of thought is but look closely.
In diablo melee attacks can't be dodged 'around' as long as you're within a certain range you'll get hit and that's that, compare this to PSO with it's proper collision detections and in the case of this FOnewearl player you could pull off some particularly interesting 'skin of your teeth' manouvers; the classic being setting off a hildebear's attack and running under the swipe to smack it in the back while it's vulnerable. There's no such timing as this in diablo, and this extends further to PSO's 3-attack-sequence system. Diablo is more focussed on strategic use of your special abilities while your auto-attack (which PSO doesn't have notedly) fills in the gaps. At it's highest PSO is more about manouvering and timing especially as unlike D/DII where the 'when' of hitting your buttons isn't really so important.
Add to this difference the enemies you combat. Diablo has roughly 3 types of enemy; the 'run towards you and engage in melee' type, the ranged type (includes magic casters) and 'mixed' which is basically the bosses who would melee you and blat you with ranged stuff at the same time. Compare this with PSO's more diverse challenges; Rappies while a 'move and melee' enemy at heart play dead when you kill them and won't drop an item unless you hit them when they run away again so you find yourself fighting off the next wave of monsters while trying to keep an eye on the rappies. Delsabers are incredibly evil concotions with their long range leap attack (which would be entirely unfair on diablo as they'd attack from offscreen thanks to diablo's fixed top-down isometric camera) plus if you're not a magic user you actually have to either attack while they're doing their combo (timing once again being important; you can't just whack them when you feel like it) or you have to strike them from the rear/unshielded side. We also have dark gunners where you have to strike the leader when the group charges their attacks or face a massive barrage of lasers... the list goes on, even including such subtle changes like the evil sharks not flinching from anything beyond the first part of a 3 hit combo meaning they can cancel the 3rd hit by smacking you in the face =P Diablo doesn't have these things. It's combat is more about mass numbers, clever choice of skills (timing is almost irrelavant) and mashing the heal-potion button ^^
Bosses further push this example with the Phantasy Star Online bosses being primarily about learning to dodge their pattern attacks until the opening hits then using your time wisely; a good player can take down a boss without receiving a single hit (aside from dark falz who has rather cheap 'auto-hit' magic attacks that rain from the sky ontop of the usual 'omg dodge' figthing ^^; ). Meanwhile diablo's boss combat has very little in the way of manouvering or timing once again; it's often a case of wiping out the minions first then going toe-to-toe, using the right attacks while thrashing the potion button like it was going out of fashion ^^; Ok, so if you want you can step back for a bit and dodge a few of the ranged attacks like andariel's spit or diablo's pillars of flame, but because in the PC game you rely on pathfinding it's rarely worth the effort and especially the time; for every moment you spent in diablo not hitting the boss is time ill spent, while in PSO it's almost a necessity unless your force is fast with the healing (the 10 item stack limit also helps encourage teamwork healing to a degree).
Let's also look at character development in the two games as well; in Diablo when you 'ping' you get stats you allocate and buy skills with (depends if we're talking D or DII here but the attribute buying thing is a constant at least). Meanwhile in PSO your stats automatically go up. While this might seem like it lacks customisation forcing you into a template styled character sega rather cleverly included 'mags' which you could feed to change your stats however you saw fit up until you hit the stat caps (which I think are a huge mistake in PSO but whatever). The fact that your stats were influenced by the mag also made it impossible to make a 'broken' character as if you found yourself with a stat layout that didn't work you could just raise a new mag while in diablo you were unfortunately stuck with what you'd become =/
If we really want to see why PSO is innovative or more importantly unique from diablo (in my eyes at least) then the thing you should truely examine is the communications system. Diablo heralds it's multiplayer communications from the IRC-influenced interface and useage used in most modern MMORPGs. While it does the job it's clunky and when you look to PSO you realise how much it advances everything. First off you have guild cards... this idea is so amazingly simple it still makes me wonder why nobody uses it in other MORPGs. In PSO while you can chat normally without restriction, you need someone to give you their guild card to access more advanced features towards the user itself. If someone gives you their card (and therefore their permission) you can find out if they're online, where they are and send them 'simple mail' (rather like email or better thought out MMORPG whispers; an idea that the Star Wars MMO has picked up on). This means you couldn't really harass someone or give them unwanted private messages unless they'd given you their card. The card couldn't be given away to other people either so you always had to meet them 'in the flesh' to get their card ^^ Putting this wonderful idea aside you also have the chat itself; you could created your own custom emote pictures and use them whenever you felt like, something that I've never personally seen before or since in multiplayer gaming o.O Then there's the fact that speech itself comes in coloured bubbles. While this might just rub off as 'cute' or whatever it's actually amazingly practical; the fact the name is tagged to the bubble plus each speaker is assigned their own colour in conversation makes keeping up with a rather hectic lobby considerably easier and simple than the usual 'IRC window' logs in other games... the bubbles also allow you to find the speaker considerably easier too. While some MORPGs have allowed speech to appear above the talker it simply isn't as functional or efficient as the bubble system when it comes to easy communication and screenspace usage =/
I could go on even further but I hope I've proved my point already and the topic is already derailed to heck and back ^^;
If that's not enough for you though pulse feel free to start up a new thread about it and I'll jump in so we CAN FIGHT TO THE DEAAATH XD ~ahem~ lol
anyways, about the actual topic... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
While ven's rant about 'omg graphics' appeals they can have an effect on the game as doomy mentioned. This isn't so important if they're <u>consistant</u> across clients like pandora tomorrow, but thanks to scaling making a stealth game with heavy involvement of shadows or anything else that uses the graphic environment to enhance or alter gameplay suffers or even fails outright thanks to the variation brought about by scaling =/ The predator's cloaking effect is a very potent example of a game mechanic being victimised by scaling. on some graphic options the predator simply alphas out like with NS sensory chambers while on others it causes the rather nifty rippling effect... this lead to unusual situations in combat where some people could easily see the pred while others couldn't make it out at all and visa versa.
If they're serious about scaling then they need to at least limit it so that the results are entirely consistant with regards to anything that may effect gameplay such as shadows, rendering effects and the like. Ok so they can cut polys but changing even draw distances changes the game and unbalances it between users.
It'd just be better if they set a bar and let anyone who wants to play upgrade to it than pander to people behind in technology just to up games because ultimately it's the games that suffer from it =/
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Apr 20 2004, 12:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Apr 20 2004, 12:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, that explanation is pretty much the same story as Quake 2. Which had no <i>story</i> beyond leading hints on 'where do I go next'. Which is, in essence, EXACTLY what HALO does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Name one that isn't like that. In any FPS (yes, even in Half-Life) the story essentially amounts to "what now?" That's just how games work. You're going through what the character would do if this were a movie, only with more shooting and pushing crap and jumping on top of things.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But with less-inspired level design that makes me want to tear out my eyes.. or better yet, the developers' eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Y'know, it'd be one thing if people just didn't like HALO. But I'm just sick and tired of people complaining about the entire damn game, just because of the area outside the Library. Of COURSE it's repetitive. You're going through the <i>very same physical area</i> in reverse. If it <i>wasn't</i> repetitive, people would say it was stupidly inconsistent. The other buildings may not have had much flashy architecture either, but for me, that increases the immersion, because with real buildings "flashy architecture" is code for "unstable, non-usefu, labyrinthine art piece of a building."<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The story was not integrated... or more correctly, it did not have as strong a reason for the suspension of disbelief.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm sorry, but I don't see how Half-Life's story was any more integrated. The only real difference between standing around listening to character dialogue in HALO and doing the same thing in Half-Life is that Half-Life never pushes you to a third-person perspective. If THAT'S the big deal, moles will raze entire cities under your leadership. Besides that, HALO's story is <i>more</i> integrated, if anything, because some of the important things don't make you wait around for things to happen, but rather hinge on what you're actually doing.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Half-Life, you started out as a normal guy, and went through being late for work. You can relate to that. Halo, you wake up in a cryogenic chamber, the 'sekrat weapon' of a military force. It's a little hard to eliminate that distance, mentally. Sure, you might get a great ego-boost getting to run around and play as that... but in RPG circles, that falls under 'powergamery'. And usually will get you pegged in the head with a d100.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Gordon Freeman a normal guy? Please. He's a theoretical physicist, recruited by a huge (perhaps government-funded) lab. You and I both know that for the sort of geeks what play computer games, Gordon is <i>more</i> of a lame powergamer character, because he can blow stuff up AND turn out a Grand Unified Theorem. The Chief, on the other hand, is more of a traditional hero: a career soldier born for the business. That lends, IMO, to more of an epic-feeling storyline, which is just what Bungie is trying to go for.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As an owner of both the standard shareware ROTT that everyone played, and the full ROTT:Dark War game, I'd have to say you're sadly mistaken. Sure, most weapons were point-and-shoot... but knowing which weapon to take along in a given situation was paramount. You wouldn't want to have a Flamewall, for example, if you were going through the toxic factory; similarly, a Bounceshot would do you very little good in the Docks level, whereas it'd be invaluable in the next.. the Warehouse had tight, twisty corridors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, honestly, I wouldn't know. I never played the full version, though I really, really wanted to. The whole idea of the Excalibat made me salivate, even though I'd never even seen it.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as far as I know, with HALO there are only two weapons people honestly have to 'decide' between... the sniper rifle, or the pistol in their second slot. The primary is more of a 'whatever does most damage'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not so. It really does depend on the situation. When you're fighting lots of Covies, you want to snag their weapons ASAP, so you'll always have a source of ammo. Long range combat (when you don't have the rifle or pistol availabe, both depressingly common occurences) often demands a needler unless you know you can close fast without being detected. If you know there's going to be a big cluster of enemies coming up, or any vehicles, rockets are called for so you don't have to get in grenade range, which can often be dangerous. Fighting the Flood always needs human weapons: use a shotgun on the soldiers and sack-things, and the assault rifle on the headcrab-clones. Finally, anytime you're able to prepare for something, that gives you the time to use some other weapon lying around that you normally wouldn't want to carry, just because you know it's going to fit the upcoming situation.
This isn't the way everybody plays obviously, but it works for me, which is just my point. HALO is a game which allows for much flexible strategy, based your individual playing style.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In short. I back HL2 because it will have an actual STORY that you are actively following, rather than using as an excuse to find another place to blast crap; as it appears Doom3 and Halo2 will. You'll have enemies who just happened to be there.. one or two Houndeyes who were napping. A headcrab hiding under a chair. An electro-alien rifling through a filing cabinet. You won't just constantly be opening door and having WAVES of enemies start pouring through, Serious Sam-style.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->That actually sounds like how most of the enemies were about midway through the game in HALO. When you're running that assault on the Truth and Reconciliation, all the aliens are just kinda hangin' out, guarding their base. They're walking around talking amongst themselves, and in the case of the Grunts, sleeping. (Awwww. So kawaii!)<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It will have the level of realism where you are NOT the central focus at all times. All the enemies in HALO and (insert every Id game made) feel like they're sitting there, waiting for you. You are their only reason for existing. Not so, with Half-Life... they're just doing their own thing. Which is one reason I'm looking forward to STALKER, as well. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's a world... not a rail-shooting gallery. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can understand the feeling that they're there for you, but the way I see it, how could it be any other way? You're fighting a war, one side is invading the other. In any given room, if members of the opposition are there, they're basically waiting to kill any enemy that walks through, by definition. You just happen to be that enemy because... well, you're watching through your character's eyes. That's how it works. It's the same as when the Sarge's crew was investigating that base in the swamp where you meet 343 Guilty Spark. Yeah, the Flood was in there, waiting to eat whatever came and opened their box. That just happened to be the Covies that broke in, and the marines that followed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Apr 20 2004, 01:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Apr 20 2004, 01:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>[bah, making me scroll through all the stuff..]</b>
anyways, about the actual topic... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
While ven's rant about 'omg graphics' appeals they can have an effect on the game as doomy mentioned. This isn't so important if they're <u>consistant</u> across clients like pandora tomorrow, but thanks to scaling making a stealth game with heavy involvement of shadows or anything else that uses the graphic environment to enhance or alter gameplay suffers or even fails outright thanks to the variation brought about by scaling =/ The predator's cloaking effect is a very potent example of a game mechanic being victimised by scaling. on some graphic options the predator simply alphas out like with NS sensory chambers while on others it causes the rather nifty rippling effect... this lead to unusual situations in combat where some people could easily see the pred while others couldn't make it out at all and visa versa.
If they're serious about scaling then they need to at least limit it so that the results are entirely consistant with regards to anything that may effect gameplay such as shadows, rendering effects and the like. Ok so they can cut polys but changing even draw distances changes the game and unbalances it between users.
It'd just be better if they set a bar and let anyone who wants to play upgrade to it than pander to people behind in technology just to up games because ultimately it's the games that suffer from it =/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, much how it is now, I think the game should cater to those who have higher end systems (or more middle end). As with my above example with the CS grenades: I can see equally good with sprite and particle grenades, the major problem is performance.
If someone joins a modern game with a low end machine they have to expect lower performance than the other people. If I played on this computer, and my friend on the one at home, and our skills were equal, I'd almost definately beat him. That computer has slowdown at varying parts in levels (like walking out into the big courtyard in caen in dod, or viaduct with lots of chambers in ns...forget the level, or outside in cs_assault).
It's just something you have to get used to if you have a low end machine. However, the gameplay of single player is unchanged ('cept mine looks better than the onld computer, of course). That's how it should be.
The worst cases of being able to cheat in multiplayer - graphically - arise from the ability to turn foliage or transparent objects and stuff off, but it works both ways. Sometimes you turn something off that can help you, or will screw you up.
Say in example, that one low end machine has his graphics set to color the entire model based on the percentage lighting talked about on the 1st/2nd page; and then take someone who has vertex shaded or pixel shaded lighting.
The full model shading would have an advantage of seeing people sometimes, and not seeing them sometimes. He might get an advantage, because in a dark corridor the model is lit up brightly, but then in the next, he misses someone because he's 75% in the dark and 25% in the light (where someone with pixel shaded light would see the 25% and be able to shoot the guy). Of course, I think everyone playing HL2 would have to run the same kind of lighting, it'd be more size/density of particles
One person would get small, beautifully rendered stuff, while the other would get blocky, poorly rendered, large® particles, but both would block the same amount of the screen (as with smoke), or blind the playerthe same (fire effects and stuff). Then again, they could just add simpler filters over the screen (although, for flashbangs and stuff, I'm pretty sure a 500mhz computer could do it, so why not a 1.2 ghz or something). Maybe my old computer just runs really good for a Pentium 3...
<!--QuoteBegin-version91x+Apr 20 2004, 10:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (version91x @ Apr 20 2004, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> dont bring up halo vs halflife again, the people voted, hl won, stop trying. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You forget that the Title Fights were hilariously rigged. I'm not saying HALO would win or anything, as there are too many people who would just hate it on principle as a console game, or who only played the PC version, and therefore got the shaft. But it wouldn't be as steep.
And nobody is (at least I'm not) trying to say that HALO is better. My point is that it is A) innovative B) strategic and C) story-oriented. I think that these are three of the things that make it able to compete with Half-Life, and why I think saying that HALO 2 won't factor in the upcoming release jamboree is patently false.
a more direct comparison that's rather grevious and close to home than the pred cloak in AvP2 then is a rather bad problem with software mode...
In counterstrike there was a particularly bad glitch with software mode; you couldn't see in the dark... at all. Software users had to use nightvision goggles to stand a chance in the tunnel under militia but then there was the bug; clipping walls. In certain maps if you got far away enough whole segments of wall would clip out of existance, the worst case being mansion where you could just step back and see every single terrorist in the house through the now invisible wall.
Ok so there's tradeoffs there but I think what basically amounts to a legal wallhack is a little different from what minor stuff you might have had in mind gecko =s
<!--QuoteBegin-007Bistromath+Apr 20 2004, 07:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (007Bistromath @ Apr 20 2004, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-version91x+Apr 20 2004, 10:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (version91x @ Apr 20 2004, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> dont bring up halo vs halflife again, the people voted, hl won, stop trying. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You forget that the Title Fights were hilariously rigged. I'm not saying HALO would win or anything, as there are too many people who would just hate it on principle as a console game, or who only played the PC version, and therefore got the shaft. But it wouldn't be as steep.
And nobody is (at least I'm not) trying to say that HALO is better. My point is that it is A) innovative B) strategic and C) story-oriented. I think that these are three of the things that make it able to compete with Half-Life, and why I think saying that HALO 2 won't factor in the upcoming release jamboree is patently false. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Innovative? It had a choice of two weapons. Everything else had been done before.
Strategic? You run around shooting things. Nope.
Story-oriented? Most games, except things like Tetris, are.
I can get stuff like that in D3D (without the seeing people, but I can see the rest of the level sometimes). Usually it's in Half-Life. I think that's more of a programming and model/brush interaction. The same way you can sometimes shoot people through walls because part of the model shows through.
It's much less common now, in up to date games, no matter what you're playing at (I might have done it in Unreal Tournament once or twice, but that's a completely different level editor.
Besides, if problems like that have been fixed (not sure about the specific areas you're talking about, and if they were fixed or not) then if the problem presents itself in HL2 they should be able to fix it (but it honestly sounds more like a mapping issue than a programming/scaling issue).
Then again, in almost every game, you can hold yourself between the plane of water and air and see the ground below the water with clarity (I've done this in Morrowind, Half-life (used to, don't know if I can anymore), EverQuest, Unreal Torunament and probably some others).
You can't really expect the game to be perfectly equal (like the Pred cloak, which still doesn't look quite like the movies to me, even in AvP2) on every machine. Then it would be a console, where games are decided based on how you play and put your settings and not what you can afford <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
(then again, with the whole night-vision thing in CS, people just turn up their gamma before spending the money on NVGs)
HALO an Half-life were both inventive in their own way, no toher game combined the things they had in them before like they did. I'm a halflife guy, but can you really say that the marines in Halo didnt have at least descent AI and can you really say that they were not a hell of alot of fun? True, Barney was in half life, and i loved him, but he wasnt very bright(but still one of my favorite characters). Half-life is also older than Halo and thats a good reason why Halo looks more inventive as of now, because we saw everything in Half-Life at least 5 times already because of copy cat single player mods and other games. But really you cant beat running over covenant with a warthog, no game has ever really let you side swipe midgets like Halo did.
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Apr 20 2004, 01:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Apr 20 2004, 01:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> a more direct comparison that's rather grevious and close to home than the pred cloak in AvP2 then is a rather bad problem with software mode...
In counterstrike there was a particularly bad glitch with software mode; you couldn't see in the dark... at all. Software users had to use nightvision goggles to stand a chance in the tunnel under militia but then there was the bug; clipping walls. In certain maps if you got far away enough whole segments of wall would clip out of existance, the worst case being mansion where you could just step back and see every single terrorist in the house through the now invisible wall.
Ok so there's tradeoffs there but I think what basically amounts to a legal wallhack is a little different from what minor stuff you might have had in mind gecko =s <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i never had that cs bug.. and i used to run in software all the time
~shrugs~ used to see it all the time on the computers in our university where one lot of people always played with software because it did weird stuff like that =/ Mind you that was from like beta 3 to heck knows when ^^
<!--QuoteBegin-Jimmeh+Apr 20 2004, 03:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jimmeh @ Apr 20 2004, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Innovative? It had a choice of two weapons. Everything else had been done before.
Strategic? You run around shooting things. Nope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Congratulations on completely failing to read my posts. Or, if you did, and you're still spouting this despite that, congratulations on saying junk with a complete lack of justification or support.
All I have to say about the Halo innovation thing is: name one <i>good</i> PC game that had all those things first. And I still won't believe you.
Yea, consoles are a lot more attractive to me lately, because the games are guaranteed to work, and you don't have to pay enough to buy an ATV...
Right now I'm playing: Metroid Prime Metroid Fusion Halo (PC & Xbox)
Why the hell does everyone think Half-Life had a good story? Aliens teleport in, and an invincible guy in a blue suit follows you around? Yea, a lot of substance there. Unless you are counting the crap the forums people spout to "expand" the story. Halo doesn't need that to have a friggin' epic story, and I didn't have to read the books either. Bungie left enough clues for an imaginative person like myself to make some conclusions based on HARD EVIDENCE. Or maybe everyone likes the Half-Life story because it was one of the first first-person perspective (NOT _THE_ FIRST) game to have a story? Doesn't count for much.
<!--QuoteBegin-007Bistromath+Apr 20 2004, 08:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (007Bistromath @ Apr 20 2004, 08:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jimmeh+Apr 20 2004, 03:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jimmeh @ Apr 20 2004, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Innovative? It had a choice of two weapons. Everything else had been done before.
Strategic? You run around shooting things. Nope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Congratulations on completely failing to read my posts. Or, if you did, and you're still spouting this despite that, congratulations on saying junk with a complete lack of justification or support. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh don't worry i did read them but dropping guns depending on the situation is the same as switching guns depending on your enemy. However, its not hard to complete game with just pistol/machine gun thingy.
Halo's story had a sudden plot twist which you almost knew was going to happen, it ruined the story and the gameplay/levels after that.
It's hard towards the end to avoid fights due to the repetitive coridor after coridor after coridor that all look exactly the same.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jimmeh+Apr 20 2004, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jimmeh @ Apr 20 2004, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh don't worry i did read them but dropping guns depending on the situation is the same as switching guns depending on your enemy. However, its not hard to complete game with just pistol/machine gun thingy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, it is for me, anyway. You don't get much ammo for those, IME.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Halo's story had a sudden plot twist which you almost knew was going to happen, it ruined the story and the gameplay/levels after that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->...
I respectfully disagree.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's hard towards the end to avoid fights due to the repetitive coridor after coridor after coridor that all look exactly the same.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->That would be because it's towards the end. That's supposed to be a huge, bloody onslaught because you're at the end of the game. Since there was no actual boss fight, (thank god there wasn't, that would've made it stupid) they had to do something to ratchet up the difficulty and the stakes at the end, so they railroaded the habitual sneakers into combat.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Co-op is only on XBox version afaik. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That doesn't make HALO bad. That makes ports bad, which they pretty much traditionally are.
Bistromath, just give up. Some people have it in their heads that halo sucks, and no matter how much any of us who actually liked it have to say, their mind is made up. It'll just end in a flamewar.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+Apr 20 2004, 02:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Apr 20 2004, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All I have to say about the Halo innovation thing is: name one <i>good</i> PC game that had all those things first. And I still won't believe you.
Yea, consoles are a lot more attractive to me lately, because the games are guaranteed to work, and you don't have to pay enough to buy an ATV...
Right now I'm playing: Metroid Prime Metroid Fusion Halo (PC & Xbox)
Why the hell does everyone think Half-Life had a good story? Aliens teleport in, and an invincible guy in a blue suit follows you around? Yea, a lot of substance there. Unless you are counting the crap the forums people spout to "expand" the story. Halo doesn't need that to have a friggin' epic story, and I didn't have to read the books either. Bungie left enough clues for an imaginative person like myself to make some conclusions based on HARD EVIDENCE. Or maybe everyone likes the Half-Life story because it was one of the first first-person perspective (NOT _THE_ FIRST) game to have a story? Doesn't count for much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow...you never got far in Half-Life.
Aliens warp in because you personally screwed up in a experiment. Not only that, but once you've called for the Military's help in getting the situation under control, they don't just get rid of the aliens- they get the scientists-YOU- too, to cover up the disaster in full, to make sure a veil of secrecy is kept. Then, after trying to get the situation under control, after even the best of the best come after you, you have to go to THEIR HOMEWORLD to get rid of the thing on their turf.
I'm sorry, its story was better, and more realistic, than most FPS' today. Halo had a good story, I'll give it that, but I'm a big time conspiracy fan(though, Halo's DOES have a conspiracy, but you have to read the books to know that).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Innovative? It had a choice of two weapons. Everything else had been done before.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ghost recon did the 2 weapons thing <i>just</i> before halo.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you referring to this thread or the gamespy vote-a-thon? Because...
1. I don't think you read my post (or, at least, not very well because it's obviously not a push in either direction of which game is better) 2. Since when is the majority morally, technically and intelligently always correct? 3. What does that have to do with Half-Life's scaleability at all? 4. How is that a productive post? [yes, yes, I sense the hypocrisy] 5. What am I supposed to "stop trying"?
[...wonders if scaleability is a word...then decides scalability is]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i was indeed refering to the game spy poll, and i do believe the results were fair. anyway the fact that my post came right after your "book" was a coincidence, it was nothing personal and it was not a reply. i was generally trying to tell the whole lot not to compare the two games and stay on topic.
edit: my take on the 'war'
------------- half life came out in 98, with games like quake 2, unreal tournament etc. these were good games but playing half-life brought so many good moments to so many people. it shot right up the charts. the storyline was so good, so origional it blew people away. ( i clocked it the other day and i was still very impressed ). its a timeless game like starcraft, diablo, the sims etc. ------------- halo would be the closest to the <i>feel </i>of half-life/starcraft on the console. if they announced that halo was inspired only from half-life i woulnd't be suprised. But its not the same.. its nowhere near. halo had an ok storyline, but it didnt blow anyone away (unless youve read the books and gone to halo-school). halo had ok guns, but seriously it had all been done in 2001 except the needler. the 'fresh' aspect of halo would be its vehicles/open spaces for them. but if half-life had been worked on for 3 more years, given a better engine, graphics, maybe dynamic lighting, it would have blown halo away and left it in the gutter. The only reason people even compare the two is because they are the 'standards' of the two systems, halo doesnt even come close the half-life's greatness. -------------
if you are about to post a huge reply to this, forget it, it will just end up getting the topic locked, this was just my 2 cents.
<!--QuoteBegin-version91x+Apr 20 2004, 07:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (version91x @ Apr 20 2004, 07:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Innovative? It had a choice of two weapons. Everything else had been done before.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ghost recon did the 2 weapons thing <i>just</i> before halo. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You guys are both missing the point of the limited inventory. It's not just limiting for the sake of limiting. It forces you to make choices based on the upcoming situation and your general play strategy, because all the weapons are markedly different from one another, unlike in damn near every other game, where the only differences between the great majority of the weapons are the plain numbers.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
Truth, Bistro, but...well, to be honest, I'd put this on another thread or something, your continuing to bring this off topic, and frankly, I really want to know what people know about the scaleability.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It forces you to make choices based on the upcoming situation and your general play strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
kind of like unreal tournament / tribes / raven shield / quake with a 2 gun limit? you are mistaking variety with a simple way to make the game seem harder in order to get people to play longer and think the game is good because it took them all those loads to find that rocket launcher to kill that 1 unit in a thousand. anyone would rather have a solid story and variety / choices than be forced to 'use the right tactic for the right situation'. and the only "unlike in damn near every other game" games that do this are realism-based tactical shooters.. and its stupid to compare the 2 genres.
if you do seriously consider halo to be a tactical shooter, my post is still correct. in ghost recon 'light' units have all the gadgets, allowing them to get up close to the enemy, do recon, storm a location etc. the snipers are long range and are limited to pistols for their second weapon, giving them rifles too would overpower them (like in halo). soldiers and demo's carry grenade launchers and anti-armour weapons, which suits them perfectly also. if you do seriously consider halo to be a tactical shooter, halo is not innovative in this area.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It forces you to make choices based on the upcoming situation and your general play strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
kind of like unreal tournament / tribes / raven shield / quake with a 2 gun limit? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No. Not like that. Because you don't have to make a choice in those games. You can just carry all the crap with you wherever you want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It forces you to make choices based on the upcoming situation and your general play strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
kind of like unreal tournament / tribes / raven shield / quake <b>with a 2 gun limit?</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. Not like that. Because you don't have to make a choice in those games. You can just carry all the crap with you wherever you want. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...
one thing nice about hl1, several aliens will actually leave you alone if you leave them alone.
and halo makes my eyes hurt, all those polies wasted on uninspired, repetative maps.
i finally figured out that the arrows point in the direction you're supposed to go in, helps you get through the copy+pasted rooms ... but ... if they realized that people would feel lost without arrows on the ground, couldnt they have tried to give the rooms some ... life?
Comments
[...wonders if scaleability is a word...then decides scalability is]
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i doubt it is, i tend to make up alot of words on accident and not
Baldur's Gate
Ultima Online
The Sims
Black & White
Roller Coaster Tycoon
TES3:Morrowind(innovative in the open-ended ness)
Allegiance
Max Payne<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where's deus ex, NS and CS(it is NOT original NOW, but it was as far as I know)? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry about double post, i dont know how to combine quotes from two different peoples posts....
yes i agree those are some of the more innovative release's i play, although we both shall get flamed for say its not innovative....but they dont understand
You moved your mouse away from the character, who is in the center of the screen, and hold W to move in the direction of the mouse marker.
Then, you have spells, or special abilities in the case of the barbarian, as the ASDFG keys. You could also make traps by combining spells(or just using 1 spell) as a wizard, or summon creatures as a conjurer.
Nifty, and the system worked well.
I'm comparing a point and click adventure to a move your joystick and click adventure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate quoting but your post is miles back so I need it here for quick reference while i type ^^;
Anways, the Diablo on PSX is interesting, I never knew =o
With that in mind I can see where your train of thought is but look closely.
In diablo melee attacks can't be dodged 'around' as long as you're within a certain range you'll get hit and that's that, compare this to PSO with it's proper collision detections and in the case of this FOnewearl player you could pull off some particularly interesting 'skin of your teeth' manouvers; the classic being setting off a hildebear's attack and running under the swipe to smack it in the back while it's vulnerable. There's no such timing as this in diablo, and this extends further to PSO's 3-attack-sequence system. Diablo is more focussed on strategic use of your special abilities while your auto-attack (which PSO doesn't have notedly) fills in the gaps. At it's highest PSO is more about manouvering and timing especially as unlike D/DII where the 'when' of hitting your buttons isn't really so important.
Add to this difference the enemies you combat. Diablo has roughly 3 types of enemy; the 'run towards you and engage in melee' type, the ranged type (includes magic casters) and 'mixed' which is basically the bosses who would melee you and blat you with ranged stuff at the same time.
Compare this with PSO's more diverse challenges; Rappies while a 'move and melee' enemy at heart play dead when you kill them and won't drop an item unless you hit them when they run away again so you find yourself fighting off the next wave of monsters while trying to keep an eye on the rappies. Delsabers are incredibly evil concotions with their long range leap attack (which would be entirely unfair on diablo as they'd attack from offscreen thanks to diablo's fixed top-down isometric camera) plus if you're not a magic user you actually have to either attack while they're doing their combo (timing once again being important; you can't just whack them when you feel like it) or you have to strike them from the rear/unshielded side.
We also have dark gunners where you have to strike the leader when the group charges their attacks or face a massive barrage of lasers... the list goes on, even including such subtle changes like the evil sharks not flinching from anything beyond the first part of a 3 hit combo meaning they can cancel the 3rd hit by smacking you in the face =P
Diablo doesn't have these things. It's combat is more about mass numbers, clever choice of skills (timing is almost irrelavant) and mashing the heal-potion button ^^
Bosses further push this example with the Phantasy Star Online bosses being primarily about learning to dodge their pattern attacks until the opening hits then using your time wisely; a good player can take down a boss without receiving a single hit (aside from dark falz who has rather cheap 'auto-hit' magic attacks that rain from the sky ontop of the usual 'omg dodge' figthing ^^; ). Meanwhile diablo's boss combat has very little in the way of manouvering or timing once again; it's often a case of wiping out the minions first then going toe-to-toe, using the right attacks while thrashing the potion button like it was going out of fashion ^^;
Ok, so if you want you can step back for a bit and dodge a few of the ranged attacks like andariel's spit or diablo's pillars of flame, but because in the PC game you rely on pathfinding it's rarely worth the effort and especially the time; for every moment you spent in diablo not hitting the boss is time ill spent, while in PSO it's almost a necessity unless your force is fast with the healing (the 10 item stack limit also helps encourage teamwork healing to a degree).
Let's also look at character development in the two games as well; in Diablo when you 'ping' you get stats you allocate and buy skills with (depends if we're talking D or DII here but the attribute buying thing is a constant at least). Meanwhile in PSO your stats automatically go up. While this might seem like it lacks customisation forcing you into a template styled character sega rather cleverly included 'mags' which you could feed to change your stats however you saw fit up until you hit the stat caps (which I think are a huge mistake in PSO but whatever). The fact that your stats were influenced by the mag also made it impossible to make a 'broken' character as if you found yourself with a stat layout that didn't work you could just raise a new mag while in diablo you were unfortunately stuck with what you'd become =/
If we really want to see why PSO is innovative or more importantly unique from diablo (in my eyes at least) then the thing you should truely examine is the communications system.
Diablo heralds it's multiplayer communications from the IRC-influenced interface and useage used in most modern MMORPGs. While it does the job it's clunky and when you look to PSO you realise how much it advances everything.
First off you have guild cards... this idea is so amazingly simple it still makes me wonder why nobody uses it in other MORPGs. In PSO while you can chat normally without restriction, you need someone to give you their guild card to access more advanced features towards the user itself. If someone gives you their card (and therefore their permission) you can find out if they're online, where they are and send them 'simple mail' (rather like email or better thought out MMORPG whispers; an idea that the Star Wars MMO has picked up on). This means you couldn't really harass someone or give them unwanted private messages unless they'd given you their card. The card couldn't be given away to other people either so you always had to meet them 'in the flesh' to get their card ^^
Putting this wonderful idea aside you also have the chat itself; you could created your own custom emote pictures and use them whenever you felt like, something that I've never personally seen before or since in multiplayer gaming o.O
Then there's the fact that speech itself comes in coloured bubbles. While this might just rub off as 'cute' or whatever it's actually amazingly practical; the fact the name is tagged to the bubble plus each speaker is assigned their own colour in conversation makes keeping up with a rather hectic lobby considerably easier and simple than the usual 'IRC window' logs in other games... the bubbles also allow you to find the speaker considerably easier too. While some MORPGs have allowed speech to appear above the talker it simply isn't as functional or efficient as the bubble system when it comes to easy communication and screenspace usage =/
I could go on even further but I hope I've proved my point already and the topic is already derailed to heck and back ^^;
If that's not enough for you though pulse feel free to start up a new thread about it and I'll jump in so we CAN FIGHT TO THE DEAAATH XD
~ahem~ lol
anyways, about the actual topic...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
While ven's rant about 'omg graphics' appeals they can have an effect on the game as doomy mentioned. This isn't so important if they're <u>consistant</u> across clients like pandora tomorrow, but thanks to scaling making a stealth game with heavy involvement of shadows or anything else that uses the graphic environment to enhance or alter gameplay suffers or even fails outright thanks to the variation brought about by scaling =/
The predator's cloaking effect is a very potent example of a game mechanic being victimised by scaling. on some graphic options the predator simply alphas out like with NS sensory chambers while on others it causes the rather nifty rippling effect... this lead to unusual situations in combat where some people could easily see the pred while others couldn't make it out at all and visa versa.
If they're serious about scaling then they need to at least limit it so that the results are entirely consistant with regards to anything that may effect gameplay such as shadows, rendering effects and the like. Ok so they can cut polys but changing even draw distances changes the game and unbalances it between users.
It'd just be better if they set a bar and let anyone who wants to play upgrade to it than pander to people behind in technology just to up games because ultimately it's the games that suffer from it =/
Actually, that explanation is pretty much the same story as Quake 2. Which had no <i>story</i> beyond leading hints on 'where do I go next'. Which is, in essence, EXACTLY what HALO does.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Name one that isn't like that. In any FPS (yes, even in Half-Life) the story essentially amounts to "what now?" That's just how games work. You're going through what the character would do if this were a movie, only with more shooting and pushing crap and jumping on top of things.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But with less-inspired level design that makes me want to tear out my eyes.. or better yet, the developers' eyes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Y'know, it'd be one thing if people just didn't like HALO. But I'm just sick and tired of people complaining about the entire damn game, just because of the area outside the Library. Of COURSE it's repetitive. You're going through the <i>very same physical area</i> in reverse. If it <i>wasn't</i> repetitive, people would say it was stupidly inconsistent. The other buildings may not have had much flashy architecture either, but for me, that increases the immersion, because with real buildings "flashy architecture" is code for "unstable, non-usefu, labyrinthine art piece of a building."<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The story was not integrated... or more correctly, it did not have as strong a reason for the suspension of disbelief.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm sorry, but I don't see how Half-Life's story was any more integrated. The only real difference between standing around listening to character dialogue in HALO and doing the same thing in Half-Life is that Half-Life never pushes you to a third-person perspective. If THAT'S the big deal, moles will raze entire cities under your leadership. Besides that, HALO's story is <i>more</i> integrated, if anything, because some of the important things don't make you wait around for things to happen, but rather hinge on what you're actually doing.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Half-Life, you started out as a normal guy, and went through being late for work. You can relate to that. Halo, you wake up in a cryogenic chamber, the 'sekrat weapon' of a military force. It's a little hard to eliminate that distance, mentally. Sure, you might get a great ego-boost getting to run around and play as that... but in RPG circles, that falls under 'powergamery'. And usually will get you pegged in the head with a d100.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Gordon Freeman a normal guy? Please. He's a theoretical physicist, recruited by a huge (perhaps government-funded) lab. You and I both know that for the sort of geeks what play computer games, Gordon is <i>more</i> of a lame powergamer character, because he can blow stuff up AND turn out a Grand Unified Theorem. The Chief, on the other hand, is more of a traditional hero: a career soldier born for the business. That lends, IMO, to more of an epic-feeling storyline, which is just what Bungie is trying to go for.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As an owner of both the standard shareware ROTT that everyone played, and the full ROTT:Dark War game, I'd have to say you're sadly mistaken. Sure, most weapons were point-and-shoot... but knowing which weapon to take along in a given situation was paramount. You wouldn't want to have a Flamewall, for example, if you were going through the toxic factory; similarly, a Bounceshot would do you very little good in the Docks level, whereas it'd be invaluable in the next.. the Warehouse had tight, twisty corridors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, honestly, I wouldn't know. I never played the full version, though I really, really wanted to. The whole idea of the Excalibat made me salivate, even though I'd never even seen it.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as far as I know, with HALO there are only two weapons people honestly have to 'decide' between... the sniper rifle, or the pistol in their second slot. The primary is more of a 'whatever does most damage'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not so. It really does depend on the situation. When you're fighting lots of Covies, you want to snag their weapons ASAP, so you'll always have a source of ammo. Long range combat (when you don't have the rifle or pistol availabe, both depressingly common occurences) often demands a needler unless you know you can close fast without being detected. If you know there's going to be a big cluster of enemies coming up, or any vehicles, rockets are called for so you don't have to get in grenade range, which can often be dangerous. Fighting the Flood always needs human weapons: use a shotgun on the soldiers and sack-things, and the assault rifle on the headcrab-clones. Finally, anytime you're able to prepare for something, that gives you the time to use some other weapon lying around that you normally wouldn't want to carry, just because you know it's going to fit the upcoming situation.
This isn't the way everybody plays obviously, but it works for me, which is just my point. HALO is a game which allows for much flexible strategy, based your individual playing style.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In short. I back HL2 because it will have an actual STORY that you are actively following, rather than using as an excuse to find another place to blast crap; as it appears Doom3 and Halo2 will.
You'll have enemies who just happened to be there.. one or two Houndeyes who were napping. A headcrab hiding under a chair. An electro-alien rifling through a filing cabinet. You won't just constantly be opening door and having WAVES of enemies start pouring through, Serious Sam-style.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->That actually sounds like how most of the enemies were about midway through the game in HALO. When you're running that assault on the Truth and Reconciliation, all the aliens are just kinda hangin' out, guarding their base. They're walking around talking amongst themselves, and in the case of the Grunts, sleeping. (Awwww. So kawaii!)<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It will have the level of realism where you are NOT the central focus at all times. All the enemies in HALO and (insert every Id game made) feel like they're sitting there, waiting for you. You are their only reason for existing. Not so, with Half-Life... they're just doing their own thing. Which is one reason I'm looking forward to STALKER, as well. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's a world... not a rail-shooting gallery. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can understand the feeling that they're there for you, but the way I see it, how could it be any other way? You're fighting a war, one side is invading the other. In any given room, if members of the opposition are there, they're basically waiting to kill any enemy that walks through, by definition. You just happen to be that enemy because... well, you're watching through your character's eyes. That's how it works. It's the same as when the Sarge's crew was investigating that base in the swamp where you meet 343 Guilty Spark. Yeah, the Flood was in there, waiting to eat whatever came and opened their box. That just happened to be the Covies that broke in, and the marines that followed.
anyways, about the actual topic...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
While ven's rant about 'omg graphics' appeals they can have an effect on the game as doomy mentioned. This isn't so important if they're <u>consistant</u> across clients like pandora tomorrow, but thanks to scaling making a stealth game with heavy involvement of shadows or anything else that uses the graphic environment to enhance or alter gameplay suffers or even fails outright thanks to the variation brought about by scaling =/
The predator's cloaking effect is a very potent example of a game mechanic being victimised by scaling. on some graphic options the predator simply alphas out like with NS sensory chambers while on others it causes the rather nifty rippling effect... this lead to unusual situations in combat where some people could easily see the pred while others couldn't make it out at all and visa versa.
If they're serious about scaling then they need to at least limit it so that the results are entirely consistant with regards to anything that may effect gameplay such as shadows, rendering effects and the like. Ok so they can cut polys but changing even draw distances changes the game and unbalances it between users.
It'd just be better if they set a bar and let anyone who wants to play upgrade to it than pander to people behind in technology just to up games because ultimately it's the games that suffer from it =/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, much how it is now, I think the game should cater to those who have higher end systems (or more middle end). As with my above example with the CS grenades: I can see equally good with sprite and particle grenades, the major problem is performance.
If someone joins a modern game with a low end machine they have to expect lower performance than the other people. If I played on this computer, and my friend on the one at home, and our skills were equal, I'd almost definately beat him. That computer has slowdown at varying parts in levels (like walking out into the big courtyard in caen in dod, or viaduct with lots of chambers in ns...forget the level, or outside in cs_assault).
It's just something you have to get used to if you have a low end machine. However, the gameplay of single player is unchanged ('cept mine looks better than the onld computer, of course). That's how it should be.
The worst cases of being able to cheat in multiplayer - graphically - arise from the ability to turn foliage or transparent objects and stuff off, but it works both ways. Sometimes you turn something off that can help you, or will screw you up.
Say in example, that one low end machine has his graphics set to color the entire model based on the percentage lighting talked about on the 1st/2nd page; and then take someone who has vertex shaded or pixel shaded lighting.
The full model shading would have an advantage of seeing people sometimes, and not seeing them sometimes. He might get an advantage, because in a dark corridor the model is lit up brightly, but then in the next, he misses someone because he's 75% in the dark and 25% in the light (where someone with pixel shaded light would see the 25% and be able to shoot the guy). Of course, I think everyone playing HL2 would have to run the same kind of lighting, it'd be more size/density of particles
One person would get small, beautifully rendered stuff, while the other would get blocky, poorly rendered, large® particles, but both would block the same amount of the screen (as with smoke), or blind the playerthe same (fire effects and stuff). Then again, they could just add simpler filters over the screen (although, for flashbangs and stuff, I'm pretty sure a 500mhz computer could do it, so why not a 1.2 ghz or something). Maybe my old computer just runs really good for a Pentium 3...
You forget that the Title Fights were hilariously rigged. I'm not saying HALO would win or anything, as there are too many people who would just hate it on principle as a console game, or who only played the PC version, and therefore got the shaft. But it wouldn't be as steep.
And nobody is (at least I'm not) trying to say that HALO is better. My point is that it is A) innovative B) strategic and C) story-oriented. I think that these are three of the things that make it able to compete with Half-Life, and why I think saying that HALO 2 won't factor in the upcoming release jamboree is patently false.
In counterstrike there was a particularly bad glitch with software mode; you couldn't see in the dark... at all. Software users had to use nightvision goggles to stand a chance in the tunnel under militia but then there was the bug; clipping walls. In certain maps if you got far away enough whole segments of wall would clip out of existance, the worst case being mansion where you could just step back and see every single terrorist in the house through the now invisible wall.
Ok so there's tradeoffs there but I think what basically amounts to a legal wallhack is a little different from what minor stuff you might have had in mind gecko =s
You forget that the Title Fights were hilariously rigged. I'm not saying HALO would win or anything, as there are too many people who would just hate it on principle as a console game, or who only played the PC version, and therefore got the shaft. But it wouldn't be as steep.
And nobody is (at least I'm not) trying to say that HALO is better. My point is that it is A) innovative B) strategic and C) story-oriented. I think that these are three of the things that make it able to compete with Half-Life, and why I think saying that HALO 2 won't factor in the upcoming release jamboree is patently false. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Innovative? It had a choice of two weapons. Everything else had been done before.
Strategic? You run around shooting things. Nope.
Story-oriented? Most games, except things like Tetris, are.
It's much less common now, in up to date games, no matter what you're playing at (I might have done it in Unreal Tournament once or twice, but that's a completely different level editor.
Besides, if problems like that have been fixed (not sure about the specific areas you're talking about, and if they were fixed or not) then if the problem presents itself in HL2 they should be able to fix it (but it honestly sounds more like a mapping issue than a programming/scaling issue).
Then again, in almost every game, you can hold yourself between the plane of water and air and see the ground below the water with clarity (I've done this in Morrowind, Half-life (used to, don't know if I can anymore), EverQuest, Unreal Torunament and probably some others).
You can't really expect the game to be perfectly equal (like the Pred cloak, which still doesn't look quite like the movies to me, even in AvP2) on every machine. Then it would be a console, where games are decided based on how you play and put your settings and not what you can afford <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
(then again, with the whole night-vision thing in CS, people just turn up their gamma before spending the money on NVGs)
In counterstrike there was a particularly bad glitch with software mode; you couldn't see in the dark... at all. Software users had to use nightvision goggles to stand a chance in the tunnel under militia but then there was the bug; clipping walls. In certain maps if you got far away enough whole segments of wall would clip out of existance, the worst case being mansion where you could just step back and see every single terrorist in the house through the now invisible wall.
Ok so there's tradeoffs there but I think what basically amounts to a legal wallhack is a little different from what minor stuff you might have had in mind gecko =s <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i never had that cs bug.. and i used to run in software all the time
/edit i did get the wall one though, rarely
Mind you that was from like beta 3 to heck knows when ^^
Strategic? You run around shooting things. Nope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Congratulations on completely failing to read my posts. Or, if you did, and you're still spouting this despite that, congratulations on saying junk with a complete lack of justification or support.
Yea, consoles are a lot more attractive to me lately, because the games are guaranteed to work, and you don't have to pay enough to buy an ATV...
Right now I'm playing:
Metroid Prime
Metroid Fusion
Halo (PC & Xbox)
Why the hell does everyone think Half-Life had a good story? Aliens teleport in, and an invincible guy in a blue suit follows you around? Yea, a lot of substance there. Unless you are counting the crap the forums people spout to "expand" the story. Halo doesn't need that to have a friggin' epic story, and I didn't have to read the books either. Bungie left enough clues for an imaginative person like myself to make some conclusions based on HARD EVIDENCE. Or maybe everyone likes the Half-Life story because it was one of the first first-person perspective (NOT _THE_ FIRST) game to have a story? Doesn't count for much.
Strategic? You run around shooting things. Nope. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Congratulations on completely failing to read my posts. Or, if you did, and you're still spouting this despite that, congratulations on saying junk with a complete lack of justification or support. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh don't worry i did read them but dropping guns depending on the situation is the same as switching guns depending on your enemy. However, its not hard to complete game with just pistol/machine gun thingy.
Halo's story had a sudden plot twist which you almost knew was going to happen, it ruined the story and the gameplay/levels after that.
It's hard towards the end to avoid fights due to the repetitive coridor after coridor after coridor that all look exactly the same.
Co-op is only on XBox version afaik.
I respectfully disagree.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's hard towards the end to avoid fights due to the repetitive coridor after coridor after coridor that all look exactly the same.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->That would be because it's towards the end. That's supposed to be a huge, bloody onslaught because you're at the end of the game. Since there was no actual boss fight, (thank god there wasn't, that would've made it stupid) they had to do something to ratchet up the difficulty and the stakes at the end, so they railroaded the habitual sneakers into combat.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Co-op is only on XBox version afaik. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesn't make HALO bad. That makes ports bad, which they pretty much traditionally are.
Yea, consoles are a lot more attractive to me lately, because the games are guaranteed to work, and you don't have to pay enough to buy an ATV...
Right now I'm playing:
Metroid Prime
Metroid Fusion
Halo (PC & Xbox)
Why the hell does everyone think Half-Life had a good story? Aliens teleport in, and an invincible guy in a blue suit follows you around? Yea, a lot of substance there. Unless you are counting the crap the forums people spout to "expand" the story. Halo doesn't need that to have a friggin' epic story, and I didn't have to read the books either. Bungie left enough clues for an imaginative person like myself to make some conclusions based on HARD EVIDENCE. Or maybe everyone likes the Half-Life story because it was one of the first first-person perspective (NOT _THE_ FIRST) game to have a story? Doesn't count for much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow...you never got far in Half-Life.
Aliens warp in because you personally screwed up in a experiment. Not only that, but once you've called for the Military's help in getting the situation under control, they don't just get rid of the aliens- they get the scientists-YOU- too, to cover up the disaster in full, to make sure a veil of secrecy is kept. Then, after trying to get the situation under control, after even the best of the best come after you, you have to go to THEIR HOMEWORLD to get rid of the thing on their turf.
I'm sorry, its story was better, and more realistic, than most FPS' today. Halo had a good story, I'll give it that, but I'm a big time conspiracy fan(though, Halo's DOES have a conspiracy, but you have to read the books to know that).
(HL2->console vs PC->HALO->HL)!
so...yea, HL1's story is pretty good. I bet HL2's would be better...
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
ghost recon did the 2 weapons thing <i>just</i> before halo.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you referring to this thread or the gamespy vote-a-thon? Because...
1. I don't think you read my post (or, at least, not very well because it's obviously not a push in either direction of which game is better)
2. Since when is the majority morally, technically and intelligently always correct?
3. What does that have to do with Half-Life's scaleability at all?
4. How is that a productive post? [yes, yes, I sense the hypocrisy]
5. What am I supposed to "stop trying"?
[...wonders if scaleability is a word...then decides scalability is]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i was indeed refering to the game spy poll, and i do believe the results were fair.
anyway the fact that my post came right after your "book" was a coincidence, it was nothing personal and it was not a reply. i was generally trying to tell the whole lot not to compare the two games and stay on topic.
edit: my take on the 'war'
-------------
half life came out in 98, with games like quake 2, unreal tournament etc. these were good games but playing half-life brought so many good moments to so many people. it shot right up the charts. the storyline was so good, so origional it blew people away. ( i clocked it the other day and i was still very impressed ). its a timeless game like starcraft, diablo, the sims etc.
-------------
halo would be the closest to the <i>feel </i>of half-life/starcraft on the console. if they announced that halo was inspired only from half-life i woulnd't be suprised. But its not the same.. its nowhere near. halo had an ok storyline, but it didnt blow anyone away (unless youve read the books and gone to halo-school). halo had ok guns, but seriously it had all been done in 2001 except the needler. the 'fresh' aspect of halo would be its vehicles/open spaces for them. but if half-life had been worked on for 3 more years, given a better engine, graphics, maybe dynamic lighting, it would have blown halo away and left it in the gutter. The only reason people even compare the two is because they are the 'standards' of the two systems, halo doesnt even come close the half-life's greatness.
-------------
if you are about to post a huge reply to this, forget it, it will just end up getting the topic locked, this was just my 2 cents.
ghost recon did the 2 weapons thing <i>just</i> before halo. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You guys are both missing the point of the limited inventory. It's not just limiting for the sake of limiting. It forces you to make choices based on the upcoming situation and your general play strategy, because all the weapons are markedly different from one another, unlike in damn near every other game, where the only differences between the great majority of the weapons are the plain numbers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It forces you to make choices based on the upcoming situation and your general play strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
kind of like unreal tournament / tribes / raven shield / quake with a 2 gun limit? you are mistaking variety with a simple way to make the game seem harder in order to get people to play longer and think the game is good because it took them all those loads to find that rocket launcher to kill that 1 unit in a thousand. anyone would rather have a solid story and variety / choices than be forced to 'use the right tactic for the right situation'. and the only "unlike in damn near every other game" games that do this are realism-based tactical shooters.. and its stupid to compare the 2 genres.
if you do seriously consider halo to be a tactical shooter, my post is still correct. in ghost recon 'light' units have all the gadgets, allowing them to get up close to the enemy, do recon, storm a location etc. the snipers are long range and are limited to pistols for their second weapon, giving them rifles too would overpower them (like in halo). soldiers and demo's carry grenade launchers and anti-armour weapons, which suits them perfectly also. if you do seriously consider halo to be a tactical shooter, halo is not innovative in this area.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It forces you to make choices based on the upcoming situation and your general play strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
kind of like unreal tournament / tribes / raven shield / quake with a 2 gun limit? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Not like that. Because you don't have to make a choice in those games. You can just carry all the crap with you wherever you want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It forces you to make choices based on the upcoming situation and your general play strategy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
kind of like unreal tournament / tribes / raven shield / quake <b>with a 2 gun limit?</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. Not like that. Because you don't have to make a choice in those games. You can just carry all the crap with you wherever you want. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
and halo makes my eyes hurt, all those polies wasted on uninspired, repetative maps.
i finally figured out that the arrows point in the direction you're supposed to go in, helps you get through the copy+pasted rooms ... but ... if they realized that people would feel lost without arrows on the ground, couldnt they have tried to give the rooms some ... life?