The "Use of objects" section just took me 3 minutes 25. Way longer than five minutes. I have to get to a lecture, so I can't realistically play through the other sections to see how you're doing there.
The bridge section is an enormous set piece, which the Half Life series is famed for, assuming we're talking about the same one. It involves shooting down a helicopter, killing lots of combine, and a small amount of jumping. If you consider that one long, boring, section, then you obviously don't like the game as a whole.
Oh wait.
The gravity gun is a fine tool. Calling it "a bit of a crutch" seems a bizarre thing to do when it's a weapon - the fact that it's pretty unique doesn't mean it has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Yes. Yes I do. Those textures are AWFUL. For a game so supposedly high-end, it is blocky and dreadful. Compare the detail level to, say, this image of RTCW's Thompson (IIRC) and you can see the horrific nature. Wolfenstein is ancient by comparison, but look how crisp the gun looks! The guns look shoddy by the graphical standard of HL2.
And the gravity gun is used, in many parts, as way to pique curiosity and nothing more. Look at Ravenholm, THE best level in the game. It plays out like one long excuse to gravity gun things to death. Apart from that, it's quite empty; let's face it, shooting fuel canisters in FPS games has been around a long long time, and I don't see how picking them up and lobbing them is so "innovative".
So I take it you admit defeat about the "boring" thing then?jakiriJanuary 27 2006, 13:00:45 UTC
How am I supposed to compare a 1280x1024 image to one that's 340x255? Of course the gun is going to look crisp at that resolution. Furthermore, the textures on the Overwatch Rifle are perfectly reasonable, especially when you consider that it moves a rather large amount whilst you're using it.
As to your second paragraph, I don't think you're making much sense, especially not the first sentence. Half Life 2, like Half Life before it, does not have to claim "innovation" for a reason for its brilliance (although they both are, undoubtably, innovative) and if you can't see how something like the gravity gun changes the way we interact with our environment in an FPS game you're demented.
The bridge section is an enormous set piece, which the Half Life series is famed for, assuming we're talking about the same one. It involves shooting down a helicopter, killing lots of combine, and a small amount of jumping. If you consider that one long, boring, section, then you obviously don't like the game as a whole.
Oh wait.
The gravity gun is a fine tool. Calling it "a bit of a crutch" seems a bizarre thing to do when it's a weapon - the fact that it's pretty unique doesn't mean it has its own advantages and disadvantages.
And you consider THIS rough and sprite like?
Reply
And the gravity gun is used, in many parts, as way to pique curiosity and nothing more. Look at Ravenholm, THE best level in the game. It plays out like one long excuse to gravity gun things to death. Apart from that, it's quite empty; let's face it, shooting fuel canisters in FPS games has been around a long long time, and I don't see how picking them up and lobbing them is so "innovative".
Reply
As to your second paragraph, I don't think you're making much sense, especially not the first sentence. Half Life 2, like Half Life before it, does not have to claim "innovation" for a reason for its brilliance (although they both are, undoubtably, innovative) and if you can't see how something like the gravity gun changes the way we interact with our environment in an FPS game you're demented.
Reply
Leave a comment