catbarf on 27/8/2009 at 05:19
Quote Posted by Malleus
IRL, modern body armors can pretty much take that much damage. And Crysis is a scifi game anyway, so I alway thought it's pretty much believeable. Only difference is that IRL it hurts being shot, while in Crysis (or in almost any game for that matter) enemies run around after being shot as if nothing have happened, just with their HP decreased.
That's just it. I can unload on a guy at close range, and run out of ammo, and even if I've hit him he can recover and spray me with bullets while I reload. It's bullshit. And I get the Predator idea, but even if I stand still in cover I get spotted on Delta. Not to mention the aliens are a pain in the ass.
Taffer36 on 27/8/2009 at 06:22
Quote Posted by catbarf
That's just it. I can unload on a guy at close range, and run out of ammo, and even if I've hit him he can recover and spray me with bullets while I reload. It's bullshit. And I get the Predator idea, but even if I stand still in cover I get spotted on Delta. Not to mention the aliens are a pain in the ass.
Doesn't pretty much every game (Half-life 2 included) have this, though? It's merely a side-effect of having a gameplay system that gives enemies lots of health, which is a perfectly fine system to go with. Games like Call of Duty, where enemies have relatively little health, have the benefit of this issue not being so prominent due to enemies dying so quickly. I'd say it's just part of the gameplay. And if you're reloading, getting in cover is probably the best solution.
If you stand still in vegetation, you don't get caught with or without a cloak. With cloak on, you absolutely need to be prone-crawling. If an enemy is near you, you stay still, and they will pass. I played thru 90% of the game like this, and the stealth system is not nearly as difficult as many of you are claiming.
Thirith on 27/8/2009 at 06:58
Quote Posted by catbarf
That's just it. I can unload on a guy at close range, and run out of ammo, and even if I've hit him he can recover and spray me with bullets while I reload. It's bullshit. And I get the Predator idea, but even if I stand still in cover I get spotted on Delta. Not to mention the aliens are a pain in the ass.
I don't mind this if the enemy isn't walking around in a t-shirt and jeans. If there's some visible armour or if there's some other explanation why it take 8-9 bullets rather than one or two,
and if the game is clearly an action shooter, I can suspend my disbelief.
However, this is one of the reasons why it's a relief to be playing
Armed Assault at the moment. It makes you fear bullets, guns and the people who wield them. Getting out of cover is a thrilling experience because unless you've planned well and have a bit of luck on your side, you're toast. Yes, there are moments when it's immensely frustrating, but then there are those glorious moments of cat and mouse where you don't know exactly where your enemy is but after fifteen tense minutes you get him before he gets you.
Malf on 27/8/2009 at 08:06
A more pertinent technical point about Quake 3 is that it was one of the first games to require a 3D accelerator board, if not the first.
swaaye on 27/8/2009 at 19:57
I was trying to relate running the games fluidly (>30fps) with full details and how recent expensive hardware was made obsolete. The theme of hardware obsolescence through new games. I just see the game industry as one big upgrade adventure. It's part of the game to need new hardware. But it feels like there's a new super-vocal noob community that wastes big money on top-end hardware and wants it to last forever. They bitch ultra loud when a game comes along that punishes their rig, lots of misspelled angry shouts of poor coding etc.
But now that consoles have PC gaming by the balls, I guess we're out of luck on enjoying the bleeding edge.
swaaye on 27/8/2009 at 20:05
Quote Posted by Malf
A more pertinent technical point about Quake 3 is that it was one of the first games to
require a 3D accelerator board, if not the first.
That's right. Forgot about that. You could still "play" UT with the software renderer.
ZylonBane on 27/8/2009 at 21:23
Quote Posted by Malf
A more pertinent technical point about Quake 3 is that it was one of the first games to
require a 3D accelerator board, if not the first.
By 1999, loads of games were requiring 3D acceleration. Quake 3, Freespace 2, System Shock 2, etc...
SubJeff on 27/8/2009 at 22:11
Quote Posted by Taffer36
Did you even bother reading the sentence of his directly after the one you quoted?
Quote:
Last edited by EvaUnit02; 25th Aug 2009 at 11:39.
He edited that line in after I posted, I'm sure of it.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
I wasn't actually saying that, SubDeaf. Really, do you people need this shit spelt out for you?
When it's you, yeah. Lord knows you spout some amazing crap. Who's to know what's for real or not?
Anyway, although I don't think that the games mentioned in that post or Doom 3 are "tech demos" there are some games which are anything but real games, and you could level the GTD finger at them. I've not played Crysis so I can't say, but you can't deny that it and UT3 has served as a demo for would be Crytech/UEd customers. Rage will be a demo for id tech 5 and if it ends up being a by the numbers game then that may be all it is. The thing with the GTD tag is its hard to know exactly how much effort a dev put into something - a lot of effort != great game, sadly.
swaaye on 27/8/2009 at 23:15
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
By 1999, loads of games were requiring 3D acceleration. Quake 3, Freespace 2, System Shock 2, etc...
I wouldn't say loads (sounds like majority), but quite a few of the "graphics extravaganza" games were yeah. It was mostly in the first/third person style gaming category. You still had 2D strategy games and 2D RPGs all over, for ex, and of course the more "casual" stuff.
lost_soul on 27/8/2009 at 23:54
What made me laugh was the fact that UT2004 has a software renderer.
BTW, Q3A was a monumental leap forward in terms of graphics. It had high-res textures, environment mapping, stencil shadows where objects can cast shadows onto themselves, true color textures, and on and on. I still think the spinning shiny armor shards/health packs look pretty darn cool.
I remember playing Descent on a 386 40 MHz, and it ran like shit unless you shrunk the window. I also played Doom II on a 386, and that ran quite well.
Quake ran great for me on a 486 DX4 100 MHz laptop with an active matrix display (hell yeah!). Even if the screen was 9 inches, that was a great little gaming machine. Most laptops back then had GARBAGE dual-scan screens that smeared when trying to display fast movement. I saw laptops as fast as 533 MHz with craptastic dual-scan displays. I always wanted to know why someone would build a nice machine and put such a piece of garbage monitor on it.
