Left 4 Dead
Created 17 years ago2006-12-03 12:34:07 UTC by
Tycell
Created 17 years ago2006-12-03 12:34:07 UTC by
Tycell
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-06 18:17:05 UTC
Post #205249
Condemed criminal origins was the game, i think. The part where you can pick up weapons from anything sounds very familiar. Although I am pretty sure that was scraped or something.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-06 18:36:25 UTC
Post #205252
Actualy, ant, Doom III was brilliant!
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-06 18:44:34 UTC
Post #205253
It was anything but...
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-06 19:50:31 UTC
Post #205256
Agreed. DIII was the biggest pile of shite that I've ever played. It was ugly, blocky, the story was cack, the creatures were lamer than their 2D counterparts and featured the most pointless use of a physics system ever (seeing as there was no real use for it and all the decent sequences (well...crap sequences) were scripted.
Left 4 Dead looks decent enough to play but with a max of 8 players per server I imagine the chances of getting into a decent server would be few and far between.
Left 4 Dead looks decent enough to play but with a max of 8 players per server I imagine the chances of getting into a decent server would be few and far between.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-06 20:07:44 UTC
Post #205259
Doom's engine is superior to Source, but it has an overly glossy/shiny look that doesn't really look realistic to me. I always prefered Source's lack of technical effects, it made it look a bit more realistic.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-06 20:13:23 UTC
Post #205260
overly glossy/shiny lookCouldn't agree more.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-06 20:22:38 UTC
Post #205263
Doom III was way too heavy on phong, agreed. Personally I thought FEAR had the best balance of texture overlays out of all the "modern" games.
How was the Doom III's engine better than Source, though? The textures were blurry, the engine obvious didn't support wide open areas very easily, the physics sucked [hard], and there was no bloom or HDR type lighting. It had great fire and volmetric lighting but that's about it as far as I can see. Doom II for the win.
How was the Doom III's engine better than Source, though? The textures were blurry, the engine obvious didn't support wide open areas very easily, the physics sucked [hard], and there was no bloom or HDR type lighting. It had great fire and volmetric lighting but that's about it as far as I can see. Doom II for the win.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-06 20:27:27 UTC
Post #205265
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 07:43:49 UTC
Post #205323
Doom's dynamic lighting is superior to Source's.
Besides, the Source engine isn't exactly fantastic with outdoor areas either, mainly because it's still using the old BSP method of doing things.
/me waits for more knowledgeable people to prove me wrong...
Besides, the Source engine isn't exactly fantastic with outdoor areas either, mainly because it's still using the old BSP method of doing things.
/me waits for more knowledgeable people to prove me wrong...
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 07:48:25 UTC
Post #205325
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 08:01:54 UTC
Post #205330
Yah, but the Unreal engine is built on entirely different standards.
From what I hear, it's an absolute bitch to map for.
From what I hear, it's an absolute bitch to map for.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 10:41:17 UTC
Post #205351
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 12:07:08 UTC
Post #205367
In my opinion, source feels a lot more gooder (it's a word) than both the Doom 3 and Unreal 2 engines. I don't know why, everything just feels... sharper, crisper. Better-looking. Can't really put my finger on it. The load times are 'orrible though.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 12:24:12 UTC
Post #205370
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 17:03:59 UTC
Post #205389
sees the word Doom III and begins vomitting violently everywhere
Plz!!! No more!!!
Anyway, i agree with ZL's views. HL2 just seems to have that feel that makes it really quite a nice game visually.
Plz!!! No more!!!
Anyway, i agree with ZL's views. HL2 just seems to have that feel that makes it really quite a nice game visually.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 17:30:57 UTC
Post #205394
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-07 18:07:16 UTC
Post #205403
I thought Doom III was pretty good. Not a masterpiece but quite entertaining, and sometimes a bit scary too. Sure, it's dark as hell, but it fits with the story methinks.
As for UnrealED.. I never understood it. Seems a bit tedious to me. I'm sure it's easy as hell once you learn how to use it, but meh. Hammer > UnrealED
As for UnrealED.. I never understood it. Seems a bit tedious to me. I'm sure it's easy as hell once you learn how to use it, but meh. Hammer > UnrealED
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-08 05:44:32 UTC
Post #205459
I've dabbled in UnrealED quite a bit in the past. It's annoying working the exact opposite way of Hammer at first, but over time it becomes sort of fun. The Unreal water effects were always superior to HL's so i considered switching to that, but actually modding the game confused the fuck out of me. =P
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-08 06:03:22 UTC
Post #205461
out of the three major games out using it, (D3, Q4, Prey), Prey is the one that uses the doomtec engine best, followed by quake 4, doom 3 stunk bigtime.
can't wait to see how well ET: quake wars uses it.
source, doomtec and unreal all have their advantages, source has a big mod community, so does unreal, doom has dynamic lighting, if a bit too sharp, unreal3 and source have HDR, etc etc.
can't wait to see how well ET: quake wars uses it.
source, doomtec and unreal all have their advantages, source has a big mod community, so does unreal, doom has dynamic lighting, if a bit too sharp, unreal3 and source have HDR, etc etc.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-08 06:26:34 UTC
Post #205464
From what I've seen, ET is probably going to use to its greatest effect. Huge outdoor maps and whatnot...
Should be interesting.
Should be interesting.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-08 06:42:36 UTC
Post #205471
their 'megatexture' or whatever thing seems cool.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-08 06:52:25 UTC
Post #205473
The MegaTexture thing sounds amazing, but really hard to work with. I can't even make a 32000x32000 image without my computer running out of memory, and I've got 1.5 GBs of it!
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-08 06:59:27 UTC
Post #205474
yeah, dunno how they do that, they may do it in parts or something.
Posted 17 years ago2006-12-08 18:48:27 UTC
Post #205521
Everything in CZ looks better than 1.6,Well no SHIT. CZ was developed several years after CS, and introduced detail textures to into the Goldsource engine, which still haven't been applied to 1.6 maps (by default). If thats the only reason you're playing CZ then you should be smacked across the face. All CZ maps are available over the internet, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of custom models, sounds, and sprites(and defaults) available that use CZ content(usually the arms) online. I think the only true original enhancement was the smart hostage system.
You must be logged in to post a response.