I don't get what everyone is saying. I've never had a game in which I could play four hours straight, and only stopping when my eyes got sore.
Never. It's a great game. The weapons and gameplay are fluid, and the graphics are stunning. I'm suprised that the Source engine runs so well on my box and looks so amazing, when the Doom III one could barely clock 20 FPS at the medium settings.
It's a good game. Steam has never failed to connect and authentication took less than five minutes. I don't know why people are bitching.
On a similar note, I played HALO 2 at a friends place, and... it didn't hold my attention at all. Hell, it even looked the same as two years ago from HALO 1.
Discuss.
I haven't played HL2 yet, but people are saying it is very (or too) similar to the original HL. Well, the original HL was fantastic. I can see how HL2 would be quite a good game.
> when the Doom III one could barely clock 20 FPS at the medium settings.
lol.. why do people who love HL2 just HAVE to complain about DOOMIII?? i tell you why, beacuse it's BETTER!..
By including doom3 in your sentence and complaining about the FPS (beacuse your computer sucks), you only prove that you wish that HL2 was better... HL2 'in my opinion' is the same game i played 1998.. just with a different cover & shitty story.
yes, DOOM3 has a shitty story too, but who gives a facek?
D3 IS A REMAKE! .. HL2 is a NEW GAME...
No matter what people think of DoomIII, you can be sure Id will be raking in money when that engine is licensed...
> HL2 'in my opinion' is the same game i played 1998.. just with a different cover & shitty story.
> D3 IS A REMAKE! .. HL2 is a NEW GAME...
is this irony?
No. Irony is Doom1 being better than DoomIII. rimshot
> No. Irony is Doom1 being better than DoomIII.
It's a remake, therefor the same game
fail
>>3
i just read through your post several times and cannot work out if you're flaming doom3 or HL2 there, depends how you read it :P
my opinion:
HL2 is very like HL1, but HL1 was very good, so this isn't a bad thing.
graphics wise, they're both at the high end of PC graphics. doom3 fails however for relying on 'ZOMG DARK!' lighting, meaning you can't see most of it... but what you can see of doom3 is very nice though.
overall i thought HL2 was the best game i've played this decade. enough to keep me up untill the early hours of the morning for several days to finish 'just one more level' each time.
doom3 looked nice but i only made it a third of the way through the game before becoming incurably bored (after the 50th time something teleports behind you to try and scare you) i managed the next third of the game via comedy mode (godmode + chainsaw rampage) but i still got so fed up of it i never finished it... it's essentially a graphics demo with a game tacked on... :p
> what
fail
-----
anyway, doom3 wasn't that HIT game i wanted it to be.. but it was the remake i wanted it to be, so i was happy..
>after the 50th time something teleports behind you to try and scare you
Carmack said that it was intentional.. If youre angry.. kill a monster and then relax, you get scared easy..
Doom3 had no water, and no BIG open spaces..
Again, CARMACK SAID: Why design something that isn't going to be used anyway..
and HL2 is supposed to be this greate OMG, look what you can do with our source engine sellout Supergame...
and hell, it was good.. but not THAT good..
i was kinda dissapointed at the shitty graphics..
They just added some Eyecandy DX9.. and said Fixed.
Oh BTW, if you don't know who Carmack is; he is the creator of FPS games.. (he programmed doom3) and it is said that ID's next project is to create a NEW GENRE!!.. (no, not Q4 lol.. but the game after that)
blah blah.. harbl.. look at me i am so important blah blah..
so if you ask me:
DOOM3 = 78/100
HL2 = 86/100
You're one rambling person, you know that?
>yes, DOOM3 has a shitty story too, but who gives a facek?
was that an intintional typo, a joke, or is my name being used as a word filter for "fuck"
typo or joke it was.
Where i live, we use facek instead of 'For fack sake'