Half Life 2

# 1 22-11-2004 , 12:13 AM

The Maya Mountain
Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,245

Just beat it... one word: WOW. That's what 100+ people, 6 years, and a $40 million budget can make. Too bad all of us in the industry don't have such luxeries. The game my studio is currently working on has more like a 10 month schedule, less than 20 people, and a budget less than $1 million. :p Ah, but I guess that's just jealousy talkin' user added image

.

Still, this game does a phenominal job of establishing a rich, immersive, near-future-post-alien-invasion-apocolyptic environment with grand vistas and mind-blowing scripted events.

The pixel shader technology is fantastic, but the real crux of this game is the picture-perfect lighting. Outdoor environments REALLY feel like your outdoors. Voice work is top notch. Fantasic particle effects... yep, lots of polish on thsi one (and after 6 years, I'd hope so. ;P). Right up there with the lighting was the use of (what I think are) cubic reflection maps. That really makes everything fit well into the scene.

Vehicle levels! Yay! user added image

My only complaints: too many lengthy loading screens. Squad AI isn't the greatest (I don't know how many times I was cursing my 4 AI buddies to get the hell out of my way and laughing to myself as they got picked off by enemy fire that they would have avoided had they just listened to my freaking commands).

And the freakin' rocket launcher only holds 3 rockets. :p While most big baddies that you need the launcher to take down require 4+ shots. That got a little frustrating sometimes, but I suppose that goes with the strategy of scrambling trying to find more rockets while dodging huge energy blasts that are tearing the place apart around you (while also dispatching with the ground troop minions).

All in all, though, a fantastic gaming experience. I definitely plan on playing through it again on a harder difficulty. I complain that it's too short, but really, that's just cause I blew through it too quickly. It's length is pretty good (but I hope expansions come out soon! user added image

)

Another neat thing is the Steam distribution network they set up. I bought the Silver package through Steam and not only got HL2, but also an upgraded version of HL1. I actually played through HL1 before playing HL2 since I hadn't played it before to make sure I was caught up on story elements. The story's a bit convoluted, though...

Here's to Half Life 3! And a hope that it doesn't take another 6 years, but somehow delivers just as good an experience. user added image

-Mike
The Maya Toolbelt

Quote

# 2 22-11-2004 , 12:36 AM

The Maya Mountain
Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,245

Oh, a few things I should probably mention... It seems I always hear talk and afterward roll my eyes as people always made mention of how "high" the polycounts are in Half-Life 2, spouting out such numbers as 50,000 polys per character and other such nonsense. Having finally played the game, it's obviously not true. From what I can tell, the characters are perhaps closer to 5-8,000 polys. And many of the environments were lower poly than I would have thought also. It didn't detract from the experience in any shape or form.

I can understand the confusion, though. HL2, like many newer games (including the one I'm working on) makes use of normal maps. These are made by creating high-res geometry and then baking that down into a normal map for use on low-res geometry. And yes, the high-res models, I can obviously see being 50k or even 500k poly models with no problem. However, the models IN THE GAME are not this high.

I'm sure most of you (those that even care) know this already, but it gets on my nerves sometimes when people spout all these technologically impossible numbers.

Even so, it wouldn't hurt any of you planning on getting into games to brush up both hi-res and lo-res skills, as I don't see this going away for a while. user added image

-Mike
The Maya Toolbelt

Quote

# 3 22-11-2004 , 08:45 AM

Kevin

Guest

Posts: n/a

its ok, not to bad...but it really hasnt had a lot to go up against

1. steams security is a joke! and no wonder people crack it as waiting for 2 hrs to get verification where there servers cant handle things is laughable.

2. The loading screen are also a joke, just as you get into it...them BAM - yep another loading screen, and not just a quick one - I mean lets go look out the wondow or make a cup of tea.

3. Driving, BORRIINNGGG , senseless driving around ..you dont even have to try to kill anyone, you just need to keep driving, utterly pointless and just time wasting

4. physics, yep sure look good, but Im really not going to stand beside a table and keep walking into it to see it sway about.

5. Yep sure looks nice - and it really does look nice, even plays on the slower pcs user added image

6. Fairly good story line

and solid 6.5 /10 from me, as not much new to be honest but at least a step forward

Quote

# 4 22-11-2004 , 09:36 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 1,257

Yeah, it was all hype, as partially expected.

The dynamics are cool and the textures are damn good...
apart from that:
The pixel shaders arent that good,and the ligning isnt that much superb (and its not my hardware) and the loading is a pain

Oh still I get frustrated when i find a perfectly valid solution to the "get out of here" puzzles only to find it wasnt the one they designed and that there is an invisible barrier preventing me from finally doing it.

The ai is just so-so and I wont talk about the story...

Finally, there must be still a pair of bugs resulting on that when you reload some points of the story it crashes (with a double windows error beep(well it is more like a "dong!" user added image

) and nothing else)...

Quote

# 5 22-11-2004 , 10:32 AM

SM Tea Boy
Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Prague

Posts: 3,228

Steam is very bad. Last game I go anywhere near with this style of deployment system.

Boring repetitive driving, AI isn't great. Don't get me wrong its not a bad game it gets a solid 7 out of 10 from me. I did replay the original which is still IMO a far better game.

Just another FPS nothing new to see as far as i was concerned.

David.

From a readers' Q and A column in TV GUIDE: "If we get involved in a nuclear war, would the electromagnetic pulses from exploding bombs damage my videotapes?"

Quote

# 6 22-11-2004 , 11:58 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2004

Location: That place with all those people

Posts: 1,041

No offence but I think everybody here apart from mike is crazy! This is the most perfect, polished, best looking, and fun game ever!
Lets go through the good points:
1) Graphics- stunning
2) Lighting- superb
3) Physics- best thing about the game (I spent the forst 30 minutes of the game throwing a can at one of the guards)
4) Music- spot on
5) Gravity Gun- Best weapon in the history of all weapons..ever!
6) Storyline- Original
7) Gameplay- Intense and fun!

Bad points:
1) Loading times....
2) The G-man... God I hate that guy!

Watch Space Wars at www.3dden.co.uk now!
__________________________

My pin number is XXXX

Quote

# 7 22-11-2004 , 12:17 PM

SM Tea Boy
Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Prague

Posts: 3,228

Games just a form of entertainment, and obviously we're not all entertained by the same things. To you the game play was intense and fun to me it was very repetitive and dull. Not to mention so easy, I played for 5 hours without once being killed, hell I could have walked through this game with my eyes shut.

It does look nice, and even runs on my relatively low end system. After doom 3 I'm just happy to be able to see what I'm shooting at.

Maybe I'm just bored of FPS games.

David user added image

From a readers' Q and A column in TV GUIDE: "If we get involved in a nuclear war, would the electromagnetic pulses from exploding bombs damage my videotapes?"

Quote

# 8 22-11-2004 , 03:17 PM

The Maya Mountain
Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,245

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. user added image

I wonder if it might be a cultural thing? US vs UK? Maybe not. user added image

As for the Steam distribution, I liked it quite a bit. Didn't have any trouble. Took about an hour and a half to download and I was able to pretty much play it right then. I really think future games will probably attempt the same thing (I know we're considering it). Just have to wait and see, I suppose.

-Mike
The Maya Toolbelt

Quote

# 9 22-11-2004 , 04:53 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2004

Location: Denmark

Posts: 816

Never really been that much into FPS games... They're generally just the same thing over and over again IMO, but then again, most games are... But I guess I'll have to check this one out sometime, at least to see what all the fuss is about! user added image

Originally posted by mtmckinley
I can understand the confusion, though. HL2, like many newer games (including the one I'm working on) makes use of normal maps. These are made by creating high-res geometry and then baking that down into a normal map for use on low-res geometry. And yes, the high-res models, I can obviously see being 50k or even 500k poly models with no problem. However, the models IN THE GAME are not this high.

Originally Posted by

Is this going to be covered in your book? Haven't ordered it yet, but I plan on doing so as soon as i find somebody who'll let me use their creditcard, or my bank gives me mine back user added image

-Blomkaal

Quote

# 10 22-11-2004 , 05:34 PM

The Maya Mountain
Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,245

Normal map generation is mentioned in a segment, although the main focus on the book is creating a game-res model. It does go over the steps of baking it down, though.

-Mike
The Maya Toolbelt

Quote

# 11 22-11-2004 , 07:07 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2004

Location: Denmark

Posts: 816

I've been searching around a bit now, and I've come to this:

Why didn't anybody just tell me normal mapping is the same thing as bump mapping??? user added image

I saw something about the Unreal Engine 3 in a danish pc games magazine a few months back, and they were all worked up about the fact that it had "some kind of technology that made surfaces look like they were more detailed than they actually were!", and I was like "Yeah, bump maps, stupid! What's so revolutionary about that?"

But yeah, I guess it a big deal when it comes to realtime models... In case you haven't figured out by now, I really don't know much about game modelling user added image

-Blomkaal

Quote

# 12 22-11-2004 , 07:24 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: New York

Posts: 2,133

Bump maps and normal maps are not the same thing...related, yes, but not the same thing. For a better understanding, read this:

https://members.shaw.ca/jimht03/normal.html

"Terminat Bora Diem, Terminal Auctor opus."

Quote

# 13 22-11-2004 , 08:02 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: May 2004

Location: Denmark

Posts: 816

Sorry, my bad. What I ment to say was that they essentially do the same thing (don't they? user added image

)

Quote

# 14 22-11-2004 , 08:04 PM

The Maya Mountain
Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,245

bump mapping can be equated to an emboss effect. Normal mapping on the other hand actually creates the bump effect based on the light direction. So, yeah, it's an upgraded bump map, but in conjunction with other pixel shaders it can accomplish a lot.

Not to mention the new tech being pixel-displacement maps (or offset maps) which simulates realtime displacement as opposed to just bump mapping, based on your camera's perspective by actually overlapping the pixels in your texture to create perspective.

https://www.reallyslick.com/pictures/offsetmapping.jpg

Not only that, but they can self-shadow which is craaaazy cool.

https://www.delphi3d.net/misc/images/uber_bumps.jpg
a flat plane with an offset map

Very neat stuff.

-Mike
The Maya Toolbelt

Quote