Half Life for the 3rd time.

Ok here we go.
I have been playing half life 2 again for the 3rd time
looking at the glorious graphics.And someone said to me
now play it quicker,So i played it quicker.And he said do you see the bump mapping,pixel shading,and all that gubbins,i said no not whilst im in the game.So he said what is the point in having it if you dont see it.

Question what is the point.

Be Well.

To make the perfectionists happy?

To sell it in the first place. Screenshots sell games.

The point of playing it quicker and ignoring the goodies?

You would notice if there not there. Turn them off and see.

I was looking for the effects whilst i was rushing about,
but i did not notice them in game.So what is the point in having them if you dont see them.

be well

The point in having them has already been noted, stupid question.

If your going to rush the game and "not see them" then what does it matter to you if you don't want to see them in the first place?

If you don't notice the effects, it means they're working. Whats the point of making glaring-obvious effects, when it would just detract from the immersion?

This is why I hate bloom / HDR effects, its so obvious and I hate having it look as if Im staring at the sun all the time.

Ok why should i buy a game because it says it has good graphics.

No one said you should, if you want good graphics buy games with good graphics, if you want gameplay buy games with good gameplay.

Precisely my thoughts.

Most ppl buy games on graphics(Yes or No)
I no my son does . Question above
As im saying what is the point in putting them in your game,if no one looks at them.

If you rush about in a first person shooter.
do you stop and look at the graphics (No you Dont)
so what is the point in having all the good graphics.
You dont see them.

Be well.

Good graphics are a big part of what sell games today, theyre not the only thing to think about. Gameplay is much more a factor then graphics, but you have to mind both. (I think a good example of a bad balance would by Xylvan's candy/light whatever world stuff. He spent way to much on graphics, not to mention over-blooming, instead of actual polish and gameplay)

Just because --YOU-- don't look at them, doesn't mean no-one else does it either. There are people (like myself) who take the time to enjoy the details. And especially when I play a game more than once, I spend even more time looking for details than trying to rush through a game in even less time.

Now where is the meaning of rushing through a game? What's that good for?

Have you ever really read an Asterix comic book? Just look at how much love Uderzo has given to all the little details in the pictures. Every little flower was painted with passion.

The thing about the level of detail is that your eye -always- sees it - especially when it is -not- there. Missing details create a subconscious feeling of emptiness in you, and you simply will not like the game or movie or (comic) book because it feels shallow.

lol @ snarkbait

The point of putting them in is to sell more copys to the people that do buy a game on its graphics.

However, good for half-life, its a game that can also fly on its own game play. After all that's why you have played it three times now

@Winni that is a static picture diffrent story there.
Im talking moving images here.
@Shagwana 2 true i love good graphics.
but as i say u dont see much when you move in a first
person perspective.You dont look around when something is trying to kill you.

Im more into gameplay. Graphics are nice -IF- they dont cost gameplay. If a game is the slightest bit more jerky or slower in any way i turn them down until i find the threshold.

You're right. Valve should discontinue the Half-Life series and hire you to write 2D puzzle games. It's the only business plan that makes sense.

Plash, I'm placing you on thought probation. You are no longer allowed to think. First the Zelda thing, now this.. clearly your mind isn't working, and it needs to be shut off temporarily.

As i say leadwerks you can put what you like in an engine but the eye can only see so much.nuff said

Good graphis dont bite on me anymore. on childre yes. but as growup i rather have good gameplay.. and no Mario Cart Wil is not a good example of good gameplay.

Outragus.. mario cart has becom new pacman.. same game new machine.

Even though you may not actively observe it, subconsciously it still makes a difference. Just because it didn't jump out at you doesn't mean that it doesn't enrich the environment as a whole.

In real life you don't pay attention to shadows either, but things still seem wrong if they'd be missing. :-?

Yeah and we should all hurry up and die too ...

I agree with Snarkbait ;)

It's all about the subtleties in the way the artists use shaders and filter effects.

The last thing we need are more games with overdone bloom and bumpmaps just so players know that "they're there".....

Good graphics is what draws you to the game in the first place, I agree after the initial wow factor is over, your mind is set on game play. BUT....if you didn't have those killer graphics from the get go, would you stick around long enough to enjoy the game play? ;)

Personally I don't play very old 3D games anymore... Usually it's because they look and handle badly. That also is true for Half Life 1. I mean Half Life 2 is getting old. if you start playing Half Life 2 Episode 2 you'll SEE that HL2 is getting dated. Even worse if you play Crysis!! I still play Far Cry even thoe it starts to get dated but it is still a good production to play today. Same with Oblivion, and some other neat games that play high resolution and looks good, Doom 3 is still kicking it imho.

I think HL2 is absolutely not that good looking, and not just checking out the scenery. Playability improves too as time goes on, the engines get more sophisticated.

Yeah I just played the last 2 episodes of HL2 and I agree it really has dated.

LMAO@the Picard pic. Comedy timing, and sums my feelings up exactly!

If the developers thought there is no need for good graphics, we would be still playing the old atari games. Remember Doom 1 and how it made all the players buy new hardware at the time.

In other hand, most of the game developers are funded by ATI or Nvidia. ATI and Nvidia has to sell new hardware. They need graphically advanced games to sell hardware and game developers need money to develop games so they scratch each others back.

Personally I enjoy good graphics and do not rush to finish a game I paid $20-$60. If there is only good gfx and no playability and fun (eg. Doom3) that game is no use but for Half Life 2, it's a brilliant game and gfx just makes it better.

Nice_But_Dim what exactly do you want to achieve by this 'discussion'?

This argument is like saying 'what is the point in having a nice bedroom, as your eyes are closed when you sleep anyway'. Its just silly.