TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- Left 4 Dead....WOW!
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

So I guess my AMD 64 FX55 CPU and 7800GTX won't run this

quote:

Originally posted by Shudder true.. but they took away one thing i enjoyed the most out of the game.. taxi driving. however I'm not even 50 % done with it yet so I dont know if the main character gets to do that later.

Haha, maybe he learns how to do taxi driving as the quest continues. Either way, I had no idea they took that feature out...which kinda sucks because that was one of the extra activities that everybody loved doing.

quote:

Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY So I guess my AMD 64 FX55 CPU and 7800GTX won't run this

i dont know what an fx55 is, but a 7800GTX would be fine. i actually think the graphics in this game are pretty shit, by 2008 standards.

My old radeon 9200 was running source engine smoothly back in the day. A geforce 7 should excel at it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont know what an fx55 is, but a 7800GTX would be fine. i actually think the graphics in this game are pretty shit, by 2008 standards.

The Graphics look awesome to me.....really impressed how well the engine holds up too!

I personally don't care about graphics, and I wouldn't mind at all if source engine kept being used for another ten years. But seriousely, L4D's graphics engine really doesn't measure up to any current high profile games, or even games from years ago.

Seriously your talking nonsense....

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 People have said that GTAIV doesn't have nearly the replay value of San Andreas. But its hard to knock R* for that when they did such an incredible job with the visual detail of the game.

It's very easy to knock R* for that when they removed incredible game content for the sole purpose of making the game have PRE77Y PIKTARZZ!!!

The desire for pretty graphics in place of a more immersive and enjoyable gaming environment is the #1 for the decline in the overall quality of video-games in the current generation.

Luckily, once the pretty pictures have been developed, then content is added in a sequel, and sometimes it works out to be a masterpiece!

quote:

Originally posted by Spam The desire for pretty graphics in place of a more immersive and enjoyable gaming environment is the #1 for the decline in the overall quality of video-games in the current generation.

I would mostly agree but instead I would say that the problem is the desire for realistic graphics. There's no reason why a game's graphics can't have great artistic quality while simultaneousely providing an enjoyable game world.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam It's very easy to knock R* for that when they removed incredible game content for the sole purpose of making the game have PRE77Y PIKTARZZ!!! The desire for pretty graphics in place of a more immersive and enjoyable gaming environment is the #1 for the decline in the overall quality of video-games in the current generation. Luckily, once the pretty pictures have been developed, then content is added in a sequel, and sometimes it works out to be a masterpiece!

Agreed, though when I said 'visual detail', I was trying to separate my remark away from just saying 'good graphics'. The people walking around, birds flying in the sky, every building individually and uniquely presented...I mean, I felt like I was in a real city. Now that's what I was talking about, and for R* to be able to pull all of that off is absolutely amazing.

But yes, if gameplay takes a hit, there should be some criticism. Yet in my experiences with playing the game, I can hardly find things to dislike. The disclusion of taxi driving is strange, but beyond that, I think everyone was just spoiled with San Andreas and how there was so much to do.

With GTA4, R* had to construct an entirely new graphics engine (all of the previous 3-D GTA's were built on the same model)...to expect them to successfully do that AND pack the game full of the same amount of content as San Andreas...well, I think that's asking a little too much.

Which is why your last sentence in your post is spot on...the sequels to GTA4 will be filled with shit to do, because the visual foundation has already been set.

quote:

Originally posted by Simcut Seriously your talking nonsense....

you have no idea what youre talking about. the source engine is several degrees inferior to games like CoD4, crysis, bioshock, or any other major shooter you care to mention that's been released in the last few years.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you have no idea what youre talking about. the source engine is several degrees inferior to games like CoD4, crysis, bioshock, or any other major shooter you care to mention that's been released in the last few years.

Yes it was made half a decade ago. But I thought you were one of the proud and few to not obsess over how high a resolution a texture is.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Yes it was made half a decade ago. But I thought you were one of the proud and few to not obsess over how high a resolution a texture is.

im not obsessing. just correcting people who are mistaken and i must admit i do have a guilty tendency to criticise textures, mass effect anyone?

imo CoD4's engine is extremely overrated. Especially compared to the Source engine. The world is extremely static and linear, with very limited physics. Got boring, quick.

and which physics-based gameplay elements do you think really make a difference in left 4 dead?

General consensus is that the graphics on this game are superb, and I agree..... it runs superbly as well, much better than Crysis and the like, this is the first game I can run at like AAx8 and AFx8 without any slowdown!

This game runs smooth-as-butter damn-near maxed out on my new MacBook Pro (booted into XP)... kick-ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Simcut this is the first game I can run at like AAx8 and AFx8 without any slowdown!

because it looks like crap.

lol seriously.

You know what else I can run all maxed out?

Doom.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine lol seriously. You know what else I can run all maxed out? Doom.

Id like to point out that nobody is criticising the actual game; just the graphics. It�s a good game. it just looks old.

The game totally looks amazing, it's almost as good as Crysis except it's in a dark and creepy atmosphere.

I'll be the first (and only from the looks of it) to admit that this game didn't do much for me. Not sure why. I don't find it very fun playing as a zombie, and I think the game gets repetitive as hell. Don't get me wrong, the co-op aspect is pretty damn neat, but I just found the game to get stale quickly.

I've only played it twice, both sessions were kinda short. I'll give it another goaround and see if my opinion changes.

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 I'll be the first (and only from the looks of it) to admit that this game didn't do much for me. Not sure why. I don't find it very fun playing as a zombie, and I think the game gets repetitive as hell. Don't get me wrong, the co-op aspect is pretty damn neat, but I just found the game to get stale quickly. I've only played it twice, both sessions were kinda short. I'll give it another goaround and see if my opinion changes.

ive only played with the AI, but i tend to agree. great idea and execution for a game imo, but there's not a lot here after you've played it for a number of hours.

And I'm usually a huge sucker for FPS's. I can't really seem to put a finger on why I thought it was boring. Games like these usually are awesome in my book.

i just started downloading a bunch of custom maps. those are fun.

http://l4dmapdb.wikidot.com/

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.