alanschu

In reality? Probably not. In my mind? Enough to make me worry. I'm known to exaggerate heavily. It's not the mechanics that are bothering me so much as the overall feel of it. It's just... different. I'll most likely love it, but until then it seems funky to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What feels so different about it though? The only real difference is that there seems to be alternate paths. It still sounds like there will be a heavy amount of sneaking around in the game. I don't get where people say "Warrior Within all over again" or anything like that. I guess it is different in that it's not "Do missions for Lambert." Sounds like he started off like that, but then got captured.

Is it "really" that much of an overhaul? When I read the interview at the link it didn't seem like that big of a change IMO.

As for the topic at hand, I'm very excited about Company of Heroes! It seems pretty ambitious, with the ability to utilize full physics and having the AI recognize what is appropriate cover and whatnot. Could be the successor to Close Combat I've been waiting for! I'm also interested in 82nd Airborne in Normandy. I loved the demo for 101st Airborne in Normandy, but I was never able to pick it up before it upped and vanished like a fart in the wind.

I suppose things like "placing NPCs" or "creating items" or "building modules" are indeed common.

If you can get it cheap, I'd highly recommend it. I think the story is pretty tight, and the characters are all really well done. I love the chatter between Sam and Grimmsdottir

Heh, when I said miniscule I wasn't talking about FPS, but the health numbers and console text and all that Hmmm, I wonder what type of FPS I would get on a game like Quake 2 now :D

Did you alter any video settings?

Or you could just go 1600 is 2x800 and 1200 is 2x600 and go 2x2=4 times as much? I'm just being a smartass though "

Like I said, if I take the time to look for the aliasing in the left pic, I can still notice the aliasing (though blurred) in the right pic just as easily in most cases.

Hahaha....so true.

I haven't played the game, but it sounds like you already figured things out. I'd suggest a transitional stage of having both script buildings or something.

**** ALANSCHU INFLUENCE: INCREASED ****

I agree. Tanking on purpose is bad for the sport in general IMO. I think I actually prefer the NBA's lottery. Only teams that did not make the playoffs are eligible, and the teams with worse records have a better chance of getting a higher pick. Go Oilers! I need sleep...still awake!

The thing is, if you look at the picture on the right I can STILL point see where the pixels are. It's a bit more difficult to notice though, unless you are stopped and analyzing the screen, practically looking for them. Sure I can notice them, but while in a game playing them my eyes probably interpolate the aliasing to be a smooth edge. Maybe it's all my years of being forced to play at low resolutions. Or maybe the visual cortex of my brain has evolved to the point where it knows how to manipulate the signals detected so that I interpret more naturally (actually probably not THAT unreasonable, since I've been playing computer games in some way shape or form since I was 2, almost 23 years ago). And yeah, I like anisotropic filtering because it gives much better clarity for objects still in the distance. The biggest improvment I noticed this on was the original Half-Life game, which had a very abrupt mip-mapping line break where textures went from clear to blurry. Hell Kitty's picture does a pretty good job, and THAT is the type of detail I like seeing in video games. It's why I don't care if I can't play at 1600x1200 with 23542x FSAA at 252 fps in FEAR. I feel the shaders and the rest of the engine add so much more graphically that I'm not going to lose sleep over mere pixels. The funny thing is...how much of a performance hit is that with 6x FSAA? I won't dispute that FSAA at the same resolution is better...but is it really better than just upping the resolution, which also has additional benefits such as increased precision, at less of a performance increase?

Which one is the Gman?? The one on the right maybe, but I'm not so sure.

The funny thing is that that picture you posted is apparently completely unacceptable to play a video game at. I can't imagine how people can honestly notice (especially to the point where it becomes annoying) that, on animated (i.e. moving) creatures in a video game. To me, a hand like that would be perfectly acceptable in a video game. As I said earlier, to each his own I guess.

You are my alter-ego! I think it's mostly a habit that started back in the day when interfaces didn't scale with resolution. I remember playing Quake 2 at 1600x1200, and the health and console and everything were absolutely miniscule. I wonder if aliasing is more prevalent on an LCD screen.

Agreed, and I do play on a 1280-native flat panel. Also, I absolutely cannot tolerate even the slightest amount of aliasing. I don't know why. It just gets on my nerves. Any resolution other than the native 1280 looks like garbage on my monitor, so I'm stuck at that resolution. In fact, when I was hunting for a monitor, the only reason I chose my 19" PVA to a superior 20" S-IPS was because the 20" had a 1600 native resolution, and I was sure I couldn't get a lot of games games to run smooth at that resolution with any amount of AA. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To be honest sounds like more of a limitation of your flat panel monitor. Questionable resolution support is why I still haven't made the progression away from CRT.

It's clear you're not in the programming part of your programming school. You couldn't possibly make any of your claims without recognizing what parts of the code are still being utilized.

I agree that the Source engine rocks. Though it is rather silly that their shadowing cuts through walls. Makes everyone a wallhacker on some maps in CS:Source. I still feel that FEAR's engine blows it out of the water, even at poorer video settings. As for your video card purchase, I don't think it gives you the right to anything. You can still play the game with much better graphical options than people who own inferior options. That's the only priviledge you were given when forking over $600 for a video card. IMO the engine looks nicer at 800x600 with no FSAA or AF than most games at higher resolution with those features. I guess I just have lesser standards for resolutions and FSAA and AF. I'd much rather spend my resources on increasing the shaders, and polygon counts, with normal mapping etc. etc. etc. It's those reasons why Half-Life 2 looks so good. The character models have so much detail, and the animations (which is not really dependent on graphics card performance) create the visual feast that is Half-Life IMO. FSAA, particularly at higher resolutions, is an absolute waste IMO. Far too much performance hit for the "gain" in graphical integrity. Exceptions being games with long distance viewing like a flight sim. The biggest advantage of FSAA comes with resolution limitations. Such as flatpanel or widescreen monitors. I'd rather just play a game at 1600x1200 with 0x FSAA. I get increased precision (more pixels actually existing on the screen), negigible graphical quality difference (particularly if aren't stopping to squint an inch away from your screen actually LOOKING for flaws, rather than playing the game), and much, much better performance. I do like AF though, as it does wonders to eliminate the blurring of mip-mapping (well, at least it did in the original Half-Life engine), and creates a nice crispness to a game. But I still wouldn't consider FEAR to be graphically inferior to Quake 4 or Half-Life 2, even if FEAR had no AF enabled and the other two had full 16x enabled. Give me the stuff that makes the world look more immersive and detailed. Pixels are a wash, and only really noticed if looking at them. And this comes from experience playing games at all resolutions. As long as it doesn't get too low (I played through the original Half-Life at 320x240...now THAT was pixelation) I really couldn't care less about the pixel count. I'd much rather have a nice shiny engine otherwise. Though I guess it must be a bit of a piss off to buy something with the expectations of having certain settings all the time (although your card IS over half a year old now...it's reaching middle age graphics card age). I suspect this bitterness unfairly affects your opinion of FEAR's graphical capabilities. I'd much rather have beautiful, realistic looking shadows rather than shadows that cut through walls (Half-Life 2) or shadows that aren't actually cast on other creatures (Doom 3). I also like the fact that the game character is actually rendered in engine, meaning that HE actually casts a shadow. I haven't played Quake IV, so maybe they changed this, for that version (in addition to no shadows on character models). To each his own I guess. I'd much rather play at a lower resolution with much better graphical standards elsewhere, rather than they take anything out of the game simply so you can have small pixels.

Historically, the lottery only applied to the bottom 3 teams though. This year was an exception because of the lockout

I just installed the game today, so I haven't played online yet. I have a bit too much on the plate at the moment, but I'll likely log in a few minutes or so in MP at some point.

Meh. I'm a PC gamer that enjoys PC games. If I can play through it a slightly different way (even if it's miniscule), I have no problems with it. When compounded with a game like Fallout, it makes it all the more enjoyable. The thing I like about all that you said is it makes the world infinitely more believable and immersive. It's WHY I like Fallout.

It's GURPS origin is not irrelevant. You're too busy stuck on rules bub. THe game setting and game experience is all that matters, especially in a gameworld where the rules are much more transparent than say a game of DnD.