mack said:
I'm so behind on FPS....Last one I played was Soldier of Fortune 2. I havent played a console or computer game since January, seriously.....
Yeah, for FPS, it's an on-off thing for me too.. mainly depending on what PC I have. You see, I'm simply a graphics whore so I end up spending thousands every few years on hardware. Then after around 1-2 years my PC becomes more or less rubbish and I can no longer run the latest games on the highest settings with reasonable frames so I go off them for awhile.. before I build another PC.
withoutaface said:
Hahaha you're not the only one, I'm currently in the process of building a new one
Cool. What are you getting mate?
Ragerunner said:
half-life 2 is pretty much the same as the first except better graphics and detail..
there should of at least made some significant gameplay differences :S
Well, what kind of gameplay differences were you expecting? I thought the gameplay was excellent.. pretty top-notch for a FPS in 2004. If they released this game before Far Cry, it would of been a killer.
xiao1985 said:
maybe it's the splatter of blood every where and human limbs etc which makes go *vomit~~~
Nah, some complained that playing Half-Life 2 resulted in motion sickness and many attributed the problem to the game's low field of view, which defaults to 75 degrees instead of the more commonly used 90 degrees. While players can increase the FOV through console commands, it can take away the realism, as staring at a monitor about a foot away (the recommended distance) is 75 degrees. Additionally, when using 90 degrees, the character's face will get distorted and the levels will seem larger with the player moving through it at high speed.