bit-gamer.net

Half Life 2 on Xbox screens

Comments 1 to 25 of 53

Reply
Enforcer 12th September 2005, 14:05 Quote
I prefer the PC version alot more. But if theres a chance for me to play the xbx version ill try it. It has a awesome story, the graphics are Meh, animations are quite decent.

And best of all iD is always with me on most games i play especially HL2
Firehed 12th September 2005, 14:18 Quote
EA? Come on Valve, you can do better than that. ANYONE else.

*glad he already hates xbox
stephen2002 12th September 2005, 15:09 Quote
Of course, the PC version looks better. However I must say that the screen shots are looking great for a console game. The detail in the walls that gives City17 it's run-down look is still there. It's going to look quite nice on a TV when you are sitting across the room from it. Of course, the PC plugged into a TV running at a low resolution with AA cranked up and all of the fancy effects looks startlingly realistic in parts :)

Looking forward to the article tommorow!
mushky 12th September 2005, 15:18 Quote
That looks bloody awesome for an Xbox game. I'm of the opinion that FPS games are meant for the PC mainly down to the control system. But nobody can say those screenshots don't make the graphics look VERY impressive for a current-gen console.
Krikkit 12th September 2005, 15:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushky
That looks bloody awesome for an Xbox game. I'm of the opinion that FPS games are meant for the PC mainly down to the control system. But nobody can say those screenshots make the graphics VERY impressive for a current-gen console.
Well said mushky - that's exactly what i was about to post. :)
mushky 12th September 2005, 15:28 Quote
Almost. Realised that I missed out a negative, edited now :)
webbyman 12th September 2005, 16:13 Quote
looks poo poo i would much rather play it on pc.
Kipman725 12th September 2005, 16:37 Quote
looks like a geforce 2mx has rendered it...

terible I don't think anyone can get the full experiance on such a low powered peice of consumer electronics with a brick for a controller.
RTT 12th September 2005, 16:43 Quote
Haha, those graphics are pathetic. I don't even care what console it's on, current gen or not, I wouldn't play that when a 2 year old PC can do better.
Stompy 12th September 2005, 18:42 Quote
TV res is 720x576 isn't it?
statix 12th September 2005, 18:48 Quote
You guys are seriously out of touch if you think this looks good for an Xbox game or are representative of what the Xbox can do. There are many games that look waaaay better than this. These screens are pretty much crap.

Valve shouldn't have tried to port it themselves, since they know nothing of console development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
TV res is 720x576 isn't it?
HDTVs can go up to 1920x1080 resolution.
Lord Kordir 12th September 2005, 18:49 Quote
Lets also bear in mind an Xbox cost under £100. Enough said really.....

More bang for your buck than a £350 graphics card that is out of date as soon as it hits the shelves
Kameleon 12th September 2005, 19:58 Quote
Does this mean we'll get to whip some Xbox-owner bottom on CS:S, ala Dreamcast Q3? :D
Isotopian 12th September 2005, 20:13 Quote
Dude, a normal TV's resolution is 320 by 240- thats half of how small the crappiest monitors can go. It's pretty durn small, which is the only reason HL 2 can even run on a console.
Slink 12th September 2005, 20:19 Quote
First person shooters will only be played on a PC in this house, Halo 4 and Goldeneye 2 can suck mah balls!
DivineSin 12th September 2005, 20:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isotopian
Dude, a normal TV's resolution is 320 by 240- thats half of how small the crappiest monitors can go. It's pretty durn small, which is the only reason HL 2 can even run on a console.

Actually..since your in alaska and part of america and the NTSC standard, a normal tv's resolution is 640x480, some normal tv's can go up to 1024x768 though.
Isotopian 12th September 2005, 20:39 Quote
TVs are 640 x 480? Really? I could've sworn they were lower. Oh well. And I'm actually in Pennsylvania now for college... but us alaskans are only barely part of the us. We're more canadians than anything else.

Anyways, the purpose of a console system, IMHO, is to increase the playability of a game. And all things aside about Half Life 2s amazing graphics engine and etc., the fact remains that it's a kickass game with a great story line- why would'nt you want more people to get in on that?
PHILIP1193 12th September 2005, 21:13 Quote
i was looking at this earlier and was quite impressed but thats maybe cuz its such a good game :D


Phil
FIBRE+ 12th September 2005, 21:58 Quote
FPS games dont belong on a gamepad. It really doesnt do them any justice.

Personally I think HL was better than HL2, for story, gameplay and innovation (not to mention the mods). HL2 is amazing but comparing it to what HL was when it came out its a let down. There really wasnt anything like it, Half Life really did change gaming.

Still love HL2 and Source tho :)

Might start the HL single player again, then play HL2 single player when ive completed HL :D
OtakuHawk 12th September 2005, 22:27 Quote
Quote:
But, in the meantime, we have something far more exciting for you. It's from Valve, and not only is it from Valve, it's actually from Valve - we have a man at their offices in Seattle as we speak. We've got some info coming, and it's going to be good - hence our new header image on the front page. Tune in tomorrow!


Anyone want to bet against me that Bit-tech gets the inside scoop on Aftermath??
Endoxus 13th September 2005, 00:56 Quote
For all the pro video editors sitting out there scratching their heads (like me),

here is a run down of all the different types of video signal

Interlaced/Progressive

Interlaced: Refreshes every second row of pixels at 60Htz (1/60th second)
Progressive: Refreshes the entire screen every 60Htz (1/60th of a second)

Progressive obviously gives better quality, as the entire screen, not just every second row, are refreshed every 1/60th of a second. it gives a smoother, cleaner picture.

Now the formats:

Standard "over the air" TV: 480i
(DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE 480, PLEASE READ ON)
Digital Television: 480p
High Definition tv (HDTV): 720p, 1080i, 1080p

Resolution:

480i/480p: the screen resolution is 720 x 542 4:3, this resolution can sometimes also be noted at 720x480, this is due to the fact that TV's tend to cut the top and bottom off an image and there end up being 480 "usable" pixels with editing.
if you look down the viewfinder of any pro camera or start up a pro editing software you will see a box inside the screen, this indicates the sweet spot, the "usable pixels", anything outside that box can be distorted, or not even show up.
SO in a standard video signal you have 720x542 pixels but only 640 x480 of those are considered usable by video.
Gaming however is a different story, as they tend to use the entire 720x542 pixels. having menus hard up against the side of the screen, means that they use all the pixels available.

720p: the screen resolution is 1280x720 16:9, this is considered high definition, but they are not true HDTV's. Read on for details

1080i/1080p: the screen resolution is 1920x1080 16:9. This is true high definition resolution. however I know many of you are choking on your video leads at that insane resolution, you have to understand this: unless you want to spend an INSANE amount of money you will never get a screen to realise this resolution. an HDTV image of 1920x1080 can be scaled to fit 1366x768, 1280x960, 1024x768, 852x480. Most of the high end plasmas on the market today are at the 1366x768/1280x960 mark. the best quality plasma on the market today, the Pioneer PDP505HD is a 1280x960 resolution. few dare to go higher, Panasonic offer a 1366x768 model.
720p is still considered HDTV, and many of the cheaper HD panels on the market today simply accept a 1080 signal and "downconvert" it to 720p. These panels can be called: EDTV's (Enhanced Definition TV's). many budget models are only EDTV, but by FCC standards it is still considered HD.

Hope this clears things up

i might right a guide to this is you guys are interested. if you want one pm me and if i get enough response ill write a detailed guide explaining all the resolution, plasma vs lcd, and what to look for if your in the market. this is only about 1/4 of what you should consider if your buying, so if your interested ill write more. just pm me with a yes please!

Have a good one

Endoxus
FIBRE+ 13th September 2005, 01:57 Quote
Nice one :D

Would be handy as a sticky or whatever its called, im sure a lot of people can make use of that info ;)
statix 13th September 2005, 02:26 Quote
You people need to get your facts straight. TVs aren't 640x480, and to claim that they're 320x240 is even more preposterous.

High-end HDTVs can go all the way up to 1920x1080 (1080i or 1080p). Some TVs go up to 1280x720 (720p). The next-gen systems like Xbox 360 or PS3 will run games standard at 1280x720 (720p HDTV) resolution at the minimum.
MrBurritoMan 13th September 2005, 02:45 Quote
well all i can say about this situation is that i am glad that i am a PC gamer. as rudimentary as that comment might seem it can carry a lot of weight when companies like valve have to scale back the graphics on their games to get it to run on a console.

now i know that what i said above might be extremely offensive to those of you who are hard core console gamers however this is something that i have had to experience for myself. i have played games like HL2 on both the console and PC and needless to say the PC comes out on top every time. be that as it my this is still my opinion and it can be proved wrong, just not changed. B)
Haddy 13th September 2005, 04:57 Quote
I jsut cant wrap my head around using my thumbs to control movement...Next thing you know m$ will come out with a toe controller....
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums