Celestial Toad is framing his id software shareholder's certificate
No shit, Sherlock.I am glad you see that point as obvious because that idiot Bhuric did not.
That isn't the issue now is it? You know full well what "aspect", as you call it, of innovation he was referring to you fascist prick. Innovative in a broader sense of the word, ok.Memory management was his example, not mine. I just rebutted it. In addition, he wrote that Half-Life 2 was NOT innovative. Without any clarification (which he did not include with the statement), "not innovative" means not innovative at all or in any way. That is why I replied and wrote that he would be hearing from the "Half-Life 2 has innovative facial animation" crowd because of his statement.
Try not to let your habit of bloating comments with superfluous nothingness distract from whatever miniscule point you're desperately fighting for ground over.Bhuric chose to have the argument over semantics by challenging my posts on those grounds.
Who's playing the semantics card again???He played that card. I just defended against it.
LOL! More myopic, semantics nonsense from you. If Half-Life 2 has new memory management, then yes, it would be innovative in that aspect even if the gameplay aspect is not innovative.
Tsk tsk... now Riley Troll... erm, I mean Pitz, you know that this isn't a HL2 and Steam thread. Save your unadulterated BS for the other thread that DOES pertain to HL2 if you please. There, that's a good troll, erm, I mean good boy!
I can't believe the lengths that you'll stretch to in a futile attempt to defend your positions.From your past posts, I certainly can believe the narrow view you have of the meaning of words. Innovative does not simply mean original in subject matter regardless of whether YOU think it does. If something has any aspect which is new, it IS innovative at least in that aspect.
You know, HL2 might have used some completely new technique in memory management. It might have made memory manipulation 10x easier and safer.LOL! More myopic, semantics nonsense from you. If Half-Life 2 has new memory management, then yes, it would be innovative in that aspect even if the gameplay aspect is not innovative.
However, in no way would that make HL2, the game, innovative.
My posting here has nothing to do with caring about you or your opinions. Don't flatter yourself."I don't care what you say, but I am replying to it anyway." LOL!
No wonder you lost the other argumentI didn't lose the argument. My videos from Tron 2.0 proved that the characters in Tron also had facial animation which displayed emotion which were of no less quality than Half-Life 2's.
However, they never claimed it was unique, they just claimed it was successful and the best.LOL! Being the best would make it unique. You mistakenly seem to think that something must be unique in subject matter to be unique. If something stands out above all others for any reason, i.e. "being without equal", it is unique.
It is you who obviously needs to consult a dictionary more often (and not just on this occasion). Innovative means characterized by something new. If something is of the best quality ever, then that is a NEW height in quality, hence it IS innovative.
It does not make in original in subject matter, but it can make it original or otherwise innovative if it is of unparalleled quality or created using a new, i.e. innovative, technique or method.
If you don't care, don't reply.
You need to read the previous thread on the subject in its entirety then because others stated in it that HL2 was unique in its use of facial animations to display emotion and that the facial animation system itself was unique in its ease of implementation.
I suggest you look up what "innovative" means. Having the best quality of something doesn't make it innovative - it makes it derivative.It is you who obviously needs to consult a dictionary more often (and not just on this occasion). Innovative means characterized by something new. If something is of the best quality ever, then that is a NEW height in quality, hence it IS innovative.
Quality doesn't make something original.It does not make in original in subject matter, but it can make it original or otherwise innovative if it is of unparalleled quality or created using a new, i.e. innovative, technique or method.
I don't care in the slightest what you are willing to concede. I was making a response to the criticism that others might argue against my position. You and your opinions have no bearing on that whatsoever.As I told you before, the comments I make in posts are what I choose to make. If you don't care, don't reply.
However, unless someone tries to make the point that HL2 actually does so, which no one has done to this point, there's no point considering it.You need to read the previous thread on the subject in its entirety then because others stated in it that HL2 was unique in its use of facial animations to display emotion and that the facial animation system itself was unique in its ease of implementation. I don't agree with the former claim, but it was stated nonetheless.
but even being simply called the best would still make them innovative in some way like quality
By the way, I don't concede that they were THE best
Simply using them, no, but the actual implementation could still be innovative such as in technique or quality.
Considering I went on to point this out, your response is useless.
your assertion that the level design based upon that is equally useless, eh?
been here arguing nonstop with those of us that aren't interested in it.
Just because something is based on something old does not mean it shouldn't advance. Hey, Peter Jackson is remaking King Kong. I guess he should use the same technology for the special effects, right? Updating would be bad, eh?
No one cares
Every single post you've made is knocking other games in an attempt to prove that Quake 4 is the best game you've ever played.
refusal to admit maybe some parts of Q4 aren't as much fun as they could be
Quake 4 is not repetitive until the last few levels, where it kind of feels like they tried to drag it out a little too long just to make it longer
For someone so incredibly concerned with how useless the opinions of reviewers are you're very concerned with me believing your opinion of the game as being proper.
You're overblowing the game to the point that no game could live up to it.
Considering the fact that you've never even played Quake 4, that makes your price assessment 100% useless.
And as I've stated before, the Quake monsters should engage you in a straight up frontal fight, especially a Quake 2 sequel, which is exactly what they do.
In fact I haven't seen or played levels this dull in years. I'm seriously bored with the levels, I mean, there is just nothing impressive in any of them.
Because you've already decided that you don't like this game, you're not objective about it at all, and your thoughts of the game as you play it will probably be affected negatively by all the bitching and drivel on this ever continuing written pissing contest about Quake 4. And sadly I have contributed to it. That being said, I'm going to return to playing Quake 4 on the 4th difficulty level, blasting Strogg, and occasionally playing the multiplayer. You go do whatever makes you happy and we will just agree to disagree about this game.
If I recall, you've mentioned reviews constantly. Maybe it wasn't you, but I believe it was.
And I don't care about formatting. If italics are too hard, well, try harder.
I also don't think FEAR is worth $50, maybe $30. Q4 I'd peg around $10.
I haven't played it and will wait for a demo, but the movies were unimpressive. Levels looked dull, AI looked mindless.
FEAR at least has AI, one of the most important things to me
but all the reviews say the levels are nearly as repetitive as Doom 3, which means the best AI in the world likely couldn't keep me interested enough to finish the game.
FEAR at least has AI