Why Half Life 2 isn't the greatest game ever.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

muoot

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
208
0
0
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: muoot
How about just one storyline answer or plot related reason to continue GF's participation on to HL3? eh? Or would that be impatient ????

I see where you're coming from on a lot of points (although I, myself, do not have the same issues with the game) but this quote shows that you completely missed the point of the ending. Gordon will participate in Half-Life 3 because he doesn't have a choice. He doesn't know how or why he gets in these situations, but he has to press on to survive.

Perhaps Valve is trying to show us how Gordon feels. Think about it: he has to be infinitely more frustrated than we are. His entire life is a manipulation! What did the G-Man say? "Rather than giving you the illusion of free choice..."?

On the contrary, I did not miss the point.

As an active, participating member of the audience, I take issue with "survival" as a main plot motivator. You have made some well said statements, because that (He doesn't know how or why he gets in these situations, but he has to press on to survive. ) is precisely what degrades the quality of the plot, thereby decreasing the audience interest in the HL storyline. The greatgrandpappy VG "Pong" is based upon "survival" as well..hit the ball across to the other side or lose.


Unless, of course, the objective was to leave the audience infinitely more frustrated . :disgust:
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
The apparent difficulty people in thread are having with accepting that others may have differing opinions about things is simply amazing.
I think the Age of Empires series suck, but I don't run around calling it's fans childish, idiots, or anything of the like, they have their tastes, I have mine, geez, what a concept eh? :roll:
 

EpsiIon

Platinum Member
Nov 26, 2000
2,351
1
0
Originally posted by: muoot
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: muoot
How about just one storyline answer or plot related reason to continue GF's participation on to HL3? eh? Or would that be impatient ????

I see where you're coming from on a lot of points (although I, myself, do not have the same issues with the game) but this quote shows that you completely missed the point of the ending. Gordon will participate in Half-Life 3 because he doesn't have a choice. He doesn't know how or why he gets in these situations, but he has to press on to survive.

Perhaps Valve is trying to show us how Gordon feels. Think about it: he has to be infinitely more frustrated than we are. His entire life is a manipulation! What did the G-Man say? "Rather than giving you the illusion of free choice..."?

On the contrary, I did not miss the point.

As an active, participating member of the audience, I take issue with "survival" as a main plot motivator. You have made some well said statements, because that (He doesn't know how or why he gets in these situations, but he has to press on to survive. ) is precisely what degrades the quality of the plot, thereby decreasing the audience interest in the HL storyline. Unless, of course, the objective was to leave the audience infinitely more frustrated . :disgust:

If you understood the ending, why did you ask for "just one storyline answer or plot related reason to continue GF's participation on to HL3"? From Gordon's (OUR) perspective, there is no reason. He continues to "participate" because he has no other option. How can you ask for a reason if you already understand that there isn't one?
 

muoot

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
208
0
0
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: muoot
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: muoot
How about just one storyline answer or plot related reason to continue GF's participation on to HL3? eh? Or would that be impatient ????

I see where you're coming from on a lot of points (although I, myself, do not have the same issues with the game) but this quote shows that you completely missed the point of the ending. Gordon will participate in Half-Life 3 because he doesn't have a choice. He doesn't know how or why he gets in these situations, but he has to press on to survive.

Perhaps Valve is trying to show us how Gordon feels. Think about it: he has to be infinitely more frustrated than we are. His entire life is a manipulation! What did the G-Man say? "Rather than giving you the illusion of free choice..."?

On the contrary, I did not miss the point.

As an active, participating member of the audience, I take issue with "survival" as a main plot motivator. You have made some well said statements, because that (He doesn't know how or why he gets in these situations, but he has to press on to survive. ) is precisely what degrades the quality of the plot, thereby decreasing the audience interest in the HL storyline. Unless, of course, the objective was to leave the audience infinitely more frustrated . :disgust:

If you understood the ending, why did you ask for "just one storyline answer or plot related reason to continue GF's participation on to HL3"? From Gordon's (OUR) perspective, there is no reason. He continues to "participate" because he has no other option. How can you ask for a reason if you already understand that there isn't one?


So as a participating member of the audience, we all should just play and accept the HL storyline for " No Reason "?

Humm... let me think about that... Father Gregory may take strong issue with this postulate.


okay...your fired! :laugh::
 

EpsiIon

Platinum Member
Nov 26, 2000
2,351
1
0
Originally posted by: muoot
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: muoot
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: muoot
How about just one storyline answer or plot related reason to continue GF's participation on to HL3? eh? Or would that be impatient ????

I see where you're coming from on a lot of points (although I, myself, do not have the same issues with the game) but this quote shows that you completely missed the point of the ending. Gordon will participate in Half-Life 3 because he doesn't have a choice. He doesn't know how or why he gets in these situations, but he has to press on to survive.

Perhaps Valve is trying to show us how Gordon feels. Think about it: he has to be infinitely more frustrated than we are. His entire life is a manipulation! What did the G-Man say? "Rather than giving you the illusion of free choice..."?

On the contrary, I did not miss the point.

As an active, participating member of the audience, I take issue with "survival" as a main plot motivator. You have made some well said statements, because that (He doesn't know how or why he gets in these situations, but he has to press on to survive. ) is precisely what degrades the quality of the plot, thereby decreasing the audience interest in the HL storyline. Unless, of course, the objective was to leave the audience infinitely more frustrated . :disgust:

If you understood the ending, why did you ask for "just one storyline answer or plot related reason to continue GF's participation on to HL3"? From Gordon's (OUR) perspective, there is no reason. He continues to "participate" because he has no other option. How can you ask for a reason if you already understand that there isn't one?


So as a participating member of the audience, we all should just play and accept the HL storyline for " No Reason "?

Humm... let me think about that... Father Gregory may take strong issue with this postulate.


okay...your fired! :laugh::

My fired? What about your fired?

This is where we get into what Insomniak was talking about. The reasons haven't been revealed to Gordon yet. When playing Half-Life and Half-Life 2, we are not supposed to be audience members. We are supposed to be actors; we are to take on the roll of Gordon Freeman. Since the reasons for Gordon's predicament have not yet been revealed to him, it is only natural that they would not be revealed to us. Yes, it would have been nice if they had been revealed, but they weren't.

Honestly, I really want to know why this happened and what happens next. I wasn't "satisfied" by the lack of answers, but I enjoyed the story that was told and I'm very interested in the characters that were introduced and flushed out. Hopefully more will be revealed in the next game, but there are no guarantees.

A quick note:
As a follower of The Wheel Of Time book series, it occurs to me that maybe those who are familiar with waiting years at a time for answers and plot can more-readily accept an "ending" like the one in Half-Life 2.
 

bacon333

Senior member
Mar 12, 2003
524
0
0
my opinion:

HL1 was engaging but a lot of mysterious things happen where the plot turned kinda vague (if you play opposing forces more mystery comes about when you find out that there's not only the government and aliens involved, there's also those ninja with goggles that were never defined.) I don't remember anything being completely clear in the first half-life but the same goes for HL2.

I think HL2 is the best overall FPS ever made. I thought the ending was acceptable since you knew from the beginning you were g-man's btch and you're going to do what he wants. Valve did a great job and it was totally worth the wait.

 

VIAN

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2003
6,575
1
0
canadianpsycho: I agree with your review, felt the same way on almost everythin except for the turrets. Am I the only one that didn't find it hard. Played it on normal. I also didn't find the team annoying for getting in my way.

Maybe other people noticed this but I felt as if some content was missing. The blue tentacle monster that kills a combine soldier in one of the teaser videos never actually took place in the game, did they have to shorten the game a bit to finally release it?
I also felt like content was missing.

indeed. perhaps you are sub-human ? This is the best game ever man, period. Nothing is anywhere near as good as this game, console, pc, checkers, chess whatever
happen to like doom3 better. It's like HL2 got B- and Doom3 got a B+.

Although I disagree with just about every aspect of your review, this one aboslutely blew me away. I thought the dark scenes, especially Ravenholm, were done perfectly. Unlike Doom and other "dark" games, the levels were never too dark or over-done to the point where the darkness was not effective anymore. As for the poor detail bit, were you playing the same game as the rest of us? lol...
I think he might of meant the dark scenes on every other level but that one.

not once did I know where I was, where I was going, and why I was going there.
me too.

You know its sad. There are always haters, people who always have the sorry need to slag something just because they do. I'd love to hear from everyone what game(s) are better than HL2. Specifically which titles and why ? You tell me what game you think is better than half life 2 and what about it is superior. I hear a lot of crap about this being of a so-so game. But of course no mention of where you drawing your comparisons from to say so. HL2 is the best game, ever, period. No hype, doom3 was a letdown. HL2 was a step-up.
UNREAL. Unreal makes a chump out of HL2. Sure the graphics aren't great, but the sound, the world, you actually get a feeling for the people you are saving, great length, so many different types of environments, the story. Everything is great about Unreal. But with HL2, action packed, but so is quake. Another better game. Quake. Definitely a lot cooler. HL2 was sort of just a lame excuse for a game. Although it had really nice looking water and great physics, when they worked, and plenty of action, it had nothing else. Just an action game. And not even hard. Quake was immersive. HL2 was too fast paced to be immersive.

Another: MAFIA. The story and setting and music made you feel like you were really there. Only thing that was really messed up was the final boss and some bugs, but other than that, the game ruled. I want a sequel to that badly.

Another: XIII. I had forgotten about this game, but this game is F-ing awsome. Just the right amount of gameplay, graphics, sound and story made this game an instant hit.

Another: Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I don't know if I have to say anything else. This game is Classic.

HL2's greatness even falls short of Unreal II. A great ending to a game makes a big difference.

HL2, seems very poorly slapped together with some mediocre ideas. What were they working on all that time making the water look nice. In fact, HL2 maybe deserving of a C instead of a previously stated B-. Considering how I noticed how linear it was, how they try to show off their physics, how easy it was, how lack of story it was. It was a walk in the park.

And you people talk about HL like it had an amazing story. It didn't, it was the way that the game was presented, and there's no way you can say that HL2 didn't improve upon this presentation. There was virtually no development through the game, besides the military coming to clean up and you going to Xen. I couldn't go very far in HL2, on the other hand, without any character development (of which HL had none), or extra details or twists concerning the story.
I agree there. HL2 has the exact same story elements as it's predecessor. It is presented, a twist, and a anticlimatic end. The story isn't my biggest complaint. The ending and the gameplay although was fun, there are annoying things like linear, easy, some fillers, and you were rushed throughout the entire thing, or at least you could. It's one of those games where you can rush because you have nothing to fear about doing so. Even in Doom3, after I got the hand of it and started to rush, I still rushed nowhere near the speed of HL2. 15 of play time. Now even on hard its easy to rush.

What I didn't like about HL 2 was how you couldn't kill any good guys. Thateould make it alot funner.
Yeah, but that would've messed with all those scripted events and then the game would crash. Because the game isn't the free world it portrayed it out to be. I can't knock everything over, like the preview with the nade and the water tower, just things that they setup to be knocked over. And what's the freakin explosive barrels everywhere. Just coincidence.

Ditto. Again, it may just have been my settings or my specific hardware, but I was getting a echo going on when people were talking to me. That, and if you aren't right next to people, you can't hear them talking.
Never had problems with sound like that, the sounds in the game were great.

I agree with Injury about the AI. I had guys ducking behind cover and throwing grenades all the time. Even so, I hear the AI is much better on hard. It's one of the reasons I want to go through the game again.
Not really, they have more responsiveness after they know your location, they are harder to kill, because you bullets hurt them less, maybe they might throw more grenades, but harder, not really, just a little extra sweat from the engine.

I just remembered what I was going to add to my complaints/rants/whines.

The "puzzles"!

The most difficult aspect of the game was probably the 2 instances where you need to use the machine gun turrets. Maybe also a spot or 2 in Ravenholm... And the strider stages near the end. Is it just me, or as the games get better looking, the degree of difficulty is more or less based on reaction time as opposed to problem solving?

I mean no offense to those that got stuck on some of the water rafting segments, but regardless of how linear I found the plot, the "puzzles" were extremely easy. And I'm not trying to sound superior here HL1 seemed to have more challenges in it.
Agreed.

greed, I would definitely list Thief3 as contendor for game of the year. Unfortunatly, for most people it wouldn't even be a consideration, since it didn't sell xxx million copies, and doesn't involve big guns and blowing people up.
Thief was a good game, but sometimes I just wanted it to end. All that waiting for this guy to move just got annoying. But the story was cool and the different types of people really made the game more interesting.

Far Cry. Give me a few reasons why Far Cry is a better game than HL2. Better gameplay? Nope. Better story? Nope. Better graphics? Nope. Just what the hell did Far Cry achieve? I've been asking this question since before Doom3 got released and people were kissing the ground that Far Cry walked on. The game had PRETTY WATER. It also had huge lifeless maps that had absolutely nothing going on, something Chaser and Chrome had already done into the ground of utter boredom.
MUCH more challenging, the crap that Far Cry put me through at Challenged level of difficulty, with balanced A.I. on, fogettaboutit.

This had to be one of the few games where I picked up and was annoyed because there were too many things to read. Game wasn't worth tha BS, took out of the immersiveness.

I was in Ravenholm and Father Grigori just tossed me the shotgun, and I jumped across the other other building and the fast alien/zombies were climbing up the walls after me. So i ran inside and shut the door and they ran to the door stopped, climbed up the walls and jumped in throught the ceiling windows... if that isn't good AI i don't know what it.
Scripted.

I think it's time to mention right now that it's just silly to include a spoiler warning since the thread warns of it already.

1. Final Fantasy VII
1.(tie) Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
3. Final Fantasy VI
4. Chrono Trigger
5. Starcraft/Brood War
6. Zelda: A Link to the Past
7. Super Metroid
8. Warcraft II
9. Metal Gear Solid
10. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
11. Final Fantasy IV
12. Chrono Cross
13. Metroid Prime
14. Half Life 2
15. Unreal Tournament
16. Halo
17? Far Cry
OOh... A lot of good ones there. And if I was to dip into the console section, HL2 aint got nuttin on them and would probably be stuck somewhere in the 30's or 40's.

yes. 15-20 hours of time to get a to a minmimalistic drawing of a headlight. En-thrall-ing.
LOL, 55 dollars worth.

I didn't spill the milk. I was vitually imbued in it. Tantalizing every sweet drop of it...until the last chapter...when the glass was knocked over...and the glass was propped back up with the half of the amount of milk remaining.
Now I'm thirsty. Nice analogy.

This is where we get into what Insomniak was talking about. The reasons haven't been revealed to Gordon yet. When playing Half-Life and Half-Life 2, we are not supposed to be audience members. We are supposed to be actors; we are to take on the roll of Gordon Freeman. Since the reasons for Gordon's predicament have not yet been revealed to him, it is only natural that they would not be revealed to us. Yes, it would have been nice if they had been revealed, but they weren't.
Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Sorry for the long post.
 

muoot

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
208
0
0
okay, EpsiIon, so you were not satisified, either.

BTW; we, by the very definition of audience (participatory or not), are not supposed to be actors. The respectable line-up of actors (voices) in HL2 were: Robert Culp, Michelle Forbes, Louis Gossett Jr., Robert Guillaume,etc. These folks were given their portion (at the least) of the script before participating. Perhaps even offered each of their character's movtivation and direction from steam/valve. We as participating audience, were not privy to these ingredients.

And, this blatant lack of even a hint of GF's purpose and motivation is just one element of why the last chapter fell flat for me. But, you don't mind don't mind waiting years for an answers and a plot. Gotcha. I guess, then, you don't have to ask why you are fired.


VIAN:
Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Agreed. and you did a far better job articulating this point than my previous posts.
 

Stern

Senior member
Sep 3, 2004
625
0
86
i think alot of people are rating games according to graphics, not gameplay. Doom3 did have some amazing graphics, better than HL2 in some ways, not better in others.

but HL2 gameplay is FAR superior. you can interact with tonnes of things, AI is more advanced.


( I also love HL2 because I can't believe it runs perfectly at 1024 x 768 with full details, 6x AA, 16x AS, on my radeon 9600 pro )
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
A quick note:
As a follower of The Wheel Of Time book series, it occurs to me that maybe those who are familiar with waiting years at a time for answers and plot can more-readily accept an "ending" like the one in Half-Life 2.


I would agree. I was a huge fan of Stephen King's Dark Tower books, which he began writing in the 1970s and did not finish until earlier this year. I suppose when you see a multipart story crafted like this, it becomes a little more obvious why portions of a story will sometimes do little to reveal purpose behind actions. However, in light of later events, it becomes obvious why that action was needed.

People these days simply want to be led by the nose to the conclusion. This bullbutter about purpose is truly ridiculous. Consider: They can either conclude the storyline and wrap up all the loose ends which will no doubt anger as many people as it satisfies, as well as end any incentive to make future games, or leave the plot dangling, which gives them an out to create more sequels and expansions.

If some of you really want them to end things and deny yourself the enjoyment of future titles, I think your priorities are misplaced.

And if impatience is human nature, as you claim muoot, then the entire species needs to grow up a bit. Considering what you've said and reflecting on my experiences in life, you may well be correct. But that doesn't excuse it.


I think there is a good quote which sums up this situation:

"You are the grim, goal-oriented ones who will not believe that the joy is in the journey rather than the destination no matter how many times it has been proven to you. You are the unfortunate ones who still get the lovemaking all confused with the paltry squirt that comes to end the lovemaking (the orgasm is, after all, God's way of telling us we've finished, at least for the time being, and should go to sleep). You are the cruel ones who deny the Grey Havens, where tired characters go to rest. You say you want to know how it all comes out; you say that is what you paid your money for, the show you came to see.

I hope most of you know better. Want better. I hope you came to hear the tale, not just munch your way through the pages to the ending. For an ending, you only have to turn to the last page and see what is there writ upon. "



And I think that about sums it up. If you're all concerned with the resolution of the plot and how it all comes out, you're the worse for it. Be that way if you wish, and criticize if you want because the game, or story, or book, or whathaveyou doesn't turn out the way you want. But remember two things: Firstly, it's their story, not yours. If you think you can do better then by all means please do. It would mean another great entertainment for me, and I'd be the first to sing its praises. Secondly, do you really want things to be over that badly? With all the fun you said you had leading up to the end of the game, would you rather be at the end, or in the middle of play?

If it truly is that you wish to be at the end, then my condolences.
 

CVSiN

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2004
9,301
0
0
Originally posted by: hdeck
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: skace
You realize CS is still the most played multiplayer FPS game out, right?
http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/

If you are concerned with multiplayer, CS is where you'd want to be.

CS is total garbage.. it was total grabage when it was released the first time..
no depth in play at all stupid round based play...
dumb game...

BF1942/DC
or BFV now with that kick ass modern mod both way better games..

bf1942 sucked ass. obviously cs isn't total garbage if every major lan tournament in the world is using the game (aside from quakecon, of course). the game is 5 years old and sponsors are still piling in tons of money to events. i think you're just a bf fanboy.

No im not a BF fanboy.. notice i said only Desert Combat.. and the new Mod for BFV that adds the modern combat..
I prefer the onslaught style of play of capturing and holding points to a round based system like CS> that game is terrible...
i prefer Quake style of Deathmatch to CS...
CS tries to be realistic and like a rainbow 6 type of game but it just isnt that good..
if I want to play a hostage rescue style game ill play raven shield.. or R6...
Hell Americas Army is better than CS...

frankly yall are the fan boys with the blinders on.. just because alot of people like the POS doesnt make it the greatest game ever..

HL2 was a ok game.. it definatly was NOT the be all end all of computer games and SURE as hell not the best shooter... it was more puzzle than shooter...
give me far cry for a true shooter.

You asked for games that people liked better than HL2 i gave you some.. its not for you to choose...



 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: VIAN
Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Sorry for the long post.


Oh, the game feels perfectly complete to me. You said it yourself: Just another job. We now know about two jobs that Gordon was made to complete. Why is still the big unanswered question for most people, but that has naught to do with this game. This game was about the second job, which was obviously the destruction of the Citadel. When the job was done, the game ended, complete as it needed to be.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
A quick note:
As a follower of The Wheel Of Time book series, it occurs to me that maybe those who are familiar with waiting years at a time for answers and plot can more-readily accept an "ending" like the one in Half-Life 2.


I would agree. I was a huge fan of Stephen King's Dark Tower books, which he began writing in the 1970s and did not finish until earlier this year. I suppose when you see a multipart story crafted like this, it becomes a little more obvious why portions of a story will sometimes do little to reveal purpose behind actions. However, in light of later events, it becomes obvious why that action was needed.

People these days simply want to be led by the nose to the conclusion. This bullbutter about purpose is truly ridiculous. Consider: They can either conclude the storyline and wrap up all the loose ends which will no doubt anger as many people as it satisfies, as well as end any incentive to make future games, or leave the plot dangling, which gives them an out to create more sequels and expansions.

If some of you really want them to end things and deny yourself the enjoyment of future titles, I think your priorities are misplaced.

I disagree.
I'm a huge fan on the Dark Tower series as well, I've been reading them(using the term rather loosely) for ~5 years now.
Looking forward to purchasing the last volumes later this year.

Another good series that I read was writted by a Swedish author, a 5 series piece, I read them over ~3 years.

Again you're trying to find some kind of deep answer when the simple explanation is that different people have different tastes.
And you seem to be trying to look intellectually superior at the same time.

 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: Sunner
I disagree.
I'm a huge fan on the Dark Tower series as well, I've been reading them(using the term rather loosely) for ~5 years now.
Looking forward to purchasing the last volumes later this year.

Another good series that I read was writted by a Swedish author, a 5 series piece, I read them over ~3 years.

Again you're trying to find some kind of deep answer when the simple explanation is that different people have different tastes.
And you seem to be trying to look intellectually superior at the same time.

It's not that I'm trying to find a deep answer in regard to different tastes, it's simply that people who have tastes different from my own are wrong.

Duh.

I thought you'd have picked up on this by now.
 

brigden

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2002
8,702
2
81
I played HL2 for the first time last night.

I wasn't wowed by the visuals like I thought I would be. However, despite only playing for < 1 hour, I prefer the gameplay over such giant titles like FarCry and Doom 3. The audio is good, but not amazing. Voice acting is great. The level of detail is excellent. Blah, blah, blah.

You see, the problem is, we've been expecting this game to be released for what - a year and a half now? We've see so many videos, images, articles, speculation, etc. Regardless of whether you actively sought out such media, it was right there in your face.

This game is a victim of its own hype.

There really is nothing exceptional about it. Had it been released last year, like it was intended, opinions might differ. But, unfortunately, all the little things that are supposed to "wow" us can be found in many other games that we've long since finished.

Why did Valve take so long? I guess we'll never truly know. Personally, I find the whole "code theft" excuse a little hard to swallow. Something doesn't feel right.

Valve (not the publisher) mismanaged the release of this game and my opinion of them has suffered.

Now, I've only played a little bit, and these are my initial feelings.

 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
In my opinion I'd say it counts on one's taste. For me the game was extremely linear. There were no areas to explore like Doom 3 at least had, but like I said it's all subjective to what the players taste is. To be honest, the game was so immersive for me that the linear quality of gameplay didn't hinder too much on the overall quality of the game. So don't get me wrong, there are many reasons why I praise this game to be excellent but are irrelevant to the topic.

I think first person shooter games will always have a tough time earning the respect to be called "The Greatest Game Ever" just from the simple nature of the gameplay. So without trying to break that barrier today, I will simply say HL2 was the greatest FPS ever.
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
Originally posted by: VIAN
canadianpsycho: I agree with your review, felt the same way on almost everythin except for the turrets. Am I the only one that didn't find it hard. Played it on normal. I also didn't find the team annoying for getting in my way.

Maybe other people noticed this but I felt as if some content was missing. The blue tentacle monster that kills a combine soldier in one of the teaser videos never actually took place in the game, did they have to shorten the game a bit to finally release it?
I also felt like content was missing.

I also felt the loss of a few things from the E3 videos, such as that whole sequence with Barney where he says something to the effect of: "Remember when we thought Black Mesa was as bad as it gets" and you and his squad proceed to assault part of City 17 and the squadmates get skewered on the Striders' legs like shish kebob.

indeed. perhaps you are sub-human ? This is the best game ever man, period. Nothing is anywhere near as good as this game, console, pc, checkers, chess whatever
happen to like doom3 better. It's like HL2 got B- and Doom3 got a B+.

I would disagree completely with you. Doom3 would be a B+ or A- (strictly for the presentation and atmosphere, gameplay was extremely bland), while HL2 would be an A or an A+.

not once did I know where I was, where I was going, and why I was going there.
me too.

Personally I though Ravenholm to be a nice departure at that part in the game. You've just spent a long time riding that hoverboat and running through City17; it was a nice change of pace and a way for Valve to say "hey, check out what we can do with our engine!"

You know its sad. There are always haters, people who always have the sorry need to slag something just because they do. I'd love to hear from everyone what game(s) are better than HL2. Specifically which titles and why ? You tell me what game you think is better than half life 2 and what about it is superior. I hear a lot of crap about this being of a so-so game. But of course no mention of where you drawing your comparisons from to say so. HL2 is the best game, ever, period. No hype, doom3 was a letdown. HL2 was a step-up.
UNREAL. Unreal makes a chump out of HL2. Sure the graphics aren't great, but the sound, the world, you actually get a feeling for the people you are saving, great length, so many different types of environments, the story. Everything is great about Unreal. But with HL2, action packed, but so is quake. Another better game. Quake. Definitely a lot cooler. HL2 was sort of just a lame excuse for a game. Although it had really nice looking water and great physics, when they worked, and plenty of action, it had nothing else. Just an action game. And not even hard. Quake was immersive. HL2 was too fast paced to be immersive.

I think nostalgia is skewing your perspective on both accounts. While Unreal was excellent IMO when it came out and Quake 3 was very good, the gameplay of HL2 trumps both of those games royally. If you want "running around without any direction or purpose" then Unreal is it. It was cool getting tips and stuff from ancient Nali relics and whatnot, but that game just cruised on autopilot through some of those massive levels. And again, you can't say that a game like Unreal, Quake or Doom3 is nonlinear. They're all linear, it's just how much you feel the linearity. I personally liked the linearity of Half Life 2... It was like a good action movie: you're always going somewhere new and exciting.

Also this whole 'too fast pace thing to be immersive' claim is very bizarre. You seem to think that because they make it possible for you to rush through the game that it's their fault you don't slow down and enjoy the scenery.

Another: Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I don't know if I have to say anything else. This game is Classic.

HL2's greatness even falls short of Unreal II. A great ending to a game makes a big difference.

Is this flamebait or a serious claim? I though Unreal II had one or two good sequences: the 'defend the base' section, etc. But it was a mediocre game otherwise, the very definition of 'rushed' and lacking BIG TIME in the content section. RTCW and Unreal II better than HL2? What else is better than HL2? Barbie's Big Adventure? Daikatana?

HL2, seems very poorly slapped together with some mediocre ideas. What were they working on all that time making the water look nice. In fact, HL2 maybe deserving of a C instead of a previously stated B-. Considering how I noticed how linear it was, how they try to show off their physics, how easy it was, how lack of story it was. It was a walk in the park.

I don't think they spent 6 years working on the water. And yes, the physics were that good IMO. They were insanely realistic.


What I didn't like about HL 2 was how you couldn't kill any good guys. Thateould make it alot funner.
Yeah, but that would've messed with all those scripted events and then the game would crash. Because the game isn't the free world it portrayed it out to be. I can't knock everything over, like the preview with the nade and the water tower, just things that they setup to be knocked over. And what's the freakin explosive barrels everywhere. Just coincidence.

Alright, I don't know about you but I got the impression that Gordon Freeman is a good guy . While it was fun to shoot NPC's in the face in HL1, it doesn't exactly suit Gordon's 'reluctant hero' nature. It hardly makes sense that the rebellion's best hope is systematically killing the leaders of the rebellion throughout the world.

I just remembered what I was going to add to my complaints/rants/whines.

The "puzzles"!

The most difficult aspect of the game was probably the 2 instances where you need to use the machine gun turrets. Maybe also a spot or 2 in Ravenholm... And the strider stages near the end. Is it just me, or as the games get better looking, the degree of difficulty is more or less based on reaction time as opposed to problem solving?

I mean no offense to those that got stuck on some of the water rafting segments, but regardless of how linear I found the plot, the "puzzles" were extremely easy. And I'm not trying to sound superior here HL1 seemed to have more challenges in it.
Agreed.

I agree as well. The ending was more eye candy and less strategy.

Far Cry. Give me a few reasons why Far Cry is a better game than HL2. Better gameplay? Nope. Better story? Nope. Better graphics? Nope. Just what the hell did Far Cry achieve? I've been asking this question since before Doom3 got released and people were kissing the ground that Far Cry walked on. The game had PRETTY WATER. It also had huge lifeless maps that had absolutely nothing going on, something Chaser and Chrome had already done into the ground of utter boredom.
MUCH more challenging, the crap that Far Cry put me through at Challenged level of difficulty, with balanced A.I. on, fogettaboutit.

I thought Far Cry was in general a tad underrated (except for the fanboys who call it 'best game of all time' , etc. Far Cry is an excellent and unique game; the perfect 'lost in paradise and have to save your own @ss' adventure. Crouching in the bushes, initiating surprise attacks in the middle of the night with cry vision on - it was just gaming bliss.

------------------------------

About the ending, I agree it was annoying that Valve didn't throw us a bone but they essentially showed us exactly what they had to: Gordon did another unwilling job for the G-Man, and he has no choice in the matter.
 

muoot

Senior member
Oct 27, 2004
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: VIAN
Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Sorry for the long post.


Oh, the game feels perfectly complete to me. You said it yourself: Just another job. We now know about two jobs that Gordon was made to complete. Why is still the big unanswered question for most people, but that has naught to do with this game. This game was about the second job, which was obviously the destruction of the Citadel. When the job was done, the game ended, complete as it needed to be.

Please do not turn HL2 into psuedo-intellectual religious experience. Or, twist my words to fit your phony high &amp; mighty agenda.>>> In the context I spoke of, I reffered to Curiosity (not impatience) as human nature. Save your condolences, pity, and midbrow hubris for those cannot draw distinction or reason past ill-conceived "it's only a job and the game ended- perfectly complete" rhetoric.


It is a video game, for Christs sake!



 

Rankor

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2000
1,667
0
0
I thought the game played like Gordon Freeman was strapped onto a simulation (kinda like how one gets linked into the Matrix).

Definitely some room for expansion packs and maybe Half-Life 3.
 

VIAN

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2003
6,575
1
0
I think nostalgia is skewing your perspective on both accounts. While Unreal was excellent IMO when it came out and Quake 3 was very good, the gameplay of HL2 trumps both of those games royally. If you want "running around without any direction or purpose" then Unreal is it. It was cool getting tips and stuff from ancient Nali relics and whatnot, but that game just cruised on autopilot through some of those massive levels. And again, you can't say that a game like Unreal, Quake or Doom3 is nonlinear. They're all linear, it's just how much you feel the linearity. I personally liked the linearity of Half Life 2... It was like a good action movie: you're always going somewhere new and exciting.
Well, I just beat Unreal and Quake either early this year or late last year, so the nostalgia can't be that big. What a kick ass game it was. A lot of games are linear, But it's how you disguise the linearness and HL2 did the most terrible job doing that because there was nowhere else to go but forward.

Also this whole 'too fast pace thing to be immersive' claim is very bizarre. You seem to think that because they make it possible for you to rush through the game that it's their fault you don't slow down and enjoy the scenery.
I ravenholm it was possible to do so, but when you are being chased around then you want to live and so you rush. Throughout the entire beginning you were being chased. And althout the scenery looked nice, it seemed too simple. With the buggy, through the entire cost, there were like 4 houses and that was a big coast. The linearity also plays here in the fact that you never have a choice in direction, it's made for you.

Is this flamebait or a serious claim? I though Unreal II had one or two good sequences: the 'defend the base' section, etc. But it was a mediocre game otherwise, the very definition of 'rushed' and lacking BIG TIME in the content section. RTCW and Unreal II better than HL2? What else is better than HL2? Barbie's Big Adventure? Daikatana?
Not flaimbait cause I actually enjoyed RTCW a lot and it was very challenging and freaky. And it didn't seem as linear. Unreal II was also a great game and the ending made it even better. I'm serious.

Alright, I don't know about you but I got the impression that Gordon Freeman is a good guy . While it was fun to shoot NPC's in the face in HL1, it doesn't exactly suit Gordon's 'reluctant hero' nature. It hardly makes sense that the rebellion's best hope is systematically killing the leaders of the rebellion throughout the world.
I still think it should be allowed, even if your not able to continue the game. Say all the rebels start to shoot you if you kill someone good. Or if you kill an important person. JUst like if you destroy the buggy. You failed because you destroyed something that you needed" would pop on the screen.

Definitely some room for expansion packs and maybe Half-Life 3.
The only thing that will be able to save this game will be expansion packs and all that good stuff. If they turn out more revealing or they release a couple of them where each picks up a bit more on the story. But I don't think I'd like to play in that world again.
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: muoot
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: VIAN
Reasons not being revealed or not, no matter how much sense it makes, if the game doesn't have a sense of completeness, then the game sucks. No use try to justify it in your heads. Even if it was a chapter of the whole, I would still like some completeness. I didn't feel this let down after each of movie of The Lord Of The Rings or the Matrix. Each had a worthy conclusion. HL2 did a complete 360 where now we are back where we started as far as the game story goes. Just another job.

Sorry for the long post.


Oh, the game feels perfectly complete to me. You said it yourself: Just another job. We now know about two jobs that Gordon was made to complete. Why is still the big unanswered question for most people, but that has naught to do with this game. This game was about the second job, which was obviously the destruction of the Citadel. When the job was done, the game ended, complete as it needed to be.

Please do not turn HL2 into psuedo-intellectual religious experience. Or, twist my words to fit your phony high &amp; mighty agenda.>>> In the context I spoke of, I reffered to Curiosity (not impatience) as human nature. Save your condolences, pity, and midbrow hubris for those cannot draw distinction or reason past ill-conceived "it's only a job and the game ended- perfectly complete" rhetoric.


It is a video game, for Christs sake!



Wooo.

Someone's getting awful riled up.
 

I finished today. It was not the perfect game but, realistically, it's as good as it gets. There was a hell of a lot to do, the action varied from level to level, and in the end it was just fun. My only complaints would be the AI and the vehicles.

Still, having beat Halo2 a week before it I can't see how Halo2 gets so much praise being as repeative as it is. HL2 sports a far, far better single player campaign. Like light years better.
 

Jigglelicious

Member
Apr 25, 2004
109
0
0
They're all linear, it's just how much you feel the linearity. I personally liked the linearity of Half Life 2... It was like a good action movie: you're always going somewhere new and exciting.

That was one of my major issues with HL2. I never knew where I was, where I was going, and why I was going there. Sure, most FPS's have the exact same amount of linearity as HL2. But at least they tend to have a focus, so it feels like you're doing something, going somewhere for a reason. In HL2 it was as if I was just drifting along aimlessly, following the open doors just because they were open.
 

NYHoustonman

Platinum Member
Dec 8, 2002
2,642
0
0
I'm not even going to bother. Quake... Unreal... Unreal 2... etc... Better than HL2? I guess it's your opinion and all, but... Nevermind.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |