Enough with the constant praise of Half Life 2

[endtherapture]

The fact that Half Life 2 is still being compared to modern shooters despite the fact it is 8 years old shows how good it is as a game.

 

[Penguin_Factory]

Have you play anything else back then or its just pure nostalgia filter now? and not in the kind of response of: "it has a good story and gameplay mechanics and gives free blowjobs"

Noooonononononono. I need a REAL answer. Like a specific part that sets appart this game from the rest.

Or in other words "I arbitrarily don't accept your reasons for liking it so I can continue to disagree with you".

If you don't agree with the consensus, fine. If you think it's overhyped that's no big deal. Just don't expect other people to jump through hoops for you to validate your own opinion.

As for whether the game's praise is due to nostalgia..... maybe for some people, but I don't think so in my case. I played it again yesterday and enjoyed it just as much as the first time, if not more so. Certainly aspects of the game have aged- the fact that enemies don't react when shot is jarring, and all the exploding barrels littering the world are kind of silly- but the overall experience remains just as strong as ever.

And in terms of story and characters I honestly believe the game has yet to be rivaled, certainly not by any other FPS. Video games more and more these days deal in broad, simplistic cinematic archetypes (or cliches if we're being realistic) whereas the Half Life cast has a feeling of humanity to to them. They're mundane in a way that makes them feel real.

 

[Skin]

The fact that Half Life 2 is still being compared to modern shooters despite the fact it is 8 years old shows how good it is as a game.

Even though it's detractors are actively saying it does not compare to modern day shooters, and was not even that great for its time...

It is only the fans who have the gall to compare it to modern shooters.

 

[Reveras]

I honestly just think that people who make these kinds of threads are stupid. "Why do you like this when I hate it? Why do you hate this when I like it?" It takes a very narrow-minded person to ask such questions and ignore the fact that people just like different things. (Also for each praise HL 2 gets, around 10 of these "tell me why I'm stupid" threads pops up.)

 

[jpwoody]

Ok, after recently playing HL1, Opfor, and in the middle of HL2 at the moment I have a few things to say.

The Half Life series are very well made, methodical, and interesting games. From a purely fluff point of view they create a deep environment full of mystery and intrigue. The aliens, black mesa, xen, the G-man; these are all things that keep a person thinking and engaged in the first Half Life. You can tell that a tremendous amount of work has been put into a part of the game that doesn't really affect gameplay, but has been placed there for the benefit of the player. I for one really appreciate this. No spoilers, but going from Xen in HL to City 17 in the sequel keeps this mystery going. You think to yourself: "What? I was just battling deamonic aliens in another dimension, now I'm in some Soviet Blocish slum? What's going on? Where are the aliens. And then, as you see the Dr's Headcrab in the start, you start to realize that you are in the same world, and something fishy is up. This really primed me for the rest of the game.

Now onto gameplay

The first game was in many ways quite revolutionary. It's mixture of shooter, puzzles, platformer, and horror was really something comapared to the other shooters on hand. Even now it still holds up I find (if you don't like the original graphics play the updated Source version). The tenseness of working your way through Black Mesa, almost always short of ammunition, health, and shield power, really immerses the gamer in the experience. It's not "Oh I got hit, I'll hide behind a wall for a few seconds and then kill the monster", it's "I either have to run away searching for health, with a swarm of aliens/marines/ninjas at my back, OR man up and murder my way out of this problem". This, combined with carving through Black Mesa as a one man army with Earth's fate on your shoulders really made it a great game. Half Life 2 builds on this.

Sure, gravity gun not withstanding the gunplay aspect is quite close to the original. But so what? It's fun (what other game can I pin an enemy to a wall with a crossbow that fires electrically charged lengths of re-bar?). Again, it's not duck behind a wall hiding from Russian machine gun fire, it's charging into a hoard of enemies and letting them have it. People complain about how the guns work, but each weapon has it's specific job and has it's own character, they aren't just 10 variations of an assault rifle. The gravity gun adds greatly to this. Instead of the environment just being something to take cover behind or flush enemies out of it becomes something you interact with to achieve your goals. And while personally I like the claustrophobia and focus of Black Mesa over the sprawl and wide open spaces of HL2 I also, in the context of HL2's release appreciate it. It lets me decide how to approach the enemies and obstacles in the game. Let's compare this to Call of Duty another great that came out shortly before Half Life 2.

I really like the original CoD, it's squad based combat, and set pieces were amazing. However, to keep it exciting you are constantly funneled directly into harms way and not given a choice in how to approach the game, and in effect you have an interactive shooting gallery. This is the opposite of what Valve set out to create with the Half Life series. In Half Life (1 and 2, and expansions) you get an intense and engaging atmosphere, that doesn't hold your hand. It creates a satisfying experience, and this is probably why so many people have such fond recollections of it. Some of the puzzles are hard, frustrating even. But, when you solve them there's a moment when you think "jeeze why didn't I think of that before?" and you pat yourself on the back. CoD's version of this is a Tiger tank appearing, and then words flashing on the screen telling you to shoot it with a panzerfaust (and the reaction here is "no shit"). Half Life treats you like an adult, where these other shooters are designed with that mindset that an ADHD 14 year old is on the controls.

One last thing I like about the Half Life series. In many shooters (CoD, Medal of Honour, etc) there is a silly, but disturbingly earnest theme of American superiority. As a Canadian I don't like this at all. That's why I do like Half Life. Sure Freeman is an American, but he's not fighting for America, he's fighting for humanity. I find this a lot less patronising than the whole MARINNNESSS! mindset.

Well that's my short novel, hope you enjoyed it.

PS. It's spelled comparison not comparation

 

[matrix3509]

Anyway, the point of all this is to know why HL2 is being praised as the better game when HL1 is the same but with less than stellar graphics and should get the praise instead for setting the stardart

Are you being intentionally dense? The original Half-Life DID get praise. It got a veritable SHIT-LOAD of praise. If you want to know why go look up reviews.

Half-Life 2 gets praise over the original because it does everything an ideal sequel should do: That is to say it improved upon the original game in every conceivable way.

2004 was not that long ago, is your memory so short that you can't think back to how games were then? Why the hell are you so needy that you need some one else to give you a reason to like or dislike something. The game is like $9 on Steam. Get it and make up your own damn mind.

 

[wintercoat]

I first played both Half Life games last year, so nostalgia isn't a factor for me. Half Life 1 was a great game, but feels really dated due to it's really old graphics, yet was still a solid shooter. I wouldn't call it the pinnacle of FPS's like some people seem to think, but it is a good game. Not the best, but still good.

Half Life 2 can still be said to have decent graphics, even by today's standards. It is a really great shooter, has an interesting story, some compelling characters, and has some of the best voice acting in video games I've heard. Plus, at one point you get to summon your own little squad of ant-lions to destroy your enemies.

 

[Zac Smith]

Because people never ever ever go on about how amazing FF7 is, or how ocarina of time is the best game ever. Your opinion isn't the be all and end all. I accept that even though I dislike the above mentioned games, doesn't mean people aren't aloud to praise them.

If you don't like something, don't ***** about it, just don't play it, avoid topics about it, there are plenty of others that are about other things

 

[Casual Shinji]

"Congratulations!!!

You have just made the 1000th "Stop Praising Half-Life 2" thread!

Go the www.brokenrecord.com for your complimentary badge!"

[sub]Seriously, the Escapist should really consider making a badge for this.[/sub]

 

[Palademon]

I bought it in 2011 I believe. Had fun.
I find it far more replayable than other shooters.
Variety of areas, constantly getting new weapons, nice physics, fun to just interact with the world and enjoy the detail, like pushing on swings etc.

So yeah, fun.

Edit: Also I prefer having health packs.

 

[maxmanrules]

Constant praise? This exact thread is made on here at least once every 48 hours. If anything there is just constant complaining that it gets constant praise.

The "real answer" is that different people like different things. Not liking HL2 isn't some abomination and liking it is not strange.

NOONONNONnononononoonono.

Wrong.

Wrong.

and wrong again.

I have been flamed so much for simply IMPLYING that HL2 is horrible. A recent thread asked the Escapists if HL2 deserved the credit thrown at it. OVERWHELMINGLY (79%) said that it did.

I have reitterated time and time again specific reasons why HL2 isn't just not worthy of the praise given it, but is in fact a mediocre game at best. To which people arrogantly proclaim me naive. Arrogantly not because they disagreed with me, but WHY they disagreed with me. It was abundantly clear that they viewed it with rose colored glasses and I doubt they even read what I actually said.

In my 3 years here at the escapists I've learned a couple of things. A. never mention creationism, global warming, or any religion in a positive light. B. NEVER, EVER, EVER talk bad about HL2.

I actually came on here to say how giddy I've been that over the last month (and it has been MONTH, not YEARS) there have been so many topics questioning the quality of HL2. Put simply, it's not that good. I personally believe it's not even that good for games around the time it was made. But every person I've ever met that didn't play it around the time it came out gives a resounding "meh" when asked how it was. EVERY. FUCKING. PERSON.

The point in all of this is that, at least on the escapist, this goes far beyond "oh wow, someone disagrees with popular opinion - yawn." That's just a cheap shot to avoid the issue. Why's HL2 so good? Because it's a polished shooter that is the culmination of FPS mechanics of the previous 15 years before it came out. Since then, the FPS has further evolved, and HL2 doesn't stand well on its own merits. THAT'S a discussion. Not vehemently avoiding the issue.

I'm genuinely interested in what you don't like about Half Life 2. I only got the game for Christmas (behind the times much) and I'm currently on my second playthrough. Can you point out for me any failings you see in the game, considering I don't have rose tinted glasses?

 

[ThreeWords]

HL2 defenders; you are really stretching your arguments thin in defense of this game. The OP is not going to change their mind just because you think it is better than modern shooters.

They are explaining why it get's so much praise, by explaining why they like it.

Personally, I agree with the OP to a certain extent. Only having played it recently, I did not find Half Life to be the God Amongst Games that it is said to be. I also foudnt eh same of Portal (having acquired the Orange Box at last).

For me, both games are innovative and unusual, despite their age. I agree with the statements that the variety of experience is vital; there is a strong contrast to the formulaic feel that put's me off modern FPS games.

 

[Sholtz]

I like to equate HL2 to Harry Potter or Star Wars or Twilight. There are the people who will ignore all the bad in them and no matter how many times you tell them it was merely Meh they won't listen because they look at it fondly from their childhood, and there are the people who don't like. I dislike it, boring, ugly, THREE combine types oh god...so much variety. I personally prefer games where the enemies you fight are all individuals rather then monsters. when they are individuals they are completely different then each other in terms of design and story. Which hasn't been created yet. So until that's done no amount of Oh god look! a new alien slave! will impress me never has.

the game in itself felt very empty...kind of like Kanto in pokemon Gold and Silver did...devoid of life...

 

[maxmanrules]

The fact that Half Life 2 is still being compared to modern shooters despite the fact it is 8 years old shows how good it is as a game.

Even though it's detractors are actively saying it does not compare to modern day shooters, and was not even that great for its time...

It is only the fans who have the gall to compare it to modern shooters.

Interestingly enough I can write about this. I got both Crysis 2, and Half Life 2 for Christmas.
Christmas was totally awesome.
Anyway, both Crysis 2 and Half Life 2 are quite similar. There's aliens, you're running around in a suit, the protagonist never talks etc.
Half Life 2 has worse graphics. That something that can't be refuted, most modern shooters will have better graphics. The aesthetics, on the other hand, are a different thing. The aesthetics for both games are appropriate.
I would say the gameplay for both games are good, with the interesting stuff you can do with all the guns in HL2, and with all the stuff you can do with the suit in Crysis 2.
The levels design, however, has to go to HL2. The levels progress and are quite open, it doesn't try to funnel you, and you can do whatever you want. In Crysis there's basically a shooting stage, moving into another shooting stage, moving into another shooting stage. The shooting stages themselves are relatively open, but they only have one exit, and your binoculars will tell you where everything is, all the guns, all the enemies, and it will in fact give you "tactical options," which were put into the game to make you do certain things. There are no hidden things in Crysis 2(apart from the party elevator) But in HL2 there's an achievement tied to finding all the stashes in the game.
The enemies has to go to HL2. It has the different combine, aliens, zombies, antlions, etc, whereas Crysis has CELL and Aliens (with about 2 different types of heavy alien that you must fight multiple times.
Characters goes to HL2 as well. The betrayal by Judith is a momentous point, but the betrayal by (insert hardarse marine chick name here) isn't. At all.

 

[Krushna]

Half life two may or may not strike a chord with you, but it is brilliantly done. The game opens with a disempowered Gordon running away from the police over a series of rooftops. Here the game gives one the illusion of having the ability to go where one please, but not the freedom to do so. The tight scripting means that the player always tries to escape from the police is what seems to him as an independent decision, but is actually orchestrated. Later we (note that the distinction between character and player seems off, due to the inseparability of the two) get more firepower, transitioning from crowbar to pistol to assault rifle in a logical progression. After a chase through the sewers, emphasizing the near-futility of the resistance, we are led to a hoverboat, that allows us to traverse vast stretches of river between orchestrated gunfights.On the banks of the river are small houses and abandoned buildings, which serve no purpose apart from making one feel that there has been a world here, that exists even in the absence of the bearded scientist. The base that we reach is quickly ransacked, and we are sent to a location we know not to enter with a weapon that has never before been seen in a videogame. The fast paced bullet exchanges are left behind, and the atmosphere of a town that has been overrun is built. Faceless soldiers are replaced by helpless infected, who cry out in pain as we shoot them. the suffocating loneliness is then broken by a jovial but quite insane pastor, who helps us tend to his flock. Then, as we leave, night turns to day and we get into more familiar territory as we travel across the deserted highway alone in a car.
I could go on, but the point is made: the game superbly uses changes in locales and almost complete genre swaps to keep the tension going, never wresting control away from the player to force feed them story, but letting it grow organically without halting the action.
Whether you like the game or not, it must be appreciated as a major step forward, one that has,in my opinion, not been replicated elsewhere. Even portal fails to do the same, since the puzzle, though explained, are never quite as crucial as all the set pieces of HL2.

 

[lRookiel]

Oh noes a differing opinion!
We can't let people have that!

hehehe good one :3

OT: I dont see what the problem is here, the OP is obviously just mental in thinking that HL2 gets CONSTANT praise. Sure its a good game, even a fantastic game but I dont go round all the time I'm awake saying how awesome it is.....

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

This thread reminds me: I'm working on a bit of a theory. In a nutshell: contradiction is a verifiable and possibly quantifiable part of our human nature. Any idea, no matter how seemingly fool-proof or universally praised, is subject to a minimum amount of dissent. Further, given the absolute inevitability of this dissent and its apparently unimportant or nonexistent basis, we can and probably should fucking ignore the people who are disagreeing a) for disagreement's sake or b) to satisfy some pathological drive to differentiate from their peers in a misguided effort to elevate themselves. Only when the dissent reaches a threshhold whereby the opposing view cannot be considered a slam-dunk consensus should we deign to honor the contradictory view with any sort of serious consideration.

 

[Dr.Panties]

Yeah, and how about that "The Beatles" band, eh? What's the fucking deal with that?

And "Led Zeppelin"?

Pfft, bunch of fanboys. None of them can validate or rationalise the constant praise and reverence with which these mediocre, outdated bands are treated.

Therefore, those bands are shit. And I'm right. Because no-one can provide a successful counter-argument to my own opinion.

I'm right. Me. Me, me, me, me, me.

I'm right, and everyone else that disagrees is wrong. Because they can't provide an airtight argument to support their subjective, positive opinions of something that I dislike, or don't understand, or have never even experienced.

I'm right. I'm always right. Meme.