Half Life 2 is not a good FPS

[mcx]

Saying that HL2 is not a fps does not excuse the fact that the shooting sucks.

 

[hagaya]

I honestly have to say that no game is perfect, and many games do a lot of things good. There is a general philosophy I have: even within specific genres, the different aspects of the games make it impossible to create truly the "best game ever." Half-Life is a story driven game, and it's incredibly linear and short.
There isn't too much to like about the game as a whole, being the "world ruled in a nazi-like favor, one guy strongarms a resistance and saves the world" setup; but in the specifics like the gravity gun and ability to not listen to the story, it is a very well-made game. I'm glad to see that there is a clear statement of "it's my opinion" in this forum.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

Saying that HL2 is not a fps does not excuse the fact that the shooting sucks.

But it doesn't, it's just a bit more tactical than other BOOM IN YOUR FACE shooters available on the Xbox.

 

[Chipperz]

Final statement. Half Life is not a FPS. It's a First Person Adventure Game. Hopefully this revelation will stop some people from comparing Halo (great series) with Half Life (EQUALLY great series) for the next few weeks.

Umm.... no it's not.
It's a FPS. You have guns, you shoot things that want to kill you and you have a couple of puzzles here and there.
Also, from purely a gameplay perspective , there are a LOT more FPS that are better that Half Life 2, however considering Half Life is one of the few FPS's that have a compelling storyline i think it's a worthwhile sacrifice.
If you're interested in purely gameplay there are a lot better choices: UT3, Halo 2, even Painkiller.

So, it's a bad game? Fallout 3 is First Person (unless you enjoy awful running animations), involves shooting things that want to kill you and you have a couple of puzzles here and there. That's an RPG, and it fits your definition of an FPS perfectly.

If it's a First Person Shooter, then it's a bad game, because they've sacrificed the game for the story.

 

[KiKiweaky]

yes some of the weapons were rubbish and seemed a bit odd. I would have preferred a massive sniper rifle to a crossbow tbh but I still think its a good fps. Not the best but its ok.

I mean nova prospect is probably one of the greatest levels I have ever played in any game.(haha just saw that you already mentioned it)

I dont mind setpieces in games, especially half lifes one as some of them are great. Defending the camps from the combine comes to mind !_!

 

[obisean]

By todays standards Half-Life 2 is good, but not great - by 2004's standards it is amazing.

Agreed. You shoulda played this game in 2004 when it came out.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

Erh, i don't see how the pistol and SMG in HL2 would seem weak, compared to most other games. The pistol gives you a firm *pop*, and the SMG gives you a decent *ratata* instead of, say for example the P90 (or most guns for that matter) in COD4 that just go *pewpwepwep* or *clankclankclank*, or the assault rifle in Halo that sounds like throwing frozen peas at a plastic sheet.

Loving the onomatopoeia there,
and the hammer goes *crashhcrashcrash*!

 

[Amarok]

I recommend you change the name of this thread to "I don't think Half Life 2 is a good FPS"

Then maybe you won't look like such a tw@

 

[Neotericity]

the weapons aren't unique? Crossbow, pulse rifle, antlionpheremones, laser-guided rocket launcher, gravity gun (It can pick up saw blades and slice through seven zombies at once how is that a gimmick), the strider buster, gauss gun and finally what other game has a crowbar as their first weapon. Sure you have four generic weapons smg, shotgun, pistol and magnum, but most every shooter has these and the magnum's awesome. As to it's small ammo capacity, that makes it more balanced! What? Do you want a 15 round clip for a gun that kills almost everything in a couple of hits.

As to the bad AI, it wasn't bad at the time and the game was still hard and gave you a variety of enemies. And if you don't want to listen to Barney that's fine, you should go play something more "manly" like Turok or Legendary or any other shitty shooter that has absolutely no story.

You know what call me a fanboy because I have not played a single bad valve game all are either very-very immersive or just hella-fun. I mean Left 4 Dead is my favourite coop game and Half Life 1 is my favourite single player campaign for any FPS/Adventure. With such stellar titles I thnk it's fair to say that being a fanboy isn't a bad thing.

 

[DoctorObviously]

Well, the thing that makes the Half-Life series good for me is that it's a game that's so far ahead of it's time.

 

[Geamo]

Have we really got another thread on this? Liking a game is an opinion for the player; the fact that I personally loved it has been covered by multitudes of other people posting here.

Also, Gravity-Gunning through Ravenholm = pure win.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Okay, here's my opinion.

Original poster, you're knocking the game because it doesn't have the level of action you're used to. Fair enough; it doesn't do what you like. Half-Life 2 is not about bringing an ever-growing arsenal against an ever-enlargening (is that a word?) horde of monsters. The weapons are somewhat weak, but they make sense within the context of the game itself. HL2 was centered far more around two things: Weapons balance, so that each weapon had its own niche and could be useful in a variety of situations, and use of the Gravity Gun. (There's a reason that there's an achievement in Episode 1 for getting through the game with firing just one shot.)

Valve treats the action in the HL2 series as an entertaining diversion while you travel between story segments and setpieces. This is not inherently wrong. Some of us LIKE having strong characterization, moments of respite in-between bouts of slaughtering, and a feeling like we're making things happen in a complex setting. Saying "...with the occasional locked in area while you listen to characters drone about crap you don't care" might be fine for you- but some of us DO care about the "crap", and want to know more about this burned-out futurescape we're in. Some of us are in the game for more than a body count and one more overpowered weapon to put on the mantle.

Also, I'm curious. Have you played through the Strider/Hunter battle at the end of Episode 2? Because in my experience with FPS titles (stretching back to, yes, the original Doom) I've found few other experiences like it in terms of balls-to-the-wall action and tension. If you're looking for a game consisting entirely of that sort of thing, that's fine, but that doesn't make HL2 "bad"- just not the game for you. Unless, of course, you think that only games that meet your expectations should ever be released.

(Personally, I think that "enlargening" is a perfectly cromulent word.)

 

[Ashbax]

AI is far better than most games had to that point

Even for its time Half-Life 2 had bad A.I. There were first-person shooters that came before or during the time Half-Life was released that offered superior A.I.

Games like Far Cry, No One Lives Forever 2, Descent 3, Call of Duty, Halo {Yes, you heard that right.}, and Half-Life 1. Its a shame considering Half-Life 1 had amazing A.I. for its time and they're still pretty good till this day. Valve fortunely made the A.I. much smarter in the expansion packs to create really solid A.I.

Erm.

Halo 1's AI was horrific. Sure, they might hide behind a rock on Legendary difficulty once in awhile, but usually they'll just run around and shoot at anything pink and hairy. Or green and metal.

As for Call of Duty, the focus in the games was a bit different. Half-Life 2 was less of a "Let's blow the fuck out of Nazis/Combines" and more "get from Point A to Point B." It's almost like an Adventure game rather than FPS, since the focus is on advancing the story. And how do you do that? Move, dammit!

I really dislike it when people call HL2 a bad FPS because the weapons are lame or something like that. It's because that wasn't the focus of the game. The focus was the story. All the people who say "You have to sit and listen to a bunch of crap you don't care about" should be playing a less story-driven game. A game where you can shoot aliens without having to give a rat's ass about the story or something.

Really. Judge a game based on its focus. You don't judge Halo by the fact that its story was generic sci-fi "kill the aliens" until the Arbiter and his faction decided to join. And even then, that story's been done a billion times before. And better.

+1. Why all the HL2 hate? i for one loved ALL the half life games, beeyatch.

 

[Ashbax]

the weapons aren't unique? Crossbow, pulse rifle, antlionpheremones, laser-guided rocket launcher, gravity gun (It can pick up saw blades and slice through seven zombies at once how is that a gimmick), the strider buster, gauss gun and finally what other game has a crowbar as their first weapon. Sure you have four generic weapons smg, shotgun, pistol and magnum, but most every shooter has these and the magnum's awesome. As to it's small ammo capacity, that makes it more balanced! What? Do you want a 15 round clip for a gun that kills almost everything in a couple of hits.

As to the bad AI, it wasn't bad at the time and the game was still hard and gave you a variety of enemies. And if you don't want to listen to Barney that's fine, you should go play something more "manly" like Turok or Legendary or any other shitty shooter that has absolutely no story.

You know what call me a fanboy because I have not played a single bad valve game all are either very-very immersive or just hella-fun. I mean Left 4 Dead is my favourite coop game and Half Life 1 is my favourite single player campaign for any FPS/Adventure. With such stellar titles I thnk it's fair to say that being a fanboy isn't a bad thing.

+1. I agree with you in every aspect. Especially about left 4 dead

 

[Xvito]

AI is far better than most games had to that point, including games like Operation Flashpoint - a military simulator which was adapted for the military. I'm not sure how long you've been playing FPS games, but I suspect it isn't that long, because it seems that you're judging by the standards of today's FPS games, whereas there was almost nothing that could stand up to it in 2004.

Of course, I think you can tell that I did like it [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.67843#611023], and I've been playing FPS games for a while. A good while, indeed.

I know what could stand up to it in 2004... Unreal Tournament 2K4... Oh yeah.

Also, Half-Life 2 is really boring. Although I really disagree with th OP, the weapons are incredible (with the exception of the Gravity Gun), it's everything else that's bad... Except the graphics.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

If you think your weapons are too weak, try playing an easier difficulty, though then the pistol probably would be too powerful (like only 2 headshots to kill a combine).

 

[balimuzz]

By today's standards, no, HL2 is not a great FPS. It's still good though. However, this is only due to the fact that the way it looks, feels, and plays is very dated. This can be said for L4D as well. I personally didn't like L4D, because it feels old, and it doesn't control as well as modern FPSs. Still, the underlying concepts beneath both are incredible, and HL2's actually makes up for its dated feel with an engaging and mysterious narrative, incredible pacing, and dazzling setpieces.

 

[jboking]

Honestly Half-Life 2 is only good through one or 2 playthroughs and doesn't make up for it's retail price, let alone go past it. After that it gets dull and there's nothing to do besides singleplayer because there's no multiplayer. I know you have those other games developed by valve and all on steam but those aren't Half-Life 2. I wouldn't say it's good but it's not the best FPS and nearly close to it either.

Technically, its full retail price is under $30. Say yes to the Orange Box. It gets you TF2 when that single player gets repetitive.