Half Life 2 is not a good FPS

[EnglishMuffin]

The only problem with the weapon designs were that they were not accurate enough, mainly the pulse rifle and the smg. The damage they put out were fine. The whole game was an awesome experience. What do you want an fps with just fantastic weapons? That sounds like a pretty shitty game to me. Half life 2 had a fantastic flow and story as well as some very memorable characters. Good games stand the test of time and half life 2 easily does that. Actually it is still better than a lot of the crap put out today like halo 3, farcry 2, and fallout 3.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Few games gave me that woah feeling. Some other games that did it was COD4 SP mode, Crysis and Bioshock. They all have their reason but they did SP better than most other games I have played. Including Halo 1 and 2. Which basicly felt like Painkiller and Serious Sam but with a better story.

That's a good way to describe it, I agree. The "woah" factor (I'm using that from now on) is what makes a good game into a great game, and HL2 certainly had it (as did COd4 and Bioshock, as you said. Never played Crysis, so no opinion on that). I think it's probably immersion, but there's more to it than that. A lot of games are immersive, but these are special in some way. I wonder what it could be...

Oh! There it is. I'm not sure about Crysis, but the others all have well done silent protagonists and no third-person view of them. Hence, we feel like them.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

I honestly can't see how you could put the Assault Rifle on that list. It's like any other rifle. Same goes for Energy Sword which is basicly another melee weapon. Havn't tried out Gravity Hammer in Halo 3, Needler reminds me about the alien gun in Half-Life. Energy pistol...Was that the one with charge up ability? If so I found nothing impressive about it either.

Function over form is generally the rule with Halo weapons and I found each of the weapons mentioned particularly satisfying to use. The weapon set in Halo is extremely well balanced, mostly due to all of the weapons in single player being available in multiplayer. But meh, off-topic.

 

[Zefar]

That's a good way to describe it, I agree. The "woah" factor (I'm using that from now on) is what makes a good game into a great game, and HL2 certainly had it (as did COd4 and Bioshock, as you said. Never played Crysis, so no opinion on that). I think it's probably immersion, but there's more to it than that. A lot of games are immersive, but these are special in some way. I wonder what it could be...

Oh! There it is. I'm not sure about Crysis, but the others all have well done silent protagonists and no third-person view of them. Hence, we feel like them.

In Crysis they do the start story rather ok actually. For being a game about alien invasion. Your main character does talk but not that often. The things he says are actually good thou.

But the thing I loved the most was how it was told in the start or rather how they did. Then we have weapon customizing thing too. Select the secondary fire mode on shotgun and it's gonna be AWESOME!

 

[Danny Ocean]

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

Ever growing?

 

[TundraWolf]

Half Life 2 is a great adventure, and a cool series of setpieces and some sci-fi lore, but as far as FPS standards go it's pretty lacking in my opinion.

By what standards are we gauging this by? Like, are we saying that Halo is an example of a good FPS? Doom? Duke Nukem 3D? Call of Duty? I think you really have to give a basis of comparison to be able to say anything definitively on this sort of subject. I don't mean to say that you have to start off by saying things like "Halo is teh bestest game in teh world!!1!1", I just think we all need to know what you consider a good FPS to be able to form effective arguments for or against what you claim.

I don't mean to sound insulting with this, but I'm guessing that your favorite games are stuff like Halo, Gears of War and Call of Duty. I might be wrong in this assumption, and I apologize if I am. For the purposes of my response, though, I'm going to talk about those series.

Now, don't get me wrong: I love a good shoot 'em up as much as the next guy. I've put in hours upon hours upon hours in the Call of Duty franchise, online and off, through all its iterations. I've played through all the Halo games (except Halo Wars), and I've racked up lots of time on Gears of War, multiplayer and single-player. Hell, even Team Fortress 2 devoured my life for months.

Halo and the like are all awesome games in their own right, but they all have their flaws, the largest one always being the story. Yeah, they have a huge selection of weapons to choose from to wreak carnage with, the combat mechanics are awesome, but they all suffer from very weak stories. Call of Duty is just retelling history over and over, with some minor exceptions in the alternate-history-type storyline of Modern Warfare. The story of Halo is formulaic at best, and saying that Gears of War even has a story is being extremely generous.

Half-Life 2, on the other hand, had a very strong story when it was first released, and it still remains one of the best to date. I haven't played every game in existence, so I can't say that it has the strongest story in a video game ever, but it's a very solid plot that delves into varying themes, most of them very mature in nature (things like sacrifice, death, horror, rebellion, dictatorship, and so forth). The characters are well-developed and well-rounded, with strong personalities that are assets to the plot.

This is what sets Half-Life 2 apart from all other first-person shooters. Half-Life 2 is centered around the story and not the action. Yes, there are action scenes in it, and some of the set-pieces were designed specifically for action, but more of the set-pieces were designed for plot advancement. That was the focus of the game, which reflects throughout the rest of the game. No, it didn't have things to use as cover in every part of the game, like Gears of War, and it didn't have fifty different guns like Call of Duty, but that's because that wasn't the point of the game.

I think, however, that this debate is avoiding the main point for this day and age. Let me break it down:

Pure-format games are a dying breed these days. The gaming industry is evolving in such a way that games have to become more than just the sum of their parts if they want to exceed in the market and with critics. Halo is a pure-breed FPS, and it was amazing when it came out. People still regard it as such. However, people regard Halo 2 and 3 as nothing more than carbon-copies of the same thing. Ever wonder why? I mean, if the original Halo was so good, and the sequels are the same thing, why aren't they considered as amazing?

It's because, in that span of time, games that surpassed what we expected from video games started to emerge. Stuff like The Elder Scrolls III and IV, FPSes that weren't FPSes, but medieval RPGs that happened to be from a first-person perspective; Beyond Good & Evil, a highly underrated game that can't truly be fit into a genre; Warcraft III, an RTS that started implementing RPG elements; Dawn of War and Company of Heroes, RTSes that ripped apart the basic RTS gameplay mechanics and made their own system; S.T.A.L.K.E.R., an FPS that used RPG elements with guns instead of swords; BioShock, a FPS that focuses so much on the story and horror and suspense elements that you feel like you are playing a survival-horror, which is not something that you would think the FPS format is designed for.

Those are all games that came out between 2001 and 2007, the years that Halo and Halo 3 came out, respectively, and there are many more that have come out since. Because of this trend, we have started expecting more from our games. Now, games need to be something that involves us on multiple levels. It used to be that the game could give us a gun, stick us in a room with twenty baddies, say "Have fun", and we would be entertained. Now that we have experienced more intellectual games, however, we want more than simple pleasures.

The Halo series has been a huge innovative jumping-off point for the genre, but the steady trend in gaming is that you have to bend genres and bend formats if you want to survive. Whereas Halo is a straight-up FPS that doesn't try to do anything other than be what it is. Don't get me wrong, I think that's very admirable. It does what it does very well, and I have many fun stories from my history with the Halo franchise. But it's an example of a dying breed these days, and people are realizing this, consciously or not.

This is why Half-Life 2 is a great game. It's not that it's a great FPS; by all comparitive standards against pure FPSes, it's not that spectacular. But it's the fact that it bends the format to be a FPS that plays like an adventure game; that it's an FPS that focuses on the story as opposed to the action; that it has believable and developed characters as opposed to cardboard stand-ins. It's the fact that it is more than the sum of it's parts that it is a great game. Unfortunately, no matter how innovative Halo is, it can't claim the same thing. Nor can Call of Duty, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Gears of War, Resistance: Fall of Man, Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, or any of the pure-breed first-person shooters. When it comes down to it, all they are are point-and-shoot action games, and that doesn't interest people as much as it used to.

So yeah, people consider Half-Life 2 overrated as an FPS. When it comes to the "shooter" part of that name, I would agree. The action is not that great. But I think what people are failing to realize is that when people call it a great game, it's not because they consider it the best shooter out there. It's because they consider the game as a whole to be great.

But everybody is different. If you enjoy the Halo format of games, then more power to you; you have all sorts of games to choose from where you can just run-and-gun and enjoy yourself to your hearts extent. Stuff like Killzone 2, and the upcoming release of Halo 3: ODST, shows us that that format isn't completely dead yet. But the format- and genre-bending games are taking over, and I think most people are going to be forced to make the transition whether they like it or not.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

It's good for sure, but yes despite some of the good things it has going for it, it really ISN'T a good fps. I'm sick of people always talking about how great Half Life is, this is the truth I played Half Life 2 and I got bored out of my mind by the boring gameplay and frustrating physics puzzles a hint Valve, these things felt like chores because I couldn't proceed and have fun again until I had finished them. People don't like the action being forcibly stopped to do a puzzle whether they wanted to or not, it's a tiresome chore. I like a shooter that actually knows HOW TO BE a shooter and why am I not surprised to see more 'Halo hate' on this thread. Halo I still hold up as an actual FPS and therefore I prefer it to Half Life.

Haha i just finished posting the exact same thing, glad to see i'm not the only one who thinks this way.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

You don't define an FPS purely by its weaponry.
God knows, fans claim Halo 3 is the best FPS and yet it has the most uninspiring guns load-out in history.
Rather, you define an FPS by how it strings its firefights together, and, since Half-Life 2 manages to maintain consistency throughout its entire campaign while linking between the setpieces and creating enjoyment, Half-Life 2 IS a great FPS.

I completely agree, apart from the "uninspiring weapons in Halo" part. The Energy Sword, Needler, Gravity Hammer, Assault Rifle and Energy Pistol are each fantastic weapons which are extremely satisfying to use. Y'know guys, it is okay to enjoy both Half-Life 2 AND Halo 3.

It really isn't, don't get me wrong, I don't hate the game; but as a pure fps, it isn't great because it relies on switching up things often to keep it interesting, which is not a bad thing, but as a pure fps, it's not that great. what made it memorable was its combination of gunplay, driving, puzzles.

And it's art-style, story, characters, attention to detail, innovation and originality. All of which I would argue helps to make it superior to "pure" FPS games because it requires you to do more than blast monsters. If you think about it, most of the greatest FPS games of all time have featured puzzles of one kind or another.

I mean, take Doom. One of the purest FPS games ever made, right? Well even in that you had to search around the place for keys in order to find your way to the exit, which takes some puzzle solving at certain sections. Same with Duke Nukem, Quake, Goldeneye and God knows how many other FPS games. Hell, even Serious Sam required you to go and hunt around for items at points.

'Pure' FPS games have always included simple puzzles. HL2 just expands upon them and uses physics which, as several other people have mentioned, was revolutionary for the time.

I see what your saying, and respect your opinion, but your remark about it being superior is merely an opinion.

 

[JediMB]

Alright. I'll accept that. I never played the expansion as I was utterly disappointed by the core game.

If you already have the original game, I'd suggest getting the expansion. It's got much more enjoyable action, although maybe a bit on the easy side, and almost completely ignores the original's cheap attempts at being a horror game.

Plus, it has a monster with cannons for arms and a TV set for mouth.


Also... noticed that your quote of one of Joeshie's posts linked to mine rather than his. Confused me a lot, since it sounded like something I'd say, but I couldn't remember posting it in this thread.

 

[Alliednations]

To the OP:

Maybe the HL2 you're talking about is a different one than the one I remember. I remember a future-apocalyptic world, ruled by an alien race where every part of your life was under control. I remember always feeling outgunned and on the run as part of the resistance, fighting for good while a giant and powerful Citadel filled with millions of enemies loomed over me every moment.

My most vivid memory was during the coast levels. Driving in such a beautiful landscape, where nature outnumbered the houses and people living in it. Where the ocean was supposed to be lay beached ships and a receding coast line added an eerie aroma throughout the experience. Seeing such potential for beauty ruined by a presence not even visible in the coastline just seemed so, odd. I don't know if that was a good explanation, but I can't really explain it any other way.

 

[FightThePower]

Nah, Half-Life 2 is awesome.

 

[JediMB]

Nor can Call of Duty, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Gears of War, Resistance: Fall of Man, Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, or any of the pure-breed first-person shooters. When it comes down to it, all they are are point-and-shoot action games, and that doesn't interest people as much as it used to.

Personally I wouldn't put GoldenEye in the same category as the rest of the listed games. As much as MGM complained about there being too much shooting in the game, it did focus a lot on various primary and secondary mission objectives. Steal some intel, blow something up remotely, save someone, etc., and sometimes you'd find yourself with mini-puzzles where you were expected to cut open a hatch with your wrist watch or something to that effect.

 

[carmack]

Half Life = fricking pwnage actually best game ever maed if you think when it got made.
Half Life 2 = exactly the same but better

 

[Triple G]

Weapons - Arguably the most important part of an FPS. Most of HL2's weapon feel weak and powerless (especially the pistol and the smg,) except maybe for the revolver, which has a pathetic ammo capacity and is hardly ever needed thanks to the dumb-as-rocks enemies which are content to slowly strafe or run right at you while shooting. The gravity gun is cool, but it's more of a gimmick than a weapon as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, but first of all the gravity gun is no gimmick. I went through ravenholm & the combine tower almost only with this baby and it was something innovative and FUN. Not the typical process of holding down the mouse button at an enemy untill he drops over like in most FPSes. Flicking energy-balls, toilets and saw-blades at enemies. Also the Crossbow is really good, the revolver is good too. The smg and the assault rifle are mediocre, but it's ok. And also if you give too much ammo for the revolver it's so easy that you can paint it green, give Gordon a helmet, change some monster skins, cut out all the good stuff and call it Halo 4.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

I see what your saying, and respect your opinion, but your remark about it being superior is merely an opinion.

Yes, but it's still my argument for why it makes a superior game.

EDIT: What I mean by that is that it's not superior to anything in particular, just one of the best examples of it's genre.

 

[megapenguinx]

Isn't Half Life 2 like ... old?

Yes but it doesn't mean it isn't still good. That's like saying Golden Eye isn't good because it's old.

 

[HazukiHawkins]

Half Life 2 is a great adventure, and a cool series of setpieces and some sci-fi lore, but as far as FPS standards go it's pretty lacking in my opinion. Let's take a look:

Weapons - Arguably the most important part of an FPS. Most of HL2's weapon feel weak and powerless (especially the pistol and the smg,) except maybe for the revolver, which has a pathetic ammo capacity and is hardly ever needed thanks to the dumb-as-rocks enemies which are content to slowly strafe or run right at you while shooting. The gravity gun is cool, but it's more of a gimmick than a weapon as far as I'm concerned.

Game progression - The game basically rushes you from one setpiece to another, with the occasional locked in area while you listen to characters drone about crap you don't care, all the while you're jumping around and crowbarring anything breakable in frustration. The only time in the game I really felt like there was any tactics or intense action was the assault on Nova Prospekt, which was cool, but doesn't make up for the rest of the game.

I could go on, but I'm assuming at this point already half of you are not even going to bother reading a 'wall of text' of this size, so let's see if we can get some debate going about this.

This is what I was thinking, all through that sorry excuse for a sequel to one of the most enjoyable shooters I've ever played. This, and "why did I spend two hours trying to just install and play the game I've paid for, only to realize I literally need to have that piece of **** advertising engine Steam installed and on freaking autorun before I can, in fact, get to the playing part...?"

The first game had so much more action, suspense, innovation, situations you had to adapt to, tools and weapons with which to do so... cool bosses, for pity's sake. And yes, the sequel was all gimmicks and unwanted dialogue. The orange box can go stuff itself, because Valve just whizzed away all my trust for them in one long go. Ironically, I have a similar story about Firefly... and when I think of 3D Realms, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Who can you trust, these days?

 

[TundraWolf]

Nor can Call of Duty, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Gears of War, Resistance: Fall of Man, Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, or any of the pure-breed first-person shooters. When it comes down to it, all they are are point-and-shoot action games, and that doesn't interest people as much as it used to.

Personally I wouldn't put GoldenEye in the same category as the rest of the listed games. As much as MGM complained about there being too much shooting in the game, it did focus a lot on various primary and secondary mission objectives. Steal some intel, blow something up remotely, save someone, etc., and sometimes you'd find yourself with mini-puzzles where you were expected to cut open a hatch with your wrist watch or something to that effect.

Fair enough. It's been ages since I've played Goldeneye, so I actually forgot about a lot of that stuff. Thanks for pointing that out.

The rest, though, are pure-format FPSes, which just can't stand up to the format- and genre-bending games that are in the industry these days.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Eh, you made some pretty generic points of a lot of FPS.

I do feel the weapons could be vastly improved. Heck more variety would be nice. I loved the strange weapons from Half-life and Opposing Forces (Hivehand, Gluon Gun, Shockroach, and the portal gun to name a few.)

Hated friendly AI above all though. Kept trapping me in areas when I was trying to flee from a grenade or Strider, and the game just kept sending in new fodder to replace the dead.

 

[Chris^^]

Go nuts, with every single post you keep reinforcing my point. We wouldn't want you to dig yourself a hole here.

Don't feed the troll man.

I got it a few days ago, and I LOVED it, particularly the way it seemed to switch genre every now and again. Incidentally do those head-crab zombies scare the hell out anyone else, or is it just me?

Yeah, I got into the series late too, and I also love it. And yeah, the zombies, espeically in Ravenholm, and especially the fast ones, scared the hell out of me at first. By the way, how far are you?

I were still using the starting gun at the end of Episode Two, so I strongly disagree with you on that one, but then again, I ALWAYS save my ammo for the very last moment. A moment that never comes. Because the credits are already rolling when I remember that ammo.

Nice to know I'm not alone in doing that. And the SMG really is a good working horse for a lot of the sticky situations. If it turns out to be inadequate there's the shotgun. And nobody will convince me that the shotgun is lame. Or the crossbow.

Ah, the shotgun. My workhorse for HL2 and EPS. I loved that gun.

Nice to know I'm not alone in doing that. And the SMG really is a good working horse for a lot of the sticky situations. If it turns out to be inadequate there's the shotgun. And nobody will convince me that the shotgun is lame. Or the crossbow.

I thought the shotgun was pretty lame, it's only really effective at melee ranges, which is what you have a crowbar for. But then again, no shotgun will ever equal the greatness of Doom's shotguns.

That's because each weapon has a niche, and they get upgraded later. For example, the pistol is your starting, accurate weapon, and it's firepower is upgraded in the magnum, and its accuracy is upgraded in the Crossbow. Similar with the SMG and Assault Rifle (spray-and-pray, optimal when outnumbered in a large area), and the Crowbar and Shotty (close range). The beauty of this approach is that you always have a weapon to fit the current situation, even if you have to temporarily downgrade due to ammo constraints. And if you run out of ammo even then, you have the Grav Gun as a backup.

Still, I can't help but feel that judging a five year old game by current standards is a bit unfair.

i would like to specify that i dont dislike half life 2, far from it, its a very good game, the environments are superbly done especially when one considers when it was made, but it is wrong to judge it solely as an FPS (as this thread is doing), if viewed purely as such it has many failings but that is not what its supposed to be.

for the time it was released it is superb.

I'm sorry, I don't know what happened with the quote. "Don't Feed the troll" was aimed at someone else, and I was going to tell you something else. My bad.

no probs man =)