Half Life 2 Misconceptions.

[ultrachicken]

As a member of last generation (and several generations before) I played it when it was new. I tried to keep myself nonjudgemental and... I hate that game. I hate it so bad, it's as fun as drilling holes in my own skull.

So no, not everyone who hates it has a misconception or is put off by how old it is. Some people just don't like the game because it exists.

I played it a year or two ago, and I had the same reaction. My friends were all telling me about how it's god's gift to mankind, and it totally fell flat. Same with Portal, Team Fortress 2, and Left 4 Dead. They get praised so much that it's crazy.

I guess that one of my biggest complaints was with the non-regenerative health. I don't want to fuck up one firefight and have to fight through the next big enemy encampment with 25 health.
Halo: CE, ODST and Reach are doing it right. You've got some regenerating health so that not every bullet that hits me makes me compulsively search for medpacks, but it also has non-regenerative health to make it a bit more intense.

 

[tlozoot]

Your right. I went into Half Life 2 this generation on the Orange Box and didn't have much fun until I started thinking of it as an older game.

 

[Judgement101]

As a member of last generation (and several generations before) I played it when it was new. I tried to keep myself nonjudgemental and... I hate that game. I hate it so bad, it's as fun as drilling holes in my own skull.

So no, not everyone who hates it has a misconception or is put off by how old it is. Some people just don't like the game because it exists.

I played it a year or two ago, and I had the same reaction. My friends were all telling me about how it's god's gift to mankind, and it totally fell flat. Same with Portal, Team Fortress 2, and Left 4 Dead. They get praised so much that it's crazy.

I guess that one of my biggest complaints was with the non-regenerative health. I don't want to fuck up one firefight and have to fight through the next big enemy encampment with 25 health.
Halo: CE, ODST and Reach are doing it right. You've got some regenerating health so that not every bullet that hits me makes me compulsively search for medpacks, but it also has non-regenerative health to make it a bit more intense.

translation: i am a bungie fanboy, throw stones at me

Half-Life 2 had the health pack thing to make it realistic-ish. "Oh no! My legs are gone!" "Go crouch behind that wall until the grow back!" So what is Halo doing right exactly?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Well I played it for the first time halfway through this gen (3 years ago) and loved it more than any other shooter.

HL2 has not aged well but it will always have a soft spot in my heart as it was the first game I ever played whose story was so compelling.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

It's the same story with any old-school game - there are people here who are going to argue that Half Life 2, PoP: The Sands of Time, Morrowind, God of War, Metal Gear Solid, etc. are the best FPS, platformer, RPG, hack-n-slash, and stealth games, respectively, but newer players might disagree entirely because:

The fact that you consider God of War and Half Life 2 old school makes me feel very old.

Old school for me is Golden Axe and Space Invaders...

 

[MiracleOfSound]

your kinda barking to the wrong group of people. escapists are a rare breed, the kind that hates success and avoid it like the plague.

Modern warfare 2 sold 4 million units? it's obviously a bad game designed for imbeciles, below our standards.

kind of sickening honestly.

Not really. Lots of MW2 fans on this site, hence the many heated debates about it.

 

[ICanBreakTheseCuffs]

Its just that Valve psycho fanboys have a tendency to go "Half Life 2 is the bestest game evar and you sux if you haven't played it!"

So a person goes out and buys it expecting an amazing and revolutionary game. What he gets is a game that looks and plays like it came out in 2004.
It was revolutionary, for its time. Thats the big problem. We keep touting it up as this transcendent masterpiece, but people who have been bred on more recent FPS titles won't see anything they haven't seen before.

Its still does it better than them. Most of them that is (Metro 2033 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. are as good as HL2). Besides, I have begun to dislike the regeneration thing.

I agree with everything you just said

 

[Gxas]

I love Half Life 2. Lots of people love Half Life 2. Some don't.

I'm not here to convince you to go out and play Half Life 2, but rather to discuss misconceptions people new to the game might have.

A lot of the time when i see these discussions, there are a lot of vocal people who will state their distaste of Half Life 2 based on their experiences. I believe a number of people who disliked Half Life 2 went into the game with the wrong expectations.

These people are not at fault for having misconceptions about the game. The main people at fault are we, the Half Life 2 fans. There is nothing wrong with promoting your favourite game, but we have a tendency to sugar coat our descriptions quite a bit.

One of the biggest problems we the fans present is our idea that Half Life 2 is a modern game. Which is wrong. Half Life 2 is a last gen title, like it or not. It was made in 2004, in the last few years of the previous console generation. PC gaming has evolved a lot since then, along with the consoles.

So when we go out promoting Half Life 2 as the best FPS of this generation, we are fooling both ourselves and the curious newcomers. Half Life 2 has aged well, no doubt, but new players are going into the game with the wrong mindset. They might go in expecting huge firefights, cover based combat, or regenerating health. The game itself is quite different than that.


So to sum up, as this is a little long, Half Life 2 is an old game. It is a dated game. It is a good game, as long as you play it with the proper expectations in mind. Promoting it as a modern game is a disservice to the new players, and consequently leaves the new customer dissatisfied.

Hmmm... So, a dated game shouldn't be held to the standards that it once was? I see your point, but that game has aged terribly then. If I can go back and have more fun playing Starcraft, Battlechess, Shadowknights, or Sonic: Spinball than I did when those games first came out, but I can't enjoy playing a game that was released six years ago because of "aging" then the game is most likely not a great game.

Make no mistake, I'm sure that it is a cool game, I'm positive that it "changed the genre" and all that. But, when I can't even get my first weapon without being bored out of my mind while noticing how terrible everything looks, something got lost in those six years. Something huge. No, I will not be going back to try again. I gave it a shot and it failed in every way imaginable. True, I do blame you, the fans, for hyping it up way too much. But it really does all come down to the game itself, which, by my eyes, is no good.

 

[TraderJimmy]

It's a misconception that Valve has screwed over developers who could competently handle episodic gaming?

It's a misconception that "he's mute so you can reply with what YOU want" is the biggest cop out since "well, we THOUGHT they had weapons of mass destruction, that's why we bombed them"?

It's a misconception that the game's vehicle sections are long, boring and handle like arse (and I've been playing games with perfectly serviceable vehicle sections since the 90's)?

It's a misconception that every last gun feels the same for at least the entirety of City 17? In a SHOOTER?

It's a misconception that leaving control of the character during exposition is shockingly bad at creating immersion once you get bored and start jumping on the furniture? (not specific to Half Life 2 - the ONLY game that's done it well is Mercenaries)?

It's a misconception that having your identity reaffirmed ("GORDON FREEMAN!" "GORDON FREEMAN?" "GOR-DON FREE-MAN!") makes the average gamer want to vomit to cleanse themselves of their hate?

Well, thanks for telling me. I was under the impression these were legitimate concerns.

This post is full of hyperbole, although some of the points are valid they definitely don't make the game as poor as you seem to imply (I realise you never outright state that the game sucks because of these, but given what you're replying to I felt I could read that into it).

Half Life 2 is a solid game, with a lot of fun moments. It doesn't live up to the hype, for me, but I *think* I understand why people like VALVe and give them that boost from "solid game" to "legendary", as they support the modding community and appear happy to engage with their fanbase. Of course, it's also possible people like it for other reasons, and I've missed the special appeal of the game.

"Having your identity reaffirmed" - dude, what? I have no idea what game you'd play where no-one else ever uses your name. I can think of Sonic the Hedgehog and Portal off the top of my head...but eh. Those games have very few NPCs. I really didn't notice this, even a little bit. Also, claims about the "average gamer" need to be taken with either a hefty pinch of salt or a detailed survey to back it up.

The vehicle sections are mostly in a hover-craft like thing, unless my memory fails me. That handwaved the weird controls for me.

Also, I have no idea to what you're referring with your first sentence. Could you explain it?

That said, the OP is flamebait. Telling people their opinions on a game are invalid, or inapplicable, or misguided is not cool, and comes off as very condescending. It results in rants like this.

 

[hardlymotivated]

I first played Half-Life 2 about three years ago with only the memories of Half-Life 1 on which I could fall back and compare the experiences. I didn't read any reviews, I didn't look up its Metacritic rating, I just impulse-bought it and played. Loved every minute of it.

With that said, had somebody lavished it with praise prior to my playing of it, I can see why I might have been disappointed. It's happened to me with games in the past (looking at you, Dragon Age and Morrowind) and it'll undoubtedly happen to me again.

I'm still of the opinion that HL2 has aged quite well for what's really a fairly simple FPS run'n'gun. I'm quite a fan of the HL universe and its canon, though, so I'd naturally maintain an interest in the games after all these years. With Episode Two, I felt the Source engine began to show its age (after more than six years, now, which is impressive in itself) for a single-player gameplay experience, and I'm hoping that some kind of revamp will occur for Episode Three (if it's ever released).

I think HL2's design philosophy is something appealing enough for me to go back to again and again. Some people agree, some people disagree. But, like you said, it's not helpful when fanboys'n'girls treat it like Moses' tablet of commandments and then become rabid when anybody suggests something to the contrary.

If you think of it as a six-year-old game, play it like a six-year-old game, and treat every aspect of it as if they're from a six-year-old game, chances are you'll have a whale of a time.

 

[Dexiro]

My theory is that new players go in with predetermined expectations for it's genre and set the bar too high for them to grip.

As a result they end up alienated by it's unique storytelling and old style FPS mechanics. Even the slightest thing can throw someone off when they're hyped, having every fan preaching that it's the best FPS ever.

Free of expectations i'm sure you'd see that an amazing amount of depth and narrative can be drawn from the environment alone. And the amazing level design, what Valve does best! It's a very linear game but i didn't feel like it was for a second because of how they guide you through the environment.
In my opinion the actual shooting was really fun too, and the puzzle aspect was done well apart from the copy/paste physics puzzles - i think they were put in as a natural delay rather than a challenge.

Never understood the complaints about the vehicle sections and controls either, i really enjoyed them!

 

[Woodsey]

Actually, I think people's problem with it lies in the fact that there's no cutscenes and the storytelling is far more subtle (and superior) to most things.

As for people who play it now on consoles, HL2 is an example of a more classical style PC specific FPS; i.e. You can carry 20 guns and you have a health bar instead of regeneration. There aren't many places you get that in a console FPS.

Modern warfare 2 sold 4 million units? it's obviously a bad game designed for imbeciles, below our standards.

After my experiences with the multiplayer I can indeed confirm that it is designed for imbeciles (BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S PLAYED BY IMBECILES, KEEP YOUR PANTIES ON PEOPLE); that's the only explanation for the fact that bombs, gunship attacks, missile strikes and nukes go off every 5 seconds. I assume that this is because IW decided no one could pay attention long enough if they didn't.

 

[Blue_vision]

Still, I'm hoping Valve will have updated their engine for Episode 3.

Hah! Good luck living that long

 

[Funkymonk761]

So, We've come to the conclusion that, misconception or not, some people like it and some people don't?

pretty sure i could have told you that

 

[ultrachicken]

As a member of last generation (and several generations before) I played it when it was new. I tried to keep myself nonjudgemental and... I hate that game. I hate it so bad, it's as fun as drilling holes in my own skull.

So no, not everyone who hates it has a misconception or is put off by how old it is. Some people just don't like the game because it exists.

I played it a year or two ago, and I had the same reaction. My friends were all telling me about how it's god's gift to mankind, and it totally fell flat. Same with Portal, Team Fortress 2, and Left 4 Dead. They get praised so much that it's crazy.

I guess that one of my biggest complaints was with the non-regenerative health. I don't want to fuck up one firefight and have to fight through the next big enemy encampment with 25 health.
Halo: CE, ODST and Reach are doing it right. You've got some regenerating health so that not every bullet that hits me makes me compulsively search for medpacks, but it also has non-regenerative health to make it a bit more intense.

translation: i am a bungie fanboy, throw stones at me

Hey, let's leave out stone throwing
I don't play halo anymore anyways, I just like its health system.

 

[Nomanslander]

The misconception I see is people comparing it to other shooters when it comes to gameplay, which is just wrong no matter what gen the game came out in.

The thing that makes HL2 great is its story, the gameplay on the other hand is probably its weakest, there's a lot of amusing section with the saw blades and throwing alien insect ball sacks but they feel very gimmicky and worth while for only a sec. It's no shooter in the likes of even the first Halo, and here is where the misconception comes in.

If you go into HL2 expecting solid gun play and AI, your wrong, because even the first game which came out back in '98 I think owns HL2 in that department.

HL2 is a lot more like Bioshock, you have to play it for it's story because there isn't nearly enough polish in the combat to pass it as even a above average shooter, the gameplay is just average!

 

[Soviet Heavy]

your kinda barking to the wrong group of people. escapists are a rare breed, the kind that hates success and avoid it like the plague.

Modern warfare 2 sold 4 million units? it's obviously a bad game designed for imbeciles, below our standards.

kind of sickening honestly.

I understand what you mean, but I figure this was as good a place as any to pitch the discussion. There is a very broad range of opinions on these forums, I like the diversity.

If I were to post this discussion on the Steam Forums, I would be eaten alive by the rabid fantrolls. To paraphrase Dr. Breen: "It's safer here."