HL2 Ep3

[Flying-Emu]

Har dee har har...
As a side note: Sorry, ostrich. I am not trying to label you a fanboy, merely venting in addition to my sarcastic response to your shot at FEAR. It's all coincidental, I assure you.

That's good, cause I was concerned. I'd like to illustrate that I think that HL2 is a good game, superior to FEAR, but by no means T3H BEST FPS EVARS.

That award goes to TF2. Because I am a fanboy of rocketjumps.

*snip*

See above.

 

[Flying-Emu]

*snip*

Sarcasm: Learn it, love it, live it.

 

[Arcticflame]

grrr

grrr

CHILDREN!!!

Spoiler

" I like ____. So whats the deal with so many people not liking it? The _____ is great, the _______________________________ offers a very satisfying _______ experience. The stories are usually well told, with excellent ____________. I just don't get why people don't like it."

" I dislike _____. So whats the deal with so many people liking it? The _____ is horrible, the _____________________________ offers a very unsatisfying _____ experience. The stories are never told well, with horrendous ____________. I just don't get why people like it."

Ok, so what is the difference between these two statements? , Whichever one represents what you said, and the one that takes the opposing viewpoint? Nothing. Why nothing? Because of these words...

like / dislike
great / horrible
satisfying / unsatisfying
well / not well
excellent / horrendous

What do these words have in common? They're subjective. Do you know what subjective means? I'll tell you, it means they differ in definition from person to person. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to is entertainment. To deal with this strange phenomenon of "differing subjective meaning", the english language has a word that describes it perfectly.

o-pin-ion [uh-pin-yuhn]
-noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Now i ask you. My opinion on ______, does it matter to you? Does me, telling you my opinion influence you in any way? No? Then imagine how i feel. Your opinion doesn't matter to me either. Because i happen to know the difference between "subjective", and "objective".

This was not meant to be read in any angry tone. It was educational only. Have a nice night, (or day, where ever you happen to live).

I have now decided that this shall be saved in a word file on my desktop so i may cut and paste. Putting in the necessary subject matter whenever i need to. I hold no copyright or trademark on this educational work, you are free do do as you please with it. No rights reserved.

Have a nice day.

The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.

Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.

E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.

 

[Souplex]

Yes, but due to the lack of cutscenes, reflective surfaces, or legs when you look down, there is no in-game evidence that Gordon Freeman is anything more than a floating pair of hands that can pull guns out of nowhere. Therefore making him the most boring flat character ever conceived in a vidya game. Half Life is therefore more average than FEAR.

That's the point. Gordon Freeman is you. The whole device of making him not speak is to immerse you as the character.

The thing is, it works against them. The fact that whenever you have a shoehorned in conversation with the most annoying support character in gaming history (I don't get why they focus on Alxy, because with Barney, and Eli they have proven they are indeed capable of writing good characters) and she says something along the lines of "What do you think Gordon?" and then there is a moment of awkward silence it takes you out of the experience. Whenever you look on the screen and notice that there is nothing more to you than hands, not even a goddamn pair of legs when you look down it also takes you out of the experience. Half Life 1 worked because it went for the Metroidvania isolation route. In two it was just stupid.

 

[thom_cat_]

-huge snip-

Actually the team @ VALVe is pretty small, and they do cross over to help with the shipping of other games, and partially the development.
In their Tf2 and L4D blog posts they tell of how when they shipped L4D and L4D2 they got most of their team to stop working on the bug fixes that were plaguing us for a week after an update.

(souplex)
HL2 is a masterpeice and I cbfed explaining why, because if you didn't understand during the playthrough you wont understand it now.

 

[Srkkl]

I don't get it, your complaining about not having any multi-player options and then complain about a game who's predecesors seemed to be focused on single player (even thought extensive modding has apparently made some fun Half-Life multiplayer, but I wouldn't know first hand)? your kinda stupid.

 

[Nomanslander]

I think Valve is afraid of fucking up HL2:E3 and any HL game after that....it's like they've been counting their blessing the whole time HL1&2 became a big success and they're afraid it's all down hill from there.

 

[grimsprice]

The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.

Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.

E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.

The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging. Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.

No one said it wasn't important at the time. It has historical significance, like the first mono-winged airplane. But people won't go "ooooh ahhhhh" if you released it today.

Its a fossil. And should be treated like one. As something with great cultural and historic significance. It deserves respect and praise for the accomplishments it made when it was fresh. But to call it "awesome" in todays world is just nostalgia clouding your vision like cataracts.

 

[DevilSShadoW]

do what i do. Pretend half life never existed!

 

[Xan Krieger]

I tend to think it should be called Half Life 3 because if it's taken this long and it's just an episode like 2 and 3 were then people are going to rage. It's gonna have to be another big story driven game at least as long as Half life 2 if not longer.

No short little episode is worth such a long wait, especially if that episode is just more of the same.

 

[Jennacide]

This thread is completely original and I have never heard this complaint ever.

The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.

Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.

E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.

The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging. Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.

No one said it wasn't important at the time. It has historical significance, like the first mono-winged airplane. But people won't go "ooooh ahhhhh" if you released it today.

Its a fossil. And should be treated like one. As something with great cultural and historic significance. It deserves respect and praise for the accomplishments it made when it was fresh. But to call it "awesome" in todays world is just nostalgia clouding your vision like cataracts.

Yeah, you'd think that, except that every couple years Link to the Past is rereleased as a new game with a different title (except for Wind Waker) and people gobble that shit up. Ocarina of Time is stupidly viewed as one of the best games of all time, and Twilight Princess was adored for some idiotic reason. Your point has just been invalidated.

 

[ffs-dontcare]

Now that you mention it. Where the hell is episode 3? Could of sworn they said the entire concept behind shorter episodic games was that they would have a shorter development time...

Well hopefully Ep3 will be as long as if not longer than Half-life 2, otherwise I'm going to be pissed.

Even if it is a fantastic game despite its lack of length.

 

[grimsprice]

Yeah, you'd think that, except that every couple years Link to the Past is rereleased as a new game with a different title (except for Wind Waker) and people gobble that shit up. Ocarina of Time is stupidly viewed as one of the best games of all time, and Twilight Princess was adored for some idiotic reason. Your point has just been invalidated.

Your assertion is about as valid as creationism. LOL.

Spoiler: yeah, because this is totally a re-release

 

[Souplex]

This thread is completely original and I have never heard this complaint ever.

The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.

Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.

E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.

The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging. Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.

No one said it wasn't important at the time. It has historical significance, like the first mono-winged airplane. But people won't go "ooooh ahhhhh" if you released it today.

Its a fossil. And should be treated like one. As something with great cultural and historic significance. It deserves respect and praise for the accomplishments it made when it was fresh. But to call it "awesome" in todays world is just nostalgia clouding your vision like cataracts.

Yeah, you'd think that, except that every couple years Link to the Past is rereleased as a new game with a different title (except for Wind Waker) and people gobble that shit up. Ocarina of Time is stupidly viewed as one of the best games of all time, and Twilight Princess was adored for some idiotic reason. Your point has just been invalidated.

Certain things age better than others. The Zelda formula ages like a fine wine, Half Life ages like milk in the sun.

 

[thatstheguy]

The problem with what you say is that there is opinion. Such as I like ham. And truth. Such as I think ham is a giant space mushroom.

Naming a game that was technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed average has gone from opinion to plain wrong. You can say that you dislike a game due to personal taste, but you cannot say a game is bad when it is clearly at the very least, a cut above the rest.

E.G. I don't like radiohead, but I have to concede their worth to music.

The problem with what you say is that "technologically innovative, cinematically innovative, and critically acclaimed" is the very definition of wildly subjective. If half life 2 was released today, it would be boring, generic, heavily padded, and only barely engaging. Standards change, and its been so long since Half Life 2 came out that any expansion to it will not meet the industries entertainment standards.

No one said it wasn't important at the time. It has historical significance, like the first mono-winged airplane. But people won't go "ooooh ahhhhh" if you released it today.

Its a fossil. And should be treated like one. As something with great cultural and historic significance. It deserves respect and praise for the accomplishments it made when it was fresh. But to call it "awesome" in todays world is just nostalgia clouding your vision like cataracts.

So you're saying that eventually you have to stop liking a game because it doesn't meet today's standards. It'd be like saying the Evil Dead movies were good, but not anymore because the effects are outdated and was very silly at times, very much unlike today's movies. Yes, nostalgia can cloud the opinions of those who fail to think differently. That doesn't mean that old stuff is necessarily bad because it's old. I played HL2 not even a couple months ago from start to finish. It's the kind of game that could really hold my interest all the way through. Maybe it's because I don't play enough games, but I enjoyed it.

 

[OmegaCheese]

If Valve don't make HL2:EP 3 in 3-D(!) Then I will be generally pissed, and it has to be good as well

 

[OmegaCheese]

Then again it's HL2 of course it'll be good

 

[blindthrall]

Half-Life is great because it had some of the best shooter gameplay in parts(Surface Tension, Follow Freeman, Ravenholm). Most of the game is kind of filler to me, but the truly awesome parts make it worth playing. It's one of those games where you make saves at certain places to play later, not replay the whole game. I hated Episode 1, but I think Opposing Forces was actually some of the best gameplay in the Half-life series. And FEAR doesn't hold a candle to it, if just for how derivative FEAR was(John Woo meets Max Payne meets The Ring). A full third of Half-life did not take place in office space, even if a good fifth of it does take place in boiler rooms.

Comparing Zelda to Half-life is like comparing mangoes to pineapples- one is soft and squishy and sweet, while the other is hard and spiky and will hurt you if you don't have a crowbar.