The story and game world were amazing but I think almost every FPS is the same shoot and kill no matter how many gravity guns you get.
Just how good was Half Life 2 ?
- Thread starter Razorback0z
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Now, I can understand Halo's story and backdrop being more well-suited to your tastes as they are, after all, you opinions, but saying Halo has a better story and better characters? That's like saying 50 cent is a better song writer than Mozart. Sure, if you like rap then 50 Cent's music would be more enjoyable to you but there's no way you could say his music is better than Mozarts without sounding like a loon. For example, I really didn't get into Bioshock. In fact, I found it to be kinda bland. However, I cannot deny the genius of design and artistic direction that went into that game. It was a shining accomplishment, no doubt, but it just didn't tickle my fancy. What I'm saying is, simply put, Valve sets standards. When Half-Life came out, every FPS worth it's salt that came after emulated it to some degree. The same thing occurred after Half-Life 2 came out. Let's face it, we wouldn't have games like Bioshock and it's more recent ilk were it not for Valve's efforts 5 years ago. Even if you don't like their games, you can't help but admit the quality they contain. There are few companies left that you can say that about.MasterSqueak said:I see the Halo trilogy as a good rival to HL2. In fact, I prefer it.Kelthurin said:/Cast FiragaMasterSqueak said:
I have yet to see 1 pure FPS game that rivals HL2. And Fallout 3 can't be compared to it, because it's not a pure FPS, and thus doesn't really focus solely on the FPS bit.
Better vehicles, better story, better characters, and better weapons.
*Drags Vrex360 into anti flame bunker*
*prepping my flame-bunker-buster* ; )
Me. BUWAHAHAHAHAHA. *Ahem*gof22 said:
I thought I already said that?MasterSqueak said:
Anyway. Like I said, I don't like the guns. To tell the truth, I have less problems with the gameplay, than the "story" of halo. But I still don't like the gameplay itself. There's no real finesse in what you're doing. You just shoot and keep shooting until anything that moves is dead. Or drive over enemies in a vehicle until they're dead. It's pretty boring. It doesn't force you to conserve ammo, nor do you need to hide behind anything because as long as your shield holds, you're captain invincible.
However I do enjoy the odd "Here's a minigun, kill EVERYTHING" type of game. But Halo would certainly not be my first choice for that.
I've also lost a lot of respect for the whole thing because 2 and 3 were blatantly only made to make Bungee more money.
Meh, I wasn't massively taken by it... I downloaded it and Eps 1&2, and while I was playing, I felt the irresistible urge to keep playing, but I never really enjoyed it like I did HL1. I don't know what it was, but HL just seemed so much... fresher, for want of a better word. And then I played Opposing Force, and absolutely loved it. Yes, the AI is crap, but I just found the whole premise of the game to be amazing, and far superior to anything HL2 has thrown at me yet. I didn't mind HL2, and I'll definitely buy Ep 3 when it (finally) comes out, but it never really struck me as worth the hype it got, and I definitely don't think it lives up to its predecessor.
*stands wrapped in a fire blanket, Milla Jovovich-style*
*stands wrapped in a fire blanket, Milla Jovovich-style*
Actually, I can say that. Halo: CE came out before Half Life 2, and I believe it to be much better than HL2. As I said in my first post, I see nothing groundbreaking about the game.Vigormortis said:Now, I can understand Halo's story and backdrop being more well-suited to your tastes as they are, after all, you opinions, but saying Halo has a better story and better characters? That's like saying 50 cent is a better song writer than Mozart. Sure, if you like rap then 50 Cent's music would be more enjoyable to you but there's no way you could say his music is better than Mozarts without sounding like a loon. For example, I really didn't get into Bioshock. In fact, I found it to be kinda bland. However, I cannot deny the genius of design and artistic direction that went into that game. It was a shining accomplishment, no doubt, but it just didn't tickle my fancy. What I'm saying is, simply put, Valve sets standards. When Half-Life came out, every FPS worth it's salt that came after emulated it to some degree. The same thing occurred after Half-Life 2 came out. Let's face it, we wouldn't have games like Bioshock and it's more recent ilk were it not for Valve's efforts 5 years ago. Even if you don't like their games, you can't help but admit the quality they contain. There are few companies left that you can say that about.MasterSqueak said:I see the Halo trilogy as a good rival to HL2. In fact, I prefer it.Kelthurin said:/Cast FiragaMasterSqueak said:
I have yet to see 1 pure FPS game that rivals HL2. And Fallout 3 can't be compared to it, because it's not a pure FPS, and thus doesn't really focus solely on the FPS bit.
Better vehicles, better story, better characters, and better weapons.
*Drags Vrex360 into anti flame bunker*
*prepping my flame-bunker-buster* ; )
Well, actually the source engine was nice, but not enough to make the game itself groundbreaking.
And I'm beyond bunkers, I have a Battlecruiser.
You are doing yourself a disservice if you don't give Portal a chance. In no a way an ordinary FPS. Mostly a puzzle game. Fairly short. Yet an incredible game that will entertain you like very few games can.MaxTheReaper said:
As for HL2 I can see both sides to it. Yet I must admit you really have to think back 5 years to keep it in perspective. At the time it was really good for a FPS, and had a level of immersion that was great. Yet the game was really long, and I admit after some time I would put it down due to some boredom. Then I would pick it up months later, get into it for 4 more hours, and put it down again. I think I finished it over a course of a year. That is why the episodes are perfect for me. Much better mix of action and story without feeling tedious.
I'd find it very interesting to see which people in this thread identified themselves as 'console' or 'PC' gamers. I think that would illuminate things somewhat. Console games different flavour about them, and I think tastes are different between the groups.
I've been playing games solidly since about '83 so I probably have a longer term perspective on this. I also think you need to contextualise the discussion in terms of 2004 and present day. Can you compare gameplay from 2004 to 2009...definitely. Can you compare graphics from 2004 to 2009...not very fairly (though the best aging game I've seen...compare other games from that era...umm).
HL2 was, by huge a margin, the best looking game of 2004. Doom 3 was the only competition released a few months previously, and while Doom 3 had the best dynamic shadowing, the Source engine and HL2 stood out for overall quality and performance. I'm mean this game looked good on mid-range hardware at release.
The physics engine became like bullet-time in the Matrix, copied so much it became a cliché. However, it was revolutionary at the time. Putting aside the physics, the gameplay mechanics themselves were not particularly innovative (so compared with something like Thief).
The other thing which people forget about is the character expression system. This left every other game looking like they had store dummies in them. It helped forge an emotional connection between the player and the surrounding cast.
What HL2 did better than almost any other game, was significantly raise the bar on game polish. It was tight like you'd never seen before. Level design, characterisation, voice acting, engine. It was all polished to a gleaming shine. I think that's why people rave about the game more than anything. It innovated in a number of ways, but is still fundamentally a linear FPS. But the production quality set a new standard that very few games live up to even today.
I've been playing games solidly since about '83 so I probably have a longer term perspective on this. I also think you need to contextualise the discussion in terms of 2004 and present day. Can you compare gameplay from 2004 to 2009...definitely. Can you compare graphics from 2004 to 2009...not very fairly (though the best aging game I've seen...compare other games from that era...umm).
HL2 was, by huge a margin, the best looking game of 2004. Doom 3 was the only competition released a few months previously, and while Doom 3 had the best dynamic shadowing, the Source engine and HL2 stood out for overall quality and performance. I'm mean this game looked good on mid-range hardware at release.
The physics engine became like bullet-time in the Matrix, copied so much it became a cliché. However, it was revolutionary at the time. Putting aside the physics, the gameplay mechanics themselves were not particularly innovative (so compared with something like Thief).
The other thing which people forget about is the character expression system. This left every other game looking like they had store dummies in them. It helped forge an emotional connection between the player and the surrounding cast.
What HL2 did better than almost any other game, was significantly raise the bar on game polish. It was tight like you'd never seen before. Level design, characterisation, voice acting, engine. It was all polished to a gleaming shine. I think that's why people rave about the game more than anything. It innovated in a number of ways, but is still fundamentally a linear FPS. But the production quality set a new standard that very few games live up to even today.
Is there still a place left behind the shield?MasterSqueak said:
Because in all honesty, I didn't like HL² that much. The story was nothing special, the ending of the original game boring and the gameplay in generell was just "ok". It prevented me from playing the episodes though, so my judgment may be biased.
I was thinking that Valve never worked for any graphic card or processor company and they did not tried to make their graph engine for ULTRA NEW graph cards. I was thinking that Valve is one really uncommercial company, until...until they announced L4D 2. damn that was commercial. but still Valve is great and HL series every of them is FANTASTIC
How good was it? It was thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis good 
At first I thought it would be another faceless fps, but that was only until I started playing. The best arc, in my opinion, was Ravenholm. Spinning death traps-igniting-blowing-up-cutting-in-half zombie fun I loved headhumperz :}
At first I thought it would be another faceless fps, but that was only until I started playing. The best arc, in my opinion, was Ravenholm. Spinning death traps-igniting-blowing-up-cutting-in-half zombie fun
I loved headhumperz :}
It's a great game; the Orange Box has been one of the best value games that i've bought.
I like the story, I liked the atmosphere. I liked the start, where you're hustled along by the Resistance. The vehicle sections where bumpy and rather hard to navigate, but acceptable. I enjoyed the all-out battle at the end; I greatly enjoyed the gravity gun and Ravenholm.
Quite a few of the problems I see in this thread have been noted and changed by VALVe. Bumpy vehicle rides? Jalopy in Episode 2, a bigger, more easily controlled alternative to the buggy. Load times breaking immersion? Episode 2 has the driving sections through tunnels that loads.
Also, Dog.
I like the story, I liked the atmosphere. I liked the start, where you're hustled along by the Resistance. The vehicle sections where bumpy and rather hard to navigate, but acceptable. I enjoyed the all-out battle at the end; I greatly enjoyed the gravity gun and Ravenholm.
Quite a few of the problems I see in this thread have been noted and changed by VALVe. Bumpy vehicle rides? Jalopy in Episode 2, a bigger, more easily controlled alternative to the buggy. Load times breaking immersion? Episode 2 has the driving sections through tunnels that loads.
Also, Dog.
The game play was good, the storyline was alright, creativity fairly high, visual style not overly exciting.
Comparing Half Life 2's story to a famous genius from history? What kind of justification can you give for that? Half Life 2 has a unique storytelling technique, to be sure, but the story itself is pretty much boiler plate sci fi cliches.Vigormortis said: