Poll: Half-Life 2 vs. Bioshock Infinite

[Callate]

Simply put, I think HL2 moved the genre and the industry forward; Bioshock: Infinite mostly moved its own series forward. The only thing B:I did which I think others may be trying to emulate is the non-irritating non-escort companion character, and it sounds from what I've been hearing that The Last of Us's take was at least equally admirable.

Not saying B:I is a bad game, but I think in another five years we're more likely to be talking about HL2, or even the original Bioshock.

 

[00slash00]

with half life 2 i was playing because i legitimately enjoyed playing. with infinite i just kind of tolerated the gameplay so i could continue the story. but games have been absurdly over hyped but i felt half life 2 lived up to the hype. by the time i played it i had heard half life 2 was the best game ever made and still loved every second of it. by the time i played bioshock infinite i had heard it was the best story ever told in gaming...and i thought it was a good story, but not one that stood out in my mind as being super amazing

 

[IGetNoSlack]

I'm going to join in the chorus of voices advocating Infinite's replacement with the superior original.

And that's all I have, having never played HL2. Beat Infinite though. I still like the original Bioshock better.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

Personally, I will still stand by my stance of Half-Life 2 being my favorite game of all time. Until I play one better (not likely) I won't budge from that.

BUT I would like it to be noted that I also love Infinite. Great game, best of 2013 so far.

 

[PhoenixWright]

Both are fantastic games, but the Half Life 2 is by far superior. Why? One reason: Atmosphere. Now, I like lo-fi music and slightly racist characters as much as the next Bioshock fan, but nothing about Infinite sucks me in like Hl2. Everything in Hl2 builds its immersion: the characters, the technology and world feel believable, and the sound design is minimalist yet compelling. When you climb your way up the citadel and complete the game, you /are/ Gordon Freeman. This is /your/ fight. The set pieces feel satisfying because it all melds together so well. Bioshock Infinite, great as it is, doesn't do that. There always feels like there's a layer of abstraction between you and Booker, and a lot of the action feels hollow. The ending isn't quite as bad as the ending to the first Bioshock, but it still points out the lack of immersion: you play a frustrating defense game and then walk around a bit. Both games are great, but Half Life is greater.

 

[Toxic Sniper]

Is this a joke? Half Life 2 is a masterpiece of pacing and flow. It's still fun to play today thanks to incredible levels that utilize the physics and gameplay changes to great degree like We Don't Go to Ravenholm and Route Kanal. Are there issues? Yeah, there are. Nova Prospect is still kinda tedious, and the scenes where you just stand around waiting for dialogue to finish are a chore. Still, its gameplay is far more exciting and interesting than anything Infinite had to offer.

Bioshock Infinite has bland combat in a pretty package. It just isn't very fun to play, and hitting enemies with a crowbar (Or a wrench; see the first Bioshock) will always be more satisfying than watching a brief execution cutscene with the skyhook.

 

[bafrali]

I wish people would judge the games based on their own merits rather than their affect on the industry. That said this comparison is still not very fair as games have nearly ten year time span between them which would tip the scales in favour of the newer release. Having not played BS:I I can not make a comparison. But I doubt I could choose between the two games if I had.

 

[Vigormortis]

In Bioshock Infinite you can make choices, but HL2 is completely linear.

Infinite had huge statements to make about choice and morals, and all sorts of different meta-narratives like Bioshock 1 had. HL2 doesn't have a lot of hidden messages--it's just the story of Gordon Freeman and the Black Mesa incident.

I actually agree with most of what you said, but I felt I had to address these two particular points.

I would argue that what few choices you can make in Bioshock Infinite are still, largely, linear in nature. The choices end up being almost superfluous.

I would also argue that Half-Life 2, while at face value a story told entirely from the point of view of Freeman, is about far more than him or what events he's privy to.

There are a lot of hidden narratives, secret meanings, and allusions to other concepts and philosophies. Some grand. Some small and personal.

Granted, they're no where near as obvious as those present in Bioshock Infinite. Many you won't notice on your first, second, or even third play through. But I promise you, they are there.

And no, they're not something I made up in my head. I swear I'm not crazy.

Really. I'm not.

[sub]I swear.[/sub]

 

[mirage202]

Bioshock Infinite: Excellent story, ok gameplay.
Half-Life 2: Great story, great gameplay.

HL2 takes it for me as it didn't forget it was a game and sacrificed nothing.

 

[MHR]

HL2. It's not even a comparison

Bioshock infinite had great atmosphere and cinema-style story but bland gameplay. I'm even pretty sure it was shorter than HL2.

Many parts of the Half-life 2 experience is a story that exists by showing you rather than telling you. It a lonely desolate atmosphere that can even convey a sense of helplessness at times. The actual situations Gordon encounters are silent parts of the story. After being cut off from his allies during the chaos an alien attack, gordon finds himself alone in a parasite infested zombie town at night. There is no dialogue telling you "get out of the zombie town because reasons," you come to figure out for yourself that you are left alone there to your own devices with limited health and ammo and your only help consists of brief encounters with your only friend, a mad preacher tending to his "flock" of parasite-ridden undead. It never goes over the top like other generic "gritty" shooters with juxtaposition or exposition around every corner and gameplay pacing that has one speed, "action!" In short, HL2's story is better because it's more immersive and projects what you're feeling into the game experience through the silent protagonist Gordon Freeman.

People that have no idea what the "story" is in HL2 aren't really paying attention. It's a sequel to Half-life where you are at ground-zero where the whole alien mess starts and after those events you're pushed forward in time by a mysterious figure to the future where the aliens that invaded earth now control it and maintain a distinctly insidious dystopia. You experience much of it yourself rather than having characters talk at you and tell you how it's going throughout the whole thing.

Bioshock infinite has better graphics and an engaging story with real characters, but HL2 is a better overall experience. HL2 even has some puzzles and is free of those garbage generic gameplay elements like recharging shields, bland weapons (2 for each generic type!,) easily obtained health/ammo, and repetitive room-after-room baddie mop-up gameplay.

Infinite is somewhat part of an increasingly large part of modern games that are more movie than game. You play it to find out what happens with booker and comstock and the girl, but the gameplay is forgettable and you won't be playing it more than twice if you have any other games with actual gameplay. With HL2 however I find myself playing it every year because it's an immersive and unique experience. There are enough freakin games that are movies.

 

[Vigormortis]

I suppose I should also answer the OPs question, even if my first post did nothing of the sort.

Honestly? Each game set out to do something different. They're design philosophies, while similar at first blush, are far more divergent than most realize.

As such, it's almost an unfair comparison. In the end, both achieved their goals and told stellar, immaculate stories with great pacing, wide casts of interesting characters, gorgeous art, sound, and level design, and fantastic atmosphere.

So really, in an objective sense, both are amazing. I couldn't put one over the other.

Subjectively, though, I feel like Half-Life 2...no, hold on. Let's make this fair.

Subjectively I feel like the Half-Life series has had, and likely will continue to have, a greater impact on me than the Bioshock series.

I love both series immensely. They are artful masterworks of the medium and deserve every bit of praise they get. I just prefer the setting and narrative of the Half-Life series a bit more.

[sub]Not but much though. They're still damned close in my heart.[/sub]

 

[unstabLized]

I judge games by themselves, not by what effect they had on the industry. That being said, HL2 is good, but I prefer Bioshock: Infinite a lot more. You guys say HL2 had a real effect on you about story telling and gameplay? I say the same thing, but about Bioshock: Infinite. I completed that game 6 times, and now I'm just slowly going for all the achievements until DLC comes along. I just can't get enough of it. Everything about it to me wraps itself around so perfectly, in the words of Yahtzee, "like a bucket with 3 nice plump cherries". The perfect length, with everything that I expected it to do done right and more. An amazing story, VERY fun gameplay (specially on 1999 mode with no vending machines), a great setting, and relatable characters.

If you tell me to judge the games side by side, not by when they came out, not by what effect they had on the industry, or any other reason, I'd say Bioshock: Infinite in a heart beat. I just don't find Half Life as entertaining as people make it out to be. Infinite though, will stick with me for a very, very long time. One of the games that is very close to my heart.

I see some people saying Infinite will be forgotten but HL2 will be remembered. For me, it's vice versa. And I tried to get into HL in 3 different time periods. When I was little, when I was a teen, and just a few months ago. Still don't see the great appeal to it, so my vote is definitely for Infinite.

 

[Dizeazedkiller]

*snip*
Seriously, I have never seen a rhyme or reason for almost anything in the game. "Why are we trying to kill Breen?" "Because reasons." "Why do people see me as some kind of chosen one?" "Because reasons." "Why did Gordon agree to any of this?" "Because reasons."

*snip*

I sort of don't get what the complaint is here. Hi, here's a story, why are you doing this stuff? Okay here, here is your motivation.

It wasn't the best story, and it wasn't particularly complicated, but it covered the main bases. Having a decent enough story with great characters with actual motivation and reasoning to do something.

OP: Half Life 2.I'm slightly biased towards it because of how i first experienced it (played it when i was really young for 1 or two levels and luckily rediscovered a few years later) but i found, in comparison, Bioshock Infinite lacking. Half Life 2 was a balanced game for me. The combat was good, the story was good, the pacing was good, everything was good (especially the characters as some have already mentioned) and i didn't really experience anything that was bad. Whereas Bioshock Infinite would have worked better as a book, or a movie. The story was great, but everything else just sucked. In comparison to previous games everything but the story was awful. No difficulty, shields are dumb, thanks for making me feel like i was playing halo/ CoD

Off-topic slightly, the earlier Bioshock games hold up a lot better against HL2, but i'd still put it ahead. Characters and interaction are my favourite thing in movies, books, games, etc, an HL2 did that better.

 

[Smooth Operator]

As a huge fan of HL2 I'd say in pure story telling Infinite does beat it, if they weren't so obvious with some parts I would even say by a huge margin, but all that wonderful work of theirs shatters on the abrupt swap into combat where you seem to be playing a completely different game that gives zero fucks about the story they just told.

 

[Lygus]

Why would you ever compare BI, a third installment of BS series, with HL2, the second installment? That's completely out of place and any substantial logic or reason. Maybe compare BS1/2 to HL2, but not BI that is 9 years younger than HL2.

BI was in no possible way revolutionary. Tell that to us after 3-5 years and we'll see.

 

[The_Echo]

Will you go for the closest thing this industry has to a cult classic

So have we completely forgotten about Psychonauts and God Hand now?

Half-Life is nowhere near cult-status.

Of the two, I'm picking Infinite, on the grounds that I have not played Half-Life and have absolutely no interest in it. Also Booker actually talks; frankly, I'm sick of silent FPS protagonists.

 

[LetalisK]

I don't know which to vote for. I thought they were both decent games that get way more praise than they deserve.

 

[Papadam]

I think that what makes HL2 one of the best games ever made is how the gameplay and the storytelling always feels deeply connected.

On the other hand, B:I has good gameplay and good story but the two always seems to struggle against each other wich makes the game feel disjointed. The storytellng in B:I seems so clumpsy beacuse the gameplay gets in the way.

This is a hard point to explain but I hope it makes some sense.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Bioshock: Infinite has very bland and uninspired action and a narrative framing that I really don't care for. It also continues the legacy of building up a side character through messages, who you then immediately kill when you confront them.

Looks great, fantastic visual design, but really lacks a cohesiveness in both gameplay and story.

Half-Life 2 is one of those games that lets your imagination roam around the environments without forcing a story onto you. Sort of similar to how Dark Souls did. It lets the levels tell the story of the world you're in instead of giving constant exposition on what's going on. This creates a fantastic sense of pacing and atmosphere.

The shooting gameplay is nice and punchy, too.