I actually just played through Half-Life about a month ago (never got around to playing it before) and I thought it was just fantastic. Yes it's old, but I just kept that in mind and I soon forgot I was playing an old game. The only thing that really showed its age was the graphics; everything else was extremely enjoyable and just about if not quite up to modern standards.
Poll: Has Half-Life stood the test of time?
- Thread starter sgtshock
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No you can't! It's mine, I call it!MikeOfThunder said:
That's an interesting one actually. To an extent what you're saying is true, in general movies coming out now are indeed better than movies of the past, but there's still some shining examples that are at least the equal to or better than what's released nowadays. The quality of the flm (or lack of) can't be hidden behind new or improving technology.grimsprice said:
In Gangster/crime films for instance, The Third Man and The Godfather still stand up as incredible movies. In the last ten years only The Departed comes close for quality whilst the majority of what's released has been instantly forgotten (watched Righteous Kill recently?).
Effects driven films like blockbusters and horror movies stand up this way too. Despite the jump in effects no one's really topped Star Wars, not even it's own prequels. In horror films nothing's come along yet that's disturbed people more than Alien/s or The Thing.
They stand up to time so well because they were well made to begin with. Attention was paid to the things yuo can't easily measure like character development and suspense.
Technology is often used as a crutch to hide poor writing or production values, it never works and the majority of films are duly forgotten because of it.
Going back all the way to silent film, Buster Keaton movies in general still hold up. They're certainly funnier than any 'comedy' released this decade (possible exceptions for Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz). They don't even have sound, but they work because they're so well made.
The same applies to games, the ones that are genuinely well made last. I' drather play Sonic the Hedhehog than Sonic: Unleashed even if by all measurable standards the second one is 'better'. The same applies with Half Life. It stands up to the test of time because there is more to what makes a good game than pixels per inch or the current user interface trends.
The problem with Half Life is that it was so good it basically set the boiler plate for what gamers expected out of high class FPS games afterwards. Naturally it was overshadowed by later games who took everything good about it and improved it. So while it was groundbreaking at the time, it hasn't aged well since so many games improved upon it.
Last time I replayed it, the original Half-Life was still a well-balanced. There's nothing really inherently bad about it, but it does suffer a bit from feeling a bit shallow when compared to more recent games.
It's the kind of game that holds up well because its execution was nearly flawless with the technical limitations in mind, but it's still complicated enough to make you feel that more could be done with many aspects of it.
Meh, maybe I'm not making much sense. It's fun, anyway, but there are more recent games I'd rather play.
It's the kind of game that holds up well because its execution was nearly flawless with the technical limitations in mind, but it's still complicated enough to make you feel that more could be done with many aspects of it.
Meh, maybe I'm not making much sense. It's fun, anyway, but there are more recent games I'd rather play.
I think FPSs are different nowadays. Games like gears of war and CoD4 are more about hiding behind things and healing your wounds. The old FPS games of run around shooting stuff and hope to find a medipack are disappearing (Where art thou Serious Sam?!).
They're keeping up to date easily, but they do have a very different feel to games like CoD. Just because it doesn't use an automatic health regen. doesn't mean they're outdated. The games do what they do well and they're improving on it (if only it wouldn't take so long!).
They've also got the best story in an FPS that I've seen, not that anybody is really able to tell what is actually going on, but that's why I like it, because of the mystery.
They've also got the best story in an FPS that I've seen, not that anybody is really able to tell what is actually going on, but that's why I like it, because of the mystery.
Of course its starting to show its age. The game is ten years old... the graphics ARE outdated.
That doesn't make it any less fun, or intense. I played HL1 AFTER HL2 and it was still fun, though the story made a helluva lot less sense :\ People have bought Chrono Trigger several times over for different systems, and the original Final Fantasy games have been repackaged in a dozen different manners. Doom's been around for almost two decades (maybe it is 20+ years old, i forget x-x) and people still love it.
Just because a game's getting a little ugly around the edges doesn't mean that people shouldn't play it. For the historical reference (and the bragging rights as well) these games are essential to a gamer's diet, and should be played at LEAST once. I'd recommend as often as you get tired of playing the "new" games. As long as the controls are in place, the story is enticing, and the pacing works, a little graphical ugliness can be overlooked, as everything else goes straight up to 11.
My point is, a classic is a classic; you can't compare today's movies to those of yesteryear's and think that today's are better simply because they "look" better. Personally, I'll take The Magnificent Seven over any Western made in the last two decades (and not just because Steve McQueen was the man ^-^).
That doesn't make it any less fun, or intense. I played HL1 AFTER HL2 and it was still fun, though the story made a helluva lot less sense :\ People have bought Chrono Trigger several times over for different systems, and the original Final Fantasy games have been repackaged in a dozen different manners. Doom's been around for almost two decades (maybe it is 20+ years old, i forget x-x) and people still love it.
Just because a game's getting a little ugly around the edges doesn't mean that people shouldn't play it. For the historical reference (and the bragging rights as well) these games are essential to a gamer's diet, and should be played at LEAST once. I'd recommend as often as you get tired of playing the "new" games. As long as the controls are in place, the story is enticing, and the pacing works, a little graphical ugliness can be overlooked, as everything else goes straight up to 11.
Hmm... Wizard of Oz anyone (which, btw, started out in black and white)? What about The Maltese Falcon or Casablanca? No Gone With the Wind? I think most movies made "back in the day" are of a higher quality than the best CG in any movie today. Ray Harryhausen is still known as the King of Monster Movies, and not even the more recent attempts come close to such classics as Jason and the Argonaughts, let alone Clash of the Titans.grimsprice said:
My point is, a classic is a classic; you can't compare today's movies to those of yesteryear's and think that today's are better simply because they "look" better. Personally, I'll take The Magnificent Seven over any Western made in the last two decades (and not just because Steve McQueen was the man ^-^).
I think the only issue I ever had with it was the lack of iron sights. I just feel weird about playing a fps that gives me too much assistance I like to like up my pistol headshots, gun out the legs and so forth. If Half life had them in the game the fps portions would be on par with the stellar story telling and atmosphere.
I cringe when i see or hear someone say "that game is old, the graphics are terrible"...
Old graphics can still be fantastic, there's a certain charm you can only get through older games, Playstation with its polygonal jittery edges or the N64's solid colours and bright lighting, gets me away from all the fancy pixel shaders, volumetric lighting and bloom. I suppose its the same as people who watch old movies once in awhile because they like the aged styles of cinema, my dad likes old clint eastwoods films simply because the camera doesn't move :S
I like to play the great classic games because even today you will never see anything like them.
Old graphics can still be fantastic, there's a certain charm you can only get through older games, Playstation with its polygonal jittery edges or the N64's solid colours and bright lighting, gets me away from all the fancy pixel shaders, volumetric lighting and bloom. I suppose its the same as people who watch old movies once in awhile because they like the aged styles of cinema, my dad likes old clint eastwoods films simply because the camera doesn't move :S
I like to play the great classic games because even today you will never see anything like them.
As someone who did not play them when they came out, I had to go with the third option. I'm sure that they were great games, and I'm sure I would have enjoyed them had I tried them years ago, but I just could not get into them when I tried them recently.
Half-Life (the first game) is quite dated, what with the blocky graphics and less-than-perfect physics.
Half-Life 2, on the other hand, I think will stand the test of time quite a bit better; The game's graphics were pretty much the Pinnacle of what graphics should be, without becoming a Graphics-card tester rather than a Game. The story was good, physics were fantastic, and it has a pretty impressive replay value.
Half-Life 2, on the other hand, I think will stand the test of time quite a bit better; The game's graphics were pretty much the Pinnacle of what graphics should be, without becoming a Graphics-card tester rather than a Game. The story was good, physics were fantastic, and it has a pretty impressive replay value.