Replayed Half Life 2. Blew me away.

[BaronVH]

The best comparison would be if you read The Fellowship of the Ring. Enjoyed it. Then read The Two Towers. Loved it. Then the publisher decided they would sell ebooks from then on and never released Return of the King. That is Valve.

 

[Fox12]

Good for you then.
For me it was a terrible boring slog until Ravenholm, and after Ravenholm it was just about ok...
Ep1 stays downright unplayable, because it boils down to: "Solve puzzles while endlessly respawning enemies shoot at you".
Mind you, I don't have nostalgia glasses and I didn't like the first Half-Life all that much either.

Yeah, I thought it was a terrible boring slog. Nothing about it clicked, or came across as well executed. Portal was pretty great, but otherwise you'd be better off buying a PS3 and playing Bioshock. I'm not the biggest FPS fan, but I honestly couldn't see why half-life was so beloved. It's a weird, archaic middle child in the shooter genre. It has all the awkward puzzles and mechanics of old school shooters while the improvements it ushered in have since been capitalized on by other, better games.

 

[KaraFang]

Yeah, I thought it was a terrible boring slog. Nothing about it clicked, or came across as well executed. Portal was pretty great, but otherwise you'd be better off buying a PS3 and playing Bioshock. I'm not the biggest FPS fan, but I honestly couldn't see why half-life was so beloved. It's a weird, archaic middle child in the shooter genre. It has all the awkward puzzles and mechanics of old school shooters while the improvements it ushered in have since been capitalized on by other, better games.

And therin lies the rub...

Before HL2 we had even cruder FPS games that were trying to do more than just "shoot, shoot, kill arena".

HL2 at the time was as big a jump forwards as HL was when it came out in the 90's...

It's a shame and maybe nostalgia goggles do help, but before HL we had VERY basic FPS shooters.

I think... out of all of them in the 90's the movers and shakers were:

Wolfenstein/ Rise of the Triad: pretty much introduced FPS to the broad world
Doom: revolutionised the FPS: graphics, maps, enemies, gore, sounds, multiplayer deathmatch, heck- loads.
Thief: You can do sneaky stuff instead... Thief 2 - maps the size of cities, enemies who react to sound and things like doors being left open
Unreal: sheer graphics at the time = amazing.
System Shock: 1st person RPG.
Half life: graphics, setting, AI,

man, when I was growing up... talk about evolution in leaps and bounds. Before Doom, I was exited that I could get Zool for the Amiga. (and before then Space invaders for my ZX81)

 

[Skatalite]

I played it for the first time with The Orange Box, loved it, then played through it again a couple of months ago (Half-Life 2: Update), and I still loved it. Not as much as when I first played it, but overall it's probably still my favorite shooter and one of my favorite games ever made.

Part of my reason for bringing up those four games is to point out that what might have been an impressive story and atmosphere for 2004 is no longer impressive in light of games that came after it. Sure, there are other FPS games from 2004 or earlier I think hold up better today than Half Life 2 (e.g. System Shock 2, DOOM 3), but I can at least understand that, in 2004, Half Life 2 could at least come across as impressive.

I really wonder in what ways you think System Shock 2 holds up better than Half-Life 2, because it's certainly not graphics, controls, AI, or even shooting mechanics.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I'm happy for you, OP.

But personally, I tried going back to it and I just can't stand it. Yes, the introduction and RavenHolm are AWESOME. But a lot of the rest feels really meh for me, and those long traveling bits with the hoverboat and car, constantly being interrupted by physics puzzles really get tedious.

I'm glad you can still enjoy it. :s I just can't.

 

[shrekfan246]

As far as I can tell, people who like first person shooters tend to love Half Live 2 because it introduced most of the modern features they enjoy today.

On the other hand people who don't like first person shooters tend to dislike it because it introduced most of the modern features that they don't enjoy today.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Halo?

And therin lies the rub...

Before HL2 we had even cruder FPS games that were trying to do more than just "shoot, shoot, kill arena".

Yes, technological innovations should be remembered. That doesn't mean they're going to be viewed as positively by people coming into them far in the future. You might think it's unfair to think about more modern games while playing something like Half-Life, but if that's a person's gaming experience, then that's how they're going to respond to it. Some people will see it as a cool time capsule, evidence of how the first-person shooter genre evolved over time. Others are just going to see it as having very basic and occasionally poorly-implemented versions of things that other games did better. And still others really aren't going to care about the technological innovations, because things like facial animations or a physics engine really don't matter to them and oh god why is there another vehicle section these played so much better in Halo.

Crysis is still lauded for its graphical fidelity, because it pushed the boundaries of PC hardware like no other game could for years to come. That doesn't make it a great game, nor does it mean people who had negative experiences with it should be more lenient with their opinions of it just because it was a pioneer in its own right. Even great games have their foibles, and often it's only with time and distance that we can examine them with a properly detached perspective that allows us to see them. As strange as it may sound, just because something was good in the past doesn't mean it's still good within the context of modern improvements. That's why some people just can't go back to replay some games, even if they loved them the first time around. It's why we say things "don't hold up well". At the same time, some people will think that exact same thing held up perfectly. Everyone will have different experiences, which is what makes it so great to have discussions about this kind of stuff!

OT: Every time I've tried to play, I've stopped a little ways past Ravenholm. It just bores me. I've been thinking about trying to give it a third (or fourth?) go, though, since I've been playing more and more older games over the last year or so anyway, and with a more open mind I might be able to break past whatever's been stopping me every other time I've tried.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Can't say much else but agree. It's generally my hyperbolic 'best game evah' pick, and I still think it's an utterly remarkable example of the medium at its best, and most secure about its identity (before Valve stopped giving a damn about game design, they - almost more than any other western developer - understood just how to design a game, not a semi-interactive film).

Incredible atmosphere, meticulously designed environments, minimalist score that isn't afraid to simply be textural (love the cue that appears after you finally see the light after enduring Ravenholm and the mines, ditto the cue under the bridge in Highway 17), and damn fine gameplay that's paced wonderfully.

The way the POV is retained, and the consistency of environment design (i.e. how it transitions from areas) give it a sense of place and immersion that I've struggled to find or experience in other games since.

My only two criticisms are that it's simply too easy, and those who hadn't played Half-Life before (I first played H-L2 on Xbox) would've found the first half an hour or more utterly baffling, and potentially rather dull. Lots of great games happen to be 'easy', though (Red Dead Redemption's one, even with cheat-oh-aim disabled), so I can never quite hold it against H-L2. All its positives bury any perceived negatives.

man, when I was growing up... talk about evolution in leaps and bounds. Before Doom, I was exited that I could get Zool for the Amiga. (and before then Space invaders for my ZX81)

Loved the Amiga (a 500+, to be exact). I had Zool, and a Zool poster, and ye gods was that an ugly game character [and therefore poster]...

 

[MysticSlayer]

I really wonder in what ways you think System Shock 2 holds up better than Half-Life 2, because it's certainly not graphics, controls, AI, or even shooting mechanics.

I was talking specifically about story and atmosphere in that paragraph. Technology and shooting was not being considered at the time.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It's funny, the first time I played it I wasn't all that impressed. The weapons seemed really non-creative compared to Half-Life, the enemy AI of the Combine Soldiers seemed weak compared to the Marine AI of HL1, and the vehicle sequences dragged on too long.

But somewhere along the way, the game just clicked for me. I don't know, at some point I just became incredibly immersed in the world and its characters and started to appreciate all the details. Having spent a decent amount of time in Eastern Europe, they captured the aesthetic so freaking well that it really helped sell the game. The Gravity Gun was a revelation for the time the game came out, and to this day it still has amazing facial animation and great characters.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

For me it definitely holds up. But I played a lot of FPS games before it, and at the time, I just found the level of polish, level design and interactivity to be staggering. No it's not my favorite game of all time, or even the era maybe, but in terms of graphics and playing experience, it was something very new and fresh to me.

It may not hold up against newer titles, but then again, it depends what people are looking to get out of a game. If you want atmosphere (with some horror mixed in), there's Bioshock and Metro. More horror? FEAR. If you want gunplay, there's CoD. Story, many of these held up pretty ok. Graphics, there's the Crysis series. But I find that HL2 tied all these elements together really well, keeping the action and pacing up just enough, and seamless enough to feel almost open world, even though it's a linear game (without relying too much on teleportations or passing out and waking up somewhere).

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Throw in another for "not particularly impressed". It's worth noting I played it a couple years after orange box came out though, if that makes any difference. It was an alright shooter, and it had a bit of an interesting story. What killed it for me was the game structure though. It just made it feel like such a chore. Spend 20 minutes running over to location A, meet a guy who tells you to run over to location B. 20 minutes later run into a guy who tells you to run over to location C, and so on. All the while I have no idea where I'm going, or really why I'm going there, just that if I look for the linear path I'll eventually end up there. Every now and then, there'd be an intermission where I do something different, but that wasn't enough to tide me over.

If I was won over by the shooter gameplay, I probably wouldn't have found the endless running from place to place so tedious. With it just being alright, I was just waiting for the game to be done. Finished HL 2, Episode 1, and couldn't bring myself to play Episode 2 because it just wasn't fun.

I respect what the series did, and I don't have an issue with other people liking it, I just don't really get why it's so highly praised when I didn't find any aspect of it better than alright

 

[Worgen]

I played it when it first came out on the Xbox. Yes, the original Xbox. Because it had received a 5 out of 5 from X-Play and my friend had been singing its praises for a while. And I loved it. Loved. It.

And when The Orange Box came out with the two episodes, I played the living daylights out of them too. The world just feels so alive, the characters are memorable, and the story--both what is there, what is in Portal, and what has been hinted at--is just fascinating.

All that being said, I've kind of grown a bit jaded on Half-Life as a series. I still think that the games themselves are masterpieces, but Valve? Valve has betrayed me, and pretty much every other fan, in my opinion. It has been too long, the hype was stacked too high that it has now collapsed on itself, and if--and that's a strong if--the next game in the series is ever released, odds are it just won't be what we're hoping it to be. I would love to be proved wrong, but Valve has made utterly no effort to do ANYTHING in regards to Half-Life, so whatever guys...

The rumor is that Valve is actually scared of releasing half life 3 since they saw the reaction to mass effect 3 and are afraid of a huge fan backlash no matter how the game ends.

 

[Potjeslatinist]

I'm actually playing through it again for the first time since 2004. Just got through a new playthrough of HL1.
And I must say, HL2 has aged considerably more than it's predecessor.

The physics were amazing in its time, but the game is too indulgent in them, stopping the action every five steps for an annoying puzzle. HL1 was just a straight up shooter, was fantastic at it, and is still very enjoyable today (even though it has its annoying moments, like "Residue Processing" *shudder*)

Not that I don't like HL2 - there really is lots to love here. It has some sequences that are still balls to the walls awesome, like the gunship fights, Ravenholm, and DOG! Yeah, I'm still enjoying it, but I'll always enjoy the first more.

 

[Vigormortis]

Well, the series was, and remains, one of my all-time favorites. From the story to the characters to the visuals to the aesthetic to the atmosphere to the music to the game-play, it has and likely will always resonate with me. Since playing the first game back in '98 it has always struck the right chords with what I enjoy most from science fiction, horror, and video gaming. It also birthed some of my more memorable experiences with LAN gaming, online communities, and modding scenes.

The only real disappointment I've ever really had with the series is that Valve haven't finished it. The ending to Episode 2 begs for some closure. I beg for it.

EDIT: Also that wonderful soundtrack.

This is refreshing. I so rarely see anyone but myself giving praise to the game's soundtrack. Kelly Bailey's work across the whole of the series made for one of it's most memorable aspects. At least, to me it did.

And the bridge. You know, THE bridge.... I don't think a game has made my palms that sweaty before.

That segment below the train bridge was one of the only times a video game actually gave me a bout of acrophobia. And I'm one of the few who's actually really good at first-person platforming, if that says anything.

The rumor is that Valve is actually scared of releasing half life 3 since they saw the reaction to mass effect 3 and are afraid of a huge fan backlash no matter how the game ends.

Egh, probably not the case. Valve rarely allows the success or failure of other franchises dictate what they do with their own. They prefer more direct feedback and data acquisition on their own efforts.

More likely the project simply became relegated to the backburner for a while. What likely happened was the team (however big it was) didn't have any solid ideas that were gelling at the time and most simply moved on to other projects. (many likely to VR)

There's been evidence that shows that the game's been in development at some stage or another as early as 2007 and as late as 2014, but since then there's been very little. I still hope to see Half-Life 3 at some point, but I'm not waiting on bated breath.