That Was Half-Life 2?

[Vigormortis]

So you were following forum rules when calling everyone who enjoyed the game sheeple? If you don't like insults then you shouldn't insult others.

Also that wall of text is not proving any thing so it's not convincing in any way, it's just your opinion. 90% of the people who create arguments make the same problem.

Of course Grey Day wasn't. That's the point. You'll find that most of the people that come into these threads with the mean, spiteful, bile-filled posts about how God-awful Half-Life is and how stupid the "fan(boys)" are for liking it are the epitome of hypocritical. They'll constantly toss insults towards anyone who doesn't agree with them. Then, should anyone bother responding to them, they'll quickly try to put that person down by saying either "Don't insult me. That's against forum rules." or "Just like a Valve fan. You merely hint that you don't like Half-Life and the fanboys lose their shit."

It's really depressing that this isn't even addressed anymore. If this sort of thing happened on any other topic it would never devolve that far. The mods would be all over it. But for some reason, if the thread is about "Half-Life sucking", almost anything goes. Especially if it's an insult pointed at a Valve fan. It's really odd. I wonder if the mods just ignore the threads all together. I wouldn't blame them. They pop up weekly so I imagine it gets quite annoying having to deal with them.

 

[Nazulu]

So you were following forum rules when calling everyone who enjoyed the game sheeple? If you don't like insults then you shouldn't insult others.

Also that wall of text is not proving any thing so it's not convincing in any way, it's just your opinion. 90% of the people who create arguments make the same problem.

Of course Grey Day wasn't. That's the point. You'll find that most of the people that come into these threads with the mean, spiteful, bile-filled posts about how God-awful Half-Life is and how stupid the "fan(boys)" are for liking it are the epitome of hypocritical. They'll constantly toss insults towards anyone who doesn't agree with them. Then, should anyone bother responding to them, they'll quickly try to put that person down by saying either "Don't insult me. That's against forum rules." or "Just like a Valve fan. You merely hint that you don't like Half-Life and the fanboys lose their shit."

It's really depressing that this isn't even addressed anymore. If this sort of thing happened on any other topic it would never devolve that far. The mods would be all over it. But for some reason, if the thread is about "Half-Life sucking", almost anything goes. Especially if it's an insult pointed a Valve fan. It's really odd. I wonder if the mods just ignore the threads all together. I wouldn't blame them. They pop up weekly so I imagine it gets quite annoying having to deal with them.

Wasn't always like that. I just came back to The Escapist after a year so I'm a bit out of loop.

I used to get upset about these things too but it can't be helped. Either your an elitist or a fanboy it seems, they do exist but all these labels just piss everyone off. I guess I'm no better for calling Brown Day a troll, now they should write rules for all of the labels or none of them.

Not much I can do, just keep educating or making fools out of them.

 

[Nazulu]

snip

I especially like those hipster guys yelling "it's overrated". No, it's not. Look at the awards page on wiki. I rather trust professional opinion than some random dude who most probably did not even get the subtle story parts in the background because it was not packed in a cutscene.

Sorry, I have disagree with you there. Calling something over-rated is an opinion, something neither right or wrong. They're allowed to call anything over-rated or under-rated, or even just crap. Thing is though, without any proof their sentence holds no significance, so just ignore it.

Same with the awards page and professional opinions, they are just opinions, no facts involved (unless they did write or say something amazing). Actually, I find most professional reviews to be really pathetic. I found one really good site but I lost it :-(.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

I especially like those hipster guys yelling "it's overrated". No, it's not. Look at the awards page on wiki. I rather trust professional opinion than some random dude who most probably did not even get the subtle story parts in the background because it was not packed in a cutscene.

Not liking a game, fine. I don't like most modern FPS for my silly selfish reasons, I despise jRPG for my silly selfish reasons. I don't open threads and try to be edgy with an "opinion" that has actually no basis at all.

Also, like you hinted at: Nearly every thread about HL2 that I saw in the time I was here had as topic how it "sucks". So you are sick that people talk about it? Then how about you just stop.

snip.

Maybe I'll take the time next day to point out all your mistakes. Because you are simply wrong. In about every sentence you wrote. Why? Well, I hate to point it out but: You did not get it. You did not get the story and intention of the HL series AT ALL.

The thing that bothers me is, I would actually LOVE to have a thoughtful debate on certain aspects of the Half-Life games. (as well as many other series, for that matter) I love to hear differing opinions on things I enjoy because it not only gives me another point of view to critique by but also, at times, helps me to analyze things about the series I'd never seen before.

However, for some reason, the only time you ever hear someone openly offer up an opposing opinion, especially in regard to Half-Life, it's often used as a veil for a slurry of insults and jabs at the fans. The ones posting those opinions often type with arrogance and condescension while acting like they're riding on some enlightened, moral high-horse. Like they're somehow 'better' than everyone else simply because they don't just not like the games but in fact hate them.

This isn't always the case, but it occurs more frequently than not. When it does, it utterly destroys any chance of having a meaningful debate (something one could argue the poster had no interest in in the first place) and all but invalidates any valid point they may make.

Take this post for example -

Spoiler

I thought HL2 was boring and the story made barely any sense. I completely lost track of what was going on around the "highway" section of it, then it just became another futuristic FPS with a decent coat of paint. The only thing I liked from it (back in the day) was the source engine, so new and fresh at the time.

Now excuse me while I brace for the innevitable valve fans "inbox of hate charge".

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/337/fireoa.jpg/]

I was totally with this post, prepping to offer up another point of view that may have helped wooty grasp certain aspects of the game/story that he may have missed when he played; while also planning to ask what parts he did like. (if any)

However, I was with it until that last sentence. It's exactly the kind of thing, though admittedly much more tempered than usual, you see from those who seem to relish in harassing and insulting the fans.

I mean, really people? Is it necessary to be insulting about this? Aren't we a bit more mature than that? Is it impossible for us to have opposing opinions anymore without being at each others throats?

The more time I spend on this forum, the more I'm convinced it is.

 

[UltraXan]

The ending to the second game probably won't make sense unless you played the first... or if you actually paid attention to the beginning of the second... In the end, it's fairly simple. Freeman is a tool used by Gman to do certain things. Gman hires him at the end of the first, deploys him at the beginning of the second, and pulls him back into stasis (or whatever) before any mortal harm actually becomes his most valuable asset at the very end of the second. The reason it didn't get very much criticism is because it made sense, despite being peculiar.

 

[Innegativeion]

well....

actually....you have a point

at least in made sense in universe

just...ummm..mabye you dont want to play episode 3...jsut saying

I just wanna put out there, episode 2's ending (I think that's what you mean), made perfect sense in context and was actually one of the more poignant endings I can remember from a video game.

Spoiler: HL2 ending

I mean, you DID piss off that one shu'ulathoi earlier. I'd bet the two at the end were simply having a hissy fit after Gordon achieved an incredibly unlikely victory yet again

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Why haven't you heard about it, but other endings get slapped around?

This question can be answered with the answers to these questions: Why did no one care that MML2 left Volnutt on the moon? Why did no one complain that God of War 3's ending was trash and full of retcon? Why is Deus Ex: HR the SAME ending as ME3, but it got GOTY nominations all over and universal love.

It's because game endings have sucked and always will suck. Mainly due to the fact players never want a game to end. Games get finished so rarely nowadays that players who sink their time in long enough throughout the journey to get to the ending are never going to be satisfied by the hype they've built up for themselves.

Other than that, I actually enjoyed HL2's ending. It wasn't cliche' and made perfect sense to me. You must not have played the first installment or weren't paying attention to the intro of the game.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Also that wall of text is not proving any thing so it's not convincing in any way, it's just your opinion. 90% of the people who create arguments make the same problem.

Rofl. "Write a detailed description of why you dislike Half-Life 2!"

*shows you my detailed description*

"Yeah... well... That proves nothing!"

It's called an opinion, sweetheart. I detailed mine and you don't like it. Good for you. Do you want a medal?

 

[pilouuuu]

I agree. That ending was probably was worse than Mass Effect 3's one. I don't know why I didn't feel so upset about it though. It was more like a bug WTF...

I think we demand more from games now, and that includes good endings. Maybe that's why Valve is afraid of finishing Half-Life story.

 

[Freechoice]

the first-person storytelling

It's funny. The FPS' that take away the most from the player are the ones that get the most praise for it. Notice how in both Bioshock and Half-Life, the player is just a puppet for higher powers. I'm not saying the world building that conveys the story is bad, I'm saying that having a voiceless mook is not good storytelling and you're always going to have less freedom in gameplay because of the constraints imposed against the PC for the sake of the story.


Also, look how fucking stupid the "non-cutscene" looks from the perspective of the NPC's. Immersion? Some asshole with a PhD swinging a crowbar.


On a side note, I saved that computer monitor that Lamar broke.

 

[distortedreality]

That video is freakin hilarious.

Back OT - I don't think less choice = worse storytelling. I think it obviously equates to a more linear, streamlined experience, and that is not always a bad thing (despite popular opinion). Personally, comparing the HL2 method of storytelling to say Skyrim's method, i'd have to say that HL2 is the more successful of the two in that regard.

Each to their own though.

I agree. That ending was probably was worse than Mass Effect 3's one.

I don't get this - how exactly is it worse? How exactly is it bad for that matter? I actually thought it was a great ending, made perfect sense and set the scene for the next games.

 

[Nazulu]

Also that wall of text is not proving any thing so it's not convincing in any way, it's just your opinion. 90% of the people who create arguments make the same problem.

Rofl. "Write a detailed description of why you dislike Half-Life 2!"

*shows you my detailed description*

"Yeah... well... That proves nothing!"

It's called an opinion, sweetheart. I detailed mine and you don't like it. Good for you. Do you want a medal?

Here we go again. You can point out flaws and things in the game that work, keep it a fact and your arguments will be convincing. The problem with your review or whatever, is that you just say "The landscape is forgettable and uninteresting. The scenery is equally as bland, with the load divided levels serving more as things to do than places to explore or simply 'be in.' The gun-play is clunky and awkward, but not in a realistic way, but in a 'this feel shit' way."

These don't actually explain anything except how you feel about it. This is just you ranting, not pointing out exactly why it is 'forgettable' or 'clunky and awkward'.

I'm trying to be as friendly as I possibly can now, so at least try to understand that calling me a sheep when you can't even convince me why is annoying. Would you like it if I called you a sheep just for liking a FPS? No, it would piss you off.

Funnily enough, I didn't think much of the characters either but the over all design and the different challenges of HL2 was my favourite part of the whole experience, so your going to have a very tough time explaining why that was forgettable and bland.

 

[Freechoice]

That video is freakin hilarious.

Back OT - I don't think less choice = worse storytelling. I think it obviously equates to a more linear, streamlined experience, and that is not always a bad thing (despite popular opinion). Personally, comparing the HL2 method of storytelling to say Skyrim's method, i'd have to say that HL2 is the more successful of the two in that regard.

So does that mean CoD is actually not half as bad as people make it out to be and their problem is not actually with the game but with the publishers?

Heresy!

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Also that wall of text is not proving any thing so it's not convincing in any way, it's just your opinion. 90% of the people who create arguments make the same problem.

Rofl. "Write a detailed description of why you dislike Half-Life 2!"

*shows you my detailed description*

"Yeah... well... That proves nothing!"

It's called an opinion, sweetheart. I detailed mine and you don't like it. Good for you. Do you want a medal?

Here we go again. You can point out flaws and things in the game that work, keep it a fact and your arguments will be convincing. The problem with your review or whatever, is that you just say "The landscape is forgettable and uninteresting. The scenery is equally as bland, with the load divided levels serving more as things to do than places to explore or simply 'be in.' The gun-play is clunky and awkward, but not in a realistic way, but in a 'this feel shit' way."

These don't actually explain anything except how you feel about it. This is just you ranting, not pointing out exactly why it is 'forgettable' or 'clunky and awkward'.

I'm trying to be as friendly as I possibly can now, so at least try to understand that calling me a sheep when you can't even convince me why is annoying. Would you like it if I called you a sheep just for liking a FPS? No, it would piss you off.

Funnily enough, I didn't think much of the characters either but the over all design and the different challenges of HL2 was my favourite part of the whole experience, so your going to have a very tough time explaining why that was forgettable and bland.

You don't seem to understand how this works. Here, let me explain: video games are subjective. Period. No argument, no ifs ands or buts. They are subjective and it's impossible to say something about them objectively. Shit controls? Opinion. Bad graphics? Opinion. Bland story? Opinion. Everything that makes a video game a video game--just like all art--is subjective. I've stated my opinion over and over again. That's it. I don't care if you feel mu opinion is invalid or whatever else. That's it. Simple. Your opinion is yours and mine is my own. You can try to "prove" mine wrong until the cows come home and nothing will change.

 

[Nazulu]

Also that wall of text is not proving any thing so it's not convincing in any way, it's just your opinion. 90% of the people who create arguments make the same problem.

Rofl. "Write a detailed description of why you dislike Half-Life 2!"

*shows you my detailed description*

"Yeah... well... That proves nothing!"

It's called an opinion, sweetheart. I detailed mine and you don't like it. Good for you. Do you want a medal?

Here we go again. You can point out flaws and things in the game that work, keep it a fact and your arguments will be convincing. The problem with your review or whatever, is that you just say "The landscape is forgettable and uninteresting. The scenery is equally as bland, with the load divided levels serving more as things to do than places to explore or simply 'be in.' The gun-play is clunky and awkward, but not in a realistic way, but in a 'this feel shit' way."

These don't actually explain anything except how you feel about it. This is just you ranting, not pointing out exactly why it is 'forgettable' or 'clunky and awkward'.

I'm trying to be as friendly as I possibly can now, so at least try to understand that calling me a sheep when you can't even convince me why is annoying. Would you like it if I called you a sheep just for liking a FPS? No, it would piss you off.

Funnily enough, I didn't think much of the characters either but the over all design and the different challenges of HL2 was my favourite part of the whole experience, so your going to have a very tough time explaining why that was forgettable and bland.

You don't seem to understand how this works. Here, let me explain: video games are subjective. Period. No argument, no ifs ands or buts. They are subjective and it's impossible to say something about them objectively. Shit controls? Opinion. Bad graphics? Opinion. Bland story? Opinion. Everything that makes a video game a video game--just like all art--is subjective. I've stated my opinion over and over again. That's it. I don't care if you feel mu opinion is invalid or whatever else. That's it. Simple. Your opinion is yours and mine is my own. You can try to "prove" mine wrong until the cows come home and nothing will change.

Brilliant! So you've admitted wasting your time and mine, as well as the pointless insults since every fucking piece of art must be equal, right? What the hell is the point of writing reviews or even discussing things if it's all so damn subjective?

No, sorry, that's what you BELIEVE! I don't believe it, in fact I've seen people sum up flaws and explained why something is great. This is why I'm telling you to actually try, but since you believe there is no chance writing something accurate, you never will.

If you believe there is no way to be convincing, then treat everyone how you would like to be treated then.

 

[pilouuuu]

I agree. That ending was probably was worse than Mass Effect 3's one.

I don't get this - how exactly is it worse? How exactly is it bad for that matter? I actually thought it was a great ending, made perfect sense and set the scene for the next games.

I'm saying that without considering that the story was continued with Episode 1.
It doesn't have a conclusion, you're simply left without knowing what happened to Gordon and Alyx through G-man's Deus Ex Machina. The ending is simply "frozen"...

I don't think movies, books or TVs would get away with that ending, but as we gamers don't deserve to be treated with a respectful ending because developers think that most people don't complete games, then that's the reason why we get that kind of unsatisfactory ending.

Thankfully Episode 1 explained what happened afterwards, but the matter in question now is that we still don't have a conclusion after Episode 2 and we're still waiting...

On the other hand, Valve made some of the best endings ever in Portal 2!

Another thing that should be discussed is that I think that it's about time that developers start taking care of endings and stop treating it like an afterthought. I think Bioware can talk about that...

 

[spartandude]

That video is freakin hilarious.

Back OT - I don't think less choice = worse storytelling. I think it obviously equates to a more linear, streamlined experience, and that is not always a bad thing (despite popular opinion). Personally, comparing the HL2 method of storytelling to say Skyrim's method, i'd have to say that HL2 is the more successful of the two in that regard.

So does that mean CoD is actually not half as bad as people make it out to be and their problem is not actually with the game but with the publishers?

Heresy!

no..
cod is still shit because its badly done