Was Half-Life meant to be some kind of landmark?

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I wasn't really into gaming at the time Half-Life came out, or at least the type of gaming that Half-Life falls into, so I wasn't able to anticipate or ascertain its effect on the gaming world. But whenever I see the game discussed anywhere today, it's always talked about, if implicitly, as something to be highly revered, something legendary, and Valve as some kind of Gods responsible for a monumental and holy Creation. Even Yahtzee hails it, and that's not something to be taken lightly.

I'd like to know why that is. I figure if everyone else sees Gordon Freeman's face as the Jesus of gaming then I might as well read the bible too.

Was it because it was innovative? When I first played the game around a year ago it just seemed to me like a regular first-person shooter. I'm not an expert on shooters being an adventure affectionado, but I've played a few pre-1998 shooters and they did not seem all that different from Half-Life.

Was it because it was outstanding in some way? Again, I don't have strong feelings for or against the game, but despite being a good game it didn't seem to excel in any particular department. It had good graphics, a strong story, as decent gameplay as a shooter can be, but nothing exceptional.

I don't know. As I said, shooters aren't my mainstay so don't shoot me down (ha) for this thread, I'm just genuinely curious why Half-Life is to be respected so much.

In penitence,
BBB.

 

[hazabaza1]

I dunno. But, as someone who doesn't like Half Life 2, and played HL1 for the first time... about a year or so ago, I want to say that it's one of the better FPSs I've played. It has quite a few issues, like just the general lack of direction, and the FUCKING JUMPING PUZZLES but otherwise it's just pretty good.

 

[GoaThief]

Half Life is the game most shooters aspire to.

That would be the reason why it feels like, "a regular first person shooter". 1998, keep that in mind. Slightly less than five years after the initial release of Doom.

 

[oplinger]

The fact that you find it a regular FPS now, is why it was so monumental. It did that.

Before Half-Life, FPS games were like Doom, or Quake, you get a story in a little blurb in the instruction manual, then do a series of stages where you murder everything and forget about the rest.

Half-Life added story, no stages just a string of levels, and let you explore the world they created (sort of)

 

[DoPo]

To address your question, I wrote a script for a video, but then I realised I'm boring, so I gave it to Yahtzee to record. Afterwards, I sent it back in time and here you go:

Spoiler: Here you go

[video=6126]

 

[xDarc]

Goldeneye on N64 in 1997 > Half-Life in 1998.

I was like 15 in 1997. Four of us would get together for split-screen deathmatch in Goldeneye like every weekend; it would last for hours.

I think the only kid who played half-life back then was the same kid who ran around telling everyone they should use linux. He would literally yell out LINUX!!! at random.

I played half-life but found it uninteresting and never finished.

Besides, Ultima Online was coming out and that was far more interesting than FPS games back then period.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Was it because it was innovative? When I first played the game around a year ago it just seemed to me like a regular first-person shooter. I'm not an expert on shooters being an adventure affectionado, but I've played a few pre-1998 shooters and they did not seem all that different from Half-Life.

In order to be able to answer your question, I must ask what it was that seemed so similar to you. To me, Half-Life played very little like the FPS games that came before. It was much slower-paced with a much darker tone and AI that would try to flank you and take cover (their attempts seem feeble now, but in 1998 it was mindblowing).

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

most of the old fps games were pretty much doom clones. run around and shoot things. thats it. half life came on the scene and pretty much for the first time we got proper exploration, some story, cinematics, etc it basically gave us the modern fps genre.

as for lack of direction haha yeah no minimaps or big green quest arrows there. it generally didnt phase people at the time to look around and explore a bit rather than having a big arrow that says "go here"

But it's not like it was the first game to do first-person exploration with plenty of story. Normality, Under a Killing Moon... Myst. Just because it had guns doesn't make it anything special.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Was it because it was innovative? When I first played the game around a year ago it just seemed to me like a regular first-person shooter. I'm not an expert on shooters being an adventure affectionado, but I've played a few pre-1998 shooters and they did not seem all that different from Half-Life.

In order to be able to answer your question, I must ask what it was that seemed so similar to you. To me, Half-Life played very little like the FPS games that came before. It was much slower-paced with a much darker tone and AI that would try to flank you and take cover (their attempts seem feeble now, but in 1998 it was mindblowing).

I don't know, since I'm not much of a shooter fan I guess I see them as games where you pick up a gun, shoot stuff and move on. If I were to look for something distinctive about a shooter I would look for games where you do something other than that, but Half-Life isn't that game.

Nice avatar, by the way.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Innovative... maybe in some aspects, but rather it is a landmark in craftsmanship.

The first Half-Life proved that FPS games can come with a worthwhile story/world, while all the brethren were merely looking for the best adrenaline rush.

And then the second upped the ante, story got heavier, added mystery, some meaty characters, gameplay ranging from excitement, horror, puzzles, play time, lot's of enemy variation, lot's of locale variation,... they just opted to put things together well.

 

[Beautiful End]

inb4 people whining about this topic like they always do.

Anyway, I get that it was innovative back then. I get it was the milestone for modern FPSs. I get that at this point, it probably doesn't seem as awesome as it did back in the day (Yeah, I hated the story, the fact that the NPC see Gordon as freakin' Jesus for whatever reason and the many times I got lost/died because I wasn't sure where exactly to go next; probably my fault but still).

And yet...even if someone says it hasn't aged well, which I actually disagree with, I still don't see what the big fuzz is about! Wasn't Super Mario bros a precursor to every single platformer out there? Honestly, I don't see people making a big fuzz about that game as much as I see people jumping off cliffs for Half-Life. Same with Zelda. Same with Final Fantasy.

But the main problem I have is that if you walk up to, let's say, a Zelda fan and say "Hey, the first Zelda sucks" or "Ocarina of Time sucks", they'll probably shrug and walk away, whether they agree with you or not. But if you walk up to a Half Life fan and say the same thing...whew! You'll never hear the end of it! It's like the holy grail for them.

But hold on! It's not that I absolutely hate Half Life. I played it, admitted it wasn't my favorite but I felt like continuing playing anyway. As a matter of fact, I AM playing it right now, just out of curiosity, I guess. But the fact that I feel like keep playing for whatever reason means the game ain't that bad; I'll admit it. But when it comes to people getting their panties in a bunch because someone said Half-Life is not awesome is what pisses me off. I'm not saying everyone's like that but those who are give everyone else a bad rep. I mean, I get it; I'm the same with some games. I love some games people think suck. That's fine, I am willing to be cool about them and let them have their decision. I am willing to admit my favorite games have flaws and I don't force my opinion onto others....

This is getting out of hand. I'm probably gonna get stoned for this, which would kinda proof my point. Oh, maker...

 

[daveman247]

To truly understand you would have to time travel

Not really being into shooters just compounds your confusion.

 

[daveman247]

snip

To be fair, both games are pretty different. For the multiplayer goldeneye blew half life out of the water, but the singleplayer was pretty weak (bar the awesome stackable objectives) compared to half life

 

[Beautiful End]

inb4 people whining about this topic like they always do.

Anyway, I get that it was innovative back then. I get it was the milestone for modern FPSs. I get that at this point, it probably doesn't seem as awesome as it did back in the day (Yeah, I hated the story, the fact that the NPC see Gordon as freakin' Jesus for whatever reason and the many times I got lost/died because I wasn't sure where exactly to go next; probably my fault but still).

And yet...even if someone says it hasn't aged well, which I actually disagree with, I still don't see what the big fuzz is about! Wasn't Super Mario bros a precursor to every single platformer out there? Honestly, I don't see people making a big fuzz about that game as much as I see people jumping off cliffs for Half-Life. Same with Zelda. Same with Final Fantasy.

But the main problem I have is that if you walk up to, let's say, a Zelda fan and say "Hey, the first Zelda sucks" or "Ocarina of Time sucks", they'll probably shrug and walk away, whether they agree with you or not. But if you walk up to a Half Life fan and say the same thing...whew! You'll never hear the end of it! It's like the holy grail for them.

But hold on! It's not that I absolutely hate Half Life. I played it, admitted it wasn't my favorite but I felt like continuing playing anyway. As a matter of fact, I AM playing it right now, just out of curiosity, I guess. But the fact that I feel like keep playing for whatever reason means the game ain't that bad; I'll admit it. But when it comes to people getting their panties in a bunch because someone said Half-Life is not awesome is what pisses me off. I'm not saying everyone's like that but those who are give everyone else a bad rep. I mean, I get it; I'm the same with some games. I love some games people think suck. That's fine, I am willing to be cool about them and let them have their decision. I am willing to admit my favorite games have flaws and I don't force my opinion onto others....

This is getting out of hand. I'm probably gonna get stoned for this, which would kinda proof my point. Oh, maker...

Um... no. I very much doubt you've ever actually told a Zelda lover Ocarina sucks, because they get as riled-up as the next fanboy. And if you feel like being proved more wrong for whatever masochistic reason, actually read the threads on this site made by people saying 'Half-Life sucks' (or, you know, this one). The only emotion flying around is irritation that the 50 millionth special little snowflake has put up a thread about it again.

We must have different experiences, then. Just here, I've met a lot of people who are cool about other people disliking their favorite games but when it comes to Half-Life...well, this happens.
Like I said, it's not that I mind people defending their likes. What I mind is when people go berserk because of it. Yes, it applies to everything but personally, I've run into more people that go crazy when someone says they dislike Half-Life than any other game out there.

 

[Woodsey]

The fact that you find it a regular FPS now, is why it was so monumental. It did that.

Unfortunately. Half-Life and its follow-ups remain pretty much the only FPS that actually know how to do what it did properly.

 

[gh0ti]

But the main problem I have is that if you walk up to, let's say, a Zelda fan and say "Hey, the first Zelda sucks" or "Ocarina of Time sucks", they'll probably shrug and walk away, whether they agree with you or not. But if you walk up to a Half Life fan and say the same thing...whew! You'll never hear the end of it! It's like the holy grail for them.

Whoa, there! Nintendo fanboys are the most vociferous out there, bar none, in my experience.

As for Half-Life, when it first came out, I was a little taken aback by the reception. I think at the time I was too young to appreciate the virtues of a shooter that was genuinely story-driven, used puzzles as integral parts of its plot, had interactive characters, the first genuine attempts to make effective AI...

But in years to come, I came to realise that Half-Life really was and remains a high watermark for its genre and gaming as a whole. It never was the flashiest beast out there - id went the tech route and haven't made a top-notch game for a long time - but it sure as hell sucked you in. I think above all, people appreciated that the developers had taken a chance, gone the extra mile, at a time when the only big player was Quake.

Also, it was a lot of fun. It showed that shooters could be entertainment in an entirely different way than Quake and Doom. It wasn't about gibbing monsters in increasing frequency. It was about making sure Gordon Freeman survived his ordeal.

Add to that that it birthed Counter-Strike, which really made online gaming a mainstream cultural phenomenon, and its hard to argue against Half-Life being one of the most influential games of all time.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I....really don't know. By today's standards the first Half-Life hasn't aged very well. It has a barebones framework, no actual plot to speak of, and has some pretty boring sections (such as the AWFUL Zen levels). I would say that Valve's library in general is actually kind of underwhelming considering how people gush about them like they're some American equivalent to Nintendo. They're good, but they're not great and they're certainly not masterpieces.