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

[elvor0]

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.

I'm confused. MGS1 was released in the same year as half life and i don't think anyone would claim MGS1 didn't have a story. So why is HL1 praised as some kind of unique golden egg while even for its time it wasn't that special? May have been better than the average shooter but i remember going "bleh" after playing the demo and never going back.
I mean, i get the fandom, i just don't get the whole "Valve is a God and HL is Jesus" part.

Mainly because Metal Gear Solid was a third person stealthy/shooty game and Half Life was an FPS? Have you ever heard anybody attempt to compare the two? No because that would be insane. Besides, MGS and HL have two completely different methods of story telling, MGS is a series of gameplay broken up by directed cinematics, while Half Life is told through the world and atmosphere. Remember FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS around that time? Now compare THEM to Half Life. Anyway, I'm not going to explain it because there's tons of responses already, but bringing up MGS for comparison in a Half Life thread is still bizarre to me.

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.

Below is my understanding but I may be missing things, my memory being what it is.

Half-Life did things that no other FPS had done before it.
1. Puzzels. Most first person shooter puzzles involved finding keys to doors. Half-life didn't have a single key. It's puzzels were more like what you'd find on a platform game.
2. No levels. Half-Life was the first FPS to do away with individual levels (i.e. DOOM, Quake, etc.) Individual "maps" were linked together. The absence of a loading screen between maps made the world appear unbroken and undivided.
3. It had a narrative that did not use cut scenes that took control from the player. All narrative was done in the game, most of it wordlessly. That was a first for the genre.
4. It was exceptionally well done in all the areas where it did not pioneer a new concept.

But saying those things are innovative is like FPS players haven't played anything other than a FPS. There are tons of games before HL that have puzzles, no levels and non-cutscene narrative. So why is it so astonishing to insert things that other games have done before into a FPS?

It's like a rock band using a symphony orchestra for the first time and being hailed as something revolutionary. It's not.

If someone using something well in a field that hasn't utilized it before isn't innovating I don't know what is. WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US? The first rock band using a symphony orchestra IS pretty amazing. And not just hiring one to play shite, Deep Purples Concerto for Group and Orchestra was mind blowing at the time, was innovative and still sounds fantastic today.

Heck, using your definition with Carbon Fibre on cars: ptsh that's not innovative, they've been using that shit on planes since the 60s, it means nothing!

 

[Altorin]

But saying those things are innovative is like FPS players haven't played anything other than a FPS. There are tons of games before HL that have puzzles, no levels and non-cutscene narrative. So why is it so astonishing to insert things that other games have done before into a FPS?

Because it's an amazing accomplishment to combine these elements in this way to this end. I get your point, but it's like saying "Fuck that Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay. All they did was walk, that's not new. What do I care if they did it on the side of some hill". Or "Fuck Citizen Kane, it's not like they never had cameras pointing at people before". You don't understand what it's actually being praised for or you don't let on that you do.

It's like a rock band using a symphony orchestra for the first time and being hailed as something revolutionary. It's not.

If it had never been done before it might be. Based on this statement I'm not sure what you think 'innovation' means.

This is one of those threads that people expect to crop up from time to time, and it always ends like this. There is nothing I can call innovative that you can't just say "oh, that's not innovative, there has been physical matter since the big bang" to.

If you want to take it to that extreme, you're welcome to. I'm not. Let's be clear - if we're looking at FPS games only, then you can say "HL innovated the FPS genre". I have no problem with that.

I'm more surprised that what HL is recognised for was adding elements which had been around - and received no recognition for years - yet since this was a SHOOTER, the most popular game genre, this was so much more of an achievement.

You don't have to praise it as an achievement. Noone's really asking you to accept it as such, or rather, if they are, they don't get it themselves. It was amazing to those that played it, and those are the people that say it's amazing. Noone's just getting into the discussion now and saying "Oh, that Halflife, that was a great game". But it's touted by major names in the industry because they were gaming teenagers when halflife came out. And Valve is still here, and not only avoiding getting blended into a publishing conglomerate, but managing to rise above it on a cloud made of steam.

 

[Monster_user]

I sincerely hope that you're joking, because you are reacting exactly like SirBryghtside predicted....

Yes, I was intentionally acting like a fanboy. Also, yes, Ocarina of Time is #1 on my favorites list.

Having never finished Half-Life, I could tell from the train ride, and the Uplink Demo, the game was going to be good.

 

[mooncalf]

Was it because it was innovative?

First game I ever played where the enemy soldiers were crafty enough to throw a grenade to flush you out of cover or flank you. One small toss for grunt, one giant lob for gruntkind.

Let's put it this way, apart from a number of people agreeing that the final levels were a bit pants (not great) compared to the rest of the game, nobody really *dislikes* Half-Life. Like Halo (for me at least), it was an FPS that met your expectations whether or not it exceeded them. It was reliably solid in each respect that mattered to us at the time. Interesting level design, storytelling that was effective and unobtrusive, a variety of toys and doohickeys to twiddle, the unexpected and the grandiose.

 

[Netrigan]

The Good: Half-Life was really the first FPS to attempt world building with every element an integral part of the whole. It wasn't a collection of levels with a plot linking them, the story was the levels.

The Bad: It was the game that ushered in the focus on a completely linear experience. While there's the odd side path leading to some stash of items, you will see 99.9% of the game in a single play-through.

The Ugly: For the love of god, stop putting me in rooms with people talking at me with no way of skipping them endlessly droning on about having to go in another room to push a button... then having the room blow up and spending the next 20 minutes hopping my way across toxic pools and dodging headcrabs to travel the original five feet of corridor.

 

[Netrigan]

"Ocarina of Time sucks",...

You did not just say Ocarina of Time sucks. Half-Life may a landmark game of sorts, but in the end it is just another game.

Ocarina of Time on the other hand is THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME! This game has been number one on so many lists, lists that include Half-Life. Every time it is pit against this "Half-Life", it beats it. OoT is the pinnacle of adventure games! Simple fun mechanics, an EPIC story, a wide range of tactics, and weapons. Plenty of fun side-quests, some of which provide an entirely different game altogether (fishing, bowling, mask salesman). Only the Mass Effect series has come close to dethroning the greatness that is "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time".

Just look at these lists!

Ocarina of Time #1, Half-Life #43 - VGChartz
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/3742/the-vgc-top-100-best-games-of-all-time-10-1/

Ocarina of Time #2, Half-Life #22 - IGN
http://top100.ign.com/2005/001-010.html

Zelda OoT #11, Half-Life #16 - G4
http://maryland.247sports.com/Board/56/Top-100-Video-Games-of-All-Time-G4s-list-and-show-10098782/1

Zelda #1, Half-Life not on the list (HL2 and Counter-Strike made the list though)
http://www.edge-online.com/features/100-best-games-play-today/11/

Need I say more?

I sincerely hope that you're joking, because you are reacting exactly like SirBryghtside predicted....

It's next to impossible for these lists not to fall into the console/PC divide. The two gaming cultures were so different for so many years that one Greatest Games of All-Time List will be 90% PC games, while another is 90% console games.

I personally have a bit of trouble with fans who constantly go on about how amazingly awesome Goldeneye's multi-player was, when the YouTube videos show a game slower and clunkier with less interesting level design than Doom. But when it comes to FPS multi-player, people tend to put their first on a pedestal because that's the game that showed them just how much fun it can be and no other game will ever match it for impact, regardless of whether it's a better MP game or not.

Goldeneye is certainly an important game, helping to raise the FPS out of the "if it moves, shoot it" gameplay with escort and stealth missions... but it also ended up foisting needless escort and stealth missions onto FPS for years to come

 

[NiPah]

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.

Man I always hate these threads, if you did enough research to figure out that "it's always talked about as something to be highly revered" or figured out that "Even Yahtzee hails it" you'd think you could have read some of their reasoning into why they feel like they do. Rarely if ever do you get someone out of the blue saying "Half Life should be revered", normally it's in reference to another games short comings which would mean Half Life excelled in that area, or in Yahtzee's case he explains the freakin reasons in his video as to why Half Life is good.

Do some more research, find one of the hundred threads in this very forum that ask the exact same question you've posed, and don't bother everyone else to explain why you don't enjoy Half Life as much as everyone else seems to.

If you want objective reasoning as to why people like Half Life so much you're shit out of luck, you didn't find it's story, setting, pacing, gameplay, soundtrack exceptional? Congrats you now have an opinion, as you will soon see many people disagree with you and think one of more of those elements were exceptional, thus you've found your answer.

 

[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.

Man I always hate these threads, if you did enough research to figure out that "it's always talked about as something to be highly revered" or figured out that "Even Yahtzee hails it" you'd think you could have read some of their reasoning into why they feel like they do. Rarely if ever do you get someone out of the blue saying "Half Life should be revered", normally it's in reference to another games short comings which would mean Half Life excelled in that area, or in Yahtzee's case he explains the freakin reasons in his video as to why Half Life is good.

Do some more research, find one of the hundred threads in this very forum that ask the exact same question you've posed, and don't bother everyone else to explain why you don't enjoy Half Life as much as everyone else seems to.

If you want objective reasoning as to why people like Half Life so much you're shit out of luck, you didn't find it's story, setting, pacing, gameplay, soundtrack exceptional? Congrats you now have an opinion, as you will soon see many people disagree with you and think one of more of those elements were exceptional, thus you've found your answer.

This thread is my research. If you hate these threads, don't come into them and certainly don't post in them.

I mean, this is a gaming forum after all. Your post is like a group of quantum physicists throwing a tantrum at a quantum physics forum over someone asking a question about positrons, because "the information is out there". Not everyone is a specialist on every topic in the world.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Basically the only thing that Half-Life did exceptionally well was the first-person narrative as opposed to individual levels strung together with text splashes. And I can't even say it really meant all that much, because most games today have decided to replicate the other shooters of the age - instead of rich, first-person narratives, we get individual levels strung together with cutscenes.

But in every other department, Half-Life just wasn't very good. The story was decent, mind you, but the gameplay was just awful (of course most FPS gameplay of that period was awful), and the jumping puzzles were enough to make me want to tear my hair out.

 

[NiPah]

This thread is my research. If you hate these threads, don't come into them and certainly don't post in them.

I mean, this is a gaming forum after all. Your post is like a group of quantum physicists throwing a tantrum at a quantum physics forum over someone asking a question about positrons, because "the information is out there". Not everyone is a specialist on every topic in the world.

I hate these threads because they are by the numbers repeated so many times it's not funny, and it's asking "why do people enjoy this game so much", asking why anyone likes anything is not research it's just tedious. You've got it down, right to the "don't flame me" and bashing common answers given.

Subjectivity should not be such an alien concept to people, do you research why people like Italian food and start off by saying "Pasta dishes are nothing exceptional"? If you started off not so confrontational or biased and just asked "What did people enjoy most about Half Life" then you would have an interesting topic and not need the excuse to ask people not to attack you (the fact that you felt the need to put it in there should have been the first hint that this thread was going to be confrontational).

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

If you want to take it to that extreme, you're welcome to. I'm not.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm saying your working definition for 'innovation' is not a good one.

Let's be clear - if we're looking at FPS games only, then you can say "HL innovated the FPS genre". I have no problem with that.

I'm more surprised that what HL is recognised for was adding elements which had been around -

That's only one of the things it is praised for. Coming up with new applications for old ideas is a big part of innovation. Half Life is also and mostly praised for what it did with those elements.

and received no recognition for years

Recognition for what? Having a story? BFD? Shooters had stories before Half Life. Half Life doesn't get praised for having a story.

- yet since this was a SHOOTER, the most popular game genre, this was so much more of an achievement.

Well putting those elements into a shooter was a great accomplishment. Not because shooters are popular, but because of the nature and development history of shooters. You just don't appreciate it because you never had to live without them. And you don't appreciate that it wasn't obvious at the time. The post and lintel is obvious because someone told you. You didn't think of it. The guy who figured out he could domesticate plants didn't invent plants. It's not the tools that make innovation, it's how you apply them. Half Life also used those elements in a new and unique way. It's just like my Everest example. Walking is not impressive. Walking has been around for AGES and never got any praise. Walking to the top of Mount Everest is impressive. Games already had stories and puzzles, they didn't combine them with new technology to create a visual narrative delivered through gameplay resulting in a world that felt plausible in it's own universe.

Please don't take the criticism for raising the topic too harshly. It's just that, while this topic is fresh for you, for many people here it is thoroughly exhausted. I don't blame you for that, I blame the world for having annoying happenings that aren't anybody's fault.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Just look at these lists!

Ocarina of Time #1, Half-Life #43 - VGChartz
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/3742/the-vgc-top-100-best-games-of-all-time-10-1/

A website I've never heard of, with a pathetically bad list. Includes fallout but not fallout 2? And it has Oblivion on it? Really?

Ocarina of Time #2, Half-Life #22 - IGN
http://top100.ign.com/2005/001-010.html

IGN is a joke in the gaming community. They are basically a corporate shill who publishes articles on how people are too mean to EA.

Zelda OoT #11, Half-Life #16 - G4
http://maryland.247sports.com/Board/56/Top-100-Video-Games-of-All-Time-G4s-list-and-show-10098782/1

A random forum post on what is apparently a sports website. Yeah that's legitimate. Hey watch I can make a list that's more legitimate because it's actually on a gaming website.
Half-Life #1
Zelda OoT #65723

Oh no, a totally legitimate and viable source disagrees with you.

Zelda #1, Half-Life not on the list (HL2 and Counter-Strike made the list though)
http://www.edge-online.com/features/100-best-games-play-today/11/

Need I say more?

Oh hey another website I've never heard of.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

This thread is my research. If you hate these threads, don't come into them and certainly don't post in them.

I mean, this is a gaming forum after all. Your post is like a group of quantum physicists throwing a tantrum at a quantum physics forum over someone asking a question about positrons, because "the information is out there". Not everyone is a specialist on every topic in the world.

I hate these threads because they are by the numbers repeated so many times it's not funny, and it's asking "why do people enjoy this game so much", asking why anyone likes anything is not research it's just tedious. You've got it down, right to the "don't flame me" and bashing common answers given.

Subjectivity should not be such an alien concept to people, do you research why people like Italian food and start off by saying "Pasta dishes are nothing exceptional"? If you started off not so confrontational or biased and just asked "What did people enjoy most about Half Life" then you would have an interesting topic and not need the excuse to ask people not to attack you (the fact that you felt the need to put it in there should have been the first hint that this thread was going to be confrontational).

I'm not going to tip-toe around people who for some reason fear being offended.

Giving my point of view is a way of helping others to understand it and thereby increase the chance of bringing me round to theirs. And besides that, there are definite answers to things. To use the pasta example, I could ask "why is fettucini so popular today when vermicelloni was used earlier and more widely in southern Italy and in my opinion has a more robust flavor?" and the answer could be that the northern immigrants spread fettucini which was linked to their traditions and had cheaper ingredients, sacrificing flavor for tradition and money. Without giving my opinion of the pasta the answer would have been less clear to me.

But why should I even need to explain myself? You're asking me to hide my true feelings - sorry, but no. You're the one upset that the thread is 'confrontational', so you deal with it. There's nothing wrong with a bit of arguing. Some of us even enjoy it.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Well putting those elements into a shooter was a great accomplishment. Not because shooters are popular, but because of the nature and development history of shooters. You just don't appreciate it because you never had to live without them. And you don't appreciate that it wasn't obvious at the time. The post and lintel is obvious because someone told you. You didn't think of it. The guy who figured out he could domesticate plants didn't invent plants. It's not the tools that make innovation, it's how you apply them. Half Life also used those elements in a new and unique way. It's just like my Everest example. Walking is not impressive. Walking has been around for AGES and never got any praise. Walking to the top of Mount Everest is impressive. Games already had stories and puzzles, they didn't combine them with new technology to create a visual narrative delivered through gameplay resulting in a world that felt plausible in it's own universe.

This is spot on, but I also think that it is important to look at where game development was at that point. Many game companies were looking to make their FPS games more immersive around the time Half-Life was developed and released. I still remember the "fight" that broke out between Unreal fans and Half-Life fans over which of the games were better, because both aspired to be an immersive FPS with some semblance of story. Unreal turned out to be closer to a more traditional FPS and, while being a great game, eventually embraced its' fantastic multiplayer aspect (it had some great network coding for its' day) since Half-Life became the game that got praised for is' amazing singleplayer.

But they weren't the only two games that had the same idea around this time. Trespasser tried to be a FPS with puzzles, a storyline and procedural storytelling and did some of those things really good (it was arguably on par with Half-Life when it came to procedural storytelling and was far better at world exploration), but failed in most other areas. Daikatana also wanted to be a part of this contest but was released too late and was too underwhelming to really leave an impact.

As such Half-Life is also special because it not only integrated so many concepts from other genres, but it was also the most successful and innovative game of its' generation. It was the game that gamers at the time were looking for and it delivered to them.

 

[NiPah]

I'm not going to tip-toe around people who for some reason fear being offended.

Giving my point of view is a way of helping others to understand it and thereby increase the chance of bringing me round to theirs. And besides that, there are definite answers to things. To use the pasta example, I could ask "why is fettucini so popular today when vermicelloni was used earlier and more widely in southern Italy and in my opinion has a more robust flavor?" and the answer could be that the northern immigrants spread fettucini which was linked to their traditions and had cheaper ingredients, sacrificing flavor for tradition and money. Without giving my opinion of the pasta the answer would have been less clear to me.

But why should I even need to explain myself? You're asking me to hide my true feelings - sorry, but no. You're the one upset that the thread is 'confrontational', so you deal with it. There's nothing wrong with a bit of arguing. Some of us even enjoy it.

What feelings? You come into the thread acting as if Half Life being hailed is some concept so foreign that you need it to be explained to you, I?m not offended that you weren?t moved by Half Life, I?m offended that so many people don?t understand subjective taste in video games and need to make these godforsaken posts every other week. What do you seek to gain from this thread? Some epiphany that causes you to see Half Life as landmark game and so you too can go around revering it?

Sad to say mate but that?s not going to happen, just like all the other ?why do people like Half Life? threads you?ll get a few pages of people saying ?nah it wasn?t that good? and others saying ?I liked the story?, followed by the op losing interest and a replacement thread popping up in a few days.

 

[Squilookle]

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.

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"

Up until Half-Life, pretty much all FPS games gave you all the story you needed to know in the manual, or in a text dump at the start of the game, and that was it. The actual game itself had little to do with the story, essentially being a series of arenas where you slaughter everything that came into your crosshair... FPS games were glorified deathmatches, games where you shot enemies for the thrill of the sport.

In Half Life, you were walking around in a living and breathing facility. Just the intro itself shows you how much effort has been put into making a believable place that actually exists in the in-game world.

it was the first FPS to discard complex maze-like level design and instead focus on story/immersion. Was it a good game? .. sure, it was pretty ground breaking for its time, ironically .. it was something new!

Before Half Life came out shooters were mainly just shooters. Half Life implemented scripted events

It's been said already but these comments keep coming in so here it is again- This 'revolution' Half-Life supposedly brought in ending mindless deathmatch-style singleplayer FPSes had been done before, perhaps most notably by Goldeneye.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diss Half-Life here- its seamless integration of every level in the game was truly mindblowing, and its attention to a well crafted lore drip fed to the player in a tantalising story still holds up today.

All I'm taking issue with here is people claiming Half Life heralded many 'firsts' for the FPS genre that it did not in fact introduce. The seamless levels and that particular tone in an FPS story was new- everything else was simply done well.

 

[KissmahArceus]

I get some funny looks when I tell folk I've never really played a Zelda game so I can't really rate OoT. Never owned any Nintendo systems until DS, I have an N64 now and a SNES but no Zelda games.
I respect the series but have no real desire to play them but Half Life? Oh man, I played it a few years after release but I still loved it, I loved it when shooters weren't all Ironsights, terrorists and authenticity/realism soaked gun shows.

I enjoy a little character to the worlds I visit, a little unpredictability to combat and some originality with the weapons I use.
Half Life provided that for me and surprised me too.

Half Life 2, while a better game hands down, I felt like it let me down with the weapons (Gravity Gun aside).
I miss the gun that shot homing bees or whatever the fuck.

Half Life 1 is a Watershed moment in gaming and while it has aged in a lot of ways, The Black Mesa remake really shows that there is still quality within.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Before Half Life came out shooters were mainly just shooters. Half Life implemented scripted events and never took the player out of the First Person view. It was unique for its time and made the whole game feel much more real.

Thats what made me fall in love with it anyway.