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

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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.

It was done at a time when consoles and PC were considered two completely different beasts though. That Goldeneye did it first on the N64 was an achievement for the N64, but didn't impact much on PC gaming. Either way, both games were in development during the same period and as I touched on in my previous post it was the period in gaming when the FPS genre was trying to develop more into a storytelling genre instead of just being mindless slaughter.

Just like Citizen Kane, Half-Life wasn't first with a lot of things, but it was the first game to do a lot of these things well while also managing to push the boundaries of the storytelling within the medium (jeez, did that sound pretentious or what?).

 

[Legion]

I think where it stand out is that it's a game that doesn't need fancy graphics, or expensive cut scenes to still draw you in and make you feel involved. It is surprisingly simple, and is a great example of how less can be more.

 

[Squilookle]

It was done at a time when consoles and PC were considered two completely different beasts though.

So what? They're still part of the same genre, in the same time period, therefore subject to the same scrutiny. In a talk about pioneering sandbox games, you can't just say the innovations pioneered on consoles just don't count, can you?

 

[RubyT]

Half-Life wasn't THAT great. And I doubt many people pretend it is the second coming of Christ either.

System Shock in 1994 pretty much did everything that Half-Life did and much more, as did Unreal in 1998. There was nothing too innovative about it. What Half-Life did kind of innovate (for me), was the way scripted sequences made the world come alive. That hadn't happened like this before.

Where HL really stood out was the perfection of execution. The pacing was so well done for the time, the A.I. was good, the balancing, the mission design. Unreal felt a bit long at times and System Shock had horrible pacing and UI.
But when you played through HL for the first time in 1999, it was perfect. Until you transport to Xen, that is.

Half-Life 2 did the same thing. It didn't re-invent the FPS, but it executed better than any FPS before - and to some degree, afterwards (I still find Alyx to be the best NPC ever).

Playing it now can never evoke the same emotions. That was my quibble with Black Mesa, just prettifying a thirteen-years-old game won't cut it.

Listening to The Beatles isn't blowing anyones minds today either, but I've been told in 1960-something they were actually the second coming of Christ.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

It was done at a time when consoles and PC were considered two completely different beasts though.

So what? They're still part of the same genre, in the same time period, therefore subject to the same scrutiny. In a talk about pioneering sandbox games, you can't just say the innovations pioneered on consoles just don't count, can you?

Today you couldn't differentiate between console and PC games, but back then they weren't subject to the same scrutiny. It is no different then comic books and novels not being upheld to the same standards really. Half-Life was the defining game on the PC, just as Goldeneye was on consoles, but the two weren't compared at the time and that's part of the reason why Half-Life was lauded as such an innovator. Another part is probably that Half-Life wasn't a licensed game, had better level design (seriously, some of the levels in Goldeneye are atrocious), had much better AI and relied more on procedural storytelling.

Does it make sense that they were not compared? I can't say, I am only pointing out that that was how it went down way back in 1998.

 

[DoPo]

Playing it now can never evoke the same emotions. That was my quibble with Black Mesa, just prettifying a thirteen-years-old game won't cut it.

Did you play Black Mesa? Because I thought it did lots of things right. Really went way over just prettyfing the game - it took cues from HL2 and expanded upon HL in really cool ways. Also, it redid some of the level design to carry the game over to the new age, so to say (On a Rail doesn't take ages any more!).

Sure, it's not going to be "The generation of Half-Life" but it was never meant to be - it is more like "The Half-Life of the new generation" - bringing the game up to speed with times, not trying to get ahead of them.

and thereby increase the chance of bringing me round to theirs.

Only you don't seem to even want that. You just reject the explanations outright.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of arguing. Some of us even enjoy it.

No, arguing is wrong. Discussion is what cool kids do.

Spoiler: Here is a handy chart

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

*sigh* threads like this make me sad. Not because people love Half Life, but because Shogo: Mobile Armor Division did almost everything Half Life gets credit for several months before Half Life did it, but very few people remember it. The marketing blitz at the time for Half Life is the reason I never got to play Shogo 2, or even the expansion packs they were working on, and that's not kosher.

Basically the only innovation that Half Life had that Shogo didn't was the whole never-leaving-first-person thing, and I'm still not convinced that's really an improvement over well done cutscenes. I'll take a well directed cutscene with an actual character any day over a poorly directed one (because the player is doing it) starring a non-entity.

Edit: As someone mentioned above, Unreal did a lot of what Half Life gets credit for, too. Although at least it got a long running series of sequels; Unreal's problem is more being overshadowed by its multiplayer focused sequel than anything else.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Only you don't seem to even want that. You just reject the explanations outright.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of arguing. Some of us even enjoy it.

No, arguing is wrong. Discussion is what cool kids do.

Spoiler: Here is a handy chart

I don't reject the fact that people thought it was innovative and very well done. How could I? But maybe the thread has taken a wrong turn. I don't know about you, but I've learned something from it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because mute protagonists are a mark of good storytelling!

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.

And the fact that he compared it to other, contemporary titles?

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

If this thread is your research, then you may want to learn how to use the search feature. Or at least Google. [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+half+life+so+popular] Everything argument you've made and every response you've received has been echoed for a decade or more. It's well tread ground.

 

[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.

If this thread is your research, then you may want to learn how to use the search feature. Or at least Google. [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+half+life+so+popular] Everything argument you've made and every response you've received has been echoed for a decade or more. It's well tread ground.

Unfortunately "?q=why+is+half+life+so+popular" wasn't my query. If it was, I wouldn't have written the OP using the words I did. If you can find me a post by someone else containing the exact words wrote in the OP, show me. Until then, it isn't "well tread ground" at all.

 

[dantoddd]

This argument again? Christ sake...

Sure, go hop into a 1908 Ford Model-T and take it for a spin. I'm betting you'll be woefully unimpressed with it.

But imagine if you were alive in 1908, and prior to the Model T, all you had to get around in was a horse-drawn carriage. The Model T would have blown your mind.

Why do so many people go back to play Half-Life or Half-Life 2 for the first time, two games that are outdated in nearly every way, and expect to be as amazed by them as the rest of the gaming world was when they were first released?

Do you people not understand the concept of ageing? Do you not realize that gaming has progressed very significantly since those games, therefore their gameplay mechanics will seem archaic by comparison?

Half-Life and Half-Life 2 were landmark games for many reasons... but you missed the boat. You'll never get to experience WHY they were so incredible, because you were too late to the party. Everything HL and HL2 did that was a revolution for gaming, has been copied and repeated many times by now.

well said. My thoughts precisely. to add to your post, most modern gamers have vicariously experienced many of the things that made HL & HL2 great because those elements have been copied many times over by other developers.

 

[Agayek]

Ocarina of Time on the other hand is THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME!

That title belongs to Persona 4.

You are a liar sir(?). Everyone knows that title belongs to Baldur's Gate II.

OT: Everything I could contribute to this thread has already been said. Short version is that the sheer, simple fact that HL1 still holds up as a competent (if bland) shooter in this day and age should say everything that needs to be said. If you can't get it from that, you're never going to understand why it's as beloved as it is.

 

[Zenn3k]

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.

I'm sure others have probably said this already, but the true answer is the true answer.

At the time of Half-Life's release, the biggest shooters in the WORLD, were Quake 2 and Duke Nukem 3D.

Spoiler

Half-Life not only murdered them in terms of graphics for the time, but it had an actual PLOT. It was one of the first times in gaming where FPS combined with Narrative in a meaningful and interesting way.

Its the FPS that all other FPS's try to emulate today. Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War...etc, all owe their story modes to the success of Half-Life. Until that point, FPS games were just "mindless shooters", the only reason you progressed was the get the next gun or see the next boss.

I played Half-Life when it was new (I was 15), it was hyped to the extreme during its time and for many of us, it lived up to that hype, which is not something a lot of games do these days either.

It was extremely well put together, it was interesting, it was challenging, and it was new. Its hard to look back at a game that came out in 1998 and try to figure out why it was good...you kinda had to be there.

 

[bafrali]

It IS a landmark.Don't confuse being a good game(subjective) with being an influential game. It was a game changer for a genre that dominates the industry today. You can clearly see its influence even in the most recent games Take tram ride for example. A sequence that introduces player to the game world. Now think of games like Bioshock, Modern Warfare, Dead Space and so on. Found something similiar?

It is a shame that you didn't enjoy it but Half Life is a shooter at its core. If you didn't like the genre to begin with, chances are Half Life won't change your mind.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

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.

I think you're not looking at this from the right angle. Yes, first-person gaming has been around since forever. However, Myst didn't exactly try to portray a world that's falling apart in real time, directly in front of you, with your own survival in your hands. It's not so much the fact that it's a first-person narrative that makes Half-Life memorable, but that it's the first game of its genre (the First Person Shooter), to take the time to put a living, breathing world in place all around you.

Openings à la Half-Life are now commonplace. You walk around, get to see the universe in a more humdrum or safe context, and then the narrative up-ends that safety. You're sent running for your guns or your tools or whatever it is your player character needs or has. It seems mundane today, but back in 1998, it was unheard of. Prior to that, the most exposition you'd get prior to actually seeing a gun float in front of your disembodied self would be hidden away in the booklet.

In Doom's case, there wasn't any exposition at all. If you dug around to find the game's Readme, all you basically got was "You're a Space Marine, there's demons on Mars. You're stuck fighting them and sending for help. Good luck!"; with the game itself making no real effort to back up the initial catastrophe.

It took Half-Life for us to get Doom 3's opening, for instance.

 

[RubyT]

Did you play Black Mesa?

Yes. It was disappointing to me. And I was there when they announced it back in the day and I was hoping it would be cool. HL (and hence BM) is by todays standards too small, too static and too simplistic.

What did BM do to modernize HL? Cutting "On a Rail" short because everyone hated it is really nothing.