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

[Rooster Cogburn]

Was it innovative? .. yes, 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!

Did it impact gaming? .. yes, and negetively. It was so successful that from then on this was considered the "format to copy" by every other FPS game made between then and now. Even Doom 3 copied it!

So if you are ever frustrated over why there are so many simplistic linear FPS, you can blame Half Life..

When I die, I hope people resent me because I was so awesome that no one can ever fill my shoes lol.

In all seriousness though, I side with Yahtzee on this one. You can't blame me for the people who only wish they were me. I can't help being fabulous.

 

[Olas]

I like how real and immersive the game felt. You had complex interactions of characters occurring right in front of you in real time as you were playing.

You'd see cops fighting headcrab zombies, scientists running up to military personnel expecting to be rescued only to be executed, at one point you encounter a police officer laying out in a field being used as bait by a sniper and you have to ignore his screams for help. That's brilliantly dark shit, especially for 1998.

The best part is when the aliens you've been battling and the soldier guys you've been fighting start battling each other all around you and you find yourself caught in the center of this huge war that's much bigger than you are.

 

[Overusedname]

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.

Just goes to show you how different our experiences all are. Nintendo fans are consistently the only ones who don't give a shit what someone else's preference is, in my experience. I've met one or two exceptions.

It all depends on the severity of the fan love, whether or not they grew up with only one gaming machine, etc.

Case in point: I myself am a major Zelda fan, and I WOULD shrug and walk away if you said those things to me. To each his own. Granted I don't think the arguments of Zelda's apparent suckage or 'repetition' (PFFFT. Just look at wind waker, Majora, Twilight Princess and link to the past and do a side by side) make any sense at all. And to this day Yahtzee's reviews of Zelda games are the only ones that make me question if he's literally playing a different game than I did, but I don't get in a hissy fit. I don't really care, I'm just confused, but not in a particularly concerned way.

It's not like politics. It's not like they hate poor people and want them to die, or something like that. Your gaming tastes mean nothing to me. Just go have fun.

 

[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.

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.

 

[StormShaun]

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

That title belongs to Persona 4.

OT: Although I have never played it, I still know how big it's impact on gaming was. It seamlessly blended story and gameplay together. You could very well call it the god of the FPS genre.

It's what all games aspire to be some day.

Don't worry man, they will have to reach out to the truth one day...
Only Persona 4 fans would get that!

I agree with this guy though. BUT my opinion on HL2 was that it was or is the standard benchmark for PC games in general. Sure it was an icon once but I think Valve blew that opportunity by making us wait on HL3 or HL2 ep 3.

Still I enjoyed it...it did make G-Mod in the first place. xD

 

[Beautiful End]

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.

Just goes to show you how different our experiences all are. Nintendo fans are consistently the only ones who don't give a shit what someone else's preference is, in my experience. I've met one or two exceptions.

It all depends on the severity of the fan love, whether or not they grew up with only one gaming machine, etc.

Case in point: I myself am a major Zelda fan, and I WOULD shrug and walk away if you said those things to me. To each his own. Granted I don't think the arguments of Zelda's apparent suckage or 'repetition' (PFFFT. Just look at wind waker, Majora, Twilight Princess and link to the past and do a side by side) make any sense at all. And to this day Yahtzee's reviews of Zelda games are the only ones that make me question if he's literally playing a different game than I did, but I don't get in a hissy fit. I don't really care, I'm just confused, but not in a particularly concerned way.

It's not like politics. It's not like they hate poor people and want them to die, or something like that. Your gaming tastes mean nothing to me. Just go have fun.

YES! Exactly! Thank you good sir/ma'am!

This is what I mean. See, I don't like Half Life that much. it's alright but I don't think it's as awesome as everyone makes it out to be. But I can't say shit about it because there's always one fanboy out there who wants to chew my head off (Just like some people here). Unluckily, 90% of the people I've met that like HL are like that.

Nintendo fanboys are more passive; I'll agree. Again, I've met my share of crazy big N fans but for the most part, I've seen fanboys who are ok with people disliking Metroid or Zelda or whatever.

Me? I'm a FF fan (Nice avatar, by the way) and my favorite FF game is FFVIII, a game that, simply saying it, is not FFVII so people tend to criticize it a lot. That's fine. I admit the game is flawed in some areas even if I enjoy those flaws. If someone walked up to me and started badmouthing the game just cause, I don't know, trolls, I could simply walk away. To each their own, ya know.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Oh, it's the daily "what's the deal with Half-Life thread."

I want you to imagine what you'd do if someone asked you why Legend of Zelda is so special. OHH MAN I DUNNO WHAT'S UP WITH THISS GAAME EVERYONE LOOOVES IT BUT I PLAYED IT AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT SO WHAT'S THE DEAL??!!1!! ;o

No. Dats not how opinions work. Dats not how classics work. When I watch The Godfather and I don't like it, I don't go around asking film critics HEY WHY'D YOU LIKE THE GODFATHER SO MUCH WHAT'RE YA STOOPID?! No, I say to myself well I guess it was good for the time and maybe I don't like it cos my opinion 'n shit. If you're so bad at evaluating your own perspective what makes you think you'll appreciate anyone else's?

 

[DoPo]

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.

I don't think there are tons of games before HL which were the same sans not being an FPS. I even struggle to think of any but maybe there are few of them. Feel free to correct me, though.

Also, did you watch Yahtzee's video I linked to earlier? I thought that gave a pretty good explanation what people find in HL, and yet you didn't even acknowledge it.

 

[poxyrom]

Valve have always been very good at establishing tone and atmosphere in their games. It really helps immersion, which is arguably the most important thing when it comes to making a great game. In HL2, you really felt like you were on the run from an oppressive power, but also felt like the resistance actually had a hope. When you're low on ammo and being chased, you really feel a sense of danger (well, I do at least). It's not something you see in a lot of fps games. This, coupled with a relatively long playtime, good soundtrack, physics mechanics, vehicle sections, and the whole science theme, and it makes for a pretty unique game. It's nothing spectacular, and it's easy to see why some people wouldn't like it, but those who like it generally like it a lot.

 

[Warped_Ghost]

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.

Not the greatest example. There were better cars than the model T before its time.It was just cheap enough for the masses.

 

[distortedreality]

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.

It's pretty obvious by now that you've got an opinion and you're not going to budge, which sort of invalidates this whole thread, but i'll jump in anyway.....

Regarding your orchestra and rock band comment - the thing is, the first time that happened, it WAS revolutionary. It was a marriage of two completely separate and opposing styles of music. It was an eye opener for a lot of people, and many people since have followed suit.

Sound familiar?

 

[Chunga the Great]

"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....

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

 

[Altorin]

To understand Halflife's place in history, you really have to go back in time. If you don't get it, there's really no succinct way to describe it. it was "The shooter" for a long time, had the best mods, and the first major attempt to tell an engaging story in a shooter, without even taking control from the player.

All things considered, at the time, it was absolutely amazing. It looked better then any shooter we had ever seen.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

 

[Yabu]

Like most have commented, FPS's were typically the Doom style and usually didn't allow a player to jump, so jumping alone was a pretty big deal. For it's time I would say the graphics were a pretty big jump forward. It was definitely a jump forward from the Bond 64 game, and if you were looking for multiplayer, counterstrike really revolutionized the whole idea of FPS multiplayer and took advantage of new internet speeds.

Some of the best moments in the game were just the shear size of the levels, the mysteries behind what was going on, never knowing what the next monster or level would bring, the man in the black suit always around, but never close enough to talk too, it all gave the game a sense of immersion and mystique. The X-Files was big on TV just before this so, it kind of had elements of that I think. I also thought it was interesting that you were just a scientist and not some military guy or policeman, which was a common role to play in those types of games.

Overall, I would say Half-Life for FPS's was a bit like WoW for MMO's.

 

[Zetona]

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.

I was lucky enough to have Half-Life 2 as my first "mature" gaming/FPS experience, three years after its launch. The way the world felt alive was mind-blowing, even if I sucked at the gameplay and chickened out of Ravenholm (I was a much younger man then...) I disagree that the HL2 is entirely outdated, though. The visuals have held up surprisingly well (at least with the Orange Box upgrades), the animations are still pretty good and in my opinion the game is a high-water mark for weapon feel. The guns are still more fun to shoot than almost everything I've played since with the exceptions of Far Cry 2 and Killzone 2 + 3.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

I don't think there are tons of games before HL which were the same sans not being an FPS. I even struggle to think of any but maybe there are few of them. Feel free to correct me, though.

Also, did you watch Yahtzee's video I linked to earlier? I thought that gave a pretty good explanation what people find in HL, and yet you didn't even acknowledge it.

I didn't say they were the same. I said they had the same elements. It's no surprise Half-Life was published by Sierra, the main player in early games with... guest what? ... - puzzles, no levels and non-cutscene narrative!

For example in the video you posted (which I did watch, thank-you) Yahtzee says something about the ability to walk around the office chatting for half an hour shows a "commitment to gaming that isn't seen anymore". That's just not true. Half of Sierra's pre-98 back-catalogue did that. But I can see why it's a reason that people like it, which is what I wanted to know in this thread.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

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.

Well, it's because it was a shooter, a genre renowned for its relentless action and speed and... absolutely no context. The idea of telling a story in first-person - letting a narrative unfold through the player's own eyes - was a revolution for the genre. But that's not such a big deal in the whole of gaming, I suppose... except it was at that point that first-person shooters STARTED to become the most popular genre on the planet. It was thanks to Half-Life that people started paying more attention to FPS as a game genre that has more legs. Half-Life got its foot in the door and - arguably - pulled the door open for the whole genre. It led to the FPS market dominance and all that.

Thus why many reasonable people - even Half-Life fans - look to Half-Life as the game that ruined the industry irreparably forever.

Either way, its impact was pretty huge. It also led to Counter-Strike (again... "ruined the industry" isn't too big a leap at this point), and it also made some pretty huge advances in terms of artificial intelligence in games. The enemies would do things like take cover, attempt to flank you, hide when on low health, sneak up behind the player, choose different weapons, and also had really quite groundbreaking pathfinding and such. The technology under Half-Life's hood was groundbreaking, for sure, and it led to things like (for example) expecting every first-person shooter to have realistic graphics. ...again. It changed the genre and the industry, for better or worse. A small stone makes pretty huge ripples in the water.