What did Half Life 2 revolutionize?
- Thread starter Soviet Heavy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nothing in particular, except incredible facial animations (which are still some of the best today) and perhaps physics.
Though almost everything it did may have been done before, it did everything right. Rather than sticking to just one gimmick or one major redeeming factor to set it above other FPS games; it took everything good about FPS games, stuck it all together, polished it to a shine and as a result created what is still the best FPS game ever created (imo). Only then did they seem to concentrate on the gimmick (the gravity gun,) and even the gimmick was awesome.
Take any other shooter and its generally considered good because of one or two things... Crysis is considered good because its beautiful and because it has open ended ways of approaching your objectives. Gears of War is considered good because it made cover mechanics slick and intuitive. Halo is considered good because it has great multiplayer (apparently) and generally improved console FPS games as a whole. Call of Duty these days is considered good because it has a multiplayer leveling system to add a sense of progression to the multiplayer, and because the singleplayer campaigns have many action-packed set-pieces.
Now look at Half-Life 2 and all the things people regularly praise. Even ignoring the physics, animations, art design, and (at the time) impressive graphics... Smooth, ease-of-use movement that isn't bogged down by pretensions to realism and allows for quick and precise maneuvering reminiscent of 90s FPS games. A fairly large collection of weaponry spanning all the cliches but making them more intuitive than ever before, very balanced, fun and satisfying to use. An intentionally linear path allowing for progressive storytelling and keeping you on track to see all the magnificent set-pieces and making sure you don't miss anything important. The story itself is nothing amazing but the way the story is given to you is done better than any other game; no cutscenes, no breaks in the action, just a fluent and non-convoluted storyline that you experience every step of the way but is given to you subtly through dialogue and the environment; rocketing the immersion levels skywards. Interesting, relate-able, realistic and believable characters who are voiced exceptionally, and in later episodes have an emotional impact to those of us who pay attention enough to care... I could go on.
It may not have done anything particularly new, but everything it tried to do it did better than any other FPS. and I have yet to see an FPS that can beat it in any other areas than multiplayer (which I don't care about) and visuals.
Though almost everything it did may have been done before, it did everything right. Rather than sticking to just one gimmick or one major redeeming factor to set it above other FPS games; it took everything good about FPS games, stuck it all together, polished it to a shine and as a result created what is still the best FPS game ever created (imo). Only then did they seem to concentrate on the gimmick (the gravity gun,) and even the gimmick was awesome.
Take any other shooter and its generally considered good because of one or two things... Crysis is considered good because its beautiful and because it has open ended ways of approaching your objectives. Gears of War is considered good because it made cover mechanics slick and intuitive. Halo is considered good because it has great multiplayer (apparently) and generally improved console FPS games as a whole. Call of Duty these days is considered good because it has a multiplayer leveling system to add a sense of progression to the multiplayer, and because the singleplayer campaigns have many action-packed set-pieces.
Now look at Half-Life 2 and all the things people regularly praise. Even ignoring the physics, animations, art design, and (at the time) impressive graphics... Smooth, ease-of-use movement that isn't bogged down by pretensions to realism and allows for quick and precise maneuvering reminiscent of 90s FPS games. A fairly large collection of weaponry spanning all the cliches but making them more intuitive than ever before, very balanced, fun and satisfying to use. An intentionally linear path allowing for progressive storytelling and keeping you on track to see all the magnificent set-pieces and making sure you don't miss anything important. The story itself is nothing amazing but the way the story is given to you is done better than any other game; no cutscenes, no breaks in the action, just a fluent and non-convoluted storyline that you experience every step of the way but is given to you subtly through dialogue and the environment; rocketing the immersion levels skywards. Interesting, relate-able, realistic and believable characters who are voiced exceptionally, and in later episodes have an emotional impact to those of us who pay attention enough to care... I could go on.
It may not have done anything particularly new, but everything it tried to do it did better than any other FPS. and I have yet to see an FPS that can beat it in any other areas than multiplayer (which I don't care about) and visuals.
Yeah, it's Valve and their "ambient storytelling" - like in L4D you come across a body with a blanket over it in the subway in the second No Mercy map, and you're supposed to think about how it's been obviously been placed intentionally, and since the infected surely didn't do it, who did, and why. (This is spelled out in the developer commentary.) They've been doing it for years, definitely in HL2 if not HL1 and its expansions.
Other than that, I remember a tech demo for HL2 a while back that demonstrated what HL2 did that was new or interesting at the time. I only found it here [http://www.gamespot.com/users/Sentinelrv/video_player?id=K3A1nmOo5bgNuzTf] unfortunately, but it does a good job at showing how HL2 was technically innovative. *Apart from facial animations.
Other than that, I remember a tech demo for HL2 a while back that demonstrated what HL2 did that was new or interesting at the time. I only found it here [http://www.gamespot.com/users/Sentinelrv/video_player?id=K3A1nmOo5bgNuzTf] unfortunately, but it does a good job at showing how HL2 was technically innovative. *Apart from facial animations.
Ah, I don't find it to be much of a problem. I think it's a good question.Aby_Z said:
I do think it was set as a cornerstone for some other fps's after it, but Half life 2 laced an interesting story, emotional and expressive characters and a heroic feel that you and only you are mankind's saviour. Looking back at it I wouldn't say the gunplay wasn't brilliant but I do believe the wide array of monsters and opponents made up for it.
Half life had a nice little physics engine, even though we had to do that darned seesaw puzzle several times upon completion.
I'm not really a huge Half-Life fan since I've not played all of them, but I do believe that it was good at the time and it gave everyone something interesting to look at, even if it was only fun in small doses at a time.
Revolutionlize? Not a single thing. The original's revolutionary idea was simple that the story ought to persist as you play the game - the rest was just well executed variations on a mechanic or idea we had seen before. One might argue that their level design itself, which attempted to imply a larger world than actually existed than the narrow corridor you work your way through. That one's path through the game seemed logical and seemless (that is, when loading a new area it seems plausible that said area would be connected to the previous. In past games, levels were often discreet set pieces with absolutely no sense of being connected to one another).
The sequel simply iterated upon the concepts present in the original. Physics based puzzles replaced puzzles where physics was faked. The shooting mechanic was tweaked, generally resulting in a more structured set of options (no more being stuck without a rocket when you need one, or being forced to use a shotgun in a series of ranged engagements). Level design improved. Acting and writing quality improved and became a more central part of the game. Pacing and atmosphere remained top notch.
The sequel simply iterated upon the concepts present in the original. Physics based puzzles replaced puzzles where physics was faked. The shooting mechanic was tweaked, generally resulting in a more structured set of options (no more being stuck without a rocket when you need one, or being forced to use a shotgun in a series of ranged engagements). Level design improved. Acting and writing quality improved and became a more central part of the game. Pacing and atmosphere remained top notch.
In truth it did very little other than be the sequel to halflife, the game was polished and presented itself in a fairly unique way, the only game I'd played before it that felt similar was halflife, but I don't think there is really any one thing that you can point at and say "wow look at that remarkable innovation!".
I think its really just a blend of:
1) Sequel to a popular and innovative game
2) Story focused FPS (surprisingly rare thing)
3) lots of small things like the source engine, the gravity gun, physics etc..
I think its really just a blend of:
1) Sequel to a popular and innovative game
2) Story focused FPS (surprisingly rare thing)
3) lots of small things like the source engine, the gravity gun, physics etc..
I really hate it when people talk about games "revolutionizing" something, as if that is somehow related to quality, or is required to justify a game's popularity. It's just bullshit hyperbole that doesn't actually mean anything.
Was Half-Life 2 amazingly well crafted? Yes. just check AverageJoe's post above for reasons.
Was it innovative? Not particularly.
Is it one of the best FPS games ever made? in my opinion.
Did it Revolutionize anything? What the fuck does that even mean? How is that relevant?
Was Half-Life 2 amazingly well crafted? Yes. just check AverageJoe's post above for reasons.
Was it innovative? Not particularly.
Is it one of the best FPS games ever made? in my opinion.
Did it Revolutionize anything? What the fuck does that even mean? How is that relevant?
Storytelling; ironically that's why a lot of people call it "boring" and the story "shit", because it's not in your face. You have to come to your own assumptions; Freeman doesn't know what's going on and neither do you.
Then there's the facial animations (still some of the best EVAR), the world's exceptionally weird atmosphere, the physics (still some of the best EVAR), it was the first game to use the Source engine (EVAR), etc. etc.
It was a technical marvel, and played like a classic PC FPS. And it was: So. Fucking. Good.
Oh, and I totally love the people that play it now for the first time (6 years after release) and complain the graphics aren't that special.
No shit, Sherlock.
Then there's the facial animations (still some of the best EVAR), the world's exceptionally weird atmosphere, the physics (still some of the best EVAR), it was the first game to use the Source engine (EVAR), etc. etc.
It was a technical marvel, and played like a classic PC FPS. And it was: So. Fucking. Good.
He's talking about HL2, so I don't know how it's reusing set-pieces from itself and it's mini-sequel that wasn't yet released.ForgottenPr0digy said:
Actually that was just how FPS's played before someone suddenly decided you're not allowed more than 2-guns-at-a-time.Aby_Z said:
Oh, and I totally love the people that play it now for the first time (6 years after release) and complain the graphics aren't that special.
No shit, Sherlock.
The Graphics were amazing when it came out. You have to remember, there was no crysis, no PS3, no Xbox 360...
If you put it in that perspective, you start to see why it was so good from a visual standpoint.
If you put it in that perspective, you start to see why it was so good from a visual standpoint.
So what you're saying, basically, is that HL2, one of my favorite games, revolutionized animated character faces (like the "uncanny", as Yahtzee puts it, ones in Oblivion and Fallout 3); vehicle sections (because everybody loves them) and escort missions (ditto)? DAMN YOU VALVE. DAMN YOU!!!Analogy said:
I take it you haven't been playing games for all that long. No offence meant and HL2 IS a good game, but the "standard" weapons were "standard" loooong before HL2, the AI from HL1 was just as good. Physics were a new gimmick back then, and HL2 didn't really do all that much with them. Also, I'm not quite sure how it revolutionized story, unless by "revolutionize" you mean "skip"...Aby_Z said:
HL2 was not an innovative game, it just built upon the gameplay of the first game and polished it.