Why is the original Half-Life considered so important?

[Specter Von Baren]

So I didn't play the original Half-Life when it first came out, I played the sequel and thought it was good but when I had the opportunity to play the original, while I liked it and thought it was well done I never saw why people considered it so revolutionary in plot or gameplay. It has good aspects, good alien designs and some unique gameplay elements but I don't see why its considered so important.

I'm not saying this thinking it isn't. I just want some help seeing it from the perspective of those that understand it.

 

[Dalisclock]

It's one of those things you kinda had to be there. At the time there really weren't any other games like it, where for the most part, the environment really felt like a real place and not just a fairly random mishmash of corridors and outdoor open areas(which were basically rooms with skyboxes). Having a story(such as it is) integrated into the environment rather then through cut scenes(yeah, there's a few which are technically cutscenes but few and far between). Scripted events were a very new thing at time. The fact it broke up combat with puzzle solving and making most of the bosses puzzle bosses rather then bullet sponges was also notable. AI soldiers who weren't complete idiots and actually reacted to your tactics was pretty amazing.

Honestly, there still really aren't any games like it, but a lot of it's better points have been used by other games since then. CoD for the longest time avoided cut scenes(not counting the briefings) in favor of integrating the story(what story there is in a CoD game) into the dialogue and gameplay, More realistic level design has become much more prevalent in first person games in the 20 years since then. Scripted events have become standard features.

 

[Hawki]

Dalis has more or less covered it. I've never played Half-Life, but you can generally see a difference between pre-Half-Life and post-Half-Life in regards to how FPS games approached story/worldbuilding, and its integration with gameplay.

That said, there were FPS games before Half-Life that had a heavy story focus (System Shock and Marathon come to mind), so I do feel it gets too much credit sometimes.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Yep, a +1 for Dalisclock having covered it. Not much to add there!

I can offer a testimonial as I "was there" when it was released. The things that did blow me away were the puzzles, which were annoying at first but once I realized that this was a thinking game as much as it was shooting, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I like how the narrative unfolds around you rather than through cutscenes, or forced removal of player control and camera.

The facility it takes place in does feel like a real facility, albeit a pretty fantastic (logistics-wise) one. But what really got me was the AI, that flanked, threw grenades to draw you out of cover, used position/cover tactics and had you thinking on your feet during (and before) encounters.

Nowadays, it's pretty hard to see all that with the myriad of games that have done it so well. But there are still games, especially indie titles, where the AI just take a straight path towards you until you put them down. This, coupled with hitscanning weapons and bullet sponges, made many a game of that time seem cheap in difficulty, rather than challenging. Mind you, I'm not comparing it with arena shooters such as Serious Sam and Painkiller, as they're a different kettle of fish entirely.

So despite how much you think it might be overrated, whether it was the pioneer or not, it did set some pretty good benchmarks for games to come.

[Edit: some typos and added anecdote]

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Because some people are too young to remember games like System Shock.

 

[sXeth]

Its the codifying point of the cinematic or story driven FPS. So depending on your overview, it either ruined the genre irrevocably, or pulled it into the modern era (or more moderately, added an optional branch that became unfortunately over-dominant)

Essentially, as the FPS genre developed in the mid-late 90s several subgenres emerged from the previous baseline arcaey shooter style (Doom, et al)

Half-life(1998) was the more story-driven or cinematic effort. With NPCs, and cutscenes/background events and so on.
System Shock (1994) was the early-FPS RPG thing.
Thief (1998) was the stealth branch.
Unreal Tournament (1999) was the multiplayer-focused shooter.
Hexen (1995) was the hero-shooter.
Rainbow Six (1998) for your tactical squad shooter-sim.
The original Team Fortress also merits a mention, it was a popular mod for Quake(1996) as the less simulation-style squad-based stuff goes.

 

[Squilookle]

Its the codifying point of the cinematic or story driven FPS. So depending on your overview, it either ruined the genre irrevocably, or pulled it into the modern era (or more moderately, added an optional branch that became unfortunately over-dominant)

Essentially, as the FPS genre developed in the mid-late 90s several subgenres emerged from the previous baseline arcaey shooter style (Doom, et al)

Half-life(1998) was the more story-driven or cinematic effort. With NPCs, and cutscenes/background events and so on.
System Shock (1994) was the early-FPS RPG thing.
Thief (1998) was the stealth branch.
Unreal Tournament (1999) was the multiplayer-focused shooter.
Hexen (1995) was the hero-shooter.
Rainbow Six (1998) for your tactical squad shooter-sim.
The original Team Fortress also merits a mention, it was a popular mod for Quake(1996) as the less simulation-style squad-based stuff goes.

You're missing a few, but just off the top of my head:

Before Wolfenstein 3D, there was no first-person gun wielding free moving on-foot shooter.
Before Doom there was no network multiplayer
Before Heretic, no FPS has Y axis aiming or gibs
Before Marathon, FPS didn't have objectives, beyond 'kill all enemies' and 'find key to the next place', and they didn't have friendly NPCs, mouse free look, or dual wielding
Before Dark Forces, FPS didn't mix action with puzzles (as Half-Life later would)
Before Quake, there was no full 3D FPS
Before Duke Nukem 3D, FPS didn't have non-linear levels designed as the buildings they represent rather than a corridor to funnel the player through
Before Goldeneye, no FPS had adjustable zoomable sniper scopes, NPCs that fought alongside you, location based body damage, different objectives for different difficulties, all dialogue presented to you in 1st person during gameplay, stealth mechanics, and civilians
Before Turok 2, no FPS had a weapon wheel
Before Unreal, no FPS built levels as a seamless, interconnected construct without pause inbetween...

Come to think of it... Half Life didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before. The only difference was that it did a lot of it together and with style. Sometimes that's all you need to get a surefire hit, I guess

 

[Dalisclock]

Because some people are too young to remember games like System Shock.

I remember system shock and while I do applaud it's ambition so many other things about it, a good shooter it is not. It's much more akin to a sci-fi dungeon crawler, especially considering how clunky the combat is, not to mention the interface itself. Again, I liked the game when I played it but going back now would probably be...challenging.

It's one of the reasons I'm sad the System Shock Remake went bust, because remaking system shock without all the clutter on the screen and a better combat interface would have been welcome.

I'm sure a certain someone will be here soon to tell me why I'm wrong and why System Shock is the greatest game to ever exist.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Its the codifying point of the cinematic or story driven FPS. So depending on your overview, it either ruined the genre irrevocably, or pulled it into the modern era (or more moderately, added an optional branch that became unfortunately over-dominant)

Essentially, as the FPS genre developed in the mid-late 90s several subgenres emerged from the previous baseline arcaey shooter style (Doom, et al)

Half-life(1998) was the more story-driven or cinematic effort. With NPCs, and cutscenes/background events and so on.
System Shock (1994) was the early-FPS RPG thing.
Thief (1998) was the stealth branch.
Unreal Tournament (1999) was the multiplayer-focused shooter.
Hexen (1995) was the hero-shooter.
Rainbow Six (1998) for your tactical squad shooter-sim.
The original Team Fortress also merits a mention, it was a popular mod for Quake(1996) as the less simulation-style squad-based stuff goes.

You're missing a few, but just off the top of my head:

Before Wolfenstein 3D, there was no first-person gun wielding free moving on-foot shooter.
Before Doom there was no network multiplayer
Before Heretic, no FPS has Y axis aiming or gibs
Before Marathon, FPS didn't have objectives, beyond 'kill all enemies' and 'find key to the next place', and they didn't have friendly NPCs, mouse free look, or dual wielding
Before Dark Forces, FPS didn't mix action with puzzles (as Half-Life later would)
Before Quake, there was no full 3D FPS
Before Duke Nukem 3D, FPS didn't have non-linear levels designed as the buildings they represent rather than a corridor to funnel the player through
Before Goldeneye, no FPS had adjustable zoomable sniper scopes, NPCs that fought alongside you, location based body damage, different objectives for different difficulties, all dialogue presented to you in 1st person during gameplay, stealth mechanics, and civilians
Before Turok 2, no FPS had a weapon wheel
Before Unreal, no FPS built levels as a seamless, interconnected construct without pause inbetween...

Come to think of it... Half Life didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before. The only difference was that it did a lot of it together and with style. Sometimes that's all you need to get a surefire hit, I guess

...Sooo.../thread?

 

[sXeth]

Its the codifying point of the cinematic or story driven FPS. So depending on your overview, it either ruined the genre irrevocably, or pulled it into the modern era (or more moderately, added an optional branch that became unfortunately over-dominant)

Essentially, as the FPS genre developed in the mid-late 90s several subgenres emerged from the previous baseline arcaey shooter style (Doom, et al)

Half-life(1998) was the more story-driven or cinematic effort. With NPCs, and cutscenes/background events and so on.
System Shock (1994) was the early-FPS RPG thing.
Thief (1998) was the stealth branch.
Unreal Tournament (1999) was the multiplayer-focused shooter.
Hexen (1995) was the hero-shooter.
Rainbow Six (1998) for your tactical squad shooter-sim.
The original Team Fortress also merits a mention, it was a popular mod for Quake(1996) as the less simulation-style squad-based stuff goes.

You're missing a few, but just off the top of my head:

Before Wolfenstein 3D, there was no first-person gun wielding free moving on-foot shooter.
Before Doom there was no network multiplayer
Before Heretic, no FPS has Y axis aiming or gibs
Before Marathon, FPS didn't have objectives, beyond 'kill all enemies' and 'find key to the next place', and they didn't have friendly NPCs, mouse free look, or dual wielding
Before Dark Forces, FPS didn't mix action with puzzles (as Half-Life later would)
Before Quake, there was no full 3D FPS
Before Duke Nukem 3D, FPS didn't have non-linear levels designed as the buildings they represent rather than a corridor to funnel the player through
Before Goldeneye, no FPS had adjustable zoomable sniper scopes, NPCs that fought alongside you, location based body damage, different objectives for different difficulties, all dialogue presented to you in 1st person during gameplay, stealth mechanics, and civilians
Before Turok 2, no FPS had a weapon wheel
Before Unreal, no FPS built levels as a seamless, interconnected construct without pause inbetween...

Come to think of it... Half Life didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before. The only difference was that it did a lot of it together and with style. Sometimes that's all you need to get a surefire hit, I guess

I was going in more of a genre standpoint over the technical details.

Also, if we're quibbling, other then sticking "gun wielding in" Wolfenstein wasn't the first (on foot) FPS. Catacomb 3D was (in itself inspired by Ultima's first-person dungeon crawling, so FPS came from RPGs, if you're ever looking to poke at B-Cell).

There's some other quibbles (and certainly some that are down to personal interpretation, like the puzzle bit and levels designed as buildings).

Half-life's niche is its integration of storytelling though. I'm personally on board with the story being trash that only escalates the farther it gets, but the techniques were prettymuch new to the genre. Goldeneye's the main potential contender but its still primarily stuck in the cutscene and level setups. Unreal made the attempt, but didn't quite hit the same level on that metric.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Half-Life also never took you out of the narrative, never went into cutscenes or explanatory voiceovers- you saw everything that happened through Gordon's eyes. It wasn't unheard of, but it was rare and had never been done as well as HL did.

 

[Souplex]

In short: It isn't. It's a pretty good for its' time FPS that came after Duke Nukem 3D so it isn't even that special.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

In short: It isn't. It's a pretty good for its' time FPS that came after Duke Nukem 3D so it isn't even that special.

I'm curious why your avatar isn't someone suplexing a soup bowl.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I remember system shock and while I do applaud it's ambition so many other things about it, a good shooter it is not. It's much more akin to a sci-fi dungeon crawler, especially considering how clunky the combat is, not to mention the interface itself. Again, I liked the game when I played it but going back now would probably be...challenging.

It's one of the reasons I'm sad the System Shock Remake went bust, because remaking system shock without all the clutter on the screen and a better combat interface would have been welcome.

I'm sure a certain someone will be here soon to tell me why I'm wrong and why System Shock is the greatest game to ever exist.

Half-Life is a better shooter, but at the same time SS in my opinion was a better game, and more important to game design theory. It would go on to influence things like Deus Ex. Narrative wise System Shock tried to incorporate gameplay and storyline as one, through stylistically interesting elements that createdthat sense that it was more than just anUltima clone witha sci-fi skin wrap ... it was a proper foray into true 3D, and its elements were beyond ambitious.

System Shock as legitimately a game that one could point to and say; "There's a game that tried to break every expectation."

Where as Half-Life merely felt like a refinement of environment, mechanics, and general thematic mode over its predecessors at the time. Let's be honest here ... Half-Life is important ifonly for the refinement of its mechanics ...it didn't attempt to do anything beyond deliver it in tandem with thematic mood.

Whereas System Shock? It delivers a whole lot more innovation to the existing market at the time of 'first person action'.

Unreal is more important to shooters than Half-Life was. System Shock redefined gaming at the time.

 

[Squilookle]

Its the codifying point of the cinematic or story driven FPS. So depending on your overview, it either ruined the genre irrevocably, or pulled it into the modern era (or more moderately, added an optional branch that became unfortunately over-dominant)

Essentially, as the FPS genre developed in the mid-late 90s several subgenres emerged from the previous baseline arcaey shooter style (Doom, et al)

Half-life(1998) was the more story-driven or cinematic effort. With NPCs, and cutscenes/background events and so on.
System Shock (1994) was the early-FPS RPG thing.
Thief (1998) was the stealth branch.
Unreal Tournament (1999) was the multiplayer-focused shooter.
Hexen (1995) was the hero-shooter.
Rainbow Six (1998) for your tactical squad shooter-sim.
The original Team Fortress also merits a mention, it was a popular mod for Quake(1996) as the less simulation-style squad-based stuff goes.

You're missing a few, but just off the top of my head:

Before Wolfenstein 3D, there was no first-person gun wielding free moving on-foot shooter.
Before Doom there was no network multiplayer
Before Heretic, no FPS has Y axis aiming or gibs
Before Marathon, FPS didn't have objectives, beyond 'kill all enemies' and 'find key to the next place', and they didn't have friendly NPCs, mouse free look, or dual wielding
Before Dark Forces, FPS didn't mix action with puzzles (as Half-Life later would)
Before Quake, there was no full 3D FPS
Before Duke Nukem 3D, FPS didn't have non-linear levels designed as the buildings they represent rather than a corridor to funnel the player through
Before Goldeneye, no FPS had adjustable zoomable sniper scopes, NPCs that fought alongside you, location based body damage, different objectives for different difficulties, all dialogue presented to you in 1st person during gameplay, stealth mechanics, and civilians
Before Turok 2, no FPS had a weapon wheel
Before Unreal, no FPS built levels as a seamless, interconnected construct without pause inbetween...

Come to think of it... Half Life didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before. The only difference was that it did a lot of it together and with style. Sometimes that's all you need to get a surefire hit, I guess

I was going in more of a genre standpoint over the technical details.

Also, if we're quibbling, other then sticking "gun wielding in" Wolfenstein wasn't the first (on foot) FPS. Catacomb 3D was (in itself inspired by Ultima's first-person dungeon crawling, so FPS came from RPGs, if you're ever looking to poke at B-Cell).

There's some other quibbles (and certainly some that are down to personal interpretation, like the puzzle bit and levels designed as buildings).

Half-life's niche is its integration of storytelling though. I'm personally on board with the story being trash that only escalates the farther it gets, but the techniques were prettymuch new to the genre. Goldeneye's the main potential contender but its still primarily stuck in the cutscene and level setups. Unreal made the attempt, but didn't quite hit the same level on that metric.

Sorry- I didn't mean to sound like I was opposing you. I meant to add to your list, not rival it. And you're right about Catacomb 3D. Save for actually showing a gun it pretty much did do everything Wolfenstein 3D did beforehand.

True, Goldeneye did follow the isolated levels format, and I'd say Half-Life presented its story much much better as well, though it should be said that in Goldeneye, once the intro cutscene played (usually just showing a part of the level with a label for it) the camera would zoom in to Bond's head and become gameplay. After that point, no matter what shooting, stealthing, dialogue or inventory management happened, the world would absolutely never leave the perspective from your own eyes until the end. I never really thought about it much at the time, but as this post points out- Goldeneye's adherence to never taking the game out of your head, not even for inventory management, was utterly unheard of at the time.

As for Unreal, its just a matter of preference. I'm sure a lot of people would say Half-Life did the expansive continuous levels thing better, but others would say Unreal took the cake, like Eurogamer, for example

Half-Life merely felt like a refinement of environment, mechanics, and general thematic mode over its predecessors at the time. Let's be honest here ... Half-Life is important ifonly for the refinement of its mechanics ...it didn't attempt to do anything beyond deliver it in tandem with thematic mood.

Basically, yeah.

 

[sXeth]

As for Unreal, its just a matter of preference. I'm sure a lot of people would say Half-Life did the expansive continuous levels thing better, but others would say Unreal took the cake, like Eurogamer, for example

It is a bit of a personal preference. Halflife did put you more on rails, as it were. Unreal was bit more of the open map exploratory design. And I probably prefer Unreals myself (especially given where the more directed experience went in the coming years).

 

[Tsun Tzu]

It's a confluence of design, narrative, cinematography, and graphical fidelity that was pretty unique at the time.

Kind of it, really. It's a classic because it's as much a gaming linchpin as any other major innovative title.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Repeat after me: I-M-M-E-R-S-H-U-N.

Half-Life also never took you out of the narrative, never went into cutscenes or explanatory voiceovers- you saw everything that happened through Gordon's eyes. It wasn't unheard of, but it was rare and had never been done as well as HL did.

That kinda sums it up in short. Plus it was basicly "Die Hard" with aliens, and that kind of story is easy to make engaging, especially in video games, where you usually are one-against-everyone.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

It revolutionize FPS genre. before Half life. FPS were mostly Doom clones. after Half life. they become more Story driven.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Repeat after me: I-M-M-E-R-S-H-U-N.

Half-Life also never took you out of the narrative, never went into cutscenes or explanatory voiceovers- you saw everything that happened through Gordon's eyes. It wasn't unheard of, but it was rare and had never been done as well as HL did.

That kinda sums it up in short. Plus it was basicly "Die Hard" with aliens, and that kind of story is easy to make engaging, especially in video games, where you usually are one-against-everyone.

..... Now that you mention that, there WAS a Die Hard game (Die Hard: Vendetta) on the PS2 that wasn't half bad and also had a lot of similar aspects to Half-Life 2. Not implying anything, the game came out four years after Half-Life, just an interesting thing about stuff.