Does Half Life 2 Hold up?

[Casual Shinji]

Yes it holds up, and it will always hold up. Valve games, Half-Life 2 in particular, have a very unique feel to them that no other game has been able to emulate. So even when the pixels become apparent and the controls become choppy, it will still retain its captivating identity.

It's already been said, but HL2 is one of those rare FPS' that paces itself. And brilliantly so. The gameplay is engaging even when it doesn't envolve shooting something. It's able to flesh out its world without the use of cutscenes or even a vocal protagonist. And gives you a terrific sense of place that makes you become aware of the dire situation this world is in.

And the sound design is still among the best in the business.

 

[TheBestPieEver]

HL2, for its time, did pacing wonderfully.

Well I can see that. I started with no guns and nothing to do but listen to a charismatic dictator. Then I did some platforming and then I was on the run from authorities. Then I got a suit and a crowbar but I was still in no position to fight so I was still on the run but now more equipped for it. After that I got a gun but kept running because it was just one simple gun. Later I got some power ups and started to be able to stand some ground on the authorities, all the while still escaping but now in a more grandiose way. Following that I got to a sewer level where monsters where introduced and a helicopter started chasing me. I got an SMG and subsequently got to man a Mounted gun. So yeah, I can see that even on a smaller scale the pacing it's fairly well done.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I never bought into the, "well it was great for it's time!" argument. I'm sure it was, but it misses the point. I'm not playing it "in it's time" (even if I did when it was released), I'm playing it in the here and now, after playing newer and better games. And in the here and now, no, Half-Life 2 isn't that great.

And renascence painters shouldn't be considered great since we have Wacom cintiqs and HD printers...

Except a lot of Renaissance artwork *does* hold up to modern digital paintings. The difference between them is negligible. But if you're going to tell that there's essentially no difference between Doom and Far Cry 3, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside.

The overwhelming approval of Half Life 2 shows that it is a great game, and to say otherwise is to say that the enjoyment of most is trumped by your personal opinion.

False appeal to popularity. The majority of the population approved of slavery at one point in history, so therefor, slavery was justified.

Strawman fallacy (see what i did there). Calling a piece of an entertainment "great" and reinforcing that by saying that the majority like that to, is valid argument when you are talking about something that is valued by subjective tastes

No. That is not what a strawman fallacy is. A strawman fallacy is when the person arguing deliberately misrepresents or omits key parts of their opponent's argument - NOT when the person arguing merely changes the premise for the sake of analogy. People in general need to learn the difference if they're going to use that term.

As for the rest of what you say, the same can be said of slavery. Though I'm sure everyone here would agree that slavery is wrong, "wrong" is still a subjective value, and therefor the idea that slavery is wrong is subjective. Saying that a lot of people like or approve of something is not, in any way, shape, or form, a sound argument for the quality or value of that thing. Not even as a supplementary argument. A lot of people like Jersey Shore, but I'm guessing most people here will tell you it's the most horrible thing every created.

 

[Waffle_Man]

A lot of people seem to be yammering about "it was good for it's time." Really though, plenty people thought that the opening level was weak and that water boat section was shit even when it was first released. It will get better though. I normally hate the "it'll get better" school of thought, so feel free to quit. However, there is a reason people praised it as much as they did when it came out.

 

[Meatspinner]

No. That is not what a strawman fallacy is. A strawman fallacy is when the person arguing deliberately misrepresents or omits key parts of their opponent's argument - NOT when the person arguing merely changes the premise for the sake of analogy. People in general need to learn the difference if they're going to use that term.

As for the rest of what you say, the same can be said of slavery. Though I'm sure everyone here would agree that slavery is wrong, "wrong" is still a subjective value, and therefor the idea that slavery is wrong is subjective. Saying that a lot of people like or approve of something is not, in any way, shape, or form, a sound argument for the quality or value of that thing. Not even as a supplementary argument. A lot of people like Jersey Shore, but I'm guessing most people here will tell you it's the most horrible thing every created.

Wasn't really addressing your Godwin -esque anology. Just saying Xanadu point is completely valid.

Also...

 

[dagens24]

I got Half-Life 2 when it was first released and it's probably my most played through game; the pacing is just so perfect that one section flows so perfectly into the next without any slog that I'll boot up a single section with the intent of playing for 15 min and the next thing I know I'm half way through the game. It really does hold up quite well.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Played it a couple of times since 2008, didn't age well tbh. And alot of unnescecary glitches and unfinished models.

 

[bafrali]

Played it a couple of times since 2008, didn't age well tbh. And alot of unnescecary glitches and unfinished models.

unneccesary glitches? Did you happen to find any that is neccessary?

BTW what unfinished models you speak of? If you mean the kind you can only see with noclipping then

 

[bafrali]

double post

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

Half-Life 2 is the reason why the word overrated was invented.

you know when people make comments like that, they usually give reasons for it so they dont look like an asshat.

 

[Doom972]

Wait until after you play through the Ravenholm chapter before passing judgement on the game.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Played it a couple of times since 2008, didn't age well tbh. And alot of unnescecary glitches and unfinished models.

unneccesary glitches? Did you happen to find any that is neccessary?

BTW what unfinished models you speak of? If you mean the kind you can only see with noclipping then

Viewmodels (guns etc) have missing faces: Pistol doesn't expend it's ammo, Revolver is missing a big part on the right side, smg's clip is never trown out, Pulse rifle can be looked trhough when turning fast enough and Gordon holds it with 1 arm, Crossbow misses a disc and trigger, RL has a completely diffirent world model. Path finding for Alex can be borked sometimes, enemies don't shoot you when you hold something while watching in their direction. Few scripting error's, just to name the stuff that bothers me most.

Overall: Groundbreaking? Yes in 2004, outdated now.

edit: the irony is that the beta doesn't has most of these issues...

 

[Brainwreck]

Just replayed it couple months ago.
I'd say it's still pretty fucking sweet.
Nevermind the fact that it's got an astounding number of mods, some of which are amazing in their own right.

 

[Garyn Dakari]

I played the entire HL series for the first time in late 2011, and I think all of them stand up today, even HL1. I actually enjoyed HL1 far more than 2, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Poetic Nova]

I played the entire HL series for the first time in late 2011, and I think all of them stand up today, even HL1. I actually enjoyed HL1 far more than 2, but maybe that's just me.

First HL is alot better then 2. That one did age well unlike 2.

 

[SextusMaximus]

No, and it didn't when I first played in 2010 either.

Groundbreaking for it's time, sure; should be considered one of the best FPS' of all time, sure; does it hold up today? no.

I played the entire HL series for the first time in late 2011, and I think all of them stand up today, even HL1. I actually enjoyed HL1 far more than 2, but maybe that's just me.

First HL is alot better then 2. That one did age well unlike 2.

Oh my god this. HL1 is still an absolute blast.

 

[Olas]

I recently started playing Bioshock and was stunned by how bad the graphics and models in the game looked. They didn't just look bad compared to today's games however, they looked bad compared to Half Life 2's. That's despite the fact that Half Life 2 came out 3 years before Bioshock, before anyone had even heard of the Xbox360 console that Bioshock was going to run on.

The fact is Half Life 2 graphically was monumental for its time. When it first came out very few computers could even even run it. But guess what? That was nearly a decade ago. If a game that came out a decade ago still looked good relative to today's games it would speak pretty poorly of that decade's progress. You just had to be there to understand how innovative and rich that game felt when it first came out.

It had a realistic physics engine, it had amazing looking enemies and creatures. I know today the concept of a game set in a crumbling urban environment where you try to overthrow a dystopian government might seem pretty ordinary, but at the time it was an amazing story for a video game to have, and it's told beautifully in a manner that is both fluid and subtle with an amazing attention to detail. The lack of long cutscenes contributed to the game's realism as well by never breaking from Gordon Freeman's point of view.

And in the end Half Life 2 holds up, Half Life holds up, Super Mario World holds up, Space Invaders holds up. Those where fun games and still are fun because they were well designed.

 

[TheBestPieEver]

The fact is Half Life 2 graphically was monumental for its time. When it first came out very few computers could even even run it. But guess what? That was nearly a decade ago. If a game that came out a decade ago still looked good relative to today's games it would speak pretty poorly of that decade's progress. You just had to be there to understand how innovative and rich that game felt when it first came out.

No offence: I have never given two flying shits about the graphical aspect of a game. As a child I played atari games and didn't care what they looked like. As long as I can see and understand what is going on everything else is bells and whistles. That said, lighting sometimes awes me but more in a logical "How many hours did they spent on making it look like this" way rather than in an instinctive "this is gorgeous" way.

 

[bafrali]

Played it a couple of times since 2008, didn't age well tbh. And alot of unnescecary glitches and unfinished models.

unneccesary glitches? Did you happen to find any that is neccessary?

BTW what unfinished models you speak of? If you mean the kind you can only see with noclipping then

Viewmodels (guns etc) have missing faces: Pistol doesn't expend it's ammo, Revolver is missing a big part on the right side, smg's clip is never trown out, Pulse rifle can be looked trhough when turning fast enough and Gordon holds it with 1 arm, Crossbow misses a disc and trigger, RL has a completely diffirent world model. Path finding for Alex can be borked sometimes, enemies don't shoot you when you hold something while watching in their direction. Few scripting error's, just to name the stuff that bothers me most.

Overall: Groundbreaking? Yes in 2004, outdated now.

edit: the irony is that the beta doesn't has most of these issues...

What you do is called nitpicking and I don't see how a few glitches can take away so much from the overall design and gameplay or how they make the game "outdated" from a technical standpoint.

 

[DoPo]

As for the rest of what you say, the same can be said of slavery. Though I'm sure everyone here would agree that slavery is wrong, "wrong" is still a subjective value, and therefor the idea that slavery is wrong is subjective. Saying that a lot of people like or approve of something is not, in any way, shape, or form, a sound argument for the quality or value of that thing.

Umm, you're confusing moral with value judgements there. And pray tell, how exactly does one objectively tell the value of a product? I would have thought that the amount of people liking/using it is an indicator of whether it is good or not. But apparently I'm wrong - there must be another Objective?®© way to do it in that case.