Does Half Life 2 Hold up?

[Captain Billy]

I played Half-Life 2 for the first time ever last year, and I absolutely loved it. Then again, I hadn't played all the way through an FPS ever before, so I may not be able to speak to it in context. With that said, though, I think HL2, while not my favorite game, is absolutely unparalleled in both its diversity and tightness. it takes you through all kinds of diverse environs, with different gameplay styles, each exhilaratingly fun but still structured around the same simple control scheme.

 

[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 Yes in 2004, outdated now.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...

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I don't see how a few glitches can take away so much from the overall design and gameplay or how they make the game "outdated" from a technical standpoint.

Engine itself is fine, HL2 however is not, it's an unfinished mess. Gameplay is quiet dull. It's beta had way more features: more weapons, more enemies and actual squad tactics you could make use of. Hell lot's of beta maps are actually more interesting and better mapped then the retail game has. Way darker atmosphere, a better story I could go on for hours on the beta how much better it was/is.

 

[Fidelias]

There are a few ways to "look" at Half-life 2, however in my opinion it stands up in all of them - feel free to disagree.

In terms of First Person Story telling, Half-life 2 remains the champion. It's story is less told through lazy cut scenes and more through the world and incidental details present therein. The lack of children and pets, the deep philosophical ramblings that bombard the citizens, even the furnishings in the houses tell a story better than some pathetic shock-value opener. The trips to Ravenholm and Nova Prospect towards the middle of the game dip the world in a dark and terrifying vibe that supplants most full fledged Horror titles because it doesn't SAY anything. It just puts the details in the world and lets them speak for themselves.

In terms of Gun Play, Half-life 2 isn't as visceral as it's modern day counter parts, however the moment-to-moment gameplay is still well ahead of basically everyone in the industry save for perhaps Halo. The A.I. drives the scenario based combat, meaning it reacts to the player and allows them to employ wildcard strategies that the A.I. adapts to. Most modern shooters all but ignore A.I. in favour of scripted battles - Half-life 2 weaves it's scripting amongst the on-the-fly scenarios. The first real battle against the Combine drop ship on the freeway, the fierce firefights through the City during the game's final chapters, and even the moment-to-moment use of the gravity gun allow for a more varied and immersive experience.

Lastly, it's setting is incredible, though lacking the awe of something akin to Bioshock's Rapture. It's eschews the realism of the modern shooters, leaving behind your glocks and M14s for more inventive and "fun" firearms. Instead of simply killing "The Non-Americans" as is the norm for the industry today, you're fighting monsters and alien soldiers, not because they "Hate Freedom for [reasons]" but because they're simply trying to wipe out humanity, turning them into zombie soldiers for their army. It's escapism, pure and simple - and for the dreamer in me, it wins out over the endlessly boring Military Shooters of today.

All my opinions, of course.

No offense, but I have to disagree with pretty much everything except for the setting.

I think the first-person storytelling is absolutely terrible. Sure, the settings are interesting and show how run-down everything is, and you can see a bit of alien tech mixed in with human tech, but that's about it. That's setting, not story. The story itself is a fairly generic alien shoot-em-up, with other inspirations taken from zombie apocalypse scenarios. This wasn't new even when the game originally came out. Also, the story quite obviously tries to focus on Gordon Freeman. The problem is, Gordon Freeman is one of the worst characters ever created. All you know is that he was a scientist who managed to survive the beginning of the alien invasion. You could argue that Gordon is supposed to be an avatar for the player's own character traits. But there is no way to customize Gordon or change his actions or play style. I know that the way that I had to play and the decisions that Gordon makes are nothing like what I would do when faced with the current situation, even if I did know how to fight as well as he did.

The gun-play is pretty bad compared to modern shooters, and nothing remotely special when compared to the games of it's time. Guns felt wrong, and the only one that was truly creative was the gravity gun. The AI was terrible, doing nothing but running into my bullets. The only reason why they were a threat was because the amount of damage you take just from the weakest of weapons. The gun play and AI of the game, Republic Commando, which came out just a year later, shows how poorly the AI for Half Life 2 actually was.

The setting itself was pretty great, there's no argument there. I do feel that there could've been a little more detail added to the specific areas, but it was good.

But the truth is that the game isn't as great as a lot of gamers make it out to be, even if you take into account it's age.

It's still pretty good, definitely better than average, but if you look at it objectively, without nostalgia, it's not really much more than that.

 

[bafrali]

snip

Funny I actually think that they did the best thing when they reworked the Beta and shaped it into the retail form. It was way over the top with its visuals and the depiction of the combine. I find the minimalistic aproach much more intersting and subtle which is pretty rare as far as the games are concerned.

Evil empire military parades, really? Why didn't you give Breen a mustache to twirl while you were at it Valve.

 

[Connor Lonske]

first i'd like to say that the people who don't like the gravity gun have something wrong with them on some internal level that defines what's fun or not. that's the only thing i can't budge on when it comes to fun or not fun.

anything else that can be argued about the game, i can understand. unless you can play a old game like a time traveler would try to blend into whatever time period he's gotten himself into, you're setting yourself up for disaster. i literally can understand not trying to think like you're playing a game from 2004 or 1998 or whatever. but if you're going out of your way to give a game a chance with a open heart, you're gonna have too otherwise you'll end up nip picking your own nipples off.

also a thing worth noting is that while half life was one of the very first games with a passable physics engine, and gay ben really liked showing that off to the point where he basically reused puzzles into his later two episodic extensions to much annoyance of critics like yahtzee for example. so even though valve had something to show off in the main game, i'd say it's ok to get pissed off about it being EVERYWHERE in the games because it got old so fucking fast even for me, a guy who's been playing the games since 2008.

 

[Vykrel]

i played it for the first time in like 2010 and it easily made it into my top 5 favorite games. it definitely holds up, especially in terms of graphics. its hard to believe it came out in 2004.

 

[Poetic Nova]

snip

Funny I actually think that they did the best thing when they reworked the Beta and shaped it into the retail form. It was way over the top with its visuals and the depiction of the combine. I find the minimalistic aproach much more intersting and subtle which is pretty rare as far as the games are concerned.

Evil empire military parades, really? Why didn't you give Breen a mustache to twirl while you were at it Valve.

Mehh, if they didn't make a rushjob out of it i would have agreed, but the beta's atmosphere is unmatched. If you haven't already search on the Combine wiki for the Air Exchange maps, if only these maps where kept I would be replaying it (mods are already their for beta enemies).

 

[Arqus_Zed]

It's a shooter.

Shooters show their strength through graphical prowess, lighting, detail, atmosphere in general, hit detection, physics, etc.
In other words, the strengths of the genre lie in technical advancements.
The shooter genre in general does not age well because of this.
They are not made to last.

On the opposite of this spectrum, we have the RPG genre, puzzlers and the (point & click) adventure games.

 

[TheBestPieEver]

So I went back and I got control of this motorboat. It drives like ass but the sense of speed and power that it gives it's actually really good, even if I have no idea of were to go.

 

[TheBestPieEver]

It's a shooter.

Shooters show their strength through graphical prowess, lighting, detail, atmosphere in general, hit detection, physics, etc.
In other words, the strengths of the genre lie in technical advancements.
The shooter genre in general does not age well because of this.
They are not made to last.

Shooting can be satisfactory in a very visceral level through correct timing of animations, hit and sound effects and could be done right since years ago. Plus, technical advances do not override level design. Battlefield 3 may look incredible but it's campaign is a complete turd. Call of Duty has never looked great but the 4th game was actually good.

 

[Dogstile]

Here we go again.. The game is 9 years old.

Why don't people bring up this argument about GoldenEye 007? Deus Ex? Metal Gear Solid? Classic games that were revolutions in their own right, but if they were released today (even with modern graphics and sound), they would be considered AWFUL based on their gameplay mechanics and design.

Half-Life 2 was, at the time of its release, top of the line. It was the first game to do what MOST modern games do. Even the things it did that had been done before, it did BETTER than any game before it.

Now you look at modern games and physics are just a given. Every game has good physics engine. It's not impressive anymore. Graphics have come a long way. Games have become far more cinematic, so Half-Life's "you ARE Gordon Freeman" approach is a stark contrast.

I don't see how something degrades over time. A 1970 Chevelle SS 454 gets terrible gas mileage, pollutes, you have to choke the carb and pump the gas to start it, it has uncomfy seats, terrible steering, terrible brakes, and even a run of the mill 6 cylinder family sedan of today could give it a run for its money... yet, it's still a beautiful example of that era of muscle car.

Why can't we just all agree that Half-Life 2 is a beautiful example of a video game of the year 2004 and stop trying to degrade it just because video game quality has *gasp* progressed in the last 9 years?

Are people going to make this argument about Portal 2 in another 7 years?

For fucks sake, it was a legitimate question. No need to jump down his throat about it. I don't understand why HL fans get so defensive over the game. Yes, we get the question often, if its bothers you that much stop responding to it.

OP:

The game's pacing is kind of all over the place, the story isn't amazing but it works and the gunplay was better in the first game. That said, it has some amazing setpieces and later on, even though I wasn't a fan of the early game (I much preferred half life 1's early game) it really does step it up a notch later on. I'd say keep going with it, its worth one play-through at least.

 

[Daverson]

Yes. Yes it does. In fact, I'd say it holds up even better given what we've been expected to stomach recently.

Amazing to think how little we've advanced in the past 8 years, especially given that 8 years prior, everyone thought Quake was the best thing in the world (well, not everyone, but the 90s were a troubled time).

 

[The_Scrivener]

For a group that decries that graphics don't make a game, there are a lot of people in this thread using Half-Life 2's graphics as a reason it doesn't hold up.

I played the game weeks ago for the first time and I didn't think for a second about the graphics. I'm playing Final Fantasy 6 right now. The idea of HL2 having dated graphics is hysterical.

Give me Half-Life 2's pacing, it's environments, and its ability to interweave the narrative with gameplay instead of lazy cutscenes any day over most games.

 

[aguspal]

Uarg, this thread has been done ad nauseum.

Here, read through these.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.373160-That-Was-Half-Life-2?page=1

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.395676-I-really-dont-believe-that-Half-Life-2-is-overrated-I-think-modern-Gamers-just-missed-the-boat?page=1

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.259339-Can-someone-please-tell-me-why-Half-Life-2-has-such-appeal

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.281309-Half-Life-2-why?page=1

Captcha: mumbo jumbo (quite right Captcha)

Yeah its has been done ad nauseum.

But you know what else has been done ad nauseum? People pointing out than those threads have been done ad nauseum.

You arent really contributing to the thread either.

(I suppuse I arent either. lol)

But thats because I have already said in some of those threads my opinion about half life. In short: The fact than it is 9 years old can only justific its dullness SO FAR. At a certain point its just becomes a BS justification.

 

[Bad Jim]

For a group that decries that graphics don't make a game, there are a lot of people in this thread using Half-Life 2's graphics as a reason it doesn't hold up.

The funny thing is, HL2's graphics aren't that bad. They're not like in Quake 1, where you can count the polygons without running out of fingers and can count the colors without running out of thumbs. HL2 isn't quite as advanced as the current gen, but it's easily good enough to be immersive.

 

[bafrali]

snip

I personally refuse to believe they rushed anything when there is so much deatil to the world. I keep discovering new things on my everynew playthrough that adds to both world and gameplay.

 

[Netrigan]

Which isn't to say there's not room for improvement, not by any stretch, I just really wish people would stop equating exposition to story as though the only good way to make a 'story' is through a dozen pages of scripted NPC banter explaining a minimum of three generations backstory with the mandatory half-dozen plot twists and a few sob story thrown in for good measure. You can have a good story with all those, they're not necessary, it's just what we've gotten used to equating with 'good' in the gaming industry.

The problem I have is there's exposition out the ass, but it's in service of plot beats which are variation on "you need to go into the next room and flip a switch". Then there's no power, so you have to fight your way down to the basement to turn the power on. Only a key component is missing so you have to journey to a neighboring town and fight some guys to get it. Then on your way back, the bridge blows up and you have to fight your way out of a canyon. Then you flip the switch and the scientists give you another objective where everything that can go wrong does go wrong.

The plot of the games is nothing more than crisis management and there's often a character explaining your given task in endless detail as you're frequently locked in a room with two guys who go on and on about how bad it would be if you don't flip that switch.

And this is largely effective, but beyond "being evil" I have no idea what the motivations of any of the bad guys are. The game doesn't seem to be building to a proper climax with each installment simply ending in the middle of a suitably massive crisis. Four games in and we still don't have the first clue as to what G-Man is up to or if there's anything more to the invasion than simple conquest.

Yes, the telling of the back story largely through the environment is impressive. It's a great trick, but it's in service of a fairly plot-less story which merely sees our hero lurch from one crisis to another without much in the way of resolution. Defeating Breen is much a meaningless act, his death isn't even the climax of the HL2. He was simply a rather talkative switch that needed to be turned off before they serve up a really big crisis for a cliffhanger. Said cliffhanger being resolved in the least satisfying way in Episode One, showing just how shoddy the plot construction truly is.

I loved HL2 when it came out, but the lack of anything resembling plot development in the two sequels has all but killed my interest in the series. More stuff will happen, Freeman will have to sort it, and I will be no closer to understanding the motivations of the invading aliens, G-Man, or even my own avatar.

 

[setting_son]

I bought it on the day it was released - I was underwhelmed then and my opinion hasn't changed over time.

The gameplay wasn't anything special. I found the flow of the game was interrupted rather than complimented by having to stop every few minutes to complete a contrived little physics puzzle... and I say 'puzzle' but it was usually variation on a see-saw theme.

The driving sections were awful and oscillated between boring me to tears and frustrating me - example: when my dune buggy clipped on thin air and spin wildly out of control as I drove down a tunnel through a loading screen. Now disoriented after spinning and unsure of which way I should be going (there was light at both ends of the tunnel) I ended up driving straight back into another loading screen.

The 1984 aesthetic was quite well done, in fact the claustrophobic atmosphere was probably my favourite thing about the whole game. The story itself though, in general was dull at best and full of little plot holes.

And I agree with the OP about the gunplay - none of the weapons save for the rocket launcher felt like that had any force or impact at all. It didn't 'feel' like the shotgun had any more kick to it than the pistol or SMG.

Anyway; didn't like HL2 then, don't like it now. HL Source though? There's a game worth playing.

 

[hoboman29]

Here we go again.

It holds up in the sense that it defined how FPS games of its era were designed and played. As a game on its own merits it's alright. The shooting feels like a bridge between old school and modern shooters as do the levels. The story telling is pretty good for an fps although the scripted sequences feel like glorified cutscenes. I guess if I could sum it up in one sentence its influence holds up far more than the game itself (not that its bad just not the solid gold bar people make it out to be).

As a warning to everyone who is hearing the praise for Half Life 2. Don't go into it thinking its some sort of religious experience. You've probably experienced the game's effects in other shooters. Also if your experience is with modern shooters then it will be a different kind of game for you.

 

[Jewpacabra]

I think so. I recently played it for the first time and loved it