NOTE - Please read through the entire thing before posting some reply that just makes you look like a dumb fanboy by people who have read through it and already seen where I've made a proper and thought out critique.
Just gotten around to playing in the past 2 weeks and I just don't get what all the hype was about (even though I did find Portal to be awesome and the cake is NOT a lie!).
Here's a run down:
Pros:
- Good graphics
- Gravity Gun
- The Antlions
- Dog
Cons:
- Everything else:
The story is a complete mess and the characters are completely underdeveloped (case in point - Dog is the only character I care about or like or even find interesting). I have no idea why Gordon Freeman is so highly regarded nor even why I'm killing these supposed aliens. I don't care about the original Half Life, the second game shouldn't be so highly isolated and discriminatory like it is and players new to the series should NOT be so completely clueless.
Also, NO, I'm not illiterate and completely lacking of any sort of attention span. I can debate topics such as the issues brought up in The Matrix and I've read the Lord of the Rings, YES, READ it, so comprehension issues are not the issue.
The guns are mundane and boring except for the grav. gun. YET it's inconsistent at best (why can't I use it through a glass window right next to me when I can 'grab' a barrel from 10m away??? It's a GRAVITY gun....) and I'd honestly consider the shot gun more effective in the most critical moments (ie. when there's lots of enemies). It's amusement factor also starts to wear off after a while. Also, just why can't I use zoom to shoot, as opposed to the awkward zoom in, let go of zoom, pull trigger set-up that's incorporated?
The less said about the vehicle sections the better.
The enemies are some of the dumbest I've played against in a LONG time - on several occasions I've been able to stand in a doorway for about 2 seconds in direct view before the bad guy reacted. Another couple have just stood there taking a couple of hits before they've seemed to have figured out they're being hit.
The level designs are extremely linear, although the developers have done a good job of cheating the players into thinking they have choices, exploration lasts all of about 10 paces before running into a forced boundary.
So there you have it. If you ask me those are some very glaring issues that have made playing through a tedious and boring affair and nowhere near worthy of a game of the year nomination, let alone a winner (or was 2004 just that bad a year for gaming???). If anything, it's a very nice tech demo, but that's about all that can be said for it. Anyone care to explain what I've managed to overlook or where my criticisms are incorrect? After all, as game of the year it does deserve some chance of a rebuttal.
EDIT: Here's my responses in a later post that most people won't notice so copying to here:
First, I WANT to like this game, I really do. I can see the potential for greatness it had. But having said that, these issues do exist and I'm trying to find out what I'm missing that others apparently are not that make up for them.
To reply to what I've seen so far:
- I'm playing through on normal mode which is default - the game and enemy intelligence that the developers deem the standard experience for players.
- The vehicles sections are overly long or need more action and this is combined with handling that seems akin to someone with bald tires trying to drive over ice. Surely one of the playtesters should have picked up on this?
- Concerning a sequel following on from the original. Yes, it's true that seeing/reading/playing the first should give you a more in depth understanding overall, but have a look at how say The Godfather Part 2 / Aliens / Terminator 2 deals with the matter. All I'm saying is a more contained story would have been better for a game released 6 years after the first (and was never originally conceived as having a sequel), like how Resistance 2 or Gears of War 2 have approached things (you can play the games without needing to have finished the first, even though the first versions contribute to further enjoyment of the second). And Lord of the Rings does NOT have a sequel - it's one story in three parts and was always conceived and written as such.
- 2 seconds pause: slight over-exaggeration but makes the point, there shouldn't be long enough a time to notice.
- Gravity gun and windows: the particular instance was a section where the glass was unbreakable and the set piece required me to throw a grenade through a doorway to knock out a cable plug when the grav gun had worked fine on others.
- Linear levels: This is probably noticed more from the lack of set pieces and boredom on some levels, and was more noticeable than other games I've played
Yes, there are good points for the game. The graphics are great, the physics for the most part are terrific, and the bigger set pieces are great fun. Yet I've just found too much wanting and boring for something so highly regarded from a developer I think is great (Portal and Left 4 Dead) that I'm quite shocked and confused by what happened with HL2.
Just gotten around to playing in the past 2 weeks and I just don't get what all the hype was about (even though I did find Portal to be awesome and the cake is NOT a lie!).
Here's a run down:
Pros:
- Good graphics
- Gravity Gun
- The Antlions
- Dog
Cons:
- Everything else:
The story is a complete mess and the characters are completely underdeveloped (case in point - Dog is the only character I care about or like or even find interesting). I have no idea why Gordon Freeman is so highly regarded nor even why I'm killing these supposed aliens. I don't care about the original Half Life, the second game shouldn't be so highly isolated and discriminatory like it is and players new to the series should NOT be so completely clueless.
Also, NO, I'm not illiterate and completely lacking of any sort of attention span. I can debate topics such as the issues brought up in The Matrix and I've read the Lord of the Rings, YES, READ it, so comprehension issues are not the issue.
The guns are mundane and boring except for the grav. gun. YET it's inconsistent at best (why can't I use it through a glass window right next to me when I can 'grab' a barrel from 10m away??? It's a GRAVITY gun....) and I'd honestly consider the shot gun more effective in the most critical moments (ie. when there's lots of enemies). It's amusement factor also starts to wear off after a while. Also, just why can't I use zoom to shoot, as opposed to the awkward zoom in, let go of zoom, pull trigger set-up that's incorporated?
The less said about the vehicle sections the better.
The enemies are some of the dumbest I've played against in a LONG time - on several occasions I've been able to stand in a doorway for about 2 seconds in direct view before the bad guy reacted. Another couple have just stood there taking a couple of hits before they've seemed to have figured out they're being hit.
The level designs are extremely linear, although the developers have done a good job of cheating the players into thinking they have choices, exploration lasts all of about 10 paces before running into a forced boundary.
So there you have it. If you ask me those are some very glaring issues that have made playing through a tedious and boring affair and nowhere near worthy of a game of the year nomination, let alone a winner (or was 2004 just that bad a year for gaming???). If anything, it's a very nice tech demo, but that's about all that can be said for it. Anyone care to explain what I've managed to overlook or where my criticisms are incorrect? After all, as game of the year it does deserve some chance of a rebuttal.
EDIT: Here's my responses in a later post that most people won't notice so copying to here:
First, I WANT to like this game, I really do. I can see the potential for greatness it had. But having said that, these issues do exist and I'm trying to find out what I'm missing that others apparently are not that make up for them.
To reply to what I've seen so far:
- I'm playing through on normal mode which is default - the game and enemy intelligence that the developers deem the standard experience for players.
- The vehicles sections are overly long or need more action and this is combined with handling that seems akin to someone with bald tires trying to drive over ice. Surely one of the playtesters should have picked up on this?
- Concerning a sequel following on from the original. Yes, it's true that seeing/reading/playing the first should give you a more in depth understanding overall, but have a look at how say The Godfather Part 2 / Aliens / Terminator 2 deals with the matter. All I'm saying is a more contained story would have been better for a game released 6 years after the first (and was never originally conceived as having a sequel), like how Resistance 2 or Gears of War 2 have approached things (you can play the games without needing to have finished the first, even though the first versions contribute to further enjoyment of the second). And Lord of the Rings does NOT have a sequel - it's one story in three parts and was always conceived and written as such.
- 2 seconds pause: slight over-exaggeration but makes the point, there shouldn't be long enough a time to notice.
- Gravity gun and windows: the particular instance was a section where the glass was unbreakable and the set piece required me to throw a grenade through a doorway to knock out a cable plug when the grav gun had worked fine on others.
- Linear levels: This is probably noticed more from the lack of set pieces and boredom on some levels, and was more noticeable than other games I've played
Yes, there are good points for the game. The graphics are great, the physics for the most part are terrific, and the bigger set pieces are great fun. Yet I've just found too much wanting and boring for something so highly regarded from a developer I think is great (Portal and Left 4 Dead) that I'm quite shocked and confused by what happened with HL2.