Half-Life 2 Please Explain

[silasbufu]

I do not get what everyone thinks is so good about this game, it seems like a run of the mill shooter with a plot that while well written, holds no relevance to the first.

Note: I am not a troll, I seek legitimate enlightenment.

I remember when I saw someone playing Oblivion on a very good PC the time it came out. I had never seen such amazing graphics in such a vast world at the time, to cut it short, my mind was blown. Same thing with HL2 and a shitload of other revolutionary games, you just can't get it now. It's still a good game , I'm sure you'll agree, but I think I got you the explanation for why it did not "wow!" you.

 

[Tynermeister]

You either got the "joke" or you will be looking at a meaningless set of words, if you didn't feel the setting, story and characters then it will probably look "run of the mill" shooter... only Valve found this amazing book called Colors That Are Not Brown.

I lol'd so hard at this.

They apparently found the book How To Make A Game Without Resorting To Cutscenes And Dickhead Protagonists too . . .

 

[gellert1984]

But when is the Combine at all mentioned in the first, despite in the second apparently being this horrible omni-dimensional empire of infinite terror? What does his action in xen really do? How the hell did the combine find out about earth?

According to various quotes from valve employees, Zen's population were refugee's from various worlds that had been conquered by the combine. From this we can assume that either the combine were in an extended war on Zen, or were watching the border dimension very closely. When the events of HL1's 'unforeseen consequences' chapter kicks off, Nihilanth, as defacto dictator of Zen invades Earth searching for resources. When Freeman kills Nihilanth the Combines last known substantial threat is removed and invades Zen, and by extension Earth. Zens fate is as yet unknown.

A lot of information was rewritten post HL, basically valve didnt realise that they'd written someting with the potential to be a sci-fi epic, until people started asking what the real threat is (some people made the leap that all those different aliens working together on Zen had to be an alliance of some kind). There's still no answer as to who and what the G-Man really is, there will probably never be a genuine good definition for him.

http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page for quotes, timeline and other HL related factoids

 

[Vibhor]

I do not get what everyone thinks is so good about this game, it seems like a run of the mill shooter with a plot that while well written, holds no relevance to the first.

Note: I am not a troll, I seek legitimate enlightenment.

Run of the mill shooter!?
What kind of creature are you!?
The shooting was the lamest thing about the game and you call it a shooter!?
Nay, ye shall not experience it as a shooter but as an action adventure.
But seriously,I do not know which world you live in where every FPS game is as good as half life 2.
And if you were paying attention when the game was released it had the most advanced technologies of its time.

 

[Popido]

Its a thinking mans game. Its bland if you dont think.

...
Without considering its influence to gaming. Havoc and illusion of freedom. Which is also handled as a story element.

 

[NLS]

Look at other "run of the mill" fps games from 2004, and you'll notice it's far better.

 

[Littaly]

I do not get what everyone thinks is so good about this game, it seems like a run of the mill shooter with a plot that while well written, holds no relevance to the first.

Note: I am not a troll, I seek legitimate enlightenment.

For me, mostly pacing pacing pacing.

Half-Life 2 is masterful at mixing up things so often that you never feel that the game becomes repetitive or boring.

There is always a new gameplay-element, story-element or a new weapon/enviroment just around the corner. And all of these work excellent (or, at worst, really well) and are fun, in my opinion (yes, even the vehicles)

*nods*

The level design is superb. It gets things right that most games don't even think of.

It never pulls the same trick twice, it never goes through the motions. Every encounter is carefully planned and thought out, and no single part of the game feels rushed or cheap. And instead of relying on big, flashy action set pieces to impress the player, it focuses on utilizing the basic elements of running, shooting and moving things around to the fullest. It's a game that's impressive, not just because the technology is impressive, but because of the way it was put to use throughout the entire game, both in the details and the big picture.

It also manages to avoid the gimmick trap with it's gravity gun. It's easy to just put it in there and assume people are going to be so impressed by it that just having it there will be enough. But instead they put it to good use throughout the entire game and manage to craft some of the best puzzles in an action game.

(I played the game for the first time roughly half a year ago)

 

[gibboss28]

It is only "run of the mill" because so many aspects of the game were adopted by later titles. Did this really require a thread just because you played a game 7 years late?
Well, I hate to say it, but in the end it's really one of those "you had to be there" kinda things. A few others here have tried to explain how good it was for its time, but really there is no subsitute for having been a gamer at the time, picking up a copy of HL2 and having your mind blown.

A fantastic example of stupid, elitist, bs. Some of us can play a game even years later and still see the brilliance created. I just recently found Fallout and 2 (just hadn't bothered before, then got on gog.) I didn't "have to be there" and neither did anyone else. Those just rocked. Half-Life was a good FPS, of which there were several under dev in 2004. HL just beat most to market and WAS good. I felt that then and I do now. But IF I had found HL now, I would agree with the OP. Good, but not genre re-defining.

That's hardly elitist

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Why does this keep coming up? Honestly, I don't get it.
I played the game not one year ago and was blown away by it. It's damn well produced, better than most out these days, by far.
The pacing never lets up, it dives from strength to strength, it's written well, which is a plus point for anything. and yes, takes advantage of the fact that it is a game, no cutscenes.
It provided a unique atmosphere, even now. It was a great setting, still is. And it isn't freaking four hours long.
It's a great game, expertly designed. Sure it's dated and the physics may seem like a bit of a gimmick, it still does more than so many games out there.

 

[WelshDanny]

The gravity gun is amazing. The world is well made and the characters are extremely believable, even touching. I hope when Half Life 3 eventually comes out it sticks to what Half Life 2 does with a long, well written single player campaign. In fact, screw multiplayer all together when it comes to the next Half Life.

It may be almost 7 years old now, but Half Life 2 is still seen as massively influence by Game Developers. Recently, the Killzone team said it's an influence for them: http://tinyurl.com/69v8uh7

 

[Jatyu]

You know what I think makes Half Life 2 amazing?

Variety.

Half Life 2 constantly changed the gameplay. You started with nothing, running from the metrocops, then you got your crowbar. You still ran, but were required to clear obstacles and dodge bullets. For a shooter, you don't even get a gun untill you've been playing for 10-20 minutes.

Then you have the airboat, then the gravity gun and ravenholme. You've got the car and the part where you have to stay off the sand. Then theres the antlions, the jail, the turrets, the squads, the super gravity gun and more. The game constantly changed something that few games today can claim.

I only play Half Life 2 in 2009 I think. It was a great experiance. I replayed it last month and still felt it was a fantastic game. You say that it is bland and generic, and other games have taken its ideas, but few have improved or even matched them.

Half Life 2 was a fantastic game when it came out, and still holds up today.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

From personal experience, it's a pretty good run-and-gun shooter, with a well written plot.

However, I must laugh at anyone who says it's "the thinking man's shooter". Yeah, fine, the gravity gun can do some cool stuff, but really, most of the game is just run and shoot, use reflexes, and blow up any nearby exploding barrels.

Now, BIOSHOCK is a thinking man's shooter, since they give you so many options to deal with any number of enemy encounters, many of them smart (make big daddies fight each other, etc)

 

[Zaik]

You've already played games that have re-used ideas Half-Life 2 brought about.

It's like playing the 3rd game in a trilogy before the first, the first one just doesn't seem all that important anymore.

 

[Kris015]

with a plot that while well written, holds no relevance to the first.

Well ain't that a kick in the face. No relevance? >.> Besides Freeman caused the dimensional rips that led to the combine and such to exploit them and take over earth, and that most of the black mesa crew holds quite important positions in the resistance and with the combine. The entire game was caused by Freeman in the first HL, and now it's like he's cleaning up his mess. Even if he's contracted by G-man to do so. Since canonically he accepted his job offer at the end of HL1.

...Absolutely nooooo relevance at all though.

^What I would have said, if I were better at formulating.. stuff.

 

[Weaver]

It is only "run of the mill" because so many aspects of the game were adopted by later titles. Did this really require a thread just because you played a game 7 years late?

Maybe not, but everywhere i go i still see people touting it as some cultural masterpiece that will never be trumped. I simply wanted to know why from people who do. (Seemed a better use of time that posting in the 4 billion gamer girl treads)

This exact thread is made like once a week.

 

[Dys]

It leaped technology forward much in the same way crysis did, and it also had notably better than average gameplay than other games of the time....again much like crysis.

But, where crysis failed with a relatively unloved developer and a much hated publisher, half life 2 excelled with it's universally loved developer valvue who barely even shat on consumer rights with the whole steam system. I suppose, ultimately, it was one of few good games at the time, and people so feverently loved the first that anything more than a 'mediocre' game was going to be exceptionally well received, success breeds success and such.

Oh, and I suppose the game sloped better, it never became repetitive (well, maybe a little, but not hugely) and it didn't get retarded (no silly aliens). But yes, it is hugely overrated.

 

[Echo136]

It is only "run of the mill" because so many aspects of the game were adopted by later titles. Did this really require a thread just because you played a game 7 years late?

Maybe not, but everywhere i go i still see people touting it as some cultural masterpiece that will never be trumped. I simply wanted to know why from people who do. (Seemed a better use of time that posting in the 4 billion gamer girl treads)

In the same respect, Halo 1 is a piece of crap by today's standards, and yet people still concider it a great game, or the original Fallout 1 and 2 games, which I myself consider a waste of time. Gotta put yourself in the perspective of people who played it when it first came out. When Half-Life 1 first came out, it was indeed a masterpiece. The AI was praised because nobody had never seen NPCs act so well in a shooter. Yet if you look at it today, its a piece of shit. Then fast forward to 2004 and Half-Life 2 did it again by adding physics and physics based puzzles, as well as deep story telling done with little dialogue necessary. Its overdone nowadays but you gotta give credit for what did it well as an early adopter.

 

[run_forrest_run]

In order to find the enlightenment you seek you must somehow transport yourself back in time to 2004 when the game was new. Most of the exciting new things the game did have since been done in many other games thus making the impact of the game virtually non-existant.

I would point out that this is always the answer to any question of the form "Why do people love this game that came out years ago" when asked by someone who only recently played the game.

I don't agree with this. I played the first Half-Life last year after having played dozens of other shooters and I still thought it was excellent. Same for Super Mario 64. On that note I hate Half-Life 2 due to lack of atmosphere, enemy variety and the fact that you spend the first level running away from enemies and the second level driving a boat in what may just be the worst vehicle section of all time.