Poll: Challenging Half-Life's Praises

[thom_cat_]

It's 2012 and you said "ravenhold".

 

[The Last Nomad]

Everyone praises the physics engine, never have I heard anything good said about half-life without the word physics. And yes, this is true, but it generally has no impact on gameplay at all, once I used boxes to climb up an obstacle, but if it doesn't impact the fun, then it really makes no difference to how good a game it is.

It made a huge difference back in 2004.

That's the thing. Way back then, it really did deserve all the praise, but now what it had is basically standard.

Yeah, It is really good, despite many glitches, like things rolling around for no reason, its very impressive, but it didn't really impact play all that much. Once you realise there is a really good physics engine, the few physics based puzzles are really simple. Although I guess it allows for some really great mods, but mods do not make a game good, just enhance it.

EDIT: and if you're judging it by 2004 standards, Max Payne had an amazing Physics engine... 3 years before hand...

 

[The Last Nomad]

I played it for the first time a couple of months ago. And its a good game alright, maybe even a great game, but not for the reasons people seem to praise it for.

first of all, people always use it as an example of genius storytelling expertly mixed with gameplay. No, this is not true. I had no idea what the fuck was going on. Granted, I only ever got to the Ravenholm section, maybe it got explained after that, but that would still have left me with over 5 hours of not knowing what the fuck is going on.

Everyone praises the physics engine, never have I heard anything good said about half-life without the word physics. And yes, this is true, but it generally has no impact on gameplay at all, once I used boxes to climb up an obstacle, but if it doesn't impact the fun, then it really makes no difference to how good a game it is.

I'm way to tired to explain more than that, so quote me if you want me to explain more, tomorro, when I'm not insanely sleep deprived.

These are some things I have addressed in my posts. The physics engine is only good for rag-dolling, stacking things, and doing over the same seesaw puzzle again and again.

I however, would like to hear more of your opinion on the matter.

Now that I'm not insanely sleep deprived, I'll elaborate.
I didn't really read through you're posts, or any other than the OP, because I was to tired to read too much last night, but you seem to be very much in the same mindset as me about Half-Life 2. Good game, but not for the reasons everyone says.
To me it seemed more like a Doom-type game. Simple gameplay, i.e shoot all the motherfuckers you see with pretty linear levels that are quite open, but only really have one way to complete. Obviously it is an improvement over Doom in graphics, physics and a few other things, but not in fun.
It's not the game changer that everyone seems to think it is. All the things that are praised about it are good, but only when you think about then, not when you are actually playing the game.

I did enjoy it, but as I said, I only got to the Ravenholm (or Ravenhold?) section, after that I started playing Portal and thats much better if you ask me. It deserves the praise Half-life seems to get. And then the Xbox 360 controllers started acting up, so I haven't played it since december.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Great game to play, good driving, shooting and graphics etc were good. Head crabs were retarded, like have people with turkeys on their heads running at you. Also there wasnt a story and the character was a blank. But still the game was enjoyable.

 

[varulfic]

Why are all you traitors saying Half-Life 2 doesn't hold up to modern standards? Have you guys tried modern first person shooters? They're a bit shinier maybe, but I'll be damned if any of them can go toe-to-toe with Half-Life 2 in terms of better gameplay. The game kicked ass when it arrived, and it still kicks ass to this day.

The thing I love most about HL2 is how varied it is. The game never gets boring since it constantly switches things up. The fantastic opening where you're chased by the combine through an apartment complex, then some classic run-and-gun gameplay, then the game switches gears as you enter the hovercraft and get chased by a helicopter like something out of a hollywood movie. Then the game switches gears again and become a zombie survival horror game... and even later, the game dabbles in squad-based combat. Most other FPS are pretty one note, but HL2 refuses to be pidgeonholed. It tries its hand on nearly every genre, and it does them all damn well.

What are these "modern standards" you guys are refering to, that HL2 does not live up to?

 

[Triangulon]

I have to start with the fact that HL and HL2 are two of my favourite games. I loved them when they were released and I love them now. I can't really explain exactly why but I have never been let down by them. The innovations they brought in gameplay, AI and graphics, the approach to storytelling. I found myself contantly challenged and excited about the next discovery. One thing stands out for me, where a lot of similar games seem to fall down. That is pacing. Valve seem to have an uncanny knack of varying the pace of the gameplay and story progression, just like a great film director. Many more recent games seem to think that they can get away with a constantly fast-paced (snd much shorter) experience.

I would also point out that I recently replayed Half-life and it is still great. Blast Pit still gives me shivers, I still get a feeling of betrayl when the marines turn on the scientists and I still get pissed off at Zen!

 

[redisforever]

Ok, here's my amazing thought. I had fun. Therefore, good game.

 

[Erttheking]

I tried to play it, and while it was far from horrible, I just couldn't get into it...then again I didn't like Halo CEA either, so maybe it's a sign that video games have moved forward and become more advanced, building off of Half Life's ideas into the more complex things that we see today. I think that the praise it gets is a combination of nostalgia and people thinking that modern games are generic clones, something I highly disagree with, and it gets a pass because it was "first". I still don't get why some people that that it floats head and shoulders above the entire gaming industry though.

Crappy cover systems, regenerating health, 2 gun limits, and even narrower hallways are more complex?

Besides that, this is another "I first played Final Fantasy 7 in 2008" issue. Yeah, the game was the greatest thing since Breaded Jesus in 1997, but if your first exposure to the game was 10 years later, you're not gonna get why it's such a big deal to so many people. Yes, now, compared to the 80000000000000000000000000000 360, PS3, and modern PC shooters that ripped off then dumbed down the good points of HL2 while slapping on some shinny next gen graphics, which let's face it that's all people care about these days, no it is not the glimmering God of games it was in 2004.

But ya know what? There's a lot of people that would go back and play HL2 one more time rather than touch all 700 of "Realistic war shooters" that were released in 2011. How many people are gonna be playing CODBLOPs 8 years from now?

It felt like I was just walking around shooting whatever happened to pop up in my face and it was as dull as it could get, there was no freaking suspense and the puzzels were gimmicky and out of place. I actually feel like I'm actually doing things in more modern games, I find that cover systems actually work pretty well, and I actually like regenerating health, and I don't throw a fit over having to only use two weapons are, because I honestly don't see the problem with that, what is a game ruined if you can't carry an arsenal?...cover systems regenerating health and two guns seems to be a fall back argument against modern games that I simply don't get, I think that it works really well. I think that it's not a very good argument to say that a game is good if it doesn't age well. BTW calm down, I don't like a game that you think is a holy grail, the hell do you care. BTW again, there IS a game with regenerating health narrow hallways and a two gun limit that people continue to play years after it's release. It's called Halo Combat Evolved

 

[hoboman29]

It is a good game but it's not the second coming people make it out to be. It being overrated is a problem to a new player expecting gold. In this context I'm shocked about how much modern games take off it. Still its worth a play.

 

[poppabaggins]

I always thought Half Life 2 was lame. Far Cry came out at the same time and was far superior (even including the disappointing second half).

 

[poppabaggins]

I always thought Half Life 2 was lame. Far Cry came out at the same time and was far superior (even including the disappointing second half).

 

[Korten12]

I played it recently, like last year, or maybe in 2010, and found it merely, okay. I played it with standards of back then and still found it boring. I couldn't care less for most of the characters and found the environments to be dull and the vechile sections horrid.

Plus the lack of enemy variety was bad, but it also didn't feel fun to fight any of them.

I played Halo 1 before it and I didn't even get to play that really until like 2 years ago and found it great. Lot better then HL2.

 

[Korten12]

, there IS a game with regenerating health narrow hallways and a two gun limit that people continue to play years after it's release. It's called Halo Combat Evolved

clearly shows that you never played the game? Narrow Hallways? Yeah for like 3 or 2 levels, and for the most part it had pretty open environments.

Also regen health? Yeah you didn't play Halo: CE because it had medkits.

 

[Savber]

Haha to me... the fact that people are DEBATING over whether Half Life is overrated is a sign of an GREAT game...

 

[repeating integers]

Haha to me... the fact that people are DEBATING over whether Half Life is overrated is a sign of an GREAT game...

Perhaps. After all, a lot of "great works" are divisive.

I do agree with a lot of the criticisms in this thread, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the game overall. Still, portal was better.

 

[Erttheking]

, there IS a game with regenerating health narrow hallways and a two gun limit that people continue to play years after it's release. It's called Halo Combat Evolved

clearly shows that you never played the game? Narrow Hallways? Yeah for like 3 or 2 levels, and for the most part it had pretty open environments.

Also regen health? Yeah you didn't play Halo: CE because it had medkits.

I do recall being forced to walk through tight copy pasted rooms when I was escaping the dawn, rescuing Keyes, trying to find the silent cartographer, facing the flood for the first time and going back to the dawn, all in all, I say somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the game was inside in tight quaters, the other half was wide open but then again I've played other games and they were never 110% hallways if that's what you meant. Yes it had medkits, but I never found them to be particular useful, it was mainly a differance of being able to take one or two extra shots after your shields went down...by the way your shields regenerate, that's what I meant and they were a Hell of a lot more durable.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

For it's time it was good, but with all the copycat shooters out there it now seems dull and lifeless, not the games fault.

 

[Swifty714]

cover systems regenerating health and two guns seems to be a fall back argument against modern games that I simply don't get

This seems to be another big argument for modern games vs Older shooters. Though this is more of an off-topic rant that is for another thread.

 

[Olas]

While Half-Life 2 will never hold up against my all time favorite game, Checkers, it's still way better than most of the muddled FPS' I've seen come out lately. It's clean, fun, never steals control from the player, has some of the best level design I know of, and never required DLC or patches.