Poll: Challenging Half-Life's Praises

[Savagezion]

After hearing all the buzz, I checked it out around 2005. I got bored during it. I am not a big FPS guy though, so there is that. I do like the idea of how it tells the story, but it just isn't my cup of tea.
As such, to me, it gets more praise than it deserves. I don't find the story that great, just the way it is told is cool. I don't care for the genre. It is a good quality game, but I can't seem to care enough to play for longer than a few hours before I just don't play anymore.

 

[XMark]

The thing to remember is that before Half-life, games typically didn't integrate realtime gameplay with storytelling, at least not to the extent that Half-life did. It was usually cutscene, gameplay, cutscene, gameplay. Half-life was like, screw that. The gameplay IS the cutscenes!

Half-life 2 continued that trend but with much improved voice acting and much more impressive scripted sequences, and the introduction of the Havoc physics engine which was also a really new and special thing at the time.

Of course now most FPS games have realistic physics, and realtime semi-interactive scripted sequences are the rule rather than the exception, so someone who didn't play FPS games before the Modern Warfare days might not realize what it was about Half-life 1 and 2 that made them special at the time.

In fact, the whole "keep in control of your character while scripted sequences happen" thing is even starting to get old at this point. I see lots of complaints about games being linear corridors full of scripted sequences whereas just a few years ago that sort of thing would be praised as a revolution in game storytelling. I wonder what the next evolution in game storytelling will be? Certainly something less scripted and more emergent.

 

[Lilani]

Oh look, another one. Join the club mate, they have t-shirts.

All I can be bothered saying here is that I never played HL2 until early 2010 and I still found it to be awesome. It "held up" and then some.

I'm with you on this one. I didn't play HL2 until this last fall and I thought it was as great as they say. But hey, it's not everybody's cup of tea, and that is just fine. That's no skin off my back. They can go on to play whatever they want and I'll sit back and marvel at Valve's attention and dedication to detail, aesthetics, playability, and pace.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

I've never been compelled to complete it.
And for me that is something, usually even with bad games that im not enjoying i still feel the need to complete them.. but with Half Life i couldn't, i even went back to it multiple times but each time i'd get bored.

It was just encounter after encounter after encounter.. basically 'sorry but the princess is in another castle!'.. except i wasnt even chasing a princess.

Some parts were really fun while alot of it i was kind of bored with... so i definatly think it gets too much praise.

 

[Vigormortis]

Oh look, another one. Join the club mate, they have t-shirts.

All I can be bothered saying here is that I never played HL2 until early 2010 and I still found it to be awesome. It "held up" and then some.

Pretty much my thoughts. Another week, another "Valve sucks/Half-Life sucks. Why do you people love them/it so much?!" thread.

Christ people, we GET IT. You don't like a game a lot of us do. That's fine. But for God's sake, it came out EIGHT YEARS AGO! We've moved on. Even the fans have. Why can't the "haters"? It baffles me.

It's the equivalent of comparing Half-Life 2 to Doom 2. Each release roughly a decade apart. And then asking, "Why did anyone praise or enjoy Doom 2? It's so mediocre comparatively speaking to Half-Life 2."

Well no shit. Imagine that. But I guess in a "in a vacuum" type of flawed logic, completely ignoring time-scales and perspectives, it makes sense.

The biggest irony here, especially in light of so many detractors CONSTANTLY whining about people praising Half-Life, is that these same detractors are the only ones who keep...bloody...bringing the game up.

Did it occur to you people that maybe, just maybe, if you didn't create a thread a week about how much you hate Half-Life, that then maybe no one would be talking about it? Crazy idea, I know. But hey, let's give it a shot. M'kay?

 

[Pinkamena]

I find it interesting how different peoples opinions are on this game. I think it's a brilliant game.

 

[Woodsey]

No idea about your example, but it sounds pretty much exactly like what Half-Life 2 is all about. The things are often subtle, and it's often just abstract stylized and emotional flow, but that's how the narrative works.

In this sense, it's actually got a lot in common with Halo 1, I think, though the particulars are carried out very differently. If you're looking for a plot that's interesting in and of itself, you're in the wrong place. Everything works to create an effective overall narrative flow.

Thing is though, it is praised for its compelling story and plot. About how it is so 'deep' even though Duke Nukem had the same basic story (Though without the whole 'mute' main character)

"Basic story" is almost completely irrelevant. Nuance, tone, setting, and character build a story, templates do not. Trying to make that comparison is just... nothing. Its nothing.

Oh look, another one. Join the club mate, they have t-shirts.

All I can be bothered saying here is that I never played HL2 until early 2010 and I still found it to be awesome. It "held up" and then some.

Ah, but did you force criticisms from today upon it as if it were a new release? That, of course, is the only logical way to judge it!

Thing is though, it is praised for its compelling story and plot. About how it is so 'deep' even though Duke Nukem had the same basic story (Though without the whole 'mute' main character)

I think this is a result of word confusion more than anything else. I do think that Half-Life 2 has compelling storytelling, but I wouldn't attribute it to the plot being good in and of itself. Perhaps I would call the plot good in that in interacts well with other aspects of the game to create an effective narrative, but that's not quite the same thing.

I think the issue is that people often don't separate the notions of plot, narrative, and storytelling. Perhaps some people do think that Half-Life 2's plot is interesting in and of itself, but I wouldn't be surprised if many simply don't know how to articulate themselves in strict language.

You might argue, however, that the game's use of the three makes it necessary to adjust the definitions of the three to match it. The game's 'spoken' plot is basic because it has the ability to put it into the background. Mystery is woven into the environment.

If games are going to dab their dicks into their pot of full potential then we may have to look at the elements they use in a different way to when we look at film or books. I don't know if its necessarily fair to criticise a game's story for being lacking when it can - and does - make up for it far more fully in its use of narrative.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Many are going to complain of the lack of HL:1 References in here, but their aren't many things I could say besides, walk down grey corridor and shoot marines, Throwing in a water section, and a part where you have to ride a cart, while shooting marines.

I think the problem is that you are late to the party to the tune of eight and fourteen years respectively.

To properly understand why Half Life and 2 blew so many minds, you have to put in the context that it's taken everyone else the thick end of a decade to make it's standards the average. Which is more a damning indictment of everyone else than Valve.

 

[Frostwhisper21]

The only really boring parts, to me, were the very beginning and near the end in the guided tour. The last "boss" was a bit meh, too, though the super gravity gun made up for that...

I understand both had to do with storytelling, but the rest of the game was pretty much non-stop action, and the game did mix it up somewhat at least (admittedly, the jetboat sequence was very floaty and bad).

For the time it came out, yeah it was amazing. Looking back? It's probably not going to hold up very well.

And at least we got L4D and TF2 out of the engine

 

[necromanzer52]

I played all the half life games on the orange box in 2009 and found them very "meh".

I played the original half-life in 2011, and found it awesome. Make of that, what you will.

 

[joe-h2o]

This sounds a lot like the "Jerry Seinfeld is not funny" trope.

In other words, calling out Seinfeld for cliches that are are old and tired, not realising that the show is so old it was the one to introduce many of them in the first place.

 

[castlewise]

I think half life holds up, just like I think in 10 years portal will still hold up. But I don't think you can discuss either of those games without also taking into account how innovative they were *at the time they were published*.

(Off topic rant: That's why I don't think HL3 will ever come out. The formula is stale now, and I don't think Valve will release a game "that would have been good 5-10 years ago.")

 

[AdmiralMemo]

This sounds a lot like the "Jerry Seinfeld is not funny" trope.

In other words, calling out Seinfeld for cliches that are are old and tired, not realising that the show is so old it was the one to introduce many of them in the first place.

QFT

This is exactly the problem. Half Life 2 is an average game now, only because it redefined gaming at the time it came out, and everyone jumped onto these amazing new things it introduced.

 

[weker]

HL2 in is certainly not the 10/10 game that some people feel it still is, however it still is doing things with it's gameplay which modern games still seem not to grasp.

 

[AdmiralMemo]

Off topic rant: That's why I don't think HL3 will ever come out. The formula is stale now, and I don't think Valve will release a game "that would have been good 5-10 years ago."

This is why Half Life 2: Episode 3 isn't coming out. They're making a Half Life 3, but I'm pretty sure their plan is to be as revolutionary to gaming as the first and second games were. The story-line will continue, but with completely new engines, etc.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

And again someone expects a game that was released eight years ago to hold up by modern standards. It was good for its time. If you play it with that in mind, you will enjoy it more than jumping into it expecting the end all game.

 

[MSfire012]

"Of course now most FPS games have realistic physics, and real time semi-interactive scripted sequences are the rule rather than the exception, so someone who didn't play FPS games before the Modern Warfare days might not realize what it was about Half-life 1 and 2 that made them special at the time"

I disagree. I played Modern Warfare before playing Half life 2, and I found Half Life 2 better in every way. I think the story is lot better than 90% of FPS (The only FPS with better story than half life 2 are portal 1 and 2, Bioshock and System Shock 2) sure the story itself isn't all that great (with the exception of G-man), but the way the story is told and its characters are so interesting you end up forgetting this detail. Half life 2 may not have the best physics system ever made, but in half life 2 you actually use the physics for something. I prefer the set pieces and vehicle sections in Half life 2 over the ones in any game today, because they don't take control away from you or turn it into a on rail section. The environments and the art direction are hundreds of times better than the brown and gray realism of today. And the gameplay is just excellent; there is no denial on that.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Half Life and Half Life 2 are still great.
I play them shits all the time. I love them.
I think the cure to this is manning the fuck up. You have an opinion, its just a valuable as my so don't act like it's better.

 

[The Virgo]

I played all the half life games on the orange box in 2009 and found them very "meh".

I played the original half-life in 2011, and found it awesome. Make of that, what you will.

The original Half-Life sucked so much ass it wasn't even funny. I had to force myself to beat the game. And it was so padded, thinking about it makes me want to get carpal-tunnel syndrome.

*Sigh* ... Sorry about that. Just I find it incomprehensible that you would think the first Half-Life, which didn't even really have a story other than "Go to the surface, fight soldiers, go back under the surface, now go back up to the top, fight for 20 hours then go to Xen and fight for several more hours until you drool" while Half-Life 2 had some kind of flow and always introduced something different. Yeah, you spent about 8 levels using the airboat, but that was broke up now and again for puzzles or (if you felt like it) a little exploration. I enjoyed it when I got it back in 2007 and I still enjoy it today.

Oh well, to each his own.

This sounds a lot like the "Jerry Seinfeld is not funny" trope.

In other words, calling out Seinfeld for cliches that are are old and tired, not realising that the show is so old it was the one to introduce many of them in the first place.

Yes! That's exactly it. That's like looking at DOOM 1 and saying that it's not very good. Or looking at PONG and saying it's too simple. If it wasn't for PONG, regardless of how simple it is, we might not have videogames. Yahtzee might be reviewing Books!

And besides, what DOES stand the test of time? Even the pyramids are dusty and worn out. I for one still enjoy Half-Life 2 after over three years since I first played it, but someone twenty years from now playing Call of Duty 13 will think Half-Life 2 was terrible. And then I will see if I can find a cryogenics place to freeze me for 100 years or until there are no more Call of Duty games! DX

 

[ElPatron]

I had sudden flash-backs to critics calling out games for dull, military-issue guns.

Military issue guns are the best guns to use in games.

The weapons in UT were supposed to be military issue.