Poll: Challenging Half-Life's Praises

[Skin]

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.

HL2 did not redefine anything. That was it's predecessor. No one wanted to make games like HL2...

It was fun when I played it, but I can never see myself marching through tiny corridor after tiny corridor for its piss poor story again.

 

[Swifty714]

You had some good points here, but it seemed like you were wearing rose-tinted glasses that were 12 inches thick!

2. The vehicle sections were hardly the samey vehicle sections that come shipped with every FPS these days.
*It let you drive and shoot at the same time, something which I haven't seen since Halo, and it did it in first person.
*There was total freedom, no linear pathways, no invisible walls, nobody to tell you where to go, just you, the open road, and a couple thousand antlions and zombies to shoot.
*The pit stops to clear road blocks were, in my book, a big plus. It wasn't just shooting guys to get them out of the way like in halo or COD, there was always an objective, and it was always exciting. Either hunt down some batteries to get something working again, or tiptoe across a dilapidated bridge. Not to mention, this is an excellent example of pacing out the driving sections between the rest of gameplay.
*Sit there and tell me that the vehicle section in EP2 wasn't one of the best ever. Besides Alyx being annoying.

This argument was a bit of a stretch.

*The last game I saw IN single-player that would let you drive and shoot at the last time was...Battlefield 3...which was only released a month ago.
* This was complete rubbish. The very constricting sewage tubes and waterways of Water Hazard?The level which the Dune bugger (Highway 21? something along the lines) was very linear. All you did was follow the road, and get out to blast a road block every now and then. Even the "Expansive" beachhead was just an illusion of depth. Sure the beach was large, but it was just empty.

3.I wouldn't call that an overused story, halo used something similar, unless you count the story as just having aliens in it halo is really the only one. Also, you do realize that half-life did it first right? Thats like saying that Elvis was unoriginal just because he did rock, sure a couple did it before him, but without a doubt he did it best. The story is delivered very well, and half life gets big points because it can do that without interrupting gameplay, and even more, weaving the gameplay in with the story.

I had trouble reading this portion. You claim that half-life was the first to use the idea of aliens invading earth (I don't have to say that's wrong) and then turn around and start a rant about NOT being first.

4.The plain, military weapons, were part of the aesthetic, plus, the focus of half-life isn't the guns themselves, like say battlefield. They were plain, simple, and got the job don- well, except the crowbar, haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Oh and the crossbow was original, not to mention the bugbait and- wait a minute? You think the gravity gun was un-original? PLEASE tell me the last game you played, that had physics, and gave you a tool to mess around with the physics, THAT WAS ACTUALLY FUN. I'm not going even to ask you to tell me that sawing zombies in half with that thing isn't fun, because you can't.

A crowbar is hardly worth praising. It's just a stick with a handle. As for the graivty gun...not all that great. It was a cool concept, though besides a few simple puzzles, and the ability to throw wooden crates made from balsa wood at things, really didn't take advantage of the untapped ability. Hell, Gary's mod made a batter use of it.

And slicing zombies in half got boring after the first two.

 

[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.

 

[Swifty714]

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.

 

[Phlakes]

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.

 

[brainslurper]

The first game was good for its time, but quickly surpassed by the mission pack.

The second game is ass. It had its fun moments but in general, just bad.

I seriously can't fathom how anyone can think HL2 EP2 is a good game. It came out in the same year as Crysis for fucks sake. Seriously. Just look at EP2's end fight. What is this, 1997? (And BTW EP1 is even worse.)

On the other hand, with the shit that is coming out lately, such as MW3, I can almost understand how HL2 'holds up' today.

Not sure if troll... Or actually considering modern warfare 3 to be representative of the advancement of the games industry over 10 years...

 

[Bostur]

I thought the first Half-Life was very innovative and an extraordinary game at the time it was released. In comparison HL2 was a bit of a dissappointment for me, being long-winded without adding much to the concept or the story. Thats usually the case for sequels though. The two episodes work better in my opinion.

Of course the games will feel old by now. Shooters have had enormous attention throughout the 2000's, and have refined concepts that were introduced by the first HL among others. Although I still think the HL games are some of the best at storytelling without cutscenes. The Portal games take it a bit further but it is pretty much a Valve specialty.

Both HL and HL2 can compete with many games developed much later, and kicked the butt of their contemporaries like Quake 2 for instance.

 

[davros3000]

I played Half Life when it came out. Go play Unreal 1 and Quake 2 to see where the game market was then for FPS, and those were two of the best fps' going at the time. Until Half Life went big online Quake 2 was THE game for PC multiplayer. After that, then you can go and play Half Life, aware of what it was for the gaming community then. It was 1998. It pre-dated System Shock 2 and Deus Ex. Its should be held up next to the games of the time; Banjo Kazooie, Resident Evil 2, and something good on the Dreamcast (was there anything good for its release?).

Half Life 1 looks bad now because gaming moved on, in particular thanks to that game. You ever enjoyed a pre-scripted moment in a fps over the past decade. Well you can thank Half Life for that gem. This is like complaining that Marie Curie's work on radiation doesn't stack up to what modern science can do now. Half Life came out when announcing a 3D game was still a big deal.

Considering its 14 years old, maybe games should've moved on more.

 

[Dogstile]

Well, my complaints are simple and bear in mind I did play half life when it came out, its not like everyone told me it would be great and I was let down.

The gunplay was shit. Seriously, hitting an enemy should have an effect on them. Being hit with a shotgun should actually make you recoil. Shit, its not like this was a new idea back then, even motherfucking Halo got that right. I mean come on guys.

Aside from the gravity gun, I was bored shitless when it came to my options. I was either blowing up conveniently placed barrels or just using the smg all the time. There wasn't really much reason to use anything else except the smg, the lolcannon revolver or the rocket launcher. To be fair, that's a problem we still get in games today, but it makes me twitch still.

Nobody goes to ravenholme you say? I'll prepare for a trip later. Cliché's annoy me. Hell, that big ass tower? Another cliché that annoys the hell out of me. Story? Cliché as all hell and is pretty much a geek power fantasy. Being a geek that shouldn't really annoy me as much as it does but I think the praise gets to me.

The vehicle sections were frustrating or boring. They were never fun. This is again something that halo managed to get right. I hope you guys realise that i'm using that game in a sense of halo isn't actually brilliant and for it to achieve something better than Valves golden game is quite eye opening. Hell, if we're gonna go into stuff that even halo did better (at two dimensional characters, as neither game had many three dimensional ones) ...

The characters. Aside from Alyx Vance who gets props for being an actual person and not a sex object, did you really like any of the characters? And hell, they're still implying the whole relationship building with her, which is hilarious considering freeman never shows any affection and is a mute. NPC characters didn't really sound all that genuine either, not having memorable lines.

The scripting? Arrrgggghhhh! I've walked into a sewer, you guys just dropped off about twenty troops to try and stop me, is there any reason you're not coming in while I do this see-saw? That could have been fixed by spawning in one, maybe two enemy's shooting into the sewer as you do it, really quite simple and it was the first question I asked on my first playthrough.

I should leave it there, but the enemy's are also pretty damn stupid. They can navigate obstacles? Whoo! They still pretty much ignore grenades and decent cover.

-------------------------------------- This bit really isn't about the game, so its separated

Finally, the fans. No offense, but you guys need to stop blowing off valid criticism with "you're holding it up to today's standards". Its gotten to the point where i've had to start my posts telling you guys I played it as it came out just to try and get you guys to listen. Or i'll get told to make something better if I know so much more than the developers. Please, refrain from that. I've gone out of my way to try and make this post less offensive, this paragraph is pushing it but it pretty much needs to be said to avoid the message storm of people telling me the same thing over and over again.

This is where I also get called a troll and most people leave the post feeling pretty happy with themselves. Please, if you're gonna do that, can you do it mentally? Cheers!

--------------------------------------------

With all that said, what it gets right is the storytelling if you look at it on a minimal level and not as an overarching thing. Places actually felt like places in a real world. Encounters that I had for the first time, such as the bombing of an area with facehugger bombs (headcrabs? pah, he's hugging my face because it sounds cuter)? These all felt pretty damn cool compared to scenes in other games where they tried (and failed) to create the same sense of hopelessness in the same situations.

In other games I was just like "cool, i'll get out of this with ease" (timeshift, anyone? Even though I have a soft spot for that game) but it actually seemed like a power struggle in Half Life. That's the merits it should be held up on because that's it's strong point. The rest of the game, however? Really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And you know what? That's ok, it really is. Half Life is a game with many weaknesses. Its strength lays in its ability to make a situation believable. Valve are really good at making a scenario and having you dive right in as if the fight meant something (defending the lighthouse with the rockets from the ship...alien...thing comes to mind).

I agree with the OP, so fire away guys, i'll respond to actual discussion happily

Edit: And if anyone's curious, I voted for the second option.

 

[Swifty714]

I played Half Life when it came out. Go play Unreal 1 and Quake 2 to see where the game market was then for FPS, and those were two of the best fps' going at the time. Until Half Life went big online Quake 2 was THE game for PC multiplayer. After that, then you can go and play Half Life, aware of what it was for the gaming community then. It was 1998. It pre-dated System Shock 2 and Deus Ex. Its should be held up next to the games of the time; Banjo Kazooie, Resident Evil 2, and something good on the Dreamcast (was there anything good for its release?).

Half Life 1 looks bad now because gaming moved on, in particular thanks to that game. You ever enjoyed a pre-scripted moment in a fps over the past decade. Well you can thank Half Life for that gem. This is like complaining that Marie Curie's work on radiation doesn't stack up to what modern science can do now. Half Life came out when announcing a 3D game was still a big deal.

Considering its 14 years old, maybe games should've moved on more.

But here is the golden question:

Why do critics still insist on comparing games from today, if games have progressed so far? Based on your logic?

(I'm not saying this is an aggressive way, it is just an question based on your opinion)

 

[SkySonata]

Yes because it utterly shames all FPS i play in modern times.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I just recently played all of the Half Life games, and I liked them. I don't consider them the most revolutionary games ever to be crafted by man, but they were good. I probably couldn't play though any of them a second time though.

 

[DarkRyter]

I haven't played it yet, but I have heard good things about it.

 

[PureIrony]

I just finished half-life 2 this weekend and I have to say I was pretty impressed. The driving section is scripted very well and it really helped up the ante after what I considered a somewhat weak opening.

The levels had an amazing amount of polish to them-nothing in that game felt half-assed, and it always finds a way to make every sequence feel fresh.

Except the physics and jumping puzzles. Those kind of suck.

 

[Sylveria]

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?

 

[brainslurper]

Not sure if troll... Or actually considering modern warfare 3 to be representative of the advancement of the games industry over 10 years...

Unfortunately MW3 and similar games are representative of the shooters of today. And as such, yes, HL2 holds up well today, better than it did in 2004. Heck, Duke Nukem Forever holds up today better than it would in 2004. That doesn't make HL2 or DNF good games, it's just that everything else coming out is shit.

Wow, you clearly have no understanding of game mechanics whatsoever. The source engine as of when half life 2 was released is mechanically more advanced then Modern Warfare 3 is, but that doesn't mean it holds up better than it did in 2004. Today there are games like battlefield 3, that absolutely blow anything from 2004 out of the water. Half life 2 holds up better now than most games did that came out in 2004, but it doesn't compare to the high end games we have today. You also seem to have the common feeling that everything that is coming out today is somehow worse then what we had a couple years ago. That is nostalgia. The games industry has evolved incredibly far from where it was in 2004, almost all for the better. Technology has gotten better, as has optimization of existing technology. Storytelling has gone farther then it ever has, creating some of the most immersive games we have ever seen.

 

[Aprilgold]

WARNING! WARNING! WALL OF TEXT! WARNING! WARNING!

Spoiler

Perhaps it is the current state of Video Games that make it seem less interesting.
Maybe it's changing opinions of "what a game should be", as what was once an amazing idea is now done to death.

Take note of this sentence, it is true. Many, many, many shooters basically ripped off a lot of what made Half Life 2 so ground breaking. And as of only recently beating it in the December of 2011, I can tell you Half Life 2 didn't feel special, but playing through Half Life felt very much awesome.

Mainly, Half Life didn't become as main stream as its predecessor, and as such many didn't follow its example until years later. Half Life didn't have me doing the same thing for 60 or more minutes like Half Life 2, it was non-stop action, many of the puzzles weren't long or brain teasing.

I loved Half Life for its non stop very fast and fluent combat, while hated Half Life 2 because it had you riding a vehicle for at least 25% of the game, shooting for 20% and puzzles for 15%, rest was very boring talking. Half Life always had you moving, aside from the terrible Zen levels, it was good change of pace. I didn't have to listen to a NPC or follow their instructions, hell, does anyone remember killing Barney and him coming back and then killing him again, that was the tits.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Half Life 2 is stale because so many FPS's copied it, making it not as special, while Half Life was copied, but hasn't since then, so it was completely refreshing.

Why do critics still insist on comparing games from today, if games have progressed so far? Based on your logic?

Sorry but I just have to throw my Opinion in here. Nostalgia, because it actually lets the player do shit is my favorite reason. It isn't walking down a corridor that is very long and boring with a NPC standing in the way saying you should do this or that. It just said "theres dudes, you need to turn on this, go kill dudes and turn on this then come back" unlike now in days where you need a 7 hour tutorial explaining this concept.

Half Life 2 is also basically the maker of today's FPS genre, while Half Life was taking large inspiration from something like Quake, it somehow managed to be more fun.

Honestly, how do you top the person that your copying, you can't, can you?

I agree with the OP, so fire away guys, i'll respond to actual discussion happily

Only thing I have to ask. If you could re-edit your post to put a 2 or no 2 at the end depending on which game, because I got massively confused about which one you are talking about, other then that, it seems sound, that was basically my response to the second Half life.

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.

If that's true, then I, (not a big fan of the series) will give the series one last chance to wow me...if it's on the 360 that is which I kinda doubt, VALVE seems to hate consoles and in particular XBL. It's a shame because when I bought the game I was honestly trying to enjoy it but it just didn't suck me in, I'm kinda hoping their next release changes that.

AH, the Valve hates Consoles thing again. The problem is that Valve is sorta a hippie, they don't want to be so strictly regulated, and the Xbox is very tight on anything it releases ever. They wouldn't even let TF2 get updated because of some random thing, I can't remember the reasoning exactly but it was it was either to big or not big enough to get released.

The series was good back when they were released, and their basically your grandad, without them, you probably wouldn't be playing the shooters you are now. Theres just a certain amount of respect has to be given, and at least played through once in the mindset of someone who has never played a FPS before.

 

[Akimoto]

It held up enough. However with all games I would like to refer back to Jim's Hate out of Ten video, where gamers and the industry artificially raise the standards and praise so much that the next one just fails to meet the bar. Don't get me wrong though, I loved the first Half Life and pretty much enjoyed the subsequent releases. Like stock markets and movies, I think pouring on praise without looking at the faults not only give a false impression, it also raises the bar at a artificial level, sets up all involved for a fail, possibly denies improvement and keeps critics out of a job.... The last was a joke.

Thank God for Jim.

 

[Hamish Durie]

ill give you the answer that was given to me when i threw up a thread like this
"its like woodstock you had to be there"
personally i agree with you