Half Life 2

[The Dude]

So, I finally got myself together and decided to give the game another shot. With trance music blasting from my headset, plowing through Ravenholm suddenly wasn't that scary. So, the big leap has been taken and I -finally-, after having owned the game for more than a year now, am progressing further into the story.

Having just made it to the Sandtraps level, I can't help but wonder:

When does it get fun?

Maybe it's the fact that I'm used to more modern shooter gameplay (Call of Duty, Gears of War, Crysis and Halo. All feature regenerating health and a limited weapons selection), but this game just feels... old! Well, not even so much old as just completely lacking innovation. How many more generic Combine soldiers running through eastern European architecture do I have to kill before this goes anywhere?

I was kind of expecting more.

[Ojf]

I feel the same, it's overrated in my eyes, the mods make it a must buy though

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Maybe it's the fact that I'm used to more modern shooter gameplay (Call of Duty, Gears of War, Crysis and Halo. All feature regenerating health and a limited weapons selection), but this game just feels... old! Well, not even so much old as just completely lacking innovation. How many more generic Combine soldiers running through eastern European architecture do I have to kill before this goes anywhere?

I was kind of expecting more.

How is regenerating health and limited weapons fun?

[Admiral Nelson]

How is regenerating health and limited weapons fun?

Indeed.

Also, you're comparing a game that was released in 2004 - which at the time was considered groundbreaking - with games that are much newer.

[The Dude]

How is regenerating health and limited weapons fun?

Regenerating health is fun because it keeps a faster pace. It makes each fight an individual scenario, rather than dragging your failures in a previous encounter over to the next one by forcing you to engage enemies with low HP. In a game like Gears, regenerating health works like a charm especially when playing at highest difficulty settings because it results in gameplay where you can only pop out of cover for the slighest second before getting shot. It's more realistic IMO.

A limited weapon selection is fun because it forces you to make choices. Are you gonna go for the shotgun and the assault rifle? Or the sniper and the shotgun? Maybe the assault rifle and the rocket launcher? Some weapons setups are going to work well in certain scenarios, others not so much. When you find yourself going into a indoor level like a factory or a cave, you might want to ditch that sniper for something more closerange.

Well obviously you're not going to enjoy the game is you're a fan of shooters that are essentially low brow, "how many constantly spawning enemies can I kill in 60 seconds?" titles.

I don't really think they're low brow at all. Out of the four mentioned, only CoD constantly respawns enemies and you'll find that it's actually my main critique of the game.

Also, you're comparing a game that was released in 2004 - which at the time was considered groundbreaking - with games that are much newer.

I understand that Half Life is a lot older than these games, which is why it has previous generation gameplay. But even in the context of 2004 I'm not really sure why it got these hyped reviews. What does it do that's groundbreaking? Vehicles? Operation Flashpoint did that in 2001.

Ah well. It's not like I'm going to stop playing. I feel obliged at the very least to get the most out of this. A friend did say that the game gets better after Sandtraps, so maybe I'll just have to keep at it a bit longer.

[Neb]

Regenerating health is fun because it keeps a faster pace. It makes each fight an individual scenario, rather than dragging your failures in a previous encounter over to the next one by forcing you to engage enemies with low HP. In a game like Gears, regenerating health works like a charm especially when playing at highest difficulty settings because it results in gameplay where you can only pop out of cover for the slighest second before getting shot. It's more realistic IMO.

Regenerating health is horrible. In games with regenerating health, I find myself running out into fire to kill enemies, knowing that I will get hit but suffer not consequences because I can just hide for a second or two mid-battle. As long as you have a cover spot, you can just pop-out absorb damage while you kill... take a breather... then go at it again.

With a health count, you can't take stupid risks.. your health is valuable, because your failures stick with you for a while. Also, situations become more varied in multiple playthroughs. The first time you play the game, you might be at full-health for a certain scene, and take a direct rambo approach. On the next playthrough, you might be low on health and have to take the situation methodically and carefully.

A limited weapon selection is fun because it forces you to make choices. Are you gonna go for the shotgun and the assault rifle? Or the sniper and the shotgun? Maybe the assault rifle and the rocket launcher? Some weapons setups are going to work well in certain scenarios, others not so much. When you find yourself going into a indoor level like a factory or a cave, you might want to ditch that sniper for something more closerange.

There are trade-offs, and I'm not convinced one system is better than the other. On one hand, games where you can only carry say, 3 weapons have the advantage of making the player choose. It also improves replay value if you make different choices in weapons on a second go.

On the other hand, games generally give you a shotgun with plenty of ammo when you go into a cramped level, then you get out of that level and into an open area, it gives you a sniper rifle. It always gives you the right tool for the job anyway... so there isn't really much choice there.

Being able to carry all guns at once also has pros and cons. It's unrealistic, and you generally have more available ammo in total at one time, giving less of an ammo scarcity mechanic to deal with. But it also allows you the freedom of using whatever weapon you want in any situation, as long as your stocked up ammo permits.

I don't really think they're low brow at all. Out of the four mentioned, only CoD constantly respawns enemies and you'll find that it's actually my main critique of the game.

They're low brow because they're simpler. You have fewer weapon choices, and don't have to keep track of health or other nagging variables. That and enemy pacing has to be in large waves in order to threaten your well-being at all. If they came at you in smaller numbers, your health would just regenerate between encounters.

I understand that Half Life is a lot older than these games, which is why it has previous generation gameplay. But even in the context of 2004 I'm not really sure why it got these hyped reviews. What does it do that's groundbreaking? Vehicles? Operation Flashpoint did that in 2001.

That's the issue right there. You're a console gamer playing a PC game. You're thinking in terms of generations of games, and bullet points.

Console games go through waves of generations. One generation will come out where everyone has ragsolls. The next generation it's vehicles that are the big thing. Then its a cover system. There's always one big bullet point that the gameplay revolves around. That bullet point changes every generation.

PC games aren't organized into generations. Sure there are still trends, but the majority of games don't follow them. Don't look for the bullet point that makes it "groundbreaking". If there was one gimmick for HL2, it would be physics. But it's not something that the game hinges on.

-Neb

[D.B. Cooper]

I understand that Half Life is a lot older than these games, which is why it has previous generation gameplay. But even in the context of 2004 I'm not really sure why it got these hyped reviews. What does it do that's groundbreaking? Vehicles? Operation Flashpoint did that in 2001.

It was groundbreaking in 2004 because it had an amazing physics engine, it looked fantastic, and it was still a solid shooter. It's not for everyone I guess, but it's still a great shooter in a well-made environment. There isn't a lot of flash and bang a la COD4 but hell they're different games. The story isn't everyone's cup of tea either, as it's your character just thrust into this situation rather than a set beginning, middle, closing.

And regenerating health does suck. I remember my heart was in my throat on that last level of HL2 Ep2 because I had like 10hp and was racing around the map to kill the striders in time. With your health always coming back no matter what you don't have to be afraid of anything.

[The Dude]

It was groundbreaking in 2004 because it had an amazing physics engine, it looked fantastic, and it was still a solid shooter. It's not for everyone I guess, but it's still a great shooter in a well-made environment. There isn't a lot of flash and bang a la COD4 but hell they're different games. The story isn't everyone's cup of tea either, as it's your character just thrust into this situation rather than a set beginning, middle, closing.

And regenerating health does suck. I remember my heart was in my throat on that last level of HL2 Ep2 because I had like 10hp and was racing around the map to kill the striders in time. With your health always coming back no matter what you don't have to be afraid of anything.

Heh. You're certainly right about the story. I mean, I get the general gist of the story so far. I understand what its all about. But there's no buildup, no anticipating tension. One moment you step in the Nova Prospekt teleporter and then the next moment is "shoop da whoop its a week later, hey there's an uprising going on all of a sudden WHY DON'T YOU HELP OUT 8D".

I'm not really getting the feeling of epicness here xD

[King Edward III]

What does it do that's groundbreaking? Vehicles? Operation Flashpoint did that in 2001.

Tribes 2 had vehicles earlier.

[Norge]

What does it do that's groundbreaking? Vehicles?

lol for randomness. What made you decide on the vehicles?

To answer your question; the obvious groundbreaking part of HL2 was the physics system. It set the standard for all games to come.

[The Dude]

lol for randomness. What made you decide on the vehicles?

Because I couldn't think of anything else. XD And they had made up about 80% of the gameplay for me at the time I wrote that post.

To answer your question; the obvious groundbreaking part of HL2 was the physics system. It set the standard for all games to come.

I suppose so. I just finished the game. Still not entirely sold (and still a bit nauseous, the Source 2 engine does that to me for some reason), but it wasn't exactly bad either. The supercharged gravity gun was fun.

[Renegen]

The game was really polished too, and I really cared about the story. It was an FPS that didn't feel like you were in an arcade, it felt real, it handled well. Presentation was great, total immersion.

[Admiral Nelson]

Because I couldn't think of anything else. XD And they had made up about 80% of the gameplay for me at the time I wrote that post.

I suppose so. I just finished the game. Still not entirely sold (and still a bit nauseous, the Source 2 engine does that to me for some reason), but it wasn't exactly bad either. The supercharged gravity gun was fun.

I agree on both counts. The blue gravity gun is lots of fun.

But the HL2 levels involving the cars really make me nauseous too. I wish I knew why. It's pretty surprising since I never get carsick or airsick.

[VOP2288]

Well obviously you're not going to enjoy the game is you're a fan of shooters that are essentially low brow, "how many constantly spawning enemies can I kill in 60 seconds?" titles.

[VALIS]

Half Life 2 friggin sucks. One of the most dissapointing gaming experiences of my life.

Theres virtually no background story.
There really isn't much of a story at all. You just kind of set out walking to some place for some reason not explained to you, then about 3/4 of the way through Alyx and her dad get kidnapped and then you have to get to the Citadel. Ok, it was obvious thats where the game would end up but upuntil having to save Alyx and her dad you're given no objectives no reasons as to why you're doing what you're doing. You're just doing it. That concept not explaining any overriding objective was easier to explain in HL1 because you were trapped underground in a survior situation where you had no choice to fight. Here, you don't know why your in City 17 in the first place or why your going around to these various locations until later on in the game. This part was executed very poorly.
You don't know why you're there.
The AI is atrocious. (inferior to HL1; a game released in 1998 for christs sake! Thats how bad it was)
The vehicle segments are extremley poor and constricted (miles behind Halo for instance).
The enemy variation is rubbish and boring.
No where near the memorable moments or setpieces of HL1.
The ending game is very poor and far far far too easy.
Terrible terrible bosses compared to HL1. (ignore Nilianth)
The world is boring. Black Mesa felt like a continuous and cojoined enviroment, it actually felt like a place that could exist. City 17 just felt like anothe game enviroment. Mesa felt alive!
The puzzles and enviromental obstacles that made you think are virtually gone.
Combat is far far inferior to HL1
Gunplay is toned down and dull, the weapons don't have the kick that the old HL1 weapons did. Movement speed is significantly slowed down. Much less gore.
Extremley archaic inventory system. Have to cycle to the crowbar to use Melee as opposed to being able to tap a button and use the gun? Very old, obsolete and frustrating. Not being able to throw a grenade from say, the right mouse button? or from a key on the keyboard? No. Have to cycle to a grenade in the inventory and then throw it. Makes combat clunky and much less fun than modern shooters.

And no, no matter how many polygons you put on Alyx Vance or have any facial movements on her I never cared about her at all.

Very dissapointing.

[Arakorn]

Theres virtually no background story.

That's in HL1 I guess. (?)

The ending game is very poor and far far far too easy.

Do you mean the "fighting" in the end, or the storywise ending? If you mean the action, then I agree. If you mean the story, it's a cliffhanger.

Extremley archaic inventory system. Have to cycle to the crowbar to use Melee as opposed to being able to tap a button and use the gun? Very old, obsolete and frustrating. Not being able to throw a grenade from say, the right mouse button? or from a key on the keyboard? No. Have to cycle to a grenade in the inventory and then throw it. Makes combat clunky and much less fun than modern shooters.

But you can use buttons to select weapons. 1 is melee, 2 pistols, 3 rifles etc.

I find having a button to throw a grenade results in me accidentally throwing grenades. Plus, pressing 5, and two times mouse isn't that time consuming.

[VALIS]

That's in HL1 I guess. (?)

Hmmm no, you're there because you're a scientist researching particle physics and the possibility of wormholes. Thats the backround to the story.

Do you mean the "fighting" in the end, or the storywise ending? If you mean the action, then I agree. If you mean the story, it's a cliffhanger.

Yes, the fighting. But cliffhangers suck in games too.

But you can use buttons to select weapons. 1 is melee, 2 pistols, 3 rifles etc.

I didn't say that was a problem. I said I couldn't press a button to automatically throw a grenade or melee, I said you had to cycle through the inventory or press a button to select something that allows you to melee or throw a grenade and then do those actions. Archaic and old fashioned. Acceptable in 1998 but not in 2004 and certainly not in 2008/09.

I find having a button to throw a grenade results in me accidentally throwing grenades.

Thats your problem. I don't really do that. And throwing an extra grenade is better than losing a few seconds in combat that could get you killed.

[Plus, pressing 5, and two times mouse isn't that time consuming.

It's not too drastic but it loses the flow of combat seen in games such as Halo or COD. It tales valuable seconds and generally is frustrating. HL2 combat is archaic, clunky and very obsolete.

[D.B. Cooper]

Hmmm no, you're there because you're a scientist researching particle physics and the possibility of wormholes. Thats the backround to the story.

And HL2 has a solid background too. 10 years after HL1, you're awoken from stasis by the G-Man and it turns out the Earth has been taken over by a hostile alien empire (who used the rift you opened in HL1 to enter Earth), with a small core of resistance. You have to flee state forces and find the resistance, then do whatever you can to help their cause. You're pretty much thrust into the shoes of an outlaw. Your character doesn't have a set goal in the sense of a traditional game story, but he reacts to what happens around him.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Half Life 2 friggin sucks. One of the most dissapointing gaming experiences of my life.

Theres virtually no background story.
There really isn't much of a story at all. You just kind of set out walking to some place for some reason not explained to you, then about 3/4 of the way through Alyx and her dad get kidnapped and then you have to get to the Citadel. Ok, it was obvious thats where the game would end up but upuntil having to save Alyx and her dad you're given no objectives no reasons as to why you're doing what you're doing. You're just doing it. That concept not explaining any overriding objective was easier to explain in HL1 because you were trapped underground in a survior situation where you had no choice to fight. Here, you don't know why your in City 17 in the first place or why your going around to these various locations until later on in the game. This part was executed very poorly.
You don't know why you're there.
The AI is atrocious. (inferior to HL1; a game released in 1998 for christs sake! Thats how bad it was)
The vehicle segments are extremley poor and constricted (miles behind Halo for instance).
The enemy variation is rubbish and boring.
No where near the memorable moments or setpieces of HL1.
The ending game is very poor and far far far too easy.
Terrible terrible bosses compared to HL1. (ignore Nilianth)
The world is boring. Black Mesa felt like a continuous and cojoined enviroment, it actually felt like a place that could exist. City 17 just felt like anothe game enviroment. Mesa felt alive!
The puzzles and enviromental obstacles that made you think are virtually gone.
Combat is far far inferior to HL1
Gunplay is toned down and dull, the weapons don't have the kick that the old HL1 weapons did. Movement speed is significantly slowed down. Much less gore.
Extremley archaic inventory system. Have to cycle to the crowbar to use Melee as opposed to being able to tap a button and use the gun? Very old, obsolete and frustrating. Not being able to throw a grenade from say, the right mouse button? or from a key on the keyboard? No. Have to cycle to a grenade in the inventory and then throw it. Makes combat clunky and much less fun than modern shooters.

And no, no matter how many polygons you put on Alyx Vance or have any facial movements on her I never cared about her at all.

Very dissapointing.

Agreed. Although I didn't play Half Life 2 for ages after it came out, I have to say that Half Life 1 is by far a superior game. Isn't there a version of HL1 with HL2's engine available? I agree with all your points, especially the complete lack of any backstory as to how and why you're in City 17 (I ended up googling it to find out a bit about it) and the enemy AI is around 50% of the Marines in HL1. Also, far too many generic bloody Combine soldiers and not enough other enemies to fight. Finally, have to agree about the much vaunted facial expressions of the characters: that was only a load of hype, it didn't engage me half as much as I was expecting. But by far the thing that annoyed me the most was the fact I had no bloody idea why I was in City 17 and how the hell I got there! Black Mesa was three times as good a game world as City 17 for me. Still, the physics engine was amazing.

However...

Episode One was excellent (well, the beginning was, at least.) I'm yet to play Episode Two (Steam finally decided to let me install it last night...)

Can anyone point me towards a list of 'must have' mods for singleplayer HL2?

Edit: In a video I saw of HL2 ages ago, there was this scene in the sewers where this luminous blue alien tentacle snakes upwards, grabs an ally and pulls him down into the abyss! What happened to that in the final game, or was that part of Episode Two? If so, don't tell me, I don't want any spoilers. I could've sworn that the video was of the base HL2 game however...

[D.B. Cooper]

Half Life 2 friggin sucks. One of the most dissapointing gaming experiences of my life.

Theres virtually no background story.
There really isn't much of a story at all. You just kind of set out walking to some place for some reason not explained to you, then about 3/4 of the way through Alyx and her dad get kidnapped and then you have to get to the Citadel. Ok, it was obvious thats where the game would end up but upuntil having to save Alyx and her dad you're given no objectives no reasons as to why you're doing what you're doing. You're just doing it. That concept not explaining any overriding objective was easier to explain in HL1 because you were trapped underground in a survior situation where you had no choice to fight. Here, you don't know why your in City 17 in the first place or why your going around to these various locations until later on in the game. This part was executed very poorly.
You don't know why you're there.
The AI is atrocious. (inferior to HL1; a game released in 1998 for christs sake! Thats how bad it was)
The vehicle segments are extremley poor and constricted (miles behind Halo for instance).
The enemy variation is rubbish and boring.
No where near the memorable moments or setpieces of HL1.
The ending game is very poor and far far far too easy.
Terrible terrible bosses compared to HL1. (ignore Nilianth)
The world is boring. Black Mesa felt like a continuous and cojoined enviroment, it actually felt like a place that could exist. City 17 just felt like anothe game enviroment. Mesa felt alive!
The puzzles and enviromental obstacles that made you think are virtually gone.
Combat is far far inferior to HL1
Gunplay is toned down and dull, the weapons don't have the kick that the old HL1 weapons did. Movement speed is significantly slowed down. Much less gore.
Extremley archaic inventory system. Have to cycle to the crowbar to use Melee as opposed to being able to tap a button and use the gun? Very old, obsolete and frustrating. Not being able to throw a grenade from say, the right mouse button? or from a key on the keyboard? No. Have to cycle to a grenade in the inventory and then throw it. Makes combat clunky and much less fun than modern shooters.

And no, no matter how many polygons you put on Alyx Vance or have any facial movements on her I never cared about her at all.

Didn't really say much other than express your nostalgia for HL1, almost all of that is subjective.

I think Episode 1 and 2 were so well-received is because they stuck with the formula that got HL2 so well-received (although Ep1 was rather forgettable, it was like a smaller chapter in the larger story). Ep2 also looked phenomenal, the graphics were extremely good. Not Crysis but they were very good.

And then of course we have the solid voice acting, fleshed out and diverse environments, and strong gameplay. I can't attest to Crysis's or Gear's gameplay (haven't played it) but you can't look at these games as a simple HL/Gears/Crysis comparison. The critics weren't comparing them when they reviewed them. As stated above, a lot of hate for Crysis came from the obscene system requirements. Also, don't go soley on what the critics score the game they are often slanted (look at IGN's often horribly inflated scores).