Half-Life 2 is very similar to Strife

DuckReconMajor said:

What? I thought most people (at least around here) held that opinion.

The people who like the second one more are rather few in number.

HL2 is more popular among the casual crowd. And casual gamers are the majority.

The only reason I liked HL2 more was because it wasn't all goddamn jump puzzles, unlike HL.

Correct. Instead of jump puzzles it was "look at all the cool things we can do in our spiffy new engine" puzzles. ;)

I agree that a lot of the jump puzzles in HL could have been dropped and would have made it a better game as a result. Aside from anything else, many of them were so divorced from the feel and detail of the story line and really came across as "OK, let's pause the adventure, it's puzzle time, we'll return to the mission once you get across this room".

Enjay said:

Correct. Instead of jump puzzles it was "look at all the cool things we can do in our spiffy new engine" puzzles. ;)

Agree. BTW, I liked all of the puzzles in HL2. Maybe when the returning to City 17 has happened, they became worse, but the previous ones were as good as any other parts of the game.

I think taking a break with something puzzle for example in Nova Prospekt or in the Water Hazard chapter made the game more balanced.

Orchid87 said:

I love HL2 (...), but it's not a perfect FPS at all. It's gunplay just sucks.

Ehm, okay, you are right. Recently I noticed that fighting against combine soldiers are awful. My friend said the reason is that I played too much slaughterish FPS games, like Doom of course, or Serious Sam, and I can't fight against smart and tactical units. But I don't care, fighting sucks and that's it.

The other parts of HL2 are fantastic.

None of the Half-Life games have "smart" or "tactical" units. I suppose I can see how they attempted to do so, but it just ended up in making AI that's dumb as hell (even beyond that video's example -- the AI is way too exploitable and doesn't put up a challenge as a result).

chungy said:

dumb as hell

Who the hell would want to shoot mayonnaise? Those were tough times.

Vordakk said:

I think I'm one of the few people that likes Half-Life more than HL2.

I'm in the same boat. It's not that I think HL2 is a *bad* game, it's just nowhere near the game HL1 was. Compare the monster cast and you'll notice just how lacking the sequel is. Practically everything wants to facehump you in HL2.

The formula also started working against them in the sequel. In the first game, dialog was usually just a few sentences on the way, explaining things and giving you background knowledge for tasks, puzzles and dangers ahead. It was all very fluent and it didn't seem too awkward that you never spoke back.

In HL2 they tried to turn it into a character driven story. This doesn't work well. Especially seeing how it's a talk-fest with loooong boring dialog about characters you can't interact with anyway. In HL1, circumstances and the environment propelled you forward in an ever-growing dangerous world. In HL2 it's long boring dialog that eventually boils down to "Go there for some reason. Take my airboat".

Oh and they turned Half-Life (2) into a disney movie with characters like dog. The tone of the game is all over the place.

Vordakk said:

I think I'm one of the few people that likes Half-Life more than HL2.

You're not. HL2 was boring as shit. Bla bla Gordon you're a hero bla bla don't my hi-poly tits look nice? Bla Bla Aliens BLAH BLAH linear OMG STOP IT!

It basically took everything good about the first game (the suspense, that you were just a regular scientist, etc.) and made it suck. One of my favorite moments in video gaming is still when after avoiding numerous traps ostensibly set for aliens, you finally come up an elevator to the surface... ...to see a marine wasting a scientist. That was a huge WTF (spoiler: the marines aren't there to save you...)

Mr. T said:

HL2 was boring as shit.

I perfectly disagree. HL2 has various places to fight, also there are two chapters where you can drive which makes it more interesting. And the intermission between each chapters were awesome.

Yes, it's linear, but Valve did everything they can do at map-making, and IMO you can get lost quickly on a detailed but non-linear map.

I always found HL1 to be rather boring. It doesn't have anything particularly remarkable and the "story" people go on about it is virtually non-existent.

Pretty much the only two things I remember about HL1 are gray corridors (90% of the game) and Xen.

chungy said:

I always found HL1 to be rather boring. It doesn't have anything particularly remarkable and the "story" people go on about it is virtually non-existent.

Pretty much the only two things I remember about HL1 are gray corridors (90% of the game) and Xen.

This.

HL2 is better for me due to the wide variety of enviroments.

Mr. T said:

You're not. HL2 was boring as shit. Bla bla Gordon you're a hero bla bla don't my hi-poly tits look nice? Bla Bla Aliens BLAH BLAH linear OMG STOP IT!

It basically took everything good about the first game (the suspense, that you were just a regular scientist, etc.) and made it suck.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hated Alex. She almost ruins the game for me at times. And yeah, they really overdid the whole "Gordon's a badass" bit. And I totally agree about the suspense and brooding atmosphere of the first game, and how it just isn't present in HL2(in fact the vibe of the game is radically different). Again, HL2 isn't a bad game by any means, but I probably won't ever replay it again(finished the game twice). I play through HL1 once every 2 years at least and it's fun every time.

As for you chungy, feel free to like HL2 more as that's your opinion, but if you seriously think that "gray corridors" were 90% of HL1 then it's quite obvious that you either haven't ever really played it or harbor some highly irrational bias towards it. The various areas of HL1 were some of the most memorable in all of FPS history.

Katamori said:

I perfectly disagree. HL2 has various places to fight, also there are two chapters where you can drive which makes it more interesting. And the intermission between each chapters were awesome.

Yes, it's linear, but Valve did everything they can do at map-making, and IMO you can get lost quickly on a detailed but non-linear map.

The driving was crappy padding. Why give someone a car when there's absolutely nothing to do with it?

Mr. T said:

Why give someone a car when there's absolutely nothing to do with it?

You can drive, shoot and sometimes jump with it. What the hell do you want more? :D

Katamori, the way you break down things you like almost makes me want to dislike them even if I actually like them... Depressing.

HL was an pretty shitty game IMO and I don't see how people can claim that it was this great advance in storytelling over other games like System Shock or Strife. HL2, while pretty mediocre and a lot of the time rather annoying, I could at least stomach playing through. Even if it was because it was easy, short and linear making it something you blasted through during an afternoon-evening.

Phml said:

Katamori, the way you break down things you like almost makes me want to dislike them even if I actually like them... Depressing.

What do you mean? I think I didn't say anything badly.

You tend to name purely mechanical and basic, generic things as highlights. Perhaps you're implying those things are not only done but also done well, but it reads like a checklist, so clinical it kind of takes the magic away, to me.

Not saying I have much of a point, probably just a personal feeling.

Katamori said:

I perfectly disagree. HL2 has various places to fight, also there are two chapters where you can drive which makes it more interesting. And the intermission between each chapters were awesome.

The driving, in particular, really pissed me off. I'm not a fan of driving games. I suck at them (partly because I don't like them I guess) and nothing about them appeals to me. Even so, I have yet to find an FPS that does "driving sections" as well as a dedicated driving game (or even come close). HL2 was no exception. As ever, it tried to force controls, movement and physics tweaked for FPS action to work for driving. It didn't. The stupid car never felt like any real vehicle and it bounced around and behaved totally unlike any car I have driven. The "interesting" driving chapters were, for the most part, "drive for a long time, stop, get out, do what you have to do, get back in the vehicle, drive..." rinse and repeat. OK, so it perhaps gave the impression of covering distances but, frankly, I'd have been just as convinced, and happier, if, while the level was loading, I was presented with an old fashioned map put on screen with a line showing where I was supposed to be going.

Katamori said:

Yes, it's linear, but Valve did everything they can do at map-making, and IMO you can get lost quickly on a detailed but non-linear map.

I think they did all they wanted to do - which is not the same thing. I think they showed off as much physics and engine capabilities as they could and strung it all together (using excessive exposition) to make it work like a game. However, I do not think they did everything they could do at map making. IMO, the maps do not stand the test of time. In fact, aside for a few (very) short sections, I had no desire to go back and replay any of it even once because there just wasn't enough interesting, flexible or "new ways of doing things"-ish about any of it. No, I uninstalled it, and it's parasitic DRM system, and have never felt the need to mess with it again. In marked contrast, I still have HL1 on my machine and dipped into a few of the fun sections only last week.

Vordakk said:

As for you chungy, feel free to like HL2 more as that's your opinion, but if you seriously think that "gray corridors" were 90% of HL1 then it's quite obvious that you either haven't ever really played it or harbor some highly irrational bias towards it. The various areas of HL1 were some of the most memorable in all of FPS history.

I've played it, twice even. It was fun the first time; the second time I played through mainly to see all the secrets I must've skipped (to find out the game was the start of linear shooters without them and only offered an illusion of choice). If I played the game recently, I could probably name off a few cool areas, but it's been about two years since I've played it, and I honestly can't remember much from it, nor does it give me any desire to play it again.

I don't think it's a bad game, but it's a pretty forgettable one-time event like your average summer blockbuster movie.

I've had longer stretches between playing the original Doom levels, those are much more memorable to me; I can even remember a few Duke Nukem 3D levels and much of Quake. There are far more memorable FPSes than HL1, and I'll argue that HL2 even is included in that, flaws and all; same old non-exploration linear design, but with far more interesting and memorable environments, and a better attempt at telling a story (I don't believe any of the Half-Life games really pulled off the story effectively, but HL2 and the episodes do come closer).

People said:

Jump puzzles suck!

Ya'll a bunch of damn wussies.

The original HL's setting is actually quite clever, as it feels like it *should* be linear - you are trapped in a 1950s nuclear missile base after all.

HL's design, however, completely falls on it's ass when extrapolated to somewhere that feels like it shouldn't be linear - an entire city and highway where you can only drive one way (WTF?). The visible and invisible barriers are just plain aggravating.

Also, the actual shooting element of HL2 sucks ass. You get a bunch of peashooters and quite possibly the most boring "assault rifle" ever invented. The only fun weapon, the Dirty Harry magnum, has about 10 bullets for it in the entire game. GG Valve. At least id understood that half the point of having a whole arsenal of WMD is to use them and were quite generous in Doom 3.

Mr. T said:

The only fun weapon, the Dirty Harry magnum, has about 10 bullets for it in the entire game. GG Valve.

I'd interject like a smartass to bring to light that Dirty Harry had a .44, not a .357, but instead I'll just mention there were way more than 10 bullets.. you just had to look around for them.

In all seriousness, the shooting elements of HL2 were nothing special.. the gravity gun on the other hand was a lot of fun!

Mike.Reiner said:

I'd interject like a smartass to bring to light that Dirty Harry had a .44, not a .357 but instead I'll just mention...

Glad you didn't interject because then I would have to quote Harry Callahan himself to back you up.

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

:D

Dear god...I can't believe all the hate I'm seeing! (not including the general dislikes, either.)

I'm finally on chapter 9a, Entanglement, after owning the game for a year (as I keep restarting the game as I enjoy it too much).

Everything about this game feels superb. It all blends into one heavily enjoyable experience, one of the most striking elements being it's scenario; scuffed and worn furniture, tools, benches, paint cans and wooden planks...to it's modest and flimsy countryside buildings, which have stood way before the Combine chapter ever came to play.

There's a lot of elements to this game I thoroughly enjoy (as do many others), I'm shocked to hear the lack of praise here . I have the itching suspicion that for some (not all) it is related to their love of Doom (generally sticking a decent portion of their mindset out of reach for a more modern game.)

Everyone is entitled to their opinions I know, and I'd just figured I'd share mine.

I recently found out that Episode 3 is going to be getting a similar "polish" treatment as DNF...as the same guy is doing it. Hopefully they don't mess it up, but no one can say for sure. They are also veering off the path quite a bit as, of course, Gearbox makes Xbox and PS3 platforms first and foremost, and dismissed the PC version, the home of the series, as a "if we have time for it".

Cool HL1 v. HL2 thread, guys. ;)

Platinum Shell: I think it's because we're comparing the two. If we were just talking about HL2 in a vacuum, I'm sure you'd get more favourable views.

Vordakk said:

I think I'm one of the few people that likes Half-Life more than HL2.

As if the point hadn't been burrowed into your skull yet, I'm just going to add my voice to the choir:

I prefer HL1 over HL2. I actually love HL2, but it plays like a movie, especially with the increased (implying: excessive) exposition, where NPCs will TRAP YOU IN A ROOM until another NPC has finished going through their spiel. The first time through, it's fine -- in fact, it's enjoyable -- because the story is still better than what you usually get in a sci-fi shooter, but it's the absolute death of replayability (at least if you like to replay games more than once every few years).

Whenever I try to restart HL2, I look through the chapter listing, and am consistently shocked how they all start with, or contain, lengthy exposition between the non-story bits, where you actually get the play.

Invariably, I quit, and load up HL1 -- which has one major bit of exposition at the beginning -- before launching you into a long, unbroken chain of puzzles and fights, with all dialogue issued by scientists that can easily be skipped past.

In HL1: The short (and bypass-able) exposition sequences are a reward.
In HL2: The lengthy, numerous (and un-bypass-able) exposition sequences are a chore.

I'm not including either of the intros in this assessment.

In my mind, HL2's approach is great for immersion, but when speaking of replayability, it doesn't make a stellar case for having 'cut scenes' play out in real-time, around the character. Cut scenes where the camera breaks away from the player's perspective might not be immersive, but at least in most cases, you can skip past the damned things.

I also liked HL1 better than HL2. I mean, HL2 had its moments, gravity gun, combat vehicles (I liked them) and all but it felt less "gamey" compared to the first one, specially because of excessive unskippable cutscenes - not a problem only on the first playthrought. Also, disappointed for not coming back to xen or other strange world.

Mike.Reiner said:

Ya'll a bunch of damn wussies.

Haha, agreed, nothing wrong with a few not-impossible puzzles to "breathe" between intense battles. =P

schwerpunk said:

Cut scenes where the camera breaks away from the player's perspective might not be immersive, but at least in most cases, you can skip past the damned things.

Yep. Also, Mirror's Edge had some first person cutscenes that were skippable, should serve as an example against the immersion excuse...

Agreed, LkMax: First person, real-time cut scenes have no excuse for being un-skippable. At its most basic, the game could simply teleport you to where you'd be if you'd sat through all the dialogue (usually on the other side of a building).

IMO Strife is a lot more like Deus Ex rather than any Half-Life.

Gameplay:
- FPS/RPG Hybrid
- Mix of stealth/action
- Conversations through text boxes
- Multiple ammo types
- Player character gets upgrades through cybernetic implants
- Persistent inventory system
- Laser tripwires and alarms
- Hub-like maps with non-linear progression

Story/Setting:
- Semi-futuristic setting
- Cybernetic augmentations
- Plague motif is present in both games
- Conspiracies, your firends turn into enemies (Macil and UNATCO)
- Multiple endings
- Both games start with introductory action missions with very limited arsenal (as a test for your in-game characters' skills)

Enemies:
- Acolytes = Human DeusEx Enemies
- Templars = MJ Commandos
- Stalkers = Spiderbots
- Crusaders = Patrol Bots
- Inquisitors = Mulitary Bots
- Sentry Gun = Sentry Gun

Weapons present in both games:
- Crossbow (poison darts)
- Assault Rifle
- Rocket Launcher
- Flamethrower

Weapons similar in both games:
- Stealthy melee weapon
- High-tech plasma gun (they even shoot green stuff in both games)
- Explosive and Fire Grenades/Rockets

As for Half-Life:

I kinda liked the original when it came out. It had a nice atmosphere at some points, though it was boring most of the time. Unlike many people I actually did like the Xen levels, at least they are less boring than the grey corridors and teleport puzzles of Lambda Core (the lowest point in HL1 for me).

What I do not like about Half-Life is it's legacy. It started these all too realistic linear FPS-es where the setting is more important than the gameplay.

I did not even care much about HL2. It pretty much threw away everything I liked about HL1 (mostly the setting and nothing more), and kept the crappy gameplay and stupid predictable physics based puzzles. Plus I LIVE in a crappy Eastern European city, believe me its not very atmospheric.