• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

half life 2: is it REALLY that good? (also, linearity in games)

Lingitiz

Member
What about Metal Gear Solid 3, where you can wiggle the stick around to change the camera angle, hold a button to zoom in a little, etc?

Are those 'not cutscenes' because you retain that superficial level of control?

Is there any reason why you should be able to skip those, and not able to skip the similar scenes in Half-Life 2 that give you the same level of meaningful control?

Oh cmon you know damn well that it's not even close to the same thing. The scene is still a movie type scene with cinematic angles and no player control. There's a difference between actually being in the world versus watching a scene that is virtually identical to film or tv.

I've always found traditional cutscenes more jarring than what's in Valve's games. Getting the cut to black and obviously higher res models doing things that I can't do in the game is always slightly immersion breaking.
 
Well you bolded my opinion where I said I found it immersion breaking and responded with "actually that's wrong."

I didn't say "actually that's wrong." You misunderstood me. I was saying that, even if those scripted sequences are "immersion" breaking because of other elements not associated with cutscenes, they are less immersion breaking in that you're still in control of your character.
 
When I first played HL2 I was blown away, at the time of release I thought it was the best game ever. As the years have passed I started putting a more critical eye on it and it's definitely not the game I once thought it was. I still love the presentation of it, and it's still one of my favourite game worlds to be in because of that, but its FPS elements are lacking even compared to its predecessor.

It's an easy game, even on hard, the weapon selection isn't as numerous or creative, the AI itself felt like a complete downgrade. Fighting any Combine soldier just wasn't satisfying, for the most part they stood or crouched in place, barely moved, and took shots like wimps.

And yeah, it's a scriptathon. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors to the bombast so replaying it ends up exposing those elements. The forced cutscenes also make replaying a bit of a chore, so when you're trapped in a room waiting for the characters to puppet the script you've heard a dozen times already then all that's left is to hop around and throwing empty Chinese food boxes at their faces without reaction.
 

Toxi

Banned
So what you are calling a cutscene is a scripted scene that maintains the pacing of the game while giving you important information that will help you understand the story of the game you are playing and because it's not in a video that let up press ESC to skip it and because you have to keep using your input of choice to keep up with it and actually playing the game you call it intrusive?
It doesn't maintain the pacing of the game. While you're watching an NPC blabber in Half Life 2, you're not playing the game. You're controlling your character, but there's no real point to this because you're still stuck in a room with NPCs until they finish and shut up. There is no game to play.

That's the most intrusive form of story outside of an unskippable cutscene.

Oh cmon you know damn well that it's not even close to the same thing. The scene is still a movie type scene with cinematic angles and no player control. There's a difference between actually being in the world versus watching a scene that is virtually identical to film or tv.
In both, you can't do anything to actually affect the world. If I start bunny-hopping on Alyx's face, she's not going to react. If I throw a barrel at a wall, Eli won't care. If I wave a little gnome around like a madman, nothing happens. You are a viewer and not a participant.

In the Half Life 2 dialogue briefings, you are only given superficial control that lets you view different parts of the environment during the briefing. In the Metal Gear Solid 3 cutscenes, you are given superficial control that lets you few the cutscenes differently. What's the difference?

That's why sequences where you get dialogue as you play the level are so much better; they don't stop the pacing of the game because they don't take away your ability to play the game. No replay value is lost and the game is better for it.
 

Coxswain

Member
Oh cmon you know damn well that it's not even close to the same thing. The scene is still a movie type scene with cinematic angles and no player control. There's a difference between actually being in the world versus watching a scene that is virtually identical to film or tv.

No, I really don't understand why anyone would draw a meaningful distinction between the two. There is exactly the same amount of meaningful interaction in each one, and both are shown from the point of view of a camera that is, in fact, in the game world. Neither one is particularly more or less immersive than the other - in one, the visual perspective is maintained, but you're slammed up against the wall and reminded every single second, in the most jarring, immersion-breaking way possible, that there is no meaningful interaction to be found and you are most definitely not playing a video game, and in the other, your viewpoint is shifted, but the heavily-directed, non-interactive, author-driven change in perspective matches the heavily-directed, non-interactive, author-driven change in gameplay

What's really important, though, and what makes the latter option the more immersive choice between the two is, you're offered the ultimate tool for maintaining immersion: The ability to hit a button and have all the non-gameplay stuff go away so that you can continue playing a video game, uninterrupted.
 

Zeppelin

Member
It doesn't maintain the pacing of the game. You don't seem to get this, but while you're watching an NPC blabber in Half Life 2, you're not playing the game. You're controlling your character, but there's no real point to this because you're still stuck in a room with NPCs until they finish and shut up. There is no game to play.

This so fucking hard.
 

Monocle

Member
It's solid but not outstanding. I've always enjoyed Halo games more because of the sandbox nature of the campaigns.
 
A milestone in gaming, an amazing achievement. Episode 2 in particular is an absolute masterpiece.

I'm shocked that it isn't as impressive a decade later. Truly shocked.
 

Sibylus

Banned
It might not be a cutscene, but it's unforgivably pace-breaking and has the same sin of not letting you play the game.
In your case. In mine, the pace isn't disturbed, being that I'm given to exploring the environment regardless of how confined it is. At the end of the day I'm still the arbiter of my particular subjective viewpoint, same as most other stretches of the games. If we disagree that exploring and seeing sights is a form of gameplay, then so be it.
 

Syf

Banned
It annoys me when people playing Half-Life 2 for the first time call it overrated and underwhelming. The game was released nine years ago and shooters don't age like RPGs. When Half-Life 2 was released it set a new precedent for the genre, just like Half-Life before it. One of the all-time greats.
 

Monocle

Member
A milestone in gaming, an amazing achievement. Episode 2 in particular is an absolute masterpiece.

I'm shocked that it isn't as impressive a decade later. Truly shocked.
Well, Halo:CE is equally impressive now as it was in 2001, gameplay-wise at least. HL2 simply hasn't aged as well, and its linearity has a lot to do with it.
 

jtb

Banned
It annoys me when people playing Half-Life 2 for the first time call it overrated and underwhelming. The game was released nine years ago and shooters don't age like RPGs. When Half-Life 2 was released it set a new precedent for the genre, just like Half-Life before it. One of the all-time greats.

it annoys me when people don't read the OP ;)
 

Dylan

Member
I think it still holds its own against the top-tier FPS's of today. Especially games like COD & Killzone.

edit: People have said it before, but I really do think it all comes down to encounter design.
 

Lingitiz

Member
In the Half Life 2 dialogue briefings, you are only given superficial control that lets you view different parts of the environment during the briefing. In the Metal Gear Solid 3 cutscenes, you are given superficial control that lets you few the cutscenes differently. What's the difference?

Look, I'm not saying it's super reactive. You can choose to act like a fucking idiot in the scene if you want to and nothing will happen. That's not okay. I'm saying that there's much more to be gained by having characters look at you relative to where you are in the space, or call you over to say "Hey come look at this." I think that much more can be done with this concept. Portal 2 was much better at this because almost all of the story was told through disembodied voices. Then there are games out there like Spec Ops trying to tell story through gameplay mechanics rather than having the most important developments being through scenes that you watch.

I've never felt like I've been bothered or interrupted by storytelling in Valve's games because I enjoy the story and the subtle world building. If it was bad or overly long then sure, maybe I'd want to skip them. The difference between that and MGS4 with upwards to an hr of uninterrupted cutscenes is massive. I feel like HL2 is well paced enough to where I get just enough story before it gets overbearing.

As a player, I never go in with the expectation of "Fuck the story I'm just gonna skip through all this shit." I like to have control over my character at all times, even if it's minimal. Does this style of storytelling fit every game? Of course not. Look at the "Walk-and-talk" segments in TLOU or Gears. I think those are awful.

Maybe, but the copy-paste corridors really work to bring the whole experience down.

Having recently played Anniversary, I have to agree. The graphical improvements actually made many of the areas way more repetitive than I remember.
 
Not for me. I never got that complaint. The game plays incredibly well even now. The reused elements don't impact that at all.

It didn't bother me on my first dozen or so runs of the campaign, but past 2010, I found its heavy dependence on re-using sections of levels to be particularly tiresome. Assault on the Control Room, despite how much it's loved, is really hard to get through because of the same-y rooms over and over again. They don't lend to new ways to experience the sandbox. Given how much it takes to kill Elites in the game, it really drags the sandbox down. It makes me say, "I just did this a few seconds ago. Why would I want to do this again?" It would help if the game made use of different combination of Covenant, but no, it's just Elites, Jackals, and Grunts again and again. There's also Halo 1's reliance on – especially in the second half – tight corridors and Flood monster closets that make the game more claustrophobic and same-y than just about anything in the Halo franchise. It makes me want to turn the game off.

Repetitive and tight, tiresome corridors are something Halo 3 corrected with the sandbox – sans Cortana – among many other things it improved over Halo 1.
 
I'm the exact opposite. I think Highway 17 is the best level in the game. I love the atmosphere, the setting, how much you can explore, and how you can skip entire fights if you just want to drive along to the next obstacle. The crane part was great, and you can do that whole part backwards if you find the right way.

Thank you for quoting my enormous page 2 post that I feared would get lost.

Also, I completely 100% agree about Highway 17. It's my one of my most memorable sections of any game for precisely the reasons I said in my previous post -- it's all about pacing. HL2 gives you moments of action, but then gives you the right break when you need it. Highway 17 is an excellent set of levels, and one that shows you that there is a lot more to this world than you would perceive from the first few levels... It isn't just industrial city scape or zombie land, there is a relatively peaceful -- but still affected -- world outside of the city gates.

Highway 17 is where I took most of my screenshots... Screenshots of the cliffs and driving, and obviously of that ominous luming bridge in the distance.

Which leads me to my next points:

Great games show you where you want to go, and you don't need directions telling you how to get there. There are a few games that do this very well -- GTA: San Andreas, Fallout 3, and best of all, Half-Life 2.

When you first step out into City 17, you see one enormous structure that dominates the city scape, the Citadel. At nearly every important moment of the game, you can look in one direction or another, and see the Citadel (Except in the sections that you purposely cannot see it: like Ravenholm... This is done on purpose to show that the city guard's reach does not get there). The Citadel looms over almost all of your game, and that's ultimately where you're headed. Most regions in the game do something similar, by showing you where you ultimately want to end up, and then it's your mission to get there. The Bridge on Highway 17 is a good example as well, but the Citadel is the focus of the entire game. You begin the game at the feet of the citadel, and then you work your way through a journey, and end up at the top of it, to ultimately bring it all down.

(In my other two examples, SA and Fallout 3... In SA, you begin in the ghetto, you get a view of the world, and that's ultimately the world you return to and dominate. In Fallout 3, you emerge from the Vault and see the Washington Monument, the only perfectly clear view of it in that area, and you know -- that's where I need to go. FWIW Fallout 3 makes some key mistakes with getting to your goal by having a ridiculous waypointing system that doesn't work)
 

J-Rod

Member
I think it was great for its time and that many games today borrowed and evolved on the formulas and principles it set. I think it still holds up because the source engine provides a satisfying feel and Valve is good at telling stories. However, I think it has been surpassed in all regards by other games in the past 10 years since it was released. I still look forward to the next iteration.
 
It annoys me when people playing Half-Life 2 for the first time call it overrated and underwhelming. The game was released nine years ago and shooters don't age like RPGs. When Half-Life 2 was released it set a new precedent for the genre, just like Half-Life before it. One of the all-time greats.

Merely enabling AFx16 and putting your visual settings on maximum in the driver menu will make this game look incredible for its age. I'm guessing Valve is cheating a bit with the updates, but it looks mighty fine.

That took me by surprise to be honest when I got this 'new PC' back in 2010. Should probably upgrade at this point. :p
 
I feel like people who like Casino and Goodfellas more than the Godfather 1 & 2 are the people who like newer (highly rated) shooters over Half-Life 2. There are elements of HL2 that have yet to be surpassed by another action game, largely pacing and narrative. I can't think of another linear action game that is paced better, and even highly rated action games (Deus Ex:HR, Bioshock Infinite, any others) all have noticeably terrible pacing.

I don't think that HL will resonate with people who play action games for the action, because the action isn't really that good (a lot of this has to do with hit recognition IMO; HL will never compare to a Bulletstorm, Gears, or even Bioshock, games that do hit recognition really well).
 

Sibylus

Banned
Hit detection is one aspect Episode Two really improved, incidentally. One of the more visible boons of ditching hardcoded particle effects and implementing their GUI-driven approach.
 
Played Half Life 2 for the first time 2 years ago, years after playing nearly every other shooter that imagined themselves after that game. I was blown away by how awesome Half life 2 was. The music, the feeling and atmosphere, the weight and smoothness of the controls, the crazy imagination of physic based puzzles and guns - basically everything. Even the story and the characters felt refreshing compared to all the other FPS I have played before. So I have to argue with this thread that Half Life 2 is still as important today as it was when first released. And believe me, I'm not a Valve head as I have never even played Team Fortress or the First Half Life yet.
 
D

Deleted member 102362

Unconfirmed Member
When you first step out into City 17, you see one enormous structure that dominates the city scape, the Citadel. At nearly every important moment of the game, you can look in one direction or another, and see the Citadel (Except in the sections that you purposely cannot see it: like Ravenholm... This is done on purpose to show that the city guard's reach does not get there). The Citadel looms over almost all of your game, and that's ultimately where you're headed. Most regions in the game do something similar, by showing you where you ultimately want to end up, and then it's your mission to get there. The Bridge on Highway 17 is a good example as well, but the Citadel is the focus of the entire game. You begin the game at the feet of the citadel, and then you work your way through a journey, and end up at the top of it, to ultimately bring it all down.

That's dead-on analysis of the game showing you objectives. It works brilliantly.
 

Monocle

Member
Really? I remember getting lost once or twice since everything looked the same.
That's happened to me too. I suppose I just got used to it.

It didn't bother on my first dozen or so runs of the campaign, but past 2010, I found its heavy dependence on re-using sections of levels to be particularly tiresome. Assault on the Control Room, despite how much it's loved, is really hard to get through because of the same-y rooms over and over again. They don't lend to new ways to experience the sandbox. Given how much it takes to kill Elites in the game, it really drags the sandbox down. It makes me say, "I just did this a few seconds ago. Why would I want to do this again?" It would help if the game made use of different combination of Covenant, but no, it's just Elites, Jackals, and Grunts again and again. There's also Halo 1's reliance on – especially in the second half – tight corridors and Flood monster closets that make the game more claustrophobic and same-y than just about anything in the Halo franchise. It makes me want to turn the game off.
Fair point. It's true that Halo's sandbox doesn't shine until the environments open up.

Repetitive and tight, tiresome corridors are something Halo 3 corrected with the sandbox – sans Cortana – among many other things it improved over Halo 1.
Halo 3's campaign definitely introduced more variety, but it never quite hit the same highs as Halo:CE for me. Halo, Truth and Reconciliation, AOTCR, and Two Betrayals form my gold standard for FPS campaigns. Each level has its flaws, but their overall range of environments and encounters is ideal for novel strategies and experimentation. They present the player with all kinds of interesting opportunities to take advantage of the sandbox gameplay the Halo series is known for.
 
bad analogy, goodfellas is legitimately incredible regardless of how much "newer" it is than the godfather or whatever

No, it's a good analogy. Goodfellas is excellent. Casino is good too. But neither are better than the Godfather.

Similarly, there are great new games Bioshock 1, Modern Warfare 2, Halo 4, and others, and many surpass HL2 in different ways, but none are better.
 

jerry113

Banned
It's great in context of the games that were around in 2003-2004. No other shooter came close in terms of photorealism, realistic environment physics, and character animations. It's been almost a decade since HL2 got released, man.

If you had only played it now or recently, I understand why you might feel underwhelmed. It's only underwhelming today because every shooter for the past 10 years since then has borrowed from it so much.

To me, it was a showcase for the physics engine. The gravity gun specifically. Point me to another game at the time that had physics in which the player could manipulate objects in the way that the source engine allowed you to. Or one that had facial animations and lip dubbing as good as Alyx or Barney.

To get a better idea of how cool the source engine was at the time, let me point you to the Half-Life 2 E3 unveiling of 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ddJ1OKV63Q

Listen to the awe of the audience build throughout the demo. Put yourself in their shoes, when the biggest shooter at the time was still Halo.
 

Grassy

Member
Funnily enough I just re-installed Half-Life 2 yesterday to see how it holds up after not having played it since it came out. From what I remember it was pretty solid and I had a lot of fun with it but it has been a long time so it will be interesting to see how it holds up.

Are there any good texture upgrades for HL2? Has anyone here tried the Fake Factory Cinematic mod?
 
Half Life 2 has good level design despite linearity. That don't age.

The problem with linearity is that when combined with poor level design it hurts replay value bad.
 
Halo 3's campaign definitely introduced more variety, but it never quite hit the same highs as Halo:CE for me. Halo, Truth and Reconciliation, AOTCR, and Two Betrayals form my gold standard for FPS campaigns. Each level has its flaws, but their overall range of environments and encounters is ideal for novel strategies and experimentation. They present the player with all kinds of interesting opportunities to take advantage of the sandbox gameplay the Halo series is known for.
"Halo" has grown tiresome for me because it's essentially Firefight missions where you have to sit down and defend each encounter. I've played enough of those. Half of T&R is tight corridors that don't allow for the sandbox to shine, and AotCR and Two Betrayals both suffer from repetitive level design.

Halo 3's "The Ark" and "The Covenant" outshine AotCR and Two Betrayals in everyway I can think of. Halo 3 expanded the sandbox, so you're given more ways to tackle each encounter, and they're at a scale that eclipses anything in Halo 1 by quite a margin. The encounters and level design are a generational leap ahead of Halo 1's – this is best demonstrated by both games' "storm the beach" scenarios – and Halo 3's interior combat was far, far better than anything in T&R and Halo 1. "Crow's Nest"'s Brute corridor and barracks section speak to this. Bungie was better able to implement the "30 seconds of fun" into their interior level design more successfully than they did in Halo 1.
 
To me, it was a showcase for the physics engine. The gravity gun specifically. Point me to another game at the time that had physics in which the player could manipulate objects in the way that the source engine allowed you to.
Psi-Ops came out several months before HL2 and does the whole physics objects as weaponry much better. Notably the enemies you use them on don't only have two states of not noticing and instantly dead. You had more control over the object you were manipulating itself, you could even use your powers to surf on them. The game also gave you super gravity gun capabilities with more nuance, essentially you could force push people instead of instantly killing them.

So the physics combat of Psi-Ops blew away HL2's before it even came out.

I agree with the rest though, the facial work was unbelievable and still looks great. Looking at Alyx and Barney during their introductions in the game for the first time was unreal.
 
Psi-Ops came out several months before HL2 and does the whole physics objects as weaponry much better. Notably the enemies you use them on don't only have two states of not noticing and instantly dead. You had more control over the object you were manipulating itself, you could even use your powers to surf on them. The game also gave you super gravity gun capabilities with more nuance, essentially you could force push people instead of instantly killing them.

So the physics combat of Psi-Ops blew away HL2's before it even came out.

I agree with the rest though, the facial work was unbelievable and still looks great. Looking at Alyx and Barney during their introductions in the game for the first time was unreal.


Shit I want to replay Psi-Ops now. Couldn't you stand on obstacles and use psychic powers to "air surf" over obstacles?
 

Sulik2

Member
Half-life 2 has moments of greatness. The ant-lions in the prison and the super-powered gravity gun at the end, but other than that I found it pretty much a slog. I quit playing for six months because of the TERRIBLE dune buggy section before finally going back to it. One of the most over-rated games of all time.
 

Toxi

Banned
I feel like people who like Casino and Goodfellas more than the Godfather 1 & 2 are the people who like newer (highly rated) shooters over Half-Life 2. There are elements of HL2 that have yet to be surpassed by another action game, largely pacing and narrative. I can't think of another linear action game that is paced better, and even highly rated action games (Deus Ex:HR, Bioshock Infinite, any others) all have noticeably terrible pacing.

I don't think that HL will resonate with people who play action games for the action, because the action isn't really that good (a lot of this has to do with hit recognition IMO; HL will never compare to a Bulletstorm, Gears, or even Bioshock, games that do hit recognition really well).
Goodfellahs is fucking amazing. The direction is amazing, the story is amazing, the acting is amazing, and even the pacing never suffers despite its length. That opening shot of the restaurant is one of the best shots in movie history for a reason. I'm not sure if I can say it's better than The Godfather, but it's better than part 2 and is in my top five favorite movies for a reason.

No, it's a good analogy. Goodfellas is excellent. Casino is good too. But neither are better than the Godfather.

Similarly, there are great new games Bioshock 1, Modern Warfare 2, Halo 4, and others, and many surpass HL2 in different ways, but none are better.
I bet there are plenty of people with great taste in movies who like Goodfellahs better than The Godfather, and I'm saying this as someone who loves both. They both take different approaches to a similar story, and for some people Goodfellahs will resonate more, while for others The Godfather will resonate more.
 

Monocle

Member
the halo games are like a sandbox where the sand is sleeping pills

edit: In response to the topic, I think HL1 is the best Half-Life so far.
Don't blame the games for your inability to use their tools. The Halo series has always demanded creativity from its players, which I suspect is a big reason it doesn't click for some people. Most FPSs don't offer that freedom, and this conditions players to expect the wrong things from Halo games. You have to take the time to learn the nuances of the weapons and enemies, or you'll never get the most out of your options. Blazing through a Halo campaign like you're playing a standard shootbang isn't going to be particularly rewarding, for reasons that are obvious once you recognize the freedom you're given to mix things up in each encounter.
 
No, it's a good analogy. Goodfellas is excellent. Casino is good too. But neither are better than the Godfather.

Similarly, there are great new games Bioshock 1, Modern Warfare 2, Halo 4, and others, and many surpass HL2 in different ways, but none are better.

goodfellas is arguably better than the godfather though, for reasons that have nothing to do with the latter's age.

and better shooters have released since hl2(stalker, far cry 2, rage, swat 4), again for reasons that have nothing to do with one being older than the other. hl2 is just the best at what it does(cinematic presentation, art direction, level design and pacing).
 

jtb

Banned
let's just not use movies as a comparison since film, as a technology, reached maturity long before either Goodfellas or the Godfather. it's not a good comparison to video games, where we see technology (and techniques for how best to harness that technology) still evolving today.
 

Sibylus

Banned
Some of the mods developed and released for HL2 have better level design than the original game itself. I recommend playing Adam Foster's Minerva; this mod got him hired by Valve. Very few loading times total. He squeezed every bit of space available to him in the map editor.

It's available on steam for free.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/235780/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1
In spots I definitely agree, Minerva's 100% in my "must play Half-Life canon" box, alongside Research and Development and other things.
 

MormaPope

Banned
No, it's a good analogy. Goodfellas is excellent. Casino is good too. But neither are better than the Godfather.

Similarly, there are great new games Bioshock 1, Modern Warfare 2, Halo 4, and others, and many surpass HL2 in different ways, but none are better.

Sorry, what? The Sopranos is better than all those things you just listed, and I'd put Goodfellas and Casino high above The Godfather. Not everyone fawns over The Godfather, its not a objective masterpiece.
 

Doran902

Member
i got the game of the year edition of this game in 2006 for pc and it bored me to tears

i did not understand the love at all, thought call of duty 2, doom 3 and halo 2 were all much better games

opinions are like assholes though eh
 
has COD retroactively ruined HL2 for anyone else or is there just something wrong with me?

Are you seriously comparing Call of Duty to Half-Life 2?

There are so many reasons why the two are not even in the same category, let alone league.
 
Top Bottom