P
pacerzfan763
Guest
Which is better, Half life or Half Life 2?
P
pacerzfan763
Guest
Half Life got you into the series. But 2 is far better than the first one!
S
safetyswami
Guest
HL1 brought revolutionary gameplay, HL2 did not. HL1 is challenging, HL2 is not. However, HL2 is a much more traditional FPS experience. That's probably how one would decide.
DannyC.
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,176
- Reaction score
- 0
Loke said:
Really? Once I got to Surface Tension it was a big relief for me. I love the city 17 setting. Half-Life 2 for me. Not only do I love the gameplay, but it has the best plot, story, and characters I've ever seen in a game.
The Mullinator
Newbie
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 0
Personally I prefer the rebellion/urban warfare over the horor/underground escape. That is by far the most major reason I prefer HL2 over HL1. If I liked both of those styles relatively evenly though then I would have a very hard time deciding which I prefer.
Loke
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,274
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, I like C-17 of course. It feels like a real, living city.
But I prefer Black Mesa over C-17, mostly because I like the setting more in BM. You are in a top secret underground lab, just to confront evil aliens that want to rip you apart. And when the marines come... Ah, what a relief you think, just to know that they aren't on side, instead they are after you, to hunt you down.
Heh that probably sounds cheesier than C-17… But yeah, that’s me.
But I prefer Black Mesa over C-17, mostly because I like the setting more in BM. You are in a top secret underground lab, just to confront evil aliens that want to rip you apart. And when the marines come... Ah, what a relief you think, just to know that they aren't on side, instead they are after you, to hunt you down.
Heh that probably sounds cheesier than C-17… But yeah, that’s me.
AmishSlayer
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,898
- Reaction score
- 3
HL1 was an experience.
HL2 was a game.
I also think that HL1 was crazy for its time but HL2 was crazy for '03. A year later all the revolutionary aspects had been seen in other games.
HL2 was a game.
I also think that HL1 was crazy for its time but HL2 was crazy for '03. A year later all the revolutionary aspects had been seen in other games.
SgtSpamBoy
Newbie
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
Let's not forget the last levels on Xen in HL1 - with the platform-jumping and whatnot?
Random floating platforms and platform-jumping in FPS - not my cup of tea. Don't get me wrong, I loved HL1...but the ending gameplay pulls it down for me...
I think that HL2 is really revolutionary - it has an insane amount of detail in the modeling, level design, and textures that really pulls you into the game. Plus, it brought us the gravity gun and the idea that we can pick up practically anything in the environment and throw it across the room - adding another level of realism and emersion.
Random floating platforms and platform-jumping in FPS - not my cup of tea. Don't get me wrong, I loved HL1...but the ending gameplay pulls it down for me...
I think that HL2 is really revolutionary - it has an insane amount of detail in the modeling, level design, and textures that really pulls you into the game. Plus, it brought us the gravity gun and the idea that we can pick up practically anything in the environment and throw it across the room - adding another level of realism and emersion.
S
safetyswami
Guest
Yeah, nothing screams realistic like a gravity gun.
The level design is an interesting point, though. HL2 has some very cleverly designed levels, like Ravenholm (except that stupid mine) and the city hall that you have to fight through to the roof. They also have some incredibly stupid level designs, like Nova Prospekt. Mixed bag. HL1 tends to be more consistent in level design, but can't really top HL2 at it's best. Also, 2 has a lot more filler sections.
Little sidenote here: I just finished playing through both of them about five minutes ago, and I swear the marines in HL1 have better AI than the Combine soldiers. Kind of odd, don't you think?
The level design is an interesting point, though. HL2 has some very cleverly designed levels, like Ravenholm (except that stupid mine) and the city hall that you have to fight through to the roof. They also have some incredibly stupid level designs, like Nova Prospekt. Mixed bag. HL1 tends to be more consistent in level design, but can't really top HL2 at it's best. Also, 2 has a lot more filler sections.
Little sidenote here: I just finished playing through both of them about five minutes ago, and I swear the marines in HL1 have better AI than the Combine soldiers. Kind of odd, don't you think?
Half-Life 1 was damned good at its time. Half-Life 2 is awesome now. When comparing those two now, HL2 wins in every series except level design. The real thing to compare is, how big of an impact did the game make to you when it came out? In that, HL1 is the winnar.
S
safetyswami
Guest
Half-Life 1 is a lot better than Half-Life 2. Story, gameplay, characters - everything.
S
safetyswami
Guest
I didn't care much for the acting in HL2. (Barney being the exception) It was almost as over-the-top as an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Half-Life was cheesy, but it KNEW it was cheesy, and didn't try to pretend otherwise. Half-Life 2 is pretty compelling for a video game plot, but it's still closer to Battlefield: Earth than 1984.
someone402
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 0
I prefer HL2, but as said before, the marines have better AI than the combine. It took wasted 5 crossbow shots on 1 marine and he dodged every single one hile i was playing on EASY.
