Earthdeath
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
neither in my opinion.they both rocked.
Half Life vs Half Life 2
- Thread starter Nomad
- Start date
Kadayi
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,034
- Reaction score
- 0
I voted HL over HL2, simply because the former really did radically change the FPS landscape from the Doom days and set the benchmark for all other developers to aspire to for several years. HL2 is a great game, but it's impact hasn't quite reached the same heights.
I had to choose HL 1 because when it came out it changed my whole gaming experience.
And I really loved the setting of this underground laboratory whereas HL 2 tried too much to give an "urban" impression which it never hold true, imho.
I really longed for Black Mesa while playing HL 2... I thought the whole setting of HL 2 wasn't as imaginative as the HL 1 setting was.
And I really loved the setting of this underground laboratory whereas HL 2 tried too much to give an "urban" impression which it never hold true, imho.
I really longed for Black Mesa while playing HL 2... I thought the whole setting of HL 2 wasn't as imaginative as the HL 1 setting was.
Wanted Bob
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 5,212
- Reaction score
- 50
I was skeptical too, to really see the AI in action I had to use Garry's Mod. The problem is the AI is quite smart with their approaches, alone or in a group, it just didnt seem like it given the setpeices in HL2. I made some makeshift fortresses in Gmod, and there were many times that, for example, one guy would poke his head around a corner, shoot then retreat. I wait for him to come back, as I can hear him talking away, and another dude comes from behind and kills me. Try it for yourself.
jet_porkins
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,459
- Reaction score
- 0
I hope I meet the criteria for a "qualified opinion," given that I played through HL1 before HL2 was heard of outside Valve.
Singleplayer: HL2 and HL1 are just about equal in my book, but given the point of the poll is to pick one I'd go with HL2+episodes - as I've never been quite immersed into the story of any FPS as much as I got into HL2's. Plus, it has the gravity gun - synonymous for legendary physics - as well as, to me, about the same level of fun as HL1 produced.
Multiplayer: HL1 deathmatch classic by far.
Singleplayer: HL2 and HL1 are just about equal in my book, but given the point of the poll is to pick one I'd go with HL2+episodes - as I've never been quite immersed into the story of any FPS as much as I got into HL2's. Plus, it has the gravity gun - synonymous for legendary physics - as well as, to me, about the same level of fun as HL1 produced.
Multiplayer: HL1 deathmatch classic by far.
Fiberawptic
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 557
- Reaction score
- 2
lol, so diverse envirnments that drastically vary and are mostly outside aren't as imaginative than steel plated hallways and rooms located underground? maybe you just haven't been in the subway recently lol.
Half-Life; I'm pretty much in agreeance with 57210788. It was mysterious, commanding, and groundbreaking at the time, and basically set the bar for shooters to come. Whilst Half-Life 2, as is obvious and arguable, is a more impressive game, it's a sequel and uses the foundations of the original as a formula from which to work in many a way. Don't get me wrong - I think Half-Life 2 was great - the characters, the story, the setting, the gravity gun - but to me, it threw the gamer out of the story too abruptly for no reason outside of doing that with long stretches of boredom - a drawn out issue that plagues the original here and there too, but not as much for me, and where the HL2 Episodes succeed due to their more terse nature that allows a greater range of emotion and more narrative in my eyes, giving allowance for impact of both in a more effectual way. I also don't like how the G-Man took the player out of the game for no reason outside of "completing the job". The first time, it was mysterious. The second time, it was just a tad vexing. And while games like Bioshock are arguably superior in characters and in story, Half-Life came first and set the standard. IMO.
But I'm still of the school of thought that Half-Life never sacrificed a window of time when it came to tension, involvement, and progression, and I do feel while, horror is not the aim of the game, that it is a scary game. Half-Life 2 more lapses into a depressing than frightening game, despite Ravenholm, as Half-Life 2 shows the player the dejected state of the world, while Half-Life is just a scramble for survival that uses temerity to convey the tone at every slow but haunting turn, where the player may fear the horrors they don't see more than anything else. But Half-Life itself gave us characters like the G-Man, who I still find the most interesting character in any game to date - his nature borders on cryptic and is arcane, and his low but morose tone works very well. You can never quite figure out such an otherworldly figure (which goes a great deal to Mike Shapiro's great voice acting... Shapiro does a great G-Man and a great Barney), though I do think it should be kept that way - intensely vague, as revealing too much about any character, or at least enough, takes away from the impact for me. But the G-Man drops the player into a 50/50 scenario and acts as though screwing them over is a trivial matter in a larger picture.
I do, however, think Half-Life's expansions don't nearly live up to the standards the first game set, unlike Half-Life 2's subsequent games, which improved upon the standards HL2 set by my eyes. I'd also like to add that Half-Life was not groundbreaking in every way - people are probably going to kill me for expressly stating this since I'm on a Half-Life forum, but Half-Life's A.I, while great, was not necessarily that revolutionary - if you think I'm pulling your leg, play the original Unreal (which came out 6 months earlier). That game has A.I that's just about as astute in outwitting the player, so I do think the game was a tad overpraised in the A.I facet when Unreal came rather close. And, of course, graphics, which I'm not going to trounce Half-Life for - too many games think graphics are everything. Half-Life's graphics were at least clean, and the same goes for its map design. For some reason, using a modified version of the Quake engine was a very good idea in my eyes (it somehow tickled me pink), but the Source Engine in itself was good in that it achieved playability and great graphics (particularly the character models and fresnel water at the time, in my view), and, while not touching Crysis, it has progressed a great deal with the Half-Life 2 Episodes (and, of course, Lost Coast, as well as Portal and Team Fortress 2).
As for originality of locations? I'd say something like Black Mesa is rather cliched... an underground, top-secret research facility that nobody knows about? I'd say it's more execution than originality that worked very well (with the exception of the G-Man). Half-Life 2's locations were just divergent, since it was a time long after Black Mesa's destruction. And Eli didn't seem too keen on building "another Black Mesa", as it were. And, while I've heard some people disagree on this, I think it's a great choice not to have the player speak because it adds immersion and doesn't take away from the game with cliched and nettlesome one-liners that have no place in the game. That, along with avoiding any usage of cut-scenes or large loading screens, makes for a very immersive game. Hence my preference of the original - I think Half-Life 2 and the resulting episodes are very good. Considering that so many sequels are downright failures out there, Half-Life 2 gains very impressive prospect. But the original, rudimentarily, had far more impact on me and was a much more revolutionary game in my view. It's the reason why the original is probably my favorite game of all time - no game left quite the same impact that Half-Life did for me.
But I'm still of the school of thought that Half-Life never sacrificed a window of time when it came to tension, involvement, and progression, and I do feel while, horror is not the aim of the game, that it is a scary game. Half-Life 2 more lapses into a depressing than frightening game, despite Ravenholm, as Half-Life 2 shows the player the dejected state of the world, while Half-Life is just a scramble for survival that uses temerity to convey the tone at every slow but haunting turn, where the player may fear the horrors they don't see more than anything else. But Half-Life itself gave us characters like the G-Man, who I still find the most interesting character in any game to date - his nature borders on cryptic and is arcane, and his low but morose tone works very well. You can never quite figure out such an otherworldly figure (which goes a great deal to Mike Shapiro's great voice acting... Shapiro does a great G-Man and a great Barney), though I do think it should be kept that way - intensely vague, as revealing too much about any character, or at least enough, takes away from the impact for me. But the G-Man drops the player into a 50/50 scenario and acts as though screwing them over is a trivial matter in a larger picture.
I do, however, think Half-Life's expansions don't nearly live up to the standards the first game set, unlike Half-Life 2's subsequent games, which improved upon the standards HL2 set by my eyes. I'd also like to add that Half-Life was not groundbreaking in every way - people are probably going to kill me for expressly stating this since I'm on a Half-Life forum, but Half-Life's A.I, while great, was not necessarily that revolutionary - if you think I'm pulling your leg, play the original Unreal (which came out 6 months earlier). That game has A.I that's just about as astute in outwitting the player, so I do think the game was a tad overpraised in the A.I facet when Unreal came rather close. And, of course, graphics, which I'm not going to trounce Half-Life for - too many games think graphics are everything. Half-Life's graphics were at least clean, and the same goes for its map design. For some reason, using a modified version of the Quake engine was a very good idea in my eyes (it somehow tickled me pink), but the Source Engine in itself was good in that it achieved playability and great graphics (particularly the character models and fresnel water at the time, in my view), and, while not touching Crysis, it has progressed a great deal with the Half-Life 2 Episodes (and, of course, Lost Coast, as well as Portal and Team Fortress 2).
As for originality of locations? I'd say something like Black Mesa is rather cliched... an underground, top-secret research facility that nobody knows about? I'd say it's more execution than originality that worked very well (with the exception of the G-Man). Half-Life 2's locations were just divergent, since it was a time long after Black Mesa's destruction. And Eli didn't seem too keen on building "another Black Mesa", as it were. And, while I've heard some people disagree on this, I think it's a great choice not to have the player speak because it adds immersion and doesn't take away from the game with cliched and nettlesome one-liners that have no place in the game. That, along with avoiding any usage of cut-scenes or large loading screens, makes for a very immersive game. Hence my preference of the original - I think Half-Life 2 and the resulting episodes are very good. Considering that so many sequels are downright failures out there, Half-Life 2 gains very impressive prospect. But the original, rudimentarily, had far more impact on me and was a much more revolutionary game in my view. It's the reason why the original is probably my favorite game of all time - no game left quite the same impact that Half-Life did for me.
FISHY CRACKERS
Spy
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 695
- Reaction score
- 0
Speaking of which i've been playing it, my first time through, i'm actually up to Xen and i'm stuck, but its a combat issue not a glitch, or lost or anything. I don't know and don't really care much about any of the names of the Xen creatures, other then Vortigaunt. So i'll just try my best here.
The very first time in Black Mesa where i saw those two hulking metal-covered Xen creatures with the bee guns, i naturally ran, expecting them to be one of those annoying bosses who refuses to die by normal means and only dies if you do something like set him on fire on the moon or something else you wouldn't really think of (which so far seemed how the game was going at that point, trying random things to get results)
Later i started realising they're basically a bit tougher version of the Vortigaunt, where with the Vort i'd run up to him, shoot him with my shotgun, and watch him die, and these i have to run up to them, shoot em with the alt fire of the shotgun twice, and watch em die.
Of course since for a while of fighting these big brutes you're out in the open, but on Xen where there's tight spaces all around and not many places to heal, i finally figured out that their bee gun shoots around corners, and naturally when i tried it, the bee gun did shit for damage. So i soon renamed it the 'Bullshit Gun'
Near the very end is annoyingly hard since there Vort's everywhere. Normally that wouldn't be a problem, but apparently the ones that are still on Xen are on steroids because they hurt like f*cking hell. By now both of our attacks pretty much do the same thing, instant kill. That mostly being because i've been forced to onl use the crossbow and magnum if i want to kill them easily. It was around this time i realised that the Tau Cannon and the Holy-Sh*t-What-Is-That-Death-Ray-Gun Cannon (you know, the one that shoots the overpowered purple beam) use the same ammo.
Normally that wouldn't be a problem since i barely use the Tau Cannon, but since it could be counted as a slight rapid fire weapon when i do use it and run out of ammo i'm pissed because then i can't use my HSWITDRG Cannon.
Since there's Vortigaunts and floating babies of death everywhere i almost always forget to save and soon after i die when encountering the metal hulks shooting at me with their Bullshit Guns. It was around the 16th time this happened and i grew tired of doing the same thing over and over, barely progressing at all each time, that i finally said "F*ck this Sh*t" and went off to tell you guys my opinion on it before going back to good old Half-Life 2 where i don't clip through an elevator and end up randomly having my body parts fly off so that it can move.
Cornerstone
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 582
- Reaction score
- 0
Yea go easy games without any thought!!
Darkside55
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2009
- Messages
- 12,083
- Reaction score
- 93
Half-Life. I could list one hundred reasons why, but I only need one:
Xen.
Xen.
FISHY CRACKERS
Spy
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 695
- Reaction score
- 0
Getting out of my rant mode, aside from all that, i enjoyed Half-Life for as far as i got through it, especially when i actually figure out what to do and do it properlly since, especially if you die alot, it gives you a sense of satisfaction at the end. But in all honesty, the Bee Gun is still shit when you have it and a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of those hulking bastards. I guess you really have to had play it long before Half-Life 2 otherwise it just isn't as enjoyable.
One thin in particular i loved was those small sections in Black Mesa where you're being shot at by those female ninjas in the spandex, those f*ckers were hard to hit so i greatly enjoyed it when i finally got close enough to give and effective alt fire of the shotgun, then blow up their body in joy. The grunts however were not fun, especially after you meet the first one, you see them and only them until you're finally about to go to Xen. It gets repetitive after a while but still you can never get tired of shooting a grunt with the magnum across the level and watching him fall dead over your awesome power.
Overall i liked Half-Life, i actually say that the graphics of today can go screw themselves because if they released Episode 3, as long as the physics and such were all still intact i wouldn't give a danm if it used these types of graphics. (But seriously VALVe, use the new graphics you've bene using in the episodes, they have things other then squares everywhere)
So in total, The game can get old with the 'encounter after encounter' thing, and essentially even if you didn't have a storyline you'd still be having a good time as long as you kept the levels the same. Though it seems to be just killing tons of baddy's, well actually no shit, it IS killing tons of baddys, without the storyline it'd still be great, stale, but great and if the Xen creatures were toned down just a bit and the Bullshit Gun arced a bit less so that it didn't do a full 360 on it's way to kill you and still hit it's target, my head would probably explode of confusion of trying to decide between the awesomeness of Half-Life 1 and 2.
But one last thing, i now understand why a few of the guns in Half-Life 2 have barely any ammo in their clips (cough*magnum*cough*shotgun*cough) because in Half-Life you get enough to give everyone in your hometown a bullet and still have enough leftover to play through the entire series again without picking up anymore.
One thin in particular i loved was those small sections in Black Mesa where you're being shot at by those female ninjas in the spandex, those f*ckers were hard to hit so i greatly enjoyed it when i finally got close enough to give and effective alt fire of the shotgun, then blow up their body in joy. The grunts however were not fun, especially after you meet the first one, you see them and only them until you're finally about to go to Xen. It gets repetitive after a while but still you can never get tired of shooting a grunt with the magnum across the level and watching him fall dead over your awesome power.
Overall i liked Half-Life, i actually say that the graphics of today can go screw themselves because if they released Episode 3, as long as the physics and such were all still intact i wouldn't give a danm if it used these types of graphics. (But seriously VALVe, use the new graphics you've bene using in the episodes, they have things other then squares everywhere)
So in total, The game can get old with the 'encounter after encounter' thing, and essentially even if you didn't have a storyline you'd still be having a good time as long as you kept the levels the same. Though it seems to be just killing tons of baddy's, well actually no shit, it IS killing tons of baddys, without the storyline it'd still be great, stale, but great and if the Xen creatures were toned down just a bit and the Bullshit Gun arced a bit less so that it didn't do a full 360 on it's way to kill you and still hit it's target, my head would probably explode of confusion of trying to decide between the awesomeness of Half-Life 1 and 2.
But one last thing, i now understand why a few of the guns in Half-Life 2 have barely any ammo in their clips (cough*magnum*cough*shotgun*cough) because in Half-Life you get enough to give everyone in your hometown a bullet and still have enough leftover to play through the entire series again without picking up anymore.
Fiberawptic
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 557
- Reaction score
- 2
No, its even more suprising how many people don't like hl2... Afterall this is half life '2'.net
I honestly dont know why both games cant be appreciated a lot... I'm under the impression many people say hl1 just because they are trying to seem cool and like they are hardcore old school gamers... I also get the impression many people are blindly saying Hl2 because its simply more up to date, and has more to offer... But if you played both games, like i did, i think both have a lot to be appreciated. I think hl2 is one of the best sequals to anything... hl1 was one of the best games i played, so i put the two and two together and i think they are practically equal.
Now who agress with me?
Sledgehammer
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,018
- Reaction score
- 2
How did you run out of ammo for the shotgun? There's so much ammo for that thing, lying around everywhere. I can imagine running out of ammo for it in some parts of Episode One, but that's about it.
Kadayi
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,034
- Reaction score
- 0
Prior to HL, every other FPS was merely a derivative of the Doom model, games had minimal plot and the enemies would pretty much run and gun at you with no sense of self preservation. As a gaming genre the FPS wasn't that highly regarded compared to other gaming genres at the time, such RPGs etc. HL which utilized IDs relatively recent Quake technology was a breathe of fresh air upon it's release and was a major evolution in the genre from what had come before. It's impact completely shifted the whole view of what the FPS could be about and should be about, it also pushed gaming into the mainstream public eye because of the phenomenal sales it achieved (8 Million units). Now HL2 is a great game, esp with its clever integration of physics with game play, as well as it's groundbreaking advances in facial animation, but although it raised the bar, it didn't raise it as much as it's predecessor had imo.
FISHY CRACKERS
Spy
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 695
- Reaction score
- 0
It's not like that, i mean i agree that i barely run out of ammo for the shotgun, but i'm just saying i'm glad as hell they toned down the ammo count to the point where it actually is possible to run out of ammo.
Fiberawptic
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 557
- Reaction score
- 2
I agree, im completely aware of how different and, to say the cliche word, "revolutionary" hl1 was. Hell, i got it when it came out, and my instant reaction was "wow, this is very different" and then noticed that it was perfect...
I just think the whole "hl1 is a better game than hl2 BECAUSE it changed gaming more" isnt a fair way to judge. Because thats judging a game based on the games comming after it, but i view this poll as a comparison of the quality of the two games themself, not which one changed FPS history more.. Plus, you need to put it in perspective, hl1 came out in 1998, that was a time when Gaming was something small compared to other things like movies/music, but now its as big as the movie and music buisness. Hl1 came out when gaming hadn't been as developed... With hl2, there was hardly any ground to cover, and there was so much more competition than there was in 1998... I mean, what would you have like to seen in hl2 that would have made it a revolutionary game? I dont think valve worked on Hl2 saying "ok, we got to make this game super ground breaking, so lets start thinking of the craziest ideas and throw em in and hopefully other games will do it too" hell, even with what i said, i think hl2 still changed a lot of important aspects in FPS's, like the whole thing about you being in the world and interacting HEAVILY with the world, not just going through a room and killing somone in it... The physics dont need a lot of explanation but i can tell so many games make it mandatory to have now, like crysis, halo, cod4... hl2 was quite groundbreaking but not as much as hl1 because they are from different times...
