Half Life vs Half Life 2

Half Life or Half Life 2


  • Total voters
    95
So many say HL2, but in my eyes they are equal.
 
Half-Life 2, mainly because I played HL2 when it came out, when it was pretty much at the top of its level at the time, in terms of gameplay, graphic etc, so it really had a deep impact on me. I played HL after HL2, and whether there is no doubt it is a great game, it didnt have the impact that HL2 had on me.

Had I played HL when it came out, then my opinions may be varied.
 
Well, I've still not completed HL1 so I would obviously say HL2. But even if i had completed the original I would say the same because the graphics are so much better, the AI is (a bit) better, the levels seem better, etc. Ok, I can't judge it fully because, like I said before, I've not completed the original, but I have watched play-throughs so I can judge from that.
 
I gotta give it to my main man eli.

I mean half life.
 
Kind of off topic, but Shasta86 posted in this poll. Do you think it could be him? Or was he perma-banned?
On topic: Half-Life's AI seemed a little advanced for it's time, except for that one soldier who wouldn't get out of the way of mah supa-rail cart.
 
Too hard to choose.

Half Life had so many diverse experiences, and I loved every single one of them. Also, it was fairly challenging, and had legit boss battles with unique monsters. The platforming sucked though, and I found that the game would kinda mess up every now and again.

Half Life 2 had revolutionary graphics, physics, animation, and arguably the most ingenious weapon ever created. The story and voice acting was also very good. However, it was a tad short, and far too easy (maybe thats why it seemed shorter, I dunno).
 
I'd play STALKER over half life, but other than that I like them equally.
 
i chose neither because neither of them are better than the other.
 
HL1.

Aside from MAYBE Doom, the most groundbreaking game in the history of FPS's. A complete rethink for it's time. Was 2 a better game? Of course, it was made years later. But for it's time absolutely no contest. No "levels,"( just a couple of words accross a screen and some "loading" time, no scoring, developing plot, suspense, emotion engaging, custom fan mapping made easy (and encouraged) and so on were all new and radically different. Were there too many jumping puzzles? yes. But you can't agrue how much the original game changed gaming.

It really depends on each individuals definition of "better," but for me the world of gaming changed a lot more after the first one than the second one. I'd much rather play the second one of course, but I don't know if "better" is really the right word for this survey.
 
HL1.

Aside from MAYBE Doom, the most groundbreaking game in the history of FPS's. A complete rethink for it's time. Was 2 a better game? Of course, it was made years later. But for it's time absolutely no contest. No "levels,"( just a couple of words accross a screen and some "loading" time, no scoring, developing plot, suspense, emotion engaging, custom fan mapping made easy (and encouraged) and so on were all new and radically different. Were there too many jumping puzzles? yes. But you can't agrue how much the original game changed gaming.

It really depends on each individuals definition of "better," but for me the world of gaming changed a lot more after the first one than the second one. I'd much rather play the second one of course, but I don't know if "better" is really the right word for this survey.

You make it sound as if Hl2 wasn't groundbreaking at all...
 
Half-Life for sure, it's full of dark humour.
 
You make it sound as if Hl2 wasn't groundbreaking at all...

2 was def groundbreaking in it's own way. The source engine of course, steam and it's marketing capibilities etc. I just think that overall impact on the gaming world was a lot more felt in 1 that's all. The entire half life series as a franchise is the absolute number 1 package on eath period for me so what's "better" in that package really matters very litttle overall.
 
Half-Life 2, its more intune to a modern game styles, Half-Life is rather dated now, I tried playing through it about a month ago and got bored about half way through.
 
HL2, for being a much tighter, more consistent gaming experience. I have to admit, though, the original is a far scarier and more challenging game. Had it maintained the momentum it built in Blast Pit and Power Up, it might have taken the prize.
 
I usually play HL when Im downloading stuff.. I play HL2 when Im hungering for sum gaming goodness.
 
Half-life 2 is a significantly better game in every way, and it's so much more enjoyable to play through. The gameplay is more diverse, the content stronger, the design consistent – it's just better.
 
Half-Life 2 is a better designed game and improves upon the original in a number of ways. If I had to make a strict comparison of the two, I'd say the sequel is superior.

But placed in historical context, the original was the bigger "event" for me. It was more challenging, more tense and frightening, and had better pacing. Also, gibs.
 
HL2, for being a much tighter, more consistent gaming experience. I have to admit, though, the original is a far scarier and more challenging game. Had it maintained the momentum it built in Blast Pit and Power Up, it might have taken the prize.

It was a lot "scarier" wasn't it? I hadn't really thought about it before but I think that is one of the things I really liked about it. You were basically just trying to get the heck out of there. A real survivalist story. So much confusion and panic. You versus virtually everyone (except scared scientists and guards with bb guns). I really loved the errieness of places like "office complex" where just a short time ago people would have been working and now it's darkened, or flooded and death is everywhere. You are discovering the horror as it occurs. Like when the army is sent in and at first you are excited that you wil be saved only to learn they are there to kill everyone. In 2 (which is a great game, don't get me wrong) you are more fighting against a known enemy that all the rebels are already working against. You as Freeman are learning as you go, but you seem to be the only guy not in the know.

Even things like the Gman. In 1 the first time through you are like "who the heck is that dude and where does he keep disappearing to?" In 2 you're like "Oh there's the g-man crossing the bridge."
 
Half-life 2. I couldn't get in to the first one, I think because everything was built in a to convenient manner. "Oh look, all these crates make a bridge across this gap, that's lucky."
 
It was a lot "scarier" wasn't it?

For me, I think, the scariness of HL has a lot to do with how dangerous everything feels. Gordon could expect a humiliating gibbing death around virtually every conrner. Remember how tense Blast Pit was?

In contrast, I suffered relatively few combat deaths in HL2, and those mostly from Striders.

I think HL2's scariness is more correctly termed "eerieness." The two parts that stand out for me are the very beginning of the game, when the player is introduced to the strange, shabby new world, and the first third of Nova Prospekt, neither of which has much combat.
 
Half Life for better story telling, AI, game-play, and difficulty and being willing to kill you around every bend to prove that this was a dangerous place, where in Half Life 2 I kept feeling like any numb-nuts in armour could walk around kicking ass.
 
I'd say Half-Life 2 demonstrated better AI from my experiences. Unfortunately, it was hampered by environments that simply weren't conducive for it, and most enemies dropped like flies.

You'd think the Combine would take a cue from the homegrown super soldiers the US government was pumping into Black Mesa.
 
I wouldn't consider better AI huddling around explosive barrels and on rickety wooden overhangs or rappelling down in front of vehicles and always charging forward, never flanking or taking cover despite large piles of dead combine laying in front of them.
 
I don't think it's a question of weather the game is good atm, its a question of which one did you enjoy the most when you played it for the first time, and for me, tbh, it was hl1. They're both groundbreaking, but i think that if you've never completed HL1, or ever played it for that matter, you should then realize your opinion doesn't contribute anything but blind fanboyism of the second game to the poll.

Then again, maybe I'm just a fanboy of the original, but I enjoyed the first one a hell of a lot, even after half-life 2 came out, for a few months. Then when it really started to get to me how outdated everything was, and now I have more fun playing hl2. And soon that will wear off and I'll enjoy playing EP1 more, then ep2, and I expect it'll go so on...

Though that holds little relevance to the topic at hand. :D
 
I wouldn't consider better AI huddling around explosive barrels and on rickety wooden overhangs or rappelling down in front of vehicles and always charging forward, never flanking or taking cover despite large piles of dead combine laying in front of them.

I saw plenty of flanking and taking cover, but only on Hard difficulty (which made their toughness more comparable to HL1's marines).

The wooden overhangs and rappelling were scripted sequences, not actual AI. So, duh?
 
I know this thread is a few days old but i was hoping to reply.

To cornerstone, I'd say its almost a fact that Hl2 had better storytelling. Sure hl1 introduced it, but it was at such a fundemental level; Science experiment goes wrong, aliens invade facility, people get killed, and save the world. Hl2 on the other hand had character development and more plot development in terms of things are happening that you are causing and its affecting the way the world is interacting with you and vice versa. Hl2 had characters that you didn't just ask to open a door and never see them again, they actaully were with you through out and you developed a relationship with them.
you also described the AI as just hiding behind explosive barrels and bridges. Have you o0nly played the Route Canal leveL? because thats an overstereotyped comment that only applies to 30 mins of the entire game. The A.i in hl2 seems a little weak now, but when it came out, it was quite amazing.

to van halen, 'fanboyism' is probably one of the most idiotic terms created, and i think you are aware of it judging by what you said. its basically saying that liking something or having a favorite thing is a bad thing. My favorite movie is The Godfather, does that make me a stupid godfather fanboy or do i just enjoy true art like many critics? I do agree that if someone hasn't played hl1, specifcally when it came out, they dont have a rigth to judge, but i did play hl1 when it came out and hl2 and both of them gave me the same level of amazingness and awww towards it. For me, hl2 did that a little more than hl1 and theres more to like, so i say hl2 but they are both practically the best video games i have ever played which is an incredible thing...
 
I think you should look again at how I used "fanboyism". To be fair you should include the whole statement, as I said "BLIND fanboyism". Therefor, I have no problem with people being fanboys, but I do have a problem when they judge something they don't know versus something they know very well. in other words, it doesn't seem to me that it is fair, or educated/intelligible to judge a game you didn't beat to a game you have beaten a lot.

That's all I meant. I even said I might just be a fanboy of the original just to make sure my view on it was clear. :)
 
I think you should look again at how I used "fanboyism". To be fair you should include the whole statement, as I said "BLIND fanboyism". Therefor, I have no problem with people being fanboys, but I do have a problem when they judge something they don't know versus something they know very well. in other words, it doesn't seem to me that it is fair, or educated/intelligible to judge a game you didn't beat to a game you have beaten a lot.

That's all I meant. I even said I might just be a fanboy of the original just to make sure my view on it was clear. :)


I agree, you need to beat the first game to make a fair judgment which i think many people do but hl2 still comes out on top. but just curious, did you like hl2 at all? I met a guy who was a crazy fan of the original but completely despised the sequal which was very odd to me, because i was a huge fan when the orginal came out, i had posters, and i even had GI Joe dolls that i pretended were the government forces that invade black mesa... yet, i love the sequal to death, even more probably.

I think hl2 really is the perfect sequal, it stayed true to the original by not having cut scenes, gordon never talking, having the g-man, but it also established some very new things like settings, some of the characters, enemies, story...
 
Nah... i love the sequal, just not qite as much as the orig. maybe it's because the gameplay was more fun/challenging, or i didn't feel like i had to skimp on ammo as much... One things for sure, if I had the same weapons for hl2 as i did for hl1 I would have loved it more than any other game. Even now I love playing half-life 2, but only with SMOD: Tactical (By the way, if you don't have SMOD: tactical, look it up on google, and get it. It's amazing. :p
 
I've played both near enough to release to have pretty rose tinted views of both, but Half-Life 2 is clearly the better game. Parts of Half-Life 1 veer on unplayable now: stuff like On a Rail, Residue Processing and everything in Xen, where the game dabbles unsuccessfully in First Person Platform gaming and liberally applies Sonic the Hedgehog logic to visuals and obstacles* Sure, the puzzle bosses are great and Surface Tension is a prime slice of action gaming, but there's an equal amount of tripe in the game, and Half-Life 2 is a far, far more refined action experience.

*Conveyor belts that hover in mid air, lead to fiery furnaces. Green Goop hurts you. Xen's lack of continuity in a game that has been up to that point about having a sense of exploration, despite the linearity of the game.
 
Nah... i love the sequal, just not qite as much as the orig. maybe it's because the gameplay was more fun/challenging, or i didn't feel like i had to skimp on ammo as much... One things for sure, if I had the same weapons for hl2 as i did for hl1 I would have loved it more than any other game. Even now I love playing half-life 2, but only with SMOD: Tactical (By the way, if you don't have SMOD: tactical, look it up on google, and get it. It's amazing. :p

so the gravity gun and the ar2 which has a secondary fire that disinigrates people isnt fun? I like hl2 because it isn't all weapons driven like most games, the weapons fit the world, so having guns that shoot lazer beamz would be pretty lame. by doing that there a better focus on story, same with creatures, sure they have the massive strider and fast hunter but they dont have like 30 different crazy large enemies that you fight all the time, most of the enemies are just trans-humans in armour...

And kupo i agree with you, when i played hl1, there were parts that were annoying and i wanted to get past, it wasn't many parts, but it was there. With hl2, i adored every inch, and no exageration included, there wasn't a single moment i found boring and dry, thats one of the main reason hl2 gets it for me, but hl1 is right underneath...
 
Back
Top