N
NachoMan
Guest
In terms of the story, I think my biggest frustration was that the game didn't give you enough time or information to start with before throwing you into the fray. I am quite capable of filling in the blanks, but there's got to be some writing on the page to start with!
Just a little bit more information, a few more characters to talk to, a longer train ride so that you can see what you are getting yourself into. Anything like that just to set the scene first before slapping you in the middle of it.
Aside from the story, my other biggest problem with the game was purely the style of gameplay. Everything else in the game was pretty innovative and well implemented, but the core gameplay was really no more advanced than Doom 3. I would have loved to have been able to lean and fire (something that I thought was almost a standard nowadays), climb over things, climb drainpipes etc. Weapons were dead easy to use, just point and click, no recoil, and the pistols are so accurate that I find myself using them instead of the SMG for most outdoor levels.
I know people are sick of Halo 2 comparisons, but look at the core gameplay! You can duel wield for loads of nice weapon combinations, it takes skill to wield weapons with recoil, you have several different vehicles that all take relative skill to use, you have a shield that forces you to take cover when damaged etc etc. This helps to make Halo 2 play just a bit different from the slew of FPS games available today, it helps it to stand out.
Half life 2 doesn't have this. It innovates in other areas, but in terms of core gameplay it doesn't progress far at all. It's very much a WOW game, designed to awe you, but once the novelty factor wears down... well, we'll see whether people are still playing it in 5 years time.
Just a little bit more information, a few more characters to talk to, a longer train ride so that you can see what you are getting yourself into. Anything like that just to set the scene first before slapping you in the middle of it.
Aside from the story, my other biggest problem with the game was purely the style of gameplay. Everything else in the game was pretty innovative and well implemented, but the core gameplay was really no more advanced than Doom 3. I would have loved to have been able to lean and fire (something that I thought was almost a standard nowadays), climb over things, climb drainpipes etc. Weapons were dead easy to use, just point and click, no recoil, and the pistols are so accurate that I find myself using them instead of the SMG for most outdoor levels.
I know people are sick of Halo 2 comparisons, but look at the core gameplay! You can duel wield for loads of nice weapon combinations, it takes skill to wield weapons with recoil, you have several different vehicles that all take relative skill to use, you have a shield that forces you to take cover when damaged etc etc. This helps to make Halo 2 play just a bit different from the slew of FPS games available today, it helps it to stand out.
Half life 2 doesn't have this. It innovates in other areas, but in terms of core gameplay it doesn't progress far at all. It's very much a WOW game, designed to awe you, but once the novelty factor wears down... well, we'll see whether people are still playing it in 5 years time.
Chiefi
Spy
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Messages
- 334
- Reaction score
- 0
I win!!!11! jk :cheese:Spartan said:
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with you for obvious reasons. The story is there, it's just not in your face. You need to look for details and such. Details give so much of the story. (Fourth time I think I'm saying that.) :OSpartan said:
not28
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 898
- Reaction score
- 0
Ravenholm was cool, and it scared the shit out of me at certain points (particularly the areas with poison/fast zombies), but overall it felt like a game within a game. Still liked it, though.dynamicx said:Ravenholm was in the game because:
1. Apparently the only way out of BME
2. Fitted very well with the story line, showing why people flocked to the citys and what the combine headcrab shelling could do to rebel resistence
3. Was a nice change of pace and gave the player time to have fun with the physics, obviously not everyone will like it as you can't please everyone. For some it will have been their favourite part, others will have gotten out as quick as they could
4. You get to fight with badass gregori
Edcrab
Veteran Incompetent
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 2,388
- Reaction score
- 0
The reasons are obviously fairly clear to Valve. They're pulling a Reloaded stunt... yay, for a sequel that's bound to appear in an indefinable time period. And no bad jokes about them being made back to back.
They're not adequately explained enough for your tastes... obviously a lot of other people are happy with a good looking action shooter with a decent physics engine and the odd engimatic portion of plot. Personally, I'm fairly happy with what I've seen/experienced of/in the latest addition to the HL universe- but then again, I honestly didn't expect them to make any startling revelations.
They're not adequately explained enough for your tastes... obviously a lot of other people are happy with a good looking action shooter with a decent physics engine and the odd engimatic portion of plot. Personally, I'm fairly happy with what I've seen/experienced of/in the latest addition to the HL universe- but then again, I honestly didn't expect them to make any startling revelations.
Ravenholm was in the game because Valve figured: we have zombies and a post-apocalyptic world (a la Resident Evil), shouldn't this cliche be exploited? of course it should!
It doesn't fit into the storyline. Think about it, you could place Ravenholm anywhere you want, and it still wouldn't fit into the storyline.
PvtRyan
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 10,026
- Reaction score
- 1
not28 said:
HL2 used the same way of storytelling as HL did only the perspective is a little broader now
And at the end I felt pretty much the same as in HL: realization that this is about something much bigger. There were new concepts introduced at the end, the G-Man put so much emphasis on time for a reason, like the G-Man of HL started talking about his employers.
The story suddenly got a whole lot bigger at the end of both games. And yes, your moments of confrontation with the main characters were brief, but they had plenty of implicit interesting stuff to say, and you can't keep up the typical pace of HL games with a 20 minute "story scene". There were things like that planned however, the game was meant to start off with Eli giving you a slideshow with what happened between Black Mesa and now, but all the stuff he was going to tell, was in the game itself now, a lot more interesting way to pick it up.
Also, in the 2003 proof-of-concept demo's which you got to see at E3, the Kleiner lab scene was meant to be much longer, but like the Eli example, this would rape the pace of the game. I mean, there are people who think the trainride of HL was too long...
There was no reason to do lengthy conversations between characters, they needed to be short to keep up the pace to maintain the illusion that the Combine were hunting you.
And in the end, it got to the same result, but now you slowly built up the realization of what the Combine invasion has done to humanity.
Mr-Fusion
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 5,517
- Reaction score
- 1
Or maybe his point was spot on...Odysseus said:
I found it to fit perfectly. Of course that's subjective like every other story element in the game. I think it's great, you think it sucks. Ravenholm really made me realise why people would hang around c17, the buggy sequence just enforced that reason.
S
soul
Guest
Eternity said:Threads like this are absolutely ridiculous. Item: if you seriously think that Half-life 2 is a mediocre game, you're an idiot. Go drool over somebody else's shoes, please. There are only two reasons that somebody would try to claim this game isn't one of the best ever made: you have absolutely no experience with computer/video games, or you want attention.
Will you prepubescent, dimwitted wannabe trolls get off my forum? You don't really think this game missed the bar: you wanted this thread to go above three pages, and don't try to tell me different, because I can walk all over you in every way possible. Let's review some objective standards.
1) Graphics -- objectively, some of the best ever
2) Physics -- objectively, best ever
3) Facial animation -- objectively, best ever in video game
4) Characters -- objectively, some of the best ever, from the fluid animation to their gestures to the way they speak
5) Level design -- objectively, some of the best ever
6) Enemies -- objectively, some of the best pathfinding ever found in a game
So before you try to somehow tell me that HL2 didn't even find the bar, have second thoughts, freak. I'm betting money you didn't even play the entire game.
I read this whole thread, and out of all the posts, this one stood out.
I must be an idiot, seeing as how I think HL2 is mediocre at best. I'm sorry to disappoint you though, but I don't fit into either of the two categories. Yeah, I like poking fun at people who think Valve can do no wrong (as is evidenced by my signature), but I don't do it for attention. If I did, I would have started a thread like this, instead of just replying to one back on page 11 (or higher by the time I post this).
Now, since you have resorted to childish name calling, I will take this opportunity to point out that you must have no clue what the word "objectively" means. It implies stating an unbiased opinion. Stating that anyone that thinks HL2 is mediocre is a drooling idiot doesn't sound unbiased to me, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
1) Graphics: Decent, at best. This doesn't bother me though, since decent is all I look for. For the sake of offering an explanation though, there was nothing new brought to the table.
2) Physics: The engine? Minor bug here and there, but overall Havoc seems to have made a nice engine. The implementation? Having to stack boxes in order to solve just about every puzzle isn't fun.
3) Facial animations: Good I suppose, but they certainly didn't make me want to care about the characters (Gabe made a comment regarding that at E3 2003).
4) Characters: Bland. At least in Half-Life 1 I could kill Barney to get some extra ammo.
5) Level design: Standard FPS levels. No better or worse than other games.
6) Enemies: Nothing special. All too often they'd let me walk right up to them so that I could get a point blank shot off.
To the person that mentioned we should e-mail our comments to Valve (I forgot who it was, obviously), I've already done that. Valve is apparently only for the fans when the fans are heaping praise on them though.
I'll even save someone the work: "omg stfu u have under 30 posts so yer a noob!"
J
jamespow
Guest
Another provocateur. Why oh why do you people insist on stirring up crap by going against the flow fully aware of the following consequenses?
S
skarbus
Guest
soul said:
Not really. Maybe they just want well thought out criticisms instead of jaded, cynical generalizations.
Mr-Fusion
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 5,517
- Reaction score
- 1
Because they keep coming here day after day onto a fansite to tell us they think the game is mediocre.destrukt said:people think it sucks, whoo cares. get over it
It's just really weird behaviour to constantly post in a fansite for a game that you hate. It's trolling but the admins around here have completely vanished.
Thadius Dean
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2003
- Messages
- 884
- Reaction score
- 0
on the whole ravenholm deal, i was reading the first page and noticed how people were complaining about how the environments in HL were all the same. then there are people who think that Ravenholm in HL2 is too out of place...
it just isnt going to be perfect for EVERYONE.
it just isnt going to be perfect for EVERYONE.
soul said:
1) Doom 3 is the only game that can compare with HL2's gfx.
2) You don't have to stack boxes for every puzzle. Some of these puzzles were the most unique I've ever seen in a game. The physics engine helped out the gameplay a TON (using barrels for cover, stuff like that)
3) Yeah I agree with that.
4) I thought there was nothing wrong with the characters and they actually seemed really good at times (Mossman)
5) Agreed
6) What are they supposed to do? Run away like a little girl?
uh yea actually it is one of the best games ever, and ppl have been playing cs for the last 5 yrs.
and OFCOURSE it could of been better, but i can say the same for everything.
yea lord of the rings was a good movie, but it could of been better.
madden 2005 is good, but could of been better.
halo2 is good, but could of been better
farcry was good but could of been better...geesh some ppl have too much to complain about.
and seriously, is it that hard to understand why ravenholm was in the game?
only dissapointment to me is that they cut alot out from the leak, but i played the leak anyways so it dont matter. another that pissed me off, is the fact that you could no longer zoom with the smg and the rocket launcher.
ltzgonemad
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 0
HL2 didnt miss the bar, it was just to short to reach all the way up.
ScRaTcH-A-HoLiC
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2004
- Messages
- 346
- Reaction score
- 0
ltzgonemad said:
Half life reached up the bar and hoped over..
How could you say it didnt.
L
lanzemurdok
Guest
I'm tired of all this ****ing hating and bashing and i'm going to resort to using childish ways of getting my anger out.
**** ya'll haters. Nothing can please your little ****** ass, you get disappointed at everything and then go on forums to express your disgust like a true ****ing whiny bitch. You want some cheese with that whine? if you don't like the game then why do you go out of your way to moan and bitch about it? does that make the game better? are you hoping to somehow change the minds of some people? you don't gain anything.
Why don't you just keep it to yourself instead of spewing useless crap on the internet?
Go play halo 2, bitches.
I'm not coming back, if you respond I won't read it. **** YA'LL HATERS.
**** ya'll haters. Nothing can please your little ****** ass, you get disappointed at everything and then go on forums to express your disgust like a true ****ing whiny bitch. You want some cheese with that whine? if you don't like the game then why do you go out of your way to moan and bitch about it? does that make the game better? are you hoping to somehow change the minds of some people? you don't gain anything.
Why don't you just keep it to yourself instead of spewing useless crap on the internet?
Go play halo 2, bitches.
I'm not coming back, if you respond I won't read it. **** YA'LL HATERS.
I can only speak for myself, and in my case, I was predisposed to LOVE this game and was HUGELY DISAPPOINTED. How could I not be disappointed when I waited 6 years for this game only to find that it lacks ALL the subtlety and originality that made HL1 the best game ever ???
I already told you about the depression this game sank me into, do I need to tell you more about it? Hey at least I sold this game for $28 less than I paid, but there is still a huge void left in my heart, and I hold Valve accountable for it.
I already told you about the depression this game sank me into, do I need to tell you more about it? Hey at least I sold this game for $28 less than I paid, but there is still a huge void left in my heart, and I hold Valve accountable for it.
spencerjrus
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2004
- Messages
- 162
- Reaction score
- 0
Is the game awesome? Yes.
Do I think they could have done alot better in 5 years? Yes.
Do I think they could have done alot better in 5 years? Yes.
E
Elite_Mongoose
Guest
how could it be below ur standards?! its the best game ive ever played!!
