Objective analysis of HL2s faults (probably spoilers)

[coleslawjoe]

Im sure everyone here has heard all the praise about half life 2, and while I agree that it is an excelent game, it does have some faults. I was wondering what everybody thought about what was wrong with HL2, and what could have been improved upon. Before I start, this really isnt meant to be flaimbait or anything. Heres what I thought was wrong with HL2:

Lack of variety in Enemies: There really wasnt much variety in the enemies you fought. It was basically headcrabs/zombies, combines soldiers, antlions, striders, and gunships for the bulk of the game. I would have love to have seen a bullsquid and a houndeye or two. maybe even a biozeminade(sp?).

Lack of variety in Weapons: The weapons were balanced well, but many of the weapons that made half life 1 original (snarks, handheld tau cannon, egon , hivehand or even satchels and tripmines) were all missing. I would have loved to released some snarks on the combine. Also all of the guns seem like "real" weapons unlike HL1 where you had experimental/alien weapons (with exception of gravity gun)

Physics too rigid: I felt this game could have used some more relaxed physics. when you try and move a crate through a door with the gravity gun, it just slams everywhere and makes too much noise. Or in the beginning of the game right before you go out into the plaza, theres a milk crate with some glass bottles in it and when you try and pick it up, all the glass bottles fly everywhere and explode. Although its an amazing physics system, I feel the collisions (especially with world) could be tweaked a bit.

Not enough Plot: The ammount of information revealed in half life 2 doesnt even come close to matching the ammount of questions raised or unanswered. There are many theories about the combine but most are based on speculation. I would have liked to have learned more about the G man, but it will have to wait for half life 3 i guess.

Wild variation in difficulty: Although half life 2 was not a hard game, throughout there were periods which were very easy, and periods that were fairly difficult (for the first time through) eg Canals and highway 17 were easy imo, but ravenholm and the sniper spot were hell the first time through.

Ending lacked: As much as I try and like the ending, it was sort of bleh. As the game reaches a huge ass climax, it just stops. I would love to know what happens to the cast of half life 2 and all of city 17. Did they die? i dont know (I doubt it, that would leave valve little to build half life 3 from).

I really enjoyed the game, but i figured it would be easier to point out the few faults then to praise all the good stuff. opinions?

 

[moggy]

i do agree with most of your thoughts there. i too understand some of these short commings.

in short, i think they did not use as much material as they could have and it lacked the overall style and substance of the first game. other effects and sequences were good but in comparison with other games just too average to make it a truely inspiring hl game.

also i dont think they all died in c17, as i think it gives u a hint as u see dr.kleiner s lamarr at the end

 

[subtlesnake]

I would agree with you on some points, but much is subjective. I found Ravenholm to be very easy for instance (if you use physics objects to their full effect).

The ending was also IMO the best I've ever experienced in any game.

 

[Eunoch]

i dont agree with the varying difficulty, i thought it was quite easy all the way through. i do agree with the physgun being too rigid, but theres not a lot that you can do to improve it at this point in time

 

[PvtRyan]

Rather subjective for an objective analysis. And that's the way it will always be.

 

[Mountain Man]

Lack of variety in Enemies.

Lack of variety in Weapons.

I think Valve was going for a "less is more" approach, particularly with the weapons. Personally, I thought the enemy variety was fine, especially for a game like Half-Life 2 which is more than just shooting enemies. Plus, the enemy selection made sense in the context of the game. The weapons were few, but each one was superbly balanced and useful in its own way. I'd rather have half-a-dozen balanced and useful weapons than two dozen weapons where I only use two or three.

Physics too rigid.

Half-Life 2 features the best simulated physics ever seen in a video game. Could it be improved? Of course, just like any other innovation, but it's hardly flawed in its current implementation.

Not enough Plot.

The plot is brilliant both its executation and presentation. Valve didn't make the game for idiots, they're not going to spoonfeed you with exposition and other "in your face" story telling techniques. Rather, you have to pay attention and assemble the pieces yourself.

See this article for a lengthy analysis of Half-Life 2's literary qualities.

Wild variation in difficulty.

I don't agree with this at all. The difficulty was perfectly balanced and ramped up smoothly from beginning to end.

Ending lacked.

Much like Half-Life 2's overall story and plot, there are some people who simply don't "get" the ending. I happen to think it's one of the best conclussions I've ever seen in a game.

 

[Sai Grit]

I felt the dozens of things I could kill people using the gravity gun with complemented the more practical weapons perfectly.