OMG , Some One gave HL2 a 8.3 Score :ooo

[Alig]

Haha, I hope you put that in there for comic value because I almost fell off my chair. Far Cry was one of the most pathetic FPS games I've played in a long time. The AI was pants. It would see you hiding in the bushes a quarter of a mile away but then often overlook you when you stood right in front of it. The enemy soldiers would run for you, but get stuck and run in circles instead. Endlessly. All of the monsters had one line of code for AI. Run toward the player.

Pathfinding for everything was rotten. The missions where that stupid girl tagged along were utterly frustrating. She would stand in front of you, block doors, shoot at enemies, blowing your cover, but completely missing. There were parts where you would require her to open a door or do some other boring and useless task, but she'd be perpetually running into a tree somewhere instead.

The story was hilarious. And not because it wanted to be. The level of cliché was inexplicable. The lead character's voice was a cliché in itse;f. And an irritating one at that. There was no mystery, subtlety or intrigue to the plot. Oooh, "Evil scientist does experiments on a tropical island and makes monsters!11 Ex-mercenary tries to stop him!1!"?!" Wow, what a storytelling breakthrough. I can even get over clichéd plots if they're executed well, but this wasn't.

The only decent thing about the entire game was the graphics. And, having played it on max detail, they weren't even that special. The graphics are the only reason this game scored into the 80s in reviews. There's no other explanation.

Change a few words around the story and you've just described HL2 there. Except FarCry has better graphics and it has better action than HL2 so yeah, i think FarCry is the better of the two.

Reviews, smews...they mean nothing.

Edit/ Oh yeah and also, since when did HL2's monsters have a different line of code for AI? Do my eyes decieve me or do HL2's monsters REALLY only run at you?

 

[DigiQ8]

i'd give it a 9.7
Its the best FPS ever

I played FarCry its a good game, but better than HL2 ? nah i dont think so.

 

[pblse]

I think you people that give this game such high scores need to get some distance to the game, it IS NOT that good !

Come back in six months and don't be so fast to give it such high scores as 9.7-10, ridicolous.

It's about 7 at the most !

 

[DigiQ8]

I think you people that give this game such high scores need to get some distance to the game, it IS NOT that good !

Come back in six months and don't be so fast to give it such high scores as 9.7-10, ridicolous.

It's about 7 at the most !

It is that good !, its worth the waiting.
this is the third time i beat the game !, its so much fun !.
i dont care about the story or the graphics i only care if the game is fun to play, and HL2 is fun. and im ready to play it again and again.
oh and dont forget about the mods. SDK will release next week w00t

 

[mayfer]

doom 3 and farcry don't stand a chance beside half life 2.
i've played many games and many fps's, but i've never had as much fun as i had playing half-life 2.

it does have some impurities, and it might not have been as good as some people expected, but it definately is the best pc game of all time.
i personally would've given it 9.7.

gameplay, storyline, the way the story is told, physics, graphics and most importantly characters were all revolutionary. no game can even come close to HL2's near-perfection. i think 90% of the people agree that even though HL2 did not exceed our expectations, it was the best FPS ever. (some ppl say HL1 is the best FPS ever.)

 

[one day....]

HL2 is a game i feel needs to be broken down to score it properly.

Story: 9.0

Graphics: 9.5

Replay Value: 7.9

Longetivity: 7.5

Gameplay: 9.2

Difficulty: 7.0

Overall: 8.9

thats my score anyway.I was amazed at the graphics,and the animations(especially facial) were very good.But it just is not challenging enough and seems to be over too quick.I have played through it twice as i feel it is good to go back and take more time and explore previously unseen/unnoticed content(but there isnt much here alas apart from a few gman sightings)

Its a very good game but it has its flaws,no game is perfect.

 

[Kongo]

Seems like a crappy site, his grammar isn't perfect

Edit: Or is it one of those sites where anyone can make their own review?

 

[one day....]

Seems like a crappy site, his grammar isn't perfect

Edit: Or is it one of those sites where anyone can make their own review?

I thought that too,quite a shit review,almost as crasp as mine!

Or crap even!

 

[Kongo]

I just read some more, there are lots of grammatical and factual errors..

 

[PvtRyan]

The story was hilarious. And not because it wanted to be. The level of cliché was inexplicable. The lead character's voice was a cliché in itse;f. And an irritating one at that. There was no mystery, subtlety or intrigue to the plot. Oooh, "Evil scientist does experiments on a tropical island and makes monsters!11 Ex-mercenary tries to stop him!1!"?!" Wow, what a storytelling breakthrough. I can even get over clichéd plots if they're executed well, but this wasn't.

No, no, no. You're forgetting what the HL2 story was according to that site:

Once again, players are thrust in the role of the future super soldier, as well as super genius, Gordon Freeman, and your job is to save the world from destruction at the hands of the Combine

And I'm quite sad actually that Gordon didn't have a voice like Jack did, I mean, who can resist "I'm gonna shoot you in the FACE!"?

 

[SFLUFAN]

And let's not forget the classic line "Bite my ass!"

 

[Nex321]

Well I can say I enjoyed games more when I was younger but now most of the games bore me. The only game that I could play for hours and hours without being bored is Half-life 2. For me the Half-life 2 is the perfect game.

 

[bas_]

me is missing the muiltiplayer options 2

 

[destrukt]

lol, you suck.

 

[MadHatter]

Jesus pissing on Christ. Why is everyone feathering and tarring Alig and anyone else who found HL2 not as great as they found it to be? It's just their opinion.

"I didn't think HL2 was as great as everyone made it out to be. Of course this is only my opinion."

"ZOMGz00rz!!! U r t3h sux n u r t3h stoopid if you don't think HL2 is as great as I think it is!!!"

 

[fredbass]

Overall: (low 9's)

I was also amazed at the graphics and the animations. It has been pretty easy to play, at least on the normal level. AI can be improved. I'd like more story. I'm also thinking that if I were put in a position where I could control a situation better or maybe get some type of AI team help, like where's the calvary when you need them, would be fun :cheese: Somehow it just seems petty and senseless to just be reactionary to little critters jumping at you all the time.

Its still a great game which I am enjoying.

Thankyou Valve

 

[Absinthe]

Valve said (i'm quite sure of it) the game does'nt use scripts along time ago...around the time they was showing the video of you blocking a door way up with combines following you and they shoot through the windows instead then throw a grenade and blow the objects blocking the path out the way so they can get to you. It's not even half as fun as that video made it look...the combines either hide behind a box and are on a set timer when to pop out and shoot OR they run straight upto you, point blanking you using a machine gun. Explain the logic in that.

-Valve never said that the game wouldn't use scripted sequences. I think that would have also been made abundantly clear by the videos. Valve just said that there wasn't any scripting in that scene. And, as you should know by now, that scene never made it into the game.

-I've never had a Combine soldier rush me and then fire at me at point blank. Ever.

-Gabe has stated that most of those videos shown at at E3 2003 were proof-of-concept, as in they showed what the engine was capable, what they could do with it, and what Half-Life 2 would be like. Aside from the AI, I'd say that they depicted it very well.

I'm on the follow freeman level at the moment, the strider's are quite lame compared to what they was supposed to do. I've deliberately turned AI off, walked to their feet and turned AI back on again and they don't impale you like they was shown to do - i saw an NPC impaled on its foot before but only the once. I can't get them to shoot their other weapon either...its making me wonder if they even kept that in.

I've seen quite a few of my teammates get impaled, and I've also seen the striders use their alternate charging attack.

 

[Pulsar]

Those guys just need some attantion.

 

[Brian Damage]

I've just finished playing, and I was on the sharp end of the Strider's charge-up attack about nine flippin' times!

 

[Alig]

Jesus pissing on Christ. Why is everyone feathering and tarring Alig and anyone else who found HL2 not as great as they found it to be? It's just their opinion.

"I didn't think HL2 was as great as everyone made it out to be. Of course this is only my opinion."

"ZOMGz00rz!!! U r t3h sux n u r t3h stoopid if you don't think HL2 is as great as I think it is!!!"

I agree, thanks for seeing it through my eyes.

I'm not even saying HL2 is a bad game, i've said it countless times the game isn't a bad one, it just isn't as good as i thought it would be and have found other games more fun to play.

 

[Zeus]

Jesus pissing on Christ. Why is everyone feathering and tarring Alig and anyone else who found HL2 not as great as they found it to be? It's just their opinion.

"I didn't think HL2 was as great as everyone made it out to be. Of course this is only my opinion."

"ZOMGz00rz!!! U r t3h sux n u r t3h stoopid if you don't think HL2 is as great as I think it is!!!"

Yes some people really need to remove their lips from valve's ass.

 

[Prone]

'As sequels go, this is a great one, but it isn't a perfect game. The story line has holes, there are seemingly pointless clues and dead ends, and some really crappy jumping levels, but a lot of that can simply be avoided. If you are a Sci Fi or shooters fan, this game was made for you, and if you know someone who is, its the perfect gift. "

He is not a good reviewer, it sounds like he just ran through the game to review it as quickly as possible. To find out the story interaction is a great necessity

He's not a good reviewer? How come you know? He is right, if you are not an absolute fanboy you will never work yourself through 1 Million threads on t3h int3rn3tZ!11!!1!tm to get every hint. The story has holes and the ending is disappointment for all "normal" players.

Anyway, are you a game reviewer? If so, show me some of your reviews and I will pick 'em apart and show they world you are not a good reviewer. A lot of a review is subjective...I know that.

He states all the facts, it's a great game that 99% of the ppl will love and HL2 won Editor's choice. Have you read more reviews from the site?

Don't judge so fanboyish biased...

 

[Deadline]

I give HL2 a -100%

 

[The Mullinator]

Alright, if anyone here can tell me this site gives good reviews after seeing this then I will simply stare at them blankly.

Rome: Total War - 8.6
Rise of Nations - 9.4
Medieval: Total War - 9.0
Star Trek: Starfleet Command - 8.3

I mean how could Star Trek: Starfleet Command be just as good as HL2? Or how could Rise of Nations be so much higher than Rome: Total War? These guys give really weird scores.

 

[Dsty2001]

There is no such thing as a non-biased review. If you think there is, you either

A: Misunderstand human nature
or
B: Are living in denial

 

[Slick37c]

I'm pretty sure they go by, time it was released, and the genre, so I think those scores are fine.

 

[Dsty2001]

Jesus pissing on Christ. Why is everyone feathering and tarring Alig and anyone else who found HL2 not as great as they found it to be? It's just their opinion.

"I didn't think HL2 was as great as everyone made it out to be. Of course this is only my opinion."

"ZOMGz00rz!!! U r t3h sux n u r t3h stoopid if you don't think HL2 is as great as I think it is!!!"

Maybe because their opinions/reviews are against what most of the people who played the game believe? Over 90% of the people that played HL2 was absolutely stunned by it, and it seems the other 10% opinions/reviews contradict everything they say. It's almost like they would have gave the game a 6/10 even if it was the best game around. Just to be different

 

[Absinthe]

He's not a good reviewer? How come you know? He is right, if you are not an absolute fanboy you will never work yourself through 1 Million threads on t3h int3rn3tZ!11!!1!tm to get every hint. The story has holes and the ending is disappointment for all "normal" players.

Anyway, are you a game reviewer? If so, show me some of your reviews and I will pick 'em apart and show they world you are not a good reviewer. A lot of a review is subjective...I know that.

He states all the facts, it's a great game that 99% of the ppl will love and HL2 won Editor's choice. Have you read more reviews from the site?

Don't judge so fanboyish biased...

He isn't a good reviewer. Not only are there factual innacuracies about the game itself, but he spends most of his time praising the game only to briefly gloss over any negative aspects in the final concluding paragraph of it. He fails to go into any detail about the shortcomings of the title, and essentially makes hollow statements. Surely the game is worth more than an 8.3 if the reviewer can find very little to complain about? As a reviewer yourself, you of all people should recognize how unprofessional the review is.

This has nothing to do with being a fanboy. It has to do with the fact that the review is a very poor one.

Oh, and I'd love for you to point out any plotholes in the game.

 

[PvtRyan]

He's not a good reviewer? How come you know? He is right, if you are not an absolute fanboy you will never work yourself through 1 Million threads on t3h int3rn3tZ!11!!1!tm to get every hint. The story has holes and the ending is disappointment for all "normal" players.

Anyway, are you a game reviewer? If so, show me some of your reviews and I will pick 'em apart and show they world you are not a good reviewer. A lot of a review is subjective...I know that.

He states all the facts, it's a great game that 99% of the ppl will love and HL2 won Editor's choice. Have you read more reviews from the site?

Don't judge so fanboyish biased...

Again, I'm not going to trust someone's opinion on the story, and on the game in general when you say this:

Once again, players are thrust in the role of the future super soldier, as well as super genius, Gordon Freeman, and your job is to save the world from destruction at the hands of the Combine

This IS a bad review, full of bad grammar, spelling and the worst: arguments.
Of course the story has holes, every good book and movie has them. And 'crappy jumping levels' what? Where?

Not to mention the score doesn't correspond with the review itself.

The only thing this guy is proving with this review is lack of understanding of the game, and the English language.

 

[Prone]

He isn't a good reviewer. Not only are there factual innacuracies about the game itself, but he spends most of his time praising the game only to briefly gloss over any negative aspects in the final concluding paragraph of it. He fails to go into any detail about the shortcomings of the title, and essentially makes hollow statements. Surely the game is worth more than an 8.3 if the reviewer can find very little to complain about? As a reviewer yourself, you of all people should recognize how unprofessional the review is.

This has nothing to do with being a fanboy. It has to do with the fact that the review is a very poor one.

Oh, and I'd love for you to point out any plotholes in the game.

Yes, it was structured badly aswell. I know what you mean, in my review I gave HL2 96%. The thing is that usually ppl don't realize it's a job and I agree he's not the best (judging his structure and the way he lays facts out makes it seem as if he has not really learned the job, i.e. journalism or studied anything in communications...)

Why I wrote the bit? Let me explain: From a professional's point of view the review was badly done, i.e. structural problems, too much unproven facts, all that stuff.

but: From a casual gamer's point of view the quoted paragraph (and only that) did NOT show any bad reviewing technique. Thus my explanation: the story is full of holes etc..

Quoting in that manner just showed fanboyish behaviour. Which I understand, HL2 being the best game for a long time.

And Absinthe: the things you laid out show that he's not good. Simple. The other statement just did not...

 

[Squeetard]

Eveyone has a right to my opinion!

 

[Thadius Dean]

mabye thier public score will make them realize what they have done,
9.8 sounds about right :thumbs:

 

[MadHatter]

Maybe because their opinions/reviews are against what most of the people who played the game believe? Over 90% of the people that played HL2 was absolutely stunned by it, and it seems the other 10% opinions/reviews contradict everything they say. It's almost like they would have gave the game a 6/10 even if it was the best game around. Just to be different

So, what you're saying is if anyone has a differing opinion, other than the game is a knock-out, digital wetdream, than they're doing so just to be different? A lot of people like toppings on their pizza; I don't. Does that mean I prefer no toppings just because I want to be different? Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that.

Some things in HL2 I found stunning and some things sucked. I don't believe HL2 is the greatest game of all-time, no, but it is an excellent game. I probably would've awarded HL2 a rating in the lower 90's -- somewhere between 90 - 94; definitely wouldn't have crowned it as the greatest game of all-time, though. HL2 has way too much hype surrounding it. Like many renowned games out there, it's just an excellent, solid game; only HL2 is not nearly as ground-breaking as it is / was made out to be.

To each their own.

 

[:Rex Saw:]

So what

Who cares about the score? The most important thing is that this is still the best PC game out right now. If anyone wants to argue about that one we can.

If you were to go out to a game store wanting a PC game and could afford only one there is no game that you could logically pick over HL2. That's all there is to it.

So, once again, who cares about the 8.3? I'm not sure what the point of saying "it isn't perfect" in the review is. When has such a game ever existed? When will one ever exist?

Besides, the game's recieved more 10s and high 9 scores than any game I can remember, so I think it's done it's part.

 

[:Rex Saw:]

yea

MadHatter has a point, by the way. If there's one thing that will always plague this earth it's people who think insulting something great and going against the majority somehow means they're above others. That they are able to see and understand much more than anyone else. That others are too easily entertained or some shit. Everyone knows at least one of these douche bags.

However, I don't think this review is indicative of that. The only thing I would question is the score matching the written review. If i had written that review I would translate it to a score of 9, but if that's how they feel then that's perfectly fine.

 

[aeroripper]

Actually, after playing through it, I really don't understand the ridicolously high scores it has received everywhere.

It's like just because it has been talked about for years and years they HAD to give it high scores.

I would say even this is too high but that's my opinion.

I'd said a 9.2-9.3 is a pretty good score for it

Lots of fun to play but doesn't have that same "wow" effect i had when i first played hl1.

 

[MadHatter]

Who cares about the score? The most important thing is that this is still the best PC game out right now. If anyone wants to argue about that one we can.

If you were to go out to a game store wanting a PC game and could afford only one there is no game that you could logically pick over HL2. That's all there is to it.

So, once again, who cares about the 8.3? I'm not sure what the point of saying "it isn't perfect" in the review is. When has such a game ever existed? When will one ever exist?

Besides, the game's recieved more 10s and high 9 scores than any game I can remember, so I think it's done it's part.

Concurs. Only base the foundation of what to expect of a game from a review. The real reviewer is you the consumer.

 

[MadHatter]

MadHatter has a point, by the way. If there's one thing that will always plague this earth it's people who think insulting something great and going against the majority somehow means they're above others. That they are able to see and understand much more than anyone else. That others are too easily entertained or some shit. Everyone knows at least one of these douche bags.

However, I don't think this review is indicative of that. The only thing I would question is the score matching the written review. If i had written that review I would translate it to a score of 9, but if that's how they feel then that's perfectly fine.

Sorry, you lost me with this post.

 

[Wildhound]

Change a few words around the story and you've just described HL2 there. Except FarCry has better graphics and it has better action than HL2 so yeah, i think FarCry is the better of the two.

Reviews, smews...they mean nothing.

Edit/ Oh yeah and also, since when did HL2's monsters have a different line of code for AI? Do my eyes decieve me or do HL2's monsters REALLY only run at you?

Change which words? How does that resemble HL2 in any way? Reviews mean nothing at all, except the fact that they reflect the opinion of a large amount of people. But then I suppose they only mean nothing if they don't agree with what you have to say. You're exactly the person who'd say "Just look at the reviews!" if it aided your argument.

HL2's "monsters" are zombies. The last time I checked they weren't supposed to be quite as smart as genetically engineered humans. And yet that are if you compare HL2's zombies to Far Cry's monsters. The zombies use the environment to their advantage, the FC monsters do nothing of the sort. Yes, your eyes are deceiving you. Or you aren't paying much attention.

The combine AI is flawless. I've played through the game twice, on medium and hard, and I still can't predict what any given soldier will do next. I've never seen them run in circles, directly toward me, or get stuck. Oh and if you want to talk about AI, one word; striders. Then there are the gunships and helicopters.

If you honestly think Far Cry has better graphics, then I can't argue with that. Other than to say I disagree. Far Cry's graphics irritated me. It could be pretty at times, but there were numerous flaws and it was very repetative and over the top.

 

[Prone]

Wildhound: piles of combine at a point in City17, all of them running to the point I just shot the other at...