The original final battle

xcellerate said:
I actually like that more. The one thing I hate about video game battles is that the majority of the time your teammates just stand behind stuff and shoot vaguely in some direction forcing you to do ALL the work. And normally even if they do attack the enemy it'll take like 15 teammates to take on 1 enemy, meanwhile you can take on like 5 bad guys at once.

It's just ridiculous, I mean yea you should be better than your teammates, but if they're using the same weapons they should be able to almost hold off the enemy without you. Rather than just being there for sound affects.

Like in the EP:2 final battle, it would have been sweet to have your teammates attacking all the hunters (and killing them) and you could concentrate more on throwing the bombs. Maybe that would be too easy, but they could always spice it up somehow.
Click to expand...


Or not have infinate strider busters and have some AI guys kill them occasionally.
 
Samon said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's instead being ruined by PC playtesters. :smoking:

Seriously though. Play through Follow Freeman on hard mode and try not to die. Especially post disabling the suppression device. That level is killer. No way it would have gotten through these days.
 
xcellerate said:
Like in the EP:2 final battle, it would have been sweet to have your teammates attacking all the hunters (and killing them)
Click to expand...

Bit of a tangent to the OP here, but when I was trying the 'wait for the striders on the big rock near the silo' tactic during the Ep 2 final battle, at some point the striders stopped coming. The rebels would still occasionally run off in the direction of the sawmill though, and I could hear gunfire in the distance. Then eventually the local rebels would shout the "Ha-ha, nice one, Freeman!" congratulation, as if striders were being killed up the way (although they were wrongly crediting me with killing them).

When I finally went up there to see what was going on, the strider-blows-up-the-westerly-building sequence ensued ... as if the game had been waiting for me to come back around in order to proceed.

Weird.
 
Bill Lumbergh said:
When I finally went up there to see what was going on, the strider-blows-up-the-westerly-building sequence ensued ... as if the game had been waiting for me to come back around in order to proceed.

Weird.
Click to expand...

Of course it did, there's a freaking massive fake physics show just for the player when the silo goes boom.
 
What I get a kick out of is the fact that some forum users tend to think that they make up 99% of the playerbase.

"PC Playtesters are ruining HL!"

"Everybody on the forums thinks the game is too easy"

"90% of the 10 people I know that play the game all agree that HL1 was far more difficult!"

I think it's safe to say Forum users make up a very small fraction of the actual player base. So to say that you know that the quality of the HL games is degrading because you don't find them more difficult is a completely subjective statement. I personally think HL2 far surpassess HL1 in both difficulty and gameplay. I guess I just suck at FPS games.

So you see, some of you may think things are going downhill but I personally think everything from HL2 through episode 2 has been an improvement. (Again this is all my opinion)

I would however like to try out a map that is more in line with the original final battle. I don't think that it would be better than what was put in episode two, but I'm curious enough to give it a shot.
 
Funny, how you seem to flaunt everyone elses' ignorance, when you don't actually pay attention to the fact that forum users are not a small percentage of the playerbase. The people in this forum are the community, and the people who generally bother making feedback about the game. Anyone else probably doesn't care. If you're going to talk statistics, then the very fact that most of your "10 friends" who play the game thought the game was too easy is a pretty big testament to the gameplay of it. Statistically speaking, the 10 people that you do know should have some respective weight of the entire population.

Of course what we think is subjective. But then it's always going to be subjective, and stating something like "is a completely subjective statement" is an ignorant statement in itself, because anything you say, or I say, will guaranteed to be subjective. But when creating games, it's these subjective opinions which matter most.

Saying, yourself, "I personally think HL2 far surpasses HL1 in both diffuclty and gameplay" we can ignore, of course, because it's subjective. If you're the only person in here, so far, to say that HL2 is harder, then surely that should represent something?

No-one here has attempted to make an objective statement.
 
Druckles said:
Funny, how you seem to flaunt everyone elses' ignorance, when you don't actually pay attention to the fact that forum users are not a small percentage of the playerbase.
Click to expand...

It's also funny how you seem to think my statement applies to the entire forum community when I SPECIFICALLY said "Some forum users" not all. I'm going to overlook this however since after reading through my original statement I can see where you may have reached your conclusion.

Druckles said:
The people in this forum are the community, and the people who generally bother making feedback about the game. Anyone else probably doesn't care.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting assumption on your part. Since when does a forum = "the community". There are multiple forums dedicated to HL2 and all could be considered to be individual subsets of the HL community. So stating that the forum = "a community" would be a more accurate statement. Players that do not come to these forums to make comments are also member of the HL2 playerbase. Do their opinions not matter?

And since when does no feedback on a forum mean you don't care about the game? Why can't it simply mean that you were satisfied with the experience and have moved on to something else? I've been playing Half Life since it was originally released. I consider myself a pretty big fan but have not posted on any forums until recently. I'm guessing fans like myself are probably pretty common.

Druckles said:
If you're going to talk statistics, then the very fact that most of your "10 friends" who play the game thought the game was too easy is a pretty big testament to the gameplay of it. Statistically speaking, the 10 people that you do know should have some respective weight of the entire population.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree that everybody has their own say. On that note I would like to say that I completely made up all of those quotes in my original statement. They were simply examples of how some people may feel. Bottom line, I would never say with absolute certainty that my sample of 10 people represented the entire gaming community. Most everybody I've talked to has nothing but GOOD things to say about the game. Does that mean that the game is perfect? Or does it simply mean that me and my friends thought the game was good? My point is not that forums users points are invalid, my point is that your negative opinion does not necessarily carry more weight than the playtesters or the playerbase that may be perfectly satisfied with their experience. Nor do I think that you should discontinue giving your feedback if you are dissatisfied with your experience. In actuality I was stating something that should be pretty obvious to anybody who has ever visited or used forums before.

Druckles said:
Of course what we think is subjective. But then it's always going to be subjective, and stating something like "is a completely subjective statement" is an ignorant statement in itself, because anything you say, or I say, will guaranteed to be subjective. But when creating games, it's these subjective opinions which matter most.

Saying, yourself, "I personally think HL2 far surpasses HL1 in both diffuclty and gameplay" we can ignore, of course, because it's subjective. If you're the only person in here, so far, to say that HL2 is harder, then surely that should represent something?

No-one here has attempted to make an objective statement.
Click to expand...

How is stating that something subjective an ignorant statement? It may well be an obvious statement, but my observation was not made out of ignorance.
 
Once again, I repeat, HL1 had HORDES of events and traps where it could one-hit-kill the player.

HL2 was fine. Ep1 was bleh. Ep2 was definitely a walk in the park.

Yet no one complained about HL1 being too hard.
 
All right, something I keep hearing about is how barnacles would kill you in single it and people complaining about how they don't do that anymore.

Ok, I'm the first to admit that I'm not good at video games. I died 40 to 50 times my first play through half life and half life 2 but I'll tell you what. I was never killed by a barnacle. Those things are so easy to spot and once they get you it takes forever for them to suck you up! It seems to me that the only players that would get killed by barnacles are those who just arn't paying attention.
 
Same with the kind of people who drown in a foot of water.
 
SpectreBlofeld said:
I think the sad fact is that the popularity of console gaming is ruining the experience for the die-hard PC users.

Your typical xbox controller isn't suited for the sort of gameplay that made HLDM and Counterstrike so popular - fast movement and 'twitch-killing' with a mouse set to high sensitivity.

I'm willing to bet that many of the playtesters were using the console version of the game and couldn't make it through what would be the most basic of challenges to a player with a decent keyboard/mouse setup.
Click to expand...
You're being an ass.

1. Follow Freeman (just as an example) was just as difficult for me on the Xbox 360 version of the Orange Box as I remember it being in Half Life 2, and there was NO DIFFICULTY TWEAKING for the console version whatsoever- they are identical.

2. Try beating Halo 3 on Legendary and get back to me before you claim that unbeatable-on-controller = most-basic-of-challenges-on-kb/m.

That's just being ignorant and shows that you have no experience on Xbox games, and PERSONALLY suck with analog sticks. I'm not going to try and say that analogs are as accurate as a mouse (they just AREN'T)... I have a Death Adder that I use to play PC shooters. But, you are exaggerating. If anything, you're wrong because you say the "typical xbox controller isn't suited for the sort of gameplay..." when I might concede that it's fair to say the "typical console owner isn't suited for the sort of gameplay..." just because console owners are USUALLY not as skilled, "hardcore" players. To put it at the fault of the control scheme is naive. I believe that a highly skilled player FOR CONSOLES armed with an Xbox controller is more precise with no autoaim than a mediocre to average PC user even if their mouse is like 4000dpi.

kupoartist said:
Interesting that you single out Halo as a game 'designed for casual gamers' immediately after having told me that:
I'm wondering, since you've apparently heard of Halo, have you ever actually played it? It's a far, far harder game with its own dedicated difficulty modes for 'a small sub-section of their larger consumer base'. Odd that a series dedicated to mining a base of 'casual gamers', dedicates more time to offering a harder experience than one that has a similar release cycle for two thirds of the content. And wait a minute...
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree on both points. The fact that VALVe calls 3 years an "episodic" release schedule when Bungie considers 3 years an eternity to make a full game, in Halo 3, that's an extra half as long as Episode 2 is almost comical. It might have alot to do with the fact that they needed to make Halo 2 in 10 months, but that's besides the point. VALVe probably did more than 10 months of focus testing with noobs for the final battle alone. Not making an actual DIFFICULT difficulty for hardcore fans that feels like a real achievement like they do in Halo is also kind of depressing, considering it could'nt possibly be that hard for them to throw in.
 
Saruke said:
It seems to me that the only players that would get killed by barnacles are those who just arn't paying attention.
Click to expand...

Oh noez! A zombie! I must fire at it blindly while running wildly. Oh noez! Why am I going upwards. It can't be much of a threat, I think I'll continue to shoot this zombie in the eye... oo look, there's a big red thing in my face...

Oh shi-

Operational said:
There are 2-3 times more people who play on Easy than on Hard. I'm all for an increase of difficulty level but no more than 5% of the number of Half-Life players will play it.
Click to expand...

That's alot of people. Even if it is a third, a third is a very big percentage. And it'd be quite a few more than 5%.

Besides, that's just on the first play through. There'd be waay more people that actually play on Hard than that.
 
Operational said:
There are 2-3 times more people who play on Easy than on Hard. I'm all for an increase of difficulty level but no more than 5% of the number of Half-Life players will play it.
Click to expand...
But what we don't know is whether a substantial number of replayers will play it on higher settings. I think it's safe to say that Valve are keen for people to go back and play their games multiple times, but when their Hard mode offers so little, why would people do so?

And with Episode 2, it's more like 10% of games on 'Hard'. You've also got to consider that these stats are for every game ever played, not for individual players. Many people will play through the game on Hard just once, and will have had started out playing or, later played on 'Normal' (or 'Easy') because they want to see the game without breaking a sweat.

And we know from your own efforts that Valve themselves aren't happy with the Hard mode, so we definitely can't say that they won't want to 'waste' time on those 5-10% of games played on Hard. If they do think an genuine 'difficult' setting is a waste of time, why bother offering a hard mode at all?
 
kupoartist said:
And we know from your own efforts that Valve themselves aren't happy with the Hard mode, so we definitely can't say that they won't want to 'waste' time on those 5-10% of games played on Hard. If they do think an genuine 'difficult' setting is a waste of time, why bother offering a hard mode at all?
Click to expand...
I never said that it was a waste of time or I wouldn't have bothered to ask Valve about it. But Druckles seemed to think that a huge majority of players would rejoice at a harder-than-hard mode and that's just not the case. (Apologies if I misinterpreted you Druckles but that's how your argument came across to me)
 
SPARTACVS said:
You're being an ass.

1. Follow Freeman (just as an example) was just as difficult for me on the Xbox 360 version of the Orange Box as I remember it being in Half Life 2, and there was NO DIFFICULTY TWEAKING for the console version whatsoever- they are identical.

2. Try beating Halo 3 on Legendary and get back to me before you claim that unbeatable-on-controller = most-basic-of-challenges-on-kb/m.
Click to expand...

Best to ignore SpectreBlofeld. He's either A) Never played a console B) has no patience to get used to the controls C) Sucks on console.

Its just ignorance. Ignore him.
 
Operational said:
But Druckles seemed to think that a huge majority of players would rejoice at a harder-than-hard mode and that's just not the case. (Apologies if I misinterpreted you Druckles but that's how your argument came across to me)
Click to expand...

It's not quite what I was saying. You've slightly exaggerated me.

But depending on how it plays out, I think they would, on second thoughts. If there was a new games play with extra enemies, more fire-power, and almost realism in terms of gameplay and Health.
Alot of people play on Hard. Even if not for the first time. Personally I haven't played Normal on Ep1 or 2 yet. I'm sure there are some other people out there, even if in the minority. And yet there are perfectly ordinary people, or young teens (illegally) playing on Easy/Normal mode, who will then play through on Hard. It's all about replayability. It's not that Hard mode doesn't have anything 'extra' to offer. It's simply like an acheivement. Being able to complete it on Hard mode is kind've like the next step.

And so if a Nightmare mode came out, people would almost rejoice, and definitely play it (almost definitely not first time through), and yet they'd all play it.

I got Doom for my Gameboy Advance years ago. I played it through on one of the easier modes first (as you do), and then proceeded to replay it and replay it until I'd completed them all (right up to the almost impossible mode). Because it was fun, having something further to do, and another level, almost, to complete.

Even if the players don't necessarily do this: :bounce: I can safely bet that Valve will put it in for replayability.

Can you not say you'd play it?
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
Best to ignore SpectreBlofeld. He's either A) Never played a console B) has no patience to get used to the controls C) Sucks on console.

Its just ignorance. Ignore him.
Click to expand...

You people are insane if you think any controller in existence could EVER be as accurate as a laser mouse set to high sensitivity.

And accuracy isn't the only factor - how quickly can you select a specific weapon on the xbox HL port versus a keyboard?

Atomic_Piggy, must've hit a nerve to earn those insults.
 
Druckles said:
Can you not say you'd play it?
Click to expand...
FFS I never said I'd never play, I want to play it. But I'm under no illusions that a harder than hard mode would appeal to more than 5%ish of HL2 players. However it is worth it because it will be well appreciated and well used by the people who do use it.

% of players using feature * appreciation of feature * number of times feature is used = worthwhile factor (tm)
 
Ok, I basicly registerd because of the final battle in Ep.2 and how it sucked compaired to the rest of Ep.2

I can't beleive how many people are trying to excuse the cuts Valve made for the final part of the game by mentioning the plot and other reasons why the combine could only send Striders and Hunters.

Come on! lets be honist here! The last battle sequence is not half as good as it could have been.
From beginning to end I've had a blast playing Ep.2 The further I got the better it got, and when the final battle came allong I was preparing to have my most exciting encounter in HL2 jet, only to be fighting a bunch of Striders and Hunters.

It was boring and not to mention frustrating at some parts.

I won't say Valve screwed this Episode, but the final part really is a great flaw in what could have been an almost perfect action experience.

Hopefully they will noy make such a mistake in Ep.3
 
Doesn't your name violate the forum ToS rule thing? It's a copyrighted name already.
 
Lol. Don't know. It's my Xbox Live Gamertag I've been using for years.
 
I honestly have a hard time at throwing magnussons from far away.

But still, theres a huge feeling of satisfaction when you succeed. Even more than the prison turret standoff.

Also :
 
Operational said:
FFS I never said I'd never play,
Click to expand...

I never said you'd never play :p

I want to play it. But I'm under no illusions that a harder than hard mode would appeal to more than 5%ish of HL2 players.
Click to expand...

That's like saying Acheivements would appeal to less than 5% of HL2 players. It'd work out the same as them. People would play it, just to play it. And people like Perfect Dark above can GTFO.
 
Isn't it rather unimportant how 'few' people play the Hard mode when implementing a harder mode would require barely any development time?
 
Druckles said:
I never said you'd never play :p



That's like saying Acheivements would appeal to less than 5% of HL2 players. It'd work out the same as them. People would play it, just to play it. And people like Perfect Dark above can GTFO.
Click to expand...


You're such an ass, man.

And I love it :cheese:
 
I thought it was kickass. Yes they could make the game generally harder. I do agree it is on the easy side (ON HARD).
 
I don't know about you guys, but I found the final standoff, frustratingly hard. To give me some credit though, I haven't touched FPSes in nearly two years, so that may explain my difficulty with said task. To give me extra credit, I tried the entire game including that sequence on hard. It was nigh impossible to get the Magnussons on the Strider with even one Hunter.

What pissed off was the fact that firing fletchettes at an explosive device only made it fall harmlessly to the ground. It was a design issue that was seemingly intentionally made to irritate.

The inclusion of combine soldiers and a gunship most likely would have made it even worse of an experience for me. But on the other hand it would've been more logical. If I was an evil empire and I discovered that the majority of big wigs in the rebel movement was together and in that location, attempting to use a weapon that would thwart a plan we were trying to achieve, I would send everything I've got at them, not just two units.

On the other hand those two units were the finest they've got. Maybe if the number of Hunters were reduced and replaced with Combine Soldiers and one or two gunships it would've been both more fun and easier.

I felt like the entire world was off my shoulders when I killed the last Strider though, and I did it with only six points of health left. That was a most rewarding experience.
 
DoctorWeeTodd said:
I don't know about you guys, but I found the final standoff, frustratingly hard. To give me some credit though, I haven't touched FPSes in nearly two years, so that may explain my difficulty with said task. To give me extra credit, I tried the entire game including that sequence on hard. It was nigh impossible to get the Magnussons on the Strider with even one Hunter.

What pissed off was the fact that firing fletchettes at an explosive device only made it fall harmlessly to the ground. It was a design issue that was seemingly intentionally made to irritate.

The inclusion of combine soldiers and a gunship most likely would have made it even worse of an experience for me. But on the other hand it would've been more logical. If I was an evil empire and I discovered that the majority of big wigs in the rebel movement was together and in that location, attempting to use a weapon that would thwart a plan we were trying to achieve, I would send everything I've got at them, not just two units.

On the other hand those two units were the finest they've got. Maybe if the number of Hunters were reduced and replaced with Combine Soldiers and one or two gunships it would've been both more fun and easier.

I felt like the entire world was off my shoulders when I killed the last Strider though, and I did it with only six points of health left. That was a most rewarding experience.
Click to expand...


What made it difficult for me was the absolutely shitty handling of that hunk of ****ing junk we call a car.
 
I fail at using magnussons.

I can throw a gascan right at someone's face from ten miles away, but I can't attach one of these things even when the striders are right above me :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
The making of the world's first Half-Life fan comic
Replies
0
Views
18K
Barnz
B
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Omnomnick
Dota 2 "The International 2016 Battle Pass" Released
Replies
0
Views
6K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Back
Top