BigJack
Newbie
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
Please vote on this topic, whether you feel valve were too precious about creating the perfect game as a sequel?
I think the main thing that held hl2 back was how succesful hl1 was. Now we all know how hard it is to create a successful sequel, judging from the star wars double trilogy, matrix trilogy etc, all seemed to upset the fans with their sequels. The success of hl1 must have overshadowed anything that Valve did with hl2, and would have most definately made them much more hesitant about what they put in the game.
What made hl1 so original and popular was its unnerving way of doing new things. One thing i particularly like hl1 for was the way you could shoot scientists. I know its evil, but its more real. I found it fun killing scientists that i didnt need. This was a big thing missing from hl2, it felt like we were being controlled, and brought us out of this imaginary world and told us we were in a game.
What i feel hl2 lacked was confidence. It was an amazing game dont get me wrong, but a lot of content that could have made the game a lot better was cut, i think partly because of hesitant developers not sure what the fans want. We want developers that know how to make a game and know whats cool, not people pansying around because their last game was so popular.
Valve wanted to create the perfect shooter, with graphics, story, everything to match...but in their search for perfection they lost their real aim. In a sense hl2 is the perfect fps, but hl1 was nowhere near that. I loved the imperfection of hl1, it had charm which hl2 just lost through an over-refined game.
I think the main thing that held hl2 back was how succesful hl1 was. Now we all know how hard it is to create a successful sequel, judging from the star wars double trilogy, matrix trilogy etc, all seemed to upset the fans with their sequels. The success of hl1 must have overshadowed anything that Valve did with hl2, and would have most definately made them much more hesitant about what they put in the game.
What made hl1 so original and popular was its unnerving way of doing new things. One thing i particularly like hl1 for was the way you could shoot scientists. I know its evil, but its more real. I found it fun killing scientists that i didnt need. This was a big thing missing from hl2, it felt like we were being controlled, and brought us out of this imaginary world and told us we were in a game.
What i feel hl2 lacked was confidence. It was an amazing game dont get me wrong, but a lot of content that could have made the game a lot better was cut, i think partly because of hesitant developers not sure what the fans want. We want developers that know how to make a game and know whats cool, not people pansying around because their last game was so popular.
Valve wanted to create the perfect shooter, with graphics, story, everything to match...but in their search for perfection they lost their real aim. In a sense hl2 is the perfect fps, but hl1 was nowhere near that. I loved the imperfection of hl1, it had charm which hl2 just lost through an over-refined game.